Sexist M&S toilet signs

[OlennasWimple]

Small victory reported here although the complaints seem to have focused on the child with the woman on the sign, rather than the fact she is wearing a pink dress. (Though fortunately it wasn't THE pink M&S dress...)

Bearing in mind that people learn new things all the time, I'm pretty sure that it would take about 5 seconds for an averagely intelligent person to learn XX and XY (or any other non-stereotyping symbols).

Yes, exactly.
Why should we have those outdated pictures of women in dresses when a new sign could be learnt in 5 seconds?

Also, in the UK most people are going to know which chromosomes are which (if they don't actively refuse to remember).

I suggest we show the y chromosome in its real size, which is much smaller than the X, that makes them easier to differentiate AND is factually accurate, too!

People who don't know can be taught by it being on the same sign as some other symbols, or by just following everyone else.

I didn't use to mind the woman in a dress thing, but it seems to confuse so many people about the facts according to which the toilets are separated, so I think it is time it was changed.

Yes, because this is clearly the number one problem facing the world today. Really?!

No one at all has said it's the number one problem facing the world today. In fact it's been acknowledged as a very minor thing. Odd that you think otherwise.

In terms of symbols, Trafalgar Square decided to use the international symbols for man and woman on pedestrian crossings.

People did get very confused. Not so much because they didn't understand which was which, but because they didn't know if it meant women had to cross at a different time to men!

It's just a toilet sign, really not worth getting "offended" over they have looked the same way all my life, why even waste time on it

This seems like such a huge waste of energy.

The symbols on toilets are understood by everyone. Leave it alone!

The man gets to wear clothes of authority - a tie, and by uminplication a suit; while the woman is in girly clothing - that sends a sexist message.

so u can't be authoritarian in a dress?

Amateee please let us know what is the no. one problem today and we can all put our energies into solving that. When that's done we'll go on to no. 2, then 3 ...

Pink, floral frocks are not generally considered suitable attire for women doing the sort of jobs where men are expected to where suits- ergo the M&S depiction is of men at work and women staying at home as carers.

• wear suits

It is interesting that the male sign has a tie which is business dress or occasion wear, whereas the female sign has an informal dress. That's presumably what stereotype the designer could drag out of their brain when thinking what a man or woman would wear.

As an aside, I find it fascinating how other people want to police idle chit chat on the internet.

Thank you AB - you put it much better than me

If you have unisex toilets everywhere, some people will take advantage. Be careful what you wish for!

Also women have to de-tone exposing all their genitalia to do a wee. Men don't have to. That's why separate toilets should exist (in general).

*de-robe

What you wear has zero bearing on how you are, It's kind of illogical for feminists to be saying, oh she's wearing a dress how awful! She can't possibly be a strong independent woman in dress!

I didn't use to mind the woman in a dress thing, but it seems to confuse so many people about the facts according to which the toilets are separated, so I think it is time it was changed

I don't believe it confuses a single person. There may be some that pretend confusion to suit their agenda, but that would be the same no matter what the symbol. If you change it to the woman symbol, people will argue that includes anyone who identifies as a woman.

If we want to be blunt about it, a big " no penises" sign on the ladies would suit me just fine.

I'm not saying that Infowars - I have a fine collection of floral frocks myself, but as AB said above the M&S imagery references the stereotype of men at work; women caring at home. All they had to do was use the big-standard (excuse the pun) and globally recognised plain image of man in Trousers, woman in skirt.

Surprised some people don't find it sexist that you have a woman and a child and a man in work wear.

One has a job, one has a baby.

And it's nothing to do with hanging facilities and would surely be even more sexist if it reflected that M&s think men can't change nappies

Surprised some people don't find it sexist that you have a woman and a child and a man in work wear

You have half a point there. The woman is also in work wear, one does not need pants on to be employed

The man gets to wear clothes of authority - a tie, and by uminplication a suit; while the woman is in girly clothing - that sends a sexist message

Oh the irony there of calling out sexism but denigrating something as "girly"

Pink, floral frocks are not generally considered suitable attire for women doing the sort of jobs where men are expected to where suits- ergo the M&S depiction is of men at work and women staying at home as carers

What tosh. Must tell several of my (senior) female partners they are dressing wrong.

Aside from which the male figure wasn't wearing a suit he was wearing a tie. Jobs where men wear shirts and ties but not a suit tend to be fairly low status - salesmen in domestic goods warehouses for example.

Surprised some people don't find it sexist that you have a woman and a child and a man in work wear

One has a job, one has a baby

You really should examine your own prejudices.

Why is a dress not work wear?

Why does having a child mean you don't have a job?

A tie is almost always work wear (or occasionally a formal wear).

A dress can be anything yes, but it is never workwear when towing a child. Even nursery workers wear trousers to work.

The fact that they gave the woman the child is sexist. We can all bend over backwards to pretend we don't see it, but what's the point?

Their human equivalents.

Of course women can have jobs and children, no one is arguing that It's that one is doing the job of orient and one is an unencumbered man with a job