I can think of two instances where females didn't do well in rail preservation THAT I SAW.

One was a fireman ("fire-person"?) trainee on a certain steam RR I worked with ages ago. I was in a position to get a good picture of her in the cab during training, and submitted it to the newsletter editor, who did a write-up for the quarterly newsletter. (Said newsletter editor used to remind me constantly that the newsletter's job was as much public relations as it was member news--and the mailing list confirmed that.)

A year or so later back at the enginehouse, I happened to ask about her, wondering if she was making progress towards engineer (the following paraphrased from memory):
"She didn't work out."
".................. should I ask?"
"You know how for every trainee we get that works, we get one or so that doesn't understand how you have to show up early to start the fire, get the engine hot, that it's a twelve-hour day and all? That was her."
"Yeah, I can't get here early enough, either........... At least she didn't have to shovel coal..."
"Yeah, that's the thing. She expected to just step on and take the train out, none of the other work."
"So, it wasn't being female....."
"Oh, yeah, that was the other thing. I think she broke up with [boyfriend who was also a volunteer]....... and she was always playing the 'I'm just a girl' card when it was something she didn't want to do."

That was a director, BTW, not some old-white-guy volunteer.

From what I saw of her, my gut feeling is that she would have spun a story of grievances about sexism and bigotry perfect for what Train-a-Mania admitted he's seeking. But was it really "sexism" or simply a person with unrealistic expectations?

Another instance I witnessed was of a young, enthusiastic woman just out of college who wanted to "update" a small museum to the 21st century, with an emphasis on computer displays and interactivity "that young people can relate to." She started with installing used iMacs in corners of the display hall, just setting them up to run "slide shows" for starts. The curators tried to rein her in a bit with two facts:

1) She was the only one familiar with Apple programming, and thus was the only one who could properly set up the programming and the like;
2) Younger "kids" would almost all run excitedly up to the sight of a computer and try to either get online or play a game, and sulk away dejectedly with no interest when they saw they could do neither.

Her gender was not the problem. The problem was that her tactics were a poor fit for the specific museum environment in question, sort of like trying to put Wi-Fi on a Strasburg train set. It was very much, in my eyes, a case of "when all you have is a computer, everything looks like a coding or Internet problem," to spin the old adage.
The curator of said museum, himself a computer tech guy in his day job, admitted to me "the others drove her out. She was too focused on one mission for her own good, and the other guys were too conservative to see what she was bringing to the table. She moved on somewhere else--but I hope she learned something here about interacting with a museum's membership and mission."

But once again, it's possible that if she were interviewed, she could claim "sexism!"

I'm reminded of the old joke-that's come-true-in-real-life:
I hold a door open for someone coming in or out (which I would do for anyone male or female, or these days "whatever"....)
The woman would reply "Are you holding the door open for me because I'm a woman?"
I would roll my eyes and reply, "No, *I'm* holding the door open for you because *I'm* a *gentleman!* Now GIT!!!"
That hasn't happened to me again in at least fifteen years now, but I swore long ago that if it ever happened again, I'd close the door on them without a word and walk away.

I am not going to use RYPN to lay out my entire personal journey when it comes to better understanding of gender (and all other beautiful differences of people). But given that this audience (so far) is mostly middle-aged or older white males like me, I will share this for consideration.

And no, I am not going to tell you being born a white male makes you inherently evil, so check your anger at the door. What I am going to tell you is that being a white male skews our perspectives and - whether we know it or not - that can have a significant impact.

I am still on my journey, so all I can do is share what I have learned and hope it opens eyes like it has opened mine so far.

I do not profess to have all the answers.

I have been fortunate enough to work with an incredibly diverse group of bosses, colleagues and employees. Through that experience, I have also been able to take part in trainings about diversity in the work place. Along the way, I have had moments of epiphany that were quite sobering. As many of you have stated, my mantra used to be to treat everyone the same. Gender, race, sexual orientation... none of it mattered, I saw a person who was just like me or any other person.

And then I was shown, quite vividly, how what I thought was an ecumenical view of the world - that we are all the same - actually perpetuated the problems and also robbed the other person of their identity.

When I say "everyone is the same" what I am really saying is that "everyone is just like me and had the same experiences I had." Which means my assumptions about the other person are from a white male point of view. For me to think "we are all the same" is tantamount to judging others as if they were me.

One consequence of this is that it totally negates the other person's life experience and puts their entire being in a box defined by me: a white male (again, that doesn't make me evil for being who I was born as, but it is a problem when I project that on others).

The value brought by diversity is the diversity itself. And understanding the world through the eyes of others is what leads to building environments where people of diverse backgrounds will WANT to participate. That is ESSENTIAL learning for volunteer groups.

If people born like me get to set what "normal" then we are creating an environment without the input of others. We devalue what they bring. We hold back their potential. So when we judge women and their perceived wants, needs or wishes in volunteer groups we are doing so against a standard of "the way it has always been." And that way has been almsot 100% defined by people who share my race and gender.

We will never reach the full potential of what volunteers can bring if we don't see them as individuals who bring a different set of experiences and perspectives. Truly being open to others means trying to see very clearly through their eyes.

Rob

Because they don't express said interest. Or, at least, they don't come up and say "how can I get involved?"

So why is that?

I wrangled with this issue with a member of our NRHS Chapter I used to drive to and from meetings, the better to save him an hour or whatever of bus riding each way. He, being Black, would ask, "Why don't we and the NRHS in general have more Black members?" I had to ask in reply, "How many people do you know at all, outside our Chapter, of any skin color, who are rail enthusiasts?"

It's always been a chicken-or-egg question. Be it this, or women in auto racing, or transgender cartoonists (yes, there is one in syndication now), or whatever.
The fact remains that ANY hobby or pastime requires a dedication of time and/or money, two things that are too often in "short supply" in minority communities/families. It doesn't matter if it's sudoku or racing sports cars or birdwatching or chasing trains--the well-to-do always have an advantage. And if I keep this up, the next discussion will be about railfandom and "white privilege".................

Outreach is importance. But often, that "outreach" tends to look stilted and forced. Having displays on women trolley operators during WW2, Blacks and Pullman porters, etc. have to strike a balance between being actually educational and not looking like some placating sop to African-American History Month, Women's Week, or whatever. And that's not easy.

When I go to a Sheep & Wool Festival, I don't demand to know why I'm one of maybe only five percent of the attendance that's both male and NOT a sheep rancher or otherwise involved in the business of sheep/fibre arts, or there just to hold my wife/girlfriend's purchases. I just enjoy my leg of lamb sandwich (I bring my own mint sauce!), the art, the spectacular sweaters, the buffalo wool socks, the antique tools and spinning gear, the craftsmanship of modern replacements for the same, etc.

Part of the overall problem is that we have entire movements and "industries" dedicated to classifying individuals as part of a group, and not as individuals.

Starting with the opening post of this thread.

You missed the point.

The issues we need to solve are about the experiences of different groups of people. Individuals, too, but we need to acknowledge the issues that stop organizations from ever getting to know the individual. Those big issues are where gender and diversity need to be addressed.

In other words, if an organization or leader is - knowingly or not - creating an environment hostile to women, then it's highly unlikely you will even attract women long enough to know them as individuals.

It seems to me that some champions of anti-discrimination are so anxious to find and highlight discrimination that they find it where it does not actually exist. This leads to the false conclusion that under-representation proves the existence of discrimination whether it exists or not.

One last thought, and then I am going to go deeper into this conversation for another project I am working on.

Over the years, I have seen a lot. Here are three "relatively" mild ones:

- A steel mill operators booth "decorated" wall to ceiling with pornographic pictures of women
- A very well respected tourist railroad's office featuring pictures of Hillary Clinton accompanied by sexist memes
- Any number of railroad, auto and machine shops decorated with pin-up calendars

In all three cases, I knew men who worked in these environments. And in each case I had friends in management roles. And in each case, these folks would not describe themselves as biased. They were merely continuing tradition.

Now imagine you are a woman and you walk into one of these spaces looking to work or volunteer there. What are the messages you would pick up from that environment?

Now imagine you are a man, and those pornographic pictures were explicit images of men. And the those Hillary memes were GW Bush memes about men's shortcomings. And those pinups were all suggestive pictures of men.

How would you feel? You would probably would never encounter that environment because women haven't been the group that made such things the norm.

These are three true - but somewhat extreme - cases, though I would bet some of you volunteer at places with similar decor objectifying or mocking. If so, that's the first problem to solve.

Then examine your own behavior and the behavior of your colleagues. When a woman asks about getting involved, what are your first reactions? Do you make a certain face? Do you automatically think she's headed straight for gift shop sales or secretary work? Do you judge her based on a set of ideals which she has had no contribution in defining?

Do women even get that far in your organization? Do women even ask to get involved, or is your organization and its membership sending conscious or unconscious messages that they aren't welcome?

The most fascinating thing that could happen to this thread is if a woman interested in - or involved in - railroad preservation would go through the comments and highlight every statement that shows disrespect, sexism, unconscious bias or other signals that an organization has some work to do in how it perceives women.

That would be an eye-opener.

We have a lot of work to do as a community. Talking about it is a good step. See ya' down the road...

Rob

How long ago was that? Times change. Those type of items were on display here as well thirty years ago, but disappeared a long time ago.

#1 was a while ago, the other two are much more recent. And you are right, the overt expressions of sexism are receding but we still have a ways to go with it. It's still out there.

The underlying drivers however do not disappear just because a pinup calendar comes down.

Pin up pictures are an integral part of historic context for some times and places...... and I disagree with the perspective that treating everybody the same is treating everybody like I would treat myself. Consideration is universal, and allows for increasing knowledge of the person you are sharing consideration with.

Aside, I have been handed more problems caused by white cisgendered males than by any other bunch of people I've dealt with, and I am one and I still like many. But, if I needed to choose a classification of people to dislike, it would logically be those sharing my own.

There is a rail preservation place with which I have dealt with often that has a notice posted conspicuously on the "crew bulletin board," which is where updates to rosters, bulletins about track work, etc. go and are supposed to be checked at the start of any operation or shift.

