The June 30 Star Tribune carried a delightful essay by novelist Curtis Sittenfeld (whose first name hornswoggled me until I gleaned the fact that she is female) regarding marriage for all. She appears to be a fan of inclusiveness, as am I.
However, in a moment of frolic and detour, she brought up the seemingly eternal Toilet Seat Debate, stating, "I've never been sure why men are more obligated to leave the seat lowered than women are to leave it raised."
Living, as I have for so many years, in a world populated by men, women and toilet seats, I have had the time and the inclination to ponder this question, and thus I long ago arrived at a most rational and appropriate conclusion: Since women always need the seat down for two toileting functions and men need it down for one of two functions, the toilet seat needs to be down for three out of four functions for both genders. Hence, the obligation attaches itself to the male sex.
Furthermore, having grown up in a household with a father and three brothers who always put the seat down, I gamely ventured out into other venues that quickly apprised me of the fact that not all males are so thoughtful.
I have to assume (luckily for her) that Ms. Sittenfeld has never had occasion to sleepily amble into a darkened bathroom and tried to sit on a toilet only to discover too late that the seat was left up.
If she had ever had this experience, her lack of certainty would have immediately dissolved into cold, wet shock, and she would have been baptized into the undying conviction that men should always leave the toilet seat down.
On behalf of women everywhere, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain it to you and to the legions of clueless males who still populate this great land of ours.
Theresa J. Lippert, St. Paul
U.S. Bank
'Hangs on,' but hard to see how stadium entanglement helps
The CEO of U.S. Bank asserts that he wants shareholders to focus on future revenue growth so that he will not have to lay off employees in order to increase quarterly earnings growth ("U.S. Bank hangs on as rates stay low," June 28). Yet he makes the decision to pay $11 million per year for 20 years to have the name of the bank on the Vikings stadium with no assurance that this long-term expenditure of the funds of shareholders and customers will increase revenue.