I mentioned the two forms of abuse being sexism and sexual harassment. As I understand it, sexism is the broadest concept which includes gender discrimination and all forms of sexual harassment. Therefore all sexual harassment is sexism, but not all sexism is sexual harassment. As you say, the thread was introduced as being about sexism and sexual harassment.

The first sentence of this thread mentions the problem of being sexism, while the second sentence mentions the problem being “harassment.” In the podcast, Nick refers to the problem of “sexual harassment.” Also, some of the stories told by the women responding to the survey would seem to clearly constitute sexual harassment.

I would say that gender discrimination in wage disparity may be based on sexism, but not on sexual harassment.

My point with mentioning the two forms of abuse was that eliminating sexism is much harder than eliminating sexual harassment. Both require a method for their elimination. Sexism at its basic origin is only belief or thought. Its elimination requires changing the belief of those afflicted with it.

Also, regarding the term "systemic" sexism, it refers to a group that is all assumed to be sexist. In the case of this thread presentation, the group is all male. And yet the charge has to be an unfounded assumption because there is no way to prove what one thinks.

The unfounded assumption that is connected with this label of "systemic" (related to this survey in the OP) is that all men are by nature, sexist whether they act upon it or not. And yet when some complain about this unfair stereotyping, they are told they are engaging in semantics, quibbling about one word, or that their complaint proves their culpability.

LMAO Ron!!! As a person who has spent the majority of my working life in the horticultural industry, I can tell you first hand I have met quite a few flannel-clad lesbians who are much more sexist than most of the heterosexual men I know. A lot of fun to hang out with also because they're the ones who always end up getting into trouble, not me.

Never forget:

If you can hear the "dog whistles," YOU'RE THE DOG.

It is worth noting how wrong most of the descriptions of systemic bias in this thread have been.

The idea of systemic sexism (or systemic anything) isn’t about "you." People hear “systemic sexism” and they think it means everyone is sexist, therefore they recoil, say “I am not sexist” and go on an ill-informed rant.

Systemic sexism does not mean "all men are sexist" just as systemic racism doesn't mean "all people are racist." It refers to a construct that allows bias to be baked into what society sees as "normal." That's why systemic bias is so insidious. If it was just about Archie Bunker-types it would be much easier to tackle.

Systemic bias describes a wide swath of cultural behaviors and norms that lead to levels of inequity built into how society works. It’s not about you, it's about us. Take yourself out of the equation and look at the issue objectively. Systemic sexism can exist without you personally being a sexist, although you may be an unwitting accomplice supporting structures that enable it to continue.

A little less personal defensiveness and a little more understanding could lead to a productive conversation about sexism in railroad preservation and what outside factors may contribute to it.

The comments about the variety of answers to Nick's poll are especially ill-informed or maybe even disingenuous. Our society has fallen into an infantile trap where exceptions to the rule are seen as fatal errors in the rule. Can systemic sexism exist without 100% of women seeing it? Yes, absolutely. Life is a series of gray areas, not absolutes.

The only way to progress is to drop your own bias, listen to others and accept that you don't really know what it is like to walk in their shoes.

Rob

PS: Although this link is about racism, it's one of the best descriptions of the difference between systemic and individual bias: https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7602969

Well stated. Thank you. My fatigue with dealing with "someone being wrong on the internet" is terminal and I just can't muster the energy to try and restate, rephrase, or reframe this concept into something more palatable on the off-chance that a lightbulb moment of clarity will occur in someone out there in the hinterlands.

Sorry...must dash. Have more dog whistles to study and apparently need to get my direct-deposit info corrected so those Soros checks are routed properly.

There's a problem with this "listicle."

Although initially it uses the "dictionary" definition of "sexism," it swiftly spins around to the premise that sexism ONLY involves men being bigoted against, or predatory upon, women.

This feeds right to the premise that people are rejecting in reaction to the original post:That not only do ONLY men engage in sexism, but that ALL men do, overtly or subconsciously, and that guilt must therefore be presumptuously assumed--that it's "systemic."

This mentality stems from a school of thought that ALL sexism, racism, ageism, etc. stems only from a position of "power," and that therefore women, Blacks, etc. being a "minority" by most definitions and in most environments cannot be defined as engaged in sexism/racism/etc. This approach is also used to dismiss complaints of "reverse sexism/racism"--of women against men, of Blacks against Whites, etc.--as "not possible."

None of this is meant to dismiss real issues of sexism, racism, ageism, classism, etc. when they do occur--and these problems are still far too real in our modern time. But the difference between "Sexism is real and still needs to be addressed" and "Sexism is an omnipresent systemic problem throughout society" is subtle yet real.

I think some of the rancor and hostility towards potentially "addressing" the "issues" stems from another aspect:
The activists and politicians that are most active in promoting the need to "address systemic sexism" appear also to have their eye on altering, or even destroying, the entire socio-political-economic system in countries where rail preservation is most active, not just "addressing sexism/racism." The most stark example of this is high-level leadership of groups like Black Lives Matter being avowed Marxists, Socialists, or even anarchists. The ironically-self-named "anti-fascists" have in many ways been far more "Fascist" then the politicians they condemn.

I'll spin this around to a personal example I can cite:
One museum with which I was involved for years had an enthusiastic young woman, fresh from college, show up eager to volunteer. She was in many ways the perfect demographic for the stereotype "museum of old white men"--female, computer literate, educated in the theories of education and history, and with a flexible schedule. She was desperately needed to help drag this museum into the 21st Century.

As she got further into the museum's workings, however, the gap between her idealism and reality spread. As one example, she set up repurposed iMacs to work as interactive screens for visitors; the result was instead kids running up to screens trying to find the Internet or video games. (I understand other museums in other fields have had this problem--an interactive screen only works as a kiosk that doesn't look like a computer.)

The major problem, however, was that she, like many young people fresh out of college today, seemed to view a public museum environment as a setting for promoting social change and "social justice"--which this museum was simply not about. It already had exhibits on Blacks and women as employees of the railroads the museum represented, but that wasn't enough for her, according to the curator. Her more "progressive" proposals kept getting shot down, and she finally parted ways with the museum to explore other avenues.

Now, an outsider looking at this might see her rejection as blatant "systemic" sexism or "old f*rts that just want to play with trains rejecting something not invented there." Or, maybe her ideas were just not a good fit for a small, focused train/transit museum, and would have been just as soundly rejected coming from a male volunteer.

Oh yeah, it's critically important to avoid all those boogeymen. You never know under what rail bed they might be hiding.

Okay let me put this into simple terms.

I have been incredibly impressed by Kelly's response to this thread over the last few days. As such I have decided that the Fort Wayne society deserves my fiscal support and patronage and will be signing up for one of their membership tiers. It is clear that Kelly has represented to me the professional conduct I fully believe is needed to move forward in railroad preservation in the 21st century, being good stewards of our neighbors, volunteers and creating a safe place for outreach to hobby newcomers.

Alexander Mitchell and NVPete, if you would be willing to share what railroad organization you are involved in let me know. 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. I do not wish to offer financial support because clearly hunting political witches in Salem is more important to you than you than providing a safe space for everyone. Unless you mean to tell me you are not speaking on behalf of your whole organization, I see no reason to provide support to them.

If anyone wishes to do the same to me or any organization I affiliate with based on the views I have expressed in this thread, you can offer your support or scorn to the Tooele Valley Museum & Historic Park and the Western Crossroads Museum both on my behalf, but I will speak for myself and the organizations I work with, we will do our best to make sure sexism is not present in our organizations.

This is one of those, "what it's supposed to be v/s what it is" kinds of things.
Yes, you are correct in what you posted. And if everyone was on the same page, I don't think people would get their dander up over it.
However, with all these ism's, there's a witch hunt going on in many cases by those who really don't get your well-made and logical point.
In other words, the guy who says he's tired of being called _____ist is likely tired of being called that directly by people who really don't get what any of this really means (like in the ironic case of those who proclaim to be anti-fascist while doing essentially acts that Mussolini or Hitler would have likely approved). I've been told to my face on several occasions over the years that as a Anglo-Saxon White Male from the South, that I am not only actively sexist, but racist as well, as if it's some sort of mathematical certainty, but never based on any actual anything I've ever done.
Now, has my gender been involved in sexism since the dawn of time? Well, of course. My issue is that people these days wanna pull the Victim card in cases where the really have no clue what the heck they're talking about.
In other words, you can issues with the overall "way things are" but be very, VERY careful when you cast that net.

I cannot express how much I agree with this. I know with all confidence which organizations I will be supporting in the very near future, and which ones I’ll avoid in the process.

Although I have not listened to the podcast that started this thread, I would like to add my personal experiences. I am a female and a railfan. My volunteering with three railway organizations (a heritage railway, a live steam operation and a garden railway society) since 2014 have been completely without any issue or bias.

My areas of involvement over the years with one of the organizations (station crew, station master, Board member) are more on the administrative side as that is my preferred area. But if I wanted to be part of the Operations or Restoration Department, I know I would be welcomed and treated with respect.

Men and women with wide age ranges and skill sets are always being sought after in all three groups, in both leadership and crew roles. As long as they are willing, able, enthusiastic (to me, a pre-requisite for joining any organization as an active volunteer) and, depending upon what they want do to and accomplish, pass exams, any one is encouraged to join.

The volunteers all work together to a common goal and I have never experienced, seen or heard of any sexism. Broadening that statement, in my jobs and other areas of my life, the same statement applies.

For me, it comes to down "treat each other as you would like to be treated".

Elizabeth

Thank you for that. It’s good to hear first hand that at least some of us are doing a good job with this. Let’s hope all of us get on the same train. Pun intended.

And there's that exact problem I've been dissecting all over again: The Broad Brush.

For the record, I speak/type on behalf of, or as a representative of, NO specific rail museum, organization, excursion line, or group. Period. I left the various organizations with which I was a board member when relocations made my continued participation woefully impractical. As someone who occasionally has to act as a neutral reporter writing about such places for periodicals, I've normally refused membership in various museums, societies, clubs, and even "beer club" memberships at various brewpubs to avoid conflicts of interests. Even on the rare occasion when I have been in a position to speak on behalf of a group or organization, I have deferred to other representatives, largely because I have little to no patience for the delicate dance of public-relations obfuscation.

My personal observations about what I have seen, and the current nature of sexism/racism, the abuse of the term "systematic," and in general the prevailing orthodoxy of "Offensensitivity" in the year 2021 are just that: MY. PERSONAL. OBSERVATIONS. They count no more or less than the observations of someone who says "we've never observed racism/sexism at our organization!" or the person that sees every last social interaction as some form of sexism/whatever-ism. They can IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER be construed as "representative" of any organization, museum, brewpub, homebrew club, music venue, cultural festival, or whatever that I may have worked with, been a member of, done work for, visited, bought a book/beer from, attended a concert at, helped set up/break down, or whatever.

And the fact that you are willing to let your "broad brush" judgmental nature SO dominate your decision-making process that you LITERALLY "FEEL UNSAFE" about visiting a museum run by and staffed with a diversity of people and volunteers across the political, racial, age, and even religious spectrum because ONE low-ranking volunteer or contributor who may have done a few things for them some time back expressed some opinions you somehow find so reprehensible as to "fear for your safety" (remember: NOT expressing support for vigilantes or militant protesters, NOT saying "women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", NOT supporting "lynch mobs"; just having an issue over whether sexism is "systemic" as repeatedly being alleged)................
.................. well, the last time I heard such balderdash was a beer-geek friend of mine, a car salesman, relating how one of his customers drove back a custom-ordered car from the test drive and refused it because, when the radio was turned on, it just happened by its search function to land on a station playing "The Rush Limbaugh Show." She claimed the car was "contaminated" and she could never ride in it again. I recall him saying he pointed out that she would be on the hook for several hundred dollars plus additional delay in ordering another vehicle....... but I never did hear the final result of that case.

Oh, and lest I forget:
In the lobby of the entranceway to one of those places you're apparently desperate to boycott because of my supposed affiliation with it are two memorial pictures and plaques: One to the founder, and one to one of the place's most loved volunteers and benefactors. The latter was female.

I highly agree with the above statement. Kelly has voiced the topic at hand in a very professional matter, something I can say that one of the other two individuals has not accomplished. Fort Wayne appears to be in control with dealing with issues such as sexism, as compared to the thoughts of others.

If the 765-Steamtown future visit rumors are true, I will not hesitate to attend and support the group. :)