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

But "consent" is a human construct. We return to my question about whether humans are animals, or above the animals ? Bearing in mind all human societies are predicated on us not being animals. We hope.

Consent is a human concept in a consciously defined, verbal or intellctual way. But a lot of animals, including some that are not very "advanced" or intelligent, do have a male-female interaction where the female decides whether to accept the male as a mate and he cannot physically force her. Lots of birds, fish, insects, crabs and so on as well as some mammals.

I've wondered about this because I've sometimes pondered if humans have evolved to have males oppressing females, and the male urge to dominate and rape being common, because that contributes to the survival of the species. Aggressive, coercive tendencies in men will tend to result in pregnancies and if there's a genetic element to that it will get passed on.

But then so many other species didn't evolve that way and instead have the female choosing the male with the most appealing qualities. I'm not saying I've drawn any conclusions bout this but it's interesting how many species there are where sex/reproduction can literally only happen if the female consents.

Of course there is also the human element that we try to rise above this as PP noted - we have stigmas, laws, and institutions like marriage and religious teachings to try to counteract "animal" instincts. However I would argue that we don't very successfully rise above it as millions or billions of women are still routinely oppressed, from being harassed, attacked or raped to getting the shit end of the deal financially, domestically, in the workplace etc etc etc. And institutions tend to end up incorporating and promoting sex inequality instead of successfully eliminating it.

@SerendipityJane why are you picking out "consent" in particular?
"Transgression" and "abuse" and even "harm" are all human constructs.
I'm not clear what you're saying and I guess I have a bit of a strong reaction to (what I think is my misinterpretation) worrying the idea of consent or the possibility of consent because "it's all socially constructed" - so why is the idea of consent weaker than every other concept I'm utilising in this paragraph?

We are still emerging (and that in itself is arguable) from a long period where we viewed humans as not having "evolved" but being somehow a distinct part of creation. And it was that belief that was supposed to imbue us with the unique - God given - capacity for good and evil.

With that receding, and us believing ourselves to be just another animal locked in this world of nature red in tooth and claw, how do we view and treat those animal urges which must drive us ?

I don't have an answer. I may not even have a question. But there are much deeper and wider issues around our existence and it's place in a rational universe than I have space in this margin to write. Or, indeed, am equipped to tackle. I can't even get my digital watch to work.

You don't know what I'm saying ?

Do you think I do ?

Oh thanks @SerendipityJane sorry ignore my post I can see what you're saying from your longer reply.
Alot of second wave feminist philosophy really isn't physicalist at all. Mary Daly, definitely not.

Interesting. Humans are animals. Animals with complex social structures which necessitate social constructs.
I suppose the survival of the society or culture of the moment is also part of the evolutionary mix. As long as predators within society can operate in society getting their needs filled at the expense of others without anyone noticing then it's just a function of that society. Assuming that the society doesn't condone it. Well, assuming that the power structures of society don't condone it. No need to hide it if the authorities don't care.
Thank goodness for survivors speaking up. Thank goodness for journalists willing to cover the story in detail and complexity.

Humans are animals.

That isn't a fact that is self evident to some.

Marina Hyde covers the NDA aspect of this on the rest is entertainment podcast. It's worth a listen.

As long as predators within society can operate in society getting their needs filled at the expense of others without anyone noticing then it's just a function of that society.

I also remind myself that predators are very calculating and very clever, even as they cultivate that slightly benign and baffled affect. Oh I seem to have found myself in a bath with the nanny, how enchanting!

Normal people don't go around wanting to transgress boundaries, they feel bad if they do. Predators rely on this and look for any opportunity to exploit it, and are so careful and calculating with timing and when they abuse... most of us aren't looking for those moments as our behaviour doesn't change so dramatically or become criminal depending on who is watching. I'm sure a lot of it is the thrill of getting away with it too.

I know this is obvious but I find myself thinking about it a lot.

I'm a bit think, so I don't understand how NDAs can be used to conceal criminal activity.

In fact, because I am that thick, I don't understand why both parties to an NDA which is being enforced to conceal criminal activity aren't charged with conspiracy.

This made me think of the pivotal scene in Douglas is Cancelled.

I'm a bit think, so I don't understand how NDAs can be used to conceal criminal activity.
In fact, because I am that thick, I don't understand why both parties to an NDA which is being enforced to conceal criminal activity aren't charged with conspiracy.

I think with some NDAs it's because the alleged crime is a grey area with a history of not very good outcomes in court. Celeb doesn't want a bad name or want everyone to hear about how they exploited or abused employee. Employee is low-paid or disadvantaged and would rather have a pot of cash and an NDA than drag celeb through the courts and be likely to lose (in a he said, she said case where the celeb can afford the best lawyers). If the celeb wins and gets off, they officially haven't done anything criminal and employee loses everything.

NDAs being used in this way, but not necessarily in other ways, for example normal commercial usage, is to make people afraid of speaking up. Even if they feel they're in the right, if they breach an NDA they can be persecuted in the courts, potentially for years, and face the risk of possible financial ruin. This adds to the problems they're already having as a result of the abuse and it means that it's just too much for some people to face more pain over.

