Gut Rumbles

January 22, 2006

Can't be!

I thought suggesting that men and wimmen aren't "equal" today was some sort of blasphemy, the very height of political-INcorrectness and male chauvinism. Evidently it's NOT when the issue is taking a leak.

The new push, which is quietly making its way into construction standards around the world, says restrooms should provide two to three times as many "outlets" for women as for men. In that sense, "potty parity" bills offer women more than parity: It may finally trim the long lines for women's rooms at theaters, stadiums, and highway rest stops.

"It's a good thing," says Kari Roberts of Reading, Mass., a shopper at the Prudential Center Mall in Boston. She says the wait time for restrooms "needs to be the same" for both men and women.

Bejus! "Parity" now means having two to three times as many pissers as the guys do, because the wait time "needs to be the same." That's the modern definition of "equality" if I ever saw it: just alike, except MORE for ME.

Of course, if I were a woman, I would be all for this idea. I'm a MAN and I'm STILL all for this idea. If I had to wait in line the way wimmen do to hit the can, I would have pissed all over myself in public numerous times. Hell, I HAVE pissed all over myself in public numerous times and it's embarrassing.

But don't mention "parity" to describe this idea. Have the fucking honesty to admit that men and wimmen have different plumbing, they wear different garb, and it flat-out takes a woman longer to empty her clam than it does for a man to drain his lizard.

Plus, we men don't have to daub the dew off the lily with half a roll of toilet paper, apply a fresh coat of war paint and then gossip with friends before getting out of the shitter, either. But that's all beside the point. It's a CRISIS, for crying out loud, and of COURSE lawyers and the government should respond to it.

"I'm pushing the idea of filing federal complaints, in other words, making a federal case out of potty parity," Professor Banzhaf says. He argues that to ignore potty parity "constitutes a form of sex discrimination ... and violates the constitutional tenet of equal protection."

Sure it does. It's the perfect opportunity for government to get involved in regulating the amount of time it takes everyone to pee. Why not? Government already dictates how much water we can use to flush. This is simply the next logical step.

And we can always use another law.


see, now why are guys ever forced to piss all over themselves if they are equipped to water the garden when & wherever they need? why, just last week one of our interns at my job saw fit to urinate on a cosntruction site, while the rest of his company (us girls) were forced to use the loo. men are relaly blessed in that regard, no?

Posted by: erica on January 22, 2006 12:08 PM

By reading the article I found The World Toilet Organization. And then I found

Bad Ass! SimCity-Urinals!

BTW, women wouldn't have to wait so goddamned long in line if they sqauted over a sewer grate to piss.

Posted by: brian on January 22, 2006 03:43 PM

Real life is funnier than most comedians.

Posted by: maxnnr on January 22, 2006 04:35 PM

Banzhaf needs to piss off.

Posted by: BlogDog on January 22, 2006 05:55 PM

Whatever it takes to keep wimmin out of men's restrooms, I say.

Damnit! That should be the *one place* where a man can go about his business without a woman looking over his shoulder!

Posted by: Desert Cat on January 22, 2006 09:34 PM

From as little as I was, I can always remember my momma telling me: "You should have thought about that before we left the house."
What's changed?
Besides everyone becoming so pussified?

Posted by: KurtP on January 22, 2006 11:40 PM

I am a bit mystified at the "takes more time than" thing. I work in a building where the restrooms are back to back and several times when I have gone into the john at the same time as a woman was going into hers, I have been suprised that I'd just be getting started when she'd be flushing and gone. To have beat her, I'd have had to step inside the door, start and finish without ever unzipping. Just go in my pants.
As for the need for more johns in the Ladies than there are in the Men's, there are already codes that make that a fact. There don't need to be a ton of additional laws put on the books for this. The international plumbing code mandates so many fixtures per "X" numbers of occupants and the women get more than do the men. Plus, if I am the owner of a new building, no one will prevent me from putting in a bunch more if my customers are willing to pay for them. It goes back to simple economics.

Posted by: Oran Woody on January 23, 2006 03:02 PM

If you have a room of 40 people, 20 men and 20 women, there'll be two men in the Men's and six in the Ladies' toilets (even allowing for the gossip and remake-up activities).

Nah, women just need to pee more often than men do, plain fact. In one night, the20 men will account for 16 toilet visits, while the 20 women will account for 30 toilet visits.

Give them more damn toilets -- it's just one less reason for them to bitch at us.

Posted by: Kim du Toit on January 23, 2006 04:36 PM

It won't matter how many toilets you put in the Ladies room, they'll still be standing in line.

You'll never see a line to the Men's room because there are sinks as well as urinals and toilets in there.

Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on January 23, 2006 09:10 PM

Based on my recent experience, I think this proposed standard is already de-facto law here in the US.

We just finished building a new research lab for joint government and academic use. The number of women's commodes is equal to or perhaps 5-10% greater than the number of men's commodes and urinals.

The kicker is that our population, being composed mostly of high-speed EE/CS types, is overwhelmingly male (causes of this situation are suitable for past and future posts). We have so few women on the staff that each of them can literally have their own personal commode.

Of course, when I suggested same to management, I was told to shut up and color....

Posted by: Grumpy Old Ham on January 24, 2006 12:47 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.