This year’s World Toilet Day theme is sustainable sanitation and climate change which I will touch on more in an upcoming post. Today I want to assess gendered implications surrounding toilets.
The video below summarises the content of this guide.
Furthermore, Amnesty International analysed women’s experiences in Nairobi’s informal settlements, shedding light on the gendered implications of unsafe sanitation. Inadequate access to toilets increased women’s vulnerability to rape and gender-based violence partly due to the distance women must travel to access a toilet, especially at night. Most slum residents use shared pit latrines which are more than 300 metres from most of their homes. Consequently, the practice of ‘flying toilets’ (plastic bags full of excreta that are thrown outside) in these settlements is common. Women interviewed mentioned that there had been a few initiatives to build community toilets that are more hygienic. However, there was a user fee and they were only open at certain times, most closing after 8-10pm. For many, the cost was too high, especially when considering that most have at least three or more children to pay for as well. Thus, many still resulted to ‘flying toilets’. This widespread disposal of human waste in the open poses a major health risk. Child mortality rates in these informal settlements were up to 65% higher than in rural areas of Kenya. Women noted that health care costs, mostly stemming from their children, constituted a considerable part of their expenditure. Additionally, these women brought up the issue of privacy, especially during menstruation (Amnesty International, 2010).
Another investigation concerning female sanitation practices in these informal settlements in Nairobi (Mathare Valley) linked neglectful menstruation practices to toxic shock syndrome and vaginal infections. Furthermore, dehydration and hunger were an observed consequence of withholding foods and liquids to avoid leaving the house to defecate, especially at night. Three quarters of women interviewed said they were fearful of being attacked or ‘bad things’ happening if they were to go out at night. Many said they would rather revert to ‘flying toilets’ or open defecation if the toilets were very dirty, especially if they felt there was a risk of contracting infections such as candidiasis (Winter et al, 2018).
Water Aid recognised that solutions must also be context-specific, considering community preferences and informed participation of women and girls.
However, O’Reilly criticises the heavy focus on the provision and construction of female-friendly toilets and argues instead that toilet security cannot occur unless gender inequalities are prioritized above sanitation. She uses the term ‘toilet insecurity’ to describe the challenges women and girls face when safe and unusable toilets are not available. In other words, the focus should be placed more upon tackling gender inequalities as women’s subordinate position in society is the reason that they cannot use public toilets without fear of violence or harassment. She advocates for a strengths-based approach to address toilet insecurity, grounded in the idea that all individuals and communities can create positive change. Targeting both men and women (rather than blaming all men for gender inequalities) can reduce men’s opposition and defensiveness and thus increase the success of future changes (O'Reilly, 2015).
Winter et al’s investigation proposed a similar solution, contending that future policies and strategies should not only focus on toilet provision, but also space and community dynamics. They should include programs that improve security, social cohesion, and a sense of community rather than increased toilet adoption.
Therefore, if we are to tackle many of the issues that the women raised in the informal settlements in Nairobi, we must address the root cause - deep-rooted gender inequalities. Whilst the provision of accessible toilets is essential, the most common driver of women’s sanitation practices in Mathare was fear of victimization, thus strategies to increase gender parity will be paramount in facilitating the transformation of toilet insecurity to toilet security.
What have toilets got to do with gender?
Firstly, much of the design, planning and management of public toilets are dominated by males, meaning the public toilet best suits the male body (Nath, 2018). WaterAid put together a ‘Female-Friendly Public and Community Toilets’ guide for local authorities which aims to improve the understanding of female requirements concerning public toilets (WaterAid, 2018).The video below summarises the content of this guide.
Furthermore, Amnesty International analysed women’s experiences in Nairobi’s informal settlements, shedding light on the gendered implications of unsafe sanitation. Inadequate access to toilets increased women’s vulnerability to rape and gender-based violence partly due to the distance women must travel to access a toilet, especially at night. Most slum residents use shared pit latrines which are more than 300 metres from most of their homes. Consequently, the practice of ‘flying toilets’ (plastic bags full of excreta that are thrown outside) in these settlements is common. Women interviewed mentioned that there had been a few initiatives to build community toilets that are more hygienic. However, there was a user fee and they were only open at certain times, most closing after 8-10pm. For many, the cost was too high, especially when considering that most have at least three or more children to pay for as well. Thus, many still resulted to ‘flying toilets’. This widespread disposal of human waste in the open poses a major health risk. Child mortality rates in these informal settlements were up to 65% higher than in rural areas of Kenya. Women noted that health care costs, mostly stemming from their children, constituted a considerable part of their expenditure. Additionally, these women brought up the issue of privacy, especially during menstruation (Amnesty International, 2010).
Another investigation concerning female sanitation practices in these informal settlements in Nairobi (Mathare Valley) linked neglectful menstruation practices to toxic shock syndrome and vaginal infections. Furthermore, dehydration and hunger were an observed consequence of withholding foods and liquids to avoid leaving the house to defecate, especially at night. Three quarters of women interviewed said they were fearful of being attacked or ‘bad things’ happening if they were to go out at night. Many said they would rather revert to ‘flying toilets’ or open defecation if the toilets were very dirty, especially if they felt there was a risk of contracting infections such as candidiasis (Winter et al, 2018).
Images of public toliets in Mathare taken from Winter et al paper
What can be done?
‘Female-friendly toilets need to be safe, private, accessible, affordable and well managed, cater for menstrual hygiene management and meet the needs of caregivers’ (WaterAid, 2018).
Water Aid recognised that solutions must also be context-specific, considering community preferences and informed participation of women and girls.
However, O’Reilly criticises the heavy focus on the provision and construction of female-friendly toilets and argues instead that toilet security cannot occur unless gender inequalities are prioritized above sanitation. She uses the term ‘toilet insecurity’ to describe the challenges women and girls face when safe and unusable toilets are not available. In other words, the focus should be placed more upon tackling gender inequalities as women’s subordinate position in society is the reason that they cannot use public toilets without fear of violence or harassment. She advocates for a strengths-based approach to address toilet insecurity, grounded in the idea that all individuals and communities can create positive change. Targeting both men and women (rather than blaming all men for gender inequalities) can reduce men’s opposition and defensiveness and thus increase the success of future changes (O'Reilly, 2015).
Winter et al’s investigation proposed a similar solution, contending that future policies and strategies should not only focus on toilet provision, but also space and community dynamics. They should include programs that improve security, social cohesion, and a sense of community rather than increased toilet adoption.
Therefore, if we are to tackle many of the issues that the women raised in the informal settlements in Nairobi, we must address the root cause - deep-rooted gender inequalities. Whilst the provision of accessible toilets is essential, the most common driver of women’s sanitation practices in Mathare was fear of victimization, thus strategies to increase gender parity will be paramount in facilitating the transformation of toilet insecurity to toilet security.
Comments
Post a Comment