Ah, yes. Cancel culture in full gear. So, what you're saying is that... "If your political ideology doesn't align with mine, you should no longer be allowed to do business?" That's pretty sick and twisted. Why would you feel unsafe at a museum? Because some of the volunteers don't have the same beliefs and ideologies? Get a grip, man. Everyone has different opinions. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE on this thread strives to treat EVERYONE with equality, respect, and dignity.

You know, if these dumbassed septuagenarians spent the time they spend arguing 2-IQ right wing points actually doing museum work, we'd probably have every engine within the US running by now.

Every. Goddam. Time. It turns into a shitfest by a certain group who rant on about barely-related political topics with impunity.

Truth be told, I don't like it either.

But if we are either actually fostering a scenario where we can be perceived as a "hostile environment" OR we are simply open to being accused of it (rightly OR wrongly) by outsiders, we need to be able to determine the best approach to the situation.

We ignore it at our peril.

In the recent past, I have seen:
*a brewery hit by social-media accusations of inappropriate sexual verbal banter with customers and staff (verbal, not assault) by one of the three founding partners, the truly talented brewer, who was then forced out by the other two partners as the allegations snowballed out of control in the "MeToo" social media brouhaha (and I'm taking the word of the other two that he was indeed doing what he was accused of--oh, and that's just a brewery I happen to know well; about 25 other breweries are currently being roiled by the craft-beer equivalent of "MeToo" as I type);
*a social-media boycott campaign launched against one of the best craft beer bars in the nation, solely because one employee only "liked" a Facebook post with a somewhat insensitive spin on the actions spurring the BLM movement. He was falsely portrayed by boycott activists as the "manager" of the bar (not by a long shot); the owner first attempted to placate the social media mobs with disciplining and then firing the employee in question; and as a result of the perception of over-reaction of the owner to the mobs, most of the experienced, talented staff, some with decades of experience there, quit en masse.

And as I type this, I got an e-mail from someone at a place I used to volunteer for, outlining what was effectively a seizure of control by the BOD of the controlling non-profit, arbitrarily changing the by-laws and granting themselves power without the consent of the membership and essentially barring railroad volunteers from serving on the BOD............ a measure that may drive off what few volunteers the line has been able to hold onto..............



If you choose to believe that these "barely related" topics will never impact you, feel free. Just don't be surprised if, through no fault of your own, your chosen place is struck dead by another Indiana Transportation Museum brouhaha, a lack of patronage and a boycott based on untrue or specious accusations (Greta Thunberg scowling at your smokestack "How DARE you!!!!"), or the like.

And, honestly, this field doesn't have enough people in it that you can afford to lose half or so of your support by being unfairly sanctimonious and negative to what is probably about half or so of your "support group"--those "right-wingers" you are attempting to besmirch and insult. (Johnny Carson was practically a card-carrying Communist, but he became the late-night "king" simply by being fair and even-handed to/against ALL political "sacred cows.")

Good morning everyone,

Before I reply to some of the comments that have been made thus far, I have an important history question that I would like to ask first. The question is:

Can someone who might have an older dictionary (one with a copyright date of 1959 or earlier) please look up the definition of "sexism" for me?

While I have two dictionaries here in my office, neither one dates back prior to 1982. I can see that the definition of sexism has "evolved" and "changed" from the mid-1980s to the current times. I'm curious as to what the word meant in the 1950's. I suspect that the word will NOT APPEAR in any established dictionary prior to the mid-1960s. The word may not even appear in dictionaries until the early 1970s.

If anyone with an older dictionary (one published prior to 1960) would be kind enough to share the definition of "sexism" in their reply post, along with the name of the Dictionary, the publisher, and copyright date of said dictionary, I would be forever grateful.

Thanks in advance!

"Sexism", as a word, doesn't even appear in my 1949 edition of Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary....

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45212&p=311298&hilit=lint#p311298

Here are two online definitions of “Systemic Problem” and one explanation of “systemic sexism.”

“A systemic problem is a problem which is a consequence of issues inherent in the overall system, rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.”

“A systemic problem affects the whole of an organization or place, not just some parts of it.”

https://medium.com/@ninavizz/systemic-s ... 97043ac6c1

“Systemic Sexism has nothing to do with values we individually choose and consciously try to live our lives by. Rather, Systemic Sexism (or Racism, or Homophobia, or any practice that discriminates against inherited traits) is a problem of culture. Repeat: systemic sexism is a problem of culture.”


