Solanas: A Feminist Analysis

Although there may be feminists who agree with Solanas’ violent rhetoric, one should bear in mind that her writing and her views are not representative of the entire feminist movement. I will not take into account the viability of her arguments, but will instead focus on her message of violence and its implications. Solanas’ intentions for society become apparent after the very first sentence:

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. (1967: #1 out of 121 paragraphs) Both Carmichael and Solanas

Although there has been much discussion surrounding the genre of Solanas’s work, I strongly believe and will argue that the ‘S.C.U.M. Manifesto’ is indeed satirical. Her exaggeration of gender differences mocks the rhetoric of ‘the patriarchal system which posits that we are ‘different’ in order to justify and conceal our exploitation. It is the patriarchal system which prescribes the idea of feminine ‘nature’ and ‘essence’’ (QF 1977:214). Solanas satirizes the argument that patriarchal society has used, namely that women and men are inherently different, but positions women in a favourable position. They will be, for once, the ones profiting from the created discourse, with no scientific foundation whatsoever, just like the rhetoric that has been used to oppress and suppress women. Although I agree with the editorial collective of Questions féministes, a French journal on radical feminism, that women are being imprisoned in a reductive and sexist ideology, I challenge their assumption that the only way to fight their oppression is by imitating their methods of separation. Politicizing anatomy by excluding men from their groups does not, I argue, achieve their aims of creating

First, it is proof that her manifesto is not to be taken too seriously. Second, she wishes to dissociate herself and her text from the official language used by the predominantly male literary establishment due to the belief that writing is indeed gendered, as Hélène Cixous argues in ‘Laugh of the Medusa’ (1976). By using terms that women are not often associated with, because they are ‘trained from an early childhood in niceness, politeness and ‘dignity’’, she demonstrates a refusal to reduce ‘her own ‘conversation’ to small talk, a bland, insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial’ (1967: #55). Even though satires often boast hyperboles, Solanas is extreme in her violent speech. Throughout her text, she uses violent terms such as ‘forcibly relieve,’ ‘destroy,’ ‘bust them up’ and ‘kill,’ which, I argue, are representative of her rage and frustration. The author does not wish to conform her writing style to fit the literary form of a manifesto and therefore uses vulgar language such as ‘fucking’, ‘shit’ and ‘bitches’ on purpose. Nevertheless, the question arises whether advocacy of violence and her satire can be