 |
 |
Hi Tim and all Tim Allen wrote: Poetry, like anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/ enjoyed/praised for what it is, not because of the gender, colour, class, profession, nationality, politics, character etc of the person who wrote it. And that's it. Surely the latter informs/makes the former? Poetry cannot stand outside society. Poetry does not have a separate life. If poetry is liberating for the individual (in writing, reading, listening) then it stands to reason that poetry is part of liberation for a group, especially those groups, classes and nations which have been opressed? I like women's anthologies for they often have a thematic element missing from anthologies of worthies. Best wishes, Rupert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Women only > As I've said before, I'm very much on Geraldine's wavelength re this > topic and I agree with her that women only anthologies have done the > opposite of integrate. I know this is a very iffy issue but I would say > that WO anthologies etc have done much to benefit certain individual > women, but at the expense of women's poetry in general. Why? Wow, there's > a question. > > Even more iffy to counter, Carrie said > "Every day I have experiences that are informed by stereotyped > perceptions of my identity as a woman..." > > I've two questions regarding this. > 1. How can you tell a stereotyped perception from a non-stereotyped > perception? > 2. Can I, as a male, even consider, in the complex interactions of > reality, the notion of being perceived stereotypically by women, let > alone complain about such a possibility? > > Poetry, like anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/ > enjoyed/praised for what it is, not because of the gender, colour, class, > profession, nationality, politics, character etc of the person who wrote > it. > And that's it. > > All the best > Tim A.