great, thanks for the reply. I think we're getting somewhere. I intend to write back, just to let you know I'm keen on talking about this.

I am amazed but not surprised at how difficult it is to get a shareable handle on this text. It is easy for each reader to take it and absorb or excuse much of it on their own terms. It is a passionate manifesto and lends itself to a personal reading very well. Sharing it with other people however, is shown to be something somewhat inflammatory- even in a feminist circle where we are all supposed to agree or at least acknowledge some of the same fundamental tenets about culture, biology and the world at large.

The facts of the book, the biological and psycholgical claims put forth by Solanas, are entirely indefensible; the same is true of her recommendations for the rustication of males and the removal of the monetary system. These things aren't practical but they are broad strokes. Solanas puts forth sweeping generalizations and grand theories like it is nobody's business. All of it seems to rub our postie sentimentality the wrong way. What I do like about Solanas' loose and reckless use of biology and psychology is that these are, or were( sorry, they still are), male dominated systems and Solanas uses the very things men are proud of against them. Whether or not we can write a grant proposal based upon her work in probably another story. Intersting question here: just why is that the case? why would a biological investigation of male passivity be such an absurd idea for biological study? hhhmmmm.

To put her inflammatory nature into historical perspective may be helpful. It may at least help us get to some very interesting questions that deserve attention by helping us navigate through her catches. There are good questions here, questions like, what is the world like if you interpret everything men do as their attempts to veil an inherent passivity in their social and biological nature? the crux of the question is not so much here statement of the debatable biological or cultural passivity, but rather, if there is some veiling going on, why would that be the case? If males are hiding something, what could that possibly be?

To stay in the historical perspective for a moment, I haev to challenge the idea pur forth that her personal and passionate outcries are great for emotional value and for writing poetry but can't be taken seriously as a sociological text. Generally I feel that every text ever written, from whatever discipline, is more personal than anything else. We learn more about the writers when we read them than we learn about whatever it is they are talking about. This appeals to our postie nature and shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't seem outrageous in our day to be able to legitmate perspective as a form of legitmate truth about the world. The world is the conglomeration of persepctives, etc. I diverge here from my standard Foucauldian model but for this thread, for Solanas and for feminism in general, I think it is important. Every instantiation is an expression of the biological and social forces out of which they came. Every person co-creates with everyone else.

To move away from the facts of the book, there is another part of the manifesto that draws me. It is the reaction the manifesto causes. It may be inflammatory...check that, it is inflammatory! Fire changes things, it transforms essences from one state to another. It allows for new growth. It burns and it hurts. Fire is all of these things and in a social context or an area set up for dialogue, the SCUM Manifesto is certainly a hot flame.

It can, however, also be cool water. I know many women who have felt what she decribes and for them it is at least soothing to hear they are not alone in that. Many women, as Kip suggested, don't support expressing these feelings. Men are not to be questioned, even among women. It is good for them to hear someone has the anger they have. Solanas just wrote a book about it. She felt it, perhaps more than others, perhaps the same. She did something about it. She wrote the manifesto, she shot a man, we locked her up in a pysche ward. That is not the beginning of the story, however, we know about her sexual abuse at the hands of her father. It doesn't start there, either, however. That's not the point. The point is women feel it and it is good for them to know they are not alone at being angry.

I have felt what Solanas felt too. I am the first to admit that, in my limited vision, it never dawned on me during my endless frustration with males to actually remove them all...that was a new one :) But there is a certain aspect of her anger that is available for anyone to feel and connect with. It is a volatile text but should not be dismissed just because you forgot to wear gloves or put on your thick skin.

My favorite insight from the time reading Solanas is about male passivity and wars. Solanas asserts males are passive. War has typically been described as an active, violent man's world kind of thing. Only men are tough enough and strong enough to fight each other. But what really happens during a war? You have a thousand or ten thousand or whatever number of men lined up behind one man to fight against a whole other group of men lined up behind one man. So, we have all these thousands of men following one or two men...it seems pretty indicative to me that men predomnantly want to be led, even in their most manly of enterprises. Men like to follow. And leaders of men understand this, that is how they lead them. They were once followers. Males typically rise through the social systems that later substantiate their ranking positions of power. We just take one sheep and put hiim at the front of the group. He then must constantly check in with the group to make sure they are following him. (If you don't think the constant checking is true read Machievelli, he spells out modern day diplomacy for you).

Linking this thread to my question about how men suffer under patriarchy, I think, from here, I am ready to re-ask the question; perhaps I will repost it at some later time.