[Mark Allinson]

I suppose Mark will now tell us that we should accept the biological and psychological reality that men and women TEND (he does not say this is invariably the case, only a tendency, mind you) to be similar in talent and disposition.

No, there will be more from me on this topic, having been effectively killfiled (either technologically or psychologically) makes any further comment pointless.

But I am grateful for this thread for at least demonstrating my often re-iterated point about the power obsessed totalitarian mentality of the ruling paradigm in academia, where all alternative view points become merely "attacks" upon those who KNOW what exactly the problem is, and seal off their discussions from all outside input.

[Eva Salzman]

"Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse ed. Kenneth Allott – 5 women/90 men; New Penguin Book of English Verse ed. Paul Keegan – 16 women/81 men; British Poetry Since 1945 ed. Edward Lucie-Smith - 7 women/90 men; Oxford Book of Contemporary Verse ed. D.J. Enright – 3 women/37 men; 101 Sonnets ed. Don Paterson – 13 women/87 men (this book seemingly culled from Phillis Levin’s superb Penguin Book of the Sonnet ); The New Poetry ed. Al Alvarez – 2 women/26 men; Poetry 1900-1965 ed. George Macbeth – 2 women/21 men; New York Poets ed. Mark Ford – no women; New York Poets II eds. Mark Ford & Trevor Winkfield – 2 women/9 men; The Forward Anthology of Poetry for the years 1993-2006 consistently features many more men than women; critical books are similarly lop-sided. Ad nauseum. I could bore us all to kingdom come.
The anthologies The Firebox ed. Sean O’Brien (34 women/91 men), Emergency Kit eds. Jo Shapcott & Matthew Sweeney (41 women/116 men) and The Anthology of 20th c. British and Irish Poetry ed. Keith Tuma (31 women/87 men), with the fairer acknowledgements these figures imply, nevertheless hit the proverbial glass ceiling, with women poets comprising roughly 1/3 of the total, occasionally a smidgeon more; turning hopefully to Andrew Duncan’s Poetry Review article on this last volume, we find that his 30 regretted omissions - poets from the 1950’s-1990’s - include not a single woman. The anthologies Last Words eds. Don Paterson & Jo Shapcott (33 women/55 men) and The New Poetry eds. David Kennedy, David Morley & Michael Hulse (17 women/38 men) all have a “healthier” balance; Bloodaxe, the publisher of this latter, boasts a consistently better record when it comes to publishing women. Carol Ann Duffy’s Hand in Hand and Adrienne Rich’s The Best American Poetry 1996 are the only two anthologies I could find comprised of more women than men. Here, it’s worth quoting extensively from Germaine Greer vis a vis the so-called “arbitrary” nature of coincidences:

'It is not easy to imagine a male poet objecting to appearing in an anthology of men's poems, as most anthologies have been, though the fact is not highlighted in their titles. The Amis Anthology, to cite the most doggedly laddish, does not separate work by gender, but women would have been better served if it had; out of 242 poems, eight are by women. One, by Elizabeth Jennings, is included because Amis published it when he was at Oxford in 1949; another, by Felicia Hemans, because his class translated it into Latin hexameters when he was at school; one by Christina Rossetti is accompanied by a sneer, and another by the unknown Teresa Dooley is used to caricature all poetesses. Laura Riding was doubtless happy to be one of the select company of nine women poets represented in The Rattle-Bag, compiled by Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes in 1982.'"

[Eva Salzman]

And another excerpt with some facts:

"A snapshot of American anthologies shows us that The Best American Poetry anthologies (both 1989 & 2005), The Best of the Best American Poetry: 1988-1997, the Oxford Book of American Poetry eds. David Lehman (published in the UK but with an American editor) and the Vintagege Book of Contempoary World Poetry, ed. J.D. McClatchy, adhering to our glass ceiling model, have somewhat better figures than the following: British and Irish Poetry Since 1970 eds. Richard Caddel & Peter Quartermain - 10 women/45 men;; The New Naked Poetry eds. Stephen Berg and Robert Mezey – 3 women/23 men; New Lines anthologies ed. Robert Conquest 1956 - 1 woman/8 men, and 1963 - 1 woman/23 men. The figures above for women editors speak for themselves.
Naturally, these anthologies reflect their editors’ taste within the confines of what’s available from publishers in the first place. These figures are themselves at odds with those from the 1960’s onwards which show increasing numbers of women winning Gregory awards, this acknowledgement commonly regarded as a reliable and leading indicator of new talent. Women comprise two-thirds of the poetry-buying public and a majority of workshop attendees. Ad Nauseam. I hadn’t expected such appalling figures, but shouldn’t be so shocked at others’ lack of outrage.

[Eva Salzman]

And one more quote with some fact which some complained was missing (directed mosly at UK audience it has to be said). By the the way, anthologies are filled with mediocre male poets taking the place of inifinitely superior ones, some not generally known. Hence the compiling of "Women's Work". Anyway, here's one more quote and then I guess anyone who's interested could buy the book! (It's a good and entertaining read if I do say so myself!)

"I’ll point to the mostly patriarchal Great Poets of the 20th Century, a series of pamphlets published in spring 2008 by the Guardian newspaper in collaboration with Faber. These poets were deemed to be: Siegfried Sassoon, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, Sylvia Plath, Philip Larkin, Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes. In Britain at least, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Sylvia Plath and Elizabeth Bishop are the only women poets worthy of admission to the pantheon. Such unanimity of thought in an otherwise divisive world is notable.
Gender issues aside, there’s a strong case for replacing at least two writers on this list, chosen for reasons other than the writing. Surely, Sassoon is included to tick the box marked "war poet"? He cannot be a plausible choice outside of this category. Regardless, this box is more acceptable than the one marked "woman poet", which pertains to the so-called "special interest" group comprising over half this planet's population. Despite lip service to the contrary, criteria other than the writing are always applied, if selectively.
It seems hubris – or a calculated marketing strategy - to define such a small and select part of the canon while some of its authors live; if you dare to, surely knowledge and breadth of vision are prerequisites for the job. Identical and infallible good taste about Plath and Bishop aside, one wonders how many are simply not familiar enough with major women poets’ work to make an informed assessment of the hierarchy. Who really knows the work of Louise Gluck, Denise Levertov, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Kay Ryan, Lorine Neidecker, Adrienne Rich, May Swenson, to name but a few (mostly) Americans? None of these are published by Faber, the Guardian’s partner for the series, but the lack of women on that list is further evidence of the problem. "

[Eva Salzman]

I'm going now.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Eva that shows that there is/has been a problem. It also appears that it is righting itself albeit slowly. It does not explain why. Nor does it explain what should be the gender balance.

Lo it is a pleasure to agree with you on nearly everything for a change *smile*.

Ghetto creation reinforces all the problems related to division.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Jan Iwaszkiewicz

Lo it is a pleasure to agree with you on nearly everything for a change *smile*.

Pretty bizarre, isn't it?

I kinda hope we get over it soon - a good adversary is hard to find.

[Eva Salzman]

Roger,

Analogy of rats splendidly put. Absolutely logical. And thanks Therese.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Good job, Eva! It looks like you're right that there is a problem so far as anthologies are concerned.

Now the question becomes what kind of material those editors had access to when selecting their poems. Obviously the answer should be "everything", but solicitation versus unsolicited work, as well as previously published versus unpublished are interesting things to look at as well.

Your open query about the mindset of the heads of publishing houses appears to ring true, although even then I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is definitely misogyny. It's quite possible that those editors and publishers truly believe that those poets who were selected were indeed the most relevant poets to publish, without thought to gender.

It's very interesting.

[Eva Salzman]

In Women's Work are many the leading modern poets for whom there is no or little space in mixed anthologies, as it is taken up by male poets, by means better.

And you can read the rest of the essay on this subject, from which I've excerpted, and 3 pages of bibliography to give you many sources of eminence who write on this subject. I could not sell the mixed anthology I'd first asked to do. In fact, the only anthology I could sell - as a widely published and experienced editor and writer - was a women's one, so it appears the pigeon-holing and segregating of women poets comes from elsewhere, which indeed is also the experience of my peers: which anecdotal evidence seems insufficient.

Do buy the book or take it out from the library if you're interested in the subject, or the poets for that matter. It is a subject I felt passionate enough to devote 3 years to, in compiling and writing Intro to this book. I would have thought the book might interest some here, as addressing precisely so many parts of the discussion here.