As their Presidential nominee was spreading the myth of gender equity that "women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men" his Democratic colleagues in Congress were pushing for a different kind of equality, porcelain parity.
Congressmen Ed Towns (D-NY-6%) and Yvette Clarke (D-NY-6%) have sent around a "Dear Colleague" asking Members to support H.R. 693, Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Buildings Act of 2007. According to the letter the bill will
"require any federal building constructed for public use, with a total expenditure in excess of $1,500,000, to have a 2 to 1 ratio for women and men's restrooms."
In case you were wondering this is all done at taxpayer expense.
The letter was filled with wonderful facts such as
"According to the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), individuals vary significantly in the frequency with which they need to urinate and defecate, with pregnant women and women with stress incontinence needing to urinate more frequently."
Uhhh, may I ask why OSHA is studying such things? I would think it is not really an issue taxpayers would take (forgive me) sitting down.
Senator Craig (R-WY) was unavailable for comment.
Comments (2)
Are you seriously asking why OSHA would be studying issues affecting workplace health and safety? Bathrooms aren't glamorous, but they are reasonably necessary.
It's not clear from this post if your concern is about the idea that women and men have different bathroom habits, or that these differences should be accomodated, or that the government should get involved in addressing it in their own workplaces.
Nonetheless, when you see a line outside the women's room while the men's room is empty, you might try to satisfy your curiousity by looking into why, and depending on the answer you might want to do something about it. I know I would.
June 26, 2008 1:54 AM | Comment Permalink
I have a simpler solution: unisex toilets. One room for men and women, all the toilets in cubicles. Consider these advantages:
- Safety: It may sound counterintuitative, but mixed sexes means twice the traffic going in and out. It's hard to commit a crime when there is a high chance of being interupted. Also, with all the toilets in cubicles, the rest of the room can be put on CCTV without worrying about seeing anything more private than the application of makeup.
- Savings: The unisex toilet room can be smaller than the male+female pair. Cheaper to build, and cheaper to clean and maintain.
- Politics: All those annoying worries about political correctness? Gone in an instant. Everyone becomes perfectly equal, gender and orientation now a non-issue.
Would anyone like to offer some downsides to my suggestion?
June 29, 2008 4:26 PM | Comment Permalink