Jon Paul Fiorentino2013-06-19T12:46:28-04:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=jon-paul-fiorentinoCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jon Paul FiorentinoGood old fashioned elbow grease.Sexism and Silence in the Literary Communitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31883852013-05-01T12:24:43-04:002013-05-01T16:57:25-04:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-paul-fiorentino/"Unequal to Me", exposes the prevalence of sexism in literary book reviews by performing a simple, clever trick. In this found poem, Whittall takes lines from book reviews of women authors and switches the pronouns to male. In doing so, she reveals the absurd ways that women are addressed, commodified, and fetishized in a "literary" context.
It's a great poem, a powerful comedic moment, and a text of bliss. It provides us with a heightened understanding of how language is never truly neutral and how language, often in subtle ways, is capable of performing the tasks of sexism and misogyny even in the so-called enlightened world of contemporary literature. But what happens, in the world of literature, when we encounter blatant, vile hateful speech? What happens when someone with an established literary reputation is guilty of overt sexism or even misogyny?
A few years ago, I implemented a new policy regarding people with hateful values. For the most part I have adhered to it. I simply ignore them. I carry on about my business as though they do not exist. This has its advantages. My life is filled with queer-positive, feminist, activism-friendly, progressive people. I have enjoyed a more positive outlook on life and I spend most of my time focused on how to make the best art I can make and live a life according to my values without being distracted by unpleasant business. But I am beginning to realize I need to revise this policy. I am in a position of privilege. I am a white male who teaches in a major university writing program and has established a career as a literary editor and writer. It's too easy for me to tell myself that everything is fine when I know for a fact that it's not. And, after all, how can I live a life according to my values if I never take the time to stand up for them?
This week, a poem by Zachariah Wells called "Citric Bitch's Thinking Is Shit" was unearthed/rediscovered on Twitter. It was originally published on his blog in 2009. For those who may not know him, Wells has become somewhat notorious for his bombastic and often dismissive book reviews and has also established himself as a writer and editor of note in the Canadian literary community. I believe his poem is an example of hateful speech directed at a woman, Sina Queyras, who is one of Canada's most accomplished poets and critics. (Full disclosure: I consider Queryas a valued colleague and friend.)
"Citric Bitch" is a direct reference to "Lemon Hound", Queyras's book/website/twitter handle and persona, and it is written as a univocal lipogram in order to parody Christian Bok's Eunoia (Christian is a friend and colleague of Queyras's). I have linked to the poem and I do not wish to spend much time performing a close reading of the misogyny and hatred. It's blatant and vile. See for yourself. But in case you would rather not look, I will quickly summarize. (I am open to other possible interpretations, but given the very public debate that Wells and Queyras were engaged in online in 2009 and the obviousness of the title, I would likely find alternate interpretations hard to believe.) My reading of the poem is the following: it is a personal attack on Queyras on various levels: her aesthetics, her sexual orientation, her perceived "careerism." It depicts Queyras as "dripping in gism" and it concludes with the following imperative: "Drink piss, dimwit citric bitch, / Kiss this critic's nightstick!"
From my point of view, the language in this missive is as disgusting as the language of young male gamers who recently verbally attacked and threatened feminist activists such as Stephanie Guthrie and Anita Sarkeesian (who heroically continue to do vital work). It's as monstrous as John Belushi's strategic sabotaging of the work of women writers on Saturday Night Live in the 1970s.
But in order to be ethical about this, I need to make this important point -- I do not want to make the assumption that the Zachariah Wells of 2009 is the Zachariah Wells of 2013. It is possible that the continued existence of this poem on his blog is an oversight. Perhaps he meant to take it down but it has been forgotten and archived. Perhaps he will be embarrassed to discover it is still online and accessible. If this is the case, then I hope he will consider this article as an opportunity to remove the text and apologize for directing what seems to be an abusive attack toward a fellow writer.
Now I am forced to think about myself in 2009. And I wonder why it is that I never spoke out about this four years ago when I first saw it. And I wonder why many of the men and women of the literary community did not speak out about it in 2009. (Some of my colleagues didn't see it, but some of them did.) I have potential answers but obviously I don't have all of them. I searched my email history back to 2009 and found a two-hour-long chat transcript I had with a fellow poet. I was outraged about the piece. She said that it was horrible and we should do something about it. But we never did.
I have had brief encounters with Wells over the years, mostly cordial, and some awkward. The awkwardness was expected. There is an ancient ocean between our poetics. But I wonder if the cordiality of some of our encounters made it easier for me to conveniently forget. I have been cautioned by editors, poets, publishers, critics, and lovers of contemporary literature to stay out of such things -- that literary feuds are pointless and a waste of time and effort. Indeed, the last time I engaged in any real negative discussion about one of my peers, it was in 2005. And while I'm aware that this very youthful, early effort of mine was appreciated by some people, I regret the inelegance of my argument and I am also aware I lost friends over it.
There are so many reasons a literary community remains silent when faced with the unpleasant business of sexism or misogyny: many writers fear the repercussions of speaking out because many of the people who get away with both blatant and subtle forms of hate are also in positions of relative power in the literary community. Some of them hold editorships; some of them write an astonishing number of book reviews. A fear many people have is that calling someone out will result in poor press and negative reviews. Literary culture is exceptionally clique-oriented. The advice I'm most frequently given on the matter is: pretend they don't exist. And, as I've stated, this has mostly been my policy.
The problem with this policy is now obvious to me: they DO exist. And they often get away with it because we, as a literary community, are too busy pretending they don't. I think it's time we took some cues from the gaming community and the culture of progressive comedy and start calling out bullies on their abusive behaviour. When an act of hatefulness occurs in our community, we owe it to ourselves and our values to name it as such and demand better, more critical and indeed more literary thinking. This is why the recent establishment of the organization known as CWILA (Canadian Women in the Literary Arts) is so important. It's important, too, that poems like Whittall's "Unequal to Me" continue to be written and published. Poems like these open up truths and ask important questions. I would like to thank Zoe Whittall for writing it and thank Sina Queyras for publishing it. It was the spark that led me to engage in this conversation. I am truly sorry that I am four years late.
]]>Why Morrissey Still Matterstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28266502013-03-07T17:38:30-05:002013-05-07T05:12:01-04:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-paul-fiorentino/animal rights activism, his hatred of the throne, his A.E. Housmanesque gift for misanthropy, his refusal to adhere to any of the tenets of accepted celebrity behaviour have often landed him in hot water. But what's wrong with a little hot water when today's music and music industry are so depressingly tepid?
In the last couple of weeks, Morrissey has railed against Beyonce, Jimmy Kimmel, the Royals,Justin Bieber, Madonna, Paul McCartney, Victoria and David Beckham, and too many more to mention. And, yes, just in the last couple of weeks. It's all very entertaining and it's all usually in the name of animal rights, or anti-monarchism or anti-consumer culture. But it is also entirely in the name of Morrissey. I wouldn't want it any other way.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
Activism and individualism are the engines that drive Morrissey. He never shies away from the incendiary moment. And it would be wrong of me to give him a free pass. He makes some dreadful missteps. He frequently compares the slaughter of animals to the holocaust, he makes villains out of entire populations for the actions of their governments, he even calls for the assassinations of those who don't meet his artistic standards: "Bring me the head of Elton John... which is one instance in which meat would not be murder, if it were served on a plate." But seriously, anyone who takes these proclamations as not ironic or not hyperbolic is probably too stupid to help. I will concede that when he's at his worst, his claims are embarrassingly ineffective. Sometimes he's guilty of tipping his hand. Sometimes when he whines about Madonna or Justin Bieber, there's a tinge of jealousy in the tone. Morrissey has never been embraced by the people who run the Grammys, BRIT awards, etc. And you can tell that it eats away at him. After all, he's a man obsessed with his own old fashioned notion of the charts and he's (without a doubt) inspired countless recipients of such awards.
