Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating’ (Annotated Bibliography Four)

Bazelon, Emily. “Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating’.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

In the article Making Bathrooms More ‘Accomodating’ by Emily Bazelon, there are a number of arguments made in favor of unisex (i.e. all-gender) bathrooms. Bazelon argues that the root cause of sex-segregated bathrooms occurred in the 19th century when women began entering into previously male-dominated areas like factories and libraries. At the time, people believed women were prone to fainting and so they required special rooms they could rest in. The sex-segregated bathrooms were also created to address privacy and sanitation concerns. In contrast, the modern-day woman isn’t concerned by such matters. Another argument by Bazelon is that sex should no longer be determined by biology, but by how people feel and express themselves. This is because a person who is biologically female may feel she is male—or express that she is male–and because there are other sex-chromosome combinations besides XY and XX. The third main argument of this article has to do with accommodation and feelings; the entire article is about accommodation, but Bazelon provides examples of US schools already accommodating the transgendered by using their preferred names and pronouns, so the question she raises are why not go further and shouldn’t we make everyone feel welcome?

This article is interesting in the sense that it introduces the reader to new ideas, especially if the reader is conservative; however, I don’t consider The New York Times to be obejctive. Take for instance this article. A strong opposing argument is never offered (against unisex bathrooms or the idea of transgenderism), although Bazelon does bring up the Houston campaign against unisex bathrooms–which made use of the commonly perpetuated belief that all men are potential assailants. Interestingly enough, she never mentioned that the “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms” campaign was sexist against men. Instead, she quoted a self-proclaimed liberal woman who opined that this unisex bathroom movement was yet another example of women having to accommodate men, despite the fact that if the movement were successful, then women would be allowed to use the men’s room too.

Mid-term Reflection

I’ve learned a few things from the feedback I’ve received, the required readings, reflecting on the course, and the format of the course.

Regarding feedback, what I took from it is that I’d need to better engage in the readings and try harder if I’d like to produce higher quality pieces and receive better grades. The reason why I haven’t been fully applying myself is in part because of other class obligations and in part because I find some of the readings fundamentally flawed (I’m socially conservative), making it difficult for me to interact with them without completely arguing against them. To even summarize some of these papers raises issues because I feel like I need to accept pretenses that I do not morally agree with–or believe to be illogical. I enjoy interacting with new ideas, even if I vehemently disagree with some of them, but I feel like my hands are tied when I am simply asked to summarize them. I haven’t been doing as much extra credit as I should, but I’ve been thinking about perhaps writing a paper or two arguing against some of the ideas found in the required readings. Finally, if I’m to become a better researcher and writer, then I’ll have to gain a firmer grasp of grammar and learn how to properly cite my work.

As far as whether or not my understanding of the composition process has evolved, I don’t think it has (not yet anyway). I will say however that this class is different in the sense that digital media isn’t completely ignored when composing writing pieces. I believe that’s a good thing, especially in this age of technology and images. It’s important for people to understand how to use images, audio, video, and the Internet to communicate their ideas. This is a skill that can be carried over into any field that produces information that must be disseminated. Furthermore, I’ve started to gain a greater appreciation for built environments and how they can unknowingly and knowingly influence myself and others. I’m surprised that I never gave it much thought up until I was exposed to it in this course.

Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating’ (Reading Summary Four)

 

toilet_flushing_5

“Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating’” by Emily Bazelon is an article arguing in favor of unisex or all-gender bathrooms. I believe her main argument can be summed up in the following way: male and female bathrooms are regulatory in that they permit or prohibit certain groups of people from entering bathrooms based upon their biological sex, but this notion is being challenged by transgender people. The author views this as a good thing because she believes the policies and laws that prohibit people who act and dress like the opposite sex from entering the bathrooms of the sex contrary to their own are unaccommodating and psychologically hurtful. She sees this as contrary to how a civil society should function.

According to Bazelon, many people are against the convention of unisex bathrooms, especially the idea of men sharing the same bathroom as women. She then goes on to cite a case in Houston, Texas where an ordinance which would have allowed men to use the women’s bathroom and vice-versa. However, it was struck down by voters because the opponents of the ordinance aired commercials depicting men attacking women in bathrooms, exploiting the notion that some people possess: that all men are potential rapists or are violent. The campaign seemed to have worked. She also notes that even some liberal women are against the idea of unisex bathrooms because they see this as yet another example of women being forced to accommodate men.

Moreover, Bazelon holds the belief that the beginnings of segregating bathrooms by sex are found in the Victoria era and it was mainly done for privacy and hygienic reasons. Because up until that point it was mainly men who visited libraries, parks, factories–and so these places didn’t accommodate women by giving them their own bathroom. She goes on to cite a law professor by the name of Terry Kogan who explains in an article dealing with bathroom segregation that “shopgirls” were given retiring rooms where they could rest, because the people of that time period felt that women were predisposed to fainting. Bazelon contrasts the origin of segregating bathrooms by sex with what she thinks most modern-day women are now concerned about: not waiting in line for the bathroom. That’s not entirely true though because she also points out in her article that women view the bathroom as a place where they can get away from men, or congregate with their lady friends, which could possibly be another reason why some women are against the idea of men encroaching upon their bathrooms.

