[Roger Slater]

Yeah, it's interesting that the Ku Klux Klan doesn't have its own literary magazine. And you'd think that at least one of those whites-only, female-free country clubs would publish a poetry anthology every now and then.

Maybe the lack of white male heterosexual literary magazines is related to why there has never been a while male heterosexual suffragette society? Or why there has never been a white male heterosexual voting rights act? Or why there has never been a while male heterosexual political movement demanding the right to marry female heterosexuals?

But you're right. I never heard of white males picketing for the right to drink from the negro drinking fountains or attend all-black schools or eat in blacks-only diners.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Yeah, it's interesting that the Ku Klux Klan doesn't have its own literary magazine. And you'd think that at least one of those whites-only, female-free country clubs would publish a poetry anthology every now and then.

Maybe the lack of white male heterosexual literary magazines is related to why there has never been a while male heterosexual suffragette society? Or why there has never been a white male heterosexual voting rights act? Or why there has never been a while male heterosexual political movement demanding the right to marry female heterosexuals?

But you're right. I never heard of white males picketing for the right to drink from the negro drinking fountains or attend all-black schools or eat in blacks-only diners.

I think my point is, Roger, that we hate all those things, don't we? We've spent centuries trying to deny them the right to exist - and in some cases we've succeeded - but instead of celebrating that success we're now trying to emulate them by creating our own "______ only" groups.

It's just nonsensical to blame or attempt to punish today's males for a non-female voting society which existed a hundred years ago - there's not a male alive who perpetuated that society. (And no, I'm not saying there are not men still around who wish we hadn't gotten that right - but screw 'em, yanno, we did and they're just going to have to live with it.) Same thing goes for slavery - the people living in this century were not the people who bought and sold slaves - and the editors who didn't publish women in the 19th century are not still around. If there are new editors who are not publishing women simply because they are women (and I am totally unsure how that would ever be proven) then those editors need to be named and everyone, not just women, need to quit sending them submissions and buying their magazines. Do you think that the male poets of the world could or would band together and agree to do that on our behalf? Because nothing else would be as effective.

Which brings me back around to my main gripe - if the women who are determined to stop this type of sexism are serious about it why on earth do they create woman-only venues and why do they deny those who disagree with their methods or those who question their facts or figures the opportunity to listen (or read) their thoughts or opinions and to discuss it with them?

It shouldn't be an all-or-nothing venture and it shouldn't be an "either you're with us or you're again' us" mentality.

Unfortunately, I've seen nothing here or on the Poetic Justice site before it was closed to the public which convinces me that it's much more than that.

[Kate Benedict]

I have to agree there is something faintly absurd about some of the specialized calls for poems. There do seem to be less of them, compared to the 70s and 80s; I recall a call for poems about lesbians and their cats.

But I do think woman-only anthologies still play an important role, since women's writing is not selected in equitable numbers for the important anthologies yet. Even more radical would be an "important" anthology of contemporary poetry which included both sexes but tipped the scales in the favor of women because the selected poems were deemed worthier.

Guys reading here: suppose you spent fifty bucks on the New Oxford Book of Contemporary Poems in English and 70% of the poems included were by females. Wouldn't you be miffed? Now imagine that this, and worse, has been the situation for your entire lifetime and that of the planet? Almost everything published by your sex was either by written by "Anonymous" or by some token male (if that thing can even be imagined). Wouldn't you want a fairer representation? Wouldn't you cry for poetic justice? Wouldn't you organize, wouldn't you publish anthologies of your own just to celebrate your work and get it out there?

C'mon. We're not brandishing fists here, we're pointing out that justice is not being served. I realize that 2009 is not 1959; things are better now but there's room for improvement. As far as I'm concerned, goodly blokes like Quincy and Bob/Roger are right on board with this and are abundantly welcome to the cause.

As for the Poetic Justice Forum, it seems to be dying even as it is being born. Not many posting there. Reluctance? Disinterest? Time will tell.

[Roger Slater]

No, Lo, of course no one alive today is responsible for slavery or for having denied women the right to vote. Perhaps I was too flip in the way I expressed myself for my point to register. You asked why white male heterosexuals do not have their own magazines, and I was simply pointing out that white male heterosexuals have inherited a legacy of relative privilege, while other groups have inherited a legacy of discrimination. Though no one alive created slavery in the nineteenth century, or deferred the female franchise until the twentieth century, the particular issues and challenges confronting these groups did not disappear with their respective constitutional amendments ending the most glaring and obvious legal affronts to their dignity and their freedom.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Kate Benedict

Guys reading here: suppose you spent fifty bucks on the New Oxford Book of Contemporary Poems in English and 70% of the poems included were by females. Wouldn't you be miffed?

I'd be surprised to know that anyone counted, to be honest. I've never, not once, paid any attention to how many men or women had poems published in any publication much less taken the time to figure out a percentage.

I've paid attention to the subject matter, I've paid attention to the rhyme and rhythm, I've paid attention to the form, I've paid attention to the quality of the poem, but I've just not spent any time worrying over the sex of the poet.

Besides which, if what Quincy and David and Paul have spoken of in regards to submissions to their magazine holds true for most publications which accept poems from members of both sexes, there a preponderence of male submissions - which would make it only logical that there would be more male poets represented in any given publication.

The only really fair and unbiased means of assessing the situation would be to know the male-to-female ratio of submissions, wouldn't it?

Kate, how about Umbrella? Have you ever done a count of submissions based on sex? (And I don't mean to put you on the spot - it's just that it's an interesting question and seems to be a great way to start getting down to identifying the problem as it exists and not just as it's being perceived.)

The solution would be very different based upon the numbers, wouldn't it? Perhaps it's not as simple as not enough women are submitting poems, but perhaps it does contribute to the problem.

[Michael Cantor]

What Lo said.

And a further question, Kate on your indication: "...since women's writing is not selected in equitable numbers for the important anthologies yet." Could you define what you mean by "equitable numbers?" In proportion to the number of poems written by women that are published? To the number submitted for publication? Or in proportion to the male/female ration in the general population?

I think a statistical case could be made indicating that men and women presently appear in newer anthologies in the same ratio that they presently publish, but I'm not sure, and the Umbrella breakdown that Lo mentioned would be of interest along those lines.

Assuming the case is valid, it would then make sense to discuss why this occurs, and whether it is legitimate to expect a higher proportion of women in anthologies than in the journals that feed them - and there may be substantive reasons. But first I think it would be helpful to put together a base of information.

Interesting to note what Kate said about the Poetic Justice forum dying even as it is born. Unhappiness with the closed nature of the site? Sounds like true poetic justice.

[David Anthony]

Originally Posted by Clive

And I know the invalidation of which Eva speaks, from my experience as a gay man. For instance, my anger gets dismissed as me "having a hissy fit" or "being a drama queen" by people who want to shut me up, regardless of whether I've got a point or not.

--Clive, I think you should at least consider the possibility that such reactions are more to do with your behaviour, much less with your sexual orientation.
I speak as one of your past victims.

Best regards,
David

[Richard Epstein]

When I read collections of forgotten and "neglected" poems by women, I rarely encounter poems I am sad to have missed. I do not think, "Why, that's every bit as great as Ode on a Grecian Urn; how could they have missed it?" What I do think is something more like, "These are mostly terrible, and yet the women who wrote them were as smart and as capable as the men who wrote good poems. In a just and equitable world the development of their talents would not have been mishandled this way." I don't regret not having more poems by Elizabeth Barrett Browning; I regret that she was pressured into a shape where she had to express herself through stereotypical ladies' verse. I do not think Phyllis Wheatley was a good poet; I think it's our loss that she was not given the chance to be; and I will not resort to the condescension of, "She's a really good poet, considering...."

RHE

[Clive]

Originally Posted by David Anthony

--Clive, I think you should at least consider the possibility that such reactions are more to do with your behaviour, much less with your sexual orientation.
I speak as one of your past victims.

Best regards,
David

Well, I have no real answer to that that doesn't open me up to further charges of "behaviour". But what I will say is that I doubt people responding to a heterosexual man who was displaying similar "behaviour" would reach for the "drama queen" label so readily.

And with that, I'm ducking out of this discussion as I don't want to "behave".

[Janice D. Soderling]

Friends, this is not a place to bring up old grudges and gripes. Just stick to the topic and keep a civil tone and possiby we will all find food for thought. Or not.