290
Women are being abandoned by their partners on hiking trails. What’s behind ‘alpine divorce’?
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
290 points (84.5% liked)
World News
54818 readers
2329 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions there.
No, I just read the article...
What app/frontend do you use? It seems most people are missing the feature to open the source to read.
Yeah that situation seemed defensible on his part. But then the article comes in and outright says that in a lot of these cases it's a failure of communication where the men aren't thinking about it like that and in hindsight realized that they'd made a mistake.
That all said, I find it difficult to be sympathetic to these guys as someone who likes to hike with her wife. Even if I was annoyed she wasn't able to keep up with me I can't imagine ditching her even if she told me to. When I go hiking with someone or a group one of the major rules is that you never leave the weakest hiker alone unless it's an emergency. You stick together and enjoy each other's company
Wife is quite a different magnitude of commitment, in comparison to a non-exclusive non-girlfriend partner.
No question. But on the spectrum of basic decency, the minimum you owe to another group member from the get-go is as @captainlezbian@lemmy.world laid out; you stick together.
You're over here saying it's a bare minimum assumption that group members stick together on a hike while simultaneously telling me in another conversation that it's the woman's fault for not communicating that she expected them to hike together?
Are you fucking serious?
As far as I know, that particular hike is very popular and very very safe though
Every hike has the potential for danger.
Everything has a possibility for danger though, even staying home.
The most dangerous thing they did that day was driving to and from the hike.
So like, some lady I'm on an early date with? Yeah no different in general rule. If I take you into a situation that you aren't individually comfortable in I'm an asshole for ditching you there alone, even if we decide we hate each other in the meantime
Doesn’t mean it’s ok to abandon your hiking partner whilst on the hike.
Like seriously, you think that it's ok to treat someone terribly on a hike as long as they're only a casual partner?
If they say you can go on ahead, it depends how well you know the other person.
The people I hike with, if they say that to me, I take them at their word. Maybe they would feel happier and more relaxed, if they hike at their own pace. It's not abandonment, It is communication.
Some people get really anxious if they don't go for the summit or objective right away and some people like me prefer to go more slowly and take their time. It doesn't make sense to me to force both people into a compromise if you'd be happier walking your own hike.
If somebody said it and didn't mean it, that's something different. Or maybe they meant it, but they're inexperienced, and would regret actually being left to hike on their own. That's also something different.
One thing that you never do though is to hike past a trail juncture without waiting for your partner to catch up. But I guess even then, if you've been on the same hike multiple times and you have a plan for where you're going to meet back up, even that is okay.
Depends on the hike's safety.
But a wife gets a higher priority for safety than a casual partner to you?
What? No it isn't. This isn't about personal relationships, it's about responsibility during a dangerous hike.
By the way: this particular hike is very very very safe.
None of you read it and are taking givesomefucks at his word about what's in the article lol
Feel free to elaborate. Voyager let's you read the article, in case you need it.
I did read it. And givesomefucks is absolutely adding his own spin and assumptions, most clearly where he's asserting that the author and MJ were assuming her partner was romantically interested in the woman he met at the top and climbed back down with. That's no where in the article.
Were there any other assumptions?
givesomefucks has no idea why the guy talked to someone else, he's assuming it's because his partner said to walk ahead.
Assuming the woman in the story did not trust her partner when planning the hike.
OK, so the bit where the poster says "sounds like" and not "he stated for the article" is the bit you see as not substantiated by the article? Everything else is accurate, except the bit were the poster uses a euphemism for "this is something that seems to me without explicit confirmation". Had op said that as a fact, and with more examples, you would have a point. But as is... Nah
I bolded the part I was referencing.
It's fine, you boys are busy jerking each other off about how stupid this woman was, so go on and continue.
Wow talk about making things up.
Like making up that the woman in the story thought her partner was romantically interested in the person he hiked back down with?
Yeah.
How dare you!
Putting in that the woman in the story assumed her partner was romantically interested in the gal he met at the top that he climbed back down with is absolutely making assumptions. That kind of assumption is not in the article and you’re framing it as if she was being irrational.
Both her and the author thought it was important to note that it was gasp a woman that he talked to.
There's a logical implication for why they both thought that was important enough to be included when retelling the story.
Saying that someone's implication might not be true isn't the same as making an assumption.
It's literally the opposite...
You’re literally making an assumption.
Neither the author nor MJ said he was romantically interested in the other woman.
So then it's not a big deal he talked to someone else after his date told him to leave her?
And he's a good guy for ensuring she made it safely to the top before returning?
Like, what exactly do you think that guy did wrong then?
Because logically I have zero idea what you're doing.
It’s a big deal that he started with a hiking partner and then abandoned her. It’s rude.
And hellesbelle was correct when they said you were making a lot of assumptions here.
A woman told her date to leave her...
And you think the man should have refused her request, and pestered her anyways while in an isolated area with no one else around...
Don't even have to put yourself in a man's shoes, or even another woman's. Imagine you told a man to leave you in that situation and he said "no" and refused you're valid request to be left alone.
How would you feel, in your own shoes.
Another round of assumptions from you lol
So if you're on a date and tell your date to leave you alone...
To physically leave the surrounding area, that you want to be alone...
You'd want them to ignore your request?
I'm not assuming anything, I'm literally asking you what you would do.
Quick edit:
I mean, technically I'm verifying, you said it was "rude" it's just such an unbelievable opinion that I wanted to make sure that's what you meant...
You didn’t ask me a single question in your previous* reply hahaha
Edit: an assumptive statement is not a question.
But clearly I'm not going to get any answers here.
At least this isn't a mountain, but we'd never have gotten close to one to begin with, just this was exhausting
Oh no, being called out for making assumptions about what women are thinking or feeling is exhausting to you?
Maybe you should check yourself before reading ill intent into any woman’s statement just because she’s a woman.
With a male bias. Are you a misogynist by chance?
Are you a misandress, by chance?
maybe they're just a man...