Just restating what everyone else says, this example is indicative of social media as a whole. Not rail preservation.

Is it still wrong? I’d say yes. There are certainly inappropriate and uncalled for comments in that comment section. But this example ain’t a rail preservation issue.

The reason you don’t see these sorts of responses on Twitter is due to the lack of followers. Check the number of likes on the Facebook page (100k+) with Twitter (less than 3.5k). Twitter is far less popular for corporations and organizations than Facebook. So yes, this is a “social media issue”.

The FB comments are obviously distasteful. The internet is reflective of the world - the good, the bad, and the ugly - not just the preservation world.

As one who has a female very close to my heart who has been in the workplace since the '80s, I've heard all kinds of unpleasant stories, including those involving workplace sexual assault. For those of you who have not been around as long, trust me, there is a lot less of this behavior than in the past and it is tolerated a lot less. So, although the issue is still around, my take is that society is generally directionally correct on this. Of course some will always be lascivious in their thoughts and comments. Some are just miserable folks looking to spread their misery in the easiest and least imaginative way possible.

As far as this particular instance cited, besides the observations already posted, I'm thinking of something that was told to me a long time ago. Certain body parts are like thoughts - if you do not want folks making comments (positive, negative, and everything in between) don't share them. This is not sexism. I'm sure if the same event had a guy who was one or two standards of deviation over optimal weight, and that guy had a crack issue (think Norge repairman), and that issue was photographed and posted, one would see a similar pattern of vile commentary. It is the nature of a free people that folks believe they have the right to comment on everything. The only difference with the internet is that it is now pretty much unfiltered. That is why I'm sitting here posting my thoughts.

I guess I do not get out much so can someone please identify what the subject of the photo has around her neck? It looks like some sort of holder which is holding a glassine or plastic cylindrical object. Thanks.

Let's be real for a minute; you don't?

Any of you ever read the comments to Youtube videos that feature scantily clad or revealing women's bodies? Give it a try sometime. This FB thread is tame by comparison.

Try being a conservative in a social media world where the same people who decry sexist comments then turn around and say some of the foulest, meanest and insulting things to conservatives that they can and see no problem with doing that. If a society accepts one kind of insulting and uncivilized behavior how can they condemn another kind and expect to be taken seriously?

People have been, and always will, judge other people. Your voice, hair, the way you walk, clothes, demeanor etc. all are taken into account when someone creates their own first impression of another person. No amount of attempts at social engineering will change that. Just like many of the other things that we as a society had figured out, only to be rejected by these latest generations and now must be learned again, the way we present ourselves does make a difference in how someone is treated by others.

Of course he does. Everyone does. It is an integral part of being human.

Quite to the contrary, it is precisely called what it is: sexual harassment.

This may come as quite a surprise to many, but sexual harassment is NOT a crime per se in many situations. The deplorable conduct is most often addressed and dealt with as a civil tort. The Government's definition provided above defines just one type of situation that would constitute sexual harassment. Case law has expanded this definition far more broadly.

Damages can be obtained for sexual harassment outside of an employer / employee relationship. A customer who engages in similar conduct against an employee of a store can also be successfully sued for damages even though he (or she) has no involvement in the relationship between the employer and employee.

It should be noted that any party seeking damages for sexual harassment is going to focus their legal recourse efforts at parties with pockets deep enough to pay a damage award. That is the primary reason why there has been a disproportionate focus on business relationships. There is a much larger pool of money available from which to pay a damage award from when there is a going concern involved.

So, Superheater is incorrect when he says that an obscene Facebook post is not sexual harassment. It is. Depending on the circumstances, it might even be used as one piece of evidence against your preservation organization.

So, some of you might ask, "How does this impact rail preservation?"

A male visitor (with no relationship to the museum which is blessed with a significant financial endowment and plenty of insurance) decides to follow a female dressed like the one in the photo in the Facebook post making obscene comments. She complains to a docent about the conduct, but since the docent did not hear the obscene comments, he declines to get involved. She finds out the museum has significant financial ties to governmental entity, or a major corporation. Still enraged from being embarrassed and made to feel so uncomfortable, she decides to sue.

A third party captures some of the gentleman's comments on video, but declines to share that video with the docent. However, through social media he discovers that the woman wants to sue the museum for allowing that type of sexual harassment on its grounds. Said person makes contact with her and provides the video which proves her claim. An attorney for the women files suit against the museum, with said video being exhibit #1.

Under such a situation, it is certainly possible that said museum might be found liable for damages to the woman for refusing to quell the harassment. If you wish to rely on Superheater's bald assertion that sexual harassment can only occur under just one definition from one governmental agency, you do so at your own peril.

As I have repeatedly said, "sexism", to the extent that it may, or may not, exist, is a very limited issue and the topic is very narrow in scope. Sexual harassment is the far more common, and much more serious, issue. Sexual harassment can adversely impact your preservation efforts. I pray that your prized steam locomotive does not have to be auctioned off in order to pay a sexual harassment judgment.

Such is the way of the world today. Sad, but true.

As near as I can tell--having hung out by one or two degrees of separation with people who routinely wear such things--it's an amulet holding a crystal or similar "gemstone" intended to concentrate supposed "power" from said crystal.

Sounds stupid, right?

Tell me, have you ever been around people who wear crucifixes, Stars of David, Christian crosses, or the like? Do you consider them stupid, loony, or whatever?

(Actually, that's MY reaction: "What-EVER.................."

Rick, you are the one attempting social engineering here.

A customer wore vacation attire while visiting a world class vacation attraction. What the customer wore was perfectly acceptable and normal behavior - the customer did not violate any of the railroad's dress codes. It is not a railroad preservation story.

The thread starter actually began his very first sentence with "Sorry to start a new shitstorm". What the hell Rick? As moderator, you could have immediately locked and deleted this thread and then taken disciplinary action against the shitstorm starter. But you've done none of that; instead, you chose to pile on by posting your own off-topic rants in the thread.

It is none of our business what customers wear while riding the D&SNG - that's between the D&SNG and their customers.... but you are making it your business in your posts here and your failure to act as moderator; ergo, you are the one attempting social engineering here.

Back on topic of the D&SNG... I’m headed to the Concessions car to get some popcorn, anyone need anything? :)

@Chris Webster

Sorry to start a new shitstorm" is a lie on many levels, starting with the characterization of "new". Imagine a guy whose plea for propriety starts with scatological profanity. I worked in a corrections environment for a while and while I wasn't a CO, I went through all the training-and I know an attempted con when I see one. There's an angle here, and I generally don't mind people posturing for some grant, role or job-but in this case you have an entire advocation being sullied for a personal vendetta-and the only connection this has to railroad preservation is where the picture was taken.


@Alexander

The existence and nature of the amulet or pendant is irrelevant, except that suspended where it is-is a focal point. I'm a lousy photographer and I know how objects can be used for that purpose.


@Eric don't be obtuse.

I gave you the definition from the horse's mouth-and unless the woman in the picture is employed or has some other commercial relationship with the commenters, it's not "sexual harassment"-it's morons being crass in public. It may in some jurisdictions be some form of digital harassment, but I'm not a lawyer.

A couple of years ago, I took my then 14ish teenage relative for a train ride. She was approached by some local college kids on an open car. In the dark-it was a night time affair-I'm sure they saw a college freshman, not a high school one.

To my wife's relief and my regret, I didn't hear the exchange with the noise and it's probably just as well that I didn't have to explain how less than 16 gets you more than 20-if you live that long.

The young lady handled herself without assistance and my wife said her plan was simple, if she didn't handle it, my wife was going to bark at them and if that didn't work, then it would be sic' em boy-but she really didn't want you tossing one off a moving train". I wouldn't do that in spite of temptations.

That was far more "harassment" than anything online, because it was in person and there was an age issue, even if college geniuses can't tell age well.

Like most of the rest of the board, I've been a male all my life. I'm fully aware how males act. I'm also fully aware that most women don't need your delusions of knighthood and are quite capable of standing up for themselves and being just as porcine when assembled. If you know anybody whose been a limo driver, they have great stories about bachelorette parties.

In all candor, I think some people involved with this hobby imagine women as being frail little lilies because it makes them less intimidating and fearsome.

Now, if our resident gammas want to continue indulging in their fantasies of rescuing the fair maiden, let's see if they are really up to the job.

Before you posture as a social reformer on a crusade because some dimwits made their lockeroom trash public:

Am I one of the millions of people that buy the SI Swimsuit Issue, which is porn.

Did I ever get a magazine that was mailed in a plain brown wrapper?

Have I ever been to a "gentlemen's club" or been part of a bachelor party with strippers.

Is my IP stored among the millions and millions on Pornhub? Ashley Madison?

Did I or do I sleep around?

If you answered yes to any of the above, stop projecting, STFU and move on to tilting at some other windmill like world peace or ending hunger, where you will be less of a hypocrite.

Now while you dig those logs out of your eyes, time to end this idiotic thread.

I respectfully reject this premise.

I will accept the idea that the original poster was IN NO WAY whatsoever "sorry to start a new sh*tstorm"........ and was instead being almost maliciously confrontational in the pursuit of attempting to start a new round of confrontation and controversy where it was unwarranted, unnecessary, and even (debatably) untrue, in the pursuit of a "religiously"-held orthodoxy.

Had the moderators locked and deleted said post, however, they would have been open, with just cause, to accusations of bias, prejudice, and censorship.

Nothing in the original post, however biased or slanted it may be, rises to the level of falsehood, slander, or libel--save for the sentence "These comments are creepy and disgusting, but represent the types of things that women have to deal with when spending time around railroads all the time"--which can potentially be excused as editorial comment and/or opinion and not statement of fact.

Libertarians like me (and, I assume by various interactions with him, Brother Rowlands) tend to favor letting "idiots" speak openly and exhibit their faulty thinking for all to see plainly, the better for falsehoods and irrational thinking to be exposed for what they are, and refuted on proper grounds through open discussion and debate.

Thus far, it appears the majority in this rather small "pool" have rejected the premise that the post in another forum that started this thread is in any way indicative of any "systemic" problem of "sexism" WITHIN THIS INDUSTRY/AVOCATION. This does not in itself refute the idea that such sexism exists, but merely suggests that this instance is not an example to be used to indicate or represent the alleged problem.

She is an attractive and pleasant looking young lady, photographed in a very nice setting.
All the rest is bull shit.

I remember when I used to come to this forum to read about ongoing restoration projects and get technical first hand information from the people involved in the project. Now we have these discussions seemingly every day and it seems to be the same few people going back and forth at each other over slightly different topics but always seem to end up in the same pissing matches. It is a sad reflection of society. I truly miss talking about old passenger cars and locomotives.

In some quarters, that statement makes you guilty of sexual harassment. Our society has reached a ridiculous crossroads. Will we choose a route based on common sense, or on political correctness?

ADMIV - Yes, I went on Amazon and found similar information and quite the selection to choose from. I had seen crystals hanging from people's rearview mirrors in their cars but they were not cylindrical and oblong like the one in the photo. As far as the editorializing, I did not comment one way or the other. Just trying to keep up with an ever-changing world the best I can by taking an opportunity to learn something new. I may be a bit slower than when I was in my prime but I'm still very intellectually curious. Oh, and to answer your question, most of the guys I grew up with wore a cornicello. To protect oneself from the evil eye.