FEMINIST POETS

Does anyone out there read or collect
any Feminist Poets like Emily Dickinson,
Carol Rumens, Marge Piercy, Adrienne
Rich, etc?

Librarianwannabe

Can you define "feminist Poet" that would include poets as diverse as Emily Dickinson & Adrienne Rich? I read & enjoy both poets, but Emily Dickinson, doesn't write from the 20th century feminist point of view that Adrienne Rich, Denise Levertov, Diane Wakoski,Anne Sexton & others do.

A woman who writes poetry isn't necessarily a "feminist" poet

Many years ago, I took a course on "Feminist " poetry & I remember how the point was made that Edna St. Vincent Milay might be considered a "good" poet, but not a feminist.

I didn't say they had to write from a
20th Century Feminist Point of view.
I guess it's what other people or maybe
even the Book Stores label them as being
Feminist Poets or maybe they even called
themselves a Feminist Poet.

Librarianwannabe

Off the top of my head, I would define feminist poetry as that which is by and about women challenging and overcoming oppressive gender roles... or addressing the injustices suffered by women or... perhaps poetry that is informed by the sensibility that the sexes are equal...

However, I would not define feminist poetry as that which merely articulates "women's concerns in the general sense".

Based on my own definition, I would say I have a fairly decent collection of what I'd call feminist poetry; however, it is not separated out from all of my other poetry:-)

I read the poets you are looking for here. It is an interesting discussion you are having, it is the kind that make me hear "feminist" as a taboo word once whispered at the tables in the corners of dimly lit bars.

I like the discussion, nothing wrong with what anyone said, it just put me in the mood for something like this:

Her Kind by Anne Sexton

I have gone out, a possessed witch,
haunting the black air, braver at night;
dreaming evil, I have done my hitch
over the plain houses, light by light:
lonely thing, twelve-fingered, out of mind.
A woman like that is not a woman, quite.
I have been her kind.

I have found the warm caves in the woods,
filled them with skillets, carvings, shelves,
closets, silks, innumerable goods;
fixed the suppers for the worms and the elves:
whining, rearranging the disaligned.
A woman like that is misunderstood.
I have been her kind.

I have ridden in your cart, driver,
waved my nude arms at villages going by,
learning the last bright routes, survivor
where your flames still bite my thigh
and my ribs crack where your wheels wind.
A woman like that is not ashamed to die.
I have been her kind.

(Hope you don't think I'm too weird. Just free associating with what I read)

"Can you define "feminist Poet" that would include poets as diverse as Emily Dickinson & Adrienne Rich? I read & enjoy both poets, but Emily Dickinson, doesn't write from the 20th century feminist point of view that Adrienne Rich, Denise Levertov, Diane Wakoski,Anne Sexton & others do.

"A woman who writes poetry isn't necessarily a 'feminist' poet neither is a "feminist" necessarily a woman

"Many years ago, I took a course on 'Feminist' poetry & I remember how the point was made that Edna St. Vincent Milay might be considered a 'good' poet, but not a feminist."

I agree with nearly all of that except one statement (and what pray tell is wrong with not being a "feminist"?):

Denise Levertov expressly denied being a "feminist poet" or writing from a "feminist point of view" -- as vociferously as she denied being a "woman/'s writer". She was a poet, not an ideologue, and not endeavoring to exploit poetry as a vehicle by means of which to advance ideology.

And why would she limit her audience by claiming to be a "woman/'s writer" when her poetry appeals to all poetry lovers without regard to genital configuration?

African-American poet Robert Hayden made the same point during the '60s when the Black Power crowd endeavored to pressure him into writing "black" poetry in support of "the movement" -- and even earlier (1948) --

". . . . as writers who belong to a so-called minority we are violently opposed to having our work viewed, as the custom is, entirely in the light of sociology and politics

"to having it overpraised on the one hand by those with an axe to grind or with a conscience to salve

"to having it misinterpreted on the other hand by coterie editors, reviewers, and anthologists who refuse us encouragement or critical guidance because we deal with realities we find it neither possible nor desirable to ignore . . . ."*

*"Counterpoise," in Collected Prose (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, "Poets on Poetry," 1984), Robert Hayden, Edited by Frederick Glaysher, Foreword by William Meredith, pp. 41-42.

Why should a poet who happens to be African-American limit his audience to African-American-only? That isn't poetry, or even about poetry; it's about ideology.

For Levertov's view on these points see her essay "Gender and Genre vs. Serving an Art," New & Selected Essays (NY: New Directions, 1992), pp. 102-103; and the interview "Feminism, Poetry, and the Church," Nancy K. Gish (1990), in Conversations with Denise Levertov (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, "Literary Conversations Series," 1998), Edited by Jewel Spears Brooker, pp. 171-181.

I'm new here, so perhaps I should take more time before plunging in, but these posts touch upon three of my passions - poetry, feminism and politics - so I just can't help myself. I don't think it's quite fair to separate poetry from politics and thus, from feminism, in quite the way that is indicated by some of the writers here. There are plenty of poets who write specifically political poetry, for instance, Adrienne Rich, Maxine Kumin,Margaret Atwoood,Martin Espada,Wilfred Owens,Siegfried Sassoon,Pablo Neruda,Anna Akmatova,Csesloz Mirlosovic - gee, clearly I could go on forever. Perhaps some of those would reject the idea of being labelled as "political poets" as being unnecessarily limiting, but not all of them and, in any case, not every poem of these writers is expressly political. In some sense, it's probably hard to think of a poet who isn't political, but perhaps that casts the net of "political" too widely. The same would be the case for "feminist poet". There are some. Bronwen Wallace and Adrienne Rich are just two examples among many. And then there are poets who may not care to accept the label of "feminist", but whose works are of great interest to feminists, such as Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Elizabeth Bishop and, once again, I could go on. Dorothy Livesay was a Canadian poet who quite expressly wrote political poetry and had a "politics of engagement"; but that doesn't mean she limited herself to that poetry. Surely, as poets, we cast our nets far and wide and can be described in many, many ways. Besides, as a reader of poetry, I can categorize a poet in a way that makes sense to me, even if the writer of the poetry would disagree. Once the poem is written, it is sent out into the world and becomes something different and quite variable, as a child does.

#7--

"I'm new here, so perhaps I should take more time before plunging in, but these posts touch upon three of my passions - poetry, feminism and politics - so I just can't help myself. I don't think it's quite fair to separate poetry from politics and thus, from feminism, in quite the way that is indicated by some of the writers here."

It isn't a matter of "fairness"; it's a matter of aesthetics. As another said: "Art doesn't uphold views."

And what is "quite the way," and which "writers here"?

"There are plenty of poets who write specifically political poetry, for instance, Adrienne Rich, Maxine Kumin, Margaret Atwoood, Martin Espada, Wilfred Owens, Siegfried Sassoon, Pablo Neruda, Anna Akmatova, Csesloz Mirlosovic - gee, clearly I could go on forever.

I believe you mean "Wilfred Owen" and "Czeslaw Milosz". Melosovic was a non-poet and politician who was found guilty of war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia.

Mmm . . . but you don't mention Levertov, who was probably the most overtly political (woman) poet of her generation -- and was certainly that before some of those you name.

Nor do you mention the fact that there have been (and are) war-mongering right-wing poets who also write "political" poetry. Oops -- all of a sudden the politicization of poetry doesn't look so unproblematic afterall.

Otherwise, your point is? Oh, right: "politics" is subsumed in the all-encompassing "feminism," which is the only lense -- that being agreed upon as to shape and depth and design universally -- through which one can validly see the world, all other views being false-conscious because the spawn of "patriarchy".

"Perhaps some of those would reject the idea of being labelled as "political poets" as being unnecessarily limiting, but not all of them and, in any case, not every poem of these writers is expressly political."

That's an interestingly inconsistent -- even incoherent -- twisting-in-the-wind effort to both pretend to allow the rejection of labels, but actually to implicitly reject that rejection.

Levertov would never deny being a "political" poet. However, she EXPRESSLY denied being a "woman writer" or a "feminist writer". In other words, she was able to separate the three, instead of being trapped in an inapplicable conflation and reductive distortion.

"In some sense, it's probably hard to think of a poet who isn't political, but perhaps that casts the net of "political" too widely."

"In some sense" -- in which sense is that? refusal to think otherwise? How do I break the news that not everything is "political"?

Otherwise, we wouldn't want to cast the net "political" so widely that it became too large to be subsumed in the all-encompassing "feminism".

"The same would be the case for "feminist poet". There are some.

Who defines "feminist" for all the rest of us? Who forbids us disagreeing with that definition?

Bronwen Wallace and Adrienne Rich are just two examples among many. And then there are poets who may not care to accept the label of "feminist", but whose works are of great interest to feminists, such as Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Elizabeth Bishop and, once again, I could go on."

Yes, yes, yes. And their circumstances were exclusively negative, and all those negatives were the fault of the "patriarchy".

To be an adult one must finally cease blaming everyone else -- or some abstract invisble "patriarchy" which exists only in rhetoric -- for one's circumstances (at least as concerns Plath and Sexton, who came from better-than-average economic circumstances).

Get a clue: there is no one single "point of view" that is "feminist". Therefore, there is no single ideological measure against which to measure poets (or anyone else), and thereby determine whether they are loyal to "the" ideology or traitors to "it". Whether they are "with us" or "against us".

"Dorothy Livesay was a Canadian poet who quite expressly wrote political poetry and had a "politics of engagement"; but that doesn't mean she limited herself to that poetry."

Nor does being female + political necessarily = feminist.

"Surely, as poets, we cast our nets far and wide and can be described in many, many ways."

Oh, yes, let's pretend matters are so vague that "anything goes" (except, of course, the evil "patriarchy").

"Besides, as a reader of poetry, I can categorize a poet in a way that makes sense to me, even if the writer of the poetry would disagree."

Yes, anyone can be imperious/imperialist. A bully imposing their views on others and everything else. See the clueless Gish (full citation below) endeavor to do that with Levertov -- endeavor to tell Levertov what Levertov meant in a particular piece of writing -- but pay attention to the human -- not ideological -- responses Levertov gave.

And when that writer is correct, and you are not? You oppress with your all-inclusive "category" nonetheless?

"Once the poem is written, it is sent out into the world and becomes something different and quite variable, as a child does."

But if it then becomes -- as you imply ("I can do anything I want!") the "property" of more than it's writer, then it becomes the property of the world (after copyright runs out), not of this or that narrow political view or political movement. See Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun for an example of a book that has been seized, depending on the times, by both the right and the left and used as an ideological weapon against the other.

Ultimately you are insisting upon a "right" to "variably" interpret a writer's writing to such degree that it really has no meaning -- at least not one worth respecting -- in order to find a way to get it to fit your "feminism-is-only-one-legitimate-point-of-view--mine".

It's rather arrogant to insist one's interpretation of a piece of writing, though at variance with the writer's, is nonetheless more correct than the writer's.

Denise Levertov repeatedly made the aesthetic point, from at latest 1961, through to at least 1990, of not using art as a vehicle for politics or ideology; and she did that both outside politics, and within the context of "discussion" with "feminists" who insist upon smothering everything and everyone under the lock-step of their only-my-view-of-feminism-is-valid ideology.

For Levertov's view on these points see her essay "Gender and Genre vs. Serving an Art," New & Selected Essays (NY: New Directions, 1992), pp. 102-103*; and the interview "Feminism, Poetry, and the Church," Nancy K. Gish (1990), in Conversations with Denise Levertov (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, "Literary Conversations Series," 1998), Edited by Jewel Spears Brooker, pp. 171-181.

*If you can't be bothered, then I'll post it, so Levertov can make the point as explicit as she does for herself.

Some might disagree about the following being a feminist poem. I see it as such since by taking joy in one's self and understanding the power of being a woman is part of being free.

PHENOMENAL WOMAN
by Maya Angelou

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies
I'm not cute or built to suit a model's fashion size
But when I start to tell them
They think I'm telling lies.
I say
It's in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips
The stride of my steps
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please
And to a man
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees
Then they swarm around me
A hive of honey bees.
I say
It's the fire in my eyes
And the flash of my teeth
The swing of my waist
And the joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can't see.
I say
It's in the arch of my back
The sun of my smile
The ride of my breasts
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say
It's in the click of my heels
The bend of my hair
The palm of my hand
The need for my care.
'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

I think we need more words. I think if you say "feminist poet" people are going to assume you mean one of

1. a poet who has a feminist "poetic project"
2. a poet who happens to be a feminist

even if you only mean

3. a poet who has inspired a lot of feminists
4. a poet who sometimes writes feminist poems

And then the phrase "feminist poems" could be
1a. poems with feminist intent
2a. poems by someone who happens to be feminist
3a. poems that inspire feminists, i.e. that they have a feminist effect in culture.

There is a tendency to collapse all of these into the same thing, but they're not. My tendency as of 6:13 pm CST is to prefer the specific meanings of meanings 1 and 1a. Anything further may be seen as reductionist, possibly even insulting, as when all poets who are female, gay, African American, etc. are seen only for those attributes even though they might be interested in writing about something very different. (I think it is quite possible that these could flavor one's experiences, but I'd be annoyed if I were always defined by my shoe size or something.)

on the subject of feminist poets
this one came to mind

Ego Tripping

Nikki Giovanni (1973)

I was born in the Congo.
I walked to the Fertile Crescent and built the sphinx.
I designed a pyramid so tough that a star
that only glows every one hundred years falls
into the center giving divine perfect light.

I am bad.

I sat on the throne
drinking nectar with Allah.
I got hot and sent an ice age to Europe
to cool my thirst.
My oldest daughter is Nefertiti.
The tears from my birth pains
created the Nile.

I am a beautiful woman.

I gazed on the forest and burned
out the Sahara desert.
With a packet of goat's meat
and a change of clothes,
I crossed it in two hours.
I am a gazelle so swift,
so swift you can't catch me.

For a birthday present when he was three,
I gave my son Hannibal an elephant.
He gave me Rome for mother's day.

My strength flows ever on.

My son Noah built an ark and
I stood proudly at the helm
as we sailed on a soft summer day.
I turned myself into myself and was Jesus.

Men intone my loving name.
All praises all praises,
I am the one who would save.

I sowed diamonds in my back yard.
My bowels deliver uranium.
The filings from my fingernails are
semi-precious jewels.

On a trip north,
I caught a cold and blew
my nose giving oil to the Arab world.
I am so hip even my errors are correct.
I sailed west to reach east and had to round off
the earth as I went.
The hair from my head thinned and gold was laid
across three continents.

I am so perfect so divine so ethereal so surreal.
I cannot be comprehended except by my permission.
I mean...I...can fly
like a bird in the sky...

Edna St. Vincent Millay considered herself a feminist, so I'd be interested in hearing why she isn't one.

When Edna St. Vincent Millay died in Oct. 1950, the term "Feminist" was not in use. Throughout her career, Millay was involved in political causes, including trying to stay the execution of Sacco & Vanzetti in 1927. As an anti=fascist, she wrote propaganda poetry during the WW2 years,which, unfortunately diminishedf her reputation as a poet. Her "Bohemian" life style (to use the 1920's term) might well have been called "Feminist" in the years after her death. But the society she lived & wrote in was not the same society of the feminist poets of the 1960's, 1970's et.al. Women had been granted the right to vote in her lifetime. But, in the 1920's, the "prohibition" law made the use & sale of alcohol illegal. Poets & Writers are at least partly, products of their time. From their writings, we can guess that poets like Emily Dickinson, Helen Hunt Jackson, Sara Teasdale might have felt a common bond with feminism but they struggled with the problems of their times, not of ours.

I am sort of quoting from the introduction of
Edna St. Vincent Millay, Selected Poems The library of classic poets series.

#9 --

What does "free" mean? Some right-wing "Libertarian"/"anarchist" I'm "independent"/no one need respect others differences/boundaries?

Is any of that actually true? Does it only matter that you agree with it -- or it agrees with you? Is that all there is?

#10 --

Robert Hayden is a wonderful poet. His topics tend to be painful -- they are about the history of slavery in this country. He was African-American, and it was his history. But he was writing from his individual historical/cultural experience. "Write about what you know."

During the 1960s, he was pressured by the Black Power/"Separatist" movement/s to be a "Black" poet -- ideological. Only represent that/those movement/s. But he was a poet; ideology, color -- none of that was what he was about. He was about essential . . . "truths," in the way that poets are.

"Art does not uphold views."

He wasn't a "Black" poet doing "Black". And he refused to be that. He was a poet. I dare you to attempt to resist his tenderness.

Levertov refused to belong to or be co-opted by this or that "school" or ideology. (There are cliques which endeavor to dragoon her -- and Emily Dickinson -- for reasons false or irrelevant. In fact, there are lesbian cliques that attempt to dragoon Levertov -- even though Levertov was without question heterosexual. For some, ideology, and any lie that will advance that, is all that matters. Diversity is one thing; lying is something else altogether.)

One can argue about whether she was ideological against war -- probably was. But note that that does not make one's sex central -- while -- especially -- accusing the opposite sex -- as constantly do "feminists" -- of only jabbering about sex.

The hypocrisy -- the sexist double-standards preserved and acted upon by "feminists" who simultaneously denounce "sexist" double-standards in the opposite sex (males) -- is beyond tiresome. It has gone on for decades. I can be stupid -- and a trusting, vulnerable sucker. Or I can avoid all the viciously brutal nastiness which currently claims to be "feminism" but in reality is out-and-out bigotry.

Next time one knee-jerk-presumes to sling the personal attack "mysoginist" stop yourself and contemplate: mysandry.

No hate is justified -- especially that of those who routinely preach against hatred (while pointing the finger away from themselves in that regard).

I'm about human rights. That includes equality also for women. "Feminists" bitch against that position because it isn't ONLY about WOMEN.

#12 --

If I were to consider myself a fascist I would be incorrect. Is being the equivalent of a whore -- sex is all it's about, even though only men believe that, even though Millay made no bones about that actually being the central focus of her so-called "feminism" -- the same as being a "feminist"?

(Correction: the term "feminist" did not exist during Millay's time. So how do you manufacture your view?)

Why do those who denounce sex as being made central ONLY make sex central?

Is this too subtle for you?

#13 --

Exactly right.

Professional historians use the term "presentism" for when "standards" of today are applied to past times, when those standards did not obtain. An example with which I have decades of confrontation is the NRA "grammatical analysis" of the language of the Constitution (forced toward their preferred meaning of the Second Amendment) -- ignoring or being ignorant of the fact that at the time the Constitution (and thereafter Bill of Rights) was ratified there wasn't a "standard" spelling, let alone a "standard" grammar.

It becomes ideological -- and imperial/ist -- when one imposes/reads in what one wants to have been the reality when it wasn't. At that point one must begin to pay attention to oneself -- are you doing that of which you are accusing everyone else -- but yourself -- of doing?

I don't defend the tradition -- "God" forbid. But the tradition is this:

Males are thrown away in wars -- sperm is "a dime a dozen" -- hundreds of millions in a single ejaculation; eggs -- female -- are one per month -- in order that women and little ones -- they being the future beyond the amount of time it takes to make a pregnancy -- be protected. That women and little ones survive. There was a time when women understood that that was the reality. They actually respected the male's willingness to die for that future.

