Yes, because beating people will make them suddenly not need to pee. >_>
(Will you also advocate removal of trash cans, and beat people for littering?)
...how about free public toilets, which will solve the actual problem?
(Will you also advocate removal of trash cans, and beat people for littering?)
...how about free public toilets, which will solve the actual problem?
I get the impression that you misunderstood the parent. Installing toilets would solve the problem without being sexist. The plan of installing urinals does seem rather sexist, doesn't it?
I mean, it appears to be saying, "oh well, boys can't hold it" or "women don't (or can't) drink". Aren't those sexist statements?
It sure sounds to me like it's reinforcing a weird culture of men not doing any planning and feeling entitled to piss wherever it's convenient for them.
The first of those could possibly be handled with threats and punishment; the other two would only be minimally affected by that.
Yes, it's sexist to only provide facilities for men—whatever the argument. I don't disagree! But corporal punishment for urination, as rayiner was suggesting, without providing free public toilets... that's just cruel.
I don't think the problem is caused by vast numbers if underprivileged homeless people. It sounds like it's caused by irresponsible, indifferent young men. There doesn't appear to be a widespread problem of women urinating in the streets.
It's perfectly valid to conclude that the problem is a lack of punishment and shaming of the unwanted behavior.
Or does your law somehow codify "indifferent and irresponsible" as a condition of the crime?
It works in Singapore! It's not like France is a poor country where people have inadequate access to toilet facilities. To the extent there is a problem it is cultural, and punishment can correct culture.