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

I wish I had your optimism.

Unfortunately I doubt any powerful billionaire friends of Epstein will face justice in law. Too many powerful men in powerful places. So I'd like to see all the men's names shown in full. They'll never see the inside of a court room, nevermind a jail.

Their names should be revealed. If their reputations suffer, it is the direct result of them being rapists, paedophiles or apologists. They should not be allowed to hide behind the law! Or wee black boxes.

I am talking about those third wave so-called feminists who strain at a gnat over small everyday acts of sexism, but don't protest the really big stuff because they are caught in the trap of e.g."be kind" or cultural sensitivity. This was just a plea for third wave feminists to see the big picture and teach our young girls to toughen up and not to pander to men.

What's the first rule of misogyny?🤔

Maybe there's more chance of getting a conviction down the line on names that have been redacted. Unredacted names could claim, "It's been taken out of context, and I've been plastered all over the world's media. I can't get a fair trial!"

I dunno, Maybe.

What strikes me is the carelessness of the emails and messages. These men were so sure of their audience, they didn't care how incriminating their words were.

Plus, and maybe this accounts for it, WHY are the names of the men redacted??

On whose authority??

I think it is probably sensible to be aware that males are, generally, wired differently to females - and take that into account ( and that includes, of course, the men who 'identify as' women).

I've had what I thought were good male friends who it later it turned out would have been open to a sexual relationship if I'd given the signal.. This used to disappoint me when I was young, but now I understand that men are far more led by their sex drive than women tend to be - and are far more opportunistic in pursuit of that. Even the really nice guys.

Single sex schools have a lot to commend them. Being a pubertal or teenage girl is challeging enough without having to conetnd with all of that sort of stuff at school, as well.

I don’t think hatred is too strong a term. There is certainly no respect or equality in their treatment of women. There is contempt for all women, even the ones who submit and those who pander to their egos, witness how Epstein mocked Fergie in one of his emails. I think that contempt walks hand-in-hand with hatred and easily switches over if they come up against a woman who challenges them. Epstein’s comments about the older woman who wouldn’t put up with his bullshit are hateful….. literally full of hate. From that article: “wrinkly old hag, just because she is rich she thinks she can talk down to everyone. Everyone knows her husband is fing young russians… nasty c… bags of cottage cheese in her pants.” That is hate.

As predicted, some disagreement with my stance on third wave feminism - although well outnumbered by the agreements. I'm not victimising the girls caught up in Epstein's evil net. I am talking about those third wave so-called feminists who strain at a gnat over small everyday acts of sexism, but don't protest the really big stuff because they are caught in the trap of e.g."be kind" or cultural sensitivity. This was just a plea for third wave feminists to see the big picture and teach our young girls to toughen up and not to pander to men.

I will add though to anyone who said I'm not a feminist - you're having a laugh: I was a feminist when most of Mumsnet were in nappies.

Pussy is too cutesy a word. Men like that see us as holes.

Very powerful writing and utterly chilling.

The difference between being blindly prejudiced against black/disabled/old etc. people, and a woman being blindly prejudiced against all men, is that in the latter case it can be a reasonable risk assessment.

It is about the power imbalance.
Being prejudiced against groups that are less powerful than you is being a disgusting person.
Being prejudiced against groups that pose a potential real threat (i.e. all men until proven otherwise) is just being cautious.

Note the difference between prejudice and hating.
The first means pre-judging before the person is known. It is not the same thing as hating (although someone could do both).

Beatrice and Eugenie would have existed as offshoots of his in group. That's why they were off limits. It wasn't necessarily because they mattered as individuals. The rest were prey, children of no-one who mattered.

Thanks posting this @Shockhorror22

It’s interesting to see one of these men worry about how his daughters may view him. The Madonna-Whore dichotomy is alive and well, apparently. I would also imagine that Epstein treated Beatrice and Eugenie with courtesy and respect thanks to their special status, but he will never have thought of his victims as someone’s daughters.

That Times article is brilliant, albeit a very harrowing read. Thanks for sharing.

Excellent article. I liked the way she stepped back and let the files speak. There are so many of them and they are so vile. Well done to the girl who refused to be the girl who brought him other girls. But those men? Why are their names redacted? Shame should definitely change sides.

If you think the above is in poor taste- I agree- you should see the threads where women are saying how fabulous their own sons are. Sick of NAMALT.

It’s very poor taste for that poster to add her tuppence-worth on “where feminism has gone wrong” to a thread commenting on an article exposing the abhorrent language used by men in power to talk about women.

Was that input really necessary or useful within this context? I don’t think it was, and agree that it seems very victim-blaming: oh you silly women, look where your politics have led you.

This post is the antithesis of feminism!

They are shameful in the way they cry wolf over the tiniest of offences, easily dealt with by a metaphorical slap, yet doormats when it comes to the big stuff

We seriously need some tough education for these particular third-wavers to jolt them out of their naivety and give them the tools to stop their pandering to both the social justice warriors and misogynists. They wouldn't last half an hour with most women of my generation.

I shall probably be accused of victim blaming, but in truth some third wavers are setting themselves up as victims, so me 'victim blaming' is superfluous; they are doing it to themselves.

Total misogyny and victim blaming.

Women, girls and feminists are not responsible for the horror and torture victims suffered at the hands if the richest, most powerful and dangerous men in the world.

I don’t think it’s even hatred, it’s just that they see women as ‘just pussy l’ and that’s it. This kind of stuff has always gone on. Now we can really see it .

She’s not victim blaming, she’s saying queer theory/postmodernism/third wave feminism have been a gift for male predators because these ideologies refuse to take practical everyday issues such as boundaries and safeguarding seriously.

In my experience gay men are no more nor less likely to be fuckers. The fuckers just don't target women.

On a thread about the widespread trafficking and torture of women and girls by the most powerful men in the world you're blaming feminists, women and victims?🤯

Doing it to themselves? That's not feminism of any wave. Its pure misogyny!🤨

The BBC have form for covering up anything to do with paedophilia, from Savile, to talking about the Epstein scandal as if it's a fun and interesting political scandal without recognising there is child abuse and child victims at the centre of it, to calling abused children 'sex workers'. Take your pick.

The point is I shouldn't be surprised when they're discussing the abuse of children as if it's juicy gossip.

And not talking at all about the rape gang inquiry currently going on revealing the horrendous widespread abuse and torture of children in the UK, enabled by institutions like the police.

The point was that they were talking about the Epstein scandal without once mentioning the victims. It was all rather jolly.

Marina Hyde's article actually covers the same theme: "I’m sorry, but this is not just a political scandal. Time to refocus on the horrific mistreatment of women and girls, and the role of these ghouls"

Epstein had nothing to do with the BBC. Or Jimmy Savile?

Girls and women were raped, suffered and died because the world's most powerful men wanted to inflict that on them and could. And did.