thank you! a friend of mine who was abused (her and her daughter), by the ex/father discovered that he is in a new relationship with a female influencer (instagram, 63000 follower), who frequently posts against violence against women. she wont talk about that relationhship on her instagram but takes it upon herself to keep him company to the many family court hearings he keeps initiating (every 6 months). my friend and her daughter have to go through so much trauma and still have to because of this man. there are so many women out there (and they seem to get more) who keep talking about feminism and violence against women, but wont do shit for the real women within their reach. it disgusts and enrages me!! thank you for pointing that out.
This is a wonderful invigorating robust essay of rage. Thank you - it's worth the subscription to your Substack for this piece alone. The cover up about Gaiman is atrocious, but predictable. More strength to your keyboard, Julie!
Lawrence Miles (one of those '90s Dr Who authors) once called Gaiman out as a guy who wrote the way he did purely to (I paraphrase) "cop off with goth girls". I'd never paid attention to Gaiman-the-person, but from that point onward something felt off about him, and off about the goth scene as well.
There's probably an expose waiting to be written of the goth scene, with how it overly congratulates itself as a historic safe space, and how a lot of it really, really wasn't (even some of the scene-hagiographies inadvertently out venues as merely being "safe spaces" for predatory boundary violators). I imagine it could dove-tail into the Gaiman issue pretty well, what with the similar contrast between the accusations/his cultivated image, and his chosen target audience being of goth leaning.
True. I can think of a few. I'm aware of a few cases where writers wanted to do something to remedy it, only for (male) cast members or the higher ups at the BBC to reinforce the sexist status quo. This is in old Who.
In new who, there's a kind of sneering misogyny in some of the tropes RTD deploys in his writing of women (particularly female villains), and newer writers have a kind of dopey, sub-fetishist approach to deploying tropes about assertive women. You can see this in one of the Dr Who stories authored by Gaiman, but what's-his-name who took over from Davies is a repeat offender.
'90s Who novel writers were a bit too much on the pseudo-intellectual / queer theorist side of things for my liking.
(I'm more interested in the history of public broadcasting than I am in Dr Who. I don't particularly like being around Dr Who fans, for the record).
That call out I call out as male pen/penis envy of industrial writers/authors towards a rarer outstanding one. I dont like all of NG's writings but quite a good many are geniuses, no matter what sort of human being he revealed to be. Exactly what chokes me that NG has used/abused his excellent sensitivity and understanding of human contacts and personalities to know exactly how far he can go in torture and power games without overstepping the law defined boundaries - the very same abilities that make him an outstanding author instead of a mere fashionable industrial one. The law defined ones, mind, not the moral ones. And for your info I don't fit into the goth category, nor at least half of the NG fans. The quality of his writings won't get worse from his discovered crimes. This thinking in stiff fashion categories actually reminds me of Laurie Penny's desperate fitting in attempts by "not fitting in" and smooching up to famous. That's the refuge of mediocre writers.
Well I thought he was bang on the money, and I was a goth. You can only really think NG's writing is outstanding when you're lacking in maturity. I know, cos I grew out of it, just like I grew out of thinking I was 'not like the other girls'. You'll get there, babe.
> Lawrence Miles (one of those '90s Dr Who authors) once called Gaiman out as a guy who wrote the way he did purely to (I paraphrase) "cop off with goth girls".
Yes. All that self-conscious writing now looks suspiciously like bait.
This is the most opinionated, bitter, rage article I have ever the wasted my time on. I could barely finish it. Terrible. There is nothing in here of use
This entire article was written off of vibes. There is literally nothing substantial in here besides having linked the two as a friends. It’s crazy to write something so charged with 0 evidence and 0 receipts. Less than half baked.
This is an intersting piece but i'd feel a lot better about trusting you if you used the person's prefered pronouns. You may not like someone they may even be a bad person but people deserve that level of dignity. You are giving a bad name to the people who are making the allagations since the main argument against them is that they are happening due to transphobia
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it is more complicated than you want to admit.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
No one is compelled to participate in anyone else's self-perception, i.e., using another's preferred pronouns. Your pronouns (and mine) are "I" and "me." There is no such thing in nature as a non-binary person as all humans produce either small mobile gametes or large immobile ones. Presenting as androgynous does not make you a magical third sex. People vary in their degrees of masculinity and femininity. So what? They're still a part of the mammalian binary.
It's ridiculous about how all of you ignore things like the brain scans that show some people have a difference in brain structure. Cis and trans women have the brains of women. Cis and trans men have the brains of men and some people have brains that are different than both. I can't stop you from denying science but i can point out that your choice to ignore the truth goes against logic and scientific research. Also intersex people exist and you seem to be ignoring that. Plus many members of the animal kingdom have differing biology including a mammal or two. You can live in delusion land but you have to know it is delusion.
There is more variability within males' brains and within females' brains than there is between males' and females' brains. Male brains tend to be around 10% larger on average; however, this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69361-9) shows that once you control for brain volume, distinguishing the sex of the brain is ≈60% which is slightly better than flipping a coin. Furthermore, the assertion that the alleged chromosomal variations in trans people being the reason for their gender/body dysmorphia was debunked when they showed that the hypothesis that held that XYY males were more aggressive was nonsense.
As for intersex people (who are a tiny % of the population), all produce either large immobile or small mobile gametes meaning that they fall on one side of the sexual binary or the other. While they have both sets of genitals, only one set of sex organs works.
Finally, no mammal can change its sex. We can alter our secondary sexual characteristics, e.g., breast implants, double mastectomies, make Franken-pussies, etc., but our sexes are immutable. This does not imply that trans people should be treated badly or marginalized, but it does mean that they are mentally ill and should be treated as such. The real question is "Why are we indulging delusional ideation to the point of promoting body mutilating surgeries and wrong sex hormones instead of therapy?". We don't put the guy who believes he's Napoleon or the guy who thinks he's JFK on the throne of France or in the White House, respectively. Yet we are expected to immediately affirm someone's delusion about their body--especially children. That way lies madness.
Being a writer for the Guardian and the Independent says all about her being a dyed in the wool hypocrite. So pathetic of her to try to fit in by not fitting in, instead of accepting who she is always trying to identify herself with the latest social fad. She must be a very scared, insecure individual hiding ineffectively behind quite a transparent "angry" facade and not giving a shit about anyone but her own well being. Thus she clings to fame and famous as a limpet, honesty and loyalty in such trouble is too much to be expeced of her.
Personally (And I don't know if they have in this case because all I can find are essays like this basses in feeling), before condemning someone beyond a restraining order all of the facts and evidence should be collected no matter who the victim or caused is. Women and men have had their lives ruined over this, and generally speaking everyone assumes it's impossible to lie about something like this.
AGAIN! I am not saying that's what happened here I can't find the investigation. But there have been many times (Usually f to m) where the victim is considered guilty before being proven as such. And than (in the appropriate cases) the falsely accused has their lives ruined and the accuser just gets a slap on the wrist.
Not to mention most men feel they can't report it (why I think the number is so screwed for SA and SH) and even if they do the response is usually 'Oh your a man that impossible." or, "You let that happen to you? What are you a p*ss*?" or some other ridicule.
This is an important issue for humans in general, and should be taken. Seriously, and not just assume one side is right because of tears. There should be evidence no matter who the victim is because if it did happen, that is very traumatic and it's possible to miss identify someone to. By properly investigating the issue, you'd save someone from being falsely accused and instead catch the real perpetrator.
Look, I'm all against trial by media myself but I found that even what NG himself admitted sinks him morally. He claims the intercourses were consensual but doesnt deny they happened. Now, those women without any exception were in a vulnerable, dependant position to him which by definition refutes free consent. Then the regular pattern of most of them being between the age of 19-22 to his 45 and way over 50. That_says_all: the pattern of preying. What I'd like to know more about is the role of her wife: it's almost impossible of her not having any notion about that - condoning, pretense blindness or serving as an enabler to meet young girls drawn in by her fame? Half of the women confess getting to know NG by wanting to know AP.
She has form for not speaking out much when her comics industry mentors do fucked up shit. Notably absent from the debate about Warren Ellis, who was an early supporter of her journalism. I like some of her writing but her silence on these topics is definitely a problem.
"More complainants have come forward since the podcast was aired"
-- Google doesn't turn up anything on this. Some links or the names of publications would be useful.
"I would put money on Laurie Penny being one of the women who spoke up for her friend in that podcast. ... And Laurie, if this is you ... I await your denial, and, if I have somehow defamed you, a letter from your lawyers."
You make clear you're giving an opinion, and it's based on public facts (her social media friendship with Gaiman, her silence since the accusations, and her identifying as neuroatypical, like one of the women on the podcast who speaks up for Gaiman). Even if she isn't one of the women, talk of defamation seems like a stretch.
Some smaller points:
"The nanny, by the way, attempted suicide."
`-- She was feeling suicidal and checked into a hospital. No attempt.
"Gaiman’s response was to pretend that he was also suicidal"
-- We don't know if he was pretending. We can suspect but that's all.
"because the nanny had told Amanda Palmer that he had raped her."
-- At this point the nanny was still treating the matter lightly. But she confided in a friend and the friend sent Palmer an angry message.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
thank you! a friend of mine who was abused (her and her daughter), by the ex/father discovered that he is in a new relationship with a female influencer (instagram, 63000 follower), who frequently posts against violence against women. she wont talk about that relationhship on her instagram but takes it upon herself to keep him company to the many family court hearings he keeps initiating (every 6 months). my friend and her daughter have to go through so much trauma and still have to because of this man. there are so many women out there (and they seem to get more) who keep talking about feminism and violence against women, but wont do shit for the real women within their reach. it disgusts and enrages me!! thank you for pointing that out.
This is a wonderful invigorating robust essay of rage. Thank you - it's worth the subscription to your Substack for this piece alone. The cover up about Gaiman is atrocious, but predictable. More strength to your keyboard, Julie!
It will be interesting to see if Tori Amos speaks up about her good friend Neil Gaiman. She is involved with a rape crisis charity.
Is this enough for you? https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/dec/03/tori-amos-on-trauma-trump-and-neil-gaiman-a-heartbreaking-grief
Lawrence Miles (one of those '90s Dr Who authors) once called Gaiman out as a guy who wrote the way he did purely to (I paraphrase) "cop off with goth girls". I'd never paid attention to Gaiman-the-person, but from that point onward something felt off about him, and off about the goth scene as well.
There's probably an expose waiting to be written of the goth scene, with how it overly congratulates itself as a historic safe space, and how a lot of it really, really wasn't (even some of the scene-hagiographies inadvertently out venues as merely being "safe spaces" for predatory boundary violators). I imagine it could dove-tail into the Gaiman issue pretty well, what with the similar contrast between the accusations/his cultivated image, and his chosen target audience being of goth leaning.
Dr Who is also rife with misogynistic plot lines and characters.
True. I can think of a few. I'm aware of a few cases where writers wanted to do something to remedy it, only for (male) cast members or the higher ups at the BBC to reinforce the sexist status quo. This is in old Who.
In new who, there's a kind of sneering misogyny in some of the tropes RTD deploys in his writing of women (particularly female villains), and newer writers have a kind of dopey, sub-fetishist approach to deploying tropes about assertive women. You can see this in one of the Dr Who stories authored by Gaiman, but what's-his-name who took over from Davies is a repeat offender.
'90s Who novel writers were a bit too much on the pseudo-intellectual / queer theorist side of things for my liking.
(I'm more interested in the history of public broadcasting than I am in Dr Who. I don't particularly like being around Dr Who fans, for the record).
That call out I call out as male pen/penis envy of industrial writers/authors towards a rarer outstanding one. I dont like all of NG's writings but quite a good many are geniuses, no matter what sort of human being he revealed to be. Exactly what chokes me that NG has used/abused his excellent sensitivity and understanding of human contacts and personalities to know exactly how far he can go in torture and power games without overstepping the law defined boundaries - the very same abilities that make him an outstanding author instead of a mere fashionable industrial one. The law defined ones, mind, not the moral ones. And for your info I don't fit into the goth category, nor at least half of the NG fans. The quality of his writings won't get worse from his discovered crimes. This thinking in stiff fashion categories actually reminds me of Laurie Penny's desperate fitting in attempts by "not fitting in" and smooching up to famous. That's the refuge of mediocre writers.
Well I thought he was bang on the money, and I was a goth. You can only really think NG's writing is outstanding when you're lacking in maturity. I know, cos I grew out of it, just like I grew out of thinking I was 'not like the other girls'. You'll get there, babe.
> Lawrence Miles (one of those '90s Dr Who authors) once called Gaiman out as a guy who wrote the way he did purely to (I paraphrase) "cop off with goth girls".
Yes. All that self-conscious writing now looks suspiciously like bait.
This is the most opinionated, bitter, rage article I have ever the wasted my time on. I could barely finish it. Terrible. There is nothing in here of use
Really? MeToo hypocrisy from Pick-me girls can't be exposed enough IMO.
cope, Laurie.
