Get your own damn sandwich.

So, women now rule the world, and men are oppressed? Courtesy of a Facebook friend, here’s an extremely typical example of how guys who make those claims actually “think” (note the quotes):

antifeminist-stoopid

Y’okay. I know this isn’t really a fair fight here, seeing as I’m about to do a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But damn, he’s just begging for an ass-kicking. So I figure I might as well oblige him. Ready? Here goes…

“You’ve never been forced to die in war.”

Yeah, dude, we’ve never fought in a war, never been killed as civilians either, and certainly NEVER been raped to death. Just because women haven’t faced as much historical conscription as men (outside of Israel, maybe), doesn’t mean we didn’t get wiped out too. My mother’s baby sister was forced to die in a war when she was just 11 months old. Of course, she had to do so via malnutrition and dysentery, so there’s that.

“You are not capable of performing the same tasks men do because you lack the ambition and devotion to do a good job at anything. This is why you get paid less.”

Actually, we are more than capable, and we don’t lack “ambition and devotion”. We work twice as hard for half the pay and a quarter of the recognition. There are now more women than men graduating from college. And we don’t get there by sleeping with our profs or batting our eyes at TAs, either. The reason we STILL get paid less is because men can get away with paying us less…and they do. It’s called systemic discrimination; look it up, dude.

“Remember when you weren’t allowed to vote? It’s because you lack the enough logical reasoning skills to take difficult decisions in a sound manner.”

“The enough logical reasoning skills”? What does that even mean? Dude, if you’re gonna pride yourself on your superior reasoning and logic (mad skillz!), shouldn’t you at least learn how to string together a coherent sentence? You know, so you at least LOOK like you have logic and reasoning capacity?

As for the point you’re struggling to make here, it’s also bullshit. Remember all those wars you were being forced to die in while we fragile flowers were sitting safely home, getting raped to death? Product of superior male logic and reasoning, dude. And product of oh-so-superior all-male voting and all-male candidate slates, too.

“You have never ruled the world. Because you lack the enough physical strength and intelligence to lead an army or a nation.”

Again with “the enough”. Dude, if you’re gonna claim superior intelligence — again, learn to string together a coherent sentence, or don’t try to make that argument.

Actually, don’t try to make that argument anyhow. No single individual has ever ruled the world, and none ever will (or should). But if you want rulers of armies and nations, learn to look beyond your own sex once in a while. Jeanne d’Arc organized and led an army at 17. Queen Elizabeth I ruled as an unmarried woman, never relegated to second-class status as a producer of royal heirs. She routinely boasted of her “male brain”, which kept her securely on the throne for 44 years. Queen Victoria ascended the throne of England at 18, and the British Empire grew and prospered under her reign (which she did not abandon to produce heirs and spares at a prodigious rate). Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne for 61 years now, and may well live to top Queen Victoria’s 63. And don’t get me started on Hatshepsut, the Egyptian queen who crowned herself a pharaoh, and won the respect of her people by her successful forays in both war and peaceful trade. She wasn’t even the first female ruler of Egypt by a long shot!

I’m sorry…what was that you were saying again, dude?

“The only reason you need wimpy support groups (i.e. Feminism) is because of your primal instinct of inferiority.”

“The only reason…is because of”? Again, dude, learn to string together a sentence; that’s fucking pathetic.

BTW, there is no such thing as a “primal instinct of inferiority” peculiar to women; see above. I’m sure that any of the female rulers and leaders I’ve mentioned (who are just a handful among many) would be greatly surprised to find themselves in possession of such a thing. I know I would be!

And if feminism is just a “wimpy support group”, why are you so afraid of it? Why post these moronic, hastily typed screeds if you’re so naturally, primally, instinctually superior? Whom are you trying to convince — us, or yourself? Either way, your flop-sweat is starting to smell.

“You have never invented anything worth mentioning during the last thousands of years of recorded human history. That computer you’re using, the electricity, the house you live in, the car you drive, the job you work for, the gasoline that fuels your car, the desk, the pencil, the paper and everything you use in your everyday life was invented by men.”

O RLY? Ada Lovelace would like a word with you, dude. Without her, Charles Babbage’s “Analytical Engine” would have been no more than a quaint curiosity, with limited (or no) practical use. Female programmers also worked the first electronic computers during World War II. If you use software or algorithms of any sort, you’re using something invented by a woman.

Also, electricity wasn’t invented by men. It wasn’t invented, period. It’s a force of nature that no man can lay claim to. Although a great many men have been killed by it, some in chairs invented by other men. (Ah yes, those superior male brains. They fry so beautifully.)

I don’t know who invented houses, desks, or pencils and paper, and neither do you. But to just assume it must have been a man (because instinct, blah blah) is lazy and pathetic. If you can’t name who invented something, you don’t have the right to assume anything about the inventor’s gender.

BTW, I don’t drive a car. I ride a bike; less polluting. More often, I just walk. Are you going to tell me that men invented walking, too?

“The job you work for”? Again, pathetic sentence structure. Dude, learn English. Use that superior male head of yours for something other than a neck ornament, already.

Also, not everything we use every day was invented by men. So, you were saying…again?

“Mathematics, philosophy, science, medicine, and all of the important building blocks of modern society were created by men.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They were all co-created by men and women, throughout history. And the ratio of the former to the latter would have been smaller by far if systemic discrimination had not existed throughout history, and if it did not STILL exist today.

And how do I know it still exists today? Because you said this:

“You are only to provide us men with your physical beauty. Which is the only worthy talent you posses besides bearing children. If you can’t do that you’re worthless.”

Gee, dude, you sure told me. BTW, could you learn to spell possess too, while you’re busy learning English with that mighty manly head of yours?

“Now go make me a sandwich”

What — can’t you take care of that yourself? You’re superior enough to die in war for the sake of philosophy and shit. You invented electricity! I’m too pretty and inferior to do anything but look good and bear you children. You said so yourself. Make your own damn sandwiches.

And don’t forget the period at the end of the sentence, dumbfuck.

Economics for Dummies: Why higher wages are GOOD for the economy

In a nutshell, this is it:

be-excited

Of course, you can never overestimate the power of Stoopid in capitalist economies. That’s why you’ll find people working not two, but three or even four jobs and still being unable to make ends meet. They’re not the stupid ones for taking those jobs; their employers are, for cheaping out and banking on a high employee turnover rate commensurate with job-seekers’ desperation. They won’t end up with more loyal customers, only disgruntled ex-employees.

Whenever I was fired without cause or forced to quit (yes, that happens!), I never went back to buy from that particular place. I’d diligently put in hours and loyalty and, in return, got paid poorly and treated like shit. Creativity was never rewarded in those places; even conformity was no guarantee of anything. You could do your job to the letter and still lose it the next day to a gum-snapping kid who’d do it poorly, but who would no doubt do it for less. The quality of the goods was just as terrible as was working there. And at least one of those businesses is now OUT of business.

I’m sure all of that is no coincidence.

Politest ass-kicking EVER.

pinera-evo

Did I not say a little while back that Evo was pissed at Sebastián Piñera for making promises he had no intention of keeping? And that he got on better with Ollanta Humala? Why yes, I did. And lo and behold, there has been some fallout…much to Chile’s detriment and Peru’s gain:

President Evo Morales confirmed the exclusion of Chile from the inter-oceanic highway project which will begin in Brazil. Yesterday, he stated that he would inaugurate the cross-continental highway in San José de Chiquitos, along with the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff. He also announced that the special guest for the occasion would be the president of Peru, Ollanta Humala.

The announcement comes in the midst of a climate of tension between Bolivia and Chile, following the detention of three Bolivian soldiers and over the maritime claim being pressed by the Morales government in international courts.

“We will meet with the sister president of Brazil and talk about a topic that is important to us. We have agreed that on April 5, I hope I’m not mistaken, we will inaugurate the cross-continental highway. Initially, we agreed that this joint ceremony will happen in San José de Chiquitos,” said Morales during a press conference yesterday in Palacio Quemado, La Paz.

In December 2007, President Morales met in La Paz with former presidents Michelle Bachelet of Chile and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil. During this meeting they agreed to to complete, by 2009, a highway of 6,100 kilometres with an investment of $604 million US, to connect the three countries, uniting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Three years later, President Morales announced that the Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera, would come to Santa Cruz to inaugurate the highway, along with Dilma Rousseff. But now there is no intention of including Chile in the project, since the Chilean ports initially chosen as endpoints of the highway have been bypassed in favor of those of southern Peru.

After ruling Chile out of the project, Morales said that the special invited guest would be Ollanta Humala, since it was decided that the corridor, and the inter-oceanic railroad, would end in Peru’s ports. “Our special guest will be the president of Peru, Ollanta Humala, so that we will go on seeking integration for the benefit of the peoples of this region and especially of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru.”

The government already has a project to reorient the highway, as well as the railroad. Since until now, the corridor stretched from the port of Santo, Brazil, on the Atlantic, to the Chilean ports of Arica and Iquique, they will soon be diverted toward the Peruvian ports of Matarani and Ilo, as announced by vice-president Alvaro García.

Peru granted port facilities and free transit for its exports via the port of Ilo. Evo Morales and [then-president] Alan García signed the accord in 2010.

Along with the international leadership of the government of Evo Morales, social movements in favor of the government decided to go to the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of American States (OAS) to deounce Chile over the situation of the three detained soldiers.

“We’re going to mobilize, not only in our country but at an international level, we are going to appeal directly to the United Nations and the Organization of American States. This case shows the arrogance of Chile and we cannot accept that,” declared Ever Choquehuanca, executive of the Confederation of Interculturals.

The director announced that he would call a meeting of the Unity Pact to decide when to send a delegation to the international organizations.

Juanita Ancieta, executive of the Bartolinas, and Julián Jala, campesino director, backed the decision to go to international organizations to denounce the detention of the soldiers in Chile. The ruling MAS party, in Cochabamba, criticized the “injustice” on the part of the Chilean government.

Translation mine.

You really have to admire the politeness and restraint Evo showed while dealing Tatán such a tremendous ass-kicking. That’s vintage Evo there. The man’s a Scorpio, after all. You cross those guys at your peril. They can put the mother of all beatdowns on you with exquisite good manners, but by gawd, you will FEEL it in the morning.

And thanks to the stupidity and arrogance of their no-good-very-bad president, the Chilean people are feeling it now. The goodwill of the bilateral relations Bolivia and Chile enjoyed when Michelle Bachelet was president of the latter has all been squandered by Tatán and his mafia of assholes and incompetents. The trade and tourism they’re losing by this is going to cost them billions. And it’s not like they couldn’t use the money. Contrary to anything the bizmedia may tell you, Chile’s “economic miracle” is not merely hollow, it’s bogus. The average Chilean is hurting, and Tatán’s mismanagement has only made the pain worse.

And now this.

But hey, there’s no great loss somewhere without a commensurate gain elsewhere, and sure enough, Peru is the gainer. Ollanta and Evo get along very well indeed. And the port cities of southern Peru stand to benefit hugely by it.

It’s an object lesson in how to do bilateralism: You be nice to the other guy, and the other guy will be nice to you. It’s a no-brainer. And thanks to his lack of brains, Tatán Piñera is finding it out the hard way. I feel very sorry for the people of Chile, but not a bit for him. If only he would suffer for it the way they will. That’s the only thing standing between me and a massive cackle of Schadenfreude right now.

Why women go back to shitty men

Robin “Rihanna” Fenty, making the mistake of her life. Let’s hope it doesn’t actually COST her her life.

Okay. So lots of people are asking why women who seem to otherwise have everything going for them keep going back to shitty men who only abuse them, put them down, and take advantage of them. Recently, one of them became yet another sad statistic in the annals of domestic violence. You’d think that these women could learn to stay the fuck away from these Bhad Nhews Boyz, and yet they keep going back. And the body count just keeps on growing.

So why IS that?

Well, I’m not an expert of any kind, so take this with the obligatory heaping teaspoonful of salt. But I’ve been one of those women, and so have several others near and dear to me. And so I’ve gleaned a bit of insight into what keeps us going back to guys we ought to put behind us for good. I’ve listed ten reasons — some rational, some not, and some just plain fucked up, but all powerful and compelling:

1. Traditional family values. You married him, for better or for worse. And it turns out you got “worse”. He drinks, he’s mentally unstable, he beats the shit out of you. But since divorce is either verboten or extremely difficult to get, or considered shameful, you strive to love, honor, obey, and stick it out until death does you part. And if death comes by his hand, so be it. You are property of your husband and there is not a damn thing you can do about that. You were raised to believe this, and you do, devoutly, even to your own detriment. If your religion values female martyrdom, you might even go to your grave this way…and gladly. Your deeply held values leave you no other choice.

2. You are a Nice Girl. I suffered badly from this one myself. Couldn’t say no, couldn’t say boo to a goose, couldn’t say shit if I had a mouthful. And when my drunken on/off boyfriend of five years got too deep into his beer, which he did every time I went out with him, he wound up the evening not with sex or kisses or a promise to see me again soon, but with ugly insults. I was a “candy-ass”. For being a Nice Girl. And I took it, because if someone I cared about told me so when he was drunk and his inhibitions were down, it must be true. In vina veritas, etc. I sat there and took it until he passed out. Then I would walk home, holding back my tears all the way. And sometimes, NOT holding back. And wondering why I could never work up the nerve to at least tell him to sober the fuck up. Why not? Because Nice Girls never tell guys what to do. And because if they try, they get shouted down and told to stop being such a fucking cunt. Which is the absolute worst thing anyone can call a Nice Girl. And short of actual physical violence (which, mercifully, I was spared), it is the most painful thing in the world to have the very good thing you are trying to be thrown back in your face.

3. You’re afraid to be alone. You’d rather be with the wrong man than no man at all. You’ve totally internalized the idea that a woman without a man is nothing. And, so as not to be a loser yourself, you put up with one instead. And you put up with whatever he dishes out to you, too.

4. You are codependent. He’s hooked on booze, drugs, or some combination of the two, and you are hooked on him. Sober, he’s the nicest guy you ever met; loaded, he’s a goddamn motherfucking piece of shit. But since you see the good side of him as well as the bad, you think that the one MUST eventually win out over the other. So you keep hanging on, trying to get him to detox and get into recovery. Even if he doesn’t want to go. You haven’t yet realized that until HE realizes he’s got a problem and needs to do something about it, all your pleas are falling on chemically deaf ears.

5. He is a master manipulator. This is the kind of dude who could teach the MRA/PUA “community” a thing or two about fucking with a woman’s head and yoinking her around like a yo-yo. He knows exactly where all her weak spots are, and he exploits them callously and without shame. He undermines her self-esteem until there’s nothing left. Then, when she’s just a hollow shell and sucked dry, he leaves her, forcing her to chase after him, and ignores her…at least until he finds something new that he can suck out of her. Then, suddenly, he just yoinks that ol’ yo-yo string, and boom, she’s back in his clutches. Some guys do this to several ladies at once. All of them notably lacking in self-esteem and the wherewithal to say no to him. Strong, assertive women don’t interest this guy, except maybe for the perverse thrill of bringing down an especially bitchy “high-value target” and turning her into a terminal Nice Girl. Low-hanging fruit is more his style. Pimps usually fall under this rubric.

6. DRAMA. Love and suffering, writ large! One or both of them may thrive on it, and consider a relationship “dull” unless it’s constantly on the rocks. This is especially true of basically insecure people who are only mildly to moderately talented, and whose careers therefore depend on keeping their names in the headlines as much as possible (hello, young lovers!). Normal sex isn’t thrilling enough; it has to be angry and violent, or else it has to be the make-up kind. Adrenaline rushes take precedence over feelings of warmth and security. Other chemical (co)dependencies may also feed into this.

7. You take a tremendous pride in your own “strength”. You are an awesome woman, with talent to spare and a résumé to prove it. Instead of using all that to help you get away from him, though, you tolerate and conceal his abuses. Running away from him spells failure and weakness on your part. Besides, what would others think if they knew that you, a strong woman immersed in a good career, were abused? Better just to daub an extra layer of makeup on those bruises and hope nobody notices.

8. He is so violent that you don’t dare try to escape. When he threatens to hunt you down and kill you, you know he means to make good on that. So you don’t call the cops; you don’t report it; you don’t press charges; you don’t do anything that you fear might set him off. It is a perverse sense of self-preservation that keeps you hanging on. Or that sends you back to him, rather than staying in the women’s shelter and filing for divorce.

9. Economic dependency. This one is blindingly obvious. When you’re paid only 70 cents to every dollar he makes, or are not allowed by Mr. Macho (or your #1 or #2 upbringing) to work for a living at all, you have every reason to go home to him and stay there, and none at all to strike out on your own. And if he’s a pimp-type (refer back to #5), chances are he’s taking every buck you make for himself, and beating you if you don’t hand over enough money to him at the end of a working day. Again, self-preservation takes a perverse turn here.

10. Love. Or rather, “love”. Note the quotation marks! If you are in love with him, or at least are convinced that you are, and have no better frame of reference to tell you differently, you’ll put up with just about anything…and go back to it, too.

I’m sure there are more reasons; these are just the ones that occurred to me off the top of my head. (Please feel free to fill me in on anything I may have missed in the comments!)

Bear in mind, too, that usually it’s not just one reason or another, but several at once, that keep women ensnared. The more often she goes back to Mr. Shitty, the more complex the brangle of causes. In addition to #2, I fell victim to #3, #4, and #10. Luckily, I was able to overcome them all; it took me five years to sort myself out and find the wherewithal, but when I dumped the drunk, I dumped him definitively. That was 20 years ago. I’ve been in sporadic contact with him since then, but never once did I look him up; it was always him contacting me, not the other way around. And when I did see him, it only reminded me of how much better my life is without him.

Today, I’d rather have no man than the wrong man. I still dream of falling in love — who doesn’t? — but I have no intention of landing under anyone’s thumb ever again. That’s not love, that’s misogyny.

And there is no greater hindrance to real love than that.

I’m sensing a theme here.

Quotable: Garrison Keillor on Republicans

Cheating = love? That’s a new one on me.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail, here comes another “expert” with another lame theory on Relationship Fail:

A controversial new book argues that infidelity and marriage are entirely compatible. Eric Anderson, author of The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love and the Reality of Cheating, goes even further. He makes the extraordinary claim that men have affairs not despite the fact that they love their partners, but because they do.

Dr Anderson, Professor of Sociology at the University of Winchester, interviewed 120 men and discovered that those who cheated did so because they were sexually bored, and not because they weren’t in love. He concludes that monogamy is an unrealistic expectation, arguing that men cheat — rather than walk out — because they love their wives and want to stay. If they didn’t, the obvious alternative would be to walk out and enjoy guilt-free sex with a new partner.

‘Evidence suggests men who cheat are romantically fulfilled, but unsatisfied with having sex with one person,’ says Dr Anderson. ‘It’s a subversive interpretation, but I’d suggest these men cheat because they do love their partners — they are simply too afraid to take the chance of losing them by expressing a desire for recreational sex with others.’

“But I’m only cheating because I LOVE you!”

Y’know, if my drunken, cheating, sexually inadequate ex-boyfriend (who, to hear him tell it, had nailed every woman he met EXCEPT me) had come out with THAT one on me, I’d probably have laughed myself to death. Just as I damn near did with all the other stupid things he said to me.

As it stands, I dumped him because I got sick of his bullshit. One more lame line wouldn’t have done the trick with me. I was fed up with excuses, and I’d had enough of his rationalizations. If he wanted to sleep with other women, but not me, he could damn well do it without me to fall back on when he had no one else to listen to his drunken ramblings. I refuse to be relegated to a mere compartment in any man’s life…even the one labelled Good Wife, or in my case, Good Girlfriend. Believe it or not, women have needs too…and if they go unmet, as mine did, guess what happens?

Yup. I cheated.

And I’m not going to make lame excuses about how I did it “because I loved him”, either. I thought I loved him, which isn’t the same as actually loving him. Worse, I felt unloved, as a direct result of his cheating, and it was going to take a lot more than platitudes to remedy that.

So I found other company, nice sober guys who didn’t make me feel like I was being constantly abandoned and neglected. Even if I couldn’t quite reciprocate how they felt about me, I thank them to this day for letting me know that I was, in fact, desirable. He had made me feel just the opposite…that I was a nobody and that this crappy guy was the best I could do, and that all I could do about it was put up with it.

Well, I am not, and he wasn’t. And I was done with putting up with it. I ultimately dumped that drunk who always referred to me as his “future fiancée”, but never came through on the boyfriend front in the here-and-now. Dumped him for another guy, one who DID want to be my boyfriend! And now, even without a man in my life, I still feel valuable, and good about myself. How ’bout THEM apples?

But here’s the thing: I don’t delude myself that I would have still stuck with him if he’d let me sleep with other men on the side. He actually told me it was all right if I did, because he planned on doing the same, and do you know how that made me feel? It made me feel like nothing, like I had no emotional value whatsoever to him. He wasn’t even sleeping with me himself.

A man with a raging madonna/whore complex, who can only sleep with “bad” girls, is useless to a nice lady like me. I can’t live on a pedestal, and neither can any other real, live woman. Like I said: We have needs. And if your guy isn’t cutting it, the thing to do is chuck him and find another. Or find another, and THEN chuck him. Or just be alone for a good long while, and learn to love yourself first.

But please, none of this “one for this, another for that” business. It’s a waste of time to negotiate, and a drain on the emotional batteries to actually live it. If any of my gentle readers out there can actually make “open” relationships work in the long run, great, more power to you…but I found out the hard way that when there is too much “open” and not enough relationship, the bottom simply falls out.

You just can’t do what my drunken ex did, and expect the little wifey to stay home and knit you Fair Isle socks while you’re out carousing, and then ask, politely, when you finally get home after a long night (or weekend) of screwing your brains out: “And how was she in the sack, dear?”

And you can’t expect to call it “love”, either. Because in the end, love has fuck-all to do with it.

And those who are honest with themselves and others will have the courage to admit as much.

How NOT to win friends and influence people

I don’t know how much attention His Barackness pays to opinion polls, surveys and the like…but if I were in his shoes, I’d realize that this is very much an election year, and this is very much an election issue:

The Obama administration’s increasing use of unmanned drone strikes to kill terror suspects is widely opposed around the world, according to a Pew Research Center survey on the U.S. image abroad.

In 17 out of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, Pew said Wednesday.

But in the United States, a majority, or 62 per cent, approved the drone campaign.

“There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries,” the study authors said, especially in predominantly Muslim nations, where American anti-terrorism efforts are “still widely unpopular.”

Well, DUH. What was anyone expecting of the international community? Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a drone strike, even if it IS meant to take out that guy next door, the one you didn’t realize was a terrorist. (Or just branded as such by an imperialistic US administration that brooks no opposition in countries where pipelines and resource control are at stake. Same difference.)

I guess international perceptions of the pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize winner are now officially in the toilet. Hearts and minds = piss and shit.

‘Course, I guess it would matter more to the POTUS if this were a “real” war, and his opponent were an anti-war socialist type who hauled out all the collateral damage for the benighted folk of the Fruited Plain to see, like it was back in the days when bloody awful things still received nightly coverage on the news, soldiers were fragging their superiors, and Dan Rather was still a real journalist. This could so easily have turned into another Vietnam, if only drones were shown in their true colors. And if only there were real anti-war candidates still to be found.

Good thing for Hopey, then, that his only real challenger is Mittens, who is even more rabidly pro-war. And who no doubt is counting on 62% of the Amurrican Sheeple remaining this fucking stupid about the rest of the world.

And good thing for the Military-Industrial Complex that it owns the media outright, and has both parties beholden to it. That explains the ridiculous ignorance of that 62%. After all, all they ever hear is that drone strikes are “surgical” and that the War on Terra is “working” — instead of the awful truth, which is that drones can and do go astray, and the world is only turning more against the US, with good cause. And that the war will never be won, which will only mean more “terrorists” to send the robo-bombers after. And more insane profits for the MIC.

In other words, yay drones.

“Sugarbabe” life goes sour: a cheat is not so sweet, after all

Okay, I’m going to try veerrrry hard and restrain my Schadenfreude here while I share some very sad news with you:

Holly Hill believed so strongly that humans are not built to be faithful that she appeared on television and wrote books advocating open relationships.

The Australian author claimed that the only healthy way to have a modern relationship was to allow your partner to have sex with other people, and do the same yourself.

But after insisting that allowing her boyfriend to cheat three nights a week kept them strong, she now admits it destroyed them.

Really? Pity!

Ms Hill became an ‘anti monogamist’ after an ill-fated fling with a married man in 2006. John* never intended to leave his wife, she revealed, but wanted to sleep with somebody else.

After a painful break-up, Ms Hill was determined to use her psychology degree from the University of Southern Queensland to find out why.

She came to the conclusion that men were hardwired to need sex from more than one person, and that humans were not made to have exclusive relationships.

“Need”? Or just want? Sure makes it sound like those poor dear men are just slaves to their hormones, eh? Instead of what I suspect was really the case: that “John” was just your standard rich cad, who wanted to have his cake and eat it too, reasoning that since he could afford more than one slice, he’d be a fool not to buy seconds. Never mind who it ultimately hurt.

Ms Hill shared that view with anyone who would listen, and shocked and angered many commentators as she expounded her theories on CNN and Larry King.

She wrote a novel, Sugarbabe, about her year-long adventures with older men, and another called Toyboy.

A novel? It was nonfiction, or so I heard. But it might as well have been fiction, considering the hogwash it expounded.

But now her dogmatic opinion has completely changed, she told Grazia magazine in an interview.

Ms Hill and her ex-boyfriend, Phil*, drew up a contract to determine how they would operate.

They vetoed anything they felt would make them jealous – in Ms Hill’s case, her partner taking other women on romantic weekends away or buying them gifts.

Yep, that sure sounds like a fine, open, modern, feminist relationship right there. Right off the bat, jealousy entered into the picture and threw everything off kilter, forcing them to close off certain areas as no-go zones. Other women were to be relegated to second-class status. Just like old-fashioned mistresses, who only get to see their men “on the side”, but not for major holidays, and not to travel openly with them. (I’m sorry, there’s that word open again!)

She told CNN in 2010: ‘One of the main things that I have learned is that a woman that negotiates infidelity with her partner is far more powerful than a woman who is sitting home wondering why he’s late from the office Christmas party.

‘It’s better to walk the dog on a leash than let it escape through an unseen hole in the back fence.’

Because all men are dogs, right? And we all know that those poor dogs are just hard-wired to hump every bitch in heat that they can find. (At least, until their humans take them to the vet for that little operation. And yes, I am being totally sarcastic here.)

But rather than eliminating jealousy, Ms Hill became completely paranoid, shedding two stone in weight and obsessively comparing herself to the other women Phil was seeing.

She said: ‘I was staggered by the effect our infidelity was having on me. I’d committed myself to the belief that monogamy was outdated and to have to even consider I was wrong was incredibly tough.’

Her boyfriend, who had previously enjoyed watching her flirt with other men at parties, now said he felt emasculated by the situation – and last summer they split.

‘I was devastated,’ said Ms Hill. ‘When it was just the two of us our relationship was incredible. But we’d ruined it by being “unfaithful” – ironically, the one thing I thought would save our relationship.’

The two are still friends and Phil is now seeing a woman who insists on monogamy – something Phil says has actually restored his confidence.

Ms Hill, too, is dating somebody new, and is feeling optimistic about doing things very differently.

‘Finally,’ she says, ‘I feel like I can see a happy relationship with one man.’

I have to say, all sarcasm and Schadenfreude aside, I’m truly sorry that she got hurt. And Phil, too. And I’m really, truly glad that both are in happier relationships now. But how ironic that they both found out the hard way that monogamy IS better than “negotiated” infidelity, after all!

