|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 01:54 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have an idea for a better solution for the women who are whining about restroom equality that is fair to everyone:
Keep the number of restrooms equal, but require that the number of toilets in the women's room equal the number of toilets plus urinals in the men's room (with the men's room itself having at least as many toilets as urinals). The reason that the feminists are whining is that often the number of toilets only is the same in both restrooms. Since men can use urinals and women cannot (for obvious physical reasons), this is where the feminists get the idea that they have fewer facilities available. Does my idea sound fair or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 05:22 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This solution is called "water closet parity." Another solution would have been to install female urinals. It was tried a couple of times, but women would not use them; seems women demanded more privacy even from other women.
Which leads to my other point. If the city granted women parity in the number of toilets, the least it could have done is grant men parity in the quality of restrooms—specifically privacy. Although the stalls in ladies rooms ensure the gals privacy, the ladies room is also usually furnished with an extra door or a strategic right angle for even greater privacy. Mens rooms, on the other hand, have urinals by the door—sometimes unsheilded—and far less concession to privacy than the dumpster around the corner. A second door is only pipe dream. Bathrooms at Shea Stadium, for instance, used to have 4 or 5 urinals visible to the public whenever the door opened or whenever there was a line. (There was always a group of women by the door "waiting for someone." You could wave at them.)
In addition, ladies rooms are sometimes equiped with lounges (not to mention changing tables). In my former job, the ladies room had an attendant check at least twice a day to make sure that there was toilet paper and paper towels.
The law was a concession to feminists and the woman-coddling press more than anything. At the NYC Public Library main branch, a rather large building, there was a restroom for men and one for women on the top floor and a similar set in the basement. To comply with this law they closed the basement men's room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:57 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good point!
I used to work for a company that only had one restroom for each gender but to be equal took the urinal out of the men’s because the women's toilet didn't have room for a second stall.
I found not having a second place to go to be very inconvenient as the restrooms were for both employees and customers. There were several times I wished there had been a urinal in the men's especially when I had only a 10 min break and the only toilet available was in use by a customer who wasn't on a time schedule. You often had to use your break time to wait outside the restroom. There were times that, to have had a second toilet or urinal in the men’s room, I would have built the women ten for every one we had.
Another thing to consider is that women, on the average, need to urinate more often then men and I would guess that because of the physical differences they more time to go whereas a man can just (please excuse the term) "whip it out" and go.
You ever go to an event such as a baseball game or concert and see the lines to the women's restrooms verses the lines to the men's. I always thing how lucky I am.
Personally women having more restrooms than men is a non-issue with me and I think that claiming that its discrimination is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 09:06 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Personally women having more restrooms than men is a non-issue with me and I think that claiming that its discrimination is ridiculous."
Well it is discrimination, although I agree it's ridiculous and pretty much a non-issue. The point here is that the politicians who run New York wasted taxpayers time and money to come up with this very ridiculous law. I don't know for certain about New York City, but in my neck of the woods the only places I ever see women in line for the bathroom is at sporting events or very crowded bars on weekend nights. Certainly there's no demand for every office building, restaraunt, factory, etc. to double the number of women's restrooms, (or do what's cheaper and what they'll probably do, half the number of men's) in order to eliminate lines that don't exist. Of course, the fact that women are largely to blame for this, (because they often choose to invite all their friends every time they go to the bathroom, and have refused to use female urinals where available), is ignored, as is the point which follows it that if there really was significant demand to eliminate the lines, they could solve it themselves simply by modifying their own behavior. But feminists instead want the law to tell everyone else to modify the world according to how women choose to act, whether it be how they go to the bathroom or whatever else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 08:51 AM May 31st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
in europe they sell a cardboard item that a woman can use to pee standing up like a man (its dispensed in machines).
there is also a push to make it illegal for men to stand and pee (how to police it i will not speculate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 05:26 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Now there is even less excuse for women committing the sex crime of barging into the men's room. (We are, after all, completely exposed there.) Any woman that does should experience a size 11 where the sun don't shine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, there is nothing inherrent about female anatomy that makes women take longer to pee. On the contrary, women actually pee faster than men because the plumbing is shorter. What takes them more time is their refusal to wear clothing that is convenient. Providing stupid women with double cost, double facilities is discrimination, not "parity."
Second, a century after indoor plumbing became standard the building codes do not require any plumbing for men in homes and hotels. It is provided at public places, but left out of our homes. If the NYC council had any concern for equal rights they would have figured out that men can no longer be expected to pee out behind the barn or in the street with the horses. Men's plumbing in our homes is a century overdue. We live there too.
Bob
Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 PM June 1st, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It's only natural for the feminista to think that all women are as full of shit as they are. Hence? The "feminist law"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 10:48 AM June 3rd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
One thing about the law is its inflexibility. Like most laws intended to benefit women, they go too far and allow few, if any, exceptions. One would think that the law would create allowances for venues where men are the clear majority, e.g., sports arenas. But no, the needs of men are never a priority.
Imagine: now NYC gay bars will have to have twice as many ladies rooms. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
SJones writes "In New York City, the feminist city government unanimously passed a law requiring all new buildings to have 2 women's bathrooms for every 1 men's bathroom. The blatant discrimination is explained away with the usual bullcrap about how equality really discriminates against women and thus must be redefined. The disgusting article is