Reply to Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Neil Gaiman article in Vulture"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Didn’t read this whole thread, but the first woman in the article sounds like she consented  (who takes a bath in a garden?) and she’s telling the gross details for shock value snd sympathy.  Why would she continue to babysit if he was abusing her?  Her story makes zero GD sense.[/quote]

No family, no local support, no money + groomers. It makes absolute sense, if you're paying attention (but you didn't bother to read the thread, so...)

Power dynamics warp consent. Can you really consent if you're not free to decline? No. If you're going to get fired for not doing it? No. If you're going to be put out on the street, or are at least worried you could be? No. That's not consent.

This is why sleeping with your employee is a no-no from the start. It's not just "a bad look". The dynamic alone creates questions about consent, and whether or not it's even possible. Add to the employer/employee dynamic the fact that his targets were young/naive, broke, separated from social support (aside from his wife/enabler/trafficker?) and you have the setup for abuse.

Nobody tells humiliating stories to the world for sympathy or shock value. Most victims don't even tell their close family and friends. Why not? because clowns like you who can't even be bothered to read the thread and make a good faith attempt at understanding will say horrifically dismissive shite like this.

God forbid it ever happens to you or someone you love so you get a first-hand opportunity to adjust your perspective.[/quote]

I don’t have to read the thread - I read the article.  He did this from the jump.  This isn’t some long-held lucrative employment opportunity this 22 year old was relying on to put food in her kids’ mouths.  You’re being utterly ridiculous and denying that a grown ass woman has any agency whatsoever over the behavior she chooses to engage in with her employer of approximately two minutes.

This particular situation would never happen to me because I have some GD self respect and a working brain in my head.  Keep acting like women are freaking helpless idiots, that’s SO feminist of you  :roll: [/quote]

Are you a survivor of childhood abuse? Do you lack any stable support system and are you estranged from your family? Because that's the situation the nanny was in when this happened.

Some of you don't seem to understand that people like Gaiman (and Palmer, frankly) intentionally choose victims who have issues like this, specifically because it makes them less likely to resist, less likely to report, and less likely to be believed if they do report. That's the point. You are less likely to be in this situation in the first place because you are not a vulnerable person. You would not be in a compromised situation where you were desperate for work or housing. And people like Gaiman and Palmer would likely leave you alone in the first place because they would be able to tell you are not a good mark.

Some people are more vulnerable than others. Acknowledging that is not anti-feminist. Of course women can be powerful and aren't stupid. That doesn't mean we blame people for being taken advantage of by predators who [I]seek out[/I] vulnerable people in order to exploit them.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics