hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
obera
Posts: 202
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 6:46 am
Location: Bend, OR

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by obera » May 8th, 2018, 2:25 pm

Guy wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 1:43 pm
obera wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 1:30 pm

There are lots of ways it can be taken. I'll answer your question and turn it back on you. Why say it? Do you say it to everyone even the white cis het uber male hikers?
Thanks Amy, well I definitely don't say it to everyone it's one of many casual greetings / comments I may or may not make to people on the tail along with comments about the weather, condition of the trail etc, etc. Idle chit chat! I can say honestly though that whether I say it or not has nothing to do with the persons sex, size or shape. I'm just as likely to say it to a man or a woman & I've had men and women of all ages say it to me. I see it as a camaraderie thing with others doing the same thing (hiking).
I wasn't offended. I rolled my eyes. It wasn't necessary. Why say it? Did my friend and I look lost or confused? Did we look fat and like we were having a hard time making that last climb? Were they just excited to tell us we were close to the view they'd just seen?
I'm glad you were not offended by it, if you heard it from me it would be said in the spirit of sharing the experience with a fellow hiker.
It varies. To me it's on the shoulder of mansplaining.
Why not just say hi?
Well I guess we just see things slightly differently but not by much. Too me only saying Hi for fear of offending someone just seems very impersonal to me. I feel it leads to people not wanting to talk to each other for fear of upsetting someone. Not looking to change any minds here. Just my view.
Definitely chit chat. It's fun to be friendly, if the other person is into it. Read the room, so to speak. Some people want to chat, some don't, ya know?
mjirving wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 1:58 pm
The grocery store analogy is apples and oranges. I don’t encourage people on the way to the grocery store as it’s a mundane trip that people do in their sleep. My intent in encouraging people to the summit of something is that it’s hard work for all of us, and yes, I’m an equal opportunity encourager. Just like at an athletic event when you cheer people on at the finish line encouraging them to give it their all as they are almost there. That’s probably the root of it for me personally as that was always common practice to cheer people on, particularly in the long distance stuff when they were working hard to achieve a goal. I had this happen to me in triathlons and marathons when I was younger, and observed it even in high school athletics like when I did cross-country. It never occurred to me that it would be construed any other way. Having said all that, I liked the comments a few posts above about not assuming everyone has that reaction and the burden is not on them to understand my intent. So, I don’t plan to do that anymore, and I’m grateful for this new understanding. I still plan to smile and say hi and chit chat if I get a positive response as obviously this shouldn’t be taken as black and white to stop talking to people, which hopefully we all can clearly see and understand.
I definitely see what you're saying about athletic events. I love people cheering me on when I run. I see this being one of your apples and oranges situations though.

When I go for a hike, I haven't entered an athletic event. I may be on the same trail as you but not even heading to the same destination. Some people hike for solitude. Some don't. It's about respectful boundaries and taking cues. Say hey, for sure. Beyond that? See where it goes, just like everywhere else. :)
oh-beer-ah

User avatar
mjirving
Posts: 1185
Joined: July 5th, 2011, 10:40 am

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by mjirving » May 8th, 2018, 2:43 pm

Yep, that’s pretty much what I do and almost everyone is receptive to a friendly conversation. The few who aren’t, it’s pretty obvious, and I just keep on truckin’.

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 3037
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Chip Down » May 8th, 2018, 5:30 pm

Asking another hiker if it's their first time to a destination strikes me as completely innocuous. I don't see how it's even possible to interpret it as condescending. If he had asked "have you been here before" rather than "is this your first time", would that be any different? (That's not entirely a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious if there's a distinction.) I suppose we could ask "how many times have you been here?", thus implying that the hiker looks as if they do this sort of thing routinely. But then that sounds like it's a contest, like the questioner is looking for an opportunity to make some asshat statement like "oh, how cute, I remember my 13th time".

I suspect at this point, somebody reading this is thinking "but Chip, why does the question have to be asked at all?" Well, the topic isn't about overly-friendly garrulous hikers, it's about hikers in certain groups treating other groups with disdain. If somebody asks people at random if they've done the hike before, then it's just as benign as saying "almost there" to the first hiker you see as you're descending, regardless of their profile. You might find it annoying, but it's not evidence you're being looked down on (except, of course, literally).

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Waffle Stomper » May 8th, 2018, 7:30 pm

At the end of day, it's all about being comfortable in your own skin. Often times we are offended by things that we ourselves dwell on and maybe it's our own thoughts that we carry about ourselves. Enjoy the hike, and if you feel your are in a minority consider hiking with those who are similar to you. If they don't hike, consider inviting them, share the beauty. Then perhaps you won't feel so unique.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

User avatar
obera
Posts: 202
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 6:46 am
Location: Bend, OR

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by obera » May 9th, 2018, 1:06 pm

Waffle Stomper wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 7:30 pm
At the end of day, it's all about being comfortable in your own skin. Often times we are offended by things that we ourselves dwell on and maybe it's our own thoughts that we carry about ourselves. Enjoy the hike, and if you feel your are in a minority consider hiking with those who are similar to you. If they don't hike, consider inviting them, share the beauty. Then perhaps you won't feel so unique.
I don't feel uncomfortable in my own personal situation but I can understand through others stories and experiences that attempting to do a public athletic activity while working to a place of better fitness can be intimidating. Add in being part of a marginalized community there's even more going on that can make someone uncomfortable .

The original article that spurred this thread was abjust that.
Chip Down wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 5:30 pm
Asking another hiker if it's their first time to a destination strikes me as completely innocuous. I don't see how it's even possible to interpret it as condescending. If he had asked "have you been here before" rather than "is this your first time", would that be any different? (That's not entirely a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious if there's a distinction.) I suppose we could ask "how many times have you been here?", thus implying that the hiker looks as if they do this sort of thing routinely. But then that sounds like it's a contest, like the questioner is looking for an opportunity to make some asshat statement like "oh, how cute, I remember my 13th time".

I suspect at this point, somebody reading this is thinking "but Chip, why does the question have to be asked at all?" Well, the topic isn't about overly-friendly garrulous hikers, it's about hikers in certain groups treating other groups with disdain. If somebody asks people at random if they've done the hike before, then it's just as benign as saying "almost there" to the first hiker you see as you're descending, regardless of their profile. You might find it annoying, but it's not evidence you're being looked down on (except, of course, literally).
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it isn't a reality for someone else. Why dismiss it?

Asking if it's someone's first time could be nothing or it could be loaded... Is the person old, fat, carrying old gear, wearing cotton etc. It depends on the situation and how it's presented and the lenses it's viewed through.

We can debate language if you'd really like, but I'm not really sure this forum is the right place for it. Top much of the conversation is getting distorted.

If people are saying they feel uncomfortable on the trail and your first thought is 'that's ridiculous, that's not a thing at all' then I'm guessing that's representative of the people who are part of the problem, so to speak.
oh-beer-ah

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 3037
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Chip Down » May 9th, 2018, 7:52 pm

This thread naturally lends itself to story telling, and I just remembered one that pertains. I had just gotten back into hiking after a loooong hiatus, and wasn't in great shape. Was hiking along a trail when a guy came up behind me and started getting chatty. I felt weird about that. Picked up the pace, but no matter how fast I went, he kept up. As you can imagine, I was a bit sore the next day (it was about 22 miles, much more than a relative newbie like me should have done, especially at that pace). Anyway, for me it's just a funny story, but I've often thought about how creepy it would feel if I was an attractive 27 year old female, instead of an attractive 27 year old male. (I'm not really that vain; just having a little fun.) I realize my story is slightly off topic, because we're discussing things more along the lines of mansplaining and toxic masculinity and all that, but it sort of touches on the subject of how minorities might perceive their hiking experience.

Drat, I thought of another anecdote earlier today that was spot-on for this discussion. Maybe I'll think of it later.

Oh, I just remembered! I was at the top of an easy mountain, with a trail to the summit. Of course, I had come up the off-trail side, because I'm a hardcore badass stud who knows the right way to conquer a mountain :lol: It was semi-crowded, maybe 10 people up there. There was a couple, guys, 20's maybe, engaged in PDA. I didn't care, whatever. Thought it was slightly weird, but I'd think the same thing if it was a hetero couple. But it progressed to dick jokes and whatnot. It wasn't creepy or disgusting, and I didn't feel at all uncomfortable with it, but I did feel like they were bringing their pride agenda to the mountaintop. I'm pretty understanding though. I can definitely understand how liberating it must feel to just let loose and be yourself, and I can also understand that there's a worthwhile agenda in standing up for yourself and refusing to be subdued into being invisible. Even so, I kind of felt like "sheesh, really, here?" It's no big deal though, I just chatted with them like I would anybody else. Not trying to pat myself on the back or anything, just saying it felt like their whole "look at me" approach was unnecessary, because I don't give a rodent's behind what they do in the bedroom. Of course, I have no idea how others on that summit felt about the whole thing, or if they even noticed. Umm...I guess there's no particular point to my story, but it fits the discussion, so maybe interesting and worth sharing.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Bosterson » May 15th, 2018, 12:55 pm

‘Unlikely hikers’ gain traction

Most of this is a rehash of the other article, but yet again:
That reframing [of how we think about the outdoors] involves more than just showing that underrepresented minorities enjoy the outdoors; it’s also about challenging the values of the dominant outdoors culture. For instance, it’s common for outdoorspeople to share stories of “conquering” a mountain or “crushing” a boulder problem — language that makes Bruso uncomfortable. “We’re talking about the land like it’s our playground, but people were displaced for it,” she said. Bruso prefers to identify areas by their current names and as territories of the Indigenous people who lived there before colonizers displaced them.
Bruso's repeated issue with phraseology like "conquering" and "crushing" is somewhere between wrong ("peakbagging" most likely originated in Scotland and has nothing to do with Native Americans or colonialism) and irrelevant (there is already a pretty robust trend in serious climbing circles deprecating the concept of "conquering" mountains, which is an imperialist concept rather than a colonialist one; "crushing" the miles or the boulders is just bro-sports-speak and at most should be ridiculed as a stupid way of talking, but that's it). The name-issue is a little more interesting though.

To tangent-ize the discussion a bit: I was at a graduation ceremony over the weekend and the speaker was former Secretary of the Interior (and REI CEO) Sally Jewell, who was responsible for getting Denali's name officially changed under Obama. Being that this event was taking place within sight of Mt. Rahn-yay, there was some invocation of Tahoma and names. I was pleased with the Denali decision because, as far as I could tell, no one called it McKinley. (100% of climbers refer to it as Denali. The National Park is named Denali. The mountain was already Denali, the maps just needed to catch up.)

I'm not sure how I feel about a Rainier > Tahoma change, inasmuch as it doesn't really seem like this matters. Certainly, if you don't know Rainier is Tahoma (or Hood is Wy'east, or Adams is Paho, or Helens is Loowit), your knowledge is incomplete. But it's hard to see how some sort of mass name-atonement (where we re-anoint all landmarks with their "original" names) would be a solution to actual problems.

Daniel Duane wrote a piece in the NY Times exploring the way places in Yosemite are named after the conquest of the native Miwok tribe. It's an extensive history that I didn't really know in detail, and I would argue that the history should be on billboards on the wall next to graphics about glaciation and geology. However (emphasis added):
[Miwok leader and descendant of Tenaya] Mr. Leonard reminded me that he’s just one guy and can’t speak for others, then gently explained that my whole argument felt beside the point. Renaming, he said, “is not going to make us feel any better or more important — the reality is, most of us could care less what they call things.” Mr. Leonard preferred to talk about the Southern Sierra Miwok’s decades-long campaign for tribal recognition by the federal government. The other thing on Mr. Leonard’s mind was the traffic. “If you want to figure how to get rid of some of the tourists, I’d be happy about that!” he said. “There’s so many people in Yosemite we can’t even get there. So we don’t care who calls what anything! You can’t even find a parking spot!”
I would contend that there's a difference between educating people about a history of exploitation and disenfranchisement (not to mention genocide...) and revisionist name-atonement, especially inasmuch as 1) changing a name doesn't undo the past, 2) changing a name does not fix problems in the present, 3) the people for whom the names are ostensibly being changed potentially do not care, because they're concerned with bigger issues, and 4) changing a name based on land "ownership" premises is actually a backwards step towards enacting a future in which archaic concepts of private property are no longer a tool that can be used to exclude people.

This country, as a political body, has a horrible history with Native American populations, and that should be reckoned with. "Reservations" are a concept that should be reckoned with. I have no idea how to possibly reconcile the needs of traditional hunter-gatherer culture with the extant reality of contemporary urban/tourist society, but we need to wrangle with how to allow this continent's native peoples to access land they previously used while also preserving all land in public trust for all people. (Are there any Native American people on this forum? It would be great to discuss this, though potentially in a different topic.) But fretting about the names of mountains does not accomplish this. (And, I would say, "people were displaced" to acquire land in general - just as much hand wringing should be about how a city or housing development came to be. You're hiking on "stolen land," but you're also living on "stolen land.")

There must be some irony in non-Native Americans decrying minor semantic usage in lieu of broader opposition to, say, parking a uranium mine next to the Grand Canyon, or opening Bear's Ears up to drilling. Inclusivity means broadening access to all, but it also demands that there be something left to access - on behalf of all. Mt. Rainier is a chunk of rock covered in frozen water; it does not "have" a name, rather we choose to call it something, usually based on convention, in order to know we're talking about the same rock. It was here before us, and will (hopefully) be here after we're gone. Potentially different people will call the rock something different; the challenge is to ensure that we all get to enjoy the rock while ensuring that everyone else also gets to enjoy the rock. (This includes Native Americans, who, so to speak, do not currently get to enjoy the rock.) Finding the correct balance is a difficult problem (though "no uranium mines" seems like a no-brainer beginning), but not one that can be solved with a name.
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
mjirving
Posts: 1185
Joined: July 5th, 2011, 10:40 am

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by mjirving » May 18th, 2018, 9:53 pm

I just finished reading my latest issue of "Outside" magazine, almost cover-to-cover. The editor admitted that they had not really given genuine space to non-white-male outdoors people (I'm paraphrasing from memory on that). Anyway, they devoted a huge portion of the issue, and claim to want to carry this on as normal practice and not just as a "special issue focus" into the future. It was really a good read and felt very real and not contrived. I encourage you all to check it out. One of the people they featured had the following to say, which struck me. As we've talked about observing non-traditional hikers on the trail and feeling that if the numbers are equal then are problems are solved and it's not an issue anymore...I know, that's an over-simplification. Anyway, here is the long quote, which I thought was great learning for me.

"This assumption was rooted in the dominant cultural narrative about who enjoys adventure. Gear catalogs, advertising campaigns, films, and articles in magazines like "Outside" typically presented the outdoors as a place for white people, most of them men. At the turn of the millennium, I decided to do something about this, pivoting from sales to journalism. I wrote about the achievements of people like the buffalo soldiers, African American members of the US Cavalry who started patrolling Yosemite in the 1890s as some of our first national park rangers, and Sophia Danenberg's historic 2006 Mount Everest climb, when she became the first black American to reach the summit. The more I looked around, the more obvious it became that the world of adventure was - has always been - far more diverse than I'd been led to believe. The stories of people of color, Native Americans, those with disabilities, and members the LGBTQ community just weren't being shared widely in the outdoor community. Finally, that's changing. But not because the outdoor media and the outdoor industry woke up. What happened is the underrepresented groups took control of the narrative. Utilizing digital platforms, they're speaking for themselves. Organizations like Outdoor Afro, Latino Outdoors, and Out There Adventures have begun stripping away the presumption of a white, male, heterosexual experience. Even more importantly, but unapologetically presenting their unique points of view, they've shined a light on a rich heritage of adventure and environmental stewardship that has been there for generations."

I thought that was pretty insightful...just more food for thought in this long, long, thread. :-)

-Mike

User avatar
RobinB
Posts: 803
Joined: September 9th, 2013, 11:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by RobinB » May 23rd, 2018, 12:02 pm

Really nice conversation everyone. I'm again pleasantly surprised by how much kinder this forum is than social media.
mjirving wrote:
May 18th, 2018, 9:53 pm
Anyway, here is the long quote, which I thought was great learning for me.

"This assumption was rooted in the dominant cultural narrative about who enjoys adventure. Gear catalogs, advertising campaigns, films, and articles in magazines like "Outside" typically presented the outdoors as a place for white people, most of them men. At the turn of the millennium, I decided to do something about this, pivoting from sales to journalism. I wrote about the achievements of people like the buffalo soldiers, African American members of the US Cavalry who started patrolling Yosemite in the 1890s as some of our first national park rangers, and Sophia Danenberg's historic 2006 Mount Everest climb, when she became the first black American to reach the summit. The more I looked around, the more obvious it became that the world of adventure was - has always been - far more diverse than I'd been led to believe. The stories of people of color, Native Americans, those with disabilities, and members the LGBTQ community just weren't being shared widely in the outdoor community. Finally, that's changing. But not because the outdoor media and the outdoor industry woke up. What happened is the underrepresented groups took control of the narrative. Utilizing digital platforms, they're speaking for themselves. Organizations like Outdoor Afro, Latino Outdoors, and Out There Adventures have begun stripping away the presumption of a white, male, heterosexual experience. Even more importantly, but unapologetically presenting their unique points of view, they've shined a light on a rich heritage of adventure and environmental stewardship that has been there for generations."
I think this is really important. I agree with others here that there is an obvious individual action problem. I'm a cis-ish white dude, and, apart from getting occasionally talked down to by Mega Bros, I almost never have trouble outside. But my (female) partner gets tons of just bizarre nonsense, from would-be helpful "You're almost there!" to ridiculous "There are other, easier hikes around if you're not into this." There's also a whole set of assumptions about relationship dynamics - like people telling me how cool it is that my wife will "come along" when she's the one who planned the trip - that I think can accumulate to make people feel less welcome in the wild than they should.

But I like the Outside article because it points to something beyond individual action: the images promulgated in outdoor industry still tend overwhelmingly to be of skinny white dudes or bizarrely sexualized skinny women. Unlike the individual action issue, which I hope can be changed by person-to-person education, I think the industry-level trouble will take a top-down solution. In that sense, in addition to changing our own attitudes, I think it makes sense to pressure industries to change theirs. REI has made some moves in the right direction lately, but it would be lovely to see others follow suit.

User avatar
Arturo
Posts: 180
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 6:44 am
Location: Portland

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Arturo » May 23rd, 2018, 2:11 pm

I just like talking to people.
When I'm descending, and in my usual talkative mood, I use the same old line:

"They lied ... there's no McMenamins up there".
Gets a chuckle most of the time. Harmless.

But I have also warned people about poison oak, ice ... you know ... potential pitfalls. Especially if they don't look prepared. I don't think that is out of bounds.

People have told me "almost there" plenty of times. "Thanks" is the appropriate reply. If I take offense to it, that's on me, not the other person. People who just accomplished something sometimes offer encouragement to the next person. It's a kinship. That's not 'mansplaining" in my book ... whatever that is.

Conversely, people have asked me "how far to the top" many times as well. They assume I made it to the top and didn't turn around. Should I take offense to that? Nah.

What I do take offense to is the White het cisgender comments. That's just a divisive label.

The common denominator is we are all Oregon Hikers.
Hikers are some of the most friendly people I have ever met.
Serious.

Post Reply