Let's not act like Rowling isn't one of them. She is a Leftărd in every way, and I don't care what she says. At her age, there is no hope, or excuse to be on the Left. Once you are old enough to think for yourself, you should be questioning things, and therefore discover the Left is retărded.
The lawsuit is tantamount to admision of guilt. Dose that Limey pouftard not have handlers?
And...
"Based on media coverage, one would think that Rowling is somehow much more the heinous criminal for her outspokenness on protecting women than Gaiman is for what he’s done to women."
Not saying Gaimans right. But he didn't read Iceburg Slims book. This guy can't manage his women.
I'll bet he picks out the weak from the herd. Then after they grow up they bail on him. None of these women love or fear him. And 275k is a cheep payoff for a live-in mistress.
I would argue that 275K is a hefty or cheap payoff depending on how much money Gaiman is actually worth. And I'm not certain what his net worth is. He's certainly a high roller in the entertainment industry as an author with both prose novels and comic books made into movies & TV series, but I'm not sure if he is up there with the amount of lucre made by actors and famous directors.
And though I'm tempted to call Gaiman a creep, I cannot do that as comfortably as I would like without knowing the reputations of the women who accused him. And I'm not talking about sexual reputations, I'm talking about their overall character. Do they have a rep for trying to fleece celebrities? Or other people in general? These are important questions to ask rather than just assuming that the guilt and lack of moral character goes in one direction only.
I'll say this much. I do not know enough about the situation from the inside to determine how guilty Gaiman is or isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that he's guilty of something, because he is a wealthy man and the acquisition of power can make someone very entitled -- even maliciously so. Hence, I won't justify anything he may truly be guilty of.
But that said, note that power can take many forms, including social capital. And the #MeToo movement, along with the Left Woke agenda in general, gave a lot of social cred to women. And the younger they are, the more power they have to ruin someone's career if that person does not come through with certain expectations or demands. You can see this by Rowling claiming that young fans are "vulnerable." They do not realize how cunning and manipulative attractive young people can be, and how much power they can wield on many levels to a smitten person no matter how much older they are.
A lot of times it's clear that certain parties are guilty of using *each other*, which was evident in the Warren Ellis case. A young fan got starstruck; Ellis evidently got lovestruck; they got sexually involved; she had certain expectations he couldn't meet; she expected the world in return; he foolishly told her he would try to give her that world, and like all flawed human beings, he failed. So, he didn't meet those expectations, she got hurt and made accusations, knowing that the industry he worked in and the media would take her side without considering any possible nuance. She didn't get what she wanted; he lost his career as a result. A lose-lose situation of sorts. She knew exactly what the hell she was doing from the get-go. They took advantage of each other.
Is similar things going on with Gaiman and his accusers. There is no way of knowing at this point. We need to wait until things go to court and evidence in either direction comes out. But in the meantime, J.K. Rowling should wait for the courts to put Gaiman on trial if there is enough evidence via a professional investigation to take him there instead of indicting him through the media.
Considering what I've seen go on with both entitled celebrities and entitled young women (young and attractive women are always celebrities in their own right, btw) I will not be surprised if Gaiman either turns out to be guilty or if he turns out to be railroaded.
I agree, at least in part, with your well-balanced approach. Certainly we have seen way too many men’s lives ruined by the false accusations of malicious women who think they can get away with anything—all for their 15 minutes of fame or a huge payout.
Personally, I think that if either party takes it to the court of public opinion, it must go to trial by a jury. No options for it to be handled out of court or by payoffs. If someone is going to smear another’s reputation, they had better be held to account. And the public deserves to know the truth of the matter, since they are being manipulated into becoming accessories to slander—the destruction of a human being’s livelihood (which is what a reputation basically boils down to).
I hate parallel “justice” system that has been created by the court of public opinion. Slander and libel litigation needs to be more common and easier to pursue as a deterrent to liars and fraudsters. And that, in turn, will help those who are the REAL victims of these crimes. All these fakers and liars (not saying the girls in this case are in that category—we don’t know) hurt those who have real cases, because they aren’t taken seriously when someone else cried wolf too many times.
