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
2298 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’re ignoring the subtly to these stories - in a lot of cases, these women’s male partners were more experienced, were carrying more supplies, or were otherwise more prepared for going into the wilderness. So there’s an additional layer of danger when these men decide for whatever reason to leave behind their less experienced partner.
A shop is not the same as a hike in the wilderness. People do have different levels of experience and preparedness.
Reading the article would have shone a light on this for you.
Ok, maybe you're right. I've read the excerpt which doesn't say anything about experience or not being prepared. It's possible that OP chose the dumbest part of the article as the excerpt and other examples are much better. After reading this silly story of a women left behind on a popular, short hike and being traumatized by it I didn't feel like reading the rest. Maybe I will read it later.
Just an emotional knee-jerk reaction about a woman being silly. Got it.
You should read articles before you get so flustered and overcome with emotions. Maybe apply some logic before typing out a whole comment crying about sexism.
No, I don't think so. It's not a first story in the news and not first comments on lemmy trying to say that women in the mountains depend on men for survival. This is months old trend so I don't think my reaction is 'knee-jerk'. I also don't feel personally affected by it in any way so I don't think I'm being emotional. I simply don't think that when a man and a woman go into the mountains together man becomes automatically responsible for the woman. And I don't think reading the rest of the article will change my mind about it. I think when a woman decides to go hiking with someone it's also her responsibility to make sure it's safe. When I go hiking with my girlfriend she often puts limits on when and where can we go. She would not go with me on a multi day hike because she knows it's beyond her capabilities. I wouldn't be able to convince her to do it because she's a grown adult and she makes her own decisions. Maybe there are some crazy situations where psychopaths manipulate women to put them in dangerous situation and abandon them but I'm yet to find a reliable report about it. Even the stories in the article are all nonsense (yes, I read it at your insistence and it's just more sexist BS). A women left on a trail by her male AND female friends continues hiking alone on a loop train instead of turning around. A women left by a partner is rescued by a '“very nice man from Norway” who carried her backpack'. Because her backup was to heavy? Did she expect that her partner will carry it for her? A women with vertigo left by a partner that left to retrieve a camera (doesn't say if he was coming back for her or not). And a women that got lost in a forest but made it home after all. The article says that "They may not have been carrying the right supplies or enough water, or were not familiar with the terrain, making them feel vulnerable" but doesn't provide any examples of that. It's all just "women can't be left alone in the mountains because it's too dangerous for them".
You read the excerpt and then were so enraged by the supposed sexism that you commented at length without even reading the article
Oh like the fucking guy who was convicted of manslaughter after leaving his girlfriend on a hike? A conviction isn't reliable enough of a report for you?
I definitely wasn't enraged. You can stop trying to gaslight me. Just say you disagree. Trying to dismiss my arguments because they are 'too emotional' is weird.
I think this entire trial and conviction were sexist. Adam Bielecki left Małek on Broad Peak and he wasn't prosecuted. Élisabeth Revol left Tomasz Mackiewicz on Nanga Parbat and she wasn't prosecuted. No one there claimed that because they were more experienced they were legally responsible for the other climber. In this case they basically claimed that his girlfriend didn't knew that climbing the highest peak in Switzerland (?) is difficult and she should be prepared. It was her boyfriends responsibility to make all decisions for her and make sure she survives. He wasn't there as a guide but as a equal partner. They were both ethically responsible for each other but claiming some legal responsibility there was insane. I completely disagree with the negligent manslaughter verdict and I think it's sexist.
Yeah clearly not upset at all when you first commented /s
I don't know how you write your comments but I really don't have to be foaming at the mouth to type 'fucking'. When I write my comments I sometimes give them some specific tone to better express the idea and the tone doesn't have to 100% match my emotional state. For example sometimes I will type 'lol' without actually laughing out loud. I can also type 'this is outrageous' if I'm trying to say I really disagree with it without actually being outraged. I don't think I'm the only one that does it.
Then it's not everyone else's fault that they read a certain tone from your writing. That's on you.
I'm not assigning fault here. I'm just saying that the tone of my comments is no the same as my emotional state. You're trying to use a tone of my comments to dismiss my arguments as too emotional. You took couple of strongly worded sentences to mean I'm enraged and having knee-jerk emotional reaction. That's gaslighting. If a men did this to a women it would be considered abuse.
(ok, maybe I am assigning fault here. I'm just not sure if you're doing this on purpose and I'm not affected by it so I'm not really complaining, just pointing it out)
Men do that to women all the time and that's why I was being snarky and throwing it back at you.
If you don't want a certain tone read from your comments, don't put that tone into it.
I'm fine with reading tone from my comments, I'm not that fine with gaslighting. I'm also not sure how I feel about being abusive to get back at men. I don't think it's helping anyone.
We've been going back and forth discussing this issue for a while now. I'm at the point in the conversation where I'm kinda fucking with you because I don't respect your opinion and we're on the internet.
None of this is helping anyone. It's just a bunch of men crying about women telling these abuse stories and blaming women for picking shitty men. So yeah, I don't really care.
Yeah, I know you're just being shitty because you think I'm trying to blame the women here. I'm just ignoring it because it looked like you may make a good point at some point. Well, you never did.
I suspected you misunderstood my comments and are treating this as simple 'man vs woman' thing. This is an actual knee-jerk reaction. Woman and complaining, man disagrees with something and the instinctive response is to say he attacks woman.
I never said woman are at fault here. I'm saying those stories are being purposefully exaggerated to create a sense of danger and abuse by painting woman as weak and in need of protection and that it's sexist. I see that you disagree and that's fine. And you're right, this conversation is not going anywhere so we can end it here.
You already admitted that I was correct about the situations where the men are the more experienced hiker of the two people and that they have a duty of care for their less experienced partner. So ok.
But you didn't even read the article to know this for sure, you just assumed.
Yes, I always, from the very first comment, said that there are some safety rules in the mountains. Admitting it had nothing to do with any arguments you made. It also has nothing to do with gender. Experience is important. Gender is not. Equating experience with gender, the very thing everyone, including you, seem to be doing is sexist.
I assumed this based on the first story posted here. The other stories in the article did not disprove my point. I don't know why you insisted so much that reading the article is important. I expected some actual good arguments there but found none. The paragraph about experience and supplies was just an offhand comment. All stories in the article were exaggerated and painted woman as weak and helpless.
Yeah, let's go ahead and end this because you're being willfully ignorant to a lot of the world's truths here. I am fully not interested in hearing your opinions any more.