Advertisement
This thread is being created to make space to discuss Solanas and her SCUM manifesto, and issues regarding women's anger. Since Solanas directed her anger towards men and patriarchal society - and men can't actually experience being an angry woman or treated the way women are by society and men - I'd ask any men who want to post in this thread to be respectful of that fact if they choose to post (keeping in mind that this *is* a feminist forum and by virtue of this not about censoring women's feelings so that men's don't get hurt or they don't get scared).
Here's the post from the other thread...
NA - I thought you may be interested to know that Valerie Solanas didn't grow up in some comfortable, snug middle class environment (since you've been discussing context). She first lived in Jersey with her parents (her father was a bartender) in a blue collar, ethnically diverse neighborhood. Then with her grandparents when her parents divorced (not sure of where or how they lived) and then with her mother in Washington, DC (not sure of the socio-economic situation here either). It's also relevant to remember that she was a performer as well as a writer, and herself said that the SCUM manifesto wasn't meant to be taken literally or acted upon. Seems to me that the impetus for shooting Warhol wasn't that he was a man but that he stole/lost her script (between the two of them there was enough paranoia and social anxiety that the outcome isn't really that unexpected).
I find it interesting that women's anger, and even verbal expressions of female anger, are *still* taboo...particularly in the eyes of men when it's directed towards men. Particularly when one considers that anger is a healthy and natural response to being abused, and part of the process of healing. Seems to me that reviling of angry women is, once again, an attempt to mold/control women to male ends (being nice, soft and pretty and looking after them). Sometimes anger is not only justified but necessary. Which is not a defense of Solanis' work (which I tend to see as a piece of performative text and in the context of feminist and Queer performance art) but rather an understanding of why and how she was so angry, and the value of the work within the context it was written. That we're still talking about it today, indicates just how powerful a work it was *shrug*
Here's the post from the other thread...
NA - I thought you may be interested to know that Valerie Solanas didn't grow up in some comfortable, snug middle class environment (since you've been discussing context). She first lived in Jersey with her parents (her father was a bartender) in a blue collar, ethnically diverse neighborhood. Then with her grandparents when her parents divorced (not sure of where or how they lived) and then with her mother in Washington, DC (not sure of the socio-economic situation here either). It's also relevant to remember that she was a performer as well as a writer, and herself said that the SCUM manifesto wasn't meant to be taken literally or acted upon. Seems to me that the impetus for shooting Warhol wasn't that he was a man but that he stole/lost her script (between the two of them there was enough paranoia and social anxiety that the outcome isn't really that unexpected).
I find it interesting that women's anger, and even verbal expressions of female anger, are *still* taboo...particularly in the eyes of men when it's directed towards men. Particularly when one considers that anger is a healthy and natural response to being abused, and part of the process of healing. Seems to me that reviling of angry women is, once again, an attempt to mold/control women to male ends (being nice, soft and pretty and looking after them). Sometimes anger is not only justified but necessary. Which is not a defense of Solanis' work (which I tend to see as a piece of performative text and in the context of feminist and Queer performance art) but rather an understanding of why and how she was so angry, and the value of the work within the context it was written. That we're still talking about it today, indicates just how powerful a work it was *shrug*
posted by:
|
Canada
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 10:39 AMJust to provide context for my perspective, I have a particular take on, and experience with, the effect and power of female displays of anger and assertiveness since I played in punk rock bands back in the day (long before the Green Day! ;)
I'd suggest that there's good reasons for why a quote from Solanas' SCUM was included in Angry Women, a book which profiles Kathy Acker, Susie Bright, Karen Finley, Diamanda Galas, Bell Hooks, Lydia Lunch and Carolee Schneemann. Being a RE/Search book it allows the women in it to speak for themselves in their own voices rather than appropriating their experiences and voices for someone else's ends (or to conform to a theory). There's a diversity of voices and it's a great collection of some of the more visible feminist performers, or more appropriately strong and controversial performance artists, of the time (the 90s). Considering that Solanas was a performer and playwrite, and herself has said that SCUM wasn't meant to be taken literally, I give privilege to the writer's positioning of her own work and statement of intent over other people's readings and interpretations. I particularly like Matmos' tribute/version on their The Rose Has No Teeth CD. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 11:38 AMHere's an interesting (male) take on a relatively contemporary performance of Solanas' Up Your Ass. Well worth reading for its self-critical look at the how the male gaze can pervert (hehe) or contextualize female texts when they unconsciously interpret a woman's text from a male perspective. It's also noteworthy because it locates and recognizes Solanas' place within Queer history (as does Matmos' inclusion of SCUM on The Rose) as well as feminist (or perhaps even more so).
