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.
This article was brought to my attention by a hiking buddy; we once did 50 miles together in the Great Smoky Mountains, over some very tough terrain and during weather that threatened hypothermia. On the march up the mountain that used to be called Clingman's Dome, third highest in the eastern United States, we separated just this way. I don't remember who got to the top first or last, nor does he; it didn't cause either of us any trauma at all. It was just the natural thing to do to separate given unequal aerobic capability.
Many of the women described having some level of dependence on their partner in nature. They may not have been carrying the right supplies or enough water, or were not familiar with the terrain, making them feel vulnerable.... One woman described a 12-hour journey out of the Grand Canyon after her boyfriend ditched her, during which she was assisted by a “very nice man from Norway” who carried her backpack.... A man walking 100ft ahead of his girlfriend because he cannot be bothered to wait for her is bad manners. But failing to properly care for someone in an environment they’re not prepared to handle alone can cause real harm.
Speaking as a certified Wilderness rescue technician, don't go to the mountains if you aren't up to it. I'll come help you if I can, as will many others who have volunteered their time to train for that mission. Nevertheless, you really should be sensible about what your limits are. If you need someone else to carry your backpack, pack lighter. If you don't know what you're doing, study and train first. It's not that hard, but it also isn't trivial.
22 comments:
This happens with older children as well. Parents will stay with a six year old, but a ten-year-old and two friends will separate from the group on their own. They may not be carrying all that they need for even a minor emergency. They may drink their small supply of water quickly. We want to encourage independence, but that increases the risk.
Women and children, you say. Well, I encourage honest discussion here. You'll probably hear from Tex about that formula, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong.
I don't want to excuse the men, but this could very well be the result of trying to treat women as equals. We see in all the movies now that women are the physical equals (or betters) of men, and any difference in language or treatment can be seen as sexist. That that is not even considered in the article is interesting.
- Tom
I don't hike, and this may simply be a lack of training, but in even normal walking I find it hard to match the pace of a slower walker. I either wind up doing sort of stutter steps or stepping, pausing, and the stepping again. Losing momentum with each stop is fatiguing.
I was on a hike once with five. Two ardent competitive walkers and the three of us walking slower. There was no way to get lost, beach walking between the sea and the bluff...Did not bother me any, except they had most of the water. It got thirsty.
Around here it is bad ju ju to leave people behind. I won't do it. People get jumped- by others, by cats, they get lost, too many things to go wrong.
If you leave as a team, support the team.
People get jumped- by others, by cats, they get lost...
You raise a good point. That same hike, two days later, we met a bear that had killed a wild hog on the trail. I backed it off, and by myself that might have worked or not; audacity, as Danton said. But we got away with it cleanly because there were three of us: the bear was unsure about me, but definitely not interested in tangling with three grown men together.
"Many of the women described having some level of dependence on their partner in nature. They may not have been carrying the right supplies or enough water, or were not familiar with the terrain, making them feel vulnerable"
The fundamental problem is they did not have the right partner.
I think that, if you are doing an activity which has a measure of physical risk, you should either do it exclusively with people at the same level of training/capability as you, OR, the more trained/capable person has a duty to the others to ensure that the activity remains safe for the less trained/capable. In these stories, that duty is violated.
As an example, I am a not-very-competent hiker, because I injured both ankles while in the Army, and they never fully healed. As a result, I can very easily injure myself on unstable ground or when carrying a heavy pack... so, basically, I don't do that. My husband and teenage kids, by contrast, are excellent hikers. He is always careful to lay out the details of any proposed hike in advance; I have no problem at all with them going ahead of me, or taking a hike that I don't do. By contrast, I am a much more experienced scuba diver than my husband, and so in the ocean, the roles are reversed: I am careful to never get him into a situation that he would be in danger, or uncomfortable. I would NEVER leave him in the middle of a dive-- but I will do dives without him, and like me, he's OK with that. Polite people additionally try to make sure that their companions are comfortable and enjoying themselves when together.
Another problem with these stories is that the women thought they were going on a social event, where keeping company with the person was part of the expectation; whereas, the men seemed to think that the event was an athletic competition, where individual performance was the expectation.
--Janet
A companion of either sex who abandoned me in the middle of nowhere because I wasn't going fast enough would never be my companion again. Nor would I abandon someone weaker than myself, without any regard to whether he or she should have been stronger or should have known better.
If such a thing happened between romantic partners, I would expect it to be a sure sign that the relationship was over, almost as clear a signal as abortion--nearly always a fatal blow, in my experience. How more explicitly could a couple have signaled to each other that there was nothing more between them?
It’s an interesting question because the female responses are so strong — they wrote an article about it, and we see them here too — yet it didn’t even occur to us as men hiking together. It’s another example of “equality” meaning something else than “exactly the same treatment.” We didn’t even keep score about who was first or last. It certainly didn’t end our friendship.
Indeed, the unstated assumption that we’d both make it constitutes a sign of respect. “You don’t need me to watch over you” is nontrivial respect.
I suppose it would make a difference to know that the companion being left behind was in no particular distress or danger. That's a question of realistic appraisal, I'd say, rather than respect. I assume you'd look at it differently if he'd broken a leg? A code of conduct should be flexible enough to take into account whether a companion is in need, without that assessment necessarily involving a withdrawal of respect.
We had a rafting incident on a very remote Alaskan river. Brother , father, wife and daughter. Put a capital V on very. My concern level was orders of magnitude higher than when similar stuff happens with buddies.
It's just different. With male friends, a close call is a "whoa, dude!" and a laugh or whatever. "you toasted your bike, man! " Not so with dependents.
Yes, that’s true. But notice the category shift: now it’s “women or children or people with serious injuries.”
"Many of the women described having some level of dependence on their partner in nature. They may not have been carrying the right supplies or enough water, or were not familiar with the terrain, making them feel vulnerable"
The fundamental problem is they did not have the right partner.
Those women, and many men, did not prepare properly, apparently didn't even try to prepare. There's no excuse for that. Preparation, investigating what's likely to be needed (and that includes asking the prospective hiking partners), won't proof the women or those men against inability to keep up nor will it proof them against depending on the stronger, but the onus is on them to at least try to get prepared, otherwise they're just making themselves unnecessary burdens.
To an extent beyond the responsibilities laid out above, the stronger partners have their own duty to not take along with them those persons who haven't tried to prepare.
Eric Hines
I once stayed at a hostel at the foot of a 15,000 volcano in Colombia (Purace). The other tourists were British. We climbed up the mountain. Not difficult, but foggy. On the way down, I lost sight of the other climbers in the fog. I got back safely, but in retrospect, I was very lucky. I could have taken a wrong path and ended up downhill, but miles from nowhere.
Gringo
For me, the category is people who are visibly in need of help such that they should not be abandoned by a comrade. If the comrade (man, woman, Jew, Greek, slave, or free) doesn't need help, no issue arises, and they can part ways in the wilderness without damage to either the bond between them or their nobility, not to mention to the respect they feel for each other's fitness.
I much prefer that people not foolishly put me in the position of having to rescue them--though in my case, it's unlikely to be a case of physical peril with which I'm better prepared to deal. But that's not really the point. People get in jams and need help. I much prefer people who risk everything to help, without the armor of confident dominance, whether in the realm of physical strength, smarts, money, or influence.
"downhill and miles from nowhere."
That is one heck of a blues tune title!
You know, all this reminds me of another thing about that hike I mentioned. On the second night, we did meet a girl who was hiking the other way (i.e. northbound instead of southbound). She and one of our hiking comrades spent a pleasant evening together, and she tried to convince him to abandon us and go with her for a while. We were both really surprised that he didn't; both of us were married men and thus unavailable for such adventures, but he wasn't and it would have been a very understandable decision if he'd wandered off in her company for a while.
For some reason he stuck with us, the fool. It was handy, though, the day we met the bear.
No one's suggesting that companions should never part for convenience or whim. The OP is about leaving a comrade in the lurch.
Oh, at this point I am just telling old stories. Good ones, I hope.
Post a Comment