Most women who have ever attended a sold-out baseball game at the old County Stadium in Milwaukee have a story about important plays they missed because they were standing in line, waiting for the restroom. Meanwhile, their male companions were able to zip in and out of the washroom, grab a beer and make it back to their seats with time to spare.

That’s because the 54,420-capacity stadium had 447 toilets and urinals for men, but only 241 fixtures for women. The lack of women’s facilities was compounded by poor layout, inadequate signage and doors that made it impossible to tell if a stall was occupied — as well as increases in female and family attendance at ball games since the stadium’s construction in the early 1950s.

County Stadium’s replacement, Miller Park, takes a different washroom approach. It holds 12,000 fewer people, but has 316 men’s fixtures, 300 women’s, as well as 74 private suite toilets and eight single-commode “family restrooms,” according to a 2000 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. There also are facilities in the parking lots for tailgating, and in the private clubs and restaurants.

By all accounts, Miller Park is a marked improvement over its predecessor, but is it enough?

There is a movement afoot, called “restroom equity” or “potty parity,” to ensure that women and men receive equitable restroom treatment.

Actual definitions of potty parity vary — some proposals and laws require twice as many fixtures for women as for men, while others require a three-to-two ratio. Some state that women’s restrooms must have at least twice as many fixtures as called for by the plumbing code for men’s facilities, regardless of the actual number of toilets and urinals in the men’s room. Many potty-parity laws also attempt to update old building codes, and require more fixtures for both sexes.

This isn’t a brand-new development, however. In 1988, George Washington University Law School professor John Banzhaf III, dubbed “The Father of Potty Parity,” wrote what may have been the first article on the subject, “The Final Frontier For The Law?” In his article, he described the first restroom-equity proposal, passed by the Virginia legislature. In 2002, he filed a federal complaint seeking to declare restroom inequity a form of sexual harassment, or a violation of equal protection. (Read the complaint online.)

Several states already have restroom-equity laws on the books, and more are considering them. Recently, New York City council member Yvette Clarke proposed a two-to-one restroom ratio for her city, based on the idea that it simply takes women longer to perform necessary functions than men, and thus should have more fixtures in order to equalize wait time.

Critics have argued that women take longer because they visit the restroom in groups, or because they spend more time grooming. But while that is a small part of the larger lines in women’s restroom, it isn’t the whole story.

“Men, biologically, don’t take as much time as [women] do,” says Clarke. Women sit, and have more clothing to remove. Women who are pregnant must visit the facilities more frequently than men; feminine-hygiene needs also can add to the time spent in restrooms. Also, women are more likely to have infants and children with them than men, even if there are changing stations in both restrooms.

All of these biological and social factors add up, but another major reason for the wait is a matter of math — often, there are more fixtures in the men’s room.

“When people see long lines coming out of the women’s restroom, they start with the premise of equality” — that there should be the same amount of space in each restroom, says Mary Ann Case, a University of Chicago School of Law professor who researches regulations of sex and gender. “What people don’t realize is that there generally is equality of square footage.”

However, the way that footage is allotted can be radically different from restroom to restroom. A urinal takes up significantly less space than a toilet stall, so two urinals might go in the men’s room, where only one stall would fit in the women’s. Also, says Case, more space in the women’s washroom is given to mirrors, grooming areas and amenities like couches, relegating the necessary fixtures to an even smaller space.

The right answer?
Clark believes that not only will her proposal help equalize restroom wait times, but also that it will make things easier for cleaning contractors.

“I think it will improve sanitary conditions,” she says. “Often, women’s rooms become untidy due to the volume. Cleaning people can’t keep up.”

Less-crowded restrooms mean porters can get in more often to clean and to restock supplies; also, the closure of one restroom for complete cleaning won’t be as burdensome than if there were too few toilets in the facility, to begin with.

Although she expects her bill to pass when it comes up for a vote in June, Clarke admits there have been quite a few jokes at her proposal’s expense; also, she has heard criticism about the potential expense.

“What we’re estimating is that it’s not really going to cost much,” says Clarke. “For many facilities, it’s simply changing the signs on existing restrooms to get to a two-to-one ratio.”

There shouldn’t be significant costs for new construction, either, because planners can simply re-assign some of the restrooms to women. However, a common criticism is that this shortchanges men, and might result in a longer wait for them.

“People think this is about taking things away from men,” says Clarke. “It’s not. Men are accompanying women to public events, and end up waiting for them once they come out of the restroom. We’ve been conditioned to wait in line; we recognize now that this is needless, and we can accommodate this by creating an equitable ratio.”

Potty parity isn’t a new product of feminism, adds Case. Much of the drive stems as a corrective measure, to revise the outdated laws that have created this problem in the first place.

“Older plumbing codes often called for more facilities for men than women, based on the idea that men were out and about more,” Case says.

A unisex future?
As laws and building codes change, expect to see more fixtures in general, and a greater ratio of women’s-to-men’s fixtures in particular. But there are a few competing trends that could impact restroom allotment.

“I think restroom equity is heading in a few different places,” Case says. “There’s potty parity, which is premised on segregation, but there are a few other movements. The first is for … so-called ‘family toilets,’ because there’s a concern about bringing your opposite-sex child into the restroom with you, or letting them go alone into the other restrooms.”

Family restrooms also are useful for people with disabilities, who require assistance from opposite-sex caregivers or spouses.

Many codes do require family restrooms; for instance, the 2003 International Building Code, adopted by several states, requires family restrooms in new construction and substantial renovation. Most newer arenas, shopping malls and airports have at least a few family restrooms.

There’s also a small movement afoot to do away with restroom segregation altogether, and move to unisex restrooms. A student group at Beloit College in Wisconsin, for instance, is pushing the administration to declare some restrooms gender-neutral, to accommodate transsexual or transgendered people who find they don’t fit easily into one category or the other.

Clarke says unisex restrooms have been brought to her attention, but believes privacy concerns would outweigh the benefits.

Either family or unisex restrooms could also help with wait times in smaller facilities, Case says. Many building codes require segregated restrooms, even in small facilities such as stores and restaurants. This sometimes creates the need for two self-contained, single-fixture restrooms, with different signs. And, often, there’s a wait for the women’s restroom, even when the men’s room is empty. But there’s really no need for private rooms to be gender-segregated, Case points out.

“Once you’re in there, you’re all alone,” she says.




POSTED ON: 3/1/2004