When he gets it right though, it's a thing of rare beauty. His criticism of the London Olympics was, in my opinion, not entirely spot-on but very much needed, and while Billy Bragg, John Lydon and other so-called "punks" caved in to the pressure of British nationalism, Morrissey stood resolute and launched this missive: "I am unable to watch the Olympics due to the blustering jingoism that drenches the event. Has England ever been quite so foul with patriotism? The 'dazzling royals' have, quite naturally, hi-jacked [sic] the Olympics for their own empirical needs, and no oppositional voice is allowed in the free press. It is lethal to witness."
Morrissey recently proclaimed: "The rhino is now more or less extinct, and it's not because of global warming or shrinking habitats. It's because of Beyonce's handbags." And I'm glad he said it. Beyonce and her husband, Jay-Z are part of a disgusting trend of wearing extreme cruelty. They are both avid wearers of the skins of elephant, crocodile, stingray, ostrich, cow, anaconda, alligator, boa, python, and lizard. It's barbaric behaviour. And no public figure other than Morrissey seems to have the guts to speak out against it. And when he forced the Staples Center in Los Angeles to not sell meat during his show (a feat even Paul McCartney could not accomplish), I'm equally glad. Activism is about action. If it's within your power to take action and change something on a large scale for the sake of the cause, then any activist worth her/his salt must take that action. We've learned in recent years, that action is Morrissey's middle name. I would also argue though that it's his fierce defiance that also leads to the best moments of Morrissey: songs like "Meat Is Murder" and "Scandinavia."
It seems that it's been this way from the start. He has recently been revealed as the author of the world's most biting teenage pen pal letters. And when stardom inevitably happened to/for him, he found that he could reach another octave of wit. In the '80s, when George Michael was sharing wisdom like "You'll never find peace of mind until you listen to your heart," Morrissey quipped "Sex is a waste of batteries." And these days, when Jay-Z offers up pseudo-wisdom: "I think relationships are broken up because of the media," Morrissey refuses to disappoint: "I have found that the best way to avoid ending your life an embittered wreck is to start out as one."
We need public figures who are individuals and understand what it means to be individualistic. I would go so far as to say that we are in desperate need of eccentrics. Clearly, eccentricity trumps compliance. Morrissey is Oscar Wilde + Gertrude Stein with the added bonus of a crooner's voice; he's the most sexualized "celibate" of our time; and the most infuriatingly provocative public persona imaginable. And it's because he acutely understands what it means to be enigmatic and what it means to be a fan. From his early days being a devoted fan of The New York Dolls, Shelagh Delaney, John Betjeman, and David Bowie, Morrissey understood the powerful, heartbreaking, and intimate intricacies of fandom and art. If we are clever enough to look, we will find some sense of hope with the few artists he holds in high regard today. We need more Patti Smith and less Will Smith. We need more Jeff Beck and less David Beckham. We need Morrissey for the simple reason that he is the best example of an artist and public figure whose individualism cannot be bought or sold.
]]>A Film Festival First for Montrealtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27033742013-02-18T09:39:59-05:002013-04-20T05:12:01-04:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-paul-fiorentino/a cultural hub, a "City of Festivals," a city of great diversity. It is worthy of such praise. It has also been criticized for its crumbling infrastructure, its ongoing civic corruption, and its inability to meet the needs of its diverse population. It is equally worthy of such criticism. This spring, one brand new film festival is using Montreal's cultural benefits to highlight issues of accessibility and inclusion. Regarding Disability: A Film Festival will make its debut in Montreal on March 21 and will run in various locations until the 28.
Its aim is to celebrate the artistic achievements of people with disabilities who work in film, as well as to promote awareness and community consciousness regarding disabilities, accessibility, and inclusion. It is sponsored by a wide range of partners including The Government of Quebec, McGill University, Ubisoft, and the Cineplex-Odeon Forum, and although it is only in its first year, the festival boasts an impressive offering of films with wide appeal, events for young adults, as well as actor and disability rights activist, Eddie McGee as a special guest speaker.
