Not enough toilets in theatres. For women

[RedToothBrush]

Hands up. Who is remotely surprised by this...?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46735513
Women's toilets an issue for West End theatres

A survey of West End theatres has found there is an average of just one toilet for every 38 female audience members.

The research by The Stage calculated that women would need a 57-minute interval to all visit the bathroom. The average interval is 20 minutes.

The Old Vic had the fewest with one toilet for every 56 women.

Many theatres struggle to increase the number of toilets due to their buildings having listed status and the Old Vic is a Grade II-listed building.

The theatre recently launched a £100,000 public fundraising campaign to improve the toilets and access to the theatre featuring Glenda Jackson and Joanna Lumley.

The works will more than double the number of female loos. They have so far raised £52,482.

Hulloa terriblly sorry about "banging on" . I do beg your pardon for expressing a different opinion.

I have said several times the statistic which started this thread is meaningless as the entire female audience does not go en masse to the toilet in the interval.

I also don't understand why, Marguerita, you feel entitled to police how women feel in regard to being next to a man when they are half naked (because let's be clear this is why we need cubicles) and either urinating/defecating/dealing with menstruation

Such drama- expressing a different view is "policing women". In the situation of the refurbished Glasgow Theatre Royal they do actually have solid walls with heavy lockable doors between each cubicle. It is a layout which affords maximum privacy for everyone.

I'll tell you what did hold me up in the loo at the theatre (first visit, so no queue waiting as it was pre-show) last night - inability to get the end of the bogroll to dispense enough paper for my needs. I was fiddling with the dispenser for what seemed to be ages.

Thats one reason I carry tissues.

I usually do, but you know that time when there's none in your bag...?

My point is, this is another issue for women which (mostly) doesn't delay men in the theatre bogs.

@SonicVersusGynaephobia just that women naturally take much longer in there as proved by my experience

So if women "naturally take longer" then this means we need more facilities...

Which is kind of the whole point of the thread?

Margarita
In the situation of the refurbished Glasgow Theatre Royal they do actually have solid walls with heavy lockable doors between each cubicle. It is a layout which affords maximum privacy for everyone.

Why are you constantly telling us about the Glasgow Theatre Royal? They cannot do this in other theatres because there isn't enough space so if they did this there would be even fewer toilets which would make the situation 10 times worse for everyone.

We have alredy explained that many women do not use the loos during the interval because it's too difficult. Many of those women would use the loo if they could.

My goodness Margarita, try and actully engage with the points being made instead of just repeating yourself over and over again like a bot.

Yes, Looneytune, that is the point. Women take longer than men, because women have more to deal with than men, so women need more toilets.

I'd like to add museums to The list of offenders- I was at the British Museum yesterday, which was refurbished at great expense not So many years ago, and had to queue for more than 15 minutes to use the loos. The Ladiesvwad right next footbridge the men's, which clearly had the same footprint, gingerbread obviously no queue for the men's, although a similar number of people going in and out.
Annoyingly, the 10 basins inside the Ladies took up almost the same amount of floorspace as the 10 loos.
It's poor design and absence of proper planning. I think instead of having the same amount of men's and women's toilets, they should have more for women, as we take longer for all sorts of reasons ( periods, taking in children and babies with you, single person cubicles rather than urinals.)

That is why it doesn't make any sense to allocate men's and women's toilets the same amount of space.

The aim should be the same (preferably no) amount of queuing. Then nobody is discriminated against.

I'm sure someone must have done some surveys on how long different people take, and how to balance things up to speed things up for all, not just men.

As others have said, you shouldn't be putting sinks and mirrors in any cubicles where there is likely to be a queue. That only slows things down.

Of course, my DH has remarked that most men don't seem to use the sinks to wash their hands anyway. Men are liable to pee in a corner somewhere rather than bother queuing. So that ensures men are always well served, and they can be lightning quick compared to women.

Yes dryers too nothing. I'd forgotten about those.

Another thing - although I’m ok with my 2 DS going to the men’s without me, I don’t necessarily want them waiting around for 10 mins when they’ve finished and I haven’t. So last time when I went to the theatre without DP, they went to the loo and I didn’t. That the ladies and gents were on different floors didn’t help either.

There are occasional beacons of hope. The Royal Opera House, since refurbishment a few years ago, is very good: there are masses of women's loos and I've never queued for long there. (And it is listed, so I agree that the issue is not listing preventing the creation of new facilities, but lack of will to improve things.)

But, shamefully, I can't think of any others.

The situation regarding toilets affects both men and women.
There will never be enough capacity to deal with the rush during intervals etc.
The answer is not to drink large amounts of liquid before the performance.

A theatre has been refurbished near us (they've done a lovely job keeping some of the bare plaster and decay). The reviews have remarked on the fact that because it was a female architect there are lots of women's loos and the men have to go further to get to their toilets. Makes a welcome change!

You know, the fact of toilet inequality due to differing needs has been known by architects and city planners for 40 years. And yet nothing changes. I see the difficulty with older buildings. But it’s not as if new buildings are taking this into account in the design.

Definitely worth watching the speech by Clara Greed, WPUK Bath.
She is a Professor of Inclusive Urban Planning & specialist in toilet provision with particular emphasis upon women's needs.
Its a great speech, fascinating and very important:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD92aLqgtTA

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3427591-WPUK-Bath-fascinating-important-speech-by-Clara-Greed-Professor-of-Inclusive-Urban-Planning-specialist-in-toilet-provision-with-particular-emphasis-upon-womens-needs

@Vicky1990

Yes, most of us have worked out not to drink large amounts of liquid before a performance.

Some of us still need to use the toilet even though we haven't drunk anything at all. Because we have a travel long distances to the nearest theatre or because we have medical conditions. I'm more likely to suffer from dehydration after a theatre trip, trying to avoid the huge queues and accidents.

I am an historic Buildings archaeologist and have worked on many extensions/alterations to listed buildings to upgrade toilet/kitchen facilities. More recently I have worked on projects in the Oxbridge colleges where the focus has been on lift extensions to accommodate disabled access into grade I and II buildings.

It can be done sensitively, costs a bit more money than an average extension, but it can be done. The fact that theatres with woeful facilities are mostly listed buildings should not be seen as a barrier or an obstacle.

lol @ poster asserting that this affects both men and women >

Person has presumably never been to any kind of event or show in their life
Or maybe has simply closed their eyes so as not to see the difference between the queue for the ladies and any queue (or probably none) for the gents

Also to go down the road of saying that anyone who needs a wee at the interval must be either

Irresponsibly consuming fluids
Or
Have an illness or disability

Is a ridiculous road to go down

It's perfectly normal to need a wee
It's perfecty normal to have a drink or drinks on a night out > I mean women aren't going to have much fun at gigs if they are banned from booze (massive queues for ladies between support and headline)
Things like being pregant / having small kids with you / being a small kid and going with mum are way more common for women (I beleive with pregnancy it's shockingly entirely women who are affected!)
Elderly women frequently have bladder issues and there are lots of them about

OH this is just as bad for both men and women I mean it's simple obvious in your face bollocks. So why say it? I mean it's just dickish really. Trying to SHAME women for needing the loo by telling them they have done something WRONG, and if you can't get by without, is it really necessary for you to go, huh?

Loss of public facilities has had a disproportionate effect on women and for some it means a loss of ability to access public life. It's not actually trivial.

Why do so much of womens conversations revolve around accessing toilets? Either we are weirdly obsessed - or - maybe - they mean a lot to us as a group? Only just realised that.

Certainly some women plan their trips out including to work on availability of toilets and if there are not enough available then they start having to make difficult choices.

I suppose this is why the incontinece products for women including pants > nappy things are so much more in evidence now? It's an effect of the loss / reduction of facilities, lots charge now (although I think some main line stations are going to stop) and so the cost has passed from the purses of those who used to provide facilities onto the purses of women.

Meanwhile urinals are much easier to find and men do tend to nip round a corner if they are caught short, which isn't great but something much less easy for women generally and impossible for some.

Best examples I've seen of the differential were admittedly not UK but on the continent where many stations had pay things on the doors, all had been arranged so that the women always had to pay but the men could pee for free. It's this kind of mindset that prevails. They will say it's because cubicles are more expensive to maintain > the impact is women always paying and men hardly ever.

If adequate provision of toilets for women was the norm we probably wouldn't talk much about it at all. People tend to focus on the things that create problems for them.

And no, expecting women not to consume liquids when outside the home is not in any way reasonable.

SittHakim Sat 05-Jan-19 22:40:50
There are occasional beacons of hope. The Royal Opera House, since refurbishment a few years ago, is very good: there are masses of women's loos and I've never queued for long there. (And it is listed, so I agree that the issue is not listing preventing the creation of new facilities, but lack of will to improve things.)

The only problem with the ROH loos, is that if the queue builds up suddenly, there will be several unoccupied loos looking as though they are in use. When I was there , no one was brave enough to go down the line pushing at the doors which all fall closed when they are empty.

But I do agree the actual loos are lovely. Fully enclosed, sinks in every one.

I was at the ballet at the Theatre Royal yesterday too and had to face queues extending way out the toilet. it took the whole interval to use the facilities for many women. I couldn't wait and used the one disabled toilet. No queues at the men's. I prefer single sex space toilets, I just think we need more for women.