tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post2454658638593285000..comments2023-06-20T08:58:21.148+02:00Comments on UnCommon Sense: The Toilet Debate - a historical deconstructionNatachahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09532525333184486294noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-68198159078866284052011-04-13T17:12:22.824+02:002011-04-13T17:12:22.824+02:00without going back so far in the Victorian age... ...without going back so far in the Victorian age... in Italy such kind of "single-sex" facilities were in use up to the 80s;<br />the first double-sex toilets were seen as something "funny", if not "dangerous" for the health of women (and of course for the unconscious (?) feeling of superiority of men.<br />Now, here the idea of reverting to no-sex toilets (in public or private places) is something that scares mostly men, exactly as they are scared by women using male-toilets when "the queue in the ladies' is too long"...Scimmiettarossahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178675611120814892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-44979631906208286632010-09-10T12:28:28.976+02:002010-09-10T12:28:28.976+02:00I suspect here a crucial issue is being overlooked...I suspect here a crucial issue is being overlooked in this. That of class. It is all very well bashing xy-males who are content with their masculinity for all the ills in the world, you do that if you want to but many women worked in victorian times many women were out the house for long periods. This is a very narrow view. One of the reasons for female fashions, long nails restrictive dress etc was to adverstise social status, to indicate you did not break you nails in manual labour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-84681071273601798732010-09-09T17:15:13.707+02:002010-09-09T17:15:13.707+02:00Interesting article, especially as now using the t...Interesting article, especially as now using the toilet has become an issue in one of my work locations.<br /><br />@Marthatgo - I wonder, for those brave early pioneers getting out a farther distance, if this restriction build women's social networks. A women might not venture a day's trip to London without relatives or friends in London who would have private facilities.Jill Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02721594673135874457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-88774328558749984232010-08-30T03:53:58.935+02:002010-08-30T03:53:58.935+02:00@The Heresiarch
I see this argument as 'chic...@The Heresiarch <br /><br />I see this argument as 'chicken and egg' as to which element of the world of prejudice and limitation come first and predominate, but notably the first women to break out of this, the bravest and potentially highest achieving of their generation, would have been dissuaded for some time by the gross impracticality, and only when numbers (and their husbands) were clamouring for facilities would they start to be provided. Thus the status quo lasted much longer before women found a full place in the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-82049057956270443752010-08-29T23:03:42.987+02:002010-08-29T23:03:42.987+02:00The Hereseiach, Darkwaterfairy
The reason that wo...The Hereseiach, Darkwaterfairy<br /><br />The reason that women didn't go out for long periods was because they lived in a society in which they were forced to spend most of their time at home, as such the lack of toilets was a natural extension of this. I don't think I stated that it was a conscious decision, the oppression of women was so ingrained in the culture of the day that conscious decisions were not necessary. However decisions not to build them would have been affected by the preceived need to ensure that women "didn't get above their station" and "knew their place".<br /><br />Have a look at Penner (2001) A world of unmentionable suffering: Women’s public conveniences in Victorian London, Journal of Design 14(2): 35-51<br /><br />Halfpingjack;<br /><br />My apologies, I of course m,eant cismenNatachahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09532525333184486294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-59162749205616165152010-08-29T22:41:25.003+02:002010-08-29T22:41:25.003+02:00Interesting point as to existance of toilets in th...Interesting point as to existance of toilets in the past. But may I ask, do you have any citable sources for this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-54370374233202901402010-08-29T18:52:33.015+02:002010-08-29T18:52:33.015+02:00"men, most of whom are termed 'gender def..."men, most of whom are termed 'gender defenders' by Kate Bornstein, would like to see transgender people's restrictions on taking part in civil and public life restricted"<br /><br />I think you mean to specify *cis* men, as "transgender people" includes trans men, who obviously would like to take part in civil and public life unrestricted!halfpintjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07438763722942934154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2734974921464511593.post-85237228258199721732010-08-29T18:47:52.369+02:002010-08-29T18:47:52.369+02:00During much of the Victorian period public toilets...<i>During much of the Victorian period public toilets existed only for men and there was a reason for this; to control women. Public toilets allow people to stay out, away from their home, for long periods. This meant that men were able to travel, to work, to do business, to engage in political and civil activity in ways which women were not</i>.<br /><br />I think you've got this entirely back to front. It was because women did not stay out of doors for long periods, and were largely restricted to the private sphere, that no-one thought it necessary to install public facilities for them. The notion that public toilets were men-only as a conscious mechanism for controlling women is, I must say, utterly ludicrous. When society changed and women did start to go out into the business world, ladies' loos soon followed.Heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03515376670031027455noreply@blogger.com