Men who

Men who ask whether you have anything sexy to wear. Sure, and if I don’t, I’ll go and buy some, of course, what wouldn’t I do for male pleasure. Men who ask whether they can come by on Monday morning and do I have lubricate. They ask do I like being fucked in the ass, do I like my asshole licked. I wash the sheets afterwards. Men think they can come and then go and it should be fine because they are men and this is just sex. Men may ask whether they can eat me, whether I will eat them, whether I make the initiative, whether I fuck like an animal, how far will I go as far as sex goes. Men who send their erection in a photograph and ask whether I got scared. No it is normal. You do not scare me with an picture of your erected penis, picture with sperm on your belly after you have masturbated. You thought I got scared? Why? So you do consider my feelings. Women are scared of men? Why on earth? Men to whom I tell what I like they listen and do what they want. I ask what do they want. Men who do whatever they please, so why shouldn’t I do what I like?

Men who do not consider protection but leave it for a woman to think and it is woman’s task to demand men to use a condom: oh, do I have to. I don’t have any diseases. Men who think they are the only ones, but I don’t see the spark. I really do not see any respect or consideration even though you say I have a dick and balls. What did I expect? It is more than I could ever imagine, worse. The worse is that the imagined is true.

You get turned on when women are scared of you? You feel powerful when you inflict fright?

Frozen Barbie: when empowered by looks your power is your looks your appearance. What kind of power is that?

What kind of looks is empowering? We can imagine that, it is something that impresses one way or another. It can be a uniform kind of look, overly feminine, overly masculine, something that is controlled but emphasized toned exaggerated, arrogant, vulgar and self-assured, confident to the maximum. It is giving a power feeling and instant impression of size, message and direction. That one feels one has got power to seduce and influence with one’s posture, habitus, body form, color, age, presence, things that chosen and are shown, bare or hidden skin, that we pay attention to as sexy, appealing, that we notice as interesting. The visual of a woman is that she is sexual, she has as a cultural and biological being and construct a complex relationship to sexuality and sex, how is she showing  and manifesting her sexuality and is it her decision. She is sexualized plainly because she is a woman or a girl, mostly she can’t own and control her sexuality, define it or use it for her own ends.
Importance is on the visual of a woman because body is a turn on or off, it is her. An object of desire with subject attached to. Face being the key to that person who is an image and product. Sexuality is a play with roles, status, hierarchy, reality and illusion, it is to be liked and loved, accepted. That she is the kind to be liked and loved, maybe as a whole person, as the same as she looks, someone who is by definition beautiful on the outside is on the inside the same beautiful and whole, important. She is complimented for her looks first. Is the first thought of her always how she looks? That is the first thing women experience, are seen, talked about, are expected to be, beautiful and via that beauty be worthy of noticing and appreciation. Basically there is nothing wrong with the habit of telling people how good they look, when they have seen the effort and want to impress via looks. To be impressed by appearance is what happens instantly, we like or we do not. It is possibly never a neutral issue.
Iconic beauty queen and an image but she is a living person who says she is in control of what she does, how she performs and what she shows of herself. Someone who makes her living via her appearance selling her looks to be printed on ads and magazines, on the internet for all who wish this kind of content and get a thrill over it, a positive one. What is the positive here, the empowerment which is the abusing of people desires, insecurities, abusing the space for something selfish. What is it we are watching, what is it we have? What is the interest there other than sex? Our need to look at beautiful people empowers those who have the need to be looked at, admired for their looks, told how good looking they are. Does empowerment move the other direction as well as beautiful people are idols for very big part because of their beauty?
Empowerment is born via attention, a rush and energetic turn on, highly sexual experience, perverted and natural. The flow of images of people and fame that may follow, dreams of fame, possibility of fortune, getting inside a jet set, becoming popular, comments given, all kinds of comments that feed the fame, outrage, hate, dislike, criticism, especially the negative emotional, irrational and rational outbursts of reactions, story of a person which is a picture, story which grows as the fame grows bigger. She and he who are gazed, compared, envied, copied, imitated, desired, put as posters on walls exploding the internet. Human form of perfection which for the eye is symmetrical and appealing, as I analyse the mediocre hyped human form that is placed on highest peak of our attention, to catch our attention. Constant policing as contrast, in comparison shaming of her means she is oppressed, oppressed on so many levels it is almost impossible to break the wall of bias and expectation of what a girl and woman are supposed to be and do. To be in control is not care of thoughts and comment. Permanent state of chauvinism and sexism infiltrated stay set as model for all which is understood by all, things seen as funny, harmless kept alive and going because it is impossibly tight grown, stuck and glued on us, and we wonder anything and anyone who does not want the same.

 

What does it mean to be leftist? Calling of names or values?

What does it mean when somebody calls you a cultural Marxist in the meaning of you are an enemy of your people and common good? It is devastating and incorrect. To be leftist is never against people nor common good. If that is what leftists do, they are doing wrong. To be called an enemy is something communists, Marxists and all defined on the left more or less usually encounter. It is no surprise since deep division between political parties and views grows the more unstable world becomes, the more violent the world gets. To set an enemy for yourself, to those whom you represent with your world view and values in real life or only in your imagination seems to be a basic method of choosing sides which method is to create imbalance, argument, reality and more division there already is. Who is against you, against your political views, plans, what there is to get, your values, your safety and position is your enemy in this conversation and game, real and virtual, where winners are the most loudest bullies who have the nerve and attitude to crush anyone who is in their way. To be leftist artist can mean that to work in the industry successfully one has to bend one’s principles and values, professional field which is politically on the right which people working in arts do not like to admit, may even deny any political inclinations and sympathy. It is so that many philosophers discussed within arts heavily question fascist ideas and way of life, what is right and where to stand. You can be in the mist and not know what is what, think and say the other, do completely different. It is confusing, as it seems. Can business ever be leftist? If one is willing to compromise in a field where pretending is a rule and setting the mood and image right are more important than what lies behind, more important than standing behind values such as human rights, worker rights and intellectual progress, intellectual integrity, one can succeed especially financially. To be leftist who stands behind what is right it means one has to be vocal about issues, give straightforward criticism to those who may not want it but desperately need it and object to fascist progress of thinking and rock the fascist state of things which is manipulative, conservative, greedy, hindering progress rather than supporting it, exclusive, arrogant and hierarchical. Left means all what is said and done must stand the light of day and all things said and done are done within the frame of good for all, for all people. Everything is political whether you deny it or not, despite of you.

To me leftist is uncompromising when truth must be found. Left is against fascism. It is never fascist. It is against exploitation, abuse, manipulation, oppression and rule of money. It does not get intoxicated by power. Being visibly leftist on social media has appeared to be similar as being feminist. One is immediately labelled difficult and against something that left is not against in the first place. There are strict pools for right and left and far-right is a clear bully who likes to label those it calls enemies. To be leftist means sticking to one’s ideals and speaking out despite bullies, trolls, haters and gamers who throw dirt, threaten and shame without second thought because there is this enemy side to which all human right activists for some reason belong. There is strict division between those who seek common good and peace and those who look for causing harm and gaining benefit for themselves, self-interest and loathing belong together.

It is a strange battle in which knowing definitions most strongly defend radical change despite the thrashing of the name Marx and all of the left. From where things originate is essential to learn. Names and definitions are the ones that get thrown at you mostly by people who do not know better. Marxist is the swear word to many. Marxism an ideology a curse to be abolished. Maybe it is enough a reason to be a Marxist. Misunderstanding, that happened in the past, still defines Marxism which is as it happened more against the people and justice having created inequality that it was not to do. Was Marxism invented by Marx himself? By the outcome definitely not. What does Marxism mean, when it can be manipulated to be fascist?  Merely that there are flaws in the philosophy or how it is understood poorly or not at all, definitely there have been and are flaws in the conventions of governing and implementing ideas as they are without manipulating them. Origins of hate, names, ideas and wars win and spin, what and who wins? When rulers get rich but people do not the state of things is not on the left, maybe looking in the direction of the left as it is deported to concentration camps and prisons silenced and bullied. To be leftist means knowing the roots and meanings of terms and ideas used. Terminology is a battle field, ammunition, accusation and fault as is history. History is a sledgehammer but we do not learn from it. To know who stands on the right and defends right causes one has to listen what people talk, also listen to those with whom you do not agree. Marxism and communism having had the heavy load of atrocities, misuse and abuse, massacres, lies, exploitation of philosophy and ideas invented to make revolution of labor, of working people and human rights does not mean the essential ideas are useless, they have been implemented in wrong ways. Why are thoughts that were made to give power to those who do not have power, to those who are powerless without means to rise up, deemed bad and corrupt?

Crowds will have power when they learn to know how to use power of theirs collectively and correctly for good building peaceful society. What are those teachings and how does learning happen collectively? What is the corrupt part, I wonder. Where does it, a movement, a revolution, go corrupt and why working class should not have similar rights as the bourgeoisie, depending what those rights are? Enemy today is the venomous history remembered as a heavy book, a burden which it is. History which easily repeats the fire and force of Marxism used poorly and violently against those whom it is supposed to help. The heavy book forgotten because it is too long to study. Socialism and communism do appeal to those who are the most oppressed and may look for vengeance seeking their power which has been lost. To be wise with the power of working class can be found, reason is there when one does not give power to hate. Change can be hopelessly total destruction even compared to reality experienced and escaped, complete turnover is lethal when there is lack of compassion and knowledge. Subtle voluntary change exercised by all willingly sounds like a dream. It means there shall not be any politicians who would seek absolute power. Social reform does not happen quickly in places where there is no history of power of the working people used for them and by them.

Where rulers slaughter people of their own and are intoxicated by power philosophers are merely hammers in use to justify deeds done in the name of working people and freedom. It is a complicated question what left is today because it is without teeth in front of unemployment, corruption, chaos in the Middle East and future looking somewhat threatening.

Political left is seeking profound change in Europe as it is broken and divided instead of being united. Prejudice and stigma that there hovers above seems propaganda and something people who still think like it is the 1990s like to keep alive. The very basis of left still remains for those who stand on the side of protecting instead of destroying: human value exists without ownership, without money, money is not the ultimate measure of life, possession does not tell of human value, people live and must be allowed to live free and in peace regardless of the circumstances they come from and their background, regardless of status, wealth, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political views and occupation. It is at its core an aim to provide good living for all, a political ideology about sharing wealth in a way that there would not be handful of people who are enormously rich and there would not be a mass of poor people who cannot rise up because they are so poor and would be slaves to those who own the most of wealth and means to produce basic products, means to provide work, means to influence in politics and have power in decision-making. That there would not be poverty where there are no means to help oneself to rise up the ladder. Society cannot be set sustainably in a way that those who are the most well-off will survive and flourish because of their gained wealth and only those would prosper. If to make it would be and is so difficult in most of the world leftism has got work to do. When the only way to get ahead is that one should be equipped to fit and have wealth world will not be stable, people will not have stable healthy views on society and what being a human today is. Society that expects certain things of success, those who succeed have succeeded in advance, loses something important something that we cannot anticipate but will regret. It is variety, surprise and innovation that does not appear because of wealth but despite it. For all there must be tools to reach out for their dreams and succeed in life.

The postmodern left and the success of neoliberalism 

http://linkis.com/libcom.org/library/y9N9i

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/g2689/most-powerful-photos/?slide=50

Canadian university partners with foreign mining firm and its checkered, colonialist legacy

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/campus-notes/2016/03/canadian-university-partners-foreign-mining-firm-and-its-checker?utm_content=bufferca185&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer