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

Would you like to explain what you think this has to do with a wealthy older author sexually coercing a vulnerable and much younger employee he met a few hours before into painful and degrading sexual activity?

Because I'm sure you can't be saying that a fictional filmed account of a woman having sex with a younger employee makes it ok and normal.

I dunno lovey

doesn’t make it ok for creepy old men to sexually exploit their staff though does it?

Unlike creepy old women eh?
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/babygirl-review-nicole-kidman-1235204315/

ok, 2 things

1. you know films aren’t real life, right?

2. No doubt some women behave badly too (even fictional ones). It doesn’t make behaving badly ok though does it?

The inside of your head must be a confusing place

We're on the last page of thread two, discussing the multiple accusations against NG, showing a pattern of behaviour that can be fairly described as serial predatory sexual abuser.

That's how he will always be remembered now. Not for his art, but for his actions.

Comics Jimmy Savile.

Good! Exactly as he deserves (actually far less than he deserves, but I'm aware he's unlikely to ever see the inside of B wing).

I think Plum is just enjoying a bit of goading. Rational argument is wasted.

Agree.

I find watching someone make a tit of themselves on the internet strangely entertaining sometimes

And the utter absurdity of their interventions does rather underline the complete lack of any mitigation or saving grace in NG's self-described choices and actions, let alone the accusations.

I too feel uncomfortable with cancel culture. But when it cones to rape and sexual assault, the barriers to “following the appropriate route” are so high and so prone to failure (eg the 3% get to court mentioned above).

So yes given these ridiculously high hurdles for the “legitimate” route I completely see why alternative routes like cancellation are there. And on balance I think that is probably necessary.

And such a lot of it about in the last few days it seems. 🤔

The defenders and enablers of abusive and wealthy/powerful and very well protected men like NG do like to humiliate themselves publicly with irrelevancies and weak distraction techniques, and the mask usually slips quickly, as we can see. Mostly, as we've seen, always leading to "she asked for it/women do it too." And yet we know that sexual abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. And in this case it is about what constitutes consent, and highlighting coercive power dynamics by the likes of poor ickle bumbling Englishman Neil, who appears to be remarkably handy with the NDAs and the repeat boundary-violating techniques. Now we find he was "known" as a creeper for years, at least by those attending his events.

Regarding "cancel culture" for abusive men, it's worth pointing out that women have always warned each other of who to watch out for, who is not safe to be around. This happens at all levels, not just the criminal ones. The idea that no woman would ever say anything to another woman about a creep unless they'd been to the police first and established a criminal case is fucking laughable.

Regarding "cancel culture" for abusive men, it's worth pointing out that women have always warned each other of who to watch out for, who is not safe to be around. This happens at all levels, not just the criminal ones.

The acronyms NSIT/NST, for Not Safe In Taxis, was around for most of the 20th century.

Agreed - The idea it’s got to be good enough to stand up in court is a joke, being held to an unrealistically high standard.

EG many victims of Al Fayed went to the police at the time and that wasn’t good enough either.

ah, just a woman hater/MRA then

if you disapprove of fiction then why are you so forgiving of NG doing it in real life?

Obviously women reading fictional (not real) BDSM romance novel fifteen years ago = young woman deserves to be coerced into painful BDSM sex by older male employer

Righty-ho 🙄

EG many victims of Al Fayed went to the police at the time and that wasn’t good enough either.

And Savile.

I just straight up don’t want to work with somebody who exploits and degrades others in the way Gaiman admits he does and I think it’s perfectly fine for people who work with him to feel the same, and where they have a choice to avoid doing so

Yes, and they were terrified of even talking to each other, because he was threatening them and made it clear he was keeping tabs on each of them.

It's only now that they've been able to speak to the others, and get support. Likewise with the women Gaiman targeted. It's pretty powerful when you know it's not just you and there are clear patterns of behaviour emerging, in his case, between decades. There'll have been many more in the interim who haven't spoken up yet.

Do you think we should have a further thread btw?

I would find a further thread useful, in the hopes that Gaiman eventually faces justice (I know, I'm a hopeless optimist!) and in the concern that further allegations may emerge.

Yes, because I don't think the story has run its course.

Agreed.

New thread here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5262655-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault-pt-iii

That's not real, it's a film. Most of us learn that distinction as children.

That's not real, it's a book series. Most of us learn that distinction as children.

There's also a huge difference between fantasising about being hurt, when the fantasiser controls everything that happens in that fantasy and the person doing the hurting is a figment of the fantasiser's imagination, and actually being hurt, where there's another human being involved who actually enjoys hurting others and may not stop when told to. One involves a real, living, sentient person who likes hurting people (and that's a questionable attitude at best, regardless of consent) actually doing so, and the other involves someone having a wank alone.

Where is it written that we all have to keep reading or watching Neil Gaiman’s output? The man himself tweeted once about believe all women, well he would know wouldn’t he?

I’d pipe up on people having their liberties removed on the judgements of the court of public opinion, but plenty of careers involve morality clauses of some kind, and I think those in the public eye need to pay close attention to how squeaky clean a reputation they have. Aggressive NDAs are not what I’m talking about here, simply not being an arsehole is more what I’m aiming at.

Gaiman has admitted to enough to make me not wish to read anymore of his stuff, and I WAS a huge fan. I am allowed to make that personal choice if I wish.

Thanks for the new thread Neil Gaiman Accused Of Sexual Assault Pt III www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5262655-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault-pt-iii @hihelenhi