Alarming News

May 27, 2005

What our City Council wasted our money on this week.

From a site called ‘Feministing’ that I found via Liberteaser:

This week NYC Council unanimously passed Women’s Restroom Equity Bill which establishes a 2-to-1 ratio for women’s restrooms in new public venues including, bars, restaurants and concert halls. Whoo-hoo!

From Wash Post:

“It’s a women’s rights accomplishment,” said council member Yvette D. Clarke (D), the bill’s chief sponsor. “It goes to the quality of life that we are able to enjoy in the city.”

So, now it’s a ‘right’ to have extra bathrooms for women. For the record, it isn’t feminist to act as if women are too retarded to find themselves a bathroom or be able to wait until they can.

Posted by Karol at 06:54 PM |
Technorati Tags:

To meet that quota, one of the urinals in the men’s restroom will have to be designated “Women only.”
Of course, you women will have learn a new technique. Here is one report:
This skill takes practice. “On my first attempt,” Denise told this reporter, “most of the pee went down my left leg. That was because I was applying too much pressure to one side of my lips [labia]. I tried an hour later, after my bladder had filled up again. This time no pee went down my leg. The stream went forward about 24 inches, but was a coarse spray. With each new attempt I got better. The whole key to success in my case was knowing exactly where to put my fingers, how much pressure to apply, and in what direction to push. After each attempt you get more familiar with the feel of things ‘down there’ and learn a little more about where to put your fingers to get the desired stream.
“In a way, it’s like learning how to whistle. You have to learn how to position your lips for the best results.”

Posted by: Jake at May 27, 2005 at 7:25 pm

i have to say, i resent being called retarded because i have to deal with menstruation. i mean, i don’t exactly like the process, but i’d rather take my time in the bathroom than bleed all over the barstool, thanks. when was the last time a man had to change a tampon? that can take some time. also, they don’t have to put down a seat cover when they need to pee. it’s anatomical.
i don’t like it being done with legislation (logic would be just fine if men weren’t so wierd about it), but i have been in buildings that had extra women’s restrooms, and everyone is a lot happier. especially small places, that have one “w” and one “mw.” the arrangement is especially swell — when a guy comes up he gets to go next, but the line of girls is minimized. good deal.

Posted by: candy girl at May 28, 2005 at 1:15 am

Because, of course, you see an equal number of men and women at football games.

Posted by: someone at May 28, 2005 at 2:38 am

I suppose that the free market is a new concept for my fellow New Yorkers.
If establishments wish to be seen as woman-friendly, then they should ensure that there are sufficient accomodations for women.
The same is true for any other group of customers including the disabled.
If I were to open a club or bar, I would probably accomodate the special needs of women (at least 1 full stall for woman per stall and urinal for men).
However, I would also take into account my clientel. Some establishments tend to have an uneaqual sexual ratio. If my establishment’s customers were predominantly male, I might have extra accomodations for men.
( I would do many other things first, like ensuring that the music did not drown out the conversations of patrons and creating an ordering-only area at the bar.)
Were someone else so inclined and had an establishment in certain neighborhoods, he or she might also create an additional unisex or even a transgendered WC.

Posted by: Ronl at May 28, 2005 at 3:58 am

i resent being called retarded
i don’t like it being done with legislation
I was saying that it being done through legislation implies that women are retarded. Like, we’re too dumb to take care of ourselves and the government has to step in and order establishments to get us more bathrooms.

Posted by: Karol at May 28, 2005 at 11:35 am

well, you did say “too retarded to find themselves a bathroom or be able to wait until they can,” not “so retarded that they force a women’s restroom equity bill.” the feministing people may be full of crap, but women don’t take longer in the bathroom because they’re dumb, and to say so implies that they shouldn’t even complain. the free market, lovely as it is, has its limits. it’s sometimes innovative, sure, but where there’s a status quo, nothing’s going to change unless people make a hell of a lot of noise. look at the cell phone industry and how bad service still is, when the market would suggest it should have improved leaps and bounds by now. not so much responsive.
it’s like the smoking thing: personally, i prefer smoke-free bars, and there are some around here that have warmed up to the idea, and while i don’t think the city should ever ban smoking in bars/restaurants, i don’t resent the people who mobilize to push the issue. in fact, i hope it results in a) the failure of the bill and b) more smoke-free bars. and also, less hating on women’s issues on the right side of the blogosphere. i mean, i know the word ‘conservative’ implies approval of the status quo, but ‘free market’ implies approval of rational change and progress — since when did the latter go out of style?

Posted by: candy girl at May 28, 2005 at 12:29 pm

No, I wrote ‘For the record, it isn’t feminist to act as if women are too retarded to find themselves a bathroom or be able to wait until they can’. Forcing this kind of legislation is acting like we’re too retarded to get ourselves to the bathroom. I wasn’t implying that women are dumb. I was stating that this type of legislation makes us look dumb.

Posted by: Karol at May 28, 2005 at 12:42 pm

I don’t know about women’s rights or anybody’s rights. It’s merely a matter of a woman being able to relieve herself and that’s something an establishment should be able to do without the need for legislation.

Posted by: Shawn at May 28, 2005 at 7:42 pm

Never, never again do I want to hear some whiny-but-cute chick ask me to ‘guard’ the men’s room door because she has to, HAS TO go RIGHT NOW.
Oh, and I don’t want to hear the tampon argument. In fact, I don’t ever want to hear the word ‘tampon.’ We live in a time when most women have their schedules down to the HOUR. Take care of that plumbing biz at home.
Then again, I’m just a tripod. I can be in-and-out of the room in 30 seconds (and yes, the hands get washed) and I don’t bleed from places where I haven’t been sliced, so let me tone it down a bit… provided it doesn’t tack on to my beer-to-urinal stopwatch, I don’t care.
Time to buy stock in United Plunger.

Posted by: Jay at May 29, 2005 at 2:47 am

Has a woman ever refused to go to a bar because you have to wait in line too long to go to the bathroom?
It seems like woman still go to these bars and the establishments know that so they have no incentive to change the status quo.
Just wondering if this whole free market argument has any ground….

Posted by: PAUL at May 29, 2005 at 8:48 am

It is illogical as a proposal. And it is extremely feminist. Feminist means to promote women. Feminise means to castrate men. This is the definition of the words, and feminists don’t care about logic, economics or fairness – just about making women more important than men.
Is it men’s fault that in an equal space men are able to relieve themselves more efficiently than women? Maybe if women stuck to drinking small glasses of wine and men drank large glasses of beer, then men would need to go twice as much as women, so even if we’re twice as fast it works out the same! This is called “Urination (or Pissing) Economics” – I mean when I am sat on an aeroplane and have to get over 2 seats to go to the toilet, I drink less than if I have an aisle seat. If the plane is busy and the queue to the loo is long, I drink less.
Another option is UNISEX facilities for toilet stalls. But have a small dedicated area where REAL men can go if they wanna stand up and piss into a hole.

Posted by: Monjo at June 1, 2005 at 7:49 am
Post a comment