Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Dyakovo]

So we're inferior to the Romans?

Well if you think so that's you.

You're the one claiming it. Romans could handle men and women relieving themselves in the same room. According to you, we are no longer capable of coping with that. Ergo, you believe we're inferior.

[Redsection]

We are not roman,times are different and their religion was one on being well let's say sultry.

I didn't say we were Romans - I used them as an example that this 'should' idea of GGFR's is not an objective truth.

Regarding 'sultry' Romans - if you've read any Martial, the suggestion seems to be that people gathered together to use the facilities for some purely utilitarian reasons (centralised sanitation being easier, and made toilets more available) - but also for purely social reasons - they appear to have gathered together and socialised. Not sure that's 'sultry'.

And while times are different - if men and women COULD share facilities without incidence in Rome... why can't they now?

Romans didn't care,they had a false religion.i mean honestly have you ever heard of Caligulas massive orgys

[Jamzmania]

We are not roman,times are different and their religion was one on being well let's say sultry.

I didn't say we were Romans - I used them as an example that this 'should' idea of GGFR's is not an objective truth.

Regarding 'sultry' Romans - if you've read any Martial, the suggestion seems to be that people gathered together to use the facilities for some purely utilitarian reasons (centralised sanitation being easier, and made toilets more available) - but also for purely social reasons - they appear to have gathered together and socialised. Not sure that's 'sultry'.

And while times are different - if men and women COULD share facilities without incidence in Rome... why can't they now?

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

[Redsection]

Well if you think so that's you.

You're the one claiming it. Romans could handle men and women relieving themselves in the same room. According to you, we are no longer capable of coping with that. Ergo, you believe we're inferior.

No I'm not your the one claiming it,don't put words in my mouth

[Redsection]

I didn't say we were Romans - I used them as an example that this 'should' idea of GGFR's is not an objective truth.

Regarding 'sultry' Romans - if you've read any Martial, the suggestion seems to be that people gathered together to use the facilities for some purely utilitarian reasons (centralised sanitation being easier, and made toilets more available) - but also for purely social reasons - they appear to have gathered together and socialised. Not sure that's 'sultry'.

And while times are different - if men and women COULD share facilities without incidence in Rome... why can't they now?

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

Exactly

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

I didn't say we were Romans - I used them as an example that this 'should' idea of GGFR's is not an objective truth.

Regarding 'sultry' Romans - if you've read any Martial, the suggestion seems to be that people gathered together to use the facilities for some purely utilitarian reasons (centralised sanitation being easier, and made toilets more available) - but also for purely social reasons - they appear to have gathered together and socialised. Not sure that's 'sultry'.

And while times are different - if men and women COULD share facilities without incidence in Rome... why can't they now?

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

I agree, what's so bad about the current system anyways?

[Redsection]

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

I agree, what's so bad about the current system anyways?

The hell if I know,it's some feminists garbage.

[Grave_n_idle]

Romans didn't care,

Indeed. But you do. Apparently.

That's pretty definitive of something being subjective rather than objective - so we're back with the question of why 'should' it be that way?

they had a false religion.

I'm not sure religion dictated their toilet choices. Or has anything to do with ours.

i mean honestly have you ever heard of Caligulas massive orgys

Again, not sure it's related to the toilets. Or, in fact, the religion.

You're all over the map, here - from religion to orgies - don't you actually have any on-topic responses?

[Dyakovo]

You're the one claiming it. Romans could handle men and women relieving themselves in the same room. According to you, we are no longer capable of coping with that. Ergo, you believe we're inferior.

No I'm not your the one claiming it,don't put words in my mouth

Yes, you are. I even spelled out exactly how it is that you're making said claim.

[Redsection]

Romans didn't care,

Indeed. But you do. Apparently.

That's pretty definitive of something being subjective rather than objective - so we're back with the question of why 'should' it be that way?

they had a false religion.

I'm not sure religion dictated their toilet choices. Or has anything to do with ours.

i mean honestly have you ever heard of Caligulas massive orgys

Again, not sure it's related to the toilets. Or, in fact, the religion.

You're all over the map, here - from religion to orgies - don't you actually have any on-topic responses?

Ok the real truth is leave bathrooms alone,why should society bow to feminist ideals,who cares if you have a longer wait.

[Dyakovo]

I agree, what's so bad about the current system anyways?

The hell if I know,it's some feminists garbage.

It has nothing to do with feminism.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say we were Romans - I used them as an example that this 'should' idea of GGFR's is not an objective truth.

Regarding 'sultry' Romans - if you've read any Martial, the suggestion seems to be that people gathered together to use the facilities for some purely utilitarian reasons (centralised sanitation being easier, and made toilets more available) - but also for purely social reasons - they appear to have gathered together and socialised. Not sure that's 'sultry'.

And while times are different - if men and women COULD share facilities without incidence in Rome... why can't they now?

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

Actually, as has been addressed throughout the thread, there ARE reasons to change.

To which the objections seems to have been 'tradition', 'waiting times might be longer' and 'but guys like to shit everywhere'.

I don't have a horse in this race - I'm not really on either side - sorry, but the de-segregators are winning this one, hands-down.

[Redsection]

No I'm not your the one claiming it,don't put words in my mouth

Yes, you are. I even spelled out exactly how it is that you're making said claim.

Ok,let's try society changes.just because Romans did it doesn't mean it's fine and dandy.

[Redsection]

The hell if I know,it's some feminists garbage.

It has nothing to do with feminism.

Then what is it,why are so many feminists supporting it. * crickets *

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed. But you do. Apparently.

That's pretty definitive of something being subjective rather than objective - so we're back with the question of why 'should' it be that way?



I'm not sure religion dictated their toilet choices. Or has anything to do with ours.



Again, not sure it's related to the toilets. Or, in fact, the religion.

You're all over the map, here - from religion to orgies - don't you actually have any on-topic responses?

Ok the real truth is leave bathrooms alone,why should society bow to feminist ideals,who cares if you have a longer wait.

Having a desegregated toilet is not intrinsically or inherently a feminist idea. Indeed, I'm sure many feminists would object to it.

But 'leave bathrooms alone' isn't an argument (much less a 'real truth'). Our current toilet traditions are very new... and very UN-traditional.

[Redsection]

Ok the real truth is leave bathrooms alone,why should society bow to feminist ideals,who cares if you have a longer wait.

Having a desegregated toilet is not intrinsically or inherently a feminist idea. Indeed, I'm sure many feminists would object to it.

But 'leave bathrooms alone' isn't an argument (much less a 'real truth'). Our current toilet traditions are very new... and very UN-traditional.

Untraditional to who ancient Romans.

[Jamzmania]

Because we don't want to and there's no reason to change.

Actually, as has been addressed throughout the thread, there ARE reasons to change.

To which the objections seems to have been 'tradition', 'waiting times might be longer' and 'but guys like to shit everywhere'.

I don't have a horse in this race - I'm not really on either side - sorry, but the de-segregators are winning this one, hands-down.

All of the "reasons" offered are either non-issues or quite unconvincing.

[Chessmistress]

Men don't require urinals.

Exactly.
With the introduction of unisex bathrooms urinals would immediatly ceased to exist, and that would be good for women, since most women don't like such things.
But I don't think that's the main point.

woman's average wait time is decreased (since some men are in the queue whereas before it was all women, and presumably every building will continue to maintain the same number of facilities)

some group does benefit while some other group has to pay because it has a historical privilege to equalise

its the same as wealth redistribution, a historically disadvantaged group gets financed by taxes mostly paid by a historically priviledged group; except here its in terms of wait time

I understand and even agree with your desire to remove male privilege.
But I don't think unisex bathrooms would work fine for women.
I think there's a chance that within unisex bathrooms we would see more sexual harassments and rapes. Maybe just only a little more, but still more, not less.
And even a single rape more is a tragedy.
Even the ones who oppose that reasoning should at least accept the possibility of a little increase of sexual harassments and rapes.
And, for a Feminist, just only that possibility should be enough to give up to the idea of unisex bathrooms.

The solution is substantive equality: women use bathrooms more than males, and we use, on average, bathrooms for a little longer time.
More bathrooms for women, or larger bathrooms for women.
That wouldn't even hurt males, since they would be allowed to keep their "precious" urinals.

[Jamzmania]

Ok the real truth is leave bathrooms alone,why should society bow to feminist ideals,who cares if you have a longer wait.

Having a desegregated toilet is not intrinsically or inherently a feminist idea. Indeed, I'm sure many feminists would object to it.

But 'leave bathrooms alone' isn't an argument (much less a 'real truth'). Our current toilet traditions are very new... and very UN-traditional.

Ever heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Romans didn't care,they had a false religion.

Laus Iuppiter, daemonicola.

I didn't say we were Romans

We should be dammit, Romans did it best

On a somewhat more serious note, I don't see much reason to change things.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, as has been addressed throughout the thread, there ARE reasons to change.

To which the objections seems to have been 'tradition', 'waiting times might be longer' and 'but guys like to shit everywhere'.

I don't have a horse in this race - I'm not really on either side - sorry, but the de-segregators are winning this one, hands-down.

All of the "reasons" offered are either non-issues or quite unconvincing.

No more so than the supposed responses.

But at the heart of it, isn't this basically a discussion about taking the man/woman side off the door of the toilet, and making a room that anyone can use? That doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - making facilities available for everyone to use seems like a GOOD idea.

[Grave_n_idle]

Having a desegregated toilet is not intrinsically or inherently a feminist idea. Indeed, I'm sure many feminists would object to it.

But 'leave bathrooms alone' isn't an argument (much less a 'real truth'). Our current toilet traditions are very new... and very UN-traditional.

Ever heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?

Again, our 'traditions' are very recent. Bringing the toilet inside is a very recent innovation. Not just sticking your arse out of the window and shitting in the street is pretty recent.

We've been 'fixing it' on this particular issue for quite some time, especially in the last century - why suddenly get squeamish about change?

[Redsection]

Romans didn't care,they had a false religion.

Laus Iuppiter, daemonicola.

I didn't say we were Romans

We should be dammit, Romans did it best

On a somewhat more serious note, I don't see much reason to change things.

Jupiter praise demon wtf

[Jamzmania]

All of the "reasons" offered are either non-issues or quite unconvincing.

No more so than the supposed responses.

But at the heart of it, isn't this basically a discussion about taking the man/woman side off the door of the toilet, and making a room that anyone can use? That doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - making facilities available for everyone to use seems like a GOOD idea.

It isn't the burden of us to argue why we should keep the current well-established system. It is the burden of them to convince people why we should go through such as hassle, and their reasoning is lacking.

[Grave_n_idle]

Having a desegregated toilet is not intrinsically or inherently a feminist idea. Indeed, I'm sure many feminists would object to it.

But 'leave bathrooms alone' isn't an argument (much less a 'real truth'). Our current toilet traditions are very new... and very UN-traditional.

Untraditional to who ancient Romans.

No. Un-traditional to post-Roman Europeans.

Most of the last two thousand years, 'tradition' with regards to using the facilities amounted to crapping wherever you were if you weren't at the house, pooping in a hole in your garden, or sticking your arse out of a window.

If 'tradition' is your argument... why are you arguing in favour of this totally new and untraditional technology and approach we have right now?