I would disagree for the reason that the word "systemic" is a loaded word that carries with it a lot of emotional meaning. It is not a word to be tossed around lightly.

I doubt that there will ever be a time when all respondents could answer no because there will always be misunderstandings, misrepresentations and bad actors. We as a society have not been able to eliminate murder and assault so setting a goal of zero harassment and becoming alarmed when the goal is not reached is not very practical.

"I would disagree for the reason that the word "systemic" is a loaded word that carries with it a lot of emotional meaning. It is not a word to be tossed around lightly.

It is not a word to be tossed around lightly because it has a technical meaning:

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-make ... priority-0

The task force, led by Commissioner Leslie E. Silverman, defined systemic cases as "pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location."

"Systemic discrimination, also known as institutionalised discrimination, is a culture of discrimination that pervades the workplace, where discrimination is a regular feature of interactions and processes or happens over a long period of time."


https://www.hrzone.com/hr-glossary/what ... rimination

Ozorak owes the vast majority of us an apology. I'd be willing to bet that somewhere or other out there are a male victims-and he systemically excluded them from his survey.

We're waiting, little Nick.


And then there's this:

"DSLE just seems to be one of those rules oriented pricks. "

Oh the irony of complaining about sexism with a genital reference. Hat tip to the observant individual who pointed this out offline.

"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."


And there's the pseudo-psychology.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the word "systemic", but I do.

The whole point of it in current parlance is to promote group culpability.

Accuse an entire group, sew suspicion and then complain that nobody has the right to object.

Holmes was wrong. It's not three generations of imbeciles that are enough.One is plenty.

Actually that word can be (and was) used in it's non sexual connotation. But your comment also shows just how ridiculous this behavior and language policing can become.

Absolutely. As the very astute George Carlin observed many years ago, " You can prick your finger but you can't finger your prick!" So saying someone is a prick can be analogizing an annoying person to a small sharp object that does not injure badly but annoys with constant little jabs.

Ah yes, the cacophony of egos trying to debate sexism/sexual harrassment. Rypn at it's finest again.

I agree with the others, who thought that we could have a great conversation about how to combat and reduce the sexism that can/does exist in rail preservation (in certain places). Instead we have people calling the OP "little Nick". Another RYPN thread down the toilet...

Yep. There's a garbage amount of "not all men" and "shoot the messenger" vibes in this thread. Perhaps in the rush to decry wokeism some folks have overlooked nuance and empathy in their rush to grind some axes or "gotcha" people who have submitted commentary. If you object to the premise of the question or how it is framed, or reported this topic for "hate speech," (as others have elsewhere) then I beg of thee -- what is the appropriate way to address issues of sexism or abuse and are you doing it?

It's telling to me that many of the initial replies here in this thread were "not all men!!!!!" first and "well, actually, here's how an organization should address bad actors and abuse..." later on. Woof.

Ultimately, the way you root any form of abuse is with the same set of skills: diligence, respect, daylight, empathy, humility, and elevating an issue along with solutions, practices, and policies are solutions, to actually answer the question posed by the author, even if you disagree with the premise of their question. Humility also begs you to get out of your own way. Humility asks that you be open to learning and adjusting your own behavior or language. Yeah, it's uncomfortable. But not as much as actual abuse.

I'll be the first to decry a culture of extremes myself, understanding that empathy and nuance go a long way. The internet ain't exactly a place for either nuance or empathy, but your friendly local neighborhood train-place can be. And that's the point.

Wallpapering over someone raising an issue is also not a solution. Would you ever say to someone with a complaint or issue, "well, not all of us are sexist or racist or ageist, so don't worry about it...don't listen to the SJWs...".

A lot of that reminds me of "you're just being sensitive, you should lighten up, they were just joking, they were just having fun, don't think anything of it, that's just the way things are, if you don't like it you can leave..." which all serve to invalidate another person's experience and fail to address the actual issue.

Lots of things can be true at once: assigning blame writ large to a group is bad practice. Women enduring sexism or harassment doesn't mean men aren't abused or harassed or mistreated, too. There are people with actual, valid experiences and also misunderstandings, simple mistakes, and also total fabrications...but the existence of fabrications or extremes doesn't dispute, mitigate or solve an actual problem that actual people experience.

Presuming bad behavior is also not the same as accepting or failing to address bad behavior. People are fallible, even great ones. You can not be a racist or sexist or abusive individual, but you can also fail to act to protect people from this behavior or call it out if you witness it. Not everyone is in a position of power or influence, but inaction is a choice, too.

Let's look at this another way.

Supposing I undertook to examine the "systemic problem" of "dangerous excursion operations."

I asked people who work (or formerly worked) with such operations for their stories.

I get a bunch of responses telling about everything from under-maintained track to near-explosions, shoddily repaired boilers, a latch not catching, the Gettysburg boiler failure, etc. And of course, those with some axe to grind speak up, while those who don't see a problem at their place don't reply.

I write all of this up and present the argument that "shoddy maintenance" and "dangerous conditions" are a "systemic crisis" of rail preservation, and demand to hear how we're going to address that.

Should not the conscientious folks who abide by high standards--the Strasburg guys, the Fort Wayne guys, the Age of Steam folks, the Grand Canyon Railway, etc.--be offended by being tarred with this same brush of "systemic" accusations?

And does their offense mean they're denying that there are a couple operations that should be shut down or dramatically upgraded? (No.)

It's really very simple:

Treat people, ALL PEOPLE, they way you'd want to be treated.
Don't be a jerk or a creep.
Think about how you'd feel if your relative or friend were mistreated or insulted or disrespected.
Keep your hands to yourself.

We have a small world in heritage railways/preservation. We need support and friends, and that means the support and involvement of people who are "different" that what we might see in the mirror.

If someone is a clear danger or hazard to themselves or others, or can't understand the safety culture that should be present at all of our places, then this gig isn't for them. And that really has nothing to do with being "different"--- AND it shouldn't be used as way to send someone "up the road".

The ever-articulate Mr. Lynch has summed it up quite nicely.

Be safe, be well,

Howard P.

As much as I wish people would actually listen to and USE those pieces of common sense, this forum has showed that many will not. I was surprised to find some forum members even insulting others for poor spelling and grammar, something that usually wouldn’t slide on this forum. In the end, I believe Nick Ozarak provided a fairly accurate and well written podcast into what HAS happened in the battle to eliminate sexism, primarily by bringing to light some of the events that have occurred. While yes, not every organization (waiting for the “Oh but XYZ organization hasn’t had this problem therefore it doesn’t exist”) has issues with sexism or discrimination, some have members that do not help the topic. Anyone with an open mind could see that occasionally someone has causing a problem with someone of the opposite sex or a minority, but denying that it happens at all is simply preposterous. A solid hall of the interviews are reported acts of discrimination of some sort, while the others did not. To those claiming the women who reported acts are just slandering their organizations, how are you contributing to prevent events like that from reoccurring? As many others have said, simply saying “Not all men are like that” is pushing the issue at hand farther and farther away. Of course not every single person is sexist, racist, what have you, but not every person is an arsonist or murderer either. You can’t just say that because 95% of a population do not contribute to something, it doesn’t exist.

I support Nick’s work, he regularly produces high quality podcasts and hosts interviews with some influential members in this community. Nitpicking at exact wording and such is just contributing to the other side of the argument. Anyone who is insulting Nick or any other forum member over minute things is acting more immature than a group of five year olds.


Oh boy, can’t wait to watch the forum bounce off the wall with some of the replies to follow this. Hopefully the administrative team will edit or remove any harshly immature comments that have or will come about.

It's a good question! As the Vice President of one of those organizations (and participant with a half dozen others), I would first be more offended at there being anything endemic or systemic that could hurt my organization or my people. I would understand that certain behaviors, cultures, and practices (i.e. the system in "systemic") can enable bad behavior if left unaddressed.

And then I'd ask myself "is there anything I have done that could have consciously or unconsciously made someone feel uneasy, uncomfortable, unwelcome?" and then explore whether my organization had reasonable ways of addressing these situations.

And then I might take the issue at being painted with the same brush, IF (and only if) we had no efforts, policies, or recourse to deal with these types of abuses or behaviors. Since we do, I'm more concerned that someone who is victimized would not know there are pathways to address occurrences of abuse.

And then, finally, after working to try and ensure my own organization against any issues, I'd be offended that a case of actual abuse could hurt rail preservation, in part or in whole.

I'd be more concerned if peers didn't learn from the failures of others, just in the same way we'd want to learn from mechanical or safety-related issues. The FRA has made no secret that a major mechanical failure or public risk emergency could have dire consequences for everyone. We can be just as worried about internal issues, as well.

I also understand that universal decries or broad brushes satisfy emotional needs and are trendy and easy to Retweet or leave in a Yelp review – but they can and are catalytic (if not often chaotic). Every opportunity to engage someone with real or perceived slights is an opportunity to turn it all around and represent *your* organization (and to a degree, TrainWorld).

Organizations that respond quickly to abuse are ones that may still endure a dent in their public image, but if you have your ducks and standards in order, you're already far better off and likely better positioned to endure "broad brush" critique or "cancel culture" than others.

Everyone here has a sensitivity to physical liability and risk or injury prevention, the same standards can be applied to having a code of conduct. I hope anyone who learns, reads, or hears of abuse anywhere goes "how would I treat this situation if it were at my railroad?" You shouldn't have to be a victim yourself or be close to someone who has been abused or mistreated to have a baseline.

I made it very clear at our recent training/orientation meeting that Fort Wayne has not only policies and procedures for dealing with real, actual, or perceived abuse, but that there is a forum and method for reporting, listening, and investigating, and that there is accountability and transparency that consults with all parties involved, and a formal disciplinary review process if something rises to the level of more than a misunderstanding or bad judgment. If we didn't, and something terrible did happen, then any criticism would be valid.

None of us are the Mayors or Spokespeople of TrainWorld. We're here to be custodians and stewards. I can't control what everyone everywhere does, but I can try and guard against my own backyard, and even occasionally look out for my neighbors and peers, too.

I totally get the offense and outrage at the current climate of extreme course (over)correction and cancel culture, especially in a world where reconciliation or rehabilitation or restorative actions are total after-thoughts! The internet has made everyone able to identify, amplify, and realize they are not alone in their circumstances or experiences and that they are not just "isolated cases."

Remember it took people watching fellow Americans being beaten on national television in the 1960s to influence the national conversation about race and civil rights, but now the television is now on 24/7/365. A lot of it is junk mail for the brain and serotonin levels, and parsing it out beyond the sound bites and Retweets takes work.

But I say this with all respect: who the hell has time to be "offended" when the real work is in finding solutions?

Now that my first bucket of popcorn is empty and my cup of soda is gone, I’ll chime in. Nitpicking and squabbling is sidestepping the issue. If you don’t like the exact words, at least pay attention to the general concept. There is valuable information to be had in the survey if you choose to let what was being said by the women to sink in a little. If you haven’t witnessed it or recognized it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We could consider ourselves at least slightly more enlightened by listening to these points of view instead of talking over them. Take the experiences presented for exactly what they are without injecting your own opinion, file that info for future reference, and improve the situations where you can.

Howard brings up the Golden Rule. It’s a good rule to live by but you have to train yourself to apply it.

[Now heads back to the kitchen for a reload]

…and just saw Kelly’s post before posting. Thumbs up.

Sometimes I wish RYPN had a like button…