I recently ran across an article on the Straits Times (a Singapore newspaper) website, titled “Women-only lavatory”, which reported that ANA (All Nippon Airways, a large Japanese airline) has announced that it will designate one toilet on each international flight as being “for woman-only”.
Why would they do something like that? They explained their reasoning thusly:
“… a survey of women fliers identified it [a women-only lavatory] as the second most attractive service they wished for after being offered desserts.”
In other words, women said it would be nice to have so what the hell … we’ll do it. Just like that!
Of course, the first question that pops into mind is “Why not instead just offer the women desserts on flights?” That would avoid inconveniencing men, and it would presumably make women even happier since they’d be getting their first choice (sweets!) rather than having to settle for their second choice (a potty for women only).
What’s the big deal about women wanting that exclusivity? According to a spokesman for ANA:
“Many women said that they feel uncomfortable taking their time in the lavatory knowing that a male is waiting just behind them in line.”
Huh? So why on earth should women want to “take their time” when half a dozen people of either gender are waiting to use that lavatory? What does the gender of people in line have to do with anything … are women comfortable taking their time knowing that other women are waiting? And why would ANA cater to such inconsiderate behavior?
Why not just be considerate?
After all, a good practice for all passengers would be to “do your business” quickly so that the other passengers will suffer minimum discomfort trying to “hold it” until they get to the front of the queue.
Having been on airplanes many hundreds of times, I can vouch for the fact that most airplanes already have too few lavatories (at least back in steerage class) to handle the “peak” loads (such as after the meal service has ended and Nature works its magic).
So removing one lavatory from male access when there are only a few lavatories to start with, when there are typically more male passengers than female ones (at least on the flights I’ve been on) and when full flights have become the norm will serve only to ramp up the discomfort of all of the male passengers (as they’ll now have much longer waits).
Those sexist piglets!
Back in the “Jim Crow” days in the southeastern United States, it was common for there to be “whites only” restrooms and “colored only” restrooms in business establishments.
Was that discrimination? Absolutely! And it was rightly (though belatedly) outlawed … discrimination based on color is no longer allowed, nor should it be.
Since discrimination laws state that gender-based discrimination is also illegal, how is it that “whites only” lavatories are not tolerated but it’s accepted to designate “women only” lavatories? Wasn’t that what “women’s liberation” was supposedly focused on … gaining equal treatment with men?
As long as the topic of preferential access is on the table, let’s explore more possibilities.
For example, if airlines surveyed me, I might tell them that I would prefer to have “male only” lavatories on planes so that I don’t have to inhale all that heavy perfume that many women marinate themselves with and which lingers for several minutes after they leave a room. It’s an instant headache for me.
Heck, avoiding that unpleasantness would be even better than being offered desserts!
A fairer approach?
There’s a concept in discrimination law called “reasonable accommodation” and I have no problem with such a concept. So let’s surmise some scenarios where being given preferential lavatory access might fairly be considered a reasonable accommodation:
Men over age fifty. As guys get older, it’s common for them to develop an enlarged prostate (ask your father or grandfather about that one if you’re still young in age and haven’t experienced it personally yet). That in turn impinges on the bladder and you’ll need to urinate more frequently and with briefer “advance notice”. So I’d be willing to give the older guys a break on lavatory access, as they’ll need to use the facilities more often and more urgently.
Women more than six months pregnant. I would be willing to give the same break to women in the later stages of pregnancy and for that same reason: the frequency and the urgency of the need to urinate go way up late in pregnancy due to bladder impingement. Of course, I do know several guys (who are fat enough to pass for “quite pregnant”) who would not be above adopting a falsetto voice and pretending to be a pregnant woman just to get the faster access.
Young Children. And I’d even cut a break for parents traveling with young children, as young kids have small bladders and by the time they figure out that they need to pee, they may have trouble holding it in for much longer.
If there’s a legitimate need to have faster access, I’m okay with accommodating that need. But I draw the line at being discriminated against (as a male) solely because more than a few women seem indifferent to the needs of others.
Cutting carbon emissions?
I can’t say I’m surprised that this initiative is coming from the same airline (ANA) that has for the last few years been conducting an occasional “awareness campaign” in which it asks domestic passengers to “visit the bathroom before boarding to reduce their body weight and therefore cut the plane’s carbon emissions”.
Huh? Have you ever gotten on a plane with a full bladder (or colon)? Nobody I know would do that. They know that airplane lavatories are too few in number and a lot less roomy (and therefore less comfortable to use) than are the lavatories in the terminals. And if they’ve flown much, they’ll be aware that their flight may end up “25th for takeoff” and that it may be quite some time before they’re airborne, at altitude and the seatbelt sign is turned off.
But let’s be charitable and suppose that several dozen passengers really needed to pee badly but have inexplicably decided to wait until after they’re airborne. How much urine would we be talking about here? Twenty pounds? Fifty pounds? Eighty pounds?
And how much does an airplane weigh? A Boeing 747 these days has a takeoff weight of 875,000 pounds … and even the Airbus A-320 (the smallest plane that ANA flies) has a takeoff weight of 170,000 pounds.
So even a lot of pee would only make about a 0.01% weight difference for the plane … and I doubt that this would make a significant difference in combating global warming.
Heck, if they’re serious about cutting emissions, I’d be more impressed if they decided instead to just sell fewer seats on each flight (as selling even one fewer seat on a flight would cut the weight as much as if every passenger on that flight had taken a massive whiz just before flight time).
I’ve flown ANA in the past and I found them to be a pretty good airline. But I’m unlikely to fly them again, as I’m the gender that will get shorted in the lavatory category.
Who needs that aggravation?
Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler
