"Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Trans rights are human rights. I’m sorry that some people have such a hard time getting their heads around that." Neil Gaiman, August, 2021
I used to like Neil Gaiman. At this point, I can't abide him. He's so full of himself and his opinions. The way he treated Graham Linehan is shameful. He isn't a hero of any kind. He's a pandering pick-me with no spine, not to mention an apparent rapist. The "man," if he can be called that, disgusts me.
I liked "American Gods". That's it. When I tried to read other of his work it left me feeling hollowed out. Didn't have a good feeling about the writer behind it.
I listened to the whole thing. One disturbing thing was how they pointed out how the Nanny's narrative around consent was all over the map. I think she was far too psychologically immature to protect herself from his grooming. It was not explained why she was estranged from her family, but she was desperate to do anything to recreate a sense of family. And it was only when she found out he had taken another girlfriend that she saw fit to go to the police. It is a sad reality that women and girls are biologically more prone to bond after sex or intimacy, as well as conditioned to please their intimate partners to point of great sacrifice. I think we as a society need to really come to grips with this reality - that makes women and girls Extremely vulnerable in cultures where anything-goes sex is rampant.
I kept on thinking the way she approached her decisions was similar to those who have borderline personality disorder. Where their self identity, values, what is and is not acceptable is entirely dependant upon external factors. For instance - as long as the Gaiman's accepted her as part of the family, or a special connection was maintained - she was willing to accept the brutality and neglect (to the point of not being paid for her work even). But her questioning of whether this type of treatment was acceptable came after being influenced by the people who cared for her in the hospital after her suicide attempt and then later after she found she was no longer the special other woman in Gaiman's life. BPD folks often have experienced developmental trauma that causes them to bond with people really quickly in order to co-regulate their own emotional experience. And this need for and reliance upon co-regulation creates this extreme and unquestioning co-dependance. They morph into the "perfect victim" in order to get their supply. Basically they use people like drugs and are the perfect counterpoint to Malignant narcisscists, which is sounds like Gaiman is. But when that supply is cut off - when they are rejected or perceive rejection - their idealized person falls hard in their eyes. At this point they can turn entirely against their special person feeling deeply betrayed. The nanny showed this flip-flopping of behavior throughout her communications with Gaiman - from the first expressing reservations with her friends - while in same time period - not resisting and even inviting through her correspondence the BDSM - or after the affair - continuing affectionate communications. One could see that this inconsistent behavior as unreliable or duplicitous. But for someone that has BPD - whatever they do is primarily with the intent of keeping psychogically or emotionally in control/feeling safe in the moment. Consistency of behavior and personal values is a higher order life goal that is beyond them. And it makes sense that years later - having matured, having had therapy, or soul-searching - that such a person in retrospect understand that she was not able to advocate for herself in her youth.
Totally. Nanny for who, exactly, that bath time involves getting in the bath with the dad? He clearly was not hiring with his child in mind, his willy was the primary consideration.
Maybe they mean bathROOM? As in, the kids having a bath and the adults are both there or the home owner is showing the new nanny around and they end up in the bathroom? Or he pushes her in, or says he wants to show her how to use the shower? Perhaps the podcast makes it clearer.
Episode 2 of the podcast states that it’s Gaiman’s position that tendencies to sexual degradation are not uncommon with women (see Fifty Shades of Gray!) but personally I don’t agree with this position- seems like an awfully convenient belief for men who treat women this way to have, though.
I’m starting to think that powerful men abusing women is the RULE and not the exception. Every week another famous man is being revealed as abusing his position of power and being a disgusting abuser. Society needs a reckoning.
Someone gave me one of his books. I read it hopeful I would like it, because he'd said he was a fan of Diana Wynne Jones, whose work I adore. I did not like it at all. It was creepy about women. Wish this were a surprise but... not surprised.
This is a mess. There are three things wrapped up in this which seem to need a bit more exposition. How is he coopting Pratchett's legacy to promote his views? I am not questioning the veracity of that but what is being claimed here? It's not clear. There is a reference to Pink News so presumably some of this is quoted from something they wrote - was it the headline that was screen grabbed? I can't find it. It seems it might be important. There are no citations apart from the podcast. There are serious allegations of sexual assault but that seems to be a separate issue. Now, there might be a case that his attitude to women's rights and his alleged assault of women are somehow connected, and to be honest that is what I thought this piece was be about. It's precisely because I think trans activism is rooted in misogyny that I find this so disappointing; it looks like there was a cogent argument to be made beyond 'let's fling the shit and see what sticks'.
I think the bit about Terry Pratchett was Pink News saying that it's anti-trans (ie GC) people who are co-opting his legacy and therefore Neil Gaiman is doing something to counter this and therefore a hero.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
I'm not sure what Gaiman's championship of trans people has to do with his sexual transgressions. Howsomever, it strikes me that we have a case of foolish and immature young girls getting involved with a sexual bully. Whether or not he fits the legal description of a rapist would be difficult to judge, but there is no doubt that he is a deeply unpleasant man.
Women’s opposition to transgenderism is essentially that it attempts to leave women with absolutely no boundaries from men- not in our public bathrooms, not while we’re changing to go swim, not in a jail cell, not even in our own thoughts. Men who predate sexually on women, as outright rapists or as creepy manipulators don’t respect our boundaries either. It’s crystal clear to me what the connection is.
I paid rather a lot of money to do an online Masterclass on fiction writing with Neil Gaiman. It was basically NG talking about himself throughout. Even then he came across as a creepy narcissist who I would not want to be left alone with.
I used to like Neil Gaiman. At this point, I can't abide him. He's so full of himself and his opinions. The way he treated Graham Linehan is shameful. He isn't a hero of any kind. He's a pandering pick-me with no spine, not to mention an apparent rapist. The "man," if he can be called that, disgusts me.
I liked "American Gods". That's it. When I tried to read other of his work it left me feeling hollowed out. Didn't have a good feeling about the writer behind it.
Trans women are men. Trans men are women. Trans rights are human rights. Why is it so hard for Neil to get his head round that?
Oh fancy that. A sexually deviant bloke advocating for debauchery. Who would have thought it!
Is this why he broke Covid rules, flew to Skye and abandoned his wife and 4 year old child in New Zealand in 2020?
What a snake.
I listened to the whole thing. One disturbing thing was how they pointed out how the Nanny's narrative around consent was all over the map. I think she was far too psychologically immature to protect herself from his grooming. It was not explained why she was estranged from her family, but she was desperate to do anything to recreate a sense of family. And it was only when she found out he had taken another girlfriend that she saw fit to go to the police. It is a sad reality that women and girls are biologically more prone to bond after sex or intimacy, as well as conditioned to please their intimate partners to point of great sacrifice. I think we as a society need to really come to grips with this reality - that makes women and girls Extremely vulnerable in cultures where anything-goes sex is rampant.
Thank you for your comments, all thoughtful and spot-on. His fame and age are huge factors in this in my opinion.
I kept on thinking the way she approached her decisions was similar to those who have borderline personality disorder. Where their self identity, values, what is and is not acceptable is entirely dependant upon external factors. For instance - as long as the Gaiman's accepted her as part of the family, or a special connection was maintained - she was willing to accept the brutality and neglect (to the point of not being paid for her work even). But her questioning of whether this type of treatment was acceptable came after being influenced by the people who cared for her in the hospital after her suicide attempt and then later after she found she was no longer the special other woman in Gaiman's life. BPD folks often have experienced developmental trauma that causes them to bond with people really quickly in order to co-regulate their own emotional experience. And this need for and reliance upon co-regulation creates this extreme and unquestioning co-dependance. They morph into the "perfect victim" in order to get their supply. Basically they use people like drugs and are the perfect counterpoint to Malignant narcisscists, which is sounds like Gaiman is. But when that supply is cut off - when they are rejected or perceive rejection - their idealized person falls hard in their eyes. At this point they can turn entirely against their special person feeling deeply betrayed. The nanny showed this flip-flopping of behavior throughout her communications with Gaiman - from the first expressing reservations with her friends - while in same time period - not resisting and even inviting through her correspondence the BDSM - or after the affair - continuing affectionate communications. One could see that this inconsistent behavior as unreliable or duplicitous. But for someone that has BPD - whatever they do is primarily with the intent of keeping psychogically or emotionally in control/feeling safe in the moment. Consistency of behavior and personal values is a higher order life goal that is beyond them. And it makes sense that years later - having matured, having had therapy, or soul-searching - that such a person in retrospect understand that she was not able to advocate for herself in her youth.
I notice the fantasy genre attracts reality deniers, maybe it goes with the territory. Angry Robot books were quick to bash Seen in Publishing too.
It always has. Noteworthy examples are Marion Bradly-Zimmerman, Walter Breen and many more.
And JKR
Are we allowed to judge men who get off on hurting women, consensual or no? Cause I judge them very much.
who was in the bath? very bizarre on day 1 of employment that you end up in a bath together - consensual or not
Totally. Nanny for who, exactly, that bath time involves getting in the bath with the dad? He clearly was not hiring with his child in mind, his willy was the primary consideration.
Maybe they mean bathROOM? As in, the kids having a bath and the adults are both there or the home owner is showing the new nanny around and they end up in the bathroom? Or he pushes her in, or says he wants to show her how to use the shower? Perhaps the podcast makes it clearer.
Nope, it was the bath. Some cool outdoor bath that he offered to let her use. Child was at a play date.
Episode 2 of the podcast states that it’s Gaiman’s position that tendencies to sexual degradation are not uncommon with women (see Fifty Shades of Gray!) but personally I don’t agree with this position- seems like an awfully convenient belief for men who treat women this way to have, though.
I’m starting to think that powerful men abusing women is the RULE and not the exception. Every week another famous man is being revealed as abusing his position of power and being a disgusting abuser. Society needs a reckoning.
Someone gave me one of his books. I read it hopeful I would like it, because he'd said he was a fan of Diana Wynne Jones, whose work I adore. I did not like it at all. It was creepy about women. Wish this were a surprise but... not surprised.
Always thought there was more to the story of him leaving New Zealand to fly to the UK during Covid
This is a mess. There are three things wrapped up in this which seem to need a bit more exposition. How is he coopting Pratchett's legacy to promote his views? I am not questioning the veracity of that but what is being claimed here? It's not clear. There is a reference to Pink News so presumably some of this is quoted from something they wrote - was it the headline that was screen grabbed? I can't find it. It seems it might be important. There are no citations apart from the podcast. There are serious allegations of sexual assault but that seems to be a separate issue. Now, there might be a case that his attitude to women's rights and his alleged assault of women are somehow connected, and to be honest that is what I thought this piece was be about. It's precisely because I think trans activism is rooted in misogyny that I find this so disappointing; it looks like there was a cogent argument to be made beyond 'let's fling the shit and see what sticks'.
I think the bit about Terry Pratchett was Pink News saying that it's anti-trans (ie GC) people who are co-opting his legacy and therefore Neil Gaiman is doing something to counter this and therefore a hero.
I am obliged to you. That makes sense. Appreciate the clarification.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
I'm not sure what Gaiman's championship of trans people has to do with his sexual transgressions. Howsomever, it strikes me that we have a case of foolish and immature young girls getting involved with a sexual bully. Whether or not he fits the legal description of a rapist would be difficult to judge, but there is no doubt that he is a deeply unpleasant man.
Women’s opposition to transgenderism is essentially that it attempts to leave women with absolutely no boundaries from men- not in our public bathrooms, not while we’re changing to go swim, not in a jail cell, not even in our own thoughts. Men who predate sexually on women, as outright rapists or as creepy manipulators don’t respect our boundaries either. It’s crystal clear to me what the connection is.
You really do not see advocating for the trampling of women's safety and privacy in favour of "men can go wherever they want all the time shut up"
... as connected to a personal enthusiasm for trampling women's boundaries sexually? The connecting line is not fuzzy to me.
I paid rather a lot of money to do an online Masterclass on fiction writing with Neil Gaiman. It was basically NG talking about himself throughout. Even then he came across as a creepy narcissist who I would not want to be left alone with.