Brilliant article on Epstein by Helen Rumbelow in the Times TW Distressing content

Can't diagree with that at all. On the good to bad apple ratio, I think most men (and a lot of women) start from the POV that 'most men are OK, of course there's some arseholes, but all my mates are OK...' But now, with the evidence of our own eyes, Pelicot, Epstein, rape gangs and their apologists, and, not least, regular reading of MN, the ratio starts to drop sharply. Maybe even a half is generous. Was it always worse than I thought? Yes. Is it getting worse recently, again, almost certainly yes. And the whole power aspect, the super-rich who aren't used to hearing No.

Give a man even a skerrick of power and it seems as though, 9 times out of 10, he'll start raping women and girls (with his mates).

Frankly, I've no faith at all left in men as a demographic, and no respect for them either. As they say, one bad apple spoils the bunch, and it seems as though the good to bad apple ratio for men is closer to even when given the chance.

I've also got no hope that the men involved in these files will see any kind of real consequences. They have too much power and influence. As Yoko Ono said, 'woman is the n--r of the world', and as Germaine Greer said, 'women have very little idea of how much men hate them'.

And I do agree that mob justice isn't what is needed. Actual justice is, and that would involve the investigation and arrest of people suspected of wrongdoing. Which is finally happening. If it had happened sooner and if it was happening in America there would likely be less conspiracy theorising and public anger.

Unherds been sidling up to the "it's all going to far and turning into a witchhunt” angle recently as well. They are owned by the same guy so I wonder if it's an editorial line or just different people thinking alike. (Not suggesting any wrongdoing on Marshal's part. But I can see how an older male pro-establishment hedgefund manager might have more natural sympathy for the people caught up in it than someone who isnt part of that in group).

Did anyone else see Brendan O’Neill weeping big fat tears for poor, “hounded” Andrew Windsor in The Spectator recently? (Brendan, mate - pipe down, nothing’s actually happened to Andy yet, let alone gone “too far!”)

https://spectator.com/article/the-hunting-of-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-has-gone-too-far/

https://archive.ph/sjw0x

This is a grimly fascinating piece on how he lied his way up the social hierarchy. The various instances of 'he lied but because he wanted to get on and we shouldn't block his progress because of that' reminds me of all those court cases where it's been deemed unfair to ruin a bright young man's career because he couldn't stop himself raping some young woman. Also, the way that the more successful you become, even if it's built on lies, other men will prop you up and protect you for their own social advantage.

It's almost as if none of them give a fuck about women at all. They're laughing at us.

Equally why was Hillary Clinton the first person called to give her testimony when she doesn’t appear in the Epstein files?

How is it that the only person who has been found guilty of abuse in this scandal, is a woman and she is serving 20 years in prison while the rapists run the world.

It turns you into someone who doesn't expect to hear the word No.

I wish we could see inside men's heads and work this out once and for all because I think about that too.
Unfortunately you would never get the funding for such a device as apparently a lot of Science is funded by paedophiles and deliberately excluded female scientists.

Well precisely. But this again leaves me baffled about these guys. Because guess what, being involved in the trafficking and abuse of women and girls simply doesn't appeal to me. It's not the law or fear of judgement that stops me, it's that it's clearly wrong and also it repulses me. Wtf is wrong with this bunch of freaks that they don't feel that? Would most men be on board with this if they could? I get the whole 'power corrupts' but does it really turn you into a sex-obsessed deviant?

This is also why I don't like moral relativism "it was normal by the standards of the time so we can't criticise it". Always when you dive deeper it turns out "it" was considered acceptable by the rich and powerful and being criticised by others. By the same standard, raping and sex trafficking women and children is apparently considered acceptable/normal by many of our rich and powerful. Its still wrong.

In the circles they moved in, at least among the people that mattered, everyone was doing it. It is normalised. Their moral compasses are completely skewed.

Depressingly I agree with flirt. They could live like Roman emperors because extreme wealth insulates you from the consequences. You see your peers all doing something so you do it too. This was exacerbated by drawing in royalty and senior politicians. Then you really are above the law because who is going to stop you?

It encapsulates the cliche that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They thought they had side stepped the rules laws and morals the rest of us have to live by. It was all quite intentional. They are not stupid. They are cruel bad men with all brakes taken off.

A small minority rejected his overtures like the ceo of Hermes. Also Tina Brown and Melanie French.

I think you are overthinking it.

Powerful / rich men have always seen access to women as one of their rights. It's only in the last twenty years or so that society has recognised that older men having sex with teenage girls is abusive even if she believes it was her choice because of the power difference and likelihood of grooming. Most of Epstein's crowd grew up before then.

So it's not so much that they didn't think they'd get caught, as that they genuinely didn't think it was a big deal. In their heads they were James Bonds on their island surrounded by bits of pretty fluff. Hence Mandelson, a gay man, still enjoyed it because of what it represented - success and power.

They saw themselves as important and the girls as disposable beause that is how it has always been, and they assumed society would too.

And frankly, they were and are probably right. I'm sure even now, behind closed doors a lot of the (male) media and political establishment feel it's a storm in a teacup and resent being forced to do anything about it.

Another 'Churchill' piece by Hadley; you sit there, slowly nodding... 😀But I dunno if I agree about "rich, powerful, successful men thoroughly trashing their own reputations" , do Allen and Gates and Chomsky and the rest really give a damn what Joe and Josephine Public think?

@MarjorieWestriding Thanks so much for sharing that. I love reading anything from Hadley 'Getting It Right Again' Freeman, as I like to call her, and that piece was no exception. I too am at the bewildered stage. I do think that part of the answer is that a lot of these men simply aren't as 'smart' as we think, and that that also depends on your definition of 'smart'. So, for example, Gates is clearly very intelligent in possibly the most traditional sense of the word but being academically able in specific areas (in his case presumably maths and science) isn't the same as being good at reading people, having good judgement, understanding or caring about morality, bothering to actually think about consequences and so on. Saying that, Mandelson absolutely was held up as someone who would excel in at least some of those areas (obviously not morality 😂) so you would expect him to at least understand he was putting himself in a compromising position but, with him, I'd think it's more that he didn't care, possibly because he overestimated his skills and assumed he could get himself out of anything, since that is a real strength he has. Coming back to Gates, perhaps he thought he had enough money to get out of anything so didn't need to worry. Ultimately, as Hadley says, it's quite incredible to see all these rich, powerful, successful men thoroughly trashing their own reputations and risking much worse for nothing that seems close to worth it to any normal person. I think they basically had too much time and money and not enough care for others and that is a terrible combination.

Hadley Freeman wrote a good one asking how supposedly clever men can be so stupid. She was asking the same questions I've been asking myself, about how gullible these men were. How were they so easily taken in by Epstein and why didn't they see the obvious, that he was a massive red flag? But they didn't see it and now there they are, in print and in pictures. Did they all honestly think what they were doing was okay and that they'd get away with it? Did none of them ever look at Epstein's smirk and have second thoughts about spending time with him?

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/clever-men-stupid-jeffrey-epstein-fw9f2vtrg

archive.ph/eXY7h

Have you heard the conversation between Epstein and Ehud Barak where they both try to spell Palantir and fail? The man was, in many ways, a childish idiot (and a child rapists). It is indeed disappointing how many presumably intelligent men were in thrall to him while also back-patting each other on how they were smarter than women.

https://19thnews.org/2026/02/epstein-files-academic-research-women-scientists/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the hatred and contempt Epstein had for intelligent women (well, all women). Bit depressing how many men of science went along with it. I would sort of hope that they were just toadying to get funding...but nope they probably do actually believe this. I knew that media, entertainment, politics, royalty was infested with this shit but I naively thought that men who were into scientific rigour, facts and whatnot might be different. Silly me. How bloody depressing.

Excellent point. The double standards are astonishing.

Oh it's wrong to tar all men with the same brush. And you shouldn't always assume the worst. BUT if a 19 year old agrees to a "modelling contract"/acting audition that involves going to dinner with a man. Or agrees to be paid to be a pretty face on a yacht party then she definitely should have known what she was getting into. (Even if noone ever talks about this stuff, it's all euphemisms and she is from another country).** On the other a middle aged man jokingly emailing Epstein about his "harem" and pretty friends long after Epstein's first conviction was clearly sadly misled, can't have been expected to realise anything was amiss and shouldn't be tarred with guilt by association.

**Of course, anyone talking about the dangers beforehand would be scaremongering.

Because women can never talk about the way we get treated by men without a man popping up to talk over us and point out NAMALT. its patriarchal wackamole, there's always one.

Yes I read this. Good article but I’m bemused when the Guardian remembers what a woman is. It often seems to forget. I wish it could remain consistent when it comes to significant facts.