[Roger Slater]

Jan, I think that was Eva's point.

[Eva Salzman]

Perhaps it's that I'm trying to do so much here, with deadlines and everything else, but I've totally missed your point. Can you please explain? Many thanks for your input.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

As I said before: Seek and ye shall find...

Poets are in the minority do they follow the dictates of the norm?

Without facts we whistle in the wind to whatever tune we choose.

The vast majority of dressage riders are women, yet that ratio of women to men does not remain constant at the upper levels of the sport. Is this another example of male domination?

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

We cross posted Eva.

We play with the cards we hold. It is a cop-out to say that it is someone else's fault that we cannot do more. Today, as Paul has stated elsewhere in this thread, in Australia we are enjoying a long weekend and I have a little more free time but I am annoyed that I allowed myself to get embroiled in this thread when I should be writing poetry and even, God forbid, sending work out. I made a decision and have to abide by such.

You speak generalities.

If there is a gender bias in the publishing of female poets how does that sit with blind selection? Do we see in publications that adopt this method of selection an increase in work by women poets?

Facts are needed, not assumptions. I am not the only male who does not fit a stereotype I know of many others, a medical specialist, married and not separated, who is the primary caregiver to his children, a retired engineer who carries out every domestic duty, a policeman who has taken long service leave to look after a newborn child so that his wife can follow her career...

I detest all manufactured division it belittles us all.

Jan

[Roger Slater]

Jan, your observation about whistling in the wind was scarcely the clarification Eva sought. I find it odd that you somehow think that your riddling delphic utterances constitute the sorts of "facts" that others are sloppily omitting from their arguments. I wonder that you can't see how entrenched you are in views that are apparently based on nothing more than the way household chores are shared between you and your wife, as though that proves anything at all about anyone else's household.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

I dunno - if "writer" is all someone wants to be, whether they're male or female, don't they make the sacrifices necessary? For most of us "writer" is not our full time occupation nor is it the only goal we've set for ourselves. Most of us have also chosen to be mothers, fathers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, Indian chiefs, and we parcel out our time accordingly. I don't think it's my husband's duty to "make time" for something I've chosen to do no more than I think it's my duty to fit his schedule into mine. Like all friends, we try to accomodate - if he's writing something, sure, I'll answer the phone or do the dishes. If I'm writing something he'll fend for himself.

No one lives in a vacuum - which is probably what they need to do if writing is all they want to do. If that's the choice, and it's non-negotiable and nothing else matters, then it would probably be wise for them to devote their life to the goal - and not marry and not have children and not have another occupation or interest. If that's the "all" then it would be the writer's responsibility to arrange his/her life around it - and not expect someone else to do so with or for them. It depends on what we love the most - the thought that, given enough time and space, we might be able to write a poem worthy of eternal memory or how much of our available time and space we wish to devote to our families or our other occupations.

That goes for men and women. Whatever our choices or dreams are it is up to us to find a way to fullfill them - it is not someone else's responsibility to give us whatever it is we think we need to make them possible.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Jan, your observation about whistling in the wind was scarcely the clarification Eva sought. I find it odd that you somehow think that your riddling delphic utterances constitute the sorts of "facts" that others are sloppily omitting from their arguments. I wonder that you can't see how entrenched you are in views that are apparently based on nothing more than the way household chores are shared between you and your wife, as though that proves anything at all about anyone else's household.

Bob, as usual, you seem to willfully misunderstand.

I said:

Without facts we whistle in the wind to whatever tune we choose.

That is hardly a Delphic utterance.

Nobody here is presenting factual evidence, anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

Entrenched in my views on what? We all make life choices and are responsible for them no matter how much we squirm.

Lo, I agree.

Jan

[Roger Slater]

Jan, "as usual," you seem to be willfully accusing those who do not happily embrace your conclusions of willfully misunderstanding, and, just in case the ad hominem edge isn't clear enough, you throw in "as usual" to drive home the point that you feel my willful dishonesty is a habitual character trait and not merely a one-time lapse.

As you said, the phrase "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron. But aren't you the one who chose to present us with a disquisition on how many times your wife has cooked you dinner and precisely how the various household chores in your house are divided up? Did you offer these tidbits merely as a gesture of pointless exhibitionism, or were you in fact trying to contribute meaningfully to the conversation?

I offered absolutely no anecdotal evidence of my own. Indeed, I expressed no particular views about what may be the cause of the gender disparities being observed in poetry submissions and publication. By criticizing your own sloppy logic, anecdotal reasoning and sexist-tinged rhetoric, I was not suggesting that I had thereby proven the truth of views opposite to your own. There's such a thing as an illogical or offensive proof of a fact that just so happens to be correct. The correctness of the fact does not redeem the logic or the decency of the flawed proof. Personally, I don't pretend to know the reasons underlying the gender disparities in poetry, but I also don't pretend that you know.

[Eva Salzman]

Did I not post the figures assembled in Introduction to Women's Work for poets in recent anthologies as facts Jane requires? If not, happy to do so.

Does not my lifetime as self-supporting writer allow me to speak with some authority as bothwriter and woman? Not just of my experience but that observed and heard from other writers?

I could also quote from section in this anthology describing Guardian blog from which this was initially derived: and how the response to raising this issue there was that lifetime of experience didn't count as any kind of proof: for example, the proof of...facts and figures! So these were duly supplied and what happened? Silence fell. No more discussion or response.

This experience is itself charted in the Introduction. So, I can supply here too, some quotes as well as facts and figures in case if my own experiences (not generalised, but real experiences and those of others too) are not sufficient. As someone interested and concerned about issues of human rights, I include this issue under the category. Or, Jan, do you not think it fits here?

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Oh dear,

You accuse me of

sexist-tinged rhetoric

is it any wonder that I said that you seem to willfully misunderstand.

If I say what is applicable to me it is evidence that can be challenged it is not hearsay. I offered the personal information to show that the blanket statements that were being made upthread had exceptions.

You went on to say:

As you said, the phrase "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron. But aren't you the one who chose to present us with a disquisition on how many times your wife has cooked you dinner and precisely how the various household chores in your house are divided up? Did you offer these tidbits merely as a gesture of pointless exhibitionism, or were you in fact trying to contribute meaningfully to the conversation?

By stating that there are exceptions and by pointing to the fact that poets are in the minority statistics need to be garnered directly from the demographic involved, this I feel is meaningful and not er..'pointless exhibitionism'.

I said:

Nobody here is presenting factual evidence, anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

and you replied:

I offered absolutely no anecdotal evidence of my own. Indeed, I expressed no particular views about what may be the cause of the gender disparities being observed in poetry submissions and publication. By criticizing your own sloppy logic, anecdotal reasoning and sexist-tinged rhetoric, I was not suggesting that I had thereby proven the truth of views opposite to your own. .

Note: the only nobody here who is particular is Nemo, so how that relates to you is beyond me.

You said further:

There's such a thing as an illogical or offensive proof of a fact that just so happens to be correct. The correctness of the fact does not redeem the logic or the decency of the flawed proof.

Now you have lost me.

but when you said:

Personally, I don't pretend to know the reasons underlying the gender disparities in poetry, but I also don't pretend that you know

Bob we are in total agreement.

Jan