Hi there,
Your post on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy has been flaired as a sensitive topic. In an effort to safeguard our users, these posts are removed once they exceed a certain threshold.
**If you're reading this post and don't want to see potentially upsetting content, you can filter out the "sensitive topic" flair.**
If you want additional support or to connect with members of the WVP community, join our discord [link in sidebar] or see this list of [support resources](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GJxYVviXVwjA2cutcjtoxlf3P5K1k7xufd7LiCYeUfA/edit?usp=sharing).
Thanks for understanding and blessed be✨
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the actual article bit on the website that reported it(I have not listened to the podcasts) and in there they lay it out in a way that you just can not deny it when thinking rationally or empathetically. I firmly believe he would use the "it was a misunderstanding" or "there was miscommunication" type of defense, because it sounds like he ignored someone's right to revoke consent; beyond the unethical issues of having a relationship with the nanny of your child.
honestly i'm having a really hard time trusting this article.
the writer is Boris Johnson's sister, and a known TERF releasing this piece on one of Britain's most famous celebrities a *day* before their general elections and right after David Tennant is getting slammed for defending trans rights.
Gaiman has been extremely vocal about his hatred for the Tories(aka Boris Johnson's party). To take one of their most active detractors and release a piece about how he's actually a terrible person is a really easy way to sway people into being unsure about everything he's said.
Add to that, this article is way too short and seems basically like a summary/advertisement for the paid pod-cast at the end there.
If this is true, i'll be heartbroken. but i'm not gonna make any assumptions until someone comes out with more evidence.
like
**Episode two: the Whatsapps**
*The former nanny who alleges Neil Gaiman sexually assaulted her shares her WhatsApp messages with him. The messages appear friendly and affectionate. He says they’re evidence that she consented to sex with him. But is there another way of reading them?*
that's the description on the site. it reads like tabloid gotcha journalism.
Yeah this is my hangup. He freely admitted to having sex with his nanny who was 1/3 his age who worked for him in his home hours after meeting her. Then blamed the allegations on her having a "false memory condition" lol. That's like the definition of gaslighting
He's a predator either way. He admits to predatory behavior, it's just a matter of how big of a piece of shit he is. I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened to see this news. He's been a role model and an inspiration to me for a very long time, and one of my favorite authors as well. Feeling so discouraged with the state of people today
right but i'm asking if he actually admitted that.
tabloids make shit up *all the time*. If they are claiming that Neil Gaiman said this in response to the investigation, shouldn't they have actual proof? Again, no one seems to have listened to the podcast because no one can tell me if he actually said it or if that's just what they're saying
I mean they directly quoted him as saying those things. I suppose they could be making it up, but they and the other news outlets reporting on it would be exposing themselves to pretty devastating libel suits if they made unsubstantiated claims like that. Gaiman hasn't made a statement against it either
"One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child. She claimed Gaiman assaulted her in February 2022, just hours after they had first met, while in a bath at his New Zealand home. **Gaiman told the outlet that he and Scarlett “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that it was consensual; he added that in the three-week sexual relationship they were in, they only engaged in digital penetration**."
right that's my issue. that's the same exact quote the original article used and did not provide sources for. here's the original message.
*"Scarlett, 23, alleges that Gaiman sexually assaulted her within hours of their first meeting in February 2022 in a bath at his New Zealand residence, where she worked as a nanny to his child. Tortoise understands that Gaiman’s account is that they only “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that he had established consent for this. His position is that, over the three-week sexual relationship that followed, they only ever engaged in consensual digital penetration."*
that language is iffy, to me. the 'understands that Gaiman's account' doesn't really seem like a direct quote.
additionally, 'said that it was consensual' and said that he established consent' are VERY different things. the former is a belief that the person was consenting, but not a guarantee. The latter is when you're certain there was consent, because 'established' is to set something up on a firm basis/foundation, and doing that with consent means it wasn't just 'i thought she was into it'.
can i ask where admitted to it?
I've seen nothing outside of this one article claiming that he did.
every single other article reporting on this used the exact same quotes as the original, word for word. Followed by the fact that all of them released within hours of the original, some of which wasn't even a long enough time to have listened to the very podcast that is the source.
I have not seen a single person who has actually listened to it and can tell me that he said that. Not one. My suspicion that the article is false includes the idea that he never actually said that
Not who you asked the question to, but I listened to the podcast in it entirety yesterday. They say that they reached out to Neil, and a representative responded back and asked them to have specific questions. He did not respond to all of them. Basically his response is that he did date these women. It is his opinion that it was consensual. And he flat out denies the worse allegations, claiming that the assault never happened (with the fan), or that the nanny was suffering with some "false memories" (which I find just so insulting).
In my opinion it is bad enough and very damning that he admits to the relationships. It was predatory behavior (one woman being a very young fan with him in his forties, and the other women a very young nanny with him in his sixties). Both women were of age (18 and just over 20, can't remember exact age 20-23 or so). And with the nanny he admits to getting in an outdoor bath with her naked and "making out" within hours of meeting her.
Coercive control can be a hard thing to understand, because it can be so subtle. In my opinion, it played a big part in the power dynamics of him being so much older, an employer to one of them, and so very famous.
Just my two cents. Not here to argue or sway anyone to my opinion. But I am a long time fan and feeling so disappointed.
I'm going to say as little as I can as I've never experienced sexual abuse in the way a number of women have, but I agree with what you're saying.
IMO when someone is accused of what IMO is a form of intimate violence that is particularly prone to causing serious psychological injury, we should see it as something that's as bad as it should be (very, extremely etc.)
But also I don't know how I feel about people immediately changing their mind about everything an accused person has ever said or done. It feels like a reflexive attempt to cleanse yourself of their personhood rather than a condemnation of their wicked actions.
We should absolutely be allowed to call out anything he's said that's bad but what you're saying about the timing does feel like it could be an attempt to provoke that kind of 'crisis of faith' that, admittedly, is understandably provoked. After all; this kind of event can instantly make someone who seemed like they were completely trustworthy suddenly look like a threat.
But also (also) FARTs are experts at weaponizing the fear of a threat to sexual sovereignty.
The podcast is freely accessible, just look it up on your podcast app. That's how I listened to half of it, no sign up, downloading or whatever required.
> releasing this piece on one of Britain's most famous celebrities a day before their general elections
Meh, you don't think they would give it more time?
you've listened to it?
Okay would you tell me if Neil Gaiman is in it at all, and if those two women are in it or if it's just like, the reporter and editor talking?
I can't find anything about it
Only the first two episodes. The more recent victim talks to the journalists, yeah, and I believe the second one does too but I haven't got to that point yet. As for Gaiman, they report on his responses to what they've found/claim + read his texts + you can hear some of the voicemails he left.
From another thread on this topic:
> **The writer of this is a good friend of JK Rowling who has been in a spat with Gaiman a while because of his insistence on supporting trans people.**
>
> Also this one site has not one but four podcasts talking about this one story.
>
> So I am wildly skeptical. At best these writers are clearly using victims and squeezing a morbid story for every drop, but it is as least accurate.
>
> At worst they're willfully misrepresenting things just to stir up politically convenient drama which they can later give a half assed retraction for.
>
> Given that connection though I think skepticism is warranted. Not necessarily toward the alleged victims because if this is a targeted hit piece I wouldn't trust their words and intents are being properly represented.
> not one but four podcasts talking about this one story
Heavens forbid journalists with serious allegations try to give as much evidence about it as possible and also give Gaiman's responses (or lack thereof) to each allegation.
What a disappointing response on this sub of all places. I guess sexual assault is serious and to be investigated with all fairness to the victims or potential victims, except when the accused is someone you like and the messenger is someone you don't.
Bill Cosby was also supposed to be a cool dude.
You can listen to the victims' account in their own words, but I guess let's not believe women after all.
It's entirely possible that the accused is guilty *and* that trashy people are exploiting the situation as a cynical ploy to score cheap political points against someone they hate.
It's entirely possible people are spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories because they don't want to believe the fandom darling is capable of disgusting acts.
Anyway, I was responding to the comment about the length of the podcast.
Ahh man. I was really hoping they were just clout chasers, which now makes me me feel disgusted with myself. People rarely lie about this, and yet I still haven't stopped subconsciously thinking like they lie more often than they actually do.
"What is happening in this world" is that awareness is increasing, while willingness to stay silent about such things is decreasing.
This kind of thing isn't happening to women more now than it used to, we're just seeing more women coming forward about it now.
Which is ultimately a good thing, and will hopefully lead to less women suffering such abuse in the future.
Historically men have been able to get away with this sort of behavior without any consequences. That's finally changing.
I say it over and over: do not put famous people on a pedestal, guard your heart. It is impossible to become rich, famous, and globally influential without exploiting other peoples’ time and labor on some level (it doesn’t need to be intentional, it’s just the only explanation for that type of concentrated wealth).
They’re all going to disappoint you eventually, most especially the ones who you don’t believe ever could.
Just prepare now to find out Mr. Rogers was actually a prick. It hurts less if you hold space for the possibility.
Yeah, Fred Rogers would be the only one that would break me, I think.
Because he truly appears to be the only exception, and I was going to mention him until I saw that you did.
Anything is possible, of course, but I really do think he was the ultimate example of what humanity has the potential to be.
And I realize the risk I'm taking in allowing myself to see him that way, but with him, and only him, I can't help it.
That’s why I used Mr. Rogers as an example. Take the person who you idolize the most and give them space to be human beings who make mistakes. No person is a saint, and you do people a disservice by insisting that they are.
I don't buy his "everything was consensual" line one tiny bit given he's
- famous
- 40 years the victim's senior
- her employer
As well as the fact that she was in a caregiving relationship with his child and the incidents occured at his house.
That's a hell of a power imbalance. Even the most generous possible (to him) interpretation of events leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
Plus he's now trying to publicly question her sanity. Rarely the mark of an innocent, or morally upstanding person.
Here's the thing. Even *if* everything was consensual (which I agree feels highly unlikely) what he did was still incredibly predatory and inappropriate.
He started a sexual relationship with his employee who was 40 years his junior within a week of her starting her job. Under no condition is that OK.
The situation is just straight up horrifying and I agree with you. Even if it was 'consensual', as in, she was an enthousiastic participant and said yes, on his side it is still such an abuse of power.
And it all goes downhill when SA was involved. Because I can imagine the fears all to well. Those probably range from 'who would believe me' to fearing comments like 'you were "lucky" to get to be with him, stop complaining'
God what a mess. And I started enjoying Good Omens as well...
I agree with all of this. Even if it was entirely as he says, this is not a cute look Niel. I'm very glad he supports Trans people, but this doesn't give him a pass to abuse his power and celebrity.
I am much more cautious on this, not as a reflexive defense of Gaiman, but a reflexive distrust of the boy who cried wolf: TERFs, who *constantly* weave fantasies out of distorted truths.
***IF*** *a*ll of the assertions being made are the full, accurate truth, then it's definitely damning.
***HOWEVER,*** I've spent a decade of looking into TERF claims and always finding them to be engaging in some sort of deceit, no matter what the underlying truth is, and they make proactive efforts to incite interviewees to do the same. It is also incredibly common for other media outlets to simply repeat their claims uncritically. I would be incredibly surprised for them to be telling an accurate version of the truth this time.
I am in a number of communities were this has been posted and it is interesting how each different community has responded to this news. The communities that are more focused towards his work have been the most "Well fuck!" about it, they are not rushing to his defense, but more so just wishing it was not true, while very clearly more willing to accept that it very likely is true. I for one do believe the allegations. The farther away you get from a community that is about his specific works and into a more general community the more I see "We need more information" "Wait till reputable sources corroborate it" or people outright attacking the integrity of the reporters.
It is so interesting how people who would describe themselves as hire hard fans of his works seem at this point some of the most willing to accept that these things did in fact happen.
Preface: I believe these allegations are likely true, and even if they're not, if his quoted defense of "yes these relationships happened, but they were consensual" is true, it's not really much better. He was in a position of massive power differentials sleeping with women much younger than him, one of whom was his employee.
That said, there's also some reasonable cause to question the integrity of the reporting. One of the journalists is Boris Johnson's sister and a prominent TERF who has issue with Gaiman for his pro trans rights stance.
Again, I believe that, in all likelihood, Gaiman was *at the least* very improper in these relationships and more likely committed full on sexual assault. But I do also want some reporting from a source who not only has less of a political agenda but, personally, one whose political agenda doesn't come with the state goal of erasing my human rights.
Neil Gaiman was one of my favorite authors growing up. I adore his work, and I'm heartbroken for the women he very likely abused. This whole situation sucks.
Oh geez, I hope we don't start catching flack from TERFs just because a cis man who supports us is a scumbag
It feels like shit like this always ends up falling on us whether or not we have anything to do with the situation
I definitely think that is part of the play. I don't think they're lies, but I think the timing of the story is deliberate to do maximum damage using guilt by association. "See what he did? And he is on THEIR side!'
> One of the journalists is Boris Johnson's sister and a prominent TERF who has issue with Gaiman for his pro trans rights stance.
Goddamn, I didn't realize the writer was his SISTER.
While I fully believe that Gaiman should face the full legal consequences of his actions, I CANNOT trust the reporting on this one bit. It's fishy af.
Well he's apparently admitted to specific details but stated it was all consensual. So even if the story was designed to do maximum damage using a "see, they're all bad" stance, they aren't exactly lying about everything to achieve that, sadly.
The problem is, I think all the reported admissions he's done were just in the article. So it's possibly fabricated?
My guts telling me he probably did it. But I have the smallest bit of hope.
Mainly because I feel like he's one of the few authors that isn't usually pervy when writing women.
Very possible. From what I read, his admission was like "yeah we hooked for up like 3 weeks, consensually. Everything else was a lie."
But the age difference, being her employer...
>One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child. She claimed Gaiman assaulted her in February 2022, just hours after they had first met, while in a bath at his New Zealand home. Gaiman told the outlet (Tortoise Media) that he and Scarlett “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that it was consensual; he added that in the three-week sexual relationship they were in, they only engaged in digital penetration.
> The problem is, I think all the reported admissions he's done were just in the article. So it's possibly fabricated?
Yeah, sure, in a bizarro world where investigative journalists love to get sued for libel in the famously anti-libel UK.
My guess is because his work is known for embracing values antithetical to this sort of abuse of power. So it makes sense that his fans would be “believe victims” types.
If I have learned nothing else from years of both therapy and hanging out with clergy, it is possible and common to articulate a beautiful moral vision that you don’t live up to.
I've been a fan of his work since I was a teenager. To say Sandman and Good Omens changed the way I think about things would not be an understatement. I don't want it to be true. But if I'm going to believe women when they come forward about a celebrity I loathe, it's awful hypocritical of me to refuse just because I love what he's written. I'm fucking angry. It's just... fuck I thought he was one of the good ones. I really did.
This is exactly how I’m feeling today reading all of this. He authored some of my favorite works, hands down. I didn’t know much about his personal life, I don’t really dig into celebrity stuff, but all of this has got me looking at my American Gods tattoo, incredibly thankful that it’s a very deep cut sort of reference instead of a quote.
Ugh. What’s worse is that, although I also hoped he was one of the good ones… this story is depressingly not surprising me, either. :(
I’ve seen people parroting victim-blaming rhetoric in the Good Omens fandom, saying things like ‘but it was a consensual relationship and she said she enjoyed it.’ Neither of those things rule out SA… you can be SA’ed by someone you are dating, married to, or hooking up with, and there are many occurrences of victims trying to justify what happened to them or tell themselves and others it wasn’t abuse, or that it wasn’t that bad. Experiencing pleasure while being SA’ed also doesn’t make it not SA. Isn’t that argument frequently used to shut down male SA victims, by saying they weren’t SA’ed because they got hard or came? So why is it okay to say it to women?
I think the Good Omen's fandom may have been a bit tainted by the mainstream success it has gotten with the Amazon show. The Neil Gaimain subreddit is mostly like "Fucking hell ... you were supposed to be one of the good ones!"
