Let’s talk about the advantages of being a single female backpacker for a change….

"it would be fun to try to identify locations in Oregon and California"

Filmed one day in So Cal. The rest was filmed in Oregon. Even hauled Joshua trees up there for realism.

I'm a big dude and plenty of people creep me out. Male and female. Have to threat assess everyone.

Wild is about Cheryl and her relationships – with her mother, and with herself. It isn't about hiking, something she herself tells us in interview. The trail was the backdrop against which her conflicts with herself about her mother and her own toxic behavior were played out. Has nothing to do with the world of backpacking.

There are several types of hiker, but I tend to group people who casually hike once in a while, enjoying the outdoors for whatever duration they spend, into one category, and people who reside in the front country but come to life in the backcountry into the second category – the career backpacker. There was a three page article in Backpacker magazine – you can read it on their website as part of the top 10 stories of 2014, it was originally in the August issue – about Ghost, a Triple Crowner who could not return to permanent residence in the front country. She's an exreme example of career backpacker. Cheryl is a mere tourist on the trail. The book demonstrates that she does not have a relationship with the country around her. And the way she acts, it's obvious (to me anyway, or anyone else with extensive experience with toxic people) that the person she was in the book has no real connections to hiking, but everything revolves around her.

This is why, if the movie is faithful to the book, I have zero interest in it. I will stay home and watch The Way again — similar format, being that it's about parent and child conflicts – the difference being that the people in it are fairly normal, not mentally ill, and the parent is the one doing the walking. Still not really about the hiking, but a much more touching story. Or, Touching the Void – not about hiking but climbing, but the characters have more grit and the mountains are definitely a character in the story rather than just a stage to play out the drama.

Cheryl wasn't the sort of woman I'd expect to return to the trail, though evidently she does still do some hiking. She does things on impulse and doesn't think about consequences. I've hiked with a number of people like that and generally don't allow a repeat. No forethought is a bad idea on a longer trip. Any solo hiker planning a trip pays more attention than Cheryl does – and were I a thru, I'd flip back and actually hike the Sierra after the snow melted instead of skipping over it entirely. But, she's not a backpacker.

>…. and you believe everything you see in the movie?

In this case the movie was based on a book which was more or less an autobiography, so yeah, I assumed that everything actually happened. Nothing in the movie was outlandish, or inherently untruthful.

And I don't mean to say that everyone she met was panting over her like a dog, but all the men she met (and some of them went about it in a very respectful way) treated her just a little different because deep down they wanted to see if they could get a little action.

> and, what's your point?

My point is that I see this behavior all too often. I've actually *never* seen it while I'm hiking, but I do see it quite frequently in my day to day life in the city. I think backpackers in general are a better breed of people, but the movie made me realize how poorly a lot of men behave, and I can understand why a woman would be afraid going on a solo hike (which is one of the topics of this discussion).

>Filmed one day in So Cal. The rest was filmed in Oregon. Even hauled Joshua trees up there for realism.

Cinematography in the movie is beautiful. I really enjoyed the nature that it captured.

>The trail was the backdrop against which her conflicts with herself about her mother and her own toxic behavior were played out. Has nothing to do with the world of backpacking.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. Her behavior was really self-destructive. But the movie is about her journey of using nature as a way of getting her life right when nothing else would work – which I found very moving.

I liked it, but there are some rough scenes in there and the movie probably isn't for everyone.

Thanks for the post Lori, it's good to hear another woman's point of view about Wild. I admit I havn't read the book or seen the movie.

I just hope all of this doesn't give thru-hiking a bad name. From what I understand a lot of men in the movie are depicted as horn dogs. Personally I don't see how a guy can have enough libido after hiking 20+ miles each day. Granted I'm no youngster anymore, but even when I was 19 I don't think it would have been possible. But then again if a female is hanging around camp and she seems available, then yea I guess so.

On the behaviour of men in the movie/book (and in real life):

Firstly, Ms. Strayed's hike took place in the 1970s, and boy, have things changed since then! Wow — we really don't give ourselves enough credit on that score! Back then, feminism was in its infancy, "divorcee" was a synonym for "tramp", and a woman alone was seen to be "looking for it". If you doubt what I'm saying, take a look at some advertising from that period.

Secondly, Ms. Strayed's self-described behaviour was very sexualized, and I would not be surprised if men were picking up on that. It has always been my experience that most men are pretty sensitive to a woman's "vibe" — if a woman puts forward an "unapproachable" vibe, most men will respond to that and behave; conversely, if she puts forward an "available" vibe, many men will try to take advantage.

Valerie, thanks for chiming in, I really appreciate the female perspective on all of this. However, I'm pretty sure that Cheryl's hike was in 1995. If were in the 70's she'd be in her 60's now. Anyone out there know exactly what year?

Wow — that pack in the Wild movie posters looked like the one I had in the 1970s! Maybe she spent all her money on heroin and had to buy an old, used pack… LOL.

OK, scratch my first point (although we've become a lot more "politically correct" since 1995) — but my second point is still valid (regardless of the time period).

You were correct, Monte–it was 1995.

Thanks Gary.

And yes Valerie, I saw Cheryl's pack "Monster" on a YouTube video with Oprah recently, and I must say that I've never really seen anything that big out on the trail. But it does kind of remind me of the days before UL when big external-frame packs by Northface dominated the market.

Hmm, i think it's a really complicated issue..there are generalizations to consider and also individual case by case.

I "think" women are generally safer on the trail than in cities. And while most men on the trails aren't going to kill or rape you, no doubt a fairly high percentage secretly wish they might have some sexual experience with either a passably attractive woman and/or someone they connect too on other levels…

…Point is, i suspect that most men while they may not have an active agenda in helping women on the trail, likely some part of them may be thinking some about the possibility, though if they are decent men and if they are in a committed but not open relationship, they will try redirect their thoughts/feelings and try not to think about it at all.

It would be great if each person could temporarily switch genders for a bit and experience what it's like in the other gender's body–i suspect there would be a lot more mutual understanding and compassion on both sides for it. Speaking as someone in a virile male body, i don't particularly like having testosterone coursing through my veins. I kind of consider it a bit of a anti-Christ hormone, it's supremely selfish, prone to violence/anger, to focusing on purely survival oriented issue, to over focus on sex, etc. It's all not bad though, it can contribute to acts of bravery, oddly self sacrifice, and/or overcoming fear and challenge, but most women really don't have a clue what a wild bronco that part of us is and how we have to constantly keep it in check.

Research shows that both psychopathic men and the more rare women, both have unusually elevated levels of testosterone for their genders relative levels.

Edited, decided all that other info probably wasn't necessary.

>> i suspect that most men while they may not have an active agenda in helping women on the trail, likely some part of them may be thinking some about the possibility…

Of course! And some women take advantage of that, but… There is a HUGE, Pacific-ocean-sized gulf between a decent guy *hoping* to get lucky under the right circumstances (and behaving reasonably, despite what he's thinking) and a psycho rapist! Contrary to popular opinion, many women are also thinking about sex, but most, for cultural reasons, try not to drool visibly on the object of their desire. (I have seen women misbehave towards men, and it's NOT pretty!)

Research has shown that humans tend to be nicer to attractive-looking people (even if they are not interested in sex with the other person — eg., two straight women). Before we get all pissy about our superficiality, remember the animal world, where looks count for a lot!

There is probably an evolutionary biology connection to such "favouritism"; under many circumstances, helping each other will result in a better outcome for the species as a whole.

Personally, I think subtlety in human sexual relations goes a long way, but many would disagree (as is their right!). Because I've always done sports at a fairly high level, I have spent the bulk of my outdoors time with males, and I've always been VERY careful to express (mostly with body language) the limits of the relationship. I've done that for over 30 years, and — so far — haven't had any problems… but I try to surround myself with decent people, not the types Ms. Strayed hung around with.

I didn't check all posts to see if this has been posted — but let's see if I can phrase this well. Men notice single women on the trail. (My husband and I were meeting up at a point on the trail from different trailheads. He had only to ask a couple men if they'd recently seen a single lady on the trail, yes they'd noticed). If something happens to her, there possibly will be someone who has noticed her at some point, and could help with finding her.j

Being a single lady backpacking is still somewhat notable.
Kelly

for winter alky stove use: can carry alcohol in sports bra to keep it warm!

there you go.

"for winter alky stove use: can carry alcohol in sports bra to keep it warm!

there you go."

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but technically, if we really wanted to, we could wear a sports bra and do the same thing.

Not that i would wear a sports bra just to carry alcohol. However, if someone really debated well and persuasively the truly multi-purpose nature of a sports bra, well, why not? Heck, it would work better for most men than most women in that case, cause we would have more room.

Then i would rename it something more fitting, something like, "expedition chest pocket aka the EPC". Then a nifty slogan: "Darn right it's Epic, for when you need to keep things safe and warm with no chance for equipment to get lost, keep it close to the chest." Then cue songs like, "Like a Rock", "Eye of the Tiger", and "I Need a Her…" i mean "I Need a Lover". (wooh, that was a close one).

