Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

You forget the enormous population of his former fandom who have been sexually abused and have tender souls. It’s what drew us in in the first place. He is over. You cannot heal this wound.

Your first sentence, yeesh, my sister. I wish more victims of SA or other forms of abuse would seek real help of some kind and not be so gotdamned stupid.

Gaiman and Palmer absolutely victimized the nanny and set her up; they exploited and further impoverished her. But it’s repugnant and infuriating to me personally to read her correspondence and comments like yours, because she and you and your ilk absolutely luxuriate in the sense that your damage makes you special, more intuitive and more in sync with both the beauty and horror of life. But - that’s just stupid, and in willingly putting the wool over your own eyes and surrendering in advance your power to claim cred as the most M of BDSM-ers, you enable the abuse and enable the abuse of others as blinkered and lost. A mess.

I can’t quite understand reading anything either Gaiman or Palmer wrote and not seeing that they’re poseurs. The tweets are ick. There was reason for skepticism. Woof.

Speaking of people who should seek real help of some kind...

Anonymous wrote:I can’t get over how Palmer and Gaiman in seeming concert never paid the woman Gaiman assaulted…who they apparently thought of as a nanny. What “public (stupid, trite) intellectual” multimillionaire fails to pay their nanny at all? Pavlovich watched their son off and on for years and was paid in total under 10k?

It sounds like Gaiman was checked out and didn't really even care if his son had childcare. And it sounds like Palmer is a user who likes to handle everything on an ad hoc, "we're community helping each other out" way, which is very susceptible to abuse. They are both horrible but not necessarily acting in concert. Just two very dysfunctional people in a scarily dysfunctional relationship inflicting their dysfunction on everyone around them.

Neat!

I can’t get over how Palmer and Gaiman in seeming concert never paid the woman Gaiman assaulted…who they apparently thought of as a nanny. What “public (stupid, trite) intellectual” multimillionaire fails to pay their nanny at all? Pavlovich watched their son off and on for years and was paid in total under 10k?

What Gaiman did is wrong even if the women consented.

The nanny was an employee. It is de facto unethical to have a sexual relationship with your employee, especially when the age difference is so wide, especially when the employee is caring for your minor child, especially if you allow your minor child to witness sex acts or risk him seeing them. Even if the nanny was into it and very happy with the situation (she wasn't but let's go with it for purposes of this argument), Gaiman's behavior was gross, unethical, and bad parenting.

One of the women was a tenant with three children whose husband had recently left her. Even assuming her consent, it is unethical to engage in a sexual relationship with someone with whom you have a business relationship, especially when that person is in the midst of a financial crisis brought on by a personal crisis which compromises her position in her business relationship. Gaiman also reportedly frequently entered her home without notice or consent, abusing his role as landlord to gain access to her at his whim. Even if she enthusiastically consented, this is gross and unethical.

Gaiman reportedly engaged in sexual activity that was demeaning, derogatory, or humiliating for his sex partners. It sounds like he had/has serious mental health issues that he takes out on sexual partners. That is sexually unethical, and reflects broader personality problems. It is right for him to be called for this when it is part of a pattern that has gone on for over a decade and his position of power and authority places many women in the path of his destructive behavior.

You don't have think it was all rape or nonconsensual to think he is wrong here. Remember Monica Lewinsky consented to her affair with Bill Clinton. And people said the same thing about her when it all came out back in the 90s -- she was the instigator, this was her fault. With the benefit of time and distance, most people can look at that situation and see that whatever Lewinsky did wrong, she was young and Clinton was many multitudes more powerful than she was. To blame her for what happens simply makes no sense, even if she thought at the time she was doing something she wanted to do. He started an affair with a much younger, very subordinate employee. He bears the vast majority of the blame. If it hadn't been Lewinsky, he just would have found someone else.

Well the same is true of Gaiman. He is the source of the problems here. Like yeah you can wish these women had said no, gotten out of there, quit that job, moved out of that house, whatever. I wish that too. I think they do too, actually. But at the end of the day what are we really talking about here? Some young woman who made some dumb choices in her early 20s that resulted in a horrible experience for her? Or a wealthy, powerful man who has a long and consistent history of engaging in unethical, grotesque sexual behavior, including on occasion in front of his son? Which thing should we focus on?

I don't get why some of you are so hung up on these women. They are damaged people who made mistakes, they'd be the first to admit it. The story is Gaiman. Do you think their mistakes exonerate him? I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

Sure I mean he’s gross, but “accusations” of being a “predator” seem to be what’s really over the line. Honestly I’m sick of grown women being infantilized like this. If your gross employer asks you to take a bath with him it’s time to get the hell out of there.

(Plus he sucks as a writer. Never understood his appeal.)

Women who are being harassed at work are not infants. That's ridiculous. There's a power dynamic between employer and employee.

I was in my 30s as a working highly educated professional woman. A man I was working on a contract with met me for coffee in public to work. He then started insisting I go to his house and wait for him to take a shower. I said no. Obviously I didn't get any more work with him.

Now I realize how wrong it was that I dealt with so much, put up with so much, walked away unscathed numerous times. Sometimes friends of mine who were lawyers told me to quit a job before it got to the point I would have a case, because they cared about me.

I’m sorry you don’t understand what “infantilization” means. No shit to the rest of your post; but the solution to workplace harassment isn’t to say “yes” to a bath together, “no” to fingers in your butt, show up to work for the next day, and years later, call a journalist (instead of calling the police when whatever assault you’re claiming occurred actually happened).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

Sure I mean he’s gross, but “accusations” of being a “predator” seem to be what’s really over the line. Honestly I’m sick of grown women being infantilized like this. If your gross employer asks you to take a bath with him it’s time to get the hell out of there.

(Plus he sucks as a writer. Never understood his appeal.)

Women who are being harassed at work are not infants. That's ridiculous. There's a power dynamic between employer and employee.

I was in my 30s as a working highly educated professional woman. A man I was working on a contract with met me for coffee in public to work. He then started insisting I go to his house and wait for him to take a shower. I said no. Obviously I didn't get any more work with him.

Now I realize how wrong it was that I dealt with so much, put up with so much, walked away unscathed numerous times. Sometimes friends of mine who were lawyers told me to quit a job before it got to the point I would have a case, because they cared about me.

Do those women harassed at work then send gushing texts to their harasser about how magical the harassment was?
This woman comes across as a fickle, fragile fool and while NG is 100% a foul man, she wasn't a child and shouldn't be treated like one. Her enthusiastic consent somehow didn't count because she was broken on the inside.
The entire lifestyle is sick and tailor made for disasters like this. Shameful

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

Gaiman’s readership consists of normies, albeit ones who have convinced themselves they are not.

He will be embraced widely by his fans in a few years.

Please tell us how you are an authority, because that does not ring through with anyone I’ve talked to.

I’m an authority because I have eyes, and have watched the successful rehabilitation of many predatory men. This is not going to remotely end his career, unfortunately.

Are you a person that grew up reading him? That’s the difference. His fandom is not the same as your average author. This is more Cosby level stuff, core memories tainted.

I did not grow up reading him. But I have read several of his books and am very familiar with his fandom, both on an offline. Actually it is precisely because of who his fandom is that I think he has a very high likelihood of rehabbing his image: his fans will help him. The will crave that redemption arc and Gaiman’s approval.

All of this is with the caveat that criminal charges are not brought. If criminal charges are brought, then yes, agree that is more like Cosby. But if no charges are brought, I expect he will be back in business in about ten years, with the support of his fandom.

Are you the PP who referred to yourself earlier in the thread as an "authority" because you've seen terrible men rehabbed in the public eye? Whether or not you're that PP, you sure are confident about your assessment of his fans.

Maybe check your attitude of authority. You are seriously underestimating how strongly Gaiman's female fans of all ages, but especially those in their 20s, will react to this situation. They will not forget or forgive, and nothing will rehabilitate him in their eyes; they are well aware of how the public apology crap works with men like this. And they'll be the first to speak up, loudly, if he or other parts of his fandom try to excuse his actions or claim he's truly contrite. Even years from now.

The source for my "authority" on this? My DD in her 20s who was a Gaiman fan, and her many, many friends who were, too. They are wounded, but mostly they are furious. And PP, they are not stupid, naive, or forgetful. They also know how to use their voices against men like this. Even men who produced work they had loved.

Wait. You think that Gaiman cares at all about his female fans? He’s been telegraphing for years what he thinks of them, and it is not good. Gaiman’s redemption arc won’t include those fans; he’s never cared for them to begin with. Their fury is irrelevant to him.

What will happen is this, assuming no criminal complaint is filed: He will go silent for awhile except for vague reference to “doing work” and “reflecting.” He will wait for the divorce case to settle. In the meantime, the PR firm he hires will start quietly digging for incriminating information about the accusers. Since these poor women are already vulnerable and damaged, it probably won’t be too hard to find information that can be twisted to make them look bad in the usual way women are discredited.

Anonymous posts about the accusers will start quietly mushrooming in a year or two, first on explicitly red-pill forums and then places like Reddit. “I knew one of the accusers when she was in high school. She slept with two buddies of mine at the same time but told each they were exclusive.” “Bro I just realized that the bathtub chick Gaiman banged has an OF account.” That sort of stuff. The profiles of the people dropping it will be curiously devoid of posting history, and go just up to the line of libel but not cross it. The misogynist portion of Gaiman’s base — and that is a big portion — will run with the posts, and the accounts will quietly be deleted a few months later. By then the accusations will have a life of their own.

That will go on for a few years, just long enough to activate large base of male Gaiman fans who will have convinced themselves that their hero Gaiman was unfairly accused and also get the support of some damaged female pick-mes. It will be enough to convince a publisher.

He will, in a few years, drop hints about how his work on himself has led him to look inward and focus his art on men doing “hard work.” It will be vague, but then in a few years after that, rumors will start about a new Gaiman novel, focusing on the experience of men.

And there you go: a ready-made audience primed to read a grotesquely misogynist and simultaneously self-adulating novel. Your daughter’s fury won’t matter at all.

Shudder. I think you’re right. Get a clue, “wounded” ladies and their too-late mama bears.

DP. I think that PP can write some half-decent fiction. I don't think she has a clue about real people though.

What specifically do you find unlikely? That unfortunately seems to be a quite accurate account of real people.

Specifically? I think he's cooked. There's no coming back from this. There's no "artful smearing" of the women, there's no "rehabilitation", and there's no "new male audience".

His fandom was both men and women. And now it is no one.

I think you’re the one who doesn’t know real people, though I think you are charmingly optimistic and naive as well.

How many authors do you know of who have come back from something like this? I know of several authors who have lost their reputation, posthumously. But no one who has lost their reputation, and their fandom, and then come back from it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

Sure I mean he’s gross, but “accusations” of being a “predator” seem to be what’s really over the line. Honestly I’m sick of grown women being infantilized like this. If your gross employer asks you to take a bath with him it’s time to get the hell out of there.

(Plus he sucks as a writer. Never understood his appeal.)

Women who are being harassed at work are not infants. That's ridiculous. There's a power dynamic between employer and employee.

I was in my 30s as a working highly educated professional woman. A man I was working on a contract with met me for coffee in public to work. He then started insisting I go to his house and wait for him to take a shower. I said no. Obviously I didn't get any more work with him.

Now I realize how wrong it was that I dealt with so much, put up with so much, walked away unscathed numerous times. Sometimes friends of mine who were lawyers told me to quit a job before it got to the point I would have a case, because they cared about me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

Gaiman’s readership consists of normies, albeit ones who have convinced themselves they are not.

He will be embraced widely by his fans in a few years.

Please tell us how you are an authority, because that does not ring through with anyone I’ve talked to.

I’m an authority because I have eyes, and have watched the successful rehabilitation of many predatory men. This is not going to remotely end his career, unfortunately.

Are you a person that grew up reading him? That’s the difference. His fandom is not the same as your average author. This is more Cosby level stuff, core memories tainted.

I did not grow up reading him. But I have read several of his books and am very familiar with his fandom, both on an offline. Actually it is precisely because of who his fandom is that I think he has a very high likelihood of rehabbing his image: his fans will help him. The will crave that redemption arc and Gaiman’s approval.

All of this is with the caveat that criminal charges are not brought. If criminal charges are brought, then yes, agree that is more like Cosby. But if no charges are brought, I expect he will be back in business in about ten years, with the support of his fandom.

Are you the PP who referred to yourself earlier in the thread as an "authority" because you've seen terrible men rehabbed in the public eye? Whether or not you're that PP, you sure are confident about your assessment of his fans.

Maybe check your attitude of authority. You are seriously underestimating how strongly Gaiman's female fans of all ages, but especially those in their 20s, will react to this situation. They will not forget or forgive, and nothing will rehabilitate him in their eyes; they are well aware of how the public apology crap works with men like this. And they'll be the first to speak up, loudly, if he or other parts of his fandom try to excuse his actions or claim he's truly contrite. Even years from now.

The source for my "authority" on this? My DD in her 20s who was a Gaiman fan, and her many, many friends who were, too. They are wounded, but mostly they are furious. And PP, they are not stupid, naive, or forgetful. They also know how to use their voices against men like this. Even men who produced work they had loved.

Wait. You think that Gaiman cares at all about his female fans? He’s been telegraphing for years what he thinks of them, and it is not good. Gaiman’s redemption arc won’t include those fans; he’s never cared for them to begin with. Their fury is irrelevant to him.

What will happen is this, assuming no criminal complaint is filed: He will go silent for awhile except for vague reference to “doing work” and “reflecting.” He will wait for the divorce case to settle. In the meantime, the PR firm he hires will start quietly digging for incriminating information about the accusers. Since these poor women are already vulnerable and damaged, it probably won’t be too hard to find information that can be twisted to make them look bad in the usual way women are discredited.

Anonymous posts about the accusers will start quietly mushrooming in a year or two, first on explicitly red-pill forums and then places like Reddit. “I knew one of the accusers when she was in high school. She slept with two buddies of mine at the same time but told each they were exclusive.” “Bro I just realized that the bathtub chick Gaiman banged has an OF account.” That sort of stuff. The profiles of the people dropping it will be curiously devoid of posting history, and go just up to the line of libel but not cross it. The misogynist portion of Gaiman’s base — and that is a big portion — will run with the posts, and the accounts will quietly be deleted a few months later. By then the accusations will have a life of their own.

That will go on for a few years, just long enough to activate large base of male Gaiman fans who will have convinced themselves that their hero Gaiman was unfairly accused and also get the support of some damaged female pick-mes. It will be enough to convince a publisher.

He will, in a few years, drop hints about how his work on himself has led him to look inward and focus his art on men doing “hard work.” It will be vague, but then in a few years after that, rumors will start about a new Gaiman novel, focusing on the experience of men.

And there you go: a ready-made audience primed to read a grotesquely misogynist and simultaneously self-adulating novel. Your daughter’s fury won’t matter at all.

Shudder. I think you’re right. Get a clue, “wounded” ladies and their too-late mama bears.

DP. I think that PP can write some half-decent fiction. I don't think she has a clue about real people though.

What specifically do you find unlikely? That unfortunately seems to be a quite accurate account of real people.

Specifically? I think he's cooked. There's no coming back from this. There's no "artful smearing" of the women, there's no "rehabilitation", and there's no "new male audience".

His fandom was both men and women. And now it is no one.

I think you’re the one who doesn’t know real people, though I think you are charmingly optimistic and naive as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

Gaiman’s readership consists of normies, albeit ones who have convinced themselves they are not.

He will be embraced widely by his fans in a few years.

Please tell us how you are an authority, because that does not ring through with anyone I’ve talked to.

I’m an authority because I have eyes, and have watched the successful rehabilitation of many predatory men. This is not going to remotely end his career, unfortunately.

Are you a person that grew up reading him? That’s the difference. His fandom is not the same as your average author. This is more Cosby level stuff, core memories tainted.

I did not grow up reading him. But I have read several of his books and am very familiar with his fandom, both on an offline. Actually it is precisely because of who his fandom is that I think he has a very high likelihood of rehabbing his image: his fans will help him. The will crave that redemption arc and Gaiman’s approval.

All of this is with the caveat that criminal charges are not brought. If criminal charges are brought, then yes, agree that is more like Cosby. But if no charges are brought, I expect he will be back in business in about ten years, with the support of his fandom.

Are you the PP who referred to yourself earlier in the thread as an "authority" because you've seen terrible men rehabbed in the public eye? Whether or not you're that PP, you sure are confident about your assessment of his fans.

Maybe check your attitude of authority. You are seriously underestimating how strongly Gaiman's female fans of all ages, but especially those in their 20s, will react to this situation. They will not forget or forgive, and nothing will rehabilitate him in their eyes; they are well aware of how the public apology crap works with men like this. And they'll be the first to speak up, loudly, if he or other parts of his fandom try to excuse his actions or claim he's truly contrite. Even years from now.

The source for my "authority" on this? My DD in her 20s who was a Gaiman fan, and her many, many friends who were, too. They are wounded, but mostly they are furious. And PP, they are not stupid, naive, or forgetful. They also know how to use their voices against men like this. Even men who produced work they had loved.

Wait. You think that Gaiman cares at all about his female fans? He’s been telegraphing for years what he thinks of them, and it is not good. Gaiman’s redemption arc won’t include those fans; he’s never cared for them to begin with. Their fury is irrelevant to him.

What will happen is this, assuming no criminal complaint is filed: He will go silent for awhile except for vague reference to “doing work” and “reflecting.” He will wait for the divorce case to settle. In the meantime, the PR firm he hires will start quietly digging for incriminating information about the accusers. Since these poor women are already vulnerable and damaged, it probably won’t be too hard to find information that can be twisted to make them look bad in the usual way women are discredited.

Anonymous posts about the accusers will start quietly mushrooming in a year or two, first on explicitly red-pill forums and then places like Reddit. “I knew one of the accusers when she was in high school. She slept with two buddies of mine at the same time but told each they were exclusive.” “Bro I just realized that the bathtub chick Gaiman banged has an OF account.” That sort of stuff. The profiles of the people dropping it will be curiously devoid of posting history, and go just up to the line of libel but not cross it. The misogynist portion of Gaiman’s base — and that is a big portion — will run with the posts, and the accounts will quietly be deleted a few months later. By then the accusations will have a life of their own.

That will go on for a few years, just long enough to activate large base of male Gaiman fans who will have convinced themselves that their hero Gaiman was unfairly accused and also get the support of some damaged female pick-mes. It will be enough to convince a publisher.

He will, in a few years, drop hints about how his work on himself has led him to look inward and focus his art on men doing “hard work.” It will be vague, but then in a few years after that, rumors will start about a new Gaiman novel, focusing on the experience of men.

And there you go: a ready-made audience primed to read a grotesquely misogynist and simultaneously self-adulating novel. Your daughter’s fury won’t matter at all.

Shudder. I think you’re right. Get a clue, “wounded” ladies and their too-late mama bears.

DP. I think that PP can write some half-decent fiction. I don't think she has a clue about real people though.

What specifically do you find unlikely? That unfortunately seems to be a quite accurate account of real people.

Specifically? I think he's cooked. There's no coming back from this. There's no "artful smearing" of the women, there's no "rehabilitation", and there's no "new male audience".

His fandom was both men and women. And now it is no one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

Gaiman’s readership consists of normies, albeit ones who have convinced themselves they are not.

He will be embraced widely by his fans in a few years.

Please tell us how you are an authority, because that does not ring through with anyone I’ve talked to.

I’m an authority because I have eyes, and have watched the successful rehabilitation of many predatory men. This is not going to remotely end his career, unfortunately.

