Women think they are entitled to more restrooms than men!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Boshko
God do any of you guys spend any time with women at all? They have to go to the bathroom vastly more often than men (esp. during menstration) so it only makes sense to give them a few more stalls or, even better have unisex bathrooms (worked just fine at my university), although this sort of thing can be taken a bit too far like at the bar when I'm a semi-regular which is really great except for the men's bathroom being a bit of walled-over alley with a urinal (no light, no sink)

If I spent any time with women would I be here posting and *****ing about women getting more bathrooms than men?

[David Floyd]

God do any of you guys spend any time with women at all? They have to go to the bathroom vastly more often than men (esp. during menstration) so it only makes sense to give them a few more stalls

Great! And if these women want a government regulation passed, forcing buildings to have more restrooms for women, then the extra restrooms should be coin operated, in order to pass the cost on to the people who are demanding certain extra benefits

[*End Is Forever*]

I think it's an eminently sensible idea. After you, you can fit more urinals in a room than you can cubicles, and women do take at least slighter long through pure necessity.

No-one ever seen a snaking queue for the women's toilets at a busy nightclub or something...? You never see it for the gents...

[Dis]

you see it at sporting events or concerts

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Smiley


So no toilet? no comment.

Nope.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Pekka
Azazel, he's a pervert...

Tell me you didn't check out that blonde chick in Starship Troopers during the coed shower scene.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by axi
I think women tend to go to the restrooms more often as well. Their "hydraulics" can hold less pressure, IIRC. You will know what I mean if you are used to make long journeys in cars.

In the building where I work, we are 18 people, of which only 2 are women. Yet there exactly 3 stalls for women and 3 stalls for men in the restrooms. The architect could not predict that mechanical engineering is a typically male profession.

In which century was your building designed?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Great! And if these women want a government regulation passed, forcing buildings to have more restrooms for women, then the extra restrooms should be coin operated, in order to pass the cost on to the people who are demanding certain extra benefits

Why not just charge everyone to use the bathroom? I've got it--coin operated restrooms for everyone. While we're at, employees get docked for time spent in the restroom. And at lunch or any other breaks, too. Hell, why let them have restrooms in the first place? They just take up expensive space and cost money to maintain. If they can't hold it, tough ****. Literally.

Wooo, the fun of Libertarianism! Yeeee!

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't like the idea of unisex bathrooms, would likely mean no urinals.

[:) Smiley]

Speaking of charging people for restroom use, that's how it used to be in the U.S. and still is in other parts of the world.

Interestingly, if it weren't for women's restrooms, we'd all still be paying. Basically the argument then was that it was unfair to charge for restrooms because men could just use a bush or back alley.

[David Floyd]

Why not just charge everyone to use the bathroom? I've got it--coin operated restrooms for everyone.

If companies are forced by federal regulation to provide a certain number of bathrooms, I see no reason they shouldn't charge for their use - pass the cost off to their users, rather than eat it themselves.

On the other hand, employee morale is a serious issue as well, and it could be that a company would be better off eating the cost for a reasonable number of restrooms. When the number of restrooms and amount of federal regulations gets out of hand, though, as is the case when women start *****ing and moaning about wanting more restrooms, THEN the company is certainly justified in charging, if they are forced by federal regulation to provide more.

While we're at, employees get docked for time spent in the restroom.

Employee morale is the only reason I see not to do this - I see nothing immoral about it, though.

And at lunch or any other breaks, too.

*shrug* See above answers.

Hell, why let them have restrooms in the first place? They just take up expensive space and cost money to maintain. If they can't hold it, tough ****. Literally.

*shrug* See above answers. To recap, it comes down to employee morale - companies should take some costs upon themselves, not out of a legal obligation, but as a good business practice. These costs should be reasonable, and should only be passed onto employees when certain groups of employees decide to whine and try to get federal regulations. When that happens, that group of employees should be forced to pay - why should I, as a male, pay for extra female restrooms I'm never going to use? And yes, the cost will be passed onto me in some way, I guarantee it. The way around this is a simple system of user fees for additional facilities.

Wooo, the fun of Libertarianism! Yeeee!

Well, at least it'd cut down on whining, if everyone had to pay for the results of their whining.

Anyway, Boris, I'm sure you can think of some more strawmen to throw at me, if you put your mind to it. Shouldn't be overly taxing for you, and if you get stumped, just refer to any debate in which either Berzerker or I participate. All kinds of irrelevant strawmen get thrown at us in those threads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If companies are forced by federal regulation to provide a certain number of bathrooms, I see no reason they shouldn't charge for their use - pass the cost off to their users, rather than eat it themselves.

Well you are a fan of natural rights... I see no other right as 'natural' as being able to relieve yourself .

[Urban Ranger]

@ Imran

Besides, forcing employees to pay for their own basic freedoms is highly immoral

[Mr. Harley]

Can anyone say "peonage"? The reason we don't charge employees for things like this, in the USA, is how robber capitalism (used to denote a very specific flavor, by the way) used it to try to steal the value of their labor from them. Read the history of the West Virginia coal fields. The US government bombed it's own citizens! Good, largley factual movie made on it was Matewan. Well done, much more factual than the typical "historically based" movie. It's why employees have certain rights, based on historically bad behavior by corporations. It tries to level the playing field. Remember, a corporation itself is a special entity created by the government, in a truly libetarian society they wouldn't exist .

[:) Smiley]

wow, I had no idea this actually existed: