Here's a question for you @YourAmplePlumPoster:
In the UK, only 3% of reported rapes get prosecuted. And of those 3%, the conviction rate is around 62%.
Do you believe that all of the allegations of rape that weren't prosecuted are false? And the ones that didn't result in a conviction - were they false too?
Is your only measure a conviction of culpability in court?
I do actually understand your reluctance to convict someone by social media. I think fairness is important, and I previously thought about this issue myself.
But when there's a situation where a rich and powerful man has clearly used his position to have sex with women in vulnerable positions, and where those women all have similar stories, I think there's enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion. He hasn't denied exploiting those women and he's admitted that he "needs to do work". Even if you personally don't feel it meets the threshold for rape, surely you can see that it's sexual coercion and predatory behaviour (at the very least)?
Also, a person doesn't need to have committed a crime for them to be cancelled. Acting in a morally repugnant way is sufficient grounds, imo. And there is no dispute whatsoever, including from Gaiman himself, that he engaged in sexual relations with women who were vulnerable in a variety of ways. That's dreadful, immoral, exploitative behaviour from someone who set himself up as a feminist ally.
He's welcome to sue if the allegations are false. His very prolonged silence and the absence of any legal actions speaks volumes.
Someone previously (apologies, I can't remember your name) talked about these women not being the "perfect victims" and I think there's absolute truth in that. You're holding them culpable for a man's deviant sexual behaviour because they acted in a way that you don't think is right for a victim.
This case has given me lots of pause for thought. About what coercive control really means, how it manifests, and the limit of responsibilities. It's difficult and there are many grey areas. The only thing that is crystal clear is that regardless of anything else, Gaiman should not have been exploiting his position and having sex with those women.
Personally I believe it's much more than that and that Gaiman is a depraved, abusive rapist of a man, and that's based on the similarities in the stories of 10 separate women who never freely consented to what he did.
But at the very, very least, I think he deserves to be completely ostracized for the facts that are admitted and aren't in dispute.
For the rest, he deserves prison but I doubt that will ever happen because "3%".