"Don't mean to rain on your parade…"

Then don't.

"'Don't mean to rain on your parade…'

Then don't."

Well good afternoon to you as well Sunshine, if you read my post, you will note it was not serious in the least bit.

Yes, I can handle the rain. And I had considered this point.

For canisters the otherwise empty sports bra would certainly have the advantage, especially if you needed to take two. But for an 8 oz plastic bottle of alcohol there's less surface area contact.

I'm not buying the arguments.

I did an experiment, and when I dressed to look like a single female backpacker (including wig), I got many disturbing and weird looks.

;-)

"Expedition chest pocket aka the EPC"

There is already a need for this in high altitude mountaineering. I recall hearing people say they taped camera batteries to their chest so when they summitted Everest they could have a working camera to take a picture.

"…they taped camera batteries to their chest so when they summitted Everest they could have a working camera to take a picture.

So there they are, near the summit unzipping the storm jacket, unzipping the fleecy, unzipping the midlayer, unzipping the base layer, and ripping the hair of their chest to get to a camera battery.

OKaayyy.

"So there they are, near the summit unzipping the storm jacket, unzipping the fleecy, unzipping the midlayer, unzipping the base layer, and ripping the hair of their chest to get to a camera battery."

No chest hair would be a definite advantage in that case.

Andy, it was the hiking skirt……:-0

Ahem….pore GT she's probably pulling her hair over the thread drift.
As far as advantages pertaining to gender I think it's subject to location and cultural norms.

@Valerie: "It has always been my experience that most men are pretty sensitive to a woman's "vibe" — if a woman puts forward an "unapproachable" vibe, most men will respond to that and behave; conversely, if she puts forward an "available" vibe, many men will try to take advantage."

Not to pick nits, but if a woman is putting out an "available vibe," then is it really "taking advantage?" One wouldn't after all, jump immediately to the conclusion that the woman in question is messed up and not really trying to put out an available vibe. One would likely just assume that she means to do so. Maybe I'm alone here but I take the phrase "taking advantage" to imply the exploitation of some sort of vulnerable state. Picking up a drunk woman in bar is "taking advantage." Responding to a sober one who is blaring availability signals is not.

As others have mentioned, women think about sex, too.

Back on topic, though, I'm usually forced by necessity to hike solo and think nothing of it. My 8-year-old daughter seems to be getting very interested in hiking and camping- she was just asking about another trip to Great Sand Dunes last night. I will be doing my VERY best to avoid instilling an attitude of fear in her in the years to come, and am inspired by the testimonials of the women in this post.

Nonetheless, as a proud hypocrite, if she ever goes out on a solo hike I'm going to be a mess. For that matter the first time she goes out in a group that doesn't include ME wielding an Uzi I'm probably going to be a mess. But that's not really living in fear- that's just being a parent.

An anecdote-

A day's hike from any trailhead in the Wind River Range this past September my friends and I crossed paths with a solo female hiker at a ford. (That I recall this may support suppositions that solo women stand out to men.) She did seem just a bit wary, mumbled some sort of greeting, but ambled down the bank a comfortable distance from the three of us. I picked up on this, scooted a bit further from her, and did my best not to freak her out by looking at her. It, frankly, always surprises and disturbs me when a woman displays any fear about me. My buddy Sam, being a social butterfly, quite predicatably engaged her in conversation and she did open up and exchange some pleasantries and light chit chat. (Probably because Sam is about as threatening as a grasshopper, and most women pick up on that rather quickly.) Turns out she runs a dance studio in Bozeman and was getting in her final back country fix before opening again for the school season. Sounds like a great life, spending every summer hiking, eh?

So what is my point? Hmm. I really don't have one I guess. I just remembered it. Maybe the point is that being cautious around three strange men in an isolated location isn't "giving in to your fears." It's being cautious. And I don't think it ruins anyone's wilderness experience. I hope that I can teach that subtle difference to my daughter.

That, and jujitsu. :)

I don't see it as hypocrisy — but more of an issue of common sense precaution. Basically, all of us are responsible to a degree the vibes that we choose to give out. Dress and act appropriately, whatever the occasion.

This DOES NOT take away any blame or responsibility from any criminal whatsoever. But the simple fact is that the law cannot help us — It can only punish the bad guys. But that's often small consolation when the harm is already done.

But back to topic… reading the thread… I think it really is true that more people will tend to look out more for and be more helpful to a woman all on her own.

The 'hypocrisy" part was later, when I was talking about myself. :)