selector BLS53 I don't know why this is a story at this point in time, nor the patronizing anecdotal responses it has spawned. Sounds like the initiation of a dialog. Perhaps you could start off by explaining your observation about patronizing. It might help to situate the conversation, or to change the tone if you feel it worth your while. I have no skin to lose here, but it seemed a little too drive-by for my liking without some of your own skin left behind.
BLS53 I don't know why this is a story at this point in time, nor the patronizing anecdotal responses it has spawned.
I don't know why this is a story at this point in time, nor the patronizing anecdotal responses it has spawned.
Sounds like the initiation of a dialog. Perhaps you could start off by explaining your observation about patronizing. It might help to situate the conversation, or to change the tone if you feel it worth your while.
I have no skin to lose here, but it seemed a little too drive-by for my liking without some of your own skin left behind.
I'm a guy, and like most other things in my life, I'm a centrist. I'm not female, a radical feminist, or have any extremist views concerning women's rights. However, I recognize what's right and what's wrong. And in the year 2017, it just seems strange that a bunch of railfans would be discussing this.
As for patronizing, I guess it's the seemingly element of surprise expressed by a few posters that women were actually good at their jobs as train crew members.
I ride a light rail system regularly, where the operators are almost exclusively women, not just women, but Black women. And it's been that way since the system became operational in 1993. I never scrutinized them to see if they were doing a good job, anymore than I would a Caucasion male.
As for being a drive-by poster, that's Train's Forum speak for this guy doesn't have at least 1,000 posts, so he's not part of our ole boy's club.
This is one of the most elitist forums on the internet. You guy's just can't stand a contrarian opinion from someone you deem as an outsider.
Perhaps I should clarify. What I took from your syntax was that you found some of the posts to be patronizing. I didn't see it that way, even if a little boyz-clubbish as you suggest. But, in the absence of anything else, I was left wondering what could have been so offensive that it merited your characterization of it.
I don't think we're at all elitist. And we're certainly not all rail fans. It's a wide range of participation here...believe me, more than one of us gets some learnin' every day we read. Like all fora, there is a bit of a hierarchy in terms of experience and knowledge, and some personalities that are abrasive. Those that abrade are also abraded...just like in all millieu. But, as is the case in all fora, communication is key. We thrive on words that flesh out our ideas, questions, observations, criticisms,...........and our objections.
As I have been reminded, here and elsewhere, one should have a thick skin to appear in public. Anywhere. Even so, we also strive for courtesy, civility, and a free exchange of opinions. Leaving a comment that some people are being patronizing isn't particularly helpful unless you are prepared to stick around and explain yourself. You aren't so obliged, but every little bit helps. It's what helps us to form a community here.
BLS53This is one of the most elitist forums on the internet. You guy's just can't stand a contrarian opinion from someone you deem as an outsider.
I don't care if you have a different opinion. That's what makes the world go 'round. But put the victim card away. Nobody is impressed (or cares).
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
selector Perhaps I should clarify. What I took from your syntax was that you found some of the posts to be patronizing. I didn't see it that way, even if a little boyz-clubbish as you suggest. But, in the absence of anything else, I was left wondering what could have been so offensive that it merited your characterization of it. I don't think we're at all elitist. And we're certainly not all rail fans. It's a wide range of participation here...believe me, more than one of us gets some learnin' every day we read. Like all fora, there is a bit of a hierarchy in terms of experience and knowledge, and some personalities that are abrasive. Those that abrade are also abraded...just like in all millieu. But, as is the case in all fora, communication is key. We thrive on words that flesh out our ideas, questions, observations, criticisms,...........and our objections. As I have been reminded, here and elsewhere, one should have a thick skin to appear in public. Anywhere. Even so, we also strive for courtesy, civility, and a free exchange of opinions. Leaving a comment that some people are being patronizing isn't particularly helpful unless you are prepared to stick around and explain yourself. You aren't so obliged, but every little bit helps. It's what helps us to form a community here.
Well, I'm here a day later. Sorry I violated protocol. This is the very kind of thing I'm talking about. You're chastising me for not sitting here all day yesterday responding to posts. And because I wasn't, I have a thin skin.
I know some of you live on this forum 24/7, but I don't. Railroads are a passing interest for me. I come here maybe a couple of days a month.
The subject matter of the thread isn't that important to me. My response was an observation. Not a social stance, political stance, railroad employment stance, or any other stance. Some of you want to take it to some other level.
I thought the subject matter was rather odd for the year 2017. I thought the anecdotes from a few posters, seemed like something from 1971. That's the total intent of my original post.
Some posters got their feathers ruffled, and I'm a drive-by poster, because I didn't respond immediately. Only then did I digress into thoughts about the closed nature of this forum. It's almost like responding to the demands of a fraternal organization, just to come on here and post occasionally. I'm on many forums, and none of them are like this one. Maybe it's because railfanning is such a narrow interest, the members here feel somewhat protective of it, and are wary of those they feel are outsiders.
zugmann BLS53 This is one of the most elitist forums on the internet. You guy's just can't stand a contrarian opinion from someone you deem as an outsider. I don't care if you have a different opinion. That's what makes the world go 'round. But put the victim card away. Nobody is impressed (or cares).
BLS53 This is one of the most elitist forums on the internet. You guy's just can't stand a contrarian opinion from someone you deem as an outsider.
You just proved my point. No victim card needed, I know where I'm not wanted.
23 17 46 11
BLS53You just proved my point. No victim card needed, I know where I'm not wanted.
Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to it.
But I haven't seen anything that indicates that you aren't welcome here.
As has been noted - there are many fields in which the very concept of women being participants was at one time unheard of. Railroads was one. Firefighting was another. Even police work. That's all changed, of course, and for the better.
And I think you'll find that we do like to hear from outsiders - at least until they reach the point of the absurd. One of the most popular threads a while back included "stupid question" in its title... That person ended up going to work for a railroad.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I'm sensing a pattern here. We have had a few people that don't normally show up on this forum, all of a sudden decide they want to bring out the big artillery when they post on a subject. They jump in feet first and tear into the posters. Then it is the forum's fault when they get a reaction not to their liking.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie I'm sensing a pattern here. We have had a few people that don't normally show up on this forum, all of a sudden decide they want to bring out the big artillery when they post on a subject. They jump in feet first and tear into the posters. Then it is the forum's fault when they get a reaction not to their liking.
Seems like I'm the one getting torn into. As far as bringing out the big artillery, I opened with a one sentence post. A benign observation on the subject matter, that raised eyebrows, because apparently some posters have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "patronizing". It wasn't a personal attack on anyone, nor am I promoting any certain agenda, nor seeking certain answers. I've explained this in previous responses.
Then, there's your wording, "people who normally don't show up on this forum." One by one, each of you is reinforcing my stated belief that this forum is elitist and exclusionary. Go ahead and look at my low post total, and disregard that I've been a member here since 2009, and a Trains Magazine reader since 1962. But I don't post much on here, so every word I write must be scrutinized and drawn into question.
The theory that outsiders are showing up here just to create havoc is bizarre. What do you think the likelihood is that the general population even knows Trains Magazine exist? No one's going to randomly find these forums, and think, "this looks like a good place to troll and have some fun". First of all, one would have to have a basic knowledge of railroading (which the general public does not), before even attempting to enter into a discussion here. The trolls invariably choose easier turf, and there's an abundance of mass audience forums for them to set up shop in. Trains Forum isn't one of them.
I disagree that your opening observation was benign. You came across, to me, as entering the forum looking for an argument. Other than trolls, I enjoy seeing new people or 'readers only' post. You know, counselor, you could have stated your case a little better as to why you are disagreeing with how the subject of women and jobs is being treated. I, for one, would have been interested in what your reasoning was. Instead you were so busy shooting toes off, you just didn't make any sense to me.
Yet you are the one typing out paragraphs of drama. Nobody cares.
BLS53Then, there's your wording, "people who normally don't show up on this forum." One by one, each of you is reinforcing my stated belief that this forum is elitist and exclusionary. Go ahead and look at my low post total, and disregard that I've been a member here since 2009, and a Trains Magazine reader since 1962. But I don't post much on here, so every word I write must be scrutinized and drawn into question.
It's not the post count - it's that your "nom de plume" (which we all have - that's been a topic for discussion before, too) is completely new to the bulk of us.
Perhaps you'd like to point out some of the patronizing ("treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. "“She's a good-hearted girl,” he said in a patronizing voice") comments that you feel have been made. The fact that you brought it up leads one to the conclusion that you are offended by them. Tell us why. We may agree, we may point out why we disagree.
As for being exclusionary - not hardly. But - there are many here on the forum with substantial knowledge and experience in railroading. I'm sure you'd take offense if someone questioned your knowledge of your chosen field. Especially if they clearly had very little knowledge of it and were pushing oddball ideas concerning it ad nauseum, all the while trying to discredit your input.
Please - stick around! We look forward to what you can bring to the discussions. Sometimes the historical perspective of a long-time reader helps sort out a question, too!
A. To me, "Lady" sounds kinder and gentler than "woman" or "female" when one is referring to a person whose character is not really known.
B. I had a run-in with a lady conductor a few years ago--I was standing in the aisle outside my bedroom when the conductor, in a hurry to get elsewhere on the train, ran into my arms--and apologized.
As I recall, I saw my first lady trainman in 1980, when I was on my way from New Orleans to Los Angeles; she boarded in Tucson.
There is at least one lady conductor working out of Salt Lake City. I do not see the engine crews, so I cannot give a report on them.
Johnny
tree68 BLS53 Then, there's your wording, "people who normally don't show up on this forum." One by one, each of you is reinforcing my stated belief that this forum is elitist and exclusionary. Go ahead and look at my low post total, and disregard that I've been a member here since 2009, and a Trains Magazine reader since 1962. But I don't post much on here, so every word I write must be scrutinized and drawn into question. It's not the post count - it's that your "nom de plume" (which we all have - that's been a topic for discussion before, too) is completely new to the bulk of us. Perhaps you'd like to point out some of the patronizing ("treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. "“She's a good-hearted girl,” he said in a patronizing voice") comments that you feel have been made. The fact that you brought it up leads one to the conclusion that you are offended by them. Tell us why. We may agree, we may point out why we disagree. As for being exclusionary - not hardly. But - there are many here on the forum with substantial knowledge and experience in railroading. I'm sure you'd take offense if someone questioned your knowledge of your chosen field. Especially if they clearly had very little knowledge of it and were pushing oddball ideas concerning it ad nauseum, all the while trying to discredit your input. Please - stick around! We look forward to what you can bring to the discussions. Sometimes the historical perspective of a long-time reader helps sort out a question, too!
BLS53 Then, there's your wording, "people who normally don't show up on this forum." One by one, each of you is reinforcing my stated belief that this forum is elitist and exclusionary. Go ahead and look at my low post total, and disregard that I've been a member here since 2009, and a Trains Magazine reader since 1962. But I don't post much on here, so every word I write must be scrutinized and drawn into question.
I appreciate the fact I, who have never worked for a railroad (though I did play on a few 12 inch to the foot roads), am allowed to make my comments--and, at times, am rightly corrected.
Tree - I went back and looked up previous postings and found that you have interacted with him on a subject before. Nothing out of the ordinary and certainly the discussion was very bland. On all of the ones I read. Maybe it just isn't a good day somewhere.
edblysard Wait, wait…I belong to something elite? Cool……I always thought we were just plain jackasses.
I know. Do we get special jackets or something?
BLS53 Mookie I'm sensing a pattern here. We have had a few people that don't normally show up on this forum, all of a sudden decide they want to bring out the big artillery when they post on a subject. They jump in feet first and tear into the posters. Then it is the forum's fault when they get a reaction not to their liking. Seems like I'm the one getting torn into. As far as bringing out the big artillery, I opened with a one sentence post. A benign observation on the subject matter, that raised eyebrows, because apparently some posters have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "patronizing". It wasn't a personal attack on anyone, nor am I promoting any certain agenda, nor seeking certain answers. I've explained this in previous responses.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Mookie Tree - I went back and looked up previous postings and found that you have interacted with him on a subject before. Nothing out of the ordinary and certainly the discussion was very bland. On all of the ones I read. Maybe it just isn't a good day somewhere.
I did the same - the name just didn't ring a bell... As you say - nothing out of the ordinary. Probably why I didn't remember.
Mookie I disagree that your opening observation was benign. You came across, to me, as entering the forum looking for an argument. Other than trolls, I enjoy seeing new people or 'readers only' post. You know, counselor, you could have stated your case a little better as to why you are disagreeing with how the subject of women and jobs is being treated. I, for one, would have been interested in what your reasoning was. Instead you were so busy shooting toes off, you just didn't make any sense to me.
Where in the heck did i say I was disagreeing with anything? Where did I take a stance on either side of women's rights issues? I've given no opinion on the subject. FOR THE LAST TIME, I WAS MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT IT STRUCK ME AS STRANGE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE THIS TOPIC WAS BEING DISCUSSED. Not that it was wrong to do so. Not that I had an opposite opinion and wanted to start an argument.
I'll be very candid, I'm now of the belief that this is a sensitive subject among the membership here. You look for conflict when there is none. You perceive I have an agenda, when I have none. You're the one's looking for an argument not me. It's just very strange that a subjective, one sentence comment, that says absolutely nothing about who I am, what I believe, or what I stand for, could cause such an outrage.
The shooting of toes off doesn't make any sense to you, because I haven't shot anybody's toes off. Any manner of shooting from me, has been defensive, not offensive. I've been under attack here for 2 pages. Mostly because I stated this forum was exclusionary and elitist, and hurt some feelings. Not because of anything to do with women in the workplace. But I don't guess you read those other posts, and are still hung up on the women's issues.
I was hoping for the glow in the dark decoder ring....but jackets will work too!
Do any of you remember "The Bickersons"? A lot of their arguments evolved into "who started it?"
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
edblysard I was hoping for the glow in the dark decoder ring....but jackets will work too!
But you probably don't need a jacket much down there. MAybe we can get a nice watch instead? (list price $24.99)
BLS53Mostly because I stated this forum was exclusionary and elitist, and hurt some feelings.
But you're the one carrying on. Is it silly in this day and age to ogle and be amazed over woman professionals of the female gender? Yeah. Do people still do it? Yeah. It's like discussing paint schemes. Silly, but amusing.
BLS53 Mookie I disagree that your opening observation was benign. You came across, to me, as entering the forum looking for an argument. Other than trolls, I enjoy seeing new people or 'readers only' post. You know, counselor, you could have stated your case a little better as to why you are disagreeing with how the subject of women and jobs is being treated. I, for one, would have been interested in what your reasoning was. Instead you were so busy shooting toes off, you just didn't make any sense to me. Where in the heck did i say I was disagreeing with anything? Where did I take a stance on either side of women's rights issues? I've given no opinion on the subject. FOR THE LAST TIME, I WAS MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT IT STRUCK ME AS STRANGE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE THIS TOPIC WAS BEING DISCUSSED. Not that it was wrong to do so. Not that I had an opposite opinion and wanted to start an argument. I'll be very candid, I'm now of the belief that this is a sensitive subject among the membership here. You look for conflict when there is none. You perceive I have an agenda, when I have none. You're the one's looking for an argument not me. It's just very strange that a subjective, one sentence comment, that says absolutely nothing about who I am, what I believe, or what I stand for, could cause such an outrage. The shooting of toes off doesn't make any sense to you, because I haven't shot anybody's toes off. Any manner of shooting from me, has been defensive, not offensive. I've been under attack here for 2 pages. Mostly because I stated this forum was exclusionary and elitist, and hurt some feelings. Not because of anything to do with women in the workplace. But I don't guess you read those other posts, and are still hung up on the women's issues.
Murphy - if this individual looked at my signature - well, it is a real she and a real person. However, I am lost in all this blather. Let's go back to the beginning and, since I am just a little country mouse, tell me exactly what your posting was about. Can we do that? I am really intrigued. Seriously. We may end up having a good discussion, since you will get another completely different point of view.
I appreciate this post, and no i'm not patronizing you
I tried earlier to explain what I meant by patronizing. I will give another example involving my dear Mother from 50 years ago. My parents were what I call generational group think racists. Meaning they weren't Clan members, but they grew up in a time of segregation, where Blacks were considered inferior.
My Mother was welcoming to integration, but old habits die hard. In the late 1960's, TV networks and local stations began to hire Black reporters and anchor people. One day, I was sitting on the couch watching the news with her. She made the comment that there was several black reporters now. Then she stated "but you know, they all do a good job". That's an example of patronizing. A specific minority group is stereotyped as not being able to perform certain tasks, and when they do perform those tasks, they are seen as outliers and worthy of positive comments.
Members of minorities generally frown on this attitude. Tiger Woods faced this as a golfer. Women faced it when they entered a variety of male dominated occupations. Now in 2017 women have been absorbed into previously male occupations, to the point it warrants no surprise. Yet, I come on a railroad forum and see this topic being discussed in a somewhat light hearted way, like it's something new. Did I take offense to it? No. Do I have an opinion that may be different? Not necessarily. I merely saw it as a remnant of times past, with little relevancy to today. I was curious as to why this was being discussed. That's all. But for whatever reason, the Trains Forum Illuminati has decided I'm an evil troll from the outside that is attempting to disrupt their forum.
Exclusionary and elitist were a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps cliquish is a better word. I don't think it's by design, it just so happens there's a few dozen members who make the vast majority of posts here. There's an apparent pecking order among them. It makes for good reading, but can prove to be intimidating to infrequent posters. Especially for someone like myself, where railfanning is at the bottom of my list of interests, and I'm not quite up to snuff on modern railroading.
I agree with that.. Comments along the line of "look at her.. she can do the job as well as a man can" come across as somewhat patronizing although I doubt they're meant that way. Old habits and viewpoints die hard I guess.
Now I see - that is what I was looking for. I can understand the big picture now. But rather than run off at the handle and no one cares, I will wait to see if you or anyone wants to visit further on this. Now I am 2 parts of the equasion.
BLS53 I appreciate this post, and no i'm not patronizing you I tried earlier to explain what I meant by patronizing. I will give another example involving my dear Mother from 50 years ago. My parents were what I call generational group think racists. Meaning they weren't Clan members, but they grew up in a time of segregation, where Blacks were considered inferior. My Mother was welcoming to integration, but old habits die hard. In the late 1960's, TV networks and local stations began to hire Black reporters and anchor people. One day, I was sitting on the couch watching the news with her. She made the comment that there was several black reporters now. Then she stated "but you know, they all do a good job". That's an example of patronizing. A specific minority group is stereotyped as not being able to perform certain tasks, and when they do perform those tasks, they are seen as outliers and worthy of positive comments. Members of minorities generally frown on this attitude. Tiger Woods faced this as a golfer. Women faced it when they entered a variety of male dominated occupations. Now in 2017 women have been absorbed into previously male occupations, to the point it warrants no surprise. Yet, I come on a railroad forum and see this topic being discussed in a somewhat light hearted way, like it's something new. Did I take offense to it? No. Do I have an opinion that may be different? Not necessarily. I merely saw it as a remnant of times past, with little relevancy to today. I was curious as to why this was being discussed. That's all. But for whatever reason, the Trains Forum Illuminati has decided I'm an evil troll from the outside that is attempting to disrupt their forum. Exclusionary and elitist were a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps cliquish is a better word. I don't think it's by design, it just so happens there's a few dozen members who make the vast majority of posts here. There's an apparent pecking order among them. It makes for good reading, but can prove to be intimidating to infrequent posters. Especially for someone like myself, where railfanning is at the bottom of my list of interests, and I'm not quite up to snuff on modern railroading.
Thanks. That's the kind of fleshing-out that I had hoped to see a page back.
UlrichI agree with that.. Comments along the line of "look at her.. she can do the job as well as a man can" come across as somewhat patronizing although I doubt they're meant that way. Old habits and viewpoints die hard I guess.
These days a comment like that is almost more a slam on men than being patronizing to women - sort of "all these years you've been saying women couldn't do such and such a job, and lo and behold, there they are! Were you ever wrong!"
BLS - I can identify with your mother's thought line - it was very common in my parents generation, and in many cases still exists in my generation (and beyond) because of that early "indoctrination." Old habits die hard, and sometimes we seem to seek out examples that prove the point rather than refute it.
I recently saw something - I forget where - wherein a fellow who worked in customer service, a call center, mistakenly used an email or "chat" account one day that carried the identification of a female co-worker. Apparently it happens. One customer was not happy with the service he was getting from this "female" customer service rep, and made it known. The male rep "stepped in" to the conversation, told the customer that he was taking over for the female, and suddenly all was right with the customer, even though the actual human providing the assistance didn't change. All because of a perceived change in gender.
I can see your point about a clique - although I don't believe one exists. Many of the core participants have known each other (either via the forum, or via actual personal contact) for quite a while. So, yes, that familiarity might be a bit off-putting to a newcomer. On the other hand, we can be as hard on each other as we are to any "newby." Probably moreso.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.