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

Same.

I don’t find it surprising at all.

It was ever thus.

But yes, agree, I am glad it is out in the open.

I'm certainly not immune to male power structures and objectivation tropes, any man who claims otherwise is deluded. But I never took to locker room banter, certain kinds of parties, hobbies or work with large groups of alpha men, as a solitary therapist I've always worked with female clients, and I've never been "connected" to upward mobility in my profession which could easily mean fitting in with male group dynamics.
It means I've seen the female side more as I've become an older man, leaving behind any terse attitudes I might have had, and my isolation from groups of men means I've viewed all that with more and more disdain.
I once considered joining the police, but knew even then that the locker room and bonding down the pub, would not be me.
Maybe this is why unlike a lot of people I can criticise Epstein Island AND the apparent civil rights movements of TRA. I already know a woman who is quite rightly driven mad by Epstein and cis men (her words) aggressors, but sees any extrapolating to narratives on trans grooming of vulnerable youth, anti trans women in women's spaces, as wholly unrelated and punching down a vulnerable minority.

It takes a certain man to resist the force and pressure of male/masculine group think, though.

If you look at the gay male clubbing/sauna scene....males have a far greater propensity to the process of objectification for sexual gratification - even of other males, ( when free of feminine influence or caution). It's full on testosterone.

I know if may make no difference to many women here, but not all men feel this way.

We all have the potential to dehumanise others, but this particular take on that tendency reveals the very worst aspects of masculinity - in relation to women, certainly. Powerful men ( and women) in history have always treated people, especially women, as chattel.

Just finished reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's history of Jersualem. One long story of violence, destruction, degradation, brutality, slavery, torture and cruelty by each successive new leader and new empire.

Exactly this, it's just depressing and awful.

WTF was Noah Chomsky doing there? Talking dialectics with Clinton and Gates as they were going down to...lunch?

It’s the fact that it’s so normalised and routine that is so disturbing. This is what women and girls are up against. It doesn’t matter how clever or strong we are, how hard we work or what we achieve. We are just commodities.

I really can’t get over that email. You like girls but you fantasise about “sucking cock”? I have just the thing for you!

Oh, and the little add-on about pushing interventions on 3-yr-old boys with “trans tendencies” was vomitous.

A hard read.

Thank you for the link.

The nexus where neo liberalism, libertarianism, trans ideology, trans humanism, post modernism all meet in the middle, and men in charge of the damn lot.
No wonder TS porn is the fastest growing category on Pornhub.

Wow! It all really does come down to what the penis desires, doesn't it?

And we already know many prominent male trans activists have spoken of how porn made them trans.

Yes, this is the critical question. It is certainly a conscious act of great cognitive dissonance - understanding full well the ways in which females are vulnerable to males, but then denying this reality when it comes to trans ideology/gender identity theory.

I've tended to think it arises from a vision of women's liberation which wants to see women as being the same as men, being 'equal' ,and therefore being free to do and behave as men do. Being free of female vulnerabilities. Women's 'prissiness' about sex or over-modesty about nudity and their bodies is seen as something to be liberated from. 'Sex work' is just women taking ownership of their sexuality and their body and doing what they choose with it,

And yet the Times files this article under "Life and Style->Celebrity"....

Re the TRAs: Gays Against Groomers pulled this particular email out. It is particularly stomach churning:

nitter.net/againstgrmrs/status/2018407779216568385#m

The male pack mentality certainly brings out the worst of men.

Yes, very grim.......but really we all know this sort of attitude for ourselves, even if it retains the power to shock us anew each time. It really does bring Germaine Greer's words to life for real.

Given the opportunity men will readily use women as a resources to be exploited, as possessions to be traded with other men in order to gain status or favor.
They bond with each other as they enjoy denigrating and dehumanising women in order to elevate their own status.

I agree. The similarity in language struck me as well. The girls were just body parts to these men. Cruder words but very reminiscent of the way gender ideologues erased the word woman and introduced terms such as "vulva people", even supposedly reputable peer reviewed journals such as the Lancet referring to us as people with vaginas. "Pussy", "vulva owner", different words same hatred directed at us and desire to dehumanise us. We are just body parts to an unknown but depressingly large percentage of men.

None of this surprises me, I'm glad it's out in the open.

The question is not why so many men would be happy to seamlessly transfer between Gisèle Pelicot, Epstein Island, trans ideology grooming modes of abuse, but why women on the left especially, can slate the men in the first two categories, yet usher them in the third, giving those men third wave feminist and social justice cover for their peccadillos?

Absolutely agree with this. Not just safeguarding and gender ideology, but the half hearted actions to deal with VAWG, poorer general health outcomes for women in the NHS, scandalously bad midwifery services over many years....!

I could go on but you get the picture.

It's the mundanity of the language that strikes me. Talking about what to choose for lunch in the same sentence as total derogatory and objectifying language about the young women there. I'd say it's cognitively dissonant to women but also men like me who don't think this way. But for those men, lunch choices and choosing young women are effectively the same thing.

I read this earlier too. It really confirms your worst belief about men, which is that a lot of them absolutely hate women.

I saw this too and was hoping others would want to discuss. It’s really really clear how totally normalised and ignored all this abuse was, and the contempt and disgust with which older and wiser women who stood up to them were regarded stood out for me too.

It’s pretty clear that one of those comments was directed at Melinda Gates.

If it was this prevalent - and I’m sure this is tip of the iceberg stuff - then I want to know who knew and did and said nothing? All these powerful men (yes I know, some women, but 99% powerful men) had advisers, lawyers, spin doctors, bankers, accountants, drivers, cooks, pilots etc etc. It reminds me of Berlusconi and his ‘bunga bunga’ parties in the 2000s.

Helen Rumbelow has written such an important piece here and it really put my finger on how this whole Epstein saga is exposing a rotten, misogynistic and corrupt underbelly of rich society.