JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  2003

POETRYETC 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Sparrow&Spider, Poem Six

From:

Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 May 2003 15:46:25 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

Alison, this is simply too complex to unweave. But I'll do a very little
and then leave the field. I'll try not to splutter or poopoo, and I won't
accuse you of same, as that would be the grossest sort of provocative
behavior and against the rules of the list, and besides would be an attempt
to render you invisible.

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.

The problem with chairs that are so focused can be that they outlive the
political situation they are meant to afddress. Bureaucracioes tend to be
immortal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At 07:56 AM 5/6/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>At 9:21 AM -0700 5/5/03, Mark Weiss wrote:
>>I'm really talking about what I'm guessing is the psychological phenomenon
>>behind the muse and skipping the historical, which is interesting but
>>largely no longer operative. I also have never called on one, but a female
>>figure personifying longing (in my case with traceable roots) did appear
>>during one stretch of years in my work. Does something similar never happen
>>to women? Or to gay men? I'm thinking of O'Hara's great poem "In Memory of
>>My Feelings":  "My quietness has a man in it, he is transparent / and
>>carries me quietly, like a gondola, through the streets."
>
>One fruitful way of thinking about it might be Bakhtin's idea of the
>"ideal interlocutor" (whom he cites as perhaps god, or some other
>imagined ideal reader addressed in works).  It's usefully ungendered.
>
>But you are changing the subject: you say things like "It's
>inconceivable that any respectable US universities would discourage
>gay studies" and in reply to Chris' pointing out that a major
>university refused to endow a chair of gay studies because of its
>"narrow focus" you splutter and say how can they be biased? they
>publish books on gay studies; you poopoo the idea of systemic or
>structural biases which operate specifically against women, citing a
>number of examples, which are refuted, and then say, oh, but I wasn't
>talking about that anyway, but something else.
>
>I wasn't arguing anything so coarse as your paraphrases
>("conspiracies against women" &c).  Nor was I saying that unjust
>obscurity does not happen to men.  But the existence of a systemic,
>endemic historical bias against women poets seems to me unremarkably
>obvious and has been in the past decades very thoroughly documented,
>and I wonder that you find it so unbelievable; and your assertion
>that people like Mary Shelley and HD had no trouble with such issues
>(they did) makes me question seriously whether you could perceive any
>such patterns now.
>
>The "mechanism" you are asking for evidence for is a million subtle
>mechanisms, far from a single crude conspiracy.  I was talking about
>one of them, the gendering of a historically specific concept of
>creativity in a way which makes creativity for a woman sterile, and
>therefore impossible. This started as a discussion about the Muse and
>my observation that the Muse is part of a gendered construction which
>has been around for a few centuries, and which is one of the ideas
>that fenced women out of writing.  I _wasn't_ saying that things
>haven't changed (nor was I saying that things aren't complex): I
>_was_ saying that many of those constructions are still extant
>(otherwise we might not be arguing about the Muse) and in conjunction
>with a reactive swing against the very prominence of women that you
>are citing, I find it troubling.    Because we seem to be entering
>reactionary times.  And the fact that you don't believe such
>attitudes are around and finding public space doesn't mean that they
>are not present.  I mentioned one myself: a recent hubbub about the
>"feminisation" of Australian literature representing a corruption of
>literary integrity.  That has been happening _this year_.
>
>Rukeyser remains stubbornly and individually herself, to her
>detriment (her first book was 1935, if that makes any difference).
>No, she would appeal to neither the agendas of Vendler (too left
>wing) nor Perloff (too conservative in her poetics).  I am not sure
>whether that proves anything. Why does she have to be promoted by
>women in order to be visible?  Why are women presumed to have the
>same hegemonic priorities?  Why wouldn't men equally embrace her
>work, as they might embrace say Langston Hughes?  Why is she
>considered to be merely of "special interest" (the "narrow field" of
>"women's studies", perhaps?  I think her work suffers in that
>particular corral).
>
>The difficulty is and has always been twofold: how to highlight these
>actual systemic biases in order to permit the work to exist in more
>interesting relationships with the rest of the culture, without
>creating a further excuse for its dismissal as a marginal part of
>literature.  I remember years ago seeing two (male) Australian
>anthologists interviewed on tv; they talked about "special interest"
>groups like "women" and "aborigines".  Is that valuable notice?  I
>would ideally like my poetry just to be read as poetry, but my sex
>gets in the way all the time, whether I draw attention to it or not
>(I've tried both tactics and both are equally useless).  I am,
>whether I choose to embrace it or not, a "woman writer" in a way that
>a man is never a "man writer".  (Such a ridiculous phrase, no?)
>Whether or not I choose to write about specifically female experience
>(sometimes I do, sometimes I don't) it is filtered through my "woman"
>status: I have been interested for example by how the less "feminine"
>poems often get filtered out of discussions of my work.
>
>At 6:37 PM +0100 5/5/03, Douglas Clark wrote:
>>What Chodorow, based on object relations, says is that men have one
>>basic relation with their mothers whereas women have relations both with
>>father and mother at the levels that matter. So women can opt out of one
>>relationship and transfer to another in the way that men cant. So me would
>>appear to be limited to a Muse whereas women are not.
>
>Douglas, I'm not familiar with Chodorow, but I find this apparent
>erasure of the father out of the male psyche simply unbelievable.
>What does she mean?  That fathering doesn't count or matter (or only
>to girls)?  That a father, absent or otherwise, is not formative to a
>boy's development?  If it matters to girls, it matters to boys.  Of
>course there may be differences in _how_ it matters.  But it seems to
>me that would vary enormously from child to child.
>
>Best
>
>A
>--
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>Editor
>Masthead Online
>http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
>
>Home page
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager