This is by far the text I have been the most interested throughout the course. Although the text is clearly insane and misandry to the fullest extent, I kind of see the message underneath all of the raving. Some of the points developed in SCUM, when percieved outside the lens that men are biological defects and that their inherent nature is inferior, can be seen as deep criticisms of masculinity in society. The manifesto’s core is based around the idea men project their insecurities onto women and by attaching themselves to women can live their vulnerable emotions vicariously through them. This like, totally happens all the time. Is she wrong about a lot of stuff, yeah. Did she use this manifesto as a rational to commit an act of violence, yeah. Is she defining unhealthy patterns in regards to masculinity in a strange reverse freud very poignant sort’ve way, absolutely. I can understand to a certain extent, how a very educated honors student with a degree in psychology, given a vast amount of sexual and violent trauma with men, take real and important observations about gender dynamics in society and weave them into a text this radical. Her discussion of the jealousy men feel towards motherhood or the idea that men believe women are fulfilled by motherhood as it is what they believe would fulfill them given they were a woman, and how she connected it to the idea that men utilize the role of a monetary provider to imitate or project themselves into the role of a pseudo mother made a lot of sense. Her discussion of masculinity being defined by a feeling of incompleteness is something that I have witnessed anecdotally numerous times. Many men are pursuing ideals given to them by society that leave them feeling ever empty as they cannot attain those ideals whereas emotionally vulnerable more intimate self actualization would help them infinitely more. Her discussion of economics also strikes a few chords but is considerably hyperbolic and biased like a majority of the text.