I'm here today to talk about toilets, of the public variety. In Lyon, one can see scattered about, on streetcorners and in parks, the discreet beige structure of the public urinal. Certainly, I appreciate the city's consideration in preventing men from urinating in bushes and alleyways. Vancouver has not, to my knowledge, had the same discretion.
But it makes me wonder about men. Evidently, there is a need for men to be able to relieve themselves in public, at frequent intervals. This I do not doubt; having seen the aforementioned alleyways in Vancouver, the practicality of these public urinals is clear. Women apparently are considered capable of controlling themselves when out of doors. Because these are urinals; they are not toilets. Women, should you find yourself in need of a toilet in Lyon, well you better hope there's a cafe or something nearby.
Which brings me to another thing. Should you need to use one of these public toilets, in a mall or train station, make sure you have your change purse. I can't deny there is some logic behind paying 50 centimes to use the toilet. It's a tip to the local toilet guardian for keeping the place clean and well stocked - only a mandatory tip, which rather takes away the point of a tip. It's also logic I don't agree with. Using the toilet is a biological necessity, like breathing. I think people should be able to fulfill this basic function without having to pay for it.
So there you have it. Gender inequality in toilets. Not the update you were expecting, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Oh yes, the pay-toilets of Europe. Apparently in Italy (or perhaps just in Rome? Must check that out. . .) restaurants are legally bound to let you use their toilets if you ask them, *even* if you're not a customer.
ReplyDelete