This thread is a rollercoaster, complete with refreshing leaps and nauseating curves. I've appreciated the discussion and find it enlightening, both the parts that thoughtfully reference the topic at hand as well as the ones meant to overwhelm and discredit any meaningful examination of women's experiences through the apparently deliberate reframing of said discussion into one of semantics.

At this point, I don't foresee a unicorn 'A-ha!' moment of reflection happening with any posters in the latter camp, but still, let me share a few very brief anecdotes about my own experience as a rail preservation volunteer. Again, these are my personal, lived experiences; to those out there who are confident that they've not witnessed, perpetrated, or been the victim of anything along these lines at your organization (or place of employment), that's fantastic! I'm so pleased to hear that you've had positive experiences within healthy workplace cultures.

As a volunteer with the rolling equipment restoration crew at a local preservation group, I was fortunate to work alongside a small, highly-skilled, and very supportive team out of their restoration shop. Though my background was nonprofit administration/lobbying, at no time did anyone on that restoration crew ever make me feel uncomfortable or create an unpleasant work environment where I felt objectified or incapable of carrying out the work we were charged with. That said, I DO recall that it was a full year (and that was a year of being there nearly every weekend to work 10+ hr days) before the president of the organization itself even acknowledged my existence by returning eye contact and saying hello. (That had the feeling of being done more out of necessity than an attempt to connect with a volunteer, since he walked by me while I was working out in the rail yard.)

I also recall a board meeting where the topic at hand was the proposal, which I strongly supported, that new board policies be created which would address issues like term limits and conflict of interest. There's nothing quite like having a seasoned board member talk down to you s-l-o-w-l-y, after said idea is proposed, with a withering, condescending retort of, "Well, if we instituted a conflict-of-interest policy, that would mean that so-and-so couldn't be president". Well, yeah...that's the point.

And there's also the matter of having the curator of the museum, while he was on the phone in the gift shop and I'm walking past carrying a jug of wash water from the utility sink out towards the back door, relay my actions to the person on the other end of the line, saying, "XXXXX is just carrying a jug of water out back", pausing to listen to their response, and then replying quietly - but not quietly enough for me not to hear - "Yes, she does have very nice jugs".

So this is my truth, at least some of it. (The parts I have the energy to share.) Mock me, poke holes in my anecdotes, do whatever you need to discredit me, as so many are apparently rushing to discredit the experiences of others. (It's just what's done, apparently.) I doubt I waste energy responding. What's the point?

But again, thanks again to stand-up groups like Ft. Wayne and the RMNE and any others out there engaged in creating a positive, healthy, welcoming culture. Like others have stated, I guess I'll have no choice but to partake in that most American, free market-based activity: 'voting with my pocketbook'; that is, directing my dollars to those groups rather than ones that choose to remain soon-to-be-irrelevant relics.

*Edited because I inadvertently added an extra word which changed the intent of a sentence in the last paragraph. Oops.

People have the right to choose who they want to support. Don't get that confused with "cancel culture." Not one person here is calling for the complete extermination of a specific group. It's no different than favoring and supporting a certain business or organization outside of the hobby because their ideals and beliefs line up with yours.

I fully agree that it's one's right and freedom to choose who one supports. It's just somewhat amusing that it's usually the "tolerant" folks on the left side of the spectrum who launch these flat out attacks or rebellions against anyone who disagrees with their ideologies. "Conform or else!"

In the same way that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, tolerance is not "there are no bounds on acceptability" it's that those bounds aren't drawn around things people can't change.

You can't change being an old white guy. You CAN choose not to be a crotchety one.

Unfortunately for your attempt to declare otherwise, activists have been doing so for decades of "moving the goalposts."



This apt quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There applies to this Orwellian practice.

I 100% agree. As soon as people hear the words “I will not fund x group due to it conflicting my belief”, they get into a frenzy of proclaiming you are supporting cancel culture. Ft. Wayne and similar groups have adapted with the times, supporting modern culture instead of denying it for outdated views. Certain groups will never see a dime from some because of their priorities and publicly projected, outdated ideologies. An open arms organization will do better than a group of “old men with outdated views on equality” or such.

Should we make a list of which orgs not to support? I didn't see one person chime in and say we shouldn't treat everyone equally. In your opinion, what do organizations need to do to get onboard "supporting modern culture?"

a good steer clear guide is anywhere the people screaming about radical leftist cancel culture work

Veering way off topic from the OP, but call it what you want. Here is the definition of "cancel culture" from Dictionary.com:
And for reference, here is Mr. Lyman's statement:


But, sure, let's avoid supporting all railroad operations except for FWRHS, because of folks who don't share the OP's belief that sexism is a systemic issue in railroad preservation c. 2021.

Well, heck, the activists hafta condemn and boycott FWRHS, too.

Because they burn fossil fuels and contribute to climate change, don'tcha know?

Under the standard of "offensensitivity" expressed earlier, you can conjure some specious reason to boycott or call for the closure of basically ANY museum in existence--and not just rail museums.

Some volunteer said something "politically incorrect"--or just "liked" an un-PC thought or the "wrong" politician or social activist--on social media. The one predecessor of one railroad represented rented slaves to build a line in the 1800s. The railroads used fossil fuels and transported them, too, facilitating climate change. The museum didn't openly support BLM in 2020 with a banner and social media posts. Railroads facilitated the genocide of indigenous North American peoples. Rail barons enriched themselves at the expense of the working class. Trolley systems and "streetcar suburbs" contributed to urban "white flight."

