Author Kat Rosenfield’s article suggesting Ghislaine Maxwell won’t get a fair trial and is being unfairly treated is both contemptible and laughable at the same time
Yesterday, author and Feminine Chaos podcast co-host Kat Rosenfield penned a contemptible yet laughable article for titled: “Will Ghislaine Maxwell get a fair trial? She should not be punished for Epstein’s crimes.”
Featured in the online magazine UnHerd – a title which tellingly also gives space to the especially acerbic harpy Tanya Gold, a woman best known for bigging-up Jimmy Savile and wrongly suggesting the Duchess of Sussex to be someone who “dares not only to inhabit the role of duchess but also to make it her own” – Rosenfield argued that “Maxwell’s guilt is treated as a foregone conclusion” and that the public show “glee at seeing her suffer” as “she’s too good a villain.”
Going further, in a frankly ridiculous article – which was rightly subsequently condemned as being based on the weak premise that it simply goes only by the premise “she’s innocent because she’s a woman,” by one commentator, Francis MacGabhann – Ronsenfeld rambled:
“It’s worth remembering, here, that the feminist narrative of under-appreciated heroines has a misogynist cousin. The female villain who wields power in the form of manipulation is an ancient fictional archetype; from Eve and the apple on up, it serves to tell us that it’s women’s ambition which forms the true roots of men’s evil deeds. In Snow White, it’s the power-hungry and jealous queen who orders a huntsman to cut out the heart of her stepdaughter. In Shakespeare, it’s Lady Macbeth who gets stuck with indelible bloodstains on her hands.”
“These narratives serve men. The more we dwell on the idea of a conniving female pulling the strings, the less responsibility we assign to the man pulling the trigger – or in Epstein’s case, committing the assaults. In fact, the more we hear about Ghislaine Maxwell, the less agency Epstein seems to have. He was just a big, dumb animal; she was the one bringing him fresh meat, the brains of the organisation.”
“Taken to its natural conclusion, this type of rhetoric leads us to a place where men can’t be held accountable for their choices at all, if there’s a woman somewhere in the vicinity who could be seen as a behind-the-scenes manipulator. It’s how we decide that Prince Harry is just a hapless lump acting at the Machiavellian whims of his wife; it’s how we turn our attention away from men who commit violence in favour of pointing fingers at the mothers who raised them. At what point does giving due credit to women become just another way of excusing men?”
“There is an aggressive fervour surrounding Maxwell’s impending trial, and a thirst to see her punished in every possible way before that it even begins. Images from pretrial hearings show her shackled, her hair lank, her face bruised. In a recent dispatch from Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center, she described being kept in solitary confinement in a rat-infested cell, assaulted by guards, and given food crawling with maggots – all of which were promptly celebrated by her detractors as no less than she deserves.”
“The fact that Maxwell’s guilt hasn’t yet been determined by a court of law is irrelevant to the public glee at seeing her suffer. She’s too good a villain. And unlike Epstein, she’s still here.”
Rightly, most of the 78 responses thus far to Rosenfield’s delusional diatribe against a wicked wastrel woman who the sensible majority believe to have been a controller rather than simply an associate condemned the piece.
Of it, George Wells rationally responded: “This is very close to defending GM because she is a woman. Irrelevant. What matters now is facts – what happened, who else was involved and how did the coverups work… What matters is not identity politics – but stopping crime and punishing criminals, and supporting, to the extent possible, the victims.”
Another, Francisco Menezes, mockingly added: “What a pity Ghislaine is not a black lesbian. Then we could also claim racism and homophobia. What a delusional piece of nonsense this article is” whilst another, Dennis Boylon, sensibly concluded:
“She was a participant in a pedophile ring and went into hiding to escape justice. She is not innocent. Martha Stewart was an example of an innocent person being persecuted by the mob. There is an enormous amount of evidence against Maxwell if the lazy author of this piece cares to look at it.”
Elsewhere yesterday, Daniel Bates for DailyMail.com reported Maxwell “appeared healthier and more relaxed than she had in months as she attended a pretrial hearing in which the judge spoke about how she will proceed with jury selection.”
Bates added that her “newfound confidence was apparent at the end of the hour-long hearing” and concluded – of the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ dangerously deviant daughter, who’d only a day earlier bleated: “I am weak, I am frail. I have no stamina. I am tired. I don’t even have shoes which fit properly” – “appeared much more glamorous.”
Clearly, Gislaine Maxwell is upping the game in her sham act. Buckle up and hunker down – we haven’t even got to the first interval in this tawdry tale.
Pictured top: Ghislaine Maxwell with President Donald Trump – a man who has cryptically “wished” his one-time friend “well,” but whom surprisingly didn’t get around to pardoning her before leaving office.