As I noted, if Gaiman is truly guilty of that, then I have no sympathy for him. And as I also noted, and commenter Mallory noted in response to my post, we do not yet know if that is exactly how it went down.
Now, let's put the emotion aside and ask a few serious questions. His accuser that you mentioned, Caroline Wallner -- was she his housekeeper? According to the article we're responding to she was simply the wife of a man who had worked as Gaiman's gardner until he divorced his wife and moved out:
"Wallner was originally the wife of Gaiman’s gardener and they were staying in his guest home in Woodstock, NY, according to her story. She and her husband divorced, at which point she claimed that Gaiman approached her for sexual favors in exchange for staying in the property so she and her children wouldn’t be out on the street."
She claimed or implied he would throw her out if she didn't agree to specifically have sex with him?
So, was she his housekeeper whom it was agreed could stay at that house in exchange for keeping his home tidy? Did he agree to take no rent whatsoever for this woman to stay at that house on his property?
If he only demanded money, and she couldn't give him that, and he kicked her out... would he be seen as "skeevy" then, or just a landlord doing what he had to do? Could he have worked something else out other than sex -- like actually offering her a job as his housekeeper, and that living in his guest home came with the job? Yes. But was she the type of woman who may not mind having sex with a man she is not necessarily physically attracted to (yes, such women do exist, and often become escorts; and I am not denigrating them in any way) and may have preferred that option? Maybe; maybe not. We don't know how it went down.
Did he outright threaten to throw her out if she didn't specifically take the sex option? And she was not the type of woman who is good with that? Did she offer him a housekeeping option, and he said, "No, it's sex or you're out"? Yes, that would make him skeevy if that's how it went down. But we don't know yet. It needs to be investigated, and needs to be taken to court.
She did accept a hefty payout, however. According to the article:
"This kind of play-for-pay situation is illegal, and though we don’t have any details in court proceedings, Gaiman paid Wallner $275,000 in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement, preventing her from suing him or telling anyone about her experiences."
Could she have agreed to the sex option with no issues and then cried foul because he didn't do further financial favors for her? If that was the case, because of the emotional volatility of the issue, she would have him by the balls in the "court" of public opinion. Or, more specifically, the court of public sentiment.
Yes, multiple women have accused him of things. But did they all suddenly come out of the woodwork after one accusation? If so, there are two possibilities that we'll consider:
1) He did indeed do these things to multiple women, and they all came out as a result of being emboldened by the courage of one of their number. And it's as simple as that.
Or...
2) One came out unjustly because he didn't keep giving her more financial favors, and several others who may have simply had a falling out with him for one reason or another sensed a gravy train. And they agreed to pounce simultaneously so as to increase the chance of a multiple payoff type of situation.
How to tell? As Mallory alluded, this has to be about actual justice for victims, not money. If they initiate only criminal cases against him, that is in something in their favor.
But if they take him to civil court -- and worse, *only* civil court -- then a monetary motivation can be strongly suspected.
That's the problem with the Russell Brand case -- none of his accusers are taking him to criminal court now, or made accusations at the time these things allegedly happened (over 20 years ago) nor did they initiate criminal charges then. Instead, they're all pouncing on him *now*, right after he became a political problem for people in power, and taking him to *civil* court for a payout. The profit motive corrupts many, not just people like Gaiman, but potentially anyone he befriended, employed, had sex with, etc. Same with Brand and other celebrities.
And how many of Gaiman's other accusers may have accepted payoffs and initially pretended to be good with that? We actually do not know yet.
So, as Mallory said, we need to take this to court. And it has to go to criminal court, not civil court unless he legitimately owed anyone money. No payoffs involved, either via outside of court or via the civil courts. And it needs to be a judge and jury that convicts him or let's him off the hook due to good evidence or lack of any, respectively... not us on social media. We need to be neutral on this until then, rather than either try accusing him or exonerating him because he's a man, or because of whatever his political beliefs may be, or because we like (or dislike) his work as an author, etc.
point taken. All these women are not angels just as all the #metoo women were not. However, that doesn't mean they are all wrong. I think with multiple similar reports there is something too it. We shall see how it goes.
Fair enough. I personally suspect, as was the case with Warren Ellis and his accusers, that there may be blame on both sides. Neither were angels or innocents. Both sides have their advantages: Gaiman, due to his level of financial capital and influence in the industry; these women due to their level of social capital and public sentiment in the current political climate simply for a combination of their gender and the nature of their accusations.
Not only that, but I got a strong sense of bias from this article. The reason is because its clearly stated message was to protect women from skeevy, corrupt men in the industry. Why wasn't its message a more general one of protecting innocent people in general from corrupt privileged people in general? As I also noted, privilege comes in different forms, especially in today's political climate. It's not just financial capital, but also social capital.
But instead, the implication of this article seemed to be: Women need to be protected from men. Never ask any questions about the motivations, behavior, or personal character of the individual women involved in such cases, nor their position in society as a whole (which currently always affords them the sentiment-based benefit of the doubt).
Women do need to be protected, whether or not they realize it. Now, you don't want to be a fool and just believe any old thing, but if 20 gals say Weinstein's a perv he probably is. The other thing w Russell Brand, even though he's kind of a scumbag and degenerate, even I think is unfair. He supposedly raped a woman in 2006 or whatever and nearly 2 decades later they're charging him? Doesn't England have a statute of limitation?
Red-on-Red action.
Your opposition fighting amongst themselves is popcorn worthy.
Extra butter and salt!
Let's not act like Rowling isn't one of them. She is a Leftărd in every way, and I don't care what she says. At her age, there is no hope, or excuse to be on the Left. Once you are old enough to think for yourself, you should be questioning things, and therefore discover the Left is retărded.
So? she is doing some good instead of pure evil. Credit where due
youre an idiot
Of course Rowling would support the #MeToo garbage - she's a feminist after all. Hey, J.K., anything to say about the Muslim grooming gangs?
yeah she has talked about those things. feminism is great, men are trash
yeah she has talked about those things. feminism is great, men are trash
Idk man, she’s pretty based. I think she’s right. The dude is obviously a creep.
The lawsuit is tantamount to admision of guilt. Dose that Limey pouftard not have handlers?
And...
"Based on media coverage, one would think that Rowling is somehow much more the heinous criminal for her outspokenness on protecting women than Gaiman is for what he’s done to women."
Fixed it for ya.
Not saying Gaimans right. But he didn't read Iceburg Slims book. This guy can't manage his women.
I'll bet he picks out the weak from the herd. Then after they grow up they bail on him. None of these women love or fear him. And 275k is a cheep payoff for a live-in mistress.
Big boy alpha games with gama bucks.
I would argue that 275K is a hefty or cheap payoff depending on how much money Gaiman is actually worth. And I'm not certain what his net worth is. He's certainly a high roller in the entertainment industry as an author with both prose novels and comic books made into movies & TV series, but I'm not sure if he is up there with the amount of lucre made by actors and famous directors.
And though I'm tempted to call Gaiman a creep, I cannot do that as comfortably as I would like without knowing the reputations of the women who accused him. And I'm not talking about sexual reputations, I'm talking about their overall character. Do they have a rep for trying to fleece celebrities? Or other people in general? These are important questions to ask rather than just assuming that the guilt and lack of moral character goes in one direction only.
I'll say this much. I do not know enough about the situation from the inside to determine how guilty Gaiman is or isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that he's guilty of something, because he is a wealthy man and the acquisition of power can make someone very entitled -- even maliciously so. Hence, I won't justify anything he may truly be guilty of.
But that said, note that power can take many forms, including social capital. And the #MeToo movement, along with the Left Woke agenda in general, gave a lot of social cred to women. And the younger they are, the more power they have to ruin someone's career if that person does not come through with certain expectations or demands. You can see this by Rowling claiming that young fans are "vulnerable." They do not realize how cunning and manipulative attractive young people can be, and how much power they can wield on many levels to a smitten person no matter how much older they are.
A lot of times it's clear that certain parties are guilty of using *each other*, which was evident in the Warren Ellis case. A young fan got starstruck; Ellis evidently got lovestruck; they got sexually involved; she had certain expectations he couldn't meet; she expected the world in return; he foolishly told her he would try to give her that world, and like all flawed human beings, he failed. So, he didn't meet those expectations, she got hurt and made accusations, knowing that the industry he worked in and the media would take her side without considering any possible nuance. She didn't get what she wanted; he lost his career as a result. A lose-lose situation of sorts. She knew exactly what the hell she was doing from the get-go. They took advantage of each other.
Is similar things going on with Gaiman and his accusers. There is no way of knowing at this point. We need to wait until things go to court and evidence in either direction comes out. But in the meantime, J.K. Rowling should wait for the courts to put Gaiman on trial if there is enough evidence via a professional investigation to take him there instead of indicting him through the media.
Considering what I've seen go on with both entitled celebrities and entitled young women (young and attractive women are always celebrities in their own right, btw) I will not be surprised if Gaiman either turns out to be guilty or if he turns out to be railroaded.
I agree, at least in part, with your well-balanced approach. Certainly we have seen way too many men’s lives ruined by the false accusations of malicious women who think they can get away with anything—all for their 15 minutes of fame or a huge payout.
Personally, I think that if either party takes it to the court of public opinion, it must go to trial by a jury. No options for it to be handled out of court or by payoffs. If someone is going to smear another’s reputation, they had better be held to account. And the public deserves to know the truth of the matter, since they are being manipulated into becoming accessories to slander—the destruction of a human being’s livelihood (which is what a reputation basically boils down to).
I hate parallel “justice” system that has been created by the court of public opinion. Slander and libel litigation needs to be more common and easier to pursue as a deterrent to liars and fraudsters. And that, in turn, will help those who are the REAL victims of these crimes. All these fakers and liars (not saying the girls in this case are in that category—we don’t know) hurt those who have real cases, because they aren’t taken seriously when someone else cried wolf too many times.
ok but putting your housekeeper out on the street unless she has sex with ya? that's creepy. And it was several women not just one. Dude is skeevy
As I noted, if Gaiman is truly guilty of that, then I have no sympathy for him. And as I also noted, and commenter Mallory noted in response to my post, we do not yet know if that is exactly how it went down.
Now, let's put the emotion aside and ask a few serious questions. His accuser that you mentioned, Caroline Wallner -- was she his housekeeper? According to the article we're responding to she was simply the wife of a man who had worked as Gaiman's gardner until he divorced his wife and moved out:
"Wallner was originally the wife of Gaiman’s gardener and they were staying in his guest home in Woodstock, NY, according to her story. She and her husband divorced, at which point she claimed that Gaiman approached her for sexual favors in exchange for staying in the property so she and her children wouldn’t be out on the street."
She claimed or implied he would throw her out if she didn't agree to specifically have sex with him?
So, was she his housekeeper whom it was agreed could stay at that house in exchange for keeping his home tidy? Did he agree to take no rent whatsoever for this woman to stay at that house on his property?
If he only demanded money, and she couldn't give him that, and he kicked her out... would he be seen as "skeevy" then, or just a landlord doing what he had to do? Could he have worked something else out other than sex -- like actually offering her a job as his housekeeper, and that living in his guest home came with the job? Yes. But was she the type of woman who may not mind having sex with a man she is not necessarily physically attracted to (yes, such women do exist, and often become escorts; and I am not denigrating them in any way) and may have preferred that option? Maybe; maybe not. We don't know how it went down.
Did he outright threaten to throw her out if she didn't specifically take the sex option? And she was not the type of woman who is good with that? Did she offer him a housekeeping option, and he said, "No, it's sex or you're out"? Yes, that would make him skeevy if that's how it went down. But we don't know yet. It needs to be investigated, and needs to be taken to court.
She did accept a hefty payout, however. According to the article:
"This kind of play-for-pay situation is illegal, and though we don’t have any details in court proceedings, Gaiman paid Wallner $275,000 in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement, preventing her from suing him or telling anyone about her experiences."
Could she have agreed to the sex option with no issues and then cried foul because he didn't do further financial favors for her? If that was the case, because of the emotional volatility of the issue, she would have him by the balls in the "court" of public opinion. Or, more specifically, the court of public sentiment.
Yes, multiple women have accused him of things. But did they all suddenly come out of the woodwork after one accusation? If so, there are two possibilities that we'll consider:
1) He did indeed do these things to multiple women, and they all came out as a result of being emboldened by the courage of one of their number. And it's as simple as that.
Or...
2) One came out unjustly because he didn't keep giving her more financial favors, and several others who may have simply had a falling out with him for one reason or another sensed a gravy train. And they agreed to pounce simultaneously so as to increase the chance of a multiple payoff type of situation.
How to tell? As Mallory alluded, this has to be about actual justice for victims, not money. If they initiate only criminal cases against him, that is in something in their favor.
But if they take him to civil court -- and worse, *only* civil court -- then a monetary motivation can be strongly suspected.
That's the problem with the Russell Brand case -- none of his accusers are taking him to criminal court now, or made accusations at the time these things allegedly happened (over 20 years ago) nor did they initiate criminal charges then. Instead, they're all pouncing on him *now*, right after he became a political problem for people in power, and taking him to *civil* court for a payout. The profit motive corrupts many, not just people like Gaiman, but potentially anyone he befriended, employed, had sex with, etc. Same with Brand and other celebrities.
And how many of Gaiman's other accusers may have accepted payoffs and initially pretended to be good with that? We actually do not know yet.
So, as Mallory said, we need to take this to court. And it has to go to criminal court, not civil court unless he legitimately owed anyone money. No payoffs involved, either via outside of court or via the civil courts. And it needs to be a judge and jury that convicts him or let's him off the hook due to good evidence or lack of any, respectively... not us on social media. We need to be neutral on this until then, rather than either try accusing him or exonerating him because he's a man, or because of whatever his political beliefs may be, or because we like (or dislike) his work as an author, etc.
point taken. All these women are not angels just as all the #metoo women were not. However, that doesn't mean they are all wrong. I think with multiple similar reports there is something too it. We shall see how it goes.
Fair enough. I personally suspect, as was the case with Warren Ellis and his accusers, that there may be blame on both sides. Neither were angels or innocents. Both sides have their advantages: Gaiman, due to his level of financial capital and influence in the industry; these women due to their level of social capital and public sentiment in the current political climate simply for a combination of their gender and the nature of their accusations.
Not only that, but I got a strong sense of bias from this article. The reason is because its clearly stated message was to protect women from skeevy, corrupt men in the industry. Why wasn't its message a more general one of protecting innocent people in general from corrupt privileged people in general? As I also noted, privilege comes in different forms, especially in today's political climate. It's not just financial capital, but also social capital.
But instead, the implication of this article seemed to be: Women need to be protected from men. Never ask any questions about the motivations, behavior, or personal character of the individual women involved in such cases, nor their position in society as a whole (which currently always affords them the sentiment-based benefit of the doubt).
Women do need to be protected, whether or not they realize it. Now, you don't want to be a fool and just believe any old thing, but if 20 gals say Weinstein's a perv he probably is. The other thing w Russell Brand, even though he's kind of a scumbag and degenerate, even I think is unfair. He supposedly raped a woman in 2006 or whatever and nearly 2 decades later they're charging him? Doesn't England have a statute of limitation?