Girls...Poet or Poetess?

Gender has always been a major issue in Literature whether we agree or not.Women used to be more invisible in Literature due to the doctrine of separated spheres and as a result women limited themselves to write things which were somehow an extension to their domestic roles so they wrote for periodicals on mothering and etc. They would also be involved in writing books for children too.Many writings which were different from what women were supposed to produce haven't received a serious academic attention until now.
It has been a struggle to gain visibility in a sphere which is imminently dominated by man.
I once read what a nineteenth century Brazilian writer wrote about a Poet(ess) called Francisca Julia:

"She is fantastic. She writes like a man."

Some still claim that the literature written by female writers is completely different from the one produced by male writers as if the literature we write is with a small L. I do believe that androcentrism is still supreme and rules in Literature.It is a man made world.The feminine voice can't be heard in many countries/cultures.The maleviewpoint has always been privileged and if you consider language itself, you will see that a masculine bias remains even when people are exposed to only gender neutral language. So we can't simply pretend that this sort of thing does not interfere in Poetry.Since the beginning women have been associated with the most derogated form of Poetry and literature.I do hope to see a change in the future and a new shape in Literature.The future belongs to the girls. I do not intend to be seen as a feminist but as an anthropologically lucid woman with what I have written. It is not my intention to hurt egos but when I claim visibility for women in Literature I am thinking about the past and considering what still happens around the world. What occurs in many countries is not different from the imperialist mentality of the nineteenth century yet.

Karla's post made me think of my own reading/perception habits. When I start reading something, whether a book or an article or a blog, I will often assume the gender of the author, and read it "in their voice." Sometime, however, I'm wrong about the gender, and it tends to feel very jarring. I'm not sure why it sticks in my head such a certain way.

In fiction, I think male writers for the most part are still struggling to authentically portray female characters. I feel like female authors do a better job writing "men" than male authors do writing "women," overall. (You guys out there might disagree. I obviously don't know what reading as a man is like. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.) Maybe it's because we still kind of live in a world where the first assumption is that a basic example of a human norm is a male one. Maybe ladies have been so steeped in that way of thinking that writing about men is easy, but men are still learning about women.

One small example: I just finished "Congo," by Michael Crichton, which is about a group of Americans who are racing into the Congo to try and find some rare diamonds so they can get this huge contract before any other groups. (Also there are murder monkeys in the jungle. This angle was left woefully unexplored.) Anyway, one of the main characters is a young woman who is described as a genius, as ruthless, logical, calculating. Definitely someone who prefers rationality over interpersonal skills. And I'm thinking "hey, this could be a pretty interesting character. I want to see how she handles things when the race inevitably goes to sh**." But the author kind of weighed in too heavily on the "uptight woman" stereotype, and even that completely fell apart before the end. She's subsequently described as "beautiful" more than anything else. Despite her characterizations, she is the only one of the trip falling apart and sobbing repeatedly, and in the end she acts completely irrationally. WHAT HAPPENED? At least there were no whispers of a romance between her and the leathery, worldly mercenary trip leader.

Anyway. That's my rant for the morning.

I do believe 100% that women writers (poetry, novels, stories, etc..) are more creative than male writers.

On here, 3/4+ of my favorite writers are females.
My favorite Arabian writer is a female.
I prefer Adele and Lana Del Rey lyrics over a lot of male lyricists (well, maybe The Script I prefer them a little bit more :P)

ohhh, yeah... and the Lebanese series I raise my hats for are only for women writers !!

* But Khaled Hosseini remains my best English writer. He sweeps all women for me lol jk.

It does seem from Cleopatra, the prophetess Debora, to Joan of Arc women places in history have been few and far between. Since Isabella I and her husband funded Columbus women have been the power behind the throne. Many of my heroes and Heroines were published out of New York .Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day corresponded much like Joan Baez and Bob Dylan . Gender does not discriminate between sinners and saints , nor the human gods that aim for their mark.

LP Kahlil Gibran enjoyed a great success with his New York publishers

This is just from personal experience/findings, but I thought it to be applicable and true for the most part.

Works written by a female do tend to be different from those written by males. This is not a bad thing. After all, male and female brains are different. I think it's good to embrace both rather than trying to erase those distinctions.

Females tend to be a lot more perceptive and sensitive, which gives them a better grasp on their writing. Even males who write are usually more sensitive than your typical 'macho' man (but they still don't function the exact same way as females). Also they might be better at creating more in-depth and lively characters, whereas males tend to focus more on plot and setting.

* Michael, yeah, of course! Khalil Jibran is top ranked by westerners probably because his English work is a little bit better (IMO) than his Arabic work. For me, I think there are other Arabian poets who are the same, if not better, than Gibran... like Mahmoud Darwish & Nizar Kabbani.

* I agree with you, Jordan, especially with the last two lines.

For the people of both side it is normal, the urge of pulling the seesaw towards their favor. This is how the vibration goes on and continues.
The continuation is to contract and stretch, to grab and to let go equally. It always comes from the balance. Any tendency to stoop the scale towards our own kind more than that said extend, would cripples our ability to fly. Only 50. 50 is symmetrical. The rest are not aesthetically acclaimed .
But for the people who are imprisoned by who they are, whether in gender, race or religions and beliefs, is impossible to understand that balance, because they have joined the army of one eye soldiers.

Remember if we are not equals, we are cripples !!

However I understand because of so many strains and suppression women nowadays have more thing to say and more gaps to fulfill. They are bouncing back.
Other than that, matriarch is as bad and one-sided as patriarch. We have been there, we are not going to go back there again.

David, I only understood that we need to look through every other eye to understand the world ?

or.. you meant something different?

"we need to look through every other eye to understand the world" :)(:
poetry says it all!!!

Poetry always says it all.My friend you always have something brilliant to say. Love your mind and heart.

It feels right coming from you

the feeling is mutual

All this nice-talk is making me uncomfortable. Is this really PnQ??

Kidding. :)

Use of the word poetess is perfectly legal.

Hehe, within our discretion I suppose!!

Hey Jordan, it is PnQ!Believe it or not.