The notice explicitly states (lightly paraphrased):
1) There will be NO degrading, questionable, or potentially offensive material or conversation in any public or private location--keep the shop as if anyone could walk in at any moment, including kids, grandmothers, politicians, and TV cameras.
2) There will be NO potentially offensive dialogue on the property. No exceptions.
3) There shall be NO disparaging, insulting, or "trash talking" of any other rail museum or operation, not even [the Class One next door].

I was told of some past instances that arose and spurred complaints. I was told of certain volunteers that were "blacklisted" from interactions with the public, or not allowed to lead a tour group/handle a trolley/etc. solo, lest they "run their mouths" off-script with harangues about that railroad/transit company, politically incorrect remarks, etc. (Note past discussions here about how railfandom seems to attract the "autistic" or those with difficulty in social interactions.)

This specific operation DOES have to watch its step in a broad sense, as there exists the potential for politicians or the like to make life VERY difficult for them (see Indiana Transportation Museum, any state-officiated museum, etc.).

"The notice explicitly states (lightly paraphrased):
1) There will be NO degrading, questionable, or potentially offensive material or conversation in any public or private location--keep the shop as if anyone could walk in at any moment, including kids, grandmothers, politicians, and TV cameras.
2) There will be NO potentially offensive dialogue on the property. No exceptions.
3) There shall be NO disparaging, insulting, or "trash talking" of any other rail museum or operation, not even [the Class One next door]."

Complaints or not, these items should be ingrained behavior by every participant while at the property, or while representing the organization off-site (and that includes while on social media).

It should not be a matter of having to "watch your step", but a matter of common decency.

I think about the ignorant railfan commentary about CSX, of 6-8 years ago, and then I think about what they have been doing recently to assist our collective groups. I'm glad they choose to overlook stupid yahoo behavior.


Howard P.

We would LOVE to think this.

But I was told "the actions of a mere few made this necessary."

Sadly, we don't always have the luxury of ejecting the line's best engineer, the best wood restorationist, the only welder around, the only guy who can show up on a weekday for a school charter, etc. And maybe THAT guy is also the one with a propensity for spouting the National City Lines conspiracy theory or "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" to anyone that'll listen (even when NCL didn't operate anything in their state!), or doesn't have a filter when it comes to crass, tasteless jokes.

I also should point out one thing:
The places Brother RJD reports seeing these things are places where "the general public" would NOT be expected to show up in, absent a regular "shop tour" or "open house." Indeed, the public is often barred from the garage floor, the shop tracks, etc. by chains and signs. We can argue whether or not these things should be up or whether these places should have any expectation of privacy, but.....

One last note for now:
I know of a substantial estate that was left to one specific museum miles away from the guy instead of the one proverbially "down the street" from him--and worse, the stuff he had was far more appropriate for the closer one (think giving Reading RR stuff to the RR Museum of Pa. instead of the Reading RR Museum--a made-up example). In the post-mortem analysis, it appeared that someone at the closer museum had not only made offensive remarks, but some senior individual there had apparently dissed him personally, not knowing who he was--and also they seemingly put all their energy into operation and very little into archives and documentation, whereas the estate in question had literally TONS of pertinent books, drawings, photos, and other documents. I believe it was confirmed he changed his will days before his death from cancer........

"Common decency" apparently is becoming as oxymoronic as "common sense."

"Sadly, we don't always have the luxury of ejecting the line's best engineer, the best wood restorationist, the only welder around, the only guy who can show up on a weekday for a school charter, etc. And maybe THAT guy is also the one with a propensity for spouting the National City Lines conspiracy theory or "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" to anyone that'll listen (even when NCL didn't operate anything in their state!), or doesn't have a filter when it comes to crass, tasteless jokes."

Nope, you're wrong. Because that "best engineer", who is always making political comments, or the shop guy who HAS to wear a MAGA hat, or the administrator/officer who verbally abuses both volunteers and visitors, all have NO place at the museum/heritage railway. Why? Because ultimately, they do FAR more damage than good. And they can be replaced. They can ALWAYS be replaced. Can the organization's reputation be replaced so easily? (and that's even without expensive lawsuits)

And we have lived some of those situations in recent years. So, please don't tell me I'm wrong about this. (no lawsuits, no harm to organization's reputation, fortunately)

What is in the best interests of the organization? The trustees of a non-profit organization have a fiduciary and moral duty to do the best for the organization. Allowing crude, abusive, discriminatory behavior adversely affects the organization. And it's just plain wrong. Don't make excuses for that stuff. There aren't any. You want to wear a MAGA hat? Fine, just not here.

Howard P.

There DOES exist--at least in SOME places--the option to "hide" that person from the public. I know of a couple shops (and rail cars used as shops) where no one even knows the shops are there because it's a windowless building/box with steel doors and barred doorways. I remember one "toxic" character that was "hidden" in one such shop and did great metal work, or so I was told.

If the guy insists on interacting with the public to spout his "educational" views, however......... "Bang, zoom....... to the MOON!!!" (Oh, great, now someone will accuse me of supporting domestic violence.....)