Thursday, April 13, 2006
Ok, so, I'm done with harping on the article
"Harping"--what do I mean by that? That I'm a harpy?
I probably do mean that.
I think what we've all be talking about is not only really interesting, but it's something some of us have been talking about offline for a while now and frankly have been hesitant to discuss here. I can understand why some of our peers would feel a little wary of joining the discussion, or feel that some of the comments made in some of the subthreads have been sexist in their own way against our male peers. I would like to just state here, as I have in all the threads I've participated in, that generally speaking, since entering the blogosphere in mid 2003 I've been encouraged, cheered, welcomed, criticized in a warm and/or genuinely constructive way, flirted with, treated as an intellectual equal, and affectionately accepted as a friend by many many many people, male & female I would otherwise never have known. In general, I have been thrilled by the the interactions I've had with male & female peers in the blogosphere, who by and large I've found even more sensitive and less awkward in their navigation and creation of an egalitarian (in all senses) social space. I've defended you from others who don't quite trust you yet, for reasons that are no fault of yours but social/historical. Anyway, you, this, all of this is why I remain "out here." My complaint (if you could call it that rather than an observation) is that there's a darker side to being out here, just as there is a darker side to participating in any scene. Unfortunately, some of the darkness seems to hover around issues of gender. I'm about to make the same generalization I made in one of Jessica's comment threads, but I'll qualify it first as I did there. This has been my personal experience: That, of all the nasty personal attacks, anonymous/pseudonymous baiting, blogwars, email flaming, harassment, morally-superior schoolings, outright dismissals, rumormongering, and sexually inappropriate/uncomfortable attention I have felt the brush of, almost all of it was directed my way by men. There's no way, for me at least, to respond to this kind of thing in a constructive way. I've got issues, people. I have learned the hard way and from a young age to defend myself by turning off the tap of attention, and eliminating toxic, bullying people from my life. (I make no prescriptions. What works best for me may seem insane to anybody else. Issues. I said it.)
To make another generalization, also based on my personal experience: in practically every instance of disagreement between myself and another woman/women online the conversation has remained fairly civil, even when things have been heated. That's not always the case, of course, as in Craig Teicher's comment box yesterday. I'm not perfect, and a couple of times in the past I have been drawn in enough to act in ways I regret. Not in this case. But I understand from experience how it can happen. Now that I know which Brenda Brenda is and what her relationship to Craig is, I can understand why she felt hurt by my criticism of the article. I apologize for hurting those feelings. I'd like to point out again here, that I don't believe anything I said could be read as a personal attack, nor sexist against men at large, & none of it was intended to feel like an attack. Craig for his part, seems not to have taken it that way. I'm glad.
The absence of women poetry bloggers in Craig's article really is minor when swatched against the larger fabric of social power dynamics in the blogosphere, but it came up (independently I should stress) at the same time as the conversation at Jessica Smith's, which is also related to a conversation (see Stephanie Y., Tony T. & Josh C.) that came out of a blogging panel at AWP in Austin a few weeks ago. [Everybody is linked in the blogroll to your right, if you need the links.]
OK, one more poem to write to catch up with NaPoWriMo.
UPDATE: This post is off the main page now, but people are still visiting, so I thought I'd update it in place, rather than start another one. The discussion continues at Jessica's, Reb's, and Josh's, with related comments at Seth Abramson's blog, Jeffery Bahr's place & Barbara Jane Reyes's relocated blog here. A more recent spinoff conversation that moves beyond gender into race & other issues in the poetry blogosphere is happening over here at C. S. Perez's blog. (It's quite possible that threads are also taking place elsewhere & I've missed them, but I'm doing my best to keep up.)
I just added the following comment to the thread at Jessica's today (Saturday, April 15), and think it's a good idea to reprint it here: I think we're all a little uncomfortable with ["women are this way, men are that way"] generalizations. For myself, I will say that my experience (as elaborated [in the thread at Jessica's] and [here] ) with agression online seems to have a gender component, tho it's not all been necessarily sexist in flavor. In other words, my womanhood hasn't always been the provocation, but the agressors have been more often male than female.
I hope I'm being more clear. I really do love me some dudes.
I probably do mean that.
I think what we've all be talking about is not only really interesting, but it's something some of us have been talking about offline for a while now and frankly have been hesitant to discuss here. I can understand why some of our peers would feel a little wary of joining the discussion, or feel that some of the comments made in some of the subthreads have been sexist in their own way against our male peers. I would like to just state here, as I have in all the threads I've participated in, that generally speaking, since entering the blogosphere in mid 2003 I've been encouraged, cheered, welcomed, criticized in a warm and/or genuinely constructive way, flirted with, treated as an intellectual equal, and affectionately accepted as a friend by many many many people, male & female I would otherwise never have known. In general, I have been thrilled by the the interactions I've had with male & female peers in the blogosphere, who by and large I've found even more sensitive and less awkward in their navigation and creation of an egalitarian (in all senses) social space. I've defended you from others who don't quite trust you yet, for reasons that are no fault of yours but social/historical. Anyway, you, this, all of this is why I remain "out here." My complaint (if you could call it that rather than an observation) is that there's a darker side to being out here, just as there is a darker side to participating in any scene. Unfortunately, some of the darkness seems to hover around issues of gender. I'm about to make the same generalization I made in one of Jessica's comment threads, but I'll qualify it first as I did there. This has been my personal experience: That, of all the nasty personal attacks, anonymous/pseudonymous baiting, blogwars, email flaming, harassment, morally-superior schoolings, outright dismissals, rumormongering, and sexually inappropriate/uncomfortable attention I have felt the brush of, almost all of it was directed my way by men. There's no way, for me at least, to respond to this kind of thing in a constructive way. I've got issues, people. I have learned the hard way and from a young age to defend myself by turning off the tap of attention, and eliminating toxic, bullying people from my life. (I make no prescriptions. What works best for me may seem insane to anybody else. Issues. I said it.)
To make another generalization, also based on my personal experience: in practically every instance of disagreement between myself and another woman/women online the conversation has remained fairly civil, even when things have been heated. That's not always the case, of course, as in Craig Teicher's comment box yesterday. I'm not perfect, and a couple of times in the past I have been drawn in enough to act in ways I regret. Not in this case. But I understand from experience how it can happen. Now that I know which Brenda Brenda is and what her relationship to Craig is, I can understand why she felt hurt by my criticism of the article. I apologize for hurting those feelings. I'd like to point out again here, that I don't believe anything I said could be read as a personal attack, nor sexist against men at large, & none of it was intended to feel like an attack. Craig for his part, seems not to have taken it that way. I'm glad.
The absence of women poetry bloggers in Craig's article really is minor when swatched against the larger fabric of social power dynamics in the blogosphere, but it came up (independently I should stress) at the same time as the conversation at Jessica Smith's, which is also related to a conversation (see Stephanie Y., Tony T. & Josh C.) that came out of a blogging panel at AWP in Austin a few weeks ago. [Everybody is linked in the blogroll to your right, if you need the links.]
OK, one more poem to write to catch up with NaPoWriMo.
UPDATE: This post is off the main page now, but people are still visiting, so I thought I'd update it in place, rather than start another one. The discussion continues at Jessica's, Reb's, and Josh's, with related comments at Seth Abramson's blog, Jeffery Bahr's place & Barbara Jane Reyes's relocated blog here. A more recent spinoff conversation that moves beyond gender into race & other issues in the poetry blogosphere is happening over here at C. S. Perez's blog. (It's quite possible that threads are also taking place elsewhere & I've missed them, but I'm doing my best to keep up.)
I just added the following comment to the thread at Jessica's today (Saturday, April 15), and think it's a good idea to reprint it here: I think we're all a little uncomfortable with ["women are this way, men are that way"] generalizations. For myself, I will say that my experience (as elaborated [in the thread at Jessica's] and [here] ) with agression online seems to have a gender component, tho it's not all been necessarily sexist in flavor. In other words, my womanhood hasn't always been the provocation, but the agressors have been more often male than female.
I hope I'm being more clear. I really do love me some dudes.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Maybe this irks more than it normally would...
...because the reviews over there have been including things I have been genuinely surprised--in a good way--to see covered there. I know that does have something to do with Craig Teicher & at least one other person on the current staff & let's thank them (again) for it. (I'm with Jordan re: Mike Scharf, but whaddaya gonna do.) I also was made to panic "recently," if "recently" can mean 2 yrs or a little more ago, by the brief and crazy-making decision of PW to not review poetry at all, which they later reversed. That deserves another round of yays as well. It's one of the only ways nonspecialist bookstore buyers get to know about poetry books prior to the publication date (particularly since Kirkus--another trade mag--can't be bothered).
I was just kidding about being on the rag. How come when I disagree I get characterized as being "angry" or "pissed"? I'm not pissed. When I'm pissed, you'll know it. I'll be really clear. Promise.
I was just kidding about being on the rag. How come when I disagree I get characterized as being "angry" or "pissed"? I'm not pissed. When I'm pissed, you'll know it. I'll be really clear. Promise.
Beside the point
Intended audience. I mean, I do get PW--literally. I read the magazine, and I know its audience. In fact, I am its audience. I'd guess a healthy majority of the editors and publicists and publishers and other book industry people who make up PW's readership are women. That would mirror the industry itself.
All beside the point. But so is "the kind of compartmentalized commentary that men tend to be comfortable with," Josh suggests is behind the oversight. Even though that kind of gender-based split may exist, it's not a primary concern in this kind of article, or shouldn't be. (Update: & speaking of gender differences in online behavior, go see Jessica's blog from yesterday. Sorry I didn't point to that sooner.)
In fact, the article says things like: "The Internet is where poetry proliferates."
"Ever at the cutting edge, poetry may have finally found its ideal medium, one in which money, at least, is hardly a factor: the Internet."
&
"In recent years, poets and poetry enthusiasts have been organically developing a network of linked online poetry publications, blogs and other related sites[....] And thousands of readers are logging on. The Web is allowing poets and publishers of poetry—both the big houses and the many independent, nonprofit and university presses—direct access to their readers."
There were no qualifying statements made that critical writing or poetics-based explorations were the norm in this arena--and they are not--and that those kinds of contributions are only made by men--and they are not. But the article sure as hell gives the impression that they are, despite the fact that the author of the article seems to know better.
Anne, Josh & Tony all wonder if the dominant print model and efforts to legitimize poetry's online inroads in a nonthreatening way--to assimilate, and ease the establishment into the change by focusing on its similarities to the old-school--is partially to blame. OK, I'll buy some of that too.
But. But.
All beside the point. But so is "the kind of compartmentalized commentary that men tend to be comfortable with," Josh suggests is behind the oversight. Even though that kind of gender-based split may exist, it's not a primary concern in this kind of article, or shouldn't be. (Update: & speaking of gender differences in online behavior, go see Jessica's blog from yesterday. Sorry I didn't point to that sooner.)
In fact, the article says things like: "The Internet is where poetry proliferates."
"Ever at the cutting edge, poetry may have finally found its ideal medium, one in which money, at least, is hardly a factor: the Internet."
&
"In recent years, poets and poetry enthusiasts have been organically developing a network of linked online poetry publications, blogs and other related sites[....] And thousands of readers are logging on. The Web is allowing poets and publishers of poetry—both the big houses and the many independent, nonprofit and university presses—direct access to their readers."
There were no qualifying statements made that critical writing or poetics-based explorations were the norm in this arena--and they are not--and that those kinds of contributions are only made by men--and they are not. But the article sure as hell gives the impression that they are, despite the fact that the author of the article seems to know better.
Anne, Josh & Tony all wonder if the dominant print model and efforts to legitimize poetry's online inroads in a nonthreatening way--to assimilate, and ease the establishment into the change by focusing on its similarities to the old-school--is partially to blame. OK, I'll buy some of that too.
But. But.
I guess the question is
If you read this article & didn't notice the absence of women poet-bloggers,* why didn't you?
What does the absence mean?
What does your failure (assuming you failed) to notice it mean?
What does it mean that some of us were disappointed by what was missing?
What does it mean that we were mostly disappointed instead of "pissed"?
What does it mean that you (assuming, etc.) failed to anticipate that disappointment?
*Two of the web journals mentioned are indeed edited or coedited by women: La Petite Zine & HOW2. One female web journal editor (unnamed) apparently declined to participate. Two women (who do not participate in the online poetry arena directly) were interviewed for the piece on the online poetry arena: an editor at Graywolf who says the internet may give bring new "mainstream poets" to the attention of publishers, and the publicity director for Knopf who says she loves seeing her poets' poems on Salon.com. Ahem.
Women were included in the piece, but in a sidelong way. As for the rest of the response, since the editorial schedule for PW is set several months in advance for themed issues (so the advertisers know when to buy ads & the publicists can gather their relevant info on time) deadline pressure as an excuse is lame. Pointing to another article in the same issue that does feature a woman (who is also not participating in the online scene which the article in question characterizes as the new vital space) is lame. And implying including a woman poet-blogger would be taking the "opportunity to portray the blogosphere as a space for dialogue on all sorts of issues between and about women and men in poetry and literary culture in general, to show that men and women are equal contributors to the blog scene," is way lame. I asked because I rather expected an OMG-I-totally-fucked-up-gee-whiz-I-wasn't-thinking answer. I wasn't even gonna post about this, because you know, nobody likes looking at my twisted knickers. But there. You made me.
What does the absence mean?
What does your failure (assuming you failed) to notice it mean?
What does it mean that some of us were disappointed by what was missing?
What does it mean that we were mostly disappointed instead of "pissed"?
What does it mean that you (assuming, etc.) failed to anticipate that disappointment?
*Two of the web journals mentioned are indeed edited or coedited by women: La Petite Zine & HOW2. One female web journal editor (unnamed) apparently declined to participate. Two women (who do not participate in the online poetry arena directly) were interviewed for the piece on the online poetry arena: an editor at Graywolf who says the internet may give bring new "mainstream poets" to the attention of publishers, and the publicity director for Knopf who says she loves seeing her poets' poems on Salon.com. Ahem.
Women were included in the piece, but in a sidelong way. As for the rest of the response, since the editorial schedule for PW is set several months in advance for themed issues (so the advertisers know when to buy ads & the publicists can gather their relevant info on time) deadline pressure as an excuse is lame. Pointing to another article in the same issue that does feature a woman (who is also not participating in the online scene which the article in question characterizes as the new vital space) is lame. And implying including a woman poet-blogger would be taking the "opportunity to portray the blogosphere as a space for dialogue on all sorts of issues between and about women and men in poetry and literary culture in general, to show that men and women are equal contributors to the blog scene," is way lame. I asked because I rather expected an OMG-I-totally-fucked-up-gee-whiz-I-wasn't-thinking answer. I wasn't even gonna post about this, because you know, nobody likes looking at my twisted knickers. But there. You made me.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Hear, hear!
Except the angry-woman-slapping part, which freaked me out completely, even tho Conrad handled it with absolute grace. "Do you think this is a new idea!? Do you like deviant behavior!? Do you think deviance is an appropriate subject for poetry?!" Picks up, pitches book. Picks up book, slaps Conrad's hand, hard, which is either handing it to her or reaching to take it from her. "Yes, yes I really do. I'm trying to help you out. You're just having a bad day." Then she turned to me, trapped in the corner between the table & the window. "What do you think of all this?" "I, uhhhhhh, I agreeeeeeeeee. I love Conrad & I lovvvvvvve his book. Uh, I'm upssssssssset. You're upsetting me." She turned fiercely toward him again plucking her scarf up toward her mouth. She was anxious to keep her mouth hidden. He smiled at her again, saying nothing more. Something reached her. Then: "I'm sorry for my loud voice," she said, & slipped away. She slipped away. & happier faces filled the spaces in front of the table. The window turned solid again behind us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
