They’re at it again …

To keep you amused, dear people:

Telegraph:

Thomas the Tank Engine is setting a poor example to children and needs more female engines to encourage girls to become train drivers, Labour’s shadow transport secretary has said.

Mary Creagh described the lack of female train drivers in Britain as a “national scandal” and said that children’s television shows and “negative stereotypes” are partly to blame.

She called on train companies recruit more female drivers by advertising in magazine’s such as Good Housekeeping and Women’s Own, and suggested that they need to offer more part time work.

Mrs Creagh, a mother-of-two, singled out Thomas the Tank Engine for criticism. She said that while the books and television series have “wonderful stories” and are “incredibly popular”, they have almost no female characters.

You could start on this, I could start on this but this commenter seemed to sum it up well:

Remember these are the same folks who decided to investigate Big Ears.

15 Responses to “They’re at it again …”

  1. DICK R December 28, 2013 at 10:11 Permalink

    They will be asking for sodomist engines next

  2. ivan December 28, 2013 at 11:22 Permalink

    Some of the comments in the Daily Fail are very good as well.

  3. Amfortas December 28, 2013 at 11:23 Permalink

    Hear hear Madam. There are huge swathes of industry where women are under-represented almost to zero. There ought to be quotas for dozens of roles like trawlerperson, garbagettes, seweragettes, mineresses, road constructesses, loggerettes, concrete pouresses, steeplejackettes, ladybuildettes and hod carrierpersons, the list goes on. Society has struggled to its present lack of amenity totally on the ineptitude of men and the stranglehold of The Patriarchy stopping women from enjoying all the benefits that men have.

    As Fred Reed said to Maureen Dowd recently:….

    “You live in New York, in which every building was designed and built by men. You perhaps use the subway, designed, built, and maintained by men. You travel at in a car, invented, designed, and built by men—a vehicle that you don’t understand (what is a cam lobe?) and couldn’t maintain (have you ever changed a tire? Could you even find the tires?), and you do this on roads designed, built, and maintained by men. You fly in aircraft designed, built, and maintained by men, which you do not understand (what, Moon Pie, is a high-bypass turbofan?)

    In short, as you run from convention to convention, peeing on hydrants, you depend utterly on men to keep you fed (via tractors designed by men, guided by GPS invented, designed, and launched by men, on farms run by men), and comfy (air conditioning invented…but need I repeat myself?) ”

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml

    Watch out when men become obsolete and Mary Creagh has to do the whole friggin’ lot.

  4. Woodsy42 December 28, 2013 at 13:54 Permalink

    So to cure job discrinination you advertise in a magazine that is designed to encourage readership discrimination – classic.

    Someone should fight back on the basis that not all housekeepers are women so such titles are discriminatory.

  5. dearieme December 28, 2013 at 14:34 Permalink

    “She called on train companies recruit more female drivers by advertising in magazine’s such as Good Housekeeping and Women’s Own”: next thing you know she’ll be calling for the BBC to advertise jobs in the Telegraph. Yeah, yeah.

  6. ubermouth December 28, 2013 at 21:26 Permalink

    Yeah,but who gives the very life and sustenance to men, wiping their very arses when they are incapable of even that, Amfy?

  7. Ian Hills December 29, 2013 at 01:42 Permalink

    PC gold, am cross-posting. More from your Telegraph link page -

    Mrs Creagh also said that mechanical comprehension tests taken by prospective train drivers could discriminate against women.
    She said: “You don’t need mechanical competence to drive a train any more. Previous research has indicated that it could be a disadvantage to minority groups, so the question is why is it still in there from a legal point of view, because it could amount to indirect discrimination.”

    So women are naturally not very mechanically minded? Or does she mean some other “minority” group?

  8. CherryPie December 29, 2013 at 02:02 Permalink

    You travel at in a car, invented, designed, and built by men—a vehicle that you don’t understand (what is a cam lobe?) and couldn’t maintain (have you ever changed a tire? Could you even find the tires?), and you do this on roads designed, built, and maintained by men.

    I understand vehicles very well.

    Many years ago whilst out and about on my travels in a car that had a fault, I regularly had to go under the bonnet and fix it in order to get home.

    Would I choose to do that? No I wouldn’t. But in times of need and safety some things just have to be done…

    Electronic systems on modern cars are designed to confuse everyone. They are also designed so that you have to call in a professional to fix the problem…

    With my more modern and electronic under the bonnet system I have to rely on the RAC (or other professional) to fix the problem.

    For example crankshaft sensors are a pain in the *rs* when they fail!!

