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...)

Orient =parent obviously

WiganPierre You change your Tampons in full view of the other users of Female toilets?!?!? You do realise you're meant to do that in the cubicle right???

That's not true about the symbols for male and female.

The circle with the arrow rising to the right represents the male body with an erect penis, and the circle with a cross descending represents the female body with vagina and fallopian tubes.

I thought it was common knowledge.

We can all bend over backwards to pretend we don't see it, but what's the point?

What is the point of coming up with nonsense that a dress isn't work wear?

That's not true about the symbols for male and female why? because you say so? As they first started being used around 1750 your explicit explanation seems unlikely.

Surely the point is not so much the clothes, but the expectation that a child will use the women's loo with it's mother. Who will of course be everpresent. No idea what a father out with his children might do..............

I don't think the two toilet people were in a relationship. . The man is clearly working, he has a tie, noone wears a tie unless they are working, and the woman, judging by her pretty dress was on a yummy mummy day, probably having little cakes with coffee etc.

The man wouldn't have time for that on his lunch break, but maybe enough time to pee whilst scoffing his M&S sandwiches.

It's perfectly realistic...

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

Yes, and that is what the complaint was about, which was upheld. People here have missed that entirely and are focusing on the clothes, which was not the complaint.

noone wears a tie unless they are working

Not true.

Yes, and that is what the complaint was about, which was upheld. People here have missed that entirely and are focusing on the clothes, which was not the complaint

The point about the child is valid since if nothing else it was misleading about the facilities. Although the OP wasn't happy with it being challenged just on that point.

The point about the clothes comes from posters objecting to (a) the use of the instantly recognisable symbols at all instead of biological symbols which should be recognisable by most people (other than the poorly educated) (b) the additions to make them a bit more colourful leading to (c )some very blinkered ideas about what is suitable work wear for professional women in authority.

In the UK in the 21st century ties are normally worn for work or as occasion-wear.
It's not a typical casual item. Women's dresses can be suitable for any situation, depending on the style. Not many people take their children to work with them, so in this case it's probably meant to represent a casual style. I don't think anyone here genuinely believes that women don't wear dresses with flowers/decoration on them for work.

People are talking like women in dresses with children, and single lonely men walking around in ties for no official reason are unrealistic depictions. I'd argue with the tie, but a glance in wetherspoons shows that the single man on his own in the toilet is a very reasonable stereotype.

Do they have signs similar to these in Wetherspoons as well as in the M&S that this complaint was about?

I've no idea if the little logo has been changed as a result of all this hoo-ha or if it's been like that since the store opened in the Spring, but I visited our relatively new M&S yesterday and took DC to the toilet. Both the female and male toilets had symbols accompanied by the child with teddy. Woman's dress was black with white crosses btw.

The international symbol for female is wearing a dress!?! I have always told my girls it is a cape ..... #itwasneveradress . Perception is a powerful thing, M&S completely ballsed it up there, and their selection of school shoes for girls is equally shit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40916607
This is the Clarkes shoe equivalent - boys are leaders, girls are dolly babes.

@RolfNotRudolf there's a link in that BBC article to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40638343

ASA introducing rules barring sexual/gender stereotypes in ads. That is a REALLY positive step. Adverts are so sexist.

Interesting.
I am just imagining a sign with a man holding a child's hand instead of the woman. Horribly sexist but to me looks completely wrong like an image one would use for a child in danger.
I think that's more troubling than not seeing a woman in a dress as a working person.

@Out2pasture I'm pretty sure klienfleters and Jacobs are syndromes that only effect men anyway tho?