[Quincy Lehr]

Well, I can speak to this from a slush-pile reader's perspective (and Anna crunched the numbers on a Barefoot Muse issue a couple of years back). The disparity is on the submissions end. Looking at the Raintown since 1 May, here are the stats.

Number of submissions by men: 43
Number of poems submitted: 155
Number of poems accepted: 8
Percentage of submitted poems by men accepted: 5.2%

Number of submissions by women: 14
Number of poems submitted: 48
Number of poems accepted: 3
Percentage of submitted poems by women accepted: 6.3%

(This excludes a couple of poems Anna's deliberating over and two submissions I haven't processed yet--both of which came in today.)

The point being that we've been picking based on what we perceive as the quality of what comes in, and even though, on the percentages, women are doing slightly better, it's still rather male-orientated. But if we don't get the subs, what can we do? If you want a more gender-balanced Raintown--send us some stuff!

Quincy

[Jill Domschot]

My problem is TIME. Women are busy creatures. I hate to use a stereotype, but it's true that a woman's work is never done. Many of the most famous female authors, such as Jane Austen, never got married and never had children. By the time I'm done working all day and cooking and cleaning up and putting children to bed, I'm too damned tired to care about poetry. That last part isn't true; I still care, but I suppress my caring because I'm too tired. How do other women around these parts do it? How, how how? The poem I have up on this site currently I wrote five years ago, and it's a newer one for me!

[Shaun J. Russell]

Interesting...nine straight posts by men, versus the one original post by Carol...

Anyhow, I think the reason for less female poets in print is very simple. Like Quincy and David mentioned, they are editors who receive more work from men than women. I think this is due to the fact that more often than not, women are less interested in seeing their work in print than men are. Emily Dickinson is a perfect, if somewhat cliched, example of this: she wrote great work, but cared more about soliciting it to a few friends and relatives than she did about accruing notability for her craft. Men, more often than not have that cocky swagger and bravado about them that makes them want to thump their chest at the prospect of their accomplishments being widely acknowledged. These are hard-wired genetic traits that truly have nothing to do with the quality of poetry itself. You'd be hard pressed to find many men saying that women can't write exceptional poetry.

I, too, balk a bit at journals like Mezzo Cammin and the like, in the same way I balk at journals that state that they will not publish traditional verse / formal poetry. What is the point of cutting down the pool of potential contributors? Is editorial bias not enough? If you want to foster true equality, any good editor should take what he or she deems to be the best work submitted.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Jill -- with all due respect (and I mean that sincerely...not as a platitude), I don't buy the "too busy" argument. I won't deny that women (mothers especially!) are potentially busier than men...but I also believe that "not having enough time" is a convenient excuse. Hell, I've used it myself.

If you're committed to your art, you make time for it. Use half of your lunch break for writing a poem. Wake up half an hour earlier, before the kids are awake, and scrawl a few lines. Buy a pocket voice recorder and orate ideas, lines or rhyme pairings while driving / commuting to work. You can be the busiest person in the world, but there are always ways to make time. You have to make that pact with yourself though -- that you will make time. It's almost a form of self-prophesy.

Let's put it this way: if you have time to read Eratosphere, you have time to spend a few minutes jotting down words or ideas!

[Carol Trese]

As my post said:

To join the Poetic Justice Discussion, please log on at http://z3.invisionfree.com/Poetic_Ju...ex.php?act=idx

I'd love to facilitate a Guerrilla Girl Poets Society. Anyone want to join? I am a fledgling poet, but I am a great organizer and facilitator. I don't have stats at my finger tips: what is the ratio of male to female poets on this board? I do know there are many phenomenal women poets here, and I am sure you have opinions about gender issues. Join the early discussion at http://z3.invisionfree.com/Poetic_Ju...ex.php?act=idx

[Quincy Lehr]

Shaun--

Anecdotal evidence suggests it's not that at all. It's far, far broader.

Quincy

[Michael Cantor]

Carol - maybe if you paid more attention to organizing and faciitating your poetry, and less to a Guerrila Girl Poets Society, you wouldn't need a Guerrila Girl Poets Society. And as far as stats are concerned - read the ones abut poems actually posted for critique that I put up earlier. There's a message there.

[Mark Allinson]

Well, Carol, if you seriously believe that (for instance, as claimed at the linked site) Ruth Padel was "hounded into stepping down" in an act of gender discrimination just to prevent her from becoming the first woman poet to take the chair at Oxford, then I am sure Quincy's and Michael's stats will be read as evidence of yet more oppression.

I don't quite know how you will do that, but no doubt you will.

This is why I don't bother arguing with religious folk who come to the door - they KNOW the truth, and therefore have no interest in discussion.

[A. E. Stallings]

There was a similar discussion on Harriet (poetry blog) during my tenure--one of the journals came out with a discussion of the lack of women represented in avant garde journals and anthologies. Looking at the numbers, the suggestion was, to me, also that part of the problem, anyway, was on the submission end (in the few journals that provided both, this was clearly the case)--women weren't getting their poems out there as much. And yes, I do think a variety of factors--including childcare and family responsibilities, but also perhaps some self-censorship--were to blame. Anyway, I said as much (about the disparity being partly how many women were submitting) and was in some cases excoriated in the comments section (by women)--including people I had written favorable blurbs for, etc.--for blaming the women. Which wasn't my intention--just that numbers on the publishing end don't mean much of anything without statistics of submissions--and I was hoping to encourage women to get out there more, and to point some light on some of the challenges.

I have never had any problems with editors or publishing, but I do think that publishing under my initials (androgynously) probably helped, er, initially. I have a number of early letters from editors addressed "Dear Mr. Stallings."

[John Whitworth]

I have an alter ego, Phoebe Flood, which I have long intended to use to submit work to Mslexia and the like. I have never actually done so because Mslexia doesn't PAY, and I suppose if it did I would blow my cover when I tried to cash the cheque. It used to be possible to set up a bank account under a fictitious name, but now, of course, you can't do it. Could ask for cash, I suppose.

I think that to be a young black lesbian of left wing persuasion would be quite advantageous on the British poetry scene. Why, come to think of it ....