Yes, sure, indeed.

Poetry’s like humour and beauty: all in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

For what it’s worth, I don’t like either Kirbmarc’s or Yemisi’s poetry — I don’t think either actually count as legitimate poetry anyway, but discussing, arguing, defining that is a really really sticky can of worms that is.

I vastly prefer Yemmy’s, but I suppose that says more about me than the poem. 😛

Looks like a poetical toss-up between Kirbmarc and Yemisi (The Maiden: http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/2014/04/11/the-maiden/ ).

Regarding the “real justice” crowd, I noticed the same thing in the public outcry against the frequent gang rapes that take place in India, with thousands of people calling for the rapists to be executed. The Indian government even capitulated to the mob, making rape a capital crime. But these people are all missing the point. Many studies have been conducted that show that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. So instead of demanding that their society reflect upon its rampant misogyny and work to become an equal place where women aren’t objectified, harassed, sexually assaulted, and punished for having ruined their family’s “honour” when they are assaulted (or when, FSM forbid, they wear revealing clothing or engage in consensual sexual relations out of wedlock or with an unsuitable mate), people are demanding that perpetrators (who are themselves products of a culture that treats women as property) are put to death, which solves nothing and ensures that women in India will continue to suffer.

But I kind of understand why this particular outcry occurred: traditionally, rape is a crime against a women’s father (if unmarried) or her husband, so of course men are going to be calling for blood when their property has been prematurely deflowered and therefore made worthless. Their goal is not to end the suffering of women and create a society in which they have the same agency and rights as men; it is to prevent property damage. Sickening, but true.

hereandreal,

It’s definitely the people who make the “real justice” comments who are triggering for me, not your comment itself. I hope I didn’t make you feel like you did something wrong. Your comment was actually extremely helpful for me. It articulated a type of derailing that I encounter very frequently when I try to talk about this subject with people (usually men, but not always) who do not have a history of sexual assault.

I think TWs for anything you mentioned are implied by the subject of the blog post. I got to ruminating on events while typing up my reply which left me feeling extra cautious, and since I was bringing my specific past into it, I felt like I was straying a little bit from the original blog post topic, hence my added TW.

Your sensitivity to the subject and to people’s feelings is really, really appreciated, but for me at least you don’t have anything to apologize for. You were replying entirely within the topic of the original blog post, so nothing you wrote hit any unexpected subjects or came was a shock. You just clarified an all too common experience of mine, and for that I thank you.

The level of poetic genius in this comment lead me to trip up and facepalm with my own tongue.

I am?!?

Hmm. Coulda fooled me. Miri’s let me blather on quite a bit. We are even having something of a conversation. Slightly contentious; slightly tendentious; but a conversation just the same.

Hi ButchKitties. (I love your username.)

I really appreciate your sharing in reply to my comment, and I want to say that, while it wasn’t my intent to bring up triggering content without warning, I did, and I apologize for it. I will definitely be more mindful of potential triggers in the future. [I think you were referring to the type of talk about which I wrote in my comment (please correct me if that’s wrong), but I did still write about that without a content note or warning, which is what I’m apologizing for.] I feel like a lot of what we are talking about here are situations in which well-meaning contributors’ intent does not match the actual effect of their actions or speech, and the effect deserves immensely more consideration than the intent because of the damage it does.

I emphasize well-meaning, because comments made with anything other than supportive intentions are an entirely different (and all too frequently occurring) matter. Often, a person’s real intentions are only made clear once they are confronted with a response like the one in this post. If I say “I think you are trying to be supportive, but what you’ve said is actually hurtful and doesn’t address the problem,” and you go on to argue with me about it, then my belief that you want to be supportive doesn’t have a whole lot to stand on.

Perhaps it’s the form of brilliance which arises when one moves so far down the scale of competence, that one somehow wraps around to the other side.

A sort of cosmic integer underflow, if you will.