Rick,

I am going to have to report your post to the moderator for being systemically practical and for its use of offensive common sense. The is no room for dinosaurs like you in today's society...

Systemic activity within a group does not mean that everyone in the group engages in that activity. It means that everyone in the group has a natural inclination, proclivity, desire, etc. to produce that activity. It conflicts with the idea that everyone in the group has the free will to choose whether or not to produce the activity.

So systemic sexism committed by males starts with the assumption that all males are sexist whether they act on it or not. So the charge of systemic sexism is gender stereotyping, and thus is itself a form of sexism.

Well...yeah. So what's your point? (BTW, you might replace "males" with "humans".)

1) Reject the default presumption that this is a "systemic" problem. The accusation of "systemic" problems is specifically designed to presume default blanket guilt until proven innocence, and--conveniently enough for the accusers--a finding of "no guilt" can never be accepted or conclusively given, by their standards (as in, "you can't prove a negative"). Thus, the buzzword "systemic" empowers the accuser and neuters any defense by the accused--by design.

2) Analyze the instances of supposed sexism on a case-by-case basis, and determine if the examples given are indicative of a problem within the individual organization, or simply problems with individuals (on both sides) being jerks. (Cue the old true-to-life joke: Man holds door for woman; woman says "You're just holding the door because I'm a woman, you sexist pig!" Man replies "No, I'm holding it open because I'M a GENTLEMAN--now GIT!!!!!")

3) Tailor the means of addressing the issue to the circumstances actually at hand within the individual organization: discipline or expulsion of a patently offensive or overly confrontational/sensitive antagonist or two, for example, or installation of a more gender-friendly changing/restroom facility.)

His point was "So the charge of systemic sexism is gender stereotyping, and thus is itself a form of sexism."

He's pointing out the fact that presuming default "bad behavior/thinking"of a category of humans--i.e. bigotry--is in itself a form of bigotry against said group.

"His point was "So the charge of systemic sexism is gender stereotyping, and thus is itself a form of sexism."

He's pointing out the fact that presuming default "bad behavior/thinking"of a category of humans--i.e. bigotry--is in itself a form of bigotry against said group."

Precisely.

Now since we are supposed end sexism, the question is what is to be done with this perpetrator?

Of course, I'm a cynical individual-I always ask cui bono?. In the 1950's the Senators Jacob Javits and John F. Kennedy held hearings on increasing the minimum wage-in part because they wanted to remove any incentive for NY/NE businesses to head South to take advantage of wage differentials (read employ swarthy people).

But behind the scenes was what appeared to be an unobvious advocate: Otis Elevator.

You see, OE had just begun to market their new automatic elevators; and increasing the
minimum wage would make older elevators more costly to run-because the operator-usually an older man needing a job that wasn't physically taxing- would be a bigger entry on the payroll ledger.

My guess here is that this is nothing more than an attempt to establish proper right-thinking street cred prior to responding to some corporate or government RFP. It's not like I haven't seen this very sort of virtue signalling on the RFP's I see.

Then again it could just be "gammasplaining".

Arguing about "is this truly systemic" and the semantics misses the point.

It is great that a large chunk of the survey said "No" to the question, it is a goal we strive for that in the future if this survey were repeated that 100% of the respondents answered "No". Every woman who answered "No" said so because they had the experience we want to emulate.

But the fact so many answered with horror stories shows there are real issues, be they isolated or cultural that need solving; and playing a blame game like afternoon cable news hosts here is only distracting from a problem that is very real and needs a very real solution. A full zero tolerance policy to harassment is a goal we should all strive for if we want to make railway preservation as inviting for everyone as possible.

That is funney as Otis had been makeing automatic elevators since the late 1920s.

Some of these replies have been amusing. As someone else posted on another outlet, "if you can't tolerate a discussion about the problem, you're probably part of it."

Keyword here being probably. You can say you're not sexist, and that can be the whole truth, but denying that it is an issue within some areas of the preservation industry and instead writing off Nick's (and similar) efforts as pandering, agenda-forcing and make-believe hogwash is incredibly close-minded.

If you're not a part of the problem, don't be upset about the topic at hand.

Not to discredit Nick at all, but I partly agree that systemic may have been the wrong term in this case. As the survey results have shown, sexism is still an issue but not with every organization. However, instead of getting upset about "buzzwords", be happy with the fact that you're (hopefully) an exception to the rule. Nick isn't referring to you or your organization. And priding yourself with a zero-tolerance environment for sexism and other similar issues is not virtue-signalling.

This really isn't a topic to get worked up over.

Doesn't the question need to be asked about anyone being treated when they show up to volunteer, regardless of gender?
I am a volunteer on a RR where several years before I was treated like filth when I showed up asking to volunteer. The age of the crusty old jerk who was a piece of you-know-what to me was the only reason I didn't knock him into the middle of the following week at the simple question (I even told him so, the look on his face was priceless, though). When I tried asking again many years later and was welcomed then and I told the tale, people immediately knew who I was talking about, a guy who was long gone (but think of all the years service they might have gotten from me they lost because of him).
And at the time, I was in my late 20s, very fit and an Army LT with a strong work ethic.
And a white male.
We all know these stories about how people are told they'll pilot a broom if they're lucky and never anything better, so they walk away. These are men this happens to more often than not, so does this contribute to how women are treated?
I'd bet so. If the 'desirable' white male gets treated like that, how would a woman? I'd bet she'd get even a harder time to some degree. I'd bet money on it.
That's easy to say up to the point when you're accused of being part of the problem just because you fit in the targeted demographic.
I get this often because I'm from the south, so therefore people have declared that I simply have to be racist and played an active part in racist activity at some point in my life only because of where I'm from and the color of my skin. It's been said to me several times in recent years and I have to point it out again, it's not based on anything anyone think I actually did, but what they think I must have because of my skin color.
That's utter nonsense, and to say otherwise, well, how can that not be racist?
I've never played any role in keeping women down, either. the only time I didn't work around many women was in the Army and even then, I couldn't cared less about genders.
So just because I'm a guy, I'm sexist for that reason alone? Okay, talk of generalities in either case, and I agree with you. Racism and sexism clearly still happen.
But unless you've seen me contribute to either (as you never could have), then keep your trap shut about me personally. Otherwise, yeah, I'm gonna get upset and I have earned that right by doing the right thing through my life.

@p51


"Doesn't the question need to be asked about anyone being treated when they show up to volunteer, regardless of gender?"


Hence my initial post.


"If you're not a part of the problem, don't be upset about the topic at hand."

It's not like railroad enthusiasts don't have an image problem already-with Sheldon Cooper portrayals (autistic, antisocial) as the nicest of them, now we're supposed to let some virtue-signaller who runs his mouth about people who run trains portray us as "systemically" engaged in abusive behavior based on his preconceived notions and anonymous accusations.

Even the imbeciles in my HR department have stopped showing the insipid slides with men ostentatiously ogling womens' backsides with indiscretion and impunity and have even tepidly acknowledged that real sexual harassment can be perpetrated by women and might not be male-female at all.

Now I note the use of the word "upset". Not all of us form our reactions from emotion, some of us use reason. I can't speak for others, but I am not upset. I simply refuse to be the implicit object of a group indictment by an attention-seeking virtue signaller who expects plaudits for peddling a noxious stereotype. The accused have a right to defend themselves and it's still a bad idea for the AV club to taunt the football team because they wired the speakers in the stadium.


"That is funney as Otis had been makeing automatic elevators since the late 1920s."

Not nearly as amusing as your spelling and grammar. For crying out loud man, pay attention to the squiggly red lines that make everybody a spelling bee champ.

“In the late 1960s, Otis Elevator pushed for an increase in the minimum wage in New York state because it had begun to specialize in converting human-operated elevators to automatic elevators and wanted an increase in demand for its services."

I was wrong in that I conflated the 1950's Senate testimony with 1960's actions. Oh well, I read this nine years ago.

https://cafehayek.com/2012/11/some-hist ... erica.html

Look man, I don't mind if you want to go out 'squatching, but if your sole evidence is a few pictures that make the Zapruder films look like 4K, either bring me a damn carcass or STHU.

wow im sure this is going to be a constructive and interesting thread

"SJWs", "virtue-signaling", "I know a woman and SHE never had an issue"...this thread has all the greatest hits, doesn't it? Do go on.

I think the term "systemic" refers to much more than simply attitudes of some involved people - we in historic preservation deal with structures designed during times of different societal expectations than we have today, try to create today, or want to create today...... so things like pinup calendars and male only locker rooms are not only real but an integral part of what we need to preserve to retain a more accurate picture of days gone by. Not only physical structures, but regulatory structures also go back in time. We can amend regulations, find noninterpretive space for separate locker facilities, but what we can mostly do is be aware of what we're not finding, or problems within out present day staffing that need adjustment. Eliminating structures from previous eras to try to conform to modern standards in an interpretive location is more self destructive than helpful.

What a ludicrous statement. Outside of railway preservation is one thing, sure, but you are not being accused in this context. Take a breath, and reason with yourself. Start from the beginning of this thread and don't listen to the voices in your head.

I'm guilty as charged for the thread drift, so that's enough from me.