by Emily Sullivan
Months ago I wrote a piece about hitchhiking for women. I mentioned that it is not as scary as everyone thinks, and that female hitchers have some pretty great advantages. This summer I put my money where my mouth is, and any expectations I had were overwhelmingly exceeded.
I rode my bike from Seattle to Los Angeles, clocking 1600 miles in just over a month. From Seattle to San Francisco I traveled with my friend Melissa, and the rest I rode alone. We were definitely a rarity—a vast majority of fellow bike travelers were men, and all the women we met on the road were traveling with a guy.
Trading stories with other bike tourists made it obvious to me that my adventure was quite different. Stealth camping on the side of the highway—while an essential part of the trip to achieve any degree of street cred—was a huge part of the adventure for most. My adventure was in the many ways I was able to minimize the amount of camping I had to do. Pastors, college students, cowboys, chefs, marijuana horticulturalists, writers, bike mechanics, and nuclear physicists are among the many incredible strangers who welcomed me into their homes. People who had never picked up hitchers before gave me a ride. Old people really enjoyed giving me their extra food. I barged into people’s lives unexpectedly and–with any luck–broke down the walls of fear that shelter people away from one another. I was able to do this in large part because of my gender.
I’m 5’6”, 130 lbs, and built pretty strong. A fellow camper noted one night that I had the burliest leg muscles he’d ever seen. I’m white and had reddish hair cut into a mohawk and usually hidden behind a bandana. Melissa, on the other hand, is itty bitty. She is also white with short bleach blonde hair. I give you our descriptions to demonstrate that we are not an intimidating pair by any means. That said, I was stronger than many of the guys touring, and generally felt just as well equipped to defend myself as anyone else on the road.
It is fair to say that even though I am just as equipped to handle a dangerous situation, I am also a more likely target to be fucked around with. This is true. But people who are looking to fuck with college-aged females are much more likely to be on college campuses than on some random part of Highway 1. Put it this way: if I want to go fishing, I’ll go where there are fish. The road can be a dangerous place, but so can our campuses and neighborhoods. The world is so much safer than we are conditioned to believe, and we can rely on each other.
There is a short list of the worst things that could possibly happen while bike touring. One thing is taking a spill and needing to go to the hospital. Check. Another is having a mechanical issue that I couldn’t repair on the road. Check. The incredible goodwill of strangers made it possible to overcome these setbacks, and learning to trust, rely, and depend on people is among the most valuable lessons I’ve ever learned.
Check out the experience of another female solo traveler, as chronicled by The New York Times.
This is an incredible coincidence.
I have wanted to hitchhike since freshman year of college. Now I’ve graduated, and landed a cubicle job doing what I supposedly love (graphic design).
Yeah, not so much. I realize jobs are rough, but I don’t think you’re supposed to cry and vomit and feel like ODing on sleeping pills every day.
So the past few months I’ve been selling most of my possessions and getting hitchhiking gear, to do what I really love (seeing new places, writing and drawing my experiences).
The problem is, I still live with my mother, and last night I had the brilliant idea of letting the cat out of the bag. She let me know that I’m immature, mentally, socially and emotionally handicapped, stupid, selfish, sick and also immature.
And she convinced me that I was. I was this close to killing myself today. I think the only reason I didn’t was because I wanted to finish a certain book.
I’m not stupid, I’m not immature. I just don’t want to be molded into the doped-up, complacent, conventional Southwest Missouri zombiewoman that she wants me to be. But I can’t tell her all this because I know she’ll just degrade me again, I’m also terrified of talking back to her.
I will print out these articles, and maybe make a pamphlet or something. I simply have to leave Missouri before it gets cold (SAD).
Thank you so much. You are a lifesaver.
Emily–I would LOVE to read more about your adventure this summer!
I have travelled quite a bit alone, mostly abroad in Japan, Thailand, India, Nepal, etc. I love traveling alone for the same reason, you meet a ton of really interesting people. It´s not nearly as dangerous as the world woudl have us believe.
ps. I´m 5´2¨ and weigh about 120lb. My size is not intimidating either…
It’s funny how pieces like this remind me of how strong socialization is and how difficult it really is to get sexist messages out of your head. Because my initial response was screaming in my head “But!!! THAT’S DANGEROUS!!! Rape!!!”
And then, you know, I have to sit myself down and say, “you’re more likely to be raped by some guy at a party than by a stranger. You’re more likely to be raped by your friend than a stranger. You’re more likely to be raped by your boyfriend than a stranger. These kinds of messages about rape and risk are misogynistic and about keeping women in a state of fear and from doing the things they want to do. They’re about holding women hostage to the threat of male violence.”
So I’m glad that you’re writing about this and challenging people’s assumptions and social conditioning, whether they haven’t been challenged before at all, or just need the reinforcement.
Emily — I’m glad you’ve had some great adventures, and I’m all for women not being cloistered by irrational fears.
Yet, concern about volunteering to be alone in a car with a stranger, unless necessary, doesn’t seem to be an irrational fear to me. The “you can die walking across the street” argument has never seemed compelling. Just because some risks aren’t preventable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t avoid those that are.
The “short list of the worst things that could possibly happen” can be disproved by a quick google search.
To the extent that hitchhiking in a particular situation is necessary for some reason, then providing information about it is important. If it’s simply to have an adventure, with time off from work or paid for by the rents, I don’t see the point.
KCG — it’s none of my business, but would another option be finding a job in your field that is more enjoyable? If a job is making you so depressed, as well, it may be worthwhile to talk to someone about that as there may be more behind such strong feelings than a cubicle job — which is how, for better or worse, most of us start out inthe work world. I don’t think some of the things your mom said were fair, but as a parent, I understand her concern and would no doubt have some strong opinions if my daughter had a similar suggestion in 15 years or so.
I read the linked article a while back and would recommend reading the many pages of comments below. There was a lot of criticism as to the race and nationality of the author. It was also pointed out that as someone who makes money from women travelling alone, the author is not without a dog in the fight, so to speak. It’s in her business interests to play down the negative side.
I haven’t travelled much outside of my own city. Having said that I’ve travelled a lot within it and had to rely on friends for places to stay on many occasions. Those occasions taught me to be wary of who I trusted, so although like Octogalore “I’m all for women not being cloistered by irrational fears” I also think that travelling for women is very different than it is for men, and has some very real dangers it is wise to be aware of and take steps to avoid.
brit: yes, privilege is an issue I thought was relevant in this discussion as well. I’ll check out the comment thread you suggested.
To me it’s a parallel to the missing discussion of privilege in the conversation about heroin use on here awhile back, and closer to my own experience, about sex work. As a former sex worker (Vegas stripper), I could write a “Go Girl!” anecdote about how safe and great it was for me. The relevance of that discussion across demographics and types of sex workers? Slim to none.
It’s long and there’s some rubbish to wade through, but I think there were also many reasonable points raised. The Apostate wrote about this sort of thing a while back too but her blog seems to have disappeared.
I have hitchiked with another woman. As a white woman traveling with another white woman, we certainly had advantages over other hitchhikers – people were more likely to pick us up, including other women. I was also threatened, harassed, had stuff thrown at me from moving vehicles, and one guy grabbed my breast (and it would have gone further if between the two of us, we had not been able to pull the guy off of me). For the most part, I had a good time, but there are risks that shouldn’t be downplayed.
Those are excellent points, Brit and Octo. While I believe that my above note that women are more likely be assaulted by someone they know than a stranger holds true across most demographics (and yes, I can think of a couple that might be exceptions), there certainly is more risk for some women than others, in some cases a lot more risk, and it’s important to acknowledge that and not downplay it.
Hello Emily,
Congratulations on your wonderful experience! It sounds like you had a lot of fun. However, I read this:
I’m 5’6”, 130 lbs, and built pretty strong. A fellow camper noted one night that I had the burliest leg muscles he’d ever seen. I’m white and had reddish hair cut into a mohawk and usually hidden behind a bandana. Melissa, on the other hand, is itty bitty. She is also white with short bleach blonde hair. I give you our descriptions to demonstrate that we are not an intimidating pair by any means.
And said, oh. I’m 5’8″, over 200 pounds, built solid and curvy, and I’m black with a curly fro. People often find me intimidating, even when I am not trying to portray myself as such. I used to live in Prince George’s County, MD, where an unreliable bus system and a large black population made for a lot of strangers offering rides to people sitting at bus stops. I accepted some of these and declined others, but there was generally a very strange tone to these encounters. Older women, I could generally trust. They would offer to take me to the station and do exactly that, with pleasant conversation. Everyone else – including older men, younger men, and couples – there was a very strange undertone to these pick ups. There was almost an expectation that I would answer all their questions and that I would continue to spend time with them after I got to the station. I also sensed a sexual undertone to these encounters, one that I am not comfortable subjecting myself to on a regular basis.
This comment from the NY Times article you linked to sums up how I feel:
I understand this author is not representing or trying to represent all women however I disagree with most of the content as it relates to the safety of women who are not white. Many non caucasian friends of mine and myself who do have black hair and dark skin are harassed and do not experience the same life here or abroad that someone white can. There is a whole other level of respect you are accorded. There are unwritten rules of intimidation between non whites and whites and anyone who says its a matter of confidence is misinformed. This fly by the seat of the pants article on traveling for women is not the same if you are not white, and for one friend of mine, not white and particularly attractive.
— Lisa Ramsha
WRT to the stats that one is more likely to be assaulted by an acquaintance than a stranger, I feel like it’s more appropriate to switch that up a bit: a *rapist* is more likely to assault an acquaintance than a stranger. It’s true both ways, but I think it’s important to emphasize that the major factor in whether an assault occurs or not is the aggressor, not the target. Targets are chosen largely based on opportunity, which is a combination of access and perceived vulnerability. The reason stranger rape is less common is because acquaintances generally have more opportunities for access to each other than strangers do. But perceived vulnerability of the target is another major factor, and one over which the target has limited influence — it’s very difficult to influence someone else’s perception of you, because it’s founded in powerful social stereotypes as well as unpredictable idiosyncratic beliefs.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I don’t find the discussion of vulnerability in this article very convincing, because, as others have noted, it doesn’t take into account enough of the relevant social factors. I don’t think a self-perception of whether one is “intimidating” or not really covers it — perceived vulnerability is about the belief on the part of the attacker that the target can’t or won’t fight back, won’t be missed, will be into it, etc. And a lot of those perceptions are built on f*cked-up stereotypes and oppression, not *just* on height and weight.
I’m not interested in advocating fear, but there’s something about saying “it’s really much safer than you think!” without acknowledging the real and oppressive ways in which is safer for some women than others than bothers me.
I live in Canada – generally perceived as a safer place than the US (although most of my hitchhiking experience is in the US). At least 18 women, mostly young First Nations women, have disappeared on what is known as the “Highway of Tears,” running between Prince Rupert and Prince George in British Columbia. Hitchhiking can be fun, and it may be necessary for those who don’t have money, cars, or access to public transportation.
Many of the hitchhikers I have met (and I was certainly part of this group) see hitchhiking as romantic, and somehow “authentic.” I met lots of interesting people, and went places I otherwise wouldn’t have gone. But I would never do it alone, I would never get into a car with more than one man in it, and I preferred rides from women. I was traveling with a friend, both of us were very young (18) and white. We got picked up by a number of older women who told us they didn’t pick up hitchhikers, but stopped for us because we were so young and they were worried about us. id
I’ve only hitchhiked once, and it was in Europe, with a French girl my own age (we were both in college), and we accepted a ride from a fiftysomething woman, so not exactly a dangerous situation and I can’t speak to that.
On the subject of traveling alone, I have done that all through Europe. Backpack, train ticket, guide book, and enough money for bread, cheese, fruit, and a bed in a youth hostel. Everyone else in my life expressed fear on my behalf for me not traveling with others, not telling anyone exactly where I would be (country and general vicinity, yes, address no, since I often didn’t have one to give until I arrived wherever it was). True, this was before Natalee Holloway being kidnapped in Aruba and all of those similar incidents, and I was neither tall, blonde, and beautiful nor of any discernible minority that might make me a target. Light skin, light brown hair, small frame, no Semitic features = not a threat. The great irony is that I’ve now traveled a lot for work, even internationally, but I’d be more hesitant to take off alone and do that today than I was 15 years ago. I’m glad I saw Europe the way I did, but 15 extra years of hearing how unsafe the world is for women and seeing a lot of it with my own eyes would make me less likely to travel alone now. I miss that adventuresome feeling of invincibility that led me to ditch my friends when I realized that if I stayed with them, I wouldn’t have the European experience I wanted.
just…wow. this article bothers me. a lot. for one thing, the reason that acquaintance-rapes are more frequent than stranger-rapes is a matter of access. by definition, women spend more time in private places with people they know than they do with strangers. the rape-myth of the stranger lurking in the bushes isnt a myth in the same way as “if you masturbate you will get hairy hands” is a myth, now is it? its TRUE, that is not safe to be alone with a strange man, if you are a woman. unfortunately, this particular myth isnt really protecting women from rape though, because we live in a rape-culture where even people we know, trust and love are eager to rape us.
perhaps because of the fear we feel, or thats instilled in us, women dont normally go around hitching, and otherwise deliberately placing themselves in close spaces almost completely under that stranger’s control. if we did that more often, the rate of stranger-versus acquaintence rapes would most certainly look different than they do today. i for one am not willing to be the catalyst for that kind of change. i frankly am wondering WTF you are thinking, not only when you are hitching, but when you are telling other women that what you are doing isnt dangerous, and that they should do it, too.
I’ve traveled alone, extensively, throughout Europe; I’ve traveled alone in Southeast Asia; I’ve traveled with my younger sister in Latin America and North Africa; I’ve spent time alone as a tourist in parts of the Middle East. I’ve hitch-hiked, although not alone. Traveling alone as a woman is not inherently dangerous. Yes, you get harassed more. Yes, you need to be on your guard. But the most frustrating aspect of traveling alone as a woman is the fact that you cannot go certain places that men can go; that you can’t walk down the street without being that much more visible. Encouraging women to not travel alone because it’s “dangerous” doesn’t counter that. And in all my travels, I’ve met many, many solo female travelers. We’re out there in huge numbers. The number of bad incidents are relatively small.
I’m honestly sort of surprised by all the hand-wringing and “OMG it’s so dangerous!!” commentary here. The argument that hitch-hiking alone is risky I can understand a bit more, because you are in an enclosed space that someone else has control over. But I think part of Emily’s point was that we realize it’s a bit more dangerous, but like anything, it’s a calculated risk — and it’s not nearly as risky as it’s made out to be.
As an aside, Emily, have you read “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues”?
Also, though, seconding Latoya’s comment about who hitch-hiking and solo traveling is safest for. Your physical appearance is going to shape how you’re treated — and that treatment is going to differ a lot in different parts of the world, depending on how much you look like an outsider.
Also, I’ll just throw it out there that most of the places we travel to have actual women who live there. Like the city I live in, for example, which has a large tourist economy. I’d be awfully confused if someone suggested that a woman shouldn’t travel alone in NY because it’s “dangerous.” Um, not really. Yeah, sometimes bad shit happens, but what are you going to do, stay home? I’ll bet that’s how women in most other places feel.
I’m all for mitigating risk, but I’m also a fan of evaluating ACTUAL risk and then making informed choices. Too often, “It’s dangerous! You might get raped!” is used as a tool to bludgeon women over the head with, and to encourage us to stay home. It makes me uncomfortable to see it being used here.
Also, last time I traveled alone I walked around in a mini-skirt for a few minutes. True story. No idea how I survived.
(None of the above applies to the well-merited privilege comments, btw).
I generally prefer to travel alone, and have never understood the hangwringing about women traveling alone, either. Or living alone for that matter, but I have yet to convince my grandmother that I wasn’t worried about strange men coming through the window of my third floor apartment while I was sleeping.
“I’m all for mitigating risk, but I’m also a fan of evaluating ACTUAL risk and then making informed choices. Too often, “It’s dangerous! You might get raped!” is used as a tool to bludgeon women over the head with, and to encourage us to stay home. It makes me uncomfortable to see it being used here.”
Not necessarily. It’s just that there are ways to travel alone or with a girlfriend, cheaply, without hitchhiking. I’d be the last person to encourage women to stay home or not travel alone. Back when I was a student with a ton of debt and no family bail-out options, I traveled alone or with female friends in a bunch of U.S states and two other countries — taking public transportation and working to pay for it. There’s a reason people are saying hitchhiking as a lone female is dangerous and rape is possible… and that’s because hitchhiking as a lone female is dangerous and rape is possible.
I was less worried about being in cities alone as getting stuck in train compartments with creepy guys without any friends, male or female, as buffers. I did a lot of my sleeping on overnight trains, and though I’m a light sleeper and slept with money and passport under my clothing, there was always some concern of somehow getting in a situation alone with a guy who didn’t understand no, non, nein, nyet, nee, i-ie, bu…
“I’m all for mitigating risk, but I’m also a fan of evaluating ACTUAL risk and then making informed choices. Too often, “It’s dangerous! You might get raped!” is used as a tool to bludgeon women over the head with, and to encourage us to stay home. It makes me uncomfortable to see it being used here.”
in other words…feminists reminding other feminists that stranger rape is real, and that women hitching alone is dangerous, is a buzzkill, right? sure, if you are a “fun feminist” that isnt going to let the patriarchy get in the way of girls having FUN! sheesh. as if this conversation can really be equated with a “head-bludgeoning.” an interesting choice of words, that, considering how much easier it is to rape someone who is unconscious. you do know that many if not most female murder victims were raped first? which kind of begs the question: was she killed as an afterthought, because the rapist didnt want to leave any witnesses? or do woman-killers just like to get their rocks off, and find it convenient to do so having taken her to a private place in order to kill her?
look. victims of stranger-rape, perhaps even more so than victims of acquaintence rape literally wish that the guy wouldve killed them, because living with the trauma afterwards is so hellish. there are often dire physical injuries (up to and including attempted murder, where the victim was left for dead and somehow survived) not to mention PTSD, crippling anxiety and depression, and a lingering fear that it will happen again, all of which can last literally forever.
we are not talking about getting mugged, beat up, or breaking every bone in your body due to a sky-diving accident. we are talking about rape. we are even talking about murder, and attempted murder. if you are so interested in flipping off the rape-culture we live in, why dont you give up your car, and walk everywhere, even at night? you could decrease your carbon footprint, in the process. why not live in a tent under a bridge? also decreasing your carbon footprint, and saving on rent, to boot. talk about an adventure. sound appealing? no? well then, you arent really “mitigating risk” and you arent “evaluating actual risk.” you are balancing the risk-to-fun ratio, and deciding that its worth risking your life, and your future, to have a little sexy-fun.
as the posters said above, there are plenty of ways to travel alone without hitching, although thats not entirely safe, either (getting stuck in a train car alone for example).
factcheckme, as someone who actually was sexually assaulted when I was traveling while female, I find your remarks incredibly condescending. Women should definitely be aware of potential risks, but it’s up to the woman herself if those risks are enough to keep her from doing a certain thing, not you. You are also not the arbitrator of how women react to their rapes or what they wish would have happened.
I will continue to travel by myself when I feel like it, and continue to encourage other women if they decide they would like to travel.
I read this site almost every day, but have never commented before – but here goes.
What moved me enough to finally have the guts to post was the amount of defensiveness and hostility with which those posters who have dared to point out the dynamics of race and privilege have been met. I doesn’t seem to me that any poster is intending to tell other women that they are wrong for having had a successful experience hitchhiking or berate them for doing so. I do think they are trying to unmask the critical role that apparent racial identity plays in determining who is more likely to have a safe, satisfying hitchhiking experience and who is not. They are trying to express a critically important experiential perspective that was conspicuously absent from the original post. Nor does mere acknowledgment of the effect of “physical appearance” really begin to cover the complicated historical dynamics of the effect of apparent racial appearance on a woman’s hitchhiking experience.
Evaluating actual risk means evaluating *all* the factors that go in to creating a safe/unsafe situation, not the least of which includes an honest assessment of the dangerous effects of the intersection of racism, race privilege, and apparent racial identity. Nor do I think it encourages frank discussion to excoriate people for pointing out the dangers of hitchhiking (and the degree to which these dangers vary from woman to woman, based on, among many other things, a person’s apparent racial identity) but only include a validation of such discussion as a perfunctory, parenthetical afterthought.
I don’t think a self-perception of whether one is “intimidating” or not really covers it — perceived vulnerability is about the belief on the part of the attacker that the target can’t or won’t fight back, won’t be missed, will be into it, etc.
Exactly–that’s what makes it less dangerous for white women. People in the US who aren’t white are a more vulnerable population, and predators know it.
@factcheckme: Wait, I’ve never owned a car, and I do walk everywhere, including at night. Am I supposed to be in fear for my life here?
Uh… yeah, done and done. Been doing that for the past eight years.
Well, sure. But I think there are multiple conversations going on here. I agree with the commenters who discussed how race influences and shapes safety; I didn’t have much to add to that. But not all the detractors from this post were coming at it from that perspective. Some (FactCheckMe, for example), seem to be just saying, “OMG you have a vagina you could get raped and killed!!!” That’s pretty problematic.
I do think pushing back on the original post when it comes to whose safety we’re talking about is really important; but that’s not what I’m seeing from some of these comments. What I’m seeing from a few of them are the same tropes about universal female vulnerability. I’m all for honest and frank discussion, but commenters who basically say that women who travel alone are inviting rape, and that to suggest otherwise is the sign of a “fun feminist” who doesn’t want her buzz killed? That’s a very different kind of comment from “there are really complex race, class and ‘western’ privileges going on here that we should discuss.”
@Jill #26: Ditto. Are we supposed to have male chaperones after dusk?
“Well, sure. But I think there are multiple conversations going on here. I agree with the commenters who discussed how race influences and shapes safety; I didn’t have much to add to that. But not all the detractors from this post were coming at it from that perspective.”
Jill — I agree with you (and stated earlier) that the post didn’t reflect issues of privilege across a number of demographics.
But it seems like you’re saying that racial lines are the only legitimate reason to critique the OP. And you put forward a characterization of the other critiques as all saying “women who travel alone are inviting rape.”
My comment above was fairly clear in endorsing women traveling alone, but (1)stating that women (of all races) hitchhiking is problematic, and then (2) cosigning brit’s point about privilege issues (which Latoya later elaborated on) making it even more problematic in certain cases. Are you saying that you endorse only (2)?
If so, I strongly disagree. I don’t think, in noting why race impacts considerably on safety, one should lose the point that women generally should not be overly sanguine about hitchhiking. The commenters making that point, while clarifying that women can and should travel alone safely, should not be lumped into “tropes about universal female vulnerability.” Saying that women of color are the *only* vulnerable women in hitchhiking situations carries its own problems regarding race analysis, and frankly seems to be a very simplistic way of characterizing acceptable vs unacceptable critique.
To clarify further regarding my comment #29 that’s still in mod. I realized that “Saying that women of color are the *only* vulnerable women in hitchhiking situations carries its own problems regarding race analysis” is very vague.
What I wanted to say here is that by making this kind of boolean analysis, one is taking a layered analysis about how race combined with gender affects safety, and basically othering women of color into a group for which “rule X” applies while otherwise rule X doesn’t apply. That seems to be an attempt to neatly create some completely separate category of women for which completely different rules apply. Given the large variety of sexual and vulnerability signals sent out by the large variety of women of different races, clothing choices, ages, physical presentation, etc., that kind of all or nothing analysis seems to me to unreasonably “other” women of color.
so you gave up your car…but utterly failed to address the “living in a tent under a bridge” option. how about living in a bad neighborhood? how about living in a homeless shelter? you are not bravely flipping off our rape culture here, as much as you would like to believe otherwise. you are deciding that some things are worth the risk, as long as they are “fun.” many women live every day in dangerous situations where the payout is NOT “fun.” the payout is that they get to live another day in a dangerous situation. you are “bravely” giving up a warm bed in a safe place, and trading it to hitching and camping along the side of the road, when countless women domestically and worldwide could only dream of being in your shoes. and you are patting yourself on the back for being so brave. you arent brave, they are.
You’re right, I “utterly failed to address the ‘living in a tent under a bridge’ option.” You got me!
Seriously, I never claimed to be bravely flipping off rape culture. I never claimed traveling alone or hitch-hiking was “brave.” I never patted myself on the back for my bravery. I never said that women who live in less privileged circumstances aren’t brave. Christ. You’re putting words in my mouth and then arguing with things I never said. I’m sure it’s entertaining, and it definitely works to get yourself whipped up, but it’s pretty pointless.
Look: All I said was that the hand-wringing over women traveling alone or hitch-hiking was misplaced. I don’t hitch-hike; I’ve done it once or twice (more often if you call getting rides with people you met while traveling “hitch-hiking,” but I don’t). I don’t deny that hitching is more dangerous than other forms of travel. I’m not arguing that it’s sexy or brave or 100% safe. I agree that it’s a privilege to be able to feel safe while traveling.
What I am arguing is that the tut-tutting of women who travel alone or women who hitch-hike (and those are two distinct though sometimes overlapping groups) is problematic. I’m arguing that the conversations read a lot like those surrounding rape culture, where the onus is put on women not to go out at night or not to wear short skirts or not to do this, that or the other thing in order to protect themselves. Self-protection is important, and I don’t deny that women do face obscene levels of abuse at the hands of both strangers and people they know. What I’m saying, though, is that life is a balancing act between safety and freedom, and we all make choices and risk assessments. For me, traveling is something I crave and need; it’s something that I need in my bones, that I need for my mental health and for my soul. Not everyone feels that way; some people feel that way about other things. But I need to go places, and I can’t be in one place for too long or I start to get really depressed and I lose my sense of self. So I travel when I can, how I can. Often that means alone. Often that means on the cheap — and on the cheap means cheap transportation (i.e., not always an airplane or the first-class train car). It can be a wonderful experience. It’s not something that most female travelers do in order to be “fun” and “sexy” (and I wonder if you’d launch those same accusations at a man who said he liked to travel alone). It is, I suppose, riskier than sitting at home in your living room. It’s also riskier for me to take the subway to work every day than it is for me to stay in bed; it’s riskier for me to eat shellfish than it is to eat Cheerios. We all make choices when it comes to the risks we’re going to take; those risks are informed by necessity, by desire and by love. My argument is that solo travel, for many women, is a calculated risk that is worth the pay-off.
So yes, it chaps my hide when people argue that women shouldn’t travel alone because we’re putting ourselves at risk. What else are we supposed to do? Never go out without a male chaperone? Just not see the world because it’s too risky?
You’re right, I “utterly failed to address the ‘living in a tent under a bridge’ option.” You got me!
i am not playing “gotcha” here. but its telling that you identified with not having a car, and addressed that, but it didnt even occur to you to address the point about living in an unsafe place. thats because you pretty clearly live in a safe place, and you pretty clearly do not want to address the problems of privilege that you have displayed here, and that more than one person has noticed.
All I said was that the hand-wringing over women traveling alone or hitch-hiking was misplaced.
and there are several women on this board to think its properly placed, when it comes to hitching. do you have a problem with that? someone above asked if you have read “even cowgirls get the blues.” i have read it and one thing was striking and its lasted with me for years: the hitchhiking female protagonist *let* guys molest her. i think that was the only way that the author (tom robbins, whom i adore and obviously does a lot of research for all his books) could realistically have his young, female protagonist hitching. he addressed the rape problem, and thats how he chose to address it. *not* addressing it, for him as an author, obviously wasnt an option, and it wouldve felt inauthentic, even to his readers. you seem to be *not* addressing it. and it feels inauthentic. again, i am not the only one who has noticed.
it chaps my hide when people argue that women shouldn’t travel alone because we’re putting ourselves at risk.
i havent seen anyone say that. i havent said it. what i have seen is that several people told you that you are the only one saying it. and here, you are the only one saying it, again.
shit. italics fail. sorry bout that!
I’ve addressed the privilege issue in about three comments now — what I’ve said is that I am entirely in agreement with the assessments others (like Latoya and Octo) have made. I have nothing to add beyond that because I’m not disagreeing.
I’m also not disagreeing that rape and assault is a risk. I’m taking issue with the way this is being discussed, and how rape and assault are being used as “warnings” against women traveling.
@ Octo:
No, I’m not saying that. I agree that hitch-hiking can be dangerous for women of all races — to say it’s only dangerous for women of color would be pretty ridiculous. What I’m saying wrt race is I think similar to what others are arguing — that our relative safety (our actual safety and our perceptions of how safe we are) is very much informed by things like race, class and gender. I agree that all women are vulnerable, to some degree; that vulnerability shifts depending on the woman in question, and her context. It depends on, as others said above, perceptions of how much she’ll be missed, how valued she is, whether or not she’s a part of the local community, etc.
All I’m pushing back on is the way some — not all — of the critiques were framed. I’m not dismissing legitimate safety concerns. I am saying that I don’t think solo travel and hitch-hiking are always as dangerous as they’re made out to be; I’m further arguing that we can discuss them in a way which emphasizes harm reduction but which offers solutions beyond “just don’t do it, it’s dangerous.”
I’m further arguing that we can discuss them in a way which emphasizes harm reduction but which offers solutions beyond “just don’t do it, it’s dangerous.”
harm-reduction? in what ways have you even addressed the risk at all, let alone the way it could be “reduced?” what does that even mean? once the ball is rolling, theres not alot you can do to “reduce” the harm of being raped. did you have some safety tips that i missed? seriously. i just re-read your piece, and most of the comments here, and i still havent seen you address the risk.
for the sake of brevity, you might specifically address the risks and “harm reduction” tactics related to hitching, since everyone seems to agree that solo hitching is the bigger problem here.
I would Control + F for the word “risk.” I’ve said hitch-hiking is riskier than other forms of transportation. I’ve said there are legitimate safety concerns. I have not one time said that there are no safety issues involved, or that hitching is safe.
You’re right that I haven’t taken your tactic of lecturing everyone on the thread about OMG RISKY YOU’RE ALL GONNA GET RAPED. I’m ok with that.
I also think you need to read up on the concept of “harm reduction.” It means taking proactive steps not to neutralize risk, but to make the safest choices possible given other demands and needs. In my opinion, part of harm reduction in this area is creating a safe space for women to discuss the choices they’ve made — like the choice to hitch-hike — without making them feel like they’re inviting rape, and without making them feel like if they were raped, they could never do anything about it, because the response would be, “But you were hitch-hiking, how could you have been so stupid?”
Thank you for your responses Jill.
Jill — I appreciate the clarification. I am still confused, though, re what is being said.
The problem I am having is that you say more recently “What I’m saying wrt race is I think similar to what others are arguing — that our relative safety (our actual safety and our perceptions of how safe we are) is very much informed by things like race, class and gender.”
Of course we can all agree with that.
But it doesn’t explain why you earlier said something quite different: “I agree with the commenters who discussed how race influences and shapes safety; I didn’t have much to add to that. But not all the detractors from this post were coming at it from that perspective” and “I do think pushing back on the original post when it comes to whose safety we’re talking about is really important; but that’s not what I’m seeing from some of these comments” and “I’m all for mitigating risk, but I’m also a fan of evaluating ACTUAL risk and then making informed choices. …(None of the above applies to the well-merited privilege comments, btw).”
This all indicates that you felt the only acceptable critique would be one about how race affects safety.
Therefore, presumably the unacceptable category would include those who said the OP was too sanguine re the risks of hitching while female generally, some of whom also made the point that privilege distinctions render this even more emphatically the case.
In the recent comment, you say you weren’t actually saying hitching is only dangerous for WOC, but that other comments were saying “just don’t do it, it’s dangerous.”
But in fact, most of them weren’t saying that. For example, comments #6, #7, #9, #12 and #13. None of those were alarmist, but simply were taking issue with the risk evaluation (or lack thereof) laid out in the OP.
So why am I making such a big deal about this?
Because to me that what was being said in a few comments, and not explained, is troubling. Race is a key factor that increases risk for a woman hitchhiking. There are others as well. Age, on either end of the spectrum. A type of clothing that is interpreted a certain way, through no fault of the wearer. The neighborhood — and related class issues. The time of day. The proximity of open businesses. The degree to which one conforms well, or for that matter does *not* conform, to conventional standards for feminine appearance. Ones knowledge of the locale.
So #35 doesn’t address how it makes sense to say that “how race influences and shapes safety” is the only worthwhile critique to make here, or one is in the “bludgeoning” category, based on the above facts. I’m no race expert, but one thing I do understand is that WOC are women — women who encounter oppression on an added level that can be multiplicative — but women, not some separate category of being. In isolating this group out as “OK it’s worthwhile to say race shapes safety but otherwise, the commenters are just hysterical” is going past an intersectional analysis towards othering. I could be misunderstanding here, but this is what is troubling me about these distinctions that are being made.
“I would Control + F for the word “risk.” I’ve said hitch-hiking is riskier than other forms of transportation. I’ve said there are legitimate safety concerns. I have not one time said that there are no safety issues involved, or that hitching is safe.”
typing the word “risk” a bunch of times and conceding that it exists, but saying its not as bad as its made out to be, and that it can be minimized, is not the same thing as “addressing” it. so give me a break with the snark, m-kay? i keep waiting for you to make a point. for real. and then you write this:
“You’re right that I haven’t taken your tactic of lecturing everyone on the thread about OMG RISKY YOU’RE ALL GONNA GET RAPED. I’m ok with that.”
never said that. but again with the snark. WHATS YOUR POINT? just when i was starting to wonder whether you had one, theres this:
“I also think you need to read up on the concept of “harm reduction.” It means taking proactive steps not to neutralize risk, but to make the safest choices possible given other demands and needs.”
MORE SNARK! oh goody. and telling me what i need to do. you are the author here, isnt it YOUR JOB to explain what you mean? i am not the only one thats having problems with what you wrote. you can choose to have issues with the way i *framed* my response to you, but am not saying anything very different from several other women here. all of which you have ignored…excepting the very generic concessions “i see your point, i dont disagree” etc. WHATS YOUR POINT?
“In my opinion, part of harm reduction in this area is creating a safe space for women to discuss the choices they’ve made — like the choice to hitch-hike — without making them feel like they’re inviting rape, and without making them feel like if they were raped, they could never do anything about it, because the response would be, “But you were hitch-hiking, how could you have been so stupid?””
finally, some actual substance. but i still dont think you are being clear. is “harm reduction” to you, the same thing as “risk reduction?” because clearly, risk and harm are not the same. reducing the HARM of rape will be healing in a safe place, after its already happened. but wouldnt most women rather it not happen at all? then theres NOT MAKING IT WORSE by victim-blaming etc….but again, thats ex-post facto. the rape has already occured. i am being serious here. what are you talking about?
[...] since I’ve been guest-blogging there since Monday. Emily Sullivan from Equal Writes has an interesting piece up about bikeriding across the country both with her female friend and alone. An [...]