Contend You Not

[RiverNotch]

Contend You Not
(for my daughters)

Contend you not then with the untrained mind, I get how in reading the then should be smooth, but yeah, I'm starting to think it should be separated by commas. Or "Contend you not with any untrained mind", as per the duke's suggestion above.
conspire it will the scalpel to evade, maybe colon instead of comma?
it flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind,
some semblance of false pride that it may save.
Contend you not with those too easily hurt,
anemone are they who thus do live, Though I immediately thought sea anemone, which I am pretty sure this is, there is still the matter of the other kind, the kind which, though I have never identified in the wild, having been the speaker in a certain poem I like is the kind I like more.
their feelers will recoil when to its work,
your reply has nothing there to give. You missed a half-foot, but I think here it's excusable.
Contend you not with those beyond assail,
with strong walls thick that let no mote inside, maybe colon instead of comma?
you’ve not been asked to their caravel,
no worth to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs cannot be given or spent, A foot too much,
on those who desire wisdom only to rent. and a foot or half-a-foot too much. This maybe the big finale, but I have a feeling they can still be made more uniform.
 
This felt more like advice on who to pair up with rather than who to argue with for me, but I'm pretty sure both mean the same.

And now concerning my understanding:
L1, L5, L9 - Don't deal with 1 stupid folks 2 sensitive folks and 3 smug folks.
L2 - I got something from this on my first read-through, but I forget what the heck it was, especially when I read through tectak's review. Then again, "with" over "will" and "your" over "the", I still honestly wouldn't get, so -- well, I don't know.
Latter note: Oh. The untrained mind will conspire to evade the (or the girls') scalpel, ie the stuff they want to be blind to! Ahh -- the inversions here are punishing. 
L3 - I think I got this on my first reading -- they run, so they don't hear what they should hear, ie so that they are blind. Somehow, this feels like this could be straightened out, but I just read a few of John Donne's sonnets, and though his syntax is much clearer, my braine still reeleth from the thous.
L4 - Again, I got this, and if this and its topwise-neighbor were arranged normally, you wouldn't need the comma. In fact, either you already don't need the comma, or you need more of them, but I can't really be sure. My interpretation: they don't hear what they should hear, and so they remain proud of their stupidity. 
L5 - No issues here, for me.
L6 - Anemones, yes. I already said my main point with regards to my understanding here -- until the next line, it's not really clear what you mean by anemones, and even then it could still lead to a bit of confusion, especially for avid gardeners. Aside from the introduction of "anemones", this line actually feels unimportant, with all the rest that follows it being already obvious -- they, the sensitive souls, are the anemones, what with the speaker never actually describing his daughters as anything here.
L7 - This is a confused, but not really confusing, line -- what exactly is the "its"? The anemones? But then, at this point of the anemones' metaphorical discourse with the girls, shouldn't "its" be something referring to the girls' work, perhaps? Since "anemones" should be "anemones", if my guess is right here, then "its" would be a good deal clearer if it's "their".
L8 - The feelers will recoil if the girls' reply is meaningless -- which, I guess, says something, but in both the context of an intellectual and emotional struggle, I don't see a meaningless reply as having that defining effect upon a sensitive soul -- I don't think "those too easily hurt" would realistically (and I'm guessing you're not going for operatic caricatures here, since this seems to be framed in a practical, proverbial context) be as hurt by something which "has nothing to give" rather than something that has something that could be seen as painful to give, whether in its emptiness (for emptiness is only truly painful in certain contexts -- in most contexts, and even sensitive souls understand this, an empty reply is just that, because human beings in general have such a thing as intuition) or not. That is, I do think the whole point of this part is weak, and you might want to revise it -- the "antagonists", the sensitive people, are good, but your characterization of them is inaccurate, at least in my interpretation.
L9 - Again, that missing you. I disagree with the addition of "those" as suggested above, but only because I'm, er, completist. And as for your "antagonists" here, well, wouldn't those "beyond assail" naturally include those of "untrained minds"? Evasion is just another kind of wall.
L10 - "strong walls [so] thick that [they] let no mote inside" Strong and thick feel terribly redundant.
L11 - Huh. That mixture of metaphors, it really felt natural earlier. Then again, I do tend to make bad cocktails. I would have a point on this, but that would be redundant -- also, like I said on my note on line 9, the whole piece of the argument here is dangerously close to that of the very first piece, the one from lines 1 to 4, so I'm really more attuned to just scrapping these four lines altogether.
L12 - No complaints against this specific line (in fact, I rather like this -- all words fairly simple, but all also fairly important) -- in fact, perhaps you could just blend the thoughts of the first piece of the argument and this one? Hmm.....
L13-L14 - I actually read "to rent" as "to tear apart", so that those who would take the wisdom here would only tear apart, which, judging by your syntax, but without fully considering the importance of the word "coin", is closer to the meaning meant -- nevertheless, to consider it as renting as in, well, not the tearing apart one, would be just as valid, if you consider dukealien's suggestion. But in fact, since you mentioned the book of Proverbs (whose part with the lady wisdom crying out, by the way, is one of my favorite parts of the Bible), I would support much more something along the lines of those verses instead, completely ignoring the whole coin and rent idea. Right now, I'm too lazy to think of an actual translation of this idea, but since the King James Bible was translated with the English ear in mind, and since iambic pentameter is a close approximation to the rhythm of regular speech, I bet King Solomon and King James's company of translators would have a better presentation of this than I.

I also enjoyed it, although with the logical slip-up in lines 5 to 8, and the general overlap between lines 1 to 4 and lines 9 to 12, I'm starting to think a superior edit of this would be a general elaboration on the one idea in lines 1 to 4 and 9 to 12 -- that is, instead of telling the girls to contend not with specific groups of persons, instead, it becomes to contend not with only one group of persons, those who are specifically mentioned in line 9, and then elaborating appropriately, with all the points in here thus integrated -- "their walls don't let no dust motes in / or if not that, then they run, so that they'll be all deaf and poop"....."they fear the scalpel of your intellect / for their spirits may be proud, but their brains nil"....and doing away with the whole "Contend you not" opening structure. Of course, the poem itself would ultimately become something else, but since the main point (don't mess with these shitty people) will be kept, and the images and voice may very well be maintained, I don't think it'd be that much of a transformation. Anyways, it's your choice, and in general, it's already getting there. 

A bit of a joke: but yeah, it needs more elitism. Even if I might be one of those bad people your daughters shouldn't contend with. Elitism is good!