www.danceinsider.com/f2001/f209_1.html
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 3:59 PM"Considering that Solanas was a performer and playwrite, and herself has said that SCUM wasn't meant to be taken literally"
where did she say this? -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, September 27, 2007 - 7:01 AMThis thread is being created to make space to discuss Solanas and her SCUM manifesto, and issues regarding women's anger. Since Solanas directed her anger towards men and patriarchal society - and men can't actually experience being an angry woman or treated the way women are by society and men - I'd ask any men who want to post in this thread to be respectful of that fact if they choose to post (keeping in mind that this *is* a feminist forum and by virtue of this not about censoring women's feelings so that men's don't get hurt or they don't get scared). -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 3, 2007 - 12:07 PMi haven't read teh scum manifesto. anything with the word scum, likely turns me off. i find her ranting to be childish ammaturish philosophy at best, and blaming resentful anger at a situation at worse. It doesn't suit me, it gives me nothing, it leaves me emotional disengaged and bored.
That said, anger has a place in any "movement" towards equality. ActUP,LA were stupid and childish, but they got noticed. Malcom X, a wise man, used anger to help direct people -- until he hit is own place where anger was no longer relevant in his life.
Anger vents. that's its purpose. but it does little to actually MOVE anything forward; it frankly adds little to the dialogue that can't be done or said in a better way without fully alienating every person around who just happens to "have" what you are "angry" at, regardless of how they treat you. (being white, being male, being socially or econocimally privileged, etc).
I really am not sure what Solanas truely intended to bring to the table about men and women's relationships, other than "men fucking suck, cause they are men, and it's a male system adn men fucking suck". -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 3, 2007 - 1:15 PMKip - Well I've never approached Solanas' work as philosophy really, or even serious political or cultural theory. For me she's always been more in the context of performance and theatre (of the cathartic and confrontational kind). Of course, this may just be because my perspective is a cultural theory and art one but certainly her writing was generally geared to be performed not treated as academic texts.
I'd say that anger has another reason/purpose than venting - anger can motivate people to start making changes, or to have the strength to face their oppressors, and it's a normal part of the grieving process. It's not the most constructive or pleasant way to effect change but certainly getting fed up and angry and saying "we're/I'm not going to take it anymore" has been at the root of many, many social movements for change. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 3, 2007 - 1:23 PMI would agree with that. Anger is often the galvanizing force that finally provokes people. "I'll see this done if it's the last thing I do, DAMNIT!"
No question that anger has the potential to be counter-productive. But it definitely serves a purpose beyond merely venting. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 3, 2007 - 1:47 PMNimbrethil (neat name! :-) - I think that our culture in general has a weird relationship to anger, and particularly women being angry. Anger is seen as power when expressed by men (it's not power) and ugly when expressed by women generally. I'd say Solanas was enraged rather than just angry really.
I think it's an interesting to ask ourselves what happens to women when they repress or disassociate themselves from feeling anger? What happens when we're so cut off from and in denial of that emotion that we don't know when our boundaries are being crossed? After all, the primary purpose of anger is to tell us we're in danger and need to be prepared to defend ourselves - be that the emotional, psychological or physical danger of boundaries being crossed. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 8:43 AMSee, i would also disagree here.
anger is anger, ugly in all forms. not just "women's" anger or "black's" anger.
the reason, to me that we see it as ugly, is because it's not about communication or change or discussion, but blame. It's about telling others the world sucks, but then stopping there. and it's almost often about dismissing from relevance, a particular group of people that bother you, rather than addressing them as humans.
men are angry. Vegitarians are angry. Communists are angry. Dianics are angry. but so what?
