I've posted a lot on this thread about how many men act, or have acted, or want to act in what are now considered dodgy or immoral (or worse) ways. As a comment from the other side, which also has a lot of truth to it, this is Caitlin Moran in today's Times. I don't know what the proportions are (good v the other kind), but I know plenty of the sort of men she describes. The references are very English, but I think the men of ObWi will understand them...
Caitlin Moran: Stop calling all men toxic. They’re mostly goodThe men around me are a universe away from Dominique Pelicot, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate — funny, nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym Caitlin Moran Monday March 02 2026, 5.00am, The Times
What do we call the good men? In a world of “toxic masculinity”, incels and the manosphere? A world where the president of the United States hisses, “Quiet, piggy!” and the news is dominated by the Pelicot trial and Epstein? In a world where, only last week, the frighteningly popular activist Nick Fuentes said that all women need to be put in “gulags — breeding gulags”?
What do we call the men who aren’t like this? What do we call the good men? This week is also the first anniversary of Adolescence — which became a one-word reference for the kind of boy we’re terrified of. But what do we call the good boys? What is the one-word reference for them? I look around my world and it’s filled with men who seem to come from a wholly different universe from Pelicot and Fuentes. They have utterly different DNA. These men are both rock solid and lighthearted. They’re very funny, very nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym in later life. They can’t even discuss how devastated they’ll be when the dog dies. They take their mum flowers; they mentor younger men without really mentioning it, and they sit in meetings texting, under the table, ludicrous Eighties pop song lyrics to friends who are sad.
Their masculinity is the quiet, unshowy, utterly implacable kind. I’ve seen each and every one go into battle for the ones they love. I have seen them make the phone calls, cancel the deals. I’ve seen them, when necessary, take other men to one side — somewhere quiet, somewhere dark — to explain, in a manner that’s almost friendly, that it would be a very risky decision to behave like that again. That today is the day these behaviours end.
So what do we call these men? These men who are, evidently, the majority of men. For — let’s remember — the majority of men don’t want to put women in gulags. They don’t want to build a gulag! Building a gulag would be a nightmare. Putting up the shed was hard enough. “You call them ‘the Good Men’!” shouted one audience member at a live event, when I asked this question on stage. “Because … they’re the good men!” And, obviously, I love that idea. But the problem is, everyone thinks they’re the good men. No one thinks they’re the baddie. Andrew Tate and Donald Trump believe they’re saying what every man would say, if he only had the balls. Dominique Pelicot claims he loves his wife. Epstein denied everything. They don’t think they’re the bad guys. After all, history is full of men who act like this. In Greek mythology; in Roman history; in the reports of every invading army. Marital rape was still legal in this country until 1991. 1991! After Kylie, and acid house! So you can’t call the good men “the Good Men” — because, ultimately, it means nothing. It describes nothing specific.
The fundamental problem is, we still have no male equivalent to feminism. There is no global movement for male progress and happiness — that wants to leave the bad old ways, of history and mythology, behind. It is inevitable there will be a movement, at some point. There is only so long people can keep discussing “the crisis in masculinity” before some smart young man sighs, opens his laptop, lights a fag and starts writing the male equivalent of The Female Eunuch.
But until there is a movement, with a name, and objectives, there is no name to call the men who would be part of that movement. Nick Fuentes has named himself an incel; Tate, a misogynist. But the good men have yet to name themselves. And the lack of a name means that, even though they are the majority, they seem almost … invisible. Because we cannot talk about something if it doesn’t have a name. “How about ‘Gentleman’?”
I have been despairing to my husband that I am part of the problem; I cannot think of a name for the good men, either. “I love the word ‘gentleman’,” he says. “Gentle-man. As the Smiths lyric goes, ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind.’ An old-fashioned gentleman is honourable and dutiful, while also being clubbable, well dressed, and ready to ‘have a quiet word’ with other men who are being loud, discourteous or just mad. The word already exists. It’s … ‘Gentleman’.” And — like some masculinity pH test — it seems to work. It immediately divides all men into two categories. Trump, Pelicot, Tate, Epstein, Fuentes? They test negative for “gentleman”. Attenborough, Palin, Rashford, Obama, McCartney, Southgate? Gentleman-positive. Chemically, taxonomically, genetically, gentlemen.
Perhaps the name of the good men is “gentlemen”. Until another name comes along.
2 weeks ago
Back early, and don't need to go out again for a while, so here are my comments on what Pro Bono and nous said.
Luckily for me, I don't find discussions of this sort unpleasant, as long as I am talking with people who a) take it with appropriate seriousness, and b) don't get turned on by it.
On Pro Bono's comment, I wonder if how he defined rape is influenced by what was, when I was in law school decades ago, a very narrow definition in English law. In those days it was defined, leaving aside the issue of consent, as the insertion of the erect penis into a vagina, and in the Act (as far as I remember) they didn't even say "penis" but "person". Which meant that the addendum was unforgettable, even after all these years "For the purposes of the Act, for 'person' read 'penis'." So I think that is where Pro Bono might be getting his idea that "for a man, rape has to be partly about sex". I believe the definition may have been changed (although I am not sure even now that it includes "with an object", which might be classed as a serious sexual assault), but whether it has or not, I think rather than "sex" one might more usefully substitute "desire", and in that case I agree with what lj says in his final paragraph. And that allows one to say, which I think is correct, that rape is not to do with desire for the victim, but desire for power, or desire to inflict pain, or desire to humiliate etc etc, like nous's other examples (with all of which I agree). For the purposes of this conversation, by the way, I am perfectly prepared to include "with an object" in the definition of rape. What the Pelicot case unfortunately makes impossible to ignore, is that the number of men who have such desires is far higher than one might otherwise have thought, which explains some of the shock and disbelief which have greeted the details, particularly among men.
Regarding what nous calls Pro Bono's "first disagreement", which nous thinks is with me, this is a mistake. I did not say, and have never thought, that "of course men want to rape". That was reported (imagined) speech, in a substack post by someone called Celeste Davis, which I posted in three parts. And I believe (without going back) that she was quoting it in order to disagree with that argument. What I believe is that the patriarchy encourages men subconsciously or consciously to believe, from birth, that their desires are more important than those of women, children, effeminate men etc. And that men who have warped paraphilic desires of certain kinds are therefore predisposed to allow themselves to enact them.
2 weeks ago
I'm going to be out most of today, so won't be able to comment on what Pro Bono and nous said til later. But I definitely will then!
3 weeks ago
cleek, I don't think the world we live in plants the same seed in all men that certain conditions (wealth, power etc) allow to bloom into rape. I think that the world we live in provides for men, from birth, the warm, enabling environment (patriarchy) that encourages them, mostly unconsciously, to feel that their desires are justifiable, and more important than those of women. And for those who have the seed of e.g rape within them, that propitious environment allows it to bloom.
(By the way, most of the accused in the Pelicot case said that they were not rapists, because her husband had given consent. Leaving French culture aside, what the patriarchy enables in some men is the unconscious assumption that women do not have agency over themselves.)
Anyway, for these reasons among others I have been aware during this discussion that I was not entirely comfortable with calling all the men we have specifically been discussing (older men having sex with young girls/women) scum or predators. Some are, of course, where there is any force or other coercion involved, but some are acting in a way they have been encouraged to think is natural, and often with willing partners. Because they too have grown up under the influence of the patriarchy, many women have acted on the same assumptions, particularly where there is fame, charisma, power, or money involved.