That was rather my thick point.

Courts should never enforce an NDA that was breached to expose criminal behaviour.

Because otherwise we are saying that a witness can be prevented from testifying to a rape (for example) because that exposes them to civil penalties under an NDA.

But if everyone is happy with that, who am I to disagree ?

Courts should never enforce an NDA that was breached to expose criminal behaviour.

I fully agree.

Shall we sit on the stupid step together ? 😎

Courts should never enforce an NDA that was breached to expose criminal behaviour.

It's not about the courts. If a person who was the subject of an NDA was brave enough and well-financed enough, they'd most likely get the court on their side and the (other) person trying to enforce the NDA would lose.

It's about making people too afraid to do anything that might lead to the courts getting involved even though they might ultimately prevail. The abuse happens without the courts being involved at all.

It's not about the courts. If a person who was the subject of an NDA was brave enough and well-financed enough, they'd most likely get the court on their side and the (other) person trying to enforce the NDA would lose.

Slightly missing the point.

If the NDA breach leads to a criminal conviction then it doesn't need to be defended - it should be invalid in law.

There used to be a legal principle that he courts cannot enforce an illegal contract. So if you hire BillyBigBalls to off your business partner, and they end up merely maiming them, then it shouldn't be possible for the peeved customer to sue Billy in court.

However if that person makes BillyBigBalls sign an NDA and then uses BillyBigBalls gun to off their business partner, BillyBigBalls should not be bound by that NDA when they report the crime.

All a bit garbled maybe - as I said I'm not that bright. However sometimes you can't have one thing without it being another. And courts enforcing NDAs where a crime has been exposed seems close to courts enforcing an illegal contract.

I may need to get my legal knowledge from a new source. My "Perry Mason Book for Boys" is starting to lose the binding.

There's something about that Catherine Bennett article that annoyed me, and I've been trying to puzzle out what it is.

I was thinking of where she goes off on one about other authors who have behaved badly and been forgiven - but I don't think her examples really work. She's talking about John Le Carre and Cormac McCarthy, and what's emerged about them after their deaths.

But - and I'm not defending them - I don't think it's the same.

What we know about Le Carre is that he was a serial adulterer. This wouldn't be a big surprise to anyone who's read his books. Adam Sisman reckons he identified 11 mistresses, and I have reason to think that's a conservative estimate. But unless there's something nasty I'm not aware of, I haven't heard about anything non-consensual. I don't imagine his late wife was thrilled, but that just leaves us with the story of a rich and charming old man shagging any younger woman who was willing, which might be the most boring thing you can say about JLC.

McCarthy is closer to the mark because of his relationship with Augusta Britt - even if Britt, decades later, says it wasn't predatory, I don't think any of us will say that we're fine with a 42 year old man copping off with a 16 year old girl. But I've not heard of this being a pattern of behaviour with McCarthy, unless more examples emerge.

It's also relevant that they both fall into the dad lit category. I've rarely met a JLC fan who is either female or under 40. The teenage goth girls lining up for Gaiman events would probably not have heard of either of them.

As PP have mentioned, SFF fandom is full of young people who have lots of vulnerabilities - autism, mental health issues, just social awkwardness - and who may not be on their guard against dodgy men.

I think there's still an unwillingness to admit that Gaiman is a serious outlier. Not just his pattern of behaviour with multiple young women over decades, but also the whiff of manipulation there's always been about him. The carefully crafted persona, the cultivation of other writers and artists, the white knighting about what a great ally and voice for survivors he was...

...it feels like he was grooming a whole audience which could provide him with a supply of victims, and also grooming the rest of us to be character witnesses for him.

And even those of us who got a creepy vibe from him didn't imagine the reality.

I can see why Catherine Bennett wants to find a pattern and ask why we're treating him differently - but I can't quite decide if she's minimising the case against Gaiman, or making men who were a bit sleazy but not on the Gaiman scale look worse than they really were.

I think there's still an unwillingness to admit that Gaiman is a serious outlier. Not just his pattern of behaviour with multiple young women over decades, but also the whiff of manipulation there's always been about him. The carefully crafted persona, the cultivation of other writers and artists, the white knighting about what a great ally and voice for survivors he was..

I don't generally read fiction let alone Gaiman. I do remember a tribute programme to Terry Pratchett that ended with Gaiman bursting into floods of tears at the loss of his bestest friend. It did seem a bit... Well unusual to see. Refreshing to see emotions from a man. But now with these revelations it reminds me of when Rolf Harris used to burst into tears on Animal Hospital when one or other pet got euthanised.

deleted post

I read a piece Terry Pratchett wrote about the genesis of Good Omens the other day. Pratchett was talking about the-then relatively unknown Gaiman, clearly trying to fit in/ape his idols - and armed with an already bulging contact book the likes of which Pratchett had never seen before.

At the time it was just an observation. In retrospect...

Any chance you could share that? Interested in Pratchett. Thanks.

This is the bit on the BBC - the link to the Gollancz website doesn't work any more, interestingly: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/232gcZQr0vhT4scxmctWxXf/terry-pratchett-on-neil-gaiman