Author: Mireya Stevenson

The SCUM Manifesto consists of 5 radical beliefs. She begins with stating how men are emotionally and biologically inferior to women. She calls men “A walking abortion” (Page 1) stating that their Y chromosome is and incomplete X chromosome making them deficient. Then she moves to explaining that their incompleteness results in poor emotional development. How men are egocentric, incapable of empathy, love, friendship, affection of tenderness. For me this was the most impactful part of the text. I know its not grounded in reality or even science, however it really caused me to think more in depth about my own personal experience with guys.

She goes on to talk about how their emotional deficiency is the reason society is essentially screwed, How they’re poor parenting results in self loathing girls and boys, the need for violence and war so they can feel stimulated, race wars to place their failures on others. Even explaining how they put these traditionalist beliefs on women to keep them in a position to serve men. Her solution to this is the women who are not bound by these traditions and beliefs, who hate men, the idea of being a mother, and even being peaceful. She believe if enough of these women worked together they could completely take down society and the money system. Eventually rebuilding a new world where men are dominated by their female partners, and if they are not subservient and instead combative, they should be disposed of.

I did not care much for her actual manifesto and conspiracy to take down the world, I suppose maybe I’m complicit, I felt she definitely had a lot of oversight. She definitely lost me quite a lot when she began discussing homosexuality and transgender people, I simply think thats not a group of people to be spoken for, especially stating that they all want to be women, and that their relationships are unstable.

However, as I said before when she talks about how men are incomplete emotionally because they’re Y chromosome instead of two X chromosomes, it made me consider personal experiences. Even some research I’ve looked into describing how boys develop significantly slower then girls. I found that even at the age of 18 boys are at least 1-2 years behind. I really had to sit on this because it genuinely made me process the difference in the mindset of many guys I’ve met versus the many women I know. Even knowing Solonas had no scientific evidence to back her claims, its hard to look at guys and not see them as underdeveloped.

I think this also is where the line of feminism and Misandry should be discussed. Feminism is about the uplifting of women from the position they’re put in by society. Solanas’s manifesto is not about lifting up women but instead about the destruction of men and patriarchy. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine when people conflate women uplifting women and women hating men.

The goal of this paper is to understand how often people, who speak out against societal norms, get punished. There are many cases we learn about in school of people who took a public role in speaking out and then facing some form of retributions in return. For each person I investigate I want to understand what they did, how was the public reception to what they did, what were the consequences for the public position they took, and where they ended up as a result for it. The people I’m researching won’t be just activist who got in trouble. I’m interested in looking into Malala, a women’s activist from Pakistan who protested against the Taliban banning girls from school, Malcolm X a Black activist from the United States who advocated for black empowerment, and Galileo a scientist who said argued for the heliocentric theory against the predominant Catholic church. I am aiming to keep this paper diverse in people who were shunned for a belief.
            This idea originally stemmed from learning the context behind the 120 Days of Sodom. Although de Sade himself faced no real consequences from his book, the book eventually became a piece of debate in communities of research and censorship of books.

References I intent to use:

X, Malcolm, and production company Educational Video Group. Great Speeches Video Series. Volume 16, Malcolm X : “Democracy Is Hypocrisy” Speech. Educational Video Group, 1960.

X, Malcolm, and production company Educational Video Group. Malcolm X : “Who Taught You to Hate?” Speech Excerpt. Educational Video Group, 1962.

Glyde, Tania. “Malala: Agent of Change.” The Lancet [London], vol. 386, no. 10006, Nov. 2015, pp. 1814–1814, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00770-9.

Attia, Shaimaa Mohamed Shehata. “Malala’s Mission: Challenging Taliban Rule and Patriarchal Norms in Pakistani Education.” Maǧallaẗ Kulliyyaẗ Al-Adāb Wa Al-ʿulūm Al-Insāniyyaẗ – Ǧāmiʿaẗ Qanāẗ Al-Siwaīs, no. 49, 2024, pp. 457–82.

Liana, Zbigniew. “Criteria for the Acceptability of Scientific Theories as Locus Theologicus: A Methodological Analysis of Catholic Church’s Reactions to the Cases of Galileo and Darwin (Bellarmine—Pius XII—John Paul II).” Religions (Basel, Switzerland ) [Basel], vol. 16, no. 2, Feb. 2025, p. 153, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16020153.

The museum starts with explaining the growing antisemitism in the German population. It’s almost unsettling read about how the hatred for Jewish people was building up and leading to things like boycotts and vandalism, while simultaneously they have the audio of people chanting and singing as celebration of the rise of the Nazi party. Events like Bloody Sunday and the boycotts really put it into perspective the mistrust in people who practice a religion. There was a part that spoke about someone vandalizing a Jewish establishment writing “Jews are our misfortune” and it reminded me of the protocols and how people truly believe that Jewish people were the root of the crisis’s Germany was facing.

There were so many events where people destroyed things simply because they came from Jewish minds. I think the night of burning books shows how destructive and totalitarian the mindsets were becoming. It’s like a reflection of the question “who decides what gets banned and what stay”.
However, the Night of Broken Glass stays the longest in my mind. I remember learning about the destruction of the synagogues. The fact that people had blamed it on Jewish people when it had just been a last-minute attack.

There was a section about what did the Americans know, and I’m sure the museum did complete research and had real stories when building that section, but oddly enough I questioned this section the most. This part of the museum strongly suggested that we stayed out of involving ourselves or we’re not supportive of Germany. There was a debate on boycotting German products which led to a 2/3 voting against it. The Jewish-Americans were the ones who had to spread awareness about what was happening in Germany, and even so the Americans decided not to act. I just feel like this section was almost vague in a way and it made me want to do more research on what reactions of real Americans were.

In one of the final exhibits, The Final Solution, it truly goes into detail about Hitler’s switch to genocide. Moving Jewish people to ghettos that were overcrowded, lacked resources, and let to many starving to death. What causes a person to switch to mass genocide and expanding to kill anyone but the “perfect’ person he had in mind? Did the power get to his head or did he genuinely just have so much hate that killing so many people felt like a real solution.

Although I wasn’t necessarily interested in the liberation exhibit, the stories of survivors stuck the hardest. There were so many quotes and stories gathered from survivors. There was a particular story of a woman who, I believe, was in hiding with her group, and she had made a bet with one of her friends that they would split a pastry when they were finally liberated. The day they were liberated, the woman went to find her friend and when she finally found her, she had passed away. It broke my heart to think someone could manage to live through that and when she might’ve finally been able to feel relieved, she never got to.

In November of 1923, Germany was facing the aftermath of World War 1, such as military defeat, collapse of the German empire, revolution, and the development of the Weimar republic. During this post war era, Hitler attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government, which became known as Beer Hall Putsch. This failed and resulted in him being convicted for high treason. He used his trial as a platform to speak publicly about his political beliefs, and this gained him a bigger audience. After being sentenced to five years in prison he began to write with the intention to gain money and explain himself and his beliefs. While he was writing his intentions evolved, according to the holocaust encyclopedia the original title for Mein Kampf was “4 ½ years of struggle against lies, stupidity, and cowardice: A Reckoning”. To me the original title indicates that Hitler wrote this as a form of vengeance against what he saw as his enemies. However, the change in title follows the fact that he slowly changed the book from a political attack to an ideological autobiography, explaining how his life story led him to his beliefs.

In 1925 the book was printed with ten thousand copies. Originally the book was not a best seller, sales eventually dwindled down by the end of 1932. As Hitler began to climb the ranks in the nazi party the book became more popular. At first, I was of the belief Hitler wrote this during his time in leadership, which resulted in a shared acceptance of his ideology. However, that is not the case and the reception of the book slowly changed as the Nazism grew. As the party grew so did the popularity of the book, and they became the largest party in Reichstag growing from 12 seats in 1928 to 230 seats in 1932.

The most distinct change in the purpose of the book came when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Before this time, the book was propaganda to explain Hitler’s world view. After 1933 the book became officially apart of the Nazi Regime’s propaganda. During this time, the Nazi propaganda depicted Hitler as dependable and an almost perfect leader, which increased the symbolic importance of his book. Going from 230,000 sold copies in 1932, to 12 million copies in 1944.

I find it interesting that the purpose and intention of the book changed over time without him even having to edit the original volume. Like I said before, I figure this book was written during his time in leadership. I’m curious if he ever thought of editing or taking the book back.

My Sources!

Holocaust Encyclopedia

Lebendiges Museum Online

Holocaust Memorial Museum

This has been by far the hardest read I have ever done. The 120 Days of Sodom is a book about four men who retreat to a Castle. In this castle they spend 120 days abusing a multitude of victims, forcing them to take part in their four passions. The days are split evenly over these passions, spending 30 days in each.

The first passion is the most tame, exploring sexuality. We see the beginning of the libertines treating others as objects instead of humans. This is the introduction to de Sade’s idea of no limitation.

After the first month however the Libertines lose interest in their simple passions. They move to exploring what humiliation and suffering does to them. For me this is when the text became hard to push through.

Once they lost interest in their complex passions they move to violent and illegal actions. They harm and start to truly abuse their control over their victims. before they reach their “final” passion which was to murder others.

To me the most interesting aspect was the way de Sade sets the book up to gradually push social boundaries. For the characters in this story, everything that happens doesn’t feel entirely shocking. When i first started the book i thought it was simply and imprisoned man’s fantasy, but as i worked through the book i realized how intentional de Sade had been. The progression isn’t abrupt it’s gradual and it builds on its self. You can tell de Sade wrote this to shock others and it’s almost like forcing the reader to see how far they can push it to finish the book.

And of course the boundaries that are meant to be pushed are what resulted in this book being banned. My only question is was it banned for the extreme behavior or banned because what the behavior reflected.

What a book. Bear with me, as for a “Modest Proposal”, it feels quite vulgar.

In the book A Modest Proposal, the author opens with an idea that he has: to make use of poor children. He describes, for five pages, how poor babies are not only a burden on the state but a burden on their families as well. At first, he hints at his idea, stating how their life would contribute to the feeding and clothing of others. Finally, stating on page 10 how he believes these poor children should be turned into livestock. The author proposes that out of a hundred twenty thousand, twenty thousand would be made into basic livestock, and the other hundred thousand would be well-fed for the wealthier class. Let it be known, the author is referring to babies under the age of two. The author additionally adds two more proposals if it came to it — the first, to turn the skin of live babies into apparel, second, to sell the carcass of the well-fed girls, as they are worth a good amount. Then he lists the advantages of this idea, and further states how anyone who wishes to make an argument against him would need a better solution for the poor.

The Advantages:

1. Rids the kingdom of the poor and useless
2. Will give the poor something of value
3. Makes the kingdom wealthier
4. Free’s poor mothers of the burden of raising their children
5. Allows good cooks to not only experiment but make more money
6. Will make married women and men happier to not have to raise their children
7. Will raise meat exports of the kingdoms.

There are additionally 2 statements that took me aback, a suggestion that the rich have already eaten the poor parents, and references to an American companion that would seem to also be a cannibal. Both were almost vague statements that I wouldn’t want to presume I’m interpreting correctly.

Now my personal view on the book: from the start, I knew where the book was going; however, at no point did I expect what the author would say. Plumping up babies, skinning them alive, selling carcasses. Unfortunately, this reminds me of real-life instances or conspiracies that I will refrain from stating on the internet, which contribute to my theory for this “banned book”.

Would those of higher class, who may or may not participate in such activities, want this book hidden from the public to stay hidden themselves…? If it was a “proposal”, which I personally took to be a dystopian-satirical proposal, why have it banned instead of used to inform people of dangerous mindsets? Say the author was being serious in his statements, why not use it to steer people away from such ideas because of common sense?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not ignorant of the fact that this is my personal (and extremely conspiracy-minded) view of this book. Maybe those who wanted it pulled simply did not want this to become a popular idea! Just my thoughts!

I find the Gospel of Mary fascinating. 

This book basically tells the story of an instance when Jesus had given a message to his disciples, and of course, in his cryptic nature, it left the disciples confused and distressed. So Mary of Magdala comforts them and tells them not to worry; the disciple Peter asks Mary to teach what Jesus had taught her and they had not heard. My assumption is she does so for the next 4 pages. However, after she teaches them as she was asked, the disciples doubted Mary and challenged her, asking what would make her that much more favorable than them as a woman. Thankfully, Levi shuts down Peter’s challenging and instructs them to instead hear the word and go out to preach themselves.

This book has found multiple areas that piqued my interest. Although in biblical cannon, I’m personally not familiar with this instant, the fact the disciples were in disarray over a preaching and that someone had to step in to understand the teaching for all of them. Then the way the disciples instantly challenged her based on her being a woman. The author even notes that this story could lead one to doubt the legitimacy of the disciples as good preachers if they could be so dismissive of teachings simply because it came from a woman. 

Additionally, this book is missing eight whole pages. I comprehend the fact that it was found way back when, but the fact that three of the eight are part of her preaching is something that concerns me. My personal theory about this book is that maybe “someone” wanted to cover up and smother the stature of Mary of Magdala, so after it was written, they destroyed or hid the pages to never be seen. We will never know the importance of those missing eight pages and what effect they could’ve had on Christianity as it grew.

From what I understand, this book tells a Christian story from Judas’ perspective. Additionally, for some reason I cannot wrap my head around, Jesus speaks cryptically for most of this book.

It starts with Jesus at dinner with his disciples for the eucharist. After a humbling of the disciples, Jesus pulls Judas to speak privately. But in this private conversation, Jesus tells Judas he will tell him everything, then walks off; I assume entirely from the group to speak with a completely different group. Which frustrated me at first, but he does tell Judas everything over a period of unknown time in the book. We skip to a different day where the disciples tell Jesus about a vision of a temple, and Jesus basically says people will do what people will do, and if that be the wish of the Lord, then so be it.

After the temple conversation, Judas begins to show genuine curiosity about humanity, how it was created; there’s a conversation of cosmos, chaos, and the underworld, and the destiny of Adam and humanity, all of which made little sense to me… 

Judas asks about a house almost described as the top of Mount Olympus, just a location not made for the typical person, that Jesus tells him to not concern himself with because Judas could never get in. At the end of their conversation, Judas tells him to follow his star, although Jesus informed him that his star was cursed. 

As for where I stand regarding this book, although half of the book makes no sense to me, it is very interesting to see Judas as a person who concerned himself with humanity and what Jesus has to say versus the idea that he simply betrayed Jesus. What I find even more fascinating is the fact that this is unrecognized as well as on the “Banned Books” list. What harm did it do to see a perspective of Judas as something other than a traitor? The book even speaks on how Judas is destined to betray Jesus, so why ban it?

I theorize that because it shows Judas as a person who was destined to a fate, there is a fear that readers will see Judas not just as a villain.