MJ calls what happened to her in Zion national park “small ‘T’ trauma”. She knows women have experienced worse from their partners. But she still feels the anger of being left behind on a hike by her now ex. “It brings up stuff in my body that maybe I have not cleared out yet,” she said.

Five years ago, MJ and a new partner – he was not exactly her boyfriend, and the pair were not exclusive – traveled from Los Angeles to Utah for an adventure getaway. MJ, who is 38 and works in PR, was looking forward to exploring Zion’s striking scenery; its vast sandstone canyon and pristine wading trails were on the list. But on the morning of their big hike, MJ was not feeling well. She could not shake the feeling that something was “off”; indeed, MJ would learn on this trip that her partner was seeing other women.

As they made their way up Angel’s Landing, MJ’s partner started walking faster than her. “I could tell it was getting on his nerves that I was slow,” she said. “I was like, ‘Fuck it, just go ahead of me.’” He did without hesitation.

When she caught up at the top of the mountain, they took a picture together. Then her partner hiked down the mountain with a woman he had met on the way up, leaving MJ to finish by herself. They broke up shortly after that trip. (MJ asked to be referred to by her initials for the sake of speaking openly about a past relationship.)

Last month, MJ opened TikTok and heard the phrase “alpine divorce”, a label she now attaches to her experience in Zion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Its the absurd generalizations that are the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    How likely do you think the downvoters are to be the one criticizing the dude for abandoning the woman vs. the ones upset he's being criticized?

    Because I think the dude was shitty as hell and thus should theoretically be the type of man offended at being lumped in with him, but I get it. Women don't know if they're going to get my type of man or the type who will ditch them on a trail until it happens. And I'm pretty sure it we go through the effort to check those downvotes we're not going to see many of them commenting about how this guy was in the wrong and instead a lot of empathizing with the shitty man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I find it very hard to predict how others will act so I can't answer this in the general case, but I know I've downvoted many of the generalizing comments here while also obviously understanding that it's wrong to abandon your partner in the woods (although I agree that it's incorrect to assume the woman in these scenarios is always the one who's less prepared). I don't doubt that some people are just butthurt but there is certainly a logically coherent position that fits the voting pattern you're looking for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Men on lemmy are 100% the socialist boyfriends who don't do the dishes, you can tell by what they support and get pissed at. Orange man bad because fat and stupid? They love it and it makes them confident they aren't one of the baddies. Patriarchy is bad and I don't like men because of how it socializes them? They correctly call me evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Have you ever tried NOT generalizing 50% of the population? Surely deep down you know that's not the right thing to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I can't stress enough how much I don't give a shit about potentially being unfair to men who think it's a moral injustice to point out that liberals are still misogynistic even if they think orange man bad. Maybe you should look deep down and get lost up your own ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You are being unfair to men who do not fit that description, because you are making a generalization about all men. I don't understand why you would choose to be hostile rather than understand your actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, you don't understand and yet presume you know better. That's the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    This is ridiculous. Please review the thread; this is not a matter of education. I am giving orioler the chance to explain themselves after directly insulting me by telling me to "get lost up my own ass" because I believe everyone should have the opportunity to explain themself. If they are angry, they may have a point even if they choose to express it in an unacceptable way. If they do not want to take the opportunity, that is their choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Your reading of their comment is valid but seems pretty inaccurate from my point of view. Their parent comment is primarily about the nature of men:

    Men on lemmy are 100% the socialist boyfriends who don’t do the dishes, you can tell by what they support and get pissed at.

    And they also noted that this affects their attraction. I truly do not care who they are attracted to, so I was responding only to the generalized attack on mens' character.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That's true, but it doesn't change my point that I don't think generalizing such a large population is helpful

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That's not what I took offense to, and I don't believe it was the primary point of their comment either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, the part I took offense to was this:

    Men on lemmy are 100% the socialist boyfriends who don’t do the dishes, you can tell by what they support and get pissed at.

    Not anything related to how that perceived character flaw of men on lemmy makes OP feel in terms of attraction. Again, I do not care who they are attracted to and I believe the primary point of the comment was to express this negative belief of the men on this site.

    My objection specifically is that I don't think this generalization is accurate as you claim. It is for some people, but not for all. And this is now turning into a "not all men" debate... I'm sure you have also had this argument hundreds of times so let me know if you want me to give an explanation my best shot but honestly if you believe generalized statements about men are valid then I probably won't be saying anything you haven't heard before and vice versa.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, I agree that the amount of men who treat women badly or don't respect them as people or their opinions is concerningly high in this thread, and IRL as well tbh.

    My argument is exclusively that expressing that sentiment by making a generalized statement about "men on lemmy" is incorrect (it does not apply to the entire group) and immoral (you are talking badly about some people who do not deserve it by applying a property of one of their identity groups to every member of that group individually). But again, "not all men" vs "too many men" has been discussed to death already so I don't think I'm really adding anything new here.

    Edit: Just saw your edit. My sympathies to Dolores Huerta. Even men who do good things can be revealed to have evil within them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not ignoring that, and women should not see a leftist man as significantly less potentially dangerous than any other. I'm saying that regardless of what percentage of people in an identity group have a certain quality, it is wrong to make an unqualified statement about that group, or to assume an individual within that group must have similar qualities to the average member of it. That is the very basis of why racism, sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, even microaggressions, etc. are wrong, but it applies to men too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    That's true, it's kind of a grey area. I could see it being argued either way whether it's an identity group given it's defined by both identity and choice. I guess it's not? I still think it would be better not to make a generalization like that, given you will be ascribing negative qualities to people who do not deserve it, but I'm splitting hairs at this point. The sentiment expressed had value I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Fair enough. I think that does happen, it's just that that doesn't eliminate the people who are making sexist comments. I do think there's a difference between someone who's a part of an ideological movement (their chosen group clearly expresses their views) and someone who is just using a particular website for various reasons (their choice to use that website does not imply general agreement with the website's views) but I see your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, those comments get too much support here. There is resistance, but not enough. Maybe I will spend a bit more effort doing that instead of arguing with people who I largely agree with. I will never entirely stop doing the latter (I believe to reach the truth I must vocally disagree with the flaws of arguments even if I agree with the premise or conclusion) but I could shift my priorities towards fighting the most egregious views first/harder.

    I don't think I have much more to say here but I do appreciate this conversation. It started a bit rough but I always appreciate when someone is willing to stick it out and really discuss something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    No worries! I apologize too for some of my earlier comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Giving me a chance, jfc dude how gracious of you. Howbout you go to a therapist and explain why you're like this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    No therapist can defeat me

    explain why you're like this

    Well I guess it's "not my job to educate you", is it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I think you misunderstanding the joke, making light of the reality that you're clearly in need of some introspection, and then trying to throw back a comment someone else made at me which only applies given that misunderstanding just bowties this whole thing with you. You're supposed to try to explain it to yourself through therapy bud; I already know why men are like you and do not need it explained.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)