****************************************************

I would say that if systemic sexism is a “construct that is baked into” the culture and not the result of the actions of any one member of the culture, then it follows that all members are guilty of sexism because it is baked into the culture. So all members of the culture are guilty collectively, but none are guilty individually.

On the other hand, if the problem is the fault of the individual perpetrator and thus not systemic, the problem has rather obvious solutions, which all focus on the perpetrator.

So what is the solution to the problem of systemic sexism, considering that the problem is baked into the culture?

Believing the problem to be baked into the culture and that those who do not create the problem may nevertheless be unwitting accomplices only because they are part of the culture-- that seems like an incredible rabbit hole. It seems to want a problem that cannot be solved. But why would anybody want that?

So, here is my main question:

What is the actual proof that sexism is not the fault of the individual perpetrator, but rather is the fault of the culture?

I’ve seen organizations dismiss issues of sexism and racism because “well he’s a long-standing member” “he’s a loyal volunteer” etc.

You might say that, but it is incorrect. This misunderstanding is at the core of why the debate goes off the rails. Systemic bias does NOT mean every single person is guilty. We do not get to redefine a term to meet our own perspective.

Again, I offer this great explanation of systemic vs individual bias: https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7602969

"The key aspect of structural or systematic racism is that these macro-level mechanisms operate independent of the intentions and actions of individuals, so that even if individual racism is not present, the adverse conditions and inequalities for racial minorities will continue to exist."

Rob

According to your source:

Systemic racism: Refers to the complex interactions of large scale societal systems, practices, ideologies, and programs that produce and perpetuate inequities for racial minorities.

Examples: housing discrimination, government surveillance, social segregation, racial profiling, predatory banking, access to healthcare, hiring/promotion practices, mandatory minimum sentences.

Okay fine. That is systemic racism, and it defines source being a variety of causes within the cultural system. Individual choices are not part of the cause. But it follows that if the various causes within the culture were eliminated, that would eliminate systemic racism.

But we are talking about systemic sexism. That too is said to be not committed by individuals, but rather, it is a product of the culture. However, I have not found any references that identify the elements in the culture which cause systemic sexism.

So you give a reference above to the cultural factors that produce systemic racism, and they are factors that could be eliminated in order to eliminate system racism.

But what are the factors in the culture that produce systemic sexism, and how might they be eliminated?

Why are we asking about dictionaries from 1959? Is it 1959 again? Did we somehow reverse the flow of time and are now back in the pre-civil rights period of Jim Crow laws, anti-black real estate covenants and segregated passenger service? A dictionary of 1959 is just as useless to this subject as a Sumerian law tablet is for courtroom advice.

This thread was entertaining at first. Then those with delusions of holding the high ground started slinging insults and names towards anybody who dared speak in agreement with the original podcast.

Knowing Jacob Lyman personally, I stand with what he said. He's not worried about the "safety" of himself within your organizations, he's worried that others may not feel welcomed if they knew of this behavior. He and I both hate mob mentality and social media lynchings, but if you think that donating to one organization over yours is "cancel culture" then your definitions are just as broad as those of the boogeymen you are decrying. If only you could see how other people perceive what has been written here this week.

First off, Mr. Lyman stated, "I would like to then blacklist them from receiving my support, because both your focus on identity political conspiracy means I do not feel safe going to your organizations let alone taking my mother, sister and niece with me to them." From this statement, he explicitly says that he does not feel safe. Don't spin his words.

Secondly, "Knew of this behavior." What behavior are you talking about specifically that is unwelcoming to patrons? Everyone on this forum has decried sexism and sexual harassment. Nobody here has been in favor of either. Please share exactly what behavior is off-putting to you that you would be in favor of canceling a museum or organization.

Third, what "boogeyman" do you folks keep referring to?

One thing that strikes me as I think about this thread.

Look at the responses that came from people who we generally think of leaders with responsibilities in this space vs the ones that don't.

There's a reason those people are in the positions they are and have the success they do.

Fully agreed, Mr. Kapuscinski. There is a lot of truth in what Mssrs. Glueck, Pincus, Anderson, Superheater, Rowlands, and Mitchell have expounded upon and I have a great deal of respect for those leaders. Let's treat everyone with equal respect. That's the bottom line.