- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
You must log in or register to comment.
This is good, but I hate the people using the term “rough sleeping” or “rough living” to refer to unhoused people.
as someone who was homeless just say homeless. don’t say unhoused, it’s stupid. None of us that are on the streets or were on the streets could give two shits what we were labelled. we all said homeless.
saying things like “rough sleeping” or “unhoused” are just labels made up by people who have never and will never experience what we experience and think they’re helping. the fact is most of us who were on the streets were helped by regular people on their own volition. Organizations and advocates were the LAST group to actually help and rarely, if ever, did.
Oh, cool. Until now I thought “rough sleeping” was just the British term for homeless (TIL).
I agree, but the thing is, for social work, this is to distinguish people who literally sleep outside of houses due to poverty from the people who currently do not have a stable place they live and are couch surfing with friends and family for an undetermined amount of time before they move into a more stable accommodation they are responsible for.
As in, you can be homeless for a few months while you are moving between cities, but end up in an apartment after that, which is drastically different to having lost all your support networks and searching for a safe place to sleep each night in a city not knowing when you will get to have a fixed address and a bed to sleep in.
That’s the social work distinction between being in the broader category of “homeless” and “sleeping rough”.
Also, some homeless people are in the system and living out of shelters of various kinds, wheras others are outside the system and living on the street.
In Dutch we have a distinction between homeless and ‘roofless’, the latter being the general name for anyone sleeping outside or in a shelter. Whereas the first is used as a euphenism for anyone unhoused but has not been living on the street for multiple years. It’s a different distinction, but just as imperfect imo; since you don’t have 2 but 3 groups:
-
The not in the system but not on the streets (yet), sleeping in their car or moving from couch to couch,
-
The not sleeping on the street because the system is taking care of them (whether that system is functional or not, at least they’re not in the cold),
- The ones surviving outdoors, voluntary or not.
In the Netherlands we decided foreigners who come to do cheap labour can get housed by their employer, when they lose their job they lose their house. We also decided the system should not let foreigners in. We also decided the system is only for addicts and people with mental health issues. Maybe in other places with other rules these three groups are less distinctly divided, but either way: all three groups deserve a name that is not demeaning nor dismissive. You’ll probably agree.
-
Do you honestly think the person sleeping outside gives a fuck how people describe it? The only thing they actually care about is the next thing to eat and a place safe from the weather.
Source: slept rough.
People might be more interested if you call it what it is instead of giving it a cutsey name.
Like calling dead baby cow veal
Everyone who cares about it knows veal is icky for some reason, even if they don’t know why.
Anyway, what exactly is the fucking problem with sleeping rough as a description? It sums up the problem pretty succinctly.
Sleeping rough sounds like you need a new pillow. Homeless, starving, dying, there are better words.
This has got to be a culture difference. In Australia, if you say sleeping rough, we know what it means, with all the negative connotations you describe. Well, usually not starving.
I haven’t heard the phrase before (Canadian) and I’d picture camping. Like, on purpose.
“Unhoused” states it far more plainly.
Nope. If you’re sleeping on a friend’s couch, you are “unhoused”. If you’re sleeping in your car (not great, but way better than sleeping rough) you are unhoused.
They are two different things. And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute. It is a blank description of what is going on. Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.
And sleeping rough is not offensive, and not cute, and it does not reduce the idea to something cute.
‘Sleeping rough’ sounds variously like having a neighbor who has ragers until 3am and/or camping in the woods to me, so annoying or cute. Maybe its a Euro v. U.S. “Lift vs. elevator” thing though.
Everyone who is affected by it or works in the field knows what it means.
And everyone who isn’t affected by it and doesn’t work in the field, or to put it succinctly, the overwhelming majority of people, can intuit what “unhoused” means: Without a house.
The whole point is, being a pedant about it makes zero difference whatsoever to the people who sleep in the streets, and your dithering is beyond pointless.
It feels like the English really like to choose wording that downplays the severity of things.
It’s true! Who else could name 30 years of violent conflict The Troubles?
I’ve always thought that rough sleeping is a kind of homelessness. I have lived out of my car for a couple months when I was younger but wouldn’t call it rough.
I’m not it’s biggest fan either, but both terms are commonly used in the United Kingdom, and without inherent malice for the most part.
I agree that we should be trending towards “the unhoused” or other more dignified terms, whereas counterintuitively “the homeless” is a perfectly acceptable term elsewhere in the world but stigmatised in the UK.
In short: 🤷♂️