This entire article was written off of vibes. There is literally nothing substantial in here besides having linked the two as a friends. It’s crazy to write something so charged with 0 evidence and 0 receipts. Less than half baked.
More complainants have come forward since the podcast aired?!
https://open.spotify.com/episode/47enk8V96GGkJtXEgwpXbs This came out yesterday I believe.
Thanks, will check it out.
This is an intersting piece but i'd feel a lot better about trusting you if you used the person's prefered pronouns. You may not like someone they may even be a bad person but people deserve that level of dignity. You are giving a bad name to the people who are making the allagations since the main argument against them is that they are happening due to transphobia
We'd be more interested in listening to you if you weren't denying reality and trying to pressure others into doing so also.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it is more complicated than you want to admit.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
No one is compelled to participate in anyone else's self-perception, i.e., using another's preferred pronouns. Your pronouns (and mine) are "I" and "me." There is no such thing in nature as a non-binary person as all humans produce either small mobile gametes or large immobile ones. Presenting as androgynous does not make you a magical third sex. People vary in their degrees of masculinity and femininity. So what? They're still a part of the mammalian binary.
It's ridiculous about how all of you ignore things like the brain scans that show some people have a difference in brain structure. Cis and trans women have the brains of women. Cis and trans men have the brains of men and some people have brains that are different than both. I can't stop you from denying science but i can point out that your choice to ignore the truth goes against logic and scientific research. Also intersex people exist and you seem to be ignoring that. Plus many members of the animal kingdom have differing biology including a mammal or two. You can live in delusion land but you have to know it is delusion.
There is more variability within males' brains and within females' brains than there is between males' and females' brains. Male brains tend to be around 10% larger on average; however, this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69361-9) shows that once you control for brain volume, distinguishing the sex of the brain is ≈60% which is slightly better than flipping a coin. Furthermore, the assertion that the alleged chromosomal variations in trans people being the reason for their gender/body dysmorphia was debunked when they showed that the hypothesis that held that XYY males were more aggressive was nonsense.
As for intersex people (who are a tiny % of the population), all produce either large immobile or small mobile gametes meaning that they fall on one side of the sexual binary or the other. While they have both sets of genitals, only one set of sex organs works.
Finally, no mammal can change its sex. We can alter our secondary sexual characteristics, e.g., breast implants, double mastectomies, make Franken-pussies, etc., but our sexes are immutable. This does not imply that trans people should be treated badly or marginalized, but it does mean that they are mentally ill and should be treated as such. The real question is "Why are we indulging delusional ideation to the point of promoting body mutilating surgeries and wrong sex hormones instead of therapy?". We don't put the guy who believes he's Napoleon or the guy who thinks he's JFK on the throne of France or in the White House, respectively. Yet we are expected to immediately affirm someone's delusion about their body--especially children. That way lies madness.
Being a writer for the Guardian and the Independent says all about her being a dyed in the wool hypocrite. So pathetic of her to try to fit in by not fitting in, instead of accepting who she is always trying to identify herself with the latest social fad. She must be a very scared, insecure individual hiding ineffectively behind quite a transparent "angry" facade and not giving a shit about anyone but her own well being. Thus she clings to fame and famous as a limpet, honesty and loyalty in such trouble is too much to be expeced of her.
Personally (And I don't know if they have in this case because all I can find are essays like this basses in feeling), before condemning someone beyond a restraining order all of the facts and evidence should be collected no matter who the victim or caused is. Women and men have had their lives ruined over this, and generally speaking everyone assumes it's impossible to lie about something like this.
AGAIN! I am not saying that's what happened here I can't find the investigation. But there have been many times (Usually f to m) where the victim is considered guilty before being proven as such. And than (in the appropriate cases) the falsely accused has their lives ruined and the accuser just gets a slap on the wrist.
Not to mention most men feel they can't report it (why I think the number is so screwed for SA and SH) and even if they do the response is usually 'Oh your a man that impossible." or, "You let that happen to you? What are you a p*ss*?" or some other ridicule.
This is an important issue for humans in general, and should be taken. Seriously, and not just assume one side is right because of tears. There should be evidence no matter who the victim is because if it did happen, that is very traumatic and it's possible to miss identify someone to. By properly investigating the issue, you'd save someone from being falsely accused and instead catch the real perpetrator.
There are contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, photographs, audio recordings, payoffs, and NDAs, you ignorant fucking idiot.
Look, I'm all against trial by media myself but I found that even what NG himself admitted sinks him morally. He claims the intercourses were consensual but doesnt deny they happened. Now, those women without any exception were in a vulnerable, dependant position to him which by definition refutes free consent. Then the regular pattern of most of them being between the age of 19-22 to his 45 and way over 50. That_says_all: the pattern of preying. What I'd like to know more about is the role of her wife: it's almost impossible of her not having any notion about that - condoning, pretense blindness or serving as an enabler to meet young girls drawn in by her fame? Half of the women confess getting to know NG by wanting to know AP.
Who is “her wife “?
Was this comment by Revan Shan generated by AI?
I liked Laurie Penny in the 2010s, long before postmodernism got a hold of her.
I remember when Laurie Penny pulled off the remarkable feat of making David Sharkey seem reasonable.
She has form for not speaking out much when her comics industry mentors do fucked up shit. Notably absent from the debate about Warren Ellis, who was an early supporter of her journalism. I like some of her writing but her silence on these topics is definitely a problem.
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/so-many-of-us-issues-an-update-regarding-warren-ellis
"More complainants have come forward since the podcast was aired"
-- Google doesn't turn up anything on this. Some links or the names of publications would be useful.
"I would put money on Laurie Penny being one of the women who spoke up for her friend in that podcast. ... And Laurie, if this is you ... I await your denial, and, if I have somehow defamed you, a letter from your lawyers."
You make clear you're giving an opinion, and it's based on public facts (her social media friendship with Gaiman, her silence since the accusations, and her identifying as neuroatypical, like one of the women on the podcast who speaks up for Gaiman). Even if she isn't one of the women, talk of defamation seems like a stretch.
Some smaller points:
"The nanny, by the way, attempted suicide."
`-- She was feeling suicidal and checked into a hospital. No attempt.
"Gaiman’s response was to pretend that he was also suicidal"
-- We don't know if he was pretending. We can suspect but that's all.
"because the nanny had told Amanda Palmer that he had raped her."
-- At this point the nanny was still treating the matter lightly. But she confided in a friend and the friend sent Palmer an angry message.
Stand back! I’m doing journalism!
Interesting, MY google have brought out at once the next 3 women accusers: all of them in a vulnerable position depending on NG's good graces:
https://www.google.com/search?q=neil+gaiman+sexual+abuse+3+more+women&sca_esv=50094aa3d5842932&rlz=1C1KNTJ_huHU1075HU1080&sxsrf=ADLYWIIkZZlkC6HG-OXsa_jH2LtQ_X1HzA%3A1724326741444&ei=VSPHZtXsGoe2i-gPktb1mAU&ved=0ahUKEwiV65nXwYiIAxUH2wIHHRJrHVMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=neil+gaiman+sexual+abuse+3+more+women&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJW5laWwgZ2FpbWFuIHNleHVhbCBhYnVzZSAzIG1vcmUgd29tZW5IqpUBUIcIWIWKAXACeAGQAQWYAcUCoAGvNaoBCTE0LjMzLjQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCGqACoB2oAgvCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICDxAAGIAEGEMYigUYRhj5AcICBRAAGIAEwgIMEAAYgAQYQxiKBRgKwgIpEAAYgAQYQxiKBRhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQHCAgYQswEYhQTCAhMQABiABBhDGLQCGIoFGOoC2AECwgIVEAAYgAQYQxi0AhiKBRjqAhgK2AECwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICCxAuGIAEGNEDGMcBwgIFEC4YgATCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICDhAuGIAEGJECGNQCGIoFwgIdEC4YgAQYkQIY1AIYigUYlwUY3AQY3gQY3wTYAQPCAgoQLhiABBhDGIoFwgIUEC4YgAQYlwUY3AQY3gQY3wTYAQPCAgUQIRigAcICCBAAGIAEGKIEmAMEiAYBkAYKugYGCAEQARgTugYECAIYB7oGBggDEAEYFJIHCDQuMTkuMi4xoAfszgQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
What I find most shocking and sounds quite like NG: he's lying about havig autistic traits thus claims to misread signals.
Bindel's post and my comment were made before the next 3 stepped forward.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
I find it funny that you transphobes speak like you know everything but completely ignore scientific fact. All of the research into different gender identities. You are the one ignoring reality just because it upsets you fact is more complicated than you want to admit.
Dang