What really stuck out to me while reading Imperial Ascent was the nature of men to prove their masculinity through mountaineering. Bayers uses the examples of climbing Denali in Alaska and Mt. Everest to point to the way in which empire and masculinity were connected, but the point that really stuck out to me was the way in which mountaineering was used during an age of imperialism, to bring back the “virility” of manhood. That, in essence, mountaineering was used to prove the manliness of men. If one could summit these incredibly high peaks, then they could prove that they were in fact men, and not feminized men but strong and able men. This link very clearly portrays a very specific and traditional sense of gender roles, and that men must prove themselves through this challenging and daunting task. Bayers points to the way in which this related with war, that men had to go off and face an enemy, or a mountain, and were both a proving ground for being a man. That being said, I do understand that concept of masculinity and mountaineering, to an extent. Even in my experiences of hiking and climbing some small peaks in Montana, there is a sense where I want to prove my “manhood”, that I can accomplish something challenging. It makes sense to me that there was a close relationship between climbing mountains and making the point that one was masculine and virile. I think even now there is still a lot of that, at least I think for men, that they want to go and climb mountains to make the point that they can do that and should be considered as a man. Certainly I cannot speak for all men, but I think that still plays into some motivation for mountaineering up to now.

I did find it interesting too, how much women were involved in Mountaineering in the United States, as Schrepfer puts forth in Nature’s Altar. I honestly did not realize how much women were climbing and almost, it seems, breaking gender barriers. But even with that, I was not surprised to read of how gender barriers were still in place while women were out climbing mountains throughout the Rockies and the Sierras. For instance, while sciences were encouraged as people explored wilderness, society encouraged women to stick with botany because it fit within the gender roles already in place (Schrepfer, 88). I’m not surprised that women were able to climb, though. I fully believe that women are capable of a lot of physically demanding feats, including mountaineering. I was really surprised though, with how much women were climbing. But what I’m curious of, is how much women were climbing in places like the Himalaya, which is so different to mountain ranges in the United States. The one woman that I have read about is Fanny Bullock Workman. No one seems to make mention of any other women that were climbing in the Himalaya range when mountaineering was taking off and these giant peaks were being climbed for the first time. It seems like the Himalaya was still restricted more to men rather than women having the opportunity to go to those mountains.