Funny, but I've never focussed too much thought on men being published more than women. But now that you mention it, that would certainly seem to be true. I think there used to be an expression that you don't hear so much anymore: "It's a man's world."
Even though, it is still probably pretty much true.
"Poems are written by men, and not by anonymous splendors. The stronger the man the larger his resentments . . ."
~ Harold Bloom
http://www.jacket.zip.com.au/jacket07/e ... ition.html
Authorship
With respect to the number of women as authors of articles, the picture is quite grim. Of the 974 articles published since 1967, only 11% are written by women, 7% with women as junior authors with male senior authors, 5% with women as senior authors, men as junior authors; 74% were written by men (in 2% of the articles we could not determine the gender of the author).
http://www.acs.appstate.edu/dept/anthro ... /ch02.html
Some feminist historians resented what they saw as a watering-down of the original premise of foregrounding women's experience and achievements, by allowing 'gender history' to be written by men, or to elide into studies of masculinity. Others, both teachers and taught, writers and readers, objected strongly and vigorously to the impenetrability of much of the post-Scott history-writing: in place of women's-history accessibility came gender-history's obscurantist po-mo textual game-playing. Moreover, in the face of so much theoretical emphasis on fluctuating meanings, slithering identities and on diversity rather than commonality, the very original category 'woman' seemed almost to have dissolved before some readers' eyes. Among Scott's most vociferous critics was American academic Joan Hoff: in 'Gender as a Postmodern Category of Paralysis' she attacked poststructuralism's influence upon women's history as depoliticizing and divisive, ethnocentric and elitist. Furiouis, Hoff claimed that now:
"Material experiences become abstract representations drawn almost exclusively from textual analysis; personal identities and all human agency become obsolete, and disembodied subjects are constructed as discourses. Flesh-and-blood women, of course, also become social constructs, according to poststructuralists, with no 'natural' or physiological context except as a set of symbolic meanings constructing sexual difference."
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/gender-studies/e ... ington.htm
from "A Conversation with Ruth Stone":
[Ruth Stone] : Um-hum. Ezra Pound was nasty to a lot of people. That's just my opinion of him. I got sick of the adulation of the generation when I was at the Radcliffe Institute. It's almost always men who think Pound is hot stuff. I don't know any women who think he's great. What's that you've got there?
[J. F. Battaglia] : [reads from Donald Hall's review of Second Hand Coat]
"When Ruth Stone was young few women published and fewer were noticed. Now young women poets proliferate to appropriate praise. In the meantime, we have neglected Ruth Stone... As she grows older, her poems turn devastating without abandoning the absolute resolution she learned back in the 50s. In Second Hand Coat... art mediates pain neither evaded nor paraded. Frequently she addresses a dead man loved and resented, as in 'Scars.' Reading her it becomes us whom she adresses, us whom she begs to believe. Such a poem in its extremity remains memorable, trembles forever at the shadowy clearing's edge."
RS: Donald Hall. That was in the Harvard Book Review, when the book came out.
JB: That's a good review, I think.
RS: It's brief but good. And also, you know—"She's OK."
JB: He doesn't rave.
RS: He doesn't rave. Uh-uh. He never has. I've always been treated that way. There must be something terribly wrong with me. It means I'm not good enough. They all treat me so strangely.
JB: Maybe it's their way of raving.
RS: They take each other so seriously, those men. We've neglected her. And now we give her this, and so forth. I know that women don't respond to me that way. They really think I'm good. They know, they understand my work. I remember men used to tell me, oh your work is wonderful; you don't write like a woman, you write like a man. Not true. I write like a woman. I never have written like a man. Why did they say I wrote like a man?
JB: How do men write?
RS: I just think it's a crazy thing to say. I don't know what it means. They want to put women down, yet they have to praise me, so they say I write like a man.
JB: So saying that you write like a man is praise because men write better than women do?
RS: Absolutely. They all believe that. All of 'em. Do you?
JB: No, but I'm not sure that's what it means.
RS: It does. It does mean that.
JB: And that a man's sensibility is better than a woman's?
RS: Yep. And that men write about really important things.
JB: Men can perceive truth and women can't?
RS: And women are trivial and hysterical and overblown and whatever, you know. Actually, this used to be said a lot when Walter [Stone] and I were at Harvard in the late 40s. That's what they thought.
JB: Do you think that men or women write better love poems?
RS: Offhand, most of the love poems that I've read over my life have probably been written by men, including Shakespeare and certainly John Donne. I think men write more romantic and compelling love poems than women do. Of the women's love poems I've read, most are about loss. Sharon [Olds] writes good sexual poems about love.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/ ... neints.htm
from "Her-Story - in these isles - in part"
History, when all is said and done, is usually about men. Men as legislators, men as chief executive officers of a nation. Men as soldiers or warriors of one sort or another. So that women are usually behind. Giving rise to the axiom that behind every great man stands a woman. In a new world order, truly human, women will at least be alongside, and not behind.
http://www.candw.ag/~jardinea/ffhtm/ff970228.htm
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
