"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 wtih, or the jealousies and possessiveness for the pussies themselves."
Brilliant.
I felt like her piece as a whole was incredibly counter-hegemonic. In other words, the same way men have co-opted the identify-forming process and undermined any attempts women have made towards self-identification, Solanas assumes the "masculine" role of dismissing any other framework that would explain the hippy's desire to escape. She obliterates any possible room for diversity within the sphere of "men" -- which would be the key to highlighting the absurdity of the term in general (because the men/women binary would mean nothing if people recognized there was more diversity between each subgroup than between each group). In addition, she redefines his actual desires to leave (as a man would generally to a woman) by forcing him back into the patriarchal structure. This is what he wants because this is what men want always. It's the same absurd ways men have attempted to describe/explain women but reversed. She has used the same tools offered by a patriarchal structure to expose and totally undermine it. It renders the entire action of uttering "women [insert predicate/verb]" completely empty and void of meaning.
ReplyDelete