|Women's rights back in the headlines ...||HouseMoney|
Dec 5, 2003 5:23 AM
|The "Restroom Equity Bill".
Despite all the recent mundane topics dominating the news (war in Iraq, '04 primaries, judicial filibusters, etc.), it's good to see that there are lawmakers out there willing to tackle the really serious issues of the day!
My suggestion to reduce waiting lines would be to enact a law prohibiting women from going to the ladies room in pairs.
|so much for limited government... :-| nm||DougSloan|
Dec 5, 2003 7:11 AM
Dec 5, 2003 7:22 AM
|Every stadium or event center built in the last 10 years has significantly more women's restrooms than men. Some even have restrooms that "convert," or can go either way, depending on the event. It didn't take a law to do it.|
|This is already happening||ColnagoFE|
Dec 5, 2003 7:51 AM
|Went to an Indigo Girls concert earlier this year and they had converted all but one of the bathrooms to women's for the night.|
|Lemme 'splain the problem for you constitutional purists....||Cory|
Dec 5, 2003 10:18 AM
|When I met my wife, I was covering car racing for a couple of magazines, so I spent most of my summer weekends on the road. Even at the major tracks--Watkins Glen, Laguna Seca, Road Atlanta--they had pretty crude facilities, often portapotties, and when they were divided by gender, the numbers were equal. ALWAYS, the men's cans would sit empty while 10, 20 women or more lined up outside theirs.
No mystery here, and it's not just that silly little women thing: It takes longer to undo the belt, pull down the pants (but not so far they fall into the swamp), arrange the Bush Campaign Hat to shield you from the seat, find a comfortable position, do it, tidy up, pull up the pants, tuck in the shirt and fasten the belt than it does to whip it out and shake it off.
I used to stand guard at the men's john for her, but it was weird how women would watch her go in and out, but still keep standing in their own line like sheep.
At least around here, they no longer differentiate portable poopers by gender. But I suppose that won't work with a 12-stall restroom.
|Building code issue||torquer|
Dec 5, 2003 1:54 PM
|New York City is behind (most of) the rest of the world on this issue.
Building codes have generally been moving towards sexual inequality in the number of required plumbing fixtures in public buildings; the International Building Code (recently adopted by the rest of New York State) for instance, requires group A-1 assembly spaces (theatres with fixed seats, for instance) to provide 1 WC per 125 male occupants, vs. 1 WC per 65 women. (Urinals may be substituted for up to 65% of the men's WCs.)
New York City maintains its own building code (at least for the time being) which mandates 1 WC for each sex for each 150 persons (with a similar urinal substitution permitted.)
This proposal sounds like a move towards the IBC formulas.
The biggest problem in planning these kinds of buildings, however, is the changing use of the facilities; Madison Square Garden probably has plenty of women's accomodations for a WWF event, but what about the next night, when Tom Jones is performing? Maybe a movable divider between men's & women's rooms might make sense, or else a third set of bathrooms could be set aside for whichever gender predominates at any particular event. Unfortunately, it's hard to write a prescriptive building code that allows for the flexibility needed for these kinds of adaptations.