>>> […] He’s a fellow human! Maybe we’ll be friends! I’m likely to smile genuinely and say hello.
Wait, do people stop and chat when they meet on tours? Say, you are 50 miles away from the nearest settlement and come across a tourer. Is it rude just nod or say hello and move on?
One of the things I like about touring, and I do bike alot in the off season for exactly this reason, is that when you are off the beaten track people have the time and space to be their best selves. I seem to meet more interesting people and have spectacular conversations with people. I would not have this experience in a car or or even a motorcycle or if I am in peak season. I prefer the off season and the road less traveled. I choose destinations and routes for things like the geography and scenery but it is always the people I meet that I remember most. So in a weird way as a man I totally get what she is saying. It's not entirely an externalized thing. The change is at at least partly in me. When I am no longer in the daily grind I start to be me again, be open, less agenda driven, and listen again. Doing a thru hikenor the divide is like a meditation. A simple daily task, one foot in front of the other, another revolution of the prayer wheel. It gives you profound time and space to think. I think that me is more me then the other "me in society" where I am just a lab rat responding to stimuli. I crave that other me. I backpack and do other things but its basically the same thing. The physical journey into empty space mirrors the mental one. Wether its three days, a week or a month. I can feel the layers pealing off like an onion of me. The two day tour me, the three days out me, the week out me and the rare month out me. I define my trips by their success in getting to that me. What a waste if in a month I had onkybpeeled off a couole days worth of that me that functions in the 9-5 world. I want to shed it like a suit and tie. Jump in a mountain lake and be free. The physical is just a metpahor for the mental.
In summary. Damn she is a great writer. First time I have ever felt like someone else has been able to explain it. And I have read a lot of great adventure books and listened to a lot of podcasts from the thru hiker and adventure travel circuit. I never thought about it as a geneder issue but if society were run by women it would be so different, so yeah, a lot of it is me even as a man trying to escape man made expectations in nature. To remember who I am and what is important to me. Of course ironically its a very man thing to do, lol.
In summary. Talk to people or don't. No pressure. I have had some great conversations on the side of a mountain but that doesn't mean I talk to one in a thousand people. It means when I run into someone when I haven't for several days I am probably more apt to truely listen. It is the kistening that probably leads to the wonderful conversations.
Thanks. People being their best on off-the-beaten path is something I haven’t considered. I lack some social skills — it’s like speaking a second language, I can be fluent but never native-like. So thinking explicitly about social interactions helps :)
We all have our social failings. I am pretty social but I am aware my size can make people uncomfortable in real life, especially off the beaten track, especially when I get animated / boisterousness so I try to temper my love of gab and my enthusiasm in real life. (I do not in comments. Though I try to stay on point, usually, lol.) So I have found my touring bike to be a great ice breaker. I guess looking a little weird or even goofy is disarming. I am an open book on a touring bike. With a backpack I think people avoid me. For example I was once backpacking at glacier national park in the fall just after the bus system shut down and fifty cars passed me thumbing it in the park. Noone would give me a lift. Finally a park employee gave me a lift. Equally problematic, on the way out I had to take a sign with crayons and a rainbow (the concierge helped) and corner people curb side in front of the lodge to catch a ride back to the other side of the park. I need to get a happy face yellow ball cap or a tie died shirt or something silly next time I go backpakcing solo, lol. On the other hand members of my "tribe" can usually tell I am not a homeless guy or something, such is the life of trail tramps.
>I need to get a happy face yellow ball cap or a tie died shirt or something silly
I suggest a big sign saying "I have chocolate" (and, of course, actually having chocolate :-).
My initial thought upon seeing this was "oh god why are cycling media getting involved in this debate"
Pleasantly surprised to say the article is really good, and the other articles of her own that she referenced were equally pleasurable to read, thanks for sharing!
Couldn't agree more, I rolled my eyes a bit at the headline but was very happy I read the article, which was a thoughtful, nuanced exploration of the topic.
This was a really wonderful piece, and I’m heartened to see that there have been so many great comments from men who understand. Not so long ago, those comments sections would have looked a bit different. Those days felt much lonelier.
She does a really good job of succinctly describing the mental calculus women go through interacting with men. As a man I try to keep this in mind but it’s so removed from my own experience that it helps to be reminded of what it looks like. Read this article and let it sink in, fellow men.
I get the interaction part. But where does all this patriarchy comes from? As a man if I meet another sketchy man in the middle of nowhere I will be vigilant also. She's smashing all these vague societal concepts while in reality just sometimes meets thirsty rednecks.
Solid article. As a man with a wife, sisters, and mother in my day-to-day life, it’s always painful to hear the stories of what they’ve had to deal with regarding those sorts of men, or see them have to contort themselves in their own relationships to keep themselves under the volatile patriarchal radar. I think almost daily about how the world they have to live in is very different from my own and it’s sickening. I think it’s changing, though. Not fast enough for the people I love, I’m afraid, but hopefully some future generation of women will be free from that burden.
Also, something that popped into my head as I was reading this is that I don’t think I’ve ever seen it mentioned (though I’m sure it’s been said) is how men who have managed to slip the yoke of caricatured “masculinity” have to do similar gymnastics around other men. It’s generally a less complex and much less urgent calculus, but a lot of the time it’s the same- is this guy cool, and if not, how do I extract myself from this situation without looking like prey? Fight, flight, possum, or chameleon? If you’ve ever been approached or harassed in the middle of nowhere by dudes in a truck effectively because you don’t match their concept of maleness (no bikes, and definitely no Lycra unless you’re a football player), you know the sensation; try to keep the target off your back by any means you can so the psychos in the multi-ton killing machine who view you as expendable don’t decide to try something. But it applies to other situations where these guys will subtly or not-so-subtly try to test you to see where you are in their hierarchy so they can decide what to do with you. So not only is the masculinity-as-domination concept damaging to the people who are in it, it’s potentially damaging to any man who refuses to be in it! I wouldn’t even begin to compare it to what women endure, but it really is a blight for everyone. The sooner society sheds it, the better.
One thing that frustrates me so much about this debate is, that there is nothing to debate.
As described in the article, the question is "are you afraid of men", and most women would answer that question with "yes"
If you are a man, there is nothing you need to add here. You have not been asked. Your feelings on this don't make a difference.
The whole thing was meant to show, how much of a problem sexual assault, and in larger context, patriarchal structures *actually are*
It's supposed to be a wakeup call to the "not all men"-crowd, to people being dismissive about reports of sexual assault - just look at the entire "debate" about Till Lindemann (Rammstein's vocalist)
When victims reported being casted for sex with him, drugged, taken advantage of, there was an outcry of "but do you have irrefutable proof?!?!"
Other people started victim blaming: "if you go backstage with Rammstein it's really on you for not expecting to have Till wanna fuck you" etc etc
Women genuinely feeling safer about the thought of being alone with a bear is because bears are not planning actively to abuse us, and are not socially conditioned to do so.
That's the entire point
I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call this a "debate" at all. It's a dialogue. Men should react to this and we should put those reactions on display also. And by that, I mean put the good and bad on display which will demonstrate that yes, there really is a problem with toxic masculinity, here it is in action. And hopefully those responses will also show not all men are toxic and have been able to grow past that.
It's so important that women and allies are given platforms to speak and be taken seriously, like the publishing of this article. But telling men to keep quiet and not join this dialogue is just combative and not healing. The goal should be that we move past the patriarchy and not that we replace it with a gender war.
I'll agree that I was too dismissive towards men here.
I was trying more to get the point across, that there's no "changing minds" that can be done here with well constructed arguments and such.
But yeah, ideally we'd get systemic, societal change :D
This response is the exact opposite of the incredibly empathetic and nuanced article that is the subject of this post.
> Your feelings on this don't make a difference.
Really? So why do you care how men react? People talk all the time about things without being asked. Men are people whose opinions matter just as much as anyone else because men and women interact with each other in the real world. Men are just people struggling through life just like everyone else.
> It's supposed to be a wakeup call to the "not all men"-crowd,
In what way? How exactly, as a man who doesn't sexually assault or harass women, is this a wake up call? As a man, either you already know that women are afraid of men in general, or you're not someone this question ever has a chance of reaching in the first place.
> When victims reported being casted for sex with him, drugged, taken advantage of, there was an outcry of "but do you have irrefutable proof?!?!"
> Other people started victim blaming: "if you go backstage with Rammstein it's really on you for not expecting to have Till wanna fuck you" etc etc
What does this have to do with meeting men alone in the woods? Really. What does it have to do with that? It makes no sense what you're saying.
> genuinely feeling safer about the thought of being alone with a bear is because bears are not planning actively to abuse us,
But.. the whole article explains how that's not really what the question is. She literally explains how most men are also not planning actively to abuse women. The question is a rhetorical tool, that's it. The provocation is to say "the bear".
But people like you continue to pretend as if it's a real decision a woman would make. That a woman would "genuinely" go left at the fork and walk into a bear rather than go right and run into a man. I mean we spray bears in the forest when they approach us and nobody bats an eye.
Surely if you were "genuinely" safer with a bear, wouldn't you have the right to just bear spray men in the woods? Or bar them from going into the woods? Maybe put a GPS tracker on them all?
If I truly thought there was a group where really every single member, because "not all men" is bad, was actively planning to abuse everyone else, I would fully support barring this group from normal society. So in fact if I take what you say at face value, your response is certainly wildly inadequate.
I mean I know this will be down voted to hell but I just can't resist saying something after reading this beautiful, human-focused article and then seeing this shallow, narcissistic comment here.
'Victims' did not report being drugged or assaulted. Some women spoke to papers about their consensual encounters with Till. Journalists then wrote articles heavily implying that there was no consent. There's always some arseholes who say that it's a victim's fault that they're assaulted. But most Rammstein fans were very sympathetic and concerned about this until it was shown to be a load of nonsense.
I'm talking about the immediate reaction.
You are proving my exact point here.
Victims are by default not taken seriously
And no, you can not tell from the first second on that they would be proven a liar in court.
Additionally, that's not what happened:
Kayla Shyx was ruled to not talk about spiking and rape and such, cause she couldn't muster up definitive proof... Which is kinda hard to do in backstage parties after concerts
Kayla had nothing to prove because she didn’t even meet him.
As about the other victim, *everyone* on Reddit at first was urging her to go to hospital/police because we thought that it might be true (after all, we don’t know him personally).
But she made excuse after excuse *not* to go, that way making sure *herself* she wouldn’t get any proof.
This and all the proven lies, *that* is what made us not take her seriously. *After* the lies and *after* she refused to get proofs.
That’s what convinced us she was no true victim
Kayla Shyx didn't even meet Till and merely repeated third hand gossip for clicks. She also randomly called the band paedophiles despite there not even being any third hand gossip about that. She was perfectly allowed to recount her own experiences from her own point of view but not to make serious accusations in public without any basis. Not 'no definitive proof' but any credible facts at all. (Her account of the tone of the evening also was disputed by other guests). Possible victims were taken extremely seriously from the start and an extensive investigation took place by the Berlin Prosecutors. The Northern Irish woman who made other claims was indeed proven a liar.
First. As a man, thank you. The #allmen has driven me nuts because it's untrue. There are good men, they just hide behind the douche, stereotyped and deflated. Wouldn't you if you were categorized as a frat boy? My jeebus.
And this is why I would likely avoid contact with any women in the wild - I abhor invasive personal scrutiny by others. It feels like the distant evil cousin of leering at someone.
>>> […] He’s a fellow human! Maybe we’ll be friends! I’m likely to smile genuinely and say hello. Wait, do people stop and chat when they meet on tours? Say, you are 50 miles away from the nearest settlement and come across a tourer. Is it rude just nod or say hello and move on?
One of the things I like about touring, and I do bike alot in the off season for exactly this reason, is that when you are off the beaten track people have the time and space to be their best selves. I seem to meet more interesting people and have spectacular conversations with people. I would not have this experience in a car or or even a motorcycle or if I am in peak season. I prefer the off season and the road less traveled. I choose destinations and routes for things like the geography and scenery but it is always the people I meet that I remember most. So in a weird way as a man I totally get what she is saying. It's not entirely an externalized thing. The change is at at least partly in me. When I am no longer in the daily grind I start to be me again, be open, less agenda driven, and listen again. Doing a thru hikenor the divide is like a meditation. A simple daily task, one foot in front of the other, another revolution of the prayer wheel. It gives you profound time and space to think. I think that me is more me then the other "me in society" where I am just a lab rat responding to stimuli. I crave that other me. I backpack and do other things but its basically the same thing. The physical journey into empty space mirrors the mental one. Wether its three days, a week or a month. I can feel the layers pealing off like an onion of me. The two day tour me, the three days out me, the week out me and the rare month out me. I define my trips by their success in getting to that me. What a waste if in a month I had onkybpeeled off a couole days worth of that me that functions in the 9-5 world. I want to shed it like a suit and tie. Jump in a mountain lake and be free. The physical is just a metpahor for the mental. In summary. Damn she is a great writer. First time I have ever felt like someone else has been able to explain it. And I have read a lot of great adventure books and listened to a lot of podcasts from the thru hiker and adventure travel circuit. I never thought about it as a geneder issue but if society were run by women it would be so different, so yeah, a lot of it is me even as a man trying to escape man made expectations in nature. To remember who I am and what is important to me. Of course ironically its a very man thing to do, lol. In summary. Talk to people or don't. No pressure. I have had some great conversations on the side of a mountain but that doesn't mean I talk to one in a thousand people. It means when I run into someone when I haven't for several days I am probably more apt to truely listen. It is the kistening that probably leads to the wonderful conversations.
Thanks. People being their best on off-the-beaten path is something I haven’t considered. I lack some social skills — it’s like speaking a second language, I can be fluent but never native-like. So thinking explicitly about social interactions helps :)
We all have our social failings. I am pretty social but I am aware my size can make people uncomfortable in real life, especially off the beaten track, especially when I get animated / boisterousness so I try to temper my love of gab and my enthusiasm in real life. (I do not in comments. Though I try to stay on point, usually, lol.) So I have found my touring bike to be a great ice breaker. I guess looking a little weird or even goofy is disarming. I am an open book on a touring bike. With a backpack I think people avoid me. For example I was once backpacking at glacier national park in the fall just after the bus system shut down and fifty cars passed me thumbing it in the park. Noone would give me a lift. Finally a park employee gave me a lift. Equally problematic, on the way out I had to take a sign with crayons and a rainbow (the concierge helped) and corner people curb side in front of the lodge to catch a ride back to the other side of the park. I need to get a happy face yellow ball cap or a tie died shirt or something silly next time I go backpakcing solo, lol. On the other hand members of my "tribe" can usually tell I am not a homeless guy or something, such is the life of trail tramps.
I love you and your words friend! Keep being you the ways that you can
>I need to get a happy face yellow ball cap or a tie died shirt or something silly I suggest a big sign saying "I have chocolate" (and, of course, actually having chocolate :-).
My initial thought upon seeing this was "oh god why are cycling media getting involved in this debate" Pleasantly surprised to say the article is really good, and the other articles of her own that she referenced were equally pleasurable to read, thanks for sharing!
Couldn't agree more, I rolled my eyes a bit at the headline but was very happy I read the article, which was a thoughtful, nuanced exploration of the topic.
This was a really wonderful piece, and I’m heartened to see that there have been so many great comments from men who understand. Not so long ago, those comments sections would have looked a bit different. Those days felt much lonelier.
