Do we really need Potty Parity?

[Woody]

or is this just something for the lawmakers to do with their time?

Lawmakers push potty parity

By Dawn Lim dlim@govexec.com May 12, 2010 Lawmakers can't hold it any longer. They're pushing for potty parity again in the federal workplace.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members expressed support during a May 12 hearing for the 2010 Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Building Act (H.R. 4869), which would require new or renovated federal buildings to have an equal number of restroom facilities for both sexes.

"Public restrooms have been the site of institutional discrimination by race, physical ability and gender," said Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., committee chairman and the bill's main sponsor. Towns added, "Women are often forced to wait in long lines to use public restrooms, [while] men rarely have the same problem."

RELATED STORIESBurning Question: Do federal buildings need potty parity? 03/18/10 Potty parity: First Democrats, then bureaucrats? 08/25/08 He blamed this on the fact that public buildings were built "before women had entered the workforce in large numbers, [during] a time when contractors, architects, engineers, builders and government procurement officials, were overwhelmingly male, and rarely considered the needs of women."

This is the second time Towns has tried to pass legislation establishing federal restroom parity. A 2007 bill requiring twice as many toilets in women's restrooms in federal facilities as the number of toilets and urinals in men's restrooms, stalled.

Robert Peck, commissioner of Public Buildings for the General Services Administration who testified at Wednesday's hearing, said gender parity in bathrooms has not been a priority at the agency. "We're mostly an office environment. We don't get the surge that you get at a ballgame or in a concert during intermission," he said.

The agency, which provides office space for more than 1 million federal employees and contractors, said its facility standards in most cases require an equal number of toilets in women's and men's bathrooms. Women's toilets outnumber men's toilets and urinals by a 3-2 ratio in its training and conference facilities, Peck said.

"I was not aware of any complaints ... that indicate we have an inadequate number of women's facilities versus men's," said Peck, but he acknowledged GSA has more than 500 buildings built before the 1950s.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the committee's ranking member, was concerned the bill's mandated ratios would be arbitrary. He asked if there should be "further study to get the numbers more broadly right in the sense of future flexibility," to avoid implementing a blanket ruling for "a place that has surge versus one that doesn't, a place where women are younger versus older, a place where women are in evening gowns or flats."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., said, "Studies just delay this decision."

Towns agreed with Watson. "We really want to move this forward...We do not need a lot of studies. I think this has been studied," he said.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0510/051210d1.htm

[Dottie]

If this is the most important thing on his mind, he needs to find something worthwhile to do.

[phkrause]

or is this just something for the lawmakers to do with their time?

Lawmakers push potty parity

By Dawn Lim dlim@govexec.com May 12, 2010 Lawmakers can't hold it any longer. They're pushing for potty parity again in the federal workplace.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members expressed support during a May 12 hearing for the 2010 Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Building Act (H.R. 4869), which would require new or renovated federal buildings to have an equal number of restroom facilities for both sexes.

"Public restrooms have been the site of institutional discrimination by race, physical ability and gender," said Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., committee chairman and the bill's main sponsor. Towns added, "Women are often forced to wait in long lines to use public restrooms, [while] men rarely have the same problem."

RELATED STORIESBurning Question: Do federal buildings need potty parity? 03/18/10 Potty parity: First Democrats, then bureaucrats? 08/25/08 He blamed this on the fact that public buildings were built "before women had entered the workforce in large numbers, [during] a time when contractors, architects, engineers, builders and government procurement officials, were overwhelmingly male, and rarely considered the needs of women."

This is the second time Towns has tried to pass legislation establishing federal restroom parity. A 2007 bill requiring twice as many toilets in women's restrooms in federal facilities as the number of toilets and urinals in men's restrooms, stalled.

Robert Peck, commissioner of Public Buildings for the General Services Administration who testified at Wednesday's hearing, said gender parity in bathrooms has not been a priority at the agency. "We're mostly an office environment. We don't get the surge that you get at a ballgame or in a concert during intermission," he said.

The agency, which provides office space for more than 1 million federal employees and contractors, said its facility standards in most cases require an equal number of toilets in women's and men's bathrooms. Women's toilets outnumber men's toilets and urinals by a 3-2 ratio in its training and conference facilities, Peck said.

"I was not aware of any complaints ... that indicate we have an inadequate number of women's facilities versus men's," said Peck, but he acknowledged GSA has more than 500 buildings built before the 1950s.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the committee's ranking member, was concerned the bill's mandated ratios would be arbitrary. He asked if there should be "further study to get the numbers more broadly right in the sense of future flexibility," to avoid implementing a blanket ruling for "a place that has surge versus one that doesn't, a place where women are younger versus older, a place where women are in evening gowns or flats."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., said, "Studies just delay this decision."

Towns agreed with Watson. "We really want to move this forward...We do not need a lot of studies. I think this has been studied," he said.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0510/051210d1.htm

Well this is interesting.

Have you ever been to any events? And seen the long lines going into the woman's BR? I've asked my wife about that once and she agrees that the woman's BR's definitely need to be doubled.

pk

[Woody]

Well pk. If we are to really provide HONEST Parity ... the women will have to forego their privacy. Because ... the reason that men have more of the BR Facilities is that there is more room due to less privacy demands. Women want and demand more spacious partitians. If they wanted to do their thing in more close quarters and where all could see ... then they would have more of the facilities. If we are going to demand equal rights ... then there needs to be equal space for each gender.

But, if this is ALL about equal space along with the equal potty parity of facilities ... then I am all for it. But no expansion of benefits just for women. And you all know ... I am for women's rights ... but this just might be a law that is going FAR to FAR. I need to put my foot down on this particular parity.

[Dr. Rich]

I see no problem with that, yes, let's double them or even triple them. If you are married you will also notice that Women take MUCH longer time in 'there' then we men do. What is it are they doing in there to take such a long time?

I once went into a woman's restroom when it was empty and saw that they had a couch in there. What in the world do they have that in there for anyway?

[Woody]

Quote:

What is it are they doing in there to take such a long time?

Dr. Rich ... this is not a polite potty parity question to be asked in public.

Quote:

I once went into a woman's restroom

This is not something that should be done by a man.

Quote:

saw that they had a couch in there. What in the world do they have that in there for anyway?

Again ... as a person of a male persuasion ... this is not the kind of potty parity question that should be proposed.

[SivartM]

[Neil D]

Conservatives unite....Reduce Government by limiting women's potty privileges..Vote NO for potty parity!

[Bravus]

Seems like a clash between a simplistic, impractical notion of fairness versus a real-world, practical one.

The plumbing is just different, and it's neither practical nor appropriate to expect women to be able to perform their ablutions in the same amount of space as men. The empirical evidence is clear at every shopping centre and sporting event: for times to be similar, women need many more units.

And that's OK: number of dunnies is a silly and simplistic measure. Fair and reasonable queue lengths and access is a much better one.

QED

[Liz]

Mr. Peck thinks that public potty parity isn't a priority--pretty typical.

[Overaged]

Here in Canada; I have never seen nor heard of this problem. Till now. Am I really that isolated from the world; or am I just too busy welding? I'll have to try and figure that out while I am welding today. LOL.

I do think that government could use tax dollars much more wisely than to be doting on this issue; if indeed it even is one.

[karl]

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., said, "Studies just delay this decision."

She should have used the popular term "impacted."

This decision is "impacted" by delays from studies of potty parity.

We don't want any party poopers on the issue of potty parity.

Potty parity will produce elimination in lavatory lines.

[Woody]

The popular position on potty parity is that this particular issue could impact or help eliminate the potty impedement so as to speed up the process of public access. It's equal access that is the issue. Have I made myself clear or just muddied the water.

[Liz]

I wonder who leaked the problem of potty parity to the press? Did they mention how much all of these studies would drain us?

[Woody]

Good one Liz. For sure ... it's a 'leak' that needs to be plugged. :)

[karl]

WIll more Commodious Commodes provide Adequate Access insuring Less Leakage to the press room?

Stay tuned to the toilet talk tank.

[Woody]

I refuse to comment further on the convienence of commodes for the common complaintant ... chiefly 'cause the cause for which I speak has been centered squarely for centuries in the halls and chambers of Congress. Can't we all cautiously approach such contentious concoctions so as to a-ccommodate all completely? Has it occured to you that construction of more commodes would require many additional contracts for competent crews. These contracts and appropriate communications would require many copies to be completed and carried to congressmen and congresswomen throughout the country. It would be a conservationists' nightmare. I now conclude my case.

[Gregory Matthews]

The South Koreans has the answer to this question. [NOTE: My statement here does not apply to the restrooms designated to be used by Americans.] The South Korean restrooms are for people and are not gender specific. I.e. They are used by everyone.

[karl]

The South Koreans has the answer to this question. [NOTE: My statement here does not apply to the restrooms designated to be used by Americans.] The South Korean restrooms are for people and are not gender specific. I.e. They are used by everyone.

Another "C", Woody! Coed, commodious, creative commodes constituting capacious, cool cans.

[Woody]

Quote:

The South Korean restrooms are for people and are not gender specific.

Well ... I dislike gender specific requirements ... so I support the South Korean Commitment to Common Commodes. (Othewise known as 'coed commodes')

Cordially yours ....

[Liz]

Wait wait wait, hold the phone; having never been outside the U.S. I am finding the thought of these common commodes a.k.a. coed commodes rather confounding. Are they connected or disconnected? Does everyone have their own confidential chamber or are they conspicuous? And if it is the latter how does one get comfortable in front of the conflicting gender?

[Overaged]

I say bring back the outhouse. Then people would be glad to stand in current, indoor potty lineups and no one would whine about "parity" again.

I saw a show on TV once where in Japan they had a street corner outhouse/potty and the walls were made of special material that allowed the occupant to see all the people walking by - but the people could not see the occupant.

[karl]

Wait wait wait, hold the phone....

And if it is the latter how does one get comfortable in front of the conflicting gender?

No, I don't think it is holding the phone that people are worried about. Begins with a "P" but it's not "phone."

The conflicting gender? Oh, man...er, woman....

As the little boy said to the little girl on the way home from school, "Am I the opposite sex or are you?"

[Woody]

I am confused at all the conflicting confagulations committed regarding the confidential confines of non-communal commodes.

[karl]

conflicting confagulations

Don't you have to get a permit from the Obama administration to make up new words like this?