Regular readers may recall that I panned the whole concept that Holly Hill expounded, not so long ago. Back then she was calling it “naughty feminism”. I pointed out that it was nothing more than patriarchal conformity in disguise — call it Enlightened Sexism, if you will — and that it was neither naughty nor liberating for women. Also that it was elitist: when’s the last time you saw a working-class woman “negotiate” her husband’s man-whoring, and help him pick his mistress, and sit down all nicely and civilly with the Other Woman over coffee to work out the terms of that relationship? There isn’t much to sugar-coat THAT reality when you live near the bottom of the 99%, is there?

In fact, a working-class wife (and her kids) can only suffer when her husband divides his already meagre time and money with another woman. And this situation so terrifies working-class women that many of them are now refusing to marry at all, and are even taking desperate measures to stave off childbearing. And no wonder: what’s the use of tying yourself down to a man who’s not going to stick around and be of help raising those kids that he had no problem siring (in accordance with all that doggy biological hard-wiring, no doubt)?

So it’s little wonder, then, that while faithfulness has declined slightly as a factor in a happy marriage, it’s still overwhelmingly popular. In fact, according to the Pew, it’s the #1 factor, with 93% of the Pew’s survey respondents agreeing that it is crucial. And this in spite of the supposed trend toward “open” marriages. Go figure!

It used to be, when I was a very little kid, that Open Marriage was first floated as a “mature”, “progressive” response to cheating, and that marriage was bourgeois anyway, and that if everybody could lose their hang-ups (fidelity first and foremost among them), then everyone would be liberated, fulfilled, and happy. Well, that experiment was tried, and pronounced an Epic Fail, long ago. Jealousy, it turns out, is just as hard-wired into all of us as is the urge to cheat. Truly non-monogamous, jealousy-free people are actually quite uncommon (although I wouldn’t deny that some do exist; they are just the exceptions that prove the rule). Most of us prefer exclusivity, and not just by default, either. As foolish as it seems, we dare to dream of The One, and we still aim for that, no matter who tells us to be “realistic”! And just look at all the “open” relationships that turn out to be really open only on one side, and then, only until the cheated-on partner has finally had enough. Even college students are finding it an immature, inadequate “solution” to the “problem” of exclusivity. As for that “bourgeois” canard, it turns out that only the bourgiest of bourgeois could afford to boink around all that much, and that it hasn’t made them any happier! (Just look at the faces of the spouses in any high-profile divorce case, if you don’t believe me. Or the agony column of any old rag.)

What a pity, then, that Holly Hill couldn’t have dug up all that old research and learned from it. Or just logged onto the internet and looked around a bit more, instead of doing things the hard way, and hurting herself and her former boyfriend. But now, at least, she knows. And maybe, just maybe, she’ll write a book about it.

Music, maestro…

What happens when local news gets decimated

When local channels are no longer locally run, but just part of some big corporate conglomerate, bad things happen. Bad things like this:

CHCH’s vice-president of news Mike Katrycz said he believes the station ultimately aired around a minute of “hardcore pornography.”

“But as I say, it seemed like an eternity,” he said in a telephone interview Friday.

Katrycz said he noticed the issue right away and frantically called the network’s master control to try to fix it. But since the problem originated elsewhere, they weren’t able to immediately pull the material off the air.

“It was out of our hands,” he said.

CHCH is — or WAS — a locally owned/operated station in Hamilton. It’s now being run out of Toronto by a conglomerate called Channel Zero. Sounds very faceless and anonymous, and no doubt it is. There’s no more local content, outside of the news, and even that has been suffering in the name of maximized profit and minimized cost.

And if the viewer reactions are any indication, it’s gonna be suffering a lot more:

“Just eating some pancakes this morning watching .CHCH … I no longer like pancakes or the news,” wrote Twitter user (at)derek1913.

Others weren’t quite so amused.

One woman, who said she was angry, tweeted that it was lucky no small children were in the room when the pornography came on.

Apparently, no one was paying attention at the controls, either. And no wonder, since porn literally shuts down the brain.

See, kiddies, this is what happens when corporate honchos get greedy. Even local news isn’t local anymore when some jerkoff is wanking at the switch.

And it isn’t news, either.