|
January 14, 2009
Equal holes for all?
The so-called "potty parity" movement is something I've had fun ridiculing in the past, but never took seriously. However, laughing at politically correct nonsense does not make it go away, because I've learned that over time, ridiculous things tend to become deadly serious. Via an email from a friend, I've learned that his time, "potty parity" has emerged as a national inaugural issue: A George Washington University law professor says the 5,000 port-o-potties planned for Inauguration Day will be "grossly inadequate."If women taking longer amounts to "discrimination," then men are "discriminating" every time they urinate standing up! This means that not only are urinals discriminatory by their very nature, but men should be forced to sit on toilets just like women. Either that or make everyone stand to do everything, by means of a hole in the floor the way they do in much of Asia. Unfortunately, I can't find any statement anywhere from Barack Obama addressing the "potty parity" issue. Does he believe in equal, non-discriminatory holes? Will anyone in our fearless media ask? posted by Eric on 01.14.09 at 10:55 AM
Comments
1. There are never enough port o potties. 2. Aren't they all gender neutral. I have never seen port o potties at outdoor events designated male or female. It is always first come-stand in line. ctb · January 14, 2009 11:37 AM I've read that in Germany, some places (and some peoples' homes) require men to sit to use the bathroom. My response to that is, "Sitzpinklen? Nie! Ich bin keine Frau!" John S. · January 14, 2009 12:31 PM The only reason you think it's funny is because you've never stood in line for 25 minutes listening to women scream at their potty-shy toddlers while the guy you're at the show with whizzes in and out of the mens' room in under five. It's not funny. It doesn't rise to the level of federal legal intervention--quilt shows manage to turn convention center men's rooms into temporary ladies' rooms without the insistance of Congress--but it's not funny. Heather · January 14, 2009 03:42 PM These are PORTA POTTIES -- not men's rooms and women's room. Since all porta potties are single-holers, only a moron would designate them "bouys" and "gulls" (or whatever cutsie lable you want for men and women). So where is the gender discrimination? (Or are Democrats morons?) Mark L · January 14, 2009 04:08 PM At fairs and such around here, there are multiple-holed porta-potty trailers, one for men and one for women. So maybe they're not single-holers. No matter how they are designated, there won't be enough of them. Donna B. · January 14, 2009 05:43 PM Obama....Redistributing our pee and poo! Let's see just how well his new staff deals with this? Bloggers...you are on standby. New York Times...Make it work! Penny · January 15, 2009 04:04 AM Penny · January 15, 2009 04:07 AM This is a test. Next test in 12 hours. Penny · January 15, 2009 04:09 AM It doesn't matter if there are only men going to the Inauguration: 5,000 loos for 1-2 million potential folks is a disaster. At least it will cold enough that it won't smell so bad. Mr. Bingley · January 15, 2009 07:45 AM When there's a line behind you, don't waste time on non-essentials such as combing one's hair. It's an ancient, but never outdated, social tool called consideration. No law required. Brett · January 15, 2009 08:34 AM Split the difference and say 1.5 million people. Guess that everybody needs to go twice in 8 hours. Then each visit has to spend 75 seconds or less: men, women or diaper changes. James · January 15, 2009 03:41 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2009
December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
We Can Work It Out
A Crack Down On Guns Is Coming A Conversation About Ending Prohibition The Road To Serfdom Defeating The War On Terror Good Journalism A Certain Lack Of Solidarity Hamas Is Breaking A Big Motor For The Electric Navy Equal holes for all?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
One reason for separate men's and women's facilities is women's perception that men leave the facility less hygenic than they found it. (Don't know where they got that idea.) Since Porta-Potties are not that great anyway in terms of cleanliness and odor, making them all gender-neutral solves the problem easily without offending anyone's sensibilities any more than the Porta-Potty already offends them.