Intrinsic to this discussion and always current is Tillie Olsen's "Silences".

It begins

"Silences" particularly discusses the writer-woman because that was a prominent issue in the public debate when the book was written, but it does not neglect to recognize other "silences" and their causes. The chapter "Silences--Its Varieties" includes: censorship silences, having to censor self, political silences.

I recommend each and all to read this book or re-read if the initial reading was a decade or more ago.

Some thoughts of my own:

To be in an anthology presupposes that one writes. It also presupposes that the writer has made an impression on someone by publishing a large corpus of work from which an editor can select.

To publish a large corpus, one will have conceiveably written double, treble, hundredfold, the published amount and had time to hone the craft. That presupposes time to write. And to read.

On the climb to "the top" some will remain on (or fall off of) each stairstep. Many voices will not be heard without some impassioned editor to collect them and provide a forum.

It was The Crisis (the official magazine of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded by W. E. B. Du Bois in 1910) that first published Langston Hughes. Without it, his work might have been lost in obscurity. Similar circumstances might be cited for many minority writers who later became acclaimed.

Most certainly, in my viewpoint, we need magazines and (their) editors who create specialized magazines and anthologies to showcase minority writers. This creates a focus that otherwise might not be noticed even by the members of that minority. But that is only one viewpoint and I concede that others may have reasons to differ, just as others may have reasons to agree.

This thread has become lengthy and many harsh words have been thrown from alll directions. But the fair-minded reader will perhaps have found cause to ponder questions such as: Is there a problem? If so, what are the reasons? If so, what should be done about it and why?

Afterthought might lead to an adjustment of attitudes and action. If so, this lengthy thread will have served a good purpose.

Hopefully all the participants will continue to find the Eratosphere a forum with a high ceiling for debate and differing viewpoints and not go away mad.

I think most of the points that can be made, have been. But I may be wrong.

Thanks Janice
 

Thanks for that very thoughtful posting and the Olsen, and for putting this issue precisely in the context where in belongs, and among issues of great importance to me.

I have very mixed feelings about journals dedicated to enclaves, except if I start to think that within the poetry world, there are likewise enclaves pertaining to different schools and theories, with these like any other. (And yet am tired myself of being included largely in women's anthologies, even though i don't write exclusively nor hardly ever on women's issues! Or is it because I care about and address these issues! one has to wonder!)

I grappled with such issues editing WW, and indeed addressed the fact that I did, and so did others, while some, rather than giving due consideration to matter either stated the familiar argument that, well, those poets might just be better (an offense I HAD to address!) or that it's a made-up problem, which invalidation of those of us with long experience in such matters, is itself part of the problem.

Re the comments above - including Germaine Greer's - about inferior work by neglected women poets, it is vital to realise that many poets improve by having their work published, read and discussed. Feedback like that adds to the work in hand and grows a career.

Many women still have a hard time - and had especial difficulties in the past, as we know - getting published to the same extent as men, being adequately represented in anthologies where their work can be discovered by new readers, being reviewed, critically discussed etc.

This could impede their ability to see themselves as bona fide writers, thus stunting their confidence to develop and change, and it prevents their coming into contact with the kind of praise/appraisal that would allow them to grow and experiment as creative artists. That won't apply to everyone, because some poets are more naturally confident than others, but it is worth considering when a neglected poet's work is being dismissed as 'inferior'.

After all, isn't that the very reason for Eratosphere's existence? To provide poets with a readership and necessary feedback for future development?

Re Daily Telegraph, Eva. Because I crinkle it in an aggressive manner and say stuff like 'Country's gone to the dogs since all this fre verse malarkey Brrrr!' More power to your elbow. Not really off-topic. Have you seen the furore because girls are doing much better than boys at every educational level? Well of course they are. They are much cleverer. Not as good at cricket though.

Some women poet friends (well-known) have commented to me how a woman writer has to publish twice as much to get similar recognition a man enjoys, perhaps analogous point to one often made that women have to work twice as hard to get half as much.

Could it be (gulp, cringer, cower) because they're working harder? I suppose one could follow the thinking that THIS disparity isn't worth being concerned about. "One hopes it won't be the fault of women!)

Admittedly, I'm not keen on cricket but would take on anyone at pool. (Except someone like Jane, who I understand was a pro.) Hell, I'd play her too, to learn something. Love watching football (not the Yank kind), basketball, sports in general and baseball, which English friends who love cricket often claim they can't understand, which I find really funny. Can understand cricket and not baseball! Crinkle away, and grump about free verse. There's a lot of bad free verse around. But then again there's a lot of bad poetry around (grump, crinkle)

PS
 

If figures about students are correct, and on basis of arguments here about things changing slowly, then we have 5-10 years at most to see complete correction of gender balance in all walks of life (business, goverment, literary world) since naturally these students will have no obstructions barring their way to influential and important jobs their abilities merit.

"This could impede their ability to see themselves as bona fide writers, thus stunting their confidence to develop and change, and it prevents their coming into contact with the kind of praise/appraisal that would allow them to grow and experiment as creative artists. "

Ms Holland,

You are absolutely right, of course; but that's a matter for sociology, not aesthetics. Understanding why a poem may not be better and why a poet may not have developed as she could have hones our sympathy and perhaps motivates us to improve the situation in which we all find ourselves; but it leaves the poem right where it was. If a poem isn't good, understanding why doesn't make it better.

RHE

Janice said

Quote:

I think most of the points that can be made, have been. But I may be wrong.

Point taken, Janice.

But this to Richard, if I wished to be addressed as Ms (I'm actually married, but whatever) I would use that title in my name. I have no problem with women who call themselves Ms - it is, after all, a good way of avoiding being labelled as married or unmarried in some outdated, patriarchal way; you can't tell from Mr whether or not a man is married - but have never done so myself. Except on official documents, I prefer just to be Jane.

Pps
 

I must correct something I said. I mentioned 5-10 years for this imbalance in education to show itself in professional world, but if some arguments here about merit and ability being foremost are indeed correct, we'll have an imbalance in favour of women, precisely exemplifying their superior achievements. Unless, unless....

I'm sure if this happens, which I think unlikely but wouldn't mind being proved wrong, it will shake out in another 50-100 years, or so. Anyway 3-400 years at most, one hopes.