little brown women

[milo]

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Sexy Mexican Maid...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2dn12a...rics_music

My best friend is a little brown woman. (Mexican) And a big fan of The Red Hot Chile Peppers. Go figure. 
I found the poem to be tender beyond its percieved nomenclature. And what if a poet chooses a Narator that is both sexist and racist? 
Paul

Exactly.  People need to not confuse the narrator with the writer.  Think of all the vile character Shakespeare wrote dialogue for - should he not write it because they are distasteful.  Look at the Last Duchess by Browning - that narrator was quite the douchebag, but the poem is excellent.  etc, etc, etc.

[dukealien]

In this, of all places, I thought we would not be making windows into souls.  Making windows *out of* souls, certainly, but it takes a very specialized and charged word (or form of words) to, outbound, leave such a hole that we're able to reliably see in.  Nothing in the present example approaches that - though some of the reactions might.  Or, to paraphrase Owen Wister, "When you say 'racist,' smile!"

[shemthepenman]

@Billy

i don't quite get your point. if the poem is sexist, which i think it is [or, at least condescending to women], it pertains to all of our daughters and granddaughters. this fellow is saying he loves 'little brown women' the way 'they' cover their mouth when they laugh. do 'they'? my children most certainly don't, especially not in the morning, and their mother most certainly never did - and fuck overt self-expression being a sin. and fuck sheep herders and their stone age backward thinking about women. and fuck any women that have been conditioned into accepting this infantilising shit as 'sweet' or 'endearing' or 'complimentary'.
are 'they' objects of swaying hips to be perved on by men? don't get me wrong, we all do it, but don't start giving me 'it's a noble thing' crap about aesthetics, or reclaiming femininity shite - women are not goddesses or earth mothers or nature incarnate; they're wankers, just like the rest of us scumbags.
should women count themselves blessed that they inspire such vacuous praise for a stroke of natural selective luck? and the ones that don't sway their hips or laugh like it were a sin or are pleasing in the most superficial ways to the opposite sex, can go fuck themselves.

[Todd]

I'm not for censorship, but there are definitely things I choose not to read. Moving away from this poem. I found Lolita brilliant. I even blended some of it into a poem I once wrote. I was on another site and a guy wrote a poem called fucking the child. He was a good writer but it was essentially an experience this with me sort of thing. I hated it. Thought it was trash. Never read him again.

[RiverNotch]

I'd think that beauty and ethics were separate things -- what's good in one could be bad in another. Hitler had good speeches, but also bad ones, usually both being for the same -- good as in powerful, bad as in racist. But are those speeches good, or bad? I guess
it'd depend on priority -- what would be more important, in the reader's frame of mind? Since this is a critical forum, I don't think ethics has as much weight, unless it intrudes upon how a poem shoots its message, ie the poem's beauty,
but generally, ethics ultimately holds more swords over our and others' heads than beauty (even if an evil poem, if ugly, won't really be effective), so I guess ultimately, and by ultimately I mean considering pretty much all contexts, an ethically unsound poem, especially if beautiful, is just plain bad.

as for that poem, ethically, i think it's in a gray spot -- little brown women can be bad to the sensitive, can be fun to the nonchalant, although personally i missed the racism, and feel the fucking sexism (I think shem said it best, above) -- and aesthetically, well, it's a bit of a meh. it's pretty, but i've read better, more punchy or properly fluffy, especially from the poet. 
but focusing on its ethical aspects in the critical forum is a little unfair, especially since even at the most extreme, its sexism/racism isn't advocating anything violent, just a few raised eyebrows (and where I live, coincidentally it seems the same country where billy's wife comes from, I'd have to raise eyebrows every time I leave the house xD) -- ultimately, it might be a bit detracting, but not enough, i think, to completely ruin its sentiment (which is ultimately racist/sexist, from more, er, extreme points of view),
its, i feel i must reiterate, ultimately unpunchy-fluff piece of sentiment :|

[billy]

who said it's noble?

the poem isn't about your daughter. that you see it that way is how you see it, not necessarily how it is. and is that all he's saying? this [fellow] has written a poem, not about your daughter but about a specific group of people. i stumble to understand how his doing so has affected you so. how come when much worse than this is written people aren't jumping up and saying...you cunt, that poem is about a woman, it could be my daughter...

god forgive me for ever having offended you unknowingly because i've lost count of the number of sexist poems i've written. i've seen and admired a lot of your artwork but you know what, i see more than one or two extremely sexist in their portrayal of woman. does that make them bad paintings, resoundingly no. do your sexist painting reflect anything of my girls, who fucking cares. lets stop art, lets kill poets, lets not mention little black women less it it pertains to my girls, and lets kill all artists who paint breasts and cunts and the female form in general but there's the rub isn't it. it's okay for one but not for another. if something like the poem in question offends you don't come to my house for dinner we abuse everyone through speech all the time. should woman count themselves blessed? what has that got to do with it. the question is; is the poem racist/sexist and if so is it in the readers eye or is the reader projecting what they perceive to be the mind of the poet. and at the end of the day if it is a sexist does it really matter. is the sexism any greater or smaller than many poems carry. i've seen much worse on facebook posts where people denounce the fairer sex for being twats, oops i said fairer sex...i'm a sexist. so no, i never said it was noble you just assumed i did. and i still like your paintings of women's naked bodies.

@Billy

i don't quite get your point. if the poem is sexist, which i think it is [or, at least condescending to women], it pertains to all of our daughters and granddaughters. this fellow is saying he loves 'little brown women' the way 'they' cover their mouth when they laugh. do 'they'? my children most certainly don't, especially not in the morning, and their mother most certainly never did - and fuck overt self-expression being a sin. and fuck sheep herders and their stone age backward thinking about women. and fuck any women that have been conditioned into accepting this infantilising shit as 'sweet' or 'endearing' or 'complimentary'.
are 'they' objects of swaying hips to be perved on by men? don't get me wrong, we all do it, but don't start giving me 'it's a noble thing' crap about aesthetics, or reclaiming femininity shite - women are not goddesses or earth mothers or nature incarnate; they're wankers, just like the rest of us scumbags.
should women count themselves blessed that they inspire such vacuous praise for a stroke of natural selective luck? and the ones that don't sway their hips or laugh like it were a sin or are pleasing in the most superficial ways to the opposite sex, can go fuck themselves.

[Achebe]

Does every poem have to be universally acceptable? Indians hate Kipling, for good reason. But he's read in the UK. So should Kipling be banned now?

[billy]

Kipling's 'white man's burden' is arguably aimed at those living in the Philippines [think of the American control of the pacific and domination of the Japanese] and other surrounding areas and was seen by some as bad poetry. while Roosevelt liked it, some senators didn't. does it smack of imperialism? very possibly, is it bad poetry; some would say yes but i read it as an excellent piece that worked in capturing not only an ideology but the expectations of two sides of a condition. and personally i don't think anything should be universally accepted.

[shemthepenman]

who said it's noble?

the poem isn't about your daughter. that you see it that way is how you see it, not necessarily how it is. and is that all he's saying? this [fellow] has written a poem, not about your daughter but about a specific group of people. i stumble to understand how his doing so has affected you so. how come when much worse than this is written people aren't jumping up and saying...you cunt, that poem is about a woman, it could be my daughter...

god forgive me for ever having offended you unknowingly because i've lost count of the number of sexist poems i've written. i've seen and admired a lot of your artwork but you know what, i see more than one or two extremely sexist in their portrayal of woman. does that make them bad paintings, resoundingly no. do your sexist painting reflect anything of my girls, who fucking cares. lets stop art, lets kill poets, lets not mention little black women less it it pertains to my girls, and lets kill all artists who paint breasts and cunts and the female form in general but there's the rub isn't it. it's okay for one but not for another. if something like the poem in question offends you don't come to my house for dinner we abuse everyone through speech all the time.  should woman count themselves blessed? what has that got to do with it. the question is; is the poem racist/sexist and if so is it in the readers eye or is the reader projecting what they perceive to be the mind of the poet. and at the end of the day if it is a sexist does it really matter. is the sexism any greater or smaller than many poems carry. i've seen much worse on facebook posts where people denounce the fairer sex for being twats, oops i said fairer sex...i'm a sexist. so no, i never said it was noble you just assumed i did. and i still like your paintings of women's naked bodies.

@Billy

i don't quite get your point. if the poem is sexist, which i think it is [or, at least condescending to women], it pertains to all of our daughters and granddaughters. this fellow is saying he loves 'little brown women' the way 'they' cover their mouth when they laugh. do 'they'? my children most certainly don't, especially not in the morning, and their mother most certainly never did - and fuck overt self-expression being a sin. and fuck sheep herders and their stone age backward thinking about women. and fuck any women that have been conditioned into accepting this infantilising shit as 'sweet' or 'endearing' or 'complimentary'.
are 'they' objects of swaying hips to be perved on by men? don't get me wrong, we all do it, but don't start giving me 'it's a noble thing' crap about aesthetics, or reclaiming femininity shite - women are not goddesses or earth mothers or nature incarnate; they're wankers, just like the rest of us scumbags.
should women count themselves blessed that they inspire such vacuous praise for a stroke of natural selective luck? and the ones that don't sway their hips or laugh like it were a sin or are pleasing in the most superficial ways to the opposite sex, can go fuck themselves.

whoa there, billy, son. firstly, i was only using my children as an example of two young women that wouldn't hear the phrase 'little brown women', no matter who it is aimed at, positively. i don't care if the N is talking about my children, your children, women in general, or the particular women he is looking at at the time, it is patronising to all of them, in an insidious way. and what we say doesn't necessarily depend on the correctness of the words we use. i could call someone a 'big fat woman'; this may be entirely accurate, but i doubt anyone it is aimed at would be happy with it. "but it is technically true" i would say, and the reply "yeah well, fuck off". the fact is 'little brown women' is a term one would use for children, and to use it non-ironically for actual full grown women is insulting. and yep, so what if we insult people? this is true. but don't get all pissy when someone says 'that's insulting', is all. . .

and anyway, yeah, i can be incredibly sexist. my paintings could not only be interpreted as sexist, but horrifically so. meat and bone and horrible half broken faces naked bodies as objects. but they are what they are, and i wouldn't moan about someone saying so; and my comment about dressing this up as noble was aimed at the poem itself [and dale's explanation of it]. it seems odd to me that using cutesy language objectifying women is in some way regarded as a positive thing, a positive generalisation. the poem has this old fashioned sense of machismo, whereby these women should find it flattering that they are referred to as 'little women' coquettish and curvy. not to mention that we all should 'be so'. and i won't say 'oh, well done you for writing a sexist poem; you really are a character'. no more than i would say 'oh that tattoo of a swastika on your forehead is really well done; beautiful shading'. and i wouldn't expect anyone who found my paintings deeply sexist to like them. i would probably argue with them, try to justify myself, of course.

and about the issue of 'let's not have any art that is offensive', this is precisely the problem with freedom of speech or those that apparently defend it, because i never said i didn't want to see it, or read it, or hear it. suddenly exercising my freedom of speech has somehow translated into 'ban it'. i will come round your house and look at any old offensive shit you have hanging on the wall and argue the toss about how terrible it is. it seems like you would have the argument stopped in its tracks by banning me from saying anything contradictory: "don't come round hear with your opinions". a kind of strange argument pro-offensive art/anti-freedom of speech [or, pro-offensive freedom of speech except when it is directed at me]. it is like these folks on the internet that are always banging on about how we all have the right to call so-and-so a 'cunt' in the comments section of youtube because it is our right of freedom of speech; yet, don't actually use their freedom of speech to argue against calling so-and-so a cunt because it's a stupid and shitty thing to do.
but, i'll tell dale exactly what i think, and dale is a super fantastic fellow that necessarily understands that my criticism of his poem is a point of view that has value in being heard just as much as his poem has.

note: i recently asked my children to read the poem and tell me what they think. Avril [20] said:

AVRIL:
"Yeah I like it.
Don't get the third bit"

SAM:
"you don't think it is sexist?"

AVRIL:
"No.
How would it be?"

[ellajam]

Me and Avril, off to the fair.

[shemthepenman]

yep, she does have a way of making me realise what a supercilious twat i can be

Me and Avril, off to the fair.

[Leanne]

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.

[Weeded]

Yup^

I found it interesting how for such a simple poem it was received so, um, how do I put this, controversially?

[aschueler]

I have enjoyed reading all this and everyone's points of view.

Especially Mercedes' thesaurical posting..."Lil' russett dumplin's" would be better.

I suspect the there is a link to the reader's geographic location and interpretation of racism.  I don't see brown as an indication of a specific race per se, so that one mostly dodged me.  I really didn't catch the allusion to little brown fuck machine...never heard that before, maybe I need to get out more.

[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.

[billy]

my eldest girl wasn't offended either; i like your kids.

[dtwilliams90]

This reminds me of the debate on the proper term for "Black" people. Some don't want to be called Black and others prefer African and/or African-American and then some disagree with the usage of the word black in the first place.

Personally, I think it at all comes down to the person and how they view it. You might have a person that is okay with being called brown and another that is not. It all depends on who you are speaking to.