Gate theatre employees speak out about director Michael Colgan's behaviour

midlandsmissus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're being naive.

The kind of arsehat that whistles at women in the street and grabs their arse as they walk past them in a pub, couldn't give a fcuk if you stand up and say "WE DON'T LIKE THIS" in your billions. In fact, it might even make them more likely to engage in such behavior. It's akin to men all hashtagging about aggressive behavior from other men and saying we've had enough and WE DON'T LIKE IT!! Won't make a lick of difference.

Be honest. This #metoo nonsense is not a means to an end. The trust is that victimhood has never been as fashionable. Social media is being used as a catwalk.

.

I don't think she's being naive in the slightest.

There is massve power in voices, in people standing up.

It shows: unity , strength, solidarity, a 'not taking it anymore'

For example, when one person spoke about Jimmy Saville, hundreds found their voices to stand up to them.

Are you not more concerned with what she said earlier in her post , 'that it is tiring and relentless'? Do you want someone to feel this way?

Outlaw Pete

midlandsmissus wrote: »

For example, when one person spoke about Jimmy Saville, hundreds found their voices to stand up to them.

Jimmy Savile's victims weren't hashtagging and writing misandric blogs for likes and retweets.

Are you not more concerned with what she said earlier in her post , 'that it is tiring and relentless'?

Yes, and if someone starts a thread saying the behave in this way and think it's fine, you'll see me post in it condemning them for doing so.

Do you want someone to feel this way?

Nope.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Jimmy Savile's victims weren't hashtagging and writing misandric blogs for likes and retweets.

So the only reason people post about sexual harassment/assault is for likes?

ChikiChiki

Maybe its just the environments I have been in work wise and socially but I can never recall seeing anyone harrassing a woman. I have worked in loads of business's where there a hierarchies and socialised with many groups. It is my feeling that the claims of some online are being over exaggerated to tar all men with the same brush.

As someone who would be quite socially shy to approach women and needs to muster up a lot of courage, I find it quite disconcerting. Its getting to the point where men will be labled creeps for just trying to initiate a conversation.

Deusexmachina

optogirl wrote: »

I'm sure not for every woman, every day, but for most women, a LOT of the time. There's a lot of belittling of what women are saying 'big deal you had your arse felt - it's not rape', 'big deal a builder shouted at you, in a way it's a compliment', 'big deal - a manager commented on your looks - you've never discussed how a fella looks with someone?' etc etc etc.

It is tiring & relentless and until very recently I think, something that most women felt we just had to accept. Now, with the amount of women standing up and saying WE DON'T LIKE THIS and telling their stories, we realise we actually don't have to put up with this.

I don't think men really understand how intimidating it is to be harassed, even mildly, because the threat of something more sinister happening is there. It might indeed be just a 'bit of fun' but again, tens of thousands of women are now shouting that WE DON'T LIKE IT. We know most men are not sexual predators, of course not, but I think even a lot of very decent men are realising that talking about women in a reductive way, touching women when it's not invited etc etc are not acceptable in a way that they've never really thought about before. Happily it's a learning curve most are happy to go on. Women are learning too and perhaps for future generations it will be less of an issue.

Who is saying those things? Have you any examples? I have not heard ANY man dismiss this in that tone, not one.
Men already know that touching women when not invited is wrong! What do you mean 'they've never really thought about before'
Patronising??
Can we not discuss this topic without labelling ALL men please? Its plain wrong

cloudatlas

ChikiChiki wrote: »

As someone who would be quite socially shy to approach women and needs to muster up a lot of courage, I find it quite disconcerting. Its getting to the point where men will be labled creeps for just trying to initiate a conversation.

The old if I haven't experienced it then it's not happening line of argument :rolleyes:

Its getting to the point where men will be labled creeps for just trying to initiate a conversation.

I hesitated in posting this here because I was afraid that we would go off topic into rubbish like the above.

two wheels good

expectationlost wrote: »

is the Gate Theatre director essentially Gate CEO?, thus not usual to be on the board

According to interviewee on Sean O'Rourke this morning it is very unusual, and not good practice, for Art. Dir. to be CEO as well.

ChikiChiki

cloudatlas wrote: »

The old if I haven't experienced it then it's not happening line of argument :rolleyes:



I hesitated in posting this here because I was afraid that we would go off topic into rubbish like the above.

Where in my post am I denying its happening? Of course its happening. I said some of the claims...

optogirl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Who is saying those things? Have you any examples? I have not heard ANY man dismiss this in that tone, not one.
Men already know that touching women when not invited is wrong! What do you mean 'they've never really thought about before'
Patronising??
Can we not discuss this topic without labelling ALL men please? Its plain wrong

There are a LOT Of pric*s on twitter saying just that.


I'm not labelling all men - it is a shame that this is the default response when women speak out about these experiences. WE KNOW it's not all men, that is why we continue to raise men & marry men & have sex with men and love men. Yes I have heard men dismissing this, bemoaning the fact that you cant have 'a bit of banter' anymore without being hauled up to HR, blah blah blah. Yes, good friends of mine said this. They are not bad people, just seeing some societal norms be questioned & attacked & that is frightening.

I do think that we all, even those who KNOW it's not ok to touch anyone without their permission, have had this pulled into sharp focus simply because it has been called out as something most women experience and most women find intimidating. I will think more about how I speak to and educate my sons (before you jump down my neck I don't have daughters, I would do the same for them if I did). The avalanche of testimony & women standing up to say that this shi* is getting in the way of us all moving forward has made me think about this much more and how to try to get it right when raising the next generation. That can only be a good thing in my eyes.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

So the only reason people post about sexual harassment/assault is for likes?

99% of those #meetoo'ing are doing so purely to take part in something fashionable.

My heart goes out to the genuine cases, particularly if they don't have too many FB friends or Twitter followers, as their stories would most likely just get lost in the din.

optogirl

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Maybe its just the environments I have been in work wise and socially but I can never recall seeing anyone harrassing a woman. I have worked in loads of business's where there a hierarchies and socialised with many groups. It is my feeling that the claims of some online are being over exaggerated to tar all men with the same brush.

As someone who would be quite socially shy to approach women and needs to muster up a lot of courage, I find it quite disconcerting. Its getting to the point where men will be labled creeps for just trying to initiate a conversation.

Again, women are not so stupid as to think all men behave this way, nor are we too stupid to know the difference between a conversation & harassment/assault.

Deusexmachina

optogirl wrote: »

There are a LOT Of pric*s on twitter saying just that.


I'm not labelling all men - it is a shame that this is the default response when women speak out about these experiences. WE KNOW it's not all men, that is why we continue to raise men & marry men & have sex with men and love men. Yes I have heard men dismissing this, bemoaning the fact that you cant have 'a bit of banter' anymore without being hauled up to HR, blah blah blah. Yes, good friends of mine said this. They are not bad people, just seeing some societal norms be questioned & attacked & that is frightening.

I do think that we all, even those who KNOW it's not ok to touch anyone without their permission, have had this pulled into sharp focus simply because it has been called out as something most women experience and most women find intimidating. I will think more about how I speak to and educate my sons (before you jump down my neck I don't have daughters, I would do the same for them if I did). The avalanche of testimony & women standing up to say that this shi* is getting in the way of us all moving forward has made me think about this much more and how to try to get it right when raising the next generation. That can only be a good thing in my eyes.

Its not 'the default response' (more labelling).
It is a reponse to statenments about sexual harressment being 'niot the exception, the rule'.
Try to make some points without applying them generally - it dilutes the effect.

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

99% of those #meetoo'ing are doing so purely to take part in something fashionable.

My heart goes out to the genuine cases, particularly if they don't have too many FB friends or Twitter followers, as their stories will most likely get lost in the din.

99%? Where did you pull that figure out of? Is it not glaringly obvious that women are tired of this shi*e - you can't honestly think that it's being made up? That a few million women decided to pretend that men have harassed them/assaulted them? All the sickeningly familiar stories are just pretendy for a bit of fame? You honestly think it's fashionable to be sick of being objectified?

optogirl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Its not 'the default response' (more labelling).
It is a reponse to statenments about sexual harressment being 'niot the exception, the rule'.
Try to make some points without applying them generally - it dilutes the effect.

Despite several posters pointing out that you have taken that point up wrong you continue to harp on with it - the poster meant that MOST WOMEN have experienced sexual harassment. NOT that most men are the harassers. I am not posting 'for effect', diluted or otherwise and I have not said one thing about ALL MEN despite your obsession with seeing that in every post.

cloudatlas

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Where in my post am I denying its happening? Of course its happening. I said some of the claims...

And how do you gauge that exactly and if there were women in these companies where you worked being harassed or feeling undermined by sexist behaviour why would you hear about it? why would they confide in you? At any rate you describe yourself as shy socially.

Grayson

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Maybe its just the environments I have been in work wise and socially but I can never recall seeing anyone harrassing a woman. I have worked in loads of business's where there a hierarchies and socialised with many groups. It is my feeling that the claims of some online are being over exaggerated to tar all men with the same brush.

As someone who would be quite socially shy to approach women and needs to muster up a lot of courage, I find it quite disconcerting. Its getting to the point where men will be labled creeps for just trying to initiate a conversation.

Two of my very best friends are women. I've asked how often they face harassment and they say it happens very regularly. Not once have they actually told me about it.

It's the kind of thing that women don't talk about except amongst themselves.

There have been a couple of exceptions though. I've worked in a place where a guy practically stalked a girl. The attention he gave her was scary. I sat next to her when we worked and she told me about it one day. She asked if I could act as a kind of shield deflecting his attentions. I was shocked and said "is it that bad" and she showed me months of messages he's sent her. There were notes written down, facebook messages from multiple accounts (because when she blocked him he'd create another one), notes left on car windows, internal emails and instant messages.
She never told her husband because she knew he's go nuts and kick the sh1t out of the guy. She didn't mention it to other people she worked with because she didn't want to be labeled a complainer. Plus it had been going on so long she didn't know if anyone would take her seriously , even if they believed her.

vetinari

This has a lot of similarities to the police brutality cases in the States.
The biggest issue here is that all the people around him are aware of his behavior but choose to do nothing.
There's no point mentioning that there's only a few bad apples if everyone around them enables them.

Sunflower 27

Ah the "next we will be in trouble for talking to a woman" chestnut. Sheesh.

You don't touch when it's not wanted, you don't make sexual innuendos, you don't make someone feel intimidated or threatened. These are the the basics that should keep you safe.

If you don't know basic right from wrong then yes, steer clear of women; they likely won't be interested in anything you have to say anyway.

Outlaw Pete

optogirl wrote: »

99%? Where did you pull that figure out of?

From what I have seen, the vast vast vast majority of #metoo'ing has been from idiots saying the most ludicrous nonsense and thinking it belongs in a discussion about sexual assault and rape.

Is it not glaringly obvious that women are tired of this shi*e

They were sick of it before you were born.

...you can't honestly think that it's being made up? That a few million women decided to pretend that men have harassed them/assaulted them? All the sickeningly familiar stories are just pretendy for a bit of fame? You honestly think it's fashionable to be sick of being objectified?

Victimhood is very fashionable. It's a badge of honour in some circles these days. Hence why people like Sarah Silverman lied about her boss paying her less than other comedians purely because she was male.

However, I didn't say that 99% were making it up. I said that 99% of those #meetoo'ing are doing so purely to take part in something fashionable. I would say that only around 1% are actually even describing something as serious as sexual assault, that's the point. Are some of those women lying? You'd want to be extremely naive to think it's not a possibility.

Michelle Malkin: Beware the Rape Allegation Bandwagon

"#MeToo" is the social media meme of the moment. In a 24-hour period, the phrase was tweeted nearly a half million times and posted on Facebook 12 million times. Spearheaded by actress Alyssa Milano in the wake of Hollyweird's Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal, women have flooded social media with their own long-buried accounts of being pestered, groped or assaulted by rapacious male predators in the workplace.

Count me out.

It's one thing to break down cultural stigmas constructively, but the #MeToo movement is collectivist virtue signaling of a very perilous sort. The New York Times heralded the phenomenon with multiple articles "to show how commonplace sexual assault and harassment are." The Washington Post credited #MeToo with making "the scale of sexual abuse go viral." And actress Emily Ratajkowski declared at a Marie Claire magazine's women's conference on Monday:

"The most important response to #metoo is 'I believe you.'"

No. I do not believe every woman who is now standing up to "share her story" or "tell her truth." I owe no blind allegiance to any other woman simply because we share the same pronoun. Assertions are not truths until they are established as facts and corroborated with evidence. Timing, context, motives and manner all matter.

Because I reserve the right to vet the claims of individual sexual assault complainants instead of championing them all knee-jerk and wholesale as "victims," I've been scolded as insensitive and inhumane.

"TIMING DOES NOT MATTER," a Twitter user named Meg Yarbrough fumed. "What matters is what is best for EACH INDIVIDUAL victim. You should be ashamed of yourself."

CNN anchor Jake Tapper informed me, "People coming forward should be applauded." But applauding people for "coming forward" is not a journalistic tenet. It's an advocacy tenet. Tapper responded that he was expressing the sentiment as a "human being not as a journalist." Last time I checked, humans have brains. The Weinstein scandal is not an excuse to turn them off and abdicate a basic responsibility to assess the credibility of accusers. It's an incontrovertible fact that not all accusers' claims are equal.

Some number of harrowing encounters described by Weinstein's accusers and the #MeToo hashtag activists no doubt occurred. But experience and scientific literature show us that a significant portion of these allegations will turn out to be half-truths, exaggerations or outright fabrications. That's not victim-blaming. It's reality-checking.

It is irresponsible for news outlets to extrapolate how "commonplace" sexual abuse is based on hashtag trends spread by celebrities, anonymous claimants and bots. The role of the press should be verification, not validation. Instead of interviewing activist actresses, reporters should be interviewing bona fide experts.

Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminal profiler who heads the Forensic Criminology Institute, is author or co-author of 16 criminal justice books, including textbooks on rape investigation, crime reconstruction, behavioral evidence analysis and forensic victimology.

Turvey's most recent book, written with retired NYPD special victim squad detective John Savino and Mexico-based forensic psychologist Aurelio Coronado Mares, is "False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime."

Based on their review of decades of scientific literature, Turvey and his colleagues explode the "2 percent myth" peddled by politicians, victims' advocates and journalists "claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is nonexistent." In fact, the statistic was traced to an unverified citation in a 1975 book by feminist author Susan Brownmiller.

"This figure is not only inaccurate," Turvey and his co-authors conclude, "but also it has no basis in reality."

Published research has documented false rape and sexual assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent. Savino notes that in his NYPD's Manhattan Special Victim Squad, "our false report rate was in the double digits during all of my years. Sometimes, it was as high as 40 percent." Turvey, Savino, and Mares make clear to students that based on the evidence — as opposed to Facebook trends:

"False reports happen; they are recurrent; and there are laws in place to deal with them when they do. They are, for lack of a better word, common."

They are common because people lie for all sorts of reasons — from the need for attention to the lure of profit, out of anger or revenge, to conceal crimes or illicit activity, or because of addictions or mental health issues. Unlike activists or advocates "steeped in bias, denial or self-interest," Turvey and his colleagues teach criminal investigators and students that true professionals "do not seek confirmation of beliefs or ideas: they seek eradication of false theories. All reports of crime must be investigated. Otherwise, they are merely unconfirmed allegations that the ignorant or lazy may pass along as truth."

Rape is a devastating crime. So is lying about it. Ignorant advocates and lazy journalists can be as dangerous as derelict detectives and prosecutors driven by political agendas instead of facts.

When #MeToo bandwagons form in the midst of a panic, innocent people get run over.

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

From what I have seen, the vast vast vast majority of #metoo'ing has been from idiots saying the most ludicrous nonsense and thinking it belongs in a discussion about sexual assault and rape.

.

What ludicrous nonsense? You don't think that harassment, even low level harassment, feeds into a culture where sexual assault & rape happen?

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They were sick of it before you were born.

and yet, here we are

Deusexmachina

optogirl wrote: »

Despite several posters pointing out that you have taken that point up wrong you continue to harp on with it - the poster meant that MOST WOMEN have experienced sexual harassment. NOT that most men are the harassers. I am not posting 'for effect', diluted or otherwise and I have not said one thing about ALL MEN despite your obsession with seeing that in every post.

I am not 'harping on.' This is not 'my 'obsession'.

I have already agreed with you that most women have unfortunately experienced sexual harrassement.

I have not stated that you are suggesting that all men sexually harrass.

I did not suggest you are posting for effect.

My point is that when you generalise (which you have done a number of times), you are not only being unfair, but you are letting the true culprits off the hook.

Lets focus on the actual perpetrators. I have a daughter who has experienced sexual harasesment. I have a son who would never ever act inappropriately to a woman. I want society to act fairly to both. Women should never be subjected to this. Men should not be accused of not understanding the issue, not being sensitive to it or of being in any way complicit.

Stereotyping is wrong.

Shurimgreat

It looks like there was no proper oversight at the Gate and Colgan was untouchable and could basically do as he pleased.

How the Arts Council allowed this to happen is bizarre particularly when taxpayer funds were involved.

However it put a lot of women in a vulnerable position with no-one really to complain to.

cloudatlas

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It looks like there was no proper oversight at the Gate and Colgan was untouchable and could basically do as he pleased.

How the Arts Council allowed this to happen is bizarre particularly when taxpayer funds were involved.

However it put a lot of women in a vulnerable position with no-one really to complain to.

My understanding is that the Arts Council allocates funding and hasn't got anything to do with the management of the Gate.

Wanderer2010

If even a fraction of these accusations are true then there was no way that other management members could claim not to have known what was going on, they just turned a blind eye. Heads should roll here too.

Deusexmachina

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If even a fraction of these accusations are true then there was no way that other management members could claim not to have known what was going on, they just turned a blind eye. Heads should roll here too.

Lts sack the whole staff while we are at it. They must have all turned blind eyes. And what about the Arts Council, And the patrons. And the actors. And the audience. And the critics.

'Heads should roll'.

Rubberchikken

People and certain men in particular are given or allowed or perceived to have a power that allows them to behave in any way they see fit.
For anyone to know this behaviour is happening and to not speak up for fear of not being believed or because their job would be at risk is no defence.
Not every man no matter how important he is, behaves in this way bit those that do have to be weeded out and others have to speak up or shut up.

Arghus

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Lts sack the whole staff while we are at it. They must have all turned blind eyes. And what about the Arts Council, And the patrons. And the actors. And the audience. And the critics.

'Heads should roll'.

Now now.

You've got a lot of mileage about what you perceived to be a generalisation in another poster's remarks on this thread.

It'd be good if you didn't take what someone else had to say and then blow it up with hyperbole.

Sunflower 27

Rubberchikken wrote: »

People and certain men in particular are given or allowed or perceived to have a power that allows them to behave in any way they see fit.
For anyone to know this behaviour is happening and to not speak up for fear of not being believed or because their job would be at risk is no defence.
Not every man no matter how important he is, behaves in this way bit those that do have to be weeded out and others have to speak up or shut up.

It was apparently well known what Michael was like. That he had got away with his behaviour for so long only reinforced how protected he felt and how safe he was. He didn't alienate and harass everyone, it appears. Some saw him as a charasmatic charmer but knew what he *could* be like.

Am awaiting his statement. It will make for an interesting read. Not that the words will necessarily be his, but downplaying his behaviour may unleash a torrent of more accusations. If there is such a thing as karma, it is that right now he is feeling incredibly threatened and intimidated. I wonder what that feels like, Mr Colgan?

Shurimgreat

cloudatlas wrote: »

My understanding is that the Arts Council allocates funding and hasn't got anything to do with the management of the Gate.

That's the problem. They didn't bother to look into the independence of the board, oversight, complaints and grievance procedures, etc.

They just gave money to the Gate without asking how or where it was spent. Never ideal. It sounds surprisingly like the recent charity scandals. Public money used to fund individuals who treat the organisation like its their own personal fiefdom.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

I've worked in a place where a guy practically stalked a girl. The attention he gave her was scary. I sat next to her when we worked and she told me about it one day. She asked if I could act as a kind of shield deflecting his attentions. I was shocked and said "is it that bad" and she showed me months of messages he's sent her. There were notes written down, facebook messages from multiple accounts (because when she blocked him he'd create another one), notes left on car windows, internal emails and instant messages.

She never told her husband because she knew he's go nuts and kick the sh1t out of the guy. She didn't mention it to other people she worked with because she didn't want to be labeled a complainer. Plus it had been going on so long she didn't know if anyone would take her seriously , even if they believed her.

I'd suggest telling her to contact the Gardai. Sounds like a nutcase.

optogirl wrote: »

What ludicrous nonsense? You don't think that harassment, even low level harassment, feeds into a culture where sexual assault & rape happen?

In western society, harassment is frowned upon and is not accepted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egeea61eafs

If only men could so assuredly count on members of the public to step in when they're in trouble.

optogirl wrote: »

and yet, here we are

Yes, here we are, in a society where sexual assaults are not tolerated and where laws are in place to bring those responsible to bear:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/girl-wins-30-000-in-sexual-harassment-case-against-retailer-1.1499198
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/garda-found-guilty-of-sexually-harassing-female-colleagues-1.1581174
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-gets-eight-months-in-jail-for-slapping-woman-on-bum-for-the-thrill-of-it-29020976.html

Vojera

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

It was apparently well known what Michael was like. That he had got away with his behaviour for so long only reinforced how protected he felt and how safe he was. He didn't alienate and harass everyone, it appears. Some saw him as a charasmatic charmer but knew what he *could* be like.

I feel so much for the people who have come forward with stories about this man. I used to work for a woman who was incredibly emotionally abusive, a real bully to the core. There had been complaints made about her previously and she had physically assaulted an employee also, with no repercussions. It took me a long time to build myself up to talking to my head of department over it and this is what he said to me: "By rights I should be arranging HR to mediate between you, but we both know what she's like and that it would only make things worse for you."
In other words, "Yeah, I know you're in this situation and I know your story is true, but nothing good can come of trying to fight back."

Looking back, I'm so angry that I was left in that position and these women must feel that way too, to know that everyone knew, or at least guessed, what was going on and stood by and did nothing. And that only compounds things in your head, because surely if people knew, they would help? And the fact that they don't backs up your abuser when they tell you that you're overreacting or that you must have imagined something you KNOW is true. And when you start to doubt yourself, how can you come forward? How can you expect others to believe you when your abuser is going to deny it or chalk it up to a misunderstanding?

Ficheall

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If only men could so assuredly count on members of the public to step in when they're in trouble.

Unrelated, but I hate all that "social experiment" set-up ****. I don't know how likely I am to step in and help out some stranger who appears to be in difficulty, but I'd certainly be less likely if I thought there was a chance some twat was just duping me for youtube hits.

Arghus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, here we are, in a society where sexual assaults are not tolerated and where laws are in place to bring those responsible to bear:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/girl-wins-30-000-in-sexual-harassment-case-against-retailer-1.1499198
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/garda-found-guilty-of-sexually-harassing-female-colleagues-1.1581174
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-gets-eight-months-in-jail-for-slapping-woman-on-bum-for-the-thrill-of-it-29020976.html

So, because laws are in place and sexual assult isn't tolerated - we shouldn't talk about sexual harassment? Entirely different issue? Problem solved?

The main subject of the thread is the behavior of Michael Colgan. If we live in such a hunky-dory society, it's amazing that his behavior was tolerated for so long. A more pertinent question would be to ask why that happened?

But it's a lot easier to slag people I suppose.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Vojera wrote: »

I feel so much for the people who have come forward with stories about this man. I used to work for a woman who was incredibly emotionally abusive, a real bully to the core. There had been complaints made about her previously and she had physically assaulted an employee also, with no repercussions. It took me a long time to build myself up to talking to my head of department over it and this is what he said to me: "By rights I should be arranging HR to mediate between you, but we both know what she's like and that it would only make things worse for you."
In other words, "Yeah, I know you're in this situation and I know your story is true, but nothing good can come of trying to fight back."

Looking back, I'm so angry that I was left in that position and these women must feel that way too, to know that everyone knew, or at least guessed, what was going on and stood by and did nothing. And that only compounds things in your head, because surely if people knew, they would help? And the fact that they don't backs up your abuser when they tell you that you're overreacting or that you must have imagined something you KNOW is true. And when you start to doubt yourself, how can you come forward? How can you expect others to believe you when your abuser is going to deny it or chalk it up to a misunderstanding?

Yes, I agree with this. It takes a lot of courage to go to HR and make a complaint about a bullying colleague or boss. As that person will already have severely dented your morale and self esteem, the thought of them telling 'their side' of the story and making all sorts of horrible remarks about you and your work to HR is terrifying. You also have absolutely no assurance that HR will take it seriously, make any real attempt to reconcile the two versions of events that they're hearing, or do anything to make a positive difference to what's going on.
The whole idea can be really intimidating and sadly senior staff will often be automatically believed over more junior ones.

Deusexmachina

Arghus wrote: »

Now now.

You've got a lot of mileage about what you perceived to be a generalisation in another poster's remarks on this thread.

It'd be good if you didn't take what someone else had to say and then blow it up with hyperbole.

Are you a mod? In fairness, I am exaggerating to make the point again that rounding up everyone is not going to work. Stick to the perpetrators.

Arghus

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Are you a mod? In fairness, I am exaggerating to make the point again that rounding up everyone is not going to work. Stick to the perpetrators.

Absolutely, but that's not what the poster who you quoted was saying.

If you ask to me to read it again, then I'll have to laugh!

Deusexmachina

Arghus wrote: »

Absolutely, but that's not what the poster who you quoted was saying.

If you ask to me to read it again, then I'll have to laugh!

Here you go - read it again.

Now, stop having a go at me. You seem to have an issue with me stating that all men dont sexually harass women.

Maybe I am wrong. When did you first start harrassing women?

Outlaw Pete

Arghus wrote: »

So, because laws are in place and sexual assult isn't tolerated - we shouldn't talk about sexual harassment?

Talk about it till the cows come home for all I care but just don't kid yourselves that #metoo'ing will change a damn thing.

The main subject of the thread is the behavior of Michael Colgan. If we live in such a hunky-dory society, it's amazing that his behavior was tolerated for so long. A more pertinent question would be to ask why that happened?

I never claimed society was hunky-dory with regards to sexual harassment.

But it's a lot easier to slag people I suppose.

If that's what you see it as, so be it, but it's a poor summation.

Fact is that if Colgan gets his comeuppance, it will be through the avenues that I am suggesting should be taken and which already exist.

Arghus

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Here you go - read it again.

Now, stop having a go at me. You seem to have an issue with me stating that all men dont sexually harass women.

Maybe I am wrong. When did you first start harrassing women?

I agree with you, all men don't harrass women.

And no-one here has stated otherwise.

Arghus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Talk about it till the cows come home for all I care but just don't kid yourselves that #metoo'ing will change a damn thing.

I agree, more than just a #hash-tag is required. But you have to start somewhere.

goose2005

seamus wrote: »

50/50 his response will be

- an aggressive rant about "scurrilous slurs" on his character that he will challenge through legal avenues.
or
- a tone-deaf response about misunderstandings occurring out of a desire to maintain a friendly work environment

"and have I mentioned that time we put on Hedda Gabler? Checkmate, feminists."

Deusexmachina

Arghus wrote: »

I agree with you, all men don't harrass women.

And no-one here has stated otherwise.

Semantics.

expectationlost

colgan is gone now so what does it matter unless is a criminal matter? ( i suppose somebody could take a civil case) the issue is governance, are all these boards members going to here much longer

cloudatlas

expectationlost wrote: »

colgan is gone now so what does it matter unless is a criminal matter? ( i suppose somebody could take a civil case) the issue is governance, are all these boards members going to here much longer

Of course it matters the Gate has to revise it's code of conduct and put measures in place to prevent this from happening again, also I gather some staff who ignored what was going on are probably still in place that's scary stuff.

Bambi985

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In western society, harassment is frowned upon and is not accepted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egeea61eafs

I have never witnessed sexual assault that blatant in any public space. I have had a creep leer at me and make gross suggestive gestures at me behind his wife's back on a train though, or the old pervert I was sitting beside that tried to put his hand up my skirt, or the drunken wahaaaay show us your tits intimidation from a bunch of beered up pot-bellied bastards twice my age when I was about 15 and on the way home from school - the former of which could never have been seen by anyone who wasn't watching very closely; the last of which no-one said a thing because who in their right mind would choose to get involved with a bunch of pissed grown men.

What's funny is that not only do most guys - the good guys - not notice these things, but they'll often not have the same kind of radar that women will have about who's a creep, who's a bit handsy, who talks to our tits instead of our faces, who ogles our legs when we're giving a work presentation, who stands a bit too close, who just makes every woman feel a bit uncomfortable. Because it's insidious, it's not something you would notice, it's not something you will experience.

I've had so many conversations with male colleagues, or friends, or exes, where I've watched their faces drop when I told them that Paddy from Accounts was really inappropriate, or made some gross comment about a female colleague and is avoided like the plague by most women - "what Paddy? Ah no Paddy's grand....sure we've all been for pints...ah he didn't mean it".

It's not something that you'll see 80-90% of the time IME. I'd compare it to a particularly nasty female colleague I once had who would make sly digs and give evil eyes and undermine any new and attractive woman that started in the office when everyone was out of earshot - whilst maintaining a "team player" and "life and soul of the party" demeanour to everyone else. Nasty, insidious, underhand, opportunistically demeaning without threatening his own reputation in the wider pack.

optogirl

Bambi985 wrote: »

I have never witnessed sexual assault that blatant in any public space. I have had a creep leer at me and make gross suggestive gestures at me behind his wife's back on a train though, or the old pervert I was sitting beside that tried to put his hand up my skirt, or the drunken wahaaaay show us your tits intimidation from a bunch of beered up pot-bellied bastards twice my age when I was about 15 and on the way home from school - the former of which could never have been seen by anyone who wasn't watching very closely; the last of which no-one said a thing because who in their right mind would choose to get involved with a bunch of pissed grown men.

What's funny is that not only do most guys - the good guys - not notice these things, but they'll often not have the same kind of radar that women will have about who's a creep, who's a bit handsy, who talks to our tits instead of our faces, who ogles our legs when we're giving a work presentation, who stands a bit too close, who just makes every woman feel a bit uncomfortable. Because it's insidious, it's not something you would notice, it's not something you will experience.

I've had so many conversations with male colleagues, or friends, or exes, where I've watched their faces drop when I told them that Paddy from Accounts was really inappropriate, or made some gross comment about a female colleague and is avoided like the plague by most women - "what Paddy? Ah no Paddy's grand....sure we've all been for pints...ah he didn't mean it".

It's not something that you'll see 80-90% of the time IME. I'd compare it to a particularly nasty female colleague I once had who would make sly digs and give evil eyes and undermine any new and attractive woman that started in the office when everyone was out of earshot - whilst maintaining a "team player" and "life and soul of the party" demeanour to everyone else. Nasty, insidious, underhand, opportunistically demeaning without threatening his own reputation in the wider pack.

All so achingly familiar

expectationlost

cloudatlas wrote: »

Of course it matters the Gate has to revise it's code of conduct and put measures in place to prevent this from happening again, also I gather some staff who ignored what was going on are probably still in place that's scary stuff.

thats what I said

fly_agaric

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It sounds surprisingly like the recent charity scandals.

Sounds like so many assorted scandals here. No one is accountable, privilege and power with no responsibility.

Issues with the banks are similar, just one thing after another - the taxpayer must be quick & ready with the money to stop the banks going under when they overreach, but ultimately the state seems to be unwilling or unable to clean up any of the dirt going on in the banks it has "rescued".

It is not surprising any more to me after 30 + years, it is just an aspect of how the country is run. All of this has happened before etc etc...

Outlaw Pete

Bambi985 wrote: »

What's funny is that not only do most guys - the good guys - not notice these things, but they'll often not have the same kind of radar that women will have about who's a creep, who's a bit handsy, who talks to our tits instead of our faces, who ogles our legs when we're giving a work presentation, who stands a bit too close, who just makes every woman feel a bit uncomfortable.

I've had so many conversations with male colleagues, or friends, or exes, where I've watched their faces drop when I told them that Paddy from Accounts was really inappropriate, or made some gross comment about a female colleague and is avoided like the plague by most women - "what Paddy? Ah no Paddy's grand....sure we've all been for pints...ah he didn't mean it".

It's not something that you'll see 80-90% of the time IME. I'd compare it to a particularly nasty female colleague I once had who would make sly digs and give evil eyes and undermine any new and attractive woman that started in the office when everyone was out of earshot - whilst maintaining a "team player" and "life and soul of the party" demeanour to everyone else. Nasty, insidious, underhand, opportunistically demeaning without threatening his own reputation in the wider pack.

Yeah, good example, and it would my experience that for every prick Paddy, there's a crazy Cathy but here's the rub. You say that mostly these things won't be noticed but yet what we keep hearing is that change is needed and men need to stand up and be women's allies, but how so? What exactly do women expect men to do that women can't do for themselves, particularly when it involves something we wouldn't necessarily notice.

.....it's insidious, it's not something you would notice, it's not something you will experience.

Actually, that's not something you can say at all as on average, 17% of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace are made by males: