What Do We Do Now?
Raising Children in the Wake of What We Know. A mother’s response to the Epstein files — through the lens of matriarchal medicine.
I became a mother knowing the world was imperfect.
But I did not fully reckon with how organised that imperfection was.
The Epstein files have not told us anything new, not really. What they have done is remove the last layer of plausible deniability. The structures that allowed powerful men to traffic, abuse, and disappear children were not aberrations. They were systems. Built deliberately. Protected deliberately. By people with names and foundations and awards and the deep, social trust of institutions that many of us we placed (and continue to place) our children inside.
And I have a four year old daughter.
So the question I am sitting with, the one I think many of us are sitting with, is not just how did this happen. It is what do I do differently, starting now, in my own home, with my own child.
For me, the answer is simple, because I have been living with this known reality as a Mother, and implementing measures to protect my daughter from the exposure to harm, since birth. In this article, I want to share some of the ways I completely mitigate the risk of my daughter being exposed to this kind of abuse and harm.
A little about my background, and why I am passionate about this conversation.
I am a student of matriarchal medicine: a framework that understands childhood development not just psychologically but neurologically, through the lens of the mother-child bond as the original and most formative template for how a human being learns to relate to their own body, their own voice, and the world around them. It is a framework that takes seriously what patriarchal conditioning does— not just culturally, but physiologically — to the developing nervous system of a child.
The body first. Always the body.
In matriarchal medicine, the mother-daughter bond is understood as the child’s first neurological map. The daughter’s nervous system literally co-regulates with the mother’s in the earliest years: she learns what is safe and what is dangerous, what deserves a voice and what must be swallowed, through the quality of attunement she receives.
The polyvagal system, the vagal tone, the capacity for a child to move fluidly between activation and rest: all of this is shaped in relationship, primarily in the earliest years, primarily through the primary caregiver.
What this means practically is that the most protective thing I can do for my daughter is not a rule or a conversation; it is the quality of presence I bring to her body’s signals. When she says no, and I honour it. When she pulls away, and I don’t override it to smooth a social moment. When she is uncomfortable, and I name it with her rather than rush her through it.
Her nervous system is learning right now whether her instincts are trustworthy.
That learning will follow her into every room she ever enters. Including rooms I will never see.
So we use real words for her body. Not because I am clinical but because children with accurate language can report what happens to them, and perpetrators rely on the gap that diminished language creates.
We do not force affection. Not with family, not with friends, not with anyone. The lesson that her discomfort matters less than another adult’s comfort is one of the earliest and most corrosive things we can teach daughters. It teaches the nervous system that social harmony is more important than somatic truth. That is exactly the conditioning that makes women override their instincts in the presence of dangerous men.
We talk about safe adults. Not just strangers - most harm does not come from strangers. It comes from known, trusted, beloved people. A safe adult never asks you to keep secrets from mummy. A safe adult never makes you feel ashamed of your body. A safe adult always believes you.
What patriarchal conditioning does to the developing brain.
This is where matriarchal medicine becomes important to name explicitly, because the conversation about child protection is almost always framed around individual bad actors. It rarely asks what the system produces neurologically.
Patriarchal conditioning, or the set of relational norms that organise children around hierarchy, compliance, deference to authority, and the suppression of instinct in favour of social approval, does something specific to the developing brain.
It down-regulates the interoceptive system. The capacity to feel and trust what is happening inside the body.
Children who are consistently rewarded for compliance and punished for dissent, even subtly, even lovingly, learn to override the body’s signals in order to maintain attachment. And attachment is survival for a young child. They will betray their own instincts to keep the bond safe.
This is the neurological foundation that predators exploit. Not in a calculated way that every abuser consciously understands, but the pattern is real. Children conditioned to be good, to be quiet, to defer, to not make a fuss, to trust adults over themselves, and these children are more vulnerable. Not because of any failing in them. Because the system produced exactly this.
Raising children differently means interrupting this conditioning at the root.
It means raising daughters who trust their bodies more than they trust social approval. Who know that discomfort in the presence of an adult is information, not rudeness. Who have practised saying no in small moments so it is available to them in large ones.
The communities and institutions we place her in.
The Epstein network did not operate in dark alleyways. It operated inside philanthropy, academia, science, spirituality, and finance. The most dangerous environments for children are often the ones with the highest social status, because status creates impunity, and impunity creates opportunity.
I am asking different questions now about every space my daughter enters.
I have never put her into daycare, and knew that it was not in congruence to place her under someones care, if I did not know, at all times, who was interacting with her.
She only started going to kindergarten at age 3.5, at a local steiner school, with two gorgeous female teachers - no substitute teachers, no exposure to males in the space.
My daughters father and I also have a rule: my daughter is not to be left alone with any male, even family. She is also not to be left alone with anyone other than the few close female family members that we trust, as well as her nanny. There is always a second person around.
The question I ask myself in relation to schooling environments, is not just is this a good school, a good community, but: what are the actual safeguarding structures here? Who holds adults accountable, and how? Is transparency a genuine value or just an assumption that has never been tested? Are children encouraged to have a voice, or rewarded for silence and compliance?
I am watching how adults in these spaces speak about children. Whether children are treated as full human beings with interior lives and instincts worth respecting, or as objects to be managed, moulded, and impressed upon.
I am also, and this is harder, examining the spiritual communities I am part of. Because spiritual authority can create some of the most potent conditions for abuse. The conflation of energetic sensitivity with trustworthiness. The cultures of reverence that make questioning feel like a spiritual failing. The intimacy of shared belief that can be weaponised.
Nowhere is exempt. That is what the Epstein files confirmed.
And I am trusting my instincts more than I ever have. That low-grade unease I used to override to be polite or to belong, well, I am not overriding it anymore. And I am teaching my daughter to do the same.
Raising boys differently.
My daughter will move through a world full of boys being raised right now. So this matters to me too.
The Epstein files are not only a story about monsters. They are a story about ordinary men who looked away. Who knew, or half-knew, and calculated that the cost of speaking was higher than the cost of silence. That calculation is not made in the mind, it is made in a nervous system that was never taught that accountability is an act of love rather than a threat to belonging.
Boys who are raised with access to their emotional lives- who are allowed to be uncertain, to be wrong, to feel grief and fear without those feelings being treated as weakness, grow into men who can tolerate the discomfort of witnessing harm and acting anyway.
Boys who are raised inside rigid hierarchies of toughness and loyalty- who learn early that emotion is vulnerability and vulnerability is danger, are more likely to grow into men who protect the structure over the person.
This is conditioning, and it can be interrupted.
The men we need on the other side of this reckoning are not men who have been shamed into compliance. They are men who were raised with enough emotional spaciousness to actually feel what is wrong, and enough relational safety to say so.
What I am doing. What we can do.
I am not writing this from a place of having it figured out. I am writing it from the place of a mother who looked at her four year old daughter last week and felt the full weight of what it means to bring a girl into this world right now.
And then I let that weight become clarity rather than paralysis.
We start with the body. We honour her instincts before we teach her manners. We use real words. We do not force affection. We name safe adults and we practise what that means in real, age-appropriate conversations.
We get rigorous about where we place her. We ask hard questions of institutions and communities, including the ones we love, including the ones we built.
We examine our own conditioning. The places we w
ere taught to defer, to be good, to swallow the signal. We heal those places in ourselves so we do not pass them on.
And we stay in the conversation. Even when it is uncomfortable. Even when it implicates people we know and spaces we love.
The children who were harmed inside these networks deserved adults who stayed in the discomfort.
Our children deserve the same.
