From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:29:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2193344@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <95kn83p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>>>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>>>womens room than the mens?
>
>>Where do you get these numbers? 
>
>I suspect these numbers are incorrect...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I think we
>can safely state that it *does*, on average, take a woman longer to pee
>than it takes a man.  (If you disagree with this, I'm willing to discuss
>it further; if you agree, let's proceed.)
>
>>BTW, this is not "equal" by any measure that I know of. And this is one
>>reason why I think strict equal treatment will not work. If you want
>>equal treatment, then the number of bathroom fixtrues should be about the
>>same. If you want equal utilization, the womans room will require 
>>more fixtures, and more floor space and plumbing, etc...
>
>Why should "equal treatment" have anything to do with the number of
>fixtures?  Since the fixtures are different (men have urinals as well as
>toilets) and urinals are not usable by women, it would be sort of
>pointless to give women an equal number of urinals.  It would be
>counterproductive to remove the urinals from the men's room and then
>give each group equal numbers of toilets, since the idea is not to make
>things worse for men.

Gee Muffy, I went to so much trouble to say "bathroom fixtures" rather
than using anything gender specific, and you missed it completely. I'm
crushed!!!  :^)
 
>A better measure of "equality" would be "waiting time."  

As you say, this is one measure. And all other things being equal,
it would make sense. But all other things are not equal, and waiting
time is not a strictly a function of the number of fixtures.

>                                                          Especially
>since it's not the time peeing that is important, but the time standing
>there *needing* to pee...*grin*.  If there is no waiting time, the
>facilities are clearly adequate (or more than adequate).  Now, if it
>*does* take women longer to pee, then their waiting time would be
>reduced if they were given additional toilets, correct?

Agreed, additional toilets -would- decrease waiting time. BTW, I did not
originate the "equal" argument, it was in the original post, and I
followed from it directly.

>There are many ways to measure things.  The trick is to choose the one
>that *matters*.  Do you count the urinals/toilets or how many minutes
>you wait in line, bladder aching?  (Well, *if* you've ever experienced
>that.)

Actually, I have never counted either, have you? :^) But once or twice,
I have had an aching bladder, and the tequila had -nothing- to do with
it. It was the beer I washed it down with.
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism