Talk:SCUM Manifesto/Archive 1

Archive 1

No evidence that Solanas meant "Society for Cutting Up Men" when she coined the term "SCUM"

I took out, in the first sentence, where it says "Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto". There is actually no evidence that SCUM stood for this. The phrase "society for cutting up men" does not appear anywhere in the manuscript nor is there any evidence to show that this is what Solonas meant by SCUM. It was not on the cover of the original text and it is rumored to have been a meaning that her publisher gave "SCUM", to promote and sensationalize the book. Until somebody finds evidence to the contrary, I do not find it intellectually honest for wikipedia to endorse this myth. In fact I think this is such a relevant issue surrounding Solonas and SCUM Manifesto, that it would warrant a couple sentences in a "controvery" section in this wiki article.

I am worried that many of SCUM Manifesto's biggest critics, both on this page but also in general, have not actually read the book or read accurate accounts of its history. I hope I am wrong.24.60.20.149carolyn z

I concurr!

Passages such as:

"The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't."

reveal what a hate-driven lunatic she really was and reveal the utter worthlessness of this bile-fuelled tract.

IndigoJones 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if the Scum Manifesto were written today, it would receive universal condemnation. In it's time it was "quaint" because it rode the coat-tails of the feminism of it's day. If you really want to read it for what it is, replace the word 'men' with the word 'Jew' and see how much you enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The preceding comments concern me. Does Solanas merit coverage here? Does her writing merit coverage? Do artistic works about her merit coverage? Unquestionably.

We are all totally entitled to decide whether we agree or disagree with her opinions. Modifying these articles to include more authoritative, verifiable references, and modifying these articles to improve the prose, or to make sure they more closely comply with the wikipedia's neutrality policy is an excellent thing. Modififying these articles based on a personal distaste for Solanas's expressed views would be a violation of most of the wikipedia's core policies.

If the preceding comments were intended to advocate modifying the article based on a personal distaste for Solanas's views I urge them to reconsider in the strongest possible terms. Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The first writer in this thread, 24.60.20.149 is spoofing us. I bought a copy of this book back in 1981. The book was not very long. The claim that it doesn't include the phrase "Society for cutting up men" is ridiculous. The phrase is repeated over and over. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The full text is searchable on-line. It does not use the phrase over and over, or, indeed, at all. It is, however, included as part of the title. Ricardiana (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no where in the text where the phrase "Society for Cutting Up Men" occurs. This was a publicity stunt on behalf of her publisher. If anyone would actually take the text seriously they would realize this. The only place she talks about "scum" uf when talks about women being scum, or being treated like scum, as if they are the nasty stuff at the bottom of a lake. The original editions of the book had no mention of "Society for Cutting Up Men" on the cover or in the title. This was something publishers added in after the fact. I really wish people would realize this. Geoswan, what editions do you have? Where is the phrase used? I have several different editions of the text, as well as having studied it in an academic setting, and I have never read a version that said "society for cutting up men", besides as a subtitle in versions that were re-issued after the original, or after she died. You simply need to a)read the text and b)check out the older editions in order to garner this information! But in either case, we are being disingenuous if we do not at least refer to the controversy and the actual facts in the article. Until someone can actually cite proof that she meant "Society For Cutting Up Men", then there is no reason other than stubbornness and bias to keep this out of the article. -carolyn z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.30.33 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I purchased a remaindered copy of this book in 1981. My copy was a paperback, with a cover that used a lot of purplish/pink. As I wrote it had a long foreword and long afterward. One of which was written by the publisher. The other was written by a left-wing journalist. IIIRC, the journalists worked at the now defunct Ramparts magazine. Is there a reason you haven't listed the provenance of your copy? Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The main text I have read is the one put out by AK press in 1997: http://akpress.org/1996/items/scummanifesto: 71.192.30.33 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)carolyn z

A tertiary view

I noticed that a lot of people here seem to think that because it has Valerie Solanas' name on it, that means that her intentions are the end all, and the be all, of the "SCUM Manifesto". I disagree with this perspective. I think that since the publisher altered the work before publishing it, that the article about said work should cover the version of it that was published, not what we speculate may or may not have been the writers' intention beforehand.

However, if we can verify that the publisher altered it, and how, then we should note it in the article, as such is relevant. The solution I propose is that we refer to it as "Society For Cutting Up Men" in the lede, but make it clear elsewhere that this alteration was in fact made by the publisher pre-print.

This would address the issue of the publisher sensationalizing the writing while also not pointedly ignoring what the printed document actually said.

What do you think? Macai (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That the phrase “Society for Cutting Up Men” applies is disputed (as can be seen by the paragraphs above Macai’s in this discussion). So, it should not be referred to, especially in the lead paragraph. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Solanas distancing herself from the manifesto

Later in life, and after serving a prison sentence for reckless assault with intent to cause bodily harm, Solanas tried to distance herself from the manifesto.

I don't think this can really be considered NPOV, and definetly not a backed up statement. There is no contradiction between her referring to her manifesto for finding out who she is, and the manifesto being satiric or a literary device. Nor is there, as far as I can see, anything except that quote even vaguely implying she dissociated herself from the manifesto. But then, rewording it might require adding something about the satiricial/not satirical nature of the text (or a simple removal of paragraph in question).--AApathy 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5 points ... disagree

This text at the end of the arguement doesn't make a lot of sense to me even though I have read both of the texts in question. Could someone who knows what this is meant to mean make an attempt to tie it into the preceding sectionm, or flesh it out and make a conclusive statment about SCUM?

Sisterhood Is Powerful edited by Robin Morgan included excerpts of the Scum Manifesto. It left out five points with which modern feminists would disagree--but it did say that the good was female and the bad was male:

male/bad: emotional

male/bad: animal-like

female/good: objectivity

female/good: technology, especially automation and biotechnology intended to make men

unnecessary for production and reproduction.

male/bad: censorship

An An 02:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to SCUM Manifesto

I would like to request that unless the link goes down irevokably, that editors (especially IP guests) please just leave the link to the SCUM Manifesto AS IT IS. Why?

1. There is NO original online source for the SCUM Manifesto. The original source is a paper BOOK and all online sources are republications of that book.
2. The Womynkind source has been around for years, and is quite stable.
3. It is also the only one I have seen with a graphic, which is nice to offer people
4. It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics - readers can read the piece and surf out. Whereas other sites (Church of Euthanasia, reactor-core etc) attempt to use the SCUM Manifesto to give credence to an alterior political position (which may or may not be tennable, but is certainly not in line with Solanas' writings).
5. This is a high-controvery topic, and we owe it to our readers (and the topic itself) to treat it with dignity and fairness. This means balanced writing, factual writing, and rising above petty point-scoring attempts to get hits on a controversial website.

If you're not interested in Solanas, then please just surf away to another wikipedia page (they are many and varied), but please don't resort to vandalism! An An 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be the best of the three ([1] [2] [3]), as far as formatting and the picture.

"It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics"

Yes it does: "Many of the other sites that have this text exploit it for anti-feminist ends. Don't be taken in by this crap.". The bio linked to from that page contains "P.S. Valerie you will always be my personal hero!!!!!! - Nancy Hulse, Womynkind Productions".

The bible site has the formatting but no picture. A little POV, though it also has "If you find ought to disagree with, that is as it ought be. Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth", which is a great description of the whole principle behind NPOV.

The Euthanasia site doesn't have any POV text on that page, but is, of course, a very biased site, like womynkind.

I guess you can't help a little POV on an external link, but we can probably find a better source than these three.

Hell, can we copy this to Wikisource?. - Omegatron 14:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

No, It was copied to wikisource, but removed for copyvio. Its unfortunate. I do maintain that of the 4 sites (womynkind, gos.sbc, reactorcore, and CoE), womynkind is probably the most appropriate. Womynkind and gos.sbc are both feminist sites (so are mostly reliable to reproduce the text as something of value). Of the other 2, reactorcore has disclaimers and bible quotes all over it (not very appropriate), and the other tries to used the SCUM manifesto as part of a sermon of destruction and terror for its own sake - also not very apt to the original piece. Why I think womynkind is superior is ultimately because it is very stable, is well formatted, has a picture, and a biography of VS.

The way User:142.179.111.243 is going about putting the reactorcore and CoE sites onto the page is just anti-social. Maybe we need to investigate some other hostings? An An 22:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I was about to go ahead and insert a link to the Womynkind text but then I saw the following comment from Somercet, so I figred I would quote that comment here --Brian Z 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Sadly, the SCUM manifesto is under copyright and it is not clear that the holder has granted reprint rights to ANYONE. Thus, the external link to the full text of the manifesto has been removed. Please do not restore unless a site is found that DOES have rights to webpublish the manifesto"

There are two related issues here:

1. Including verbatim copies of works that are currently protected by copyright is a serious breach of both the wikipedia's policies and copyright law;
2. Including references to external sites that host unauthorized copies of copyright works is not a violation of copyright law. But it too is a lapse from wikipedia policy. As I understand it we do not link to unauthorized mirrors of copyright work for reasons of verifiability, and because doing so suggests a lack of respect for copyright.

So, as I understand the policy, we shouldn't link to any unauthorized mirrors. Period. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Satire

Although it's very funny, I don't think there's any evidence that Solanas meant it as a satire. Quite the opposite. When she was arrested for shooting Warhol, and was asked why she did it, she said "read my manifesto to find out who I am". (See this link.) While it's true that others have suggested it must be satire, Solanas often reiterated that she was a manhater. Philip Arthur 23:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening para says it can be seen as satire. This implies that others see it as satirical, not that Solanas intended it to be satire. There's no need to explicitly state that it might not be intended as satire. I personally think that its both intended satire and intended as a deadly serious critique at the same time. An An 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but it has no place in an article. I don't think the introduction should suggest that the piece can be seen as satire if that was not the author's intention. If it in fact was, you'd have no difficulty finding her saying so. It's pure speculation that it "can be seen" as satire and speculation has no place in Wikipedia (and I entirely disagree that it only implies that others "see" it as satirical; rather, it strongly suggests that it was meant to be seen that way because we make a point of suggesting it in the introduction). However, if you want to source other people saying it's satire, and place that in the body of the article, then that would be fine. Philip Arthur 03:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do include a discussion of whether it is satirical, please bear in mind that we ought not to say "it can be seen as satirical" but rather "X saw it as satirical", where X is some critic who has been published. We should not be including our judgments of what things may or may not be, but we could summarise what others have had to say about it. Philip Arthur 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

From satire: Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject. I'd say "Men will be clinging to Big Momma with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Big Momma will be clining to Big Daddy who will be in the corner, shitting his forceful, dynamic pants", is sufficiently representative of the work's style, and sufficiently ridiculous to justify the appellation of satire. An An 04:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer a more accurate definition of satire, which would have it that it puts vices and follies up to ridicule, rather than simply insults its subjects (and you might note that it is not a requirement of satire that it is ridiculous but rather that its target is held up to ridicule). By that definition, this writing would not qualify. But my opinion is of course worthless. You could better have accepted that yours is too and included published critiques but it's simply not worth fighting over. Philip Arthur 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The work does hold the subject (patriarchy) to be ridiculous. If you want to include citations, then find them and include them.

The obligation is on the person who wants to make a claim to include citations.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of stating "oh this wasn't her intention" at every turn because very little is known about her actual intentions.

Then why do you insist on suggesting it was meant as a satire?Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

An is not suggesting it was meant as a satire. Read the wording of the versions proposed by her, it clearly says that it can be seen as satire. Dysprosia 07:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You think it's possible that Solanas might have inadvertently satirised patriarchy? In any case, if you want to say it can be seen as a satire, you still need to source someone seeing it that way, rather than give your opinion. Philip Arthur 05:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To deal with your second point first, I would agree with An that the satire is somewhat self-evident, but I don't really feel up to getting into a great protracted debate on this. To deal with your first point, it's quite possible to write something that can have multiple interpretations; for example, many artworks have this property. Dysprosia 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, artworks can be interpreted differently by different people. They generally view them through the prism of their own agenda. I daresay that if we were discussing the Society for Cutting Up Women Manifesto, you'd have a rather different view on whether it could be seen as a satire. But your view, and mine, of whether it is satirical is besides the point anyway. We are not here to interpret artworks but to report others' interpretations of them. I think there would be no harm at all in a "Views" section, which did exactly that. What do you think? Philip Arthur 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Solanas is dead (while she was alive, her literary opinions weren't sought), and so her work speaks for her.

Yes, but you are not quoting the work but giving your interpretation of it.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Her work is reviled, praised, read and interpreted the same as other works by other writers. We can say how her work is received without it becoming original research.

Yes. We do that by quoting how it was received not by giving our personal opinions of how it was received.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to talk about a particular thing or attitude is as much an expression of POV as to talk about it.

No idea what you mean by that. Not talking about your personal attitude is not POV. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have altered the first para to be more literal.

It still suffers from the flaws I noted. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to let you tell me my opinion is worthless, it isn't. An An 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In this encyclopaedia it is. The opinions of all editors are. We have a policy that very wisely bars us from including them. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The mess of text above is difficult to follow.

Philip, my opinion as an editor, reader and writer is not worthless. I'm quote happy with the first para at this point, except for 2 items: 1. Philip, can you provide a citation for the claims that "Many of the accusations that Solanas makes of men were from a radical feminist point of view". I have doubts that Solanas "accuses" men of anything. She appears more to characature them. And I doubt she was actually a radical feminist. She wasn't part of any organised political movement (except her own!) and doesn't really echo any of the sentiments or styles of radical feminism - except for laying the blame for womens oppression at the feet of patriarchy. In any case, unless you can cite it, its out. 2. The piece can be read as satire - I'm not claiming that I hold that opinion, or that it was intended as such. I'm not claiming it unreasonably. Its a matter for observation. The Gulliver's Travels page (for example) doesn't cite Swift claiming the book to be satire or not. Its a matter for observation. Its transparent. An An 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion has no place in the article. That doesn't mean your opinion as an editor is worthless. It means you may not include it in the article. There's a clear distinction between those two ideas. I urge you to read the policy on original research so that you're absolutely clear what articles should contain.

As to your two points: one, I'm not responsible for that claim, and I wouldn't make it. Radical feminists may have claimed Solanas, but I'm not sure she would claim them. She hated men, for whatever reason, rather than followed a political creed. By all means, take that bit out. Two, I just don't think you're paying any attention to what I'm actually saying. It doesn't matter that you think it can be read as satire. As it happens, I don't agree. I think it can be read as the rantings of a petulant child. But you'll notice that the article doesn't say that. Why? Because my opinion is also worthless. Gulliver's Travels is widely described as a satire. You could cite hundreds, thousands of critics saying so. As for SCUM Manifesto, there is a difference of opinion from what I can see. Some think it was intended as satire; others don't see it. Solanas herself, as I cited, said she wrote it because she hated men. She didn't say she wanted them to look ridiculous. You ignored what I said about satire, which is that it holds folly or vice up to ridicule, and does not simply ridicule its target. I know it seems a rather fine distinction but it is important. What you have now is much more like it

What I suggest is that we have a section on "Views on SCUM Manifesto" and cite what people have said about it rather than include our own observations. Philip Arthur 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between radical feminism and misandry.

re: satire. VS critiques the "folly" and "vice" of patriarchy. An An 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the part about radical feminism. I didn't write it and I don't think it's justified.

I'm just not going to argue with you about satire any more. First you insisted that SM ridicules patriarchy, now you say it "critiques" its "folly" and "vice". Neither of these things would make it a satire and it remains true that even if it did, you need to find someone else saying so, and not seek to include your personal opinion. Did you not like my suggestion that we could have a "Views" section?Philip Arthur 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In order for A Modest Proposal to be taken as anything but a satire would require us to believe Swift capable of infanticide and cannibalism. Apparently, a lot of his other works don't promote those two crimes and the people who knew him apparently didn't think him capable of them, either.

Sadly, Valerie defies such analysis. First of all, she was advocating violent revolution in a time when a lot of people advocated such. Second, it isn't that hard to see various SCUM points in a lot of other people's serious works: "Aging is a disease." "Men are emotionally crippled would-be girls." Machine-run Socialism. Single-sex political supremecy (not male genocide). Lots of people have held these ideas. Third, she went nuts. (She SHOT somebody, remember.) Whether it was congenital or situational, it makes it hard to decide how serious Valerie was.

Apparently, in the '77-8 Village Voice interview, Valerie denounced SCUM's man-hate. Was she on better meds? Therapy going well? Was SCUM a product of a twisted state of mind she later realized was crap, forgetting that she had once believed it? Or was she even crazier and less in touch with her past than she had been? We'll never know. Someone should look that article up. Any objective article should note BOTH positions, present the evidence, AND note that we can't see inside her mind to decide which is correct.

Far more seriously, we can't link to copy-vio work. I've removed the links to any online SCUM until we get permission to put it on Wikisource or find an online version that has the proper permissions. I've also emailed womynkind.org and gos.sbc.edu and a couple others to find out what permissions the printed book comes with. Cross your fingers. Somercet 13:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

prostitution

Someone removed the word "prostitute" from the article, citing "NPOV".... care to explain?? Her life of prostitution is well established. wikipediatrix 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's NPOV because its irrelevent to her work as an intellectual in producing SCUM. If Solanis' manifesto had been Sex Work: Unionise and shoot the Johns then it would be very relevent. Its like pointing out in an article on Mark Latham's recent political biography that Latham punches taxi drivers. True, but not relevent, and given social attitudes towards punching taxi drivers and prostitution, an attempt to disparage. Fifelfoo 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To further my previous point. Her attempted assassination of Warhol is fairly relevent given the content on the destruction of male power (and men as a genus) in SCUM Manifesto.Fifelfoo 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • When you have a person who writes a book advocating the extermination of men, I think it's EXTREMELY relevant to mention, even if only in passing, that she made her living having sex with them. It's so obvious I can't even believe it has to be debated. And it's not like I devoted a long NNPOV paragraph to the subject - I mentioned, in passing and in ONE WORD, that she was a prostitute. Just as we would mention, in passing, that Jesus was a carpenter and Hitler was an artist. wikipediatrix 01:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jesus was a fictional character and there are a variety of potrayals, one as a carpenter. Hitler was a failed gutter artist. This is irrelevent in regards to an article on Mein Kampf, as Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was not a failed gutter artist, but a political activist and prisoner. We may as well say "SCUM Manifesto, written by Solanis, at one time a child, daughter, lover, student, graduate student, prostitute, unemployed worker, drug addict, street person, currently dead." This article is on the text, not Solanis. Solanis' employment is vitally relevent to the article Solanis, but not to the article SCUM. Fifelfoo 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree... Prostitution and man-hating are connected in a way that the messiah biz and carpentry are not, and in a way that genocide and art are not. The inclusion of this one word - "prostitute" - makes a universe of difference to a newcomer's view of the integrity of the SCUM manifesto. And that's not just from one POV, it could go either way: Solanas' (note correct spelling) supporters may point to this as indicative of her being qualified to criticize men, while her detractors may point to it as evidence of hypocrisy. Still others may just take it for what it is. Either way, a man-hating book written by someone who has sex with men for money needs to be presented as such, just as a vegetarian cookbook written by someone who eats veal needs this seeming contradiction pointed out as well. wikipediatrix 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance working has to man-hating, unless you're implying that class politics deeply influenced the SCUM manifesto. Then it'd be more reasonable to point out that Solanis was *working*. If you genuinely believe that there's an occupationally specific link between man-hating and sex-work, why did you use a loaded term like "prostitution"? And, can you indicate that Solanis was a sex-worker while she was writing SCUM? If occupation comes into it we may as well point out Solanis was a failed intellectual, its much more relevent to writing a political manifesto.Fifelfoo 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay now, clearly you have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "prostitute", we say "sex-worker", and where "sex-work" is considered no different than any other kind of work. That's not going to fly. If one's work is having sex with MEN, that obviously has a relevance to their man-hating philosophy book. "Prostitute" is not necessarily a loaded word (like it or not, it is the official term for a crime for which Solanas was charged), and even if it was, Solanas referred to herself by that very word in her Up Your Ass play. I'm reverting it to include the word "prostitute" again. Because practically all resources written about her say she was. Because her police record says she was. And because she said she was. wikipediatrix 00:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay now, clearly y9ou have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "sex-worker", we say "prostitute", and where "prostitution" is considered as an especial and speficially individuating kind of work, different from every other form of wage labour. That's not going too fly. Sexual and economic alienation are not necessarily or even generally interrelated. We may as well say "man-fucker" when describing Solanis, because its more immediately relevent. Prostitute is a loaded word, its a bourgeois legal term for a common occupational practice and criminalises a very common activity. Moreover, the criminalisation is very specific in time and place to certain societies. New York anti-prostitution laws in the 1960s differ radically in *who* is legally defined as a prostitute to, for example, laws in Gilded Age New York, or contemporary society. I'm reverting it because it belongs on the bio page, not the page regarding the manifesto. Fifelfoo 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Solanas' police record doesn't say "sex-work", it says "prostitution". Give up this politically-correct linguistic game. Why am I even bothering to try to have a serious discussion about Valerie Solanas with someone who refuses to even spell her name properly? wikipediatrix 16:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing "Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life." With a line like "For information about the circumstances sorrounding the creation of the SCUM Manifesto, see Valerie Solanas." I've started a thread below because I feel this article is biased.--Punkpet 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Solanas was a prostitute, however she was also a playwright, an author, and a factory worker. Adding "prostitute" serves no purpose. --Punkpet 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she was a sex worker is, prima facie, irrelvant to the article. That sort of detail belongs in her biography article. Any claim that her prostiution influnced her manifesto must be substantiated either by quotes from its text, or from a published critique. Otherwise it is original work, and doesn't belong on the Wiki. — Clarknova 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No one in the article is suggesting, or has suggested, that her prostitution influenced her manifesto. wikipediatrix 02:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Giving her the label "prostitute" in the opening paragraph is a strong, and not altogether subtle suggestion that it did. It's also frivolous: prostitution is not her contribution to history. Articles on Einstein's published works do not begin with "..patent clerk Albert Einstein..". Articles on Kafka's stories and books do not begin with "..insurance officer Franz Kafka.." Her work as a prostitute is a biographical detail, and try as you might to squeeze it in, its place is in her bio. Not here. — Clarknova 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reeks of Bias

Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life

Why is this important? It appears to be an attempt to discredit Valerie Solanas. If people wanted a biography of her life they can see her own wiki entry.

vitriolic and obscenity-laden assault on men

Loaded terms. I smell testosterone. (why not call the communist manifesto a vitriolic assault on freedom?) --Punkpet 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What does testosterone smell like? Palenque 07:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article for bias and clairty, I used my copy of the SCUM Manifesto as a source (and cited it in the refrences section). I am new at wiki so be nice to me ;)--Punkpet 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the "Interestingly..." sentence is junk and needs to stay out of the article. It's enough to quickly note in passing that she was a prostitute, but whether it's "interesting" or not is a matter of opinion and loaded Original Research. People keep objecting to the word "prostitute" but I don't see what the problem is. It's the literal, perfectly neutral, official legal term for it and to express it in a nice, more politically correct way, would be a POV violation. Solanas had no problem with the term herself. As for the rest, I don't really smell the testosterone. That the writing is obscenity-laden is obvious. "Vitriolic" could be replaced with "spirited", perhaps, but it still doesn't raise a red flag for me. wikipediatrix 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Punkpet, I noticed you reverted the "prostitute" word again without discussion. Please use the discussion page before entering into a revert war. wikipediatrix 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I thought it was a part i had left out while editing for bias, As i stated in my eaten up post. Solanas also worked at the University of Maryland Research lab, and wrote the play Up Your Ass before writing the scum manifesto. I have no problem with the fact that she was a prostitute, however it adds nothing of significance to this article besides bias, if we wanted to make the article fair we'd have to list all of her previos jobs before she wrote the SCUM Manifesto. And then it turns into an article about Solanas, and not her book.--Punkpet 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(furthermore, I see no other citing of people's professions in other wikipedia entries about Literature I've looked up for comparason)--Punkpet 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems obvious to me that if someone wrote, for instance, an anti-donut manifesto, it would be worth mentioning in passing if they also happened to be a pastry chef. The point shouldn't be belabored, and the significance of it shouldn't be speculated upon, but it should be mentioned. Solanas' detractors might point to it as evidence of hypocrisy, but Solanas' supporters can also point to it as evidence that if anyone knows what men are really like and has seen all types of men exhibiting their true selves as most people (including their wives) never have, it would be a street hooker, which Solanas was by choice (not out of poverty), because of her steadfast philosophical objection to entering into a 9-to-5 employer-employee job situation. Which is admirable. wikipediatrix 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One can assume from the book, that she has a bias against men. If we care to find out why, we can read her biography and form our own oppinion. I'd be okay with something added to the article along the lines of "for more about Solanas's life, see her article" As it is, the article seems to be a bit too biographical, I'd like to perhaps steer it away from an article about Solanas and more about an article about the book itself.--Punkpet 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that maleness is a fact of life, wheras donuts are not. Her bias towards men takes into account her entire life experience, writing that she is a prostitute only creates bias and detracts from the valitity of the book. Add your "Prostitute" to the article, but prepared for my extensive biography, and subsquent merge flag to follow.--Punkpet 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Donuts aren't a fact of life?? But seriously, I don't think the inclusion of one word makes the article "too biographical". Your concern about protecting the reputation of the book's validity seems to indicate a definite POV in itself. Far from detracting from it, I think the prostitute mention adds credibility to it. wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry, i have trouble organizing my thoughts). It seems to be a common patriarchial practice to say "oh, she's only a feminist because of (being a prostitute, bad childhood, etc)." The adding of "she was a prostitute" to this article seems to be an attempt at antifeminist bias.--Punkpet 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I could introduce you to some friends of mine who are "sex workers" and EXTREME feminists, more so than you or I. And since I'm the one urging for the word "prostitute" to remain, you seem to be accusing me of antifeminist bias, which is just plain wacky. There are MANY types of "feminism" in the world, and some versions of them are diametrically opposed to each other. I maintain that the type of "feminist" who openly embraces their right to prostitute themselves in order to achieve their own higher goals is precisely the type of feminist Solanas was. (And that's a good thing.) wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Clarknova summed it up best in the "prostitution" section.--Punkpet 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're just being obstinate then, because Clarknova said "Any claim that her prostiution influnced her manifesto must be substantiated", yet no one has made that claim in the article! And I've already made it clear that I wouldn't want any such drawing of conclusions in the article. I've wasted enough typing on this matter already, but I still think it's totally wrong and POV to ban the word "prostitute" from an article about a prostitute's book. wikipediatrix 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"And I've already made it clear that I wouldn't want any such drawing of conclusions in the article."....doesn't matter what you want, as you don't own the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, mister Armed Forces guy, but expressing my opinion (and agreeing that drawing of conclusions is a bad thing) doesn't mean I think I own the article! Your unnecessary aggression and hostility from your edit wars on certain Scientology pages seems to be carrying over to this page. Keep the attitude in check, please, and try to be WP:CIVIL. wikipediatrix 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how my military status has anything to do with my editing? Are you just hunting for things to attack me on? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was an attack? wikipediatrix 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interloper

Just curious, WTF is up with Jacek Kendysz taking it upon himself to delete two of my comments from this discussion page?? wikipediatrix 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't. I heard this is called an edit conflict. --UNK 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, Wikipediatrix. Its very obvious that you mean Jacek with that title INTERLOPER. --UNK 11:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Polemic

Can I suggest--and I think it might resolve or clarify much of the discussions above--that this text be classified as 'polemic', or as a 'polemical text'? It is an old, perfectly respectable literary style that often utilizes satire but is not in and of itself classified as satire. Polemic (polemikos--"of, or relating to war") is characterized by an aggressive, emotive, controversial, provocative style. I don't have access to a good handbook/encyclopedia/glossary of literary styles at the moment, but I'll try to follow up with reputable documentation and definition. B. Dagger Lee 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)B. Dagger Lee

Relevance?

Finding instances of SCUM Manifesto being misrepresented as mainstream feminism and used to discredit feminists is pretty easy. Hell, I think it's in my user talk archive. However, is there any evidence of anyone taking up the manifesto and marching forward with it, of any widespread reading and citing of it in third-wave feminism, or by any feminists since the mid-1970s, period, for that matter? Cause if this has any following in feminism and is a major shaping influence on how contemporary feminists think and act, article ought to say so. If this is simply a single notorious work by a zealot on the fringes that's been jumped on by enemies of the mainstream movement in a spotlight fallacy but ignored by feminists for 3 decades, article ought to say so. There's got to be a source of information, one way or the other, right? The Literate Engineer 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Some of the ideas are mirrored in radical feminism, but the ideas may have arose independently. Dysprosia 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy in linking to misandry twice

To further expound on the reason given in the edit comment of the my most recent edit removing the See also link to misandry, the claim of common practice not to link twice is reflected in the Wikipedia:Guide to layout: The "See also" section... should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Dysprosia 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Solanas' status as a mental patient

Is there any reason why the fact of her frequent admissions to mental hospitals (strongly implying mental illness) should not be mentioned in this article, as it is in her biographical article? It would certainly seem like a relevant fact that should be considered before anyone weighs the content of the work, let alone accepts it as a beacon. Critical (note extremely well: "critical" in the sense of "careful and close", not in the sense of "hostile") examination of the work would seem to be hindered by ignorance of this fact.

We could argue until the cows come home about whether her work as a prostitute is relevant to the Manifesto (and I'm not going to join that debate), but the possibility that the work was at least partially the product of psychotic thinking should give all of us pause for thought, especially because so many people have given the work such uncritical endorsement without significant discussion of Solanas' mental illness. The section of Theodore Kaczynski's wiki page that discusses his manifesto is open and frank (and NPOV) about its author's mental illness; is there any reason why the SCUM Manifesto should not be treated the same?--7Kim 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

computers/automation

I suggest this sentence, used to introduce a paragraph of the manifesto, be replaced, or that the introduction and paragraph are simply removed: "Asserting that all 'un-creative' labour in society could become easily automated, despite the then non-existence of sophisticated computers". I realize how hard it is to try to write something unbiased about a work as, well, out there as this, but it's worth it to try.

Firstly, if you're going to counter one of her points ('this was impossible at the time'), I suggest you do it after, not before, the quote itself. You get to say the same thing, but instead of just coming off as trying to frame something in the reader's mind, it looks more like a serious analysis. Secondly, wouldn't someone who agrees with the author just consider the rise of computing and the automation it has brought with it as proof that she was right, and much of society really can be automated? Computers, in a basic form, were around at the time. Videogames had even been invented by then. It is possible (just judging from the quote in the article) that she saw the potential in computers, or, for that matter, that she wasn't even talking about computing at all, but other devices. --SoloGecko (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Original print copies

As I mentioned above I owned a paperback copy of this book, purchased, IIRC, in 1981.

Worth noting in the article -- if only someone looks up the exact details, is that early editions of her book had a long preface, and long afterword, both written by men. IIRC the preface and afterword totalled almost the same length as Solanas work.

I can't remember her publisher's name. He wrote one. A left-wing journalist, who knew her, wrote the other.

Both the publisher and the left-wing journalist wrote about how Warhol's shooting left them feeling that they might have been the target of her shooting. The publisher wrote that, on the day of the shooting, or the days leading up to the shooting, Solanas had been looking for both Warhol and himself. He wrote that he thought that since Solanas had similar beefs with both Warhol and himself if she had found him first she would have shot him.

The left-wing journalist ran into her shortly before the shooting. IIRC he remembered a beef she had with him. IIRC she seemed agitated, and asked if he knew where she could find Warhol. The left-wing journalist was a divorced dad, and was on an outing with his young daughter. He wrote that he felt that being with his daughter protected him from Solanas.

If I had known her work would not sink into obscurity I would have kept my copy. I only paid twenty-five cents for it. It was on a table outside my local book-store -- books that hadn't sold, and were marked down to practically nothing. My college room-mate that term was more of a sensitive new-age guy than I was, and I let him add the book to his feminist library after we both read it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural mainstream?

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

The SCUM Manifesto has elicited much criticism by many in the cultural mainstream. It is often dismissed by the mainstream public—against whom the book is targeted—who have characterized it as either a joke or malevolent, misandrist and threatening to traditional American family values. However, it is very popular among feminists and misandrists.

This is so vague as to be essentially useless. None of it is referenced, hence the "who"s sprinkled in the paragraph, so there is no way to verify the claims. This is simply not encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminazi

If you look at the feminazi article's first paragraph, you'll notice it cites Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of "feminazi", and it read:

Main Entry: fem·i·na·zi

Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌnät-sē\

Function: noun

Etymology: blend of feminist and Nazi

Date: 1989

usually disparaging : an extreme or militant feminist

This happens to be exactly what kind of writing this is. This is not just extreme, but also militant feminist writing, and is therefore by definition feminazi writing. I think using the word "feminazi" in this case is more detailed and informative than the word "feminist", since "feminazi" is a certain kind of feminist--a subtype, if you will, of them.

My good friend and detractor Thejadefalcon, however, believes the word is unfitting for an article that is supposed to have a neutral point of view. To him I ask: is the point of view presented when using the word in this case not neutral? If this work does not constitute feminazi work, what does? Macai (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There's some talk on the main page on Valerie Solanas about what she is, whether she's a feminist, feminazi or just completely batty. I personally think that she's a feminazi, a word I don't use lightly, because she's a loon, but that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable on Wikipedia as it is "usually disparaging" and therefore not a neutral point of view. If you can find a reliable source stating it's a feminazi writing (shouldn't be all that hard) then I believe it can go in the article (i.e. "Bob, a literary review for the BBC, has been quoted as saying this is a feminazi writing" sort of thing (but better)), but not in the lead. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, usually, but not always! Whether being feminazi or not is disparaging is subjective; some will find it disparaging, others will not. Just because most people think it's a bad thing doesn't make the use of the word less accurate. If we were to refrain from using words which might put something in a bad light, we might need to remove the article for the Rwandan Genocide, lest it might make Hutus look bad to someone since it uses the word "genocide", and therefore not have a neutral point of view! Macai (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They needed help to look bad after that event? However, that was a historical event. Much like the Holocaust, you can't deny that happened or was a bad thing without sounding like a raving idiot. While, in some ways, Solanas is a historical person, views on her differ by person. Therefore, I don't believe it's a suitable term without a source that attributes the opinion to someone else rather than Wikipedia. That's just my view, however. Unfortunately, this page isn't visited that often, so we may be the only two commenting on this for a while. You should probably open up an RfC, linking to this discussion and your first edit and my first reversion as a reference, so that we can get others talking about this and chiming in with their opinions as well. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And just as you cannot deny that the Rwandan Genocide took place, you can also not deny that SCUM is feminazi literature... unless you think the dictionary got the definition of the word wrong. :P I'll just let it get reverted tomorrow (or by someone else) if you feel strongly on this issue and think my argument is weak. Macai (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, no, but others might. Think of it this way. If we attribute it to someone else by way of a quote or similar, we're covering Wikipedia's rear. If it's in the lead, someone who thinks differently may assume that's the opinion of Wikipedia itself and try to sue us (they'll fail, of course, but what's the use in letting them even try). And are you sure? I'd be quite happy to open up an RfC and let consensus dictate the article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that this usage is inappropriate. The fact that you can look up "feminazi" in a dictionary, and notice that it more or less matches what this text is, is no more relevant than the fact that you can look up "demagogue" in a dictionary and notice that it more or less matches what Rush Limbaugh (for example) is. EvanHarper (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What about its usage is inappropriate, exactly? Macai (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a term of abuse, a disparaging epithet of little to no informative value, it morally prejudges the subject matter, it is always and everywhere unencyclopedic when used in Wikipedia's own voice (as opposed to, say, "so-and-so called such-and-such a 'feminazi.'" And all of this is so manifestly and immediately obvious that I have trouble regarding your questions and your repeated reverts to this article as being serious and in good faith. EvanHarper (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Macai's been nothing but polite and has already said "I'll just let it get reverted tomorrow (or by someone else) if you feel strongly on this issue..." What kind of vandal would say that? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright, fair point, I withdraw the comment about his motives. EvanHarper (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of little to no informative value? This tells you that it's not just feminist writing, but extreme and militant feminist writing. Are you saying the fact that it's militant and extreme is unimportant, irrelevant information? As for the abuse or moral prejudice--whether you like extreme or militant feminism is up to you--there is no moral prejudice in the word. Also, I don't see why you shouldn't call Rush Limbaugh a demagogue--it happens to be consistent with reality. Any neutral observer would tell you that he is, in fact, a demagogue, given the definition of the word. Macai (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to call it militant and extreme, then just call it militant and extreme. The idea that there is "no moral prejudice" in a word containing "Nazi" is, I'm sorry, just asinine. As our article Nazism puts it, "The term Nazi has become a generic term of abuse in popular culture."

As for just freely using any terms, no matter how prejudicial, as long as they're "consistent with reality..." well, it's an interesting idea, but it's not how Wikipedia does things and I can't really imagine it taking off. Imagine articles beginning, "Mississippi (mɪsɨˈsɪpi/) is an impoverished backwater of a state located in the Southern United States..." "Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an obese, buffoonish American filmmaker..." etc etc. EvanHarper (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is how Wikipedia does things... sometimes. Describing something as "genocide" is pretty "abusive" considering the connotation in question. What are we supposed to call the Rwandan Genocide? The Rwandan Misfortune? Wait, no. That passes moral judgment. We'll call it the Rwandan Happening or the Rwandan Event.

Also describing Mississippi as "backwater" does require moral judgment, because "backwater" in this context means "a place or state of stagnant backwardness". Who gets to decide what's backward? You need moral judgment for that. While obese may be true, I don't think it's fitting for the lead since Michael Moore being obese isn't exactly a key point in his films or about him in general. Buffoonish, also, requires moral judgment. You do not, however, need moral judgment to discern that SCUM is extreme or militant--it's about as extreme and militant as you can get. Macai (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But I just said, "If the point is to call it militant and extreme, then just call it militant and extreme." I mean, that was the first thing I said in my last post. Please read my posts before you reply to them. No wonder I thought you were trolling. EvanHarper (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We can shave off two words by just calling it feminazi writing, though. Being concise is a good thing, no? Macai (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't. Two people have explained why we can't, and you haven't been able to refute these explanations. You're trolling. Go away. EvanHarper (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have refuted these explanations. If your explanations held up, then we couldn't call it a Rwandan Genocide, since "genocide" has a negative connotation, like feminazi. Macai (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a bullshit analogy for about a thousand reasons: the Rwanda genocide is generally known as a "genocide" and is referred to as "genocide" by all reliable sources, while calling this "feminazi" is one editor's personal preference based on his consultation of a dictionary, the term "genocide" is a specific descriptive term, while "feminazi" is merely a term of abuse (the analogy would be sharper if you proposed calling the Rwandan genocide an "outrage," say,) the term "genocide" is generally accepted as meaningful and useful, and appears in all dictionaries, while "feminazi" is a controversial recent coinage that does not, etc, etc, etc. And this is all obvious. And you still aren't reading my comments, since I have explicitly told you -- twice -- that I am okay with calling it "extreme and militant," and yet in your last edit you imply that I might not be okay with this. EvanHarper (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, feminazi is not "merely" a term of abuse--it describes a specific type of feminism. The extreme, and militant kind. Also, calling the analogy "bullshit" doesn't make it less valid. Let's not forget that in my most recent post to you (aside from this one), I didn't mention you supporting or not supporting the use of the word "militant and extreme" in any order. (However, as a note, an administrator that goes by the name SarekOfVulcan does have an issue with this wording; see the revision history.) About your claim of the Rwandan Genocide being described as such by "all reliable sources", I'd like to point out that there are virtually no reliable sources for the entire article. Either we need reliable sources for every single word usage we make--in which case this article as well as just about all others should be removed outright--, or we don't--in which case, I can use the term "feminazi" with impunity provided it holds up to scrutiny intellectually, as it does with the SCUM Manifesto. Macai (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There comes a time when both sides of a discussion have made their perspectives clear, and little progress seems likely. In this case, Macai alone adheres to his position, and five other editors, independently, reject his case.[4][5][6][7][8] Unless something new comes up I see no need for further debate, and I suggest that further attempts by Macai – unless he obtains some facsimile of consensus on this talk page first – can be reverted without comment. EvanHarper (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that you just made a major faux pas in debate - that being use of an argumentum ad populum - I think that your comment about how my edits can be reverted outright without comment regardless of what they say is beyond rude. What if I edited in a way that was totally placid and offended nobody but one jerk's sensibilities, and he reverted the edit I made out of spite? Do you honestly think that's how this project was meant to be? Macai (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been lurking for a bit. I'd quote WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, but I believe that "jerk" was a general statement, directed at a hypothetical person. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Society for Cutting Up Men

I noticed in the article that it questions whether or not SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men because those words are not mentioned throughout the text of the book. Well the obvious answer is that it does stand for Society for Cutting Up Men, just look at the cover. 71.31.60.236 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a fair amount, already (see above). It seems that Solanas did not intend for the work to be presented with that name (“Society for Cutting Up Men”) but that a publisher added it (though apparently not to the first publishing of the book). The matter of whether “SCUM” should be taken as an acronym for “Society for Cutting Up Men” remains a topic of controversy in relation to the book. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Undid removal of reliable sources

Cybermud deleted several reliable sources [9] because he believes that this has been discussed. This discussion didn't reach a consensus in 2005. The information directly relates to the SCUM Manifesto and has relieble sources. Cybermud, you have been engaging in wikihounding and reverting edits for no reason. You will be reported if you continue to display such uncivil behaviour. Randygeorge (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of your definition of "reliable." It goes something along the lines of anything said by anyone that can be verified as long as it conforms to your own POV. You have posted links to mp3 recordings of radio shows, comments made in footnotes and used fringe definitions from non-authoritative dictionaries (like freedictionary.com) to completely redefine well established articles like antifeminism and say author Warren Farrell "advocates incest." Once again, the relevant policy is WP:Reliability and, in this case, WP:Undue. With regard to my edit and your "reliable source" it was a translation by a virtually unknown English author of an unknown French author who wrote a book on "American Feminism" which you interpreted as "Some authors..." ("some" being one of the prototypical weasel words. While you say "some" to refer to one fringe author who made the claim you edited in, you cite one specific author "claimed" this work was misandrist when the misandrist nature of the book is widely accepted by almost everyone. In fact, it is widely considered one of the prototypical examples of misandry put forth by radical feminists.--Cybermud (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The American Feminism: A Contemporary History text is published by an academic publisher, NYU Press; it's certainly a reliable source. It might be an unrepresentative source, but I'm not so sure - the article from Public Culture that Randygeorge also cited (full text here) cites the American Feminism book, and says of it "A more common strategy is to read SCUM as an instance of political fiction or parody in the vein of Jonathan Swift. In this reading, following the text to its logical conclusion, the elimination of all men, is not a literal mandate, but the use of absurdity as a literary device revealing the absurdity of patriarchy." That is to say, we have an RS that doesn't just present the view that the text is a parody, but calls such a reading "common." Ideally, I think, we'd mention briefly in the lede that the text has been read both as misandrist and as a parody, and then have a section in the article that expands on both these interpretations.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article already had exactly that before though without the additional references to "Pussy Envy" and Freudian psychobabble in the lead-in. It said, prior to RandyGeorge's edits, "[Solanas] claimed that her writing was a satirical literary device to elicit debate." Any more than that should be in the body of the article. I've linked to this now 3-4 times for George and will keep doing so until he reads it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Perhaps a section on "Reception" of the book could be added to article for this content? (in case it's not clear parody is a first class satirical device.)

Ideally, I think, we'd mention briefly in the lede that the text has been read both as misandrist and as a parody, and then have a section in the article that expands on both these interpretations. I agree. Both views are found in reliable sources and therefore both should be mentioned. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute note

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Valerie is more known for shooting

Valerie Solanas wrote 31 pages and shot Andy Warhol. It is clear that the latter one is more significant. --188.99.179.90 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• 31 pages? The copy I bought in 1981 was well over one hundred pages long. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Editions vary, but, from what I've seen of some of them, they vary mostly because of other matter, generally introductions or prefaces, which are lengthy relative to the main text. Editions could also vary because of typesetting or layout.

For the original poster, if the comment is about weight to be given in the article for each part of her life, that's appropriate for the article about her, and probably not for this article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

personally, I had no idea Solanas had shot someone until I heard that Lou Reed song. the SCUM manifesto I am well familiar with. not sure what the lead sentence is now, but to describe Solanas as "the person who shot Andy Warhol" seems like a mischaracterization. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Many people, on both sides of the Atlantic, who have lionized Solanas and commented on her clearly feel that her attempt to kill Warhol was a means of projecting the ideas expressed in the Manifesto, and indeed that the shooting was the "proof of the pudding": it demonstrated to history and posterity that her stance and her ideas in the text were for real. The shooting becomes part of her appeal, even her mystique: a proof of her personal strength. These are of course rather unsavoury ideas, but it's plain that many radical feminists see the assassination attempt as the kick-ass moment of Solanas' career, the act that shows she was in earnest. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

deleting ipl2-sourced content

I'm deleting the content sourced to ipl2 because ipl2 doesn't cite a source for anything in its SCUM Manifesto article, making the ipl2 article as a source (judging each ipl2 article as a separate source, as apparently intended by ipl2) tertiary; because if the content's information would otherwise be reportable it's because a good source exists for it and should be found and cited instead of ipl2; and because I contacted ipl2 on Sep. 18, 2011, asking for their source and, as of today, have not received a reply or seen their article updated to cite their source. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote superscripts

Surely this article currently sports far too many footnote superscripts..? Can they be grouped together under one or two per paragraph? 213.246.119.51 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifies that we make clear what is supported by what source. To combine footnotes would therefore require adding text into footnotes to explain what is being supported by each referent in that footnote, which would make them longer and more complex. To reorganize the main text so that everything supported by one source is in one place (reducing the number of footnotes needed overall) would make the main text harder to follow. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is unreadable, completely broken by the far too many inline footnote markers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.170.113 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty tough. I'm not sure there is a way to avoid it though based on Wikipedia principals and procedure :( SarahStierch (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

single words quoted and then explained in the ref element

On the recent removal of quotation marks, I see your point. I was thinking about proposing to restore but with a single set of quotation marks (in light of a recent discussion elsewhere), but now I won't propose it. A minor point of agreement is that short phrases are not subject to U.S. Federal copyright and attribution is present anyway. However, a major reason for quoting rather than appearing to paraphrase is that controversial articles are more likely to be edited or discussed as if existing content is false or unsupported, and quotations are more resistant to such changes/charges than are paraphrases. This case is a good example, in that a claim was that Val had tried to distance herself from the manifesto after prison (years after publication); I'm not sure she ever did, and the passage in question seems to refute that claim, so quoting is helpful. Hopefully, if challenged, I'll remember that it was quoted and find the quotation in the article history if needed. An alternative for future consideration is to rephrase to produce a longer quoted phrase, even if brackets would be needed, the quoted longer statement both being real and appearing so. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What I sometimes do in these situations (where the claim is likely to be challenged) is put the quotation in a quote parameter in the citation. That way the quote is accessible, but the article doesn't turn into a quotefarm. Nice job on the article, by the way. Kaldari (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeframe

This article says the the SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967. However, The Guardian's bio says that she started writing it while she lived in Berkeley (presumably in 1959 or 1960).[10] Clearly the text was published in 1967, but do we have any more information on when and where it was actually written? Kaldari (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much or none. I'm planning to add the Guardian article, as that's an interesting point. It's possible some source said she was writing the manifesto in the Lower East Side, East Village, Greenwich Village, or Manhattan but without a pre-1967 date, and that wouldn't have been important enough for the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

50 cents

I deleted about the additional fifty cents on Manifesto sales, because that's not the information I have in two sources. I don't see my copy of the third source (Manifesto Destiny) (maybe I misplaced it but that's unusual), but, if someone wants me to soon, I can probably get it again from the library. However, it's unlikely I got it wrong from the third one and got it right from the first two. I gather she did charge the additional fifty cents for the meeting, but that's different. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the third source (I had it (Manifesto Destiny) on disk); it agrees on $1/$2, not $2.50. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Strangely, Factory made: Warhol and the sixties says she sold it for 25 cents to women and a dollar for men. I'm fine with the current numbers though, as they seem to be the most commonly reported. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith or Winkiel in a 2d sentence

In the Description section, in the subsection As Parody and Satire, in the first paragraph, the first sentence is based on Laura Winkiel while the second sentence is still based on Smith. Does the citation that follows both reconcile the difference in names? If so, a clarification would help; otherwise (I think the likelier case), sourcing or correction would be helpful. And, unless the second sentence was also supposed to be changed to be based on Laura Winkiel, Smith's full name should be restored to that and the other in-body mention of her (both are in the same pararaph), since the body omits her first name and she'd be confused with Howard Smith, who's also cited in the body, which also means that every instance of "Smith" that silently refers to Howard will also need his first name (there are two instance for him, both in the SCUM as Literary Device subsection). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (Corrected three minor grammatical errors including in heading: 04:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

Done, by editor Sonicyouth86. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

picture of cover

Is there an image for another edition of the Manifesto? The one being used has periods in "SCUM"and she rejected that as the publisher's misrepresentation. On the other hand, it has her portrait, and I don't know if any other edition has that. The edition I have, from 1967 and self-published, is just typewritten and by the time it fits into the image space it would just be blocks of gray and my copy is restricted under copyright to personal use so it can't be offered for publishing on Wikipedia. I didn't find another image but maybe my searching wasn't inspired enough. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the 1968 Olympia Press edition, but it also uses "S.C.U.M.". I think the only one that doesn't is the AK Press edition, although it is quite new. Which would be better, the Olympia Press edition, which was the 1st professionally published edition, or the AK Press edition, since it's closer to Solanas's preferred title?

Also, how the heck did you get a copy of the self-published edition? Aren't those rare? Kaldari (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On the last question, I emailed you.

Between the two you cite for covers, the AK edition sounds better, but Verso's is newer (2004) and I think it doesn't use periods either (at least not according to SCUM Manifesto#Further reading), but I vaguely recall that its cover has a starkly simple design, probably black and white. I'm not sure anyone lately made an interesting cover, but maybe that doesn't matter. As a general policy, Wikipedia could assume that many publishers of in-print titles would be interested in doing the scanning and the posting and live with the license terms from WMF. They may already have image files ready, given that someone has to do it for Amazon, Google Books, catalogues, websites, trade publicity, etc. Depending on what scanning costs you, it might be worth asking them.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotes in the description section

The description section includes 22 sentences in a row (with one exception) that begin "According to...". This is terribly unreadable. Not every sentence has to be a quote. You could probably combine several of those sentences into generalized descriptions and move the quotations into the citations. Kaldari (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good readability point. I'll try something in about a week. Concern has been raised that attributions have to be provided, I think at the beginnings of statements, and moving quotations down could leave text denser, but let me see if I can aerate even that. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did it. I hope this works. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement. At some point it might be nice to do a customary plot/summary section that is attributed to the manifesto itself. By only reading other people's reactions and interpretations, I still don't get a good idea of what the Manifesto actually says. Summarizing books and movies is one of the rare excepts to the "don't use primary sources" rule, so we should take advantage of it. Maybe I'll take a stab at expanding the section myself one of these days. Kaldari (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Great idea (summarizing), but I think I've been told by several editors we can't do that for the Manifesto or other works because it would be violative as OR or synthesis, so, first, I'd need to read that exception, second, I'd have to get over my hesitation to paraphrase an entire work that has attracted a lot of controversy in Wikipedia when the author believed another publisher, whose edits meseems were generally relatively minor (and I think article source author Sharon Jansen essentially agreed), did huge editing substantially altering the meaning, and, third, I've got to plan on having a lot of time when I'm now working on a wife selling (English custom) problem. Regardless of who produces a summary, expect controversy. Time or no, either of us may wind up monitoring and editing many times. I corrected another Wikipedia article citing the Manifesto not long ago and am checking more sourcing cited elsewhere. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm even more pessimistic about summarizing this. How to write a plot summary seems to apply only to fiction. I skimmed its talk page and didn't see a discussion about summarizing nonfiction. While many more source authors call the Manifesto a parody or satire rather than literal, the view is not universal, and summarizing the Manifesto under the authority of that essay implies a judgment that it is indeed not literal, and therefore fictional. The essay's Citations section doesn't say much more on point than that if we quote the original we need to cite the original, but I'm not sure it's authority to summarize a controversial original even if we support every word with a citation. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the guidelines are written for fiction, but the basic idea can apply to non-fiction as well. This may be more of a convention than a written guideline though. Unfortunately, there aren't a huge number of famous non-fiction books, but most of the ones I've looked at (that aren't stubs) have a Summary, Overview, or Contents section. I'm hoping to roughly follow the organization used in The Communist Manifesto which is probably our closest analog. Perhaps we could bring this up as an issue for discussion at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm working on getting a copy of the original Solanas text so I can make sure that we aren't quoting passages that have been altered. Perhaps you could help with this as well since you have the original text. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I probably can't mail or upload a copy because of copyright and library restrictions, but you already have the information on how I got my copy and that likely will work for you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

summary of the Manifesto, revisited

In adding to the summary of the manifesto in line with plot summaries in Wikipedia, this might help: "Solanas herself summarized the SCUM Manifesto as a two-part treatise. In her words: 'The first part of the Manifesto is an analysis of male psychology, and the second part is like, you know, what do to [sic] about it.'⁴" "4. This summary of the SCUM Manifesto is taken from an interview with Solanas that appeared in the Village Voice on July 25, 1977. It is a revealing interview in which Solanas defends SCUM ...."<ref>Heller, Dana, ''Shooting Solanas: Radical Feminist History and the Technology of Failure'', in Hesford, Victoria, & Lisa Diedrich, eds., ''Feminist Time against Nation Time: Gender, Politics, and the Nation-State in an Age of Permanent War'' (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books (div. of Rowman & Littlefield), 2008 (ISBN 978-0-7391-1123-9)), p. 151 & n. 4 (contribution originally published in ''Feminist Studies'', vol. 27, no. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 167–189, per ''Feminist Time against Nation Time'', ''id.'', p. vii (''Acknowledgments'')) (author Heller prof. Eng. & dir. Humanities Institute & Grad. Pgm., Old Dominion Univ., & eds. asst. profs. women's studies, Stony Brook Univ., all per ''Feminist Time against Nation Time'', ''id.'', p. 209).</ref> The book does not seem to offer more summary organized as such, devoting much of its content to other matters related to Solanas and the Manifesto, such as deeper analysis and the film I Shot Andy Warhol. In other words, it has other content on the manifesto, but not organized as a summary. The Voice doesn't offer more; it says virtually the same thing: "The first part of the manifesto is an analysis of male psychology, and the second part is like, you know, what to do about it." <ref>''Valerie Solanas Interview'', in Smith, Howard, & Brian Van der Horst, ''Scenes'', ''The Village Voice'' (New York, N.Y.), vol. XXII, no. 30, Jul. 25, 1977, p. 32, col. 1 (reel 3 of 4 (Jul. – Sep. 1977) (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Microfilms Intntl., microfilm 1977)).</ref> Nick Levinson (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Translations

I couldn't find any references to back up the existence of the following translations: Danish, Dutch, and Portuguese. So I removed them. If anyone can find sources for them existing, please re-add them. Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Previously, two sources were given and deleted. I think there was discouragement earlier against specifying which language was supported by which citation, and so the citations were given together. This is why I remain a fan of overdetailing rather than underdetailing, when the middle is elusive. Thanks for the editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I looked at that source, but somehow missed the translations. Thanks for clearing that up! Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editions

I thought it might be helpful for us to compile a full list of editions to put at the bottom of the article. Here's what I've got so far. Feel free to add to the list. Kaldari (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• SCUM Manifesto (1967) (English). Self-published, 21 pages.
• S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1968) (English). Preface by Maurice Girodias and essay by Paul Krassner. Olympia Press, 105 pages.
• SCUM Manifest (2010) (Danish). Translated by Ellen Boen, with a foreword by Sjón and afterword by Charlotte Jørgensen. C & K Publishing, 96 pages.
• SCUM-manifesti (2011) (Finnish). Translated by Suvi Auvinen, with foreward by Akuliina Saarikoski. Savukeidas, 71 pages.

Probably merge the Further Reading section and the References For the further Reading subsection into an editions section, since the latter is a better idea anyway. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence against men categorization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Advocating violence against men, and the author citing this text as the reason she shot a man seems to make this a no-brainer for Cat:VAM. Nathenson and Young use this term while discussing the SCUM manifesto. There seems to be some disagreement on the issue from user: Delicious Carbuncle though. Please provide some reasoning here so we can stop edit warring.--StvFetterly(Edits) 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as a "Violence against men" category, I could see the rationale for including this article. However, it seems rather POINTY that we even have a "violence against men" category. Personally, I think it should be merged with the Violence or Domestic violence categories. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But, we do have Category:Violence against women :-/ Sarah (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And we also have Category:Child abuse. Those are both well-established topics of numerous articles, whereas "violence against men" is not, so I don't see the need for a separate subcategory. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For example, should we create a "Violence against Germans" category and start adding all the articles about WWII? Neither "Violence against men" nor "Violence against Germans" are likely to be useful categories as neither are prominent topics in their own right. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::Not saying that it should exist, just "sayin" that's all. I agree that it isn't established and is generally more WP:Fringe than anything else. (*grumbles something about men's rights article heydays*) Sarah (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The category "violence against men" should be applied to articles which are related to systemic acts of violence against men as a group. This is a book -- considered by many to be satirical or symbolic -- and not an act of violence. It may be helpful to review the other members of the category. As for the edit warring, I have been asking for the user who originally added the category to follow WP:BRD and make a case for inclusion here on the talk page with no success. You seem to have inserted yourself into this with the explicit purpose of continuing an edit war, not ending one. Per WP:BRD I am removing the category until there is consensus to include it. Please do not restore it or place anymore 3RR warnings on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You really can't get much more obvious than the appropriateness of adding this cat, it's just blatantly needed and the category would be woefully incomplete without this article being included. In case people aren't fully aware of the topic SCUM stands for "Society of Cutting Up Men", the author called for "thrill seeking females" to "eliminate the male sex". Ok, so someone believes the work to be satirical, but the evidence strongly suggests otherwise and I'd question the neutrality of some of some of the authors in question who argue it is satirical. Nathenson and Young even go as far as using the actual phrase "violence against men". In addition to all the above we haven't even got round to Solanas' act of VAM either. Even had she not attempted to murder a man it wouldn't matter in the slightest as these categories are about topics, not acts. Your arguments appear to be based on the assumption that the category is titled "acts of violence against men", or "people who've committed violence against men", whereas calling for such violence can be just as notable as any act if not more so, particularly if your words attract attention, inspire others and become widely disseminated. And why do you wish to review the VAM category and not the VAW one too? Not that you're under any obligation to do so, but it seems extremely inconsistent to remove one of the strongest instances of such categorisation before any similar but far weaker ones in the VAW category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's do this by consensus shall we? Sarah (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also object to A Modest Proposal being added to Category:Child abuse or Category: Cannibalism. It is not a single author who believes that the SCUM Manifesto is satire, it is many. Solanas herself has said that it was satire. I am not suggesting that other opinions be removed from this article, but I do think that adding categories such as "Hate speech" and "Violence against men" shows a lack of familiarity with the material being discussed here. I note that Shakehandsman also believes that the phrase "women and child first" is "violence against men". It is hard for me to see this as anything other than anti-feminist POV-pushing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike that last sentence please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the statement, in the interests of maintaining harmony. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Solanas did not say it was satire, as far as I've ever found. She said roughly that the word SCUM in the title was a literary device, but not that the whole text was. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Having read SCUM Manifesto myself, I can certainly vouch for the fact that it wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously. Much of the book is obviously supposed to be humorous, but after she shot Warhol people just started assuming that it was some psychopathic rant a la Unabomber Manifesto. I've only found 2 people who claimed it was supposed to be taken seriously, and it seems evident that only one of the two actually read it. Anyway, I think the Modest Proposal analogy is pretty fitting, changing my vote to "weak oppose". Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it and I assume Ruby Rich, I think cited in the article as finding some literalness, read it, given the extent of her discussion in the source by Rich. I don't know who the third is. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read satirically to me, a few phrases are quite strange but that's not satire or humour. Also, the VAW cat contains undeniable 100% hoaxes, see Hunting For Bambi for example. As for "women and children first", Wikipedia's VAM article gives it a significant mention in the history section per the events on the Titanic in particular and I was just adding appropriate categories per the content of the article, nothing to do with any "belief" whatsoever. --Shakehandsman (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether or not it's "satire", it definitely has a large amount of humor in it. The entire book is written in a general tone of snarkiness, and is actually rather funny in a Lenny Bruce sort of way, which is not at all what you would expect from the popular conception of the book. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, if you are suggesting that the Violence against men could be classed as satire or parody, I agree. The Titanic references it contains might be appropriate for an article discussing sexual or gender discrimination, but it is simply ridiculous to suggest that the tradition of "women and children first" constitutes violence against men. Other than the domestic abuse, it is difficult not to see the article as a laughable coatrack for "men's rights" crusaders. The "see also" section is especially telling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Although probably most authors cited in the article lean toward the Manifesto being parody or satire, I don't think most of them reasoned it out in print and may have projected from the disturbance it brings out. From what I see of her work around the text over her lifetime, I think she probably meant it seriously and I think her shooting was (as is often the case) the result of combined motives, including the maleness of her targets, considering her post-shooting mention of the Manifesto so people would understand. Meanwhile, violence against men because of their gender and perpetrated by women is far rarer than that against women by men because of gender, but I'm not sure if that raises a notability issue. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree she meant for the book to be taken seriously, although perhaps not literally. 90% of the book is about various political and cultural issues and how they relate to gender. Only a few pages are actually about "eliminating the male sex". It's very difficult to tell if she is being facetious here, especially since she is clearly humorous and hyperbolic in other sections of the book. I suppose, like much of Solanas's life, it is a mystery that will never be solved. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Violence against men is not a parody, but is in fact a well established phenomenon. Arguing to the contrary illustrates a tremendous bias. Had one studied the notion of "Women and Children first" being an act of violence against men, one would know that this is in fact the case. It is a systemic devaluation of the lives of males, subjecting them to death on the basis of their gender, without regard to the individual, so that a female life could be spared. You wouldn't find this amusing if the same double standard were applied to whatever group or groups you identify with. The fact that you dismiss any argument that doesn't agree with your views as telling (of what I can only imagine), or a comical parody, further illustrates a clear bias. The fact that the woman who wrote this, also shot men, undoubtedly with their gender being the primary motive, speaks to the legitimacy of "Violence against Men" as a category, and this books place therein. The fact that you seem to be arguing that a female shooting a male specifically for being male doesn't constitute violence against men, is telling. This exact same concept applies to women and children first. It is saying that, should it serve a woman, men are obliged to die, and that this is preferable. Since it is a choice to send men to their deaths in both circumstances I fail to see how one is an act of violence and one is not. Violence by omission is violence none the less. We're not arguing women and children first though. We are arguing a book titled "Society for Cutting Up Men.", written by a radical feminist, who shot a man for being too male, belongs in a category about violence against men. Cainchild (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vote for categorizing this article under "Violence against men"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting other perspectives in this debate over whether the SCUM Manifesto should be added to the category Category:Violence against men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC) (made RFC statement more neutral - --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC))

• Neutral Weak oppose, although I still think the Violence against men cat should be up-merged (which I'll save for a future discussion). Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support, honestly can't understand how anyone can argue against this. Couldn't be any more obvious surely? People appear to have confused the more general debates about the category with the this specific issue.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As I said above, it seems like a no brainer. If there's a violence against men category, this should be in it.--StvFetterly(Edits) 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that the category is stupid, frankly, but, this book also does fall into the realm of violence against men if the category has to exist right now, just as Valerie's article itself possibly could, but, anyone familiar enough with her life knows she was generally "violent" towards all gender, including herself. However, this isn't the place to discuss the category, that's what the category talk page is for. ;) Changing my vote based on the concept of satire and the above argument. Sarah (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was unsure whether to add Solanas or her victim to the cat and therefore to try to be conservative I did the later. On reflection and on hearing the views of others I've probably got this the wrong way round and should have been bolder and gone with the former.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd favor adding the category here over adding it to her biography. There's a fair amount of debate about Solanas's motives for shooting Warhol, but few people think she actually shot him because he was male. Solanas's own explanation, which is quite dubious, is that Warhol was part of some conspiracy (along with Maurice Girodias) to control her creative work. Most people, however, believe it was because Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic and/or wanted to be famous. See the interviews with Margo Feiden for example. Besides, if you wanted to shoot someone as a symbolic example of the male gender, I don't think you would choose the rather androgynous Andy Warhol. Perhaps her bio should go in the "Violence against androgyny" category :) Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral as I could argue either way in light of Wikipedia's tradition of tending to balance genders (sometimes). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. As someone already pointed out elsewhere, adding the category makes as much sense as adding the category Cannibalism to A Modest Proposal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit late, but A Modest Proposal is in Category:Cannibalism_in_fiction! - which is a subcategory of Category:Cannibalism. If we had Category:Violence against men in fiction or Category:Satirical works about violence against men this would fit well there, but since we don't yet it goes in the parent category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Let's save the cat for articles which are actually about violence against men. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is ridiculous. The book title itself lends proof of the category change needing to happen. This is one of the defining articles in our society stating that it is not only acceptable, but preferable for women to commit acts of violence against men. The only individuals who have supported the notion that this is satirical are also persons who support the exact agenda the book would support if it weren't satire. This is like saying she shot Warhol purely as an act of satire, and not sue to any of her gender specific views. Cainchild (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mentioned the title of all parts to comment on. Did you read beyond it? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support What, do you think she attempted murder as satire? She's clearly completely insane and completely sincere, based on her later actions and later statements. She said it's serious, carried out the actions she suggested, and there is nothing in the text to suggest it's satire. Violence against women is a hate crime against women. Clearly violence against men is a hate crime against men. I think the idea of a category for violence against women is stupid, but if we have it we also need one for men.99.6.157.136 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you think that when Solanas wrote "Up Your Ass", the play that may have been the source of her dispute with Warhol, she thought she was writing actual events, complete with stage directions? An author's words are not the author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"there is nothing in the text to suggest it's satire". I think this proves you haven't read the book. The entire text is completely over-the-top and offensively humorous. Here are a few random excerpts to give you an idea of the book's tone:

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

"The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barreling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants."

The book reads more like a Lenny Bruce routine than a serious declaration to commit gendercide. Kaldari (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I absolutely disagree with this book being a part of the category 'Violence against men'. Concerning the issue of the writers shooting of Warhol, that was entirely for personal reasons, not for his gender, and is not an example of violence against men. If Warhol had been female and turned down her script, it is likely the events would have occurred as they did. Please don't re-add this article to the category without referring to the Talk page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• support this book is obviously relevant to the topic, esp since the author went on to commit an act of violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned act of violence was not because of Warhol's gender, rather the result of a dispute the two had. She gave him the only copy of the script she had wrote in the hope he could do something for it, Warhol lost it, and she said that he had done so to hinder her career. Also the tone of the book is very tongue in cheek. It isn't a long work and is worth reading before taking votes on it as an inspiration for violence against an entire gender (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/rants/scum.html) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

She stated she was serious, and she didnt only shoot at Warhol, several others were targeted as well. Obviously she was ill but i still fail to see how a manifesto of this nature, whether satire or not, does not belong in this cat. Indeed, the manifesto itself is 'about' violence against men. It was polemic, but hard to say how seriously she took some of the statements within, and she returned to the manifesto in her later years. It was a lot more than a joke.- also, no-one is is claiming it to be an inspiration for violence against an entire gender, thats not required for membership in the cat.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to link to an article about the other targets? You don't mean Girodias do you? Because again, that was because of a publishing dispute, not gendered violence. It juts happens that men like Warhol and Girodias were in a position to publish work (not that I'm suggesting that we should go into researching how many of the heads of publishers were male at the time of the shooting) Should we Oswald de Andrade's Manifesto Antropófago in 'Category:Non-fiction books about cannibalism' while we are at it? Literature a medium where you shouldn't always take things at first reading, it takes a deeper reading to properly understand a text. The book is written ironically, and I would definitely agree that it is misandrist, but it doesn't advocate 'Violence against men' and inclusion among listed genocides --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be hard to know where to stop in terms of including writers based on their actions into Wikipedia articles. Marquis de Sade wrote about the rape of women and was arrested for raping women, but it would be redundant to include him in 'Violence against women' as the intellectual consensus is that the works themselves are not about that. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

re: other targets - from the wikipedia article: "She then shot art Mario Amaya in the hip. She tried to shoot Fred Hughes, Warhol's manager, in the head but her gun jammed". That makes 3 by my count. However, more importantly, reliable sources LINK this manifesto to examples of violence against men - here are two examples:

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men: (Quoting Daphne Patai) "It is revealing that far from expressing alarm at the manifest unity of theory and praxis in Solanas's violence against men, some reviewers of this film have treated Solanas as a free spirit and see this celebrated in the movie." (from Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism; Daphne Patai)

Sex and Society: Volume 2 0761479058 The entry on Misandry gives Solanas as an example, and her manifesto as an example of a radical feminist text espousing violence against men (even if it is seen as satire).

I don't think every book that ever said "Let's kill boys" or "Let's rape girls" should be put into the "violence against X" categories, but this one in particular is often cited as a rare example of radical feminist text espousing such violence, and as such it is quite relevant to the topic category, given that RELIABLE SOURCES claim it as an example of such. As for your Marquis de Sade example, we aren't talking about classifying people here, and we are not adding Valerie Solanas to the Category:Violence against men category, but if de Sade wrote a book that was cited by secondary sources as an example of promotion of violence against women and we had an article on same then it would certainly belong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example: Check out Hunting for Bambi, which has been in the Category:Violence against women category since 2006: [11]. Why, if we are acting in a neutral fashion, is there so much participation in clearing out Category:Violence against men but no-one is showing up to clear the hoaxes from Category:Violence against women? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's the fact that there are articles for AND against it as 'Violence against men', that is to say, there isn't a clear academic consensus, even here. I would be wary of calling Daphne Patai's work wholly reliable what with her writing a book about 'Heterophobia', but I think this argument would sideline the argument about Solanas. I just find it hard to understand why so many people consider it be a gendered shooting, when her motive for the shooting was not to shoot men, but to shoot people who she felt had hindered her career in the arts. If she had accidentally shot one of the trans people that hung out at the Factory, would that have had made the shooting 'Violence against trans people'?

I don't think every book that says that should be added to either category, and I don't think this book should be added to 'Violence against men'. Part of the reason why this category is being criticised is that it doesn't even have its own article. 'Violence against men' links to the article 'Domestic violence against men' which is clearly not what these articles concern. Maybe if a decent, well sourced article is written for 'Violence against men' then it would not be criticised as much as a category.

You also said earlier in this thread "If we had Category:Violence against men in fiction or Category:Satirical works about violence against men this would fit well there", so I'm struggling to see what exactly it is that you arguing, if you don't want every book that topically depicts violence against men or women included, and accept that this is satirical.

I don't have access to my books right now to quote from, but this account is pretty similar to the one regularly referred to in books on Warhol: http://www.warholstars.org/warhol/warhol1/andy/warhol/can/solanas17.html

As it stands, 'Violence against women' is " a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive. This type of violence is gender-based, meaning that the acts of violence are committed against women expressly because they are women, or as a result of patriarchal gender constructs.". There is no Wikipedia definition of 'Violence against men', but if you reverse 'women' with 'men' in the example given here (and maybe 'patriarchal' with 'matriarchal' if we are being really controversial), then the shooting of Warhol, that was primarily due to personal issues between the two, and the SCUM Manifesto, that is considered by many as satirical writing, does not qualify.. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be academic consensus that her attack on Warhol was because of his gender, that is not what is being claimed by membership in this category - we're not talking about putting The Shooting of Andy Warhol in the Category:Violence against men category, even though you keep on trying to turn the conversation to that. However, the FACT that she took shots at 3 men has solidified in some reliable sources that she was deadly serious in some of her ideas. Ironically, it was her shooting of Warhol that brought the manifesto to the fore; if she had never committed the crime, it may have remained as the ramblings of a crazy woman vs. the example-par-excellence of radical feminist calls for violence. The manifesto says what it says on the tin and not a lot of interpretation is needed, but those sources which have interpreted it either call it a satirical piece calling for violence against men or a radical polemic calling for violence against men, in either case a common theme is violence against men, based on their gender. Again, when a reliable source/encyclopedia like Sex and Society gives SCUM as an example of misandry and violence against men - the SOLE example - I think that's a pretty good case for inclusion. We should create Violence against men, I agree, I will propose it to the Wikiproject Mens' rights and Wikiproject Gender studies, it should be easy to source and build - but anyway that's beside the point.

"You also said earlier in this thread "If we had Category:Violence against men in fiction or Category:Satirical works about violence against men this would fit well there", so I'm struggling to see what exactly it is that you arguing, if you don't want every book that topically depicts violence against men or women included, and accept that this is satirical." - again, this is how categories work - topic categories start out rather broad, and then over time as more things get added you can split them into finer and finer slices. If we had a large number of books and manifestos promoting violence against men then such a category could be created, but until then since we don't have enough for a full category, we can put exemplary examples in the parent topic category.

Found another source which takes her manifesto seriously:

Exploring Feminism's Complex Relationship with Political Violence: An Analysis of the Weathermen, Radical Feminism and the New Left, Academic journal article By Churchill, Lindsey, Lilith: A Feminist History Journal , Vol. 16.

"In this chapter, I examine the ideas of “pro-self defense” feminists and discuss two strong examples of pro-violence feminists—Ti-Grace Atkinson and Valerie Solanas, author of the S.C.U.M (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto....Thus, it was no coincidence that Atkinson believed that Valerie Solanas’ infamous S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto, written in 1968, was obligatory reading. Atkinson and a few other radical feminists claimed Solanas’ philosophy of violence was the “essence of feminism” (Echols 105)."

Thus, as this source, and many others if you care to look - have shown - some radical feminists took the manifesto very seriously - even if they did not subscribe to wholesale gassing of men, the fact that the manifesto has been hailed as a groundbreaking work in radical feminism means that some of the concepts of violence against men were not just ha ha funny funny it's all just a big joke. Churchill's research illustrates this nicely, showing how other radical pro-violence feminists drew from Solanas' work. When an article that explores the underpinnings of violence in the radical feminist movement looks at Solanas and her manifesto as a case study, that is the very essence of WP:DEFINING, and thus a good argument to keep the category in place. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

None of them actually assaulted men though. None of Ti-Grace Atkinson's activism caused harm to men. It's possible for the book to be taken as a groundbreaking work of radical feminism and not taken at base value. Literature relies on different techniques to achieve it's purpose. Your argument just circles back to the original point about A Modest Proposal. Sure, people took the book seriously, but not as an indication that they should act out violence against men. There was no feminist genocide of men if I remember correctly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget what the author did. And, A Modest Proposal is a particularly bad example, as we find it categorized in... Category:Cannibalism_in_fiction, which is under Category:Cannibalism - if we had Category:Works about violence against men this book would go there, but since we don't, it goes in the parent. This is typical and standard here - as you get more articles you create more subcategories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't forget what the author did. I have talked about it repeatedly at length during this very conversation. If you just scroll up the page you can see me frequently talking about this very point. She did not shoot Warhol for gendered reasons, she shot him for personal reasons irrelevant to his gender. Stop arguing in circles --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Many RS don't agree with your interpretation of events.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What RS are these? I find it so consistently difficult to believe that you have read this book and think think it represents an insurgence of violence against the male gender, it reads like something out of Naked Lunch --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is actually any evidence of it inspiring any violence against men? We've argued back and forth about her motives for shooting Warhol but has anybody ever assaulted a man and argued that this book inspired it? It seems that most feminist readers who took something from the content did so considering its contents as metaphorical, rather than deciding to start being violent against men from it. That would be more defining than contextual readings of it (i.e. the idea that it's satirical berating of men and her shooting Warhol for personal reasons are respective of a conspiracy to induce violence against men) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking into this for a few days and I don't think any violence against the male gender actually occurred due to the publication of this book. There aren't many feminists who took it on base value and it seems the few that did didn't act out violently towards others. I don't really think there's a good consensus to include this book as an example of real violence against men. Were any men actually harmed by this text at all? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• To summarise: We have a book that may or may not be satirical, by a writer who shot a male artist for questionable motives. Whenever the possibly satirical nature of the writing is brought into question, the retort is that she shot Warhol, who was male. However, there is absolutely no evidence that the shooting itself is because of his gender. We also have no evidence of men being put through violence due to the book. If the book itself depicts violence against men, but not in a serious nature, should we include every war book in the category too? Or is there a consensus that this manifesto, that again, is seen as by many as satirical in its writing, is in its very writing causing violence against men? I highly doubt any men felt this text acted or caused violence against them. Even Warhol, in the decades after the event, talked about the shooting on a personal level, not as part of a conspiracy against his gender. I see the application of the shooting to the text being real violence against men is synthesis, as most sources discuss the two mostly for the interesting parallels, not real life evidence that she

1) planned out the shooting in the text

2) mentioned the text during or after the shooting in relation to it

3) at any point in her life linked the text to the shooting --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment: She herself linked the text to the shooting, according to this article. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

exactly - immediately after the shooting she told journalists to read her book and the explanation was within. In addition, it's quite hard to find a RS that doesn't mention the book in connection with the shooting - some people claim the shooting was some sort of act of theater - but all RS link the book to the shooting, even if the admit that the book itself is satirical.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Was this just before she was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic or afterwards? I believe it happened around the time of the trial --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of debate about Solanas's motives for shooting Warhol, but few people think she actually shot him because he was male. Solanas's own explanation, which is quite dubious, is that Warhol was part of some conspiracy (along with Maurice Girodias) to control her creative work. Most people, however, believe it was because Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic and/or wanted to be famous. See the interviews with Margo Feiden for example. Besides, if you wanted to shoot someone as a symbolic example of the male gender, I don't think you would choose the rather androgynous Andy Warhol. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also wary you can list this possibly satirical manifesto by a feminist writer alongside war crimes and say it possibly covers the same topics or are in any way related. This whole thing feels like the appropriation of a mostly unrelated article into a category that you are stewarding. I would suggest you link the article to radical feminism, and then write an article about the possibility of misandry in radical feminism. Then you could put that article into the Violence against men category whilst listing the SCUM manifesto as an example. It would involve less synthesis and make the currently weak category much stronger and more notable --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Furthermore, there has been some consensus to remove the category since 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SCUM_Manifesto&diff=486668284&oldid=486662296 (and following edits) Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is not an action against men, it's a document. One can "rape", "beat", "murder", etc., but one cannot "SCUM Manifesto". (Unless women are beating men with the document). If every document written which implied VAM, the template would take pages. It does not belong on the template. Jim1138 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) We're not talking about the template, we're talking about the category. (2) Topic categories are not the same as set categories - this is not a category of Category:Instances of violence against men; rather it is intended to collect articles on the SUBJECT or TOPIC of violence against men. Per this definition, this manifesto clearly fits, and I've demonstrated that several reliable sources also treat it as an important work on the question of radical feminist views on violence towards men. Slippery slope doesn't work here, as I'm not arguing for inclusion of all documents which imply VAM, although you should note that Category:Works about rape is in Category:Violence against women, so it may be entirely possible in the future to create a sub-category of Category:Works about violence against men, but pending the creation of that putting in the parent cat is entirely standard and reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem to be a notable example of Violence against men for the Category. None of the sources really fit that idea, that is, that it is an example of radical feminist views on real life violence against men. It isn't the same as a work that explores, say, real life sexual violence that men or women might face, because the work does not depict violence as it actually happens towards men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced that manifestos belong in this category. As Jim1138 said, a manifesto is not violence against men. Patricide is violence against men; the SCUM Manifesto is a text. Whether it is satirical or not is irrelevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support if... a) change from "men" to "males so includes boys; b) a lot more articles about violence specifically against males are added. Right now SCUM Manifesto is the only media related article included and should not be singled out like that. Not only articles like Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (currently under AfD, but I added category anyway) but also need adding are articles about sports, movies, frat house hazing, video games, males only in combat militaries, etc. where violence is done only and specifically to males. Those who want this article included must have dozens of other examples. Strenuous advocacy of violence against males for any purpose obviously belongs in this category; singling out one feminist satirical rant however is just sexist. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gray mass of text in the Reception_and_criticism section

The paragraph section of WP:BETTER States that Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus.

And the paragraph section of WP:BODY (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout) warns that overly long paragraphs can become hard to read.

I bring this up because upon coming to the Reception_and_criticism section of this article I was hit with an overwhelming TL;DR urge that I'm going to have to power thou. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it (hence why im reading it) so I'll leave the edits to someone with more experience.

Kyleshome (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Nick wrote that section a while back. Perhaps it could be broken up into some subtopics or organized in some fashion. Kaldari (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the mentions regarding utopianism could start it off, and then it could proceed to be broken into sections about gendered analysis - the reception regarding her treatment/opinion of men and treatment/opinion of women. Then proceed to continue with the other sections. Thoughts? Sarah (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am contesting the neutrality/ Impartiality of this article and its POV.

This article willfully refuses to provide reference to a number of strong and valid criticisms of the SCUM manifesto. It also deliberately evades a number of topics classically brought up with this book, and seeks to shade all impartial criticisms against it's philosophies as being the result of a diseased mind, rather than legitimate contentions that disagree with the subject matter. There is also a drastic lack of information as to the other, even more extreme works, that have emerged as a result of the publishing of the SCUM manifesto. It also fails, deliberately, to site the numerous criticisms of the position of critics who have claims that the book was satire. Even the tags and categorization of this page illustrate a massive bias based on the POV of one of its authors.

Cainchild (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has had many contributors - which "one of its authors" do you mean? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You somehow managed to list about a dozen "problems" without providing a single specific example. I would love to add all of that information to the article if you have any citations to offer. Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally. I know a lot of us, who are interested in Solanas' work and the influence it, would love to learn more about the content you are referring too in regards to criticisms as satire. Any help that can allow us to further the quality of this article would be great. I disagree about the POV issues, but, perhaps something is missing for me regarding that! Sarah (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, pretty much. I may be one of the authors (or editors) you mean. I did an organized search for a variety of materials and would like to have seen more of what you describe, but didn't find it. Possibly, that's because we generally can't cite blogs and other weak sources, so I didn't look for those. But if you're thinking of sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, please post them.

Under Wikipedia's standards, I can write my own analysis, but not in Wikipedia. Challengeable content generally must be sourced. Perhaps no one has published what you're thinking of.

I'm interested in knowing of other manifestoes inspired by hers; they probably existed but I don't know of one.

POV is banned only from the article. Editors and subjects can have POVs. What matters is the resulting article. So, if the subject is biased, the article is supposed to reflect that, encyclopedically, while including criticism, as this one does, all balanced for due weight.

I'm not clear which tags or categories, or absences thereof except one (on violence against men), you're contesting in your opening post. If you can be more specific, that would help.

Be careful about accusing. Perhaps many of us with the best of intentions simply missed what you've found in your research. We look forward to your reporting.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

While I do not necessarily agree that the authors of this article deliberately/willfully exclude strong and valid criticisms of the SCUM Manifesto here, I do agree that there aren't any real criticisms of the book in this reception/criticism section. All I see are content descriptions of the book from various published reviews without anyone challenging (criticizing) its substance. Surely there exists some legitimate critical reviews objecting to the controversial and radical content of this publication?

(The last post above was by RushRhees (talk) on December 30, 2013, at 11:17 p.m. & 11:28 p.m. U.T.C. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

I think the main reason there is a lack of serious criticism of SCUM Manifesto is due to the work's satirical nature. Yes, Solanas makes some serious points, but her proposed solutions are obviously ridiculous and over the top. Anyone who responds to her with serious criticism is missing the joke. Unfortunately, this article completely fails to convey Solanas's tone which falls somewhere in between Jello Biafra and Jon Stewart. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please supply sourcing. As explained above, I looked for that kind of content and didn't find more than what is in the article. A couple of other editors also solicited sourcing approximately in support of what you (RushRhees) requested, in response to the opening post. It hasn't come forth yet, but there's practically no time limit, so if you find sourcing, please add it or post about it here. If the desire is to find sourcing that specifically says something like "the manifesto was terrible" or that "it corrupted people's morals", there's no objection to that, provided it's sourced, but it may be that the authors of sources we found tended to be more specific about why they had the reactions they had, and that's often considered to be better writing. And it may be that lots of blogs and forum posts say what you want reported, but those are not generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia.

I'm not convinced that Solanas meant it as satire. Most jokesters don't mantain most jokes for many consecutive years, but she promoted the Manifesto for years, I think decades. I don't think she planned a committee beyond the one political meeting or organized either small-arms or bazooka practice, but lots of people have planned launches of rockets to Mars without being satirical but also without buying even one gallon of gasoline. If there's a source about tone that isn't in the article now, I don't remember seeing one. It's probably a widely-held view or probably was at the time of publication and early fame, but it may never have made its way into sources we can cite. Good luck toward finding one.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So when Solanas suggests that "SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: 'I am a turd, a lowly abject turd,'" you believe that she is completely serious and not trying to be satirical? Obviously, our opinions don't count for much as far as the article is concerned, but I don't think anyone would have ever taken SCUM Manifesto for anything other than political satire except for the fact that Solanas tried to kill Andy Warhol. Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference is between how a reader will understand it, since the reader will read it in a context with which the reader is familiar, and how the author intended it, since the author authored it in the context with which she was familiar. Perhaps she meant none of it, but there isn't much evidence of that possibility. I think you previously came up with some fragments that seem satirical (I forget where you quoted them but probably it was on a talk page, maybe this one), but if her intent is under examination then probably evidence from her but outside of the Manifesto is what's needed. Perhaps you can collect all of these fragments and publish an off-Wikimedia article giving an analysis such as you suggest and then, within COI policy, propose adding that content into this article. We've cited some secondary-source analyses that together have mixed views on whether the Manifesto was satirical; it's certainly not unanimous. If some men were frightened of her, and probably some were (some were of Andrea Dworkin who, at least for a long time, did not publicly propose killing men as a class except for rapists), those men, at least, could hardly think Solanas was merely satirizing, although, of course, the men could have been afraid only in error. I'm not sure we should treat the shooting as an exception since it wasn't a secret that she did it, she more or less said so publicly at the time, she or Laura Winkiel (cited in the Manifesto article) referred people to the Manifesto for an understanding, and Winkiel argued for connecting the shooting to the Manifesto, although the referring by Winkiel and the argument were approximately two to three decades later; so we've never had much of a period of time in which her work was well known but the possibility of a connection to the shooting was not known (as might be the case if she had done it without the police figuring out whodunit). And, while the Manifesto was known to a fairly substantial cross-section of feminists and nonfeminists, it held a particular appeal for radical feminists and probably quite a few of them did take it seriously (cf. Cell 16), albeit without planning the most notorious of the specific actions called for in it. So a view that it was satirical was not unanimous and the view that it was serious was not fringe. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think your overall assessment is pretty accurate regarding the sources. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it now, but I read a pretty convincing argument that the Warhol shooting had little or nothing to do with SCUM Manifesto, except that both of them were connected to Solanas's obsession with becoming a famous writer. In particular, if Solanas wanted to start a revolution against the patriarchy, shooting the relatively shy and androgynous Warhol would have been the least sensible place to start. Of course, people read into SCUM Manifesto what they want to, and I'm sure Solanas would be pleased as punch if 99% of the world took SCUM Manifesto to be dead serious. Personally though, I think she was far more interested in attacking her perceived "persecutors" and being recognized as a writer than starting a revolution. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You might be referring to the Margo Feiden story about Solanas trying to get her play produced, which Solanas apparently thought was likelier if she shot Warhol, which she was on her way to do, according to a nondefinitive account. Whatever her motive, whether Warhol was the one who if shot would be the best choice for starting a revolution may be a function of her knowing him and his accessibility, rather than a matter of going through a list. Her intended way of contributing to what the Manifesto called for may have been by writing, and there's no conflict between being a revolutionary and being a writer. And she does seem later to have gone off on a tangent in a way that undermined her credibility, in a Village Voice interview, but not all people with ambitious aspirations act consistently in ways that achieve those aspirations, even though they aspire as before; maybe the barriers were too tough (which is usually a good thing and her particular revolution was not the best idea ever heard). But her points were read and maybe in the radical feminist movement that was the more important achievement. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Friedan opposing Manifesto in feminism

I restored to the lead that Friedan opposed the Manifesto in feminism, because that is based on the article's body, in which the subsection Women and Shooting says "Friedan opposed the Manifesto as bad for the feminist movement and NOW", with a source, which included a page, where it says this: "Ti-Grace Atkinson, Friedan's colleague and the president of the New York chapter of Friedan's NOW, embraced Solanas as a heroine of the movement. But Friedan herself was not at all sympathetic to Solanas's plight. When Flo Kennedy, a black civil rights lawyer and prominent NOW member, agreed to be Solanas's attorney in the trial, Friedan grew irate. She cared deeply about maintaining the movement's public image as respectable and legitimate and feared that this militant, 'man-hating' stance would taint the public's perception of feminism—and of NOW.² To Friedan, Solanas's action was worse than criminal; it was bad publicity." Note 2 is not relevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we get "Betty Friedan opposing the Manifesto in feminism" from that. I couldn't find a source anywhere in which Friedan actually talks about the manifesto, rather than Solanas. Our current wording makes it sound like Friedan opposed the manifesto specifically, which we don't have any evidence of. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What Friedan knew about regarding the stance was the Manifesto, so that was what she was responding to. The shooting would have conveyed nothing about it except insofar as Solanas referred the public to the Manifesto for her reasoning or cause. In "It Changed My Lifer" (pbk., 1998), p. 138, Friedan wrote, "[I]n 1968 a woman named Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol in the guts, though she aimed lower, and was hailed as a 'heroine' of the feminist movement by Ti-Grace Atkinson, then president of New York NOW, who also smuggled her 'SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto' out of the mental hospital where Solanas was confined. [paragraph break] No action of the board of New York NOW, of national NOW, no policy ever voted by the members advocated the shooting of men in the balls, the elimination of men as proposed by that SCUM Manifesto!" While Friedan also effectively opposed Solanas, and that overlaps, that's a separate matter. I've added the Friedan citation to the article for the statement (it was already earlier in the article). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) (Corrected missing opening quotation mark: 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

Our wording is still problematic. For example, why is this the only opinion from the entire Influence section that we mention in the lead? Also, we should make it clear that she was speaking in relation to NOW, not all of feminism. Unless a more balanced overview of opinions can be presented in the lead, this one opinion seems out of place there. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If more should be added to the lead from other sources, go ahead; I think Friedan is probably archetypical because of her leadership prominence (both organizationally and as a high-selling author), her effectively being a spokesperson for the entire movement to the press (unless someone sought out a radical or contrary view) (so was Gloria Steinem but I don't remember her addressing the Manifesto), Friedan's clarity on this point, her disagreement with (criticism of) the Manifesto (the disagreement/criticism would have been a mainstream view, while agreement would have been radical and minority), and that she published her view in one of her own books, probably somewhat contemporaneously, but specifically decades later and therefore as still at least somewhat important; whereas I don't think she addressed Cell 16 by name. And, as I read the cited Sisterhood, Interrupted source, Friedan was concerned about the effect not only on NOW but on the movement as a whole (she probably saw NOW as so much the leading organization in the movement that the organization and the movement substantially interacted, so that, to her, what was outwardly bad for one was probably bad for the other). The lead is rather concise and thus selective and the lead's Friedan statement balances the statement of the Manifesto as influencing feminism, but feel free to add other commentators to it. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting and expanding this part of the lead to give a bit more context. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is fine. Responding to the earlier version of your last post: Notoriety is probably usually seen as 'infamy' but often is just 'fame' and influentiality is neutral; perhaps notoriety was a bad choice and well-known would have been better. The lead didn't go into depth but where to draw the line is a judgment call. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

critic, curator, relationship, work, and sourcing

I think "attempted to murder Andy Warhol (with whom she had a relationship and done creative work together) and art critic and curator Mario Amaya by shooting them at Warhol's studio" is correct (other than that I don't remember the critic's name and whether he was also a curator and maybe those parts are true, too) but it was not supported by the source at that location in the article and I don't recall what source or sources support it, so I'm marking it as needing a citation to avoid confusion with the parts of the sentence that are sourced. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SPLC material

The SCUM manifesto was mentioned in the SPLC intelligence reports on hate. The article is the voice of the SPLC not Goldwag, although authored by him. The issue has been discussed on RSN [12]. The material should be replaced. CSDarrow (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC did not say ' that "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles" that deny they advocate cutting up men "unless they deserve it"'. The SPLC said "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." and then quoted a blog tag-line. You're falsely attributing the statement that the feminist circles in which the manifesto is read approving of cutting up men to the SPLC here. Furthermore the RSN discussion only seems to say that this material is inclusable in articles when attributed to the SPLC. It doesn't address the appropriacy of its inclusion here. The SPLC's opinion on the SCUM manifesto seems irrelevant and including it at such length strikes me as undue weight. Who cares what they think about it or about Solanas? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not wishing to get into an edit war, but the SPLC is considered a highly respected source used by both Academics and Law enforcement. The opinion of the SPLC is of note on this matter, although you may not, others do care what they think. Wikipedia includes all significant views and I'd say this view is significant. All sources should be looked at on a case by case basis, I see nothing disqualifying this one. The opinions expressed by uninvolved editors in RSN are unanimously that attributed articles are speaking for the SPLC, unless indicated otherwise. CSDarrow (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is certainly a reliable source as far as I'm concerned. That has nothing to do with why I think that the material you added should not be included in this article. First of all you seriously misrepresented what that source says. Secondly, the source you cited the passage to mentions the SCUM manifesto only tangentially as part of making some other point, which makes me think that including their tangential opinion is giving undue weight to it in the context of this article. Do you not see how you misrepresented what the source said? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure we can work on the wording. CSDarrow (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The wording is the less important of the issues. The fact is that in the larger scheme of things no one cares what the SPLC has to say about the SCUM manifesto if they're just using it as a minor example in one paragraph of an article about something else entirely. Why don't we talk about the undue weight issue first and worry about the wording later if there's any consensus to include the SPLC's opinion here. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. An opinion is an opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's wait and see what others think, then. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, in the mean time I'll mull this one over. CSDarrow (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What SPLC said for itself would certainly be worthy of weight but it offers very limited opinion of its own or Goldwag's about the Manifesto or Solanas. SPLC cites RadFem Hub but that source does not seem to be worthy of weight given that much weightier sources are available and cited; I didn't dig deeply into Google results but Google News had nothing and EbscoHost (one library gets 30 of its databases) had nothing, nor did JStor. SPLC also received a letter but SPLC didn't endorse the letter as its own view, and the blog posts by other commenters on the SPLC page are no more usable here than the letter is. The Feminazis group also does not seem deserving of weight, although I did not dig as deeply, not wanting to have to trace everything that would probably be other than about the group, but it's not in Wikipedia. What SPLC says for itself is this: "Solanas was the undeniably disturbed woman who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. 'Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women,' her manifesto began, 'there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.' [paragraph break] "SCUM stands for 'Society for Cutting Up Men,' and it is true that Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." In addition, Goldwag asked someone what they thought of the Manifesto; the asking is not in itself reportable in Wikipedia and the reply was not clearly used by SPLC to make its own point and does not have due weight for reporting in Wikipedia. The parts about Solanas being a woman, the shooting, and the acronym are better covered already and the SPLC statements on those add nothing nontrivial. The quotation is not useful since a quotation is already in the Wikipedia article, one that's more accurate relative to her manuscript. That leaves two parts of what SPLC said as probably reportable in Wikipedia: that in Goldwag's or SPLC's view Solanas was "undeniably disturbed" and that, in Goldwag's or SPLC's view, "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." I note that while "disturbed" might well have been meant in a psychological sense it certainly didn't have to be; if someone bonks me on the head from behind and I turn around to see who did it that's because I was "undeniably disturbed" by said bonking and bonker. Further, I don't think the SPLC statement needs its own paragraph or that the two parts should be together just because they came from one source. One part should go into the Solanas article, if it's not there now; and I should take a look shortly. The other should be included within an existng paragraph in this article, so I did. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Valerie Solanas article and I changed my mind. The SPLC statement is too thin on point to add anything since psychiatric issues are already discussed there in more depth and Goldwag's statement adds nothing (not even for an imprimatur) for either meaning of "disturbed". Nick Levinson (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What you added just now is fine with me. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the SPLC intelligence report was written by Goldwag who is a journalist and is not employed by the SPLC. Therefore, CSDarrow's claim that it is the voice of SPLC is in error. Goldwag does not speak for the SPLC in any way, regardless of what CSDarrow or anyone else thinks. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I support Nick's neutrally worded addition. CSDarrow's version is blatant anti-feminist POV pushing (as well as misrepresentation of the sources). Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to determine Goldwag's relationship with SPLC. I doubt he's just someone who started a blog as if SPLC's was a blogging website open to virtually anyone. While bottom-of-page posts are probably by almost anyone, his stuff appears in the upper part, so it's likelier SPLC thought about his work and decided that there was more compatibility than for bottom-of-page posters. I tried to research the connection through Google and Goldwag's website (hosted at WordPress), I may well have missed something, I didn't check library databases or newspapers, and I limited my research to a quick search, but I couldn't establish more than what I can see at the SPLC website, which does not offer a biography of him and does not list him among Senior Program Staff. So his status seems to be in between: probably not a staffer but probably not just anyone in SPLC's eyes. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Book cover.

There are editions of this book with the abbreviation written out as a sub-title, why don't we use that cover, and remove the bullshit about it being satire? she was blatant about what it stood for, and everyone that hides that truth is merely white washing feminism's history. Wikipedia is about publishing the truth, not editing everything to make your group seem cool. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there still people who think that Solanas was taken seriously? Most of the modern interest in the book is either due to the novelty of its extremism or to use it as a case for antifeminism --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebritches57: You clearly haven't read the book. Regardless of what SCUM stood for, the book gleefully describes using extreme violence against men and encouraging men to accept their fate for the good of humanity. I don't think anyone's trying to whitewash that. Certainly Valerie Solanas wasn't. Either way, I wouldn't mind trimming some of the discussion of the acronym issue, as it seems a bit UNDUE (and pointless). Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh noez did I offend the uhpressed majority with my muhsojiny? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bumblebritches57: No one was accusing you of misogyny. I was accusing you of not knowing what you're talking about. Trying to whitewash SCUM Manifesto as non-violent would make about as much sense as trying to whitewash World War II as a tea party. The book cover we're using has a knife on it for christsake. What else do you want? Should I Photoshop some fake bloodstains on it? Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your time arguing with him, you are right that he doesn't know what he is talking about --80.193.191.143 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We cover the manifesto partly as satire because there was a discussion somewhere with one line of argument being to the effect that it was pretty much only satire and another being to the effect that she meant it. We resolved this by reporting what sources say, and they say various things, so we report the various things they say. While "SCUM" has been posited as an abbreviation, Solanas' views were variant and we report according to sourcing, not limited to the choice of book cover. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

missing a quote mark

A quotation mark is missing. Since I assume someone has the recently-added source relatively handy and I don't (I think it's on microfilm and I'm short of time for library research), could someone please add the missing closing quote mark? It belongs in the subsection on SCUM as acronym, in the first paragraph, in the sentence beginning with "Additionally". Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

characterizing the Manifesto in the lead

I essentially restored content to the lead. The biases are those of the authors of the sources, not of Wikipedia's article, which is what Wikipedia's NPOV policy is about. Sources' biases are not able to violate NPOV; in other words, if sources are biased and the article reports them neutrally, the article may report the biases and thereby be neutral. We can report sources' biases, if that's what they are. We can summarize the characterizations of the Manifesto from the body into the lead and leave the sourcing to the body, which we have done. That there are intense reactions to the Manifesto is hugely important to its reception and its history and therefore they belong in the lead. As the guideline on leads says, "[t]he lead .... should ... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Leads can include controversial content; the main limit on controversial content is under the BLP policy, which does not apply to the Manifesto's author, Solanas, since she died. If there's any desire to delete the characterizations from the lead, please discuss here. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a list truly the best way to achieve this? Surely it would make sense to say something in the manner of "it generated a range of reactions due to its controversy" and list them elsewhere in the article. The list contains over twenty different things (that it is: "utopian, feminist, pre-feminist, crusading, and a call to act; accurate, symbolic, irreverent, funny, outrageous, and extreme; parodic and satiric but not a put-on; witty, shocking, and articulative of rage; nonviolent, a suggestion for retraining of men, a declaration that men would be killed, and a charter for violence; and misandric; and that it sought a women-only world and that it wouldn't be necessary to kill men") which it has been categorised as but I wouldn't for example, consider that more than one person has referred to it as "pre-feminist" or "satiric but not a put-on". Furthermore, it is strange that misandric is the only one of these concepts with a WikiLink. This shouldn't be removed without discussion, but I might go through and WikiLink them all, as none is more notable than the others --80.193.191.143 (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking is conceptually agreeable, athough some of them seem to be overlinks, equality of notability is not a crterion for linking (notability is for the subject of an entire article, not every fact in it, the latter coming within the principle of due weight), and if the same links appear in the body that's usually acceptable in lieu of linking in the lead. Reciting the reactions in sentence form seems more to the point than simply saying that the Manifesto is controversial; I think the proposed language is too vague, considering how easy it is to state the reactions concisely for the lead. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's more to the point? It takes up quite a large section of the lede, it would be better to expand the list with direct quotations at each level. As I said, I doubt some of these reactions were made more than once, there isn't that much written on the book. It creates a false sense of the books relevance to list them here. It would make more sense expanded, saying who said what, than listed in this manner. I get what you said about overlinking, it's hard to say what of the list is worth doing so. Leaving a WikiLink at just misandrist reaks of WP:POINT --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would favor trimming this section of the lead and possibly moving some of it elsewhere in the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would allow for us to go into more detail as to what these descriptions mean, as well as who said them and in what context --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of the body is a fine idea and is not impeded by whatever is or is not in the lead. The lead is a summary of the body, not a constraint on the body. I'm not sure how to trim that part of the lead, since it's not like we have nine sources saying the same thing, and since there has been controversy among Wikipedia's editors about the reaction to the Manifesto it's better to indicate those reactions, especially since one source has one reaction and another source has another. As to how bulky is the collection of reactions within the lead, by a line count with a zoomed-in display, it's about a quarter to a third of the lead; that may seem like a lot, but we're talking about the reaction to the subject of the article, so I don't think it's proportionately excessive. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

whether she meant it

Judgments on whether the Manifesto was a parody/satire or its author meant it to be serious vary. We report per sources and leave it at that. Following up on prior debating on the point, I note a recent radio story about a singer (someone else). Her father refused to finance lessons but that didn't stop her devotion, efforts, years of practice, spending of inherited funds, and asking friends to vote on whether she was better than some well-known recording artists in opera style. She got a gig, then moved into larger venues, culminating in her 1944 Carnegie Hall debut. A N.Y. Post reviewer said she can sing anything "except notes". One audience member was so overwhelmed by her own laughter she was carried out. There may not have been much booing, or any. People cheered the singer. She died a month later, but her record was reissued back then and I think it's downloadable now. The radio story (WNYC, August, 2014) added a possibility that she was just doing a "put-on", but I don't think that was attributed to anyone. It appears that such a claim is easily invented and almost as easily can spread as if true. Of course, it could be true, but with evidence against it and none for it (to say that if she was serious she was hilariously incompetent and therefore she must not have been serious is to assume she had to agree with the audiences' judgments) that claim should not be credible for the singer. As to Solanas, given her own statements, the similar pro-parody/-satire claims should be credited only insofar as attributed and sourced, as we've done so far. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the question as to whether the Manifesto was satire or meant to be taken seriously is a false dilemma. Both are true. All of Solanas's writing, from her college letters to the editor to SCUM Manifesto are clearly written with a hefty dose of sarcasm, hyperbole, and humor. At the same time, they all reflect deeply-held, serious criticisms of (and rage towards) the patriarchal society that Solanas lived in. Did Solanas hate men? Yes. Did she actually want to eliminate the entire male gender? Doubtful. Did Solanas want people to think that she wanted to eliminate the entire male gender? Sure, as long as it brought more attention to her writing. Regardless, we report what the source state (as you mention), and leave it at that. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

reading different Manifesto editions for this article's content

Responding to the Edit Summary for [13], relatively few of us have the edition cited in the article as self-published by Solanas (and content must be supported by the specific item cited as its source); most owners have subsequent editions, at least some of which have been edited in various ways before publication, and Solanas did not approve all of those changes. My copy is not handy at the moment, so I can't check it now. Probably the cited source was not mischaracterized, but whether the less-specific edit now in the article is better is a different question. I think being more specific is better. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dailyshampoo48: Whether or not our lead sentence is a "mischaracterization" depends entirely on whether you are reading it literally or satirically. As Solanas' modus operandi is to mix hyperbolic satire with serious criticism, it's difficult to objectively describe her writing. Personally, I think it's important for us to not whitewash the extremism of the manifesto, as this is largely the basis for the work's fame (or infamy). At the same time, however, we can cite various commentators (and some of Solanas's more serious statements) to offer an explanation of Solanas' underlying motives (which are closer to your wording). As Avatal Ronell writes, "One cannot deny the pernicious soundtrack that Solanas lays down in her text – on every interpretable level there are indexes of rage, murderous intention, finality and telic purpose. There was androphobic noise at every turn. At the same time there is evidence of other sound tracks that run interference with the dominant tones and semantic registers of the text's purported meaning." Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kaldari:, to not realize that Solaras was abusing hyperbole would be to misread the essay. the original summary seems more characteristic of a contributor who was offended by the objectionable content, rather than a genuine attempt to describe the work as a whole. I think we can find a summary which better conveys her intent.

@NickLevinson:, here's my source: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm. I think summaries are by definition somewhat vague. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That source presents an edition that Solanas criticized as not accurate for what she wrote. To represent her content we should use either secondary sources or her original self-published text, and the original is what was cited. Besides, we can't link to, or cite, that source if, as it appears to be, it is infringing a copyright.

Responding to: "to not realize that Solaras was abusing hyperbole would be to misread the essay": We reflect sources; we don’t do original research. If we edit the article to represent the Manifesto only as an abuse of hyperbole, that would be original research.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be terribly difficult to find sources to back up my position; a bit further down I argue that feminist treatises have a long legacy of abusing hyperbole. if you think the article needs more research, I'd be happy to provide it. however it seems a bit arbitrary to choose one source over another when we consider that Solanas liked to exaggerate for effect. not to say that she was intrinsically unreliable, but rather that she could be purposefully misleading. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dailyshampoo48: I tried to improve it somewhat. Let me know if you have any suggestions for changing it further. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@NickLevinson: From everything I've read, it seems the main person that has argued against SCUM Manifesto being satirical is Solanas herself. Considering her state of mind at the time (she had just shot two people) and her conflicting statements on the matter, I don't think she's a very reliable source, ironically. The Daily News source is also problematic as it's just a tabloid article, not a serious analysis of the work. Do you know of any serious claims that SCUM Manifesto is not satirical besides from Solanas herself? I know there are lots of sources that say the Manifesto is "revolutionary" or "violent", etc, but that doesn't preclude it from also using satire. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some call it satire/parody but some don't characterize at all on that axis while treating it as a serious call or statement. Considering how most literary analysts analyze most well-known works, silence on whether a work is satire/parody is not to be taken as agreement with other analysts that it is. It's too easy to project a dismissable intent onto a fringe work; we should do so only insofar as sources do, and not all do. So opinion is treatable as implicitly divided (of course, we would not say that the critics who don't take an explicit view one way therefore take the opposite view unless they do). Nick Levinson (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true. It seems some sources are silent on the matter, or only hint that it is satire. (For example, Winkiel referring to it as "fantasy".) If you find any reliable sources that explicitly argue that it isn't satire, that would be interesting to add though. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find such sources back when I did the research other than whatever I added to the article, or I'd have added it/them, but it's been a while since I did that research. The invitation to find such sources is extended to anyone. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I really like what you did; I was just about to mention something about the leading paragraphs being virtually unreadable; it reads clearly now.

I'm not sure that "satirical" is the right word; "hyperbolic" might be more to the point. I've done a cursory reading of feminist works, and this technique is not unusual; Simone de Beauvoir especially liked to overstate for effect, although perhaps her academic training kept her somewhat more in check. you see this in the feminist blogosphere as well. nevertheless, I think it's obvious that Solanas was primarily concerned with garnering attention, and less with trying to produce a serious, academic work. a good analogy being the UK punk movement which followed just a few years later (as far as I know, johnny rotten's gone 60 years without destroying any passerby). Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Political discourse and other binary discourse (discourse in which there are essentially only two parties and only one is right and the other must be wrong or vice versa) often gets hyperbolic and, depending on viewpoint, abusively hyperbolic, and that includes feminist discourse intended for political organizing. I don't think there'd be difficulty finding reliable sources about that, but I didn't see a source on the Manifesto to that effect, which is what would be needed for this article. Maybe it's out there, though, and you can find it and add it.

The sources I saw discussed parody, satire, or other qualities. I don't recall any discussing hyperbole. Maybe one did and I've forgotten, but I doubt it, because I think I'd have cited or quoted it. Without sourcing, we probably can't put hyperbolism into the article without it being original research.

Viewpoint is relevant to whether hyperbole is to be found, especially to whether abusive hyperbole is to be found. If one person says a practice is sexist and another says it's absolutely not, whether either person is being hyperbolic or abusively so is likely a matter of viewpoint influenced by, inter alia, experiential difference. Sourcing becomes necessary.

I agree that the Manifesto is not an academic work (e.g., building a case on other scholars' work with attributions) but it is a serious work, even if satirical, hyperbolic, or a parody, so I would dispute applying the single phrase "serious, academic" to the work with a denial. Again, whether I'm right or wrong is mostly irrelevant; what matters is what sourcing says.

I'm not sure what's meant by "however it seems a bit arbitrary to choose one source over another". I reported all sources pro and con that qualified for the article, that I found, and that weren't redundant. If "one source over another" refers to Solanas' self-published edition vs. the edition I said might be infringing copyright and that she had criticized as inaccurately representing her work, that wasn't arbitrary. Between those two, the self-published is more authoritative and Wikipedia doesn't and can't support copyright infringement (not a problem if we summarize except even then we can’t cite an infringing source but may cite a hardcopy source).

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Faso and Lee

I see the point but still disagree on entirely deleting the content based on the Daily News reporters, since they appeared to have interviewed other people (see the other citation to the reporters) contemporaneously with when the Manifesto was making the news. The News is and was a tabloid but it is not like the modern N.Y. Post in its reliability. Perhaps the content should be moved or clarified, though, to indicate that it is based on journalism and not being presented as being by critics or scholars, as the sentence preceding the deleted content implied. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to readd it to the article with better context, I'm fine with that. It probably shouldn't be the first thing listed in the 'Reception and criticism' section though. Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1