It took second wave feminism for the first cracks in the monumental structure of patriarchy to appear, and that monumental structure is still cracking but far from fallen. The men of ObWi seem a good example of people who have been very influenced by the cracks, and certainly more and more women are, but there is still a long way to go.
3 weeks ago
Sorry, it was 3 parts! Definitely do not rescue the original one - it probably also had some links remaining!
I want to let this percolate before I comment on some of the comments others have made here. But for now, it's important for me to say that I completely agree this:
At some point we have to acknowledge that the world is not divided into good men and monster menThe other frustrating thing about the Epstein files discourse is the common reaction of, “Whoa! I thought that was a good man, but turns out he is a monster?! Ah man!” The world is not divided into monster men and good men.
3 weeks ago
Part Three:
Patriarchy holds both the explanation and the remedy for the Epstein scandals and yet is almost never brought up in Epstein discussions.
Instead again and again we talk about how we could better punish rape instead of how we could prevent it.
Here’s a chart from a recent Reuter’s poll showing people’s concerns about the Epstein files:
69% of Americans said that the files show that powerful people are rarely held accountable. 53% of Americans said that the files have lowered their trust in political and business leaders.
All valid concerns. But how many said that the files show that we have a big problem with gender inequality, male entitlement or patriarchy?
I don’t know, they were not asked. Those things never seem to be brought up.
(I do know that 22% of American men said they believe that gender inequality doesn’t really exist, and a third of American men believe feminism is making things worse.)
And again, let me be clear that powerful people not being held accountable is certainly a problem worth discussing.
But when patriarchy is never brought up when we are discussing how to prevent massive sexual abuse epidemics???
THAT’S A PROBLEM!
That ensures we keep whacking weeds (things that make rape easier), without ever whacking the root of rape itself (patriarchy).
To quote that UN report: “Violence against women is a global pandemic: Between 15 and 76 per cent of women experience it at some point in their lifetime. Violence against women is deeply rooted in discrimination and inequality between men and women. Ending it requires investments in women’s empowerment and gender equality, particularly in education, reproductive health and rights, and economic and political empowerment.”
So that’s how to prevent violence against women, but guess how often women’s educational, financial, political and reproductive equality come up as either solutions to or explanations for the Epstein files?
Poke around the major news stories and see for yourself (but I have some bad news for you). But there are some people pointing to patriarchy
I’m three days into writing this article, and this afternoon I decided to poke around Substack to see what people are writing about the Epstein files.
And lo and behold, I quickly discovered I am not the only person asking, “why the hell are we not talking about patriarchy when we talk about Epstein?”
I actually had to laugh that I thought I had an original observation while reading the news because it turns out lots of other women noticed the exact same omission and wrote about it:
Jude Doyle wrote an article called, “You know You Can Just Say ‘Patriarchy’: These analyses of the Epstein case are… missing something.”
Linda Caroll wrote, “Everyone wants to know which people were so despicable that they raped little girls. So many little girls. Over 1200…You want to know who the men are that abused little children? Look around you.”
Liz Plank wrote, “what’s landing so hard is realizing we weren’t exaggerating patriarchy’s harm at all, in fact we were underestimating it…”
Kara Post-Kennedy at The Good Men Project wrote, “One of the big problems we are having as a society right now is the way the Epstein files are being handled (or ignored). It isn’t just that we are not actively investigating and prosecuting the men who were involved in this criminal and abhorrent and abusive enterprise. It is the framing of this criminal, abhorrent and abusive behavior as “other”. As the outlier behavior of some spoiled rich jerks who ran out of other things to amuse themselves with. Not something that regula’ folk need trouble themselves with at all.”
Jo-Ann Finkelstein, PhD wrote, “Epstein is the patriarchy’s logical conclusion. We do ourselves a disservice when we call Epstein and his ilk monsters or a bizarre glitch of elite decadence.”
Kristen Shelt said, “All men does not mean all men rape or assault or harm women, it means all men are raised inside the same system that teaches male entitlement… And that conditioning exists whether or not its acted on… Every man who is raised in patriarchy is handed the same basic operating system.”
Lane Anderson of Matriarchy Report wrote “the Epstein files peel back the mask of American patriarchal power structures.” “For 249 years, she argues, we’ve celebrated that a nation that left women and girls outside of the definition of humanity, and erased us. What we are experiencing now is the logical conclusion of that legacy.”
Tracy Clark-Flory and Amanda Montei say, “The files are telling us what we already know: the conspiracy of patriarchy. Sexual violence isn’t just a problem of the global elite.”
Women of Substack are linking patriarchy with the Epstein files.
Unfortunately, women of Substack are not oft asked to chime in on global conversations.
Academics and experts on wealth and corruption are given quotes in those mainstream articles above. They are regularly consulted to explain this whole how-billionaires-get-away-with-rape phenomenon.
Academics and experts on patriarchy on the other hand? Well, usually they are called crazy bitches and their writings relegated to thought pieces read almost exclusively by other women.
Why men rape seems to be a niche topic of interest reserved for women.
Why men do or don’t get caught raping however, now that’s a universal interest. Call in the experts. It’s time to choke out the root
Jonah Mix’s excellent quote on pornography comes to mind here: “I’m not interested in a world where men really want to watch porn but resist because they’ve been shamed. I’m interested in a world where men are raised from birth with such an unshakable understanding of women as living human beings that they’re incapable of being aroused by their exploitation.” - Jonah Mix
Yessssss Jonah! Preach!
I’m not interested in a world where men want to rape, but don’t because they aren’t super wealthy and powerful.
I’m not interested in a world where the only thing keeping men from raping is not having an elite cabal to keep their secrets.
I’m interested in a world where MEN DON’T WANT TO RAPE FULL STOP!!
I’m interested in a world where men are not aroused by the exploitation of women.
I’m interested in a world where a man’s sense of worth has nothing whatsoever to do with domination.
But if we keep only talking about all the things that make rape easier (money, power, elite networks, anonymity) and never talk about the things that actually cause the desire to rape in the first place (entitlement, domination, patriarchy), then we will continue on our insane, unending weed whacking quest without ever pulling up the root.
3 weeks ago
Part Two:
The 90+ men who raped Gisele Pelicot were not billionaires.
They were nurses, teachers, firefighters, fathers, grandfathers, councillors, farm workers.
We cannot blame money or elite networks for what they did.
However, we can ask what exactly is the seed that was planted in these average men that would make them want to rape a woman when an opportunity presented itself?
For it’s the same seed that was planted in Epstein. In Bill Clinton, P. Diddy, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and so very many others.
Different elements may have enabled the different rapes, but something they all had in common was the desire to rape. At some point we have to acknowledge that the world is not divided into good men and monster men
The other frustrating thing about the Epstein files discourse is the common reaction of, “Whoa! I thought that was a good man, but turns out he is a monster?! Ah man!”
The world is not divided into monster men and good men.
Rather, the world we live in seems to plant a seed in the minds of men, that when watered with enough power, opportunity or anonymity this seed so very, very often blooms into rape.
Not every seed blooms into a weed. Not every man rapes. But they all exist in the same fertile soil for it to be possible.
Believing that rapists are monsterous, abnormal, one-off bad apples keeps us relentlessly weed-whacking these “abnormalities” instead of ever digging up the root and making the soil less conducive to weeds.
