hmmm

Ok...so reading this piece basically proved everything i've been telling my morehouse friends wrong. Since the start of my education at Spelman College, I have been reassuring my male friends that classes like ADW and women studies did not "male bash." How am I supposed to combat these topics with pieces like these? Although I feel conflicted. I thought that the purpose of being pro-feminist was to embrace the idea of the reeducation of history, and to allow for the perception of an idea that contrasted the "male norm." If this definition is held true, then I really do not know how to interpret this piece. Am I supposed to take this with a grain of salt? Or am I supposed to think of this as some woman who has been through or seen some horrible experiences with men, and this is why she feels this way. Or maybe because I've been socialized to think that?..lol..somebody please help me out. One of the examples of this was “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.” I mean, I can understand "reeducation," but elimination entirely? I understand that we all were raised and live in a male driven society, but does that mean we have to go to the exact extremes of feminism or nothing?

I was completely thrown off when she said, “SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking up, and killing until the money-work system…” Is her way of changing the names males have like the devaule women in rap songs? Or is she just trying to be spiteful? I think that maybe it is to throw back what they do to women on men. I think that she supports this when she says to “encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.” One thing I wanted to bring up was if men were supposed to be beneath women?..or is she saying we should lower their standings to make up for what they have done to women? My response is that I don't think we can fight fire with fire..

The Myth of the Vaginal Organism

It amazes me how so many lies about the female body have been created as a means to strip women of the sexual power and rigor that we possess. This article clearly articulated the fact that it is not the vagina that is the part of the woman which causes pleasure. In understanding the parts of the female reproductive system, I clearly understand why Female Genital Mutilation occurs. In some degrees of FGM, both the labia majora and the labia minora are entirely mutilated, in addition to the clitoris. Then of course the vagina is preserved mainly because it is vital for reproduction-because "after all that is exactly what we as women are meant to be here for, right?" The control of a woman's sexuality is definitely the control of women and our existence as human beings. In Dr. Lisa Farrington's Issues in Women's Art Class, one can find evidence of men's long history to mutilate a woman, by only showing her breasts, or other sexual parts. It is absolutely disgusting. Frankly, I feel that men are afraid of our sexuality because they can not understand it. So in most cases, you fear what it is that you do not understand. However, the main reason for the degradation of our sexuality is for male control. If a woman is confident in her sexuality, she is described as a whore. A man can celebrate his sexuality, and he is described as a real man.

True SCUM indeed!!

Valerie Solanas is a brutal but honest writer. I must admit i was taken by surprise by these forceful words but i can see why it makes sense. The constant envy of the female identity has shown how sexuality is taken just by force in a male patriarchal society. Women are always shown to be inferior only to make men superior. However, if there is a social group that seems to be smarter, stronger, and flat out better beyond their knowledge wouldn't the only way to conquer them be to convince them that they are below average and un-orthadox? When dealing with the dichotomies of sexuality i see as more of a colonization of the sexes. With technology increasing every day we are beginning to need men or "masculine labor" more and more these days. Considering sperm banks, factories with machines, and soon coming robots maybe women will just call men for sexual pleasure. 

However, based on the Ann Koedt  men aren't even capable to sexually satisfy women completely. I think the worst part about is that men have either know idea of the massive impact the clitoris has on sexual satisfaction or just choose to ignore it, or both considering the gender. I felt that the article " The Myth of the Vaginal," gives a lot of justification for sexual exploration as well as reminding me of those that are intersexed. In relation to the clitoris and all the information of why it is so necessary i can only image how those that experienced corrective surgery on their clitoris. On the contrary  i image that i can't be to different from a women with "normal" genitalia. I say this because if sexual pleasure is hardly felt from women with "normal" genitalia, due to the primary focus on male satisfaction, then are those with out a "normal" clitoris really experiencing anything different. It could be sen as a "grass is greener" point of view but i felt that both of these articles took many controversial myths and sexual assumptions and made them not only parallel but put them into a different perspective for me!    

...The Whole World Blind

After reading Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto, I, like my fellow classmates, wondered what happened in her life to make her hate men with such passion. Either way, I honestly enjoyed the article. I appreciate her desire to re-create the entire system rather than try to carve a niche for women within in. It reminded me of a discussion I had in an English class regarding feminism where we discussed its 3 phases. We decided the first phase focused on women becoming equal to men, the second chose to embrace the feminine by focusing on the differences that are unique to women, and the third phase (current phase) was about de-construction. In other words, the feminists of today are interested in de-constructing society's ideas of gender and sexuality to create more a more fluid, and inclusive society.

In reading SCUM Manifesto, Solanas clearly wants to de-construct society in its entirety and re-create a new society solely for women. However, in doing so, she is simply switching places with men by attempting to create a society they have no place in. What does she solve in living life believing "an eye for an eye." According to Ghandi, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." In other words, although she believes her new society made for and by women will be beneficial, is she any better than the current rule makers of society who exclude women?

Sexuality taken by FORCE!!!

The SCUM Manifesto article by Valerie Solanas, describes a league of women called Scum. One of the duties of SCUM women is to organize and unite to leave the workforce in order to cripple the economy. SCUM’s goal is to mess up the government and economy by looting, killing, and destroying work productivity as well as men. The enemy is described as men, the economy, and money. Solanas describes the women’s force as so powerful that “the police force, National Guard, Army, Navy, and Marines combined couldn’ t squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it’s made up of people they are utterly helpless without”(172). In the article, Solanas encourages women to leave men and their jobs so that there the economy and nation will suffer from the mass withdrawal of women. I enjoyed the part where she explained that men really want women to control them which characterize them as MAMA’s Boys! I also liked the rhythm in the article as well. She suggests that there are women who are “Daddy’s Girls” who are submissive to men and do not acknowledge men for who they really are. SCUM will strip men of their money, which is the power that they have over some women. My impression of SCUM is that they are very violent and non-tolerant. As I was reading the article, I wanted to know how it relates to sexuality. I came to the conclusion that after SCUM take over, all men will become submissive which will give women power over their sexuality. I also have the question of whether Solanas is a Marxist Feminist theorist? I also wanted to know if she was suggesting that all women will become lesbians after men lose their power? Will their sexual orientation change because women rule the society?


The very title of the article "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" explains the author, Adrienne Rich’s thesis which seeks to prove that historically women have been socialized into the concept in being attracted to men. Rich uses Kathleen Gough ‘s essay “The Origin of the Family”, as her framework to theorize how men control and enforce heterosexuality on women. Rich uses the terms, lesbian existence and lesbian continuum, instead of lesbianism to remove the society’s taboo of lesbians. She explains that lesbians make a political statement that denies men and their power over women’s sexuality. I agree with Rich’s comment which states that historical records about the lesbian existence in letters and memorabilia has been destroyed (306). Rich mentions that the bond between women as friendship, comradeship, and erotic. I do not agree with her statement because there has neverbeen an erotic bond with my experiences with women. I believe she generalizes an infant suckling at her mother’s breast as sexual or erotic (306). This article can also explain why some women have a lesbian experience in life. I also disagree with her contention which states that women marry men for financial stability on the account that many women have their own successful jobs and careers. Overall, I would have liked Rich to explain why women in general are attracted to men without men's force of heterosexuality?

The Myth

This article is quite interesting as it emphasizes the "serviceable" woman. It highlights the institutionalized sexism that our society has come to accept. The lack of evidence in the anatomical study of women and regard for their pleasure baffles me as we approach this century of enlightenment, accessibility to facts and evidence, developed technology, etc. I have had this conversation with many of my friends and they too "suffer" from this notion of "frigidity." Many of them told me that they feel like they are less than or somehow undergoing internal turmoil because of their inability to respond to the sex dominated by their mates. I think that they have grown too comfortable with blaming themselves if they do not have an orgasm and leave it at that without really dissecting the "issue." Maintaining this myth is quite convenient for the man's ego. The categories that supplement this notion prove the tone, Sexual penetration is preferred, the invisible woman, the penis as epitome of masculinity, etc. Aside from the male-dominated aspect of the women's orgasm, heteronormativity is also prioritized. Research for women's orgasm "problems" have only been measured when engaged with men as if that is the sole expression of their sexuality. This indeed shows the true intention of this research as it only serves the man's pleasure. If this research were truly intended to better sexual encounters for all and to analyze the psychosis of women for women, the factors would be expanded beyond the framework of heterosexuality. Confusion bombard our mentalities and has systematically inclined us to deceive men to not only boost their confidence out obligation but it also dismisses our need for pleasure and visibility as well (much like the tradition practiced since the biblical era). The silence must be broken (or noticed when having sex) to enable communication between partners and deconstruct the idea that women are merely appendages to their male counterparts. The confusion stimulated from this issue proves that we must define our own issues for ourselves in an attempt to get in touch with and celebrate our own sexuality so that we may be sexually liberated prioritizing us.

Men control womens' lives to avoid emasculation

The common thread between the article titled “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” by Anne Koedt and the article titled “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich is the control of women. In Koedt’s article, she discusses the control of women’s sexuality through the myth of vaginal orgasms. She presents inarguable evidence, which even people in our own class might support, rejecting the existence of a vaginal orgasm. Koedt states that, “women have thus been defined sexually in terms of what pleases men” (228). This means that if men are responsible for or have more control of female sexuality, then whatever aspect of female sexuality that pleases them (the vagina in this case) will obviously be the center of focus. Men get no pleasure out of stimulating the clitoris, which contains more nerve endings then the vagina, therefore it is not of any importance. Koedt even presents a counterargument that sides with men, who may argue that they did not know the clitoris provided a lot of pleasure. She then points out that men stimulate the clitoris during foreplay only to “produce the necessary lubrication for penetration” (229). Once again, womens’ sexuality is defined by what pleases men.

