Mailvox: In fairness, you do prefer bad boys

In which we are amused by feminist complaints about t-shirts expressing improper thoughts of which Women Do Not Approve:

The woman in the ‘Annie Hollywood’ t-shirt (produced by ‘Blood Is The New Black’) looks as though she has been roughed up. She appears disheveled and exhausted, her image reminiscent of a crime scenes photo. The other two women have a strip across their eyes, suggesting a loss of identity and dehumanisation. Their semi-naked bodies are pimped through a t-shirt.

The designs are not iconic. They’re not retro (even if adapting a Roxy Music album cover). They’re not art. What we are seeing here is the glamourising of abuse, the suggestion of sexual aggression, a hint that women want to be treated roughly.

Somehow, I seem to have ended up on an Australian feminist mailing list… I can only suspect Jamie. But the best part about the email was the comment that accompanied the link: “This is really appalling and deserves attention. Could they even be charged with inciting violence? I’d be interested in a legal opinion.”

You can always trust a woman to attempt criminalizing opinions with which she disagrees. No, you insanely cretinous would-be fascist, those t-shirt makers cannot reasonably “be charged with inciting violence” anymore than the makers of t-shirts featuring Che Guevara and Mao Tse-tung can. And what did you expect the male reaction would be to the feminist attempt to transform every form of sex that falls short of explicit written consent confirmed by ex post facto notarization by a third party into rape anyway? If rape has become a joke to men; it is only because women, specifically feminist women, have made it so. For example, it would take a heart of stone not to find vast amusement in Amynda’s tale of her terrifying “near-rape” experience that involved neither rape nor actual sex.

It is simply absurd to pretend that no doesn’t often mean yes. There is an abundance of evidence proving otherwise. And there’s a word for men who take women at their collective word with regards to matters of sex, romance, and love. The word is “lonely”. Or, if you prefer, “loser”. Women aren’t particularly attracted to nice men who treat them well, they’re primarily attracted to bastards who don’t give a damn about them, who simply want to nail them and nail them hard.

I don’t agree with everything that Roissy and the players write about Game; I find their interpretation to be a synthetic and subject-limited form of Alpha. But Roissy is nevertheless dead-on correct with regards to what pushes the average woman’s buttons.* This, of course, is exactly why a man wearing an “offensive” Roger David t-shirt is much more likely to score than a man wearing a female-approved Take Back the Night one.

And if you don’t find the tagline “Blood is the New Black” funny, well, there’s clearly something wrong with you.

* NB: On behalf of women who don’t understand the concept of “average”: yes, we already know and acknowledge that there are women who belong to the statistical minority. The group in which you personally happen to fall is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Is Obama serious?

He can come back in a big way if he is really going to take on the banks. But the Market Ticker’s enthusiasm for Obama’s so-called “declaration of war” notwithstanding, that’s a pretty big if. However promising his populist rhetoric sounds, I strongly suspect this is nothing more than another smokescreen fired out of the Federal extend-and-pretend Nebelwerfer. Nor am I alone in these suspicions:

Senior staff at the investment banks themselves were determined to play down the significance of the speech. “What you are witnessing it a political panic,” said one. “Obama lost a crucial vote and is now trying to win back political ground by some serious bank bashing. This has to go through a long and complicated political process before it gets anywhere near being law.”… Last night, David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, showed the first sign that President Obama faces a fight. “To put rules in place that roll back the financial system by 10 years is going to be a very, very hard thing to do,” he said.

Translation: we will fight in the boardrooms, we will fight in the Congressional offices, we will fight in the Senatorial backrooms, we will never roll over and surrender our fraud, our theft, or our ill-gotten gains! While Obama’s political survival instincts are leading him to take the right tack, Barney Frank has already made it clear that Congress, being largely owned by Wall Street, isn’t about to play ball. When one considers the way Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rolled Obama last year, I wouldn’t bet the housing market against them doing it again, especially when they’ll have a lot of support from idiot Republicans defending the “free market” right of banks to collect federal subsidies, enjoy federal protection against competition, commit massive amounts of open fraud, and get bailed out when they still somehow manage to bankrupt themselves despite all those advantages.

There is an easy way to determine if Obama is genuinely declaring war on Wall Street or not. If he fires Geithner and Summer, withdraws his support for Ben Bernanke, and promotes Paul Volcker to the Treasury, it’s on. If he gets behind Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, it’s nuclear. But if he leaves all the usual suspects in place, and I have seen no indications that he will not, then this is just a bit of populist window dressing meant to alleviate his plunging poll numbers.

On a tangential note, speaking of those who have to go, check out the latest piece of bank-related corruption in the Obama administration: “Sheila Bair, one of the chief regulators overseeing Bank of America’s federal rescue, took out two mortgages worth more than $1 million from the banking giant last summer during ongoing negotiations about the bank’s bailout and its repayment. Mortgage documents for that 14-room home include a provision, known as a second-home rider, stating that Bair and her husband must keep the house for their “exclusive use and enjoyment” and may not use it as a rental or timeshare. Yet the couple has been renting out part of the house since they left for Washington, with Bair listing income from the “rental property” in Amherst as between $15,000 and $50,000 a year on her most recent financial disclosure form as head of the FDIC.”

These people belong in jail, not running massively influential financial agencies and deciding which corporations will live and which will die. And yet we’re somehow supposed to believe they are capable of salvaging the economic situation?