In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Wide Open Spaces

I intended this post as a giggly nod to the excellent Onion op-ed, “Sometimes I Feel Like I’m the Only One Trying to Gentrify This Neighborhood,” which has been linked by Jack at Angry Brown Butch and az over at goingsomewhere. Instead, it turned into a post in response to some of the events az referred to, and how the self-absorption that permits gentrification is also demonstrated outside the cities. I’m very familiar with NIMBYing, too–our high school had a closed campus because the shopkeepers didn’t want a bunch of teenagers who weren’t white buying lunch downtown. Just a few years ago, one of our neighboring towns tried to make it illegal to rent to people outside your family. Like az says:

What they’re doing to us. I love the victim mentality of people who own property. When you own a house, suddenly you become a hypersensitive entity at risk of all kinds of potential violations, real and virtual. Even the presence of a particular kind of person a few blocks away is violent. It’s bullshit: when I lived on a street with a rooming-house in Brunswick, the increased saturation of people walking on the street made it feel safer, especially at night. Sure, some of these people were obviously unhinged; but you say hello, you roll them a cigarette, you have a chat. We often sat in the window of my room, on the front verandah facing the street, and felt safe. Here in Coburg, people don’t hang out on the street. (Okay, with the exception of the kids opposite who play with their cars weekends, and who are, frankly, obnoxious: loud techno all day, incessant revving, squealing brakes, and no hello.) The blocks in Coburg are big, the front yards are spacious and everyone drives, so the only time you see the neighbours is when they’re climbing into their car. No-one knows what’s happening outside, because everyone keeps their front blinds closed.

When I was maybe fifteen years old, I would sometimes go to movies by myself at the theater in our downtown. Because we lived in the suburbs, everything was spread out–it was more than two miles to the nearest cup of coffee. The uniplex was about a forty-minute walk from home. I’d read in the bookstore for a couple of hours and then go see a late-evening movie if a friend was working the ticket counter. The downtown closed early, and the family homes between its shops and my front door were quiet and locked after six or so. In the suburbs, you never leave your house unless you’re in your car. I loved walking home in the nighttime silence, until the second time I was followed by someone in a car.

(I was about eleven the first time, walking home from the store with some emergency groceries. He pulled over to the sidewalk just as I was walking past the condos where my sister’s best friend lived. He said that he noticed me in the checkout line, carrying that heavy bag, and would I like a ride. I said no thanks, of course, and kept walking. He waited for a second or two and then drove on. I didn’t tell anyone at the time. I think I convinced myself that he might have just been a nice middle-aged man who didn’t want a little girl carrying groceries home by herself. I also have dim memories of a man asking me to help him find his dog when I was even smaller.)

That night, I walked home alone at about ten. The car drove past me the first time when I was just crossing into the residential area, still half an hour from home. The car drove past very slowly, which was strange on a deserted main street. And then it stopped, but a ways away–nearly seventy feet down my path. I kept walking. As I passed the car, I could feel him staring at me–I might have glanced at him, I’m not sure. When I was about ten feet ahead, the car started again and pulled past me–even more slowly than before–and then stopped to wait for me a second time, sixty or seventy feet ahead. I backtracked and turned left into the first street, which was dark. The car met me again two blocks later, just as I was reaching the second broad street that would take me all the way home. He slowed but did not stop, and as he drove past he called out the window, “Where do you live?”

The rest of that walk is hard to remember. I know I switched streets every block, walking in a long diagonal that would take me further from home. I know that the car kept circling me. There were perhaps five more passes, but he didn’t say anything else. I didn’t look at him. I remember a man in his thirties, maybe, with dark hair. His car is a junky sedan, and in my memory it is pink as a lung. Other than that, I can’t picture him or it at all.

During all of this, I hadn’t seen anyone else. His was the only car on the street. I was the only person on the street. I decided to go and ask for help. I was shaking. I turned right instead of left, into what I think was a cul-de-sac, and rang the first doorbell. Its door definitely was pink, and a motion sensor flipped on the porch light when I stepped onto the driveway. I jumped. I remember ringing the doorbell, and banging on the door. I was frantic. The house belonged to a married couple. I don’t remember which I talked to first. I think I talked to them both. I explained that I was being followed by a strange man. I think I said something like, “He won’t leave me alone.” They called the police. They did not open the door. I waited on the stoop for ten minutes or so. I kept talking, explaining that I was scared. I thanked them. I was embarrassed. The little circle of light made me feel safer, but I couldn’t see past it, and I was afraid he would find me. I wanted to get up and start walking again.

A policewoman showed up eventually to drive me home. I don’t remember whether or not she talked to the married couple. I think I thanked them. I was still crying. On the way home, the officer told me that I shouldn’t go out alone after dark. I remember thinking, A seven-o-clock curfew? Do you think my parents have time to walk me to the library? Do you think they can drive me home?She dropped me at my front door, and waited until I was inside to leave. I told her what had happened, but I don’t think anyone bothered looking for the guy. Maybe it sounded as though I had just gotten spooked by the quiet and the dark. I was a teenager, after all, and clearly emotional. I never told my parents what had happened. I did walk home alone after that; the alternative really would have been a seven-o-clock curfew.

This is why I am not overly fond of the suburbs–and why I probably do or will contribute to urban gentrification myself–and why I have so much trouble taking claims of suburban safety at face value. If that married couple had not been home, or if they had been a little more paranoid, or if that man or some other man had been a little more aggressive, I would have had no help. Had I been anyone other than a white teenager from a house like theirs, had I been in shock or in pain or showing obvious signs of violence, I probably would have been given even less assistance. They might have called the police on me. The suburbs I grew up in were not towns. They were a collection of beds for people who spent their waking lives in the cities miles away. People pretended to whatever distance their wide streets and thick walls did not allow them to achieve.


67 thoughts on Wide Open Spaces

  1. I know it wasn’t really the point of the post, but that experience sounds awful. I know that you probably felt grateful at the time, but what kind of people don’t let an obviously terrified kid inside to wait. Maybe I’m not paranoid enough for the suburbs, because that is just cruel.

  2. The suburbs are hell. The end.

    They are the opposite of healthy and safe communities. They will be be deserted in 50 years.

    I’ll do what I can throughout my life to kill the suburbs.

    I’ll also do what I can to kill gentrification. It’s entirely possible for well-off people to move into urban areas without crowding out poor locals, and the safest, healthiest, and more vibrant neighbourhoods are the ones with the greatest diversity.

  3. It’s entirely possible for well-off people to move into urban areas without crowding out poor locals…

    That’s debatable. If I want to buy a house and I’m competing against someone with 1/4 my income, they lose. Unless I choose to forgo the place I want to buy in favor of the poor person, and assuming someone making only 3 time what the poor local makes doesn’t sweep in and grab it.

    I’m open to suggestions about what can be done in terms of public policy to mitigate the problems associated with gentrification, but I don’t see any obvious ways to avoid displacement of poor people.

  4. I live in a somewhat gentrified urban area which was once notoriously crime-ridden and generally horrendous. It’s still very much a mixed-income area, which I attribute in part to the fact that there are a lot of housing co-ops in the area. Most of them were built back in the days wen the land around here was dirt-cheap and were thus attractive to the government agencies which were subsidizing the co-ops. A fairly significant minority of the co-ops are First Nations, which keeps the neighbourhood ethnically diverse.

    Bottom line, middle class professionals who buy fixer-uppers gentrify a neighbourhood, but they also drive up rents, make it harder for non-professionals to afford to buy, and cut down on the local affordable shopping. Co-ops tend to attract people who don’t have a high income but are fairly stable people, as opposed to drug addicts, for example. You get lots of families with young kids who go to the local schools, and the parents tend to get pretty involved in said schools and in the neighbourhood. Hell, sometimes when yuppies come in and buy, they send their kids to French Immersion or private schools so they don’t have to contaminate their children by exposing them to the local kids. That’s not so much a problem in my neighbourhood, but is a problem in areas which started gentrification later than this one,a nd where the schools are generally considered lousy. And granted, that’s not something all the yuppie in-comers do even in those neighbourhoods, but the ones who do tend to be rather unpopular.

    And because co-ops are subsidized by the government, they’re legally required to keep a certain number of units for people who can’t pay market prices, like people on permanent disability and so forth who would otherwise be stuck in icky rental housing because they can’t afford a nicer rental.

  5. Government housing assistance to assist poor people in being able to compete to some degree is a start. Also, cities now allowing the zoning or tax incentives that drive gentrification.

    I see suburbs all the time, work in them. They are a reflection of the racism and classism so deeply imbedded in our society. They also are horrible environmentally as they lay waste to precious land resources with their two acre plots, sprawling McMansions and fashionably winding streets.

    Suburbanity = banality.

    I often wonder what would happen to suburbanites if fuel prices climbed so high they couldn’t get out to go to work or get food. Of, if god forbid, a natural disaster left them completely isolated, without electricity and without the means to get to a safehouse.

    My children and I both grew up in urban areas and I’m glad for it. I and them have been exposed to a myriad of cultures, drama, entertainment, interaction and cooperation and we never need to take a drive, buy a ticket or turn on the tube.

  6. I’m open to suggestions about what can be done in terms of public policy to mitigate the problems associated with gentrification, but I don’t see any obvious ways to avoid displacement of poor people.

    The Great Depression Redux would be a great leveler.

  7. I see suburbs all the time, work in them. They are a reflection of the racism and classism so deeply imbedded in our society. They also are horrible environmentally as they lay waste to precious land resources with their two acre plots, sprawling McMansions and fashionably winding streets.

    That doesn’t sound like any sururb I’ve lived in. The areas I’ve lived in [and live in now] are all fairly small houses or apartment blocks on small parcels of land. The streets are not “fashionably winding” by any means. The area I live in now is close to everything everyone needs – I’m honestly confused as to what type of neighborhoods you’re talking about that would be “isolated” in the case of a natural disaster.

    I’d live close to the core of the city, but it’s not really financially feasible for my family. Not to mention the commute would be atrocious [a 4 minute drive for both of us now, compared to what would be a 30 minute drive from the core area.] So…it’s a bad thing to live in the suburbs? Where I know all my neighbors, my family lives close, I can walk to the grocery store, the doctors, the dentist, the optometrist, go to cultural festivals…this is a bad thing? [I’d also be interested in why this is racist and classist. I feel like I’m missing something here.]

  8. Barbiturate Cat (#10), I think your suburb is a different type from the ones others are discussing, above. Yours sounds like a town in itself that just happens to be peripheral to a larger urban center, rather than one of the sprawl-y outliers built (at most) a half-century ago and planned around the idea that everyone living there would commute by car to the city for anything they needed, while raising their families in splendid “safe” isolation from all those weirdo urban influences.
    I’m finding it hard to be articulate at this hour, but I definitely have always drawn a distinction between car-oriented commuter suburbs with no community or commercial centers of their own, and suburban *towns*, despite having one word for both. The former have always weirded me out a bit, for many of the reasons people have described (not to mention an often creepy amount of bland architectural uniformity); the latter used to feature in my young-childhood daydreams when the lack of green, open spaces a kid could get to on her own in my slightly more urban area wore on me.

  9. Just a suggestion:

    Can you guys tone down fantasizing about catastrophies that would justly punish the suburbs and the racist, classist bourgeoise within them?

  10. Do you ever read the posts? I am bourgeois, and a member of the bourgeoisie. One commenter made a crack about another depression–I doubt very much that he would actually want to see anyone, wealthy or otherwise, boiling shoe leather. Another commenter pointed out that the suburbs are vulnerable in any number of ways–god forbid. That’s hardly a bunch of people “fantasizing about catastrophes.” But your misplaced self-righteous outrage is duly noted.

  11. I wonder if actual statistics about crime would be like sunlight to vampires about the claim that suburbs are more dangerous than the authentic, diverse, government-subsidized rental downtown.

    Do google.

    One commenter made a crack about another depression–I doubt very much that he would actually want to see anyone, wealthy or otherwise, boiling shoe leather.

    Your double standards are duly noted. Shall we remember the excuse “they don’t mean it, they’re just joking” the next time some conservartive gloats about victims of hurricane Katrina etc.

  12. I live in the suburbs and my observation is that is an “income” thing. I moved out here about 12 years ago prior to the huge jump in the cost of property. The neighbors I had then (and the ones who have not moved away) hang outside on the nice nights. We sit and talk, have drinks and watch the kids/grandkids. The new arrivals, you know the ones who spent twice what we did for the exact same home all rush home and lock themselves in their homes. Their children are not allowed to play outside at night, well maybe in their back yard. They don’t socialize with us. I am having a hard time putting into words the feeling they give off, a were better than you type buzz. That and an attitude that comes off as it’s “tacky” to hang outside, thats why we bought this nice ranch house, so we would not have to associate with other, we could be the perfect nuclear family.

  13. I’m finding it hard to be articulate at this hour, but I definitely have always drawn a distinction between car-oriented commuter suburbs with no community or commercial centers of their own, and suburban *towns*, despite having one word for both.

    Agreed – I mean, I assumed most people were discussing something different from the type of area I live in, but the terms are the same. I’ve never described my neighborhoods as anything other than “the suburbs”, and it’s really hard for me to imagine an area of houses actually isolated from the city itself – that’s just not how my city is layed out. [Most “suburb” areas did start off as towns, actually – that later merged on to the expanding city.] Even the planned communities here don’t seem similar to what everyone is talking about, although they are similar in a classist/upper-class exclusive way.

    The only thing I can think of that is similar to the descriptions above would be the RM’s [Royal Municipalities] which are outside the city limits and tend to be fairly large, expensive houses on rolling tracts of land.

    It’s just odd for me to read the comments and then compare them with my own suburb experiences, which are seeming to be polar opposites. Like comments about McMansions – *every* house on my block is a duplex. It leaves me a little confused about what a “suburb” truly is – do I really live in the “suburbs”, or is that just the most similar/somewhat appropriate descriptor for the type of neighborhood, so I use it?

  14. Thanks for the post, piny, it took me back to when I was about 7, with the introduction into my childhood suburban neighbourhood of Safety House programs. People near my school were encouraged to buy big yellow signs saying “Safety House” and put them on letterboxes, to give children a place they could safely knock on the door if someone tried to follow them home. I walked home every day; no-one ever followed me (or if they did, I probably didn’t notice: used to read on the walk.) These days, parents are encouraged to pick up their kids from school and not let them walk home even in the afternoon — let alone let kids walk home in the dark!

    The suburb where I live is in the process of being transformed in two very conflicting ways. It borders ‘inner city’ neighbourhoods and as those neighbourhoods have gentrified and the cost of housing has risen, low-income folks, students and migrants are being pushed outward, but at the same time it’s being gentrified and rezoned as ‘inner city living’ (making a transformation from ‘peripheral/suburban’ to marketing as ‘urban’.) At the time time, the movement in of students and aspirational migrants has pushed out the population of poorer (white) folk, drug dealers and organised crime that used to live here. It also has the highest Arabic-speaking population in Melbourne. (When politicians talk about locking down particular suburbs in case of terrorism, they mean us!) So as Coburg becomes urban in one way, it also becomes more ‘suburban’ at the same time. The flows of different populations happens simultaneously — absolute middle-class gentrification catches up with the first ‘wave’ of students and bourgeois bohemians, overtaking it, and then the whole cycle to find more gentrifiable land speeds up even more. Scary.

  15. I moved to a small suburb last year. My neighborhood is the flip side of McMansions – most of the homes were once summer homes for middle-class folks from the city. The wife and kids would come out and spend the summer in the country near the lake, and the husband would take the trolley out on Friday night.

    It added 20 minutes to my commute, but it was worth it. First of all, property taxes are about half what they would be living closer to the city. Income taxes have also been slashed.

    I’d been living in cities and inner-ring suburbs for 15 years. I was so over it. In my last apartment, the street had a seniors high-rise on one end and Section 8 housing on the other. I was constantly being awakened by sirens. I was sick of living in an area where I could practically lean out from my dining room window into my neighbor’s dining room and ask, “Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?” I was tired of the feral children from the block being up at all hours of the night, trying to out-ghetto each other.

    In my new neighborhood, kids can safely ride their bikes to the park across the street from my house. We have neighborhood cookouts. I can sit on my porch and not have to see a special showing of White Trash Theatre.

  16. Hello? Did I commit a thoughtcrime (with the comment in moderation)?

    Tuomas, get over yourself already. You tripped the spam filter, and golly gee gosh, none of us were up at 5 am breathlessly awaiting your post so we could approve or disapprove it.

  17. That being said, I feel a lot safer walking around the city at night than I did in the suburbs. Simply because there are, in fact, other people around. And sidewalks.

    That’s not to say there aren’t areas where I don’t feel safe, but they tend to be more of the isolated, closed-up-businesses type.

    When I got out of law school and was living at home while looking for work in New York, I had a job in Hartford and took the bus. The last bus out was at 5:45. If I missed that, someone at work had to give me a ride home, since downtown Hartford was utterly deserted at that point. Wall Street’s something like that, which is one reason it’s one of those parts of town that I don’t like walking around after dark.

  18. /drift
    Oh, right. Timezones. And you laze bums don’t do three 8 hour shifts in blogging. Shameful.

    But are you really telling me that I have been just accidentally tripping the spam filter every time I comment ever since I got into some vehement disagreement about the Black Panthers, some half a year ago?

    /end drift

    I wonder if the whole thing is gender-specific. I mean, sure, sprawling suburbs (large enough to not have a close-knit sense of community like rural small villages) are probably best “hunting grounds” for kidnappers and various sexual offenders (the two may overlap) to prey on innocents. Thus, for women, suburbs don’t feel safe. On the other hand, for men, downtown doesn’t feel safe — there are always idiots who are looking for the smallest excuse to get violent, and those idiots tend to congregate and feed on each other.

  19. Your double standards are duly noted. Shall we remember the excuse “they don’t mean it, they’re just joking” the next time some conservartive gloats about victims of hurricane Katrina etc.

    Had someone actually said, “Man, it’d be great if the suburbs were demolished,” then I’d be upset. However, since that didn’t happen, there’s nothing to be upset about. Speaking as someone who’s from the suburbs and whose family lives in the suburbs and probably always will, there was nothing to take offense at. No one here advocated for the destruction of the suburbs or gloated at the misfortune of suburbanites. (Which, it bears pointing out, is purely hypothetical in any case–people in New Orleans actually saw their houses reduced to rubble.)

  20. Because congregating violent idiots usually need some sort of perceived offense, in their own small minds, of course. Usually the perception for assault (that may sometimes have some basis in reality) is that “it takes two to fight”, and getting into a violent fight with a woman in public(nothing to say about DV, though) is something that violates public taboos, some of which even the underclass follows out of fear of social ostracism.

  21. But are you really telling me that I have been just accidentally tripping the spam filter every time I comment ever since I got into some vehement disagreement about the Black Panthers, some half a year ago?

    I confess, I am tempted to ban people who get paranoid about the moderation cue. I’ve been stuck in it twice so far this morning.

  22. First of all, assaults on women are not confined to “the underclass.” Second…yeah, I can’t say that “fear of ostracism” ever helped me any.

  23. Because congregating violent idiots usually need some sort of perceived offense, in their own small minds, of course.

    And being female is often offense enough.

  24. And being female is often offense enough.

    Exactly. Part of male privilege was freedom from casual threats like the one I described above–those certainly happened in cities, just not in isolation.

  25. That is, if a man gets beaten, strangers usually think it is best to not interfere, because quite possibly both sides are at fault.

    Whereas, if a woman gets attacked, people assume that the attacker is her boyfriend and the assault is a romantic squabble. That’s why you’re supposed to yell things like, “I don’t know this man!” Otherwise, people will frequently look the other way. To say nothing of all the little incidences of harassment that don’t get noticed at all.

  26. That is, if a man gets beaten, strangers usually think it is best to not interfere, because quite possibly both sides are at fault.

    Oh, and people always interfere when a woman is getting assaulted outside her home. Always.

    And the congregating idiots downtown never, ever target a woman walking alone. Never.

  27. We actually have a “Cruise Night” here, Sunday nights in the summertime, where people drive their cars up and down the main strip. If you’re a woman, you’re going to get harassed – either honking and catcalls from the cars on the strip, or on the street by the various goons this tradition brings out.

    Neither city nor suburbs are “safe” for women walking alone, hell, even in groups. I’ve been harassed walking downtown, and I’ve been harassed walking in my own neighborhood. While getting catcalls and “Hey, baby!”‘s from the guys hanging out at the corner store isn’t as violent or extreme as what’s happened to me in the core, it definitely *feels*more scary because it’s so close to my home.

  28. Over 50% of my comments head into moderation before they go through. I don’t see what the hell the paranoia’s about.

    piny, don’t let go of your temptation, by any means. 😛 I’m really rather tired of Tuomas anyway… he’s very petulant.

    Anyway, re: suburbs…

    I live in Kingston, NY. It’s an old town, divided into three sections: Uptown, Midtown, and The Strand.

    I live Uptown, where you are most likely never going to see a black person except on the two ‘bad streets’ around here, which you can be sure that the people around here warn their children not to go on those roads. They aren’t even ‘bad streets.’ It’s just that black people were sectioned off there I’m assuming through years and years of racism at work.

    Walking down the street, most people living in my part of town are middle aged white men who are usually lawyers, doctors, or accountants. Oh, and we have quite a huge assortment of registered sex offenders.

    I don’t like walking the streets of my town at night, and I’m in the ‘nice’ part of town. There’s always some dickhead trying to get you in his car, trying to bring you back to his apartment. And we aren’t a ‘close knit’ suburb, so it’s not like I could go up to someone’s door and ask them to call the police for me if something happened.

    I was just in Montreal this week and I had no problem walking around the city after dark. There were plenty of people around, and I felt like if anything *did* happen, at least it was in a public area with shops open.

  29. Oh, and people always interfere when a woman is getting assaulted outside her home. Always.

    And the congregating idiots downtown never, ever target a woman walking alone. Never.

    Flog those strawmen!

    Exactly. Part of male privilege was freedom from casual threats like the one I described above–those certainly happened in cities, just not in isolation.

    Ah, the awesome privilege of men. The privilege of shorter life. The privilege of being more likely to be victim of assault or murder. And what’s it going to be — now you’re turning around and saying cities are dangerous to women too (more so than men)?

    I thought y’all were saying that cities are safe because there’s people around, now bait and switch? Amazing!

  30. Tuomas, would you like to be banned? Because being tiresome and derailing threads about an unrelated subject to whine about how men really really aren’t the privileged ones at all is very trollish behavior. And I’m getting very tired of your trollish behavior.

  31. My intention wasn’t to derail this. I admit that there has been some fighting, but I was just wondering whether the theory I presented in #22 could be true, simply due to crimes men and women are likely to face, respectively. Yes, I was generalizing a lot, but generally my experience is that I’m not afraid in wide open spaces, but much more on the guard when there are plenty of strange people around, especially if they happen to be of the type that have a hobby of getting into fights with strangers.

    Perhaps it’s an introvert/extrovert difference more, but I suspect that it’s not completely that, because I’ve had the tendency to note that women I know often dread being alone and it makes them feel vulnerable (no, they’re not just feeding my male ego with this).

    I wouldn’t *like* to get banned, you need a decent troll.

  32. It’s pretty easy to see that *all* situations are more dangerous for women. Some happen to think that the suburbs are worse than the city because of lack of people and the untrue perception of safety. Men have it easier in both cases, because while men perpetuate violence against men, and men perpetuate violence against women, it is far more rare when women perpetuate violence against men.

  33. Ah, the awesome privilege of men. The privilege of shorter life. The privilege of being more likely to be victim of assault or murder. And what’s it going to be — now you’re turning around and saying cities are dangerous to women too (more so than men)?

    A point about MRAs or male trolls who complain about shorter lives, higher rates of suicide, higher violence victimhood rates, etc. is that these problems are caused by the current system we live in. Feminism tranforms the entire system that hurts both men and women.

  34. I live in the suburb in a McMansion. We moved because the airport wanted the land that our old house was on. If you couldn’t drive(as I was unable to for much of my teenagehood), you were completely dependant on others to get anywhere. Many streets, even now that we’ve been annexed into the city, still don’t have sidewalks, and streetlights still haven’t come to this area. I find that I felt safer in Atlanta, because there were streetlights, I could go places on the MARTA, a fairly safe place, and there seemed to be slightly more sidewalks in the area.

  35. Guys, you can’t ban Tuomas yet. He’s been paranoid about the moderation queue, compared you to Big Brother, discounted the safety advantages of male privilege, and claimed that y’all hate the evil suburbanites, but he hasn’t yet found a way, in this thread, to blame it on The Muslim Scourge.
    Just wait, like, an hour or two.

  36. Ah, the awesome privilege of men. The privilege of shorter life. The privilege of being more likely to be victim of assault or murder. And what’s it going to be — now you’re turning around and saying cities are dangerous to women too (more so than men)?
    I thought y’all were saying that cities are safe because there’s people around, now bait and switch? Amazing!

    No, I was not. I was arguing that the illusion of safety people feel in the suburbs is just that: an illusion. I was also pointing out that the selfishness that causes people to withdraw into their own individual fortresses has serious drawbacks both in terms of community and in terms of community safety. The isolation I described was not the result of a lack of people, but a lack of concerned people–there were people a few feet away from me; the problem was that they were unwilling to unlock their door to a terrified kid.

    Cities are also dangerous, obviously, but I would not categorize them as more dangerous for the reasons I detailed in my post–and I would characterize them as sometimes safer for precisely the reasons suburbanites seem to find them so terrifying.

  37. My intention wasn’t to derail this.

    I don’t believe you. Your first comment was nothing but an attempt to derail, and a ridiculous one.

    Yes, I was generalizing a lot, but generally my experience is that I’m not afraid in wide open spaces, but much more on the guard when there are plenty of strange people around, especially if they happen to be of the type that have a hobby of getting into fights with strangers.

    Yes, you were. Women-only subway carriages, anyone? Men might well feel safer in lonely places, but women don’t necessarily feel safe in populous ones.

  38. I don’t believe you. Your first comment was nothing but an attempt to derail, and a ridiculous one.

    Ridiculous? Here we go again.

    Comment #3 by Knifeghost:

    I’ll do what I can throughout my life to kill the suburbs.

    Comment #6 by Kate:

    I often wonder what would happen to suburbanites if fuel prices climbed so high they couldn’t get out to go to work or get food. Of, if god forbid, a natural disaster left them completely isolated, without electricity and without the means to get to a safehouse.

    Comment #9 by jswift:

    The Great Depression Redux would be a great leveler.

    (about gentrification).

    To say that my rather innocuous suggestion was an out-of-the-blue attempt of provocation is just your ideological tunnel vision speaking. See no bad, hear no bad, from your side.

    No, I was not. I was arguing that the illusion of safety people feel in the suburbs is just that: an illusion. I was also pointing out that the selfishness that causes people to withdraw into their own individual fortresses has serious drawbacks both in terms of community and in terms of community safety. The isolation I described was not the result of a lack of people, but a lack of concerned people–there were people a few feet away from me; the problem was that they were unwilling to unlock their door to a terrified kid.

    I got that, and am not arguing that suburbs don’t have problems with lack of community.. But apparently az that you quoted apparently went on to say that increased saturation brings safety — I disagree.

  39. Yes, ridiculous. KnifeGhost has said that he hates the suburbs and wishes them to end as an institution; he said absolutely nothing about wishing harm on the people in them, and nothing about catastrophes that would leave the people in them destitute.

    Kate made a lot of the same points wrt community solidarity and real security that I did: the suburbs are a collection of logistical as well as social islands, and they depend on a status quo that will not survive. I also wonder what will happen to the suburbs when the people in them cannot afford to commute from them. They are not sustainable. She also did not wish for a catastrophe–did you catch the god forbid bit?–that would injure people in the suburbs or leave them destitute.

    jswift made one crack about a generalized catastrophe, one which would most likely have much more deleterious effects on people who already can’t afford to live in the suburbs. He did not fantasize about a catastrophe that would injure people in the suburbs or make them destitute.

    You were trolling, seeking to derail, and imputing hateful sentiments that had no basis in fact. You weren’t being innocuous at all; you alleged some pretty nasty sentiments.

    And…no, that was not what you said. Again, you were both disingenuous and insulting:

    And what’s it going to be — now you’re turning around and saying cities are dangerous to women too (more so than men)?
    I thought y’all were saying that cities are safe because there’s people around, now bait and switch? Amazing!

    az was not saying that increased saturation brings safety, but that it is certainly as compatible with safety as mewing oneself up alone. The neighborhood alert he responded to implied that increased density and the wrong sort of people–you know, unmarried people with less money–would constitute armageddon. He said that an increased community presence made him feel safer, which is a good way to dispute the paranoia he was attacking.

  40. And “innocuous?” No, really, “innocuous?” This is my hometown whose destruction you’re accusing me of fantasizing about, the one where my parents and friends live. There’s nothing innocuous about that.

  41. KnifeGhost has said that he hates the suburbs and wishes them to end as an institution; he said absolutely nothing about wishing harm on the people in them, and nothing about catastrophes that would leave the people in them destitute.

    Where should the people from them go to live after 50 years, when they are deserted? They shouldn’t go downtown to invade and gentrify the locals, and moving to rural areas will mean far too long distance from work. Die off?

    the suburbs are a collection of logistical as well as social islands, and they depend on a status quo that will not survive.

    Why?

    You were trolling, seeking to derail, and imputing hateful sentiments that had no basis in fact. You weren’t being innocuous at all; you alleged some pretty nasty sentiments.

    I wasn’t “seeking to derail”. I did allege some nasty sentiments I gathered from previous comments and by general familiarity with the thinking processes often expressed in these discussions.

    az was not saying that increased saturation brings safety, but that it is certainly as compatible with safety as mewing oneself up alone. The neighborhood alert he responded to implied that increased density and the wrong sort of people–you know, unmarried people with less money–would constitute armageddon. He said that an increased community presence made him feel safer, which is a good way to dispute the paranoia he was attacking.

    So did you try googling or not?

  42. And “innocuous?” No, really, “innocuous?” This is my hometown whose destruction you’re accusing me of fantasizing about, the one where my parents and friends live. There’s nothing innocuous about that.

    Not you, but the ones who made IMO suspicious comments.

  43. Tuomas-

    Hi, I’m Tally.

    You’ve now met a woman who loves being alone, and greatly prefers it to being around people. Incidentally, I hate the suburbs and enjoy living in busy city centres, and find them safer, and enjoy talking walks at night. I have never been afraid of wide open spaces or being alone at night, I hate the suburbs for other reasons.

    Please don’t assume the experiences of the few women you know speak for everyone else, as I assume mine don’t of others. Even though I’ve never experienced assault from males, or even a great deal of sexism (except for trolls on blogs like this) I know that the world is big and I am not the only one experiencing it. It’s not that hard to keep in mind.

  44. Tally:

    I appreciate your effort to reach out. I don’t have the Truth here, I had some questions. Trading anecdotes seemed to be partly what this was about, I told mine, about myself, and about people I know. I’m sorry if I came across as claiming that “men are all y and women are all x”.

  45. Where should the people from them go to live after 50 years, when they are deserted? They shouldn’t go downtown to invade and gentrify the locals, and moving to rural areas will mean far too long distance from work. Die off?

    I know you have trouble telling us apart, but knifeghost was one of the people who argued that it was indeed possible to move into urban areas without gentrifying. In the same comment that you found so objectionable. Bear in mind as well that the post is complaining about community selfishness as well as geographical arrangements; presumably, the hearts and minds of the suburbs could be changed in a way that would satisfy knifeghost’s bloodlust.

    Why?

    Because–and maybe I’m being pessimistic here–I don’t think it’ll always be cost-effective or even possible to commute a hundred or more miles each day. Let alone in the kind of cars that sububanites sometimes drive. I also see a lot of suburban architecture that is pretty vulnerable in a real-estate market so subject to bubbles, coupled with a lot of rental ordinances that will make it impossible to soften any financial blow.

    So did you try googling or not?

    What were you saying about strawmen? Never mind. I know you don’t actually take the trouble to read anything, so I won’t bother explaining what I actually said a third time.

    Not you, but the ones who made IMO suspicious comments.

    At least they’ve been downgraded to suspicious from vicious. And bullshit. My double standards, remember? It was offensive, and it applied to me.

  46. I know you have trouble telling us apart, but knifeghost was one of the people who argued that it was indeed possible to move into urban areas without gentrifying. In the same comment that you found so objectionable. Bear in mind as well that the post is complaining about community selfishness as well as geographical arrangements; presumably, the hearts and minds of the suburbs could be changed in a way that would satisfy knifeghost’s bloodlust.

    No, gentrification will happen, for simple economical reasons. Howeowners always want to increase the price of their property, and poorer people will be displaced, unless strong governmental measures prevent this.

    Suburbs propably could be changed. Like with, hmm… Realizing that stastically they are quite safe, and taking the claims of home security industry with a grain of salt.

    Because–and maybe I’m being pessimistic here–I don’t think it’ll always be cost-effective or even possible to commute a hundred or more miles each day. Let alone in the kind of cars that sububanites sometimes drive. I

    It would be better if everyone lived closed to their jobs. This might require major gentrification of American inner cities, with the minorities getting shafted (economical realities, again). Suburbs were created by city planning, and can be reversed by incentivizing living in inner city.

    What were you saying about strawmen? Never mind. I know you don’t actually take the trouble to read anything, so I won’t bother explaining what I actually said a third time.

    I read, but I’m not sure how I should have responded to that otherwise. I simply am curious whether these forms of safety are equally valid, and suggested looking for some statistics.

    At least they’ve been downgraded to suspicious from vicious. And bullshit. My double standards, remember? It was offensive, and it applied to me.

    Yes, and I apologize. That comment about your double standards was #14, right after your #13, whereas the accusation of fantasizing about catastrophes was #12. The #12 was not directed to you, again.

  47. What I took to be what Tuomas was trying to get at–maybe this was merely my misreading, but it seemed worthwhile regardless–was that we shouldn’t let our objections to suburbia, be they aesthetic, moral/political, or otherwise, blind us to the fact that they often do tend to deliver what many of their inhabits are looking for. Quality public schools and safety are two of the most salient; space and cost-of-living are also up there. (Laura at 11D is a mother, academic, and feminist who blogs about this from time to time, and has lived it, too.)

    I took his comment about googling to be a reference to the fact that the best data we have suggests that, on the whole, urban areas are more dangerous than suburbs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, for example, seems to show property crime victimization rates have a 3:2 urban/suburban ratio, and personal rates are about 3.3:2. (Rape/sexual assault, incidentally, is 1.5 urban versus .8 suburban; these numbers seem way too low, but it’s not clear why the survey would have heavier suburban underreporting than urban.)

    Really, it would be quite surprising if suburb/”exurb” areas uniformly failed to deliver what their inhabitants were looking for, given how fast such areas are growing. As I said, I think this point is worth keeping in mind, whether or not it was what Tuomas was saying. It’s all the more important if one has objections to suburbia, for whatever reason, to understand why it appeals to those to whom it does.

  48. Ah, the awesome privilege of men. The privilege of shorter life.

    Yes, Tuomas, because the institutionalized sexism against men, feminism, the government, and baby duckies in our society causes shorter lifespans for men.

    …WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! If white people lived shorter lives than POC, would that men that racism and white privilege doesn’t exist?

    That was such a lame shot.

  49. these numbers seem way too low, but it’s not clear why the survey would have heavier suburban underreporting than urban

    Property values. The tax base of most suburbs is based mostly on residential properties, whereas cities tend to have a more corporate tax base. So, a suburban police department has an incentive to keep crime figures underreported, because low crime rates means higher property values, which means higher taxes, which means more money for the police department. With cities, there’s no such pressure — in fact, higher crime rates tend to translate to more money budgeted for police regardless of property values.

  50. PLN:

    Yep, that’s what I was saying. Market reality, supply and demand.

    Yes, Tuomas, because the institutionalized sexism against men, feminism, the government, and baby duckies in our society causes shorter lifespans for men.

    …WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! If white people lived shorter lives than POC, would that men that racism and white privilege doesn’t exist?

    Not alone, but the concept of Male Privilege is rather dubious when there seems to be so many “exceptions” to it.

  51. in fact, higher crime rates tend to translate to more money budgeted for police regardless of property values.

    But then everything you said previously goes out of the window, as I presume police does have incentives to solve crimes too.

  52. The reporting I’m talking about is from the individual departments to the FBI, which keeps central crime statistics and evaluates the crime rate of a given community versus the national average.

    Safer than average = higher property values, particularly in suburban districts, which translates to higher property taxes. Because police funding comes out of property taxes, there’s an incentive to suppress stats when reporting to the FBI.

  53. Not alone, but the concept of Male Privilege is rather dubious when there seems to be so many “exceptions” to it.

    Just. Fucking. Stop.

  54. Suburbs were created by city planning, and can be reversed by incentivizing living in inner city.
    –Tuomas

    Definitely true, but there’s more to it than just city planning. Suburban sprawl was incentivized on a national level by federal subsidies, which allowed planners to create sparse residential areas far removed from city centers. Specifically, the cost of oil was kept artificially low by bargaining with oil producers and making the US dollar into the standard through which all oil transactions took place. The interstate highway system was another such government subsidy, allowing the movement of goods and people at relatively high speed all over the country.

    This subsidized the creation of suburbs, because it was suddenly not that expensive to drive long distances every day to get to work. For the middle class, it became cheaper to burn oil than to work through the problems of living in a city. I’m overlooking racism, classism, etc. here, but I am aware that it wasn’t just economic considerations that drove people out to the suburbs. I mean, when Levittown’s charter (one of the first suburbs) explicitly said that colored people and Jews couldn’t live there… well, there’s obviously more at work than pure money considerations.

    Now, when the government can no longer subsidize suburban living with cheap gasoline and infrastructure improvements, the dynamic will end. I fear the day that this happens because, as much as I feel uneasy about suburbs and their wasteful ways and segregating tendencies, this would mean that all those extravagant homes that so many people bought so far away from the city will become much, much more expensive to live in. Not only would the cost of driving everywhere go up, but so would the cost of getting goods and services so far out. And if it becomes prohibitively expensive to live so far away, people aren’t going to want to buy those homes… meaning property values will nosedive as the price of commodities and transportation go way up.

    If this happens too quickly, a lot of people who were originally living large in the exurbs are going to lose almost everything and be very angry about it. I hope it goes slowly, so people have time to shuffle around and get out of harms way–and also so that creative solutions will have time to flourish.

  55. What exceptions, Tuomas? I don’t except any males from male privilege.

    Unless this is some sort of cheap/disgusting shot at part of the trans* population?

  56. Zuzu: first, I was linking to the National Crime Victimization Survey data, NOT the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, precisely because of worries about the endogeneity of which crimes get reported. The NCVS is a massive telephone survey that basically asks people if they’ve been victims of crime. NCVS data are problematic in all the standard ways of telephone survey data, but as I said, it’s more or less the best we’ve got for getting at large-scale trends with crimes that tend not to get reported to the police. Moreover, say what you will about the FBI UCR data, but it’s without a doubt the best data we have on homicide, which *is* quite reliably reported; I couldn’t find obvious urban/suburban info, glancing quickly at the website, but I did see that large cities (250k+) had murder rates almost 6x small cities (Six times.

    Finally, the incentive mechanism you discuss–basically, covering up crime because of its potential impact on housing costs which translates into lower taxes which translates into lower police budgeting–seems a bit stretched; it relies on indirect and aggregate incentives, while ignoring the direct and personal disincentives about covering up crimes, like getting fired. Plus, a police department might well get a bigger *share* of a shrinking pie if the reason for the shrinkage is perceived to be crime, in an attempt to fix the problem.

    Look, I’m not a professional criminologist; this is more or less from taking a single economics of crime class back in undergrad. But in the absence of good data that actually -shows- urban areas to be as safe as suburban ones (and I don’t mean showing , e.g., quite-safe-NYC to be safer than X not-very-safe suburb), and in the face of a LOT of data that says the opposite, it seems the height of wishful thinking to maintain that suburban safety is an illusion. If a political critique of suburbia is to be effective, it has to recognize what suburbia does provide–or at least debunk the illusion in such thorough terms that skeptics will be convinced, which implies a heavy burden of proof.

Comments are currently closed.