Why is it a man's job to make sure the toilet seat is where the woman wants it? Why aren't women obliged to make sure they lift the seat when they're done?

Well it is the same with closing a door behind you, it is not the next persons responsibility to do so. The other side of it sometimes men do use the toliet seat so this is not just an invention soley for the use of women.

That being said, I also feel that she should have waited until she had a professional relationship with her coworker before nitpicking. The way she said I'm perfect and he is not leaves me to believe she is probably hard to work with.

Is some of us always look before we use the toilet, then all of us can look before we use the toilet. Grow up...

Ah, this response begs the question. Why is the default position seat-down? It is not like leaving a door open. A door is to prevent the free flow of air, people, and animals. If a door is open, things can go awry while it's not watched. In the case of a toilet, seat upness or downness only matters at the moment of use. Don't confuse courtesy with responsibility. The only possible harm is that someone might dunk their butt. To prevent that possibility, another person or person must exercise eternal vigilance on behalf of the potential butt-dunker(s). And due to the greater frequency of urinations over bowel movements, it's typically women who risk joining the butt-dunking club. I suppose I should also take into account possible dampness or ickiness resulting from men who don't lift the seat to urinate. This is an area ripe for philosophical and ethical speculation. Even sociological survey. For example, back to doors, do the people who believe men should be in control of toilet seats believe men should open doors for women?

"Why is the default position seat-down?"

Simple, as another poster said, men also use the seat down at times. So mathematically, the seat is used more often in the down position. Or do you shit standing up?

It doesn't only 'matter at the moment of use'. It's also way more hygenic to close the toilet when you flush, and I'm assuming you flush just about every time you use it. Numerous studies show that germs cover the entire room with each flush if it's left open. I doubt many people want to close the cover and seat, flush, then raise the whole thing up again.

OK, the guy the LW complained about sounds like a real pestle (i.e., the most primitive tool known to man), though she might be a bit tightly wound herself if she really wants to take this issue to the boss.

On the other hand, give me a break from all the psychologizing about toilet seat placement as a "power play." (no one in this thread has done so, but it always seems to come up eventually.) Some guys are slobs, period. I leave the seat up because society encourages it. (Once in a while I forget; my wife reminds me; "Oops! Sorry, sweetie," and I remember next time. If my wife leaves dirty laundry on the floor, I figure she was tired or in a hurry, not that she's sending a hostile, passive-aggressive message toward me as a male.) I know many may disagree, but I really see toilet seat placement as a "gateway issue" for people with no sense of which battles are worth fighting.

Ascribing hostile, passive-aggressive, male-vs-female motivations to this issue just raises stoopid (yes, that's how I spell it), unnecessary hackles on both sides. If a guy (or anyone) is acting like a slob, just deal with the behavior and don't create extra psychodrama around it.

If a guy (or anyone) is acting like a slob, just deal with the behavior and don't create extra psychodrama around it.

I'd be more upset about the socks than the seat myself. I'd toss them in the trash. He could either fish them out himself or buy more, but I've lived with enough men in my lifetime (Dad, brother, sons, husbands, roomies) that I don't give a flip about the seat. Smelly socks on the other hand, that's something that would have to stop. Although I'd be polite about it the first time, if he couldn't comply with putting them somewhere else or at the very LEAST getting a ziplock bag to keep them in, and put them out of sight. If that didn't work I'd have to find another woman who hasn't croned out yet to arrange something for him to be grossed out about.

This is about the silliest letter to an advice columnist I've ever read. The clincher was when she said she WENT TO THE BOSS (!) about the TOILET SEAT(!)??? I'm a manager, and if one of my employees came to me with something as trivial as a toilet seat dispute, I would seriously question their maturity level. Also, if you work in an office, why in the world would you not want to take the opportunity to stretch your legs and walk every now and then? For pete's sake, shut up and just use the other bathroom. I also totally agree with the other posters about how some people need to learn how to pick their battles. Can we, as a society, please agree to put the whole "toilet seat issue" to rest? Up, down, who cares?? At least we have toilets and don't need to use a hole in the ground like some people in this world. Yet we whine, whine, whine. . . .

Actually, the default position should not be down for two important reasons: there will be more lid-raising/lowering (which we are assuming to be distasteful) and this distasteful task will be distributed in an inequitable manner. And we can prove it with math! (I've seen a similar argument somewhere, so the idea for this is not my own.)

We will need two assumptions regarding relative probabilities which are, admittedly, simplifications. If we knew the actual numbers it would be fun to break it down.

Assumption 1: a co-ed bathroom is used equally by men and women.

Assumption 2: the probability of urination/defecation is 50% for both genders. (If this assumption is changed to take into account the greater need to eliminate liquid wastes, the argument becomes stronger. So this is a very conservative assumption.)

Consider two policies: a) the seat must always be set down, and b) the seat should be left in the position in which it was just used.

Now we can calculate the estimated number of lid raises for these two strategies. We'll let X represent the number of seat raises expected on each visit, so the term of interest is E(X). Letting P(Y) be the probability of event Y and Q(Y) be the expected number of adjustments necessary in event Y.

E(X) = P(female, liquid) * Q(female, liquid) + P(female, solid) * Q(female, solid) + P(male, liquid) * Q(male, liquid) + P(male, solid) * Q(male, solid)

a) The seat always starts and ends down, so Q(Y) = 0 when Y is not (male, liquid) but Q(Y) = 2 otherwise (a raise followed by a lowering).

E(X) = 1/4 * 0 + 1/4 * 0 + 1/4 * 2 + 1/4 * 0 = 1/2 = 0.5. So, on average we expect a trip to a restroom by a random individual to involve half a seat adjustment.

b) The seat always starts in the position it was last used. Since there is a 0.25 probability the seat is up, Q(Y) = 0.25 (always a lowering) when Y is not (male, liquid) and Q(Y) = 0.75 (always a raising) otherwise.

E(X) = 1/4 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 3/4 + 1/4 * 1/4 = 6/16 = 0.375. So, on average we expect a trip to a restroom by a random individual to involve 3/8 < 1/2 a seat adjustment.

From a strict utilitarian standpoint, then, we should favor a scheme in which the seat is merely left in the same position as its last use. But now, consider the inequity. In scheme (a), all raising and lowering is done by men, none by women. But in scheme (b), 2/3 of the raising is done by men, 1/3 by women. (In fact, men on average double their number of seat adjustments under the seat-down scheme.)

The leave-it distribution of labor is still inequitable, but it is less inequitable than the alternative. The only way to argue against this inequity is to claim that, by virtue of their gender, an accident of birth, one sex bears additional responsibilities, and that men are the gender that should shoulder this responsibility. For those, like myself, who believe in the equality of the genders, this is untenable.

In conclusion, it's easy to see why women like having the seat down- they are able to eliminate all of their seat adjustments relative to a leave-it-as-you-use-it scheme. The cost is then entirely borne by men, who have to perform an extra 2 seat adjustments for every 1 saved by a woman. The system with greater social utility and equity is obvious. Also, dogs and cats will live together in harmony.

blueflip:

Can we, as a society, please agree to put the whole "toilet seat issue" to rest? Up, down, who cares?? At least we have toilets and don't need to use a hole in the ground like some people in this world. Yet we whine, whine, whine. . . .

I whole-heartedly agree. The seat up or down issue is too trivial to bother arguing about. Be an adult and put the seat in whatever position you need it when you need it. Our office cleaning crew always leaves the seat up, as do most cleaning crews. Who cares?

As for the socks, if the bathroom is used as a place to store personals, the employer should provide cabinets/cubbies/lockers for the employees. Our cleaning crew would most likely dispose of old socks left on the floor.

The truth of the matter is that the women here are right. Her co-worker should just leave the seat down and not worry about it if some of the piss misses the opening and gets on the seat. Everyone should be alert enough to check the seat position before they sit down anyway, right? Do these women frequently sit on the toilet cover if it is left down with the seat at home (you can imagine the mess they are making in the middle of the night)?

As for the stinky socks, a trash can might be the solution for that...or a couple of flushes (I wouldn't try to flush them both at once, as that may clog the toilet and draw attention to you). If he asks where his socks went (or how they turned up in the trash can), just feign ignorance. It isn't your turn to keep track of his dirty socks. Or maybe they were so old that they grew feet and crawled there on their own. After he goes through a few days barefoot, he should get the message that unless he wants to buy new socks everyday, he should take them home at night.

Nice math, but it doesn't address the fact that microbes splash out all over the room every time the toilet is flushed. Who's going to put the lid down to flush, then pick it up again?

I know that some workplaces have toilets that don't close, though. Mine does, and the guys manage to close it without ever being asked. Nobody makes a big deal if it gets left up on the rare occasion, either.

In our house, the default position is down with the lid down because other wise the little furry ones might leap in.....

Ah, but men can also pee sitting down. Why should women take the responsibility of adjusting the seat to accommodate their choice of peeing position?

apropos1:

...It doesn't only 'matter at the moment of use'. It's also way more hygenic to close the toilet when you flush, and I'm assuming you flush just about every time you use it. Numerous studies show that germs cover the entire room with each flush if it's left open. I doubt many people want to close the cover and seat, flush, then raise the whole thing up again.

I'm confused- we are arguing about the toilet seat here, not the toilet cover. Normally public toilets do NOT have a cover.

Anyways- back to the toilet seat argument- it's much better to have the toilet seat UP when you flush. Because otherwise water can splash onto the toilet seat if you flush with the toilet seat down.