Go to YouTube and search "steam locomotive cab ride". One or both of your expectations are regularly broken. It has more to do with the particular locomotive's working environment than any fast rule.

Here's a professional steam shop crew at work 'back in the day'. While they are all wearing long sleeve coveralls or other such clothing I don't see very many gloves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC1BEc04i-0

Ross should retract what he said. Opinions like that are just plain wrong, no matter when they are said or by whom. And when voiced publicly by such a prominent figure they have the potential to damage our entire field, not just him or his organization.

I've been fortunate enough to work and volunteer alongside some pretty damn smart and tough women at both a Class I and a railway museum. Gender has nothing to do with what makes a good railroader, employee, or volunteer, no matter what era or type of equipment we are talking about.

I hope this doesn't distract from the OP's original goal of hearing stories from women in our field.

Ross is just showcasing the attitude that is the problem with so many railroad and preservation groups.

Old white guys who say absolutely terrible things and justify it by saying “I’m just old fashioned”

.

The generation coming out of college now are actually the MOST biased people. It is that generation that has popularized cancel culture, the phenomenon by which they destroy the lives of people for merely mentioning something that does not 100% coincide with their beliefs and sensibilities. It is hard to get more biased and intolerant than that.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how we go about guaranteeing equity in our industry. Unlike what you may believe, men and women are different and tend to have different interests. Centuries of evidence, not to mention research from non corrupted scientists shows that women tend to be interested in people whereas men tend to be interested in things. Equity is the failed notion that somehow there must be as many women working on things as there are men working with people. OK then, in a free society in which people choose what they want to do or not do, how do you get more people to do things that they naturally would not choose to do? Do we force them? Must people of certain demographics be forced to engage in activities they would not willingly choose to do just to satisfy some misguided notion that men and women must do everything on a 50/50 basis?

If the physical work on the mechanical end of things is dominated by men, yet the customer service/hosting/docent etc. and of things is dominated by women, and nobody has been forced to do something that they don't want to do, then that is the optimum to be aspired to. The more egalitarian a society becomes, the more people tend to do the things that they truly want to do and not the other way around.

Same goes for RYPN. Membership here is free and open to all. People freely choose to participate or not. If more men than women choose to participate, then it is their individual free wills that created that situation and is not a problem being manifested, it is merely further evidence that people do those things that they are interested in. I would not force any women to join RYPN against their will just to avoid manifesting some imaginary problem.

Extremely well put Mr. Rowlands. Also, this is the second time in this thread now that Crescent Zephyr has made generalizations against "old white guys". I'm sure if someone else made the same exact statement (insert any other ethnic group) he (or she, can't say for sure from the posts) would be up in arms. I take offense to white men being made the scapegoat for all of the world's problems today.

John

Two words "historical context"

1) The results will likely be shared within a month or two.

2) No.

3) No.



By the comments I'm seeing in this thread, it did need to be struck.



Of all the results from the survey, I have yet to see any that discuss being "forced into the spotlight". However, I do see comments saying that women should be spotlighted.



1) Without compromising anonymity, that cannot be done. If you compromise anonymity, then you risk people not wanting to come forward.
2) It's clear from the feedback that many respondents are addressing recent issues.
3) Again, without compromising anonymity, that cannot be done.
4) Since I don't know the organization, I cannot address this.

This survey is not intended to be a witch hunt looking at specific offenders. It's designed to look at our field as a whole, something we're not very good at doing collectively.



Reverse sexism does not exist. Men have always been the dominant players in society, so it's impossible for women to discriminate when they do not hold nearly as much power.



Your post is one of the most sexist things I've read in a long time.



Given that this thread is revealing a number of sexist attitudes, it seems to have been the perfect place to share this.



Since someone earlier in this thread just said women shouldn't operate steam locomotives, I find that argument hard to believe.

Your argument is also predicated on this false notion of forcing women to take roles that they do not want. Frequently, the problem is women being withheld from opportunities they seek.




Exactly.

With all due respect, Mr Train-a-Mania, I beg to differ with you that "reverse sexism does not exist because women don't hold power, etc..." Have you ever auditioned for any professional upper string player positions, or ever played upper strings in a real orchestra ?? It's about 90% female, and they (most of the time) damn sure DO discriminate. There is no quota to force them to hire men, and even if there were, they have ways of ostracizing us. We just have to grin and bear it, but we talk among ourselves, of course.

What I was talking about is well intentioned unequal treatment of women by men. Is it sexism ?? Some women have said it is, although I don't believe they were upset with me. They just wanted to hear some good dirty jokes, just like the guys do...

I look forward to seeing the results of your survey posted here.

I'm an old white guy. Like everybody of any given gender, identity or racial genetic code, there are days I'm an absolute monster, days I'm a saint and anything in between. Since old white guys have generally been in charge for the most recent millennium, and we have problems, it seems like an obvious thing to connect the two, but since we don't have examples of societies under the control of every different possible permutation of gender, race and age..... well, how do we know any of them would work better? Correlation isn't necessarily causation. Maybe what we're dealing with here is hard wired bits of code in humanity in general. I don't think I'm getting whiter, but I am getting older, and the more that progresses the more disgusted I get about what's still not better after having been commonly acknowledged to have been wrong for decades now. It seems there's power for the taking by exploiting and promoting divisiveness rather than bringing people together to maybe actually work out some improvements, so the people who are interested in power aren't going to allow for improvement for protecting their own interests, are they?

I've worked with people of many genders and identities and some have been excellent people to deal with and some not so much without any difference I've noted in any specific bit of the spectrum.

These generalizations are still damaging. I understand historical context but as Dave stated, making sweeping statements such as these create ill-will rather than solving anything. Preaching tolerance for all and then calling out one specific group is speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Last I looked the Strasburg railroad was being run mostly by "older white men", and employs women both in engine service and in the shops.

John

Nick - Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears that you are intending publication without verification which could be viewed as very unprofessional journalism but which unfortunately appears to be quite common in the internet era. If you follow through on this path, I'd only ask that you concurrently post/publish your exact methodology such that people can judge the relevance, or lack thereof, of the unverified anecdotal stories you are presenting.

To me, your approach is akin to an old man who refuses to get cataract surgery. You will get a shadow result which may or may not actually represent reality. Since you present yourself as an advocate of historic preservation, I am surprised that you would be content with a methodology that lacks rigor in establishing the veracity of your data.

This sort of lazy journalism with stating verification is too hard as an excuse, in my view, is exactly the type of thing that motivates people to call for a reexamination of the standards set forth in NYT v Sullivan. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

Continued good luck with your podcasts.

Nick,

This is the most fascinating thread on RYPN in a long time. Maybe ever.

By posing a simple question, you have three pages of comments that reveal:

- some very deep rooted sexism
- a lot of unconscious bias (and I am giving the benefit of the doubt)
- folks who actually do believe there's a problem
- criticism of "how" you are doing this (classic distraction to turn the spotlight away from the actual topic)

What don't you have? Public comments by women.

And that's to be expected. It's not easy to come out and publicly share experiences for fear of shaming, retribution or - as some of the comments here portend - potential accusations of lying. Your willingness to preserve anonymity may be the only way to get any conversation going.

My interest in this topic is based on one thing: increased diversity in railroad preservation (and, actually, in all railroad-related interests) is good for the future.

Over my time - which is now longer than I care to admit - I have seen women (especially those wanting to make contributions in non-traditional areas), Black people and gay people run out of rail groups and organizations. Sometimes they don't get in the door. Sometimes it is an instant rejection. Other times it is after enduring weeks, months or years of abuse.

I have also seen some of those folks find ways to stick it out (even though - in every case, without exception - there was crude behind the back chatter). In almost all cases I know of where women have lasted in preservation groups, they are the spouse of a fellow member.

Once exception is groups that are part of government organizations where equality and opportunity are handled with a fairer hand. This is why Steamtown, The National Railway Museum and similar orgs have had women at the helm. They came up through a system less adept at holding them down.

I hope that greater communication changes this; opening doors and helping spread influence.

The most (overall) talented model railroader out there creating content right now is a woman (Kathy Millatt) and the most relevant game-changing modeler is a Black man (Jonathan Jones). Those are good signs. Perhaps this trend will spread to other rail-related interests?

(It should be noted both Millatt and Jones gained note because they used the Internet to publish their own content - they subverted the gate keepers. No one could tell them "no" or shut them out).

- Rob

Rob,

Our active restoration crew is currently limited to primarily white volunteers (young, old, men, women). Our BOD has been discussing options of diversifying our active volunteers, to be inclusive of other races and also LGBT folks. Any idea how can we go about attracting folks of these groups to our locomotive restoration?

Thanks.

Classic RJD - this is not the first time he has professed the mystical power to know what is in my heart and mind. More magic loogie theories from him. The man is either supernatural or...?

Like the people who risked their lives and started this great experiment in constitutional republicanism almost 250 years ago, and even though my intellect and courage are nowhere near as robust, I have a great respect for the importance of the fourth estate in maintaining institutional checks and balances and in propelling societal learning and improvement. Posting unverified anecdotal stories does nothing to move people forward and can not serve as a basis for improvement because it does not give an accurate picture of the situation.

So Nick, you have to decide if using an approach that lacks vigor, effort, and enterprise defines your standard as a journalist. If you believe that posting unverified anecdotal stories that purport to reflect difficulties women have had in this industry actually does something to move us forward as people and as an industry, then by all means, go for it. But please be transparent as to your methodology so people can properly weigh the information and form their own opinions about your journalistic integrity. Thank you and have a great day.