I find it difficult to believe you looked very hard, as it was easily available. More importantly, why did you think it was appropriate to say anything at all without having engaged with the primary source that you knew existed? It’s easy to wait.
Just because it’s available doesn’t mean it’s accessible. Yesterday morning was the first time I had available to sit down and listen to even one hour of audio, and I still haven’t had the opportunity to listen to the other three. That’s why I had been asking for the details of the accusers’ claims.
I also didn’t have the energy to listen to it until yesterday. But even in my personal life I didn’t say anything but the bare minimum until I had because I am not going to say shit about sexual violence when all I have is hearsay and wild speculation!
The only thing I saw people saying was “what are the actual statements from the actual people involved?” I still don’t understand why seeking out the victims’ stories is somehow troublesome.
You and I agree that seeking out victims stories is important. I think you did good work making a transcript available. Where we may disagree is whether it’s appropriate to spend A LOT of time sharing skepticism without first engaging with a source.
I think it’s inappropriate to make SO MANY posts like this without getting information, and inappropriate to defend it. It’s fine to wait for more information, not fine to put a LOT of time into criticizing media you haven’t engaged with yet when doing so leads here.
At the time she made that statement, honestly, I’m not sure how you could know for sure that the podcasters had spoken to two actual women outside of listening to the podcast itself. I certainly looked long and hard for that information and could not find it.
And you know? Nobody was supplying that info, either! Nobody was saying “The accusers spoke to the podcasters. The podcast heavily features the accusers speaking in their own voices.” Nobody was providing that clarity. I’ve been doing my best to get it out there, but I feel like I’m the only one!
Am I misremembering or wasn’t Salty herself not sharing the podcasts because it’s TERF status?
Also I still want to see Gaiman’s statement to them, not just their characterization of the statement.
I forget what was happening, it was a lot of fog of war. But I do not and will not apologize for not giving a ton of credence to the “maybe she wanted it, amirite?” people.
I believe the accounts, but the article and first hour of podcast listening leave me kind of stunned how cavalier the ‘journalism’ component here is. They levy serious allegations then just say “listen to her story, and we understand that in his private statement Neil disagrees”
Scarlett’s story is SO credible that they didn’t need a lot more. Add on the corroborating interview with the friend and I’m done. I don’t need to know what Neil says to know that I believe her, and I think the people trying to frame the story through his “admission” are sidelining her pretty hard.
Like, even now, the story is about the power dynamic of the employment relationship and not about the fact that he painfully sexually violated her without her consent and after she had told him “no” repeatedly.
Yep. He got naked into the bath with her and touched and caressed her repeatedly for what appears to be the better part of an hour while she indicated that she did not want him to, and then penetrated her with his fingers without her consent. She was up all night googling “Neil Gaiman MeToo.”
And when I think about how the podcasters were the only people who had all the information unless you were willing to sit through a four hour podcast, and how any news outlet that wanted a scoop would be reliant on their press pack, and what they chose to put out there was THIS?
That’s what I’m sitting with for the moment. I didn’t trust TERFs to not be running an agenda…and it looks like they were as the framing they chose is actually minimizing harm?(!!!!)
I don’t like single-source stories in any case, did not expect to expand my list of reasons why for this.
Yeah, how is THIS the takeaway rather than procurement (14 times?!) and unwanted, unsolicited penetration?!
I’ve got to sit with this for a while. Too mad.
This is what’s frustrating me so far! I want to see takes from the BDSM community bc I suspect their take would be along the lines of 50 Shades of Grey commentary from a decade ago: “don’t blame this on us. This isn’t how we do kink, here’s a list of our norms and best practices that this violates”
I was wondering why this was bothering me so much but I couldn't put it in words.
This.
This is beautifully explained and now I have words why this whole situation was bothering me. Thank you so much for spelling out what I was thinking.
That's why I was keeping my mouth shut and waiting. It didn't help that the entire thread on the Other Site was nothing but people gleefully competing to make the most transphobit and bigoted celebrations of his comeuppance. I'd have at least expected one or two "fuckin' hell"s
Also, a detail that’s fairly buried in the podcast is that although they had *hired* her with the promise of an hourly wage, they did not actually *pay* her anything.
So, we have:
1. A vulnerable young woman, estranged from her family, newly unemployed
2. Who is made an offer of live-in domestic employment at a reasonable wage
3. Upon arriving at her place of work, she is coerced into performing unwanted sexual acts
4. While her pay is withheld
Deleted my "Self-admittedly FOURTEEN TIMES" post because Palmer admitted to fourteen different reports of similar instances, not fourteen different reports of participation in procurement. My bad, rumors are flying, must be more accurate.
(to be clear, I was prepared to believe them even if I did really enjoy his work for the past two decades, I just didn't know what was actually being said)
I only got to Page 12 here, Kathryn, but this is sounding beat for beat like how Keith Raniere worked with many of his victims nearer the beginning. Later on, Keith would get intermediary girls to do all the work, to diffuse his responsibility.
