AN UNGALLANT EDITOR.

[manfredvijars]

South Australian Register Adelaide, Saturday 29 January 1848

AN UNGALLANT EDITOR.
The American Literary Gazette quotes the following from a transatlantic contemporary : —

'An interesting female correspondent sends us a piece of poetry, with a request for its publication' The moon is called bright— the stars are flattered with the original appellation of *meek-eyed,' — the trees come in for a full share of eulogy, and the falling spring is pronounced silver-plaited, or something to that effect. Besides this, the poem is equally instructive on other important subjects. If Mary will send us an affidavit that she has washed the dishes,mended the hose, and swept the house for a week after she was blasted with poetic fire,' we will give in, and startle the literary world from its lethargy.

For the present, we say, darn your stockings and darn your poetry too.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Not very nice.

Darning poetry? Is that mending its holes? Do new poems have holes? Or only old, worn out ones, that have been read too much, or recited too often? Are poems exactly like stockings, or are there some differences?

Stockings have evolved to pantyhose since 1848. Poems have evolved, too, but they're still called poems. Why is that?

[Neville Briggs]

It's still a jungle out there, 165 years down the track.

[Maureen K Clifford]

sounds like a misogynistic editor to me

[Neville Briggs]

The correct understanding ( as distinct from the convenient political connotation ) of Misogyny is something far removed from this example.
Besides, his assessment of the merit of the lady's poetry may well be spot on.

This is just the bombastic speech that was usual for people in positions of decision making, even into the era that I can remember in the 50s and 60s.
It could be problematic to judge the manners of a person from that time by the cultural standards of our time.

As a callow youth I know that I had to struggle my way through school and early work days with school masters, supervisors, managers, police sergeants and bosses, union bosses, politicians, doctors and all sorts of minor public officials who all had much the same manner.
It's not about misogyny or misandry or misanthropy and anything like that. I would argue that it was, and still is in some places, a device for putting people on the back foot to maintain some sort of untouchable control by shifting the argument from issues to persons. That's easy to do in a well defined stratified society.

I suspect our editor above would have belittled anybody in like manner. That's what editors did in those days.

It's just the old " argumentum ad hominem ", Julia Gillard and her lefty editors are very good at it.

[Neville Briggs]

the Mad Monk and Foolery Bishop

argumentum ad hominem

[manfredvijars]

Attacking the person (shooting the messenger), or the circumstance instead of addressing the 'issue' is the easy way out of any argument. It's common basis of discussion amongst us plebs'. We practice it to perfection, so why shouldn't it filter upwards to those whom we elect to represent us ? ...

[Stephen Whiteside]

I think you're way off the mark here, Neville.

All the evidence suggests it was extremely difficult for women to get published in the 19th century.

George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans)
Henry Handel Richardson (Ethel Florence Lindesay Richardson)

Jeannie Gunn preferred to be Mrs Aeneas Gunn because her husband was quite famous in his own right before she became known as a novelist.

Even Miles Franklis was assumed to be male for a long time.

In fact, most of the 20th century was not much better. It wasn't really until the 1970s in Australia that women began to be treated as anything approaching the literary equal of men. Many would argue that women are still at a significant disadvantage today.

[Neville Briggs]

Stephen, I was mainly illustrating that misogyny is no explanation for that particular example.

If you think I am off the mark, then I'm afraid you have not read properly what I said.
I never said that women were not disadvantaged, I was arguing that misogyny was not the issue, social stratification and control was and as you pointed out, still is.

[Stephen Whiteside]

I thought you were arguing a comment like that could equally have been directed at a man. I don't think that's true.