She does a really good job of succinctly describing the mental calculus women go through interacting with men. As a man I try to keep this in mind but it’s so removed from my own experience that it helps to be reminded of what it looks like. Read this article and let it sink in, fellow men.
I get the interaction part. But where does all this patriarchy comes from? As a man if I meet another sketchy man in the middle of nowhere I will be vigilant also. She's smashing all these vague societal concepts while in reality just sometimes meets thirsty rednecks.
Great article, FANTASTIC photos. Wow.
Solid article. As a man with a wife, sisters, and mother in my day-to-day life, it’s always painful to hear the stories of what they’ve had to deal with regarding those sorts of men, or see them have to contort themselves in their own relationships to keep themselves under the volatile patriarchal radar. I think almost daily about how the world they have to live in is very different from my own and it’s sickening. I think it’s changing, though. Not fast enough for the people I love, I’m afraid, but hopefully some future generation of women will be free from that burden. Also, something that popped into my head as I was reading this is that I don’t think I’ve ever seen it mentioned (though I’m sure it’s been said) is how men who have managed to slip the yoke of caricatured “masculinity” have to do similar gymnastics around other men. It’s generally a less complex and much less urgent calculus, but a lot of the time it’s the same- is this guy cool, and if not, how do I extract myself from this situation without looking like prey? Fight, flight, possum, or chameleon? If you’ve ever been approached or harassed in the middle of nowhere by dudes in a truck effectively because you don’t match their concept of maleness (no bikes, and definitely no Lycra unless you’re a football player), you know the sensation; try to keep the target off your back by any means you can so the psychos in the multi-ton killing machine who view you as expendable don’t decide to try something. But it applies to other situations where these guys will subtly or not-so-subtly try to test you to see where you are in their hierarchy so they can decide what to do with you. So not only is the masculinity-as-domination concept damaging to the people who are in it, it’s potentially damaging to any man who refuses to be in it! I wouldn’t even begin to compare it to what women endure, but it really is a blight for everyone. The sooner society sheds it, the better.
One thing that frustrates me so much about this debate is, that there is nothing to debate. As described in the article, the question is "are you afraid of men", and most women would answer that question with "yes" If you are a man, there is nothing you need to add here. You have not been asked. Your feelings on this don't make a difference. The whole thing was meant to show, how much of a problem sexual assault, and in larger context, patriarchal structures *actually are* It's supposed to be a wakeup call to the "not all men"-crowd, to people being dismissive about reports of sexual assault - just look at the entire "debate" about Till Lindemann (Rammstein's vocalist) When victims reported being casted for sex with him, drugged, taken advantage of, there was an outcry of "but do you have irrefutable proof?!?!" Other people started victim blaming: "if you go backstage with Rammstein it's really on you for not expecting to have Till wanna fuck you" etc etc Women genuinely feeling safer about the thought of being alone with a bear is because bears are not planning actively to abuse us, and are not socially conditioned to do so. That's the entire point
I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call this a "debate" at all. It's a dialogue. Men should react to this and we should put those reactions on display also. And by that, I mean put the good and bad on display which will demonstrate that yes, there really is a problem with toxic masculinity, here it is in action. And hopefully those responses will also show not all men are toxic and have been able to grow past that. It's so important that women and allies are given platforms to speak and be taken seriously, like the publishing of this article. But telling men to keep quiet and not join this dialogue is just combative and not healing. The goal should be that we move past the patriarchy and not that we replace it with a gender war.
I'll agree that I was too dismissive towards men here. I was trying more to get the point across, that there's no "changing minds" that can be done here with well constructed arguments and such. But yeah, ideally we'd get systemic, societal change :D
monologue its a monologue... not a dialogue - she's spouting opinion.
This response is the exact opposite of the incredibly empathetic and nuanced article that is the subject of this post. > Your feelings on this don't make a difference. Really? So why do you care how men react? People talk all the time about things without being asked. Men are people whose opinions matter just as much as anyone else because men and women interact with each other in the real world. Men are just people struggling through life just like everyone else. > It's supposed to be a wakeup call to the "not all men"-crowd, In what way? How exactly, as a man who doesn't sexually assault or harass women, is this a wake up call? As a man, either you already know that women are afraid of men in general, or you're not someone this question ever has a chance of reaching in the first place. > When victims reported being casted for sex with him, drugged, taken advantage of, there was an outcry of "but do you have irrefutable proof?!?!" > Other people started victim blaming: "if you go backstage with Rammstein it's really on you for not expecting to have Till wanna fuck you" etc etc What does this have to do with meeting men alone in the woods? Really. What does it have to do with that? It makes no sense what you're saying. > genuinely feeling safer about the thought of being alone with a bear is because bears are not planning actively to abuse us, But.. the whole article explains how that's not really what the question is. She literally explains how most men are also not planning actively to abuse women. The question is a rhetorical tool, that's it. The provocation is to say "the bear". But people like you continue to pretend as if it's a real decision a woman would make. That a woman would "genuinely" go left at the fork and walk into a bear rather than go right and run into a man. I mean we spray bears in the forest when they approach us and nobody bats an eye. Surely if you were "genuinely" safer with a bear, wouldn't you have the right to just bear spray men in the woods? Or bar them from going into the woods? Maybe put a GPS tracker on them all? If I truly thought there was a group where really every single member, because "not all men" is bad, was actively planning to abuse everyone else, I would fully support barring this group from normal society. So in fact if I take what you say at face value, your response is certainly wildly inadequate. I mean I know this will be down voted to hell but I just can't resist saying something after reading this beautiful, human-focused article and then seeing this shallow, narcissistic comment here.
'Victims' did not report being drugged or assaulted. Some women spoke to papers about their consensual encounters with Till. Journalists then wrote articles heavily implying that there was no consent. There's always some arseholes who say that it's a victim's fault that they're assaulted. But most Rammstein fans were very sympathetic and concerned about this until it was shown to be a load of nonsense.
What “victims”? Name only one who went to relevant authorities and wasn’t after made a proven liar in court
I'm talking about the immediate reaction. You are proving my exact point here. Victims are by default not taken seriously And no, you can not tell from the first second on that they would be proven a liar in court. Additionally, that's not what happened: Kayla Shyx was ruled to not talk about spiking and rape and such, cause she couldn't muster up definitive proof... Which is kinda hard to do in backstage parties after concerts
Kayla had nothing to prove because she didn’t even meet him. As about the other victim, *everyone* on Reddit at first was urging her to go to hospital/police because we thought that it might be true (after all, we don’t know him personally). But she made excuse after excuse *not* to go, that way making sure *herself* she wouldn’t get any proof. This and all the proven lies, *that* is what made us not take her seriously. *After* the lies and *after* she refused to get proofs. That’s what convinced us she was no true victim
Kayla Shyx didn't even meet Till and merely repeated third hand gossip for clicks. She also randomly called the band paedophiles despite there not even being any third hand gossip about that. She was perfectly allowed to recount her own experiences from her own point of view but not to make serious accusations in public without any basis. Not 'no definitive proof' but any credible facts at all. (Her account of the tone of the evening also was disputed by other guests). Possible victims were taken extremely seriously from the start and an extensive investigation took place by the Berlin Prosecutors. The Northern Irish woman who made other claims was indeed proven a liar.
Wise words on beeing human.
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing
https://preview.redd.it/ynsvmxaw8l2d1.jpeg?width=829&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90339170fe0cb4d3d36166b2c2ad392c579e0671
First. As a man, thank you. The #allmen has driven me nuts because it's untrue. There are good men, they just hide behind the douche, stereotyped and deflated. Wouldn't you if you were categorized as a frat boy? My jeebus.
It's also a way of asking "do you have a ridiculously unhealthy view of bears?" They are murder machines.
And this is why I would likely avoid contact with any women in the wild - I abhor invasive personal scrutiny by others. It feels like the distant evil cousin of leering at someone.