Scoping and context matter – I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist, nor am I saying that the crimes committed weren’t based on sexually predatory men exploiting vulnerable women. But the argument the image is making is just shit, and conflating different topics, botching the framing and diminishing the statements ability to persuade me as a reader/consumer.

Using your own response to highlight it: “slavery wasn’t about race but economics because you had black slave owners”.

You didn’t properly frame that as American slavery, you’re presuming the context is just known to your reader, and that they’ll inherently agree with your point as you view it as politically correct – you’re being intentionally lazy with your word choice, but that makes the statement easily challenged/ignored. It’s sorta like virtue signalling – you don’t need to “prove” something will benefit an individual, if you can convince them its for some nebulous greater good. To your lazily framed statement, one could ask: What about Rome? What about Korea, one of the areas with the longest history of slavery? How about the First Nation groups in the PNW, who prior to “colonization” ruining their culture, were known as prolific slave traders with about 25% of their band being slaves from other FN bands? “Slavery” itself isn’t about black and white, nor is it specifically about race. America’s racism, is America’s racism – slavery or no, as many non-whites have found out in the years since slavery was “abolished” in that country.

The image is leaning on virtue signalling, saying “sexism is bad”/“women are disadvantaged” to present a disjointed argument about gender inequality. The examples they provide are shit: in the two ‘things’ they put forward, having photos leaked online and being named in the Epstein files, if you look for cases with the two genders, there are differences but it’s not a solid ground to stake a position. There are both men and women in the Epstein files, as conspirators/contributors/victimizers, who are all getting off nearly scott free (gotta quantify that a bit, as it’s mostly US people getting off totally scott free, the US people in power specifically). And if you look at photo leaks/mis-sent photos, there’s lots of examples of men getting shafted, and there are examples of women turning huge profits off it/gaining careers from it.

Like if the base argument is “men got off scott free in epstein, women lose careers in photo leaks”. Then pointing out women got off scott free in the epstein files, and that men lose careers over photo leaks, you could accurately rebut that argument simply by saying “women got off scott free in epstein, men lose careers in photo leaks – they are equally avoiding accountability in the files, and both losing careers to photo leaks, so where’s the inequality?”.

The image isn’t arguing that “the epstein files was a giant multi-nation syndicate setup to exploit vulnerable women for the benefit of sexually predatory rich men, while also gaining blackmail material on those men”. It’s arguing “Men have no accountability from Epstein stuff, while women lose careers for a photo leak, therefore sexual inequality!”. It’s a shitty argument, even if you agree that sexual inequality exists.

You’re making it sound like people are saying left and right that gender equality doesn’t exist, when literally no one here is saying that. The comments you’re referring to say the Epstein case isn’t a gender issue, which is very different from what you’re incorrectly perceiving

The relationship of Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway with the American convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has become a major scandal for the Norwegian royal family.[1][2][3] The pair were introduced in 2011 and maintained close contact until 2014. Media first reported on the relationship in 2019 in the context of the indictment against Epstein in 2019.[4] At the time Mette-Marit minimized the contact, claimed a lack of knowledge of his crimes, and claimed to have broken off contact in 2013, a claim later disproven.[5]

In 2026, the newly released Epstein files showed extensive contact between Mette-Marit and Epstein over several years, and that she is mentioned over a thousand times in the released files.[6][2] The Epstein files were released days before the trial of Mette-Marit’s son Marius Borg Høiby on charges of rape.[7] The files revealed that Mette-Marit admitted to Epstein that she had googled him and that the results “didn’t look good” already in 2011, the year they first met.[8]

In exchanges from 2012 and 2013, Mette-Marit repeatedly discussed how she was “dying of boredom” over royal duties,[9] discussed adultery, the work of Vladimir Nabokov, and pictures of naked women she wanted to give to her then 15-year-old son Marius Borg Høiby as a wallpaper; they further discussed Epstein’s “wife hunting” and dating of multiple young women, she suggested Epstein connect with Scandinavian women, asked him about “island life” and whether he enjoyed “sweetness”, and they exchanged deeply intimate and personal messages about love and longing.[10][11][12][13] She also wrote emotional letters to Epstein about an unnamed man, writing about how she met him and how “he made me feel like the most beautiful woman on earth.”[11] Mette-Marit and Epstein met several times, and she stayed in Epstein’s later-demolished mansion in Palm Beach as late as 2013.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Mette-Marit,_Crown_Princess_of_Norway,_and_Jeffrey_Epstein

M.H. Allegation: A 2021 lawsuit filed in Queens, New York, claimed that the “M.H.” individual was under 17 and working as a high school intern when Epstein “induced” him into sexual acts, causing lasting mental anguish.

Whistleblower Reports: Some individuals have come forward identifying as male survivors associated with Epstein’s network, including connections to other high-profile figures and trafficking rings.

Context of Abuse: While the majority of widely reported victims were young females, testimonies and legal filings suggest Epstein targeted young, vulnerable individuals regardless of gender to facilitate his trafficking ring.

… says the one screeching…

Op just baiting to get upvotes. Sadly there are too many comments agreeing with her. Fortunately top comments are the correct ones

oh. well that explains it, because i am sure they don’t have daughters in the old wealth, so the gender issue is off the table. hurrah!

Gender and class warfare are intrinsically tied together.

Two things can be true at the same time

Exactly. So time for you and the other clowns who came with false dichotomy of “it is not gender issue, it is a class one” to shut up.

You are literally arguing against yourself and you don’t even realize it. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

Sure but class inequality is what exacerbates gender inequality. Under capitalism anyone who is working class is forced to sell their labor to survive. Women are inherently disadvantaged here because their labor is required for social reproduction. Even assuming an equal distribution of housework and raising kids women have to do the unpaid work of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. Capitalists will therefore discount the value of a women’s labor regardless of her individual capabilities or productive output. As a result women are often forced to depend on the men in their lives for financial stability.

Conservatives are hell bent on normalizing this unnatural inequality between the sexes because doing so protects the underlying class inequality between owners and workers. This is what helps to create a sexist culture that even wealthy women have to endure. However, a woman who can live off of the growth of her investments is not facing the full weight of gender inequality that a working class woman must contend with. She does not have to deal with the threat of homelessness, hunger, and poverty that keeps many working class women dependent on men. Her financial stability is already assured because of her class position and the exploitation of the working class. That gives her far more freedoms than even most working class men.

The obvious solution to the problem is to upend capitalism which is what reinforces class. That creates the possibility of actually valuing reproductive labor and giving universal financial independence to all women. If you just try to address gender inequality alone without upending capitalism you won’t be able to succeed. Even if somehow you did, the vast majority of inequality would remain because most inequality can be explained by class alone. So while its true that gender and class issues are interrelated, abolishing class creates the conditions necessary to abolish gender inequality.

Idk sort of agree, systemically.

If you are of high enough class, gender aint a problem.

Either way, its the class that I have a problem with regardless whether one gender or another.

I promise I wont discriminate here, believe me.

Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the reference. I guess there’s a bit of a joke in there? It’s not really where my thinking is at for the discussion, but probably there is another conversation the have there fo sure.

in adressing the implication it’s appropriate.