Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To want Primark to provide a women only changing room?

366 replies

Amelia1985x · 16/11/2019 15:22

I’m a regular Primark customer and was surprised to go the store yesterday and find all the changing rooms had been redesignated as mixed sex. The shop assistant told me not to worry, because most customers on the ladies’ floor were women, and anyway, she could see down the line of curtained cubicles and would challenge a “dodgy man”. When I questioned her about how she would spot one, she called the Manager as he could explain the policy better.

He told me the world was changing. I asked him why Primark had had sex segregated changing rooms in the first place. No answer. I asked him what specific legislative change or scientific discovery had occurred that made the world different to this time last year. No answer. He said that this arrangement was more inclusive for nonbinary people.

I explained that I didn’t feel that comfortable stripping to my knickers in a mixed area, and he told me I could always use the one disabled cubicle which has a lockable door. Clearly this has been designed for mixed sex use and did have a lock, but obviously I would then be blocking its use for a disabled person. He suggested there was no reason to be concerned. Yet when I think about me and my women friends, all our me-too moments, - of being flashed at, or masturbated at, sexual assaults and rapes – all have been my men.

The manager was unabashed. He said Primark had done research – even though he couldn’t produce it, and there were no leaflets or posters to explain this HUGE policy change to customers. He told me I was the only person who had ever complained.

So I guess this is what I want to know. Am I a dinosaur? Am I being unreasonable to want a women only changing room?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
notnowmaybelater · 18/11/2019 14:33

Eckhart there is no Primark local to me but there are other small department stores which have done this - with curtained unstaffed changing rooms - and I have a teenage daughter so it bothers me on her behalf. I don't shop in those stores but my daughter does and her choices are limited locally and they have clothes to her taste and in her budget. I won't make her avoid those shops because it's her choice but she has agreed not to be in the changing rooms without a friend which shouldn't be necessary but is.

Debate is healthy I agree.

What is not healthy is the misleading posts implying that reality is other than it is.

For a long stretch of this thread every one of your posts refered to lockable cubicles as though they are on offer, when they are not.This is what I was insistent is hypothetical because your posts strongly implied an alternative reality.

Debate is great, but with some clarity about the boundary between reality of things as they are and pipe dreams or suggestions nobody anywhere is acting upon. Misleading posts setting up a picture of a scenario which doesn't exist and trying to get others to agree the fantasy, unachievable scenario is better than the safer of two realistic scenarios is distraction not debate.

Eckhart · 18/11/2019 14:38

@notnowmaybelater Ah! This is the crux of our disagreement. You think it's unacheivable. I think that customers have power if enough of them vote with their wallets.

I aim for the stars.

I've never said or believed lockable cubicles were on offer. If that's what you understood, then you misunderstood. I'm sorry if I communicated badly.

notnowmaybelater · 18/11/2019 14:51

Eckhart ok, yes, that is the crux of it. Pragmatism versus idealism.

I do feel your posts strongly implied that the current situation is other than it actually is, and this is what was irritating, because then others posted on the basis that your ideal fantasy scenario was the actual situation, and agreeing it was no problem.

As it is the situation is changing cubicles with curtains not doors and either no staff or retail staff including 17 year old part time staff etc with no authority or power to perform a full in security guard role.

The real situation is businesses interested in profit who have decided to merely relabel (explicitly or implicitly) single sex facilities as "for everyone" with no adaption.

Given businesses care about profit the idea they will shut down their changing rooms to spend very large sums enlarging and renovating them with very large self contained floor to ceiling lockable cubicles and employing and training specialist security guards is extremely unrealistic.

The chances of getting them to change the label back to single sex male and female is higher. This is the safest achievable scenario which allows the greatest number of people to feel and actually be as safe as is realistically likely in this specific context.

Baguetteaboutit · 18/11/2019 14:54

So we're all going to have to boycott them until they put in lockable doors and adequate security, aren't we.

Or just, reinstate the single sex facilities. Requiring only a swift switch of above-the-door lettering and a robust constitution in the face of gender fetish.

Eckhart · 18/11/2019 15:02

If all the pissed off customers stop shopping there altogether and make it clear why, they'll have to change it or shut down. I think enough people are pissed off about it, don't you?

I wonder how many will just grumble amongst themselves and put up with it though. It's a shame we don't realise our power.

For what it's worth, I've always thought curtains were totally inadequate and always wanted proper doors, for years and years, well prior to this debate. Trying on new clothes for me (and I presume everybody else) has always been accompanied by the thought that '... this fecking thing won't close!!' It doesn't matter to me if it's a peeping Tom or a peeping Tomasina. I simply don't want another human to be party to my trying on clothes and/or being partially dressed.

I hope people will vote with their wallets.

Longfacenow · 18/11/2019 15:07

I agree. The ethical shopping guide is useful and ethical superstore.com are good online alternative for those who have only just realised primark is the devil!

I have always liked M&S and John Lewis but you know they have the same policy apparently?!?!

Eckhart · 18/11/2019 15:10

Have we got anybody on the thread who knows how to head up a boycotting campaign?

@Longfacenow your short, simple post is the best thing on this thread so far, in my opinion. We've all been arguing. You've got a solution!

Usernumbers1234 · 18/11/2019 15:27

@CigarsofthePharoahs

Not that it’s justification. But literally one of that long list of incidents at target happened anywhere near the changing rooms. The rest happened on the shop floor or even outside the store. Target is a colossal retailer with hundreds of stores, there’s going to be incidents, it’s statistics.

jmamminski · 18/11/2019 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

HandsOffMyRights · 18/11/2019 17:46

Eckart is your thread about MN's sexism towards men related to this thread?
YABVU for the record.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3746967-to-suggest-that-Mumsnet-is-quite-sexist-against-men

HandsOffMyRights · 18/11/2019 17:53

h

TheChampagneGalop · 18/11/2019 19:20

LentilHearted A group of teenage boys opened the door (on purpose) to the room I was in when I was trying on jumpers in H&M - their changing rooms are unisex too. Luckily I was dressed. It makes me stressed when there are men nearby when I'm trying on clothes. I'd never want to try on a bra in a mixed changing room. Most women don't want this - the shops need to wisen up.

Amelia1985x · 18/11/2019 22:55

Wee update

Following a written enquiry to Primark head office, asking them what consultation or research they had done prior to changing their changing rooms to mixed sex, I received a reply today. It said they couldn’t provide any more information about this matter. They added that everyone is welcome to use which ever changing rooms they want.

I call that pretty dismissive 🤷🏻‍♀️

OP posts:
LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 18/11/2019 23:13

That’s what JL are saying. Is the rainbow lobby providing a template?

darkside29 · 18/11/2019 23:50

The retailers will have acted in concert, as they do with any unasked for or unpopular policy.

The question is, who told them to do it, and why are they not being open about it.

GaraMedouar · 19/11/2019 06:53

Amelia - that is so dismissive! A real fuck you. Why on earth can't women (xx) have their own changing room?!

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 19/11/2019 07:00

This will be our final statement on the matter. said JL to me (bla bla bla inclusion, yada yada comfortable, nya nya piss off Fekko)

Lifeinthelastlane · 19/11/2019 07:38

Can FOI requests be made of private companies?
I am more familiar with public sector, but surely businesses have to take equality act into account too say if they didn't provide a disabled changing that wouldn't be ok, so why is it ok to provide no single sex changing? At the very least they could be expected to provide substantial individual cubicles and it doesn't sound like they do.
I suppose their motives and procedures will be looked into if or when the rate of prosecutions go up. Sad

NeedAnExpert · 19/11/2019 07:52

Can FOI requests be made of private companies?

No.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 19/11/2019 07:53

Surely their lawyers are warning that they could get sued - or have they calculated that it’s cheaper to pay for the few attacked woman (most likely they will be gasped at, peeped at, flashed, possibly recorded - and actual physical attacks will be rare I suppose/hope as it is ‘in the open, maybe?) than they loud and vocal brass neck ‘I’m special’ types with their hurt feelings.

Who is more likely to go to the press - Topshop T or your mum who was flashed and won’t go into changing rooms again?

Baguetteaboutit · 19/11/2019 08:21

It seems short sighted to sideline those people, females, who drive 70-80% of purchasing decisions.

If women don't have a sex specific area to try in clothes to draw them into your store, they also won't be grabbing a hat and scarf for their kids/ a Christmas gift for the [insert anyone the family buys a gift for] / a pair of socks for an aging parent on the way out.

It seems like a colossal act of self-sabotage when the situation on the high street is so precarious and shopping online has never been easier.

Inebriati · 19/11/2019 12:18

Surely their lawyers are warning that they could get sued - or have they calculated that it’s cheaper to pay for the few attacked woman...than the loud and vocal brass neck ‘I’m special’ types with their hurt feelings.

The 'Ford Pinto' model of ethics.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 19/11/2019 12:24

What’s that?

Eckhart · 19/11/2019 12:28

@HandsOffMyRights Yes, I posed the question on the other thread as a direct result of what I've seen on this thread, and some others on MN.

hopelesssuitcase · 19/11/2019 12:42

...so, TAAT?
Don't worry though, you won't be deleted.

Swipe left for the next trending thread