181
Women are being abandoned by their partners on hiking trails. What’s behind ‘alpine divorce’?
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
181 points (85.5% liked)
World News
56066 readers
3208 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, the part I took offense to was this:
Not anything related to how that perceived character flaw of men on lemmy makes OP feel in terms of attraction. Again, I do not care who they are attracted to and I believe the primary point of the comment was to express this negative belief of the men on this site.
My objection specifically is that I don't think this is accurate. And this is now turning into a "not all men" debate... I'm sure you have also had this argument hundreds of times so let me know if you want to give an explanation my best shot but honestly if you believe generalized statements about men are valid then I probably won't be saying anything you haven't heard before and vice versa.
Yes, I agree that the amount of men who treat women badly or don't respect them as people or their opinions is concerningly high in this thread, and IRL as well tbh.
My argument is exclusively that expressing that sentiment by making a generalized statement about "men on lemmy" is incorrect (it does not apply to the entire group) and immoral (you are talking badly about some people who do not deserve it by applying a property of one of their identity groups to every member of that group individually). But again, "not all men" vs "too many men" has been discussed to death already so I don't think I'm really adding anything new here.
Edit: Just saw your edit. My sympathies to Dolores Huerta. Even men who do good things can be revealed to have evil within them.
I'm not ignoring that, and women should not see a leftist man as significantly less potentially dangerous than any other. I'm saying that regardless of what percentage of people in an identity group have a certain quality, it is wrong to make an unqualified statement about that group, or to assume an individual within that group must have similar qualities to the average member of it. That is the very basis of why racism, sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, even microaggressions, etc. are wrong, but it applies to men too.
That's true, it's kind of a grey area. I could see it being argued either way whether it's an identity group given it's defined by both identity and choice. I guess it's not? I still think it would be better not to make a generalization like that, given you will be ascribing negative qualities to people who fo not deserve it.
Fair enough. I think that does happen, it's just that that doesn't eliminate the people who are making sexist comments. I do think there's a difference between someone who's a part of an ideological movement (their chosen group clearly expresses their views) and someone who is just using a particular website for various reasons (their choice to use that website does not imply general agreement with the website's views) but I see your point.
Yes, those comments get too much support here. There is resistance, but not enough. Maybe I will spend a bit more effort doing that instead of arguing with people who I largely agree with. I will never entirely stop doing the latter (I believe to reach the truth I must vocally disagree with the flaws of arguments even if I agree with the premise or conclusion) but I could shift my priorities towards fighting the most egregious views first/harder.
I don't think I have much more to say here but I do appreciate this conversation. It started a bit rough but I always appreciate when someone is willing to stick it out and really discuss something.
No worries! I apologize too for some of my earlier comments.
Rip I'm sorry about that
I do hope we can figure out how to repel people like that. It's a hard problem to solve but it would go a long way towards making this a better place.