The Swedish State is showing a stage production of SCUM to its school children.
(Translated from Swedish)
Debaklet does not apply to a SCUM Performance set. Not at all. The point is that the show will be sold to high school classes.
The show is based on the SCUM Manifesto, which contains passages such as:
“The man is a biological accident.”
“To call the man an animal is to flatter him, he is a machine, a walking dildo.”
In a story in Cultural News can be seen that this type of statement is included in the play – there is not water it down raw and aggressive allocation:
[…] The fact that a woman’s main goal in life is to crush the male sex.
The provisions addressed thus directly to the men, and as I argued in Ajour this may well be considered verbal abuse by high school boys. All the guys will not understand why their school has brought them there, and placing them on wooden benches while the girls sit on soft pillows and eat candy. The risk is also imminent that the ensuing discussion, hinders more than it helps.
There is support in our culture to ideology behind SCUM is correct, even if the distance is taken from the violence and the extinction of men. Radical Feminism is enshrined in our government documents, is largely the basis of our equal opportunities policy and it is often in chronicles and culture articles in newspapers.
Cultural context can not simply be disregarded. To do so is naive, and prevents an understanding of the criticism directed at high school students visiting the SCUM show.
When school children get to see Schindler’s List is the whole point of the movie and discussion afterwards that Nazism is wrong and horrible. If a high school can read Lolita, the whole culture agree that pedophilia is wrong, and that consensus is disturbed not by a book. De Sade’s works with assault and mutilation against women will also find the zero support in our culture.
But what happens when high school students get to see SCUM? To begin with, the purpose (according to those who set up the play) to shake our view of sex and gender roles . It is, therefore, be a positive thing in the play, even if the distance is taken from the destruction of men.
Andrea Edwards, who in front of the monologue, says himself:
- The goal is that people will become confused and begin to question their structural thinking. A brainwashing that will wash away the existing brainwashing, where male supremacy is taken for granted.
SCUM is considered able to weed out false ideas about male superiority, by a violent frontal attack against males.
There is thus an aid to SCUM’s message is good and worth, as long as you remove the violence and excesses. This is a crucial difference with ideas of Nazism or the oppression of women. There is the cultural support null and void, even if violence is cleared away.
A discussion among the students after the performance is thus in a context where the attacks on men legitimized as long as the purpose is not to kill the men, but only shake their brains. In this way, the idea partly sanctioned, which most probably is the worst of all for the boys.
Andrea Edwards was also upset when she read the SCUM for the first time:
Andrea Edwards himself was so upset when she first came into contact with the Scum Manifesto for a few years ago that she could not finish reading the book.
If an adult person, who also is a woman and not under fire – becomes so upset by the book, then why should young, vulnerable teenage boys to see the play?
What can Edwards to believe that boys are more durable than her? I’m trying to understand her logic but can not find.