Analisi dettagliata (sotto) di SCUM Manifesto di Valerie Solanas, esaminando ogni paragrafo per verificarne la fondatezza, le eventuali fallacie logiche, e le implicazioni etiche e sociali. Considereremo sia il contesto dell’epoca (1967) sia le conoscenze attuali, evidenziando anche eventuali problematiche come abilismo o discriminazioni implicite.

Continua a leggere: essere ciò che odiasti, Valerie?

Testo originale 1967 dalla fotocopia della Northwestern University (1):

    “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 eliminate 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, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion…. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

        p. [1] (“y(male)” & “x(female)” spaceless in original).

    The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection or 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 [“the male”] is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than apes, because he is, first of all, capable of a large array of negative feelings that the apes aren’t – hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, disgrace, doubt – and, secondly, he is aware of what he is and isn’t.

        p. [1] (hyphens so in original (en-dashes probably not available on most typewriters in 1967)).

    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 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, further, 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.

        pp. [1]–2 (page break between “pay for” & “the opportunity”) (commas in “he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and, further, pay for” presumed despite horizontal line truncation in source, due to consistency with copy of same edition from The Andy Warhol Museum (Jansen, Sharon L., Reading Women’s Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed. Apr., 2011 ISBN 978-0-230-11066-3, p. 143 (author a teacher)).

    Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify and consisting of a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is psychically passive. He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the male as active, then sets out to prove that he is (“prove he’s 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, become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through and 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.

        p. 2 (hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original).

    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 dragqueen) and gets his cock chopped off. He then derives a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from “being a woman.” Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female. Sex is, itself, a sublimation.

        p. 2 (“Males” & “dragqueen” so in original).

    Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless peice of shit.

        p. 2 (“peice” so in original, probably intended as “piece”).

    The male has a negative Midas Touch – everything he touches turns to shit.

        p. 5 (hyphen (not en- or em-dash) so in original).

    Our “society” is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units. Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she’s 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, further, enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual by being a “rugged individualist”, a loner, equating non-co-operation and solitariness with individuality.

        p. 7 (line break in “non-“/”co-operation”).

    A true community consists of individuals – not mere species members, not couples – respecting each others individuality and privacy while 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; noone says the individual.

        p. 7 (hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original; “others” so in original, probably intended as “other’s”; line break across “inter-“/”acting”; “noone” so in original, probably intended as “no one”).

    Although wanting to be an individual, the male is scared of anything about him that’s the slightest bit different from other men; it causes him to suspect 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 be not 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 in himself, threatens him; it means they’re fags, who he must, at all costs, avoid, so he tries to ensure 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 dragqueen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all other dragqueens; like the functionalist, he has an identity – a 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 feminine stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.

        p. 8 (“dragqueen”, “dragqueens”, & hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original).

    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 tromped out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.

    The male is just a bundle of conditioned reflexes, is incapable of a mentally free response, is tied to his early conditioning, is 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 male that he is not part of his mother, that he is him and she is her.

    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 – in 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” of any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless administrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the puny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.

        pp. 5–6 (capitalization of “Men” so in original; hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original; page break between “soother of” & “the weary”).

    [T]he male …. tries to convince himself and women – he’s succeeded best at convincing women – that the female function is to bear and raise children and relax, comfort and boost the egos of 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, irreplacable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks.

        p. 6 (hyphens (not en- or em-dashes); “the egos of the male” so in original & “irreplacable” so in original).

    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.

    Love can’t flourish in a “society” based on money and meaningless work, but rather 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, but which our “society” provides practically no opportunity to engage in.

    Love is not dependency or sex, but is 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 it can exist only between two secure, free-wheeling, independent, groovy female females, as friendship is based on [respect, not contempt.]

        p. 10 (“respect, not contempt.” (not bracketed in original) not certain in original due to truncation of bottom of photocopy page but consistent with it).

    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.

    Sex is not part of a relationship, but is, to the contrary, a solitary experience as well as being non-creative and a gross waste of time. The female can easily – far more easily than she may think – condition her sex drive away, 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 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 excites 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.

        p. 12 (hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original; line break across “highly-“/”sexed”).

    [M]any females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer residing with males or peddling their asses on the street, thereby having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for somebody 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.

        p. 3 (hyphens (not en- or em-dashes) so in original).

---

Paragrafo 1

“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 eliminate the male sex.

Analisi:

• Contesto storico (1967): Negli anni ’60, molte donne si sentivano alienate da una società patriarcale che le relegava a ruoli domestici e subordinati. Tuttavia, l’affermazione che “nessun aspetto della società sia rilevante per le donne” è un’iperbole che ignora i contributi e le partecipazioni femminili in vari ambiti.
• Conoscenze attuali: Oggi riconosciamo che, sebbene persistano disuguaglianze, le donne partecipano attivamente in tutti gli aspetti della società. L’idea di eliminare il sesso maschile è una provocazione estrema, priva di fondamento etico o scientifico.
• Fallacie: Generalizzazione eccessiva, appello alla violenza come soluzione.
• Problematiche etiche: Incitamento al genocidio di un intero sesso; proposta di eliminazione di sistemi sociali senza considerare le conseguenze pratiche.

---

Paragrafo 2

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.

Analisi:

• Contesto storico (1967): La clonazione e la riproduzione asessuata erano concetti teorici; la riproduzione senza gameti maschili non era tecnicamente possibile.
• Conoscenze attuali: Anche oggi, la riproduzione umana richiede contributi genetici da entrambi i sessi. Tecniche come la clonazione sono ancora sperimentali e sollevano questioni etiche significative.
• Fallacie: Falsa premessa; ignoranza delle conoscenze scientifiche.
• Problematiche etiche: Promozione dell’eliminazione di un sesso basata su presunte inutilità biologiche.

---

Paragrafo 3

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…. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

Analisi:

• Contesto storico (1967): La genetica era meno avanzata, ma l’idea che il cromosoma Y sia un “X incompleto” è una semplificazione errata.
• Conoscenze attuali: Il cromosoma Y ha funzioni specifiche e non è semplicemente un X incompleto. L’affermazione che la mascolinità sia una “malattia da carenza” è priva di base scientifica.
• Fallacie: Ad hominem; falsa analogia.
• Problematiche etiche: Linguaggio abilista (“emotional cripples”); disumanizzazione di un intero gruppo basata su caratteristiche biologiche.

---

Paragrafo 4

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection or tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone…

Analisi:

• Contesto storico (1967): Stereotipi di genere erano comuni, ma l’affermazione che tutti gli uomini siano incapaci di empatia è una generalizzazione estrema.
• Conoscenze attuali: Studi psicologici dimostrano che l’empatia non è determinata dal sesso; esistono variazioni individuali.
• Fallacie: Generalizzazione indebita; essenzialismo biologico.
• Problematiche etiche: Negazione della capacità emotiva di un intero sesso; rafforzamento di stereotipi dannosi.

---

Paragrafo 5

He [“the male”] is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes…

Contesto storico (1967):

• All’epoca, l’evoluzionismo era noto, ma usato anche per giustificare gerarchie razziali o sessuali. Solanas rovescia il razzismo scientifico in misoginia inversa.

Oggi (evidence-based):

• La genetica ha dimostrato che uomini e donne condividono oltre il 99,9% del DNA. L’idea che il maschio sia “meno evoluto” è biologicamente infondata.

Fallacie:

• Disumanizzazione, riduzione ad absurdum, antropomorfizzazione selettiva.

Problematiche etiche:

• Linguaggio disumanizzante che riprende retoriche storiche usate contro i neri ebrei, ora applicate agli uomini. Mirroring evidente.

---

Paragrafo 6

To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo…

Contesto storico (1967):

• L’oggettivazione delle donne era (ed è) un fatto sociale reale. Solanas lo inverte, ma non lo decostruisce.

Oggi:

• L’oggettivazione sessuale è dannosa a prescindere dal bersaglio. Descrivere l’uomo come “dildo ambulante” è un attacco ad personam privo di valore argomentativo.

Fallacie:

• Ad hominem, disumanizzazione, oggettivazione sessuale.

Problematiche etiche:

• Sessismo inverso; mirroring dell’oggettivazione patriarcale.

---

Paragrafo 7

Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities… he’ll screw a woman he despises… even pay for it… not ego satisfaction; that doesn’t explain screwing corpses and babies.

Contesto storico:

• L’associazione tra sessualità maschile e necrofilia/pedofilia è volutamente scioccante, ma completamente priva di fondamento generalizzabile.

Oggi:

• La pedofilia è un disturbo psichiatrico raro, non rappresentativo della sessualità maschile. L’accusa generalizzata è gravemente diffamatoria.

Fallacie:

• Associazione indebita, cherry picking estremo, generalizzazione hasty.

Problematiche etiche:

• Accuse gravi e diffamatorie, insensibilità verso vittime reali di abusi. Moral panic deliberato.

---

Paragrafo 8

…male is psychically passive… projects passivity onto women… proves he’s a Man by screwing…

Contesto storico:

• Il concetto di “mascolinità tossica” esisteva in forme embrionali, ma non era ancora formalizzato.

Oggi:

• La critica alla mascolinità costruita sulla dominazione sessuale ha basi teoriche (Connell, hooks), ma qui è estremizzata.

Fallacie:

• Psicologismo riduttivo, proiezione ideologica, generalizzazione.

Problematiche etiche:

• Descrizione patologizzante della sessualità maschile; elimina agency e complessità.

---

Paragrafo 9

Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, become female…

Contesto storico:

• Idea simile a Jung (anima/animus), ma travisata in chiave polemica.

Oggi:

• I ruoli di genere sono costrutti sociali, ma non determinano il desiderio di “diventare donna”. L’attribuzione di “desiderio di fusione” è infondata.

Fallacie:

• Psicologismo abusivo, traslazione indebita di tratti tra sessi.

Problematiche:

• Transfobia implicita: descrizione della transizione come patologia/autoannullamento.

---

Paragrafo 10

The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality…

Storico:

• Critica valida alle narrazioni dominanti sul ruolo materno. Questa è un’argomentazione con base femminista solida.

Oggi:

• Studi confermano che la realizzazione personale femminile non è legata univocamente a maternità.

Argomentazione fondata.

---

Paragrafo 11

Women don’t have penis envy; men have pussy envy… dragqueen… cock chopped off…

Storico:

• Travestitismo e identità trans erano altamente stigmatizzati.

Oggi:

• Descrivere le donne trans come “uomini passivi che si tagliano il pene” è transfobico, falso e offensivo.

Fallacie:

• Essentialismo biologico, patologizzazione dell’identità di genere.

Problematiche:

• Transfobia esplicita, disprezzo per le identità queer e trans.

---

Paragrafo 12

Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit.

Storico & oggi:

• Affermazione non argomentativa, ma insulto puro.

Fallacia:

• Ad hominem totale.

---

Paragrafo 13

The male has a negative Midas Touch – everything he touches turns to shit.

Storico & oggi:

• Iperbole totale, basata su demonizzazione. Non supportata da alcun dato.

Fallacia:

• Ipergeneralizzazione disfattista.

---

Paragrafo 14

Our “society” is not a community, but… isolated family units… suburbs…

Storico:

• Critica alla suburbanizzazione; è in linea con Herbert Marcuse e sociologia urbana anni ’60.

Oggi:

• Riflessione parzialmente valida sulla disintegrazione del tessuto comunitario.

Argomentazione parzialmente fondata, ma inficiata dalla generalizzazione sessuale.

---

Paragrafo 15

A true community consists of individuals… free spirits… cooperation…

Storico & oggi:

• Utopia individualista, simile ad alcuni pensatori anarchici e femministi radicali. Legittimo come ideale.

Argomentazione fondata come visione utopica.

---

Paragrafo 16

Although wanting to be an individual, the male is scared of being different… he must conform…

Storico:

• In linea con le analisi sociologiche su mascolinità conformista.

Oggi:

• Confermato da studi su mascolinità egemonica (Connell).

Argomentazione fondata sul piano culturale.

---

Paragrafo 17

The farthest out male is the dragqueen… ends up as bundle of stilted mannerisms.

Storico:

• Disprezzo verso persone queer era norma; Solanas però non li difende, li ridicolizza.

Oggi:

• Transfobia e omofobia esplicite; descrive i drag come caricature senza identità.

Problematiche gravi: transfobia, stereotipi, ridicolizzazione identitaria.

---

Paragrafo 18

To be sure he’s a “Man,” the male must see that the female be a “Woman”… act like a faggot…

Storico:

• Uso deliberato di insulti omofobi. Denuncia reale: binarismo sessuale forzato.

Oggi:

• Contiene spunti validi sulla costruzione sociale del genere, ma espresso in termini offensivi.

Fallacia & problematica:

• Linguaggio omofobo, mirroring del patriarcato. Sfrutta l’omofobia come arma retorica.

---

Paragrafo 19

The male is just a bundle of conditioned reflexes… never realizes he’s not part of his mother…

Storico:

• Freud e Lacan influenzano questo passaggio; però è una distorsione estrema.

Oggi:

• Psicologia evolutiva e neuroscienze smentiscono che l’uomo sia “completamente legato” alla madre in modo patologico.

Fallacie:

• Psicologismo riduttivo, patologizzazione del legame madre-figlio.

---

Paragrafo 20

His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered… rattle-headed Daddy’s Girl becomes Mama…

Storico:

• Caricatura estrema del ruolo femminile nella famiglia patriarcale. Commistione tra psicoanalisi e insulto.

Oggi:

• Patologizza la relazione genitore-figlio e riduce la donna a “sacca di funzioni”.

Problematiche etiche:

• Abilismo implicito (“rattle-headed”), infantilizzazione, sessismo inverso.

---

Paragrafo 21

[T]he male… has convinced women that their function is to serve men…

Storico:

• Denuncia reale della costruzione patriarcale dei ruoli femminili. Parte centrale della critica femminista.

Oggi:

• Ampiamente documentato e confermato.

Argomentazione fondata.

---

Paragrafo 22

In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover… create a magic world.

Storico & oggi:

• Visione idealizzata della donna, in chiave spirituale/romantica.

Problematiche:

• Essenzialismo positivo: esalta la donna, ma le nega complessità.

---

Paragrafo 23

Love can’t flourish in a “society” based on money…

Storico & oggi:

• Argomentazione compatibile con pensiero anarchico e utopista. Critica al capitalismo e all’alienazione sociale.

Argomentazione fondata ma idealistica.

---

Paragrafo 24

Love… can’t exist between male and female… only between free-wheeling groovy female females…

Storico:

• Rovescia la norma eterosessuale, ma con linguaggio escludente e normativo.

Oggi:

• Contraddice l’esistenza delle relazioni sane di ogni orientamento.

Fallacia:

• Esclusivismo normativo, purismo ideologico.

Problematiche:

• Esclude ogni forma di amore queer o etero che non si adatti a un’utopia ideologica.

---

Paragrafo 25

Sex is the refuge of the mindless… nicest women are raving sex maniacs.

Storico & oggi:

• Ridicolizza la sessualità femminile conforme alla norma. Tentativo di critica alla sessualizzazione coatta, ma scivola nella misoginia interna.

Problematiche:

• Sessofobia, abilismo implicito (“mindless”), internalized misogyny.

---

Paragrafo 26

Sex is not part of a relationship… solitary… gross waste of time…

Storico:

• Posizione radicale, vicina all’asessualità ideologica.

Oggi:

• La sessualità è esperienza soggettiva e può essere parte integrante di relazioni sane.

Fallacia:

• Universalizzazione di preferenze individuali.

---

Paragrafo 27

Even with equality, many women prefer peddling their asses…

Storico:

• Esprime disprezzo verso il lavoro salariato e riconosce la prostituzione come forma di autonomia.

Oggi:

• Discorso complesso: sex work è oggi oggetto di riflessione critica (liberazione vs. sfruttamento). Tuttavia, l’espressione è volgare e denigratoria.

Problematiche:

• Linguaggio degradante verso le sex worker, idealizzazione dell’antilavorismo senza considerare agency e contesto.

---

CONCLUSIONE GLOBALE

• Fallacie predominanti: Generalizzazione, ad hominem, riduzione, disumanizzazione, biologismo essenzialista.
• Problematiche strutturali: Transfobia, sessismo inverso, disumanizzazione dell’uomo, linguaggio abilista e sessuofobo.
• Argomentazioni fondate: Alcune critiche alla società patriarcale, ai ruoli di genere, all’alienazione del lavoro, alla suburbanizzazione e al capitalismo.

Nota finale: SCUM Manifesto è spesso considerata opportunisticamente, di volta in volta, a seconda di quel che fa comodo più un’opera provocatoria e satirica (secondo alcuni critici, performativa) che un saggio argomentativo. Tuttavia, anche in quel contesto, contiene retoriche violente e discriminatorie che non possono essere ignorate o giustificate in nome della provocazione artistica, che resta comunque sempre da difendere in qualsiasi sua forma come espressione umana della libertà – anche se per alcuni estrema – di parola e pensiero. Se non contestato nel merito, qualsiasi testo emozionante potrebbe essere considerato valido nel suo contenuto e non nell’intenzione provocatoria / stimolante.

(1) Copyright 1967 Valerie Solanas, qui riprodotto per fair use (diritto di critica).