>>9858199>Russian Futurism/Acmeism was more suited to them because it was a literal shitpost of a movement which required no poetic effort on behalf of the authors.That sounds more like French/Italian Futurism. Except for epic Ego-Futursists, Russian Futurism was kitschy only in its very first anthology just in order to attract enough public attention to their movement and not die out shamefacedly just a moment after it had been born like Imaginists (not Imagists) did a couple of years later. Russian Futurism had pretty clear and well-thought takes on aesthetics, main of which was the fact that poetic word posses an intrinsic value. Although generally most of notable Futurists had their own individual style and ideas, this thesis can be applied to almost all of them. So, in order to fully manifest this thesis in poetry, Futurists also paid a lot of attention to the linguistic side of a poetic text, which made their works even more sophisticated and astonishing. Even if Futuristic deconstruction of metaphor may seem a bit childish at times, it still doesn't make their poetry any less aesthetic because their understanding of aesthetism finds its expression in a different way, which is built on the ruins of a demolished metaphor. So to say that geniuses like Khlebnikov were just some shitposters is fundamentally incorrect. As for Acmeists, I don't see why you pair them with Futurists since even initially they were a bunch of ex-Symbolists and all their works are clearly closer to the former. But to return to our initial discussion, you asked me to name a 1 relevant female poet, and I did. So, even if we take that all your following ramblings are absolutely true, that would imply that females aren't fundamentally incapable of being poets but there just haven't been to many good ones yet
