From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Fear and Social Conditioning
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.124526.8112@brtph560.bnr.ca> JB <jbl@mesaadm.cre.nt.com> writes:
>Now I'm really upset.  We have been discussing various safety issues and
>male/female interaction in this space.  A post mentioned "social
>conditioning" and that got me really thinking.  Am I taught, conditioned,
>encouraged to fear?

You bet your sweet bippy you are.  (There, *that* expression should date
me. :-) )  And you correctly identified many of the reasons for that
conditioning.

>The question: If your significant other (female) were to trek alone or in
>an all female group, what would be your degree of concern for her safety?
> I'm talking primarily about the threat of danger from other humans.

I'd worry more about her sanity than her safety, as solo treks are about as
foreign to my wife's way of movement in the backcountry as a walk on the moon
would be.  (Lest I be misunderstood, she is a *very* proficient outdoorswoman,
but she just *never* soloes.  Safety isn't the issue; enjoyment is.)  As for
safety, however: that depends, and I think it is time to come to terms with
why.

How long will we persist in the illusion that "safety" in the backcountry is
monolithic -- that your chances of incurring unpleasantness from other human
beings is the same anywhere out there?  'Tain't so.  It certainly isn't so in
cities -- we all know about the "bad neighborhoods" in certain notorious
metropolitan areas -- and there is no reason why the backcountry should be
any different, particularly since the same factors that make bad city areas
bad also work to some extent in the wilds.  Poverty, racial/ethnic tensions,
drug problems ... they're all there in the boonies too, *but* as in cities,
the foci are distinct and limited.

In general, the wilds of New Mexico are pretty safe from human peril, although
there are abundant ways to get dead from natural causes if you screw up.  (I
ignore those for the present discussion; again, my wife knows her way around
the outdoors here.)  There is one good-sized chunk of real estate, however,
where I would tread *very* carefully, and would expect her to do likewise,
because it is a notorious "drop zone" for duty-free shipments of interesting
imported alkaloids.  Another place (Dale Redd and I swapped notes on this one
and agree -- don't we, Dale?) is known for spooky encounters between the WASP
yuppies who backpack the vicinity and the poor-as-church-mice, predominantly
old-Hispanic townsfolk nearby, and I would not want Emily on her own near the
trailheads there, though once she got back in a ways, everything would be OK.
There undoubtedly are others, and that's just in northern New Mexico -- in
spite of which I would estimate that 95%+ of all backcountry areas and
trailheads in the region are safer for a single woman than the preposterously
safe, sleepy little town where we live.  So why get bent out of shape about
the spooky 5%?  Just know where they are and stay away.  

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry