From the Editors
On “Women’s” Writing
International Women’s Day is celebrated this month (8 March). Recently, there have been some really interesting discussions and debates about the gender divisions between male and female writers: whether they in fact exist in this ‘post-feminist’ world and if so, how they present and what those divides mean.
Last year, there was a flurry of discussion following the all-male Miles Franklin shortlist, dubbed a ‘sausage fest’ by Literary Minded blogger Angela Meyer. It was a year when female heavyweights like Helen Garner, Kate Grenville, Joan London and Amanda Lohrey released eligible, critically acclaimed, books that didn’t even make the longlist, let alone the shortlist. Miles Franklin judge Morag Fraser reported that she ‘walked out of our two-hour shortlist meeting without realising what we had done’ and that there were ‘no conclusions to be drawn’ from the outcome. And I’m sure that nobody in that room made a conscious decision to choose an all-male shortlist, but rather chose what they thought were the best books published during the period that met the award criteria, an exercise that will always be somewhat subjective – and the results of which, for Australia’s leading literary prize, will reflect something about the current values of Australia’s literary culture.
Former Miles Franklin judge Kerryn Goldsworthy observed as much on her blog, Australian Literature Diary, concluding that ‘if the dominant culture is a sausage fest, then, well, you know’. Meanjin’s Sophie Cunningham added an intriguing angle to the discussion. ‘What was the problem? Too modest in scope? Too domestic? The undermining of women’s writing involves the use of many such phrases.’ With the exception of Grenville’s The Lieutenant, the other books that were surprisingly left off the longlist could indeed fit these criteria, with their intense focus on relationships and domestic politics. ‘I think at the moment there’s a feeling that women shouldn’t write about domesticity about relationships, or about middle-class concerns,’ the wonderful UK writer Rachel Cusk – whose novels and non-fiction writing intensely explore domestic concerns – told The Book Show last month. Cusk recently wrote an article for the Guardian about this feeling: ‘Women … might cease to produce “women’s writing” not because they are freer but because they are more ashamed, less certain of a general receptiveness, and even, perhaps, because they suspect they might be vilified.’
It’s a fascinating and complex debate, and one we should continue to have, to keep us evaluating and thinking about the kinds of writing we value in our culture and why – or why not. Of course, I think both women and men should be able to write about any subject they fancy. But I also think that some of the best writing – in my subjective opinion – is that which examines human nature, human relationships, the intricacies of how we live our lives, and mirrors them back to us so we can better understand ourselves. And as domestic life will always be an area ripe for that kind of examination, I fervently hope that our most talented writers don’t feel obliged to steer away from that arena for fear of not being taken seriously.
11 Responses to On “Women’s” Writing
Leave a Reply
Issue Six teaser: Sophie Cunningham ‘A Prize of One’s Own: Flares, Cock-forests, and Dreams of a Common...
Offers
-
Current Issue
Kill Your Darlings, No. 13
April 2013 The Stella Prize
Kill Your Darlings is a proud supporter of The Stella Prize.
5:08 pm, March 9, 2010
Jo, thank you for the link to Rachel Cusk’s article. I read the reprint in the Age recently and couldn’t find it online. It was an AMAZING piece – I think she articulated so many problems with the view of women’s stories in general, and it’s one that crosses all kinds of artistic borders.
10:16 pm, March 9, 2010
Thanks for this – I really enjoyed these reflections. Sophie Cunningham usually has insightful things to say on any topic.
As an interesting side note, the modest and the domestic are highly valued in modern poetry, and women who write about the domestic aren’t patronised. There’ve been some terrific, highly-awarded women poets who wrote this way, e.g. Sharon Olds, Judith Wright (‘Woman to Child’), Gwen Harwood (‘in the park’).
The novel seems mired in centuries-old, male notions of what constitutes good writing. (I haven’t heard of a female poet who had to change her name to get published). I can think of one exception – Elizabeth Jolley. She was very much in the domestic, wasn’t she? And she won the Miles Franklin. That’s going back a while now, though…
Your piece also made me think about the Nobel and how they seem to reward political writing. I guess one of the themes here is that the domestic (which as you say includes a concern for human lives & relationships) can be political, when the prevailing culture denigrates it at worst, and overlooks it at best.
10:32 am, March 11, 2010
Women, writers or otherwise, still face discrimination in this country. Agreed. Even worse in other countries. I long for the day when the vigilant distinction between male writers and female writers is no longer necessary. What about just, writers.
But we’re not there yet. So the distinction must be kept alive.
And whether a shortlist is a sausage fest or a, erm, what’s the term for all women? breastfest? You see, this is also the problem. We need a fest for when it’s all women. And that we don’t have one is a sad indictment.
May there be a day when the Miles Franklin shortlist calls for inventions of terms like wombfest (too wombatty) or a
Answers on a postcard please.
11:00 am, March 12, 2010
It was a pleasure to spread the word on the article, Clementine!
Prithvi, that’s an interesting point about poetry – I guess that ‘the novel’ is the privileged form of literature though, isn’t it, which is maybe why it’s been more of an issue for novelists than poets. And an excellent point that the domestic can be political. The way we live our lives has enormous consequences for larger political issues and a seemingly ‘domestic’ story can say a lot about the wider society we live in – as Helen Garner’s The Spare Room does in the issues it raises about death and dying and how we deal with it in the contemporary Western world.
Jon, your postcard is in the mail. (Okay, not really.) The Cusk piece actually talks about the fact that we very deliberately no longer make the distinction between women and men writers and she thinks that means that women consciously strive not to write about ‘women’s’ concerns like domestic life. She’s calling for women to feel free to write about their lives, to examine the domestic (as she does, very thoughtfully and intelligently, in her writing). I don’t think there should be divides between ‘men’s’ and ‘women’s’ writing, but agree with her point that there shouldn’t be snobbery about what’s dubbed ‘women’s’ writing – ie. a focus on the domestic, on personal lives and personal politics and that we need, as a literary culture, to widen our definition of what ‘good’ writing is. It’s not really about making a special place for women’s writing, more about thinking more inclusively when we are judging ‘good’ writing. I’m a big fan of the kind of writing that examines personal and domestic politics and I hope there’s no disincentive for writers – women or men – to explore that sphere, for fear of being thought insufficiently highbrow. If our best writers are dissuaded from that kind of material, it would be a great shame, because it’s such fertile ground for really good writing.
11:01 am, March 12, 2010
PS. Thanks for inventing ‘breastfest’. We now have a term ready-made if we do have an all-women MF shortlist in future.
4:47 pm, March 12, 2010
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you all. In fact, writing that explores domestic politics is generally my favourite kind of writing — and can say so much about the world at large.
I loved Cusk’s article too, and tried to articulate some kind of response on my blog here.
4:47 pm, March 12, 2010
Sorry, that would be, here: http://rachel-power.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-there-such-thing-as-womens-writing.html
11:08 am, March 13, 2010
Thanks Rachel, and thanks for that link too – I originally wrote this blog post for another venue (where it had to be pulled from at the last minute), with a word count, or I would have included mention/discussion of your post and also James Bradley’s on the article and the subject of women’s writing, in which he makes some additional interesting points. Both posts are excellent.
James: http://cityoftongues.com/2009/12/14/why-are-all-the-best-bloggers-women/
1:22 pm, March 15, 2010
I also think this is a topic worth exploring. I agree with Goldsworthy’s point, it reflects the dominant ideas in society that undermine women in all areas of life.
In the horror genre, we’ve come across this in a variety of ways recently spawning the ‘Women in Horror Awareness Month’ that ran in February, pointing out women’s significant contribution to the genre.
Another point I’d like to make is that I don’t think male writers benefit from the current situation. It is not as if men have it easy just because 50% of the field is undermined. The fact that 50% of the field isn’t taken seriously, I think, lowers the bar for all literature and if women’s writing was given the attention it deserved, it would make the field a more challenging and fulfilling literary culture.
Pingback: Benjamin Solah, Marxist Horror Writer » On Women, Sexism, Literature, Awards and Why Male Writers Don’t Benefit
Pingback: Female writers do it tough | Allthenewsthatmatter's blog