[Eva Salzman]

"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"


What kind of "Don't confuse me with the facts"??? Obviously you're not TOO interested, or just enough to weigh in with your own unsubstantiated opinsions on a subject you know less about than others!

Why so few women editors at magazine and publishing houses? People are willingfully averting their gaze from the wider picture, aside from not only ignoring those who might know better, but insulting them by making clear how little interested they are in actually taking more time to find out, more than the minute or two it takes to deliver an opinion and insult someone.

By the way, in a lot of online forums, I've had other women writers say that once the invalidation and insults start, eventually they just leave, not wanting to waste any more time, thus leaving the guys to spare among themselves. This must prove that what? They are less interested in the subject? That they are less brave or aggressive? Or perhaps they begin to feel their valuable time is better spent elsewhere (despite all the friendly voices here!)

[Mark Allinson]

Eva, a few times now you have made reference to the disparity in income between men and women.

Here is another way of looking at the facts. The linked article quotes this passage, but goes much farther in detail:

" . . . the gender gap is attributable to choices made by women concerning the amount of time and energy to devote to a career as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and workplace and job characteristics. There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills and job and workplace characteristics. What the average woman sacrifices in earnings from choosing jobs that allow for part-time work and flexible work conditions is presumably offset by a gain in the utility of time spent with children and family."

Source

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

By the way, in a lot of online forums, I've had other women writers say that once the invalidation and insults start, eventually they just leave, not wanting to waste any more time

So then you'd agree that women (for the most part) are less prone to sticking it out in the face of dissent than men? Then perhaps that's why the magazines cited so far get fewer submissions from women: the emotional let-down of the possibility of rejection is not worth the time.

Perhaps (again, for the most part) women take the initial rejections of their work harder, making them less inclined to keep up the cycle of submission / re-submission?

Can you at least concede that maybe there's something to all of this that is not the fault of men alone?

[Michael Cantor]

Eva -

Every time you lash out with non-responses to specific questions, every time you yell "insult" to somebody who challenges you - you're sending a message.

I asked you a carefully framed, specific question. I went out of my way to avoid any judgemental words or even adjectives. And here is what your brief, angry and non-responsive response (sorry, but I had to slip in some adjectives) contained- in your words.

your own unsubstantiated opinsions
a subject you know less about than others!
not only ignoring those who might know better, but insulting them deliver an opinion and insult someone.
the invalidation and insults start

Whenever I construct a question which pins you down, and attempts to elicit a real answer, what I get are generalities and accusations. And, of course, threats to take your crusade and go post elsewhere, where people are more receptive, and nobody has the effrontery to confront you with actual facts instead of simply applauding every opinion

Why is it that everybody who agrees with you and Joan is a "friend", but any challenge is an "insult", an "attack", shows "hostility", etc. The only two people posting on this lengthy thread who have constantly replied vituperatively are you and Joan. And when I push and prod beyond the anger, there doesn't seem to be much else there there. You and Joan have made some strong points. Unfortunately, I don't believe they are the points you want to make, or think you are making.

And - oh yeah - explain to me why my inability to read private letters or a closed forum is an "insult". And as far as tracking down and reading your lengthy essay is concerned - if you can't be bothered to take the time to extract some pertinent facts/points and introduce them here, why in hell should I have that obligation? (Or is it that the essay basically consists of publishing statistics without the other side of the equation - the available pool - that I explained the problem with earlier, plus anecdotes and generalities?)

[Gail White]

Personally, I've always felt I encountered more resistance as a formalist poet than as a female one. If all the markets welcomed rhyme and meter, I'd take my chance with all-male editors.

Not that I mind all-female markets one bit. (Guys, I'm afraid being male is like being white - or Chinese in China - it means you're just a Generic Person and doesn't entitle you to your own anthology. Although I do have a wonderful all-male poetry book called "Stag Lines".)

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

"By the way, in a lot of online forums, I've had other women writers say that once the invalidation and insults start, eventually they just leave, not wanting to waste any more time, thus leaving the guys to spare among themselves. This must prove that what? They are less interested in the subject? That they are less brave or aggressive? Or perhaps they begin to feel their valuable time is better spent elsewhere (despite all the friendly voices here!)

Or maybe you just don't hear from the ones who stick it out and end up making friends - and maybe even showing by deed and action that the initial "invalidation" was unwarranted and that insults aren't only unnecessary but that they're not appropriate either.

Or the ones who never really encountered the invalidation and insult to begin with - instead chosing to recognize that everyone is different and each person has a different opinion and that they are as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours - and the only real way to change that opinion is, much like poetry, by showing - not telling.

Poetry isn't any different than any other occupation or sport or hobby which began as somthing male dominated. Women who wished to be accepted as policemen or politicians or construction workers or judges just got in there and applied themselves and persevered and the first several lots of them had to be twice as good to be thought of as half as good but they did it and they kept doing it and now other women routinely fill those positions - but they didn't then (and they don't now) close ranks or throw stones, and they don't refuse to dialogue with those who clutch the past tightly - they just support one another when necessary and keep doing their job and doing it well and they understand that eventually acceptance comes one woman at a time - until all women fall under the umbrella of those who were willing to stick it out on behalf of all of them.

If people are looking for something to take offense at they will find it. Why seek it out? I could get upset at the fact that so many published poets have an MFA or a degree in literature and that they get published routinely by their alma-mater's magazine or the editor they went to school with - but what's the use? That's my problem not their's - and the only way to change it is to be good enough to get accepted without a degree or without an editor connection. That's on me - that's certainly not on the editor or publisher - and it doesn't matter if he's male or female or if I am.

Earlier in this thread I stuck up strongly for Jane when remarks were made about her children - several times I remarked that it would be good for Eva to stick around -and yet I made one remark regarding a common denominator which was overread and misunderstood and Jane jumped me for it - why is that, I wonder? Because I'm a woman? Or because she didn't like the remark? I can make a reasonable case for either scenerio and it would be entirely up to me as to how I wished to portray her vitroilic response - and if and how I decide to persue it and slant it and tell other people about it. Or if I just laugh it off since nothing ever amazes me quite as much as watching women snap at men who are total strangers to them, start exclusive members-only clubs or boards, bite at the heels of other women and do it all in the name of establishing sexual equality.

I think we need to be really careful about blaming others for things which we already know we, ourselves, are sensitive about. When you're looking for sexism, it's easy to find it - as is any "ism." Especially if you think it'll "prove your point." The problem is it's often only taking place in the eye of the beholder and it simply alienates others to be placed in position of having to defend behaviour or actions which they are just not guilty of.

[Clive]

But Laura, in some instances, "being good enough" may have nothing to do with the quality of your work and everything to do with whether you have a penis and went to the right school - that is what people are complaining about. And sometimes, sexism isn't just in the eye of the beholder, sometimes it actually really genuinely does exist.

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.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Clive

But Laura, in some instances, "being good enough" may have nothing to do with the quality of your work and everything to do with whether you have a penis and went to the right school - that is what people are complaining about. And sometimes, sexism isn't just in the eye of the beholder, sometimes it actually really genuinely does exist.

I don't think ANY of us doubt that latter statement. But we're trying to pin down specific instances, and there have been no specifics. Just hunches, opinions and jumped-to conclusions. Without specifics, the argument is tantamount to that of the belief / disbelief in a supreme being (i.e.: "can't prove there is" versus "can't prove there isn't."

[Roger Slater]

"When you're looking for sexism, it's easy to find it"

Yes, surely. But it's at least as true that when you're trying not to find it, it's easy to avoid finding it. I guess the question is whether it makes sense to be looking or not. To me it's obvious that we always ought to be looking, lest we not see it when it presents itself.

I have not taken a fine-toothed comb to this lengthy thread, so I might have missed some key posts, but I haven't noticed anyone here blaming editors for consciously preferring male writers over female writers. I'm sure others have remarked on the countless ways a history of sexism and antiquated gender roles might possibly have worked their way into the current situation and contributed to the disparity that has been observed. Sure, it's possible that innate differences between the genders might account for it, as Mark has allowed himself to become absolutely convinced is the case, but this possibility has always been there to possibly explain away why women should not do such things as go to college, run for office, vote, or be present for after-dinner conversation (when the cigar smoke would have bothered them in any event), and so we ought to be suspicious of it when we hear it again in any particular instance. The mere possibility ought not to foreclose discussion of other possibilities, or to be a basis for attacking those who raise those other possibilities.

When we observe any sort of significant numerical disparity in terms of gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, or other classes that have historically been subject to prejudice, it is downright foolish and naive to start with the assumption that this particular disparity is probably just "natural" or reflects innate differences and tendencies. As far as I'm concerned, when you are in a house that has a known history of rats in the basement, and you smell something that smells like a rat, your first impulse should not be to research what other substances might have aromas similar to a rat's, and to assume that it is probably one of those other substances you are smelling.

If there's only one woman out of nine on the Supreme Court, in a nation that has long had a wealth of top female legal minds to choose from for at least thirty years, does it make sense simply to assume it's merely the luck of the draw, that the disparity was merely an innocent coincidence that just so happened to follow hard upon centuries of gender discrimination that ended the moment women got the vote less than a hundred years earlier. Sure, it would be so easy to think that sexism played some sort of role, but we don't want to do what is easy. We are more challenged by the difficult, and it is far more difficult to assume that sexism played no role, so let's just go with that answer, shall we?

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Clive

And sometimes, sexism isn't just in the eye of the beholder, sometimes it actually really genuinely does exist.

Sometimes it does, Clive, I've not denied that part of it. I'm only saying that sometimes it doesn't. If I wasn't acknowledging that it takes place I wouldn't have said "often it exists only in the eye of the beholder...."

My point is that when anyone of a "speciality" group bands together it generally has a specific agenda, it generally is looking for instances which will prove the need for the group's existance and it generally does not bode well for anyone outside of that speciality group - and thus it calls attention to the differences and perpetuates the ill will which exists and might disappear on it's own if left to languish and die a natural death.

It seems to me that whenever a group closes rank (such as Poetic Justice has done by almost immediately becoming a closed board with admission policed by the administration) they cut not only everyone else but also themselves off - and I wonder at the equality or the fairness of that - to memver and non-member alike. Same goes for woman only magazines and anthologies and retreats, etc. etc.

Treating people as badly as you feel you've been treated in the past is still mistreatment - and it's childish. It's grammar school mentality - "You won't let me in your club so you can't come in mine." It smacks of reverse-sexism and it's just as ugly as the plain old sexism was in the first place.

Plus, it cuts off the many fine men who have no problem with woman - and it plays right into the hands of those few men who do. They don't want you around in the first place so by making new places where only you can go - you effectively give them exactly what they want.

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.

I can understand that, Clive - but I have to ask, is it only dismissed as a "hissy fit" or "drama queen" by straight people or do gay men often refer to other gay men in the same vein? I only ask because I know women who routinely refer to other women as "bitches" and "ho's" and "brats" and "snots" and so forth and so on. It's not always us against them - it's often us against us. Or, more honestly, me against you. One on one, so to speak. (and I don't mean you and me in particular, I just mean people on people as individuals - not necessarily of the opposite sexual persuasion.) It's just that we're touchier about it when it comes from someone outside of our own comfort zone.

Maybe it's just me - and that's fine if it is, but I simply don't understand having all these speciality poetry groups floating around. I get notices of contests and magazines and anthologies for women only, for gays only, for transgendered people only, for hispanics only, for blacks only, for lesbians only.....and on and on and on. Not one of those groups takes submissions from white heterosexual males - and yet white heterosexual males are the very ones we're always accusing of all the isms. And yet, not once have I received a notice of a poetry contest or magazine for white heterosexual males only. Not once.

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has ever received such a notification - especially since those are the very people we are railing against the loudest.

Because if there aren't any out there aren't of those people who run those contests and ezines and magazines and anthologies cutting of a large section of submissions based on nothing more than an outright ism?

And isn't that hypocrisy at it's very worst?