Today they don't begin to comprehend -- let alone RESPECT -- that reality.

Is there something else for which a male should live? Bystander is the sum of the male's relation to the human race -- women and little ones are central. And yet we males need to be lectured by those who are central about how males aren't central? When "feminists" have a grasp of those basics -- and respect males based upon those basics -- then I'll believe the "feminist" is more than a femocentric narcissist -- a bigot.

I don't argue that that should be the reality - "God" no, I'm a male. But if one WANTS -- let alone DEMANDS -- respect, one had better be ready to deal with reality, and therefore deal in MUTUAL respect. A MUTUAL respect not defined solely by and on the terms of "feminist" self-importance that leaves everyone else out if not "correctly" "feminiist".

Beginning, of course, with #1 suspect: everyone not female.

I revere women. Women's view of males? Groundless universalized distrust and contempt. No respect. But must be respected by males.

One puts women -- and dear little ones -- before oneself, and one gets kicked in the teeth. What ever happened to female "moral superiority"? What ever happened to decency -- which is so demanded of males? What ever happened to "doing unto others"?

#11 --

"Ego Tripping

"Nikki Giovanni (1973)

"I was born in the Congo.
I walked to the Fertile Crescent and built the sphinx.
I designed a pyramid so tough that a star
that only glows every one hundred years falls
into the center giving divine perfect light."

Is any of that true? Or is it a "self esteem" built upon a false foundation, therefore a groundless "self esteem"?

#4 --

"Off the top of my head, I would define feminist poetry as that which is by and about women challenging and overcoming oppressive gender roles... or addressing the injustices suffered by women or... perhaps poetry that is informed by the sensibility that the sexes are equal..."

Really? And when will these so-called "feminists" deal with the reality that so-called "gender-roles" also impose upon males, therefore that "gender roles" are not only "oppressive" of females? When they cease contemptuously believing they are superior to men, therefore oppressions which oppress men are irrelevant?

Until "feminists" begin talking about "fairness" and "justice" for all -- not only for women/themselves -- they will continue to be oppressive frauds.

No one is actually "independent" -- ego's illusions notwithstanding. Men have never been "independent" -- jealousy blinds those who ignore everything beyond themselves; jealously convinces itself of a disparity of difference, not of amount.

But I'll tell ya: If I'm to give a damn about your "oppression," while you couldn't care less about mine, then I won't give a damn about yours.

"Fair"?

#5 --

". . . . It is an interesting discussion you are having, it is the kind that make me hear "feminist" as a taboo word once whispered at the tables in the corners of dimly lit bars."

You're speculating about an imaginary past that didn't exist. I was for "equal rights for women" at least five years before the term "feminist" entered into it. And at least five years before the "victims" -- women -- cared about the issue. I think it came down, basically, to: Which side is my bread buttered on? From which view will I gain most?

Screw everyone but ME.

The problem with the term is that it limits "oppression" only to females/women. It is intolerant of all other realities. Being eligible for the draft during wartime is oppression. But we don't hear about that because that future-cancelling life-or-death oppression doesn't apply to women. So it's irrelevant.

Only "oppressions" that apply to women matter. Are men killed as result of being subject to the draft during wartime? Yes. But that doesn't matter, "feminists" say, because women are treated as second-class citizens.

Thing about that.

Think about the selfishness. The self-promotion -- by those who insist they are opposed to views which leave out anyone not of the view held.

Hello, "feminists"?

#10 --

"Feminist" means "I" exclusive of everyone else.

And what is the core "feminist" complaint? That this, that, or the other does "I" exclusive of everyone else.

#13 -- It's a bit too facile, I believe, to say a poet isn't a feminist simply because she wasn't writing in the late 20th century. If the problems feminism tries to address are common to all women, as they are, then the time period shouldn't matter. It comes down to whether a person believes in feminist principles, which I believe Millay did and tried to embody in her life. Otherwise, couldn't one argue she was more of a feminist simply because she had more barriers to overcome than women who came after her?

It was rare in Millay's time and place for a woman to make a living as a poet, but she did and she also helped support her family. Other famous women authors, good as they were, didn't have to make money because they came from more privileged backgrounds.

15: Yes, Hayden was one I specifically had in mind...

22: There is that, but there is also the case of presentism, as JN puts it. In the situation you describe I might call her a proto-feminist or a first-wave feminist; these are modern labels that maintain a degree of separation from the feminist groups of 1950-present. I have not read much Millay but I imagine you are thinking of a particular passage that suggests that would be appropriate.

JN: I think you are referring to the more radical feminists, who at times seem to be in the position of fundamentalist groups who say all of the mainline Christian groups are not *real* Christians. I don't agree with you in every detail, but I agree with you about equal rights, and that it's ridiculous to have the draft be so one-sided. And I think it's horrible how our culture expects such conformity from men as well. I do think it's silly to lift women up as morally superior or whatever, just as it's silly to act as though women can't act intelligently. If nothing else, I believe people have a freaking problem with bimodal distributions.

#9

PHENOMENAL WOMAN

free to be

Feminist poetry does not have to mean anything more than the right to be without being judged or under another's control.

The right to live with joy and know one does not have to endure physical, verbal, and/or psychological abuse by anyone.

Strangely, when one is asked to give an example of masculine poetry the examples often mention physical, verbal, and/or psychological abuse toward women or at the very least aggressive behavior in general.

She would have been worth meeting Phenomenally worth meeting.

#24 --

"Feminist poetry does not have to mean anything more than the right to be without being judged or under another's control."

Human rights apply that principle to all humans. "Feminists" couldn't care less about the part of the human race that isn't female.

"The right to live with joy and know one does not have to endure physical, verbal, and/or psychological abuse by anyone."

Does that apply to the male child of a mother in a fatherless home? Or is that reality -- those abuses of male by female -- unthinkable in your hypothetical universe?

Ever heard of "feminine wiles"? Those include means of violence -- not always defensive -- against those physically larger, as males tend to be. Those means tend NOT to be physical; which means they are most often verbal inflictions of emotional and psychological pain.

"Strangely, when one is asked to give an example of masculine poetry the examples often mention physical, verbal, and/or psychological abuse toward women or at the very least aggressive behavior in general."

You give no examples. But refutations of your "rule" come readily to mind (and they are innumerable). As examples see Robert Hayden's "Night, Death, Mississippi," and, "Middle Passage". Are they about violence? Without question. Are the victims of the violence female ("women")?

Or see his, "The Whipping," which begins --

"The old woman across the way/is whipping the boy again/. . . ."

And then there is this, also from Robert Hayden:

Those Winter Sundays

Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he'd call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices?
_____

"No one ever thanked him."

"Feminism (n). 1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief." - American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed.

Public discourse tends to substitute "feminist" as a euphemism for "man-hater" and (shudder!) "lesbian." Each of these words has a distinct meaning. They are not synonymous.

If we can define what we mean by "feminist," then perhaps we can figure out what a "feminist poet" is. A feminist may or may not write about feminist concerns in any given poem.

Also, the way bookstores label (in every sense of that word) various authors has more to do with marketing than with cataloguing.

#27 --

"Public discourse tends to substitute "feminist" as a euphemism for "man-hater" and (shudder!) "lesbian." Each of these words has a distinct meaning. They are not synonymous."

I tend to speak directly to the unenlightened. Who tend to excess certitude. Who tend to be unreflectively smug, self-righteous.

Who tend approximately always to point their fingers of criticism, from the heights of Mount Perfection, away from themselves.

Who snort and scorn, because ridicule is so much easier than the expressed demand for universal compassion.

Spend a lot of time talking to yourself, do you?

#29 --

I recommend you read the entire thread BEFORE responding to any particular comment. In so doing you'd have learned that I, though a male, was vocally for "equal rights for women" for at least five years before it was a concern of WOMEN.

And those five years were before the term "feminism" came into use.

Now tell us how your unsubstantiated personal attack renders you superior to the reasoned critique of the readily observed. And to which readily observed I responded. Viz --

The vague generalization "public discourse," as quoted, is that of the smugly self-righteous unenlightened who, providing no substantiation for the assertion, points the finger of criticism away from her/himself at a nothing-in-particular abstract "public discourse".

None of which addresses, let alone refutes, any of the criticisms being avoided.

That irrational process, that deceit, is based upon a common fundamental mis- or lack of understanding -- and practice: that "liberation" means "exempt from responsibility". Thus the vague generalization "public discourse" is smeared in order to irresponsibly avoid, by irrational means, the original issue.

Now, as to that expressed demand for universal compassion . . .

My post wasn't directed at yours, J, but I can see why you might have thought so. Speaking of unfounded assertions (not to mention gross generalizations):

"'Feminists' couldn't care less about the part of the human race that isn't female."

Apparently, asking you to define your terms made you defensive.

Off to a troll-free zone now.

#31 --

"My post wasn't directed at yours, J,"

In view of the fact that it immediately followed mine, and you didn't indicate it applied to any other post, then it continues to be legitimate assumption that you did in fact direct it at mine.

The accuracy of that assumption is underscored by the nastiness of it -- the personal attack. Which, typically, when coming from a "feminist," is denied -- lied about -- by the "feminist" when confronted about it.

Which, further, signifies the lack of behavior-governing rules -- lack of ethics, and therefore lack of reflection/thoughtfulness -- the irresponsibility -- I've noted, and which is mistaken for "liberation".

(Don't get me wrong on that point: "feminists," "Libertarians," and others who don't understand fundamentals, falsely believe that rules of any kind, on the one hand, and on the other, "freedom," are enemies, rather than mutually-essential halves of a paradox. The point being: the Founders were for "ordered liberty": liberty within the law, not in spite of it.)

". . . but I can see why you might have thought so."

You can read my mind as to why I assume your comment was -- as detailed above -- properly assumed to be directed at mine/me? Then you again substantiate my criticisms of the blithe "feminist" "superiority". You assume you are to be offended, and you are self-righteously self-offended, even though you don't quite know why you are offended. But there are two possibilities:

1. You recognize yourself in my criticisms.

2. You can't answer or refute them, but aren't sufficiently self-aware or honest to admit that fact even to yourself.

"Speaking of unfounded assertions"

That based upon your superhuman ability to read minds -- despite not having the "definition of terms" you weren't actually seeking?

"(not to mention gross generalizations):

"'Feminists' couldn't care less about the part of the human race that isn't female."

"Apparently, asking you to define your terms made you defensive."
_____

Suggestion: "Not to mention" is a pointless phrase: if one is "not to mention," then one does not mention. It is essentially the same as, "Needless to say" -- if a thing is "needless to say" then one doesn't say it.
_____

Except that you didn't ask me to "define" anything. You simply threw in a personal attack -- and nothing more than that. And the above is inconclusive: you assert that my statement is a "gross generalization," and quote my statement -- but . . .

That is a shitty, low-life level of functioning -- which again substantiates my criticisms: constantly contesting over who will be on the defensive -- you, or the other person. And the more you can play (unnecessary) head-games, and thus "one-up" the other person, and keep the other person on the defensive -- and the focus off you -- the more "superior" you believe yourself to be. Alas, it leaves you alienated and emotionally impoverished.

Otherwise, your assertion that that is a "gross generalization," but not "defining" how it is that, is based upon your assumption of the universality of the ability to read minds. In the real world, we view that failure to critically examine one's own assumptions -- in this instance mind reading -- as projection. And as such it says nothing about anything outside yourself, but much about your cynicism.

"Off to a troll-free zone now."

Doubtless you'll always be the only troll in any given forum, not being able to honestly engage in discussion, so only able to sling "drive-by" personal attacks. But that wouldn't make it "troll-free".

If you return to this thread for one more effort at feeling "superior," you might instead actually READ the entire thread, while engaging with it. You might actually find the "definitions" which you weren't in fact seeking during this drive-by.

children! - for shame - grow up!

small wonder few people visit anymore

i have a great trick i use to control road rage that i'll share with you few who still wander back this way. when criticizing someone for posting what to you is obviously a long-winded, self affirming, blathering batch of babble, think of the guy who cut you off on the highway, maybe leaving you inches from death. . . .

when this happens to me on the road, i raise my fist and shout at the windshield "you bastard! you're driving just like me!"

once i taught myself this trick, sharing the road got a whole lot easier.

you bastards, then, who overwhelm the room with far too much detail, proving only you're as boring as me,

why not find a better way to kill time? remember, when you're here sharing the room, why not try to make it a whole lot easier and not post epistles, apostles, or epiphanies? you're typing wayyyyy too much. just like me.

LMAO

but isn't that waaaaaay?

J, my OP was a general suggestion that all concerned come to some agreement on definitions of terms. As for trollishness, I direct you to your own post addressed to #27 (i.e., me) and the lengthy screed which followed.

It is to laugh:

"I, though a male, was vocally for "equal rights for women" for at least five years before it was a concern of WOMEN.

And those five years were before the term "feminism" came into use. "

Sexist? Baseless? ENORMOUSLY egocentric? Naaaah! Good thing you were there ahead of time to tell all of us dumb gals how to act!

So if I choose not to waste further pixels on a thread which you have hijacked completely, I'm doing a drive-by? LMAO!

--She Who Did Indeed Read the Thread First, And Found the *Consensus* on Definitions Wanting

Hi, MarianV,

You might like to know that the earliest such usage of "feminist" dates from at least 1894, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.):

feminist
feminist fe.minist, a. and sb. Also 'fe.mininist. ad. Fr. féministe, f. L. fe/ssp/icons/macr.gifmina woman: see -ist.

A. adj. Of or pertaining to feminism, or to women.

B. sb. An advocate of feminism.

* 1894 Daily News 12 Oct. 5/5 What our Paris Correspondent describes as a `Feminist' group is being formed in the French Chamber of Deputies.

* 1895 Critic 2 Feb. 90/2 The writer depicts Ford as the deepest `femininist' in the Shakespearian constellation.

* 1898 Daily Chron. 15 Oct. 5/1 The lady Parliamentary reporter is the latest development of the feminist movement in New Zealand.

* 1904 Athenæum 26 Nov. 730/2 There have been feminists who claimed George Eliot as the rival of Thackeray.

* 1920 W. J. Locke House of Baltazar v. 56 We're out of this feminist hurly-burly.

* 1930 Manch. Guardian 15 Sept. 7/7 Feminists are rare birds in Russia.

Hence femi'nistic, femini'nistic adjs.

* 1902 M. Beerbohm Around Theatres (1924) I. 365 Ibsen's femininistic propaganda.

* 1908 Westm. Gaz. 11 Sept. 6/3 Some thinkers in Hungary anticipate feministic developments even in Turkey.

* 1912 Englishwoman Mar. 261 This society is only feministic in so far as it strives to give women better opportunities.

beatles1964, you might take a look at one or more of these anthologies to start your collection:

A Formal Feeling Comes: Poems in Form by Contemporary Women ed. Annie Finch (founder of the WOM-PO listserv)

The Norton Anthology of Women's Literature eds. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar

Letters from the World: Poems from the WOM-PO Listserv eds. Moira Richards, Rosemary Starace, and Lesley Wheeler

No More Masks! eds. Florence Howe and Ellen Bass

And on general principle, I suggest both How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ and You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen.

Happy reading!

#37 --

It didn't come into usage in my generation until circa 1969.

And there is nothing egocentric or sexist -- name-caller -- in stating the fact that I was, in fact, for equal rights for women for some five years before W-O-M-E-N caught wind of the issue.

I was brought up by my mother, who pounded into my -- and my siblings' -- heads two basic rules:

"Men are after only one thing."

and

"Women are only looking for a meal ticket."

I've always been seeking a third alternative.

As for your need for "definition of terms". Go back and read the thread and note my consistent use of the term "feminist" -- in quotes.

In short: I've been a feminist for decades longer than the current crop of "feminists".

Last but not least:

As there is no stipulated limit on length of posts, I endeavor to be complete. If that's more than you can handle, therefore necessitating personal attack -- that's your limitation, not mine.

First, I'd like to point out how hilarious it is
a) that the first thing J did joining the thread was post a long, self-righteous criticism of a new member's posted opinion.
"It isn't a matter of "fairness"; it's a matter of aesthetics."
JEEZ, take a breath.
b) that, of 39 posted replies, only about five actually sought to answer the original question (for the record, I'm pretty familiar with Gertrude Stein, Nikki Giovanni, Maya Angelou, and some more modern slam-style poetry like Andrea Gibson, if anyone actually wanted to talk about poetry...), and
c) that J has almost actually been SUCCESSFUL in hiding his misogynist paradigm and lack of logical structure in words like "discourse", "imperious", and "aesthetics". You might try harder not to wear your insecurity on your sleeve, or at least your lack of sensitivity to anybody's point of view but your own.
Anyways, it's been fun reading this thread!
P.S., if it came to a ballot, I think I would vote nolapoet. Just for the record.

#40 --

One can be defensive -- in effort to hide one's insecurity -- or one can critique one's own views. Ask yourself, as example:

Is Denise Levertov a misogynist?

Is MarianV a misogynist?

Instead you engage in a belligerant narrowness. Hostile bullying.

Deal with your misandry.

"lack of logical structure"?

1. You neglect to present a single instance of such.

2. And in that neglect, fail to refute the non-existent instance.

Illogical much?

"sensitivity"? Is this insensitive? (emphases mine) --

. . . .

Gish: I understand that you're saying that feminism isn't your conscious intention. Would you say that your poems do not function as feminist poems?
Levertov: Some of them perhaps, on a case by case basis, function as feminist poems in the sense of, maybe, giving courage to other women. Perhaps with the obviously silent past still a heavy weight on the shoulders of so many women, the speaking in whatever way of any woman is in itself an encouragement to them. That kind of thing--yes, they would function. I mean, I didn't have any problem speaking. I started to write poems as a very young child. It never occurred to me not to or that there was anything standing in my way.

Gish: It's interesting because I did the same thing as an academic. I didn't notice that there weren't any women academics at the University of Michigan and went right on doing a Ph.D.
Levertov: You didn't realize you'd been the token woman.

Gish: But on the other hand, I've only in the last couple of years written poems, and I do feel that my poems were stolen from me as a child.
Levertov: And I dare say they were. If you feel that they were, you've probably got good reasons for it. But I would like to point out that there were many, many countless numbers of men who have had their poems stolen from them.

Gish: I know that. (She doesn't. And couldn't care less.--JN.)
Levertov: They've had them stolen in the same way that their tears have been stolen from them and many other ways. There is a certain kind of feminist self-pity that I strenuously object to. Not to deny the history of women. But women who see exclusively the oppression of women tend to forget other kinds of oppression. "But my oppression is better than your oppression."

Gish: It is so difficult to use the word "feminist" because it has taken on certain kinds of meanings. . . .

Conversations with Denise Levertov (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, Literary Conversations Series, 1998), Edited by Jewel Spears Brooker, pp. 175-176.

. . . .

Want to know what "oppression" feels like? Be eligible for the draft during wartime. That is imposed exclusively on males.

Otherwise, your writing is at best C-. And in that I'm being kind. Call it "chauvanism" if you'd like.

I saw a book in the 1950s (the category was American Literature) entitled The Feminist Fifties I didnʻt read it, and I canʻt find the title in "Search" of LT. But the "Fifties" referred to were the EIGHTEEN-fifties!

As I remember it, too, the word "feminist" is used to describe the "inspirational" speeches of the heroine of Henry Jamess The Bostonians (of the 1870s) -- and the speeches are in a low-keyed way feminist, even though James doesnʻt bother to record more than a few squibs of them. So "feminist" by that name, or something close to that 20th-21st century usage was around close to Emily Dickinsonʻs time.

#42 --

But is there evidence in Emily Dickinson's writings of "feminism"?

Here's an analogy which makes my point:

Radical lesbian "feminists" have gone to great lengths to force the conclusion that Emily Dickinson was a lesbian (see series of articles in "Emily Dickinson Journal," which may still be available online)*. The problem with that insensitive and belligerent dragooning is that the only evidence of sexual attraction in Emily Dickinson's writings is that she felt for a male clergyman.
_____

*Male homosexuals do the same -- constantly seeking famous (dead) male artists to claim as being homosexual, apparently based upon the fiction that being homosexual makes one "more creative". Or to counter a defensive insecurity by showing they have value, as effort to build self-esteem.
_____

Possible associations (Dickinson was alive during the Civil War and abolitionism; did she fight in the Civil War? Was -- or was she not -- an abolitionist?) which remain unsubstantiated are spurious.

Where I see the male sexism (as opposed to the hostile female sexism from "APatchworkPalette" above) in all this is the rush to defend and protect females from critical evaluation of their views on the unspoken basis that they are "the weaker sex". Being treated as equal cannot also include being given special treatment.

There persists an element of female sexism -- to which genuine feminists, of both sexes, object -- which is a convenient alternative to which to oscillate away from actually being equal: that of judgmental moral superiority: during the Victorian era women were believed -- by both sexes -- to be morally superior to men.

The wave of feminists in the 1970s condemned that view -- that "pedestalization" -- as being a cage; a prison. But if one watches closely (as said), one will see the convenient oscillation --

from "independent" and "equal,"

to "morally superior"/judgmental, and "weakness" --

"victimization" --

and belligerent ("moral") accusation.

Throughout my childhood and youth a frequent claim was that females "have the right to change their minds" -- an all-purpose excuse that was never questioned or challenged. It was never said that males have that "right". So one is led to assume that females have at least that one "extra" right.

The whole point is that everyone is "oppressed" -- all humans in equivalent ways; and each sex in ways particular to each sex. Men -- but not women -- are, as example, "oppressed" by being readily thrown away in wars**. It is female sexism -- in some instances misandry also -- which falsely insists only females are "oppressed". How is critiquing a female's view ipso facto "sexism" -- or "misogyny"? Do females actually "wilt" under the "oppressive" "unfairness" of critical evaluation of their views?

Simply put: Why are females to be wholly exempt from any kind or degree of criticism, while at the same time being wholly free to pour out dirty names and invective at males?
_____

**None of which is personal: societies, in order to survive, have always recognized and acted to protect females and children as having greater value than men: on one hand, sperm is "dime a dozen" -- "any dude'll do"; on the other, women and children represent continuity, and that there shall be a future for the society. Women bring the future into the world.

I have some Wendy Cope, with Serious Concerns, Barrett Browning with Aurora Leigh and other poems and Vicki Bertram's book, Kicking Daffodils.

You certainly seem to have enough time to read them all! ;-)

CORRECTION to #42:

The title I remembered seeing (but not reading) in the 1950s must have been The FEMININE Fifties by Fred Pattee--not "the Feminist". So it probably isnʻt evidence of a feminism of that time.

What I said about Jamesʻs The Bostonians still stands

#45 --

Care to name the "poet wannabees" who you believe "have entirely too much free time"?

#49 --

I'm a writer. How about you?

And this tends to be a forum which attracts writers.

As to "back to focus": If you'd READ the thread, you'd note that the second post -- not by me but by MarianV -- begins to raise questions about "feminist" -- she put it in quotes -- poets. As in, "What is a 'feminist' poet?"

It's a directly relevant question for those who don't already know it all.

To make it simple and brief for you, so you needn't bother reading before arriving at conclusions about that you've not read: it isn't about competition about who is the "better" "feminist" (except for a few hostile drive-bys); it is an exploration of the fact that there are differences of opinion as to what a "feminist" (and, if you don't mind, a feminist) is, and what those differences are, and the why of them.

That process is, in sum, thinking, as in thinking through.

I don't want to overcomplicate it for you: but if one is going to determine who is a "feminist poet" -- if there is such a thing -- then one must first determine what a "feminist" is.

And I think it's relevant to cite to and quote from a poet who commented specifically on that very question -- Denise Levertov -- so I do that. No one is prohibiting others from doing the same.

Should I apologize for also reading about poetry by poets?

All in all, I won't apologize for the fact that I think as a writer, whereas you have no patience with such truck.

Saying nothing at all? Your bitching aside, of course. A writer knows that this does not say "nothing at all":

Writing is thinking on paper.

THINK about that.

REwriting is critically evaluating one's thinking -- that "writing is thinking on paper" -- in order to eliminate the errors in it.

Rewriting also respects the reader: that is one reason I often rewrite emails -- and such as my posts above. I don't want to waste others' time with meaningless drivel. And I want to communicate, as clearly and transparently as possible, a complete thought -- there's that thinking again -- not a hit-or-miss who-gives-a-damn.

Perhaps I should start a thread asking the question:

"Why do some writers have no patience with thinking?"

Or:

"Why do some writers believe they can write substantively without thinking?"

I'll not apologize that I think. Nor apologize that I, being a writer, write.

As for the "wannabe poets" you don't name: my first-published poem occurred in 1978. Others were published in the 1990s; others were published last year. None was self-published.

Last but not least: if you don't like reading, then why have a library?

I don't want to waste others' time with meaningless drivel.

It's sad that we so often fall short of our aims.

#51 --

Have you anything specific in mind, or are you too lazy to put in the effort to think, and as result make a complete statement instead of mere . . . drivel.

Interesting that those who are so offended by thought have a superior attitude that finds expression in personal attack. And nothing else.

There is also Audre Lorde, who certainly was active in the feminist movement, though she felt a barrier between white feminist women and black women. Some of her poetry is considered political, if that is what you are getting at.

Adrienne Rich was considered a feminist poet, at least by some others, but I don't know her own perspective. She certainly writes strongly about women.

