Alison: The rest is arguable. But Albert Speer?

Let's try this out. I hate armies, but the position of women in the US army
is vastly improved since the elimination of the Women's Army Corp, a
bureaucratic entity designed to at once include and  marginalize women.
Suddenly there are a whole bunch of women officers.

Women ceos--enough that it's rapidly becoming less of an issue, according
to Business Week, one of the best journals in the field, to which I happen
to subscribe. Recently--the last year or two--a woman became ceo of one of
the top 8 or 10 corps. I forget which one, but I don't tend to retain these
things in memory.

Enough.

Mark


At 09:24 AM 5/6/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>Briefly Mark (I have a lot to do):
>
>>
>>1. Yale made an administrative decision. This doesn't speak to bias, which
>>may or may not exist, especially in an environment in which gay studies are
>>pursued without the benefit of a specific chair.
>
>Bureacracies are the implementing machineries of bias or otherwise. I
>don't see how a decision is divested of ideology because it's
>bureaucratic.  That was Speer's excuse: he was merely activating a
>machine, not applying a moral decision.
>
>>>2. I have no reason to believe that Rukeyser was harmed as a poet by her
>>>gender. If she was, I'd want to know how. Otherwise it's just mouthing off.
>
>I'll just point to Rukeyser's self description as a "rare battered
>she-poet" in a male world, and such comments as her thoughts on the
>tabus in American literature against writing about experiences like
>childbirth, menstruation and so on.  I've also remarked on her
>political affiliations as a factor in her, to me, undeserved
>obscurity.
>
>>>
>>>3. my interest in the muse is very different from yours, and I didn't
>>>realize that at first. I'm interested in it as the manifestation of what I
>>>take to be a widespread, if not universal, psychological phenomenon,
>>>introjection, and I think that whatever other significances it has had it
>>>would not have existed without that enabling phenomenon. You are interested
>>>in those other significances.  Legitimate, I think, on both sides. I'm not
>>>sure how the muse you present operates in the current world, at least in
>>>the US, where most poets under forty have never read an invocation
>>>to the muse.
>
>I was highlighting certain continuities that trouble me.
>
>>>4. The world is full of assholes. They don't always speak for the cultures
>>>that produced them. We also have polygamists, flat-earthers and neonazis.
>
>Yep.
>
>>>5. The US is not Australia--it sounds like the situation is somewhat
>>>different. I question seriously whether you could perceive any
>>>such difference. Note that you come very close to ad homina here.
>
>Not ad hominem.  I was asking, given that you asserted there was no
>historic systemic bias against people like Mary Shelley and HD, how
>could you be sensitive to such biases in the present?  Yes, the US is
>different from Australia.  I am speaking from where I am.
>
>>>
>>>6. In the present moment in the US, there are many fine female poets who
>>>appear to have no greater difficulty getting published and even taught than
>>>their male peers.  This is a relatively new phenomenon and attracts
>>>comment. Hence "woman poets." Similarly, there are "woman ceos" of major
>>>corporations. The novelty is noted, but the ceos are dealt with exactly as
>>>men are. In the case of poets, who are we talking about? All poets are
>>>treated as oddities.
>
>I am wondering what the percentage of woman ceos or board members is.
>In Australia it's very low, in the single percentage points; but that
>hasn't stopped men complaining that women are "taking over".  I was
>commenting on what I perceive to be a reaction against such novel
>prominence.  But I am repeating myself
>
>>>
>>>By the way, if the idea is to discourage women poets being seen as "women
>>>poets" one should perhaps ask about the wisdom or utility of  journals
>>>exclusively devoted to poetry by women.
>
>
>One does.  I did speak about my unease about being corralled into
>"women's studies" and the associated dilemmas.
>
>>>
>>>7. I'm not aware that there is an active backlash against "the feminization
>>>of literature" in the US, altho there are people who occasionally
>>>propose it.
>
>There certainly does seem to be an active backlash against feminism.
>
>>>
>>>8. As to Bakhtin's formulation, I think it's more useful (I derive this
>>>indirectly from Vygotsky) to think of this particular introject as the
>>>grown-up, internalized version of the imaginary friend, who is
>>>always gendered.
>
>But not gendered specifically as female or male in relation to the
>engendering sex.  And without the enculturated ideologies which
>surround the Muse.
>
>Best
>
>A
>--
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>Editor
>Masthead Online
>http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
>
>Home page
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/