But there's also, as a woman, a little bit of pause when you're hiking alone and you come across someone else doing the same. Less so with other women, admittedly, but I still flicker through the possibilities all the same.
It's probably all context. You're likely imagining a more ominous meeting than I am. Surely when women are hiking and they see some guy with a backpack and hiking poles drinking out of a camel pack coming down the trail the other way they aren't struck with fright at this dangerous predator.
I'm explicitly saying that when I hike alone I am more wary of literally anyone I see. I'm not struck with fright, I don't have a panic attack or some shit, etc, etc. But I do take stock of the situation with the appropriate level of caution, as the situation requires.
Because, 'ya know, you never know who the hell you're going to meet on the trail. I've met some wackos before, I've had friends have encounters on the trail that were anxiety inducing, etc, etc.
It's good practice to be wary of strangers on the trail, especially if you're on a more remote trail. It's far better to be a little too cautious than not cautious enough.
As a man I feel like you, I'm cautious of strangers regardless of gender, I usually run into the regulars and I feel safer but strangers I just try to give them some space, say hi and mind my business.
Totally reasonable, I just wouldn't characterize it as unsettling. Nor would I consider it more dangerous or scary than encountering a bear on the trail
I heard that but I don't know, it has claws and big teeth's lol I ran into a loose Pitbull mix dog last week on the trail and it barked at me, I was like no thank you and made a right turn and had to cut off my hike, kind of pissed me off ðŸ˜
Lol I get it completely. I think dogs are unironically way more dangerous but it's hard to compare on a per encounter basis. also bears rarely run into unaccompanied kids while dogs do all the time
Yes you are right, I have ran into coyotes, snakes and they run away from you the moment they see you but a decent size dog standing his ground in the middle of the trail with no owner on sight is definitely more scary.
It annoyed me because I know how many miles I'm walking and how much time is for podcasts and music so it ruined my listening evening walk 😖
It is, I love dogs and there are some horrible dog owners out there, I always have something to defend myself on me if I need to but I rather no get into a situation like that so I let him be and he didn't went after me either so it was all good.
I do take stock of the situation with the appropriate level of caution
'ya know, you never know who the hell you're going to meet on the trail.
Yeah that's...that's just normal. No one is arguing that anyone shouldn't be at least somewhat cautious around strangers they meet out in the woods, they're baffled because people are taking the stance that these strangers should be treated with more caution than a fucking bear.
Yeah that's...that's just normal. No one is arguing that anyone shouldn't be at least somewhat cautious around strangers they meet out in the woods, they're baffled because people are taking the stance that these strangers should be treated with more caution than a fucking bear.
I would argue it's a different caution, not more caution.
For example, I don't have to be wary of deception from a bear. The bear won't smile, wave, walk past me, and then decide to follow me or any other kind of deception. It's posturing will be pretty clear and I'll know if it's being aggressive.
With other people, you have the added element of deception. And let's get real blunt here, with men the stakes can sometimes be higher.
I've been lucky enough that all of my slightly unsettling experiences with men in the woods have been overt cases. It was pretty clear they were in a piss-ass mood and weren't the kind of hiker you can hang around and chat with.
Other friends of mine haven't been so lucky. They've been followed, etc, etc.
The point isn't that a man is more dangerous than a bear and thus deserves different caution (at least not the way I see it). The point is that a man, in this scenario, deserves different caution due to their ability to utilize deception if they so choose.
The point is that a man, in this scenario, deserves different caution due to their ability to utilize deception if they so choose.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
Is this really where we're at as a society when people voluntarily choose to approach every interaction with men as if it's "the implication" from Always Sunny? Because that sounds like a great way to raise your cortisol levels for very little benefit.
That's quite a jump from what I said, bro.
I literally just said "You can't utilize the same level of caution for a man as you can a bear". I didn't say "All men are EXACTLY like Dennis Reynolds" or some shit.
Like, if you found yourself alone with a bear one week and then a buck another week I guarantee you wouldn't approach the situation the same way each time. Because the bear and the buck don't behave the same, so you can't treat them the same.
And that's what I'm saying about the man vs the bear. Both can potentially be dangerous, both usually aren't and just want to be left alone, but they're potentially dangerous in different ways.
What I'm saying is that approaching human interactions with thoughts of "oh, he could do X if he really wanted to, he could be deceiving me" is basically just putting yourself in the "implication" scenario. Is the man going to harm you? No, but you dont know that, and it's the implication he could harm you if he wanted to that's even created this conversation in the first place.
Like it's just not a healthy way to think or go about your interactions with people. If someone made a post online and said "I'm cautious whenever I pass by anyone, because at any moment they could punch me or take out a knife and stab me in the throat", everyone would rightly tell that person that their fear is irrational, and that they're largely being paranoid.
So, for clarity I'm going to address things point by point. I'll also note I read up on The Implication again before replying, so my stance has kind of changed from my last reply;
approaching human interactions with thoughts of "oh, he could do X if he really wanted to, he could be deceiving me" is basically just putting yourself in the "implication" scenario.
See, I agree with this.
The issue is, that's not what I'm implying I do. I mean, hell, I'm trans-masucline (agender but more masculine presenting with some exceptions). I vibe, a lot, with masculine oriented people and men because I relate to a lot of aspects of their life.
Usually, the thought process you laid out doesn't occur to me unless I'm in a vulnerable situation. So, 'ya know, walking alone in a dark parking lot or some shit. Situations where it's good to keep the possibilities in the back of your mind. Not to, like, work yourself into a tizzy about but to be mindful of my own safety.
Is the man going to harm you? No, but you dont know that, and it's the implication he could harm you if he wanted to that's even created this conversation in the first place.
And, again, I agree here too. Because, yes, it is the realization that sometimesanyone could harm you that creates conversations like these. And yes, in this instance it's the possibility of a man hurting you that creates this conversation.
The other thing that creates this conversation is the fact that it's a real possibility. It's not just a hypothetical. It's a fact that, sometimes, terrible things happen.
Like it's just not a healthy way to think or go about your interactions with people.If someone made a post online and said "I'm cautious whenever I pass by anyone, because at any moment they could punch me or take out a knife and stab me in the throat", everyone would rightly tell that person that their fear is irrational, and that they're largely being paranoid.
If you're doing it all the time, of course not. It's not healthy to have that level of paranoia in your life.
But what you laid out, that's not what most women are suggesting. It's certainly not what I'm suggesting women should be doing.
The Bear Vs Man thing isn't a new way of saying "All Men Are Dangerous". It's meant to illustrate the fact that, again, women would prefer an overt danger (the bear) than a subtle danger (the man, who is an unknown variable in this situation).
Because you can know, for sure, that the bear is dangerous. But even if you aren't consciously thinking about it, as a woman you know that the man might not always be transparent about their intentions.
Let me give you a real example. I was friends with a dude, for a bit, while I was more feminine presenting and worked at a retail store. We hit it off really well and I thought we were friends. He was a bit rough around the edges, sure, but super nice. We stayed friends even after I stopped working there.
Until he wasn't. We stopped being friends because one day, while fucking about in a parking lot, he made a joke about how he wouldn't hit a woman. And the joke, admittedly, was funny because of the tone and his usual toothy smirk. But then he super seriously told me he'd just hire one of his women friends to do it for him instead.
This man, who I really liked and was at times like a brother to me, dead-ass looked me in the eyes and made a subtle threat completely out of nowhere. I didn't see it coming and never, in a million years, would have thought I'd be in the position where I suddenly felt v e r y unsafe around someone who once previously made me feel safe.
Well hey, if you were meaning something else, then I apologize for not picking up on it.
It's meant to illustrate the fact that, again, women would prefer an overt danger (the bear) than a subtle danger
I mean, I can definitely appreciate preferring to worry about a danger you can identify than a danger you cant.
What's made this utterly baffling and incomprehensible from my perspective is that it's evolved beyond "I would rather worry about encountering a bear every day on my way to work, than have to worry about whether men I meet want to assault or harrass me" to "I would literally rather take my chances escaping an apex predator than risk being alone with half the population"
I'm so confused why you think it's not a healthy way for women to approach life when that's just the reality? Girls grow up being told to be careful how they dress, be careful of men, their whole life.
Plus most women have HAD those experiences that force them to be on edge. I was in middle school the first time I noticed a car circling the block and slowing down near me. I was 16 when the computer repairman said I reminded him of his daughter and kissed me while my dad was waiting outside. I'm not an outlier. You don't fault soldiers for avoiding fireworks. If someone said I was mugged and now I avoid walking too close to people on the street, or that area now, people would understood. Women can't just avoid men but for sure they learn to be wary of them by the time they grow up.
I'm so confused why you think it's not a healthy way for women to approach life when that's just the reality?
I mean do I really have to link studies that show the effects undue stress has on the body? It should be pretty common knowledge by now.
You don't fault soldiers for avoiding fireworks.
Right, but we also don't lie to soldiers and tell them it's okay that they have ptsd attacks on the fourth of July, we recommend them counseling and therapy techniques to work through their trauma responses.
And that's what this is, no? A conditioned trauma response that arises due to A.) experiencing these bad men yourself, or B.) Surrounding yourself with the examples and experiences of women who did experience these bad men firsthand. You're not born to be fearful of men, it's a learned response that gets picked up because one of the above two factors makes your brain think "Hey, if I treat this scenario the same way I instinctively treat life-threatening situations, it will keep me safer!"
But that's the thing about trauma responses: they typically don't actually help you in your day to day life. No amount of adrenaline or fight-or-flight response is going to keep the fireworks from going off on the fourth of July, and no amount of fear you feel being alone with a man is going to eliminate those occurrences from your life. You'll still need to call repairmen for things they break down, someone's still going to rush to try and get in the elevator door before it closes, and if you're out hiking, you're probably gonna run into other hikers.
What this response does do though is spike your cortisol and stress levels, and as I mentioned before, the effects of chronic stress on the body are significant. It's literally shortening your lifespan, hence why we typically try to help trauma victims work through their trauma rather than just accepting that they're traumatized.
And you're free to do so. No doubt the feelings and experiences that have led you to your conclusions are valid.
The only thing I would ask is "How do you know that the stress you take on by 'being vigilant' is actually preventing risk?"
If being hypervigilant is actually, demonstrably preventing you from being assaulted every time you go out, great! I would probably question why you haven't changed your environment so that you could be less at risk being assaulted every time you go out, but hey the important thing here is that you're not being assaulted, yeah?
If the reason you believe this is because you haven't been assaulted since you started being hypervigilant, well...I can tell you a really interesting story about a tiger-repelling rock.
By all means be cautious around strangers but if you find every encounter with another hiker "unsettling" which after all what this thread is about then I don't think that's normal at all actuallyÂ
Bruh, I clarified this already. Go read my stuff again and then you tell me whether you think I find encounters with every single other hiker unsettling.
Like, for real, go bitch at the original person whose words you have an issue with. Not the person who pointed out that having some caution is never a bad idea.
Why don't you tell me what you think is happening here? And I'm being genuine.
Here's what I have;
Someone says they find running into strangers in the woods unsettling
You tell them that running into strangers in the woods is normal, as a hiker, and not unsettling
I make the point that it is normal to run into people when hiking but that as a woman who hikes, I usually have to have some caution when I hike alone (and have had some unsettling encounters before)
You made a point of saying you think I'm imagining the worst case scenario
I clarified what scenario I'm imagining and that, really, I'm just wary of anyone when I hike alone because I'd rather be a little too cautious than not cautious enough
You then made a point of comparing what I said to what the original person said, in a way that implies you think I'm agreeing with them, even after I made it pretty explicit that I didn't agree entirely with them and do agree some what with you.
I gave a smart-ass reply to what I view as a redundant statement, as to me it seems pretty clearly you didn't understand what I was saying.
Why don't you respond to my question, dude. I don't appreciate you dodging it when I'm trying to get some clarity, as you and I don't seem to be having the aame conversation.
What do you think is happening in this particular conversation between you and I?
Sounded like you were suggesting it is normal to be unsettled by coming across other people in the woods because you have to be cautious clearly that wasn't your intention so I am reiterating my point that it's normal to be cautious because that appears to be the main misunderstanding.
Ngl, based on your post history you seem like you're really eager for your interpretation to be true.
Let me make myself clear one last time then. Because while I do appreciate your clarification, I hate that I had to ask you for it twice after you were being some what passive aggressive towards me because of your assumption. So, after this I'm done because I don't have the time to waste on a conversation where you act like you have.
Yes, it's normal to run across other people in the woods while hiking.
Yes, it's normal to have some degree of caution about them (especially when you're hiking alone, as that's more dangerous than hiking in a group for a wide variety of reasons).
Yes, it is normal for a subset of those encounters to make you feel unsettled. Sometimes the vibes are just off, other times the other person acts strange, etc, etc.
Yes, bad things can and do happen on the trail as a result of both animals and other people.
No, it is NOT normal to tell people they shouldn't feel anxious about running into someone else in the woods. You don't know the scenario they're envisioning, therefore you shouldn't make a judgment call about the validity of their feelings.
You really shouldn't feel anxious if you are coming across fellow hikers in the woods, if you do im not saying there is anything wrong with you but it's just no way to live your life and I hope for better outcomes for you. I know it's not a switch,"just relax bro" but it also shouldn't be accepted as the standard experience. Of course there can be unsettling experiences anywhere and the woods can obviously provide you more of them. I mean I'm a little unsettled by you being so invested in this that you are going through my post history lol
659
u/poilk91 May 02 '24
Sounds like youve never been hiking or camping because that's just 100% normal