Revisioning Women and Water in Contemporary English- and Dutch-Language Poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a long-standing and problematic coupling of women and water in the (western) imagination, as the field of ecofeminism has shown and criticized (e.g. Gaard 2001). Indeed, woman as water has alternatively been associated with a flowing female pollution in antiquity (e.g. Carson 2000), a destructive wave in Judeo-Christian imagery (Helmreich 2017), religious ecstasy due to her wet nature in medieval times (e.g. Fraeters 2004), and a distant deep as a “territory of desire” to be conquered in fascist ideologies (e.g. Theweleit 1987: 294). Now that questions of water become increasingly more important as the Blue Humanities take off, it seems time to take stock of this woman-water imagery. Poetry has especially been deemed suitable to engage with such watery questions due to its ability to interweave different temporal scales (see François 2017, Mentz 2024: 8, 13). Analyzing a contemporary selection of poems (in translation) by Dutch and Canadian poets Sophia Blyden, Anne Carson, Rozalie Hirs, and Alycia Pirmohamed, this paper will consider how contemporary women writers reimagine questions of female identity at the intersection of ecology, spirituality, and the body. Building on Astrida Neimanis’s (2013, 2017) identification of types of “hydro-logics,” this paper will argue that water does not only function as an “archive” but also as a (distorting) mirror in these poems, shaping as much as preserving what these women writers would like to see in our current societies. Reflecting on water’s inherent danger and the complexity of women-water relationships, these poets consider what role water can play in imagining more sustainable futures for women in the Anthropocene. Works Cited Carson, Anne. “Dirt and Desire: Essay on the Phenomenology of Female Pollution in Antiquity.” Men in the Off Hours, Jonathan Cape, 2000, pp. 130-57. Fraeters, Veerle. “Gender and Genre: The Design of Hadewijch’s Book of Visions.” The Voice of Silence: Women’s Literacy in a Men’s Church, edited by Thérèse de Hemptinne and María Eugenia Góngora, Turnhout, Brepols, 2004, pp. 57-81. Brepols Online, doi:10.1484/M.MCS-EB.3.3594. François, Anne-Lise. “Ungiving Time: Reading Lyric by the Light of the Anthropocene.” Anthropocene Reading: Literary History in Geologic Times, edited by Tobias Menely and Jesse Oak Taylor, The Pennsylvania State UP, 2017, pp. 239-58. Gaard, Greta. “Women, Water, Energy: An Ecofeminist Approach.” Organization & Environment, vol. 14, no. 2, 2001, pp. 157-72. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26161568. Helmreich, Stefan. “The Genders of Waves.” Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, nos. 1-2, 2017, pp. 29-51. Project Muse, doi:10.1353/wsq.2017.0015. Mentz, Steve. An Introduction to the Blue Humanities. Routledge, 2024. Neimanis, Astrida. “Feminist Subjectivity, Watered.” Feminist Review, vol. 103, no. 1, 2013, pp. 23-41. Sage Journals, doi:10.1057/fr.2012.25. ---. “Water and Knowledge.” Downstream: Reimagining Water, edited by Dorothy Christian and Rita Wong, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2017, pp. 51-68. Theweleit, Klaus. Male Fantasies, I. Women, Floods, Bodies, History. Translated by Stephen Conway, foreword by Barbara Ehrenreich, U of Minnesota P, 1987.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".