    A quote from one of my holiday posts:

    my car decided to start playing up on the way there.
    I had a good idea what the problem was and knew I had to get it fixed as soon as possible! So I had the hassle of trying to get it booked in to be checked.

    The car broke down completely just as I got it to the dealership. It was the Crankshaft sensor as I suspected and the they were wonderful and fitted a part off one of the showroom models (usually you have to wait for parts to be ordered!).

    On that occasion I could really have done without being shouted at and told to do this that and the other and that it was all my fault the car had lost all power and acceleration…

    Especially because the car decided to fail miserably as I was joining a busy A road…

  9. ubermouth December 29, 2013 at 02:07 Permalink

    Well done, Cherie. :)

    I would also like to point out to Amfy who seems to deride women’s contribution to society,that often our input means life or death whereas we survived quiet nicely without your cars and GPS[as did the environment].

  10. CherryPie December 29, 2013 at 02:22 Permalink

    PS: Then there was the time when I had my clutch changed because there was grit between the two plates causing a problem…

    After the clutch was changed my gears didn’t feel right. Then as I drove along my way I lost second gear in busy traffic and had to negotiate my way safely through that.

    When I went back to the repairer they said they couldn’t possibly have caused the problem!!!

    From their point of view I was just a girly they were trying to pull the wool over my eyes ;-)

    Well they didn’t pull the wool over my eyes and they eventually conceded that they hadn’t done the job properly and fixed the problem!

  11. James Higham December 29, 2013 at 07:22 Permalink

    Regarding repairers – not sure that’s a gender issue, Cherie. That sort of scamming is tried on all drivers/car owners.

    Yeah, but who gives the very life and sustenance to men

    Of a Saturday, I do that strange thing for a man – working under a woman for mainly women and during the course of a day, there are many discussions of many topics, in which many a customer joins in. And let’s not forget that the vast majority of those women have a man in tow.

    What comes out of it is that, despite the petty grumbling, those men and women have a very real bond and those women could not do without a man’s input just as much as the men appreciate their women on many levels.

    This is the real world, not the world of blogging and slanging matches. By and large, the things we’re bombarded with online, while certainly real issues and needing to be addressed, don’t occupy the consciousness of those people out there more than a portion of the time.

    In all of these online “discussions”, the factor which gets played down most, it seems to me, is the very real bonding between man and woman. The number of times a perfect stranger [woman] and I reach an understanding very quickly just illustrates this “chemistry” thing.

    This is not something activists wish to admit – that we really can get along. I’ve had not one issue with my lady boss which hasn’t been amicably sorted. Cherie comes in about cars but I don’t think anyone’s referring to Cherie – she’d get along with anyone.

    None of this undermines the issues – those issues are still very real and bloggable … but there is always this factor I see once a week of this amazing thing I can’t define between man and woman.

    And I, for one, am very grateful for it. And it’s a woman looking after OoL on a Saturday and a woman looking after NO. I’m at one with Uber that the notion of women not being involved with a man is not one which computes in my brain but it does cut the other way too – man gives some sort of x-factor to a woman which keeps her coming back for more.

    Long may all that continue, long after the ideologues have passed away.

  12. Amfortas December 29, 2013 at 08:36 Permalink

    Now now Cherie, and Uber. My comment had two parts: there was my supportive comment cheering the lady on and looking for quotas so women can do lots of jobs; and there was Fred Reed’s response to Maureen Dowd.

    How did you both mix them up? Why attribute Fred’s words to me?
    :)

  13. 111 December 29, 2013 at 09:37 Permalink

    Oops, sorry Amfy. I did attribute words not yours to you.

    Men will never become obsolete because they compliment women, as women compliment men an neither can[nor should] live without the other.

  14. CherryPie December 29, 2013 at 15:17 Permalink

    @ James, in that particular dealership it was a gender issue. I could elaborate, but I think I have said enough already ;-)

    @ Amfortas, I wasn’t attributing the words to you just picking up on them because I thought they were wrong ;-)

    As to quotas… I think they are wrong too. LOL Imposing quotas can lead to people in jobs that they cannot do! I have seen the results of that, although on that occasion it wasn’t gender related.

    :-)

  15. JD January 2, 2014 at 16:08 Permalink

    Has the decision of haulage giant Eddie Stobart to name its entire fleet of wagons after women had any appreciable effect on female recruitment into long-distance lorry driving? (Answer: only 0.5% of the UK’s 300,000 truck drivers are women, so, no).
    via- http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/what-really-matters.html

    no doubt the same applies for female engine drivers
    :)

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string SbG0Ma to the field below: