“Do We Not Bleed?” Sanitation, Menstrual Management, and Homelessness in the Time of COVID

Hawi Teizazu, M. Sommer, Caitlin Gruer, David Giffen, Lindsey Davis, Rachel Frumin, K. Hopper
{"title":"“Do We Not Bleed?” Sanitation, Menstrual Management, and Homelessness in the Time of COVID","authors":"Hawi Teizazu, M. Sommer, Caitlin Gruer, David Giffen, Lindsey Davis, Rachel Frumin, K. Hopper","doi":"10.52214/cjgl.v41i1.8838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nAlthough access to adequate sanitation is formally recognized as a basic human right, public toilets have long been flagged as absent necessities by groups marginalized by class, gender, race, and ability in the United States. Navigating public spaces without the guarantee of reliable restrooms is more than a passing inconvenience for anyone needing immediate relief. This includes workers outside of traditional offices, people with medical conditions, caretakers of young children, or anyone without access to restroom amenities provided to customers. This absence is also gendered in ways that constrain the freedom of those who menstruate to participate in the public sphere. Managing menstrual hygiene requires twenty-four-hour access to safe, clean facilities, equipped for washing blood off hands and clothing and mechanisms for discreet disposal of used menstrual products. Public provision of such amenities is woefully inadequate in New York City (NYC), and homeless women especially bear the brunt of that neglect. \nPublic health concerns about open defecation, coupled with feminist complaints that their absence restricted women’s ability to be out in public, catalyzed state investment to construct public toilets in the late 1800s. By 1907, eight had been built in NYC near public markets, and by the 1930s, the city built and renovated 145 comfort stations. However, changing public perceptions, vandalism, maintenance costs, and the City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s all combined to reduce their numbers and degrade their quality. Public pay toilets provided a brief respite before falling victim to protest by feminists, who were rightly dismayed by policies that required payments for public usage of toilets but not for urinals. Supply deteriorated, and by 2019, NYC ranked ninety-third among large U.S. cities in per capita provision of public toilets. The remaining facilities are inadequately maintained and poorly monitored. The absence of public toilets poses an everyday challenge, but public health emergencies bring the need for public toilets into clear focus––as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which eliminated publicly accessible bathrooms in both private and public settings. That said, the effects of COVID on bathroom availability disproportionately affected those who were unable to heed the public health message to shelter at home––mobile “essential workers” and individuals experiencing homelessness. \n \n \n \nHomelessness advocates have long complained that civic toilet scarcity amounts to de facto entrapment, turning biological necessities into “public nuisances” for want of appropriate facilities. Criminalizing public urination and defecation in the absence of public facilities punishes the existence of individuals experiencing homelessness and challenges outreach workers’ efforts to gain their trust. With women increasingly prominent among those living on the streets or in shelters, this scarcity also impedes managing menstruation. Default reliance on private business is no answer for anyone defying passable “customer” profiles. Nor does the recent success of NYC’s “menstrual equity” efforts in schools, prisons, and shelters, with their primary focus on supplying menstrual products, suffice to cover the daytime needs of those on the move. \n \n \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":84468,"journal":{"name":"Columbia journal of gender and law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia journal of gender and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v41i1.8838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Although access to adequate sanitation is formally recognized as a basic human right, public toilets have long been flagged as absent necessities by groups marginalized by class, gender, race, and ability in the United States. Navigating public spaces without the guarantee of reliable restrooms is more than a passing inconvenience for anyone needing immediate relief. This includes workers outside of traditional offices, people with medical conditions, caretakers of young children, or anyone without access to restroom amenities provided to customers. This absence is also gendered in ways that constrain the freedom of those who menstruate to participate in the public sphere. Managing menstrual hygiene requires twenty-four-hour access to safe, clean facilities, equipped for washing blood off hands and clothing and mechanisms for discreet disposal of used menstrual products. Public provision of such amenities is woefully inadequate in New York City (NYC), and homeless women especially bear the brunt of that neglect. Public health concerns about open defecation, coupled with feminist complaints that their absence restricted women’s ability to be out in public, catalyzed state investment to construct public toilets in the late 1800s. By 1907, eight had been built in NYC near public markets, and by the 1930s, the city built and renovated 145 comfort stations. However, changing public perceptions, vandalism, maintenance costs, and the City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s all combined to reduce their numbers and degrade their quality. Public pay toilets provided a brief respite before falling victim to protest by feminists, who were rightly dismayed by policies that required payments for public usage of toilets but not for urinals. Supply deteriorated, and by 2019, NYC ranked ninety-third among large U.S. cities in per capita provision of public toilets. The remaining facilities are inadequately maintained and poorly monitored. The absence of public toilets poses an everyday challenge, but public health emergencies bring the need for public toilets into clear focus––as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which eliminated publicly accessible bathrooms in both private and public settings. That said, the effects of COVID on bathroom availability disproportionately affected those who were unable to heed the public health message to shelter at home––mobile “essential workers” and individuals experiencing homelessness. Homelessness advocates have long complained that civic toilet scarcity amounts to de facto entrapment, turning biological necessities into “public nuisances” for want of appropriate facilities. Criminalizing public urination and defecation in the absence of public facilities punishes the existence of individuals experiencing homelessness and challenges outreach workers’ efforts to gain their trust. With women increasingly prominent among those living on the streets or in shelters, this scarcity also impedes managing menstruation. Default reliance on private business is no answer for anyone defying passable “customer” profiles. Nor does the recent success of NYC’s “menstrual equity” efforts in schools, prisons, and shelters, with their primary focus on supplying menstrual products, suffice to cover the daytime needs of those on the move.
“我们不会流血吗?”COVID时期的卫生、经期管理和无家可归
虽然获得适当的卫生设施被正式承认为一项基本人权,但公共厕所长期以来一直被美国因阶级、性别、种族和能力而被边缘化的群体视为缺乏必需品。在没有可靠厕所保证的情况下,在公共场所穿行,对于那些需要立即救援的人来说,不仅仅是一时的不便。这包括传统办公室以外的员工、有疾病的人、照顾小孩的人,或者无法使用为客户提供的洗手间设施的人。这种缺位也以性别的方式限制了经期女性参与公共领域的自由。经期卫生管理需要24小时使用安全、清洁的设施,配备洗净手上和衣服上的血迹的设备,以及谨慎处理使用过的经期产品的机制。在纽约市,公共设施的供应严重不足,无家可归的妇女尤其首当其冲。公共卫生对露天排便的担忧,再加上女权主义者抱怨露天排便的缺失限制了女性在公共场合的能力,促使政府在19世纪后期投资建造公厕。到1907年,纽约市在公共市场附近建了8个慰安所。到20世纪30年代,纽约市新建和翻新了145个慰安所。然而,公众观念的改变、破坏行为、维护成本以及20世纪70年代伦敦金融城的财政危机,这些因素加在一起,减少了它们的数量,降低了它们的质量。公共收费厕所在成为女权主义者抗议的牺牲品之前提供了一个短暂的喘息机会,女权主义者对公共厕所需要付费而小便池不需要付费的政策感到沮丧,这是理所当然的。供应恶化,到2019年,纽约市的人均公厕供应量在美国大城市中排名第93位。其余的设施没有得到充分的维护和监测。公共厕所的缺乏对日常生活构成了挑战,但突发公共卫生事件使对公共厕所的需求成为人们关注的焦点——正如在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间所看到的那样,私人和公共环境中的公共厕所都被取消了。话虽如此,COVID对厕所可用性的影响不成比例地影响了那些无法听取公共卫生信息的人——流动的“基本工作者”和无家可归的人。长期以来,倡导无家可归者的人士一直抱怨说,公共厕所的短缺实际上相当于诱捕,因为缺乏适当的设施,把生物必需品变成了“公害”。将没有公共设施的公共场所小便和排便定为犯罪,惩罚了无家可归者的存在,并挑战了外展工作人员赢得他们信任的努力。随着露宿街头或避难所的女性越来越多,这种稀缺性也阻碍了月经的管理。对私营企业的默认依赖,对于那些无视“客户”形象的人来说,并不是解决问题的办法。最近,纽约市在学校、监狱和庇护所开展的“经期平等”活动取得了成功,他们主要关注的是提供经期用品,但这也不足以满足那些流动人群白天的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信