A good post that still misses the mark with zero mention of how child abuse breeds child abuse. What the mentioned "rich men" typically have in common is heavily violent childhoods, which resulted in their narcissism -- and subsequent child abuse. Many of these victims of child abuse stay "broken children". It's not only power-over, it is also "cuddling with peers in their (unconsciously perceived) 'own' age group". Children radiate "love" and "openness"; something they have likely never experienced from their own "caretakers"; not for a second. Victims turned perperators, wanting to be "loved" and "explore doctor games".
Women as abusers are rarely mentioned or investigated because (A) it's still a taboo to touch the mother archetype, (B) repressed memories of mother abuse, the relationship is key to survival for a child, (C) female sexual abuse is often not experienced or seen as abusive even for 'bystanders', (D) females use less visible, more subtle forms of violence then men and are usually a lot smarter in covering it up.
You can see this also in the Epstein reporting: The (adult) female "companions" are mentioned but their involvement not questioned. Potentially you're falling for the "stupid blonde" myth, instead of thinking of them as potentially highly intelligent hunters -- equally broken in their own childhood and statistically likely to have been sexually abused within their own families and thus subsequently drawn to/attracted to child sexual abuse; in psychology, see 'reenactment'. A woman with healthy psyche would not be able to ignore the child abuse around them, and especially not the mistreatment of their own children, even if you give them the (wrong) benefit of the doubt as passive bystanders.
The point made in the article that all this is related to patriarchy still stands. It just falls short on important details of the dynamics at 'play', and it's pretty clear you will not fix the one without fixing the other.
A good post that still misses the mark with zero mention of how child abuse breeds child abuse. What the mentioned "rich men" typically have in common is heavily violent childhoods, which resulted in their narcissism -- and subsequent child abuse. Many of these victims of child abuse stay "broken children". It's not only power-over, it is also "cuddling with peers in their (unconsciously perceived) 'own' age group". Children radiate "love" and "openness"; something they have likely never experienced from their own "caretakers"; not for a second. Victims turned perperators, wanting to be "loved" and "explore doctor games".
Women as abusers are rarely mentioned or investigated because (A) it's still a taboo to touch the mother archetype, (B) repressed memories of mother abuse, the relationship is key to survival for a child, (C) female sexual abuse is often not experienced or seen as abusive even for 'bystanders', (D) females use less visible, more subtle forms of violence then men and are usually a lot smarter in covering it up.
You can see this also in the Epstein reporting: The (adult) female "companions" are mentioned but their involvement not questioned. Potentially you're falling for the "stupid blonde" myth, instead of thinking of them as potentially highly intelligent hunters -- equally broken in their own childhood and statistically likely to have been sexually abused within their own families and thus subsequently drawn to/attracted to child sexual abuse; in psychology, see 'reenactment'. A woman with healthy psyche would not be able to ignore the child abuse around them, and especially not the mistreatment of their own children, even if you give them the (wrong) benefit of the doubt as passive bystanders.
The point made in the article that all this is related to patriarchy still stands. It just falls short on important details of the dynamics at 'play', and it's pretty clear you will not fix the one without fixing the other.