I don't mean this in the physical sense, though that may well be the case. I am think of sensitivity to poetic criticism. The question is prompted initially by the animated kerfuffle regarding the recent WOL Middleton gig, where I notice a definite opinion split down gender lines. The men seem to take negative criticism as 'part of the job', and the women see it as destructive and tend to close ranks/lick wounds.

I have noticed this phenomenom on other areas of this site such as Write Club and various other threads, but it also affects my own poetry event, Inn Verse. I initially had a lot of trouble getting regular female readers to Inn Verse, and I was told that many females feel intimidated reading in pubs. This didn't make much sense to me at the time. Inn Verse is essentially an MMU student night and 80% of English student are female. The vast majority of English graduates are going to have to deal with public speaking in their future careers, whether they be teachers or whatever. And believe me, the girls at MMU are definitely not scared of pubs per se. Happily, the balance has recently been adjusted somewhat.

Have I got this wrong somewhere? Is it that men criticise women more than men? Is it that women have to contend with men being more aggressive and competitive than they? Should women toughen up?

Poetry, unlike most disciplines, seems to be divided fairly equally along gender lines these days. This is undoubtedly a good thing. More voices, more communication, more progress, more love (in the Martin Luther King 'understanding' sense). Are men guilty of trying to backslide towards poetic male hegemony, or should women grasp the nettle, feel the sting, and learn from the experience?

It stems from different psychological tactics. In arguments or confrontations (or 'reviews') men generally attack status to gain status. The review was one major attack on status -- to gain status. It was delivered from an ego gaining elevation by belittling. Women generally use a different tack since our social status is still somewhat ambivalent at times, so this form of attack goes deeper and is generally felt by us to be more damaging and certainly lacking in integrity. Our status is still tenuous. Look at the brouhaha raised by bosses who are being asked to reveal that they pay men more than women for equivalent jobs. Money is a visible measure of status.

I don't think men are any less sensitive than women when it comes to criticism and critique.
Maybe it's a macho kind of thing whereby men just don't want others to see they can be as hurt as much as women or maybe they really are stronger in that sense.
Personally as i'm sure you've all gathered, i'm not afraid to voice my true feelings, hurt or otherwise but then i consider that to be a strength.
Neither does it bother me to perform in a pub or walk into one alone where i know there will be others i can speak to but i can easily understand why some women might be daunted by the prospect. If i'm left alone for a bit too long and feel out of place in whatever conversation is going on, i'd rather not be there so would leave before put myself through that experience.

As for women being softer writers, i can't agree with anyone who thinks along those lines. Some women authors write with attitude and a clear voice. Some men write just as sensitively as any woman.

Interesting topic of discussion Siren.
How's the swotting going? (and i don't mean of flies) :-)

I don't think there is a difference. It is down to personalities ( In my experience of workshops and online).

Academics, whether male or female should be able to read in public. Are u at MMU? A recent lecture was by a publicist (Bloomsbury) who said that the most successful are those who are able to do this, no matter how well they write because we do have to help market our own work.

I am an English student at MMU, though not for much longer. In fact, my penultimate exam is tomorrow so I shouldn't be on here at all.

We have met, Nabila. We both read at Hulme library last year at an event organized by James Draper. You were very kind about my poetry and I was very grateful. You read a lovely poem about your idyllic former home on the subcontinent.

well, speaking for myself,I can take very harsh criticism of my work which has developed over time - once I admitted to myself that the only way to get to where I wanted to be was to be more thick skinned. My perception is that my readers matter to me - how will I know how people respond to my work if I don't open it up and allow people (who are my readers even on a blog) to tell me what they think? It is a stage that every writer goes through,male or female and it is a psychological development.


However if someone was to criticise my personality, appearance, etc in a public forum and it moved away from poetry, I would be very angry and would not tolerate it. There is a difference between professional critique and 'mazaak urana' (in polite Urdu is takin the p**s!!)

: )


PS nice to know who you are now Simon and yes I do remember you read some wonderful poems.

Enough about me; what do you think about me?

Now this is a fine Eg of when a personal attack is just about to happen. Do i react or not. No i wont why give them the satisfaction. Been here before done it. They have time on their hands for useless comments. I don't :-).

I like you John.
Yes, i know you are all of these things and more.
Completely individual just like ''I'' am. :-)

Bit of a useless comment though Nabila. Reacting to a comment in the absence of a comment on the presumption that a comment may be about to be made betrays a sensitivity to comment which is worth commenting upon.

I really think the title of this thread is very silly. Mt heart sank yesterday when I heard Carol Ann Duffy doing interviews following her appointment. To paraphrase her she said that she accepted the job on behalf of all women poets and that it was not hers alone. This is the kind of gag making drivel that people utter when they are being given an OBE or some such gong.

It is insulting to other poets for her to be claiming to be their representative as a woman. Plenty of poets would not feel they were represented by C A D even though they may be women and she should not presume to have such a role. I hope she does good things for poetry, but it is not a good start for her to self appoint as a womens' advocate.

It is really time we grew out of these infantile gender wars. I know that the world is not a fair place and some of us have advantages of birth that we do not merit. It does not help to put those things right by continually dividing the world up by gender, race, beliefs, or any other attribute and then generating wars of words between these categories.

Well said Janet. I speak on behalf of all complete individuals.

The fun is in coming up with comments for the topics: I imagine myself taking part in something like 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' All the different topics suggested are quickly abandoned to continue the thread of us versus them in whatever quixotic form the two sides take, Currently we bubble down to men v women, but it'll drift into other two sided contentions in a little while.

Well Said Mal...

What a man you are to be sure!... I am a def For the 'Scouse House' next month ... reserve me a spot ...it might force a stay over...but i;m definately coming...

Carole Ann duffed up good and proper.. yes I think her acceptance speech was yuuuuck..

Gus. If you do go to the scouse house. For gods sake don't try to follow the sat nav details on here unless somethings been done to change them.
Mal?

We definitely need a few more Geezerbird poets. Come on girls, you better shape up! Cos we need you birds, we really do.

Poetry events, like life itself, can be boring when there aren't enough Geezerbirds around.

Gie Uzz Geezerbirds!!

Would you care to elaborate?

I reaslise that I am not Steve Regan, Moxy, but I think I know to what he refers. My esteemed girlfriend, who I believe you know, hails from North London originally and has informed me that the phrase 'geezer-bird' refers to 'tomboy'.

Interesting that all the intelligent, considered responses to this thread have been written by women and that the men seem to be obfuscating, claiming a lack of difference between the sexes, or blathering inane irrelevences...

....no personal attacks intended, of course...

Firstly I'm going to agree with Mal's sentiments RE: Carol Ann Duffy. For God's sake Andrew Motion was bad....CAD is like some kind of nightmare...oh well.

I tend to think that men and women write about different things, or rather they write about things differently. Women writers tend to reveal a lot more of themselves in their writing. I mean most writers reveal something of themselves in their work but women especially reveal more than maybe they realise. So maybe it is that bit of ephemara that explains it, but I don't think it means 'softer'.

As for women who might guess at the male ego and suggest that we men don't like to show hurt or weakness...well I welcome critism. It is far more helpful to hear that people hate my work than for them to sit by and clap passively. Oh well....

I was enquiring after the need for geezerbirds, which is an absolutely naff name and tinged with recidivism, but why can't we have more effeminate men? Why does the hormonal shift have to be that-a-way? Doesn't poetry demand sensitivity? Well then, oestrogen and progesterone are the elixirs of the Muse!
Ahem, and I'm a female (gasp -- really?) but can you spot any lines on my work that are of a self-revelatory nature?

What do you mean about CAD being 'some kind of a nightmare?' Are you some kind of Nostradamus with special portfolio for the laureate? If so let's meet. I've never met a harbinger before and it'll be a proper treat.

Geezerbirds aren't tomboys exactly: they're simply women who are straightforward in conversation; don't have mad mood swings; are warm in spirit; are friendly; not mega-sensitive, can take a bit of banter. They're a bit like men, actually, only feminine, not butch at all. I like such women, that's all I am saying.

AS for CAD. Hmmmmm ... maybe she's really a man...just trapped ... in a man's body!

I get it.
'Why can't a woman be more like a man?' Oh my, Professor Higgins, we are getting prescriptive.
Pygmalion round 3, I believe. Ting ting, seconds away...

And when you think a woman IS more like a man (CAD) you go all condemnatory, too. Well, bless my burning bra. I hope you are not making a jibe at her sexuality?

I blame Sex And The City and all those stoopid, stoopid women's magazines for the collapse of feminism.

I'm beginning to feel I am the only true feminist left. Bring back Real Women ... and Real Men.

I don't think all the comments by men have been inane. Maybe those by Siren were, but I am not qualified to judge.

The comments about geezerbirds and effeminate men are just reinforcing the point I was making. It is not the absurd suggestion that there is no difference between men and women, but that there is infinite variability in each of the sexes and a very great deal of variation in masculine and feminine characteristics within each. You might ask is that man softer than that woman (or vice versa) although I cannot think why you would ask it, but to ask 'Are Female Poets Softer?' is pointless if not meaningless.

What it does do is to set male and female poets apart from each other. Why on earth do that? A bit like DG in another thread talking about Moslem poets. Poets do not need to be identified by gender, faith, etc. There is some sense in poets wanting to place themselves in some school or style (although that often conveys very little), but not to identify themselves by gender or even sexuality.

Malpoet: 5'8.5" tall, overweight, grey haired poet with a spot and tendencies to excessive alcohol consumption.

To be honest I'm probably being unfair to our new laureate but she just doesn't strike me as actually being able to do the job.

And at the risk of being booed and having tomatoes thrown at me....is it not possible that this topic shows that really there doesn't really seem to be any difference between the males and females posting here, so maybe it's not an issue with the 'art' of poetry, maybe it's just that women don't see poetry events as a good use of their time....or maybe they have better things to do....or maybe....ah to hell with it maybe there's just no meaning to be found in why women haven't turned up?

Are we not all missing the point over this Laureateship thing?

The Monarchy and its hangers-on in the establishment lead such utterly pointless existences that they need to attach themselves, like the parasites that they are, to any one, and any thing which is of any value to society, in order to make themselves appear important.

The handing out of laureateships, knighthoods, and other awards to all manner of persons ranging from Mrs Bloggs, the local lollipop lady to Major Farquahar Fa La La Pass-the-Port, is nothing more than an opportunity for the establishment to pat us on the head, and to say

'I approve of you, despite the fact that you are a working-class nobody, a lesbian, or a Catholic, or a black person; now roll over and do as I say'.

The Poet Laureate should be awarded by a respected academic, not by some tosser whose only qualification is that they happen to be extremely rich and powerful because their daddy was extremely rich and powerful.

I hate to point it out, but the Queen doesn't choose the Poet Laureate. She just approves the choice of others. She could technically say no, but I doubt she goes through a catalogue of poets and says, "I'll have that one. In blue. Size 8, and a belt."

And I for one think that Carol will do an excellant job. She is not the most adventurous woman poet in the country but they don't choose laureates for adventureousness, never have done, never will. She could do with some voice training when reading, but otherwise will make an excellant ambassador for poetry.

Steve.
I agree with you on CAD and her voice, I found it difficult to follow her in telly interviews, and when she was reading her work.
I wish her well and hope she can inspire this generation of schoolchildren, and old fogeys like me, to be fearless and honest in their work.
Will CAD be fearless and honest now she has the award, or will she toe the establishment line ?

Okay now to pour 'gas on the fire', there were rumblings that it was time to have a female poet laureate...is there anyone else who thinks that:
1. it was fixed from the get go
and
2. That's the reason they chose CAD.

It might just be me but when I heard the rumblings and saw who was 'nominated' I realised it was enevitable. That said she'll probably be just as gool/bad as others. After all how long is it since the laureates have actually done what they are meant to do?

You have evidence of this, or is this is just an attempt to set up a nice conspiracy theory to keep the Daily Mail dullard mind active?

I can't think of anyone better suited to the job personally. Not my favourite poet, but I never expected anyone from the wilds of British avant-gardism to be chosen.

As for doing what "they're meant to do", writing birthday poems for the Queen would be a thankless task for any poet with an ounce of imagination.

Firstly, I read the article a year ago and I can't find it at the moment. However, there is one article I did find: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/queen-is-asked-to-appoint-first-female-poet-laureate-after-22-men-in-340-years-832134.html

Not only that but from around May last year onward there were more and more reports of woman 'demanding' a female laureate. Now maybe that had no effect and I'm not necessarily saying that females are any worse than males, but certainly when this kind of 'why isn't my demographic represented?' question raises it's ugly head suddenly the playing field is no longer level.

As for the 'job' of the laureate, whilst historically it was to chronicle/celebrate significant events for the benefit of the monarch, royal family and court. It has evolved somewhat and I would suggest that as it stands today the duty of the laureate is to chronicle culturally significant events for the benefit of the kingdom.

'Not only that but from around May last year onward there were more and more reports of woman 'demanding' a female laureate. Now maybe that had no effect and I'm not necessarily saying that females are any worse than males, but certainly when this kind of 'why isn't my demographic represented?' question raises it's ugly head suddenly the playing field is no longer level.'

Martin, do you really think women have been on a level playing field, in poetry or in life, for the last 340 years? When a 'demographic' consists of around 50% of the population the term becomes a little meaningless doesn't it? Female poets were never the only poetic 'demographic' to be discriminated against (John Clare would never have made Laureate with his thick Northamptonshire accent) but they have certainly received such treatment in this country more consistently, and more completely, than others.

It certainly was about time that we had a female Laureate (although, as an avowed Republican, I would rename the position to Poet in National Residence or some such nonsense), but of all poets, Carol Ann Duffy is the least likely to be seen as a 'shoe-in'. Her poetry covers a wide range and has been studied in schools for years. She writes political poetry, descriptive poetry, and emotional poetry. She may not be the most charismatic of speakers but is this not a triumph of substance over celebrity culture? I suspect the appointment of Roger McGough (fine though he is in his own way) would not have ticked that particular box. And Simon Armitage, whose work I admire greatly, is a little too Hughesian, and, dare I say it, a little too good looking.

I notice that you have not commented on the recent reports that Blair allegedly blocked CAD's appointment on account of her sexuality. Whether this is true or not, what are your thoughts?

The appointment of the Laureate has always been pre-hyped and contentious, that is its nature. I respect the fact that you are playing Devil's Advocate on this issue but think that, unlike those who saw this coming and celebrate it as a step forward, you are not onto a winner.

I'd get rid of the some such nonsense bit - it expands the responsibilities of the role into ill-defined territory.

It's not as though a donkey won the Grand National, is it?

The thing is that if a donkey won the grand national people would say 'isn't that fantastic. What a wonderful achievement.'

With CAD being appointed laureate there is a reaction of 'yeah, she's OK. It was a woman's turn; doesn't read very well does she?', etc. That does no favours for poetry at all.

When she compounds the problem by saying that it was an appointment for all women rather than being on her merit she confirms beliefs that she was appointed as a woman and not a poet.

This is the paradox of all campaigning based on the achievement of fairness. It doesn't matter whether it is about gender, sexual preference, disability or anything else.

It is wrong when women are discriminated against or excluded or treated as something other than fully human. Those disgraceful attitudes should be opposed and resisted all the time and progress is being achieved although it is slower than it should be.

Andrew Motion may have done some good for poetry, in an academic sense, by setting up the archive, but in terms of what he did himself, poetically, during his ten years he is eminently forgettable.The positive thing he will have going for him is that it will never be considered that he was chosen because he was a man although it may be said that he was an easy choice because he was not gay.

CAD has achieved quite a lot as a poet and I hope she continues to do so, but the greatest likelihood is that her laureateship will be considered to be the time when a woman was due the job.

That does nothing at all for poetry and it may be a minor setback in progress towards a society that no longer discrimates against or in favour of people for irrelevant reasons.

Moxy, that line is absolutely priceless, and so beautifully irreverent and un-PC. I wish I'd said it.
Regards,
A.E.

Siren, if you are asking me if I take issue with CAD's sexuality, no. Neither do I have a problem with that fact she's a woman. I just get rather disappointed when people in the public eye are made light of because of superficial crap. Very much like I think it was a very sad statement that the press made such a big deal over obama being the first black president. You see it is by pointing out these supposed 'differences' that societies support discrimination/racism/sexism/homophobia. I think that CAD's tenure as laureate will be marred because it was pointed out that she was a woman.

Leaving that polictical stuff aside though, I do think that her peotry interests me. Granted I haven't read any of her stuff in over 3 years but what I have read has been rather boring.

Oh and as we seem to have hi-jacked this topic I have started a new one.....Poet Laureate, still relavent?

Siren, you certainly pressed a 'buzz' button.It is a question I would never even have conceived, which point clearly indicates my position: a poet is a poet is a poet. However, since it has been asked, I have thought about it. I believe that strong women are ruthless in the honesty of their observations, and that they can wield a pen like a sword. They welcome constructive criticism because their highest aim is to communicate straight to the head and the heart simultaneously. Whether they use this mental clarity and emotive skill with words is a personal choice. Why do clever women hold back their innate powerful tools?

An interesting re-framing of the question, Cynthia. I'm not sure that women are more sensitive, or emotionally sophisticated than men, but society does still allow them to be so. I am hurt when people criticize my work, but I have aggression conditioned into me. I have been interpellated since childhood to be 'strong', or at least to appear so. In these 'post-feminist' days, I am still not ever called the equivalent of a 'bitch' when I attack. Men always have the fall-back position of attacking (critiquing, deconstructing, whatever) a woman's gender rather than her work. Until such terms are obsolete, women will still be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. Masculine values, whether right or wrong, are still the default position in so many areas.

I was once shamefaced by a question in a reading, when I'd mentioned all the male poets who had influenced me but none of the female poets. So someone asked which women poets I was influenced by. I quickly came out with some names.

I am, of course, influenced by lots of writers all the time. Which is as it should be: anyone who claims not to be influenced is either a) a very bad poet b) lying or c) extremely rare. So here's my list of some women poets who have influenced me over the years, to redress the balance:

Elizabeth Bishop, Sylvia Plath, Geraldine Monk, Elaine Randall, Alice Notley, Deryn Rees-Jones, Barbara Guest, Anne Waldman, Wendy Mulford, Sandra Tappenden, Denise Levertov, Elizabeth Jennings, Elizabeth Barret Browning, Carol Watts, HD, Lorinne Neidecker, Veronica Forrest-Thomson, Denise Riley, Carol Anne Duffy, Mina Loy, Sheila E Murphy.

There are others, and if I think of any more names, I'll add to the list. And there are poets in there who no longer particularly influence me but did once. But heck, there are so many good women poets about, strong and deep and not at all soft.

Interesting range of comments in this discussion, but it prompts me to ask if people commenting here think that 'soft' means 'weak' or 'inferior' or has anyone considered that softness might be a positive thing?
Poetry has been so dominated by a male agenda until the late years of the twentieth century, that poetry is often praised for being 'virile' and 'muscular'.
I do not believe that 'soft' is the opposite to 'strong' any more than I think that aggression is a sign of strength.
I notice that men at live poetry events often use humour and swearing as if they need to assert that even though they are reading poetry they are still macho. As a venue settles down and poets get to know each other the noisy, funny rude stuff starts to be mixed with writing that is more personal and more sensitive. Women, on the other hand, having taken the decision to read live, often launch into the personal sensitive stuff without hesitation, although they often also produce some really funny and quite rude writing too.
Freda

Freda, excellent point/s and well-presented with your chosen examples

We also must now be semantically conscious of the meanings or 'rude, crude and lewd', and use them accordingly. I'm frequently torn between the clear meanings of the original words and the spin they suffer in current usage. But, language is a living entity, and if we want to communicate in the present, we must use the meanings of the present. But, sometimes, this 'submission' actually hurts.

Poetry shouldn't be preceded by any adjective.
Poetry cut with adjectives bulks the volume, lessens the effect.
Poetry is. Or it isn't.

Hmmm, moxy... I can of have to disagree sort of.

Because, however we might dislike the situation, it is. "Hyphenated poetry" is a reality, especially for those of us working the edges between mainstream and avant garde. (There you go: two hyphens already, that represent two very distinct ways of doing poetry.)

"Hyphens" like "black-poetry", "womens-poetry" etc may be annoying, but they do point out the invisibility of certain communities in poetry: if you look at most anthologies of the last 30 years, they're two-thirds male and one-third female on the whole.

"Mainstream poetry" - best current representative include Simon Armitage and Carol Anne Duffy likes to call itself "poetry" and everything else (like JH Prynne, say, or the sound poetry of Bob Cobbing) has a hyphen-poetry attached to it, as it were somehow inferior, rather than different.

Therefore, I propose that all mainstream poets are now prefixed by the letter M, for mainstream, middle-class, middle-of-the-road, take your pick really. As in the phrase, "leading M-poet Carol Anne Duffy has today accepted the post as M-Poet Laureate."

Dilutions! Tinctures! Homeopathetic fallacies! Branding! Ghettoisation! Hyphenated poetry is only a reality because you (in the broader sense of 'you' obviously) make it so. Divisions and boundaries give ammunition to those who would claim that text/prose is being promoted as 'poetry' simply because of the demographic producing it, and outside that defining adjective it would fail to make the grade.
Foll de roll.

Ideally, moxy, it wouldn't matter. We'd all live happily together on the same boat.

But the world of major publishing and reviewing is completely sewn-up by m-poetry. You just have to look at the Guardian Review pages. The current BBC poetry season is basically about a lot of dead m-poets like Ted Hughes, Sylvia Plath. WH Auden etc, often presented by leading m-poets like Roger McGough and Owen Sheers.

All very nice and cosy. Any chance of anyone tackling the history of British modernist poetry (and I don't mean T S Elliot?) Basil Bunting anyone? Roy Fisher? ("Birmingham's What I Think With" is and excellant film made by Tom Pickard about Fisher.)

Something more challenging than cosy fireside chats with Betjemen perhaps?

Experimental poetry operates under different rules than m-poetry. It can be dismissed as rubbish precisely because it isn't mainstream, because it does things and is things that mainstream poets never imagines. It mixes voices and registers, it doesn't follow "logical" narrative threads (or not for very long), it mixes sounds and meanings sometimes with a restless ambition and abandon, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But one thing it's not is "mainstream" (not in this country, though anywhere else, it's a different story...)

It's not all the same. You can't judge experimental poetry by the same standards as you do m-poetry, anymore than you compare the works of Stockhausen with those of Britteny Spears.

Major publishing obviously caters to major interest. To complain about that is just as daft as believing that you are conducting 'experiments' when you throw words together in incoherent ways.

The twaddle that Stephen wants to call avant garde, modernist, late modern and his other terms is an area of activity that has little to do with what most people regard as poetry. He can call it poetry and will have his associates, but the rest of us needn't bother about it.

It is a quite different issue from whether it is right to generalise about the characteristics of poets by gender ethnicity or whatever other personal attribute.

We have just seen the sad spectacle of the Oxford Professor of poetry election being sullied by an anonymous campaign against Derek Walcott. Whether Walcott is a sex pest or not, the result has been that Ruth Padel has acquired a post in a way that is horribly tainted. This is the consequence of bringing gender politics into poetry.

It is time to stop it.

Says the guy who goes on about Eliot and Pounds anti-semitism?

I wouldn't categorise them as anti-semite poets.

What I actually go on about is the inclusion of their vile politics and bigotry in their writing and then their modern followers removing or ignoring its worst elements so that they can continue to promote their work without too much criticism The problem is that it is no longer their work when they have done this.

I am not attacking the individuals because they were flawed. That would exclude all of us wouldn't it?

I am happy to celebrate those unedited works which do not contain revolting bigotry. As I have said before, Old Possum's Practical Cats contains some very good stuff which I enjoy.

No-one ignores either Eliot's or Pound's "vile politics", Mal. As for it entering their poetry, it largely doesn't except for some passages in the Cantos and some minor Eliot poems.

Eliot, in fact, is not a particularly big influence on contemprary Modernist poetry, and Charles Olson and William Carlos Williams are a bigger influence on contemporary modernist poetry than any direct influence from Pound. In fact, Louis Zukovsky and George Oppen (Jewish Socialists as they were) get a lot more attention than Pound and Eliot. Eliot, in fact, was accused by Williams of sending poetry back to the classroom!

And if you've never heard of them, then go and find out, because at the moment your ignorance of the history of modernism is woeful.

Modernism was always bigger than the star names that get trotted out ad infinitum as if it were only a little provincial complaint.

Actually, with regard to the Oxford Professor of Poetry debacle, I have to say that I sympathise with both sides. Walcott is a great m-poet, as is Ruth Padel, and I don't think a situation where he gives a few lectures a year is going to put any female students at risk (besides he wouldn't, hopefully, get away with it now.)

It was an underhanded way to spoil his chances, but I don't think Ruth had anything to do with it. Neither do I think it's "political correctness" that's at fault here. It's spite.

But I also feel sorry for the female students that had him as a professor!

I am not interested in modernism or its history. I have seen too much of its current results.