The festival is the initiative of disability rights activist and McGill Professor Dr. Tara Flanagan and Thomas Henderson, the director of the Research Centre for the Educational and Professional Inclusion of Students with Disabilities (CRISPESH). Flanagan explains how she and Henderson came to establish the festival: "Thomas and I noticed so many great things going on in a variety of disability communities that just don't seem to reach the general public. People with disabilities are often presented as victims or vulnerable and we wanted to do something that would challenge these ideas in an accessible way while celebrating the contributions of people with disabilities to art and culture. We chose the festival name Regarding Disability because it is about disability and also valuing disability (that is to say, holding people with disabilities in high regard.)"
The featured film of this year's festival will be The Human Race. Flanagan explains its selection: "It's a horror/sci-fi film and it is not about disability but it prominently features actors with a variety of disabilities, and is an example of inclusion. It could be viewed as a general model for how movies should represent diversity more accurately." Flanagan adds that the festival will not be without local flavour: "Montreal is certainly not the most accessible place. Our opening gala will feature some short films by Laurence Parent who tackles the issue of physical accessibility of Montreal's public transportation and some of the systemic issues inherent in adapted transport." While the full schedule shows this to be a festival of international and local excellence, Flanagan wants everyone who is planning to attend to know that there will be some surprise performances and art, and some exciting special guests as well.
Although this is its inaugural year, Regarding Disability already promises to be a compelling addition to Montreal's festival circuit, and one of those rare and beautiful opportunities for art and activism to intersect.
Please visit the Regarding Disability Facebook page]]>Will More Male Athletes "Come Out" in 2013?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23635042012-12-26T12:31:05-05:002013-02-25T05:12:01-05:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-paul-fiorentino/The Barnstormer, a truly excellent and entertaining website. I thought about it for a while. There were some remarkable feel-good stories, such as the return of the Winnipeg Jets, the Toronto Blue Jays becoming an off-season powerhouse, and there were unthinkable and heart-wrenching tragedies. But I kept coming back to one story. It's the story of two progressive NFL players who united to take a stand against homophobia in the often backwards culture of professional sports. And it requires more than a few sentences to express how important this story is.
Kluwe then responded to Burns with an extremely sassy and hilarious letter in support of Ayanbadejo. This letter took the Internet by storm. Later, when college football player Jamie Kuntz was kicked off his team for kissing his boyfriend in the press box, Ayanbadejo and Kluwe took to Twitter to offer their support. The spectre of homophobia looms so large in men's sports and specifically in men's professional sports.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
In women's sports, the tide has already started to turn. Olympic soccer player Megan Rapinoe came out this year and received an outpouring of support by her teammates and fans. The men are lagging behind. I believe this has to do with to an outdated code of secrecy, shame, and silence that pervades professional sports.
Men have been stunted by the notion of traditional "family values" that is conjured when participating in sports as fans or as athletes. Indeed, hatred (dressed up as traditional values) led to a Emmitt C. Burns Jr.'s repellant attempt to suppress another American's right to freedom of expression by claiming to speak for the traditional "fan base." As Frank Bruni points out, "The possibility that coming out might rankle management or sour fans ... keeps gay athletes in the closet."
It appears that the culture of professional sports is still largely a culture of bullying. But thanks in part to Ayanbadejo and Kluwe, as well as Patrick Burke's groundbreaking "You Can Play Project" (whose slogan "Gay Athletes. Straight Allies. Teaming Up For Respect" says it all), the culture is changing. These activists have elevated the discourse in a world that is notorious for its rigid, limited, and archaic notions of heternormativity.
There's much work to be done in terms of awareness and advocacy. Although it is widely acknowledged that there are gay athletes in all four major professional sports leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL) we are still waiting for an active player to come out.
Queer positive messages like Ayanbadejo's and Kluwe's get us closer to the day where a gay athlete will not have to endure the often-barbaric and hateful atmosphere of the locker room, where a gay athlete in one of the four major leagues will proudly be able to claim his orientation publicly and will not be demonized, but in fact respected and loved for coming out.
I long for the day when being on this list will not be seen by anyone as anything other that a point of pride. We are closer than we were. So, this is my sports story of the year. It's not about a game that was played on a field. However, it's about an important victory for activism and inclusion in the field of civil rights.]]>You Don't Have to Be Adam Lanza's Mother to Make a Statementtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23229732012-12-18T12:12:13-05:002013-02-17T05:12:01-05:00Jon Paul Fiorentinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-paul-fiorentino/have to deal with enough unwarranted stigmatization and marginalization as it is. People with Autism, Asperger's Sydrome, ADHD, chronic depression, chronic anxiety, personality disorders, and other mental health challenges are, on the whole, non-violent and law-abiding citizens.
Many of the people dearest to me have mental health challenges. I have spent a great deal of time in my life getting to know people from across the Autism spectrum. They are among the kindest and gentlest I have ever known. I happen to have my own mental health challenges as well. I used to be self-injurious and I still suffer from acute depression and anxiety. It's not an easy thing for me to discuss without cracking wise (this is my defence mechanism) but I will do my best, considering the gravity of this issue.
Liza Long's now-viral blog post is being heralded as "brave" and "powerful." I believe it is neither. "Michael," Long's undiagnosed 13-year-old son, is no doubt a child with behavioural challenges that need to be addressed. My heart goes out to him and to his family. And, yes, we need to do better in the United States and Canada to provide free and accessible health care for people like Michael.
I have no problem with the idea that we need to talk about mental illness. We absolutely do. But let's take a close look at the language and its implications here. Long writes: "Now is the time to talk about mental illness ... That's the only way our nation can ever truly heal." Why? Why is NOW the time for a discussion about mental illness? A very dubious link is being made between Michael's rage issues in his formative years and the monstrous act that Adam Lanza committed on December 14, 2012. The manner in which Long and the media have been using terms like Autism and Asperger's prompted the Autism Research Institute to release a very carefully worded statement on the tragedy.
The truth is, the great majority of people with Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, as well as those with other forms of mental health challenges are not to be feared. As Dr. Heather Stuart quite rightly points out, "mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status ... [Further], members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill."
It's difficult to comprehend that an argument based on facts (such as Stuart's) may go largely unnoticed and an argument based purely on feelings (such as Long's) is currently being lauded as persuasive and groundbreaking. I believe we have been taken in too easily by the myth of the "violent madman" whether it be through depictions in entertainment or by the media. In fact, Stuart's and countless other studies have concluded that those with mental health challenges are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. The last quote I will take from Stuart is an important one because it takes us back to the issue of "the REAL issue": "Too much past research has focused on the person with the mental illness, rather than the nature of the social interchange that led up to the violence."
What is the nature of the social interchange that led to the Newtown tragedy? Or, to put it more bluntly, what was the specific context? Here's what we know. In fact: Adam Lanza's mother was a gun enthusiast and actively participated with Adam in gun culture. She reportedly "loved" her guns and allowed her son access to them. Her guns included two traditional hunting rifles, and three guns that are basically unsuitable for hunting -- two handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. These are the three killing machines that Adam Lanza took with him that morning, after killing his mother, to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he slaughtered 20 young children and six more adults. This twisted element of North American culture where, for some reason, people feel the need to fill their homes with killing machines commonly referred to as guns (and let's face it, guns have no other purpose) and to "love" these killing machines is the real issue here. There is no reasonably intelligent argument for the inclusion of guns in our culture. Full stop. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be repealed immediately.
I have faith that Liza Long's blog post was a genuine attempt to start a discourse on mental health. For that reason, I am thankful she wrote it. I would guess that she loves her children very much and wants what's best for them. This is why I hope she will see the problematic rhetoric in her proclamation of kinship and solidarity with Adam Lanza's mother. It is a much more powerful and brave message to say: "I will not provide my son with a similar context. I will not participate in my country's love affair with guns. I am not Adam Lanza's mother. I am Michael's mother."