[Don Jones]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

I would be interested to hear what more women think about all this.

This woman wonders why it took others so long to wake up and smell the coffee.

If I were to withdraw my poems from every magazine which contained an article I disapproved of, I would find poems very difficult to place at all. I have had verses in the New Statesman. I disapprove, often violently disapprove, of ALL the articles in the New Statesman.

I just don't understand this attitude...and you are not the only one who has it, so I'm not "picking on" you in particular. There are numerous sites and publications that hold extremist religious/political views that "our" poets routinely crow about being published in.

To me, it's like marching in a Neo-Nazi rally or standing in front of a funeral home with Fred Phelps because I think someone may notice me and think I'm cute - never mind that what they're really going to think is that I share their views.

[John Whitworth]

I will publish pretty well anywhere where they will pay me. I think most writers are like that. I might draw the line at The Nazi Literary Review or Sadists' Monthly or The Paedophile Information Newsletter, but you cannot say that a middle-of-the-road Catholic publication is like that. The Catholic position is that homosexual acts are sinful. I imagine that most people in the world think that. I do not. I DO think Socialism is a dark, evil squidlike etc etc. But I sell poems (not many it is true) to the New Statesman. I would sell them to the Communists if they paid me.

[Don Jones]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Gail White]

I agree with John. I have published poems in Chronicles, for example, in spite of loathing their political views, because they happen to have a really fine poetry editor (Catherine Savage Brosman). Also, they pay actual money.

[R. Nemo Hill]

I really don't think believing that money is the bottom line of all things is anything to brag about. O' bully bully bully for the realists! Yuck.

Nemo

[E. Shaun Russell]

I'm with Nemo on this one...

Why would you barter something as personal (at least ostensibly) as a poem with someone whose outlook is in conflict with yours, simply for the sake of a few bucks? Does anyone really write poetry to get paid? I was rather horrified when I discovered that one of my earliest publication credits was accepted by someone who had a history of making anti-Semitic remarks. It was too late to rescind, but it caused me to be more careful about where I sent my work.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Move over a little, Shaun, I'm also with Nemo on this. I hope he doesn't feel crowded, but there is lots of room left in his box.

We've had this discussion before on the Sphere about publishing at shady sites. It can't be helped, a writer is defined to some extent by the sites where one appears. There are some sites which I would not send to, though like Shaun I had to learn the hard way. Nowadays I look carefully at what company I would be keeping if my work appeared there, and what the editorial views are.

I admire Cathy for withdrawing her work in protest, most of all it was brave of her to take a stand by saying so publicly.

Edited in. I see this is my 12 000 th post. A kind of milestone. I hope this thread will also be a milestone and a reminder that publishing in journals with extremist views is a two-way street. It's like inviting the mafia to your dinner party honoring the mayor. They come, they shake hands, pass out cigars, gain legitimacy.

That is how I ended up with my poetry at a shady site. I saw that poets I admired had been published there. And I foolishly went there too. But only once.

So you, as a writer, by appearing at an extremist site make it seem more mainstream and acceptable. Also the views it supports.

[Quincy Lehr]

I have no objection to someone paying me for my work. Indeed, I wish it happened more often. However, I like to think that if I must have a price, it would be in the high-priced courtesan rather than streetwalker range. More to the point here, if we don't assume that poetry editors think about mission in picking pieces for politically oriented magazines, we're kidding ourselves. By this, I don't mean that every poem in, say, The National Review is ideologically right-wing, but will not be the sort of poems that will hack off right-wingers. Social being determines consciousness, and to presume that long-term exposure to a milieu will have no affects on one's own beliefs and behaviors is... optimistic.

[Chris O'Carroll]

Gore Vidal, seldom mistaken for a conservative Catholic, was of the opinion that “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are adjectives that can modify the noun “act” but not “person.” His view of sexuality (I’m not quoting him directly here, but I don’t believe I’m distorting) was that any adult in good health is physically capable of, whether or not emotionally inclined toward, a variety of sex acts with both male and female partners. Some people have a strong preference for mostly or exclusively hetero sex, some have a strong preference for mostly or exclusively homo sex, and some enjoy both.

I’m not convinced that “gay,” “straight,” and “bi” are entirely meaningless categories. But I’m sure that no government has legitimate authority to criminalize sex acts between consenting adults, and that it’s at least idiotic and probably evil to preach that such acts are inherently an affront to God. If I cheat on my wife with another man, that’s morally wrong because of the betrayal factor involved, not because of the queer factor.

I have mixed feelings about the choice vs. genetic predisposition debate. On the one hand, pray-the-gay-away therapies and other “conversion” efforts do a tremendous amount of harm, so any rational argument against them is welcome. But I’m leery of using “it’s not a choice” as the cornerstone for anti-discrimination arguments, because of the implication that discrimination would be acceptable if sexual identity were a choice. I mean, we choose our religious and political identities. Does that mean that it’s OK to lock up all the Catholics and prohibit Tories from marrying each other?

It’s not really surprising to see a version of Vidal’s “there’s no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality” position deployed in defense of right-wing Christian homophobia. There’s a warped ingenuity to that line of argument that’s almost admirable if you disregard the hatred, the intellectual dishonesty, and the unsound premises about the will of God. Like all shrewdly constructed propaganda for toxic viewpoints and policies, it serves as a stimulating invitation to sharpen our countervailing arguments.