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.
Five years ago, MJ and a new partner – he was not exactly her boyfriend, and the pair were not exclusive – traveled from Los Angeles to Utah for an adventure getaway. MJ, who is 38 and works in PR, was looking forward to exploring Zion’s striking scenery; its vast sandstone canyon and pristine wading trails were on the list. But on the morning of their big hike, MJ was not feeling well. She could not shake the feeling that something was “off”; indeed, MJ would learn on this trip that her partner was seeing other women.
As they made their way up Angel’s Landing, MJ’s partner started walking faster than her. “I could tell it was getting on his nerves that I was slow,” she said. “I was like, ‘Fuck it, just go ahead of me.’” He did without hesitation.
When she caught up at the top of the mountain, they took a picture together. Then her partner hiked down the mountain with a woman he had met on the way up, leaving MJ to finish by herself. They broke up shortly after that trip. (MJ asked to be referred to by her initials for the sake of speaking openly about a past relationship.)
Last month, MJ opened TikTok and heard the phrase “alpine divorce”, a label she now attaches to her experience in Zion.
That’s not what I’m saying. Don’t make it about something it’s not.
If something happens a handful of times… it’s barely a story.
That’s literally what your comment is saying - that this type of abuse doesn’t happen enough to warrant attention. Why do you have a problem with women sharing stories like this?
Apparently you can’t read.
Care to elaborate? Because you are clearly expressing that this doesn’t happen enough for people to actively talk about it.
The point is, it doesn’t happen enough to merit an article that tries to imply, especially with its headline, that it’s a common occurrence.
It’s like when discussions about rape in general are primarily focused on incidents of violent ‘random’ rapes committed by strangers to the victim, when the fact is that that is literally the rarest type of rape that happens.
If the article was just talking about this shitty thing someone did to something else, without trying to pretend it’s ‘a thing’ that happens with any statistically-significant frequency, it wouldn’t get/merit the kind of reaction GreenBottles had.
The term “Alpine Divorce” isn’t a new trendy term coined from TikTok, y’know.
It’s a common enough occurrence for a journalist to decide to write an article about it and have enough stories from different women to deliver a solid read.
Deciding that it doesn’t happen at a high enough frequency for anyone to want to read about it or talk about it is certainly a stance that you can take, but clearly this has generated enough conversation in this thread alone to argue against that.
Just because it’s a type of abuse that happens at lower rates than other types doesn’t mean it’s worthless to talk about. For these women, it is a very real occurrence that happened to them. Why not give them space to share their stories?
Meanwhile, the very first sentence of its Wikipedia page, lol:
I was sincerely open to a conversation with you, but I guess downvotes and scorn is all I’m going to get from you.
Thanks, I guess.
No, you weren’t. Your comments are dripping with condescension and sanctimony, not to mention projection (care to cite the “scorn” in anything I wrote?).
Literally in the article that we’re all talking about.
Edit: Oh my fucking god, it’s on the wikipedia page as well if you had bothered to read further:
You’re being deliberately obtuse, and the feigned indignation (“Oh my fucking god”) just amplifies its obnoxiousness, in my opinion. It was used once in a short story over a century ago, but it’s only started to become a common term very recently.
Would you argue that “sus” doesn’t count as modern slang, because it was used as slang for “suspicious” in the early 1900s? Or would it be moronic to seriously argue that, because it’s obviously only exploded as common slang much more recently?
Apparently you can’t write lol