little brown women

[shemthepenman]

People need to get their "I'm offended on that person's behalf" pants off.

Poetry is occasionally going to offend.  It should.  That's its whole purpose.  I find offensive poetry less offensive than censoring poetry because someone might find it offensive.

And please don't go the usual "so you think it's ok to glorify rape/ kiddie porn/ some other kind of horrific crime?" route.  No, of course not, but I'm a grown up and I can process it and decide not to read it again.  This is a site for adults.  If it's a bad poem, that's what we should focus on -- remember, you don't have to like what a poem's about to acknowledge its value.

i don't know if i would go as far as to say poetry's whole purpose is to offend. but, granted, certain poems will offend some people; and sometimes this is for the good and sometimes not so good [depending what side of the of-fence you're on - that pun was offensive]. the trouble is, this way of thinking can become, ironically, a counter censorship in itself. that is: poetry may offend you, but shut up about it.
if you find my poetry racist or sexist or some other negative -ist, whether it is on your own behalf, or someone else's, philosophically, politically, or morally then bring it on; don't hold back, give me your strongest argument. hopefully, i can convince you otherwise. maybe you'll convince me. who knows. it seems like there is an argument about this that has been predefined as either against censorship or for it. when, it doesn't have to be that way. saying "i think your poem is sexist, and here's how" is not the same as saying "i think your poem is sexist. all sexist poetry should be banned!" but people hear it that way and suddenly leap on the "you can't tell me what i can and can't say" paradox-train. i remember a poem on here a little while back whereby someone compared a woman to a road. granted the poem itself was shockingly crap, it was moved to the sewer.and the only comment of any value was about how misogynist it was. and if it can be said of a poem:

"Wow, misogynist much? You're right, of course: women are just lying there like roads begging to be driven over. They're the prize at the end of the race, happy to be in your hands for as long as it takes you to drain yourself of all passion and move on to the next adventure." [i wonder if matthew thought of his as sexist?]

then i think the accusation that a poem representing women as these dainty little creatures flitting about in the sun, popping out babies and flopping their hair around—being an example to all women—is just as valid a complaint.

but the question isn't really about censorship or if a poem should be judged on its subject matter or whatever else; the question is, is this a sexist poem? i happen to think it is, in the kind of passive sense of that word 'sexist'—that being, it isn't saying women are the second sex or anything, but it is treating them in a condescending way IMO.

but, i am slowly running out of fucks to give. so i will bid this debate adieu, you sexist cunts

oh, and here is what my youngest daughter thought about it:

SARAH:
What do you mean by brown girls
SAM:
i didn't write it.
SARAH:
it's a very positive poem
the last paragraph I'm not sure about
SAM:
why?
SARAH:
It ruins it
the whole poem is very positive then the darkness during the night ruins it but it's all right because brown girls aren't always happy and stuff.
it's nice
I don't like the word 'dark'.
hahahaha my opinion is so basic.
Yeah but it's supposed to be all positive to make little brown women perfect but it's not because little brown women aren't perfect.
like oh yay little brown women are perfect - wait, oh no. They're not. Nevermind.
I don't really like the 'little brown women' bit but that's what the poem was about so I couldn't say anything about it.