riclad wrote: » I think there,s 1000 of case,s of sexual harrassment going on in the tech industry and entertainment industry . Its just a matter of time til more women come forward and make a complaint . Any company or theatre that recieves state funding should have a rule ,the board is 50/50 male female . This might reduce the amount of sexual harrassment and encourage people of either sex to come forward and make a complaint . Theres too many companys where 95 per cent of the management are men,even though they have many women as employees. I think things would change for the better if 30-40 per cent of the TD,S in the dail were women .
Prune Tracy wrote: » I worked right next to a woman who was being sexually harassed by her manager - I can understand why she didn't complain him: he was much more powerful than she was, what if she wasn't believed? What if she got in trouble for such an indictment? What if her job and livelihood were affected? She had two small children to support. No, the only person at fault is the abuser exploiting their position of power.
lightspeed wrote: » I dont understand people in this country. We have very tight laws and regulations such as equality acts and unfair sismissal which includes protections for constructive dismissal. I read the irish times piece and most seem to refer to sexual assault and bullying. Surely they could have easily lodged a complaint with HR and if that fails sue for 2-3 times their yearly salary for constructive dismissal. Are we to assume they would never have found another office based job elsewhere? Im a male and never experienced sexual harrasment like that ive work in companies before that reguarlly tried to screw employees. I was managements greatest headache and they backed down everytime. In the irish times article it mentions one employee complained to the board and they did nothing and also he was on the board himself. Like after nothing is done then, they have basically given that employee a winning lottery ticket to sue for constructive dismissal. I dont care how policltically incorrect it is to say it, if these women knew there were concrete laws and actions they could have taken but chose not to, then they too are part of the problem.
_Dara_ wrote: » Can't believe that Colgan was also on the board of the Gate Theatre. That means he saw all the complaints made about him and got to be part of the discussions about the complaints. :eek: I know someone who worked in that administrative office a few years back. I thought she liked the job so was surprised when she left abruptly. Making more sense now though...
Caranica wrote: » I am a woman and barely a day goes by without misogyny and sexual harassment. Funnily enough I also have female friends and they all say the same. It's not the exception, it's the rule.
Donald Trump wrote: » Sorry for harassing you the other day. I had thought that I was just being polite and saying thanks when you handed me my change. Your should give Jet Li a few tips on beating off multiple fellas coming at you at once (no puns intended)
expectationlost wrote: » is the Gate Theatre director essentially Gate CEO?, thus not usual to be on the board
valoren wrote: » He will reply to the allegations and I can't wait to hear this guys response. Nothing like watching a serial bully get their comeuppance.https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1105/917599-arts-council/ My money is on him deflecting with the old reliable of all of this being a 'misunderstanding' that it was all simply 'banter'. That the things he was saying to these women was him just trying to be funny, to have a laugh. That on self-reflection, he is appalled at the thought that they were offended at 'friendly banter' with his colleagues who he nothing but respect and admiration for. From reading the allegations against him, he sounds like a narcissistic, odious scumbag.
Stacksofwacks wrote: » Nice brush, would you like tar with it?
Deusexmachina wrote: » Hold on, this is what she actually said: I am a woman and barely a day goes by without misogyny and sexual harassment. Funnily enough I also have female friends and they all say the same. It's not the exception, it's the rule. What does that mean then 'it's not the exception, it's the rule'? If it's the rule, it means that men who do not practice misogny and sexual harassment are the exception. And I think that is complete nonsense.
Dick phelan wrote: » Sound like a horrible piece of work however i'm not really ok with this modern trial by social media we are having, The proper channels should still apply ie the Guards ect not really a good situation where people are named and shamed on twitter or some blog post without a proper hearing and deemed already guilty.
Grayson wrote: » So saying every woman has been on the end of harassment does not mean the majority of men are harassers. It's very, very simple maths and logic.
seamus wrote: » Indeed, it's like saying, "You can't walk down Grafton Street without being constantly harrassed by chuggers". That doesn't men that everyone on Grafton St is a chugger, in fact there may only be 10 or 20 of them on the street. But there are enough of them to make the process of trying to walk down the street an ordeal.
valoren wrote: » He will reply to the allegations and I can't wait to hear this guys response. Nothing like watching a serial bully get their comeuppance.https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1105/917599-arts-council/ My money is on him deflecting with the old reliable of all of this being a 'misunderstanding' that it was all simply 'banter'. That the things he was saying to these women was him just trying to be funny, to have a laugh. That on self-reflection, he is appalled at the thought that they were offended at 'friendly banter' with his colleagues who he has nothing but respect and admiration for. With a self-congratulatory coda about the his own admiration for other women's bravery in speaking out against sexual harassment. From reading the allegations against him, he sounds like a sleazy narcissistic scumbag.
Grayson wrote: » No it doesn't mean that. If say 10% of men harass multiple women each day then it will be the norm for women to face harassment. If there's an office with 10 men and 10 women but one of the men is a scumbag who harasses women the it's the norm for him to harass the women there and it's the norm for them to be harassed. However that doesn't mean that the majority of men in the office are harassers. Not all men are scumbags but it only takes a small number of them to be scumbags to have a huge effect on women. So saying every woman has been on the end of harassment does not mean the majority of men are harassers. It's very, very simple maths and logic.
Deusexmachina wrote: » Here’s her post (again): I am a woman and barely a day goes by without misogyny and sexual harassment. Funnily enough I also have female friends and they all say the same. It's not the exception, it's the rule. She is not in any way suggesting it is a ‘small number of men’. She is stating that ‘it’s the rule’ for her and her friends to be sexually harassed on an almost daily basis - not the exception, the rule. It is was the same few men, then they are certainly getting around!! Any fair reading of her post would indicate that she is suggesting that misogyny and sexual harassment is the norm (i.e. the rule) and is perpetrated by the majority (“not the exception”).
optogirl wrote: » yes, the rule is in relation to the women, not the men. Your reading of this is not what the poster intended. Unfortunately she is right - most women HAVE experienced, at the very least, sexual harassment.
Deusexmachina wrote: » Now it’s not. She stated that sexual harassment is experienced by her and her friends on an almost daily basis. It’s is the rule, not the exception. Read what she wrote and try to be objective.
optogirl wrote: » You are the only person so far to take that meaning from it so perhaps you are wrong?
