About dicks and personal politics (Antti)

by Milla

Welcome to a heterosexist world where all human relations are reduced to: Genitalia.

This blog post is made because of me being sick and tired of having discussions with Dick-Heads – meaning people who can’t think outside the heterosexist patriarchal box and no matter how hard I try to explain a different way of seeing things – the mind of the Dick-Head always goes back to the same simple track: Genitalia.

This is a post i put on the forum today [in a wacko discussion on "Merits of closed spaces?"]. It’s a tired reply to Antti’s (one of these great informal anarchist leader-types) insistent verbalized conviction that i’m offensive by naming the relation of a woman – Riikka – who publicly (on a closed mailing list) declared me as mentally ill “seeing sexism everywhere” in defense of the action by a >> Former Lover << of hers, kicking me out from this list. Aleksi, the << Former Lover >> of Riikka, and dictatorial mailing list admin, had made a decision to silence me – without consulting other opinions – stating that there was “no sexism” going on on the list, just a bit of “bad behavior”, and that i was “lacking a sense of proportions” coming in with criticism, and that i probably had some “mental problems” of some sort.

For some reason the words “Former Lover” seems to have been translated into a simplified “wanting dick”, and Antti is now convinced that I’m offending Riikka in a sexist way by discussing and naming the power relations within the scene openly.

Here’s a short intro to the post on the forum:

Tapetti quoting and responding to Antti.

Antti quoting me, and challenging Tapetti.

There’s some more exchange in between. But it ended up with this:

My response to Antti.

And this is how the post continues:

Why are these words offending to you? Why do you think Riikka should be offended by it?

I could also talk about Micke feeling attracted to Aleksi (the list admin) and doing close work with the guy. I can also talk about Ronja openly describing awe and “fancy” for Micke taking a lot of space, dominating meetings. I could talk about the relation that Riikka has had to herself and her female body, crying when she saw herself naked.
[Click here to read her own words: Riikka's relation to her own body ]

Why should the clearly stated relation that Riikka had with Aleksi who kicked me out from the mailing list and thereby starting this whole absurd witch-hunt and official exclusion from the in-crowd, why should the relation she had with Aleksi, the close intimate relation she had [LOVER means just THAT, NOT "dick-craving woman" !! how twisted are you !!?? LOVER = close intimate relation!!] why should this be offensive to Riikka, to have this clearly stated?

And why do you not consider this to be offensive to Aleksi then? Or do you?

Aleksi had been proven to have control over women in the past. The guy was scorching the juggling balls – made by another person that Aleksi was having an intimate relation with – sitting in front of her, burning the balls she had made herself. And to top it off, the guy took hold of the fingers of this Lover, and bent her arm back until she was in pain. Nobody helped. There were several witnesses. But nobody helped. This in spite of this person asking for assistance to point out that this is not cool behavior. Instead this Lover of Aleksi ended up being the victim of social exclusion. Rumors were spread about her “exaggerating things”, while Aleksi could continue the road straight to the center of power within the exclusionary clique dominating the helsinki squatting scene.

Riikka used to cry when she saw her naked body. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Riikka used to be Lovers with Aleksi, Aleksi who denied the existence of the blatant sexism on the mailing list, and then kicked me out on the basis of me “lacking perspective” and having “mental problems”. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Riikka defended Aleksi’s actions and declared me mentally ill behind my back. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Riikka spread the same message about me being mentally ill on a-lista. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Riikka had her own reasons for writing the letter to the mailing list, and she’s never bothered to clarify why. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Riikka’s actions had an impact on how the conflict was played out. Offensive? – No, Fact.
Aleksi’s actions and non-accountability had an impact on how the conflict was played out. Offensive? – No, Fact.

Riikka stayed out of reach for a long time. As well as Aleksi, and i decided that i can talk about what they did. Just as Stacy is making long monologues about her father, and putting that person out in the public light without consent. In the same way, i feel that i have a right to confront people in power, and talk about the traumatizing shit that they’ve put me through. They have all the possibility to open up a dialogue on this. I’ve never denied them this. As long as they can’t give any real reasons for why they would act in this crazy harmful way, i see no reason to remain in silent support of their actions.

You are now forcefully trying to shove words into my mouth about me saying that “Riikka wanted dick”. I don’t know if you’re right. If this is what Riikka “wants”. I don’t know what Riikka wants. Maybe not to cry when she sees herself naked. Maybe believe that her Lovers want and mean her well. Maybe she wants the hatred to stop. And she doesn’t know how. Or: Maybe she just “wants dick”. Your theory is as good as mine, Antti. [Even though I can't really get into to the logic that would lead to the "dick"-conclusion. You would have to explain that further.]

How does Lover translate into Dick-Hungry? [Does this mean that Aleksi was hungry for dick as well?]

You are a friend of Riikka. Me saying that, does this mean that you “want dick” too? Or does it mean that you have a certain bond to this person, and that you get touchy-feely about what’s said about her?

What does “wanting dick” mean?

Royal kiss. Heteronormativity, gender and "romance" expressed in "mainstream" society.

Rebel kiss. Heteronormativity, gender and "romance" expressed in "alternative" society.

Speak of the Devil (Micke Brunila, Satama)

by Milla

Micke Brunila. Giving a "thumbs up" for democracy. Is it just an act? Propaganda? Or is the guy for real?

I wrote a blog post: Micke Brunila – A sight for sore eyes (COP15)

And Micke wrote a reply: “Please stay true”

This blog post is my response.

Hello Micke,

This is an open request for you to reach into your warm human pumping heart and open up a public space to have a sincere and honest talk on your own role in the exclusion I faced after speaking openly of hierarchies and sexism within the same social center project (or scene) you yourself invited me to, in spring 2007.

I find the lack of transparency as well as the total lack of democracy in the process of having the internal conflicts discussed and dealt with, alarmingly in tune with a totalitarian system where basic human rights are disrespected and out the window for the sake of “friendship” and “unity” within a “struggling” movement. Dissent is dealt with in the same way as within any cult or sect that glorify its members ["us"] and paint the outside world ["them"] as a Demon Threat towards the common principles and morals, and any questioning of the Truth about the Inside (Non-sexist, Non-racist, Non-homophobic – Fair & Equal), is treated as blasphemy and the Non-Believer can soon look elsewhere for Family and Friends. People brave enough to complain, and low enough in the hierarchy soon find they are cut away from all social relations*. And in my case: Even openly declared delusional and mentally ill. A danger for the Common Well.

[*That's the way power is made. Social networks where you're >In or you're >Out. People on the outside notice more clearly where the boundaires go, and the lack of connection, than the people bullying one another on the inside.]

Micke, you are asking me to leave you alone (private sphere: Phone, Phax, Inbox). To stay true to a promise I made a year ago to your friend Anna. I in return, am asking you to stay true to the principles of the project you welcomed me to.

In your words to me, you speak of consent. There was no consent in the decision you took in December 13, 2008. [Only one of the many disgraces and wrongs in this conflict.] You walked out from a room, after I was handed a torn piece of paper, where Inka had scribbled a couple of sentences stating that I would be banned for 2 years, with no possibility to discuss the matter during this time (!) I ended up catatonic after this bullying meeting. one week in bed, just staring at the ceiling. Markus had clearly set the standard for the encounter by stating “I only came here to get you banned.” And you were no better, saying that Janne’s written statement on the lack of democracy within the project and unjust treatment of myself, didn’t mean anything cause you didn’t see Janne as a part of the in-group (!) Pähkinä and Sami, being there in person, disagreeing with what was going on didn’t matter either. This time it was Inka’s turn to label them as “Out”.

I am asking you to look to the principles of the social center – stating that we as a collective are committed to dealing with oppressive behaviors and that we dare speak openly and frankly about these things.

I am asking you to stay true to the values stated about this project. I am asking you to have a go at talking through the hellish in-fighting and severe bullying that was going on within the making of Satama. To have a go at resolving or at least – understanding – the problems that are still there.

I am asking you to have a go at playing fair.

What’s your response?

A slide from a power point presentation made at Truhlářská 11 - Infoshop - in Prague this year. It's a screenshot of Satama's website, declaring the principles of the place.

Click here to read Janne’s statement, declared “outsider” point of view and unimportant by Micke:

Janne >> Ignored !! ;  Jules >> Ignored !! ;  Zagu >> Ignored !!

Click here [and sign in to the Forum] to read the talk I had with Inka, who later changed her mind about the ban:

http://sosiaalikeskus.forumotion.com/ [And then: Conflicts > Share conflicts within your scene (or social environment) > Helsinki social centre project [Sosiaalikeskus Satama]]

Click here to read a chat that I had with Ronja, talking about power positions and peer pressure [I recommend reading the comments]:

Chatting with Ronja

Click here to read an analysis of Micke’s public (and openly sexist) unsupportive response to my call for solidarity in the beginning of the conflict:

My Call for Solidarity & Micke’s (Sexist) Response

My ANALYSIS of Micke’s (Sexist) Response – “I’m not a sexist, but..”

[A Wake Up Call]

Phone: Not so phun when you don't want to talk.

sms-conversation
with Micke
& myself
25 – 26.9.2008

i called many times on Micke’s phone.
she replied with an sms.

Micke: What do you want?

Me: Solve the conflict with you.
Me: You? What do you want?

Me: I want to understand, I want to learn,
I want to be able to move on. I want to be
able to say I love without having the feeling
of something being taken from me. Simple
things that most often feel complicated.
I want to be met with an open and non-
judgmental attitude.

Me: I want to live freely. With respect,
and self-reflecting kindred human beings.
And I want to know why you are asking
me what I want? And I want to say that
I get freaky-nuts when people don’t answer,
and I want to know why you don’t do that.

Next day: I called twice. No answer.

Micke: Sorry for the delay with my
answer but it’s been difficult writing this.
I don’t know if I have anything to say to you.
I don’t approve of your actions against Råholmen
[the place of the current social centre] and Aleksi.
I can’t deal with and I don’t feel like seeing
you or speaking with you after all that’s
happened lately.
Nothing constructive would come out of
it on my part.
Hopefully we could meet under better
circumstances some day. I wish for you
to respect my boundaries for now.
Sorry.

Me: What did I do that you reacted on
as an action against Råholmen / Aleksi?

Micke: Latest the things you did during
ESF.

Me: What actions?

Micke: I don’t know exactly who you were
aiming your protests against. You were naked
with a sign during x’s and y’s presentation and
your friend tried to block Aleksi from Utkanten.
And I don’t feel comfortable with you arranging
a workshop against sexism in the Helsinki scene.
I think this conflict hasn’t been about sexism for
a long time. And you and I can hardly reach a
consensus on that.

Me: Well in that case it would be good to have
a discussion on what sexism is? Instead of
actively blocking / avoiding this discussion. Or
what do you think?

Me: That a discussion would be important in
order to avoid power abuse. Considering you have
the power to define what sexism is and isn’t within
the scene, and I don’t have that power. If not sexism:
Then what is this conflict about according to you?

Me: The boundaries of the city are an obstacle
and act oppressively on the ones who want something
different in this society. In this case, your boundaries
mean the same to me. I want something different.
You are the one with power to refuse and ignore
a dialogue on sexism and my expression and way
of being in the world. In the same way as the
boundaries set by the city can’t be followed by the
ones who feel mistreated by them, I can’t
follow your stated boundary, if I truly wish for
a change. With love / milla

Micke: Leave. Me. Alone.

Me: Do. Something. About sexism. Stop talking. Shit.

questions & answers (off our backs)

by Milla

I wrote a blog post: off our backs’ war on women

I posted a letter I wrote to the oob collective in the comment section: accountability, racism

I got a reply: by “person stopping by”

This is my response to a “person stopping by”.

>> by “person stopping by”

Milla Ahola, you write this in your email (recited above):
“I want the collective members – Melissa Rodgers, Karla Mantilla, Jennie Ruby, Laura Butterbaugh and Angie Manzano – to come up with a collective answer and be transparent with what type of decision making structures they have…”

My question is, since I am interested in and also in many ways new to these kind of conflicts that move on to the net: why do you want them to be open about how they make decision in their group? Isn’t it obvious? They are a collective and they talk to each other. Of course these individuals know each other, as collegues and or as friends or even good friends. What interests me here are these words: “type of decision making structures”. It sounds very formal and it makes me think that yo are inquiring about something like rules for meetings or something like that. <<

Hello “person stopping by”,

Any group claiming that they work according to some consensus (inclusive, listening, sharing, caring) model should be able to present a clear structure for how they deal with conflict and dissent in discussions (and not only in relation to Decision making! In General!)

It’s not enough to say that they are a collective and that they spend time together. It’s not enough to say that they know one another and that they talk. This ignores the fact that we as individuals constantly reproduce the values of an oppressive and unjust society – so be it in Family, Circle of Friends, School, Kindergarten, Work or A Feminist News-journal Collective.

To me it’s obvious that we continue reproducing these damaging structures and creating informal hierarchies unless there is a positive inclusive counter-structure clearly stated and at work (and constantly re-evaluated). Especially in relation to all the “isms” we suffer on a daily basis. Celie’s Revenge stated clearly in her essay that there was a lot of ignorance at work in the oob office, and that there was no space for her to express herself as a woman of color. Racism was a big “no no”.

An obvious point in this mess, is that criticism brought to the attention of the collective wasn’t welcomed and validated, instead it was met with animosity and suspicion. The oppressive structure encountered and analyzed is not seen as the problem – the person giving recognition to the fact that it’s there, and putting effort into describing it and making it known to the others is instead the one pointed out as crazy, evil and abnormal. This is not a collective that is open to dissent, it is not a collective for persons recognizing and being unwilling to conform to normative behaviors and peer pressure. This is not a space for persons willing to confront and overstep unwritten conventional cultural patterns. If you do. If you speak “your agony”, as is stated in the first magazine 1970, there will be a wall of privilege knocking you down. Hard. “NPD”. “Abusive”. “Look at the pictures!” “Lies!”

So, when I ask for discussion management, I also ask for how they relate to internalized societal roles (oppressed, privileged) and also how they are played out in discussion involving dissent. Not only in regards to everyday interaction amongst “colleagues” and “friends”. [Who is kept outside the work and friend circle, and why?]

As a collective making brave statements on speaking for the Liberation of Women and Societal Change involving Feminist Theory and Practice. I want to see how 4 decades of interaction has created a counter culture worth bragging about. Since 1970 this collective has been holding the same words as a public banner “off our backs is a news journal by, for, and about women.” … “It is run by a collective where decisions are made by consensus.” And the mission is

• to provide news and information about women’s lives and feminist activism
• to educate the public about the status of women around the world
• to serve as a forum for feminist ideas and theory
• to be an information resource on feminist, women’s, and lesbian culture; and
• to seek social justice and equality for women worldwide.

If the revolution-plan is << Small Groups → Large Groups → Society >> then we are still working on radical change in Laboratory Number One: At Home – The Small Group. If we can’t even educate ourselves and get social justice and equality in our own networks and social scene [open denial of the blatant racism within oob!!] – then it’s time we stop boasting and beating our chests. “Worldwide revolution”..? How are we going to achieve that, if we can’t even question the forms and norms our own small groups are shaped after. If we can’t even present a clear plan for how we create space for the marginalized “outsider” voices within our own networks?

The problem of voices getting marginalized and/or their realities “individualized” instead of being seen as crucial points of possibility for radical change [Karla does not see herself as white – displaying mean and demeaning behaviors to a woman of color. But is portraying herself as an “individual” who just “doesn't happen to like” another “individual” (who is by K. Mantilla labeled as a "shame for her race"..) Karla does not see herself as a person dominating the discourse of the group, being high up in the hierarchy - she portrays herself as an “individual” expressing her own “personal point of view”, "not speaking for the group", in a collective space giving face to what happens within the oob collective (!), she's “just an individual” expressing “herself”]

>> Secondly, you are doing a “call to accountability” of these individuals (being in a collective). How come you think that writing an email to one of these persons or even making a blog entry here on your blog will change anything in that specific conflict? It is clear that you are taking a stand and that this is for you something important. They are already engaged to such an extent that would make any meddling from the “outside” (bloggers like you or any other blogger) effective at all, that’s what comes to mind when I see all these (frankly) horrible statements they throw at each other. You don’t seem to agree on this?
Merry Christmas! <<

I agree with you that there will be no radical change coming about by me opening my insides and screaming out the anger and sadness ( a g o n y ! ) I feel over being a part of a “community” so openly racist, so openly sexist, so openly hierarchic, so openly un-caring, so openly un-sisterly. So openly in contradiction with the pretty words stated year after year.

