Our thanks to James for this piece in The Guardian. Unusually, we’ve archived it, because it contains a revelation from Dany Cotton that the paper may come to regret.
The piece focuses on the fuss following her suggestion about renaming Fireman Sam as Firefighter Sam, and notes she still heads up a women’s network within the fire brigade. So we know where her priorities lie. But these paragraphs caught my eye, emphasis mine:
Speaking at a event entitled “Gender Equality: will it take another 100 years” organised by the Young Women’s Trust, Cotton revealed the sexism she has faced throughout her 30-year career at the LFB.
Asked whether she supported quotas in industries dominated by men, she warned that women promoted during quota periods could suffer because of positive discrimination. “For every single rank promotion I’ve got I have been told, every single time, that I’m going to get the job because I’m the only woman on the panel – even the job I’ve got now. Which is quite bizarre, really,” she said.
How can women who’ve been promoted during quota periods “suffer because of positive discrimination”? After “revealing the sexism she has faced throughout her 30-year career at the LFB”, Ms Cotton admits to having been informed in advance that anti-male sexism has been behind every promotion she’s had, right to the top of the LFB. And still she complains about sexism!!!
“Quite bizarre” doesn’t start to get at the truth. Bloody outrageous anti-meritocratic anti-male promotions, more like.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Unbelievable……. she on one hand claims sexism but on the other has used her gender to advance herself at every single opportunity,quite possibly at the expense of better qualified male firefighters!?
If women are so capable why is an all female firewatch not allowed in the fire service at any time??
We all know the reason…….I think Ms Cotton does to.
LikeLike
Thanks ssf. You write “quite possibly at the expense of better qualified male firefighters!?” You need to get off your white knight’s white horse. QUITE POSSIBLY? On every occasion she was the only woman on the panel, and on every occasion she beat them. What are the chances? She’s freely admitted it’s BECAUSE VAGINA. Something tells me Martin might have something so say about this. The same thing he always have to say. We need to end the code of chivalry. He’s right. It’s killing men.
LikeLike
Mike,interviews at all levels are done on a points basis for answers given and overall experience obtained……especially in public services,there must be transparency and clarity.
This information must be kept for a number of years and can be seen under FOI by the job applicant and can be challenged legally if needed to.
What Groan says below is spot on.
LikeLike
Very good point about the FOI. Think back to “All women shortlists” in Political Parties. Successfully challenged in court by a disgruntled Labour candidate. The result a special law specifically suspending the Equality Act for political parties. The point being that its only in political parties that direct discrimination is legal(of the sort revealed by Dany Cotton ). There are cases of men successfully winning direct or indirect discrimination cases but without the “Women’s Rights” infrastructure far too few men know they can use equality legislation.
I know many MRAs the Equality Act but as it is there on statute books men should use it.
The result in the BBC review of 98 men getting a rise and “only” 90 women probably reflects the series of successful “class actions” by local Authority manual (male) workers who had dramatic pay cuts reversed. Establishing clearly the Law does not allow such “indirect” discrimination. PWC probably did a thorough job knowing BBC staff are likely to use their rights, male and female.
LikeLike
Well said……any male public employee who is not up to speed with their full employment rights and the action/s they can take through legislation if things go awry is silly indeed.
It is,in my opinion,largely a myth that men have reduced or diminished employment rights compared to women they have the same,but the trick is to find out what rights you do have and it’s vital to check the employers ‘policies’ on this then use them successfully to your own advantage.
LikeLike
My interpretation of what she’s saying is that she knows she hasn’t earned the job but she feels she’s entitled to it anyway because vagina. ‘Quite bizarre’ is, I think, simply the verbal form of that puerile little bit of head scratching and face screwing up theatre women engage in when faced with an unpalatable or inconvenient truth.
I suspect that the ‘sexism’ she claims she has had to cope with was nothing more than team building banter. What ‘hurt’ her feeling was that she really wanted to be treated like a very special little princess by the boys and not be just another one of them.
All that aside, I expect true equality, if achievable, is going to take at least five times as long as one hundred years to achieve.
LikeLike
You do right. Because if what she says is true it is illegal in the United Kingdom. It is of course entirely undermining to her position of leadership. I sincerely hope her candour does result in a challenge. It is too often just assumed that such sexism is allowed by the law. It is not in fact, but it takes cases to demonstrate it.
LikeLike
“Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.
And they get it, because we give it to them”. -Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat)
LikeLike