Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 24 August 2010

Death Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No evidence that Solanas meant "Society for Cutting Up Men" when she coined the term "SCUM"

I took out, in the first sentence, where it says "Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto". There is actually no evidence that SCUM stood for this. The phrase "society for cutting up men" does not appear anywhere in the manuscript nor is there any evidence to show that this is what Solonas meant by SCUM. It was not on the cover of the original text and it is rumored to have been a meaning that her publisher gave "SCUM", to promote and sensationalize the book. Until somebody finds evidence to the contrary, I do not find it intellectually honest for wikipedia to endorse this myth. In fact I think this is such a relevant issue surrounding Solonas and SCUM Manifesto, that it would warrant a couple sentences in a "controvery" section in this wiki article.

I am worried that many of SCUM Manifesto's biggest critics, both on this page but also in general, have not actually read the book or read accurate accounts of its history. I hope I am wrong.24.60.20.149carolyn z

I concurr!

Passages such as:

"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."

reveal what a hate-driven lunatic she really was and reveal the utter worthlessness of this bile-fuelled tract.

IndigoJones 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if the Scum Manifesto were written today, it would receive universal condemnation. In it's time it was "quaint" because it rode the coat-tails of the feminism of it's day. If you really want to read it for what it is, replace the word 'men' with the word 'Jew' and see how much you enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The preceding comments concern me. Does Solanas merit coverage here? Does her writing merit coverage? Do artistic works about her merit coverage? Unquestionably.

We are all totally entitled to decide whether we agree or disagree with her opinions. Modifying these articles to include more authoritative, verifiable references, and modifying these articles to improve the prose, or to make sure they more closely comply with the wikipedia's neutrality policy is an excellent thing. Modififying these articles based on a personal distaste for Solanas's expressed views would be a violation of most of the wikipedia's core policies.

If the preceding comments were intended to advocate modifying the article based on a personal distaste for Solanas's views I urge them to reconsider in the strongest possible terms. Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The first writer in this thread, 24.60.20.149 is spoofing us. I bought a copy of this book back in 1981. The book was not very long. The claim that it doesn't include the phrase "Society for cutting up men" is ridiculous. The phrase is repeated over and over. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The full text is searchable on-line. It does not use the phrase over and over, or, indeed, at all. It is, however, included as part of the title. Ricardiana (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no where in the text where the phrase "Society for Cutting Up Men" occurs. This was a publicity stunt on behalf of her publisher. If anyone would actually take the text seriously they would realize this. The only place she talks about "scum" uf when talks about women being scum, or being treated like scum, as if they are the nasty stuff at the bottom of a lake. The original editions of the book had no mention of "Society for Cutting Up Men" on the cover or in the title. This was something publishers added in after the fact. I really wish people would realize this. Geoswan, what editions do you have? Where is the phrase used? I have several different editions of the text, as well as having studied it in an academic setting, and I have never read a version that said "society for cutting up men", besides as a subtitle in versions that were re-issued after the original, or after she died. You simply need to a)read the text and b)check out the older editions in order to garner this information! But in either case, we are being disingenuous if we do not at least refer to the controversy and the actual facts in the article. Until someone can actually cite proof that she meant "Society For Cutting Up Men", then there is no reason other than stubbornness and bias to keep this out of the article. -carolyn z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.30.33 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I purchased a remaindered copy of this book in 1981. My copy was a paperback, with a cover that used a lot of purplish/pink. As I wrote it had a long foreword and long afterward. One of which was written by the publisher. The other was written by a left-wing journalist. IIIRC, the journalists worked at the now defunct Ramparts magazine. Is there a reason you haven't listed the provenance of your copy? Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A tertiary view

I noticed that a lot of people here seem to think that because it has Valerie Solanas' name on it, that means that her intentions are the end all, and the be all, of the "SCUM Manifesto". I disagree with this perspective. I think that since the publisher altered the work before publishing it, that the article about said work should cover the version of it that was published, not what we speculate may or may not have been the writers' intention beforehand.

However, if we can verify that the publisher altered it, and how, then we should note it in the article, as such is relevant. The solution I propose is that we refer to it as "Society For Cutting Up Men" in the lede, but make it clear elsewhere that this alteration was in fact made by the publisher pre-print.

This would address the issue of the publisher sensationalizing the writing while also not pointedly ignoring what the printed document actually said.

What do you think? Macai (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That the phrase “Society for Cutting Up Men” applies is disputed (as can be seen by the paragraphs above Macai’s in this discussion). So, it should not be referred to, especially in the lead paragraph. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Solanas distancing herself from the manifesto

Later in life, and after serving a prison sentence for reckless assault with intent to cause bodily harm, Solanas tried to distance herself from the manifesto.

I don't think this can really be considered NPOV, and definetly not a backed up statement. There is no contradiction between her referring to her manifesto for finding out who she is, and the manifesto being satiric or a literary device. Nor is there, as far as I can see, anything except that quote even vaguely implying she dissociated herself from the manifesto. But then, rewording it might require adding something about the satiricial/not satirical nature of the text (or a simple removal of paragraph in question).--AApathy 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5 points ... disagree

This text at the end of the arguement doesn't make a lot of sense to me even though I have read both of the texts in question. Could someone who knows what this is meant to mean make an attempt to tie it into the preceding sectionm, or flesh it out and make a conclusive statment about SCUM?

Sisterhood Is Powerful edited by Robin Morgan included excerpts of the Scum Manifesto. It left out five points with which modern feminists would disagree--but it did say that the good was female and the bad was male:

male/bad: emotional

male/bad: animal-like

female/good: objectivity

female/good: technology, especially automation and biotechnology intended to make men

unnecessary for production and reproduction.

male/bad: censorship

An An 02:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to SCUM Manifesto

I would like to request that unless the link goes down irevokably, that editors (especially IP guests) please just leave the link to the SCUM Manifesto AS IT IS. Why?

1. There is NO original online source for the SCUM Manifesto. The original source is a paper BOOK and all online sources are republications of that book.
2. The Womynkind source has been around for years, and is quite stable.
3. It is also the only one I have seen with a graphic, which is nice to offer people
4. It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics - readers can read the piece and surf out. Whereas other sites (Church of Euthanasia, reactor-core etc) attempt to use the SCUM Manifesto to give credence to an alterior political position (which may or may not be tennable, but is certainly not in line with Solanas' writings).
5. This is a high-controvery topic, and we owe it to our readers (and the topic itself) to treat it with dignity and fairness. This means balanced writing, factual writing, and rising above petty point-scoring attempts to get hits on a controversial website.

If you're not interested in Solanas, then please just surf away to another wikipedia page (they are many and varied), but please don't resort to vandalism! An An 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be the best of the three ( ), as far as formatting and the picture.

"It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics"

Yes it does: "Many of the other sites that have this text exploit it for anti-feminist ends. Don't be taken in by this crap.". The bio linked to from that page contains "P.S. Valerie you will always be my personal hero!!!!!! - Nancy Hulse, Womynkind Productions".

The bible site has the formatting but no picture. A little POV, though it also has "If you find ought to disagree with, that is as it ought be. Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth", which is a great description of the whole principle behind NPOV.

The Euthanasia site doesn't have any POV text on that page, but is, of course, a very biased site, like womynkind.

I guess you can't help a little POV on an external link, but we can probably find a better source than these three.

Hell, can we copy this to Wikisource?. - Omegatron 14:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

No, It was copied to wikisource, but removed for copyvio. Its unfortunate. I do maintain that of the 4 sites (womynkind, gos.sbc, reactorcore, and CoE), womynkind is probably the most appropriate. Womynkind and gos.sbc are both feminist sites (so are mostly reliable to reproduce the text as something of value). Of the other 2, reactorcore has disclaimers and bible quotes all over it (not very appropriate), and the other tries to used the SCUM manifesto as part of a sermon of destruction and terror for its own sake - also not very apt to the original piece. Why I think womynkind is superior is ultimately because it is very stable, is well formatted, has a picture, and a biography of VS.

The way User:142.179.111.243 is going about putting the reactorcore and CoE sites onto the page is just anti-social. Maybe we need to investigate some other hostings? An An 22:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I was about to go ahead and insert a link to the Womynkind text but then I saw the following comment from Somercet, so I figred I would quote that comment here --Brian Z 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Sadly, the SCUM manifesto is under copyright and it is not clear that the holder has granted reprint rights to ANYONE. Thus, the external link to the full text of the manifesto has been removed. Please do not restore unless a site is found that DOES have rights to webpublish the manifesto"

There are two related issues here:

1. Including verbatim copies of works that are currently protected by copyright is a serious breach of both the wikipedia's policies and copyright law;
2. Including references to external sites that host unauthorized copies of copyright works is not a violation of copyright law. But it too is a lapse from wikipedia policy. As I understand it we do not link to unauthorized mirrors of copyright work for reasons of verifiability, and because doing so suggests a lack of respect for copyright.

So, as I understand the policy, we shouldn't link to any unauthorized mirrors. Period. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Satire

Although it's very funny, I don't think there's any evidence that Solanas meant it as a satire. Quite the opposite. When she was arrested for shooting Warhol, and was asked why she did it, she said "read my manifesto to find out who I am". (See this link.) While it's true that others have suggested it must be satire, Solanas often reiterated that she was a manhater. Philip Arthur 23:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening para says it can be seen as satire. This implies that others see it as satirical, not that Solanas intended it to be satire. There's no need to explicitly state that it might not be intended as satire. I personally think that its both intended satire and intended as a deadly serious critique at the same time. An An 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but it has no place in an article. I don't think the introduction should suggest that the piece can be seen as satire if that was not the author's intention. If it in fact was, you'd have no difficulty finding her saying so. It's pure speculation that it "can be seen" as satire and speculation has no place in Misplaced Pages (and I entirely disagree that it only implies that others "see" it as satirical; rather, it strongly suggests that it was meant to be seen that way because we make a point of suggesting it in the introduction). However, if you want to source other people saying it's satire, and place that in the body of the article, then that would be fine. Philip Arthur 03:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do include a discussion of whether it is satirical, please bear in mind that we ought not to say "it can be seen as satirical" but rather "X saw it as satirical", where X is some critic who has been published. We should not be including our judgments of what things may or may not be, but we could summarise what others have had to say about it. Philip Arthur 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

From satire: Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject. I'd say "Men will be clinging to Big Momma with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Big Momma will be clining to Big Daddy who will be in the corner, shitting his forceful, dynamic pants", is sufficiently representative of the work's style, and sufficiently ridiculous to justify the appellation of satire. An An 04:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer a more accurate definition of satire, which would have it that it puts vices and follies up to ridicule, rather than simply insults its subjects (and you might note that it is not a requirement of satire that it is ridiculous but rather that its target is held up to ridicule). By that definition, this writing would not qualify. But my opinion is of course worthless. You could better have accepted that yours is too and included published critiques but it's simply not worth fighting over. Philip Arthur 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The work does hold the subject (patriarchy) to be ridiculous. If you want to include citations, then find them and include them.

The obligation is on the person who wants to make a claim to include citations.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of stating "oh this wasn't her intention" at every turn because very little is known about her actual intentions.

Then why do you insist on suggesting it was meant as a satire?Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

An is not suggesting it was meant as a satire. Read the wording of the versions proposed by her, it clearly says that it can be seen as satire. Dysprosia 07:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You think it's possible that Solanas might have inadvertently satirised patriarchy? In any case, if you want to say it can be seen as a satire, you still need to source someone seeing it that way, rather than give your opinion. Philip Arthur 05:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To deal with your second point first, I would agree with An that the satire is somewhat self-evident, but I don't really feel up to getting into a great protracted debate on this. To deal with your first point, it's quite possible to write something that can have multiple interpretations; for example, many artworks have this property. Dysprosia 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, artworks can be interpreted differently by different people. They generally view them through the prism of their own agenda. I daresay that if we were discussing the Society for Cutting Up Women Manifesto, you'd have a rather different view on whether it could be seen as a satire. But your view, and mine, of whether it is satirical is besides the point anyway. We are not here to interpret artworks but to report others' interpretations of them. I think there would be no harm at all in a "Views" section, which did exactly that. What do you think? Philip Arthur 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Solanas is dead (while she was alive, her literary opinions weren't sought), and so her work speaks for her.

Yes, but you are not quoting the work but giving your interpretation of it.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Her work is reviled, praised, read and interpreted the same as other works by other writers. We can say how her work is received without it becoming original research.

Yes. We do that by quoting how it was received not by giving our personal opinions of how it was received.Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to talk about a particular thing or attitude is as much an expression of POV as to talk about it.

No idea what you mean by that. Not talking about your personal attitude is not POV. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have altered the first para to be more literal.

It still suffers from the flaws I noted. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to let you tell me my opinion is worthless, it isn't. An An 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In this encyclopaedia it is. The opinions of all editors are. We have a policy that very wisely bars us from including them. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The mess of text above is difficult to follow.

Philip, my opinion as an editor, reader and writer is not worthless. I'm quote happy with the first para at this point, except for 2 items: 1. Philip, can you provide a citation for the claims that "Many of the accusations that Solanas makes of men were from a radical feminist point of view". I have doubts that Solanas "accuses" men of anything. She appears more to characature them. And I doubt she was actually a radical feminist. She wasn't part of any organised political movement (except her own!) and doesn't really echo any of the sentiments or styles of radical feminism - except for laying the blame for womens oppression at the feet of patriarchy. In any case, unless you can cite it, its out. 2. The piece can be read as satire - I'm not claiming that I hold that opinion, or that it was intended as such. I'm not claiming it unreasonably. Its a matter for observation. The Gulliver's Travels page (for example) doesn't cite Swift claiming the book to be satire or not. Its a matter for observation. Its transparent. An An 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion has no place in the article. That doesn't mean your opinion as an editor is worthless. It means you may not include it in the article. There's a clear distinction between those two ideas. I urge you to read the policy on original research so that you're absolutely clear what articles should contain.

As to your two points: one, I'm not responsible for that claim, and I wouldn't make it. Radical feminists may have claimed Solanas, but I'm not sure she would claim them. She hated men, for whatever reason, rather than followed a political creed. By all means, take that bit out. Two, I just don't think you're paying any attention to what I'm actually saying. It doesn't matter that you think it can be read as satire. As it happens, I don't agree. I think it can be read as the rantings of a petulant child. But you'll notice that the article doesn't say that. Why? Because my opinion is also worthless. Gulliver's Travels is widely described as a satire. You could cite hundreds, thousands of critics saying so. As for SCUM Manifesto, there is a difference of opinion from what I can see. Some think it was intended as satire; others don't see it. Solanas herself, as I cited, said she wrote it because she hated men. She didn't say she wanted them to look ridiculous. You ignored what I said about satire, which is that it holds folly or vice up to ridicule, and does not simply ridicule its target. I know it seems a rather fine distinction but it is important. What you have now is much more like it

What I suggest is that we have a section on "Views on SCUM Manifesto" and cite what people have said about it rather than include our own observations. Philip Arthur 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between radical feminism and misandry.

re: satire. VS critiques the "folly" and "vice" of patriarchy. An An 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the part about radical feminism. I didn't write it and I don't think it's justified.

I'm just not going to argue with you about satire any more. First you insisted that SM ridicules patriarchy, now you say it "critiques" its "folly" and "vice". Neither of these things would make it a satire and it remains true that even if it did, you need to find someone else saying so, and not seek to include your personal opinion. Did you not like my suggestion that we could have a "Views" section?Philip Arthur 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In order for A Modest Proposal to be taken as anything but a satire would require us to believe Swift capable of infanticide and cannibalism. Apparently, a lot of his other works don't promote those two crimes and the people who knew him apparently didn't think him capable of them, either.

Sadly, Valerie defies such analysis. First of all, she was advocating violent revolution in a time when a lot of people advocated such. Second, it isn't that hard to see various SCUM points in a lot of other people's serious works: "Aging is a disease." "Men are emotionally crippled would-be girls." Machine-run Socialism. Single-sex political supremecy (not male genocide). Lots of people have held these ideas. Third, she went nuts. (She SHOT somebody, remember.) Whether it was congenital or situational, it makes it hard to decide how serious Valerie was.

Apparently, in the '77-8 Village Voice interview, Valerie denounced SCUM's man-hate. Was she on better meds? Therapy going well? Was SCUM a product of a twisted state of mind she later realized was crap, forgetting that she had once believed it? Or was she even crazier and less in touch with her past than she had been? We'll never know. Someone should look that article up. Any objective article should note BOTH positions, present the evidence, AND note that we can't see inside her mind to decide which is correct.

