[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

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 hope that you are joking Eva. I

[Eva Salzman]

I'm just following on to logical conclusion based on others' arguments here.

If the gender issue is not a real one, or nor a major factor then if indeed girls are doing so much better at school, then surely these same achievers will be prominent in next generation of jobs in all walks of life: shown not simply in evening of numbers people claim here is happening slowly (and it has improved) but with number imbalance favouring women, by the time these women are in working world.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Is creativity linked to academic excellence?

[Philip Lyons]

The argument about quality can never be won, because who in the end is the final arbiter of good taste? If women are discriminated against in other areas of life (one topical example in the UK is the low rate of convictions for rape), it stands to reason they will be discriminated against in the poetry world, along with all the other groups that get discriminated against, including – if John is right – readers of the Telegraph! I have to nail my colours to the mast: I am a white, middle-class, heterosexual, Guardian-reading male, so I have absolutely no grounds for complaint that I struggle to get my poetry accepted. But I persist in believing my poems are good, if perhaps unfashionably formal, and what audience I do have is very encouraging. The best poets, I believe (call me naïve if you wish), will always get noticed. It’s what happens to the rest of us that seems more open to debate. A woman may have to work twice as hard to get her work recognised, but we now have a female Poet Laureate in the UK and we did have – if only briefly – a female Professor of Poetry at Oxford (a whole separate can of worms, I know), and whether or not you get asked to join the club may have less to do with gender these days and more to do with the kind of poetry you write. For example, I had an interesting correspondence with one editor of a poetry magazine about finding a home for middlebrow poetry (which is how I define what I write, following an article I came across by Nick Hornby in the Poetry Review many moons ago lamenting the absence of more accessible poetry, akin to the sort of middlebrow fiction he himself writes) and there seems to be a certain expectation a poem should either be high art or purely for entertainment (as in performance poetry). I understand why even successful poets who also happen to be women complain that men still predominate; I’m just not sure it’s the most pressing issue when poetry itself is ignored by large numbers of literate people (including most of my university-educated, art-loving friends) for being too obscure or not being about anything they can relate to.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

I have just finished reading the companion thread to this one over at Jane's Poets on Fire Forum and it was downright civilised. Some very good points made on both sides of the divide.

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Poets_On...pic=1554&st=80

[Eva Salzman]

Philip,

Yest there are all these things on TOP of the gender problem, I agree. It's odd this stuff about accessibility since the poets I rate most don't seem to factor this in as an issue when they right, and some of the work is more or less accessible. In fact, I think "performance poetry" (although I get fed up with these designations - Simon Armitage is a "performance poet"!) is a lot more read and heard by more people, perhaps because there still exists this fear of things more difficult.

As for creativity linked to academic excellence, I don't think so my myself. So, perhaps my model will hold true for "non-creative" kinds of work (I suspect we'll differ in our definitions here) but the one area it won't hold true will be the creative one, proving once again that women are less creative/talented.

Regardless, if my model DOESN'T hold true according to this ogic I'm developing, this will then provide yet more evidence that gender is a factor. At which point I guess the argument can be refined conveniently!

[Eva Salzman]

Yes, it was civilised and would have been good to have more (any?) men speaking there.

Oh except the invalidating and offensive (and probably intended to be) "y'all girls have to understand something" remarks, which I guess one should get used to, but I never do.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Eva, the remark to which you refer was made by Terreson on Jane's new site (before it became secret women's business). I have known him in the past and, though we definitely do not see eye to eye, he is vocally pro-feminist and as a consequence I was surprised to see his demise because he used a salutation that was not deemed PC.

He definitely did not say "y'all girls have to understand something" , he did say 'y'all women poets' and was howled down for, what I assume to be, diction that was viewed as red-neck. I will bet that Tere opens doors for women, buys them flowers, remembers birthdays, is always courteous but nonetheless because such behaviour carries baggage will be viewed as unacceptable for those very traits.

I speak of 'Poets on Fire' to which the address above will take you.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

Oh except the invalidating and offensive (and probably intended to be) "y'all girls have to understand something" remarks, which I guess one should get used to, but I never do.

Wasn't that remark made on the now-closed Poetic Justice board?

(And without sticking up for Tere I have to at least say this much - I've known and argued with him for years - the thing you have to "know" about him is that he's from the Deep South - and "y'all" is exactly how he talks. Some people write speech patterns - Tere's one of them.)

Perhaps he shouldn't have said "girl." I'm old enough I don't have a problem with it but I'm really old. "Girl" implies youth and this morning as my bones creak and my back aches I'm ok with being reminded of youth. I don't like "ladies" and I hate "ma'am" and "bitch" just irritates me unless it's a biker I'm talking to - "Hey you" works well. My kids have gotten me used to "Girlfriend," too. "Honey," "Sweetie," and "Baby" rankle but I have to remember all the times I called patients those same things and meant nothing harmful by it.

But back to Tere - One of his biggest passions used to be woman's rights. His biggest argument with me always had to do with the fact that he was afraid I was subjugating my poetry and my ego for that of my husband's.

Maybe he's changed. I dunno. Doesn't matter. He offended - either intentionally or inadvertantly and he's gone.

Such is The Internet.

[Eva Salzman]

Thanks for all these responses. I have no problems with "y'all". Actually he might have said women here, as was pointed out but there were some "girls" being bandied about. Anyway he said "y'all women poets need to know something" which is exactly symptomatic of the problem. And yet if women start doing same back, talking about "men poets", oh boy they'd be hollered down!

And this "you need to know something". It's nothing to do with PC. It may be that some of this PC stuff, however, came about BECAUSE people were genuinely offended by certain assumptions and addresses. Having said that, I do know what email does with tone. The usual thing to do when one realises one's tone could be miscontrued, or not, if in fact one hasn't miscontrued at all! Anyway, the background is interesting to hear.