While on vacation last week, I saw a sign at the airport for a “Family Restroom.” It was a private room, not a stall, with sink and changing table included. Nice idea. The sign, however, was clearly meant to portray an opposite-sex couple and their children. (My later reconstruction to the right; at the time, my camera was packed so I couldn’t snap the real thing.)
This seems like yet another reinforcement of the “traditional family” configuration. I got to thinking, though: What exactly would a more inclusive sign look like? Would it be so bad just to imagine these were two moms, one in pants and one in a skirt? Would it defeat the purpose of an understandable sign to show an opposite-sex couple, a lesbian couple (two skirted figures), and a gay male couple (two figures in pants), plus kids? That would be pretty cluttered. What about single parents? Maybe this should be one case where we go with the majority representation, for simplicity’s sake. Or will this send the wrong message to our kids? And regardless of sexual orientation, is it a bit old fashioned to show the woman in a skirt? Would putting her in pants, but giving her hips and a busom, be any better? How would this affect the little girl icon? Should we do away with the icons altogether?
Thoughts from you, readers, especially those with backgrounds in graphic design? Send me your images, and I’ll post them. How can such a sign be straightforward without being, well, straight forward?
Do you think maybe you’re thinking too much? Because you could extend this to the point that it’s unrecognizable as a symbol for “family”. Some families don’t have children. Some families (like mine) only have one child, and it’s a girl, not a boy. I don’t wear a skirt often at all, but every bathroom I go into has a woman with a skirt. Are they promoting skirts only for women? I am always quick to point out to my daughter that men can wear kilts… Not to say that things shouldn’t change ever, but this is not an entirely broken design, just because you’re not doing things the way it’s shown in the sign. The whole point of the family bathroom design is to point out that members of opposite sexes can go in there together. Maybe that should be true of all bathrooms – that would maybe work better than changing the design of the sign (especially for families and transgendered folks!). I dunno… just something to think about.
Incidentally, I really enjoy your blog – found it about a month ago. Thanks.
Oh, it’s entirely possible I’m thinking too much. Post-vacation brain. That’s why I asked whether we should change the sign or if this should be one case where we go with the majority representation. I wanted to get readers’ input, though, since I suspect different folks have different views on the matter, and different solutions that make sense to them.
You make a good point, though, that perhaps we should rethink all bathroom signage, especially because of family and trans issues.
Glad you like the blog, and thanks for adding to the discussion.
I think that icons are very useful — not everyone can read, not everyone who can read can read the dominant language. I often bristle at the dress-for-woman icon, but it is a well understood icon, and I think the notion that I need big breasts to be a woman might offend me more! I would look at this one as a depiction of all those who are allowed in the bathroom, rather than a depiction of an ideal family. All possible configurations (and you didn’t even mention grand-parent headed families!) would require a mural!
And I *love * the family bathrooms! They rock! I use them when available even when my daughter and I are alone because they are much safer (she can’t escape me).
And Liberty fans here too!
My thought is that, while I certainly wouldn’t mind a sign change, nationwide we aren’t going to see it.
There are too many husband/wife family arrangements, and the icons really are for people who can’t read. It’s recognizable. Whether it fits your, mine, or any alternative family, we still know what it is. Any other arrangement, and WE could probably figure it out, but 90% of the population would go into immediate chaos and have severe bathroom problems. You know it’s true.
And assuming there are even 4 million gay families across the country (probably more) we would be wanting to change hundreds of millions of bathroom signs. There must be several thousand bathroom signs in each city? A thousand cities or more per state?
It’s a losing battle, that’s my thought, although I wouldn’t mind some generic icons. Stick figures are generic and we could show two big stick figures and some little ones. Will it happen? No. And quite frankly I’m afraid now that if we continue this line of thought, some Republican will introduce the Defense of Family Bathroom Signs Act. You think I’m kidding, but after these last few years, unfortunately I’m serious.
I’m giving up on this battle (generic family representation, in all aspects of life), Kristin still wants me to play the mommy when we play. She’s never had a mom, and when I play one for her, I do exactly what I do each and every day so she can see there is no difference between me and a mom, but still it is so prevalent.
Her play families (with her dolls) always have a mommy and a daddy, in spite of the fact that her exposure to that environment has been fairly limited. She’s met the moms of some classmates at school or at the park, but she’s never really seen a male/female family together nor had a sleepover at a friends house with an arrangement like that where she can see first hand. Nothing except some tv shows like Calliou or Fairly Odd Parents where they have a mom and dad.
Yet still, every family she ‘creates’ is always mom/dad, never two dads.
*shrugging* It would drive me nuts if I didn’t just let that go. But that’s her and me.
Iconography is both really useful and a curse. Iconography in computer programmes for example is getting out of control and making things less efficient and easy to use.
However, the family bathroom pictured above does kinda drive me nuts. What would be wrong with just showing an adult with a child? Does the WHOLE family need to go in there? Nope, those bathrooms are for any adult accompanied by one or more children.(With an exception of course for a mom if she needs to pump because baby is at home without her, but I can’t imagine that comes up much)
The other one that annoys me is the baby bottle. A lot of family rooms up here have a baby bottle icon on them. Which is hilarious because they are mostly for BREASTFEEDING moms, formula feeding moms do not generally go hide when they are feeding baby. I am sure formula feeding moms appreciate a comfy chair as much as the next person. And I know they run hot water over bottles to heat up formula and that in a pinch you could use the hand soap to wash a bottle if it were to get dirty.
Where is my breastfeeding icon? And if I see one more kids alphabet that says B is for bottle I am gonna scream. There are lots of fun words that start with B. Things that all children know, things like balls, books, baby, balloon, bear.
Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » LGBT Diversity on Television
The Target in Tanforan has a unisex — it actually says that — bathroom (in addition to the traditional men’s and women’s. The icons showed a male and female figure along with the wheelchair icon. Unfortunately, according to the icons, children aren’t allowed. 8^)
P.S., take a look at this if you get a chance.
Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » New “Friends for Families” Networking Site Wants LGBT Feedback
I for one am offended by these signs. My legs are more proportionate to the rest of my body than these signs are depicting. This is really concerning to me because fashion designers might happen upon these signs and think that all people are built this way and begin designing pants that will no longer fit us “proportionates”. Will I be forced to wear one of the very pointy and angular skirt/dress that short and tall transvestites/women that are being depicted are wearing? Or do you think that the same fashion designer will have enough forethought to correct that design as well? But what if the fashion designer is Gucci or Donatella Versace and they begin charging too much money for these designs and the people in the signs can no longer afford the clothing that they are being forced to wear? Will they be fired from their jobs as gender depictionists because of their social and economic status? Will these signs suddenly become blank because the stick figures were let go? What message will this send to our children? Will they all grow up being snobs? Will they all shed the clothing that was purchased for them to defend the stick figures? Will they begin to revolt and no longer use restrooms and begin urinating in public to stand up for the rights of the stick figure? Will they seek out plastic surgeons to get their legs shrunk and there torso’s lengthened? Will they get boobectomies to mimic the women figures? Will little boys and girls learn that they are only allowed to stand next to similarly clothed persons? Will they learn that in public that they must stand “male to male to female to female” and that little girls can not stand next to dad (assuming that the guy being depicted is dad and not Pedro the pool boy). And how do we know that is really mom? She kind of looks like the neighbors hot college age daughter to me; what will that teach our children?
Just kidding, this really won’t happen and it really is not concerning to me; after all, these are only signs pointing people were they can go to change diapers and freshen up as a family. What really makes me angry are the signs that “warns” of black people crossing the street ahead; the government has brainwashed us in to thinking that they are “pedestrian crossing” signs…
Pingback: Reason #1, perhaps, why straight mums might envy the bejesus out of us? at LesbianDad
Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Icons, Images, and Invisibility