I quite enjoyed the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas because I found it funny, almost satirical, but knowing that Solanas wrote it seriously makes it much more alarming. The SCUM Manifesto was also transphobic and used various slurs, further restraining my objective enjoyment of the text. I found the section on laboratory reproduction, which was about selectively choosing not to reproduce males because they are “like disease” and it would also be immoral to deliberately reproduce blind people—comparing men to disabilities—interesting, although very problematic. It has some intriguing modern implication, especially as today gene-editing technology—particularly with CRISPR—is so relevant and gene-editing in general is much more possible today than it was at the time the manifesto was written.
While reading the manifesto, I did feel fairly concerned for Solanas, and even more so after reading about the context around it, such as Solanas shooting Andy Warhol. It seems to me that she was not in a great mental state. It is my understand that much of the attention that this manifesto received was because of the attack, which makes sense. I find it interesting that some feminists actually defended it, considering, in my opinion, it is very clearly not a feminist text; it does not advocate for equality. Feminism—at least, how it is viewed today—is about achieving equality, whereas the SCUM Manifesto argues that men are genetically inferior. I am curious about how each wave of feminism differed, and how each wave would respond to this manifesto.