Regarding the story, “In New York, potty parity on wish list,” (Dec. 17, Woman News): What the author is advocating is the opposite of parity. In fact, New York’s building code now requires 1-to-1 parity, as she states. What she advocates is 2-to-1 disparity.
Now, I do not hate women, and I do not enjoy having to wait for a friend/date/daughter/mother to gain bathroom privileges, and I do not approve of anyone being treated as second-class, but equality of facilities is only fair.
Biology is not the issue. Yes, I well know that women are built differently than men, but I do not know that the actual process of urinating or of washing hands requires more time for women to accomplish. All the rest of the time spent is due to choices. Men should be applauded, not castigated, for choosing to wear functional clothing with zippered flies, and for being willing to stand at urinals that allow them to urinate in less time, instead of demanding the privacy of stalls. Men are not compelled by biology to use either of these.
The problem could better be settled by having unisex bathrooms. We accept them in other public venues. Why have separation? We learned in racial and educational matters that “separation is inherently unequal.” Now, I am not advocating a lack of privacy or of safety; I would prefer that unisex bathrooms contain separate, lockable stalls–even floor-to-ceiling walled privacy, with common sink areas. The inequality that we do suffer is that women usually have much nicer facilities, sometimes with upholstered couches, more mirrors, more frequent cleaning, etc. It may be argued that men’s facilities suffer more vandalism than women’s, but that is not a valid reason to discriminate against the majority of men, who do not vandalize. Parity demands that men have facilities as nice as women enjoy.
