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
5th
Posts: 121
Joined: April 27th, 2015, 9:11 am
Location: Eugene

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by 5th » April 25th, 2018, 9:37 am

jessbee wrote:
April 25th, 2018, 8:57 am
When in doubt, say nothing. Just keep walking!
Based on how this discussion makes me feel, I'm going to apply this advice to this thread now.

12XU
Posts: 21
Joined: April 17th, 2012, 10:28 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by 12XU » April 25th, 2018, 1:23 pm

I'm a white, cis, male, I'd like to offer advice to the other white, cis, males who are feeling anxiety or confusion over this conversation.

First, please try to recognize that by being a cis, white, male, you carry an enormous amount of power, yes, privilege, in all of your social encounters. Privilege is a loaded term, it has little to do with you as an individual. Yet because of this privilege you hold, you have the upper hand in social power dynamics that are very real and give you leverage in social situations over Women, LGBTQ individuals,and people of color. These dynamics have likely been invisible to you but they are very real to these individuals. Please try to recognize them. Please try to imagine what its like to be a woman who often has to wonder if a social interaction could lead to assault, or a person of color who has often been presumed to "not belong" in traditionally white environments like Pac NW hiking trails.

If this is too much of a burden, ignoring non-cis,white,male individuals is an option. But I'd encourage you to be broad, open and friendly. Check in with yourself, are the words you want to say to this person the same words you'd say to a physically fit cis,white,male? If not, maybe they should be, right?

A friendly wave and a "Hi, How are you doing today?" is always appropriate. If people don't want to talk more, so be it, and if they do, great!

Please recognize the advantages in society that you enjoy being a white,cis,male, and please be extra conscious to those who are not white,cis,male.
Thanks!

User avatar
obera
Posts: 198
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 6:46 am
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by obera » April 25th, 2018, 1:36 pm

12XU wrote:
April 25th, 2018, 1:23 pm
I'm a white, cis, male, I'd like to offer advice to the other white, cis, males who are feeling anxiety or confusion over this conversation.

First, please try to recognize that by being a cis, white, male, you carry an enormous amount of power, yes, privilege, in all of your social encounters. Privilege is a loaded term, it has little to do with you as an individual. Yet because of this privilege you hold, you have the upper hand in social power dynamics that are very real and give you leverage in social situations over Women, LGBTQ individuals,and people of color. These dynamics have likely been invisible to you but they are very real to these individuals. Please try to recognize them. Please try to imagine what its like to be a woman who often has to wonder if a social interaction could lead to assault, or a person of color who has often been presumed to "not belong" in traditionally white environments like Pac NW hiking trails.

If this is too much of a burden, ignoring non-cis,white,male individuals is an option. But I'd encourage you to be broad, open and friendly. Check in with yourself, are the words you want to say to this person the same words you'd say to a physically fit cis,white,male? If not, maybe they should be, right?

A friendly wave and a "Hi, How are you doing today?" is always appropriate. If people don't want to talk more, so be it, and if they do, great!

Please recognize the advantages in society that you enjoy being a white,cis,male, and please be extra conscious to those who are not white,cis,male.
Thanks!
Yes. Thank you.
oh-beer-ah

CMH
Posts: 28
Joined: June 18th, 2016, 1:13 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by CMH » April 27th, 2018, 10:30 am

Bosterson wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 8:48 am
CMH wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 7:37 am
I think diversity in a bunch of categories that are irrelevant in the hiking community is a backwards goal.
Backwards from... what? Hiking's prominent place in the book "Stuff White People Like?"
A much better goal would be perfect homogeneity in the hiking community in the only thing that matters - everyone wants to hike hikes (tempered with the goal of avoiding overcrowding).
As opposed to now, where hiking is used as, like, corporal punishment for miscegenators? (Or maybe just failing to pay their taxes? I do see a lot of people grimacing as they "crush the miles" on Dog Mountain, so maybe that explains it.)

Please elaborate on your idealistic vision for making hiking something that people "want" to do.

Backwards in the sense that we should encourage people that want to hike to hike and not aim for some demographic profile of what we want the hiking community to be. We also don't try to make sure we have a certain makeup of people who like strawberry ice cream and pralines and cream, and chocolate chip mint,... it doesn't matter.

CMH
Posts: 28
Joined: June 18th, 2016, 1:13 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by CMH » April 27th, 2018, 10:35 am

obera wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 9:04 am
CMH wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 7:37 am
I think diversity in a bunch of categories that are irrelevant in the hiking community is a backwards goal. A much better goal would be perfect homogeneity in the hiking community in the only thing that matters - everyone wants to hike hikes (tempered with the goal of avoiding overcrowding).
It may be irrelevant to you, but that doesn't make it so for others. It illustrates opportunity for you to explore understanding others.
That's a nice platitude, but I don't think you actually live by it, or at least you have a double standard. If you were truly interested in learning from others I don't think you'd be so picky about the tone or modality of learning - e.g. you complain about what you call mansplaining (I think you mean explaining by men), but I'm sure they're just trying to impart knowledge to you and be helpful, but I think you just don't like the tone of it, and probably have a bias against men from the get go it seems sense you use gender biased terms like mansplaining. It's like if I said what you're doing in this thread is womansplaining. Why do you have to make everything about gender and race and sexual preference? That's just divisive. Why not focus on what hikers have in common - that they want to hike?

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 1915
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Bosterson » April 27th, 2018, 12:30 pm

CMH wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 10:30 am
Backwards in the sense that we should encourage people that want to hike to hike and not aim for some demographic profile of what we want the hiking community to be. ... it doesn't matter.
Straw man arguments are fun, but to my knowledge, no one has advocated conscripting the populace to become hikers in order to fulfill some kind of demographic quota. If my assessment is inaccurate, please cite evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, you are (inexplicably) presuming that there is not an overlap between the hypothetical "demographic profile" and "people that want to hike." I would assume that people of all ages, genders, abilities, orientations, and ice cream flavors are out hiking because they.... want to hike. If this sounds inaccurate to you, please cite evidence of "diversity" hikers who are being forced to hike against their will.
CMH wrote:Why do you have to make everything about gender and race and sexual preference?
What is this "everything" to which you refer? This is one (somewhat mundane) topic on a small, pretty local hiking forum. 99.99% of all other topics in this form are about flowers, ticks, poison oak, and the Gorge fire. I honestly cannot think of a single topic on this forum where this issue has previously ever been discussed.

It's your business if you, personally, feel threatened by changing demographics. However, inasmuch as you (claim) to be in support of people who "want" to hike, what if there are people who want to hike but are either intimidated or unable to participate for various socioculturaleconomic reasons? If those people want to hike, it seems like - per your own admission - you should be in favor of them getting outside. And if they want to hike but are (currently) unable to, talking about why they are unable to hike seems relevant.

If discussing those reasons broaches topics that you do not like or are uncomfortable with (like the changing of cultural norms), feel free to completely ignore this totally optional topic you chose to participate in. Telling us you don't think we should talk about these issues at all because (presumably) you don't like them is not, actually, a discussion point.

Btw, nice ice cream analogy. I recall that certain flavors of ice cream couldn't vote or hold property, and other flavors weren't allowed to work outside of the house, and yet other flavors were killed or put in jail based on which kind of toppings they liked. When ice cream rights groups start arguing about which ice cream flavors get to sit in the front or back of the ice cream case, such guidance about the complex intersectionality of the frozen dairy sector will be very helpful. :geek:
Will hike off trail for fun.

pcg
Posts: 293
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 7:46 pm
Location: Chehalem Mountain

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by pcg » April 27th, 2018, 12:43 pm

CMH wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 10:35 am
you complain about what you call mansplaining (I think you mean explaining by men), but I'm sure they're just trying to impart knowledge to you and be helpful, but I think you just don't like the tone of it, and probably have a bias against men from the get go it seems sense you use gender biased terms like mansplaining...
I'm surprised you're not familiar with this term. It's common knowledge that "mansplaining" is used to describe the phenomenon where men assume women need something explained to them and then proceed to do so. Sure they're trying to be helpful. That's not the problem. The problem is that the mansplainer has assumed the woman was helpless, for no other reason than she is a woman. Some women get tired of that.

CMH
Posts: 28
Joined: June 18th, 2016, 1:13 pm

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by CMH » April 27th, 2018, 1:48 pm

Bosterson wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 12:30 pm
CMH wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 10:30 am
Backwards in the sense that we should encourage people that want to hike to hike and not aim for some demographic profile of what we want the hiking community to be. ... it doesn't matter.
Straw man arguments are fun, but to my knowledge, no one has advocated conscripting the populace to become hikers in order to fulfill some kind of demographic quota. If my assessment is inaccurate, please cite evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, you are (inexplicably) presuming that there is not an overlap between the hypothetical "demographic profile" and "people that want to hike." I would assume that people of all ages, genders, abilities, orientations, and ice cream flavors are out hiking because they.... want to hike. If this sounds inaccurate to you, please cite evidence of "diversity" hikers who are being forced to hike against their will.
CMH wrote:Why do you have to make everything about gender and race and sexual preference?
What is this "everything" to which you refer? This is one (somewhat mundane) topic on a small, pretty local hiking forum. 99.99% of all other topics in this form are about flowers, ticks, poison oak, and the Gorge fire. I honestly cannot think of a single topic on this forum where this issue has previously ever been discussed.

It's your business if you, personally, feel threatened by changing demographics. However, inasmuch as you (claim) to be in support of people who "want" to hike, what if there are people who want to hike but are either intimidated or unable to participate for various socioculturaleconomic reasons? If those people want to hike, it seems like - per your own admission - you should be in favor of them getting outside. And if they want to hike but are (currently) unable to, talking about why they are unable to hike seems relevant.

If discussing those reasons broaches topics that you do not like or are uncomfortable with (like the changing of cultural norms), feel free to completely ignore this totally optional topic you chose to participate in. Telling us you don't think we should talk about these issues at all because (presumably) you don't like them is not, actually, a discussion point.

Btw, nice ice cream analogy. I recall that certain flavors of ice cream couldn't vote or hold property, and other flavors weren't allowed to work outside of the house, and yet other flavors were killed or put in jail based on which kind of toppings they liked. When ice cream rights groups start arguing about which ice cream flavors get to sit in the front or back of the ice cream case, such guidance about the complex intersectionality of the frozen dairy sector will be very helpful. :geek:
And you inexplicably assume that the current hiking community demographics aren't representative of those that want to hike. It seems you think there's some conspiracy to intimidate or shun certain groups from hiking. I'm not complaining about changes in demographics - you're misrepresenting my comments, I'm saying it's irrelevant and don't think it's wise to racialize hiking like it seems most other things are racialized, and made to be about gender, etc. Why can't we just hike and let others hike and not vie to manage the demographics towards some perceived ideal makeup? What ever happened to people not seeing race and treating everyone equally? Now we have to treat each separate group uniquely to get the proportions right it seems.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 1915
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Bosterson » April 27th, 2018, 2:15 pm

CMH wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 1:48 pm
And you inexplicably assume that the current hiking community demographics aren't representative of those that want to hike. It seems you think there's some conspiracy to intimidate or shun certain groups from hiking.
I haven't assumed the former, nor do I think the latter. I am only responding to a discussion here about an article someone else wrote (and my comments mostly have been regarding whether it's rude to give people unsolicited advice). I'm guessing that you have not read the article, as your summary of the issue above is bafflingly off the mark. (No one has insinuated any conspiracy theories about intimidation. One person has said that a major hiking group seemed reluctant to engage with LGBT groups. "Conspiracies" are not needed to explain bias.)
I'm not complaining about changes in demographics - you're misrepresenting my comments, I'm saying it's irrelevant and don't think it's wise to racialize hiking like it seems most other things are racialized, and made to be about gender, etc.
If I mischaracterized your point, I apologize. Per your analysis of the issue above ("conspiracy"), it would appear that you aren't understanding what other people have said about their experiences hiking. Having barriers to access is not the same thing as a conspiracy of discrimination, but it doesn't mean that the barriers are irrelevant. If your contention is that 100% of people that would like to hike do hike, please get back to us after you read the aforementioned article wherein people give examples of their experiences with barriers to hiking. Unless you think those people are "irrelevant."
Why can't we just hike and let others hike and not vie to manage the demographics towards some perceived ideal makeup? What ever happened to people not seeing race and treating everyone equally? Now we have to treat each separate group uniquely to get the proportions right it seems.
To repeat: no one has suggested this. If you have examples to the contrary, please present them or else give up this pointless straw man argument.
Will hike off trail for fun.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3280
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: hiking community fails to embrace fat queer hikers

Post by Guy » April 27th, 2018, 2:56 pm

pcg wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 12:43 pm
I'm surprised you're not familiar with this term. It's common knowledge that "mansplaining" is used to describe the phenomenon where men assume women need something explained to them and then proceed to do so. Sure they're trying to be helpful. That's not the problem. The problem is that the mansplainer has assumed the woman was helpless, for no other reason than she is a woman. Some women get tired of that.
Where I think there is room for debate and confusion is what is considered mansplaining. I'm sure at the extreme some would consider it anything said to them by a man. The vast majority would be more reasonable but still on a curve. Can you mansplain to a man BTW ;)
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

Post Reply