Lucille Clifton writes so beautifully about poignantly strong and imperfect women, but I don't know that she would label herself feminist, whatever that means today.

It was a new and freeing thing to call oneself a feminist back in the late 60s and early 70s, it meant you worked for civil rights for women as well as any other group, nothing more or less. But I know that it has become just another label and young people do very much shy away from it, and the older I get, the more I see that labels cause anger and impatience and they get in the way of understanding.

I think mostly you just have to read a poet, and if you like his/her work, then I wouldn't worry about labels. In my household, for the most part (but by no means always!) my husband reads mostly male poets, and I read mostly female poets. I guess it is just what speaks to your own experience and your heart.

#51

yup

sad indeed

but pithy.

Some clever person has suggested all defensiveness at least be expressed in verse

that would be nice

#53 --

I have response to your thoughtful distinguishing, but I'll not take the time working it through, as those who are unable to speak to the issues, unwilling to inform themelves, and feel threatened by thought, especially informed thought, attack those who can and do.

I've studied and thought long about these issues -- poetry and feminism, separately and in conjunction -- during over forty years. I've contributed from that effort and experience, even making the extra effort to identify sources I've referenced for those interested in pursuing the issues further.

But as the demand from a screaming few is for ready-made answers in place of thought, from those who don't respect either intelligence or thought or knowledge, and as anyone who steps out of line with that childish oversimplifiying is subjected to off-topic sniping and personal attack by the essentially illiterate -- by trolls -- I'll not bother.

So go ahead, "tcw," expert on "poet wannabees" and how they have "entirely too much time" to devote to (1) informing themselves on the subject/s under discussion -- poets and poetry, and (2) a thread about poetry and poets, in the forum "Poetry Fool":

take the thread back to the shallow oversimplification -- from which it was allegedly "hijacked" as late as post #2 -- you can handle, and which doesn't challenge your limits. Reduce and destroy a healthy, fruitful, mature exploration of complex issues to the mush and gibberish of the petulant "I wanna play with the adults!" thumbsucker.

I cleverly agree with Bookstop!

the list is for verse
and it has gone for the worse
please take your squabble
off of this list
:-)

or

Reasonable reasoned
Discussion is a plus,
So put the fragile ego
To the side and thus
Discourse amiably.
Name-calling and its kin
Are surely in LT
(and life) an awful sin.
Browbeating in discussion
Should really not
Ever be confused with
"informed thought."

Unless by "informed"
We suggest "inbred"
But who could long
Hold up so big a head?

I think that was the feminist Pope?

Everyone here seems *overly* concerned with poetry - I replied to the post because of the interesting question, rather than the group's theme, as such. You know, everyone's questions from every groups appear on every home/profile page, when looking at the groups section. How this question digressed into who's a poet or not, or who has time to waste or not, well, it's beyond me.

In any case, this won't be a good advertisement for getting people to join your group, because if there is one thing that can deter people from joining is bickering.

...and you all seem to have scared the author of the post away...

#58 --

"How this question digressed into who's a poet or not, or who has time to waste or not, well, it's beyond me."

It should be obvious: a person who believes her/himself a poet, and a judge of poetry, who in reality is so outstripped by the informed as to have nothing to contribute, mistakes topic for "hijack" and wants the thread returned to hijacked by the stupid.

And I'll not apologize for pointing out that stupid is stupid.

#59 --

Scared? No. Fed up with the illiterate being self-insulted by the activity of thinking, therefore having to prevent it occurring by engaging in the only thing at which they have skill -- and that severely limited: personal attack.

#57 --

As for the comment about "browbeating" as contrasted with "informed thought": shove it. My thought is certainly and without question informed, as shown during the course of undisrupted discussion.

And that isn't ego or boast, ass: it's objectively obvious.

I'll not passivlely or politely coddle the crude, illiterate pseudo-poet trolls who subvert discussion they don't understand to begin with because they are "offended" by thought and a minimal level of scholarship, both beyond their severe limitations.

I'll leave it to you to elevate the discussion above the informed.

LMAO

And so, to return to feminist poets, I'd suggest that the designation is in the hands of the reader (influenced obviously by the writer.) One can't be born a feminist (as opposed to say Greek;) it is a political choice. I'd agree with #4 and #7 above. And one need not endorse the label to fit it - or even be contemporaneous to the term. So, to collect them, it makes sense to inquire (as #1) into who shares that reading interest and to look for suggestions. Many provided - I think good job. Who else fits the bill?

There's been such a taboo on women writing about sex that it's encouraging to see a breakthrough in contemporary poetry as opposed to fiction. Some examples: Denise Duhamel (can be quite explicit), Sharon Olds (more oblique generally), Beth Ann Fennelly (very talented IMHO), to mention a few. I'm not sure if all of them are feminists in the true sense of the word - unless breaking the taboo is feminist.

I'm interested in Irish poetry and find there's an abundance of contemporary women poets there. Some are very well known even on this side of the pond. Not as many, I think, have entered the erotic territory, despite the recent secularization and anti-church attitude (due mainly to the pedophile scandals).

Then there's overtly lesbian poetry breaking the taboo that restricted so many great poets and fiction writers in the past.

What do you think of these trends?

P.S. Pardon the cross-referencing from the Poetry Fool group. I think it's more relevant here.

58 "everyone here seems *overly* concerned with poetry"

Because we're poets or interested in poetry. Yes, I think the thread has digressed a few times to poetry but has generally returned to "Feminist Poets".

BTW. It is usually believed a male can be a feminist. But can he be a feminist poet? I think NOT when it comes to female sexuality but probably YES when it comes to women's issues esp. when spreading awareness of the oppression of women, of which there is so much, esp in Third World countries. See Nicholas Krystof at www.halftheskymovement.org. He's a NY Times journalist, not a poet as far as I know.

Above:

"Radical lesbian "feminists" have gone to great lengths to force the conclusion that Emily Dickinson was a Above:lesbian"

And Elizabeth Bishop.

Emily Dickinson and Elizabeth Bishop are two of America's foremost poets and two of my favorites.

While I certainly would not argue that Dickinson was a lesbian, Elizabeth Bishop was. She had well documented relationships with Louise Crane, Lota de Macedo Soares and Alice Methfessel, who became her literary executor. She didn't pour out her private life in her poetry, but her letters (One Art: Letters) certainly reveal her relationships.

#3
maybe they even called
themselves a Feminist Poet.

I once heard a woman introduced at an Open Mic Night as a "female poetess".

67> that's a term that deserves a double retch!