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?

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.

harm-reduction? in what ways have you even addressed the risk at all, let alone the way it could be “reduced?”

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?”

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’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:

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.

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.”

All I said was that the hand-wringing over women traveling alone or hitch-hiking was misplaced.

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.

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?