we have learned to embrace and protect anger in this country, which i think is terribly sad as it gets little done and provides almost no real problem solving paths. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 9:04 AMKip - From my perspective it's not anger that's ugly but how some people express their anger. Violence is ugly. Anger that's recognized and then acted on in a constructive manner can be a beautiful thing (because it's not violent). I'd say that a lot of the groups you mentioned have some people that are enraged - something I see as being quite distinct from being angry. Just my take on it - and I do get what you're saying about ugly expressions of anger. I just see some beautiful ones too that can have the ability to transform injustice. Ultimately, being very angry is more damaging to ourselves than anyone else - and being enraged can end up being deadly. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 9:08 AMI'd add that Solanas seemed to be enraged, not just angry. Which is pretty easy to understand if you look at her history. Her work always seemed to really be a howl of pain to me.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 9:14 AMI agree what we do with anger can be pretty ugly. But my experience is that I have learned a lot from my own anger. It was anger that taught me I had boundaries, I had the right to say No, I wasn't somebody else's toy or servant, I didn't have to put up with put downs, sarcastic remarks, etc.
So, for me anger was information, it let me know that certain things didn't work for me. I'm not sure it's anger that's the problem but what we do with it. If we use anger to justify striking out at others...well, that's bullshit. But if anger is part of recognizing, clarifying and defining who we are, what we want, and where we want to go, that seems natural to me.
But where do we draw the line, where and to what extent is anger healthy, useful, empowering, informative and where does it become destructive? At some point anger is just a cover for other emotions right? Fear, wanting to dominate or control, inability to communicate effectively, emotional immaturity, a kind of stunted emotional growth tends to express every emotion as anger. Isn't there some balance point between giving women the right to be angry at all vs. turning it into a one size fits all type of tool? -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 9:21 AMlori - "But where do we draw the line, where and to what extent is anger healthy, useful, empowering, informative and where does it become destructive? At some point anger is just a cover for other emotions right? Fear, wanting to dominate or control, inability to communicate effectively, emotional immaturity, a kind of stunted emotional growth tends to express every emotion as anger. Isn't there some balance point between giving women the right to be angry at all vs. turning it into a one size fits all type of tool?"
Great post :-) And it's a good point you make about anger really being a cover for other emotions.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 8:40 AMok, if she is performance or theater, then more power to her.
you all agree that anger *can* (not "does") galvinze people.
I just see that most feminists put her works into something more academic minded, or philosophical, as if she is an answer to debeauvoir. Maybe this is why i was never in "women's studies" as a major. shrugs. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 9:00 AMKip - Well, she probably does have her place in women's studies but she ain't no Simone de Beauvoir! And removing her and her work from its and her context seems rather - well - not feminist to me! ;-) You know, a lot of stuff gets twisted when people do that and academic do tend to use other people's words and experiences for their own ends.
-
-
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 10:22 AM>>and men can't actually experience being an angry woman or treated the way women are by society and men - I'd ask any men who want to post in this thread to be respectful of that fact if they choose to post (keeping in mind that this *is* a feminist forum and by virtue of this not about censoring women's feelings so that men's don't get hurt or they don't get scared).<<
this is true, however i don't think 'silencing' the voices of men who show a genuine interest in feminist issues is particularly productive either. i think a real danger in feminist theorizing is to exclude 'men'. that logic suggests that only women experience femininity and only men experience masculinity. there are real processes of female gender oppression and discrimination in the world, and yes, a man probably hasn't experienced them directly, but he probably has seen his sisters, friends, daughters, partners, mother, be subjected to them. being 'male' doesn't exclude a person from feminism, anymore than being 'female' excludes a person from science. i have male friends who exhibit far more sophisticated understandings of feminist principles and theorizing than most women i've met.
what i'm trying to say is that i don't think men's opinions are invalid.... and i kind of feel like your post suggests that Fifi... all blue-j did was ask where he could find the information you were talking about... perhaps you misinterpreted his intention?... or perhaps there are other things going on that i am not aware of. that's possible!
please don't take that as an attack, or anything of the sort... i think you are a highly intelligent, strong, capable person and i have a great deal of respect for you. i am just being honest about what i see/feel.
regarding anger, i would say that it has the tendency to be exclusionary, rather than inclusive. i haven't read the SCUM, and i don't feel that i need to . i'm sure it occupies a place in social/historical context for which it is appropriate, and i agree with whoever said that taking something out of it's context and attempting to 'generalize' it is not really 'feminist' (see thing about defining feminism as problematic, since it is a process rather than a 'thing')
um. so yeah.
oh ok, here's more... some of the most profound healing i have experienced, from the wounds of sexualized abuse at a young age (at the hands of men) has been through the efforts of other men to let me know that they are trustworthy. for example on my campus there is a group called '"men against violence against women" corny as it sounds, it is sincere. they put on a pancake breakfast once... and.. it made me cry to have all these young college boys earnestly serving pancakes with gentleness and love and respect in their eyes.
i think anger is an important stage in healing... it took me a long time before i could feel anger towards my abusers, but only after that could i undertake healing the rift in my heart and soul. i had to feel the anger to get out from under the guilt... you know, thinking it was my fault... the anger gave me the strength to recognize that what he did to me was WRONG. and it was NOT MY FAULT. also, paradoxically perhaps, feeling the anger towards him (rather than towards myself....) freed me to explore feeling trust towards men again... directing my anger allowed me to see who was doing wrong and who was trying to help.. it allowed me to distinguish between people who abuse and people who don't... and overcome my irrational fear of men in general. saying or thinking that 'all men are this way' is just as bad as saying 'all women are this way'. we are all different... we are all people. there are good men out there... who do not deserve to be punished for the actions of a few sadistic psychopaths.
i came across this site on the internet, and it kind of demonstrates what i'm talking about... about how men can have genuine benevolent insight...
these are some excerpts:
>"Young women need older men in their lives who will respect and care about them, who aren't their fathers or brothers but who aren't prospective lovers, either. They need to know that they bring more to the table than their sexuality. They need to be seen as complete human beings."
>"I want all of the young people I work with, be they 14, 18, or 21, to think I'm safe. The longer I do this work, the more that becomes my goal. I want my kids to know I love them for who they are, I want my students to know I respect and honor their minds and their spirits, not their bodies. "
>"I will not sit in judgment of others' relationships, save those that are obviously exploitative. Clearly, not all young women are equally mature at the same chronological age. But I will say that older men do well to see younger women as full human beings rather than objects of desire. If more of us would take small steps to make the younger women around us feel both seen and safe, our culture would be a damn sight better off."
this is the website:
hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_sch...oung.html
.........anyhoo. maybe a little tangential....just some thoughts i guess -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 10:51 AMCloé - Great post and overall I agree with you. I know some lovely men who identify as feminists, and have also known some that appropriate feminism for their own particularly male ends that serve them but not women or us all collectively as humans (from getting laid to trying to distance themselves from those "Other" bad men and to disown their masculinity).
And yes, there was far more going on vis a vis blue-j which led to my not wanting to discuss this issue with him. It wasn't because he's a guy, it was about him as an individual and my unpleasant experiences with him which also led to me "unfriending" him. If it had been an innocent question rather than an attempt to re-engage in hostile and combative communication, I would have answered it. I certainly didn't ask men *not* to post in this thread but merely not to impose their thoughts and feelings about women's anger onto women either being discussed or sharing here - share a male perspective sure, but to disparage and critique women's words because they're unfriendly to men and a man doesn't like that seems disrespectful and likely to shut down women from actually talking. Considering that men had been dominating this tribe - and apparently women have stopped posting or left the tribe because of this - I don't think I was being exclusionary or particularly out of line vis a vis feminism!
From my perspective female experience trumps feminist theory, just as the experience of being a Black woman trumps theories about being a black woman or Black, or the experience of being gay trumps theories about being gay, when it comes to discussing experience and meaning. Really, for me and I don't expect anyone else to share or adopt this understanding, feminism has always been about practical actions not academic theory. As such, it is fluid and about responding the what is in the here and now and not at all about dogma. I respect your right to see this differently :-) -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 11:10 AM>>I respect your right to see this differently :-)
nice :)
it occurred to me that there might be dynamics beyond what i saw, regarding blue-j, i just didn't see any of the things you are describing, so i was taking things at face value.
i dig your 'definition' of feminism:
>>feminism has always been about practical actions not academic theory. As such, it is fluid and about responding the what is in the here and now and not at all about dogma.
it's funny, because i spend a great deal of time trying to TRANSLATE that into academic theory... lol. it's difficult because academic constraints don't really accommodate alternative ways of knowing and communicating.
i actually don't think we see it differently, i think we just describe/explain/relate it differently. i happen to be a person who spends a great deal of time existing and thinking in the abstract... and i enjoy that. but i am very aware of the difference between 'abstract' and 'concrete', and one of the enduring frustrations of my (particularly academic) life is that other people are always interpreting what is meant to be abstract as literal, or visa versa. you can't generalize from unique experiences, any more than you can capture the uniqueness of those experiences in the abstract. anyway, i agree with you that:
>> female experience trumps feminist theory, just as the experience of being a Black woman trumps theories about being a black woman or Black, or the experience of being gay trumps theories about being gay, when it comes to discussing experience and meaning.
but, to my mind at least, this does not mean that you can't ponder these experiences and meanings in an abstract way, or that abstractions have no value... they are valuable as long as they are taken in context, but harmful when taken out of context... like so many things!
it's the same as the difference between biological sex, and social gender. sex is a 'real' concrete thing... gender is a constructed one, but no less real in our experiences. so i can talk about the gender of 'female' as a psycho-social construct, without saying anything necessarily about any particular woman... do is an entirely different kind of conversation. and then comparing those theories with real life experiences is where the magic happens, as they provide insight into each other... in this way abstract theory and concrete experience have a kind of mutually beneficial dialectic relationship... at least when they are approached in the right way.
that's my to cents anyway. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 11:41 AMChloé, your two cents go pretty far, thanks for throwing them into the kitty :-) Yeah, the theory/practice axis.... I enjoy theory a great deal, so I get where you're coming from and most of the theories I've developed myself come from practice and observation. Sometimes that aligns with whatever's popular in academia at the moment, sometimes it doesn't. That said, I *do* find theory divorced from real life somewhat fatuous sitting up in its ivory tower admiring its self endowed estimation of its own brilliance in the mirror. Clearly that's not where you're coming from, and that doesn't mean I hate theory or don't think it's also valuable to look at and consider things in the abstract. I do think, that sometimes for men (and of course women but I'm referring mainly to feminism here) who don't really listen (or who don't know how to listen even if they want to or think they do) theory overrides practice/experiences that they innately can't have and then becomes somewhat oppressive. I'm not excluding them from the experience of being a woman, that's just nature and reality. Just like me not being able to have the experience of being Black isn't because I've been excluded, it's because I'm not Black! ;-) That doesn't mean we can't empathize from our own experiences and gain understanding by listening to and accepting what people who are different than us share with us. Empathy though, requires that we don't impose our own experiences on others and assume them to be the same but rather we see the connection between our own experiences and those of others while recognizing the difference.
So, while I really enjoy a good discussion about ideas and abstract theories, I also get a great deal of pleasure from actually being in the world and having experiences (which I can then create theories about ;-) You know, even as women we're all different - we do have some common needs and experiences but we also have unique ones as well. Let's remember, feminism has had to deal with its own issues surrounding the exclusion of the experiences and needs of women of color, transgender women and lesbians.
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 2:51 PM"Considering that men had been dominating this tribe - and apparently women have stopped posting or left the tribe because of this"
this certainly appears to be true for a couple women, but i want to point out that this tribe got pretty much no traffic almost at all until i started contributing. i deliberately posted provocative topics to get people engaged, though i never said anything i didn't feel either. i'm happy it seems to be active again, and am happy to listen. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 7:31 AMblue-j -"This certainly appears to be true for a couple women, but i want to point out that this tribe got pretty much no traffic almost at all until i started contributing."
And with this act of dismissing and negating the concerns of women who have spoken up, and claiming to be the savior of a feminist tribe by posting what you consider "provocative" things so that the tribe would be more to your liking but that were responsible for turning off and alienating at least some of the women here, you've shown you don't actually listen or respect what has been said in here and that it's all about what you want and how you feel.
Really, I can't be bothered and I'll join the other women who have left the room.
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 5:07 PM"by posting what you consider "provocative" things so that the tribe would be more to your liking but that were responsible for turning off and alienating at least some of the women here"
i believe the discussion surrounding chad's posting of solanas's piece was in fact what led to so many divisions among us, not anything i began. not sure what you're referring to, since you weren't around during the time i'm talking about either. also, it's not clear to me that anyone left only because of me specifically, but rather that in general the tone of the tribe had become divisive and also men were contributing relatively too much. that is not all centered on me, is it?
"Really, I can't be bothered and I'll join the other women who have left the room. "
just stop mentioning me fifi, and we won't go back to this dynamic. i feel you don't get me at all and project on me a great deal, and i evidently don't have a shred of respect from you anymore, so just stop talking about me. but i won't allow you to misrepresent me without saying something.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 1:22 PMI must second what Fifi said.
This tribe is not about YOU, despite your apparent thoughts to the contrary. And how nice of you to congratulate yourself so heartily with that self-righteous back-patting.
You're a dick and if this kind of shit is allowed in this tribe, where men are permitted to be patronizing and dismissive toward women and act as though they own the place, it isn't a feminist tribe at all, and I'm joining the women who chose to no longer participate. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 4:59 PMi was responding to the notion that i drove women away by pointing out that it was a ghost town and i made deliberate efforts to revive it. for those who haven't been here long (most, if not all of you, coincidentally). i wasn't making this tribe all about me at all, just responding to the notion that once i arrived, the population dwindled. and i responded with facts, not brags.
unfortunately, some of the energy of the discussion -- for which i will not take all the blame at all -- did in fact drive some women away, and that sucks. i regret my part in that, but feel others should take a hard look at their own contribution to the negativity as well. people aren't right just because they have a vagina, even about feminist matters, believe it or not. they can certainly be right about their experience, but not about synthetic explanations of what's going on.
i also responded intelligently to a delusional quasi-feminist diatribe, while simultaneously honoring the anger of women against sexism. none of my specific claims about the piece have been addressed intellectually, just ad hominem presumptions ad projections.
as i said before, i reserve the right to represent myself if i am mentioned, because that's fair. if you want this tribe not to be related to me at all, then stop talking about me.
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 5:08 PM"You're a dick and if this kind of shit is allowed in this tribe"
you're being far more disrespectful than i've ever been, easily. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 6:22 PMdon't waste any energy replying to me unless you really want to, because i've decided to leave the tribe (see "adieu" discussion). i wish you all well.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 10:59 AMChloé - Just as an added note, most of the truly loving men I know who really like and support women don't call themselves feminists. They just love (and most importantly like), respect and, when necessary, protect women from other men who may wish them harm. Hell, they'll even protect women they don't happen to like from men who are being assholes ;-) Or make themselves useful by getting their fellow guys to act like humans and educating them about what it really is to be a man of quality and substance. -
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Tue, October 30, 2007 - 2:32 PMchloe, i agree with you in that humanism is far more appealling than feminism, however, i still consider my self a feminist as a pronouncement, as a label in a world of labels. it helps me as a male get the point across to other males. it clearly defines my position as contrary to a position that supports the oppression of human beings. this is important because without this contrast men will not reflect upon their own position. if you don't call a man out of something he will pretend he is not a part of the problem nor will he attempt to improve his behavior. unfortunately leading by example will not get through.
we have innately known the truth about being humans forever and it has not helped us. we forget our humanity in the name of profit and ease. if men aren't called on it they won't ever change of their own accord. using the label helps me fight the good fight amongst my kind.
i realize womyn have another and perhaps more fruitful insight into this. not all womyn mind you, but generally they are more insightful than man when it comes to humanity. if i were a womyn i would be sharing that with you, since i am a man, this is what you get.
-
-
-
-
Re: Solanas and women's anger
Tue, October 30, 2007 - 2:22 PMit is in the manifesto and she states this as her position after she published the text and people were asking her about it.
-
-
