Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The case for retaining single-sex mass toilets alongside any unisex provision **Title edited by MNHQ at the request of the OP**

158 replies

haXXor · 22/06/2018 23:03

On the upskirting thread, I mentioned that I had googled for shoe cameras and found a vendor. The vendor's website was a real eyeopener. They are based in Shenzen in China, the electronics manufacturing capital of the world, so they have easy access to the manufacturing facilities needed to make microelectronic devices.

Amongst their range of products, I found two toilet brushes with hidden cameras in, from as little as US$212 (~£160 at time of writing). That's a pretty low barrier to acquisition. There are dozens of convincing shower gel and shampoo bottles to leave in gym or workplace showers or to film showering flatmates.

They also have a range of shoe cameras, including one that shows, in the illustrative image, a man looking a picture of a woman's knicker-clad vulva on a computer screen. Many of the item descriptions have "we are not responsible if this camera is used for illegal activities, this is a home security camera and should be treated as such, with responsibility" appended: these arseholes know exactly what the buyers of their wares are going to do with them, otherwise they wouldn't try to claim innocence with their pathetic figleaf disclaimer.

That the owners of this website will so brazenly monetise female objectification is proof that patriarchy and misogyny are real.

Anyway, on to why this makes me demand that single-sex mass toilets are retained alongside any unisex provision installed for non-binary and trans people.

On another thread, we discussed criminology and security theory models for keeping women safe and I outlined the Swiss Cheese model to explain why we need multiple layers of defence against predatory males attacking females. Filming a woman or girl in a place where they reasonably expected privacy is an attack on her privacy and dignity, and the Sexual Offences Act 2006 agrees with me here, voyeurism is a crime.

Assume that we have a male who has bought a toilet brush camera, or a door hook camera, or a cross-head screw camera, and wishes to place it into a toilet that women will use. He will put his camera into a suitable pocket or bag and go to his chosen women's loo.

  • If the toilet is a mass toilet and designated women-only, a man walking in will attract attention and he may be challenged by passersby and stopped from entering. If he manages to get in unspotted, he may find women in the toilet, who will challenge him and call for management or the police. Even if the mass female-only toilet is unoccupied when he enters, he could be walked in on whilst setting his camera up and be stopped that way. That's two cheese layers, plus the deterrent effect of the fear of being caught in the act.
  • If the toilet is a single occupant female toilet, he might get challenged on the way in or out, but once he is inside, he locks the door, and he has all the time he wants to set his camera up without anyone catching him in the act. That's one cheese layer.
  • If the toilet is a single occupant unisex toilet, he walks right in unchallenged, he locks the door, and he has all the time he wants to set his camera up without anyone catching him in the act. That's zero cheese layers.

There ought to be, and isn't in many cases, another layer of cheese: cleaners spotting the toilet brush/hook/extra screw and investigating and reporting. This assumes that the same cleaners are cleaning the loos every day and learning what "right" looks like for that loo. With cleaners increasingly being temps, they might not have that consistent exposure, and they may not have a clear reporting line for that kind of anomaly. Plus, if they have no stability, they will have no sense of pride in their work and hence not care. I know that when I was a temp minwage cleaner, I didn't care. When I was a permanant and reasonably well-paid computer operator, I learned what "right" looked like in my machine room and flagged anomalies quickly.

Other than fighting for single-sex spaces as a right (not a service provider option) and for stability of employment for cleaners, what else can we do to prevent men from invading our privacy like this?

OP posts:
Kettlepotblackagain · 24/06/2018 08:57

Being angry isn't a crime by the way Sarah.

AngryAttackKittens · 24/06/2018 08:59

I think some of them focus on people who they think they can upset because getting someone upset enough to lash out in response is a great way to get them deleted and then banned.

Some people also just enjoy upsetting others, so two birds with one stone there.

SarahCarer · 24/06/2018 09:02

I know Kettle and I'm not complaining. AAK that's a very good point.

Kettlepotblackagain · 24/06/2018 09:05

Absolutely AAK. They'll also engage 'civilly' with some to 'prove' they are the calm, rational ones.

Ereshkigal · 24/06/2018 09:05

Eventually it becomes obvious that it is an exercise in obedience training.

This. It is. And that's why we're not shutting up.

Ereshkigal · 24/06/2018 09:14

I agree Anotherquoll. I don't want psychologically unstable and volatile individuals with a grudge and need for constant validation and control allowed into women's spaces. NATALT obviously but enough are that it's a risk to women. Plus normalising male people in women's spaces will mean that abusive men will use this loophole to access women when vulnerable.

Pratchet · 24/06/2018 10:09

They'll also engage 'civilly' with some to 'prove' they are the calm, rational ones

There's obviously at least one who has done a massive handbrake turn into sweetness and light. If this was Twitter we would just post their old screenshots under every 'ever so polite' tweet.

C8H10N4O2 · 24/06/2018 15:37

@pombear I can empathise with that experience.

I work on various big corporate sites. I'm increasingly seeing women and women's disabled toilets being co-opted as unisex whilst the male toilets are left as they stand.

Most recently I was on a site which has three major buildings and a pattern of a male block and female block of toilets on each floor. Each block consists of several individual cloakrooms including a disabled toilet. In addition, each building has a male toilet which is the traditional urinal/cubicle combo.

On each floor, in each building, the women's disabled loo has been rebadged as unisex. As a result its mainly used by able bodied men on that side of the floor. Presumably to save the onerous walk of 20 paces to get to the male block.

Net result - men have more toilets, women have less. This isn't based on numbers of men/women in the buildings. There is no logic to this - all toilets are fully enclosed cloakrooms so the usual "urinal" excuse doesn't hold.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page