Many people think misandry originates on social media, but it has existed long before. The first openly misandrist work is Valerie Solanas' Society of Cutting Up Men (SCUM) Manifesto from 1968.

S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1967/1971) Here is a link to the work. Please read it for free, DO NOT pay for this crap. Like Mein Kampf, all violent and hate manifestos should be free for academic reasons.

I was reading it and outside of the very vague philosophical ranting, it has many of the same anti-male stereotypes we hear today.

  1. The biggest one is that all men care about is sex and we would do anything for it.

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.

Obviously we have all heard something like this. In some degrees, it is true that many of us desire sexual contact and would work to it. But we would not degrade ourselves. I have had opportunities to pay for sex and I have declined even when I was good on money. That is because I value my life as do many of you.

  1. Another common claim I see passed around by modern feminists is that ALL concepts of women's lives in society including motherhood are a result of patriarchal conditioning.

The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality reflects what males think they’d find fulfilling if they were female.

But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.

The idea that this is a "male claim" is absurd. Many women desire to be mothers and many mothers value their children more than anyone else. Even abusive moms will claim their kids are the most important part of their lives. It is the same reason many men desire to be fathers.

The second quote is another misandrist narrative. It goes that men are trash and women only like them because they need the money. This may be true about certain billionaires but it's not true for every actor, singer, even some male politicians who some women can't help but fall enamored with. Hopefully some of you guys are this kind of man, and if you are a straight woman I hope you find the man you actually love and are not coerced or bribed into.

  1. She claims that men are responsible for every war and that they are a result of insecure masculinity.

He is responsible for: War: The male’s normal method of compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he’s a “Man”.... he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than plod grimly on for fifty more years.

Any historical analysis of both wars and female rulers can debunk this. There have been powerful shrewd and cunning women in power throughout history and the most famous lead wars. Queens Elizabeth I of England and Isabella of Spain led wars against their rival nations, conquests of the New World, and slavery of African and Indigenous people. Remember it was Queen Isabella who pardoned Christopher Columbus after his own crew locked him up for his abuses of indigenous people. Even great liberator Queen Ana Nzinga of Angola personally led battles, separated boys from their families to join wars, and even kept male concubines. Nonetheless, she resisted Portuguese colonialism and lived to an old age. We need a biopic on her right now.

As for the vast majority of wars started by men, they were not for masculine reasons. They were for land, religion, resources, survival, and empires. Washington didn't fight the British to be more of a man to his wife and non-biological kids. Churchill didn't bomb Germany to feel more like a man when he was already fat and older. The US did not invade Vietnam to enhance their hypermasculine supersoldier programs.

The last quote is a hilarious generalization especially for the late 1960s. By this time, people lived long lives. I don't know a single man, veteran or not, who would rather die young than live a long peaceful life.

  1. She claims that the mother is always good and the father is always evil.

Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn’t preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn’t love his kids; he approves of them—if they’re “good”, that is, if they’re nice, “respectful”, obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy’s easily disturbed male nervous system—in other words, if they’re passive vegetables.

This is a common trend with misandrists. They claim mothers are always kind, compassionate, and loving while the father is emotionally unavailable and only "approves" of their kids if they are good. This one hit me personally. My mom would often claim to "sometimes get angry" but her outbursts were threatening and abusive. I remember growing up and having to conform and silence myself or else I would be punished. This ended as I grew older and my mom softened from scary explosive anger on a hair trigger to calm emotive assertive expressions but the trauma remains. I am sure that I am not the only one here.

This trend exists outside of a Valerie Solanas manifesto, it is very common in society that moms are divine while dads are losers. It is a social taboo to say anything negative about one's mother no matter how abusive she is. I have gotten much stigma for simply expressing my life experiences. One of the most liberating moments was going to a friend's Thanksgiving and a guest who I only met once there and never later, said "my mom died... good riddance" which showed that it is acceptable for adults to express their true selves. This gave me hope, but also I would hopefully never say that when this tragedy happens.

  1. She even weaponizes male loneliness as an attack on men.

every man is an island. Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people. So, like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy’s little asshole along with him to the wilderness, the suburbs, or, in the case of the “hippie"

This line predicted the male loneliness epidemic debate I see online often. Men are lonely and non-social so they must isolate. These above descriptions feel very ableist towards autistic people and I even had to remind myself that this was published before autism was known. It taught me that stigma towards loneliness precedes autism.

That is enough for me right now. I had to stop reading after her homophobic lines about gay men that would immediately have my Reddit account suspended.

Anyway what did we learn? Well misandry has existed for decades. The same tropes are still prevalent today. It exists because of cultural disharmony and unresolved trauma.

If you have the time and energy, give that crap a skim. It is full of absurd generalizations, calls for violence, and vulgar language even for the late 1960s. For any future misandrist encounters, compare it to the lines in SCUM Manifesto.