Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:31:04 +1000 (EST)
From: Gwen.Nettlefold-AT-phil.utas.edu.au (Gwen.Nettlefold)
Subject: Re: SCUM Manifesto net site



>SCUM Manifesto

>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 possible to reproduce
>without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and
>to produce only females. We must begin immediately
>to do so. The male is a biological accident: the
>y (male) gene is an incomplete x (female) gene,
>that is, 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  . . .
>
>Look forward to you comments,
>
>paula

I seem to have missed the original question here, but I'll have a go
anyway.  It seems that  if women were to abolish/abort men, due to this
'biological accident' on the basis of:

'no aspect of society
>being at all relevant to
>women,

would women prefer to 'reproduce' in that way which it is technically
possible to do so?

My point is, when using Bataille's notion of restricted/general economy
(which I at least know Beth is interested in),  there's a problem of
contradiction here.  The initial statement (gendered, obviously so, in this
case) reminds me of a wish to return to a 'general' economy - that which is
more aligned with notions of 'the gift' - and NOT restricted by notions of
utility and the production of wealth.  'Thrill seeking' is much more
possible (I would imagine) in the general economy - as that is where
*experience* is valuable in itself...

The contradiction comes with the notion of getting rid of men (and there
are many women who would attest to great pleasure with/from men, wonderful
erotic experiences certain thrill-seeking exploits..), and using
reproduction technologies, not only in conception and birth, but also in
genetic determination, is problematic in itself.  Firstly it assumes and
reinforces the essentialist notion of pregnancy and childbirth with the
category woman, by employing these highly technical medical techniques *to
fertilise women as incubators of foetuses*. (at least that's how i read it)
I mean why would we bother being fertilised in the first place?  If the
whole process could be fully automated would women want that?  Or, is it
the *experience* of 'maternity' or a 'maternal body' that women want?  If
that were the case, that the experience itself is valuable, would not the
appropriation of the body by reproduction technology be highly probematic -
replacing it with/defining it within some automated technological
medically defined process?

Hmm, I need to think further on this.

gwen