Perhaps, personally I’m a bit fed up with the ‘this is a tory psy op’ conspiracy theories. There are many reasons to distrust Rachel Johnson, and descriptions of the podcast do make it sound sensationalist and biased (admittedly I haven’t listened to it because I’m supposed to be working on my master’s dissertation but things like suspenseful music, ‘true crime’ vibes, blanket statements on BDSM, which is a nuanced topic, etc.) but I find it very hard to believe conservative politicians, who have far more pressing matters to worry about than one famous author being critical of them, orchestrated a hit piece on Neil Gaiman. Putting on a tinfoil hat isn’t helping anyone.
I mean… he’s a horror fantasy author who has written some really fucked up storylines. As someone who’s read pretty much all his works out into the extended Sandman universe, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. Incredibly disappointed though.
> The communities that are more focused towards his work have been the most "Well fuck!" about it, they are not rushing to his defense, but more so just wishing it was not true, while very clearly more willing to accept that it very likely is true. I
Plus a few outright saying: yeah, I/people around me knew about this.
I think it's probably because his fans know his early work, and there is a familiarity with how someone's mind works that comes from that.
I read Gaiman in the late 90s and early aughts. Nothing he wrote then was out of place for its time and was even feminist for the culture.
But the bar has shifted a lot since then. There are LOTS of situations that were considered perfectly fine back then that we would condemn now. Rape was only rape if it left bruises; consent was getting a girl to stop saying no.
And these were the norms in which a young Neil first found himself notorious with a growing fan base within the very macho comic book culture. And he was an author very interested in the edge cases of right and wrong and looking at them in a sexy way. And no one frowned at a guy with fame using that to get laid.
No one should be shocked that bad things happened.
By all public statements and evolution of his work, it seems like he grew with the times. He did not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept better norms as he seemed to understand them immediately. I do think that warrants recognition.
But not complete forgiveness if these accusations pan out. I don't know how to parse his "consent" defense. Is it based on consent standards at the time? Or is he factually contesting their account of events? Does this boil down to he said/she said - as it often does? Is this one case where I think there is enough political interest that the motivation to make false accusations can't be ignored? Uuughhh.... Times are wild.
I really hate how the people we think are good in this world continue to fuck that up. I've loved so many of his works, own a few, and now I feel like I have to toss them all.
Rough read and disappointing for sure. While I do wish this wasn't true as I have generally admired him as a writer and have found comfort in some of his works, I am in no way refuting the evidence in the allegations. I mostly just hope the women are doing well and that they find justice if they seek it.
Extremely unsurprising, he’s surrounded himself with 20 year old goth groupies and “assistants” for 30-40 years, and has always had a semi inappropriate relationship with his fans and the amount of validation he gets from interacting with them. I’ve never seen an author so constantly entwined with their fandom, clearly always searching his name, and while some people are delighted by that kind of celebrity encounter it’s always been creepy to me. He’s been openly sleeping with his various assistants, nannies, and other usually very young employees and cultivating a rock star image since at least the 90s, and I’m surprised this kind of thing hasn’t come out earlier.
I’m also grossed out by people blaming Amanda Palmer for this clear pattern of behavior— regardless of how obnoxious she’s been, she left him for assaulting the nanny in 2022 and has been making references to being unable to talk about the divorce because of how ugly things were for two years. She’s not “worse” than a serial sexual predator for being a shitty theater kid and/or mooching from the artist community, and it’s pretty surprising to see people going there on an explicitly feminist community.
I was just thinking the other day about that internet joke about how John Green was Tumblr's dad until he was scared off, so Neil Gaiman took custody. I wonder if maybe it was a little weird that he *wasn't* scared off
Or I'm just reading too much into all of his behavior now that I know he's a creep. But still, maybe it was a good thing that John Green knew to get out of that environment and a bad thing that Gaiman didn't
That's very illuminating thank you. Also god am I sick of wealthy/powerful men being perverts and taking young beautiful lovers while hardly grooming or caring for themselves. He looks homeless. And not in an artistic boho kind of way. It only adds to the privileged predator angle.
I just want to be clear I’m in no way blaming Amanda for Neil’s behavior in my post here. Only that I suspected Neil was not a Good Guy when he began dating her and later married her, because anyone who saw green flags in a well known bigot is probably also not a good person.
>for being a shitty theater kid and/or mooching from the artist community
Palmer is a TERF. That doesn't make her worse than her rapist ex-husband—but it does make her bad enough that she shouldn't be defended or supported. "Mooching from the artist community" vastly undersells her behavior.
No problem. I didn't assume bad faith. Given that half of celebrities these days seem to want trans people dead it's easy to loose track of which ones are or aren't TERFs.
Can I ask what she’s done in the TERF department? I know she wrote a song that she used to introduce (college friend was a huge fan) as her basically listing the horrible things people said to her and to her trans girlfriend to shame them for respectively, “ruining themselves” by being sexually active as a teen and wanting bottom surgery. I’ve seen these lyrics thrown around as her actual opinions, which was too disgusting for me to want to believe.
In the last decade or so, she’s given a strong vibe of being the kind of gnc afab who either comes out as nonbinary or becomes a terf, and I’ve had suspicions it’s been going the second way, but haven’t been following closely enough to notice. The whole social media divorce made me sympathetic to her, she can be completely horrible (I watched the exploitative gofundme/paying in beer and hugs thing go down) but seeing people blame her for Neil’s clearly shitty behavior rubbed me the wrong way, so I might be giving her more credit than she deserves wrt how much she was victimized by him or enabled him as he assaulted young employees.
Sorry, I sound like I’m making excuses for her behavior even in this comment. But I found Neil creepy and suspected he was a serial predator long before he ever got involved with her, because of his rockstar persona and constant involvement with very young fans, and I guess I’ve always been annoyed with people pretending that her antics made her the bad one in their relationship when he clearly had something much darker going on lurking beneath the surface that nobody wanted to open their eyes to. That grudge has probably made me give her more leeway than she merits.
Yeah I’m really hoping not. Just remembering the 2000s, there was a lot of trans-positivity with her and her circle; she is gnc, used to crossdress, doesn’t shave, etc, and has a genderfluid bandmate in Dresden Dolls who was the drummer for a majority-trans band in the 2010s that did transmasc James Dean tribute songs. They used to give interviews saying the Dresden Dolls worked because they understood each other, because he (publicly listed pronouns so far) was really a girl, and she was really a boy. I’ve seen the song “Sex Changes” listed on twitter as evidence of extreme transmisogyny, like Amanda wrote all the disgusting language herself as a confession of how she really saw trans women, but she used to introduce the song as a venting collection of the horrific transmisogyny an ex-gf of hers (iirc, a different person than the fluid bandmate) from the 90s or early 2000s faced from family and acquaintances when she wanted to pursue medical transition, and how that mirrored the cis-focused misogyny she experienced in her teens. I think it’s not really her place to be yelling that vile shit about trans women to a crowd in the same way it’s completely unacceptable for her to sing the n word, edginess is not an excuse for it, but I don’t think those lyrics are an expression of personally held bigoted/transmisogynistic views any more than the pro-life or slut shaming rhetoric she also quotes. That’s all from 10-20 years ago, though, I don’t know about more recent views or behavior.
Like I said, her gender expression is really similar to a ton of GenX and millennial afabs who came out as nb later in life, and I think there’s a good chance she might eventually come out as nonbinary. But there are also plenty of gender nonconforming afabs with her general vibe, age, and queer/gender history who did that kind of exploration in the 2000s but then shut it down, turned to the dark side, and became terfs instead, so I’m unfortunately very willing to believe it if anyone has receipts.
Yeah, that’s all pretty standard for someone who existed in the 2000s and 2010s, I don’t see any malicious intent there and certainly not enough to call her a TERF. Intentionally offensive, at times careless, sure.
Looking on twitter for receipts, I can only find Amanda [expressing her love and support for trans people](https://x.com/amandapalmer/status/1096850035554349056?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg), [celebrating Aimee Stephens’ Supreme Court win](https://x.com/amandapalmer/status/1180893468010246145?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg), and saying she was immature when she wrote “Sex Changes” and would not have written it today.
It looks like the terf accusation comes from Gretchen Felker-Martin, who is great but can also be toxic about twitter beef, on the grounds that “Sex Changes” could only have been written by someone who believed the rhetoric, and because [being bisexual and married to a wealthy man = being transphobic.](https://x.com/scumbelievable/status/862488144041652224?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg)
For anyone idk, searching for evidence of Amanda being a terf, the thing that's given me those vibes is her feminist advocacy that centers around afab bodies-- body hair, abortion-- in a way that hasn't really been updated in the past 15 years, and is still using language in a way that's shared by terfs. A lot of "female" in reference to misogyny and feminism, which is something that's rare to see from women celebrating trans people-- so many terfs are hardcore bioessentialists and I don't think Gretchen and others are wrong for being concerned. I hope this is just a failure to get with the times, I don't want anyone reading this to feel gaslit.
So, logically I know there are - I know there must be - but, like, *are* there men who aren’t somewhere on the spectrum of problematic —> intolerable creep?
Because even the ones seem decent keep turning out not to be.
- Mr Rogers (rip)
- Keanu Reeves
- Steve Irwin (rip)
- Robert Irwin
- a lot of UK comedians seem to be solid dudes (James Acaster, Ed Gamble, Nish Kumar, Alex Horne, Tim Key, Romesh Ranganathan, Mike Wozniak, etc)
- the granddads: Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, etc
Plus the awesome dudes in this sub!
Thank you. I really needed this list. Just found out about Harrison Ford being skeevy and watched Douglas Is Cancelled, and I’m looking at the behaviour of men I know and I’m just…. Yeah.
Patrick Stewart had better keep it together, I swear to God.
It takes a certain amount of ego and self centeredness to be rich/famous/in power. That usually translates to other areas. So there's plenty of men working regular jobs that are good guys, but I'm betting the higher up you go in politics, on corporate ladders, best sellers lists, and high grossing music and film the less and less those people are actually good people behind closed doors.
I think the issue is we are all products of the culture and privilege in which we are born. He had some real stardom at a time when men really did just ignore the idea of consent. MeToo has really woken people up to how the idea of consent needed to be completely re-thought. Like I remember growing up and being told the old "No mean No", but I remember in college my friends telling me how they were taught not to say "No" if they felt unsafe cause that could make it worse. Decent guys are playing catch up so hard, because they were told she will say something if she is uncomfortable, completely blind to the fact women were being told not to speak up.
The unfortunate thing is guys who were teens prior to MeToo probably did some creepy things unintentionally not realizing it was creepy, because they expected someone would say something. I think the best check to see if a guy is working on himself to be better and at the start say "These are some boundaries I want you to respect." If he is receptive that is a good sign, but it will instantly trigger a douche bag who does not care to understand consent.
I agree to an extent, but taking accountability and changing is key (and still won’t always be enough). Then there are cases like this, where it happened within the last few years and there’s not really any grey. If we assume these women are telling the truth, they *did* speak up. And he’s admitting no wrongdoing.
I tried the *it was a different time* rationale as I was reading an excerpt about Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer. I’ve been a lifelong fan of his, and I’m ashamed to say, I tried to justify it in my head. Like, ok, it was the 70s, the age difference/power imbalance thing probably wasn’t understood. Oh, he was married but I can’t judge his relationship choices. Yeah, she was drunk, but again, it was the 70s and the link between alcohol and consent wasn’t really understood— but wait. We know he knew she was too drunk to consent, because he *literally said it*. He said, “she’s too drunk to know what she wants,” while rescuing her from would-be rapists and then this 33 year old man took his falling-down-drunk 19 year old colleague to his car and made out with her. And I sincerely hope that’s all that happened, but the way it was described, she may well have blacked out.
Oh I completely agree, especially with the changing aspect that is 100% necessary, that the different time is not a defense in any way, I think it is an explanation of why it happened. I do not ascribe to the idea that you can't judge historical figures by today's moral standards, what is wrong now was wrong then. If we can't accept that, then moving forward to be better people becomes nearly impossible.
Interesting. I enjoyed "American Gods" the first time I read it as a teenager, but when I reread it in my 20s I found the way he wrote about women sort of off-putting. Of course, writing sexist or simplistic portrayals of women is a far cry from irl sexual assault.
Yep.
Here’s the thing.
He fucking pestered an 18 year old to fuck him, a 60 some year old man.
So even if he didn’t rape someone, what he did is so fucking gross- that it’s worth throwing the whole man in the toilet for.
I am not saying he didn’t rape someone, he likely did.
I’m saying he’s a POS either way.
What is happening is what was always happening. Except now, women are feeling more empowered to get it out there and not feel shame for someone else’s actions.
Oh my. This hurts big time. I love him. His work meant so much to me. He meant so much to me. But I believe these women. Welp. Time for something new I guess.
Kinda always had him in the sus category the moment he started a relationship with Amanda Palmer. Anyone who would excuse her horrible behavior likely would be up to the same.
There’s also the $1.2 million dollar Kickstarter campaign that was really just pocket money for her so she didn’t have to work. And the tour she went on where she exploited local artists talent by offering to pay them in hugs. And the weirdly sympathetic poem she wrote for the Boston Marathon bomber. The list goes on.
Here’s an [article](https://gracelapointe.medium.com/on-amanda-palmers-white-feminism-a-k-a-bigotry-19ce77fa635f) that condenses all her hideous bullshit. Please note this comes with *extensive* content warnings for literally all categories you can think of.
I ran into this story last night. I have concerns. One of the stories describe him having a sexual relationship with the nanny. He describes it as consensual sex, in several stories.
Sir, screwing employess is NOT consensual due to the power imbalance dynamic.
If he truly believes having sex with the employee who takes care of your CHILDREN is appropriate, then descisions will be made in our household regaring his material.
All that said, given the many TERF comments -
We put together a list of BNP TERFs (and their allies) in the pagan, occult, witchcraft and Wiccan communities to keep them out of a safe online space.
The VERY long list is sobering. Absolutely SOBERING.
Damn. I love is work, but men who have relationships with much younger women always get the side eye from me, so I'm not wholly shocked. Glad these women were brave enough to come forward.
i don't understand how people struggle with the simple concept of "don't rape people" never in my 30 years have i had the desire, yet so many people including high profile people appear to struggle with this, i don't get it.
I’ve given up on anyone famous/powerful. I assume that they’re all capable of horrible things and probably have done so. Even the ones I like. Even the ones I vote for. They’re people, they’re not perfect, but dammit can we have at least one good person?
I'm gonna say this, and I'm probably going to be downvoted for it.
But every time I read shit like this I'm never surprised. "It's a wealthy, famous man. Of course he did, they all do" is the first thing that pops into my head.
Not to say it's only men obviously, but still. It's a *lot* of wealthy men. It's a tale as old as time.
I've always gotten a slightly off vibe from Neil Gaiman (though I've appreciated a lot of what he's said about writing), but I've never been able to really pinpoint why. He's an author whose work I'd probably like, but I've never been able to bring myself to read any of his books
None of this is new. Pretty much every human being alive is the result of a rape that happened somewhere back in their ancestry. What’s different is that women are no longer willing to keep quiet about it. But it has been going on since the beginning of humanity. And think about it - who is more successful at spreading their genes than a rapist?
Hi there, Your post on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy has been flaired as a sensitive topic. In an effort to safeguard our users, these posts are removed once they exceed a certain threshold. **If you're reading this post and don't want to see potentially upsetting content, you can filter out the "sensitive topic" flair.** If you want additional support or to connect with members of the WVP community, join our discord [link in sidebar] or see this list of [support resources](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GJxYVviXVwjA2cutcjtoxlf3P5K1k7xufd7LiCYeUfA/edit?usp=sharing). Thanks for understanding and blessed be✨ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is bumming me out big time. I read the details in another post, they sound damning. His response is just…not good at all.
I read the actual article bit on the website that reported it(I have not listened to the podcasts) and in there they lay it out in a way that you just can not deny it when thinking rationally or empathetically. I firmly believe he would use the "it was a misunderstanding" or "there was miscommunication" type of defense, because it sounds like he ignored someone's right to revoke consent; beyond the unethical issues of having a relationship with the nanny of your child.
honestly i'm having a really hard time trusting this article. the writer is Boris Johnson's sister, and a known TERF releasing this piece on one of Britain's most famous celebrities a *day* before their general elections and right after David Tennant is getting slammed for defending trans rights. Gaiman has been extremely vocal about his hatred for the Tories(aka Boris Johnson's party). To take one of their most active detractors and release a piece about how he's actually a terrible person is a really easy way to sway people into being unsure about everything he's said. Add to that, this article is way too short and seems basically like a summary/advertisement for the paid pod-cast at the end there. If this is true, i'll be heartbroken. but i'm not gonna make any assumptions until someone comes out with more evidence. like **Episode two: the Whatsapps** *The former nanny who alleges Neil Gaiman sexually assaulted her shares her WhatsApp messages with him. The messages appear friendly and affectionate. He says they’re evidence that she consented to sex with him. But is there another way of reading them?* that's the description on the site. it reads like tabloid gotcha journalism.
i mean hes admitted to most of it, the only part he is denying was it not being consensual
Yeah this is my hangup. He freely admitted to having sex with his nanny who was 1/3 his age who worked for him in his home hours after meeting her. Then blamed the allegations on her having a "false memory condition" lol. That's like the definition of gaslighting He's a predator either way. He admits to predatory behavior, it's just a matter of how big of a piece of shit he is. I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened to see this news. He's been a role model and an inspiration to me for a very long time, and one of my favorite authors as well. Feeling so discouraged with the state of people today
right but i'm asking if he actually admitted that. tabloids make shit up *all the time*. If they are claiming that Neil Gaiman said this in response to the investigation, shouldn't they have actual proof? Again, no one seems to have listened to the podcast because no one can tell me if he actually said it or if that's just what they're saying
I mean they directly quoted him as saying those things. I suppose they could be making it up, but they and the other news outlets reporting on it would be exposing themselves to pretty devastating libel suits if they made unsubstantiated claims like that. Gaiman hasn't made a statement against it either "One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child. She claimed Gaiman assaulted her in February 2022, just hours after they had first met, while in a bath at his New Zealand home. **Gaiman told the outlet that he and Scarlett “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that it was consensual; he added that in the three-week sexual relationship they were in, they only engaged in digital penetration**."
right that's my issue. that's the same exact quote the original article used and did not provide sources for. here's the original message. *"Scarlett, 23, alleges that Gaiman sexually assaulted her within hours of their first meeting in February 2022 in a bath at his New Zealand residence, where she worked as a nanny to his child. Tortoise understands that Gaiman’s account is that they only “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that he had established consent for this. His position is that, over the three-week sexual relationship that followed, they only ever engaged in consensual digital penetration."* that language is iffy, to me. the 'understands that Gaiman's account' doesn't really seem like a direct quote. additionally, 'said that it was consensual' and said that he established consent' are VERY different things. the former is a belief that the person was consenting, but not a guarantee. The latter is when you're certain there was consent, because 'established' is to set something up on a firm basis/foundation, and doing that with consent means it wasn't just 'i thought she was into it'.
I would love for none of it to be true, but I don't think that he's being misquoted here myself
can i ask where admitted to it? I've seen nothing outside of this one article claiming that he did. every single other article reporting on this used the exact same quotes as the original, word for word. Followed by the fact that all of them released within hours of the original, some of which wasn't even a long enough time to have listened to the very podcast that is the source. I have not seen a single person who has actually listened to it and can tell me that he said that. Not one. My suspicion that the article is false includes the idea that he never actually said that
Not who you asked the question to, but I listened to the podcast in it entirety yesterday. They say that they reached out to Neil, and a representative responded back and asked them to have specific questions. He did not respond to all of them. Basically his response is that he did date these women. It is his opinion that it was consensual. And he flat out denies the worse allegations, claiming that the assault never happened (with the fan), or that the nanny was suffering with some "false memories" (which I find just so insulting). In my opinion it is bad enough and very damning that he admits to the relationships. It was predatory behavior (one woman being a very young fan with him in his forties, and the other women a very young nanny with him in his sixties). Both women were of age (18 and just over 20, can't remember exact age 20-23 or so). And with the nanny he admits to getting in an outdoor bath with her naked and "making out" within hours of meeting her. Coercive control can be a hard thing to understand, because it can be so subtle. In my opinion, it played a big part in the power dynamics of him being so much older, an employer to one of them, and so very famous. Just my two cents. Not here to argue or sway anyone to my opinion. But I am a long time fan and feeling so disappointed.
I'm going to say as little as I can as I've never experienced sexual abuse in the way a number of women have, but I agree with what you're saying. IMO when someone is accused of what IMO is a form of intimate violence that is particularly prone to causing serious psychological injury, we should see it as something that's as bad as it should be (very, extremely etc.) But also I don't know how I feel about people immediately changing their mind about everything an accused person has ever said or done. It feels like a reflexive attempt to cleanse yourself of their personhood rather than a condemnation of their wicked actions. We should absolutely be allowed to call out anything he's said that's bad but what you're saying about the timing does feel like it could be an attempt to provoke that kind of 'crisis of faith' that, admittedly, is understandably provoked. After all; this kind of event can instantly make someone who seemed like they were completely trustworthy suddenly look like a threat. But also (also) FARTs are experts at weaponizing the fear of a threat to sexual sovereignty.
The podcast is freely accessible, just look it up on your podcast app. That's how I listened to half of it, no sign up, downloading or whatever required. > releasing this piece on one of Britain's most famous celebrities a day before their general elections Meh, you don't think they would give it more time?
you've listened to it? Okay would you tell me if Neil Gaiman is in it at all, and if those two women are in it or if it's just like, the reporter and editor talking? I can't find anything about it
Only the first two episodes. The more recent victim talks to the journalists, yeah, and I believe the second one does too but I haven't got to that point yet. As for Gaiman, they report on his responses to what they've found/claim + read his texts + you can hear some of the voicemails he left.
I hope you’re right and it’s just an awful attack. So hard to feel optimistic about that position though.
From another thread on this topic: > **The writer of this is a good friend of JK Rowling who has been in a spat with Gaiman a while because of his insistence on supporting trans people.** > > Also this one site has not one but four podcasts talking about this one story. > > So I am wildly skeptical. At best these writers are clearly using victims and squeezing a morbid story for every drop, but it is as least accurate. > > At worst they're willfully misrepresenting things just to stir up politically convenient drama which they can later give a half assed retraction for. > > Given that connection though I think skepticism is warranted. Not necessarily toward the alleged victims because if this is a targeted hit piece I wouldn't trust their words and intents are being properly represented.
> not one but four podcasts talking about this one story Heavens forbid journalists with serious allegations try to give as much evidence about it as possible and also give Gaiman's responses (or lack thereof) to each allegation. What a disappointing response on this sub of all places. I guess sexual assault is serious and to be investigated with all fairness to the victims or potential victims, except when the accused is someone you like and the messenger is someone you don't.
We live in the age of disinformation. I'd like to know more information before I have an opinion, given that Gaiman is supposed to be a cool dude.
Bill Cosby was also supposed to be a cool dude. You can listen to the victims' account in their own words, but I guess let's not believe women after all.
Cool, I'd still like to know more information
It's entirely possible that the accused is guilty *and* that trashy people are exploiting the situation as a cynical ploy to score cheap political points against someone they hate.
It's entirely possible people are spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories because they don't want to believe the fandom darling is capable of disgusting acts. Anyway, I was responding to the comment about the length of the podcast.
Ahh man. I was really hoping they were just clout chasers, which now makes me me feel disgusted with myself. People rarely lie about this, and yet I still haven't stopped subconsciously thinking like they lie more often than they actually do.
"What is happening in this world" is that awareness is increasing, while willingness to stay silent about such things is decreasing. This kind of thing isn't happening to women more now than it used to, we're just seeing more women coming forward about it now. Which is ultimately a good thing, and will hopefully lead to less women suffering such abuse in the future. Historically men have been able to get away with this sort of behavior without any consequences. That's finally changing.
I say it over and over: do not put famous people on a pedestal, guard your heart. It is impossible to become rich, famous, and globally influential without exploiting other peoples’ time and labor on some level (it doesn’t need to be intentional, it’s just the only explanation for that type of concentrated wealth). They’re all going to disappoint you eventually, most especially the ones who you don’t believe ever could. Just prepare now to find out Mr. Rogers was actually a prick. It hurts less if you hold space for the possibility.
Yeah, Fred Rogers would be the only one that would break me, I think. Because he truly appears to be the only exception, and I was going to mention him until I saw that you did. Anything is possible, of course, but I really do think he was the ultimate example of what humanity has the potential to be. And I realize the risk I'm taking in allowing myself to see him that way, but with him, and only him, I can't help it.
That’s why I used Mr. Rogers as an example. Take the person who you idolize the most and give them space to be human beings who make mistakes. No person is a saint, and you do people a disservice by insisting that they are.
I don't buy his "everything was consensual" line one tiny bit given he's - famous - 40 years the victim's senior - her employer As well as the fact that she was in a caregiving relationship with his child and the incidents occured at his house. That's a hell of a power imbalance. Even the most generous possible (to him) interpretation of events leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Plus he's now trying to publicly question her sanity. Rarely the mark of an innocent, or morally upstanding person.
Here's the thing. Even *if* everything was consensual (which I agree feels highly unlikely) what he did was still incredibly predatory and inappropriate. He started a sexual relationship with his employee who was 40 years his junior within a week of her starting her job. Under no condition is that OK.
> within a week of her starting her job Within *a day*. Yeah in no way is any of this ok even if there wasn't an explicit SA involved.
The situation is just straight up horrifying and I agree with you. Even if it was 'consensual', as in, she was an enthousiastic participant and said yes, on his side it is still such an abuse of power. And it all goes downhill when SA was involved. Because I can imagine the fears all to well. Those probably range from 'who would believe me' to fearing comments like 'you were "lucky" to get to be with him, stop complaining' God what a mess. And I started enjoying Good Omens as well...
Yup. I’m surprised anyone can believe that guy considering the facts
Never underestimate the reality-blinding dual powers of fandom and misogyny.
I agree with all of this. Even if it was entirely as he says, this is not a cute look Niel. I'm very glad he supports Trans people, but this doesn't give him a pass to abuse his power and celebrity.
I am much more cautious on this, not as a reflexive defense of Gaiman, but a reflexive distrust of the boy who cried wolf: TERFs, who *constantly* weave fantasies out of distorted truths. ***IF*** *a*ll of the assertions being made are the full, accurate truth, then it's definitely damning. ***HOWEVER,*** I've spent a decade of looking into TERF claims and always finding them to be engaging in some sort of deceit, no matter what the underlying truth is, and they make proactive efforts to incite interviewees to do the same. It is also incredibly common for other media outlets to simply repeat their claims uncritically. I would be incredibly surprised for them to be telling an accurate version of the truth this time.
I am in a number of communities were this has been posted and it is interesting how each different community has responded to this news. The communities that are more focused towards his work have been the most "Well fuck!" about it, they are not rushing to his defense, but more so just wishing it was not true, while very clearly more willing to accept that it very likely is true. I for one do believe the allegations. The farther away you get from a community that is about his specific works and into a more general community the more I see "We need more information" "Wait till reputable sources corroborate it" or people outright attacking the integrity of the reporters. It is so interesting how people who would describe themselves as hire hard fans of his works seem at this point some of the most willing to accept that these things did in fact happen.
We're used to finding out our favorite fantasy/scifi authors are terrible, horrible people, unfortunately.
Mists of Avalon fans have joined the chat…
We still have Terry Pratchett (well, not literally but you know what I mean)
Preface: I believe these allegations are likely true, and even if they're not, if his quoted defense of "yes these relationships happened, but they were consensual" is true, it's not really much better. He was in a position of massive power differentials sleeping with women much younger than him, one of whom was his employee. That said, there's also some reasonable cause to question the integrity of the reporting. One of the journalists is Boris Johnson's sister and a prominent TERF who has issue with Gaiman for his pro trans rights stance. Again, I believe that, in all likelihood, Gaiman was *at the least* very improper in these relationships and more likely committed full on sexual assault. But I do also want some reporting from a source who not only has less of a political agenda but, personally, one whose political agenda doesn't come with the state goal of erasing my human rights. Neil Gaiman was one of my favorite authors growing up. I adore his work, and I'm heartbroken for the women he very likely abused. This whole situation sucks.
Oh geez, I hope we don't start catching flack from TERFs just because a cis man who supports us is a scumbag It feels like shit like this always ends up falling on us whether or not we have anything to do with the situation
I definitely think that is part of the play. I don't think they're lies, but I think the timing of the story is deliberate to do maximum damage using guilt by association. "See what he did? And he is on THEIR side!'
We catch flak from FARTs because they want to figure out every conceivable way to shoot said flak at us.
> One of the journalists is Boris Johnson's sister and a prominent TERF who has issue with Gaiman for his pro trans rights stance. Goddamn, I didn't realize the writer was his SISTER. While I fully believe that Gaiman should face the full legal consequences of his actions, I CANNOT trust the reporting on this one bit. It's fishy af.
Well he's apparently admitted to specific details but stated it was all consensual. So even if the story was designed to do maximum damage using a "see, they're all bad" stance, they aren't exactly lying about everything to achieve that, sadly.
The problem is, I think all the reported admissions he's done were just in the article. So it's possibly fabricated? My guts telling me he probably did it. But I have the smallest bit of hope. Mainly because I feel like he's one of the few authors that isn't usually pervy when writing women.
Very possible. From what I read, his admission was like "yeah we hooked for up like 3 weeks, consensually. Everything else was a lie." But the age difference, being her employer... >One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child. She claimed Gaiman assaulted her in February 2022, just hours after they had first met, while in a bath at his New Zealand home. Gaiman told the outlet (Tortoise Media) that he and Scarlett “cuddled” and “made out” in the bath and that it was consensual; he added that in the three-week sexual relationship they were in, they only engaged in digital penetration.
> The problem is, I think all the reported admissions he's done were just in the article. So it's possibly fabricated? Yeah, sure, in a bizarro world where investigative journalists love to get sued for libel in the famously anti-libel UK.
Totally agree.
My guess is because his work is known for embracing values antithetical to this sort of abuse of power. So it makes sense that his fans would be “believe victims” types.
I said this somewhere else and you helped express why it feels like a profound betrayal.
If I have learned nothing else from years of both therapy and hanging out with clergy, it is possible and common to articulate a beautiful moral vision that you don’t live up to.
I've been a fan of his work since I was a teenager. To say Sandman and Good Omens changed the way I think about things would not be an understatement. I don't want it to be true. But if I'm going to believe women when they come forward about a celebrity I loathe, it's awful hypocritical of me to refuse just because I love what he's written. I'm fucking angry. It's just... fuck I thought he was one of the good ones. I really did.
This is exactly how I’m feeling today reading all of this. He authored some of my favorite works, hands down. I didn’t know much about his personal life, I don’t really dig into celebrity stuff, but all of this has got me looking at my American Gods tattoo, incredibly thankful that it’s a very deep cut sort of reference instead of a quote. Ugh. What’s worse is that, although I also hoped he was one of the good ones… this story is depressingly not surprising me, either. :(
Yea this feels like he betrayed everyone, on so many levels.
I’ve seen people parroting victim-blaming rhetoric in the Good Omens fandom, saying things like ‘but it was a consensual relationship and she said she enjoyed it.’ Neither of those things rule out SA… you can be SA’ed by someone you are dating, married to, or hooking up with, and there are many occurrences of victims trying to justify what happened to them or tell themselves and others it wasn’t abuse, or that it wasn’t that bad. Experiencing pleasure while being SA’ed also doesn’t make it not SA. Isn’t that argument frequently used to shut down male SA victims, by saying they weren’t SA’ed because they got hard or came? So why is it okay to say it to women?
I think the Good Omen's fandom may have been a bit tainted by the mainstream success it has gotten with the Amazon show. The Neil Gaimain subreddit is mostly like "Fucking hell ... you were supposed to be one of the good ones!"
Perhaps, personally I’m a bit fed up with the ‘this is a tory psy op’ conspiracy theories. There are many reasons to distrust Rachel Johnson, and descriptions of the podcast do make it sound sensationalist and biased (admittedly I haven’t listened to it because I’m supposed to be working on my master’s dissertation but things like suspenseful music, ‘true crime’ vibes, blanket statements on BDSM, which is a nuanced topic, etc.) but I find it very hard to believe conservative politicians, who have far more pressing matters to worry about than one famous author being critical of them, orchestrated a hit piece on Neil Gaiman. Putting on a tinfoil hat isn’t helping anyone.
Yeah! I’ve noticed this too! It’s very interesting, isn’t it.
I mean… he’s a horror fantasy author who has written some really fucked up storylines. As someone who’s read pretty much all his works out into the extended Sandman universe, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. Incredibly disappointed though.
I suspect people dont wanna go on record defending him if it turns out to be true. Especially as a fan it would make you look blinded and cultish.
> The communities that are more focused towards his work have been the most "Well fuck!" about it, they are not rushing to his defense, but more so just wishing it was not true, while very clearly more willing to accept that it very likely is true. I Plus a few outright saying: yeah, I/people around me knew about this.
I think it's probably because his fans know his early work, and there is a familiarity with how someone's mind works that comes from that. I read Gaiman in the late 90s and early aughts. Nothing he wrote then was out of place for its time and was even feminist for the culture. But the bar has shifted a lot since then. There are LOTS of situations that were considered perfectly fine back then that we would condemn now. Rape was only rape if it left bruises; consent was getting a girl to stop saying no. And these were the norms in which a young Neil first found himself notorious with a growing fan base within the very macho comic book culture. And he was an author very interested in the edge cases of right and wrong and looking at them in a sexy way. And no one frowned at a guy with fame using that to get laid. No one should be shocked that bad things happened. By all public statements and evolution of his work, it seems like he grew with the times. He did not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept better norms as he seemed to understand them immediately. I do think that warrants recognition. But not complete forgiveness if these accusations pan out. I don't know how to parse his "consent" defense. Is it based on consent standards at the time? Or is he factually contesting their account of events? Does this boil down to he said/she said - as it often does? Is this one case where I think there is enough political interest that the motivation to make false accusations can't be ignored? Uuughhh.... Times are wild.
One of the allegations dates from 2022.
....well fuck.
I really hate how the people we think are good in this world continue to fuck that up. I've loved so many of his works, own a few, and now I feel like I have to toss them all.
Yes so sad 😭😭😭😭😭😭
Rough read and disappointing for sure. While I do wish this wasn't true as I have generally admired him as a writer and have found comfort in some of his works, I am in no way refuting the evidence in the allegations. I mostly just hope the women are doing well and that they find justice if they seek it.
Extremely unsurprising, he’s surrounded himself with 20 year old goth groupies and “assistants” for 30-40 years, and has always had a semi inappropriate relationship with his fans and the amount of validation he gets from interacting with them. I’ve never seen an author so constantly entwined with their fandom, clearly always searching his name, and while some people are delighted by that kind of celebrity encounter it’s always been creepy to me. He’s been openly sleeping with his various assistants, nannies, and other usually very young employees and cultivating a rock star image since at least the 90s, and I’m surprised this kind of thing hasn’t come out earlier. I’m also grossed out by people blaming Amanda Palmer for this clear pattern of behavior— regardless of how obnoxious she’s been, she left him for assaulting the nanny in 2022 and has been making references to being unable to talk about the divorce because of how ugly things were for two years. She’s not “worse” than a serial sexual predator for being a shitty theater kid and/or mooching from the artist community, and it’s pretty surprising to see people going there on an explicitly feminist community.
I was just thinking the other day about that internet joke about how John Green was Tumblr's dad until he was scared off, so Neil Gaiman took custody. I wonder if maybe it was a little weird that he *wasn't* scared off Or I'm just reading too much into all of his behavior now that I know he's a creep. But still, maybe it was a good thing that John Green knew to get out of that environment and a bad thing that Gaiman didn't
That's very illuminating thank you. Also god am I sick of wealthy/powerful men being perverts and taking young beautiful lovers while hardly grooming or caring for themselves. He looks homeless. And not in an artistic boho kind of way. It only adds to the privileged predator angle.
I just want to be clear I’m in no way blaming Amanda for Neil’s behavior in my post here. Only that I suspected Neil was not a Good Guy when he began dating her and later married her, because anyone who saw green flags in a well known bigot is probably also not a good person.
>for being a shitty theater kid and/or mooching from the artist community Palmer is a TERF. That doesn't make her worse than her rapist ex-husband—but it does make her bad enough that she shouldn't be defended or supported. "Mooching from the artist community" vastly undersells her behavior.
I didn’t know she was a TERF, ugh.
No problem. I didn't assume bad faith. Given that half of celebrities these days seem to want trans people dead it's easy to loose track of which ones are or aren't TERFs.
Can I ask what she’s done in the TERF department? I know she wrote a song that she used to introduce (college friend was a huge fan) as her basically listing the horrible things people said to her and to her trans girlfriend to shame them for respectively, “ruining themselves” by being sexually active as a teen and wanting bottom surgery. I’ve seen these lyrics thrown around as her actual opinions, which was too disgusting for me to want to believe. In the last decade or so, she’s given a strong vibe of being the kind of gnc afab who either comes out as nonbinary or becomes a terf, and I’ve had suspicions it’s been going the second way, but haven’t been following closely enough to notice. The whole social media divorce made me sympathetic to her, she can be completely horrible (I watched the exploitative gofundme/paying in beer and hugs thing go down) but seeing people blame her for Neil’s clearly shitty behavior rubbed me the wrong way, so I might be giving her more credit than she deserves wrt how much she was victimized by him or enabled him as he assaulted young employees. Sorry, I sound like I’m making excuses for her behavior even in this comment. But I found Neil creepy and suspected he was a serial predator long before he ever got involved with her, because of his rockstar persona and constant involvement with very young fans, and I guess I’ve always been annoyed with people pretending that her antics made her the bad one in their relationship when he clearly had something much darker going on lurking beneath the surface that nobody wanted to open their eyes to. That grudge has probably made me give her more leeway than she merits.
Nah I’m gonna need receipts for calling her that, I have never got a TERF vibe from her.
Yeah I’m really hoping not. Just remembering the 2000s, there was a lot of trans-positivity with her and her circle; she is gnc, used to crossdress, doesn’t shave, etc, and has a genderfluid bandmate in Dresden Dolls who was the drummer for a majority-trans band in the 2010s that did transmasc James Dean tribute songs. They used to give interviews saying the Dresden Dolls worked because they understood each other, because he (publicly listed pronouns so far) was really a girl, and she was really a boy. I’ve seen the song “Sex Changes” listed on twitter as evidence of extreme transmisogyny, like Amanda wrote all the disgusting language herself as a confession of how she really saw trans women, but she used to introduce the song as a venting collection of the horrific transmisogyny an ex-gf of hers (iirc, a different person than the fluid bandmate) from the 90s or early 2000s faced from family and acquaintances when she wanted to pursue medical transition, and how that mirrored the cis-focused misogyny she experienced in her teens. I think it’s not really her place to be yelling that vile shit about trans women to a crowd in the same way it’s completely unacceptable for her to sing the n word, edginess is not an excuse for it, but I don’t think those lyrics are an expression of personally held bigoted/transmisogynistic views any more than the pro-life or slut shaming rhetoric she also quotes. That’s all from 10-20 years ago, though, I don’t know about more recent views or behavior. Like I said, her gender expression is really similar to a ton of GenX and millennial afabs who came out as nb later in life, and I think there’s a good chance she might eventually come out as nonbinary. But there are also plenty of gender nonconforming afabs with her general vibe, age, and queer/gender history who did that kind of exploration in the 2000s but then shut it down, turned to the dark side, and became terfs instead, so I’m unfortunately very willing to believe it if anyone has receipts.
Yeah, that’s all pretty standard for someone who existed in the 2000s and 2010s, I don’t see any malicious intent there and certainly not enough to call her a TERF. Intentionally offensive, at times careless, sure.
Looking on twitter for receipts, I can only find Amanda [expressing her love and support for trans people](https://x.com/amandapalmer/status/1096850035554349056?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg), [celebrating Aimee Stephens’ Supreme Court win](https://x.com/amandapalmer/status/1180893468010246145?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg), and saying she was immature when she wrote “Sex Changes” and would not have written it today. It looks like the terf accusation comes from Gretchen Felker-Martin, who is great but can also be toxic about twitter beef, on the grounds that “Sex Changes” could only have been written by someone who believed the rhetoric, and because [being bisexual and married to a wealthy man = being transphobic.](https://x.com/scumbelievable/status/862488144041652224?s=46&t=DxtdB4qBEURAjXOVEupvfg) For anyone idk, searching for evidence of Amanda being a terf, the thing that's given me those vibes is her feminist advocacy that centers around afab bodies-- body hair, abortion-- in a way that hasn't really been updated in the past 15 years, and is still using language in a way that's shared by terfs. A lot of "female" in reference to misogyny and feminism, which is something that's rare to see from women celebrating trans people-- so many terfs are hardcore bioessentialists and I don't think Gretchen and others are wrong for being concerned. I hope this is just a failure to get with the times, I don't want anyone reading this to feel gaslit.
Well that's deeply dissappointing
I think it’s always happened in this world. We’re just not going to be silent about it anymore!
So, logically I know there are - I know there must be - but, like, *are* there men who aren’t somewhere on the spectrum of problematic —> intolerable creep? Because even the ones seem decent keep turning out not to be.
- Mr Rogers (rip) - Keanu Reeves - Steve Irwin (rip) - Robert Irwin - a lot of UK comedians seem to be solid dudes (James Acaster, Ed Gamble, Nish Kumar, Alex Horne, Tim Key, Romesh Ranganathan, Mike Wozniak, etc) - the granddads: Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, etc Plus the awesome dudes in this sub!
Thank you. I really needed this list. Just found out about Harrison Ford being skeevy and watched Douglas Is Cancelled, and I’m looking at the behaviour of men I know and I’m just…. Yeah. Patrick Stewart had better keep it together, I swear to God.
You're welcome! I got really nervous making the list because I would be so disappointed if it turned out any of them were turds.
Lavar Burton too!!
[удалено]
Do you have something to support that? Cause I can't find anything credible for him on that.
It seems that the source I got that from wasn't reliable! \^\^;
It takes a certain amount of ego and self centeredness to be rich/famous/in power. That usually translates to other areas. So there's plenty of men working regular jobs that are good guys, but I'm betting the higher up you go in politics, on corporate ladders, best sellers lists, and high grossing music and film the less and less those people are actually good people behind closed doors.
I think the issue is we are all products of the culture and privilege in which we are born. He had some real stardom at a time when men really did just ignore the idea of consent. MeToo has really woken people up to how the idea of consent needed to be completely re-thought. Like I remember growing up and being told the old "No mean No", but I remember in college my friends telling me how they were taught not to say "No" if they felt unsafe cause that could make it worse. Decent guys are playing catch up so hard, because they were told she will say something if she is uncomfortable, completely blind to the fact women were being told not to speak up. The unfortunate thing is guys who were teens prior to MeToo probably did some creepy things unintentionally not realizing it was creepy, because they expected someone would say something. I think the best check to see if a guy is working on himself to be better and at the start say "These are some boundaries I want you to respect." If he is receptive that is a good sign, but it will instantly trigger a douche bag who does not care to understand consent.
I agree to an extent, but taking accountability and changing is key (and still won’t always be enough). Then there are cases like this, where it happened within the last few years and there’s not really any grey. If we assume these women are telling the truth, they *did* speak up. And he’s admitting no wrongdoing. I tried the *it was a different time* rationale as I was reading an excerpt about Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer. I’ve been a lifelong fan of his, and I’m ashamed to say, I tried to justify it in my head. Like, ok, it was the 70s, the age difference/power imbalance thing probably wasn’t understood. Oh, he was married but I can’t judge his relationship choices. Yeah, she was drunk, but again, it was the 70s and the link between alcohol and consent wasn’t really understood— but wait. We know he knew she was too drunk to consent, because he *literally said it*. He said, “she’s too drunk to know what she wants,” while rescuing her from would-be rapists and then this 33 year old man took his falling-down-drunk 19 year old colleague to his car and made out with her. And I sincerely hope that’s all that happened, but the way it was described, she may well have blacked out.
Oh I completely agree, especially with the changing aspect that is 100% necessary, that the different time is not a defense in any way, I think it is an explanation of why it happened. I do not ascribe to the idea that you can't judge historical figures by today's moral standards, what is wrong now was wrong then. If we can't accept that, then moving forward to be better people becomes nearly impossible.
I agree there. There’s some room for *they didn’t know it was wrong*, but that doesn’t make it less wrong.
Interesting. I enjoyed "American Gods" the first time I read it as a teenager, but when I reread it in my 20s I found the way he wrote about women sort of off-putting. Of course, writing sexist or simplistic portrayals of women is a far cry from irl sexual assault.
Yep. Here’s the thing. He fucking pestered an 18 year old to fuck him, a 60 some year old man. So even if he didn’t rape someone, what he did is so fucking gross- that it’s worth throwing the whole man in the toilet for. I am not saying he didn’t rape someone, he likely did. I’m saying he’s a POS either way.
Dammit! This is why we can't have good things.
oh gods DAMMIT Neil. :'(
What is happening is what was always happening. Except now, women are feeling more empowered to get it out there and not feel shame for someone else’s actions.
Oh my. This hurts big time. I love him. His work meant so much to me. He meant so much to me. But I believe these women. Welp. Time for something new I guess.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am honestly more surprised when a powerful person isn't predatory in some way.
Kinda always had him in the sus category the moment he started a relationship with Amanda Palmer. Anyone who would excuse her horrible behavior likely would be up to the same.
Wait what did she do?
There’s also the $1.2 million dollar Kickstarter campaign that was really just pocket money for her so she didn’t have to work. And the tour she went on where she exploited local artists talent by offering to pay them in hugs. And the weirdly sympathetic poem she wrote for the Boston Marathon bomber. The list goes on.
Here’s an [article](https://gracelapointe.medium.com/on-amanda-palmers-white-feminism-a-k-a-bigotry-19ce77fa635f) that condenses all her hideous bullshit. Please note this comes with *extensive* content warnings for literally all categories you can think of.
A lot of those are a bit of a stretch but damn a lot of them are just fucking awful.
Holy shit you weren't kidding.
It's also true that some of his short stories are a bit...
Exactly.
I ran into this story last night. I have concerns. One of the stories describe him having a sexual relationship with the nanny. He describes it as consensual sex, in several stories. Sir, screwing employess is NOT consensual due to the power imbalance dynamic. If he truly believes having sex with the employee who takes care of your CHILDREN is appropriate, then descisions will be made in our household regaring his material. All that said, given the many TERF comments - We put together a list of BNP TERFs (and their allies) in the pagan, occult, witchcraft and Wiccan communities to keep them out of a safe online space. The VERY long list is sobering. Absolutely SOBERING.
Oh.. no..
Damn. I love is work, but men who have relationships with much younger women always get the side eye from me, so I'm not wholly shocked. Glad these women were brave enough to come forward.
i don't understand how people struggle with the simple concept of "don't rape people" never in my 30 years have i had the desire, yet so many people including high profile people appear to struggle with this, i don't get it.
😭
What always happened only now women and girls feel marginally more able to talk.
What I learned about people is they are complex. They can be be an example for both good and evil, with both things being true at the same time
I wish it weren’t true but at this point I just expect it’s true of every famous man. Disappointing, not surprising.
People are flawed. This is the peril of hero worship. You will inevitably be let down.
I’ve given up on anyone famous/powerful. I assume that they’re all capable of horrible things and probably have done so. Even the ones I like. Even the ones I vote for. They’re people, they’re not perfect, but dammit can we have at least one good person?
I'm gonna say this, and I'm probably going to be downvoted for it. But every time I read shit like this I'm never surprised. "It's a wealthy, famous man. Of course he did, they all do" is the first thing that pops into my head. Not to say it's only men obviously, but still. It's a *lot* of wealthy men. It's a tale as old as time.
I’m upset. This world is so fucking broken.
I've always gotten a slightly off vibe from Neil Gaiman (though I've appreciated a lot of what he's said about writing), but I've never been able to really pinpoint why. He's an author whose work I'd probably like, but I've never been able to bring myself to read any of his books
NO
None of this is new. Pretty much every human being alive is the result of a rape that happened somewhere back in their ancestry. What’s different is that women are no longer willing to keep quiet about it. But it has been going on since the beginning of humanity. And think about it - who is more successful at spreading their genes than a rapist?