I know no (effective) way of making it stop apart from making it as clear as possible to others around me that I’m not sleeping through this. I’m not accepting this. I do not recognize this type of behavior as a part of a well-functioning feminist community. I do not accept this as a feminist community. What has happened and what is happening goes against everything I believe in. I reject and refuse. I “Remember; Resist; Do not comply”.

I do not believe in magic change from one day to another. Not in myself. Not in others. I believe I can speak and still not be understood in the way I want to be understood. The same goes for others. I do not believe in silence either. Speaking could be seen as useless. But it’s the only way I know how. If I lived nearby the collective I would be able to book a meeting with them. Join the collective. Ask them face to face: “Why?” “Why are you not answering me?”

In an ideal world I wouldn’t like for me to be labeled “outsider”. In an ideal world we would be able to hold one another accountable, we would be able to function as a collective and not just be a swarm of individuals directing our energies randomly. In an ideal world the oob collective would open up a space where it would be possible to do a public and open session of Questions and Answers. They, as individuals, acting within a collective, would be accountable and available to myself and other individuals making up this collective incapable of reacting strongly and with unity when social injustice and inequality is made known within the “movement”. Women’s liberation.. If not us.. If not now..

Maybe we should give up on pretty words and slogans for a while and focus on the practice.

What’s your suggestion for how to deal with this? What would work? What kind of change are you looking for?

( Merry Crisis and a Happy New Fear! )

Some theory I would like to see put in practice. How? When? By who?

off our backs’ justice is blind [mad-radfem-2:3]

by Milla

Justice measured out by blindfolded 'fair' radical feminist, happily ignorant of her 'justice' equaling 'white is right'; serving in defense of her white supremacy.

Melissa Rodgers, Karla Mantilla, Jennie Ruby, Laura Butterbaugh and Angie Manzano – members of the radical feminist magazine collective off our backs, have been challenged on their racism by blogger Celie’s Revenge (Jenn) openly writing of her experiences as a volunteer within the group.

I’ve asked the members of the group to collectively present some sort of strategy for dealing with the racism within oob. So far I’ve gotten no response. The only thing I’ve seen is a letter written by Karla Mantilla, published on the oob Facebook group. The individual statement comes right after a News Announcement stating that there will be no more public statements made since they “are pursuing legal action in regards to the accusations of white supremacy at off our backs“. (!!)

For the whole statement, read the part marked with red on the screenshot below, taken from the oob FB group:

I wrote a question on their FB wall, asking who they were planning on suing, but shortly after I posted it, the comment was deleted. — So far this has been the only seemingly joint statement on how they deal with racism. Apparently they threaten to sue people who dare to complain. (!!)

In spite of no public statements being made while pursuing legal actions against critics, Karla Mantilla is given (or, has taken?) plenty of individual space on the collective FB site. She starts by reassuring the readers that the statement she’s about to make is a “reluctant answer to the wholly outrageous , unsubstantiated, and ridiculous charges made about off our backs of late by Jenn” and that “I take no pleasure in making these matters public or in causing pain or anguish to anyone, including Jenn“.

Karla Mantilla taking no pleasure in making her racism public: "I take no pleasure in making these matters public or in causing pain or anguish to anyone, including Jenn"

After some vague attempts to point out illogic in Jenn’s account of the social exclusion she faced during her time with the oob collective, Karla goes on, making a shameless display of just how right Jenn has been in trying to give some sisterly pointers, to the members of oob, of unwanted and uncalled for behaviors.

In the next paragraphs Karla explains to us how she’s “not a racist, buut…” Apparently in total denial:

“She is correct that I reacted to her being laid off with less concern than I ordinarily would have with other people, but this has nothing to do with her being black; it has everything to do with her being cruel and spiteful and my wish to not be involved with such a person on a social level.

It is absolutely ridiculous that she has blown my social distancing from her into a grandiose lie about me personally and off our backs in general. Her trumped up ex post facto charges of racism are nothing but malicious lies she is attempting to spread on the internet in an attempt to exact revenge for a perceived personal slight.

Bottom line—I don’t like her, I have a right to not like her after coming to know her, my evaluation of her has proved true in her subsequent behavior and treatment of me, and all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with race. She is one of the meanest people I have ever encountered in my many years doing all kinds of work, and I wish to have nothing more to do with her.

Her statement that what we/I did to one black woman, we did to all black women, is laughable. She does not represent all black women—it is a supreme insult to black women to suggest that she does. How I treated her and my opinion of her are solely due to her own particular behavior and personality–her vindictiveness, her maliciousness, her lack of integrity, and her complete disregard for ethical behavior–and nothing else.“

Karla’s full statement can be read here:

http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=senil&init=quick#/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=148012343755

A gender substituted parody of the racist hate-filled statement given by Karla Mantilla,  < “Karl” Mantilla talking to “Jane” > can be read here:

http://celiesrevenge.blogspot.com/2009/10/karl-mantilla-talking-to-jane.html

off our backs’ war on women [mad-radfem-1:3]

by Milla

The women of the radical feminist oob (off our backs) collective, seem to have a very strict policy when it comes to dealing with racist oppression within their group. If the common goal of the collective is to achieve White Supremacy - we are definitely on the right way when the common collective response to oob being called out on racism is 1) Crazy-Making and 2) Threaten the Critics with a Lawsuit.

Text describing the oob collective (can be found on the Facebook group as well as on the website) >>

About off our backs

off our backs is a newsjournal by, for, and about women. It has been published since 1970, making it the longest surviving feminist newsjournal in the United States.  oob is run by a collective where all decisions are made by consensus.

Mission

The mission of the magazine is to provide news and information about women’s lives and feminist activism; to educate the public about the status of women around the world; to serve as a forum for feminist ideas and theory; to be an information resource on feminist, women’s, and lesbian culture; and to seek social justice and equality for women worldwide.

On the left: Cover of the first off our backs magazine in print 1970.

Statement from the first issue: “off our backs is a paper for all women who are fighting for the liberation of their lives and we hope it will grow and expand to meet the needs of women from all backgrounds and classes. In order to succeed we need you to use this paper to relate what you are doing and what you are thinking, for we are convinced that a woman speaking from the agony of her own struggle has a voice that can touch the experience of all women.” read more http://www.offourbacks.org/Mission.htm

oob Website: http://www.offourbacks.org/

oob Blog: http://oobtalk.wordpress.com/

oob Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=148012343755

oob Twitter: http://twitter.com/offourbacks

What follows is a  summary of a fight that went on over Facebook, Chats, and Email for a brief period this autumn. This is an attempt to document a small part of all the racist slander and hatred that ran loose over several Facebook group discussion threads. This was an open display of what a serious problem white supremacy is within radical feminist circles, and how little we care to do anything about it. This vicious fight went on for several weeks. Most of the discussions were deleted and some of the groups as well. I wish with this blog post to remind us of that there’s still a problem, and that we can not just forgive and forget the harmful wrongs within our own social circles, we can not continue “business as usual”. There is no “normal” to go back to. Instead – we must try something New.

This is a call for accountability from the persons listed as members of the oob collective on the Facebook group called “off our backs magazine official group“. I want the collective members – Melissa Rodgers, Karla Mantilla, Jennie Ruby, Laura Butterbaugh and Angie Manzano – to come up with a collective answer and be transparent with what type of decision making structures they have and how they intend to deal with the racism that has been brought to their attention within the group.

During a period there were two off our backs Facebook groups. The members of the official group claimed that they had been chucked out from the first group by the same woman – Jennifer of Celie’s Revenge – who had decided to speak out about the problems within oob. [The statement about being kicked out from the 'unofficial' group was made only after the issues of racism had been made public. For some reason the 'official' group saw no reason to inform the members of the 'unofficial' group of the power struggles going on within the collective until their new FB group had been up and running for a month or so.]

Screen shots of the first exchange made on the wall of the ‘unofficial’ oob FB group. October 2009 – a radical feminist sister starts speaking out on racism within oob:

READ Celie’s Revenge on her experiences within oob < How to Get a BLACKzilla off our backs? White Feminist Racism, Sisterhood and the Demonization of Black Women > CLICK here

http://celiesrevenge.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-get-blackzilla-off-our-backs.html

The response is quick. The following screenshot is read from bottom up. So first comes Theresa Shanler with Crazy-Making (“NPD”) and Angie Manzano from the oob collective is promptly joining in on the lynch mob mentality:

Celie’s Revenge counters some of these attacks in a blog post later on:

At the same time, I thought I knew what some people were and were not capable of, because they are feminists! “Radical” ones at that! Since publishing my piece exposing the white supremacist feminism of Off Our Backs, I’ve been slandered online and off — as a thief, abusive and mentally ill. Off Our Backs and Nikki Craft hijacked Facebook groups in order send out mass emails to hundreds of people saying these things.

This is why I’m glad I’m no longer a part of this sick movement dominated by racist white women. I’ve noticed that too often the price you pay to be a part of something bigger than yourself is silence. And I do have a big mouth! What I’ve learned is that white people, men, or any privileged class will only allow tokens, and will only tolerate and even applaud you until you get too uppity. One of Nikki Craft’s white supremacist tactics is to portray me as an uppity, brazen black woman who is cold and unapologetic about calling out racism. She expects me to be a mammy, not a sapphire, and give a fuck about a racist white woman’s feelings. Especially in the context of a friendship which, in her twisted racist mind, becomes a covenant of silence and accommodation towards a white woman’s reputation.

In their brilliant analysis published in the Journal of Gender, Race & Justice entitled “Sistahs: the Peculiar Treatment of African American Women in the Myth of Women as Liars” Marilyn Yarbrough with Crystal Bennett write:

Finally, in the stereotype of Sapphire, African American women are portrayed as evil, bitchy, stubborn and hateful. In other words, Sapphire is everything that Mammy is not. The Sapphire image has no specific physical features other than the fact that her complexion is usually brown or dark brown.

It should come as no surprise that Nikki Craft, Angie Manzano, and other white women at Off Our Backs, have made much of my appearance and my pictures on Facebook — even citing them as proof of my mental illness. There were posts on the Off Our Backs group message boards urging people to look at my pictures — as if to suggest that if they see my dark color, and especially my back-turned ass (which Nikki Craft mentions!), they will recognize it as proof of my unforgivable blackness, my evilness, my brazenness, my illness, my dangerousness. By telling people that my photos matter, they are implying that my looks matter, thus my image matters. They are by extension saying that my color and my appearance is also a reflection of what they’ve always said is wrong with me. Unconsciously or not, Nikki Craft and Off Our Backs are pointing people towards my blackness in their campaign against me. Nikki stole my status updates in which I told white women to kiss my ass as perfect examples of me being an “uppity negress.” from < A Black BITCH Hunt: The Aftermath of Challenging Off Our Backs Magazine On Their Racism >

to be continued… Next: “Haul the Critics to Court!”

Micke Brunila – A sight for sore eyes (COP15)

by Milla

Micke Brunila showing a poster saying "La verità non si arresta" (Truth can't be stopped)

I felt empty after a month in Copenhagen. Myself being an ignorant mass at the demonstration December 16, Reclaiming Power for the global South and indigenous peoples, pushing police lines to make space for a Peoples’ Assembly on struggles that I hardly know anything of, and apart from these few hours, make no notice of in my own everyday life. It was a token performance on my side. In the same way me getting token time and space to do workshops on feminist issues and consensus culture & decision making is an empty gesture from the autonomous scene I’m taking part in. Token time and token space granted from a scene who couldn’t care less about working on creating trust and real respect and sensitivity to the struggle I’m dedicated to out of necessity.

Back in Finland. Feeling sad and angry about not getting heard. Feeling strange and alienated from a social scene that claims that anti-sexism is important to support, but makes no effort whatsoever to change the things that a woman like myself can easily point out. Instead there’s much talk of how crazy and mean and evil and disruptive I am for the movement and the individuals in it.

I saw many Finnish persons in Copenhagen. Some of them I confronted. Some were just left there as daily eyesores – reminders of the ignorance and injustice existing in spite of the pretty words written by our (yet untitled, frighteningly unchallenged, and utmostly uncalled-for) leaders.

Today I wrote a short message straight from my bitter heart to one of the Head figures involved in the exclusion I faced in the Helsinki social centre scene:

The message to Micke Brunila: “Hi, you are fake and phoney. it’s so effing wrong what you did with exclusion and denial of your own blatant sexism in that effing mess. saw you outside bella center. your scared face far behind the police line. saw you and felt how fake and phoney the whole movement will be as long as your kind of power abuse easily can be swept under the carpet.”

Click here to see a film posted in the Guardian about the demonstration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/dec/17/copenhagen-climate-change

The Peoples’ Assembly:

Annie – I don’t believe you.

by Milla

I need more tools in order to improve communication with the people in the social scene around me. And in the end: Tools mean nothing if there's no will to reach an understanding. Words end up empty and without meaning if we hide the feelings they are spoken from, if we hide and mis-project the needs we wish to satisfy with our words. -- Communication tools and technology do not help, if we speak nothing of the fears and hurt we wish to avoid.

I saw Annie – a woman with experience of having a three year long intimate relation with Dani – online on Facebook. I tried once again to ask her about a statement she wrote in an email exchange with me last summer, when I was going through crazy hell, trying to contact Kelly and Katie about Dani’s emotional and psychological violence within close relations.

We had a short chat. It was clear that Annie didn’t want to speak with me. And also that she didn’t want to go into the reasons for why, stating that I am a “lovely person” but that I have “nothing of interest” for her.

It ended with me asking her when she would have time to speak with me, and her answering “next summer”. Somehow I don’t believe her. So I decided to express what I feel about this way of communication by writing a blog post, and then send it to her. I already tried to talk with her about this for 6 months, and I don’t think that she’s being honest when she’s saying that a year is what would be the appropriate time for her between Question and Answer. This type of dismissive comments I’ve seen many times before by people who wish to stay clear of accountability. I hear status quo and ‘business as usual’ speaking when there is no trust between the persons making agreements on how communication could go on sometime “later on”.

The chat we had:

Milla >

hello?

Milla >

i don’t feel comfortable with the way we, human beings, so easily ignore one another over electronic communication (for me it feels the same over internet, as if the person would be right in front of me)

Annie is offline.
Annie is online.

Milla >

so it’s difficult for me to know if i’m being ignored. or if it’s some tecnical thing happening..

Annie >

milla, i am ignoring you, yes, because the matters you hang on are out of my interest and i feel i have nothing to do with them

Milla >

okay

message clear. thank you for your honesty

and once again. thank you for your support during the time when i was was feeling really mad and self-hating about being intimate with dani.

you should continue warning women around that guy.

it was good that you told me.

so. you are not interested in me as a person?

(i’m not understanding what i’ve done that you don’t like.)

you can also state clearly if you don’t feel discussing it at all. if you don’t feel like explaining what you mean.

Annie >

milla, i like you, i think you are a lovely person.

but the problems you hang upon are out of my interest

Milla >

dealing with sexism?

going to the cop15 in denmark

fighting with confusing decision making structures within the anarchist scene?

and so on.

quitting drinking.

trying to do positive things?

what kind of problems?

Annie >

fighting the anarchist scene or whatever scene instead of making a better person out of myself.

Milla >

the reason i contacted you now, was cause i didn’t understand something you wrote to me before.

so this is related to you and not a scene (unless you would see yourself as a part of a social scene)

Annie >

alrite

Milla >

so if i ask you about that, then i guess it wouldn’t be out of your insterest range

allright

Annie >

go ahead

Milla >

copy pasted from an exchange we had this summer

“hey
i have no time to reply now
but no problem about telling others whatever i told you

still
i think this circle you are somewhat caught up in, it might be dangerous.

please try and don’t disguise your own sorrow about daniel. this effort to help other women – rthis is great, but i think, you might need to take your own time as weel to work it out, what happened to you.

this is not something you should have prevented. but neither is it something you should keep carrying. so i say, be rather a fragile, kinda brokenhearted, but smart and imporving woman, rather than a warrior against a power that has hurt you.

take your time for yourself, you are worth it.

i will write more detailed later on.
“

i don’t understand what you mean with this

“

so i say, be rather a fragile, kinda brokenhearted, but smart and imporving woman, rather than a warrior against a power that has hurt you

“

Milla >

could you explain?

Annie >

i meant that being a warrioir against sotheing you are not over yet -

- this is a means of avoiding your problem, instead of working it out.

Milla >

i still don’t understand what you mean.

for me it’s always good with practical examples.

could you give some practical examples of the thing you want to express i’m not over. and what it is i’m avoiding.