Are you a person that grew up reading him? That’s the difference. His fandom is not the same as your average author. This is more Cosby level stuff, core memories tainted.

I did not grow up reading him. But I have read several of his books and am very familiar with his fandom, both on an offline. Actually it is precisely because of who his fandom is that I think he has a very high likelihood of rehabbing his image: his fans will help him. The will crave that redemption arc and Gaiman’s approval.

All of this is with the caveat that criminal charges are not brought. If criminal charges are brought, then yes, agree that is more like Cosby. But if no charges are brought, I expect he will be back in business in about ten years, with the support of his fandom.

Are you the PP who referred to yourself earlier in the thread as an "authority" because you've seen terrible men rehabbed in the public eye? Whether or not you're that PP, you sure are confident about your assessment of his fans.

Maybe check your attitude of authority. You are seriously underestimating how strongly Gaiman's female fans of all ages, but especially those in their 20s, will react to this situation. They will not forget or forgive, and nothing will rehabilitate him in their eyes; they are well aware of how the public apology crap works with men like this. And they'll be the first to speak up, loudly, if he or other parts of his fandom try to excuse his actions or claim he's truly contrite. Even years from now.

The source for my "authority" on this? My DD in her 20s who was a Gaiman fan, and her many, many friends who were, too. They are wounded, but mostly they are furious. And PP, they are not stupid, naive, or forgetful. They also know how to use their voices against men like this. Even men who produced work they had loved.

Wait. You think that Gaiman cares at all about his female fans? He’s been telegraphing for years what he thinks of them, and it is not good. Gaiman’s redemption arc won’t include those fans; he’s never cared for them to begin with. Their fury is irrelevant to him.

What will happen is this, assuming no criminal complaint is filed: He will go silent for awhile except for vague reference to “doing work” and “reflecting.” He will wait for the divorce case to settle. In the meantime, the PR firm he hires will start quietly digging for incriminating information about the accusers. Since these poor women are already vulnerable and damaged, it probably won’t be too hard to find information that can be twisted to make them look bad in the usual way women are discredited.

Anonymous posts about the accusers will start quietly mushrooming in a year or two, first on explicitly red-pill forums and then places like Reddit. “I knew one of the accusers when she was in high school. She slept with two buddies of mine at the same time but told each they were exclusive.” “Bro I just realized that the bathtub chick Gaiman banged has an OF account.” That sort of stuff. The profiles of the people dropping it will be curiously devoid of posting history, and go just up to the line of libel but not cross it. The misogynist portion of Gaiman’s base — and that is a big portion — will run with the posts, and the accounts will quietly be deleted a few months later. By then the accusations will have a life of their own.

That will go on for a few years, just long enough to activate large base of male Gaiman fans who will have convinced themselves that their hero Gaiman was unfairly accused and also get the support of some damaged female pick-mes. It will be enough to convince a publisher.

He will, in a few years, drop hints about how his work on himself has led him to look inward and focus his art on men doing “hard work.” It will be vague, but then in a few years after that, rumors will start about a new Gaiman novel, focusing on the experience of men.

And there you go: a ready-made audience primed to read a grotesquely misogynist and simultaneously self-adulating novel. Your daughter’s fury won’t matter at all.

Shudder. I think you’re right. Get a clue, “wounded” ladies and their too-late mama bears.

DP. I think that PP can write some half-decent fiction. I don't think she has a clue about real people though.

What specifically do you find unlikely? That unfortunately seems to be a quite accurate account of real people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

Sure I mean he’s gross, but “accusations” of being a “predator” seem to be what’s really over the line. Honestly I’m sick of grown women being infantilized like this. If your gross employer asks you to take a bath with him it’s time to get the hell out of there.

(Plus he sucks as a writer. Never understood his appeal.)

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

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.

This New York Times opinion article basically summarizes above debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/opinion/neil-gaiman-babygirl.html?unlocked_article_code=1.p04.HHl3.HpRjPR2lp6d5&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare