Should a Man Stand or Squat When He Pees?

I’ll be real with you — I looked at this question with serious curiosity. Not to jibe anyone, not to stir the pot unnecessarily, but because this is exactly what I do on this blog. I dive into those everyday things we wonder about but rarely say out loud.

Now, in today’s world — a world full of gender fluidity, single mothers raising boys into men, grandmothers taking up the mantle too — we are encouraged, even taught, to be sensitive. Sensitive towards women, sensitive towards each other, sensitive towards change. And it’s a good thing. A world with better men is a better world. Full stop.

But here’s the rub: men don’t want a "better" world at the expense of their masculinity. And that’s where the conversation about something as simple (yet oddly complicated) as how we pee comes in.

You can also read about toilet arguments between men and women

The Peeing Position: A Man’s Right?

Most men have their set beliefs about peeing — standing tall is almost seen as a badge of honor. For many, it feels almost like a divine right. That feeling you get standing there, aiming confidently, is, for lack of a better word, manly.

Suggest to a room full of men that they should squat or sit while peeing? You might as well tell them to hand in their "man cards" at the door. It’s taboo. It’s uncomfortable. It sparks tension. Gender norms are strong and stubborn, and peeing, believe it or not, falls right into that battlefield.

But in a household full of women? Different story. Some women — understandably — have suggested that men sit down when peeing. Their reasons are practical: it’s cleaner, it’s less noisy, it’s considerate. From their side, it makes perfect sense. No stray splashes, no arguments over messy bathrooms.

However, from a man’s side? It feels like an infringement. A small but deeply personal loss. And honestly, I get that too.

Personal Choice Over Public Pressure

At the end of the day, here’s where I land: each man is entitled to his own choice. Whether you sit, stand, lean, squat, whatever — it’s your body, your decision.

Gender identity, external expectations, even societal trends — they can suggest things, but they don't get the final say. You do.

It's Not My Place to Conclude for People 

Indeed, this might seem like a small issue, but it taps into something bigger: how we navigate change without losing ourselves. Sitting or standing to pee is symbolic of a lot of modern tensions — between what's viewed as tradition and what's viewed as progress, between masculinity and sensitivity.

In my view, it’s simple: if sitting feels right for you, do it. If standing feels more like you, stick with it. There's no one-size-fits-all.

In a world trying to make everyone fit into neat little boxes, sometimes standing your ground (or sitting, if you prefer) is the real act of strength.

And that’s my honest take.
No judgment. No jibes. Just real talk.

Ten African Countries Reject Trump's Offers

The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, attempted to negotiate deals with African countries to strengthen the USA's strategic position in the economy and military. However, these deals were perceived as unfair and regarded as both insulting and neocolonial by African authorities and their people. In one of the proposals, Trump sought control over a significant percentage of Nigerian oil. He also requested Ethiopia to relinquish its airspace to the USA for counterterrorism operations. The demands made by the USA were seen as bullying tactics, leading to the rejection of these offers by the African countries.

This move, by President Trump, makes African countries see China as best trading partner and an ally if compared to the USA. 

Here is the YouTube video from the channel: Travel Pulsey, Dated 20 April 2025 

At this point, the will of African leaders seems strong, but is it because they see the USA as a country getting weaker or they have been lured to give their countries to a new colonial system? Whatever happens, China and BRICS seem to be the better option because they don't work like West which did not pay for what it took. 

The Toilet Etiquette Argument Between Men and Women

Image credit: stevepb@Pixabay

Toilet etiquette has always been a silent battleground between men and women—especially when it comes to shared bathrooms. It might seem like a small, even petty topic, but for anyone who’s had to share a toilet with the opposite sex, it’s clear: this is a war of worlds, hygiene, and habits.

Women often voice valid grievances about sharing toilets with men. One of the most common complaints is the mess men tend to leave behind—particularly urine droplets on the seat or the floor. Unlike women, who usually sit down to urinate, many men prefer to stand. That’s where the problems start.

The truth is, most men don’t wipe after urinating. They simply shake it off and tuck it in—it’s a cultural, even symbolic, gesture of masculinity. It’s fast, it's common, and, for the most part, it’s not something many men even think twice about. But unfortunately, in this process, a few stray drops may land on the toilet rim or floor. It may not seem like much to the one doing the shaking, but for the next person—especially a woman—it can be frustrating, unhygienic, and frankly, disgusting.

For women, the toilet seat isn’t just a surface; it’s a point of contact. Sitting down on a seat that’s been splashed is not only uncomfortable but can also feel like a health risk. If a man has an undiagnosed infection or sexually transmitted disease, the droplets he leaves behind could—at least in theory—pose a risk. While many of these risks are low, the psychological discomfort alone is enough to stir up serious concerns.

This is why many women strongly prefer not to share toilets with men. And while some of the rules they set in shared spaces—like “put the seat down,” “clean up after yourself,” or “sit down when you 

pee”—might feel unfair or excessive to some men, it’s important to consider the situation in reverse. If men had to sit on toilet seats after women had left visible evidence behind, they too would likely have complaints. The empathy lies in imagining a gender reversal: would you be okay sitting on a seat you suspect may have someone else’s bodily fluids?

However, the argument isn’t always gendered. When women use public toilets—shared only with other women—the cleanliness issue doesn’t magically disappear. In fact, it sometimes becomes even more awkward. When the toilet is left unclean, there’s no man to blame. The reality sets in: not all women are as clean as they expect men to be. This realization can feel unsettling, especially when you’ve been the one shouting loudest about hygiene.

Public toilets are a tricky space. Women who are particular about hygiene often find themselves in a dilemma: hover awkwardly over the seat, line it with toilet paper, or simply avoid sitting altogether. Some women have come up with creative and practical solutions, like carrying wipes or using female stand-up urination devices. These devices, while once seen as odd or unnecessary, are becoming increasingly popular for women who want to avoid contact with toilet seats—whether in a mixed-gender space or not.

Ultimately, the toilet etiquette argument isn’t just about cleanliness—it’s about consideration. While the grievances women have are often justified, and the habits men carry are deeply ingrained, the answer lies somewhere in the middle: in empathy, respect, and compromise. If everyone took an extra two seconds to clean up after themselves and think of the next person, toilets—public or private—might finally become neutral ground in this quiet war.

Because at the end of the day, nobody wants to sit in someone else’s splash zone.

#gendercontentions 

How Our Politicians Let South Africa Stop Producing and Start Consuming

In 1996, South Africa was a young democracy. The country was hopeful, recovering from apartheid, and looking to build a strong economy. The Rand was struggling against international currencies like the US dollar and the British pound. Many saw this as a weakness. But on a radio broadcast that year, a man said something that stuck with me: “A weaker Rand is a good thing. It attracts foreign investors and creates jobs.”

He wasn’t wrong. 

The USA begins to invest in the democratic South Africa

The United States saw an opportunity and started investing heavily in South Africa. By 2004, American companies had set up shop here, creating factories and employing thousands of South Africans. Under President Thabo Mbeki, trade relations grew even stronger. For a while, the Rand recovered. It reached R5 to the dollar. But it didn’t last. The Rand began to fall again—and with it, long-term economic stability.

Still, U.S. companies stayed. They paid less for labour because the weak Rand made South African workers cheaper. They also had access to raw materials and low operating costs. So yes, jobs were created. But American companies made even bigger profits from South Africa than they gave back.

China did not want to be left behind in benefiting from the mineral resources and the resources of the country of South Africa

Then China entered the picture.

Unlike the U.S., China didn’t build anything in South Africa. No factories. No job creation. China built factories in China—and then exported the goods here. Our politicians allowed it. Suddenly, every market, every store, and every informal trader was flooded with cheap Chinese goods: paper cups, plastic containers, furniture, and toys.

We could have made those things here.

I watched this happen. I worked in a warehouse that imports Chinese goods. One day I could not believe my eyes when I saw coffee table benches being delivered into the country. I mean, how difficult can it be to make coffee table benches, paper cups and paper platters? But those are also shipped from China and if you are a local manufacturer you will not compete with their price, and consequently your firm will fall. So, local businesses couldn’t compete. One man called Nigel is said to have had 28 employees in his stoves and ovens producing factory, and they'd sell their ovens at R35000 but a Chinese made oven came and was selling at R6500, and put them out of business. That is not right.

In situations like these, one must ask themselves if Trump (Donald Trump the president of the US) is wrong or right. 

Poor economic decisions making, neglecting economists' advices

This wasn’t just a market shift. It was economic sabotage, enabled by our own government. The problem wasn’t China. China played the game. The problem was that our politicians didn’t. According to  Iraj Abedian of the Pan African Investment and Research, as quoted by the Sunday Times (link below) "...we are being screwed. "Not because the Chinese have been smart but because we've been snoozing and naïve."

I understand the geopolitical play here, but the problem is that our leaders acted as if we were begging China for BRIC instead of leveraging what we had. Clearly, we were bringing so much more to the table, so we deserved to carry ourselves with dignity; and we also had to make better deals with the USA too as much as we had to make better deals with China.

But they didn’t insist on production happening on South African soil. They didn’t protect local industries. They didn’t negotiate fair trade. Instead, they opened the gates and let everything [from China] in  —cheap, mass-produced, foreign goods that killed our factories and took away our jobs.

This is the cost of poor trade policy. South Africa went from producing to consuming. From exporting goods to importing plastic. From job creation to mass unemployment.

All because no one in power thought ahead.

Go deeper, links here

Our South African economy seems to have been and is still balanced mostly by foreign economies, so if those economies sneeze our economy shakes or takes a dive. Here is a detailed Wikipedia timeline of the Rand, from its inception, throughout presidents, till President Jacob Zuma ➜ Wikipeadia  

Here is a link to the Rand vs the then trading partners in the early years of the Rand, at Justice.gov.za website  

How China has been bleeding South Africa dry, compared to the USA which has actually been somewhat seeding South Africa, here is the link to the Sunday Times 

The VAT Dilemma: Why It Matters for South Africa’s Future

Vat is set to increase by 0.5% on the 1st of May 2025, making it 15.5%

As South Africa stands on the brink of a potential VAT increase, public anxiety is mounting—and rightly so. Value-Added Tax (VAT) is more than just a figure on your till slip; it’s a crucial lever governments use to manage national finances. Yet, adjusting this lever—even slightly—can have profound effects on the lives of ordinary South Africans, especially the poor and the middle class.

Let’s unpack why VAT increases happen, what happens if they don’t, and how both outcomes have ripple effects—some necessary, some painful.

Why Do Countries Increase VAT?

1. Revenue Generation for Public Services
   Governments, especially in developing economies like South Africa, rely heavily on VAT to fund essential services—education, healthcare, social grants, infrastructure, and policing. When a country faces budget shortfalls due to poor economic growth, corruption, or external shocks (like pandemics or global inflation), VAT becomes an appealing option. It’s broad-based, relatively easy to collect, and hard to avoid.

2. Reducing Budget Deficits
   A growing national debt limits a country’s ability to borrow affordably. Increasing VAT is often seen as a responsible step to reduce fiscal deficits and reassure lenders and investors that the country is managing its finances prudently.

3. Compensating for Narrow Tax Bases
   In many countries, income tax is paid by a small portion of the population. In South Africa, fewer than 8 million people shoulder most of the personal income tax burden—out of a population of over 60 million. VAT allows the state to widen the net.

What Happens If VAT Is Not Increased?

While increasing VAT is painful, not increasing it can be just as damaging in the long term:

• Collapse of Public Services: Hospitals, schools, and municipal infrastructure could suffer from chronic underfunding. Load shedding, water cuts, and deteriorating roads become part of daily life.

• Rising Debt and Borrowing Costs: If the government keeps borrowing to fund basic services without increasing revenue, credit ratings drop. This raises the cost of borrowing and crowds out spending on the poor and vulnerable.

• Inflationary Pressures Elsewhere: To avoid VAT increases, governments might resort to borrowing more or printing money, which fuels inflation—ultimately hitting the poor hardest through food and fuel price hikes.

But What About the Negative Effects of Increasing VAT?

Make no mistake: raising VAT hurts. It especially pinches the poor and middle class.

1. Regressive Nature of VAT
   VAT is a consumption tax. That means everyone pays it, regardless of income. But poorer households spend a larger share of their income on essentials. Even with zero-rated items like bread, maize meal, and vegetables, many necessary items—like soap, electricity, school shoes, and transport—still attract VAT. A 1% VAT hike can make the difference between having enough for the month and going into debt.

2. Shrinking Middle-Class Disposable Income
   For the middle class, VAT increases chip away at already-thin margins. This class is the backbone of consumer spending. As their disposable income shrinks, so does demand for goods and services, slowing economic growth and job creation.

3. Impact on Small Businesses
   VAT increases can dampen consumer demand, leading to lower sales. For small businesses already fighting high fuel prices, red tape, and crime, a VAT hike might be the final nail in the coffin.

4. Erosion of Trust in Government
   When citizens see corruption and mismanagement, VAT increases feel like punishment. People may resist compliance or reduce consumption, further undermining government revenue.

So What's the Middle Ground?

If a VAT increase is unavoidable, protective buffers are essential:

• Expand the list of zero-rated essential goods.

• Provide larger or more frequent social grants to offset the burden.

• Improve transparency: show citizens exactly how VAT revenue will be used.

• Clamp down on corruption and wasteful expenditure, so citizens feel they are getting value for their money.

Conclusion: A Balancing Act with Human Costs

VAT increases are a double-edged sword. While they can stabilize public finances and support critical services, they also risk deepening inequality if not carefully managed. The poorest and most vulnerable in South Africa are already teetering under the weight of unemployment, inflation, and service delivery failures. A VAT increase may tip some over the edge—unless paired with bold, fair, and transparent policy action.

South Africa’s economic future hangs in the balance—and the decisions made now will shape not only the national balance sheet, but the daily lives of millions.