Neil Gaiman Accused Of Sexual Assault Pt II

[hihelenhi]

As we're nearly at the end of the first thread, let's make sure we keep the topic current.

There have been five women now who have spoken to podcasts about the predatory behaviour of Neil Gaiman.

First thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5112128-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault

Interesting article. https://www.avclub.com/sandman-season-2-sneak-peek-no-neil-gaiman

I nearly posted about this topic yesterday - I've started to see promo stuff coming out for Sandman season 2 with not one mention of Gaiman. I admit I'm finding it vexing (to quote my grandma) - in the same way as the Goodreads and Journal posts pissed me off. Very 'let's just pretend it doesn't exist and not mention it at all and maybe people won't notice' which is at best cowardice and at worst manipulative and deceitful.

https://www.facebook.com/share/7adn7MrdzqmH7pfJ/

Not suggesting doing a twatty pile on, but worthwhile mentioning NG on this post? I can't find the right words to broach it without looking like aforementioned teatty pile on-er, but if anyone else thinks of a good way to put it.....

Interesting. The homepage of Equality Now says:

End Sexual Exploitation
Sexual exploitation, a form of sexual abuse, is when someone abuses or attempts to abuse another person’s vulnerability or their own position of power or trust for sexual purposes.

End Sexual Violence
Sexual violence is a human rights violation that predominantly affects women and girls as a consequence of systemic and structural inequality.

I don't have facebook but I think I'll comment on the same post on Instagram. I don't care about the backlash.

I think it’s best left to be honest. She’s been through it herself, and I know he’s her friend, but his actions are not her responsibility. I’d leave it personally.

80 days since allegations of sexual assault were made against Neil Gaiman, who has yet to respond.

I’m conflicted. No, his actions are not her responsibility, but she’s endorsed him her entire career. She sings about him on the majority of her albums. Swoons over him in interviews. And now, silence.

Loads of his fans only discovered him because of her. She’s also a spokesperson for RAINN.

She doesn’t owe anyone a statement, but personally I’m disappointed by her silence on this.

In any case she won’t be reading it herself, her management deal with her SM.

A couple of articles are saying he has denied it, isn't that him responding? Sorry if that's a daft question

He/his lawyers/PR people denied it to the podcast, when they approached him for comment.

He hasn't made any kind of a public statement.

As far as Tori Amos or his other 'friends' are concerned, I don't think there's anything to be gained by piling on there. It's all too easy to get a woman cancelled for speaking/not speaking about something, and doesn't help get closer to justice. It's NG who needs to speak on this. And, if not him, then the BBC, netflix or his publishers who should be making public statements.

In these kinds of situations it's always illuminating to find out what is the "it" they're denying.

It's a variety of accusations which could be generalised as sexual assault and rape. He admits to most of the accusations, but he claims that these acts were performed with consent (or that he believed there was consent) and therefore cannot be SA or rape.

Indeed, he has emails and messages from the women involved which suggest he did have their consent - so there is also a question here about whether consent can be applied retroactively, whether consent is invalidated by coercive control, what consent even means in a situation where a person is being groomed and abused.

It's actually a really interesting case/set of cases that illustrate the difficulties around consent being the basis for sexual relationships, issues with where the law extends to, and the general public understanding. If only it were brought into the mainstream for discussion by say, the BBC, it would likely trigger some interesting debates and move on our understanding of sexual coercion and grooming.

82 days since allegations of sexual assault were made against Neil Gaiman, who has yet to respond.

I did not know about this until I came across it here 😰

That's not surprising, the story has been suppressed. Have a look at this:

www.reddit.com/r/neilgaimanuncovered/comments/1fn6iho/generic_disappointing_response_from_bbc/

The BBC needs to be defunded. I expect the new government will be propping it up, though. And vice versa.

The Guardian has reviewed the Tortoise podcast…

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/sep/21/the-week-in-audio-the-wonder-of-stevie-absolute-radio-60s-archive-on-4-master-the-allegations-against-neil-gaiman-review

Reviewed or a very careful statement of facts to confirm said podcast exists? Reads like a car insurance statement rather than a review (as she doesn't appear to have an opinion on it). Disappointed in Miranda but I expect nothing more from The Guardian.

I read it as a careful, fence-sitting, “listen and make up your own mind” kind of review. The reference to encounters turning “flirty/sexual” also seemed to downplay the gravity of things. And the mention of the women being left “socially disoriented”.

This was more than women feeling a bit confused or uncomfortable. A woman doesn’t pass out with pain because a man got a bit flirty and inappropriate with her.

He has links to Scientology. When did you last read a detailed critique of Scientology or reports on what people who have left it say about it? It is a massively rich, massively controlling, very lawyered-up organisation with many decades experience of making bad publicity go away- and mostly of making sure it doesn't surface in the first place.

Even if he hasn't got their direct protection now, he has had a lifetime of seeing how they do it.

I don’t know about anyone else but I wouldn’t call my brand new employer inviting himself into the bath with me and penetrating me digitally as an encounter turning ‘flirty’.

It makes me wonder whether a decision was made at The Guardian that they need on record not particularly informative articles here and there referring to the abuse so they can avoid potential future accusations of burying the story.

A brief and careful 'and finally' 80 days after the podcast came out and tucked away at the end of gushing reviews of Stevie Wonder and Joanna Lumley. Hardly high-profile.

And the contrast in wording between that and the rest of the piece is notable. Not just that's it's clearly been through the legal department, but the snide little jibes.

Consider, for example, the difference between the wording they used "leaving the women (they say now) socially disoriented" and another phrasing that would have been just as legally safe "which the women say left them socially disoriented". The chosen wording emphasises the after-the-fact nature of the claim and casts doubt on it.

Poor show from The Guardian.

I'm not sure what's driving the Guardian on this. I can sort of understand the BBC burying the story because they're still financially invested in him. What hold does he have on the Guardian, other than him being a darling of the paper for years?

But yes, making the occasional coy reference seems to be the new line.

I think it's exactly this.

And haven't they had the prick running writing masterclasses in the past? They're invested and therefore complicit.

Fearless journalism my fucking arse.