#can we analyze female characters 1% as deeply as the male characters for a moment. maybe actually acknowledge what she does in canon.
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Everyone loves evidence-based analysis except when it contradicts popular fanon <3
#I'm not even mad‚ I'm just astounded that everyone thinks Teruhashi is an angel because Saiki doesn't mind her putting him in danger#yeah she's a teenager who has EVERY right to be Like That. however why does everyone forget she's Like That??????#literally cutting her entire character down to “perfect pretty girl”. just like the Kokomins who are unambiguously villains for it.#can we analyze female characters 1% as deeply as the male characters for a moment. maybe actually acknowledge what she does in canon.#why is it a minority opinion that Teruhashi is complex character in a kinda toxic relationship with the guy she's been chasing for 6 years?#that's literally canon hsfjdlshfks
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
sorry, still on this soapbox but
we have really, REALLY done Colin a disservice in this fandom. we spent so long viewing him primarily as a Love Interest and not as a Character. But when we see and analyze him as a character, so many of his actions make sense, and it becomes almost ridiculous, the dynamics we've imposed on this couple (yes, I'm talking about the 'Colin fucked up and needs to prove himself to Penelope' narrative) when there's so much more nuance and beauty to their pairing than we give them credit for
we as the audience focus so much on Penelope's perspective in their relationship, of course, because we have so much of her perspective in the show, and so our frustrations with Colin stem from that, but we get more insight into him than Penelope does. The 'I would never court her' scene that we've been livid over for years is considerably softened when we actually look at Colin as a character, and the circumstances around his actions.
Colin spends season 2 SAD. He is straight up not okay. We leave Colin in Season 1 freshly heartbroken and running away to Greece to heal. In Season 2, we meet him again, considerably more somber. Colin doesn't participate in the dances. He even says 'I'm just a spectator'. Colin talks about how he started a conversation with himself, tried to understand what he wants and how he feels. Colin offers Benedict shroom tea, and for a moment, JUST A MOMENT, we see the facade slip. His mask cracks. 'Are you quite alright, brother?' and then it's gone. Then he's cheerful again. Calm Colin. Nice Colin.
Colin who is okay.
But Colin is *not* okay. Colin completely isolates himself from women. Colin doesn't flirt, doesn't entertain female attention. Colin is heartbroken, trying to be better. But he views Penelope as a friend, a sacred relationship, a worthwhile relationship, and he can't bear to lose her. To him, Penelope is arguably his closest friendship. His best friend. And in an entire town full of people who don't listen to him, he thinks Penelope does. Unlike the typical dynamic of the ton, in which men are ONLY speaking to women by viewing them as potential sexual partners, Colin views Penelope as a whole person. She doesn't just exist as a romantic option to him, but as a vital connection in his life. That's why the 'I am a woman' 'You are. . .Pen' is so important to view as an act of love- Penelope is NOT just a woman as the ton sees her, good for marriage prospects and little else, Penelope is a complete person. Yes, she's a woman, but more importantly, she's PEN. She's a full human being. And he values her as such. We cannot say the same for the grand majority of men in his society. Tell me any other male-female friendships like that in the ton where that level of respect is given?
But for Penelope, it's hurtful, because she WANTS to be seen as a romantic option in his eyes. That's a fair feeling, though we as an audience should recognize that it can be both upsetting to Pen, and also deeply beautiful as a sentiment. Because of Penelope's hopes of Colin as a romantic prospect, she does not see that he is hurting. Because of our connection as a fandom to Penelope, we do not see it, either. But he *is* hurting. In all of Season 2 he's hurting. That's why he throws himself into the Jack mess. He wants, NEEDS a distraction. He wants to find a place in his world, his society. Honestly? He needs a win. He has spent the last year losing and losing and losing. Who can blame him for being sick of it? His engagement blows up, he finds out his family pays no attention to him, that no one cares about his agency, and he's publicly humiliated. If he invests, if he makes money, he might make more male connections. Might run in more important circles. Like his brothers do. Might prove himself. But Colin isn't friends with the men of the ton. We don't see ANY evidence that he has strong friendships with any of them. Because he isn't like them.
He is 22 years old. Treated like a child in his own family. When he talks about his travels, no one listens. Everyone dismisses him. 'Remarkable, yes, in the sense that I have many remarks about it'. Colin is invisible. He is trying to slot himself in his community, but he does not fit neatly into it. He connects with Will, a man outside his community, and Penelope, a woman also outside his community, because *Colin* exists outside his community. He's the foolish boy who fell headfirst for a woman who lied to him. He's the 'green' baby walking in his older brother's footsteps and unable to fill them. He doesn't behave the way other men of the ton do. He doesn't talk like other men of the ton do. Hell, he *apologizes* to women. We have men NOW in the MODERN ERA who don't even apologize to women.
His own *mother* doesn't even notice he was dating someone for several months in season 1. Colin is a pretty, empty ghost wandering around Mayfair, and so of course he's thrown into a locker room conversation with a bunch of guys who have never once seen a woman as a person, and doesn't relate to them. Colin's not joking and having fun with these men. We very purposefully do not see his reaction after he delivers the 'I would never court her' line.
Colin is uncomfortable around them, but he needs their help to make it up to Will, someone who was kind to him and who he looks up to. He has the mask on so firmly in that scene, it's physically obvious to see. If you compare his reactions around Penelope to his reactions around Fife, it's stark. With Penelope he's open, his eyes are soft, his expression is curious and kind, his shoulders are relaxed. Around Fife he's closed off, eyes hard, muscles tense. Who can blame him? He's acting. He's acting just like he's acting around Jack.
When we look at Colin as a whole character, we get insight into his actions and they make SENSE. The things he say that hurt Penelope are things that are actually defending her- Colin saying he wouldn't court her to those men in particular, is an act of caring. He is defending her in that scene. When a debutante is only good for being 'wed, bed, and bred' in their eyes, Colin saying no, that Penelope is worth more than that, that his connection to her isn't forged on wanting to fuck her, or exploit her, or treat her as a sexual object, is radical. Because anything else, ANYTHING else that he says that isn't an outright denial, puts Penelope in danger. He can't let them believe that the woman he cherishes so deeply he cannot even ENTERTAIN the idea of not talking to her is out here being ruined by his hands.
And when we see it that way, we see that, in reality, of all the men in the series, Colin is the one who has been kindest to his love interest. Colin is the one who has defended her, the one who has stuck his neck out for her, the one who has cared for her with absolutely no expectations of sex or romance in return.
Colin's relationship to Penelope is beautiful, and sure, she can be upset that it isn't in the exact shape she wants it to be, but I think if she takes a step back and looks at it more objectively, if WE take a step back and look at it more objectively, Colin has only ever gone into it with a big, earnest heart. Not PERFECTLY, of course, he isn't perfect, but with the best intentions, and with as much honesty as he can.
And I don't know why we don't celebrate him more for it
#colin bridgerton#polin#penelope featherington#lord fife#bridgerton#once again i am first and foremost a colin apologist#but also like. . .he really does deserve better#he's in this city with all these ain't shit men around him#you think fife has EVER apologized to a woman????#cho???#most of these men are viewing women on the marriage market as meat#at the very least colin sees penelope as a human being#he listens to her he appreciates her he tells her openly that he cares about her#there is not one man who has treated a woman with this much tenderness without already being romantically interested in her#and that should be CELEBRATED not demonized
84 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Heteronormative Queer Film Brokeback Mountain
youtube
The movie that I decided to review was Brokeback Mountain with the director Ang Lee. I decided on this movie because of the impact it made on American society. Never in my life was queer media brought to my attention until this movie was released. The movie featured and followed the lives of two main characters; Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Ennis Del Mar, played by Heath Ledger. The plot of this story was complex with the turns it took and the dissatisfaction the viewer gets after watching the end of the movie. Both characters are in Wyoming looking for a job. The two of them get paired on a job that herds sheep around broke back mountain protecting them from getting killed and eaten by coyotes. Over time on the mountain, Jack Twist ends up making a romantic move on Ennis Del Mar resulting in the two having sex. Their feelings start to develop into true love for one another. After the herding season is over, they go separate ways, leaving their love on the side. Over a period of about twenty years, the two continually get together to meet up at broke back mountain to have sexual relations and fulfill their inner love for one another. As time passes, the two aren’t able to meet up any longer since their lives have gotten more serious. Jack Twist ultimately leaves the United States to go to Mexico, ending with him being killed. To critically analyze this movie was difficult considering the movie has always been seen as very progressive. Throughout my analysis I was able to identify that while Brokeback Mountain did make queer media more visible, I argue that the movie still widely reinforces the theme of heteronormativity.
Within this movie there were many themes the movie had that stood out as important pieces to point out during my analysis. The first theme I was able to identify was masculinity. I noticed this theme throughout because the two men didn’t feel comfortable doing certain things that made them possibly seem feminist. In the movie, Ennis Del Mar doesn’t talk much especially things that bring up emotions in him. I noticed this when he talks about his parents dying and him having to be raised by his two older siblings. This connected to masculinity because it is often seen in American society that crying is not a masculine attribute or action.
The other major theme that I noticed was the idea of binary oppositions. The two men felt like they had no option to come out as gay to the people they loved. They felt like they had two options of sexuality; gay or straight. The men felt like they couldn’t ever come out as gay based on what could possibly happen to them if people found out. They never felt like there was more than two options, like being bisexual.
Another major theme that I identified was the theme of suppressed love. The whole movie is about the idea that the two men are deeply in love, but they cannot seek this love and accept it as normal. They have wives to hide that fact to themselves and others that they really are in love with one another. The two men are never able to fully pursue their love for one another and live a life without suppression. This suppression helped enforce the idea of heteronormativity because gay love is suppressed in favor of heterosexual relationships.
Throughout watching this movie, I was able to identify many different themes or ideas that connected to what we have talked about and learned in class. To start, I want to first address the idea of heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is essentially the idea that heterosexual relationships are the norm. As scholars Benshoff and Griffin stated, “Heterosexuality came to mean the “normal” orientation of male-female attraction and desire, while homosexuality remained its “abnormal shadow”.”(Benshoff and Griffin, 2004, p.3). This mean exactly what it says, heterosexuality is seen as the normal and homosexuality is seen as abnormal. This theme of heteronormativity is why I believe this movie is still problematic. While they are having gay relations, it is still seen as wrong and “abnormal” to the general public. The characters know this and is why the two never fully pursue their love for one another.
The other course concept that I felt related to this movie and the problem of it reinforcing heteronormativity is binary oppositions. As described by scholar Andersson, “oppositions that is gendered and involve relations of power because one of the poles in the dichotomy is always inferior to the other.” (Andersson, 2002, p.5). This connects to the movie because of the binary opposition of heterosexual and homosexual. The idea that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality is very apparent in the film through the idea that they can not be openly gay because of what others might think of them/do to them. Binary opposition of homosexuality and heterosexuality ultimately help reinforce the idea that since homosexuality is seen as “abnormal”, heterosexuality is the normal.
The last idea that the movie brought up that helped enforce the idea of heteronormativity is the idea that heterosexual people may watch the movie and experience queer ideas. This helps enforce heteronormativity because it makes it seem like everyone should experience the same things as people within the queer community. I argue that this is problematic because it pushes the idea that we are all the same. Yet, this is not the case. We as humans are so different and diverse and we aren’t supposed to be the same. I realize that it is helpful for people to experience queer elements, but I think some things are only understood by the community that is portrayed. In the case of this movie, I think the director tries to make the viewer feel like they can feel what the characters are going through. This is not the case. People can not truly understand what others are going through unless they’ve experienced it themselves. For the movie, I believe it is important for the viewer to feel empathy for the characters but what is problematic is the idea that we can see what they are going through and can experience that too. A quote from the Doty readings hit on this idea and states, “Basically heterocentrist texts can contain queer elements and basically heterosexual, straight identifying people can experience queer moments.” (Doty,1993, p.3). This quote points out how even queer media is made for heteronormative societies in which that is the normal. This overall helps reinforce heteronormativity by trying to create a movie that can feed heterosexual viewers information on what it is like to be queer when heterosexual viewers might not truly understand the ideas the movie is getting at. I know in my own personal case, without taking this queer media studies class, I would’ve thought that I truly know what it feels to be a gay man whose love is suppressed. Yet, I know now that I will never really know what that situation feels like unless I experience it myself.
One thing about the movie that I felt was problematic in addition to heteronormative views, is the representation of queer love. Although I realize this movie is meant to take place in a much different time then now, the movie portrays gay love as forbidden love. The characters are never able to embrace their sexuality and rather hide it by having wives and kids for the two main characters. I do not identify as a person who is in the LGBTQ community but to me this reinforced the idea that queer love is forbidden love that must ultimately be hidden or not pursued at all. The idea that love that has to be hidden if it is queer, forces many to follow to heteronormative model and not pursue gay love even if that is their sexuality.
All in all, although I am very critical of the movie, Brokeback Mountain, I overall liked the movie a lot. The impact it made on society ultimately had greater positive impact on society than negative. Even though the movie is portraying heteronormative values, it does a great job at providing queer media visibility. Understanding my own subject positionality also has had a major impact on my analysis. Like I mentioned, I am not homosexual, nor a member of the LGBTQ community. This itself skews my views. I am a white cisgender male who does not experience the same hardships that person within the LGBTQ community does. I’m in a country of privilege and I experience many privileges that others do not. At the end of day, I am very lucky to be in the position I am in where I can go to school and learn more about queer media and lifestyle while also writing about it. In conclusion, although my views are skewed from my own subject positionality, I was able to determine that while the movie Brokeback Mountain did make queer media more visible, I argue that the movie still represents heteronormative ideas and values.
References
Andersson, Y. (2002). Queer Media? Or; What has queer theory to do with media studies? Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
Benshoff, H., & Griffin, S. (2010). Queer cinema the film reader (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
Doty, A. (1993). Making things perfectly queer: interpreting mass culture. Minneapolis u.a.: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why are bad guys sexy? - Breaking down the popular trope
We all know “sexy bad guys” from books, movies, and series. You need only to look into any popular contemporary work and I bet you can point out at least one of them. In recent years there is a tendency for them to move from an interesting side character position to the main love interest of a female protagonist in more and more novels.
They share many common traits. They’re often possessive, arrogant, self-absorbed, have power in the society, can be narcissists or psychopaths (we will have another blog post about them later), and – of course – they are insanely handsome. All women fall for them, but the big question is, why? The trope works, just look at the members of TeamDamon from the Vampire Diaries, the fandom of Rhysand from the Court of Thornes and Roses, and the millions of people who bought the Fifty Shades of Grey. How can it be, that these characters are considered irresistible or at least very attractive?
This phenomenon has many different reasons, most of them are rooted so deep in our psyche that we are not aware of them. We must go back in time when human society was very different from today, and fighting for survival was the daily life of our ancestors.
1. Because of evolution
In primates, there are three different family models. One is monogamy where one male has one female, and they are mates for life. Here the male is essential in taking care of the offspring if they are confident the child is from them.
The second is the harem, where there is one dominant male with many wives and the other males either try to fight him or arouse the females while the dominant male is with another female or occupied with challengers. The females take care of the children while the alpha protects the whole family, however, if there’s a change in the seat of power, the new alpha often banishes or kills the offspring of his predecessor.
Yeah, animals are cruel. But so are humans, since this was a common practice for our ancestors for a long time as well.
The third model is promiscuity, where everyone can have sex with everyone, love is free as the wind but there the males have no idea which child is who’s, so it easier for them to dump all the responsibility of making sure they survive on the females.
Gibbons are a good example of monogamous primates, gorillas prefer harems, while chimpanzees voted for promiscuity. We in our modern western society like to think that humans have implemented a monogamous family model, but this is not entirely true. During our history harems were more common, and great rulers often had many (and by many I mean dozens, sometimes hundreds of) wives, and sometimes hundreds of children. Ramses II had 99 sons, not counting his daughters, and millions of people alive today are descended from Ghengis Khan. On the other side, those who always envision the downfall of morality in our society like to point out that we are slowly tending towards promiscuity. (The hippies say hello to them.)
2. Because of our genes
From a genetic point of view, there are a few things to consider. Males can’t get pregnant, so they value quantity over quality, trying to almost mass-produce children, and if some of them survive they are good to go. Females can only have a limited number of children, so they want to ensure their survival, they want them to be fit, to carry on their genetic data. For this, they need to copulate with the best male, and it’s a generous bonus if that particular male stays to help raise the little devils. The best scenario for a female is when she has the attention of the alpha male, the strongest, the most desired – therefore his child will inherit these qualities. But they also want this male to stay with them not even glimpsing at other females, all the while helping with the children. In contrast, it is a way better deal for males to go on a copulating spree, having as many descendants as possible. And that, ladies and gentlemen, means a clear and visible conflict of interest between the two sexes.
But not every male is as alpha as they come. What about the betas? Hell, even the omegas. How could they pass their genetic data? These little buggers found different solutions, based on which family model they live in. In a harem, a beta has no chance to beat the alpha, so he goes through the backdoor. The alpha can’t guard all his females at once, so the beta has a chance with the neglected females. Also, alphas have higher mortality than betas because they do the fighting. If we think about a caveman tribe, alphas go hunt a mammoth or fight with sabrecats (sadly not dragons, Skyrim lied to us all), and sometimes they don’t come back, leaving grieving widows behind. Here comes the beta male to comfort these poor women, and if he is lucky, he can make a few offspring along the way. Because he doesn’t fight, he can help the female with the children, so they will have a higher chance of survival, and are more likely to pass on the beta-gene. Yeah. You heard me. Some of us are beta by birth.
In monogamy, the females are stuck with their beta mates and the only way out is kind of risky. The females must decide whether they should take the risk and cheat on the beta with the alpha. If they do, the children will be more fit, but if they are caught the beta will leave the female alone with the children and won’t ensure their survival. Why would he? Those are not his descendants. Let Mr. Alpha sleep in the bed he … well, probably slept in with the aforementioned female. When the males can’t guard their females and have no idea whether those children are from them or not, there is a high chance that they won’t stay in the first place. That way all the females and all the males can have sex with whoever they want and now our family model changed to promiscuity.
3. Both? Both. Both is good.
Now that we understand the system of alphas, betas, omegas – my biology teacher called them “casanovas” and “clerks” – and the age-old conflict between sexes, how is all this related to the main question, the sexy bad guy trope?
If we think of the traits of our bad-guy in question, we can clearly see that he must be an alpha, a Casanova-type male. Power to ensure a safe home and food for his lady? Check. Handsome and desired so his children will also be top of the class? Check. Is he strong so he can protect the female from sabrecats? Check. Does everyone else know that he is the best? Of course, he shows it every moment with his arrogant behavior, there is no question.
Another thing that complicates the picture is how authors tend to make the bad guy sympathetic. How can they ensure readers don’t have the urge to hit these Alpha-holes in the face? They give them a tragic backstory! They are never bad because they are… well… bad people, but because they were neglected, they have childhood traumas and so on, and they are just waiting for the female protagonist to heal them.
And THIS, my dear readers, is the ultimate hook.
If we have a caring female that ultimately saves the bad guy, her prize will be an alpha male who stays with her and only her. She gets what all our ancestors wanted since we as a species grew a spine: the alpha male who gives her the best children ever and also stays to help raise them.
This also elevates her above the other females who also longed for this male. The protagonists in YA fiction are mostly introverts, bookworms, outcasts, rejected by their environment, so being desired by the “Casanova” serves as social justice as well.
4. In practice
I may sound judgmental, but this trope is not from the devil in itself, even we use it in our WIP. Given that, it can be executed both in a good way and a very, very bad way, depending on the compromises the author makes and how far they go to make the guy bad. He needs to be bad otherwise there is no redemption plot, there is nothing the female needs to save him from, but he can’t be so evil, that the reader thinks there is no saving him.
The threshold for this is not the same for every reader. For example, I draw the line at abuse. If the bad guy is abusive towards the female, then he doesn’t deserve to be saved, but I am aware, that there are tons of people who glorify abusive relationships – I saw many posts about the Joker and Harley Quinn being relationship goals for example. Another interesting example is Kylo Ren and Rey from Star Wars. Kylo is a mass murderer but ultimately, he managed to redeem himself which I quite liked, although I totally understand that some draw the line there.
Just be aware, that this is fiction. Something that resonates deeply with our instincts, but in real life if someone wants to save the bad guy they will fail miserably in most cases and come out from an abusive relationship with deep wounds and traumas.
Here is the question for you: where do you draw the line? What makes you think the bad guy cannot be saved no matter how sexy he is? Comments are welcome!
Join us next week when we shove men under the microscope and analyze why damsels in distress appeal so much to the most viral hero types.
Lory
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
The theme of sexuality in William Shakespeare’s “Othello”
Introduction
Over the course of Shakespeare’s artwork progress and evolution, his readers can observe his significantly increasing interest in the psychology of sex. Othello is his most widely exploring this topic piece, as the author investigates many varieties of sexuality concerning not only people of the same race and class, but also the ones having different ethnic origins and social statuses. General controversy spread around a black man being the eponymous character inspired Shakespeare to also present stereotypes of interracial sex that affect both family’s of the white, pure girl and the couple itself. Such stereotypes are mostly introduced by the main villain, Iago, who is most frequently using animal imagery to describe them as well as Othello’s and Desdemona’s intimate moments. His language only adds spiciness to the scenes concerning the characters he is speaking about and tension in the reader, as such imagery really evokes one’s imagination and in this case, often disgust.
Imagery used to refer to Othello and his intimate life with Desdemona (and the reaction of Desdemona’s father)
The first scene in which Iago comments on Othello’s and Desdemona’s sex life is when he wants to cause chaos and conflict between Brabantio, Desdemona’s father, and the couple. In order to do that, he puts an image of the dirty, old man shamingly interacting with his pure, young daughter and highlights the possibility of Desdemona getting pregnant with the child of the devil (such metaphor derives from Othello’s dark skin color).
“Zounds, sir, you’re robbed, for shame put on your gown!
Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul,
Even now, now, very now, an old black ram
Is tupping your white ewe! Arise, arise,
Awake the snorting citizens with the bell
Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you,
Arise I say!” (1.1.84-91)
Iago suggests that the fact of Desdemona’s sexual interaction with the Moor is shameful not only towards her herself, but specifically towards his father, who must have not raised her in the right way. He also pays attention to the difference of age between the two - Desdemona seems to be much younger than her lover, which is also not something to be proud of. As Desdemona represents a woman from the upper class, she should also choose someone at least equal to her rank for her husband not to disrespect hers and her family’s position. During the fight between Iago, Roderigo and Brabantio (though Iago speaks to Brabantio as Roderigo), the father of Desdemona accuses the men of being thieves. While responding to this accusation, Iago still tries (and succeeds) to play with Brabantio’s imagination by saying
“ [...] Because we come to
do you service, and you think we are ruffians, you’ll
have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse;
you’ll have your nephews neigh to you, you’ll have
courses for cousins and jennets for germans!” (1.1.109-112)
and
“I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.” (1.1.114-115)
Saying all that, Iago successfully upsets Brabantio by bringing his attention to the marriage of his beloved daughter with the Moor in a very unpleasant way.
Desdemona’s and Othello’s sex life; the symbol of their bridal bed
Another thing concerning the topic of sex that is worth noticing is the amount of trails Othello and Desdemona had to get intimate. Firstly, they had to call off their wedding-night in Venice as Othello was ordered to go to Cyprus:
“ 1 Senator You must away tonight.
Desdemona Tonight, my lord?
Duke This night.
Othello With all my heart.” (1.3.275-279)
Secondly, due to the brawl between Cassio and Roderigo resulting from Iago’s manipulation, they were interrupted again, only in Cyprus. Othello was mad not only because of the fact of their fight, but also because his alone time with his lover was interrupted.
“Look if my gentle love be not raised up!
I’ll make thee an example.” (2.3.246-247)
Such interruptions build the tension between Othello and Desdemona and only add to Othello’s madness developing after he believes that his wife is indeed cheating on him, as he cannot seem to get ahold of her, while he thinks that Cassio does.
Another thing worth mentioning is the bed, which Iago brings a couple of times during the play. It not only reminds the reader or viewer about the off-stage bridal bed, but is also a some kind of a connection between the final scene, during which Desdemona is killed by her beloved husband.
“Well: happiness to their sheets” (2.3.26)
This quotation is especially ironic, as right before her death Desdemona asked Emilia to change the sheets into their wedding ones as a sign of preparing for the big night with her love. This means that these mentioned by Iago bridal bed and sheets may signalize to the reader further course of the plot and highlight the huge juxtaposition: the bed and the sheets that were supposed to bring the couple happiness evolved into a symbol of their tragedy. In fact, the bridal bed is the place on which almost every dead body in this play lands in the end, what portrays the extreme changes that took place in a very short notice.
“I do not know, friends all, but now, even now,
In quarter and in terms like bride and groom
Divesting them for bed [...]” (2.3.175-177)
Is Iago gay?
There have been many discussions about Iago’s sexuality - some say that Iago is in fact homosexual and he wants to destroy Othello and his relationship with Desdemona out of jealousy caused by his unfulfilled love. However, such interpretation of Iago’s character is often made because people feel the need to justify such horrible actions as those presented by Iago. The truth is that this villain is an embodiment of evil, a character taking pleasure from causing chaos, trouble, and pain, as he not once shows any sign of regret, empathy, repentance or change. Humans always seem to seek for motive and need one - in case of Iago, he does not need motive, or more specifically, he’s only motive is to cause harm and enjoy its consequences. Therefore, the theory of Iago’s homosexuality is an over-interpretation that should not be taken under consideration while analyzing Shakespeare’s play.
The theme of womanhood in context of sexuality
The three women characters that are included in the play are supposed to represent women of different class and social status.
Desdemona is representing the highest social status and poses as a female role model, being referred to as a virtuous and loyal wife by several characters during the first few scenes of the play. She’s obedient and kind; even though Brabantio directly expresses his disappointment regarding Desdemona’s choice of husband, she remains respectful and thoughtful enough to not try to bother his father:
“Nor I; I would not there reside,
To put my father in impatient thoughts
By being in his eye. Most gracious Duke,
To my unfolding lend your prosperous ear
And let me find a charter in your voice,
T' assist my simpleness.” (2.3.239-244)
Desdemona throws away her life in order to be with Othello and until the very end of her life, she remains obedient and in love.
Bianca is Desdemona’s polar opposite. She is Cassio’s lover and a mistress, thus being strongly linked with the theme of sexuality that appears throughout the play.
Despite her profession, Bianca seems to be very emotional about Cassio’s affection, frustrated at the way he disregards their relationship. Her jealousy of Cassio mirrors Othello’s jealousy of Desdemona. The character of a courtesan seems to serve as a way to emphasize Desdemona’s desirable traits of faithfulness and loyalty, and yet Othello is still incapable of telling the difference between the two types of women that Desdemona and Bianca represent.
A lot about how Bianca is presented and perceived by the male characters of the play can be seen in the way she is addressed or described by Cassio:
“Go to, woman!
Throw your vile guesses in the devil's teeth,
From whence you have them. You are jealous now
That this is from some mistress, some remembrance:
No, in good troth, Bianca.” (3.4.179-183)
“I marry her! what? a customer! Prithee, bear some
charity to my wit: do not think it so unwholesome.
Ha, ha, ha!” (4.1.120-123)
Iago addresses Cassio’s problematic approach towards his lover as well:
“Now will I question Cassio of Bianca,
A housewife that by selling her desires
Buys herself bread and clothes: it is a creature
That dotes on Cassio; as 'tis the strumpet's plague
To beguile many and be beguiled by one:
He, when he hears of her, cannot refrain
From the excess of laughter.”
What is also very interesting is that not only does Cassio speak of Bianca in a pitiful and disrespectful manner, but he also seems deeply fascinated by Desdemona’s presence.
“Iago Not this hour, lieutenant; 'tis not yet ten o' the
clock. Our general cast us thus early for the love
of his Desdemona; who let us not therefore blame:
he hath not yet made wanton the night with her; and
she is sport for Jove.
Cassio She's a most exquisite lady.
Iago And, I'll warrant her, fun of game.
Cassio Indeed, she's a most fresh and delicate creature.” (2.3.13-20)
“An inviting eye; and yet methinks right modest.” (2.3.23)
Referring to Desdemona in such a way and constantly emphasizing how perfect and exquisite she is, Cassio creates even a more vivid contrast between her and Bianca. It is worth noticing that while it is most often the women who are accused of disloyalty, it is the male characters, including Cassio, who continuously make suggestive remarks towards or about the three women.
The third female character is Emilia, who seems to connect numerous traits of both Desdemona and Bianca. She’s a working-class woman and Iago’s husband. She’s obedient and loyal towards her loved one, but at the same time stresses that any woman would cheat on her husband given the right circumstances.
It is interesting that all three of the female characters are accused of infidelity at some point of the play. The entire theme of womanhood is essentially defined by and built upon the virtues and sexuality of the male characters. Each of the female characters represents a woman of different class and status, however, it is strongly suggested that all of these three women are fulfilling different kinds of men’s fantasies. Iago seems to be the only one to see that since the very beginning, as he is the one to tell Othello how hard it is to distinguish between a truly virtuous woman and one who plays the role she is expected to in a convincing way. The reliance of the representation womanhood on male characters’ vices and virtues directly relates to the important theme of gender that Shakespeare’s Othello touches upon.
Conclusion
The theme of sexuality and deriving from that topic of womanhood is strongly paid attention to in Shakespeare’s Othello. It is brought up in many situations in both literal and metaphorical ways. It is important that the author touches upon such a topic, as it is a big part of one's psyche and relationships, especially romantic ones. As the whole plot revolves around Desdemona’s alleged sexual betrayal of Othello, it is specifically crucial to focus more on the psychology of sex, which Shakespeare did very well.
2 notes
·
View notes
Photo
When I was 24 I was living in Salt Lake City. Lots of things where new. The city, being on my own, adult life, trying to find myself, all of it. I had depended so much on my old friend to help me with these conversations and now they weren’t around anymore.
I can remember at the time I still thought that being able to say, “I am an artist” or “I am a photographer” was somehow supposed to be important. Like somehow it made me better or it made me deep. That it was some defining characteristic that others didn’t have or could do better. I was wrong, but I also just cared too much about having to just act like such things mattered.
Fresh off a still very broken heart I knew I wanted to do some sort of grand photography thing. Something that proved I was the artist I said I was.
My original plan was to create a series of images into a coffee table book. I wanted to portray a relationship. I didn’t really know how else to move from there. I was single, early to mid 20s, life was sort of just available. I didn’t know if I should just date someone and not tell them why I’m always taking pictures of them, knowing full well the relationship was temporary. I didn’t if it would be better to live some sort of alternate life. Give someone a fake name and be this other person I am not in real life. Complete with their own fake history, interests, the works. Or maybe the book should be about an ongoing relationship of people who only meet twice a week after work. Like, “The rest of the week she was a school teacher, but Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7-9 she was mine”. And if that was the case, is this relationship a relationship? Or just sex? If there fake names?
What I settled on was the idea of a book. I wanted to collaborate with someone. I wanted to tell the story of a fictional male character in heartbreak who tries to find out why it happened. To do this he ends up meeting a girl and dating her knowing that instead of just enjoying the relationship and being in the moment with her he’s always slightly off frame analyzing it. He’d end up living this whole relationship with someone only to end up losing her in the end and coming back to where he started. So worried about one thing, he didn’t see what he had when he had it.
He’d found out because during the breakup stage of the relationship he’d find a journal. While he was giving his little science experiment, she was keeping a diary of their relationship. And for her when she broke up with someone it was cathartic to leave the journal, the memories, behind. It’s in finding that journal he’d discover the other half of the story. Her side of the story. And see how she felt at all the same points in time.
So I hired a model to be the photographic part of the book. Met up with her several times and we photographed things out of chronological order. The plan was the book was going to have 5 stages. A meeting phase where things are awkward, a cute phase wherever people are nervous and everything is funny, an intimacy phase where people really are vulnerable, a comfort phase where people can coexist, and finally a conflict phase which would end in the break up and him finding the journal.
My plan at the time was to photograph everything black and white except for 1 photo from each phase. The one photo in each phase that was in color would be the “pivotal” moment of that phase. For example in the meeting phase, all the photos don’t show her face until the color image. When he truly gets to meet her. It was going to be the last photo. In the intimacy phase it is the first image and it’s not them nude it’s her starting to take off her shirt. The conflict phase the color photo was supposed to be him finding the book. A sign it was over.
In the comfort phase it was this image. Because my old friend taught me that when you’d truly comfortable with someone you wake up together. People don’t wear matching underwear. They don’t always shave, their breath sometimes smells, and they can be sweaty. And you just look over and think, “yeah, that’s my penguin” with pride.
For the writing part I was planning to accompany every image with writing. Either him telling how he felt at that point in the story. Or it was be a scan from one of her diary pages. On the rare event I’d half a scan of her page and something he wrote side by side. I’d hire a female writer to right her side of the story since the model didn’t want to do it.
Unfortunately the book never came about. I took all the photos but had the hardest time finding someone to be the female writer. By the time I finally got all the pieces together I was no longer 24. I was 28 or 29. While I still cared deeply about my old friend, I wasn’t exactly fresh out of heart break anymore. Somewhere in that time life had happened and things had changed. I had dated other people, focused more on working, been dirt broke, so on. I didn’t feel like I could write for the male character anymore because I wasn’t him anymore.
0 notes
Text
The Scum Manifesto
by Valerie Solanas
From the back cover of the Phoenix Press booklet:
"Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967 and published in 1968, the year she shot and wounded Andy Warhol. The text used here is that of the 1983 edition of the Manifesto that was published by the Matriarchy Study Group."
The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas
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.
It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
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.
Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.
Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.
Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is pyschically passive. He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the make as active, then sets out to prove that he is (`prove that he is a Man'). His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece). Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must `prove' it again and again. Screwing, then, is a desperate compulsive, attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman; but he is passive and does want to be a woman.
Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through an fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto women all male traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc. It should be said, though, that the male has one glaring area of superiority over the female -- public relations. (He has done a brilliant job of convincing millions of women that men are women and women are men). The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality reflects what males think they'd find fulfilling if they were female.
Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females think men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from `being a woman'. Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female. He is responsible for:
War: The male's normal compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he's a `Man'. Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless amount of mutilation and suffering and an endless number of lives, including his own -- his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than to plod grimly on for fifty more years.
Niceness, Politeness, and `Dignity': Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit. Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a `social' code that ensures perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace or feeling or upsetting opinion. He uses terms like `copulate', `sexual congress', `have relations with' (to men sexual relations is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.
Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:
1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.
2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.
3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.
4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.
5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!
6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.
Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect'), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an `enlightened' father, to `give guidance'. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually -- he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him. Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength. Never getting one's way leads to lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn't preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them -- if they're `good', that is, if they're nice, `respectful', obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system -- in other words, if they're passive vegetables. If they're not `good', he doesn't get angry -- not if he's a modern, `civilized' father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised) -- but rather express disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with the feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession wit being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.
For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept of `familiarity breeds contempt', which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible. By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and thereby, to inspire fear (`respect').
Disapproval of emotional `scenes' leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one's own anger and hatred. Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one's own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.
The affect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them `Men', that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a `Man'. The boy, scared shitless of and `respecting' his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of `Man'-hood, the all-American ideal -- the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.
The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is.
It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and more widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s. The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the `privileged' middle class girls, getting `educated'.
The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.
Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood), and Functionalism: The male is just a bunch of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to he earliest conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences. His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her. It never becomes completely clear to the make that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.
His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror -- themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent `out in the world' grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities -- eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama. Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the `respect' if any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the tiny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.
The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society -- the `privileged, educated' middle-class, the backwash of humanity -- where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labour pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits. It's not for the kids sake, though, that the `experts' tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy's; the tits for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).
Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male. He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you're in relation to. Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.
The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions -- doctor, president, scientist -- therefore providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego if the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female. In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks.
In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover, invent, solve problems crack jokes, make music -- all with love. In other words, create a magic world.
Prevention of Privacy: Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused -- he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a `society' based upon the family -- a male-female could and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupuluously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.
Isolation, Suburbs, and Prevention of Community: Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units. Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is, so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids. Isolation enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual nu becoming a `rugged individualist', a loner, equating non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality.
There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island. Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people. So like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy's little asshole with him to the wilderness, suburbs, or, in the case of the hippy -- he's way out, Man! -- all the way out to the cow pasture where he can fuck and breed undisturbed and mess around with his beads and flute.
The `hippy', whose desire to be a `Man', a `rugged individualist', isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman. In the name of sharing and cooperation, he forms a commune or tribe, which, for all its togetherness and partly because of it, (the commune, being an extended family, is an extended violation of the female's rights, privacy and sanity) is no more a community than normal `society'.
A true community consists of individuals -- not mere species members, not couples -- respecting each others individuality and privacy, at the same time interacting with each other mentally and emotionally -- free spirits in free relation to each other -- and co-operating with each other to achieve common ends. Traditionalists say the basic unit of `society' is the family; `hippies' say the tribe; no one says the individual.
The `hippy' babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man. He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities -- farming, fucking, bead stringing. The most important activity of the commune, the one upon which it is based, is gang-banging. The `hippy' is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect for free pussy -- the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking, but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness for the pussies themselves.
Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure; each `hippy' will, in panic, grad the first simpleton who digs him and whisks her off to the suburbs as fast as he can. The male cannot progress socially, but merely swings back and forth from isolation to gang-banging.
Conformity: Although he wants to be an individual, the male is scared of anything in himself that is the slightest bit different from other men, it causes him to suspect that he's not really a `Man', that he's passive and totally sexual, a highly upsetting suspicion. If other men are "A" and he's not, he must not be a man; he must be a fag. So he tries to affirm his `Manhood' by being like all the other men. Differentness in other men, as well as himself, threatens him; it means they're fags whom he must at all costs avoid, so he tries to make sure that all other men conform.
The male dares to be different to the degree that he accepts his passivity and his desire to be female, his fagginess. The farthest out male is the drag queen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all the other drag queens like the functionalist, he has an identity -- he is female. He tries to define all his troubles away -- but still no individuality. Not completely convinced that he's a woman, highly insecure about being sufficiently female, he conforms compulsively to the man-made stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.
To be sure he's a `Man', the male must see to it that the female be clearly a `Woman', the opposite of a `Man', that is, the female must act like a faggot. And Daddy's Girl, all of whose female instincts were wrenched out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.
Authority and Government: Having no sense of right and wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from having an ability to empathize with others... having no faith in his non-existent self, being unnecessarily competitive, and by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities -- priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc -- and government. Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a MAN), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.
There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.
Philosophy, Religion, and Morality Based on Sex: The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven.
For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, `wrong' is sexual `license' and engaging in `deviant' (`unmanly') sexual practices, that is, not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy `civilization', since `civilization' is based entirely upon the male need to defend himself against these characteristics. For a woman (according to men), `wrong' is any behavior that would entice men into sexual `license' -- that is, not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.
Religion not only provides the male with a goal (Heaven) and helps keep women tied to men, but offers rituals through which he can try to expiate the guilt and shame he feels at not defending himself enough against his sexual impulses; in essence, that guilt and shame he feels at being male.
Most men men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that make lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, post their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their `Identity Problem', and proceed to prattle on pompously about the `Crisis of the Individual', the `Essence of Being', `Existence preceding Essence', `Existential Modes of Being', etc. etc.
A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love.
Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc): The male needs scapegoats onto whom he can project his failings and inadequacies and upon whom he can vent his frustration at not being female. And the vicarious discriminations have the practical advantage of substantially increasing the pussy pool available to the men on top.
Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes: Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the make constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, `high' social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.
The purpose of `higher' education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.
The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally: he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they're just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others. On the contrary, the male has a vested interest in ignorance; it gives the few knowledgeable men a decided edge on the unknowledgeable ones, and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him. The healthy, conceited female wants the company of equals whom she can respect and groove on; the male and the sick, insecure, unself-confident male female crave the company of worms.
No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male `rebel' is a farce; this is the male's `society', made by him to satisfy his needs. He's never satisfied, because he's not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male `rebel' is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when `society' reaches the stage where he must change or die. We're at that stage now; if women don't get their asses in gear fast, we may very well all die.
Prevention of Conversation: Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's `conversation', when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value. Male `intellectual conversation' is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.
Daddy's Girl, passive, adaptable, respectful of and in awe of the male, allows him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her. This is not too difficult for her, as the tension and anxiety, the lack of cool, the insecurity and self-doubt, the unsureness of her own feelings and sensations that Daddy instilled in her make her perceptions superficial and render her unable to see that the male's babble is babble; like the aesthete `appreciating' the blob that's labeled `Great Art', she believes she's grooving on what bores the shit out of her. Not only does she permit his babble to dominate, she adapts her own `conversation' accordingly.
Trained from an early childhood in niceness, politeness and `dignity', in pandering to the male need to disguise his animalism, she obligingly reduces her own `conversation' to small talk, a bland, insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial -- or is `educated', to `intellectual' discussion, that is, impersonal discoursing on irrelevant distractions -- the Gross National Product, the Common Market, the influence of Rimbaud on symbolist painting. So adept is she at pandering that it eventually becomes second nature and she continues to pander to men even when in the company of other females only.
Apart from pandering, her `conversation' is further limited by her insecurity about expressing deviant, original opinions and the self-absorption based on insecurity and that prevents her conversation from being charming. Niceness, politeness, `dignity', insecurity and self-absorption are hardly conducive to intensity and wit, qualities a conversation must have to be worthy of the name. Such conversation is hardly rampant, as only completely self-confident, arrogant, outgoing, proud, tough-minded females are capable of intense, bitchy, witty conversation.
Prevention of Friendship (Love): Men have contempt for themselves, for all other men whom they contemplate more than casually and whom they do not think are females, (for example `sympathetic' analysts and `Great Artists') or agents of God and for all women who respect and pander to them: the insecure, approval-seeking, pandering male-females have contempt for themselves and for all women like them: the self-confident, swinging, thrill-seeking female females have contempt for me and for the pandering male females. In short, contempt is the order of the day.
Love is not dependency or sex, but friendship, and therefore, love can't exist between two males, between a male and a female, or between two females, one or both of whom is a mindless, insecure, pandering male; like conversation, live can exist only between two secure, free-wheeling, independent groovy female females, since friendship is based upon respect, not contempt.
Even amongst groovy females deep friendships seldom occur in adulthood, as almost all of them are either tied up with men in order to survive economically, or bogged down in hacking their way through the jungle and in trying to keep their heads about the amorphous mass. Love can't flourish in a society based upon money and meaningless work: it requires complete economic as well as personal freedom, leisure time and the opportunity to engage in intensely absorbing, emotionally satisfying activities which, when shared with those you respect, lead to deep friendship. Our `society' provides practically no opportunity to engage in such activities.
Having stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love, the male offers us these paltry substitutes:
`Great Art' and `Culture': The male `artist' attempts to solve his dilemma of not being able to live, of not being female, by constructing a highly artificial world in which the male is heroized, that is, displays female traits, and the female is reduced to highly limited, insipid subordinate roles, that is, to being male.
The male `artistic' aim being, not to communicate (having nothing inside him he has nothing to say), but to disguise his animalism, he resorts to symbolism and obscurity (`deep' stuff). The vast majority of people, particularly the `educated' ones, lacking faith in their own judgment, humble, respectful of authority (`Daddy knows best'), are easily conned into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, ambiguity and boredom are marks of depth and brilliance.
`Great Art' proves that men are superior to women, that men are women, being labeled `Great Art', almost all of which, as the anti-feminists are fond of reminding us, was created by men. We know that `Great Art' is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can't claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciated the slop they appreciated.
Appreciating is the sole diversion of the `cultivated'; passive and incompetent, lacking imagination and wit, they must try to make do with that; unable to create their own diversions, to create a little world of their own, to affect in the smallest way their environments, they must accept what's given; unable to create or relate, they spectate. Absorbing `culture' is a desperate, frantic attempt to groove in an ungroovy world, to escape the horror of a sterile, mindless, existence. `Culture' provides a sop to the egos of the incompetent, a means of rationalizing passive spectating; they can pride themselves on their ability to appreciate the `finer' things, to see a jewel where this is only a turd (they want to be admired for admiring). Lacking faith in their ability to change anything, resigned to the status quo, they have to see beauty in turds because, so far as they can see, turds are all they'll ever have.
The veneration of `Art' and `Culture' -- besides leading many women into boring, passive activity that distracts from more important and rewarding activities, from cultivating active abilities, and leads to the constant intrusion on our sensibilities of pompous dissertations on the deep beauty of this and that turn. This allows the `artist' to be setup as one possessing superior feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments, thereby undermining the faith of insecure women in the value and validity of their own feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments.
The male, having a very limited range of feelings, and consequently, very limited perceptions, insights and judgments, needs the `artist' to guide him, to tell him what life is all about. But the male `artist' being totally sexual, unable to relate to anything beyond his own physical sensations, having nothing to express beyond the insight that for the male life is meaningless and absurd, cannot be an artist. How can he who is not capable of life tell us what life is all about? A `male artist' is a contradiction in terms. A degenerate can only produce degenerate `art'. The true artist is every self-confident, healthy female, and in a female society the only Art, the only Culture, will be conceited, kooky, funky, females grooving on each other and on everything else in the universe.
Sexuality: Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time. The female can easily -- far more easily than she may think -- condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks out constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape. The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to -- when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.
Sex is the refuge of the mindless. And the more mindless the woman, the more deeply embedded in the male `culture', in short, the nicer she is, the more sexual she is. The nicest women in our `society' are raving sex maniacs. But, being just awfully, awfully nice, they don't, of course descend to fucking -- that's uncouth -- rather they make love, commune by means of their bodies and establish sensual rapport; the literary ones are attuned to the throb of Eros and attain a clutch upon the Universe; the religious have spiritual communion with the Divine Sensualism; the mystics merge with the Erotic Principle and blend with the Cosmos, and the acid heads contact their erotic cells.
On the other hand, those females least embedded in the male `Culture', the least nice, those crass and simple souls who reduce fucking to fucking, who are too childish for the grown-up world of suburbs, mortgages, mops and baby shit, too selfish to raise kids and husbands, too uncivilized to give a shit for anyones opinion of them, too arrogant to respect Daddy, the `Greats' or the deep wisdom of the Ancients, who trust only their own animal, gutter instincts, who equate Culture with chicks, whose sole diversion is prowling for emotional thrills and excitement, who are given to disgusting, nasty upsetting `scenes', hateful, violent bitches given to slamming those who unduly irritate them in the teeth, who'd sink a shiv into a man's chest or ram an icepick up his asshole as soon as look at him, if they knew they could get away with it, in short, those who, by the standards of our `culture' are SCUM... these females are cool and relatively cerebral and skirting asexuality.
Unhampered by propriety, niceness, discretion, public opinion, `morals', the respect of assholes, always funky, dirty, low-down SCUM gets around... and around and around... they've seen the whole show -- every bit of it -- the fucking scene, the dyke scene -- they've covered the whole waterfront, been under every dock and pier -- the peter pier, the pussy pier... you've got to go through a lot of sex to get to anti-sex, and SCUM's been through it all, and they're now ready for a new show; they want to crawl out from other the dock, move, take off, sink out. But SCUM doesn't yet prevail; SCUM's still in the gutter of our `society', which, if it's not deflected from its present course and if the Bomb doesn't drop on it, will hump itself to death.
Boredom: Life in a society made by and for creatures who, when they are not grim and depressing are utter bores, van only be, when not grim and depressing, an utter bore.
Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposes: Every male's deep-seated, secret, most hideous fear is of being discovered to be not a female, but a male, a subhuman animal. Although niceness, politeness and `dignity' suffice to prevent his exposure on a personal level, in order to prevent the general exposure of the male sex as a whole and to maintain his unnatural dominant position position in `society', the male must resort to:
1. Censorship. Responding reflexively to isolated works and phrases rather than cereberally to overall meanings, the male attempts to prevent the arousal and discovery of his animalism by censoring not only `pornography', but any work containing `dirty' words, no matter in what context they are used.
2. Suppression of all ideas and knowledge that might expose him or threaten his dominant position in `society'. Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male's gross inferiority to the female. Also, the problem of mental illness will never be solved while the male maintains control, because first, men have a vested interest in it -- only females who have very few of their marbles will allow males the slightest bit of control over anything, and second, the male cannot admit to the role that fatherhood plays in causing mental illness.
3. Exposes. The male's chief delight in life -- insofar as the tense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything -- is in exposing others. It doesn't' much matter what they're exposed as, so long as they're exposed; it distracts attention from himself. Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world. The bugs up his ass aren't in him, they're in Russia.
Distrust: Unable to empathize or feel affection or loyalty, being exclusively out for himself, the male has no sense of fair play; cowardly, needing constantly to pander to the female to win her approval, that he is helpless without, always on the edge lest his animalism, his maleness be discovered, always needing to cover up, he must lie constantly; being empty he has not honor or integrity -- he doesn't know what those words mean. The male, in short, is treacherous, and the only appropriate attitude in a male `society' is cynicism and distrust.
Ugliness: Being totally sexual, incapable of cerebral or aesthetic responses, totally materialistic and greedy, the male, besides inflicting on the world `Great Art', has decorated his unlandscaped cities with ugly buildings (both inside and out), ugly decors, billboards, highways, cars, garbage trucks, and, most notably, his own putrid self.
Hatred and Violence: The male is eaten up with tension, with frustration at not being female, at not being capable of ever achieving satisfaction or pleasure of any kind; eaten up with hate -- not rational hate that is directed at those who abuse or insult you -- but irrational, indiscriminate hate... hatred, at bottom, of his own worthless self.
Gratuitous violence, besides `proving' he's a `Man', serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition -- the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self -- provides him with a little sexual thrill..
Disease and Death: All diseases are curable, and the aging process and death are due to disease; it is possible, therefore, never to age and to live forever. In fact the problems of aging and death could be solved within a few years, if an all-out, massive scientific assault were made upon the problem. This, however, will not occur with the male establishment because:
1. The many male scientists who shy away from biological research, terrified of the discovery that males are females, and show marked preference for virile, `manly' war and death programs.
2. The discouragement of many potential scientists from scientific careers by the rigidity, boringness, expensiveness, time-consumingness, and unfair exclusivity of our `higher' educational system.
3. Propaganda disseminated by insecure male professionals, who jealously guard their positions, so that only a highly select few can comprehend abstract scientific concepts.
4. Widespread lack of self-confidence brought about by the father system that discourages many talented girls from becoming scientists.
5. Lack of automation. There now exists a wealth of data which, if sorted out and correlated, would reveal the cure for cancer and several other diseases and possibly the key to life itself. But the data is so massive it requires high speed computers to correlate it all. The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.
6. The money systems' insatiable need for new products. Most of the few scientists around who aren't working on death programs are tied up doing research for corporations.
7. The males like death -- it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die.
8. The bias of the money system for the least creative scientists. Most scientists come from at least relatively affluent families where Daddy reigns supreme.
Incapable of a positive state of happiness, which is the only thing that can justify one's existence, the male is, at best, relaxed, comfortable, neutral, and this condition is extremely short-lived, as boredom, a negative state, soon sets in; he is, therefore, doomed to an existence of suffering relieved only by occasional, fleeting stretches of restfulness, which state he can only achieve at the expense of some female. The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one as the right to life at someone else's expense.
Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.
However, this moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that the male is gradually eliminating himself. In addition to engaging in the time-honored and classical wars and race riots, men are more and more either becoming fags or are obliterating themselves through drugs. The female, whether she likes it or not, will eventually take complete charge, if for no other reason than that she will have to -- the male, for practical purposes, won't exist.
Accelerating this trend is the fact that more and more males are acquiring enlightened self-interest; they're realizing more and more that the female interest is in their interest, that they can live only through the female and that the more the female is encouraged to live, to fulfill herself, to be a female and not a male, the more nearly he lives; he's coming to see that it's easier and more satisfactory to live through her than to try to become her and usurp her qualities, claim them as his own, push the female down and claim that she's a male. The fag, who accepts his maleness, that is, his passivity and total sexuality, his femininity, is also best served by women being truly female, as it would then be easier for him to be male, feminine. If men were wise they would seek to become really female, would do intensive biological research that would lead to me, by means of operations on the brain and nervous system, being able t to be transformed in psyche, as well as body, into women.
Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents? How many women will deliberately get or (if an accident) remain pregnant? No, Virginia, women don't just adore being brood mares, despite what the mass of robot, brainwashed women will say. When society consists of only the fully conscious the answer will be none. Should a certain percentage of men be set aside by force to serve as brood mares for the species? Obviously this will not do. The answer is laboratory reproduction of babies.
As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist. When genetic control is possible -- and soon it will be -- it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.
Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we're dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us.
Eventually the natural course of events, of social evolution, will lead to total female control of the world and, subsequently, to the cessation of the production of males and, ultimately, to the cessation of the production of females.
But SCUM is impatient; SCUM is not consoled by the thought that future generations will thrive; SCUM wants to grab some thrilling living for itself. And, if a large majority of women were SCUM, they could acquire complete control of this country within a few weeks simply by withdrawing from the labor force, thereby paralyzing the entire nation. Additional measures, any one of which would be sufficient to completely disrupt the economy and everything else, would be for women to declare themselves off the money system, stop buying, just loot and simply refuse to obey all laws they don't care to obey. The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn't squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it's made up of people they are utterly helpless without.
If all women simply left men, refused to have anything to do with any of them -- ever, all men, the government, and the national economy would collapse completely. Even without leaving men, women who are aware of the extent of their superiority to and power over men, could acquire complete control over everything within a few weeks, could effect a total submission of males to females. In a sane society the male would trot along obediently after the female. The male is docile and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female who cares to dominate him. The male, in fact, wants desperately to be led by females, wants Mama in charge, wants to abandon himself to her care. But this is not a sane society, and most women are not even dimly aware of where they're at in relation to men.
The conflict, therefore, is not between females and males, but between SCUM -- dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females, who consider themselves fit to rule the universe, who have free-wheeled to the limits of this `society' and are ready to wheel on to something far beyond what it has to offer -- and nice, passive, accepting `cultivated', polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy's Girls, who can't cope with the unknown, who want to hang back with the apes, who feel secure only with Big Daddy standing by, with a big strong man to lean on and with a fat, hairy face in the White House, who are too cowardly to face up to the hideous reality of what a man is, what Daddy is, who have cast their lot with the swine, who have adapted themselves to animalism, feel superficially comfortable with it and know no other way of `life', who have reduced their minds, thoughts and sights to the male level, who, lacking sense, imagination and wit can have value only in a male `society', who can have a place in the sun, or, rather, in the slime, only as soothers, ego boosters, relaxers and breeders, who are dismissed as inconsequents by other females, who project their deficiencies, their maleness, onto all females and see the female as worm.
But SCUM is too impatient to wait for the de-brainwashing of millions of assholes. Why should the swinging females continue to plod dismally along with the dull male ones? Why should the fates of the groovy and the creepy be intertwined? Why should the active and imaginative consult the passive and dull on social policy? Why should the independent be confined to the sewer along with the dependent who need Daddy to cling to? A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year by systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder:
SCUM will become members of the unwork force, the fuck-up force; they will get jobs of various kinds an unwork. For example, SCUM salesgirls will not charge for merchandise; SCUM telephone operators will not charge for calls; SCUM office and factory workers, in addition to fucking up their work, will secretly destroy equipment. SCUM will unwork at a job until fired, then get a new job to unwork at.
SCUM will forcibly relieve bus drivers, cab drivers and subway token sellers of their jobs and run buses and cabs and dispense free tokens to the public.
SCUM will destroy all useless and harmful objects -- cars, store windows, `Great Art', etc.
Eventually SCUM will take over the airwaves -- radio and TV networks -- by forcibly relieving of their jobs all radio and TV employees who would impede SCUM's entry into the broadcasting studios.
SCUM will couple-bust -- barge into mixed (male-female) couples, wherever they are, and bust them up.
SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away -- money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd', then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.
Being in the Men's Auxiliary is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for making SCUM's escape list; it's not enough to do good; to save their worthless asses men must also avoid evil. A few examples of the most obnoxious or harmful types are: rapists, politicians and all who are in their service (campaigners, members of political parties, etc); lousy singers and musicians; Chairmen of Boards; Breadwinners; landlords; owners of greasy spoons and restaraunts that play Muzak; `Great Artists'; cheap pikers and welchers; cops; tycoons; scientists working on death and destruction programs or for private industry (practically all scientists); liars and phonies; disc jockies; men who intrude themselves in the slightest way on any strange female; real estate men; stock brokers; men who speak when they have nothing to say; men who sit idly on the street and mar the landscape with their presence; double dealers; flim-flam artists; litterbugs; plagiarisers; men who in the slightest way harm any female; all men in the advertising industry; psychiatrists and clinical psychologists; dishonest writers, journalists, editors, publishers, etc.; censors on both the public and private levels; all members of the armed forces, including draftees (LBJ and McNamara give orders, but servicemen carry them out) and particularly pilots (if the bomb drops, LBJ won't drop it; a pilot will). In the case of a man whose behavior falls into both the good and bad categories, an overall subjective evaluation of him will be made to determine if his behavior is, in the balance, good or bad.
It is most tempting to pick off the female `Great Artists', liars and phonies etc along with the men, but that would be inexpedient, as it would not be clear to most of the public that the female killed was a male. All women have a fink streak in them, to a greater or lesser degree, but it stems from a lifetime of living among men. Eliminate men and women will shape up. Women are improvable; men are no, although their behavior is. When SCUM gets hot on their asses it'll shape up fast.
Simultaneously with the fucking-up, looting, couple-busting, destroying and killing, SCUM will recruit. SCUM, then, will consist of recruiters; the elite corps -- the hard core activists (the fuck-ups, looters and destroyers) and the elite of the elite -- the killers.
Dropping out is not the answer; fucking-up is. Most women are already dropped out; they were never in. Dropping out gives control to those few who don't drop out; dropping out is exactly what the establishment leaders want; it plays into the hands of the enemy; it strengthens the system instead of undermining it, since it is based entirely on the non-participating, passivity, apathy and non-involvement of the mass of women. Dropping out, however, is an excellent policy for men, and SCUM will enthusiastically encourage it.
Looking inside yourself for salvation, contemplating your navel, is not, as the Drop Out people would have you believe, the answer. Happiness likes outside yourself, is achieved through interacting with others. Self-forgetfulness should be one's goal, not self-absorption. The male, capable of only the latter, makes a virtue of irremediable fault and sets up self-absorption, not only as a good but as a Philosophical Good, and thus gets credit for being deep.
SCUM will not picket, demonstrate, march or strike to attempt to achieve its ends. Such tactics are for nice, genteel ladies who scrupulously take only such action as is guaranteed to be ineffective. In addition, only decent, clean-living male women, highly trained in submerging themselves in the species, act on a mob basis. SCUM consists of individuals; SCUM is not a mob, a blob. Only as many SCUM will do a job as are needed for the job. Also SCUM, being cool and selfish, will not subject to getting itself rapped on the head with billy clubs; that's for the nice, `privileged, educated', middle-class ladies with a high regard for the touching faith in the essential goodness of Daddy and policemen. If SCUM ever marches, it will be over the President's stupid, sickening face; if SCUM ever strikes, it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.
SCUM will always operate on a criminal as opposed to a civil disobedience basis, that is, as opposed to openly violating the law and going to jail in order to draw attention to an injustice. Such tactics acknowledge the rightness overall system and are used only to modify it slightly, change specific laws. SCUM is against the entire system, the very idea of law and government. SCUM is out to destroy the system, not attain certain rights within it. Also, SCUM -- always selfish, always cool -- will always aim to avoid detection and punishment. SCUM will always be furtive, sneaky, underhanded (although SCUM murders will always be known to be such).
Both destruction and killing will be selective and discriminate. SCUM is against half-crazed, indiscriminate riots, with no clear objective in mind, and in which many of your own kind are picked off. SCUM will never instigate, encourage or participate in riots of any kind or other form of indiscriminate destruction. SCUM will coolly, furtively, stalk its prey and quietly move in for the kill. Destruction will never me such as to block off routes needed for the transportation of food or other essential supplies, contaminate or cut off the water supply, block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through or impede the functioning of hospitals.
SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goals, that is, until enough women either unwork or quit work, start looting, leave men and refuse to obey all laws inappropriate to a truly civilized society. Many women will fall into line, but many others, who surrendered long ago to the enemy, who are so adapted to animalism, to maleness, that they like restrictions and restraints, don't know what to do with freedom, will continue to be toadies and doormats, just as peasants in rice paddies remain peasants in rice paddies as one regime topples another. A few of the more volatile will whimper and sulk and throw their toys and dishrags on the floor, but SCUM will continue to steamroller over them.
A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it. The blueprints for it are already in existence, and it's construction will take only a few weeks with millions of people working on it. Even though off the money system, everyone will be most happy to pitch in and get the automated society built; it will mark the beginning of a fantastic new era, and there will be a celebration atmosphere accompanying the construction.
The elimination of money and the complete institution of automation are basic to all other SCUM reforms; without these two the others can't take place; with them the others will take place very rapidly. The government will automatically collapse. With complete automation it will be possible for every woman to vote directly on every issue by means of an electronic voting machine in her house. Since the government is occupied almost entirely with regulating economic affairs and legislating against purely private matters, the elimination of money wand with it the elimination of males who wish to legislate `morality' will mean there will be practically no issues to vote on.
After the elimination of money there will be no further need to kill men; they will be stripped of the only power they have over psychologically independent females. They will be able to impose themselves only on the doormats, who like to be imposed on. The rest of the women will be busy solving the few remaining unsolved problems before planning their agenda for eternity and Utopia -- completely revamping educational programs so that millions of women can be trained within a few months for high level intellectual work that now requires years of training (this can be done very easily once out educational goal is to educate and not perpetuate an academic and intellectual elite); solving the problems of disease and old age and death and completely redesigning our cities and living quarters. Many women will for a while continue to think they dig men, but as they become accustomed to female society and as they become absorbed in their projects, they will eventually come to see the utter uselessnes and banality of the male.
The few remaining men can exist out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling themselves as spectators, vicarious livers*[FOOTNOTE: It will be electronically possible for him to tune into any specific female he wants to and follow in detail her every movement. The females will kindly, obligingly consent to this, as it won't hurt them in the slightest and it is a marvelously kind and humane way to treat their unfortunate, handicapped fellow beings.] or breeding in the cow pasture with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.
Prior to the institution of automation, to the replacement of males by machines, the male should be of use to the female, wait on her, cater to her slightest whim, obey her every command, be totally subservient to her, exist in perfect obedience to her will, as opposed to the completely warped, degenerate situation we have now of men, not only not only not existing at all, cluttering up the world with their ignominious presence, but being pandered to and groveled before by the mass of females, millions of women piously worshiping the Golden Calf, the dog leading the master on a leash, when in fact the male, short of being a drag queen, is least miserable when his dogginess is recognized -- no unrealistic emotional demands are made of him and the completely together female is calling the shots. Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.
The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barrelling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants. Men who are rational, however, won't kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.
- end -
0 notes