Just to remind those my age that when we started out poetry was considered
unmasculine, at least in America. Remember Percy Dovetonsils? I'd guess for
some that was a bit of a maze to fight through--add the prohibition from
experiencing one's own emotions. Feminism has had too little effect beyond
the middle class, but it's been enormously liberating for men as well as
women who have been able to take advantage of the opening it helped create.
Mark
At 07:41 AM 2/5/2001 +1100, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>Women are
>>encouraged to think of themselves collectively rather than as individuals.
>
>Women have always been "encouraged" to think of themselves in terms of
>their sexuality rather than their individuality; that sexuality in turn
>has been either demonised (cf Malleus Maleficarum) or woven into twee
>"femininity": shaped, in any case, in ways which lead to blankness. When
>I hear phrases like "female voice" I sniff the same old trap again - and
>yes, there it is decorated with love hearts and smelling of lavender -
>and at the end is the same old pile of laundry -
>
>I can't see how sex is any less restricting than any other human
>classification, such as class. Finding your way to the silence which
>precedes poetry might be, I suspect, more of a maze for women than it is
>for men: and when you get there, it's still silence. But all this is
>very complex and it's early in the morning here.
>
>Poetry surely seeks to destroy that artificial line between "intellect"
>and "emotion". It's feeling intelligence or intelligent passion.
>
>Best
>
>Alison
>
>
|