Forum
The Society for the Cutting Up of Males, S.C.U.M. Manifesto
|
Marxism wrote
at 11:49 AM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT
I'd like to preface this by saying that the author of this work, Valerie Solanas, was an ardent feminist and was kinda sorta joking when she wrote this. That being said, enjoy. I'm sure some of you have heard of the first part of this.
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, 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. It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples. 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. Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure. Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through 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. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies." There's much more that you can read here: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:09 PM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT I agree with some of this!
|
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 1:28 PM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT Women talk to much about what they think.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:26 PM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT When I was in graduate school, I attended a science fiction writing workshop, at which a fellow male student submitted a story, "Home is the Hunted", where males are so scarce that they flee to the wilderness and live in caves and stuff. Women hunt them for sport. Since only the toughest males survive, they are liable to lack the snotty properties and the women who bring them in can make appropriate use of their trophy males and half of the genes of their offspring will have enhanced toughness. On the other hand, daughters produced by parthenogenesis cannot acquire whatever acquired characteristic their mothers have. That is the major weakness of trying to get rid of males. Offspring of women and males will be stronger and the parthenogenic portion of the population will die out.
|
|
Marxism wrote
at 8:59 PM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT Of course I can't really disagree with that since I'm not much of a scientist, but as I said, a lot of this isn't serious (like the part about killing all the men, she had a son and I don't think she wanted him dead), but it does bring up many legitimate issues.
|
|
Tourney Champ wrote
at 10:58 PM, Wednesday March 30, 2011 EDT http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
A MODEST PROPOSAL For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick. by Dr. Jonathan Swift <--- good piece of satire |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 12:08 AM, Thursday March 31, 2011 EDT I had to read a modest proposal in my junior english class, I actually really liked that teacher.
Anyway, I'm not a chauvinist but women are demonstrably good for nothing except taking care of men. Feminists fantasize about this like the above all the time because the reality is quite the opposite. Men basically compete with each other to fuck/conquer whoever they want and women have no real say in the matter. If a an alpha male wants to fuck someone he does and that's the reality of nature. No woman ever furthered the solidarity of man or fueled a technological breakthrough in the way so many men have. Women at best provide footnotes in the history of man, and let's not forget it is the history of man not woman that we learn. I am not sexist but the fact of the matter is, as far as furthering the progress of humanity is concerned women have never done jack shit except cry and bleed everywhere. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 12:19 AM, Thursday March 31, 2011 EDT I would say the sexes are best defined by their attitudes towards sex. Men are driven in all ways by ego, and in that way we pursue sex not for pleasure necessarily but for the self gratification that conquering a woman provides (paraphrasing a greek philosopher). While women simply enjoy the feeling and intimacy of sex. There's definitely some sluts out there that just love dick but by in large they are after the best guy they can latch onto like a lamprey while guys are after as many pussies as they can snatch. Anyway that's a generalization of male/female sexual nature and certainly doesn't take into account indoctrination and shit that women do to their boyfriends/husbands.
Also this is a pretty good link to check out: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200812/who-enjoys-sex-more-men-or-women It starts with the greek myth about who enjoys sex more: men or women? Answer's women but the article follows the myth up with some cultural and scientific context. |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:03 AM, Thursday March 31, 2011 EDT Wow Veta, for being the equalitist that you so champion, you sure aren't high on a woman's value.
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 6:33 AM, Thursday March 31, 2011 EDT you could say i'm old fashioned like that.
or maybe i've just hung out with only stupid chicks my entire life |
|
Marxism wrote
at 10:08 AM, Thursday March 31, 2011 EDT Thraxle, liberalism favors equality among similar groups, but as soon as you start talking about people outside of your own group (blacks, poors, women), that equality flies straight out the window. It's one of the major problems of liberalism I've yet seen addressed by any liberals I know.
|