This article is part of WikiProject Poetry. See that page for guidelines.

This page seems extremely POV to me. The general tone is patronizing and the last paragraph in particular is insulting to 20th century poets in general and women poets, especially Ms Rich, in particular. Bmills 10:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would propose the following replacement text.

The word poetess denotes, at its simplest, a woman poet. However, this term has fallen out of use mainly as a result of objections from women poets and feminist critics. These objections may be summarised under two headings.

Firstly, the term poetess has come to imply a kind of minor talent or achievement by a part-time writer, as in the following quotation from the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, by Alexander Pope:

Is there a Parson, much bemus'd in beer,

A maudlin Poetess, a rhyming Peer. . .

or, as Marguerite Ogden puts it, "the word poetess, with all its suggestion of tepid and insipid achievement."

Secondly, in common with similar terms such as actress, poetess is rejected for insisting on gender distinctions in an area where these are not relevant, and with the default term, poet, indicating the primacy of male practicioners. For these reasons, they perfer the use of the word poet for members of both sexes as being more in the spirit of non-sexist language.

but I'm open to suggestion. Bmills 10:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are probably right, in that the examples may well have been left out (but, my God, have you read Adrienne Rich? An irresistable target.)

But I would at minimum retain the quotation by Marguerite Ogden. I thought it was reasonably clear that the subject was a stereotype. As such, some mention of the images called forth by the stereotype seems to be in order; and the practicing of inditing odes to the poetess's menses strikes me as so central to the stereotype as to be diagnostic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have endeavoured to reword the article, esp. the last paragraph, to make it clearer that it is indeed discussing the images called forth by the stereotype. I removed the examples. The word "poetess" is problematic in a way that, say, "actress" is not, for reasons that go well beyond mere non-sexist language issues. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Much better now, but I'd like to lose the inappropriate external link. Bmills 15:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article, in its current form, seems to be just about why poetess is a bad word. Is there nothing else relevant to the word "poetess"? I don't see why it is worth having this article if its only purpose is pushing a point of view -- the validity of which is irrelevant to most.

In the spirit of the article, that "poetess" should not exist, it is better for this article not to exist. Rintrah 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article seems really one sided, pushing the view that poetess is a derogatory word. If the article is to be kept (which I'm not sure it should be), the article should be broken down into sections, such as:

introduction

historical origin and usage of the word

modern & feminist usage of the word

Unsourced, completely biased statements such as "The word "poetess" is often used in a mildly pejorative and dismissive sense; like all the best pejoratives, it keeps open the option to deny that the person who used the word meant anything of the kind," need to disappear from the article. caz | speak 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; such sentences moralise rather impart any objective information. Rintrah 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start. Rintrah 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope's usage

The claim that poetess was sometimes used pejoratively may well be true, but the quote from Pope's Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot is a very feeble example. In fact, I don't think it's an example at all. The passage is pejorative because Pope says the poetess is maudlin; remove that description and poetess becomes as neutral a signifier as the others Pope uses, parson and peer. I think the Pope quote should be junked and replaced with an example more relevant, assuming the point is accurate. 69.237.196.82 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]