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

Answered my own question: Yes it was.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/19/who-are-the-men-convicted-over-rape-and-assault-of-gisele-pelicot-

Oh, good to know some of these animals "loved women in all their complexity". or "thought they were playing a game."

Very happy with the fact that the Guardian will be budging up and handing The Observer over to the real journalists.
I plan on subscribing, it will be nice to have a paper paper in the house again.

He did other collaborations, over multiple books with the same person. Stephen Briggs and Steven Baxter are the ones I can think of without googling when I’m supposed to be working. Seems he was happy to repeat the experience, just not with Gaiman.

Oh amazing, I hadn't heard this news. I haven't read the Guardian since they sacked Steve Bell (that was really just the final straw for me) so really pleased to hear this, thank you.

This article came up on my Google feed and was an interesting shift in tone from what I've seen in previous months. I don't know anything about Times of India as a website so don't know their political leaning.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/neil-gaiman-is-what-people-wanted-jk-rowling-to-be/amp_articleshow/117271084.cms

I know Tortoise Media were in the running to take it over. I saw it around the same TM was being dismissed for not being a proper new source....

Interesting. Although they apparently can't count how many accusations there were. But otherwise a good article.

"Rowling has faced years of relentless backlash for her defence of women’s spaces and her belief in the reality of biological sex"

Can you imagine the Guardian ever explaining her stance that way?

I find it particularly amusing in light of the regular TRA cries of 'but the hijra'.

Just heard Radio 4 report the news story as 'Author Neil Gaiman has denied allegations of sexual misconduct...' and then went on to list his many achievements and BBC collaborations 🤢

Oh they are such Gaiman-enablers.

Fucking fuckers.

Fuck Radio four.

I think part of the left has bought totally into “no kink shaming” and “sex work is work” and that doesn’t really work well with condemning coercive exploitative very “rough” sex (if it can’t be proved to be rape/assault as is alleged). I wonder also if NG’s lawyers have been busy and aggressive. I’m not a libel lawyer, but I understand something called the Reynolds defence may require you to put the other side’s stated position fully.

Absolutely! Women must kow tow to men otherwise they are somehow being sex negative. Anything goes because god forbid anybody be thought a prude.

Yes I think it's actually very dangerous, this weird idea that because someone wants or enjoys something then it's mean to them to say they can't do that. The gender movement has played into it a lot by pushing the idea that feelings and wants override fairness and other people being harmed.

It's not just men this applies to, but it's mostly the worst kind of pervy men who benefit from it and who push "kink" from being a private thing between consenting adults into a public display that it's now "bigoted" to find unacceptable, or an attitude like what NG seems to have, that if he wants something sexually he should get it, for the simple reason that it's a turn-on for him and therefore fine to demand or enforce it.

It also fits perfectly with the TRA attitude that women exist to validate men's feelings (e.g. access to women's spaces to enable feeling "like a woman"). Gaiman is a man, so those women exist to validate his feelings and that is seen as mitigation for how he treated them. JKR is a woman, so she has no mitigation for her behaviour and must be condemned for speaking out against the culture of women being used to validate men.

I actually thought that the Guardian article linked previously also had very pro-Gaiman energy.

Although the article was factually correct, I felt as if it minimised the allegations. It also felt that it was heavy with phrases such as “not always consented to beforehand” and “said that they felt coerced”.

The implication of course is that they had consented at other times and he’s just a naughty boy who forgot to ask every time but hey, what do you expect with these kinky, BDSM relationships eh?

Also, the phrasing around they “said” the felt coerced, rather than simply “they were coerced” is revealing. Women making wild allegations about what they claimed happened….well, it’s only their word, no proof….right?

Many, many column inches in the article to Gaiman’s emphatic denial that he would NEVER have non-consensual sex. Heaven forbid. And use of phrases like “strongly” denied etc.

Its all such a weakly worded article that seeks to underplay what he did while simultaneously emphasising how strongly the claims are being refuted.

The reporting shouldn’t say things like “not always consented” and “pressured into sex”. There’s no need for any of that and it muddies the waters.

All that needs to be said that the allegations are that Gaiman coerced women in a vulnerable position to have sex, and committed sexual assault - which is what it is when you don’t get consent. No need to reference that at other times they may have given consent because 1) it’s doubtful that they were ever truly able to give free consent and 2) it’s irrelevant. If I am raped, it is irrelevant whether I’ve had consensual sex with that person before!

Such a flimsy article that really diminishes what happened. Not a surprise though. Same shit everywhere.

I agree re Guardian article. @SpidersAreShitheads To extensively quote him and then link to his full statement, yet they don't link to the NY article. No mention of the claim that AP knew of 14 others. It reads like a press release written by NG.

I don't think it is factually accurate. The Tortoise podcast contained more than two women's accounts. Can't recall how many now - was it six? That Guardian article explains the Times of India using that figure too. They must have lifted it.

Shoddy reporting all round.

yet they don't link to the NY article.

I bet they don't.

All that needs to be said that the allegations are that Gaiman coerced women in a vulnerable position to have sex, and committed sexual assault - which is what it is when you don’t get consent. No need to reference that at other times they may have given consent because 1) it’s doubtful that they were ever truly able to give free consent and 2) it’s irrelevant. If I am raped, it is irrelevant whether I’ve had consensual sex with that person before!

This. The Guardian should be aware of the concept of sexual consent within a "relationship". They obviously didn't take much care to understand.

In July, a podcast investigation by Tortoise mediaa^ reported allegations by two women of sexual assault against Gaiman.

...

The magazine interviewed eight women, six on the record, including four women who participated in the Tortoise podcast series.

So they contradict themselves.

The Guardian has hosted paid writing masterclasses with Gaiman before.

They've plenty of previous for being utterly shit on women's issues without needing to go all tinfoil hat, but there is a business relationship there, too

The author is a culture editor from the Australian Guardian and the article is buried in the books section. It isn't in their top articles today which is unusual.