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:
There’s some more exchange in between. But it ended up with this:
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?
Filed under: > Milla & The Ban |