[Eva Salzman]

Apart from journals, there are very few women editors at the publishing houses themselves. And apart from the number imbalances in anthologies, there exists same imbalance on publishing lists. Ditto in all other walks of life. DESPITE women's academic success.

So, just coincidence? Or - and believe me I've heard this one - the obvious answer that women are not as good poets? Me, I'm back to societal issues. Or?

Now what advantage do you think be gained by my naming and haranguing I wonder? As it happens, there has been a recent letter to Poetry Review on this...which in fact is edited by a woman!

[Shaun J. Russell]

Just out of curiosity Eva -- would you support a sort of "affirmative action" that enforces a balance between the genders in every position?

I don't doubt the numbers you cite, but the conclusion you have drawn from them seems a bit inflexible, based on your apparent unwillingness to discuss other possible reasons for these imbalances. It almost seems like your mind is made up, and no matter what perspectives get brought forth here, you're not going to consider them.

Please prove me wrong! Take another read through this thread and comment on some other possibilities postulated by contributors to this discussion. I don't think it's as black and white as "women are being subjugated, and that's final."

[Michael Cantor]

Eva - the Sphere is an active Workshop site with a high percentage of regularly published poets among its regulars. so these numbers might be of interest. I compared the number of poems submitted for workshopping on our various Boards during the past 20 days by men and women:

Metrical Forum: 31 men/9 women
The Deep End: 40 men/7 women
Non-Metrical: 19 men/6 women

And I also looked at the Gazebo, another site (primarily free verse) where I sometimes workshop:

The Gazebo: 35 men/18 women

Combined Total: 125 men/40 women

These numbers are obviously not a broad survey, but they indicate that on some well regarded and utterly gender-neutral (anybody who disagrees please do so) web sites - sites where members with names like Pat and Holly have to correct erroneous assumptions about their gender - over three times as many poems are submitted by men as by women.

Furthermore, the statistics provided by Quincy - the one editor who responded with both submission and acceptance data by gender - for Raintown Review (edited by a woman) are almost identical - 155 poems submitted by men/48 by women - also more than three times as many submissions by men. Admittedly, these are not huge data bases but there are three of them, they are consistent - and they would appear to indicate that there is a very valid arguement to be made that the primary reason that many more men are being published these days is that many more men are submitting poetry for publication. As a matter of fact, this admittedly small sample seems to indicate that, if anything, women are published in a higher ration than men, based on the submission pool.

These are statistics. They are not opinions. I would appreciate it very much if you or Joan would comment on these numbers, and explain why they don't negate the thrust of your argument. And if you want to argue that the data base is flawed, or that there is a reason why many more men submit poetry for publication which shouldn't affect the male/female publication ratio, or that just because many more poems are published by men doesn't mean that many more should be included in anthologies - I'd be very interested in what you have to say. But please, don't point me to your lengthy essay, or to private letters, or to a closed forum - and don't quote the two-to-one anthology ratio again because it is meaningless-meaningless-meaningless unless you also look at the other side of the equation - the gender breakdown of the base of work from which the anthology was drawn, and, if necessary, the gender breakdown of the submissions that formed that base.

Apologies if a note of frustration is evident. I presented this analysis on the first page of this lengthy thread - as did Quincy - and I have been pushing for a response ever since, and I am still waiting for an answer that looks at both side of the equation.

The breakdown I presented makes a very clear and simple point - I am still waiting for a response that addresses the ratios we see. Please.

[Mary Meriam]

Michael, a few pages ago, I addressed Quincy's stats. I don't see anything contradictory in all these stats and the feminist perspective. There is a fundamental gender inequality in society. That is a fact. Read Woolf. Stat.

Here, I found some quotes for you:

A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.

For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.

The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.

This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing-room.

Who shall measure the heat and violence of the poet's heart when caught and tangled in a woman's body?

Yet, it is true, poetry is delicious; the best prose is that which is most full of poetry.

And one of my all-time favorites: One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.

[Michael Cantor]

Mary - is this the post you mean?

Originally Posted by Mary Meriam

Quincy, is it because women don't have the emotional or social resources to deal with many rejections? How much rejection is it possible to stand before you give up? It seems to me that men have a jolly ol' boys network that keeps their spirits and hopes high. Centuries of support in every way. All one has to do is read a little Virginia Woolf, like A Room of One's Own, to see the whole picture. Sure things have changed for the better since then, but they haven't changed enough yet.

This "addresses" my stats by providing a reference to an 80 year old book by a woman who lived in an exquisitely stratified and obsolete society - and an imaginary "ol' boys network" - in response to a serious attempt to look at what is happening now.

I don't even understand your point. Are you saying that the statistics are correct, they demonstrate that women aren't equipped emotionally to deal with rejection, and that therefore they shouldn't expect to be published or honored as frequently as men? Christ, I hope not! Or is your point, yes, we are poor fragile creatures, and you should take that into account and lean over backwards to give us equal recognition even though we can't deal with the process of qualifying for that recognition? Double-Christ - that's even worse!!

What is your point? I'm lost.

[Mark Allinson]

The implicit assumption behind every call for 50/50 gender equality in all things (including representation in anthologies) is that men and women are ESSENTIALLY identical, and all observed differences in behaviour or inclination are merely the product of social forces.

That is, if the effects of social conditioning could be entirely eliminated, then men and women would be submitting poetry (and workshopping) in equal numbers.

And, presumably, among all other areas, also incarcerated in the same proportions, rather than the 85/15 ratio at present.

But what if men and women are NOT essentially identical, but TEND towards different patterns of behaviour?

N.B. - please note TEND - not biologically programed.

It always seems to come to this reaction: "So, we have no choice but to follow our genetic program, eh?" Which is absurd.

I am NOT saying that we are meat-puppets of Nature, but merely that Nature sways the sexes in different ways. Not controls or forces, but sways, in discernible patterns of tendencies.

Of course there will always be individual exceptions to all gender TENDENCIES, but the wider statistical patterns will highlight the differences.

So please don't mention the "dangers of biological explanations, as in recent history", etc. I am not talking about biological determinism, but biological tendencies to behaviour.

As an example, take my previously posted link on the statistics for housework in the U.K

Given that women (for e.g.) have done the bulk of clothes washing for millennia, and, especially now with so many other options open, would have every reason in the world to despise the job, why do the stats show that women say they actively "like" washing clothes at nearly three times the rate for men? About 42% compared to 18%?

If clothes washing has been inflicted on women throughout history when they really don't like it any more than men do, why these figures? They "should" (we might think) at least be equal today.

And I do not buy the explanation of "false consciousness", that these women who "say" they like washing clothes have somehow been brain-washed into believing they do when they really don't. This argument is an insult to the intelligence of women, that they can be so easily manipulated.

And why (for another e.g.) do nearly 50% of men say they "like" doing D.I.Y jobs compared with around 20% for women?

I believe that these stats highlight the existence of ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES (in terms of tendencies, at least) between men and women.

And if these gender tendencies exist, they MIGHT also account for poetry submission and publication figures.

I realize that this is not a popular hypothesis, but it MUST be considered if all possibilities are to be covered.

The "Blank Slate" hypothesis is being systematically refuted by current science, and to rely on it as a viable model is becoming increasingly difficult.

[Clive]

Michael - I don't think participation in online forums (fora?) is necessarily any guide to the ratios of women submitting poems to small magazines. That could simply represent a male preference for that particular kind of workshopping rather than anything else.

And again, I'm afraid I'm going to drag A N Other inequality in representation that suggest the existence of a certain hegemony - where are the working class voices? I can think of a handful of working class poets (all men, btw). Now, you could argue that working class people just aren't submitting. But the explanation can't end there. WHY aren't they submitting? Is it because they're not writing as much? WHY is that? Why are more middle class people writing poetry? I have no answers to any of this, but I suspect that the status quo still discourages working class people from artistic pursuits. That doesn't mean, incidentally, that middle class people are actively conspiring to keep them out.

Mark - yes The Blank Slate theory is discredited, but I don't think there's an inborn gender preference for dusting over bricklaying. I suspect that social conditioning works on some innate gender-related qualities to produce the kind of differences you mention. Otherwise, you couldn't have outliers, like me, who finds hammers and drills scary and much prefers ironing.

[Mark Allinson]

I suspect that social conditioning works on some innate gender-related qualities to produce the kind of differences you mention.

Oh yes, Clive, I agree - social forces can certainly intensify or weaken innate biological tendencies.

But without those innate tendencies to work on, the social forces would produce equal outcomes, I believe.

And individuals ARE individuals - each with our own mix of tendencies.

For instance, I am a male, but D.I.Y - NO WAY!!!

I failed Woodwork three years in a row at high school.

==============

Edited back to reply to Clive's added point re class:

where are the working class voices?

Well, here's one, for a start.

I was the very first person in the history of our family to attend university.

My family (on both sides) are absolute working class, coal-miners and laborers and clothes washers all.

[peter richards]

I think you're right on the money there, Clive - possibly on the appalling lack of it, if we're really working class.

Actually, 'working class' is to some extent an outmoded term, with its roots in Marxist and post-Marxist social analyses. Nevertheless a sort of ethos remains in which those who have less access to society's honey pots rally round with pride in having dirty hands and not being la-di-da. Mea culpa.

There have been genuine efforts to level the playing field of education, with sad results. Oxbridge oozes with toffs. Very nice toffs they are, too, but the point that might almost bring this post in line with the origin of the thread is that social groups, castes and classes are resistant to the idea of social mobility, perhaps particularly when introduced from without.

So now I irresponsibly speculate that a huge part of the under-achieving sectors of society are under-achievers in terms of universal standards, but perhaps not so in terms of where they set their sights and the level to which they themselves expect to aspire. I think the entire distaff community can be included there.

I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I've submitted poetry to a print magazine - possibly even Homer Simpson's hand. (It's the counting that's the problem). The success rate is effectively zero, which I suppose isn't encouraging.

Poor lambs we are.

Getting back to the wimmin thing - from Scandinavia it really does look as though Anglo-Saxon feminism is a bit stone-age. You could blame the -ism, if it weren't too slippery to catch. I'm neither female nor feminist, so all my reference is second-hand, but it really does look as though one major task for anyone who's interested in steering the ship towards some much-needed (where do all these hyphens come from?) parity, is to stop assuming the rôle, i.e. the gender rôle of downtreader and downtrodden or mum and dad and on and on. It isn't easy. I can't do it.

Anway, I think what I've concluded here is that women try less because they don't expect to be anything. It's nothing like as simple as snapping out of it, either.

[Eva Salzman]

"It almost seems like your mind is made up, and no matter what perspectives get brought forth here, you're not going to consider them."

I have come to certain conclusions, NOT all set in stone and NOT with knowing all the reasons for why societies treat women inequally....except perhaps that is the way it has always been. I mean with pay and all the stats proving this....from a lifetime of experience as a freelance woman writer, at the risk of going on. Not for the hell of it.

"Please prove me wrong! Take another read through this thread and comment on some other possibilities postulated by contributors to this discussion. I don't think it's as black and white as "women are being subjugated, and that's final."

I don't know whose quote this final one is but not mine. So why are you quoting this back! I think I could provide a huge lot of support for my positions, as I already have and still my experience would be invalidated. In fact, this itself is telling. The equivalent would be someone else here presenting their opinions and experiences about THEIR line of work, and me telling them that was nonsense. knowing nothing about their line of work first-hand, nor their experience in fact.