[Eva Salzman]

Jan, I have offered to provide the facts and figures for publications and got no reply. Which itself rather supports some of my points. I also got no reply to any of the other queries I made.

In addition to these figures, and to excerpts from Introduction discussing many of these points (backed up by, yes, anecdotal evidence AND facts and figurse) I could also refer to the common experience - I guess we could invalidate mine as not being factural enough - of conversations inevitably turning into a sparring between men!

I must say I find Roger's remarks pertinent. So, Jan, as I can see these need replying to, perhaps I should bow out now?!

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Eva,

You said:

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.

These figures may give a skewed rationale as the underlying cause for gender imbalance is not yet defined.

You went on to say:

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?

Of course, as is mine.

You said further:

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.

As I said above facts and figures derived without a knowledge of underlying cause, not an assumption of underlying cause mean worse than little as they are misleading.

Eva I could catalogue a thousand excuses for my failures but they mean nothing if I do not accept responsibility for them.

Regards,

Jan

[Roger Slater]

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

Yes, it is. A wonder, and, especially paired with the snide phrase "as usual," an ad hominem jab that is meant to undercut my general credibility for those who are casually reading the site, do not know the people involved, and might be influenced by such barbs to discount the disagreement your own remarks have engendered.

But you have misunderstood me, Jan. Having said that, I would never suggest you have done so willfully, and certainly I would not declare that such willful misunderstanding is inherent in your general character, a form of habitual dishonesty you indulge over and over again. There are many, many impediments to understanding, and I have no basis for jumping to the conclusion that you must be a dishonest person rather than subject to one of these other impediments. Personally, I misunderstand so many things unintentionally that I would never add to my general confusion by misunderstanding other things on purpose.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

Jan, I have offered to provide the facts and figures for publications and got no reply. Which itself rather supports some of my points. I also got no reply to any of the other queries I made.

In addition to these figures, and to excerpts from Introduction discussing many of these points (backed up by, yes, anecdotal evidence AND facts and figurse) I could also refer to the common experience - I guess we could invalidate mine as not being factural enough - of conversations inevitably turning into a sparring between men!

I must say I find Roger's remarks pertinent. So, Jan, as I can see these need replying to, perhaps I should bow out now?!

Eva, I was replying.

Jan

[David Landrum]

Perhaps the difficulties arise from too much projection. Ms. Finch is calling attention to the lack of poems by women poets in anthologies, which would be the fault, if it does exist, of the publishing community. Does this mean we can project their sexism on to all men and from this projection make a general statement about male/female dynamics in writing or in the workplace? I hope not. My experience in the poetic community is that there is general mutuality. And in the circles I travel in, a man who would throw all domestic chores on his wife or partner while he engages in his favorite pursuits would be looked on with utmost contempt and with severe censure.

If there is an unstated, perhaps even unrealized, prejudice against women poets so that they do not get included in the literature of poetry as much as men (i.e., in anthologies that catalogue "important voices") that needs to be exposed so it can be corrected. I think the problem comes when such matters are seized upon and presented not just as a particular incident but as a general statement on how men treat women, poets or otherwise.

I think the men on Eratosphere who have reacted to the statement are reacting to that trend, which is often seen in discourse on male/female interaction. No one likes to be tarred with a big brush--especially men who share in the tasks of running a household and try to faciliate mutuality and sharing of domestic responsibility in their households and who admire and esteem the great number of women in our circle who are stellar poets, critics, and editors.

dwl

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Oh dear Bob,

I must quote you:

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

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

Yes, it is. A wonder, and, especially paired with the snide phrase "as usual," an ad hominem jab that is meant to undercut my general credibility for those who are casually reading the site, do not know the people involved, and might be influenced by such barbs to discount the disagreement your own remarks have engendered.

But you have misunderstood me, Jan. Having said that, I would never suggest you have done so willfully, and certainly I would not declare that such willful misunderstanding is inherent in your general character, a form of habitual dishonesty you indulge over and over again. There are many, many impediments to understanding, and I have no basis for jumping to the conclusion that you must be a dishonest person rather than subject to one of these other impediments. Personally, I misunderstand so many things unintentionally that I would never add to my general confusion by misunderstanding other things on purpose.

Be calm, it will help.

Jan

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

As David said.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Eva why would I want you to bow out?

[Mike Todd]

I agree, Lo, that we have to make choices. But does that mean that writing must be solely avocation or vocation? This isn't looking askance at the everyday—if the everyday inspires. We say we have no time to write when our time isn't worth writing about.

[Clive]

Any comments Jane or Eva have made about men have been general comments, not about specific men on this forum, so I don't get what has been rather a vituperative reaction at times. Maybe as a queer man, I don't feel so on the defensive about this issue? Maybe I can see how the poor representation of women in anthologies is just part and parcel of the gender inequalities that still exist in wider society, inequalities that aren't really the fault of me as an individual man? I dunno, but as a member of a minority group, I've witnessed how, when certain groups' privileges are a) pointed out and b) challenged then there is a tendency on the part of that group to circle the wagons because of the discomfort this arouses.

It's interesting to note whose voices are heard and whose aren't in the po-world. I would hazard a guess that poetry remains largely the preserve of middle class heterosexual men. Nothing wrong with middle class heterosexual men, of course, some of my best friends are...etc. But given that, is it not possible that certain voices get silenced, albeit unwittingly and unconsciously on the part of the m/c het men, as a result, because those voices are writing poetry that isn't the kind of poetry m/c het men would produce? So working class people, women, queers - maybe they don't have much of a voice because their voice isn't the "right" voice?

Isn't it worth investigating and discussing, with no defensiveness on either side?