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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definitely agree that this article was entertaining; however, I think it is harmful to those who are trying to fight patriarcy in a "sane" way. I wrote in my blog that her article is one of the reasons why people are turned off from feminism anyway. She's expressing herself, and that's good, but the degree to which she is radical makes her ineffective. Nobody will ever take her serious.
I think its amazing that she asserted herself and wasn't privy to people's acceptance. Too often women are defined by the perceptions and support, or lack thereof, by the masses. Men, or masculine constructions, rarely get challenged for the blanket statements made and that are instituted in our society. While I understand her heavy sarcasm and radical "what if," I think it is important to see beyond this one writer and assume her with full responsibility of representing a movement so large. Too often, people that are merely spectators and want this powerful solidarity to fail, wait for one instance to crumble its worth as if no one else articulated a movement of peace among all humanity on quest for change in the feminist movement.
Post a Comment