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

[Shockhorror22]

I studied the latest Epstein files. As a woman, this is what I felt

www.thetimes.com/article/3c43b881-0f36-43bf-a32b-66fcba2b44ac?shareToken=b062e64ca800a9fb4a31da2ea933ee14

An absolutely incredible article, albeit extremely distressing to read. I am honestly disgusted with everything coming out now and these vile men who hold so much power and yet speak and behave like sex-obsessed freaks. I'm sick of hearing about Epstein on the radio every morning, how on earth did this awful man get so much reach. And once again what is wrong with these men? Most of them have everything anyone could want and still carry on like this. They really do hate women.

I did chuckle at the fact that Epstein had a longevity guru though. Stupid little prick couldn't get himself out of that could he. Now let's see Clinton, Trump, Gates, Branson and all the rest destroyed along with Mandy and Andy.

Do you think there is a Scottish Epstein - a shadowy figure backing the SNP, demanding easy access to the vulnerable?

Germaine Greer + Margaret Atwood were so right.

I just want to say how depressed I was with BBC coverage of this today. I was driving in the car and turned on Radio 4 (I know they're all misogynistic pricks in general, but I was bored and know your enemy etc). It was about 4pm. There was a programme talking about Mandleson and Andrew and whether the King will denounce Andrew. It was something about PR - so from that point of view but the presenters were like gleeful little boys. It sounded as if they thought it was a game, a political intrigue - drama! Excitement when the mighty have fallen! Absolutely zero fucks given at all about the broken child bodies or ruined children's lives. Absolutely no horror at the depravity and child abuse. Just 'oh this is an entertaining thing for us to chat about!'. Grim.

So so so depressing.

I should learn never to bother with the BBC. I need to write a note and stick it on my car radio: THEY ENABLED SAVILE, THEY HAVE NO DESIRE TO LEARN. THEY DO NOT SEE WOMEN AS FULL HUMANS. YOU WILL ONLY SHOUT AT THE RADIO.

Disapproving of locker room talk has done precisely zero for the liberation of women and girls from patriarchal violence.

I don’t hate all men on sight. I love some men, I make an active choice to be in a relationship with one of the really good ones. But yes, I do hate men as a class, and I consider that very healthy - it’s protective for my mental and physical wellbeing and what’s healthier than that?

I agree with you here, but also wonder if they feel shame?

I think they must, on some level.

Otherwise, why did they hide it their appetite for young teens/barely women?

Because their appetites were illegal?

I wish Virginia Guiffre had lived to see all of this come out.

What the hell…?? Who took the babies, and where to? I didn’t imagine the story could get any worse …

The article shook me to my core. It was very hard to read the dehumanising, brutal language repeatedly used to describe women.

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.

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"

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!🤨

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

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.

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 .

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.

This post is the antithesis of feminism!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

Very powerful writing and utterly chilling.