We don't know who was responsible for the anonymous smear in the Oxford professorship campaign so we can't include or exclude anybody. What we do know is that poetry has been damaged by gender politics and that is part of what comes from obsessions about what women poets are or are not.

Of course ou don't, mal, you'd much rather remain ignorant, wouldn't you? Makes for a nice safe life...

Nothing better than a nice shag pile on the stairs, makes for a really soft landing.

Ruth Pedel resigns. Probably inevitable.

Let us now have an election that is about poetry.

Don't bet on it. Ambition, back-biting and non-poetical stuff have always been part of poetry. 'Tis the same the whole world over. There's no such thing as "just poetry."

Go and give them a lecture Steven on m-poets and the history of modernism. That will help their deliberations.

Okay so I have to ask this. Most of us here on this website consider ourselves 'Poets', we constantly spout of our own opinions and always seem to second guess our audiences. This leads me to question if the audience for M-Poetry actually do hold the opinions that some of us claim they do. Lately, I've been looking at review copies of certain poetry collections and I must say that whilst the classicist in me would like to see what I've considered to be 'traditional' poetry on follow through and looking at books sales thus far (or at least the numbers that the various houses let on) it seems to me that there is equal representation of both 'traditional' and the more free forms of poetry. However, it would seem that the larger section of those are produced by women.

The point in all this? It would seem to me that the question is a moot point. According to one publishing house representative I recently spoke to: 'a high portion of our demographic is female'. So if more females are buying, does it really matter if they are softer? The book-shop customers aren't going to think much of it are they?

So is the real question, Are female poetry readers softer in their taste?

I think male poets should write more stuff themed on distinctly male obsessions ... such as spanners, crisps, real ale, football, farting, sexual intercourse ...and how so few women have a proper sense of humour.

PS Martin Nelson is, I know for a fact, a Young Conservative. Does that make him a Softy Walter?

The only living British poet who sells poetry in any real volume is Pam Ayres.

Oh by the way Pam Ayres is from Oxfordshire and since Ruth Padel insists that her successor should be a woman perhaps she is the obvious choice. Her lectures might even be more gripping than Steven's.

I may be a conservative, I may be young, but I am NOT a Young Conservative, I wouldn't associate myself with that particular group.

That said this question really becomes are females softer doesn't it? I mean it's not just female poets, if it is mostly women that publishing houses try to sell to. In which case no party (males or females) can really judge and answer the question objectively. Even so, does it matter if women are softer (poets) than men? Surely there's a place for both schools of thought as well as those that 'break the mould'?

Pam Ayres for Poetry Professorship - the campaign starts here!

Be careful what you wish for Paul!
Cx

Softer than what/who/which?

I'd just like to say this. I'm thankful that, in the main, women poets aren't stuck in the same dreary groove as so many women song writers are...namely this ...

Themes for women song-writers ...

1. Men are awful

2. My man doesn't understand /appreciate me

3. Errr, that's it...

It's SOOO BORING!

Now, I come from a journalistic and column-writing background, and the best newspaper columnists of the past 30 years, in my view, have all been women ... Julie Burchill, Germaine Greer and Mary Kenny.

But why are so many women song-writers so dull and whining in comparison (like Dido) and so stuck in the "we hate men" groove.

I speak as a true feminist - as all good men must be - because we don't want to hang around with, or collaborate with, moaning, men-hating women. We prefer REAL WOMEN.
What's so hard to understand about that?

Just thought I would say that I like CAD's first poem as laureate.

Oh dear – not sure I can agree totally with all you say Steve (Regan). I think music largely mirrors poetry. Very many female poets are driven by their emotions because that is a female trait and not one that we should be ashamed of. Some may try to mask it because they know that to swim with the big boys they need to be funny, cutting edge, whatever, but in the main, many do draw on emotional experience. The fact that they haven’t always posted it doesn’t mean to say that they haven’t written it.
The fact that many males are able to separate the emotional from the physical far more successfully than women, will always lead to the tension, disappointment and the ‘blues’ that come out in feminine poetry and music.
My favourite of all your poems Steve is 'Love and Hate'. It is a rare example of love expressed by a man, and so, more worthy of comment. You are probably secretly relieved that I say ‘rare’ because it is just so un-cool for men to show emotion. Take Tom Cruise’s jumping on the couch episode – just think how pilloried he was for that…
I’m no music expert but do know that Dido writes better about love than love lost (‘And I I’m so in love with you….’) Maybe you were thinking of Duffy or Anastasia who do sing the blues. But you should listen to Duffy’s ‘Oh Boy’ song – it is rather lovely. It is far easier to write poems about sad subjects than happy and I think the same would apply to males and females – hence poets, song writers will concentrate on the love lost.
I do think that men also write songs about love and love lost. The greatest example of all must surely be ‘Why why why Delilah?’ – though I can’t imagine any woman stabbing the lover that let her down – can you? A subtle difference between the sexes maybe.
I do take your point that effort should be made to vary subject matter though – it is rather tedious for the reader otherwise. However in the record industry – the music still sells – so the audience must dictate the market...

Ahh, but isn't that the rub? The music industry is considered 'Mainstream' however poetry is not. In fact even the BBC's 'poetry season' on TV has failed. Given that none of the Poetry Programmes have made the top 30 for either and the tiny number of views that the 30th place shows get, we can realistically sum up that it is less than 3% of the TV watching public is interested in Poetry Programmes. Add to this the fact that one walk into many high street bookstores yield depressingly poor results when one looks for poetry books.

So whilst music sells, poetry simply does not. Which to me singal the fact that with poetry at least, we are not giving the market what they want!

Hmmm. I think I posted an overly simplistic point about women songwriters, and probably meant to be a bit provocative, but I stick to its main thrust - far too many women singer songwriters are stuck in a "aren't men awful?" groove, and that is boring.Male songwriters, just don't do that (or at least not very often).

Isobel, I love your poems, but I don't really buy into the myth that men don't write well about / explore emotions.

Let's leave aside poetry for a moment (it's such a minority thing - though on a fundamental level VERY important to a majority of people).

In terms of song-writing the best, the most emotionally profound singer-songwriter in the UK is Roddy Frame - a man! That's why so many emotionally intelligent men, and women, love his stuff.

It's not a gender competition, of course, but emotion, and all the things that make life a s a human so fascinating and difficult, have been very well expressed by men, and women, in literature and song-writing.

As far as novelists go, I think anyone would find it difficult to find a novel as emotionally senstive as "Notes from an Exhibition" by Patrick Gale - a man.

May be it's just because I am a man, and I absolutely KNOW men to be (contrary to popular belief) very sensitive, that I think the gender divide is interesting, artistically. Though not, fundamentally, that important.

I think we will probably meet half way on this one Steve. I was also being provocative and didn’t totally think out my response. I am well aware that many men (particularly poets) are in touch with their emotions – interestingly enough, I think this is also described as being in touch with their ‘feminine self’. Perhaps it is more a question of degree and the control of those emotions – they do harness and hide them far better than women. On the whole, male poets write more about raw sex, politics, random experiences; in fact, I can’t remember reading any political stuff on here by a woman. When a woman writes about raw sex without love, somehow it fails for me – something missing… It’s like they are taking the men on but it’s not really them.
Female poets are probably on the whole brighter than song writers - they want to be read, respected and understand that to do that they have to diversify and exercise some control over emotion.
I should really never have got into a discussion on the music industry cos I know very little about it – shall go on line and research Roddy Frame – will likewise try to read Notes From An Exhibition.
It was an interesting point that Martin made about poetry sales – I don’t think that we would change the market much by writing more love poetry though. The problem seems to be that the masses aren’t interested in the written word anymore. Perhaps only poets are listening to the words and the rest are just tapping their feet…

Yeah, you're right, don't see many political poems posted by women, but then again I hardly get beyond the first stanza of the political ones written by men. Some of them are juvenile rants. In some ways, I think poetry should be above politics, but that's just the way I see it.

But I'm really, really glad that both men and women are 'into' poetry .. .even if the emotional / psychological,/ spiritual slant of the output is different between genders (though that is a generalisation).

Can't remember exactly what Martin was saying about poetry not being commercial, but I'm guessing he's broadly right - it isn't, compared to pop music.

But then which poet worth his or her salt would want to be compared to a pop music (or crap modern R&B) bubblehead?!

Let's stay poor - and pure!

Yippeeee - I think we are in total agreement now - political poetry just doesn't do it for me either. I can see that some of it is really clever but it doesn't move me - you might as well just go out and read a manifesto...but that's probably a discussion blog in itself. I'm done now - definitely don't want to get into talking politics LOL x