How One Commenter Discovered the Revolutionary Concept of Consequences

An Inconvenient Truth about Under Dog L. aka Darleen Lev.

Photo by Michelle Tresemer on Unsplash

Friends, let me tell you a story about consequences. It's a concept that some folks find as foreign as a decent healthcare system in America, and today's protagonist is learning this lesson in real-time.

Meet Darleen Lev, who writes under the handle "Notes from the Under Dog L." Now, Darleen has been having herself quite the week. According to her, she's being "harassed" by yours truly. She's been making the rounds on various Substacks, warning people about the dangerous "harasser" who runs PITT - that's me, apparently - who has been "trolling" her and threatening to "take her down."

Scary stuff, right?

Well, let's rewind the tape and see what actually happened.

Who Is "Under Dog L."? The Digital Paper Trail

For those wondering how we know "Notes from the Under Dog L" is Darleen Lev, let's follow the breadcrumbs:

The Public Profiles:

• Substack: dogl.substack.com (Notes from the Under Dog L.)

• Medium: @darleenlev

• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/neelrad.vel/

• Professional: Part-time Assistant Professor, The New School

  • Email: levd@newschool.edu

  • Office: 66 West 12th Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY

The Background:

Clockwise: YT Thumbnail, YT Thumbnail as Guest Speaker, Instagram, Professional Employment Profile (all publicly available)

Darleen Lev is a 63-year-old writer and educator based in New York City. She describes herself as an "ex-feminist" who has become increasingly critical of modern feminism and what she calls "Social Justice Fundamentalism." According to her own writings:

• She's divorced and childless (something she blames on feminism despite admitting it was her choice)

• She hasn't owned a car since 1982 and prides herself on her minimal environmental footprint

• She teaches English to international students at The New School's English Language Studies Center

• She's been featured on "The Radical Center" podcast series at least three times

• She writes regularly about her disillusionment with feminism, her nostalgia for traditional gender roles, and her belief that the "patriarchy" was better for society

The connection between "Notes from the Under Dog L." and Darleen Lev is straightforward: She openly identifies herself as Darleen Lev in her own writings, uses the same photos across platforms, and cross-posts between her Medium and Substack accounts. She's made podcast appearances under her full name while promoting the same content from her "Notes from the Under Dog L." Substack. Her substack profile pic is of the Schooner “Pioneer” taken in NYC.

Her writing career seems to have pivoted in recent years from general cultural commentary (like her 2017 circus piece) to increasingly anti-feminist and anti-trans content. She positions herself as a truth-teller fighting against "woke" culture, but as we'll see, her version of "truth" includes defending sexual assault and spreading lies about anyone who challenges her.

This isn't doxxing - this is simply compiling information that Darleen has made publicly available across her various platforms. She chose to comment on my article under her "Notes from the Under Dog L." handle, which she has publicly connected to her real identity countless times.

For someone teaching at The New School - an institution that prides itself on being "inclusive" and considering "the whole person" - her public advocacy for sexual assault and transmisia raises serious questions about institutional values.

Now that we know who "Notes from the Under Dog L." is, let’s set the…

The Scene of the "Crime"

On June 6, 2025, I published an article called "When an Infectious Disease Scientist Catches a Bad Case of Transmisia" about Dr. Torrance Stephens' descent into anti-trans rhetoric. It was a comprehensive fact-check of his claims, complete with 47 citations because, unlike some people, I believe in backing up my arguments with actual evidence.

The very next day, June 7, our friend Darleen decided to grace my comments section with this gem:

"I have the right to exist safely too. And that means no dicks in my locker room. Write a thousand words, take a zillion cross hormone shots, wail about your 'rights' — I can still spot a shapeshifter from a mile away."

She went on to call trans people "narcissists on steroids" and claimed that acknowledging trans people's existence is "gaslighting."

Now, I responded - only once, mind you - pointing out that someone who defends men continuing sexual contact after consent is withdrawn (more on that bombshell in a minute) while claiming trans women are a safety threat isn't actually concerned about women's safety. I made some points to rebut the core of what they were saying, and highlighted basic etiquette. I was definitely touching a bit of hyperbole sprinkled in for effect, but I felt that was reasonable in response to their loaded language. For the sake of transparency, here is my complete response:

And then? She deleted her comment and blocked me.

That's it. That's the whole "harassment" story.

The Darleen Lev Cinematic Universe

But here's where it gets interesting. See, Darleen isn't just some random commenter. She's a 63-year-old part-time assistant professor at The New School who's made quite a name for herself in certain circles. And by "certain circles," I mean the "feminism ruined everything and we should bring back the patriarchy" crowd.

Don't believe me? Let's look at her greatest hits:

In "A Requiem for the Patriarchy"[1], she literally mourns the loss of male dominance:

“The 'patriarchy' was a fertile time. Life seemed to spill out of every door... But death is the essence of the matriarchy in which we now live."

She blames feminism for everything from declining birth rates to her own childlessness, despite admitting that from puberty "all that I could think about was having babies."[2] Somehow, it's feminism's fault she never had children, not her own choices or circumstances.

And if you were thinking “Oh, well, that is not THAT bad”

But wait, it gets worse.

The Pattern Reveals Itself: From Circuses to Patriarchy

To truly understand Darleen's worldview, we need to look at her 2017 Medium piece, "A Eulogy for the 'Greatest Show on Earth.'"[9] On the surface, it's about the closing of Ringling Bros. circus. But read deeper, and you'll find the same toxic nostalgia that permeates all her work.

She mourns the circus as representing "the dominion of man over fierce and exotic creatures" and complains that "Cultural shifts have denied this original purpose, trading danger and excitement for safety and the protection of animals."

Sound familiar? Let's play Mad Libs:

"Cultural shifts have denied [the patriarchy's] original purpose, trading [male dominance] for safety and the protection of [women]."

Whether she's writing about circuses, gender relations, or social progress, Darleen consistently mourns the loss of traditional hierarchies where one group had unchallenged power over another. She resents:

• Safety regulations that protect animals (just like she resents consent laws that protect women)

• Activists who advocate for the vulnerable (dismissing them as troublemakers "waving pictures")

• Any shift away from might-makes-right dynamics

She even admits her father was "afraid of people" despite being "imposing." Almost stumbling onto the insight that toxic power structures harm everyone, yet never quite connecting those dots.

This isn't just about transmisia or anti-feminism. This is about someone who fundamentally believes in hierarchies where the powerful should be able to dominate the vulnerable without consequence - whether that's men over women, humans over animals, or cis people over trans people.

Defending the Indefensible

Remember when I mentioned she defends sexual assault? I wasn't being hyperbolic. Darleen cross-posted and defended/commented on an article by Bettina Arndt called "Coitus Interruptus" [3] that argues - and I cannot stress enough how vile this is - that men can't be expected to immediately stop sexual activity when consent is withdrawn.

The article sympathizes with Kevin Ibbs, dubbed the "30-second rapist," who continued for 30 seconds after his partner revoked consent. It uses pseudo-scientific "Human Factors" arguments to claim men experience "sensory overload" during arousal and can't process when someone says "stop."

But to according to Darleen, in this case “There is two sides to every two-person story”

Let me be crystal clear: If someone says stop, you stop. Period. There's no "but I was really aroused" exception to consent. The fact that Darleen thinks there is tells you everything you need to know about her "concern" for women's safety.

The Ultimate Self-Own: When Turkeys Vote for Thanksgiving

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this whole saga is watching a woman actively advocate for her own oppression. Darleen Lev is literally arguing for a return to a system where she, as a woman, would have fewer rights, less autonomy, and no recourse when harmed.

Let's be clear about what Darleen is actually advocating for when she mourns the patriarchy:

• A time when women couldn't have their own bank accounts

• When marital rape was legal

• When women couldn't leave abusive marriages

• When her own career as a professor would have been impossible

• When her ability to write and publish her opinions would have been severely limited

• among a long list of other hard won rights and freedoms

She's a 63-year-old unmarried, childless woman with a career in academia (these are her words she uses to describe herself) - exactly the kind of woman the patriarchy she romanticizes would have labeled a "spinster" and shunned. Under the system she's advocating for, she wouldn't even have the platform she's using to advocate for it!

The Feminist Who Ate Herself

I am not an expert so take this with a grain of salt, but I am pretty sure this is what internalized misogyny looks like, folks. It's a woman who's so invested in proximity to patriarchal power that she'll throw every other woman - including herself - under the bus. She writes:

"It was women who gave men permission to be [sexually and relationship] irresponsible."

Think about that. She's blaming WOMEN for men's bad behavior. Not the men who choose to behave badly, but the women who dared to want equality.

She's angry at feminism for giving her choices, even though by her own admission, she made her own choices. Nobody forced her to remain childless. Nobody forced her to get divorced. But rather than take responsibility for her own life decisions, she blames the movement that gave her the freedom to make those decisions in the first place.

The Hypocrisy Olympics

So let's recap: A woman who:

• Defends rapists

• Mourns the patriarchy

• Blames women's ability to leave marriages and "no fault" divorce for creating "chaos" and "broken families"[4]

• Believes trans people existing is "gaslighting"

...is claiming she's being harassed because I responded to her unsolicited transmisic comment on my own blog.

But the hypocrisy doesn't stop there. In her article "We Need to Talk"[5], Darleen complains extensively about the "Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon" of people cutting off friends for political disagreements. She writes:

"We need to learn how to parse the issues of the day in good faith."

Good faith? GOOD FAITH? She came to my article, left a comment calling trans people "shapeshifters," among other patently false and inflammatory claims, then deleted it when challenged, blocked me, and is now lying about being harassed. If that's her idea of good faith, I'd hate to see bad faith.

The Truth Comes Out

In her recent comments claiming harassment, Darleen can't even keep her story straight. First, she claimed I was "trolling comments." Then she changed it to say she commented on "Torrance Stephens' piece"[6] - which is interesting since she actually commented on MY piece ABOUT Torrance Stephens.

She's also been misgendering me throughout her victim tour, referring to me as "he" and "himself," which really shows how much she respects people's identities.

But here's my favorite part: While claiming I'm harassing her, she's actively sharing links to my blog. That's right - the person who blocked me for responding to their comment is now promoting my work while claiming to be my victim. Make it make sense.

The Question of Regret: A Speculative Interlude

Now, I want to be clear that what follows is speculation on my part, but one has to wonder about the psychology at play here.

Darleen admits that "from the moment I hit puberty all that I could think about was having babies." She's now 63, childless, and writing article after article and appearing in guest spots on youtube[10][11] blaming feminism for declining birth rates and her own childlessness.

One might reasonably ask: If having children was truly her deepest desire, why didn't she pursue the many options available to her? Sperm banks, adoption, fertility treatments, etc; all of these have been accessible for decades. Could it be that the anger we're seeing isn't really about feminism at all, but about personal regret being projected outward?

I can't know what's in Darleen's heart, but the pattern is interesting to say the least. Someone who wanted children but never had them, now advocating for a system where women had no choice BUT motherhood. Someone who made choices she seems to regret, now angry at the movement that gave her those choices, and perhaps believes she needs to prevent others from being able to make the same mistakes.

What We Do Know

Here's what's NOT speculation:

• She writes extensively about mourning the patriarchy

• She defends men who continue sexual contact after consent is withdrawn

• She came to my article to leave transmisic comments

• She deleted those comments and blocked me

• She's now falsely claiming harassment

Whether her anti-feminism stems from personal regret or not, the harm she's promoting is real. The woman defending sexual assault is real. The lies about harassment are real.

One has to wonder, though: What kind of pain makes someone advocate against their own interests so forcefully? What makes a woman want to return to a time when she would have had fewer rights, less safety, and no voice?

I don't have those answers. But I do know that whatever her personal demons, they don't justify promoting harm to others.

The Ultimate Irony

The saddest part? The feminism she hates would have supported her in whatever choice she made:

• Want to be a stay-at-home mom? Feminism says that's valid

• Want to use a sperm donor? Feminism fought for that right

• Want to adopt as a single woman? Feminism made that possible

• Want to remain childless? Also valid and without shame

Feminism gave her every possible option. She's mad because she had to CHOOSE, and she chose wrong (in her own estimation). But rather than own that, she wants to burn down the whole system so future women won't have to face the terrible burden of... freedom?

This isn't politics. This is therapy-level projection wearing a political costume.

What This Is Really About

Look, I get it. When you've spent your whole life believing you're entitled to never have your views challenged, accountability feels like oppression. When you're used to being able to say whatever you want without pushback, consequences feel like harassment.

But here's an inconvenient truth for Darleen: Coming to someone else's space to spread hate and then crying victim when they respond isn't harassment - it's consequences.

The same woman who thinks men should be able to continue sexual activity after consent is withdrawn is worried about hypothetical trans women in bathrooms. The same woman who mourns the death of patriarchy claims to care about women's safety. The same woman who writes entire articles about the importance of civil discourse blocks people who dare to disagree with her.

The math isn't mathing, as the kids say.

The Real Safety Issue

You want to know what's really threatening women's safety? It's not trans women trying to pee in peace and get on with their lives. It's people like Darleen who defend sexual assault, who think women shouldn't be able to leave marriages, who promote the very patriarchal structures that have harmed women for centuries.

Trans women face violence at epidemic rates[7]. Meanwhile, there's zero evidence that trans-inclusive bathroom policies increase safety risks[8]. But Darleen doesn't care about evidence any more than she cares about actual women's safety. She cares about maintaining hierarchies where she feels comfortable - whether that's men over women (as long as she personally benefits), humans over animals[9], or cis people over trans people.

The Tragedy Behind the Toxicity

Reading Darleen's work, one can't help but notice the profound loneliness that seeps through every piece. She ends articles with "Let's be friends?" She creates podcasts about being "Unfriended." She writes longingly about community and connection while actively driving people away with her toxic views.

There's something deeply sad about a woman who wanted children but never had them, who clearly craves connection but has chosen ideologies that isolate her. One can feel sympathy for the pain while still condemning the harm.

But here's the thing: Personal pain doesn't justify public harm. Loneliness doesn't excuse defending rapists. Regret doesn't make transmisia acceptable. We all have our wounds. We have every right to feel as we do, whether that is angry, sad, hurt, embarassed, or whathaveyou - it is what we do with those feelings that matter. The measure of our character is whether we heal them or weaponize them.

Darleen has chosen to weaponize hers.

A Final Thought

Darleen ends many of her pieces talking about connection and community. She claims to want dialogue and understanding. I believe she believes this is true about herself, but her actions show otherwise. She wants a world where she can say whatever she wants without challenge, where her comfort matters more than others' existence, where she can spread lies without consequence.

Sorry, Darleen, but that's not how the world works anymore. You can mourn the patriarchy all you want, but the rest of us are busy building a world where everyone - including trans people - can exist safely. And if that makes you uncomfortable? Well, to quote your own words back to you: "That's not danger. That's prejudice."

Welcome to consequences. Population: You.

---

Citations:

[1] Lev, D. (2025, January 5). A requiem for the patriarchy. Notes from the Under Dog L. https://dogl.substack.com/p/a-requiem-for-the-patriarchy

[2] Boyce, L. (2025). An ex-feminist perspective on relationships and childless women, with Darleen Lev [Video]. The Radical Center. YT Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDTBIXQoBs

[3] Arndt, B. (2024, February 1). Coitus interruptus. Bettina Arndt's Substack. [Cross-posted by Lev, D.] https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/cp/141821190

[4] See 1 Above

[5] Lev, D. (2025, May 28). We need to talk. Notes from the Under Dog L.
https://dogl.substack.com/p/the-dumb-meme

[6] Notes from the Under Dog L. (2025, June 7). [Comment on post]. Flashing Green. Substack. https://flashinggreen.substack.com/p/do-you-even-know-any-trans-people/comment/123539112

[7] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

[8] Hasenbush, A., Flores, A. R., & Herman, J. L. (2019). Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations: A review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(1), 70-83. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4rs4n6h0

[9] Lev, D. (2017, April 18). A eulogy for the 'greatest show on earth'. Medium. https://medium.com/dose/a-eulogy-for-the-greatest-show-on-earth-f04291b3c8ea

[10] YT: Was it Feminism or Was it the Sexual Revolution? Solid Ground Live with Guest Darleen Lev

[11] YT: An Ex-Feminist Perspective on Relationships and Childless Women, with Darleen Lev