EFFORTPOST Valerie Solanas and the Society for Cutting Up Men

Today we'll be discussing Valerie Solanas who is most known for her text titled SCUM Manifesto which is said to stand for ‘Society For Cutting Up Men'. Before we begin, it's probably worthwhile to lay out that the analysis is coming from the perspective of a 28yo male incel. Thus, I may never truly know the life experiences which led to her expressing the views she does.

Who is Valerie Solanas?

Valerie Solanas was born on April 9, 1936. She had a rough childhood which involved sexual abuse. She claims her father and grandfather physically and sexually abused her. Solanas was also a playwright, which is eventually what led to her crossing paths with Andy Warhol. In 1968, she shot Warhol as well Mario Amaya (art critic). She also attempted to shoot Fred Hughes, who is Warhol's manager. Her weapon of choice? A .32 automatic. Warhol was mortally wounded and required extensive surgery. He did survive, but he had to wear a surgical corset for the rest of his life. He was also deeply traumatized and deathly afraid of hospitals following the event.

So did Solanas kill Warhol? Depends on how you look at things. Warhol didn't die immediately from the event. However, Warhol had a gallbladder problem, and his newfound fear of hospitals prevented from seeing the doctor as often as he should have. If you ask me, she's a murderer.

Why did she do it? After the shooting, Solanas handed herself in to the authorities. She claimed that she believed that Warhol would steal her script titled "Up Your Butt", and she also claimed that the pop artist had too much control over her. Warhol did have her script - she gave it to him - but he had forgotten about it, and it was later found in a trunk. She was put on trial where she claimed the following:

>it's not often that I shoot somebody. I didn't do it for nothing. Warhol had tied me up, lock, stock, and barrel. He was going to do something to me which would have ruined me

>I was right in what I did! I have nothing to regret!

After an evaluation, she was deemed a paranoid schizophrenic, but fit to stand trial. She represented herself and earned herself three years in prison for "reckless assault with intent to harm". Not bad for a self-confessed attempted murderer with a schizo for a lawyer.

The analysis will go down in three parts to make things easier to digest. I highly suggest you read the whole thing. You can complete it in an hour.

https://editions-ismael.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1968-Valerie-Solanas-S.C.U.M.-Manifesto.pdf

The SCUM Manifesto - Part 1

To analyse the text, I'll be gong through a few of the central points Solanas brings up and discussing what implications they may have. Solanas begins by constructing an outline of the nature of men. On the first page, Solanas writes:

>the male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection or tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone.

I can't speak for others, but that's a pretty spot description of myself. I am worthless trash. She continues by writing:

>the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly kitty awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity

So, on that note, let's discuss toxic masculinity. What Solanas is stressing here is that men behave in ways which suggest uncontrollable sexual hedonism. What accounts for gendered behaviour that emphasises sexual conquest among men? Some answers may come from R.W Connell who has done in-depth studies of masculinities. He is careful to stress that masculinity isn't monolithic but instead takes on a hegemonic form with some masculinities being subordinated to others.

In order to ascend up the hierarchy of masculinity, men may engage in behaviours which are harmful to themselves and others in order to prove their manliness. Some of these behaviours include being dominant, violent, having limited emotional expression and being heterosexually successful. For example, David Lisak points out that within college fraternities “‘sexual conquest' – having s*x with as many women as possible – becomes a critical measure of how men view themselves and each other. The greater the number of such conquests, the more manly he is viewed”. As Connell points out, such behaviours are harmful to society and to men themselves.

There are plenty of men who do not wish to engage in such activities and, consequently can enter an identity crisis regarding their own masculinity when they discover that they are unable to conform to social standards of what a man should be. Furthermore, failure to participate in toxic masculinity can result in one inhabiting a subordinated form of masculinity and receiving less acceptance and respect from male peers.

Are women incapable of toxic behavior? Of course not. Women occasionally partake in fragile femininity whereby women will shame other women for sexually promiscuous behaviours. Now one thing about Solanas is that she doesn't dismantle these tropes of masculinity but instead conveys them as biological truth. In doing so, she becomes a co-conspirator in toxic masculinity. This is not a strange occurrence. Myths about gender exist in our language and culture and are absorbed by men just as much as women. After all, we all exist in the same culture and are exposed to the same influences. Thus, it's not rare for women to engage in toxic masculinity or for men to propagate fragile femininity.

One important thing of value that Solanas does say is that:

>since he's attempting to prove an error, he must ‘prove' it again and again. Screwing, then, is a desperate compulsive, attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman.

This is actually a very accurate description of gender performativity. One is not born a man, one becomes a man. Moreso, one does not reach a stage where one achieves manhood and no longer has to prove it. Instead, gender is constantly performed and must be constantly re-enacted.

The SCUM Manifesto - Part 2

Solanas also discusses what kind of women she would like to see join SCUM. So, she states that she wants women who are

>cool and relatively cerebral and skirting asexuality

She also claims that s*x is the refuge of the mindless before adding

>the female can easily - far more easily than she may think - condition away her s*x drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities

The idea of politicized sexuality isn't a new one. For example, political lesbianism was advocated for by second-wave feminists such as Julie Bindel. As Bindel writes:

>Political lesbianism had introduced the theory that sexuality is not innate, but a choice, and that lesbianism is a positive alternative to heterosexuality for women.

Solanas seems to be advocating for a similar idea, with the claim asexuality can be chosen as an alternative to heterosexuality. This isn't unique to Solanas. The idea of political asexuality has been a recurring concept within feminist theory and for a history of it, I would suggest Breanne Fahs's article titled “Radical refusals: On the anarchist politics of women choosing asexuality”. Personally, I disagree with this idea. On a surface level, one can decide on how they choose to identify - heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise. However, there are biological truths that will always cut through the bullshit.

The SCUM Manifesto - Part 3

The last point I'd like to discuss regarding Solanas's text is the role she imagines for men within her ideology. In her words, SCUM should

>overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male s*x

>SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM

Solanas also adds that after the SCUM revolution, men who aren't part of the Men's Auxiliary

>can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.

This is reprehensible and cannot be forgiven on any level. This is insane hate speech. However, it does raise the question of how men should behave if they wish to live peacefully with women.

Masculinities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raewyn_Connell

https://lulfmi.lv/files/2020/Connell_Masculinities.pdf

Connell, in a text I would very highly recommend titled Masculinities begins to outline the basic relationship men have had with feminism. One of the things he notes is a theme of feelings of guilt. For example, one of the men interviewed states that:

>after university I was at the stage where I could understand academic literature, and I read some pretty heavy stuff, which made me feel terrible about being male for a long time

I can definitely relate to this feeling, and I went through a very similar experience. Do any of you resonate with this? Connell also noted a theme of feeling worthless and undergoing a personal crisis after being exposed to feminism.

For some men, the response was to re-evaluate their beliefs and change their actions. For example, one of the men he interviews states:

>logically, it just didn't seem reasonable that women who were human beings also had this role that was different and so less validated. It just didn't make sense. And so Kathy and I did things like swopping roles – she would go to work while I stayed home.

Regarding this, Connell makes a very good claim by stating that:

>with the core of patriarchy perceived to be sexist attitudes and behaviours towards women, the main contribution a man can make is to hold back from any sexist actions or utterance.

This process of reimagining one's masculinity can be an emotional and turbulent one which requires a great deal of introspection, humility and a willingness to change. Of course, Connell notes that some men did have negative responses to feminism. This can cause groomercord between men who have embraced feminism and men who haven't. For example, one interviewee stated that:

>I think a lot of proto-feminist men are still into judging other men

>when you find out about feminism, you tend to go through a period of not wanting to be a man and not liking other men.

Do any of you relate to this bloke? Have you ever been the victim of a man who recently discovered feminism, then proceeded to chastise you? Connell notes that this interviewee felt disconcerted by feminism, as though it were placing him at a disadvantage.

So, we find a complex issue here. The restructuring of masculinity that feminism demands requires negotiating both internal issues such as feelings of guilt and also requires navigating a liveable masculinity in society where one can still relate with other men. How a man traverses this minefield of masculinity is a difficult question with no easy answers. I personally would propose that this transformation cannot take place in an individualized sense, and instead requires group cooperation among men. In other words, a collective movement to change and accept a form of masculinity which is more considerate towards women and conscious of toxic manifestations of masculinity.

However, I'd like to stress that a rejection of feminism does not equate to a rejection of gender equality. Feminism, much like Marxism, religion, and even democracy, is, at its core, an ideology and one can find issues with an ideology while still embracing egalitarian concepts. Much like how Christianity cannot make an exclusive claim to morality, feminism cannot make an exclusive claim to the idea of gender equality. My point is that not all men who aren't feminists are also misogynists.

Conclusion

Here's my closing thoughts. SCUM manifesto is a highly provocative text that does contain morsels of truth and exposes certain flaws in society. Unfortunately, it is covered in hate speech, making it an overall reprehensible text.

I quite admire her cheeky style of writing and her unflinchingly defiant tone. One of the weakest points of the entire text is that Solanas offers a very flat view of the world focused merely on men versus women. However, she fails to take into account an intersection of other identities. That is to say, Solanas, is a woman, which puts her in a historically marginalized position. But she is also a white, Western woman, which puts her in a privileged position. The categories of oppressor and oppressed aren't static. Instead, one can inhabit both and one needs to be very conscious of the ways they can simultaneously be both oppressor and oppressed. This is a complex social identity occupied by both black males and white women. It requires understanding the ways one is marginalized in society while being conscious of the advantages one has inherited over others. It's a pity Solanas mentions not one word of this as it results in a low-fidelity description of society.

I give SCUM manifesto 40/100 Hollys.

Tune in next time when we discuss the ethics of meat eating.