Revision as of 02:19, 14 May 2017 editNick Levinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,605 edits →deleted recent addition of YouTube reading: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:44, 9 January 2025 edit undoMiddle Mac CJM (talk | contribs)395 edits →New Article Proposal: new sectionTag: New topic |
(20 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues }} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women writers |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Online source|title=Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own|author=Jansen, Sharon L.|year=2011|org=Palgrave Macmillan}}<!-- The full citation and the quotation about the Misplaced Pages article: Jansen, Sharon L., ''Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own'' (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed. Apr., 2011 (ISBN 978-0-230-11066-3)), p. 137 ("Indeed, even today, the wildly popular 'free-content,' collaboratively written, and infinitely recopied and repeated Misplaced Pages calls the ''SCUM Manifesto'' a 'feminist tract.' Ouch.") (author a teacher, per ''id.'', p. 6). --> |
|
{{Online source|title=Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own|author=Jansen, Sharon L.|year=2011|org=Palgrave Macmillan}}<!-- The full citation and the quotation about the Misplaced Pages article: Jansen, Sharon L., ''Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own'' (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed. Apr., 2011 (ISBN 978-0-230-11066-3)), p. 137 ("Indeed, even today, the wildly popular 'free-content,' collaboratively written, and infinitely recopied and repeated Misplaced Pages calls the ''SCUM Manifesto'' a 'feminist tract.' Ouch.") (author a teacher, per ''id.'', p. 6). --> |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
| {{cite journal |last1=Védie |first1=Léa |title=Hating men will free you? Valerie Solanas in Paris or the discursive politics of misandry |journal=European Journal of Women's Studies |date=2021 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=305–319 |doi=10.1177/13505068211028896 |url=https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03328472 |format=PDF |issn=1350-5068 |id=halshs-03328472}} |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Men's Issues}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Death |class=C |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History |class=C |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism |class=C |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Discrimination |class=c |importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women writers |class=C}} |
|
|
{{Archive banner|state=uncollapsed}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== quoting sentence/s within sentence and initial case; and periods ending quotes == |
|
== quoting sentence/s within sentence and initial case; and periods ending quotes == |
Line 34: |
Line 35: |
|
|
|
|
|
I deleted a link to a reading on YouTube of the ''Manifesto''. The image on YouTube visible when the reading begins appears to include a screenshot of an online text that has an editorial note by someone saying it's a manifesto so surely Solanas would not have minded it being given away for free, and so the said someone typed it up years ago and posted it on the Web. The said someone did not claim to have been a friend of Solanas who might have been given permission by her. (I'm not putting the URL for the page or the editorial note here because they're on the same page, as of when accessed last May 8th, and supplying that URL would be an unlawful facilitation of copyright infringement, in my opinion. I'll probably keep the URL briefly in case of an inquiry.) That does not sound like copyright permission to me, especially since she herself sold copies of it to the general public. A video reading is probably a derivative work, so the copyright on the original probably applies to that, too. I emailed the reader on YouTube a few days ago, asking if that person has copyright permission, but I've since read that editorial note and I decided not to further await a reply before deleting. I'm not used to using YouTube but I gather the video is over two hours long and I'm not sitting through that to find a copyright statement (I watched only a moment at the beginning). On the YouTube page, the poster says it's under the standard YouTube license, but that's in the YouTube terms of service and that does not substitute for getting copyright permission to do the reading (which is a performance), only what can be done with the resulting performance. A commentary is legally presumably okay (I don't know what's in the commentary) but, regardless of the commentary or its length, reading a substantial portion of the ''Manifesto'', even if incomplete, would be a performance that would need the permission of the ''Manifesto'' copyright holder. ] (]) 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
I deleted a link to a reading on YouTube of the ''Manifesto''. The image on YouTube visible when the reading begins appears to include a screenshot of an online text that has an editorial note by someone saying it's a manifesto so surely Solanas would not have minded it being given away for free, and so the said someone typed it up years ago and posted it on the Web. The said someone did not claim to have been a friend of Solanas who might have been given permission by her. (I'm not putting the URL for the page or the editorial note here because they're on the same page, as of when accessed last May 8th, and supplying that URL would be an unlawful facilitation of copyright infringement, in my opinion. I'll probably keep the URL briefly in case of an inquiry.) That does not sound like copyright permission to me, especially since she herself sold copies of it to the general public. A video reading is probably a derivative work, so the copyright on the original probably applies to that, too. I emailed the reader on YouTube a few days ago, asking if that person has copyright permission, but I've since read that editorial note and I decided not to further await a reply before deleting. I'm not used to using YouTube but I gather the video is over two hours long and I'm not sitting through that to find a copyright statement (I watched only a moment at the beginning). On the YouTube page, the poster says it's under the standard YouTube license, but that's in the YouTube terms of service and that does not substitute for getting copyright permission to do the reading (which is a performance), only what can be done with the resulting performance. A commentary is legally presumably okay (I don't know what's in the commentary) but, regardless of the commentary or its length, reading a substantial portion of the ''Manifesto'', even if incomplete, would be a performance that would need the permission of the ''Manifesto'' copyright holder. ] (]) 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Transphobia? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly shocked at the lack of analysis regarding trans rights and this "manifesto". The people defending it to the death as "satire" ignore the fact it relies heavily on "sex essentialism" in many ways (i.e calling the "Y" chromosome an abomination!). Regardless of the books intent its reliance on bio essentialism as a ploy would be considered deeply offensive today. Where the hell are the sources talking about this? Is it just assumed this book is semi-satire at this point and not worth dealing with on a higher level? SO confused...--] (]) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Trans-Neptunian object}} The part about the Y-chromosome is specifically a parody of Freud's theory of the female as an "incomplete" male. In this case, she inverts the theory by calling men "incomplete" females. Of course Solanas knew that a Y chromosome is not actually an "incomplete" X chromosome. She's just making fun of Freud's ridiculous pseudo-scientific misogyny. My guess is that you haven't actually read the book as it's clearly not meant to be taken literally. For what it's worth, the book urges both men and women to reject their assigned gender roles, and it says that men who have "de-man"ed themselves are "relatively inoffensive" and will not be killed by SCUM. I don't see any real transphobia in the book, personally. I think she's just sloppy about using the word "men" when she really means "patriarchy". You also have to remember that it was written in 1967, which was before the gender/sex distinction was common, before Stonewall, before '']'', and before trans visibility. Before 1990, sex essentialism was the default assumption that most writing about gender operated under (with some notable exceptions like ], ], etc.). ] (]) 00:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:In the manifesto Solanas suggests hormone replacement therapy as a cure for maleness. Hardly transphobic. ] (]) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Elliot Rodger== |
|
|
Why is there no mention of Elliot Rodger, who wrote a similar piece called "My Twisted World" , but with the genders reversed? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I am a critic of political lesbianism - ERs manifesto was idiosyncratic and by default of zero relevance to this. Political lesbianism failed to catch on, just like his views. --] (]) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why do people claim the book topic was anarcha-feminism? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why the topic of the book is considered as anarcha-feminism if the book calls to eradicate all men which would be a call to genocide. |
|
|
That's not how anarcha-feminism works. |
|
|
I can understand that some people would argue it's satire but then it would be better to use satire instead of anarcha-feminism, especially because it would a broader more factual term like radical feminism ] (]) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== New Article Proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article there is a couple mentions of Solonas shooting Andy Warhol. Is there enough information by secondary sources to warrant an article for that incident. I apologize if it's covered at length in a different article I am unaware of. ] (]) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
When a sentence contains a quotation of a sentence's beginning, the practice and I think a convention that I've seen in various publications, generally scholarly in various fields, if the first letter is capitalized only because it begins the sentence (and not also, say, a proper noun), the first capital is replaced with a bracketed lower-case letter. I'll leave the recent capitalizing edit as it is, in case it's easier for readers in this instance, but I think it can lead to confusion if the first word is, say, "You", as that would carry a religious connotation that effectively would change the meaning of a sentence from the original and making that into an exception might create an inconsistency in an article. The different case of a sentence containing a quotation of both a full sentence followed by the beginning of another sentence also follows the same convention but only for the first sentence, but that can look odd, so I sometimes solve that by preceding the quotation with a colon. Overall, I favor continuing the bracketing with lower-casing but on this style point I think each editor can be left to their own style. Feel free to edit or discuss at MOS:QUOTE or the essay WP:QUOTE. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the facts listed in the first paragraph do not constitute reliable evidence that SCUM was indeed intended by Solanas to stand as an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men". Can anybody explain that to me? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly shocked at the lack of analysis regarding trans rights and this "manifesto". The people defending it to the death as "satire" ignore the fact it relies heavily on "sex essentialism" in many ways (i.e calling the "Y" chromosome an abomination!). Regardless of the books intent its reliance on bio essentialism as a ploy would be considered deeply offensive today. Where the hell are the sources talking about this? Is it just assumed this book is semi-satire at this point and not worth dealing with on a higher level? SO confused...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the topic of the book is considered as anarcha-feminism if the book calls to eradicate all men which would be a call to genocide.
That's not how anarcha-feminism works.
I can understand that some people would argue it's satire but then it would be better to use satire instead of anarcha-feminism, especially because it would a broader more factual term like radical feminism Simon0304 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
In the article there is a couple mentions of Solonas shooting Andy Warhol. Is there enough information by secondary sources to warrant an article for that incident. I apologize if it's covered at length in a different article I am unaware of. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)