« Grass | Main | Don't Look Surprised »
Beaver Whistle
An open question to engineers and industrial designers:
Why, oh why, can't you invent a tampon receptacle more advanced than a tin box with an ill-fitting paper bag inside it that inevitably shifts out of alignment, causing the menstruating woman who used the stall before me to stuff her feminine trash into it in such a way that it forces me to nearly have to touch it as I carefully try to dispose of my own?
Are we not more socially and ergonomically advanced than this?
Wow - is that how those things work? I always envisioned something akin to drive-through banking where there's all sorts of tubes and vacuums etc going on. I'm totally disillusioned with progress now...back to religion and out with sweet science for me.
Posted by: Andy on Thu May 15, 2003 | ReplySimple. Because such things were designed by MEN. If MEN had to bleed once a month, believe me they would have developed much more effective and efficient accoutrement. Or they would have found a cure for it by now.
Posted by: MJ on Thu May 15, 2003 | ReplyOk, I'll take one for the team and be the immature one here. Eeewwwwwwwwww. Dats naaaaasty. remind me to tell you sometime about the summer I spent as a janitor and part of my job was empying said recepticles.
Posted by: Buddha on Thu May 15, 2003 | Replythere is nothing from stopping women from inventing a better disposal system.. I don't mean to sound like the insensitive man here, but I think I would trade a sometimes icky tin watebasket for Urine troffs.
Posted by: bill on Thu May 15, 2003 | ReplyI can't exactly identify with your problem, but I can empathize.
How come they can design a nice toilet for space but they can't design a decent toilet for women?
Posted by: michael kohout on Fri May 16, 2003 | Replythat "men" post bugs.
i thought women were supposed to be equal? it's not like industrial design is like road construction or anything.
Posted by: tortoise on Fri May 16, 2003 | ReplyWhen in the post did I ever say anything about men? I simply asked an open question to engineers and industrial designers.
But nevermind the men, leave it to the Canadians to come up with something!
Posted by: irish-girl on Fri May 16, 2003 | ReplyNo... hereis what you need for that "ultra fresh feeling"...........
Posted by: jack on Fri May 16, 2003 | ReplyI believe the man reference was mine. Are you're saying that if a woman designs a better product, it would suddenly appear in public restrooms across America? Me thinks that's a bit optimistic. For some illuminating data, poke around around the US Census site. For instance, I found that male industrial designers out number females 5-1.
What I would reallylike to see is a kind of device similar to the old drive through banks. We would simply "deposit" our feminine hygene products into a tube and Whoosh! It would be gone.
That hepa Wet/Dry Vac aint such a shabby idea either ;)
Posted by: MJ on Fri May 16, 2003 | Reply5-1..hmmm, sounds like a good career for women to completely break into, in greater numbers, I'm surprised by these numbers, I don't see where this field got so dominated by men.
Posted by: bill on Sat May 17, 2003 | ReplyTo be fair -The US Census does not break out individual numbers for industrial design, however, the occupation code for both the census and the BLS lumps ID's in with architects and engineers, a traditionaly male dominated arena.
I was a bit surprised to note that the graphic design industry (my field) is pretty evenly split. But I fear that statistic might be skewed by a lot of homegrown desktop publishing gals who entered that as an occupation on their forms. Call me a snob but I've seen far too many "Melody's Magical Web Sites" and I don't think they should count. :P
Posted by: MJ on Sat May 17, 2003 | ReplyForget the tampons and get yourself a Keeper instead. I've been using one for six years or so and haven't had to bother with tampons since then. They're fantastic.
Posted by: wildsoda on Mon May 19, 2003 | ReplyOr why not just go stay in the menstrual hut?
Posted by: MJ on Mon May 19, 2003 | Reply