What was planted in little Bill Gates’s mind that lie dormant until one day when watered with enough power, money and impunity would cause him to befriend a pedophile, cheat on his wife and then secretly give his wife STD medication so she wouldn’t know (allegedly)?
If you trace it to its root— before the 3400+ mentions in the Epstein files— what was the seed planted in little Deepak Chopra’s mind or heart that when eventually watered with status, money and anonymity would cause him to invite a pedophile on a trip and say “bring your girls”?
What is it that was planted in the minds and hearts of that firefighter, teacher and nurse in Mazan, France that when told of the opportunity to rape a drugged woman online they would drive right over and do it?
What is the root of the weed? Let’s start with what it’s not.
Because I know someone is about to chime in that men want to rape because they are just naturally sexual and aggressive. Nothing to be done, it’s just biology. Testosterone makes men want to rape. Sorry.
Let’s address that from the jump.2
If testosterone were the cause of rape, then men with higher levels of testosterone would rape more than men with low levels.
But scientists have measured testosterone levels and disproven this theory.
The National Library of Medicine found that sex offenders do not have higher testosterone than non-sex offenders.
Trans men who increase their testosterone do not become more abusive or start raping.
When scientists decreased the testosterone in domestic violence perpetrators they did not find it to be an effective solution to curbing the abusers’ behavior.
But do you know what they did find was effective in curbing domestic abusers’ behavior?
“Changing their deeply held beliefs about their sense of entitlement.”
(Now we are getting to the root of things.)
If men can’t help the urge to rape because of their biology, then rape statistics would hold steady across all cultures, but that is not true at all.
And what makes the difference between cultures with higher rates of sexual abuse and those with lower?
The World Health Organization has concluded that “Violence against women is rooted in and perpetuated by gender inequalities.”
The UN also came out with a report linking rape with gender inequality that said, “As gender equality improves, the prevalence of violence against women is lower… This is borne out for both physical and sexual forms of abuse. As seen in the graph, countries with greater equality between women and men have lower levels of violence against women.”
A CDC report studying US States found the exact same thing: “States with a high degree of gender inequality also report higher prevalence estimates among women for completed or attempted rape using physical force.”
Now we are digging at the root. What other factors have scientists found leads to sexual assault? “Evidence suggests that it is not innate aggression that makes men violent, but the internalized belief that they fall short of society’s perceived standards for masculinity. Psychologists call this phenomenon, “masculine discrepancy stress” and research shows that the more acutely a man suffers from this, the more likely he is to commit almost every type of violence, including sexual assault, intimate partner violence and assault with a weapon.” - Ruth Whippman
Ah yes masculinity - that North Star our society hands men that says the worst thing you can do isn’t cruelty, the worst thing you can do is act like a girl.
Ok. So entitlement, gender inequality and masculine discrepancy stress4 have all been correlated with rape.
If only we had a name for this… And what is this system called that perpetuates gender inequality, and dominance and entitlement among men?
Patriarchy.
The word for that system is called patriarchy.
If you could zoom in on that seed planted in those boys who would eventually become men who rape—that seed would be labeled “patriarchy.”
Where being emasculated is far more embarrassing and destabilizing than being immoral.
The Epstein rapes were aided by money, elite networks and institutional corruption, but at their core, they are explained by patriarchy.
Perhaps you are thinking, well duh, that’s obvious.
I think so too.
And yet guess how many times the word patriarchy is used in those 12 articles up there? The ones where the New York Times, the BBC, PBS and TIME try to explain the Epstein files?
Zero.
Zero times.
Ok fine, but patriarchy is an unpopular word. Guess how many times gender inequality comes up?
Also zero!
3 weeks ago
OK, by complete coincidence this landed in my inbox from someone whose substack I don't subscribe to. It says a lot of important things, most of which I agree with, so I have tried to eliminate the hundreds of links, and am going to post it in two parts hoping that’s good enough to get it through (when I tried to post the whole thing, it went into moderation - if this works, please don't rescue it):
Part One There is one word that explains how so many men can be in the Epstein files. So why is no one saying it?
We talk endlessly about the factors that make rape easier, but never about the factors that cause rape in the first place.
Celeste Davis
Feb 22, 2026
Unless you’ve been enjoying life under a rock, the past few weeks have likely involved a relentless scroll of names once spoken with reverence now tied to the words “Epstein files.”
The list of people wheeling and dealing with Epstein after he went to jail for pedophilia is mind-numbing:
alleged STD medications for Bill Gates,
spiritual leader Deepak Chopra texting, “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,”
respected physician Peter Attia’s name appearing 1700 times,
pay outs to linguist Noam Chomsky,
liaisons with British royalty, Israeli Prime Minister, Russian officials, numerous US senators and of course US Presidents.
No sector of society is safe.
Leaders from each and every one of the institutions that run our world—politics, business, tech, academia, wellness, philanthropy, entertainment, spirituality—are all over these files.
It’s gross. It’s everywhere. It’s destabilizing.
Leaving us asking… how? How could this happen? How could so many people let this happen? In plain sight? For so long?
Mainstream media is focused on four answers: 1. Wealth
The New York Times: HOW JPMORGAN ENABLED THE CRIMES OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Real News Network: JEFFREY EPSTEIN: HOW WEALTH PROTECTED AMERICA’S WORST CHILD SEX CRIMINAL
The New York Times: ‘GANG STUFF’ AND ‘ILLICIT TRYSTS’: HOW EPSTEIN SOUGHT LEVERAGE WITH THE WEALTHY
BBC: BILLIONAIRE LES WEXNER TELLS US LAW MAKERS HE WAS CONNED BY EPSTEIN
A deep frustration has arisen within me around the press and discussions around the Epstein files.
The bulk of the attention is converged around figuring out who and what exactly enabled Epstein’s rampant sexual abuse—wealth, elite networks, institutional failure and blackmail.
Everyone is asking how did these men get away with so much rape?
No one is asking what would cause so many to want to rape so much in the first place?
It’s as if the Epstein files have exposed an entire field being taken over by noxious weeds—miles and miles of weeds—and then instead of digging to the root to eradicate the weeds’ seed, we are hyper-focused on what exact water and fertilizer enabled the weeds to grow so high.
We’re acting as if weeds/rapists are just a given. Well, of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because there are rules, but the rules don’t apply to billionaries so they get to rape. The problem isn’t the rape, it’s that billionairescan get away with rape.
I’m sorry what?
Why aren’t we talking about why so many men when given power continually choose to use that power to rape women?
WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT THAT?!
Money and corrupt elite networks of billionaires are certainly not off the hook here. Those are important conversations to have.
But while money may have enabled Epstein’s sexual abuse, it didn’t create it.
One in four women have experienced sexual abuse. Billionaires seem to do a lot of raping, but they can’t do THAT much raping.
This week I came across the following Substack note from Melina Magdelenat about the Gisele Pelicot trials where 90 men in a small French town raped one woman, and thought, oh this needs to be brought into the Epstein files discourse immediately.
Here’s what Magdelenat said: “There’s an interaction I think back to every time we are collectively confronted with the utterly habitual nature of male violence against women. It was at a conference a year or so ago by Le Monde journalist Lorraine de Foucher, who won a Pulitzer for her coverage of the porn industry, child prostitution and sex trafficking in France. The Pelicot trials came up during the Q&A, and a seventy-something man in the front row timidly raised his hand. You could tell he was carefully phrasing his question and choosing his words as he was saying them. He said: « So, let me get this right. In the fairly small town of Mazan, Dominique Pélicot easily found 90+ men willing to rape his wife while she was drugged and unconscious. Hundreds more saw the messages on the forum and not one decided to tell the police about it. » At that point, a lot of us were kind of bracing for either a dismissal of the facts, or some convoluted explanation for how those men were unique. But no. He continued: « So, does that mean that in every town, every village in our country, there are just as many men willing to rape an unconscious woman? » Lorraine de Foucher replied, « Yes. » « But then that means that there are thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands! » (You could hear at that point the wheels turning in his head). « Yes », she nodded again. « But… that’s abominable! It’s a catastrophe! It’s a national emergency! » « …… Yes. It is. » - Melina Magdelenat
Yes. It is.
3 weeks ago
novakant, I'm saying that older men wanted to sleep with young girls (newsflash: very many still do), and if they were anywhere in life which facilitated that they took full advantage (cults, the music business, rock bands, revolutionary groups which attracted idealistic young people who were easy to manipulate, etc etc). And they regularly expounded on how it was the natural order of things, as many rich and powerful men still do today (you'd be amazed how often I have been given this talk in my life, and not only when I was young but also as an explanation of the "sense" it makes in evolutionary and biological terms). They don't, however, always treat the girls as disposable products like Epstein did.
The representation of this power dynamic was everywhere, in music, in literature, in films, in history lessons, in politics, and on and on -everywhere. And to a considerably lesser extent, it still is. Hartmut's quotation made me smile in recognition, it was so on the money. I'd be surprised if Chomsky wasn't steeped in it; almost everybody was in those days, even (and maybe especially in some ways) the counter-culture, the revolutionary groups, "free thinkers", "non-conformists", controversial academics etc etc.
If, as it seems, all of the regular male participants on ObWi find this a foreign concept, it makes them a rather unusual group. Who knows about the lurkers, however.
3 weeks ago
Correction: second wave feminists, not first!
3 weeks ago
novakant, I don't know how old you are, andI don't know for sure, but I think you might not be a woman. If so, that is significant.
As for the "elite" aspect, it's possible there was some of that in it, since many (but not all) of those lefty revolutionaries of the 60s did come from very comfortable backgrounds. But I think it was absolutely baked into the culture, as many films and books suggest, and going back much further than the 60s of course. And women were heavily influenced by it too, in a kind of false consciousness. I brought that particular period up because of Chomsky, and because (as lots of first wave feminists can attest) men who were otherwise very aware of different types of exploitation showed a lack of insight into the oppression of women, and the power of the patriarchy. Misogyny, like anti-semitism, is always with us, and although nowadays considerable disparity in age and power is frowned on, today's variety is just as (or more) toxic, as this anonymous piece by a teenager in today's Guardian illustrates:
wj, thank you. I see that I am (at least theoretically) out of step with some of the people here. I say theoretically because once, in a diplomatic setting, I let it be known that I should not be introduced to William Kennedy Smith (whose mother was US ambassador to Ireland at the time) because I would not shake his hand.
But my opinion on the Chomsky comment is that it does not reveal or imply his view of the actions of the relevant people, although calling them "major war criminals" admits their guilt and its scale. Nor do we know in what circumstances he met them, whether he sought the meeting, knew in advance he was meeting them, or anything else. It is quite easy to imagine he might have met Kissinger, for example. And saying he doesn't regret meeting them says nothing about his view of them, it says something about him, and not even that he is "comfortable spending time with the scum of the earth". I take it to mean that in his view meeting them did not imply approval of them, and that he does not subscribe to the idea that meeting evil people involves the risk of moral contamination. If he had shared a platform with them I would view it somewhat differently, and if he had been friends with them (as he was with Epstein) different again.
We know much more about his relationship with Epstein.
Being friends with Epstein after his first conviction and sentence is another matter, but one that is not entirely surprising to me in view of the fact that Chomsky is a) elderly and b) a man. It's quite possible he didn't know all the details, and didn't think it necessary to find them out. In my experience, including with very left wing men around in e.g. les evenements in 1968, or in the US the Days of Rage, many or most would see nothing remotely reprehensible about adult men sleeping with teenage girls. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that they might have seen it as the right and proper way of the world.
If this does not apply to the right-on (as we used to say) men of ObWi, so much the more impressive. But for anyone who was a woman or a teenage girl in the 60s it is a truism.
3 weeks ago
wj, if that is the totality of what Chomsky said, what do you take to be the unambiguous meaning (or implication) of it?
3 weeks ago
I tend to think that these problems are often defined as sexism or racism, but the underlying issue is the ability to rationalize.
lj, I think your point about rationalisation is a good and important one. It enables people that way talented and inclined to make a logical case for their behaviour or opinions. But I think that this is in the service of their urges, or their instincts, which can indeed be racist or sexist.
On the Chomsky remark you quote, I think it is ambiguous. For example, saying he has no regrets about meeting war criminals does not to me imply any endorsement of their actions. It might mean that he has learnt something about their character and motivation which is useful for understanding how such people come to do what they have done, or got into the positions of power they reached. It could be to do with psychological, sociological or criminological understanding. And of course, it also displays a lack of concern for how it makes him look, which is not in itself a bad thing. Distaste or disgust at being known to have met someone terrible is not necessarily a sign of virtue.
3 weeks ago
novakant, I'm also very sympathetic to what you say. And for clarity's sake, although I often examine this kind of stuff for its effect on women, it is very clear that the kinds of men who can get away with it also take sexual advantage of any group that suits their taste, including children, boys and other men.
But the question of whether to judge such behaviour by today's standards, or the standards of another time, is a different and difficult one. It may, for example, have been acceptable/legal until recently to rape your wife, but if she was trying to resist and in distress that still entails a kind of lack of empathy for the suffering of a fellow human that makes it possible to judge the perpetrator harshly.
And as for whether one can or should enjoy or appreciate the intellectual or artistic work of a moral degenerate, we have discussed that on ObWi many times. There is no easy answer. And whether the French (or any other) intellectual culture makes such behaviour more likely, or more tolerated, this is above my pay grade. It is noticeable, however, that more prominent women in France have found fault with the MeToo movement than those in other countries, so that's a clue. And Macron continuing to staunchly defend Gerard Depardieu in the face of countless allegations is another one. It doesn't stop Depardieu being (or having been) a great actor, however.
3 weeks ago
It's very good that this is happening. Also, what an illustration of how deeply unfortunate it is when stupidity, ignorance, and an entitled sense of impunity collide.
The King is saying and doing all the right things about it. But it is unsettling that the country is in a rather fragile and unstable state, with uncertainty about Keir and Labour, the Tories, and the malignant Farage waiting in the wings. On the whole, as far as one can tell over many years, Charles is a perfectly decent sort, and William seems to be OK too. But the Royal Family is not as popular as it was (understandably!), and in retrospect even the admired late Queen is responsible for some of this. What a mess.
As a sidenote: interesting and shocking what has been revealed in France since MeToo. The sense of entitlement and the sheer depravity of anyone from Foucault to Duhamel is just astounding.
In my experience, nothing that is coming out anywhere in the wake of MeToo is any surprise to a large proportion of women, particularly those who've had a life and are no longer young. I don't know how much you all saw about the Gisele Pelicot case, but her husband arranged to have her raped, unconscious, by over 70 men he'd recruited online over 10 years. Of the 51 men who were identified and charged, they ALL came from a 30 mile radius around the small Provencal town the Pelicots lived in. And they were from every walk of life: journalists, firefighters, nurses, delivery drivers, labourers etc etc. Eminent thinkers and other famous and powerful men, not to mention soi-disant enlightened, decent, liberal or progressive ones, are hardly exempt from the qualities which make this possible.
I've posted a lot on this thread about how many men act, or have acted, or want to act in what are now considered dodgy or immoral (or worse) ways. As a comment from the other side, which also has a lot of truth to it, this is Caitlin Moran in today's Times. I don't know what the proportions are (good v the other kind), but I know plenty of the sort of men she describes. The references are very English, but I think the men of ObWi will understand them...
Caitlin Moran: Stop calling all men toxic. They’re mostly goodThe men around me are a universe away from Dominique Pelicot, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate — funny, nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym
Caitlin Moran
Monday March 02 2026, 5.00am, The Times
What do we call the good men? In a world of “toxic masculinity”, incels and the manosphere? A world where the president of the United States hisses, “Quiet, piggy!” and the news is dominated by the Pelicot trial and Epstein? In a world where, only last week, the frighteningly popular activist Nick Fuentes said that all women need to be put in “gulags — breeding gulags”?
What do we call the men who aren’t like this? What do we call the good men?
This week is also the first anniversary of Adolescence — which became a one-word reference for the kind of boy we’re terrified of. But what do we call the good boys? What is the one-word reference for them?
I look around my world and it’s filled with men who seem to come from a wholly different universe from Pelicot and Fuentes. They have utterly different DNA. These men are both rock solid and lighthearted. They’re very funny, very nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym in later life. They can’t even discuss how devastated they’ll be when the dog dies. They take their mum flowers; they mentor younger men without really mentioning it, and they sit in meetings texting, under the table, ludicrous Eighties pop song lyrics to friends who are sad.
Their masculinity is the quiet, unshowy, utterly implacable kind. I’ve seen each and every one go into battle for the ones they love. I have seen them make the phone calls, cancel the deals. I’ve seen them, when necessary, take other men to one side — somewhere quiet, somewhere dark — to explain, in a manner that’s almost friendly, that it would be a very risky decision to behave like that again. That today is the day these behaviours end.
So what do we call these men? These men who are, evidently, the majority of men. For — let’s remember — the majority of men don’t want to put women in gulags. They don’t want to build a gulag! Building a gulag would be a nightmare. Putting up the shed was hard enough.
“You call them ‘the Good Men’!” shouted one audience member at a live event, when I asked this question on stage. “Because … they’re the good men!”
And, obviously, I love that idea. But the problem is, everyone thinks they’re the good men. No one thinks they’re the baddie. Andrew Tate and Donald Trump believe they’re saying what every man would say, if he only had the balls. Dominique Pelicot claims he loves his wife. Epstein denied everything. They don’t think they’re the bad guys. After all, history is full of men who act like this. In Greek mythology; in Roman history; in the reports of every invading army. Marital rape was still legal in this country until 1991. 1991! After Kylie, and acid house!
So you can’t call the good men “the Good Men” — because, ultimately, it means nothing. It describes nothing specific.
The fundamental problem is, we still have no male equivalent to feminism. There is no global movement for male progress and happiness — that wants to leave the bad old ways, of history and mythology, behind. It is inevitable there will be a movement, at some point. There is only so long people can keep discussing “the crisis in masculinity” before some smart young man sighs, opens his laptop, lights a fag and starts writing the male equivalent of The Female Eunuch.
But until there is a movement, with a name, and objectives, there is no name to call the men who would be part of that movement. Nick Fuentes has named himself an incel; Tate, a misogynist. But the good men have yet to name themselves. And the lack of a name means that, even though they are the majority, they seem almost … invisible. Because we cannot talk about something if it doesn’t have a name.
“How about ‘Gentleman’?”
I have been despairing to my husband that I am part of the problem; I cannot think of a name for the good men, either.
“I love the word ‘gentleman’,” he says. “Gentle-man. As the Smiths lyric goes, ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind.’ An old-fashioned gentleman is honourable and dutiful, while also being clubbable, well dressed, and ready to ‘have a quiet word’ with other men who are being loud, discourteous or just mad. The word already exists. It’s … ‘Gentleman’.”
And — like some masculinity pH test — it seems to work. It immediately divides all men into two categories. Trump, Pelicot, Tate, Epstein, Fuentes? They test negative for “gentleman”. Attenborough, Palin, Rashford, Obama, McCartney, Southgate? Gentleman-positive. Chemically, taxonomically, genetically, gentlemen.
Perhaps the name of the good men is “gentlemen”. Until another name comes along.
Back early, and don't need to go out again for a while, so here are my comments on what Pro Bono and nous said.
Luckily for me, I don't find discussions of this sort unpleasant, as long as I am talking with people who a) take it with appropriate seriousness, and b) don't get turned on by it.
On Pro Bono's comment, I wonder if how he defined rape is influenced by what was, when I was in law school decades ago, a very narrow definition in English law. In those days it was defined, leaving aside the issue of consent, as the insertion of the erect penis into a vagina, and in the Act (as far as I remember) they didn't even say "penis" but "person". Which meant that the addendum was unforgettable, even after all these years "For the purposes of the Act, for 'person' read 'penis'." So I think that is where Pro Bono might be getting his idea that "for a man, rape has to be partly about sex". I believe the definition may have been changed (although I am not sure even now that it includes "with an object", which might be classed as a serious sexual assault), but whether it has or not, I think rather than "sex" one might more usefully substitute "desire", and in that case I agree with what lj says in his final paragraph. And that allows one to say, which I think is correct, that rape is not to do with desire for the victim, but desire for power, or desire to inflict pain, or desire to humiliate etc etc, like nous's other examples (with all of which I agree). For the purposes of this conversation, by the way, I am perfectly prepared to include "with an object" in the definition of rape. What the Pelicot case unfortunately makes impossible to ignore, is that the number of men who have such desires is far higher than one might otherwise have thought, which explains some of the shock and disbelief which have greeted the details, particularly among men.
Regarding what nous calls Pro Bono's "first disagreement", which nous thinks is with me, this is a mistake. I did not say, and have never thought, that "of course men want to rape". That was reported (imagined) speech, in a substack post by someone called Celeste Davis, which I posted in three parts. And I believe (without going back) that she was quoting it in order to disagree with that argument. What I believe is that the patriarchy encourages men subconsciously or consciously to believe, from birth, that their desires are more important than those of women, children, effeminate men etc. And that men who have warped paraphilic desires of certain kinds are therefore predisposed to allow themselves to enact them.
I'm going to be out most of today, so won't be able to comment on what Pro Bono and nous said til later. But I definitely will then!
cleek, I don't think the world we live in plants the same seed in all men that certain conditions (wealth, power etc) allow to bloom into rape. I think that the world we live in provides for men, from birth, the warm, enabling environment (patriarchy) that encourages them, mostly unconsciously, to feel that their desires are justifiable, and more important than those of women. And for those who have the seed of e.g rape within them, that propitious environment allows it to bloom.
(By the way, most of the accused in the Pelicot case said that they were not rapists, because her husband had given consent. Leaving French culture aside, what the patriarchy enables in some men is the unconscious assumption that women do not have agency over themselves.)
Anyway, for these reasons among others I have been aware during this discussion that I was not entirely comfortable with calling all the men we have specifically been discussing (older men having sex with young girls/women) scum or predators. Some are, of course, where there is any force or other coercion involved, but some are acting in a way they have been encouraged to think is natural, and often with willing partners. Because they too have grown up under the influence of the patriarchy, many women have acted on the same assumptions, particularly where there is fame, charisma, power, or money involved.
It took second wave feminism for the first cracks in the monumental structure of patriarchy to appear, and that monumental structure is still cracking but far from fallen. The men of ObWi seem a good example of people who have been very influenced by the cracks, and certainly more and more women are, but there is still a long way to go.
Sorry, it was 3 parts! Definitely do not rescue the original one - it probably also had some links remaining!
I want to let this percolate before I comment on some of the comments others have made here. But for now, it's important for me to say that I completely agree this:
At some point we have to acknowledge that the world is not divided into good men and monster menThe other frustrating thing about the Epstein files discourse is the common reaction of, “Whoa! I thought that was a good man, but turns out he is a monster?! Ah man!”
The world is not divided into monster men and good men.
Part Three:
Patriarchy holds both the explanation and the remedy for the Epstein scandals and yet is almost never brought up in Epstein discussions.
Instead again and again we talk about how we could better punish rape instead of how we could prevent it.
Here’s a chart from a recent Reuter’s poll showing people’s concerns about the Epstein files:
69% of Americans said that the files show that powerful people are rarely held accountable. 53% of Americans said that the files have lowered their trust in political and business leaders.
All valid concerns. But how many said that the files show that we have a big problem with gender inequality, male entitlement or patriarchy?
I don’t know, they were not asked. Those things never seem to be brought up.
(I do know that 22% of American men said they believe that gender inequality doesn’t really exist, and a third of American men believe feminism is making things worse.)
And again, let me be clear that powerful people not being held accountable is certainly a problem worth discussing.
But when patriarchy is never brought up when we are discussing how to prevent massive sexual abuse epidemics???
THAT’S A PROBLEM!
That ensures we keep whacking weeds (things that make rape easier), without ever whacking the root of rape itself (patriarchy).
To quote that UN report: “Violence against women is a global pandemic: Between 15 and 76 per cent of women experience it at some point in their lifetime. Violence against women is deeply rooted in discrimination and inequality between men and women. Ending it requires investments in women’s empowerment and gender equality, particularly in education, reproductive health and rights, and economic and political empowerment.”
So that’s how to prevent violence against women, but guess how often women’s educational, financial, political and reproductive equality come up as either solutions to or explanations for the Epstein files?
Poke around the major news stories and see for yourself (but I have some bad news for you).
But there are some people pointing to patriarchy
I’m three days into writing this article, and this afternoon I decided to poke around Substack to see what people are writing about the Epstein files.
And lo and behold, I quickly discovered I am not the only person asking, “why the hell are we not talking about patriarchy when we talk about Epstein?”
I actually had to laugh that I thought I had an original observation while reading the news because it turns out lots of other women noticed the exact same omission and wrote about it:
Jude Doyle wrote an article called, “You know You Can Just Say ‘Patriarchy’: These analyses of the Epstein case are… missing something.”
Linda Caroll wrote, “Everyone wants to know which people were so despicable that they raped little girls. So many little girls. Over 1200…You want to know who the men are that abused little children? Look around you.”
Liz Plank wrote, “what’s landing so hard is realizing we weren’t exaggerating patriarchy’s harm at all, in fact we were underestimating it…”
Kara Post-Kennedy at The Good Men Project wrote, “One of the big problems we are having as a society right now is the way the Epstein files are being handled (or ignored). It isn’t just that we are not actively investigating and prosecuting the men who were involved in this criminal and abhorrent and abusive enterprise. It is the framing of this criminal, abhorrent and abusive behavior as “other”. As the outlier behavior of some spoiled rich jerks who ran out of other things to amuse themselves with. Not something that regula’ folk need trouble themselves with at all.”
Jo-Ann Finkelstein, PhD wrote, “Epstein is the patriarchy’s logical conclusion. We do ourselves a disservice when we call Epstein and his ilk monsters or a bizarre glitch of elite decadence.”
Kristen Shelt said, “All men does not mean all men rape or assault or harm women, it means all men are raised inside the same system that teaches male entitlement… And that conditioning exists whether or not its acted on… Every man who is raised in patriarchy is handed the same basic operating system.”
Lane Anderson of Matriarchy Report wrote “the Epstein files peel back the mask of American patriarchal power structures.” “For 249 years, she argues, we’ve celebrated that a nation that left women and girls outside of the definition of humanity, and erased us. What we are experiencing now is the logical conclusion of that legacy.”
Tracy Clark-Flory and Amanda Montei say, “The files are telling us what we already know: the conspiracy of patriarchy. Sexual violence isn’t just a problem of the global elite.”
Women of Substack are linking patriarchy with the Epstein files.
Unfortunately, women of Substack are not oft asked to chime in on global conversations.
Academics and experts on wealth and corruption are given quotes in those mainstream articles above. They are regularly consulted to explain this whole how-billionaires-get-away-with-rape phenomenon.
Academics and experts on patriarchy on the other hand? Well, usually they are called crazy bitches and their writings relegated to thought pieces read almost exclusively by other women.
Why men rape seems to be a niche topic of interest reserved for women.
Why men do or don’t get caught raping however, now that’s a universal interest. Call in the experts.
It’s time to choke out the root
Jonah Mix’s excellent quote on pornography comes to mind here:
“I’m not interested in a world where men really want to watch porn but resist because they’ve been shamed. I’m interested in a world where men are raised from birth with such an unshakable understanding of women as living human beings that they’re incapable of being aroused by their exploitation.” - Jonah Mix
Yessssss Jonah! Preach!
I’m not interested in a world where men want to rape, but don’t because they aren’t super wealthy and powerful.
I’m not interested in a world where the only thing keeping men from raping is not having an elite cabal to keep their secrets.
I’m interested in a world where MEN DON’T WANT TO RAPE FULL STOP!!
I’m interested in a world where men are not aroused by the exploitation of women.
I’m interested in a world where a man’s sense of worth has nothing whatsoever to do with domination.
But if we keep only talking about all the things that make rape easier (money, power, elite networks, anonymity) and never talk about the things that actually cause the desire to rape in the first place (entitlement, domination, patriarchy), then we will continue on our insane, unending weed whacking quest without ever pulling up the root.
Part Two:
The 90+ men who raped Gisele Pelicot were not billionaires.
They were nurses, teachers, firefighters, fathers, grandfathers, councillors, farm workers.
We cannot blame money or elite networks for what they did.
However, we can ask what exactly is the seed that was planted in these average men that would make them want to rape a woman when an opportunity presented itself?
For it’s the same seed that was planted in Epstein. In Bill Clinton, P. Diddy, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and so very many others.
Different elements may have enabled the different rapes, but something they all had in common was the desire to rape.
At some point we have to acknowledge that the world is not divided into good men and monster men
The other frustrating thing about the Epstein files discourse is the common reaction of, “Whoa! I thought that was a good man, but turns out he is a monster?! Ah man!”
The world is not divided into monster men and good men.
Rather, the world we live in seems to plant a seed in the minds of men, that when watered with enough power, opportunity or anonymity this seed so very, very often blooms into rape.
Not every seed blooms into a weed. Not every man rapes. But they all exist in the same fertile soil for it to be possible.
Believing that rapists are monsterous, abnormal, one-off bad apples keeps us relentlessly weed-whacking these “abnormalities” instead of ever digging up the root and making the soil less conducive to weeds.
What was planted in little Bill Gates’s mind that lie dormant until one day when watered with enough power, money and impunity would cause him to befriend a pedophile, cheat on his wife and then secretly give his wife STD medication so she wouldn’t know (allegedly)?
If you trace it to its root— before the 3400+ mentions in the Epstein files— what was the seed planted in little Deepak Chopra’s mind or heart that when eventually watered with status, money and anonymity would cause him to invite a pedophile on a trip and say “bring your girls”?
What is it that was planted in the minds and hearts of that firefighter, teacher and nurse in Mazan, France that when told of the opportunity to rape a drugged woman online they would drive right over and do it?
What is the root of the weed?
Let’s start with what it’s not.
Because I know someone is about to chime in that men want to rape because they are just naturally sexual and aggressive. Nothing to be done, it’s just biology. Testosterone makes men want to rape. Sorry.
Let’s address that from the jump.2
If testosterone were the cause of rape, then men with higher levels of testosterone would rape more than men with low levels.
But scientists have measured testosterone levels and disproven this theory.
The National Library of Medicine found that sex offenders do not have higher testosterone than non-sex offenders.
Trans men who increase their testosterone do not become more abusive or start raping.
When scientists decreased the testosterone in domestic violence perpetrators they did not find it to be an effective solution to curbing the abusers’ behavior.
But do you know what they did find was effective in curbing domestic abusers’ behavior?
“Changing their deeply held beliefs about their sense of entitlement.”
(Now we are getting to the root of things.)
If men can’t help the urge to rape because of their biology, then rape statistics would hold steady across all cultures, but that is not true at all.
And what makes the difference between cultures with higher rates of sexual abuse and those with lower?
The World Health Organization has concluded that “Violence against women is rooted in and perpetuated by gender inequalities.”
The UN also came out with a report linking rape with gender inequality that said, “As gender equality improves, the prevalence of violence against women is lower… This is borne out for both physical and sexual forms of abuse. As seen in the graph, countries with greater equality between women and men have lower levels of violence against women.”
A CDC report studying US States found the exact same thing: “States with a high degree of gender inequality also report higher prevalence estimates among women for completed or attempted rape using physical force.”
Now we are digging at the root. What other factors have scientists found leads to sexual assault?
“Evidence suggests that it is not innate aggression that makes men violent, but the internalized belief that they fall short of society’s perceived standards for masculinity. Psychologists call this phenomenon, “masculine discrepancy stress” and research shows that the more acutely a man suffers from this, the more likely he is to commit almost every type of violence, including sexual assault, intimate partner violence and assault with a weapon.” - Ruth Whippman
Ah yes masculinity - that North Star our society hands men that says the worst thing you can do isn’t cruelty, the worst thing you can do is act like a girl.
Ok. So entitlement, gender inequality and masculine discrepancy stress4 have all been correlated with rape.
If only we had a name for this…
And what is this system called that perpetuates gender inequality, and dominance and entitlement among men?
Patriarchy.
The word for that system is called patriarchy.
If you could zoom in on that seed planted in those boys who would eventually become men who rape—that seed would be labeled “patriarchy.”
Where being emasculated is far more embarrassing and destabilizing than being immoral.
The Epstein rapes were aided by money, elite networks and institutional corruption, but at their core, they are explained by patriarchy.
Perhaps you are thinking, well duh, that’s obvious.
I think so too.
And yet guess how many times the word patriarchy is used in those 12 articles up there? The ones where the New York Times, the BBC, PBS and TIME try to explain the Epstein files?
Zero.
Zero times.
Ok fine, but patriarchy is an unpopular word. Guess how many times gender inequality comes up?
Also zero!
OK, by complete coincidence this landed in my inbox from someone whose substack I don't subscribe to. It says a lot of important things, most of which I agree with, so I have tried to eliminate the hundreds of links, and am going to post it in two parts hoping that’s good enough to get it through (when I tried to post the whole thing, it went into moderation - if this works, please don't rescue it):
Part One
There is one word that explains how so many men can be in the Epstein files. So why is no one saying it?
We talk endlessly about the factors that make rape easier, but never about the factors that cause rape in the first place.
Celeste Davis
Feb 22, 2026
Unless you’ve been enjoying life under a rock, the past few weeks have likely involved a relentless scroll of names once spoken with reverence now tied to the words “Epstein files.”
The list of people wheeling and dealing with Epstein after he went to jail for pedophilia is mind-numbing:
No sector of society is safe.
Leaders from each and every one of the institutions that run our world—politics, business, tech, academia, wellness, philanthropy, entertainment, spirituality—are all over these files.
It’s gross. It’s everywhere. It’s destabilizing.
Leaving us asking… how? How could this happen? How could so many people let this happen? In plain sight? For so long?
Mainstream media is focused on four answers:
1. Wealth
2. Elite Networks
3. Institutional Failure
4. Blackmail
A deep frustration has arisen within me around the press and discussions around the Epstein files.
The bulk of the attention is converged around figuring out who and what exactly enabled Epstein’s rampant sexual abuse—wealth, elite networks, institutional failure and blackmail.
Everyone is asking how did these men get away with so much rape?
No one is asking what would cause so many to want to rape so much in the first place?
It’s as if the Epstein files have exposed an entire field being taken over by noxious weeds—miles and miles of weeds—and then instead of digging to the root to eradicate the weeds’ seed, we are hyper-focused on what exact water and fertilizer enabled the weeds to grow so high.
We’re acting as if weeds/rapists are just a given.
Well, of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because there are rules, but the rules don’t apply to billionaries so they get to rape. The problem isn’t the rape, it’s that billionaires can get away with rape.
I’m sorry what?
Why aren’t we talking about why so many men when given power continually choose to use that power to rape women?
WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT THAT?!
Money and corrupt elite networks of billionaires are certainly not off the hook here. Those are important conversations to have.
But while money may have enabled Epstein’s sexual abuse, it didn’t create it.
One in four women have experienced sexual abuse. Billionaires seem to do a lot of raping, but they can’t do THAT much raping.
This week I came across the following Substack note from Melina Magdelenat about the Gisele Pelicot trials where 90 men in a small French town raped one woman, and thought, oh this needs to be brought into the Epstein files discourse immediately.
Here’s what Magdelenat said:
“There’s an interaction I think back to every time we are collectively confronted with the utterly habitual nature of male violence against women. It was at a conference a year or so ago by Le Monde journalist Lorraine de Foucher, who won a Pulitzer for her coverage of the porn industry, child prostitution and sex trafficking in France.
The Pelicot trials came up during the Q&A, and a seventy-something man in the front row timidly raised his hand. You could tell he was carefully phrasing his question and choosing his words as he was saying them.
He said: « So, let me get this right. In the fairly small town of Mazan, Dominique Pélicot easily found 90+ men willing to rape his wife while she was drugged and unconscious. Hundreds more saw the messages on the forum and not one decided to tell the police about it. »
At that point, a lot of us were kind of bracing for either a dismissal of the facts, or some convoluted explanation for how those men were unique. But no. He continued:
« So, does that mean that in every town, every village in our country, there are just as many men willing to rape an unconscious woman? »
Lorraine de Foucher replied, « Yes. »
« But then that means that there are thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands! » (You could hear at that point the wheels turning in his head).
« Yes », she nodded again.
« But… that’s abominable! It’s a catastrophe! It’s a national emergency! »
« …… Yes. It is. » - Melina Magdelenat
Yes. It is.
novakant, I'm saying that older men wanted to sleep with young girls (newsflash: very many still do), and if they were anywhere in life which facilitated that they took full advantage (cults, the music business, rock bands, revolutionary groups which attracted idealistic young people who were easy to manipulate, etc etc). And they regularly expounded on how it was the natural order of things, as many rich and powerful men still do today (you'd be amazed how often I have been given this talk in my life, and not only when I was young but also as an explanation of the "sense" it makes in evolutionary and biological terms). They don't, however, always treat the girls as disposable products like Epstein did.
The representation of this power dynamic was everywhere, in music, in literature, in films, in history lessons, in politics, and on and on -everywhere. And to a considerably lesser extent, it still is. Hartmut's quotation made me smile in recognition, it was so on the money. I'd be surprised if Chomsky wasn't steeped in it; almost everybody was in those days, even (and maybe especially in some ways) the counter-culture, the revolutionary groups, "free thinkers", "non-conformists", controversial academics etc etc.
If, as it seems, all of the regular male participants on ObWi find this a foreign concept, it makes them a rather unusual group. Who knows about the lurkers, however.
Correction: second wave feminists, not first!
novakant, I don't know how old you are, andI don't know for sure, but I think you might not be a woman. If so, that is significant.
As for the "elite" aspect, it's possible there was some of that in it, since many (but not all) of those lefty revolutionaries of the 60s did come from very comfortable backgrounds. But I think it was absolutely baked into the culture, as many films and books suggest, and going back much further than the 60s of course. And women were heavily influenced by it too, in a kind of false consciousness. I brought that particular period up because of Chomsky, and because (as lots of first wave feminists can attest) men who were otherwise very aware of different types of exploitation showed a lack of insight into the oppression of women, and the power of the patriarchy. Misogyny, like anti-semitism, is always with us, and although nowadays considerable disparity in age and power is frowned on, today's variety is just as (or more) toxic, as this anonymous piece by a teenager in today's Guardian illustrates:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/23/15-year-old-girl-misogyny-social-media-online-abuse
wj, thank you. I see that I am (at least theoretically) out of step with some of the people here. I say theoretically because once, in a diplomatic setting, I let it be known that I should not be introduced to William Kennedy Smith (whose mother was US ambassador to Ireland at the time) because I would not shake his hand.
But my opinion on the Chomsky comment is that it does not reveal or imply his view of the actions of the relevant people, although calling them "major war criminals" admits their guilt and its scale. Nor do we know in what circumstances he met them, whether he sought the meeting, knew in advance he was meeting them, or anything else. It is quite easy to imagine he might have met Kissinger, for example. And saying he doesn't regret meeting them says nothing about his view of them, it says something about him, and not even that he is "comfortable spending time with the scum of the earth". I take it to mean that in his view meeting them did not imply approval of them, and that he does not subscribe to the idea that meeting evil people involves the risk of moral contamination. If he had shared a platform with them I would view it somewhat differently, and if he had been friends with them (as he was with Epstein) different again.
We know much more about his relationship with Epstein.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-ties-emails
While he may not have expressed regrets for it, his wife has said it was a "grave mistake".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/08/noam-chomsky-epstein-ties-wife-apology
Being friends with Epstein after his first conviction and sentence is another matter, but one that is not entirely surprising to me in view of the fact that Chomsky is a) elderly and b) a man. It's quite possible he didn't know all the details, and didn't think it necessary to find them out. In my experience, including with very left wing men around in e.g. les evenements in 1968, or in the US the Days of Rage, many or most would see nothing remotely reprehensible about adult men sleeping with teenage girls. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that they might have seen it as the right and proper way of the world.
If this does not apply to the right-on (as we used to say) men of ObWi, so much the more impressive. But for anyone who was a woman or a teenage girl in the 60s it is a truism.
wj, if that is the totality of what Chomsky said, what do you take to be the unambiguous meaning (or implication) of it?
I tend to think that these problems are often defined as sexism or racism, but the underlying issue is the ability to rationalize.
lj, I think your point about rationalisation is a good and important one. It enables people that way talented and inclined to make a logical case for their behaviour or opinions. But I think that this is in the service of their urges, or their instincts, which can indeed be racist or sexist.
On the Chomsky remark you quote, I think it is ambiguous. For example, saying he has no regrets about meeting war criminals does not to me imply any endorsement of their actions. It might mean that he has learnt something about their character and motivation which is useful for understanding how such people come to do what they have done, or got into the positions of power they reached. It could be to do with psychological, sociological or criminological understanding. And of course, it also displays a lack of concern for how it makes him look, which is not in itself a bad thing. Distaste or disgust at being known to have met someone terrible is not necessarily a sign of virtue.
novakant, I'm also very sympathetic to what you say. And for clarity's sake, although I often examine this kind of stuff for its effect on women, it is very clear that the kinds of men who can get away with it also take sexual advantage of any group that suits their taste, including children, boys and other men.
But the question of whether to judge such behaviour by today's standards, or the standards of another time, is a different and difficult one. It may, for example, have been acceptable/legal until recently to rape your wife, but if she was trying to resist and in distress that still entails a kind of lack of empathy for the suffering of a fellow human that makes it possible to judge the perpetrator harshly.
And as for whether one can or should enjoy or appreciate the intellectual or artistic work of a moral degenerate, we have discussed that on ObWi many times. There is no easy answer. And whether the French (or any other) intellectual culture makes such behaviour more likely, or more tolerated, this is above my pay grade. It is noticeable, however, that more prominent women in France have found fault with the MeToo movement than those in other countries, so that's a clue. And Macron continuing to staunchly defend Gerard Depardieu in the face of countless allegations is another one. It doesn't stop Depardieu being (or having been) a great actor, however.
It's very good that this is happening. Also, what an illustration of how deeply unfortunate it is when stupidity, ignorance, and an entitled sense of impunity collide.
The King is saying and doing all the right things about it. But it is unsettling that the country is in a rather fragile and unstable state, with uncertainty about Keir and Labour, the Tories, and the malignant Farage waiting in the wings. On the whole, as far as one can tell over many years, Charles is a perfectly decent sort, and William seems to be OK too. But the Royal Family is not as popular as it was (understandably!), and in retrospect even the admired late Queen is responsible for some of this. What a mess.
As a sidenote: interesting and shocking what has been revealed in France since MeToo. The sense of entitlement and the sheer depravity of anyone from Foucault to Duhamel is just astounding.
In my experience, nothing that is coming out anywhere in the wake of MeToo is any surprise to a large proportion of women, particularly those who've had a life and are no longer young. I don't know how much you all saw about the Gisele Pelicot case, but her husband arranged to have her raped, unconscious, by over 70 men he'd recruited online over 10 years. Of the 51 men who were identified and charged, they ALL came from a 30 mile radius around the small Provencal town the Pelicots lived in. And they were from every walk of life: journalists, firefighters, nurses, delivery drivers, labourers etc etc. Eminent thinkers and other famous and powerful men, not to mention soi-disant enlightened, decent, liberal or progressive ones, are hardly exempt from the qualities which make this possible.