Category: Short Texts

Reading this text, I couldn’t help but be curious about the mind behind it. The belief system of Valerie Solanas is developed entirely on 2 things: her resentment toward men, and her appreciation for women. Solanas believed that deep down, all men desire to be women. They’re jealous of women’s emotional strength and intelligence, among many other positive traits, and so they combat this desire through means of war, sex, and work. Her beliefs are a level of radical feminism I had never even considered until reading this. 

When you do further research on Solanas’ life, there are a few things that might serve as an explanation for her misandrist thinking. As a child, she was regularly sexually abused by her father. After being forced to move in with her grandparents due to her rebellious behavior, she was often beaten by her alcoholic grandfather. When she was 17, she gave birth to the child of a married man, giving away the child as the man abandoned her. Her history of abuse by men, especially men who were fathers, explains a lot of her belief system. In one section of her manifesto, she specifically talks about fathers, stating that they are selfish and prioritize themselves over their children. She had been mistreated by every man in her life, so her hatred towards men is certainly understandable. The extent of that hatred, however, is what’s more difficult to understand. Even given her history, it’s unclear where her radical ideas about men came from.

Aside from writing The SCUM Manifesto, Solanas is most well known for her attempt to assassinate artist and film director Andy Warhol. It started after Warhol had lost her script which he promised to produce, as he had believed it was too pornographic and disregarded it. It’s unclear if this is the main motive for her shooting– Solanas turned herself in the day she shot him twice, claiming her motive was that Warhol had too much control in her life. Given her misandrist ideals, it’s certainly possible that her hatred towards men had to do with the event.

The chapters I read for “Mein Kampf” were interesting, to say the least. Hitler is a completely nonsensical man and it shows in his writing. I know that it’s an autobiography, but his way of writing holds so much narcissism and superiority that even the moments he’s discussing things other than himself, they inevitably relate back to why he believes he’s right. For a book titled “My Struggle,” he certainly seems to think highly of himself. 

The two chapters I read focused a lot on the ideologies of Hitler and his supporters, the nazi party. He starts off by bragging about the amount of supporters at his party meeting, then goes on to share his beliefs which, as everyone knows, are purely absurd. He specifies how his party is not in fact a political party, as he believes political parties are a scam and “program monstrosities,” but instead it is a view of life that everyone should adapt to. This view of life consists of 25 points, some of which include racial purity and national unity. He also emphasizes the value of thriving as individuals, which is ironic considering how he only cared for some individuals and hated the rest. His biggest point, which he repeatedly mentioned, was that he believed the “Aryan race” must be preserved. In this context, the Aryan race is not in fact a real race, but simply his way of referring to those he believes to be superior to other races. In order to preserve this race, he emphasizes that interracial reproduction is a horrible crime and it should be thought of as such. He also believes that this mindset should be taught in schools, and children should grow up with this same mindset as well. 

It was very strange getting a glimpse into the mind of someone who was so hateful and twisted in his ideals, even just reading 2 chapters. It was especially strange knowing he had no doubt in his mind that he was correct, and didn’t even think twice about how cruel his beliefs truly were.

A Modest Proposal was quite the wild read, but in the end a very well written work of satire. The satire doesn’t just start at the text, but the title itself. When you read a proposal suggesting cannibalism as a solution to poverty, ‘modest’ is far from the first word you might think of. This alone tells you a lot about the persona Swift is putting on in this work– he’s a man who doesn’t see any issue in the barbaric things he’s proposing, as he truly believes that this proposal, as the title says, is a modest one. My favorite detail of Swift’s work is one that’s scattered throughout it: an obvious bias toward the wealthy. While the entire text is obviously biased, as he’s quite literally proposing the slaughter and eating of poor children, it’s obvious that he favors the wealthy over anyone, not just those who are deep in poverty. This is especially apparent on page 6 when he discusses “a new dish introduced to the Tables of all Gentlemen of Fortune.” He presents the idea of this “new dish” (a dish made from the flesh of poor children) as something that will only be served to those of fortune. He doesn’t just mean those who can afford to buy it, but instead an elite class of people who, in his opinion, deserve to taste such a delicacy. Another part of the story I found interesting was the closing line, in which Swift says “I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my Wife past childbearing.” While the proposal may be satire, this line implies that even in a dystopian world where these suggestions came true, Swift would be safe from any possible damage. He is not poor, and despite having children, they are not young enough to be sold as produce. Even in his satirical work, Swift’s persona represents a type of person who is all too familiar– in him we see the straight man who advocates against gay marriage; the male lawmakers who ban abortion; the wealthy who turn a blind eye to the poor, or even worse, shun and dehumanize them. He is the type of person who has obvious privilege and uses it to argue against something he will never be affected by. It’s easy for someone like this to suggest the cannibalism of impoverished babies, because he knows that he will never be part of that group, and therefore doesn’t have to worry about how they might feel. In the end, I can’t say whether I’m scared or impressed by Jonathan Swift. The ability to write something so outrageous from the perspective of a man who sees no issue with it is certainly impressive, but it raises the question– could there be a possibility that this was more than just satire?

The Gospel of Mary of Magdala 

To me, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala was an interesting read. While I can’t say I have much background knowledge on The Bible, one thing I can say is this– Mary, who is often depicted as a prostitute (and therefore a sinner from modern day perspective), is shown in a completely different light in this Gospel than I had ever seen before. She’s not just a disciple to Jesus, but instead, even as a woman, is someone he entrusts on a level almost equal to himself. One part of the text stood out to me in particular– in section 6, there are two translations of the same text, but with very different meanings. In the first version, Peter addresses Mary, saying that he knows “the Savior loved [Mary] more than all other women.” The second version is similar, with a slight change in the phrasing. Peter addresses Mary, this time saying he knows that Mary was “greatly loved by the savior, as no other woman.” The difference in phrasing offers two perspectives on the relationship between Mary and Jesus– in the first, Jesus sees Mary as a part of that group of women, a simple woman like the rest of them, but still one that he loved above the rest. In the second, however, his view on her is different, as it instead implies that he loves her as something more than just a woman, but as something completely different, as an individual who’s not confined to a group. While it’s likely that this Gospel is untruthful, or at the very least not canon to the Bible, it’s still interesting to see this perspective on the relationship between Jesus and Mary, especially given her current reputation. I also found it interesting how Jesus’s words are contradictory to the basis of modern day Christianity. Regardless of how educated you are on Christianity, almost anyone could tell you that within this religion, a key part of it is saving yourself from sin and staying away from a sinful path in life. In section 3, though, Jesus tells his disciples that “there is no such thing as sin,” essentially throwing the values of modern day Christianity out the window. I can’t say I’m surprised that this Gospel was hidden for so long, as it goes against everything we’ve been taught about Jesus and his teachings, but I also don’t believe it should be as taboo as it is– questioning modern day religious teachings, regardless of whether your doubt comes from a Gospel like this or from something else, might be the best way to challenge the flaws and exclusionary teachings of many modern churches and religious schools. 

The Gospel of Judas

Despite how it seems on a surface level, the Gospel of Judas actually holds many similarities to the Gospel of Mary of Magdala. The Gospel of Judas opens with an almost comedic scene– Jesus laughing at his disciples as they’re gathered, praying together. The disciples, confused, ask him why he is laughing before making a very bold claim; “We have done what is right,” They say in protest of his reaction. Jesus tells the disciples that they are not acting of their own will and that they do not know him, and with this, the disciples get angry. Jesus questions their anger, and although the disciples hear him, they don’t listen. I thought this opening scene was interesting, as it reflects something that is still relevant today; the disciples do not listen, and it was apparent from the start when they claimed that they were doing what was right. Many modern day Christians hold a similar mindset to this one, or at least they do from my experience. They believe that their beliefs and practices are the correct ones, the “right” ones, and won’t hear you say otherwise. This closemindedness is what links together this Gospel and the Gospel of Mary, as they provide us two different examples of what happens when you deny the beliefs of someone who thinks in a certain way. We see it with Peter as he doubts Mary’s vision, and in the Disciples as they doubt Jesus’s words. While it’s true that both of these Gospels are likely biased and non-canon, it’s still worth it to mention that they could be an example of this same behavior. They’re both denied and hidden to the point that most Christians have probably not heard of or read them, purely because they offer a perspective that is different from what we’ve been taught, and what modern day Christianity insists you should believe.