Additionally, the author makes the point in her article that some are too dismissive of transgender people. That the people who see a biological woman dressing, acting, or going through sex-reassignment surgery, as still a woman because of her sex chromosomes, are wrong. Her reasoning is that because there are other sex chromosome combinations besides XY and XX we should therefore not solely rely on them for making the determination that a person is a man or woman. Instead, the author seems to want us to focus on what people feel they are and how they express themselves.

His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society (Reading Summary Three)

Do-men-or-women-make-the-best-landlords

The two main arguments Suzanne Tick makes in her article “His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society” are we’re living in a so-called gender revolution and architects and interior designers should jump on board by creating gender neutral or universal interior and architectural designs.

By gender revolution Tick means we’re living in a time when men dress like women, go through surgery to appear like women, or merely identify themselves as women—and vice-versa. In other words, according to Tick, people are no longer confined by their biological sex, but by how they express and present themselves.

Consequently, Tick believes that architects and interior decorators should encompass this gender revolution by changing the way in which buildings are designed and decorated. Tick believes that because it was mostly men that headed Modernism, she thinks the movement is from the male perspective, as well as the designs and such that sprang from it. Further, she claims that we’re still living in a male centered society and that this is especially true in regard to technology. She argues that it’s the amalgamation of all these elements that shapes the design of places and that this needs to be combated for the sake of gender neutrality and inclusiveness. Her solution is to encourage designers to introduce what she thinks are more feminine qualities to interior and architectural design like more windows, soft corners, light, hospitality, and textural materials. If this masculine design isn’t combated Tick fears that it will lead to more unsafe and exclusive areas which may offend or discourage women or people who may identify themselves as women.

There are a few other points that Tick brings up. One of these is with respect to fashion and beauty. She writes that the fashion and beauty sectors are more susceptible to cultural changes (and it occurs faster) than architectural and interior design. The other is we should adopt gender-neutral bathrooms in an effort to make these areas more inclusive and safe for those who may identify as the sex that they weren’t born as. To illustrate this point she brings up an example of an employee who underwent sex reassignment surgery during a vacation and when this person came back to work there was a conflict with this person and his/her coworkers about bathrooms in which both men and women went to human resources asking that this person not use their bathroom. Tick argues that if there were gender-neutral bathrooms or bathrooms that catered to more identities, then this wouldn’t have happened.

Downtown Connector (Exterior Built Environment Description)

The Downtown Connector (75/85) is an interstate that stretches seven miles from Langford Parkway interchange to Brookwood Interchange; and it was built in the late 40s or early 50s, according to the few sources I could find. It looks like a typical highway, but there are a few interesting things that I noticed. I observed and recorded the presence of some homeless people sleeping and apparently living underneath an overpass; they were tucked away in the upper corners, sleeping under blankets on slabs of concrete. Apparently, they’ve grown accustomed to sleeping underneath overpasses, despite the roar of cars rolling overhead, and the smell of gasoline and burnt rubber. I also observed and recorded lots of trash and even glass on the sidewalk underneath this particular overpass. The monochromatic grey color scheme of the concrete and metal coupled with the sight of dirt, lack of light, trash, and homeless people made this site very gloomy, unwelcoming, and imposing.

Under The Overpass (AVI video)

To clarify, I don’t mean to say I don’t like homeless people. I just feel sorry for them–and I realize that rests on the faulty pretense that they’re not happy. Regardless, things looked a little better once I stood side-by-side with the interstate, but not by much. But before I go into that, let me just say that it was a little difficult for me to reach the side of the interstate because of fences that in some cases had barbed wire. Luckily for me, I found a damaged part of a fence that allowed me to cross. The extra light did improve the atmosphere of the place, but it was overwritten by the sight of a two-directional seven-mile long slab of metal and concrete with cars racing down it towards home or work, conjuring in me ideas of monotony, boredom, and impersonality. To me it just looks like an ugly giant machine.

Next to The Downtown Connector (AVI video)

The only thing human about this site are the homeless, the graffiti, and the foot prints in the sidewalk. I see these people and artifacts wrestling with this machine. Despite the lifeless highway, there are some people who live underneath it. And despite the artificiality and durability of concrete, there are some who spray paint over it with human expression—or walk in it before it settles. I guess I’m not much of a city guy.

IMG_0374IMG_0394

Downtown Connector 75/85 Digital Records

 

Under The Overpass (video download)

Here is a 19-second AVI video of the underside of the Downtown Connector (75/85). Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of concrete and the overpass is wide. I saw a lot of trash on the sidewalk. And there were a few homeless people living in the upper corners of the underpass.

Next to The Downtown Connector (video download)

Here is a 34-second AVI video of the side of the Downtown Connector (75/85). It was noisy with the bustling of cars, and I would sometimes get a whiff of gasoline. The video also contains some graffiti, more trash, and a broken chain link fence that I  passed through. Don’t mind my babbling in the video. I thought my phone would be able to pick up my voice but I was wrong.

 

IMG_0372

(click to enlarge)

To get this picture of graffiti I had to climb up the slope of the overpass. It was taken at around 5:30 PM, so the sun was beginning to set, and its light accentuated the art. I’m not sure what it says but I think it looks neat. It serves as a nice contrast against the concrete.

IMG_0382

(click to enlarge)

This is another piece of graffiti I found near the overpass. It’s not as welcoming as the first piece, but I thought it was interesting that it was done on a fence. The person who drew it may have been making a statement against order, establishment, etc.

IMG_0394

(click to enlarge)

This is a picture of some foot prints and writing in the cement of a sidewalk near the Downtown Connector. I found this scene interesting for some same reason I found the aforementioned picture interesting. It can be seen as a statement against urban expansion, authority. Or it could have just been the mixture of  clumsy people not watching where they’re going and those who wanted a few of their words (or names) immortalized.

IMG_0378

(click to enlarge)

I took this picture to contrast all of the pictures I took of so-called insubordinate scenes. I found this sign near the footprints and as you can see it warns people that it is against the law to resell tickets (i.e. baseball) within 2,700 feet of Turner Field.

IMG_0386

(click to enlarge)

Here is a picture of some more graffiti on a street lamp near the Downtown Connector. There are also some stickers here that I don’t understand the meaning of. One of which is the head of man smoking a pipe, wearing a camo hat. Unlike the graffiti in my other pictures, I can actually read this one. It reads “mega”.

 

Tapestry of Space (Annotated Bibliography Number Three)

NERSESSOVA, IRINA. Tapestry of Space: Domestic Architecture and Underground Communities in Margaret Morton’s Photography of a Forgotten New York. disClosure, 10556133, 2014, Issue 23. Web.

In this paper Irina Nersessova reflects on the book “The Tunnel: The Underground Homeless of New York City” by Margaret Morton, which contained a collection of photos and stories about some of the homeless that were found in New York. Additionally, she discusses how part of our identity as human beings are tied to our homes and how the homeless in Morton’s book have become more intimately connected with their homes because they’ve literally built them through their own creative input using discarded materials. Furthermore, she argues that because the homeless are in a sense separated from normal society, they haven’t been influenced by consumerist media, leaving them the room needed to self-reflect and find themselves.

I believe this paper offers an interesting perspective on homelessness. Typically, the homeless are seen as “homeless” and disadvantaged. First, according to Nersessova, they’re not homeless; they just do not live in conventional homes. Second, they’re not wholly disadvantaged compared to normal society. What I mean by that is Nersessova opened my eyes up to the idea that the homeless are not influenced by the media in the same way normal society is. In normal society people are suffused with images, video, and audio of what should be bought, worn, or how one should think, stifling personal development and enlightenment. The homeless are not explicitly impacted by this media; however, they may be implicitly impacted by the actions of a society that is.

SCHINDLER, SARAH. Architectural Exclusion (Annotated Bibliography Number Two)

SCHINDLER, SARAH. Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation Through Physical Design of the Built Environment. Yale Law Journal. Apr2015, Vol. 124 Issue 6, p1934-2024. 91p. Web.

In this article Sarah Schindler examines how the built environment can intentionally and unintentionally, psychologically and physically effect people. Schindler gives an example of this in New York where a city planner named Robert Moses built low-hanging overpasses over roads leading to Jones beach. Because a normal bus cannot fit under these low-hanging overpasses, this effectively prevents those who rely on buses (mainly the poor and minorities) from traveling to the beach. Moreover, Schindler argues that many lawmakers and city planners do not take seriously the idea of the built environment being a form of regulation in the same way a law is; and the people who do recognize that the built environment can be a form of regulation are unable to act through the current jurisprudence.

I believe this is a very thorough paper that provides a solid introduction to the influence of built environments. It contains good examples and explanations of the nature of built environments and why many law makers are as indifferent as they’re powerless to change or prevent the regulation that they may cause.

 

Malaria: How Can Changing the Built Environment Reduce Cases? (Annotated Bibliography Number One)

“Malaria: How Can Changing the Built Environment Reduce Cases?” BBC News. BBC, 11 May 2015. Web.

This video discusses using the built environment to fight mosquitoes carrying diseases like malaria. According to the narrator, 90% of deaths caused by malaria are in Africa; and the narrator suggests that this can in part be combated by changing the built environment. For example, according to the narrator, it used to be the case that in northern Europe people would keep cows inside their homes during the winter, which would attract disease-carrying mosquitoes. However, once people started keeping cows in separate housing, the number of people being bit by mosquitoes was reduced.

This video has given me new insight into built environments. Not only do built environments influence humans, but they can also effect other organisms as well, which in turn can effect humans. I chose this source because it is in the form of a video and it offers an insight not offered by what I’ve read about built environments thus far. Unfortunately, one of the draw backs for this video is its lack of rigor.