Int. Sem & Studio: Energizing Everyday

Title: Society for Cutting Up Men (Resource of the series “Wrong Art”)

Acrylic on Paper

Disclaimer: If you haven’t heard of the title above, (well it is a real organization) you probably haven’t exposed to much about gender study or gender equality, thus might cause you some discomfort as it is my curated resources, and is made solely for this post.

With this piece I will began my new annual theme/serie which will talk vigorously about socially unaccepted view. For say, in The New School supporter of Donald Trump had to remain silent if they didn’t want to get called as racist or sexist. Political view has blindfolded many, and people are labeled by their stance on social issues. I am heavily influenced by a feminist mother, who broke through the glass ceiling and became owner of multiple companies without a help from her prominent family. I also was exposed to gender issues a lot faster than then most of the people in my community, as I went to elementary and middle school in New Zealand.


SCUM, short for Society for Cuttin Up Men, founded by Valerie Solanas, who is the writer of a book called “SCUM Manifesto”. In her book she says

“”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.”

Yes she said “eliminate the male sex”. Recently a group of members of SCUM staged a video killing a random male and giggling around the body. This very violent ecstasy is performed by those who follows Solanas, who is renowned “feminist”. She revealed very misandristic view.

Another very renowned feminist, Julie Bindel, said “I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp” in an interview with RadFem Collective. Bindel, and Solanas, is no random people, Bindel wrote hundred articles in Guardians and is an identified feminist. She later explained that is was a joke, but it shows how some feminists drive gender division further. She also said “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”

Other than these two above there are numbers of act of violence in which all describe themselves as a feminist. Robin Morgan once said that misandry is “honorable, and viable polictical act” and Sally M Gearhart said that population of male should be reduced to 10%. Pamela O’Shaughnessy said that to cure masculinity, men’s “androgen need generic modification”. They are not the only ones, some feminist believes that heterosexual needs to be eliminated for a cause of peaceful society. People are subjected as potential criminals as because of their appeared gender.

Some might say ‘There is violence in almost any radicalism.’, but not all of those violences are being talked. I did my own social experiment with this piece. My piece can be, and was at the beginning, a piece which promotes the liberation of woman. But I said what I wanted to talk about, the taboo of “liberal classroom”. It went very helpful for my research for seminar class. Critique was not sugar coated, as I felt it were for many of others, telling me “the background is out of place” “the monster(Yama) can be gone” “I don’t see how the meat slicer anything to do with women’s liberation” and as for the idea, “(we view) man killing woman is fine, but woman killing man is not (fine)”. While for other non-taboo based works did not point out multiple perspectives, proportional error. And afterwards one of the pupil said “maybe she murder her husband too” and then instructor followed “No violence”. Which can be interpreted by many things, as such a joke, but it did made me upset as my work was projected as a joke. I did get some nice critiques, but more for I felt “liberation segregates too!” As to clear some misperceptions, I did not justified male’s violence in my work, nor justified drone attacks, not justified rapes. One thing I wanted to project with my work was that anyone who kills a human being should feel some sort of anxiety, and that is to condemn murder and violence. Not the act of self defense.

I sent the picture of the work to a art collector, and curator, Kim Kyung Hee, and talked about it. She said, as response to my question “Do you see any problem in my work?”, that as there are two kinds of taboo these days, ones that are “cliché” and ones that are taboo for liberals. Currently in Korea(and also for the US) democratic is dominant thus questioning them can be, and is viewed as, socially inappropriate. She also mentioned that majority of political art in US (currently) is in some way “anti-trump”.

I in no way hate certain gender, in fact, I have expressed my positive views in feminism more than I criticized. In order to evolve as a society we need to liberate everyone, where their freedom is accepted. It sounds simple but putting the fence of freedom can be very tricky. As through history the social conventional phenomenon and liberation has arranged that fence. The expansion of the fence has rapidly accelerated since 1900s. If the counter part of it or any questions against the purity of the “liberation” are generalized and indirectly silenced, it is oppression. Today my work has been subjected to a “joke” by those who says murder, not a self defense, for her(Judith) interest, can be justified. This alone says the oppression.

There is violence in feminism and I talked about it through my painting. But no one view so, thus, my painting is abstract.


Research Paper


Leave a reply

Skip to toolbar