Another author's experience.

By: Leopold McGinnis (Registered IP 142.59.195.166) on 02-04-2007 20:36

I've run a lit webzine (www.redfez.net) for almost 5 years now. It emerged from a small writing group that was largely women. In fact, other than myself (who wasn't really a member until the very end) and my father, it was ONLY women. When my site first went live, women were overly represented. However, I couldn't keep publishing the same people, so as I branched out (an outsider to even outsider writing) and relied on word of mouth and self-initiative in finding and submitting to Red Fez, the number of women submitting dropped to almost zero. In fact, all but 2 women poets on my site have come from me inviting their work and submission – in a number of cases harassing them until they do. Women are still far under-represented on my site both in terms of number of poets and number of poems.    I agree wholeheartedly with the analysis above that men submit more. I get some submissions from men I wouldn't even show to my mother if I wrote them. This is a comment on men's work, but more on the fact that they are less picky about what they send, and send early, send often. Women's work that arrives tends to me more polished (though not necessarily better) and more selective. Women will send one or two poems. Men will submit 5 or 6 and then some more before I've even looked over the first submission. Yet, on my editorial board, I have two women. And I'll admit to being biased towards women – I tend to understand them better and find them easier to work with. But in terms of energy spent, I spend MORE time trying to encourage and publish women than men. So in some ways, despite what is represented on the site, I'm actually biased in the opposite direction.     And if we want to reduce the argument of gender parity ad absurdium, you get to a situation where you're only looking for a prima facia fairy tale of gender equality. It also engenders mindless attacks against groups who aren't equally gender split. You wouldn't argue that groups devoted to men's issues don't have enough men in them. Nor that a protest group in soutern india doesn't have fair representation from all the races. It suddenly becomes besides the point to what is actually trying to be achieved.    I think the great thing about the above essays is that it points out different ways people approach their own work, that there are different end goals. I don't think it should be a matter of equal representation. 50-50 really doesn't mean anything. What matters is that there are no barriers (or at least, no significant barriers for one sex and not the other, for one 'race' and not another) that hinder them acheiving what they want with their art. Perhaps the type of publishing women are interested in doesn't largely take form in the shape of traditional publication. Maybe it's something else. And then the question is, are we paying attention to that something else? Should we be?    I also think it's largely up to women to determine what they want and to create what they want and to challenge boundaries against their sex if they think they exist. Men (or anyone, really) should be open minded and try to help out, if they can. But it reeks a bit too much of white man's burden when a bunch of men sit around a table of their own making and ask 'how do we make more women sit?' What women should do is really up to the women.    I think there might be a distinction to be made in the above, as well, between small press and 'outsider' or 'underground' poetry, which I think has a rawer, unpolished feel about it – perhaps because it is largely driven and consumed by men (but certainly not entirely, and some women in this arena are clearly outstanding.)

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...