On your rag? Take paid menstrual leave.

[Arctish]

Give them more sick leave...whats wrong with that.
Mind you I do love women

As far as I'm concerned they can have as much as they need, Such beautiful creatures they are

And give the men more restroom space. Such handsome creatures should have stalls that are completely tiled, so if (when) they miss the bowl the whole place gets a good flush.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

One place I used to work had the urinals way too close together and it was really awkward taking a pee when there was someone next to you. It's not a laughing matter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

As long as women don't get a greater number of ways for sick leave, no problem.
However, we all know that sexist policies that favor women are all the rage. Like for example the NYC law that mandates women be given twice as much restroom space as men. That's feminists' idea of "gender equality" in a nutshell.

That was a really stupid comment. Stalls take up way more space than urinals.

 

[Tigers!]

One place I used to work had the urinals way too close together and it was really awkward taking a pee when there was someone next to you. It's not a laughing matter.

You worked at a footy ground too?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One place I used to work had the urinals way too close together and it was really awkward taking a pee when there was someone next to you. It's not a laughing matter.

You seem to be missing career opportunities: corporate executives love to talk when at the urinal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sick leave in the UK is a very broad definition. No doctor's note is required for less than 2 days (as I remember). Sickness includes hangover, tired, could not get up but of course the person is not likely to specify this but rather the symptoms.

So can men take off a few days each month for "hangovers" to compensate for PMS leave given to women?

I do believe it said exactly that in the post you quoted. But keep in mind that BOTH actually count against available sick time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah.

Hopefully not, but as bathroom laws show, the goal of feminism is not equality but special treatment.

And given that women can't reliably pee while standing up, it seems perfectly reasonable to provide more restroom space for them, all else being equal.

1. It's funny how every time biology favors men laws must be passed to compensate for that, but every time biology favors women (like with reproductive rights) the biological difference must be taken as inviolable and should not be compensated by laws.
2. Given that men's rooms have stalls and sinks in addition to urinals how is mandating twice as much space for women justified?

Although judging by the state of some men's lavatories I have seen, I do wonder how many of my co-genderists are reliably able to pee while standing up; so perhaps you have a very wee point.

A more salient point would be that stalls (present in men's rooms) and sinks (also present in men's rooms) take up as much space as those in women's rooms. The small difference in footprint between stalls and urinals does not justify mandating women get twice as much square footage.

This entire thread seems to be concern about a problem that really doesn't exist, and that really wouldn't be worth worrying about if it did.

There are many places where women are advantaged. Even things like where bars and clubs are allowed by law to discriminate against men by offering free admission or half price drinks to women only. Or swimming pools setting aside time for women only but charging men the same membership fee.

Well I guess we are just going to have to become sad, bitter and pathetic then.

That's a bit disappointing to me, as I was quite enjoying not giving a flying fuck about such utterly trivial crap; but if you insist that I have to feel deeply slighted, then I guess I will just need to man up and start sobbing in a corner somewhere.

To be fair, I do find it to be rather sexist, mostly sexist against women. What we are doing here is telling women that they are weak, that they need special consideration, or in the case of bars and half price drinks, a *literal* trap.

I respect strong women. I respect them more than most men, and particularly more than I respect men who claim 'reverse discrimination'. I mean seriously, it's like bitching that your brother has more in his cereal bowl than you have. I'm much more concerned that 'ladies first' assumes and insidiously internalizes the idea that women are fragile, weak, and needy and that somehow, by *patronizing* women, you will get laid. It doesn't work that way. Instead, you just look like a thirsty pushover when you do it, and a neckbeard when you complain about the unfairness of it.

 

[Derec]

To be fair, I do find it to be rather sexist, mostly sexist against women.

No, it's sexist against men because it gives women special privileges.

What we are doing here is telling women that they are weak, that they need special consideration, or in the case of bars and half price drinks, a *literal* trap.

Demanding special considerations for women and unequal treatment before the law is what feminism is all about. Think also college campuses and how they treat male and female students involved in mutually consensual drunken hookups.

I respect strong women. I respect them more than most men, and particularly more than I respect men who claim 'reverse discrimination'.

Discrimination by gender should be fought no matter which gender is discriminated against.

I mean seriously, it's like bitching that your brother has more in his cereal bowl than you have. I'm much more concerned that 'ladies first' assumes and insidiously internalizes the idea that women are fragile, weak, and needy and that somehow, by *patronizing* women, you will get laid. It doesn't work that way. Instead, you just look like a thirsty pushover when you do it, and a neckbeard when you complain about the unfairness of it.

Not wanting to be discriminated against by society means you deserve insults and moronic name calling.
But here we have it again - discrimination against men is all right, but saying anything against discrimination is not. And it unmasks the lie that feminism is somehow about equality, rather than supremacy.

 

[Derec]

As long as women don't get a greater number of ways for sick leave, no problem.
However, we all know that sexist policies that favor women are all the rage. Like for example the NYC law that mandates women be given twice as much restroom space as men. That's feminists' idea of "gender equality" in a nutshell.

That was a really stupid comment. Stalls take up way more space than urinals.

Men's rooms do not consist solely of urinals. Much space is taken by sinks and stalls which are identical to women's. So tell me again why women deserve double the space men have just because they have vaginas?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it's sexist against men because it gives women special privileges.

What we are doing here is telling women that they are weak, that they need special consideration, or in the case of bars and half price drinks, a *literal* trap.

Demanding special considerations for women and unequal treatment before the law is what feminism is all about. Think also college campuses and how they treat male and female students involved in mutually consensual drunken hookups.

I respect strong women. I respect them more than most men, and particularly more than I respect men who claim 'reverse discrimination'.

Discrimination by gender should be fought no matter which gender is discriminated against.

I mean seriously, it's like bitching that your brother has more in his cereal bowl than you have. I'm much more concerned that 'ladies first' assumes and insidiously internalizes the idea that women are fragile, weak, and needy and that somehow, by *patronizing* women, you will get laid. It doesn't work that way. Instead, you just look like a thirsty pushover when you do it, and a neckbeard when you complain about the unfairness of it.

Not wanting to be discriminated against by society means you deserve insults and moronic name calling.
But here we have it again - discrimination against men is all right, but saying anything against discrimination is not. And it unmasks the lie that feminism is somehow about equality, rather than supremacy.

And there you go proving my point.

 

[Derec]

Give them more sick leave...whats wrong with that.
Mind you I do love women

As far as I'm concerned they can have as much as they need, Such beautiful creatures they are

And you sir, are the part of the problem. I am sure you also think men should pay for all dates too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, it's sexist against men because it gives women special privileges.

If that were the only criterion necessary for sexism against men, then life would be sexist against men. After all, it gives the special privilege of having babies to women.

 

[Derec]

Well I guess we are just going to have to become sad, bitter and pathetic then.

And here we have it. Speaking against any discrimination against women, no matter how slight, is considered perfectly politically correct and socially acceptable. But dare speak against discrimination against men and you are labeled "sad, bitter and pathetic".
Typical feminazi double standard.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's sexist against men because it gives women special privileges.

If that were the only criterion necessary for sexism against men, then life would be sexist against men. After all, it gives the special privilege of having babies to women.

Having babies is a choice.

- - - Updated - - -

And there you go proving my point.

You had no point other than to call everybody who disagrees with your sexist double standards names.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Having babies is a choice.

So is using a bathroom!

Just ask my Republican brother-in-law. He pisses outside all the time.

 

[Rhea]

However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

As long as women don't get a greater number of ways for sick leave, no problem.
However, we all know that sexist policies that favor women are all the rage.

Who's this "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

No, "we" don't all "know" that.

Like for example the NYC law that mandates women be given twice as much restroom space as men. That's feminists' idea of "gender equality" in a nutshell.

You're seriously arguing for the elimination of urinals? Or the design requirement that urinals must have the same space as stalls?

Never forget that the reason you don't have to pay to shit is that the FEMINIST MOVEMENT sued and won against pay toilets.

...

Least you could do in return is have the sense to realize that this space requirement is simply making sure there are an equal number of places to pee instead of 15 pee spots in the men's room next to 7 in the ladies'. It's looking to eliminate the excuse that "I gave the same space to each!" means it's okay to have half as many pee spots just because urinals take up less space.

Just do some basic thinking.

It's not a plot to give women more benefits. For god's sake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it's simply an acceptable reason to take a sick day what's the problem?

Some people have an issue with women.

 

[Derec]

No, "we" don't all "know" that.

Well, denial is not just a river in Egypt ...

You're seriously arguing for the elimination of urinals? Or the design requirement that urinals must have the same space as stalls?

I am saying that the requirement to give women twice as much floor space as men is sexist and is hardly justified by urinals since men's rooms contain sinks and stalls as well, and those are identical to women's. Saying that N=stalls+urinals should be the same would make some sense, but the mandate for twice as much floor space definitely doesn't.

Never forget that the reason you don't have to pay to shit is that the FEMINIST MOVEMENT sued and won against pay toilets.

But in NY I am still a 2nd class citizen who has to shit in 1/2 the space that a woman has.

Least you could do in return is have the sense to realize that this space requirement is simply making sure there are an equal number of places to pee instead of 15 pee spots in the men's room next to 7 in the ladies'.

But that is not what the mandate says. It does not mandate "equal number of spaces", it mandates "twice as much floor space". And that, by the way, even in male dominated venues.

It's looking to eliminate the excuse that "I gave the same space to each!" means it's okay to have half as many pee spots just because urinals take up less space.

Again, men's rooms do not consist solely of urinals.

Just do some basic thinking.

Ditto.

It's not a plot to give women more benefits. For god's sake.

Of course it isn't.
Just like giving women free admission isn't giving women more benefits or women only hours at a public pool or gym. Both these things are also defended by feminists (and everybody against them is vilified and ridiculed).
Take for example this article in the feminazi rag "Jezebel".
Jackass Sues Gym Over Their 442 Women-Only Hours Per Year

- - - Updated - - -

Some people have an issue with women getting special treatment.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Rhea]

That was a really stupid comment. Stalls take up way more space than urinals.

Men's rooms do not consist solely of urinals. Much space is taken by sinks and stalls which are identical to women's. So tell me again why women deserve double the space men have just because they have vaginas?

Do the math, Derec. Really, just take some time and do the math.

Every urinal requires a certain amount of space. Side to side it should have (not always, as Tom says, but most do) enough to not be awkward. This is slightly closer than stall space and does not need any handicap space. Front to back, though, it needs MUCH LESS than a stall. No room for the water tank, no room for the knees, no room for the door to swing. So the overall square footage of a urinal is FAR LESS than half a stall.

So calculate the overall number of places to pee.

THEN, make sure you add for the time it takes standing urinators to use the facility versus sitters, so that you can equalize the number of peeing people per hour max accommodation.



This isn't some nefarious plot to harm men.

And also, your rage against ladies' night - do you really not know why they do that? Seriously? It's to help men. It's BAIT. For you. Bars can do a big solid for the guys by having lots of women there - and trying to get them drunk. AS Jarhyn points out, that actually a horribly damaging thing for women in general (but since it's voluntary, I have never decried it). But yeah, that's done FOR MEN. Specifically and explicitly. Now you're complaining about bars getting women gathered and drunk for you?

 

[Playball40]

However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

As long as women don't get a greater number of ways for sick leave, no problem.
However, we all know that sexist policies that favor women are all the rage. Like for example the NYC law that mandates women be given twice as much restroom space as men. That's feminists' idea of "gender equality" in a nutshell.

Not space, stalls. And it was needed.

 

[Rhea]

I am saying that the requirement to give women twice as much floor space as men is sexist and is hardly justified by urinals since men's rooms contain sinks and stalls as well, and those are identical to women's. Saying that N=stalls+urinals should be the same would make some sense, but the mandate for twice as much floor space definitely doesn't.

You're thinking so one-dimensionally.

Really. Just go to a place.
And look at the lines for the bathrooms.
And you have your answer.

It really is that simple.
It adds all of the factors in together and comes up with... voila! A way to make it so that both men and women can get to the bathroom in a reasonable amount of time - without doubly long lines for one vs. the other.

It's so simple. Look at the lines. Just go ahead. WE ALL KNOW that women's rooms line are always longer except at NASCAR and no-name football events.
Since neither of these exist in NYC, the law makes perfect sense.

Moreover, from a pragmatic standpoint, do you REALLY want to spend all night at the club with the women all talking to each other while waiting in line for the loo? Or do you want them right back out at the bar waiting for you?

Never forget that the reason you don't have to pay to shit is that the FEMINIST MOVEMENT sued and won against pay toilets.

But in NY I am still a 2nd class citizen who has to shit in 1/2 the space that a woman has.

Bad math. You have the same space to shit. They are proposing that the line might be a little longer to do it (unless you;'re shitting in the middle of the floor and claiming the space of the whole room?)

But that is not what the mandate says. It does not mandate "equal number of spaces", it mandates "twice as much floor space". And that, by the way, even in male dominated venues.

Which male-dominated venues are these in NY (I'm assuming this is a NY law since you're saying this?)

It's looking to eliminate the excuse that "I gave the same space to each!" means it's okay to have half as many pee spots just because urinals take up less space.

Again, men's rooms do not consist solely of urinals.

Again, it's not just the urinals.
Look at the lines. It is SO SIMPLE to see the problem here. Everyone knows it. There are jokes about it. Memes about it.

What's YOUR solution to the problem?