[Eva Salzman]

Thanks E. Shaun for clarifying that. You'd be surprised how often men's language implies stereotypes about women's roles and responsibilites, although I don't generally comment about ""Chairman" for a woman, as that seems different. Maybe I should. You'd be surprised too how almost without exception, there is an implication that the domestic is the women's territory which the man helps with. I've yet to see a household where a woman didn't do the lion's share of this, even these days and among women who resent it deeply. But I shouldn't have assumed this about you, so sorry!

To return to a matter which must be of equal important to men as well as women, I'm posting below a brief excerpt from Introduction to Women's Work which lists figures for major anthologies in UK. The US ones, slightly better, more consistently attain the 1/3 glass ceiling. As I also say there, but don't have room here these figures themselves reflect figures for publishers and those for editors speak for themselves.

I could also post a recent letter to UK Poetry Review quoting some pretty appalling figures there and quote too about as editor I feel I was unwillingly politicised in editing to book to correct omissions of an implicit status quo and how, apart from this Intro, the book is assembled on quality, as always, and so no doubt will be of equal interest to those unfamiliar with major poets either side of the ocean, including men, whose must be as interesting in erading women, as woman are reading men, surely. (Although acclaimed by many already, the book will not be reviewed in the TLS, who say to me openly they do not review women's anthologies.) It is impossible to distill how many issues discussed on some of these listserves are dealt with fully in this Introduction, but as it is an important gathering of poets, doubtless poets here would be as interested in it as any other anthology, whatever their/your sex! :

"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 nauseam. 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...."

When I get time I'll do a retro analysis on contributor gender in past subs/pubs of SCR and The Chimaera. But I will keep count as we proceed through the next submission period (after next issues come out in July) and publish stats.

And of The Flea subs so far 35% are from women. In the first issue of The Flea there were 14 poems and 7 of them were by women -- but that was by invitation, not submission. Not that I was striving for gender balance: those women wrote seven of the excellent poems that I wanted.

[Clive Watkins]

Dear Eva

While not disputing the general picture indicated by your statistics, I think it might be helpful to include the publication history of the anthologies you refer to. (Perhaps this information appeared in your original essay.)

For example, as far as I can tell from my own shelves and from a little googling, Allott’s Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse was first published in 1950 and reprinted several times; an expanded edition was issued in 1962. Alvarez’s The New Poetry was first published in 1962 and revised in 1966. George Macbeth’s Poetry 1900-1965 came out in 1967. Edward Lucie-Smith’s British Poetry Since 1945 first appeared in 1970; there was a new edition in 1986. Enright’s Oxford Book of Contemporary Verse dates from 1980; it appears to have been re-issued in 1995 with a new title.

Though all of these anthologies have long been out of print, it is interesting to consider whether their very existence serves to “fix” an understanding of the range and nature of poetry. No doubt their selections represent only their editors’ judgement about a particular historical moment, but I wonder how far they continue to insist on a limiting view of the available kinds of poetries, either those written in the past or those now being written. But this raises a question not just about the generation of anthologies, an important subject in its own right, but about the uses to which anthologies are put by readers.

Regards

Clive Watkins

[Stuart Farley]

Eva,

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make a study of the woman poets who didn't make it into those anthologies, even though their poems might have displayed more merit than some of their male counterparts.

For example, in the case of British Poetry Since 1945, you could look at the relevant British women poets writing since 1945, who, in your opinion, really ought to have made it into the anthology, but were ousted by a lesser male poet.

All the best,

Stuart

[Eva Salzman]

The earlier books I cited are, yes, older, but I had included them as new editions, all post-enlightened 1960's.

And what are meant to say about the figures for editors of these books themselves, even worse than the figures of women included, running right up to present day?

I'm uncomfortable about being put in defensive position of having to look at merits of women included or not included, as surely one could do the same with the male poets. I could name one or two, and then we'd end up arguing her merits, as of course we needn't with male poets. Unless of course we're back to the old truism that there are simply far greater numbers of quality male poets, which I don't buy. Indeed, I often find the mediocrities or demerits of said poets are more over overlooked.

If you're familiar with the leading women poets in my anthology and in other women's anthologies which we shouldn't need to represent full breadth of canon, why not say yourselves why these aren't there? Another point I made in Introduction was that it slowly dawned on me that editors and publishers, here especially, were making their decisions about canon without KNOWING truly a lot of these women poets' work, and were instead operating on received ideas: a self-perpetuating closed club. Which is precisely the problem.

[John Whitworth]

Mark, your daughter at Magdalen and ROWING. Is she a Betjeman girl then? Good for her. And good for you too. When rowers win they traditionally get riotously drunk and burn the boat. Is she going to do this? Has she done it?

[Janice D. Soderling]

I believe that it is illuminating to look at some of the anthologies devoted to women and become acquainted with their work. Then I, at any rate, would be surprised if the reader, male or female, did not find some about whom he/she asks "Why have I never heard of THIS poet before." It may just be possible that some readers have figured out an answer but actually do not understand the problem.

I am small fry and I cannot complain personally about the responses I have had from editors over the years. However, that doesn't mean that I am not aware of the problem of women's visibility in a larger perspective.

I have in front of me a number of anthologies. Here are some titles: The Faber Book of 20th Century Women's Poetry (ed. Fleur Adcock), Sixty Women Poets (ed. Linda France), Modern Women Poets (companion anthology to) Consorting with Angels (essays on women poets) (editor/author of both Deryn Rees-Jones), 100 Great Poems by Women (ed. Carolyn Kizer), The World Split Open: Four Centuries of Women Poets in England and America, 1552-1950 (ed. Louise Bernikow, preface by Muriel Rukeyser). I have another I can't think of the title edited by Carol Rumens but can't find it. I have still more, but cut to the chase.

Here is a suggested experiment. Go to a bookstore and open an anthology of women poets. Look at the "Contents" page and consider how many you have never heard of before. Buy it and take it home and read it . You won't like everything there, who likes "everything" in any anthology, but a fair-minded reader will likely find as many gems as in a "regular" anthology. (The gals will find more, perhaps.)

Remember a few weeks ago when U. A. Fanthrope died (it was Duncan Gilles who brought her death to our attention) and I posted her "Not My Best Side". And Michael Cantor burst out, "That's wonderful" or some such similar expression for which I gave him a virtual hug and many fond thoughts for his spontaneous compliment.

I think next to all of our male members here are fair-minded friends and I am not bashing them. Or anyone else, I'd best add. But facts are facts, and there a lot of fine women writers out there whom many have never heard of because they do not make into the mixed-gender anthologies.

Just saying.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Mark Allinson

So I would expect many challenges to these entries from offended parents.

Most parents, especially the good ones, would probably be too busy with real life to waste much time arguing with WikiSourcing.

There are much better places than Wiki if one is truly interested in researching ADHD or Autism - like the sources where much of the current research being carried out.

For instance:


There is no known single cause for autism, but it is generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in brain structure or function. Brain scans show differences in the shape and structure of the brain in children with autism versus neuro-typical children. Researchers are investigating a number of theories, including the link between heredity, genetics and medical problems. In many families, there appears to be a pattern of autism or related disabilities, further supporting a genetic basis to the disorder. While no one gene has been identified as causing autism, researchers are searching for irregular segments of genetic code that children with autism may have inherited. It also appears that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop.

Other researchers are investigating the possibility that under certain conditions, a cluster of unstable genes may interfere with brain development, resulting in autism. Still other researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals.

http://www.autism-society.org/site/P...out_whatcauses

Risk factors for ADHD include:

Maternal exposure to toxins
Smoking, drinking alcohol or using drugs during pregnancy
A family history of ADHD or certain other behavioral and mood disorders
Premature birth
ADHD frequently occurs along with certain other conditions, including:

Hyperthyroidism
Having a learning disability or being a gifted learner
Oppositional defiant disorder

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/adh...risk%2Dfactors


That's a lot more detail than an undocumented and unchallenged Twin studies indicate that the disorder is highly heritable and that genetics are a factor in about 75% of ADHD cases.

Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by multigene interactions or by rare mutations. from Wiki.

While it does seem a bit strange to have people show up and have their first posts promoting a (seemingly) personal agenda and/or promotiing their own new site it does also appear to me to be in pretty bad form to resort to using one of their families as a vehicle to express either disdain for them or pride for oneself.

It's also pretty transparent.

[Clive Watkins]

Dear Eva

Thanks for your further comment about the publication dates of anthologies.

Various arguments could be drawn from publication data. For instance, once might look at the dates of birth of these five editors – Allott born 1912, Enright born 1920, Alvarez born 1929, Macbeth born 1932, Lucie-Smith born 1933 – and attempt to draw conclusions about their “social formation” and its possible bearing on their literary experience and preferences. I think such arguments should be treated with care, however: surely none of us is, in any simple sense, the product of our age. Or one might attempt to detect whether over time there had been any interesting shifts in the distribution of male and female poets appearing in such anthologies. This, too, would need to be treated with caution: apparently similar effects may have disparate causes.

You write of editors “operating on received ideas: a self-perpetuating closed club” – and no doubt you are right, though my own experience – and not just of editors – is that received ideas are as various as those who hold them. Indeed, I guess that the intellectual equipment of most of us (in this I include myself) is built up at least in part of ideas we have received from elsewhere without subjecting them to the scrutiny they demand. Alas...

I always regard the editors of anthologies as having an agenda beyond the perhaps superficially innocent one of documentation, and so I read them sceptically and make such use of them in my own wider thinking as I find helpful. I certainly do not regard them as establishing any kind of canon – though they may represent someone else’s idea of a canon. Still, I imagine that being included in an anthology must give a great sense of fulfilment and recognition. (It’s never happened to me, nor – thank goodness! – is it ever likely to happen.)

I see no problem with discussing the merits of the work of any poet, of whichever sex and whether included or not included in any anthology. Surely such discussion lies close to the heart of a developed literary culture. But perhaps this topic is meat for a different thread.

By the way, and finally.... You refer, no doubt in a kind of shorthand, to the “post-enlightened 1960's”. This made me smile somewhat wryly. I was a young man in the 1960s: I was in the sixth-form in the early part of the decade and at university from 1963 to 1968. My wife’s experience closely parallels my own. Our sense of that period, in its social and cultural attitudes, was that it was far more like the 1950s than some commentators seem to believe these days. In our perception, the big changes occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. But that, too, is probably a topic for another thread.

And that’s enough from me on this interesting and important topic.

Regards

Clive

[Eva Salzman]

Janice, Clive, et al,

Rumens is called New Women Poets. Indeed, Deryn and I exchanged notes as we were both compiling our anthologies. Hers is excellent, mine more transatlantic. Adcock's excellent in terms of scope, some of others more with political agendas less of interest to me.

As for 1960's my childhood memories do confirm that, in fact the 1970's WERE the 1960's!

So many other points you make, Clive, are addressed in my Intro to Women's Work, and no space here.....