Sunday, March 22, 2015

Caw RANT Events #2

Crow Caw RANT #2

This is the second of my series of RANTS...a new feature on my blog.  RANTS aren't my forte. I like to calmly build and then present an argument on an issue.  But I enjoy READING rants so therefore, agree they're a good format for a post.

The first topic is the frequent attacks on "feminism" that are made on some blogs. Invariably, these are male bloggers who are ranting against feminism...doesn't that tell them something? Along with most other women, I don't really know what is meant by "feminism". It must mean something different to men than it does to women. To women, feminism means that women have equality in the workplace and can make the same money for the same job as their male counterparts. What's wrong with that?! Feminism means that women can live their lives free of the silly rules about dress and deportment that are made for them by men. Men who regard women as chattel want them to dress and behave like chattel....all covered up like a package. These men don't want women to drive cars, get degrees and earn their own salaries and otherwise behave as human beings.

So the next time a man decides to deride feminism...I would like him to first explain what feminism means to him. Women would love to meet their "prince charming" and go off to live in a castle and eat bon bons in front of daytime TV all day. But, thanks again to men...that's not in the cards for 99% of women. So...lacking the dream...we need to live free and equal to men. That's what feminism means to me...how about You!?

The second item on my RANT list is plastic. Once again a blogger has brought up the topic of that nasty morass of plastic the size of continental US that's swirling around in the Pacific...destroying the ecosystem (apparently it is eaten by starfish and then moves up the food chain to other fish until at the end of the chain...you and I are eating plastic!) I have said it before and I will say it again...Plastic is made from petroleum. Therefore the petroleum companies are responsible for cleaning up their plastic waste. Petroleum companies have been geniuses at hiding the dots connecting oil with plastic...absolute geniuses. Oil companies keep bullying and badgering the public to agree to building more and more pipelines carrying their product (also environmental risks). I say, before one more pipeline is built, oil companies need to show their bona fides for this planet by cleaning up that Pacific Ocean morass of plastic. Oil companies keep telling us in their non-stop ads on TV what good neighbours and corporate citizens they are. Well, prove it! Clean up your mess!

The last topic on my RANT list is universal health care. Over the past two weeks my videoblogger friend Morris Herman has been deathly sick with meningitis. Luckily he seems to have pulled through but was left with a hefty hospital bill. All the world's population should be covered by universal health care coverage. If countries can spend trillions per year on bombs and armaments...they can easily afford health care. Canada has universal health care, thanks to a genius Tommy Douglas (consistently voted the most popular person in Canadian history). But our big neighbour to the south hates that we have universal health care (it sets a "terrible precedent" for average Americans who can lose their homes if they get seriously ill). The US uses all kinds of devious mechanisms to try to undermine and sabotage our health care system. It's under constant attack. The most insidious way that our health care system is under attack is by big US health care providers getting their toe in the Canadian health care door and then bombarding Canada's TV channels with scare-tactic ads about the need to "top up" our health care with "extra coverage" for certain amenities. That strategy is eating away at the universality of our health care system. Whenever I visit the United States (as little as possible) I am disgusted by the non-stop ads on all the TV channels for this health care provider or that. They spend 99% of health care dollars on useless TV advertising. If Health Care TV advertising were outlawed, the US could spend all those dollars to give basic universal health care to every American man, woman and child. Health care should be transportable to other countries...so when a Canadian (or anyone) gets sick in any country in the world...the costs of treatment should be picked up by Canada or the home country.

Time for the world to take a giant leap forward and solve the two easily solvable issues--out of control plastic waste and providing universal health care. That's it for now folks....until my next RANT.

5 comments:

Penny said...

gc

Feminism is entirely contrived

A CIA construct- no one would dispute equal pay for equal work- But that wasn't the agenda behind the CIA program of feminism
Gloria Steinham was CIA.
And the program was insidious. In it's intent to, drive down wages, destroy family,destroy community- foment the divide between men and women


greencrow said...

Hi Penny:

Thanks for your comment. I really do think we need to define more clearly what is meant by "feminism". If you click on the link re "woman as chattel" you will see that I refer back to the "persons act". It was not too long ago that women weren't regarded as persons. I agree that the powers-that-be wanted to exploit women in the labour force (and they did) but I also see that women are better off now than before we were regarded as people and men could kick women out of the house and they would have absolutely NO rights.

Here is a precedent-setting case

http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/murdoch-case/

from as recent as 1975, that informs my position that those who are "anti-feminist" are trying to take women back to these times....and I ain't goin'.

gc

Penny said...

Hi GC;

A definition to clarify would certainly be good, agreed.
But women as chattel, in your link, may or may not have been reality at the time. I don't know.

This I do know with certainty, what passes as official history is, IMO, completely contrived. Reviewing the past more then 7 years of blogging.. what will be written as 'official' history will have nothing what so ever to do with reality

When I look back at items such as that which you linked I have to ask myself was that really what happened?

And I cannot answer no with any certainty

Can we be certain, keeping in mind that William Lyin' MacKenzie King was a Rockefeller PR man, that the event mentioned wasn't entirely staged

"With the help of Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, the Famous Five appealed the Supreme Court of Canada decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, at the time the highest court of appeal for Canada."

Can we be certain that these women weren't part of some "movement" created by old Rockefeller's money?

A precursor to the NGO?

Because that too could have been the case. Rockefeller was manipulating as far back as the late 1800's through the Baptist Church- being very interested in their "education"

Look what that article says..

"Alberta social activist Emily Murphy was appointed in 1916 as the first woman police magistrate in Alberta"

A social activist? Like the ones now? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But could be.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=rockefeller+lyon+mackenzie+king&sa=G&hl=en-CA&gbv=2&sei=MUMRVcSgIIb0yATNmIHwCg&gws_rd=ssl

I have no intention of being chattel and am completely on board with equal pay for equal work- but when I look around at today's society.... I don't see equal pay for equal work as anything close to a reality
And the exploitation of women- for work, for prostitution, etc is worse then ever and is now global- So, what was really gained? And who really gained?
Did women really benefit?

Or did the elites?
The multinationals?
The indoctrination system?

greencrow said...

Hi Penny:

Thanks for your further comments. I think it would be helpful in understanding what "feminism" means if we divided it into two categories...sexual/moral freedom for women and legal/social freedom. In the 1960's and 70's we had the sexual revolution. Using my technique of reverse engineering...I now see that the sexual revolution was a complete sham and shell game. Big pharma was trying out the "pill" and wanted millions of guinea pigs. That's more or less it. A lot of women's so called freedoms and advances can be traced back to us being used as lab rats. When they had birth control figured out...they reined in sexual "freedom" by way of lab produced viruses such as AIDS.

Throughout human history...women have always been a huge source of free or practically free labour...that's what makes the world go round. The PTB tweak it this way and that with minimum wages and family benefits. What minor gains women have made in the workplace can easily be rolled back through taxation and (for instance) bringing in boatloads of immigrants to bring down the wages.

But to return to the point I was making originally...when someone (usually a man) attacks feminism...I think what he is really saying is that women should be happy to be someone's unpaid body servant. I have always said that I would also love to have a wife...someone to nurture and maintain my household, cook meals, not be "uppity" etc., etc. If that is what they mean by feminism...why don't they just come out and say it? If they did say it...I would agree and say that "I too believe in "feminism"...everyone should have one!

gc

greencrow said...

Sorry I left out a word in that last sentence...I should have said that "I, too, DON'T believe in feminism...."