23 17 46 11
zugmann Mookie Finally, you only have to be a human Don't know if I'd go that far.
Mookie Finally, you only have to be a human
Don't know if I'd go that far.
I haven't seen anything here that I would call offensive.. some comments were a little patronizing, but that's hardly anything to get upset about. And the plumber/urologist joke was funny.. even my wife thinks so. I agree with you about some comments being patronizing.. but as I stated earlier, knowing the poster, they weren't intended as such. Relax and have fun.
I call a woman or man plumber - a plumber. I do use sir and ma'am, but that is from my generation. You figure we easily cover roughly 3 generations on this forum. So there is going to be a difference in some communication. But we are informal; I tease a chicken on here. He teases me back. But the point is - if you really want to join in the conversation, tuck in your spurs and go for it. And in answer to your statement - you are right. One thing I hate most is somone patronizing me. I'm not one of the guys but I am a great evesdropper. And so many, many of the people on here are busting with information and willing to share it. My real name is Jen and if you aren't comfortable at first, I evesdrop a lot.
Welcome
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
BLS53 Murphy Siding 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. I'm guessing that Mookie might have a different perspective on this than you or I. I'm aware of her gender. I sense there's some conflict of opinion whether I'm a women's rights activist or a male chauvinist pig. Of course a public flogging inflicts more pain when you can attack the subject from both sides.
Murphy Siding 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. I'm guessing that Mookie might have a different perspective on this than you or I.
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.
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.
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'm guessing that Mookie might have a different perspective on this than you or I.
I'm aware of her gender. I sense there's some conflict of opinion whether I'm a women's rights activist or a male chauvinist pig. Of course a public flogging inflicts more pain when you can attack the subject from both sides.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68 Ulrich 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. 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.
Ulrich 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.
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.
There's extremes on both sides of the fence. I don't think this is a subject to take light heartedly. Again, just an observation, but on many forums the first few posts of this thread, would've gotten the thread shut down. This was way before I entered the picture. The comparison of how men and women smell. "What do you call a woman plumber? A urologist." People are getting fired and sued over this type of stuff. But somehow it's appropriate here, and the one female on the forum laughs it off. Seems it's more important to go after the guy who dared to use the word "patronizing".
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
edblysard I was hoping for the glow in the dark decoder ring....but jackets will work too!
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Johnny
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.
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.
BLS53You just proved my point. No victim card needed, I know where I'm not wanted.
Yet you are the one typing out paragraphs of drama. Nobody cares.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.