Annie >

well i can’t give you any better example than your own position.

but let’s: you are runnig out in the battlefield with your leg bleeding

stating that you are going to save everyone else from the abuse that hurt you

but actually this is only making yourself believe that you are powerful

in real you are worsening you own situation

Milla >

[should we use talking stick "-" to be passed on whenever someone is finished with what they want to say? and short comment/question "%"? would you be okay with that?]

Annie >

well milla i just don’t have the time and the energy for such conversations that need this sort of meditation

of, moderation

Milla >

between us?

it’s a regular tool. in order to get a more equal talk happening.

it’s not very complicated.

most ppl say it feels better using it.

more fair.

Annie >

i see, but this is not equal. you want this conversation and i don’t

Milla >

you think i’m lovely

but you also think that you know what i think and why i act and what i want

that’s not very fair.

Annie >

yes you are, but i don’t spend my nights with everyon i like.

Milla >

we haven’t talked that much.

and you don’t know what i want to say or what i want to ask about.

Annie >

it is. i make the decisions of my time. i don’t chat beacuse i don’t have the time for that.

Milla >

i’ve tried a few times already to ask about the statement above

Annie >

this is something you have to find out, i can’t give you more explanation.

Milla >

that from my point of view (my feelings and my lived reality) expresses that you wish for me to take a submissive stand.

Annie >

milla i don’t want to continue this conversation

Milla >

when would you have time to talk with a lovely person?

Annie >

next summer

Milla >

Annie is no longer online. The following message was not sent:

see you then (send as a message)

What feelings and needs make us stay connected? What causes communication to break off?

My thoughts and feelings about relating with Annie, and about relating to what we said in this chat:

I guess I’m more and more dropping the fear of hurting other people with what I do or say. To put it more correctly: I’m dropping the fear of getting projections and defensive reactions coming my way – and me being told I should understand or know why others feel hurt or angry. I know there is no perfect communication, and unless rules are stated clearly and are based on a shared agreement, I will continue stepping freely over the invisible threads trapping any exchange of words between two human beings within pre-set cultural boundaries.

In the chat above I never felt comfortable, cause I felt all the time that I would not be listened to as an equal. And that I would get no explanations for the thoughts expressed by Annie. As well as not be given any space to speak from my own reality.

Most of what she said felt like projections to me, since the statements were really vague and unclear – I had the feeling of speaking to an oracle, and that I could choose to either fight, and force the communication to understand her reality or just give in to any random interpretation of her words that would fit my own reality (I prefer getting real, since my own interpretation is not satisfying to me).

The whole communication felt really unsatisfying since it seemed to me that, Annie had already made up her mind on what she could get from a talk with me. It was clearly stated from the beginning that she was not interested in anything from my own perspective, since she told me openly that she’s choosing to ignore me because she can get no personal development from speaking with me. It felt really fake that she was saying that I’m lovely person, without telling me any reasons for why (apart from that we’re all loveable I guess) and at the same time she was serving me one excuse after another not to have an equal exchange:

At first she tells me that she’s ignoring me because she’s not interested in any problems that I might have, and that she feels she has nothing to do with that. [1) "i am ignoring you, yes, because the matters you hang on are out of my interest and i feel i have nothing to do with them"]

She then states that the reason she ignores me is nothing “personal” cause she “likes me”, it’s just that i happen to want to talk about the “wrong topics”. [2) "i like you, i think you are a lovely person. but the problems you hang upon are out of my interest"]

I try to get clarity in what the “wrong” topics for her might be, and I talk about the problems i try to deal with including — finding more positive ways of living; not drinking: dealing with sexism; dealing with muddled decision making structures within the anarchist scene. She says that she’s more interested in working on herself and not the scene, and this is her reason for not having any interest in speaking with me. [3) "fighting the anarchist scene or whatever scene instead of making a better person out of myself."

I then try to make clear that my reason for speaking with her is because there are things that I don't understand from our communication last summer. She had ended her letter with saying that she would write more in detail on the topic that she's opening up, but later she said she didn't "have time". In this conversation she tries to avoid explaining herself by stating the same thing again. [4) "i just don't have the time and the energy for such conversations that need this sort of meditation"]

She tells me mystical things about my way of relating to maddening oppression and abusive social relations – she says that I’m running out on the “battle field with a bleeding leg”, stating that I get an ego-boost by having a Savior complex, living with a fake identity, not taking care of myself. She doesn’t see that my way of existing – confronting instead of silently taking in abusive situations – is a way of expressing open self-care and self-love. And that I do not believe we can avoid harm by pretending there are safe spaces to hide. She gives me her “bleeding leg” theory, but renders me no space to speak for myself instead she dominantly cuts the conversation short – after I had checked if we could use a talking stick as a communication tool to make this conversation more fair – instead she cuts it short by saying that I’m forcing her to have this conversation, and that she doesn’t have time for this chat. [5) "this is not equal. you want this conversation and i don't"; "i don't want to continue this conversation"; "i don't chat beacuse i don't have the time for that."]

I ask her when “a lovely” person would get time to talk with her. Her response is “next summer”.

Annie I didn’t feel safe or treated as an equal in the chat we had above. Since you said that you are interested in working on yourself, I guess that that also involves working on how you relate to other human beings in your social circles. Am I correct in assuming this? This blog post is therefor an open request for you to not leave me hanging with the questions that I have until next summer. At least not without us working out a communication structure that would feel comfortable and safe and meaningful for the both of us.

I’m willing to wait with having this conversation with you in the summer time if you give me some sensible reason for why I would have to wait a whole year (!) before I can talk with you about this. Otherwise I have no reason to trust that you would actually take me seriously and not once again tell me that “this is something you have to find out, i can’t give you more explanation.”

More on the communication we had above. I will take a quote from you in order to express how i feel about it: “this is a means of avoiding your problem, instead of working it out.“

Confronting misogyny

by Cunt Incognita (Fisse in Denmark)

I had a chat with a nice woman over the internet, who figured she wouldn’t mind supporting me in getting some answers from the separatist men’s group that Dani is currently involved in, supposedly focusing on dealing with her oppressive behaviors.

I sent her some background info in a mail,

hello,

the main recipient of this email is you Cellycel, but i send it to the men’s group and to Julian as well as Dani, since i wish to be transparent in what I do.

i appreciate that you (Cellycel) are willing to send an email to the group to require about what methods they use in this particular case, when there is a woman wanting to confront a man involved in the activities of the group.

i’ve found that dani’s behavior has been extremely manipulative and harmful, and doubt that the group is a constructive place for her to deal with her damaging behaviors.

i feel really uncomfortable and exposed in the contact with the group. and am wondering why there is no transparency.

i get the feeling that the behavior of the group (the non-response) is reinforcing the belief in Dani that there is something wrong with how I reacted to her abusive behaviors and not that her behaviors actually have a negative effect on what happens around her, and that she has a responsibility in taking care of the mess (emotional damages in people around her) initiated by herself.

what really sickens me at the moment is the way this man has manipulated a (now former) comrade and a friend of mine into believing that i’ve attempted to rape Dani, and in this way is continuing in having a negative misogynist impact on my everyday life, by having this person terrorizing me with sexist and misogynist speech.

i would like to urge the men’s group to come up with what strategies they have to deal with a case such as this, that currently exists within their group: How do they deal with a woman wanting to confront a man behaving in a sexist way, taking part in the group’s activities?

some related blog posts:

rape charges made by a friend of Dani, apparently supported by Dani in verbally harassing me on the internet (i can show you some really nasty samples if you wish. this is not the worst stuff)
http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/male-privilege-intimate-violence-accountability/

after having an abusive conversation going on on several forums and different threads, i decided to “prove” my point. which i feel i shouldn’t have to do. but still. here it is:
http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/hetero-man-in-poly-power-trip-land/

previous emails sent involving Dani, Me and the Group (with no response from the group)
http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/breaking-the-silence-breaking-the-isolation-dani/

and the response i had to Dani, about the purpose for meeting up
http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-purpose-of-a-meeting-ending-misogyny-dani/

the former friend and comrade – relating to Dani – is on the forum saying about the process that Dani is going through with the group:

“I want Milla to leave Dani alone. He needs another kind of approach. He has gotten help from profeminist men. I don’t want Milla to interfere with this process. It is his personal.“

“Milla is unfair. Dani has no way to defend himself without being labeled sexist. That builds frustration and sense of injustice in him. Such emotions are breeding ground for sexism and male violence.“

“If you are a sexist male, you have no support. But if you are a male who has been unfairly victimized by feminist, they will form a camraderie.“

“Females can do anything they want to males, and males cannot retaliate. You can go around slapping them on the face, but the males cannot say an abusive word back at you. Then they have a clenched fist in their pockets and go and hit someone that is innocent, another male, transgendered woman, gay male, whatever. Because they have no way of getting back.“

and the same person speaking of a situation where I was excluded from a social centre in Helsinki, but told that I could come back if I promised not to speak about feminism [sic!] and this in relation to how this person feels about what’s been going on between Dani and me:
“…it has become apparent that discussing feminism is OK unless it is the rabid-kind of misandria Milla is practicing.“
and the same person giving the reasons for the current flood of misogyny coming my way. Answering the question: “What, then, got you so upset that you suddenly turned against almost everything that Milla is presenting?”