Far more seriously, we can't link to copy-vio work. I've removed the links to any online SCUM until we get permission to put it on Wikisource or find an online version that has the proper permissions. I've also emailed womynkind.org and gos.sbc.edu and a couple others to find out what permissions the printed book comes with. Cross your fingers. Somercet 13:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

prostitution

Someone removed the word "prostitute" from the article, citing "NPOV".... care to explain?? Her life of prostitution is well established. wikipediatrix 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's NPOV because its irrelevent to her work as an intellectual in producing SCUM. If Solanis' manifesto had been Sex Work: Unionise and shoot the Johns then it would be very relevent. Its like pointing out in an article on Mark Latham's recent political biography that Latham punches taxi drivers. True, but not relevent, and given social attitudes towards punching taxi drivers and prostitution, an attempt to disparage. Fifelfoo 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To further my previous point. Her attempted assassination of Warhol is fairly relevent given the content on the destruction of male power (and men as a genus) in SCUM Manifesto.Fifelfoo 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • When you have a person who writes a book advocating the extermination of men, I think it's EXTREMELY relevant to mention, even if only in passing, that she made her living having sex with them. It's so obvious I can't even believe it has to be debated. And it's not like I devoted a long NNPOV paragraph to the subject - I mentioned, in passing and in ONE WORD, that she was a prostitute. Just as we would mention, in passing, that Jesus was a carpenter and Hitler was an artist. wikipediatrix 01:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jesus was a fictional character and there are a variety of potrayals, one as a carpenter. Hitler was a failed gutter artist. This is irrelevent in regards to an article on Mein Kampf, as Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was not a failed gutter artist, but a political activist and prisoner. We may as well say "SCUM Manifesto, written by Solanis, at one time a child, daughter, lover, student, graduate student, prostitute, unemployed worker, drug addict, street person, currently dead." This article is on the text, not Solanis. Solanis' employment is vitally relevent to the article Solanis, but not to the article SCUM. Fifelfoo 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree... Prostitution and man-hating are connected in a way that the messiah biz and carpentry are not, and in a way that genocide and art are not. The inclusion of this one word - "prostitute" - makes a universe of difference to a newcomer's view of the integrity of the SCUM manifesto. And that's not just from one POV, it could go either way: Solanas' (note correct spelling) supporters may point to this as indicative of her being qualified to criticize men, while her detractors may point to it as evidence of hypocrisy. Still others may just take it for what it is. Either way, a man-hating book written by someone who has sex with men for money needs to be presented as such, just as a vegetarian cookbook written by someone who eats veal needs this seeming contradiction pointed out as well. wikipediatrix 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance working has to man-hating, unless you're implying that class politics deeply influenced the SCUM manifesto. Then it'd be more reasonable to point out that Solanis was *working*. If you genuinely believe that there's an occupationally specific link between man-hating and sex-work, why did you use a loaded term like "prostitution"? And, can you indicate that Solanis was a sex-worker while she was writing SCUM? If occupation comes into it we may as well point out Solanis was a failed intellectual, its much more relevent to writing a political manifesto.Fifelfoo 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay now, clearly you have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "prostitute", we say "sex-worker", and where "sex-work" is considered no different than any other kind of work. That's not going to fly. If one's work is having sex with MEN, that obviously has a relevance to their man-hating philosophy book. "Prostitute" is not necessarily a loaded word (like it or not, it is the official term for a crime for which Solanas was charged), and even if it was, Solanas referred to herself by that very word in her Up Your Ass play. I'm reverting it to include the word "prostitute" again. Because practically all resources written about her say she was. Because her police record says she was. And because she said she was. wikipediatrix 00:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay now, clearly y9ou have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "sex-worker", we say "prostitute", and where "prostitution" is considered as an especial and speficially individuating kind of work, different from every other form of wage labour. That's not going too fly. Sexual and economic alienation are not necessarily or even generally interrelated. We may as well say "man-fucker" when describing Solanis, because its more immediately relevent. Prostitute is a loaded word, its a bourgeois legal term for a common occupational practice and criminalises a very common activity. Moreover, the criminalisation is very specific in time and place to certain societies. New York anti-prostitution laws in the 1960s differ radically in *who* is legally defined as a prostitute to, for example, laws in Gilded Age New York, or contemporary society. I'm reverting it because it belongs on the bio page, not the page regarding the manifesto. Fifelfoo 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Solanas' police record doesn't say "sex-work", it says "prostitution". Give up this politically-correct linguistic game. Why am I even bothering to try to have a serious discussion about Valerie Solanas with someone who refuses to even spell her name properly? wikipediatrix 16:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing "Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life." With a line like "For information about the circumstances sorrounding the creation of the SCUM Manifesto, see Valerie Solanas." I've started a thread below because I feel this article is biased.--Punkpet 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Solanas was a prostitute, however she was also a playwright, an author, and a factory worker. Adding "prostitute" serves no purpose. --Punkpet 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she was a sex worker is, prima facie, irrelvant to the article. That sort of detail belongs in her biography article. Any claim that her prostiution influnced her manifesto must be substantiated either by quotes from its text, or from a published critique. Otherwise it is original work, and doesn't belong on the Wiki. — Clarknova 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No one in the article is suggesting, or has suggested, that her prostitution influenced her manifesto. wikipediatrix 02:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Giving her the label "prostitute" in the opening paragraph is a strong, and not altogether subtle suggestion that it did. It's also frivolous: prostitution is not her contribution to history. Articles on Einstein's published works do not begin with "..patent clerk Albert Einstein..". Articles on Kafka's stories and books do not begin with "..insurance officer Franz Kafka.." Her work as a prostitute is a biographical detail, and try as you might to squeeze it in, its place is in her bio. Not here. — Clarknova 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reeks of Bias

Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life

Why is this important? It appears to be an attempt to discredit Valerie Solanas. If people wanted a biography of her life they can see her own wiki entry.

vitriolic and obscenity-laden assault on men

Loaded terms. I smell testosterone. (why not call the communist manifesto a vitriolic assault on freedom?) --Punkpet 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What does testosterone smell like? Palenque 07:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article for bias and clairty, I used my copy of the SCUM Manifesto as a source (and cited it in the refrences section). I am new at wiki so be nice to me ;)--Punkpet 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the "Interestingly..." sentence is junk and needs to stay out of the article. It's enough to quickly note in passing that she was a prostitute, but whether it's "interesting" or not is a matter of opinion and loaded Original Research. People keep objecting to the word "prostitute" but I don't see what the problem is. It's the literal, perfectly neutral, official legal term for it and to express it in a nice, more politically correct way, would be a POV violation. Solanas had no problem with the term herself. As for the rest, I don't really smell the testosterone. That the writing is obscenity-laden is obvious. "Vitriolic" could be replaced with "spirited", perhaps, but it still doesn't raise a red flag for me. wikipediatrix 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Punkpet, I noticed you reverted the "prostitute" word again without discussion. Please use the discussion page before entering into a revert war. wikipediatrix 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I thought it was a part i had left out while editing for bias, As i stated in my eaten up post. Solanas also worked at the University of Maryland Research lab, and wrote the play Up Your Ass before writing the scum manifesto. I have no problem with the fact that she was a prostitute, however it adds nothing of significance to this article besides bias, if we wanted to make the article fair we'd have to list all of her previos jobs before she wrote the SCUM Manifesto. And then it turns into an article about Solanas, and not her book.--Punkpet 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(furthermore, I see no other citing of people's professions in other wikipedia entries about Literature I've looked up for comparason)--Punkpet 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems obvious to me that if someone wrote, for instance, an anti-donut manifesto, it would be worth mentioning in passing if they also happened to be a pastry chef. The point shouldn't be belabored, and the significance of it shouldn't be speculated upon, but it should be mentioned. Solanas' detractors might point to it as evidence of hypocrisy, but Solanas' supporters can also point to it as evidence that if anyone knows what men are really like and has seen all types of men exhibiting their true selves as most people (including their wives) never have, it would be a street hooker, which Solanas was by choice (not out of poverty), because of her steadfast philosophical objection to entering into a 9-to-5 employer-employee job situation. Which is admirable. wikipediatrix 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One can assume from the book, that she has a bias against men. If we care to find out why, we can read her biography and form our own oppinion. I'd be okay with something added to the article along the lines of "for more about Solanas's life, see her article" As it is, the article seems to be a bit too biographical, I'd like to perhaps steer it away from an article about Solanas and more about an article about the book itself.--Punkpet 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that maleness is a fact of life, wheras donuts are not. Her bias towards men takes into account her entire life experience, writing that she is a prostitute only creates bias and detracts from the valitity of the book. Add your "Prostitute" to the article, but prepared for my extensive biography, and subsquent merge flag to follow.--Punkpet 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Donuts aren't a fact of life?? But seriously, I don't think the inclusion of one word makes the article "too biographical". Your concern about protecting the reputation of the book's validity seems to indicate a definite POV in itself. Far from detracting from it, I think the prostitute mention adds credibility to it. wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry, i have trouble organizing my thoughts). It seems to be a common patriarchial practice to say "oh, she's only a feminist because of (being a prostitute, bad childhood, etc)." The adding of "she was a prostitute" to this article seems to be an attempt at antifeminist bias.--Punkpet 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I could introduce you to some friends of mine who are "sex workers" and EXTREME feminists, more so than you or I. And since I'm the one urging for the word "prostitute" to remain, you seem to be accusing me of antifeminist bias, which is just plain wacky. There are MANY types of "feminism" in the world, and some versions of them are diametrically opposed to each other. I maintain that the type of "feminist" who openly embraces their right to prostitute themselves in order to achieve their own higher goals is precisely the type of feminist Solanas was. (And that's a good thing.) wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Clarknova summed it up best in the "prostitution" section.--Punkpet 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're just being obstinate then, because Clarknova said "Any claim that her prostiution influnced her manifesto must be substantiated", yet no one has made that claim in the article! And I've already made it clear that I wouldn't want any such drawing of conclusions in the article. I've wasted enough typing on this matter already, but I still think it's totally wrong and POV to ban the word "prostitute" from an article about a prostitute's book. wikipediatrix 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"And I've already made it clear that I wouldn't want any such drawing of conclusions in the article."....doesn't matter what you want, as you don't own the article. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 02:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, mister Armed Forces guy, but expressing my opinion (and agreeing that drawing of conclusions is a bad thing) doesn't mean I think I own the article! Your unnecessary aggression and hostility from your edit wars on certain Scientology pages seems to be carrying over to this page. Keep the attitude in check, please, and try to be WP:CIVIL. wikipediatrix 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how my military status has anything to do with my editing? Are you just hunting for things to attack me on? ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was an attack? wikipediatrix 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interloper

Just curious, WTF is up with Jacek Kendysz taking it upon himself to delete two of my comments from this discussion page?? wikipediatrix 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't. I heard this is called an edit conflict. --UNK 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, Wikipediatrix. Its very obvious that you mean Jacek with that title INTERLOPER. --UNK 11:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Polemic

Can I suggest--and I think it might resolve or clarify much of the discussions above--that this text be classified as 'polemic', or as a 'polemical text'? It is an old, perfectly respectable literary style that often utilizes satire but is not in and of itself classified as satire. Polemic (polemikos--"of, or relating to war") is characterized by an aggressive, emotive, controversial, provocative style. I don't have access to a good handbook/encyclopedia/glossary of literary styles at the moment, but I'll try to follow up with reputable documentation and definition. B. Dagger Lee 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)B. Dagger Lee

Relevance?

Finding instances of SCUM Manifesto being misrepresented as mainstream feminism and used to discredit feminists is pretty easy. Hell, I think it's in my user talk archive. However, is there any evidence of anyone taking up the manifesto and marching forward with it, of any widespread reading and citing of it in third-wave feminism, or by any feminists since the mid-1970s, period, for that matter? Cause if this has any following in feminism and is a major shaping influence on how contemporary feminists think and act, article ought to say so. If this is simply a single notorious work by a zealot on the fringes that's been jumped on by enemies of the mainstream movement in a spotlight fallacy but ignored by feminists for 3 decades, article ought to say so. There's got to be a source of information, one way or the other, right? The Literate Engineer 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Some of the ideas are mirrored in radical feminism, but the ideas may have arose independently. Dysprosia 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy in linking to misandry twice

To further expound on the reason given in the edit comment of the my most recent edit removing the See also link to misandry, the claim of common practice not to link twice is reflected in the Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout: The "See also" section... should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Dysprosia 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Solanas' status as a mental patient

Is there any reason why the fact of her frequent admissions to mental hospitals (strongly implying mental illness) should not be mentioned in this article, as it is in her biographical article? It would certainly seem like a relevant fact that should be considered before anyone weighs the content of the work, let alone accepts it as a beacon. Critical (note extremely well: "critical" in the sense of "careful and close", not in the sense of "hostile") examination of the work would seem to be hindered by ignorance of this fact.

We could argue until the cows come home about whether her work as a prostitute is relevant to the Manifesto (and I'm not going to join that debate), but the possibility that the work was at least partially the product of psychotic thinking should give all of us pause for thought, especially because so many people have given the work such uncritical endorsement without significant discussion of Solanas' mental illness. The section of Theodore Kaczynski's wiki page that discusses his manifesto is open and frank (and NPOV) about its author's mental illness; is there any reason why the SCUM Manifesto should not be treated the same?--7Kim 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

computers/automation

I suggest this sentence, used to introduce a paragraph of the manifesto, be replaced, or that the introduction and paragraph are simply removed: "Asserting that all 'un-creative' labour in society could become easily automated, despite the then non-existence of sophisticated computers". I realize how hard it is to try to write something unbiased about a work as, well, out there as this, but it's worth it to try.

Firstly, if you're going to counter one of her points ('this was impossible at the time'), I suggest you do it after, not before, the quote itself. You get to say the same thing, but instead of just coming off as trying to frame something in the reader's mind, it looks more like a serious analysis. Secondly, wouldn't someone who agrees with the author just consider the rise of computing and the automation it has brought with it as proof that she was right, and much of society really can be automated? Computers, in a basic form, were around at the time. Videogames had even been invented by then. It is possible (just judging from the quote in the article) that she saw the potential in computers, or, for that matter, that she wasn't even talking about computing at all, but other devices. --SoloGecko (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Original print copies

As I mentioned above I owned a paperback copy of this book, purchased, IIRC, in 1981.

Worth noting in the article -- if only someone looks up the exact details, is that early editions of her book had a long preface, and long afterword, both written by men. IIRC the preface and afterword totalled almost the same length as Solanas work.

I can't remember her publisher's name. He wrote one. A left-wing journalist, who knew her, wrote the other.

Both the publisher and the left-wing journalist wrote about how Warhol's shooting left them feeling that they might have been the target of her shooting. The publisher wrote that, on the day of the shooting, or the days leading up to the shooting, Solanas had been looking for both Warhol and himself. He wrote that he thought that since Solanas had similar beefs with both Warhol and himself if she had found him first she would have shot him.

The left-wing journalist ran into her shortly before the shooting. IIRC he remembered a beef she had with him. IIRC she seemed agitated, and asked if he knew where she could find Warhol. The left-wing journalist was a divorced dad, and was on an outing with his young daughter. He wrote that he felt that being with his daughter protected him from Solanas.

If I had known her work would not sink into obscurity I would have kept my copy. I only paid twenty-five cents for it. It was on a table outside my local book-store -- books that hadn't sold, and were marked down to practically nothing. My college room-mate that term was more of a sensitive new-age guy than I was, and I let him add the book to his feminist library after we both read it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural mainstream?

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

The SCUM Manifesto has elicited much criticism by many in the cultural mainstream. It is often dismissed by the mainstream public—against whom the book is targeted—who have characterized it as either a joke or malevolent, misandrist and threatening to traditional American family values. However, it is very popular among feminists and misandrists.

This is so vague as to be essentially useless. None of it is referenced, hence the "who"s sprinkled in the paragraph, so there is no way to verify the claims. This is simply not encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminazi

If you look at the feminazi article's first paragraph, you'll notice it cites Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of "feminazi", and it read:

Main Entry: fem·i·na·zi

Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌnät-sē\

Function: noun

Etymology: blend of feminist and Nazi

Date: 1989

usually disparaging : an extreme or militant feminist

This happens to be exactly what kind of writing this is. This is not just extreme, but also militant feminist writing, and is therefore by definition feminazi writing. I think using the word "feminazi" in this case is more detailed and informative than the word "feminist", since "feminazi" is a certain kind of feminist--a subtype, if you will, of them.

My good friend and detractor Thejadefalcon, however, believes the word is unfitting for an article that is supposed to have a neutral point of view. To him I ask: is the point of view presented when using the word in this case not neutral? If this work does not constitute feminazi work, what does? Macai (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There's some talk on the main page on Valerie Solanas about what she is, whether she's a feminist, feminazi or just completely batty. I personally think that she's a feminazi, a word I don't use lightly, because she's a loon, but that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable on Misplaced Pages as it is "usually disparaging" and therefore not a neutral point of view. If you can find a reliable source stating it's a feminazi writing (shouldn't be all that hard) then I believe it can go in the article (i.e. "Bob, a literary review for the BBC, has been quoted as saying this is a feminazi writing" sort of thing (but better)), but not in the lead. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, usually, but not always! Whether being feminazi or not is disparaging is subjective; some will find it disparaging, others will not. Just because most people think it's a bad thing doesn't make the use of the word less accurate. If we were to refrain from using words which might put something in a bad light, we might need to remove the article for the Rwandan Genocide, lest it might make Hutus look bad to someone since it uses the word "genocide", and therefore not have a neutral point of view! Macai (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They needed help to look bad after that event? However, that was a historical event. Much like the Holocaust, you can't deny that happened or was a bad thing without sounding like a raving idiot. While, in some ways, Solanas is a historical person, views on her differ by person. Therefore, I don't believe it's a suitable term without a source that attributes the opinion to someone else rather than Misplaced Pages. That's just my view, however. Unfortunately, this page isn't visited that often, so we may be the only two commenting on this for a while. You should probably open up an RfC, linking to this discussion and your first edit and my first reversion as a reference, so that we can get others talking about this and chiming in with their opinions as well. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 09:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And just as you cannot deny that the Rwandan Genocide took place, you can also not deny that SCUM is feminazi literature... unless you think the dictionary got the definition of the word wrong. :P I'll just let it get reverted tomorrow (or by someone else) if you feel strongly on this issue and think my argument is weak. Macai (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, no, but others might. Think of it this way. If we attribute it to someone else by way of a quote or similar, we're covering Misplaced Pages's rear. If it's in the lead, someone who thinks differently may assume that's the opinion of Misplaced Pages itself and try to sue us (they'll fail, of course, but what's the use in letting them even try). And are you sure? I'd be quite happy to open up an RfC and let consensus dictate the article. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 13:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that this usage is inappropriate. The fact that you can look up "feminazi" in a dictionary, and notice that it more or less matches what this text is, is no more relevant than the fact that you can look up "demagogue" in a dictionary and notice that it more or less matches what Rush Limbaugh (for example) is. EvanHarper (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What about its usage is inappropriate, exactly? Macai (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a term of abuse, a disparaging epithet of little to no informative value, it morally prejudges the subject matter, it is always and everywhere unencyclopedic when used in Misplaced Pages's own voice (as opposed to, say, "so-and-so called such-and-such a 'feminazi.'" And all of this is so manifestly and immediately obvious that I have trouble regarding your questions and your repeated reverts to this article as being serious and in good faith. EvanHarper (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Macai's been nothing but polite and has already said "I'll just let it get reverted tomorrow (or by someone else) if you feel strongly on this issue..." What kind of vandal would say that? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 18:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright, fair point, I withdraw the comment about his motives. EvanHarper (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of little to no informative value? This tells you that it's not just feminist writing, but extreme and militant feminist writing. Are you saying the fact that it's militant and extreme is unimportant, irrelevant information? As for the abuse or moral prejudice--whether you like extreme or militant feminism is up to you--there is no moral prejudice in the word. Also, I don't see why you shouldn't call Rush Limbaugh a demagogue--it happens to be consistent with reality. Any neutral observer would tell you that he is, in fact, a demagogue, given the definition of the word. Macai (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to call it militant and extreme, then just call it militant and extreme. The idea that there is "no moral prejudice" in a word containing "Nazi" is, I'm sorry, just asinine. As our article Nazism puts it, "The term Nazi has become a generic term of abuse in popular culture."

As for just freely using any terms, no matter how prejudicial, as long as they're "consistent with reality..." well, it's an interesting idea, but it's not how Misplaced Pages does things and I can't really imagine it taking off. Imagine articles beginning, "Mississippi (mɪsɨˈsɪpi/) is an impoverished backwater of a state located in the Southern United States..." "Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an obese, buffoonish American filmmaker..." etc etc. EvanHarper (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is how Misplaced Pages does things... sometimes. Describing something as "genocide" is pretty "abusive" considering the connotation in question. What are we supposed to call the Rwandan Genocide? The Rwandan Misfortune? Wait, no. That passes moral judgment. We'll call it the Rwandan Happening or the Rwandan Event.

Also describing Mississippi as "backwater" does require moral judgment, because "backwater" in this context means "a place or state of stagnant backwardness". Who gets to decide what's backward? You need moral judgment for that. While obese may be true, I don't think it's fitting for the lead since Michael Moore being obese isn't exactly a key point in his films or about him in general. Buffoonish, also, requires moral judgment. You do not, however, need moral judgment to discern that SCUM is extreme or militant--it's about as extreme and militant as you can get. Macai (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But I just said, "If the point is to call it militant and extreme, then just call it militant and extreme." I mean, that was the first thing I said in my last post. Please read my posts before you reply to them. No wonder I thought you were trolling. EvanHarper (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We can shave off two words by just calling it feminazi writing, though. Being concise is a good thing, no? Macai (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't. Two people have explained why we can't, and you haven't been able to refute these explanations. You're trolling. Go away. EvanHarper (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have refuted these explanations. If your explanations held up, then we couldn't call it a Rwandan Genocide, since "genocide" has a negative connotation, like feminazi. Macai (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a bullshit analogy for about a thousand reasons: the Rwanda genocide is generally known as a "genocide" and is referred to as "genocide" by all reliable sources, while calling this "feminazi" is one editor's personal preference based on his consultation of a dictionary, the term "genocide" is a specific descriptive term, while "feminazi" is merely a term of abuse (the analogy would be sharper if you proposed calling the Rwandan genocide an "outrage," say,) the term "genocide" is generally accepted as meaningful and useful, and appears in all dictionaries, while "feminazi" is a controversial recent coinage that does not, etc, etc, etc. And this is all obvious. And you still aren't reading my comments, since I have explicitly told you -- twice -- that I am okay with calling it "extreme and militant," and yet in your last edit you imply that I might not be okay with this. EvanHarper (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, feminazi is not "merely" a term of abuse--it describes a specific type of feminism. The extreme, and militant kind. Also, calling the analogy "bullshit" doesn't make it less valid. Let's not forget that in my most recent post to you (aside from this one), I didn't mention you supporting or not supporting the use of the word "militant and extreme" in any order. (However, as a note, an administrator that goes by the name SarekOfVulcan does have an issue with this wording; see the revision history.) About your claim of the Rwandan Genocide being described as such by "all reliable sources", I'd like to point out that there are virtually no reliable sources for the entire article. Either we need reliable sources for every single word usage we make--in which case this article as well as just about all others should be removed outright--, or we don't--in which case, I can use the term "feminazi" with impunity provided it holds up to scrutiny intellectually, as it does with the SCUM Manifesto. Macai (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There comes a time when both sides of a discussion have made their perspectives clear, and little progress seems likely. In this case, Macai alone adheres to his position, and five other editors, independently, reject his case. Unless something new comes up I see no need for further debate, and I suggest that further attempts by Macai – unless he obtains some facsimile of consensus on this talk page first – can be reverted without comment. EvanHarper (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that you just made a major faux pas in debate - that being use of an argumentum ad populum - I think that your comment about how my edits can be reverted outright without comment regardless of what they say is beyond rude. What if I edited in a way that was totally placid and offended nobody but one jerk's sensibilities, and he reverted the edit I made out of spite? Do you honestly think that's how this project was meant to be? Macai (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been lurking for a bit. I'd quote WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, but I believe that "jerk" was a general statement, directed at a hypothetical person. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Society for Cutting Up Men

I noticed in the article that it questions whether or not SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men because those words are not mentioned throughout the text of the book. Well the obvious answer is that it does stand for Society for Cutting Up Men, just look at the cover. 71.31.60.236 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a fair amount, already (see above). It seems that Solanas did not intend for the work to be presented with that name (“Society for Cutting Up Men”) but that a publisher added it (though apparently not to the first publishing of the book). The matter of whether “SCUM” should be taken as an acronym for “Society for Cutting Up Men” remains a topic of controversy in relation to the book. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Undid removal of reliable sources

Cybermud deleted several reliable sources because he believes that this has been discussed. This discussion didn't reach a consensus in 2005. The information directly relates to the SCUM Manifesto and has relieble sources. Cybermud, you have been engaging in wikihounding and reverting edits for no reason. You will be reported if you continue to display such uncivil behaviour. Randygeorge (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of your definition of "reliable." It goes something along the lines of anything said by anyone that can be verified as long as it conforms to your own POV. You have posted links to mp3 recordings of radio shows, comments made in footnotes and used fringe definitions from non-authoritative dictionaries (like freedictionary.com) to completely redefine well established articles like antifeminism and say author Warren Farrell "advocates incest." Once again, the relevant policy is WP:Reliability and, in this case, WP:Undue. With regard to my edit and your "reliable source" it was a translation by a virtually unknown English author of an unknown French author who wrote a book on "American Feminism" which you interpreted as "Some authors..." ("some" being one of the prototypical weasel words. While you say "some" to refer to one fringe author who made the claim you edited in, you cite one specific author "claimed" this work was misandrist when the misandrist nature of the book is widely accepted by almost everyone. In fact, it is widely considered one of the prototypical examples of misandry put forth by radical feminists.--Cybermud (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The American Feminism: A Contemporary History text is published by an academic publisher, NYU Press; it's certainly a reliable source. It might be an unrepresentative source, but I'm not so sure - the article from Public Culture that Randygeorge also cited (full text here) cites the American Feminism book, and says of it "A more common strategy is to read SCUM as an instance of political fiction or parody in the vein of Jonathan Swift. In this reading, following the text to its logical conclusion, the elimination of all men, is not a literal mandate, but the use of absurdity as a literary device revealing the absurdity of patriarchy." That is to say, we have an RS that doesn't just present the view that the text is a parody, but calls such a reading "common." Ideally, I think, we'd mention briefly in the lede that the text has been read both as misandrist and as a parody, and then have a section in the article that expands on both these interpretations.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, I think, we'd mention briefly in the lede that the text has been read both as misandrist and as a parody, and then have a section in the article that expands on both these interpretations. I agree. Both views are found in reliable sources and therefore both should be mentioned. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute note

• George has taken this content dispute to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles