Return to Article: Potty parity: First Democrats, then bureaucrats?

By Brian Friel National Journal August 25, 2008
  • 66689

    2 to 1 everywhere may be unreasonable since it would result in a men's dorm having an absurd amount of toilets. OTOH trying to make sure that there's the right amount for toilets for everyone is a worthwhile goal

    Mark Harris Posted January 16, 2009 4:05 PM
  • 58895

    "I thought this was one story that needed no comment but seeing the number of comments from men prompts me to say, as a woman, it's about darn time. And to Mike, I feel your pain, but find it hard to believe that you are spending any time wandering the halls looking for an available bathroom. And if you are, welcome to my world."

    Amen to that. I challenge you to find any woman who doesn't hear about Potty Parity and respond like she's won the lottery! It's easy for men to dismiss potty parity, they've never had to wait a half hour behind 50 women just to use the bathroom while the other sex's bathroom is EMPTY. Trust me guys if you had to wait even a 10th as long as women do you'd be screaming for potty parity too!

    Jill Stevens Posted September 21, 2008 9:36 AM
  • 58875

    Can't believe they pass a law like this lol. In answer to the question no I don't think that women need double the amount of toilets to be equal. A 1-1 ratio is fair IMO, one toilet for every woman for each toilet or urinal a man has. I've seen places where women have had SIX times as many toilets but still had an enormous line while the men's room had none. If women can't learn to use the restroom quickly and efficiently enough that is no one's fault but their own. If they want to spend so much time in the restroom than a long line is the price they must endure. I'm not a sexist BTW, just some observations that make me think this law is real silly. Have a friend who is starting an anti-potty parity alliance group even lol. Look for it.

    Arthur H Posted September 20, 2008 11:16 AM
  • 57338

    Maybe I should get off the toilet and get back to work. Hey, one more toilet avaiable here!!!

    NoBodySpecial Posted August 27, 2008 1:21 PM
  • 57318

    I thought this was one story that needed no comment but seeing the number of comments from men prompts me to say, as a woman, it's about darn time. And to Mike, I feel your pain, but find it hard to believe that you are spending any time wandering the halls looking for an available bathroom. And if you are, welcome to my world.

    skeptical Posted August 27, 2008 10:31 AM
  • 57286

    Hey retired ATC, aren't you going to blame this on the present administration?

    Rick Posted August 27, 2008 3:36 AM
  • 57268

    "Experts" who design buildings may not have usability as a priority. Do I believe in potty parity? You bet I do. Does it belong in GovExec? Well, why not?

    I have waited in long lines Posted August 26, 2008 6:28 PM
  • 57259

    There are more restrooms for women than men in our building based on the idea that there are more women than men. Although I typically do not see that being the case. All I know is that you will see men roaming that halls up and down the stairs looking for a restroom that is open or not full. Parity would be nice.

    Mike Posted August 26, 2008 2:55 PM
  • 57237

    Only in a liberal heart can this kind of story find enough traction to actually be published in a magazine that reaches out to government and industry executives. Pure trash!!!

    Denny Smith Posted August 26, 2008 11:50 AM
  • 57229

    Slow news day guys? Yes, this is a problem. But it is not a federal issue. It should be handled as a GSA and state and local building code issue. Let the experts who design and rent the buildings make the design decisions.

    Toilet User! Posted August 26, 2008 10:41 AM
  • 57215

    Good grief, Charlie Brown! You guys must be hard up for subject matter for articles!

    Toilet Trained Posted August 26, 2008 8:57 AM
  • 57192

    Most "federal buildings" don't belong to the federal government. They are leased through GSA. Mandating more restrooms would cost the taxpayers millions. This is just plain stupid.

    Fred Mills Posted August 25, 2008 8:35 PM

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

Potty parity: First Democrats, then bureaucrats?
*
*
*
Vendors Solutions Center