She presents six main reasons why men maintain the myth of vaginal orgasms and two of these reason stood out to men: “the penis as epitome of masculinity” and “sexually expendable men.” The commonality between these two reasons is that they produce fear in men who then seek to control female sexuality to avoid their own emasculation. The clitoris is often seen as a miniature version of the penis and that does not resonate well with people who use physical differences as a way to maintain inequality. Because the clitoris is seemed as a masculine feature (231), it is ignored because “mean fear the clitoris as a threat to their masculinity” (231). A women who is masculine is almost never attractive to a masculine man because he won’t feel man enough to be with her. Another idea to consider is the “sexually expendable men.” The belief behind this idea is that if women desire clitoral stimulation over vaginal stimulation, men will not be needed any more, for sexual purposes at least. This leads once again to the belief that men only focus on things that bring them pleasure. It does not even matter if women don’t enjoy vaginal penetration equally, they only “want to get theirs.” The two ideas previously discussed maintain the belief that men only use the myth of vaginal orgasm to control women for their own sexual pleasure.

In Adrienne Rich’s article, she discussed compulsory heterosexuality. Her article analyzes the institutions that use heterosexuality to control women, socially and economically. She pretty much argues that women never really liked men because they “deny women [their own] sexuality … or force it upon them …. command or exploit their labor to control their produce …. control or rob them of their children …. use them as objects in male transactions…. cramp their creativeness …. withhold from them large areas of society’s knowledge and cultural attainments” (348). But heterosexuality is the norm, women accepted it. Like Koedt, she brings up control of sexuality but she identifies lesbianism (through its existence and continuum) as ways of living in a society where men try to control them and constantly subjugate them. Her use of lesbianism (either as an existence or continuum) falls in line with the idea of male control. Attaching lesbian to the different categories conjures up ideas of male expendability and fear of women, based on my own experiences. Lesbians are rejected in society because they don’t follow the norm, mostly the sexual norm of sleeping with men. Men fear lesbians because they believe that these women don’t need them and because they cannot control their sexuality through the myth of the vaginal orgasm. So although the lesbian continuum may actually exist, women and men may both reject it because women don’t want to be rejected by the men that don’t really care about them and men want to be able to control women and have them rely only on men.

Now what I got out of these readings is that the main problem between these two sexes is that we are struggling for control. Women are struggling for control of our lives, from sexuality to education, and men are struggling for control of women’s sexuality and education. To me, these problems will not be solved until women realize that we are not helping the situation by suffering in silence, we must speak our concerns. It also won’t happen until men realize that female empowerment does not men emasculation. Emasculation seems to be the biggest issue. Men don’t want women to even come close to have the same amount of power, economically or sexually, as them. Once men get over their fear of being less than a “man” then we can live in society and have our lived lesbian experiences without even having to call it that because it will be a part of life. I don’t want to call it normal because that word has negative connotations, especially when you are talking about relationships and heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Clitophobia!

I laughed out loud while reading The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm and even called a friend to share the outlandish reasons as to why men maintain the myth and are experiencing what I call clitophobia. They are afraid that at some point women will abandon them for sexual pleasure because a penis is not always necessary to achieve an orgasm. Some men are afraid of the clitoris because of its similarity to the penis. These similarities of the penis and clit would assume that men and women are equals but for some men this is apparently hard to swallow. It was funny to me that a "big clitoris is considered ugly and masculine," while a big penis is the epitome of masculinity.

I was also amused that "men fear that they will become sexually expendable if the clitoris is substituted for the vagina as the center of pleasure (230)." For me this basically means that these ignorant men may just be inferior to us and because of projection and fear of the power of the clitoris they seek to physically and psychologically annihilate the clitoris. I agree with Koedt where she says that there may be primarily psychological reasons why "women select men at the exclusion of women as sexual partners." Women could receive the ultimate sexual pleasure without men whereas the "best stimulant for the penis is the woman's vagina"(230). If I were a man I would probably be intimidated as well. Some men are just experiencing clit-envy, they are jealous because the clitoris has NO other function other than that of sexual pleasure.

I hear ya, but I'm not quite sure I am COMPLETELY feelin ya, Ms. Rich

In reading lesbian feminist work, I often feel excluded because there is so much emphasis on the denial of their sexuality and the need to embrace it, that I feel almost as if my heterosexuality is being suppressed. In fact, the initial paragraph which posed the question of whether or not the search for love for both sexes originally leaned toward women, made me feel as if this reading was not made for me to relate to. However, Adrienne Rich’s article challenges the clinical term of lesbianism and in search of a more all encompassing term, she chooses the word lesbian continuum/lesbian existence. These terms reject the notion that lesbianism is simply the desire by two women to have sex with one another. Her term incorporates general rejection of systems within the larger patriarchal system which reinforce the oppression of the patriarchal system. For example, she cites women who did not get married and relied on female companionship to live fulfilling lives.
This concept is something I can relate to however it still leaves me wondering about my heterosexual female constituents that still desire to live forcefully within certain confines of patriarchal systems. I understand that marriage, in the western historical context, was put into place for men to pass down property and for women to be labeled as property. Yet, there have been women that have been empowered in recent history within the institution of marriage. I believe she was trying to say that the more inclusive term of lesbian continuum could invite more women to be a part of a movement against male patriarchy. However, I feel this is the type of “male bashing” that many potential male allies are concerned about. I feel that feminism should not be entirely about rejecting all patriarchal systems or accepting ideas that all systems, that are historically patriarchal, cannot be manipulated or evolved into systems of cooperation between the sexes.

When did we become SCUM?

WHAT?! SCUM manifesto? I was a little shocked and taken aback by Valerie Solanas's article. I thought that it was very hostile towards men. Yes, of course I get tired of being called a Bitch by a man when I won't give him my number, and yes it is very annoying when a man grabs my ass thinking that is the proper way to get my attention but at the end of the I don't want to get rid of men, and not even because I'm a heterosexual female but because this is not what nature intended. How outraged would we be if there were men that were posing the same ideas, to get rid of all women, to totally destroy us and to think that they could survive without us. Feminist everywhere would be speaking out against this and I'm sure they would not even be able to publish any articles or material on the matter. I think that its amazing that we are now at a point in medical and scientific research where we can reproduce without women or men, so now lesbian women can have children without the hassle. But to propose the downfall and destruction of men is totally inconceivable. She is also asking women to turn away from their jobs, how are we supposed to raise children and provide for ourselves if we are not making any income? How is it possible for all women to commit crimes and not be imprisoned and if we are behind bars than how will we be able to come together? Why does she even choose the word SCUM? I feel that is quite demeaning towards women and I feel that she should have picked a more uplifting word for women. I really did not appreciate the ways in which she referred to gay men as well as to women who did not support her ideas. The whole idea of a SCUM manifesto is completely ridiculous and totally contradicts what I thought was the goal of the feminist movement, aren't we seeking equality? We need men and men need us and not just to have children, or sex, or for them to take out the trash and for us to cook dinner, but I feel that we cannot survive in a society with just women or just men. 

Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm

Did anyone else recall the deli scene from When Harry Met Sally when reading Anne Koedt’s “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm?” It’s common knowledge that a lot of women fake orgasms why do men still fall for it? Why bother trying to justify why men aren’t able to sexually satisfy women with their penis? Freud’s emphasis on vaginal orgasms and frigid women is just sad to me because of the negative far-reaching impact. Many women still hold out hope for that elusive vaginal orgasm that so many other women claim they are having. I guess eventually after awhile we all start to believe our own lies otherwise why do women buy into it? They really should make this article required sex ed reading for both sexes.

I had a thought when reading the invisible woman, in particular the quote about “a woman not being seen as an individual wanting to share equally in the sexual act. (230) Perhaps that evolved because women didn’t want to go through the motions and refused to “act out her enjoyment” of something that wasn’t really stimulating her. Though if men are going to obviously be so selfish in their sexual dealings with women why not check their ego at the door and just acknowledge that the act is really about their satisfaction not hers?

I can get no orgastifactioin..

After reading the article, I think every man needs to read "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm."  Sex is literally focused around male pleasure.  Whatever pleases men, which is vaginal penetration, is considered standard or normal.  In this case it leaves the woman's role in sex as the reproductive unit, who simply is satisfied with pleasing the man.  Sex has such a double standard.  Every arousal that the woman receives is for the benefit of the man.  When a woman is aroused it is a tease because she gets excited and the man receives the reward because of the lubrication that is provided for intercourse.  Another role that the woman plays in sex is similar to a garage.  Everything is parked or left inside of her.  She receives penetration from the male dominancy and seamen is left inside of her for reproduction.  In order to sufficiently please a woman in the bedroom the entire construction of sex has to be redesigned.  Living in a hyper-sexualized society, why haven't we looked for equal pleasure with males and females in sex?  Living in a male dominant society, until they consider women's feelings, women will continue to receive the short end of the stick.  

In the article I thought it was very interesting how they compared the male dominancy of sex to racism.  I had never thought sex in comparison to racism.  When blacks feel inferior to white supremacy, it sometimes promotes passiveness for the blacks and dominance from whites.  Making this paralleling connection truly opened my eyes to the construction of sex.  Continually pleasing men deconstructs the role of women expressing their sexuality.  This connects to a question that was brought up in class when we were discussing sexuality.  When women are in same sex relationships they receive mutual satisfaction because of the understanding of what pleases their anatomy.  Looking at homosexuality from this viewpoint is intriguing for the empowerment of women.  Sometimes being selfish in order to express ones sexuality is what it takes.  Until we make visible what is "invisible" to men, women will continue to be controlled.  Men can continue to hold tight to vaginal orgasms as being real in order to continue their power structure.  Until the clitoral orgasm is thrust into the spotlight women will continue to be overlooked for their orgasticfaction.  

I can get no orgastifactioin..

After reading the article, I think every man needs to read "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm."  Sex is literally focused around male pleasure.  Whatever pleases men, which is vaginal penetration, is considered standard or normal.  In this case it leaves the woman's role in sex as the reproductive unit, who simply is satisfied with pleasing the man.  Sex has such a double standard.  Every arousal that the woman receives is for the benefit of the man.  When a woman is aroused it is a tease because she gets excited and the man receives the reward because of the lubrication that is provided for intercourse.  Another role that the woman plays in sex is similar to a garage.  Everything is parked or left inside of her.  She receives penetration from the male dominancy and seamen is left inside of her for reproduction.  In order to sufficiently please a woman in the bedroom the entire construction of sex has to be redesigned.  Living in a hyper-sexualized society, why haven't we looked for equal pleasure with males and females in sex?  Living in a male dominant society, until they consider women's feelings, women will continue to receive the short end of the stick.  

In the article I thought it was very interesting how they compared the male dominancy of sex to racism.  I had never thought sex in comparison to racism.  When blacks feel inferior to white supremacy, it sometimes promotes passiveness for the blacks and dominance from whites.  Making this paralleling connection truly opened my eyes to the construction of sex.  Continually pleasing men deconstructs the role of women expressing their sexuality.  This connects to a question that was brought up in class when we were discussing sexuality.  When women are in same sex relationships they receive mutual satisfaction because of the understanding of what pleases their anatomy.  Looking at homosexuality from this viewpoint is intriguing for the empowerment of women.  Sometimes being selfish in order to express ones sexuality is what it takes.  Until we make visible what is "invisible" to men, women will continue to be controlled.  Men can continue to hold tight to vaginal orgasms as being real in order to continue their power structure.  Until the clitoral orgasm is thrust into the spotlight women will continue to be overlooked for their orgasticfaction.  

Truly Uncensored

Maybe it's because I had a rough week regarding my relationships with members of the opposite sex, but I truly enjoyed Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto. Recently, I have had the discussion with my peers regarding the stereotypes our male friends have no problem sharing. My biggest pet-peeve is when I am voicing a dissenting opinion and it is quickly discarded with either me being an "emotional" woman or speculation whether I am on my period. I had always wondered with maybe men were just too simple to have complex thoughts mixed with emotions.

I called several of my friends to read certain exerts from the article. While some liked it, others questioned the article's stance saying it was too dramatic. My experience at Spelman College has shown me two things. Women are very quick to look at both sides of an issue (especially if it pertains to men) and Men have the luxury of enjoying male privilege. I have yet to hear any of my male peers say anything is to sexist or patriarchal. Whether the author truly believes that The male is no longer needed in our society or that he "is a biological accident' (Solanas) is irrelevant to me. I like the play on supposed gender ideologies and supposed gender strengths and weaknesses.

In English I learned about the Freudian concept, meaning that every little girl wishes she could be a boy. However, I remember thinking how great it was I could wear pants, shorts, skirts and dresses while boys could only wear pants or shorts. I liked being a girl because I did not know or understand yet the societal limitations of being a female. The whole can be summed up with the quote, "Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy." The examples of women being able to bear life and why we have vigorous work weeks were intriguing and something I had not really thought about. But why after reading all these progressive and revolutionary thoughts are women focusing on the fairness on how men are portrayed? Is that the forefront issue. Since I too am socialized in this world I started to focus my attention on that "injustice" but I had to stop and think what was the overall message or point of this article. I don't think it was to protect the already overvalued male gender.

SCUM Manifesto....Whoa!

While reading this manifesto, I couldn't help thinking about what happened to the author to influence her radical views. We all live in patriarchy, and, although I despise it, I have never thought of such extreme measures to end the sexist oppression of women. I couldn't stop trying to decide whether the author is serious, or is she just trying to conjure up a reaction from her audience. Her article, I thought, is one of the reasons why so many people reject feminists. They equate feminism with her line of thinking, but I don't think she is a feminist at all, or at least not the same kind that I am.

Additionally, through this article, she is not advocating to end sexist oppression, she is enforcing it; I don't know who is more sexist: her or the men she speaks of. I think it was Audre Lorde of maybe bell hooks that said, "You can't knock the down the master's house using the master's tools," meaning that you can't involve yourself in the same tactics and practices used by your oppressor in the efforts of trying to fight oppression. I don't think she gets that concept at all!

As Dr. Kuumba’s door states… Well behaved women rare make history... SCUM

First let me start off by saying WOW Ms. Valerie Solanas is hostile. I’m feeling that she has some built up tension that explodes in her language on paper. But it made for quite an interesting read whether than having to pull out a dictionary to understand every other word. Breaking it down into many sections from the beginning I got the feeling that Ms. Solanas was taking a look at the current society and imagining what it would be like if “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.” Please someone who reads this blog make a comment and let me know what you think. Secondly, she goes into how women can now reproduce without having a man and how men are really only “incomplete females, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage.” And that “to be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.” So from jump in a sense I could tell that was going to be that for lack of better words a male bashing article? I got the feeling that she took the idea of what already is in today’s society in which men are the SCUM and she reverses it to what if women were the SCUM.

Ms. Solanas even goes into painting a picture as one reading this could imagine “in a sane society the male would trot along obediently after the female.” Meaning that the male is “docile, and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female ho cares to dominate him” and that the male actually wants to be dominated such as having mommy take care of him from now on. The reason why above I said it seemed as if she were switching the notion of being SCUM because she states that the problem is not between males and females but between SCUM (dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females) and those who are nice, passive, accepting, “cultivated”, polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy’s Girls. Almost as if SCUM were women breaking the “lady like” label society places on women. As a result, SCUM are women waiting for the opportunity to de-brainwash “millions of assholes” and make a change in history of women’s lives by “systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder.” The only purpose of men is to “encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.” In addition to the only way men get to fraternize with women is after a speech announcing in a sense how they are comparable to a piece of shit. I don’t understand that? First they have to reduce themselves completely to be worthy of our womanly essense?!?

For some reason while I was reading the part that starts off “SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking up, and killing until the money-work system…” I thought of Malcolm X and how he was for violence and that it was going to continue until enough people started cooperating until when violence was no longer necessary. But yet in still after all of this as much as now this may be the way I was societally brought up but still we need men just like men need us. We are all entitled to our own opinions; however, what good would it do to objectify and dehumanize men to make a statement about the way we are treated? By doing all this would we really come to see the utter uselessness and banality of the male? And how would we? By being complete liberated women who some are still going to dominate other women just as a man does based upon the hierarchy of society and that some do need to lead and some need to follow based upon the fact that not everyone can be a leader. If everyone was a leader then who would be implementing the leaders ideas to carry them out and make a difference? I’m not saying men need to be the leaders and women the followers. I’m just asking in the end and thinking about it as a whole would eradicating men really be beneficial?

VAGINAL DESTINY??!?!?!

I truly enjoyed The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm. Much of the information expressed was confirmation of tales and facts I had heard over time. I didn’t know “frigidity” was the term used to describe women when they do not reach vaginal orgasm. It was completely understandable that the lack of vaginal orgasm was due, in part, to male partners not taking time to stimulate the clitoris to the point of orgasm AND the mere fact that sexual interactions were/are used to benefit the man in many cases. In another class, I had recently learned that orgasms were greatly encouraged by psychological influences and stimuli. So that was not surprising. The thoughts that we must “redefine our sexuality” (228) in order to properly repair the lack of vaginal orgasms was empowering to me. The charge to “demand that if certain sexual positions now defined as ‘standard’ are not mutually conducive to orgasm, they [can] no longer be defined as standard” (228) was also empowering. I think it is necessary for women to take charge of our bodies and embrace sexuality as an empowering aspect of life and an opportunity to be expressive not silent.
It was interesting to learn that men have always been aware of the clitoris and managed to figure out how to use it for their benefit. Their ability to arouse and lubricate the woman was merely for their assistance in the act of penetration. They had no desire to allow her to completely enjoy the experience…. “Leaving her both aroused and unsatisfied” (229). So sad. Another interesting, and humorous concept, is that of women faking orgasms. Although it is viewed as a form of comedy in Pop- Culture, it was interesting learning why women have been faking for generations. The attempts to stroke the male ego or lore a man into your possession were amongst the top reasons women have been faking for years.
As in every other reading there are areas of concern and confusion for me as the reader. I was appalled when I read the Freudian concepts of vaginal orgasms. His initial thought that “clitoral orgasm was adolescent, and that upon puberty, when women began having intercourse with men, women should transfer the center of orgasm to the vagina” (228)… What on earth?! Transfer?! I was even more appalled with the fact that women were being advised to seek psychological help in order to overcome their “frigidity” (which was a man-made LIE designed to degrade women and weaken their sexuality). And this psychological assistance was meant to help her achieve “natural role as a woman” (228). So now my orgasms somehow determine my womanhood? It further states that this damage to women’s mental health kept them from achieving their “VAGINAL DESTINY”!!!! What on earth!?

I disagree but hey its ok lesbian exsistence and continuum

In the article "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" the author Adrienne Rich describes several terms that are of importance to the feminist who are in practice.
Let me first say that this article was a lot for me to handle. I don't really know if its OK to disagree or not but hey I believe that I am entitled to my own opinion. Rich, starts off with talking about heterosexuality as a phenomenon and identifies the sources of male power. While she breaks them down into eight categories;the characteristics of male power. She then continues by defining each characteristic individually in there on way.
This article also brought to my attention two new terms that I was not so familiar with lesbian continuum and lesbian existence. Rich defines lesbian existence to be both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. However, lesbian continuum is a range through each woman's life and throughout history of woman -identified experience, not simply the fact a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with other woman. She then continues to break down these two terms and how the play a role with in today's society. It is interesting to me to know that lesbians existence has been lived without access to many things such as "knowledge of tradition, a continuity, a social underpinning."(p.349)
I found it to be problematic when heterosexuality was thought as the natural emotional and sensual inclination for women. I mean yes, I do understand that as people we do not have the right to say what is natural and what is not but heterosexuality is NATURAL. Natural in the form that no matter how bad a homosexual couple try to have a children they have to include the opposite sex. Ex: A woman and a woman would have to get sperm from a sperm bank and insert it through their vagina, although, when it comes to men they can either impregnate a woman or adopt a child to have children I do not believe that heterosexuality has been both forcibly and subliminally imposed on women , I feel that women have the choice as to if they want to be a lesbian or not. Homosexuality is defined to me as a spirit it is just like a jacket for example you have a choice to zip a coat or not or perhaps button it or not. This is how I view homosexuality you can either become a lesbian and later decide that you no longer want to live this life style or live as a lesbian with discrimination that society brings to the LGBT community.
When I had reached the part in the article about marriage Rich describes marriage for women to be a form of comfort in order to survive economically and having children who would not suffer economic deprivation in order to do what was expected of women. For children it would be hard to come out in abnormal childhoods now why would it be called abnormal if it was not? It is not that heterosexual romance has been represented as a great female adventure it is just normal and natural. I don't know if its even fair to say that sex with men is one sense of escape from bedrock misery. NO! it is not that women need men as social and economic protectors only it is also away for reproduction in society.
Black women have found it to be difficult to be excepted as a lesbian because they feel that they have two things going against them being black and a woman are already two things that makes them an outsider. It is still another "hated identity" that is problematic indeed.(p.353) It was funny to me how Rich mentions that women turning to women out of
hatred for men was something that was found to be lie. I would have to disagree with that thought often times yes some women find that they are "born a lesbian" or they grow up feeling this way. Another common way is when men have mistreated a women by breaking their "heart" by cheating, sexual abuse,rape, or even verbal abuse do they then find that to be the turning point in their lives. When I say turning point I mean going from dick to strictly pussy. However, was it that they were always gay or lesbian and were living in this closed box for society to except them? Or were they really heterosexual and got fed up with that one guy that made them change their mind to hating all men and decided to be with women? "There is not statistical documentation of the numbers of lesbians who have remained in heterosexual marriages for most of their lives."(p.352) I see it as self hatred just like racism in some cases, how in some situations black people choose to only date light skin black people and nothing else they have a hatred within themselves that causes them to think within this mindset. But hey this is what I feel about this whole lesbian existence and lesbian continuum its an opinion, my opinion and that's enough to make it valid and natural "so I take me as I am or have nothing at all".

SCUM...it's a good thing!

I’m sure many of my peers will agree that S.C.U.M by Valerie Solanas was quite the comical page turner. I couldn’t help but feel somewhat disappointed when I realized I was on the last page of the text.

One of Solanas’ points for this text I can only imagine is to empower women. “And, if a large majority of women were SCUM, they could acquire complete control of this country within a few weeks…The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn’t squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it’s made up of people they are utterly helpless without”. What is so frightening about this statement is that it is absolutely true. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. I think that should be said again. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. The idea of patriarchy was created to prevent women from realizing that. Women = Power.

Another interesting concept I pulled out of S.C.U.M was Solanas’ definition of the different types of women in our society—the SCUM and the approval –seeking Daddy’s Girls. According to this article there is the need to re-educate the Daddy’s Girls and introduce them to the life of SCUM—full of looting, law breaking, fucking-up, and murder. SCUM women are advised “take care” of those men that attempt to force patriarchy upon us, which would leave only the open-minded, and equality driven men to exist (if there are any of those). Although this article took it somewhat to the extreme, the points Valerie Solanas was making should not be taken lightly. If the women are to make in progress in this society, we must together “fuck up” societal norms. When you look to the civil rights movement, you notice that the majority of African-Americans were participants. Three people can make a little bit of noise, but three billion can really shake some shit up.

Long story short, I really enjoyed this article, it was meaningful, entertaining and eye opening.

OMG...SCUM Manifesto!!!!!

Valerie Solanas' Manifesto was meant to be an attack on the patriarchal culture, promoting the idea of a violent revolution to establish an all-female society. What is most outstanding about the piece is that in spite of its extremism and furious style, and aside from the violent message it conveys, it actually makes lots of sense when dealing with social analysis and scientific facts. (It gets most interesting when she describes her theory that a male is actually an incomplete female, which is the total opposite of the Freudian theory.)
Her description of men as lacking individuality and being interchangeable, is the same idiology used in our patriarchal society, and it is the basis on which they justify polygamy... since they feel that if one woman cannot do her job as perfectly as she should, then we'll get a second one to complement her deficiencies... totally oblivious to the fact that this will destroy the woman emotionally, and socially.. as well as putting the blame on her in the end, since she is the one with the deficiencies, and never caring how this will damage the family as a whole, or the children in particular... In short they feel that women are interchangeable.
At first I found her ideas extreme and uncalled for, but dont you think that these same ideas which are being applied to women in this day and age are similarily extreme and uncalled for? The difference is that she was sent to a mental institution because this idea is insane, but the men of today are given the benefit of the doubt, and they're justified, and are never sent to get the apropriate psychiatric care... and sometimes their actions are even encouraged and condoned by society. WTF???

“Oh Baby! That’s my spot!”

Well. I guess after reading these articles we, as a gender group, have realized the damage we have done by faking orgasms. All the “oooh” and “aaah” and responses to ego boosting questions like “whose pussy is this” have caused major set backs to females around the world. Although I’ve never been one to fake orgasms, I, too, admit that I have done it once or twice when my man has been working hard to get me there and I just wasn’t coming. Didn’t want to bruise his ego, you know? But after reading this article I probably ruined things for the next girl. Or perhaps I didn’t. I bet she faked too.

I feel Koedt had very valid points to her theory of “the myth of the Vaginal Orgasm”. I have noticed that all of the reasons that Koedt mentioned why men maintain the myth were absolutely valid. I have found them to be true in my personal life. Example: “Sexual Penetration Is Preferred” meaning that men like vagina that provides lots of lubrication and friction…how many times has a man licked or rubbed on a woman’s clit just enough to lubricate it enough to stick his penis in it. Not for her. For him. Or maintaining “The invisible woman”. Like I mentioned before, questions like “whose pussy is this” excludes the woman from the sexual act and makes her vagina HIS. It’s not about her. It’s about him. Or devaluing the vagina for the “Control of Women”. Men don’t want women to know that their clitoris is the “penis” of their sexuality; however men have realized this and tried to tame and control women by cutting off their clitorises and robbing them of any sexual pleasure ever in life. However, they don’t sew up their vaginas. Know why? Cause men still need women’s vaginas to stick their penises in so they can have friction and lubrication so they can come. They wouldn’t cut that off. Cause it’s not about us. It’s about them. Or fear of “lesbianism and bisexuality”also motivates men to spread the myth. If more women understood that that all they needed to achieve an orgasm was their clitoris they would masturbate just as much as men jack off and realize that they don’t need men; even for sex. A penis becomes expendable…and the there would be no songs praising I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T women who need nothing from a man but his penis; cause then she wouldn’t even need him for that.

Frigid or Just Tired of Faking Sexual Arousal?

Why is that the first scholars to describe the sexual sensitivity of women were men? A man who has a completely different biological make-up than a woman. A man who is aware of his power as a man, who then uses it to justify social, economic, and even sexual factors to ensure that he remains as the superior figure.  Anne Koedt and Adriene Rich's articles go hand in hand.  The characteristics of male power that Rich used to describe the power of men are all contributory to the Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm.  The first characteristic to deny women their own sexuality, this denial creates the notion of the abscence of a clitoris.   This is made evident in the "frigidity" of women.  Hence, the creation of the vagainal orgasm.  Instead of realizing the highly sensistive area of the clitoris, the male is content with this penis rubbing the vaginal walls of a woman because this is where his penis is most comfortable. The mosit, wet, encompassing walls around his penis create sexual arousal for him again and again. While his partner is supposed to fake a sexual arousal and maybe even orgasm.  Her acting does not help the situation because this only makes him think that they are both being pleased.  Perhaps if he found out that they really weren't being pleased, this would disrupt the masculine nature of his ego.  An ego shattered might mean that now the woman has to suffer from the force of his male sexuality upon her, which is the second characteristic of male power that Rich points out.   But because he does not take the time to figure our his partner's body and what makes her toes curl, he places of his frustration, energy, and arousal into beating her brains out through what I call rape.  It is not violent sex that is wanted, rather it violent sex to make a point or to achieve something. Get into a woman's mind.  Sex is not purely physical.  This is something that Koedt makes clear with her example that some women can achieve an orgasm through sexual fantasies or fetishes.  This indicates that the sentiments start in the mind, the psyche. In essence,  the arousal is physical and a woman is able to reach a sexual climax.  But the problem is woman have been defined in sexual terms.  Not necessarily by body type, shape, etc., but instead how they can, in fact, please a man. As a result of this, a vaginal orgasm is created to uphold the egos of man who pry on women to feel powerful and in control.  This then leaves women in a subordinate position.  Left used, abused, mistreated all in the name of satisfying a man, who does not take the time to get to know her body.  Rather, everything is "rush-rush," in the midst of all of this "sexual eruption" the clitoris is left lonely, untouched, and perhaps even dry. It is not only the myth of the vaginal orgasm that has to be destroyed, but also the implication of masculinity.  Masculinity and all that it encompasses holds up this notion of a vaginal orgasm.  This is why women who are fired are crazy and need psychiatric help, so says Freud anyway.  But do we really think that will ever happen? Of course not because our lovely clitoris poses a threat to masculinity. A threat to masculinity would disrupt the patriarchal society that we live in.  The masculinist forces would never let that happen.  American as a matriarchal society would be nice, huh?  But it seems like just a dream now.