[Shaun J. Russell]

I think the better measuring stick, Eva, is going off of anthologies that have been created in the last twenty-five years or so. I think most men would concede that women have been badly subjugated throughout history...but isn't the point that it has gotten better over the decades? I'm not saying it's even yet...but it is evening, is it not? If you want to determine if there has been a gradual shrinking of the poetic gender gap, perhaps you can pick a thorough, new (as opposed to "updated") anthology from each of the last six or seven decades and do a count of how many women appear within their pages. You can't change the fact that there were woefully few women published in the middle of the last millennium (the wonderful Aphra Behn being one of the first -- she is a true hero of mine, prompting me to write a sonnet about her a few years ago). You CAN notice the shift in sensibilities as you get closer to present day, however.

I just took a look at my favorite anthology, A Treasury Of Great Poems, English And American by Louis Untermeyer, and even though it was written in 1942, you notice that there are only two female poets cited up until the nineteenth century (essentially 400 years of poetry), but from then on, you have another seventeen over the next 140 years.

The bottom line is that it has been bad, and in many respects still is bad, but it is certainly getting better. Like I mentioned to another Eratospherean in an email yesterday, I'd like to believe that my grandchildren won't have to question the validity of another's thoughts or objectives on the basis of skin colour or gender. I'd like to say "children", but it takes time for those deep-rooted cultural memes to get weeded out. I know that my children will be taught the values of acceptance and inclusiveness. I am quite hopeful that most others of my generation will do the same.

[Eva Salzman]

Many of the anthologies cited in my Introduction are current and the figures for some of these only marginally better, and at best 1/3. This is pretty consistent: women making up 1/3 of total. Go and check. I was myself shocked when I compiled the figures, thinking it would better than this.

The other thing that's shocking is the entrenched general feeling, among men especially, that there no longer is a problem, and the utter vitriol that comes in response to brining up this apparently totally taboo issue. Yes, from many men. This itself gives some indication of how and why the problems remain. And check out the figures for women editors of these volumes. And the figures in leading literary journals, for poems and also criticism and reviews. If one starts to compile these all told, the picture is depressing indeed.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

The other thing that's shocking is the entrenched general feeling, among men especially, that there no longer is a problem, and the utter vitriol that comes in response to brining up this apparently totally taboo issue. Yes, from many men.

How many men, Eva?

Of course I can only go by what I've read here - and here we're only hearing from a very small number of male members - 16 of them to be exact.

Of those 16 there are 3 who could easily (and properly) be conceived as being pretty extremely sexist in attitude and tone and 1 who might be - but since I know him well I'd argue against the label and claim duress - after all, the board they are associated has been maligned both here and on Poetic Justice and he is, rightfully, indignant. Hell, I'm a woman and I'm rather indignant over it.

There are 8 various responses from other men who are questioning you, yes, but I think that's allowable under the Sexism Rules of War. (And if it's not, it's on you to make it so. There's no reasonable reason to ignore questions or blow them off as harrassing when it's clear from stats quoted and facts mentioned that they aren't.) Of those 8 men three of them are editors and they did little more than offer you statistics from their own ventures.

And then there are the 4 remaining men - all of which came out clearly on the side of womanhood - although even they seem to be having their motives and their word-choices questioned.

So that's three men- three - who might be justly accused of being vitriolic - three out of how many? 16 who've responded and hundreds who could have but haven't.

Hardly an entrenched general feeling and certainly not many men.

To base the motives and beliefs of the multitude of men here or anywhere based on the responses of three men - actually on the basis of one, really, since two of the men I've assigned the label "sexist" to was a bit of stretch since they didn't actually say much other than to buddy up to the one who WAS saying much -seems a bit of a stretch.

When you look for sexism you will find it - when it's all you look for it's all you'll find. It would do people well everywhere, to look beyond what you're seeking and find the otherness that also exists.

Instead of harping on the few who've fed your flame why not pay attention to everyone who's bothered to respond to you and admit that there were at least 4 others who came out strongly on the side of womankind and 8 who were trying to be honest and helpful and be delightfully suprised and filled with hope and wonder?

If one finds what one is looking for and then bothers to look no further one cuts off her nose to spite her own face.

it also makes it appear that you're not really looking for equality - you're looking for proof of inequality and steering the conversation in the direction which you think proves your point.

The truth is, however, you've steered it in the wrong direction by concentrating on the few die-hard sexists who do exist, and who will continue to exist until they die off, and that's hurtful and utterly unfair to those guys who took the time to speak their minds and offer their opinions in your favor. It's also ultimately destructive to the fence-sitters who haven't spoken at all - because it's not hard to see what direction they'll turn when unfairly accused and attacked.

There's nothing like issuing a generalized diss to turn people off of your cause.

[Eva Salzman]

Thanks for this response. It is true that I'm cynical in this respect and no I haven't overlooked other responses.

My opinions are not just about this forum, but about lifelong experience as a woman writer. The main points were not to do with personalised attacks here, but the alarming imbalances in anthologies and lack of women editors.

I'm not sure why this keeps being turned into personal stuff. Yes, I do respond and object to people being offensive, not all to people stating their opinions. Some people are being offensive and I've said so. That is all. And this happens with this subject. Last list I was in same thing happened: people got offensive and personal and so i just left. Will do again I think.

Frankly, all the research that supports all this is available not only in my anthology but elsewhere for those who believe this is all just nonsense.

[Quincy Lehr]

Look, in fairness to Jane (I can't speak to Eva's arguments in a text I have not read), what she has said about her experience with Horizon actually dovetails with what Dave sees with Lucid Rhythms, what I see with The Raintown Review (where I see the full slush pile and Anna sees a cull of it), and Anna Evans's experience with The Barefoot Muse. In other words, I don't think the main point is so much an accusation of active sexism in the selection of pieces, but rather an attempt to inquire into why the discrepancy exists.

This was, however, interpreted as an agenda quite quickly here, and I can see why Eva and Jane got riled up. There were (not universally, but in spots) assumptions being made about what they were saying that were simply not true. Neither of them (to my recollection) so much as intimated that the particular editors who weighed in were sexists--and indeed, Jane concurred with my general impression (albeit based on limited data) that the discrepancy is on the submissions rather than acceptances side. So, what's the argument about?

Well, it could be about whether or not this is, in fact, a problem. After all, an individual woman who sticks with it (again, going by very limited statistics from a few magazines) seems to have at least the same shot of acceptance as a man does.

But if fewer women are submitting, that can mean one of two things:

1. Women are, in aggregate, less "artistic" than men. Such a position, I hope, is clearly beneath contempt.

2. Women, in aggregate, face a greater number of pressures than men when it comes to artistic production, and, for that reason, tend to be less likely to write poems, or, having written them, submit assiduously. Of course, to accept this, we have to allow that gender inequality is a real thing, which seems quite evident to me.

My question, as a male associate editor at a journal helmed by a woman that tends to publish more men than women, is to what degree this can be redressed within the poetry community. It's doubtful that grant money will increase greatly in the next few years, and arts funding in the United States is a joke, anyway. Besides, we (the vast majority of active poets) have no control over what resources go where, anyway. And getting to the point where such questions even become relevant in an individual's artistic life require years of toil for very little public recognition or monetary reward.

The drop-off of women in poetry probably happens earlier--and, I suspect, is not necessarily or even mostly poetry-specific, but revolves around far more general gender patterns. And I wonder if we're seeking an editorial solution to a political problem.

Quincy

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

Thanks for this response. It is true that I'm cynical in this respect and no I haven't overlooked other responses.

My opinions are not just about this forum, but about lifelong experience as a woman writer. The main points were not to do with personalised attacks here, but the alarming imbalances in anthologies and lack of women editors.

I'm not sure why this keeps being turned into personal stuff. Yes, I do respond and object to people being offensive, not all to people stating their opinions. Some people are being offensive and I've said so. That is all. And this happens with this subject. Last list I was in same thing happened: people got offensive and personal and so i just left. Will do again I think.

Frankly, all the research that supports all this is available not only in my anthology but elsewhere for those who believe this is all just nonsense.

I hate to see anyone leave, Eva. The world of Eratosphere, such as it is, is a big enough one for all. Not everyone is going to agree with you, of course, but that's representative of life in general, isn't it? As for offensive and personal well, that's probably going to happen no matter what the situation or where the board. Some people are just naturally offensive to someone else's sensibilities - maybe not to everyone's but to someone's. I think, and it's just my opinion based on my own lifelong experiences both as a writer and as a woman, that unless you stick around and give people a chance you never really know where they're coming from. You can't make snap judgements based on a somewhat inflamatory subject. You can't possibly know the personality behind the post nor can you expect them to know your's - that comes from months of observing and reading and speaking. If snap judgements are often wrong in reality think of how much more wrong they can be based on a paragraph or two on an impersonal board. When and if you are around a place and it's people for awhile you learn who you want to trust, who you would do well to mistrust, who is bluster and no bite, who is a bad speller but a kind heart, who is intelligent, who is wise, who is to be avoided and who is to be sought out. But it's not done in day or a week or even a month. It takes work to cultivate a working relationship with other people - not only in real life but here, too.

No matter what, no matter the length of time spent or the level of committment offered, there are going to be people who disagree with you. But that's ok - if everyone agreed with you there'd be no need for you to have an opinion or to state your position at all, would there? There is a point in all drama/conflict/agenda (all it whatever you will) where all is lost if there is no disagreement - friendly or hostile.

There's also the possibility that if this happens to you repeatedly ("last list I was in the same thing happened") that it might be wise to look at the common denominator.

It really only gets personal if you let it. It's been my experience that while a responder might highlight one person's remark (as I highlighted yours) it's most often done for the sake of clarity and not necessarily as a personal retort. Most all responses are meant for everyone in spite of the fact that it seems to have been addressed to one specific person. I happened to pick your quote because it seemed most representative of a group of opinions being offered.

So - I realize now it's time to shaddup because I'm losing my train of thought and beginning to ramble.

Long story short - don't run off just because you don't like a few responses - by doing so you deny others the wisdom of your experiences and you deny yourself the wisdom of theirs. Change doesn't haapen in a vacuum - it takes work and it takes time.

Lo

[David Anthony]

I do remember M/s Finch slagging off Sam Gwynn a couple of years ago at West Chester on a shared public platform over some imagined anti-feminist slight. Disgraceful, I thought, without courtesy or any sense of proportion, but I suppose these opportunities for grandstanding must be seized if you have an agenda.

I think it's sad that the Sphere has apparently managed to lose TWO really interesting new members during the course of this thread, both of whom I would like to have heard much more from, and both of whom I was hoping would stick around.

Of course, it MUST be all their own fault.

[Eva Salzman]

"There's also the possibility that if this happens to you repeatedly ("last list I was in the same thing happened") that it might be wise to look at the common denominator."

It didn't happen to ME, it happened on a list where this subject was raised. Sheesh. The unpleasantness of statements like above speak for themselves. And I would appreciate not being lectured. Who needs this?!

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

It didn't happen to ME, it happened on a list where this subject was raised. Sheesh. The unpleasantness of statements like above speak for themselves. And I would appreciate not being lectured. Who needs this?!

Then the subject might be the common denominator, yes?

Anyhow, sorry if you thought I was lecturing or unpleasant - I was only offering some thoughts on what might best get your points across if that's what you were trying to do. Coming in and calling people unpleasant and lecturing and offensive and accusing them of " utter vitriol" in your first few posts just doesn't seem the best possible way to promote your cause.

You're right - no one needs it.