“Many different things. It all started with the case of disrupters in CrimethInc convergence in Pittsburgh. I first thought how they resolved the issue as a comparition. The disrupters had a legitimate point, but they did not carry it out very well. They told people to go back to Europe. they were not aware that some of the white queer participants weren’t that privileged. Many joined the disrupters just because they seemed to be cutting-edge radicals.

I started to see Milla as a disruptor. Just a fleeting thought. I became open-minded to ideas from Dani, whom I knew already, as well as Petra, who knew both Milla and Dani. Am I politically aligned with Milla only because she seems to be radical.“

here it’s clearly stated that this person has started this witch hunt in relation to a correspondence going on with Dani.

in order to prove Dani’s impact on the sexism reaching me in this i put this quote here as well:

“I have considered Milla and Dani both my friends. Milla got me involved in this fight, otherwise I would’ve ignored it. I discovered that her brand of feminism is very disturbed and distorted kind. It especially comes apparent in issues relating to prostitution.

I tried to understand Dani. I have had a conversation with him all along this fight and I have not spared strong words.“

all along the fight lasting for a month, Dani has fed this person with thoughts and ideas severely harming the friendship we had.

i feel it’s time that the men’s group opens up on what structures they have to deal with the societal, interpersonal and intra-personal madness called sexism.

what do they do about this woman wanting to confront a man involved in group activity? how do they deal with it? what structures are there? (and how come the response is so slow?)

if you have any further questions on this, or anything else you need in order to contact the men’s group – just ask.

and

thanks Cellycel for making me feel not so alone in this
<3 milla

Hetero-Man in Poly-Power-Trip Land

by Cunt Incognita (Fisse in Denmark)

In the picture: Dániel Vázsonyi. Hetero Man in Poly Power Trip Land. A guy who knows all the tricks of the Everyday Male Chauvinism booklet. And doesn't hesitate to use them.

I’m pissed off. I’m pissed off that I can live so long with total madness going on. Wallowing in self-hatred. Taking in all the bad and harsh words said about me. Doubting that I’m worth love. Sticking with idiotic and unsupportive arguments about Dániel Vázsonyi aka HeteroMan claiming that I’ve sexually assaulted her and that she very much “would like to work towards not hurting people”.. Right.. I’ve heard that one before..

She’s made it fairly clear that women she chooses to have intimate relations with don’t fit into her definition of “people”. Here’s some of the latest discussion with Pre Kaarina on the forum.

FROM ME TO PK:

dani wrote:

Quote:

she can say that i acted sexist to women in my life numerous times, because that is true and i caused considerable damage to some women in my life which i feel bad for and would like to work towards not hurting ppl, but what i clearly dont want is Millas “counsel” or “detective work” or anything else related to my relations…

i mean. it’s so fucked up that the guy is once again saying: “yeah i’m sexist.”

and STILL no accountability whatsoever.

and not saying shit about that she actually caused me severe harm. and that she IS hurting women (and lying to them). she’s saying that she “would like to work towards not hurting ppl”. but she’s not saying that she IS working towards not hurting people.

this would be the same as me saying that i “would like not to drink” but continue drinking… [and I'm NOT drinking anymore BTW]

i AM hurt by this guy not wanting to hear me out on the harms she caused me.
this IS something she could do in order not to harm more women.

but what does she do?

cry “rape”.. and saying that i shouldn’t network or share realities and experiences with other women she’s involved with.. hmm

i mean. this guy is BULLSHITTING you, and you are just licking it up.. great..

FROM PK TO ME:

milla wrote:

Dani is actively abusing and lying to women. How about having the meeting filmed in Copenhagen?

The media where you portray this issue is irrelevant. Do you have proof of him actively abusing and lying to women now and what is his excuse for doing that?

That is a very heavy card you are holding here.

FROM ME TO PK:

i guess i will have to dig out all the chats i’ve had with people and publish.

what kind of “proof” would keep you satisfied?

that a woman in tampere that dani started a relation with without saying that there was something else going on with others?

that this woman was saying later on that she was jealous with a woman in germany but that it wasn’t so bad, cause dani isn’t having any other relations going on..? while at the same time the woman from germany is spending 3 weeks with dani who tries to emotionally pressure her into not calling dani “friend” cause this would feel degrading to dani and lessen their intimate relation (a relation that dani is saying is non-existent to the women in tampere)?

would this be enough proof?

and i guess my word on that i haven’t raped or coerced dani to sleeping with me isn’t enough for you to believe that this is a lie?

i could show you the letter where she openly writes that she doesn’t care to hear me out on abusive behavior and that she doesn’t care how i feel about the abuse she’s exposed me to? would this be proof enough that the words that you quoted are bullshit? that she would “like to work on not hurting ppl” isn’t true?

what kind of “proof” are you looking for?

mind you. i only have the words of women here. no reliable good sturdy hardworking men to do any witnessing. [sarcasm]

FROM PK TO ME:

milla wrote:

that a woman in tampere that dani started a relation with without saying that there was something else going on with others? that this woman was saying later on that she was jealous with a woman in germany but that it wasn’t so bad, cause dani isn’t having any other relations going on..? while at the same time the woman from germany is spending 3 weeks with dani who tries to emotionally pressure her into not calling dani “friend” cause this would feel degrading to dani and lessen their intimate relation (a relation that dani is saying is non-existent to the women in tampere)? would this be enough proof?

This would serve for lying and cheating.

milla wrote:

and i guess my word on that i haven’t raped or coerced dani to sleeping with me isn’t enough for you to believe that this is a lie?

Yes it is, but that is not an ongoing thing.

milla wrote:

i could show you the letter where she openly writes that she doesn’t care to hear me out on abusive behavior and that she doesn’t care how i feel about the abuse she’s exposed me to?

It would prove that your tactic is not working, which I have been saying all along.

milla wrote:

would this be proof enough that the words that you quoted are bullshit? that she would “like to work on not hurting ppl” isn’t true?

Definitely he has hurt the woman in Tampere if you can prove the discussion.

Sarcasm ignored, you don’t know much about work.

FROM ME TO PK:

i mean. i’m definitely not happy when i read what you write “you suck. how you talk and behave and everything about you sucks”.. like. “thanks, pre kaarina. that’s really constructive..” [sarcasm]

also that you write all these inconsistent things such as

Quote:

I am terrified of what males pushed into corners are capable of doing. I might get tar and feathers -treatment just by standing by you. So, any peace loving person stays the heck far from you.

any “peace loving” person stays away from me, because of fear of male aggression… hmm so as long as the terror balance is intact and we know who’s the boss we are all living lovingly in “peace” with one another.. don’t think so..

are you afraid of Dani? you keep repeating that she will use violence if i continue speaking about my feelings and my experiences. you keep repeating that there will be violence if i speak. have you talked with Dani about this fear you have?

FROM ME TO PK:

The first chat I had with Kelly, a woman living in Tampere that Dani is involved with. Around July 8 or 9, 2009 I contacted her in spite of Dani not wanting us to meet up. We arranged on having a meeting (me, Kelly, Kelly’s friend Katie and Dani) In the chat it becomes clear that Dani has not warned Kelly about having severely abusive behaviors in intimate relations. Nor has she informed Kelly about other intimate relations, or saying anything about being polyamorous.

Kelly –
hey

hm.. you where wondering why i want to meet just the two of us.. well,
i feel i would feel more comfortable in the meeting with all of us
invoved if i had so sort of a connection built to you and would also
want to hear your points of view before you meet daniel too because it
seems there could be much tention in that situation

– Milla
hello. didn’t see you.
okay.
i guess i feel pretty uncomfortable about the whole meeting in itself.

Kelly –
well it seems you have concern about the thing so maybe its good to
talk it through

– Milla
like pretty unsafe.
well. i feel that daniel has a lot of abusive behavior.
and that she’s been lying and stuff about our relations.
was crying a lot today.
and i just wish i would have known more from the beginning.
so i wouldn’t have been so fooled.

Kelly –
thats what i really want to hear more about cause i havent seen any
abusiveness in him towards me

– Milla
well. it’s easy in the beginning.

Kelly –
so i want to hear what has he done to make you feel this

– Milla
but it comes after some time.
what has she said about me?
could you say something about that?

Kelly –
well to me it seems that he doesnt really know himself what has he
done to make you talk about him like that..

– Milla
wow…

Kelly –
atleast to me it seemed like that

– Milla
has she said anything about Annie?

Kelly –
well some
but not that much

– Milla
they were together for three years.

Kelly –
i would really like to hear out from him what was the thing that went wrong

– Milla
she was really getting into self-hatred and bulimia when being in the
relation with daniel.
i guess maybe you should talk with her.

Kelly –
hmm..
maybe i should

– Milla
yes.

Kelly –
what did he actually do.. do you know

– Milla
i think it’s better to hear the her version than daniels..
psychological abuse.
being nasty.
punishing her for loving.
like i don’t know that much.
but i think. like you have her email.
like should i give her email to you?

Kelly –
well you can

– Milla
would you contact her?

Kelly –
i would consider that yes

– Milla
annie@gmail.com
she’s really lovely. nice.
<3

Kelly –
i have no concern about daniels behavior myself but since you seem
really concerned about it i want to know more

– Milla
it’s really strange to me that she doesn’t talk with you about her own
abusive behavior.
has she said anything?
and she doesn’t understand her own violent behavior towards me?

Kelly –
i have tried to ask about these things that you talk about.. but he
doesnt say much

– Milla
like what kind of response?
did you check the link i sent through facebook?

[i sent this link to her: http://www.stop-ferfieroszak.hu/news/57/52.html]

Kelly –
well nothing concrete.. thats what id like to know

– Milla
the link that i put on your facebook page today.

Kelly –
didnt have time to read it yet im just looking at it now

– Milla
if you read that thing through. then you would be able to talk with
daniel about the behavior that she recognizes herself in.
this way you would be able to recognize it before she starts doing it to you.

Kelly –
so i just download the book.. or open some link

– Milla
and if she would say herself openly what she sees in herself. then you
would also be better prepared.
yes. you press the pdf link.
could print it out.
talk about the different examples bit by bit with d.

Kelly –
wow thats lots of text.. will take time for me to read that

– Milla
you could skip the intro text. even though it’s good to read if you
don’t know so much about power relations between men and women.
but there are really short examples coming after the long intro.
they are simple to read.
have you been in a relation with a man before?
like no need to answer.
more that it’s easier to understand the examples if you have previous
experience.

Kelly –
i just broke up a year ago with my boyfriend who i had been with for two years

– Milla
but i guess it’s enough if you have some father or brother or other guy around..

Kelly –
with page should i start from so i dont have to read the whole thing

– Milla
i’ll have a look.

about page 17 or something like that.

that’s where the examples start.

you could read it together with d. and then compare experiences.

from being oppressed and oppressive.

i don’t know. like daniel said that she was interested in katie as well.

i guess i could talk with you both before talking with daniel.

don’t really see why i should talk only with you.

(like i’m not being negative towards you wanting to make a connection.
just that i don’t get it logically. why just you and me.)

Kelly –
well its not katie having an intimate relationship with daniel so i
dont actually see any reason to bring her into the conversation at
all.. but you seem to want to

– Milla
well. i guess. since daniel said that she has interest in exploring
with katie as well, then it would make sense to get to talk with her as
well. for me at least.

like anybody that daniel would be interested in. should be aware of
her behavior.

Kelly –
well i dont see that he would want to explore katie in that way.. we
see a lot the three of us and katie is a really close friend of mine
but the relationship between daniel and katie is purely friendship so i
dont see any reason to talk about daniels behaviour in intimate
relations with her

– Milla
hmm. do you have a gmail account?

it would be easier to copy paste chats that i’ve had with daniel.

Kelly –
no
ive only got hotmail

– Milla

“
me: well. i’m always going against the “hard places” head on towards
confrontation with whatever feels uncomfortable.
but don’t honestly know if i would like to face
jealousy and not being chosen
after big time mega rejections
it wouldn’t feel fun at all.
i don’t know.
-
3:26 AM Dániel: you dont even know Kelly…
i mean you were ok with Lotte werent you? in this jealousy sense
(although Lotte said afterwards that she felt i was “preferring you”
in Helsinki or you being more interesting or something)
also its not only Kelly, but Katie
“

– Milla
but daniel was saying as well that she hadn’t gotten to know katie that
well in vilnius.

and also that she thought that you two (you and katie) were exploring
love with each other.

so i guess this is the reason why i would have wanted to talk with katie as well.

since to me. there’s been interest expressed on daniels side.

on the other hand she kind of changes opinion back and forth. like
with me she’s really been weird.

Kelly –
well its strange cause we talked about this and he said he didnt have
any interest of that sort

– Milla
well. there are a lot of strange things about daniel…

you should probably talk with annie.

she would probably have better info for you on what to watch out for.

but i still think a good prevention would be to go through the text with daniel.

with behavior that she already has recognized in herself.

talk it through. this way you would be more prepared.

Kelly –
yep i think i want to talk to her

– Milla
me too…

Kelly –
its just so weird getting into the middle of this.. i didnt know about
you and daniel having anything intimate before and the whole thing
about there being something wrong with his behaviour seems so foreing
to me

– Milla
she didn’t talk about us?

are you into polyamory?

Kelly –
not before you really started to ask about the meeting
i knew that he had been there there to help you but not that you had
anything intimate

– Milla
wow…

Kelly –
yep i had to ask that myself as it seemed after having read some
things that you have written that you had something

– Milla
like… i don’t know what to say…

this is really strange…

and about polyamory?

are you into it?

Kelly –
hm… im not really sure if i would be longterm.. but i think exploring is ok

– Milla
has daniel told you about her other relations?

Kelly –
just have to be carefull not to do it in a hurtfull way if youre in a
relationship
just janet and annie

– Milla
not that she’s involved with a woman called Lotte?

and had intimate relations with a woman called hajni and maria just
untill recently?

Kelly –
well i did ask if he had any of that sort of interest in her and he
said no.. maybe its just to please me.. saying hes only got interest
in me when it may not be so
he did tell about someone.. who owns the common flat.. didnt give a name though

– Milla
yes. the guy is lying to you.

she’s polyamorous.

has relations with more women.

Kelly –
he doesnt really talk about this.. i think i have to bring it up.. i
knew it cause its on the blog but hes not talking about it

– Milla
well. it seems that we’re going to have an interesting meeting…

Kelly –
he said something about Lotte having a boyfriend though
well seems theres lots of stuff i have to talk about with him

– Milla
yes.

i was pretty taken in by daniel as well.

like i still have some love for her.

but hearing what she’s said to you.

and also what she hasn’t said.

i’m just sitting here.

kind of: what the hell…

Kelly –
its really strange to me too cause we talk a lot.. but still he hasnt
talked about this stuff

– Milla
and this should be kind of the first things to talk about when getting
involved with someone…

Kelly –
i quess i should talk this through with him now before i get completely tired

– Milla
she said that you are borderline

is this true?

cause daniel is referring to herself as borderline lately.

and i guess i don’t really know wht that means.

she said that you had this in common.

Kelly –
well yes i have my problems

– Milla
i guess i’m asking cause i’m just trying to figure this guy out.

been trying for several months.

i see clear sexist behavior.

and that she can be really mean and dominant.

and definitely a person who gets controlling in intimate relations.

so it’s something to watch out for for sure.

it affected me really badly.

as well as annie (having to deal with it for 3 years)

i’m happy i went all nuts. and started to contact you.

maybe you can be a bit better prepared.

Kelly –
well im taking it slowly anyway.. have had experience of being hurt by men

– Milla
(maybe not nuts.. more like sane. i went sane all of a sudden..)

daniel is *not* a safe person for intimate feelings.

this is what annie told me.

and this is my own experience with her.

i hope i will make sense when meeting up.

Kelly –
yep i hope i get some kind of an understanding about this then
now its just hard to know whats true

– Milla
(maybe just that all guys are really weird…)

what do you mean. hard to know whats true?

Kelly –
well is it true that daniel has done nothing severe as it seems to me
after having talked to him about this or that he actually has done
something as i can see from your posts

– Milla
well. she has a lot of problematic behavior.

and if you read the text.

then you can talk about behavior that daniel sees in herself.

like the name of the text being “violence in intimate relations that
is not called violence”

she uses these forms of domination

also that she didn’t say anything about her other relations to you is
kind of dishonest.

like really not cool.

Kelly –
yep i find it stange
strange

– Milla
not only strange.

but something you have a right to be upset and angry about.

Kelly –
mm.. i really have to talk to him now
lets hope we have a fruitfull meeting

– Milla
tell her greetings from me. the radical feminist.

Kelly –
ok

– Milla
i wish you luck.

take care <3

Kelly –
it was really nice talking to you

– Milla
same here.

i feel safer meeting up with you.

Kelly –
see you soon

– Milla
nice that you talked with me.

bye bye.

Kelly –
bye

FROM ME TO PK:

At the meeting in Tampere I put pressure on Dani to join the Stop Male Violence group in Budapest. At the meeting she was saying she wouldn’t do it because of me and because of the reason of how I had felt in relation to her. I said that she should do it because of Kelly, out of care for her. We agreed on that Dani would write a letter to the group within two weeks, and that Kelly and I would add our statements because they were very different from Dani’s (male supremacist) perception of reality.

Eventually >> Dani broke the agreement we made in Tampere on how to contact the group. Saying, when i contacted her about it, that it was none of my business what she was doing with the group.

Later in a conversation with Lotte, Dani was saying that she had joined the group because I had told her to.

Below is Kelly’s statement written to the men’s group, sent to me on July 24, 2009:

“
I’m a woman living in Finland and I’m starting a relationship with
Daniel. At first i didn’t see anything disturbing, but then Milla who
had been in intimate relations with Daniel, contacted me.

Milla sent me the text about everyday male chauvinism and I read it.
Through Milla I also heard a lot of things that Daniel hadn’t told me
and wich I found very important things to discuss about. I felt lied
to by Daniel. Thinking what was the reason for not telling those
things. Not telling about being polyamorous was especially hurtfull
since I’ve never been in a polyamorous relationship and haven’t had to
deal with the thought. I found this out though a blog Milla is
writing. Through her i heard things that Daniel had left unsaid about
past relationships. I also felt like being a tool to emprove relations
to other people.

Though there have been missunderstandings about holding important
information, he is very open to talk about these things. He recognizes
behaviour patterns so he has the power and will to chance them.
“

So. Dani is not only convincing Kelly that she wants to deal with oppressive behaviors while at the same time >> shitting all over my feelings. But also..

In a chat with Kelly in September, it is clear that Dani is still lying to her about her other relations.

In some of the chats a “talking stick”
is being used with this sign >> -
the stick is passed on every time someone has
finished speaking to pass the word to the other.

Short comments, questions or answers
to questions while the other is speaking
is marked with >> %

Chat on September 30, 2009 with Kelly.

20:21Milla

can you accept polyamory?

-
20:35Kelly

i’ve never been in a polyamorous relationship before so its completely new to me but im open towards it and exploring on it..
20:37Kelly

and daniel is also making me feel safer about it, redusing my fears and little by little feeling what i feel about it.. i still have a lot of stuff to deal with about jealousy
20:39Kelly

but i really dont know how i would actually react if he would start a relationship with someone else, i cant really predict that
20:39Milla

%hmm. you mean start another/new relation? cause she’s already involved with more people.
20:41Kelly

well there’s nothing really actively going on.. something that i would feel jealous about

-

I met with Lotte in Berlin in October, and the relationship that Dani had been denying from the start when talking to Kelly has been ongoing throughout. In fact, Lotte had spent 3 weeks with Dani talking about their relation, and Dani had put pressure on Lotte not to call Dani a “friend” because she felt that that would be lessening the meaning of their intimate connection. Dani was threatening with breaking off contact with Lotte if Lotte would continue calling Dani a friend. (Which for Lotte wouldn’t mean that they couldn’t have an intimate relation).

More about the talk with Lotte here:

http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/sick-of-petyas-excuses-sure-take-your-time/

Once again I repeat Kelly’s believes about Dani from July:
“Though there have been missunderstandings about holding important
information, he is very open to talk about these things. He recognizes
behaviour patterns so he has the power and will to chance them.“

Dani denied being polyamorous in the beginning with Kelly. And denies the nature of the relation with myself, and Lotte.

Still in September Kelly is under the impression that there are no other relations going on..

“He recognizes behaviour patterns so he has the power and will to change them”.

Dani is saying to you Pre Kaarina that she would “like to work on not hurting ppl“

but to me – a woman deeply degraded and hurt by her behaviors in an intimate relation with her – on October 30, 2009 she’s replying to the question:

– what is she concretely doing to make it feel safe for me to talk
about my feelings in relation to the abusive behaviors she’s had
towards me?

i dont care if you feel safe and i dont want to hear how you feel about anything i did

instead she writes to you that i’ve “raped” her. (still lying to Kelly. still hurting people. not working on it.)

Sexism, Feminism (Politics in general)

by Cunt Incognita (Fisse in Copenhagen)

Riikka. Member of the in-group. Would you care to answer some questions?

Riikka Kaihovaara is a member of the in-group in the teeny-weeny Finnish scene. This means she doesn’t care about right and wrong. It’s all about being “in” or not. If you are a member of the in-group you get the power to decide who belongs. Riikka has this power, and she knows how to use it.

In the conflict regarding the sexist exclusion of myself – a radical feminist – from the social centre project in Helsinki (meaning: a mailing list and the physical space), Aleksi Lilleberg – an ex lover of Riikka – who had denied the existence of sexism on the list, and instead labeled it as “bad behavior” and myself as a person with a “lack of proportions” and “mental problems”, and with this argumentation kicked me out from the list as a trouble maker.

The decision was made by Aleksi single-handedly, without any previous discussion within the community [apart from some aggressive males shouting "ban her!"] or with me having an opportunity to explain myself. After I had been deleted from the mailing list, Riikka did a follow up, where she supported Aleksi’s decision. She wrote a mail to the list where she openly declared that this had nothing to do with “sexism, feminism or politics whatsoever” but that this was all about me having grave “mental problems” and that I was in need of “professional help”, and that the “scene” wouldn’t have the “resources” [political will] to provide with this care.

Once again. Her intention was not to bring her point of view into discussion with the “mentally ill” person, but a “private” “caring” letter to the community, in support of Aleksi’s [messed up, dictatorial] action, encouraging the people in the project to treat me as a sick person, that should be kept far away from the project.

I choose to publish the email exchange we had after this, since there’s been some talk about this coming up on the forum.

CLICK HERE to read the letter she sent, and the following exchange full of projections and excuses and avoidance of the magic word: Accountability.

http://sosiaalikeskus.wordpress.com/read-this/about/riikka-kaihovaara-doing-kitchen-psychology/

I will send this blog post to Riikka, and with this make another request for her to take up the discussion on mental illness declarations as a political practice to exclude persons endangering unhealthy power relations within the Finnish scene.

I strongly disagree with you Riikka, when you say that we need not to think about what’s “right” and “wrong” in this. If this was the case, I could just declare you mentally ill back, and say that your practice is sick, and not a part of how this community should function. And I would be able to move around just a freely as you without having to fear physical aggression from the people within the social centre project (!) In this case we would be equal.

But we are not equal. Men like Aleksi have the right to physically aggress upon women within the scene without there being any further actions taken. You yourself can tell tales behind someone’s back and have me excluded from places like the social centre as well as an “anarchist” mailing list. This has a lot to do with sexism, feminism and politics of power. This is a case of right and wrong.

And in this case, you happen to be wrong. Very wrong. And we should talk about it.

Let’s? Write a comment to this blog post if you feel you’re ready to back your words up with a political dialogue.

It’s been a year and a half since you said you wanted to take a break and think this through. I hope you’ve had enough time to figure out where you stand in this. (I know I’ve had to face your mental illness declaration several times during this period, so I have had plenty of time to figure out how I feel about that.)

Seriously.

We need to talk!