And wait until these people hear that the Smithsonian's National Air & Space Museum has preserved an airplane that "committed a war crime" (in the eyes of some) by dropping an atomic bomb on civilians............

Given all this, why the hell don't we just give in and scrap every last remainder of this ugly scourge and blight upon American (and British, etc.) history, in the name of "social justice"??????

I mean, last year during the George Floyd "protests" a mob vandalized a statue of Matthias Baldwin, the founder of Baldwin Locomotive Works, with the words "colonizer" and "murderer" spray-painted on it.
Baldwin was an outspoken abolitionist during the early 1800s, arguing for the right of African Americans to vote, integrating his factory's workforce, and founding a school in Philadelphia for black children.

From everything I’m hearing, it almost sounds like the boycotts and protests of the 1960’s, which are now largely unquestioned in our society today as tremendously positive leaps forward in civil rights, get lumped in to “cancel culture” and “wokeism” too. Is the response to simply accept the status quo when civil issues are presented? That doesn’t sound very patriotic to me.

I just like to look at things in a historical context given our mutual passion for history. This is coming from a completely unashamed white male who does not want to be part of a larger social issue. I applaud Mr. Ozorak in his efforts to at the very least shine a light on any inexcusable sexist behavior (the full extent of which is debatable but absolutely not absent from our industry) and spark conversations on how we can try to make things better where applicable. Somehow that doesn’t bother or frighten me quite as much as some folks who’ve given with some downright vehement responses.

Where's the like button when ya' need it?

That is a false equivalency to claim that people in railroad preservation who want to stamp out sexism are the same as a mob of people who vandalized a statue. Unfortunately we can play a tit for tat game pointing to either side and violent protest in the US within the last year, so it is a moot point to dive into it.

Furthermore it is often the job of a museum to present controversial history, so using Enola Gay as a hypothetical argument misses the fact it actually already has had a debate over its presentation in 1994 and 2003. https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/ ... exhibition

But again it is a logical fallacy to link the display of controversial history (or other controversial debates like coal as a fossil fuel) to workplace sexism. One is a debate over interpreting the past and the other is an issue of the present that requires a solution that can't be found in a dusty history tome.

But that has been the theme of this thread from the start hasn't it? Rather than focus on the original subject at hand we have instead dived into 1950's dictionaries, elevator control schemes, statues of Mattias Baldwin, a debate over what the word "systemic" really means, and throwing shade at the Black Lives Matter movement which may I remind you about 0% of any of that has to do with sexism within railway preservation or solving it at all. We even saw a Geepster actually begin to open up about her experience only for another forum member to tell her to "make sure you aren't embracing radical leftism!" in what should have been a time we read and listened. Instead what we have seen in this thread has become a showmanship of gaslighting from certain forum members who want to air their political grievances rather than actually solving a real issue.

Which the amount of gaslighting being thrown around is exactly why I am voting with my wallet in choosing what organizations I support. Call it cancel culture, may it be; I will wear it as a badge of honor if that is what you decide it is. But claiming "why cancel us because of a bad thing we said!" is the type of gaslighting behavior that furthers cycles of abusive behavior, and its exactly why I said I do not feel safe in those organizations.

The problem:
It's NOT "why cancel us because of a bad thing we said[?]"

BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, it's "I'm 'canceling' you because ONE person that MAY have done something for you ages ago, speaking on his own and not in any way as a representative of your organization, said something I disliked!"
As I said, I saw a social media campaign against a specific bar simply because ONE employee casually "liked" a Facebook post that others found offensive (and one that had a subtle point of its own as well). NOT the owners, NOT the managers, the equivalent of a doorman. (And, yes, some of the social media posters openly said they wanted the bar shut down permanently--mostly because they believed falsehoods repeated that the "manager" or "owner" "supported racism.")

If every last thought or opinion I have is supposed to be "representative" on behalf of any organization to which I may belong, or even just contribute to quietly behind the scenes--from a museum to a social club, from a church to a magazine to which I subscribe or for which I take photos, from a political party to an online forum, from a volunteer fire department to the Greek festival I attended--then it's a pretty damned good thing I officially belong to so few such organizations. Forgive me, but that's too much responsibility for me, or any of us, to shoulder.

And more accurately, the issue these days is not even actually saying anything distasteful, bigoted, or "politically incorrect." Instead it's more accurately just NOT immediately, openly, and publicly expressing support for whatever group is expressing condemnatory grievances THIS month--not issuing a press release and social media posts stating "we stand with/behind #MeToo/BLM/the LGBTQ+ pride movement/"green" energy/etc." This is hardly an exaggeration; certain activists and groups have long made their causes into virtually "extortion rackets," threatening to launch boycotts if their causes were not publicly (and financially) supported.

Your alleged "not feeling safe" is effectively a form of paranoia.

This topic has gotten pretty far off the rails. Let’s get back to the original intent.

Is there sexism in rail preservation and related endeavors?
Apparently, yes.

Are all organizations or their individual members guilty of sexism?
Apparently, no.

Therefore, I think it would be far more constructive to discuss how best to handle instances of sexism and/or how your organization seeks to address or prevent it. The same practices possibly could be applied to other “-isms” that we see in our industry. In the grand scheme of things, we are a small industry. Can we afford to lose dedicated volunteers or possibly customers through our own self-destructive actions? I know our organization can’t.