Rating: 
Summary: An insult to feminism?
Review: Before you see the 4 stars and discard my review as another naive "Go Girl!" piece, understand that (although I liked the book) I strongly disagree with the author's theories.
When I think of feminism (and I know many will disagree) I think of strong women fighting for equality. EQUALITY, as in equal rights and no better gender. Solanas called herself a "superfeminist" (and is hailed by many as some sort of heroine) but her sexist attitudes and intolerant nature make her an insult to the cause.This book is witty, bitter and an enjoyable read, but I view it in the same way as I'd view a racist, homophobic or xenophobic text - I realise that it's the product of a disturbed mind. Her life of prostitution and being abused by men explains her bitterness towards them, but it's no excuse for her violent hatred towards the entire male gender. As many reviewers have pointed out, if the roles had been reversed (a man writing about killing all women) it would never have been published, and would be considered extremely sexist: why should it be any different for a female author? For the said supporters who seem to understand nothing of her politics: Sure, it's full of good quotes to use when your boyfriend's being an [jerk], but you can't seriously support her idea of a perfect world (devoid of all men) Not only are her theories blatantly discriminative, violent, intolerant and (what I consider to be) antifeministic; he idea of a perfect world just isn't practical.
Rating: 
Summary: pure excrement
Review: I can`t believe a book like this could be written,much less published.Every copy of this manual of hate should be doused with gasoline and burned.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting but full of incorrect information
Review: I read this book on the prompting of a friend. All I did was laugh my way through this piece of idiocy. I am currently pursuing my PhD in molecular biology and I was appalled by the lack of clinical fact in this book. I realize that Ms. Solanas was not a scientist, nor was her education into academia complete (she only completed some of her graduate work), but this does not excuse the fact that this work is very poorly presented. She often makes sweeping claims, points to statistics and draws conclusions without listing any references for these "facts". Many of here scientific "conclusions" are pure bunk. The Y chromosome is not a mutated or incomplete X chromosome and it is not possible to breed a society without the male half of the gamete (at least not yet). Aside from here scientific and academic errors the author has also interpreted historical and sociological facts from a very slanted viewpoint. One example that I can think of is her description of the significance of "Giving her hand in marriage". The author uses this term incorrectly to prove a point about the father-daughter relationship. A small amount of research would have led her to the real historical background of this tradition. This bit of effort was obviously too much for a woman lost in her own rage and hatred. In general I thought that this book was very poorly written with facts that were not only biased, but also incorrect. The author has not properly referenced her ideas, has taken issues out of context and in general has failed to make a convincing argument on any level. In closing this book was a mere pamphlet denouncing men and capitalist society in general. If you wish to be a part of the militant "kill all men" faction of feminism, than this book is for you. If you want a well-researched paper on women's social development...look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: all i have to say about this is....
Review: If rappers can rap about forcing girls to suck their dicks, calling them dumb sluts and hos, women should be able to publish something like this. keeping it even, keeping it even. if guys get offended reading this manifesto, they should think about what it's like to be a woman, knowing that (certain rappers') songs about rape are selling millions of cds, and then try to walk home alone late at night without feeling like someone is going to attack and rape them (because women are objectified so badly). yeah. it's no picnic. think about it. i'm not saying what she wrote is the right mentality. I'm just saying that if people can get away with objectifying women in the media, then there should NOT be any dispute about Valerie Solanas' right to speak her mind about men in as disturbing a way as some portrayals of women are.
Rating: 
Summary: it's a manifesto. not a monograph.
Review: Indeed, Solanas's work is a diatribe. It's a manifesto. Consequently, you will not find citations and more often than not, you probably won't find much to hang your hat on for solid ideas. You will, however, find broad generalizations and "ranting." What's important about Solanas' work is that she wrote it in concert with what she felt and saw around her during the late 1960s, the time of the nascent radical feminist movement. Her manifesto is an extreme expression of some of the frustration and, in some cases, rage that women involved in the movement felt about institutionalized and personalized sexism. The SCUM Manifesto, therefore, is best considered as part of the primary documentation that emerged from that historical period. Even things readers might consider odious or vile are valuable because they provide insights to the more extreme aspects of issues which are always tied to mainstream movements. Solanas herself was a deeply troubled woman who struggled throughout her short life with the remnants of abuse that she suffered during her childhood (I suspect sexual abuse, given her deep-seated rage against men). She was quite prolific, writing short plays during the 60s that she would perform at impromptu venues. She eventually attracted the attention of Andy Warhol, who probably found her intense, bright, and with an acidic sense of humor. He agreed with some of her views about sex, but ended up losing one of her play manuscripts (her only copy) and this may have set her off to commit a more violent act. In 1968, Solanas shot Warhol with a .32 caliber pistol, prompted by her own demons and what she may have perceived as ridicule from Warhol and his associates. Warhol survived; Solanas was sentenced to 3 years in prison; the SCUM Manifesto was eventually published in 1971 as a result of media attention surrounding the shooting. Following her prison term, she seems to have dropped out of the public eye and continued with her life, heading west. She died in 1988 of pneumonia in a welfare hotel in San Francisco. The Manifesto is a reflection, therefore, of Solanas' own past but also offers some insight into what she perceived around her as the power of men over women, institutionalized and expressed sometimes in violence against women. For its reflection of one woman's experience (as deranged as she herself may have been) with the transformations going on in 1960s American culture, it should not be dismissed. But it should absolutely be taken with a pound of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: Geez, people, it's SATIRE
Review: She actually uses the phrase "Forceful, Dynamic Pants" near the end!
And besides, who here has never wnated to shoot Andy Warhol?
Rating:
Summary: rubbish
Review: that's all the review this poo demands. yea, it is a great answer to rap music though. moron.
Rating:
Summary: Open minded readers need only apply
Review: The SCUM manifesto is a paean of hatred, a fifty-page diatribe blaming men for everything that is wrong with the modern world, yet the tone is deadpan, icily logical, elegantly comic; a strange juxtaposition. The manifesto envisions a war between men and women - a real war, as opposed to the symbolic struggles that have characterised the last few decades. It ends with the suggestion that in order to create a healthy society, men should be exterminated but not all men: some will be saved, including good scientists, supportive journalists and publishers, gays, and philanthropists. These lucky few will be saved as long as they help to propagate the message that "a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex". Valerie, who grew up in a world where male supremacy was taken for granted, was possessed by a vision that everything she had been told about the natural order of society was a lie. This situation, where one person's view of the world is utterly at variance with the society around them, is one definition of madness, but it is also what was once called prophecy.
Rating:
Summary: Nutcase with a typewriter
Review: The SCUM Manifesto is the incoherent ranting of a deeply disturbed person. If she hadn't shot Andy Warhol, this unhinged rubbish would never have seen the light of day. Rest in peace, Valerie.
Rating:
Summary: Worthless...
Review: This is probably one of the worst pieces of writing ever. She outlines her so called beliefs, which are based on nothing. Her expierances definitely had an influence on forming her opinions on men, which lead to her ideas of hate and violence. There is absoultely no substance to her. Obviously, she is a woman with a weak mind that was never able to over come the way her life turned out. She is a wanna-be star that never made anything of herself in life. Her envy of Andy was the reason she shot him. She probably assumed shooting Andy Warhol would bring her some fame. She wanted someone to blame for her complete failures in life so she choose men to blame. I believe in reading everyones view and trying to understand where they are coming from, but this woman was obviously unstable.
| 
