This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Can the climbing media be blamed for using racy images of women to sell to men? They are in business and are they not only following the mainstream media where in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market-place thighs and breasts are exposed, and ethics are thrown aside in pursuit of the holy grail of magazine publishing, the almighty advertising dollar.
In part 3 of "Climb Like a Girl", Mick Ryan looks at the use of images of women climbers in the media.
Read part 3 now - http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=112
In part 3 of "Climb Like a Girl", Mick Ryan looks at the use of images of women climbers in the media.
Read part 3 now - http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=112
In reply to UKC News:
I think that this article about women-climbers/rock-feminists has been written by a man says more than the article could ever achieve.
(I liked the photo of Rikki Ishoy though - I remember her!).
Can we have a shot or two of Ms. Destiville as well please?
I think that this article about women-climbers/rock-feminists has been written by a man says more than the article could ever achieve.
(I liked the photo of Rikki Ishoy though - I remember her!).
Can we have a shot or two of Ms. Destiville as well please?
In reply to UKC News: I think women have a lot to answer for, flaunting themselves like they do, for money too, not for bloody art. Its disgusting.
In reply to UKC News:
As a serious response....
I found that the pics in the article demonstrated to me exactly how media works.
1. Bikini girl - Made me think of how I look when I'm climbing i.e. gosh I wouldn't be able to wear a top like that, I'm sure I'd have podgy bits showing, how did she avoid that tan line....? Frankly a bit unhelpful for inspiring development of technique.
2. Bloke with dumb chicks - well climbing's for men obviously. Totally alienating. No wonder the majority of readers are men... Want to be a wanker - fine, but do it somewhere else.
3. Wow, that looks cool, she looks cool, I wanna be like her, what grade is that, hhhmmmm laybacking....
You give a toss about including girls and making them feel welcome in the sport and literature? It's obvious which to go for and which to avoid, isn't it?
Curly
As a serious response....
I found that the pics in the article demonstrated to me exactly how media works.
1. Bikini girl - Made me think of how I look when I'm climbing i.e. gosh I wouldn't be able to wear a top like that, I'm sure I'd have podgy bits showing, how did she avoid that tan line....? Frankly a bit unhelpful for inspiring development of technique.
2. Bloke with dumb chicks - well climbing's for men obviously. Totally alienating. No wonder the majority of readers are men... Want to be a wanker - fine, but do it somewhere else.
3. Wow, that looks cool, she looks cool, I wanna be like her, what grade is that, hhhmmmm laybacking....
You give a toss about including girls and making them feel welcome in the sport and literature? It's obvious which to go for and which to avoid, isn't it?
Curly
In reply to UKC News:
Does anyone else have trouble reading this series of articles. I'm never sure what this guy is trying to say. His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
The message i am picking up is kind of oppressed female/exploitation of the female form/men are wicked type of theme. If this is the message, does anyone really care? Is there a band of feminist climbers just dying to overthrow the male oppressors?
Does anyone else have trouble reading this series of articles. I'm never sure what this guy is trying to say. His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
The message i am picking up is kind of oppressed female/exploitation of the female form/men are wicked type of theme. If this is the message, does anyone really care? Is there a band of feminist climbers just dying to overthrow the male oppressors?
In reply to bmonkey:
As is the subject matter.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
>
> His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
As is the subject matter.
In reply to bmonkey:
I think it's a nice series of comments on issues that face women climbers.
The subjects are things that we (or I for one) think about. Differences in technique, who's at the top of the game, how we're viewed by other climbers (the majority of whom are men), how we're treated by climbing "services" like the specialist media.
I'm finding it a good read.
Curly
I think it's a nice series of comments on issues that face women climbers.
The subjects are things that we (or I for one) think about. Differences in technique, who's at the top of the game, how we're viewed by other climbers (the majority of whom are men), how we're treated by climbing "services" like the specialist media.
I'm finding it a good read.
Curly
In reply to curlymynci:
I guess to me it comes across as that a lot of work has gone into researching background material and facts for the articles.
But somehow, it just doesn't seem to be about the types of issues which affect me, as a mediocre, bumbley, slightly scruffy, woman climber, who loves the blokie atmosphere of climbing and who tends to be photographed wearing multiple layers of clothing...
It just leaves me feeling slightly detached. But then, it's better than anything I have ever written, so good on Mick for having a go... and at least it does bring women to the forefront for a bit of debate....
I guess to me it comes across as that a lot of work has gone into researching background material and facts for the articles.
But somehow, it just doesn't seem to be about the types of issues which affect me, as a mediocre, bumbley, slightly scruffy, woman climber, who loves the blokie atmosphere of climbing and who tends to be photographed wearing multiple layers of clothing...
It just leaves me feeling slightly detached. But then, it's better than anything I have ever written, so good on Mick for having a go... and at least it does bring women to the forefront for a bit of debate....
It's better than the previous two. I've had a brief scan-reread and can't find where it's suggested that some of the bad things done by men are done by them all all the time (as you might infer from Mick's posts in the entertaining debate in this threads precursor). So as in the wider world there are idiots in climbing. But pointing fingers at the prominent ones is fun.
Finger 1: The debacle about the staff of Climber was well reported at the time. They come across as a load of wankers, especially the photographer named in the article.
Finger 2: Now if Red Chilli actually made decent, or even competitively priced, rock shoes with properly sticky rubber, for a market prepared to tolerate shocking build quality and product life, would they feel the need to embark on their current `glamour' advertising campaign?
Finger 1: The debacle about the staff of Climber was well reported at the time. They come across as a load of wankers, especially the photographer named in the article.
Finger 2: Now if Red Chilli actually made decent, or even competitively priced, rock shoes with properly sticky rubber, for a market prepared to tolerate shocking build quality and product life, would they feel the need to embark on their current `glamour' advertising campaign?
In reply to bmonkey:
Ditto on that. This guy seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in his search to find a controversy.
Most of those "sexploitation" pictures are ancient!
If Ivan Green wants to be a media-hungry self-promoting attention whore then so be it--his photo demonstrates that his is aware of this fact and views it with some irony.
Outside magazine's recent over only illustrates that it is pure fluff.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Does anyone else have trouble reading this series of articles. I'm never sure what this guy is trying to say. His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
>
> The message i am picking up is kind of oppressed female/exploitation of the female form/men are wicked type of theme. If this is the message, does anyone really care? Is there a band of feminist climbers just dying to overthrow the male oppressors?
>
> Does anyone else have trouble reading this series of articles. I'm never sure what this guy is trying to say. His articles are often contradictory and always confusing.
>
> The message i am picking up is kind of oppressed female/exploitation of the female form/men are wicked type of theme. If this is the message, does anyone really care? Is there a band of feminist climbers just dying to overthrow the male oppressors?
Ditto on that. This guy seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in his search to find a controversy.
Most of those "sexploitation" pictures are ancient!
If Ivan Green wants to be a media-hungry self-promoting attention whore then so be it--his photo demonstrates that his is aware of this fact and views it with some irony.
Outside magazine's recent over only illustrates that it is pure fluff.
And here was me thinking it was going to be an article about technique, strength training, mind game strategies, where to buy women's specific kit,... anything helpful for that matter!
*sigh*
*sigh*
In reply to NotJudith:
All but the Javelin shot and maybe some of the French mag covers are actually only a few years old.
> Most of those "sexploitation" pictures are ancient!
All but the Javelin shot and maybe some of the French mag covers are actually only a few years old.
In reply to Jenn:
That could be a good topic for another series of articles. This one has never set out to present that kind of information but it has been clear at every stage what it was going to be about with the possible exception of the title which could be perceived as slightly misleading.
Alan
> And here was me thinking it was going to be an article about technique, strength training, mind game strategies, where to buy women's specific kit,... anything helpful for that matter!
That could be a good topic for another series of articles. This one has never set out to present that kind of information but it has been clear at every stage what it was going to be about with the possible exception of the title which could be perceived as slightly misleading.
Alan
In reply to NotJudith:
maybe it escaped your attention but there was a review of images upto last month
> (In reply to bmonkey)
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> Most of those "sexploitation" pictures are ancient!
maybe it escaped your attention but there was a review of images upto last month
Apparently it did. I have no idea what you are talking about.
But then again, neither do you.
But then again, neither do you.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
All true - however, I would have much preferred something to actually learn from rather than a re-hash of the obvious.
> (In reply to Jenn)
> [...]
>
> That could be a good topic for another series of articles. This one has never set out to present that kind of information but it has been clear at every stage what it was going to be about with the possible exception of the title which could be perceived as slightly misleading.
> [...]
>
> That could be a good topic for another series of articles. This one has never set out to present that kind of information but it has been clear at every stage what it was going to be about with the possible exception of the title which could be perceived as slightly misleading.
All true - however, I would have much preferred something to actually learn from rather than a re-hash of the obvious.
So among the stronger negative reactions, one reader objects to the women, but not to the climbing magazines, doing "sex sells"; one thinks that the media's focus on women climbers' sexuality, at the expense of their technical climbing ability, is so obvious there's no point in writing about it; others believe it's not important to write about "male oppressors" in climbing, or there is no sexual inequality in climbing, or there's not enough of it to be worth writing about. Seems to me there's lots of scope here for learning, when people have such different reactions to the same issue.
One thing that Part 3 got me thinking about is how women climbers in the 1930s, at least in the northeastern US, didn't have to deal nearly as much with their sexuality eclipsing their climbing. Emphasizing women's sexiness wasn't so accepted in those days. Miriam O'Brien wrote in 1932 (Appalachia, December issue) that her technical ability was eclipsed simply by some men's assumptions that women were automatically inferior climbers:
"Where is the competent man climber . . . who wouldn't feel a certain final responsibility when doing a climb with a woman? . . . A man may offer to let the woman lead [which she does] pleasantly enough for hours. Then an emergency comes up, like a thunderstorm on an exposed ridge, and it is imperative to get down at once. What happens? (Actual case.) The man wakes up, gives orders: "Traverse to the left by such-and-such a route" (not in fact the easiest or the quickest). It occurs to me that I am the logical leader for that pitch, considering that I am ahead and therefore have a much better view of the ground, while, aside from sex, I am competent to choose that particular type of route. But . . . I have grown to recognize the fact that when a man lets a woman "lead" it is, for him, just a pleasant little fiction." (She does say later in the article that not all men did were so idiotic.)
I think this shows that in some ways our society has actually regressed. I'm all for women & men celebrating women's sexuality, but not when it makes women's competence/ expertise invisible. As far as I'm concerned, kudos to Mick for writing this series.
One thing that Part 3 got me thinking about is how women climbers in the 1930s, at least in the northeastern US, didn't have to deal nearly as much with their sexuality eclipsing their climbing. Emphasizing women's sexiness wasn't so accepted in those days. Miriam O'Brien wrote in 1932 (Appalachia, December issue) that her technical ability was eclipsed simply by some men's assumptions that women were automatically inferior climbers:
"Where is the competent man climber . . . who wouldn't feel a certain final responsibility when doing a climb with a woman? . . . A man may offer to let the woman lead [which she does] pleasantly enough for hours. Then an emergency comes up, like a thunderstorm on an exposed ridge, and it is imperative to get down at once. What happens? (Actual case.) The man wakes up, gives orders: "Traverse to the left by such-and-such a route" (not in fact the easiest or the quickest). It occurs to me that I am the logical leader for that pitch, considering that I am ahead and therefore have a much better view of the ground, while, aside from sex, I am competent to choose that particular type of route. But . . . I have grown to recognize the fact that when a man lets a woman "lead" it is, for him, just a pleasant little fiction." (She does say later in the article that not all men did were so idiotic.)
I think this shows that in some ways our society has actually regressed. I'm all for women & men celebrating women's sexuality, but not when it makes women's competence/ expertise invisible. As far as I'm concerned, kudos to Mick for writing this series.
In reply to Jenn:
And so did I when I sent all three articles to the central office printer with a view to take them home for my partner to read. She would have been surprised with the actual content of the articles produced under the heading 'Climb like a girl' if they had ever reached her. Her potential surprise pales into insignificance in comparison to mine when I went to check the progress of the printing and found representatives from security, police and moral guidance clustered around the printer viewing the lurid pornography that was spewing from it - I work in a major government department of the United Arab Emirates.
I will accept my 100 lashes with grace and good humour.....
> And here was me thinking it was going to be an article about technique, strength training, mind game strategies, where to buy women's specific kit,... anything helpful for that matter!
>
> *sigh*
>
> *sigh*
And so did I when I sent all three articles to the central office printer with a view to take them home for my partner to read. She would have been surprised with the actual content of the articles produced under the heading 'Climb like a girl' if they had ever reached her. Her potential surprise pales into insignificance in comparison to mine when I went to check the progress of the printing and found representatives from security, police and moral guidance clustered around the printer viewing the lurid pornography that was spewing from it - I work in a major government department of the United Arab Emirates.
I will accept my 100 lashes with grace and good humour.....
In reply to Alison Stockwell (on the other thread which won't take replies):
I would think that the potential danger for a woman climbing topless would find it's parallel in a man climbing bottomless... painful jams would be possible in both cases - use of a figure of 8 for abseiling would become distinctly perilous! Best to stay covered up a little.
> I was told a story yesterday about a woman who was climbing topless and got a nipple caught up in the belay device. Had to have surgery apparently.
> Brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.
I would think that the potential danger for a woman climbing topless would find it's parallel in a man climbing bottomless... painful jams would be possible in both cases - use of a figure of 8 for abseiling would become distinctly perilous! Best to stay covered up a little.
In reply to Jenn:
What, "Climb Like a Girl" didn't clearly indicate to you that this was an article about women who may or may not be climbers showing a 'hint of nipple' to men who probably are? Oh.
> And here was me thinking it was going to be an article about technique, strength training, mind game strategies, where to buy women's specific kit,...
What, "Climb Like a Girl" didn't clearly indicate to you that this was an article about women who may or may not be climbers showing a 'hint of nipple' to men who probably are? Oh.
In reply to NotJudith:
You seem to be pissing on this with an almost personal level of venom. What would your approach be to covering this topic?
Curly
You seem to be pissing on this with an almost personal level of venom. What would your approach be to covering this topic?
Curly
In reply to Mick Ryan:
An interesting series. Seems very concentrated on the U.S. and bouldering, though, and there seems to be an unwarranted assumption that the U.S. is blazing the way in terms of changing the image of female climbers. In these parts, the irony of “climbing like a girl” might be lost, since there have been hardcore women climbers like Wanda Rutkiewicz since way back.
An interesting series. Seems very concentrated on the U.S. and bouldering, though, and there seems to be an unwarranted assumption that the U.S. is blazing the way in terms of changing the image of female climbers. In these parts, the irony of “climbing like a girl” might be lost, since there have been hardcore women climbers like Wanda Rutkiewicz since way back.
In reply to Mick Ryan: Out of curriousity did any of the women photographed complained about the images on the covers or for the advertisments? Did they know before had that image was to be used and where they fine with it or not? If they don't object then whats the real problem? Most of the articles in climbing magazines are filled with half naked men!
In reply to Flatlander:
Very true - and so are the climbing walls
> (In reply to Mick Ryan) Most of the articles in climbing magazines are filled with half naked men!
Very true - and so are the climbing walls
In reply to Flatlander:
Most of the articles in climbing magazines are filled with half naked men!
Oh how I miss OTE ... "Climb" just doesn't have the same rippling muscle - boulder problem ratio ... One just had to ignore some of the more homoerotic overtones!
Seriously, though - a good point. There was a UK magazine article last year on DWS (might have been in Climber), which included a shot of an attractive girl climbing in minimalist shorts and a bikini top. My partner spent some time perusing it ... But then all the blokes pictured in the same article were shirtless and in rather damp, clinging shorts ... Maybe it's just another example of the cultural gap between the UK and the US, but I cannot perceive any significant inequality between the portrayal of women and men in the UK climbing media. Not in current times, at any rate.
Most of the articles in climbing magazines are filled with half naked men!
Oh how I miss OTE ... "Climb" just doesn't have the same rippling muscle - boulder problem ratio ... One just had to ignore some of the more homoerotic overtones!
Seriously, though - a good point. There was a UK magazine article last year on DWS (might have been in Climber), which included a shot of an attractive girl climbing in minimalist shorts and a bikini top. My partner spent some time perusing it ... But then all the blokes pictured in the same article were shirtless and in rather damp, clinging shorts ... Maybe it's just another example of the cultural gap between the UK and the US, but I cannot perceive any significant inequality between the portrayal of women and men in the UK climbing media. Not in current times, at any rate.
In reply to bird: i think most uk climbers need to get over it. On rockclimbing.com there is still a thread floating around about women on rockclimbing forum posting pictures of themselfves. It seemed to me more than half the pics posted where by the women showing themselves in bikinis!
I also don't think too many Europeans have a problem with it. My attitude is if you don't like it write a letter to the editor and don't buy the magazine!
I also don't think too many Europeans have a problem with it. My attitude is if you don't like it write a letter to the editor and don't buy the magazine!
In reply to Flatlander:
Agree entirely. Magazine publishers (presumably) know their markets, and there is clearly a market in the US for an outdoor-themed magazine with Cosmo/FHM style cover imagery. Personally, I wouldn't buy it, but then again I wouldn't buy "Country Walking" magazine with its cover shots of middle-aged ramblers.
Go out to a sea cliff in summer - correction, on a fluke day when it's warm and the sun is shining, and you'll see plenty of female climbers in shorts and skimpy tops. So no suprise when you see women dressed like that in magazine pictures. I've yet to see a photo in a UK magazine that I would call gratuitous and take offence to.
Agree entirely. Magazine publishers (presumably) know their markets, and there is clearly a market in the US for an outdoor-themed magazine with Cosmo/FHM style cover imagery. Personally, I wouldn't buy it, but then again I wouldn't buy "Country Walking" magazine with its cover shots of middle-aged ramblers.
Go out to a sea cliff in summer - correction, on a fluke day when it's warm and the sun is shining, and you'll see plenty of female climbers in shorts and skimpy tops. So no suprise when you see women dressed like that in magazine pictures. I've yet to see a photo in a UK magazine that I would call gratuitous and take offence to.
In reply to bird:
Well the Javelin girl was from a UK mag, and there was another dodgy advert that was used in Crags in the 70s that Mick sent me to illustrate this article, but which we didn't have room for. Also, Geoff Birtles has occasionally published the odd 'saucy' picture - I remember one of a strip-o-gram on Jim Curran's knee that didn't seem to have much to do with content.
However, apart from these odd blemishes, I would tend to agree with you that not much of this happens in the UK mags. It could also be connected to the fact that one of the mags has been edited by a woman for many years, and another by a man who just isn't into that sort of thing, leaving only High which has always been more mountain an walking oriented.
Perhaps in this sense the UK mags are ahead of the US ones. The Rikki cover - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=27428 - seemed to cause a bigger fuss in the States than I expect it would have done here. But the States is the place that had a huge crisis over the revelation of a nipple on live TV.
Alan
> I've yet to see a photo in a UK magazine that I would call gratuitous and take offence to.
Well the Javelin girl was from a UK mag, and there was another dodgy advert that was used in Crags in the 70s that Mick sent me to illustrate this article, but which we didn't have room for. Also, Geoff Birtles has occasionally published the odd 'saucy' picture - I remember one of a strip-o-gram on Jim Curran's knee that didn't seem to have much to do with content.
However, apart from these odd blemishes, I would tend to agree with you that not much of this happens in the UK mags. It could also be connected to the fact that one of the mags has been edited by a woman for many years, and another by a man who just isn't into that sort of thing, leaving only High which has always been more mountain an walking oriented.
Perhaps in this sense the UK mags are ahead of the US ones. The Rikki cover - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=27428 - seemed to cause a bigger fuss in the States than I expect it would have done here. But the States is the place that had a huge crisis over the revelation of a nipple on live TV.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
When I used to live in the US we had a phrase which I believe would sum this up very well... "get real".
WTF, next this will turn into how the ultra conservatives control the TV.
We never had porn being illegal for starts!!
> (In reply to bird)
> [...]
>
>But the States is the place that had a huge crisis over the revelation of a nipple on live TV.
> [...]
>
>
When I used to live in the US we had a phrase which I believe would sum this up very well... "get real".
WTF, next this will turn into how the ultra conservatives control the TV.
We never had porn being illegal for starts!!
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
The Javelin ad appears so dated that it's more comic pastiche than offensive - a bit like Helly advertising Lifa long johns on a pouting diva. Having said that, I found the recent series of Red Chili magazine ads quite unpalatable, primarily because that's not the kind of imagery I associate with enjoying climbing! (In case you don't recall them, they depicted a chalk-smudged bouldering-boy picking up a model (dressed in rather revealing eveningwear and spike heels) in what appeared to be a public toilet.)
I quite like the Rikki cover - a pretty and fit girl, nice sandy landing, warm and sunny. I suppose it's a sexy shot, but I don't find it to be exploitative, offensive or particularly gratuitous. It wouldn't alienate me from buying that magazine.
The Javelin ad appears so dated that it's more comic pastiche than offensive - a bit like Helly advertising Lifa long johns on a pouting diva. Having said that, I found the recent series of Red Chili magazine ads quite unpalatable, primarily because that's not the kind of imagery I associate with enjoying climbing! (In case you don't recall them, they depicted a chalk-smudged bouldering-boy picking up a model (dressed in rather revealing eveningwear and spike heels) in what appeared to be a public toilet.)
I quite like the Rikki cover - a pretty and fit girl, nice sandy landing, warm and sunny. I suppose it's a sexy shot, but I don't find it to be exploitative, offensive or particularly gratuitous. It wouldn't alienate me from buying that magazine.
In reply to bird:
Wow - hadn't seen those red chili ads. They totally sucked.
Wouldn't it have been funy if the tagline had just said "for boulderers".
Wow - hadn't seen those red chili ads. They totally sucked.
Wouldn't it have been funy if the tagline had just said "for boulderers".
In reply to curlymynci:
Did you think they sucked in the way they portrayed women, or in their general sordidness?
When I first saw them, I thought they were sexist. Then, when I thought about it ... he looks like a bum who's desperate to get laid, she looks like a whore who's only sleeping with him to steal his shoes. And they met in a toilet. It's just bad all round. I think they intended the ads to be ironic, a witty take on the dodgy bloke gets gorgeous girl fantasy, but it ends up looking cheap and dirty. And has stuff all to do with climbing.
The seedy underworld of bouldering, I had no idea ...
> (In reply to bird)
>
> Wow - hadn't seen those red chili ads. They totally sucked.
>
> Wouldn't it have been funy if the tagline had just said "for boulderers".
>
> Wow - hadn't seen those red chili ads. They totally sucked.
>
> Wouldn't it have been funy if the tagline had just said "for boulderers".
Did you think they sucked in the way they portrayed women, or in their general sordidness?
When I first saw them, I thought they were sexist. Then, when I thought about it ... he looks like a bum who's desperate to get laid, she looks like a whore who's only sleeping with him to steal his shoes. And they met in a toilet. It's just bad all round. I think they intended the ads to be ironic, a witty take on the dodgy bloke gets gorgeous girl fantasy, but it ends up looking cheap and dirty. And has stuff all to do with climbing.
The seedy underworld of bouldering, I had no idea ...
In reply to bird:
It was mainly because it was a pretty boy/girl FHM-type advert. Nothing to do with climbing. Everything to do with loads of what I consider the bad side of modern life - i.e. the kind of thing I climb to be away and apart from. Shallow pointless crap. In terms of women, yes. In terms of men too. In terms of dressing up. And the need for hair straighteners. And wearing heels. And sleeping with people without knowing who they are. In public toilets. Everything.
It's like they thought it's be a great idea to try and turn us into something like (or worse than) commercial surfer culture overnight.
I think you can do good adverts of attractive people for climbing stuff. It usually involves climbing but doesn't have to be a great example of technique etc. Look at Prana's new book for example. It's not a case of me being reactionary - just that I'd like them to have some taste.
Curly
It was mainly because it was a pretty boy/girl FHM-type advert. Nothing to do with climbing. Everything to do with loads of what I consider the bad side of modern life - i.e. the kind of thing I climb to be away and apart from. Shallow pointless crap. In terms of women, yes. In terms of men too. In terms of dressing up. And the need for hair straighteners. And wearing heels. And sleeping with people without knowing who they are. In public toilets. Everything.
It's like they thought it's be a great idea to try and turn us into something like (or worse than) commercial surfer culture overnight.
I think you can do good adverts of attractive people for climbing stuff. It usually involves climbing but doesn't have to be a great example of technique etc. Look at Prana's new book for example. It's not a case of me being reactionary - just that I'd like them to have some taste.
Curly
In reply to UKC News:
Marks for namechecking Kathy Acker: +1
Marks for namechecking you-know-who: -2
I was flicking through the Snowdonia guide looking for a long Vdiff-ish to maybe have a go at at the weekend and it's interesting how many women were involved in *first ascents* of these routes back in the first half of the last century! Maybe things haven't really come on so much since then?
Marks for namechecking Kathy Acker: +1
Marks for namechecking you-know-who: -2
I was flicking through the Snowdonia guide looking for a long Vdiff-ish to maybe have a go at at the weekend and it's interesting how many women were involved in *first ascents* of these routes back in the first half of the last century! Maybe things haven't really come on so much since then?
In reply to Flatlander:
I doubt it. I do touch on that in part four.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan) Out of curriousity did any of the women photographed complained about the images on the covers or for the advertisments?
I doubt it. I do touch on that in part four.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
>- I remember one of a strip-o-gram on Jim Curran's knee that didn't seem to have much to do with content.
Well come to that I seem to remember one of Quentin Fisher's backside which had very little indeed to do with content, and another one of Mike Robertson.
jcm
>- I remember one of a strip-o-gram on Jim Curran's knee that didn't seem to have much to do with content.
Well come to that I seem to remember one of Quentin Fisher's backside which had very little indeed to do with content, and another one of Mike Robertson.
jcm
In reply to Flatlander:
>Out of curriousity did any of the women photographed complained about the images on the covers or for the advertisments? Did they know before had that image was to be used and where they fine with it or not?
Eh? Porn models are fine with it. Doesn't mean porn's not in some way oppressive towards women (not that I'm saying it is or isn't, but consent of the model's not the point).
jcm
>Out of curriousity did any of the women photographed complained about the images on the covers or for the advertisments? Did they know before had that image was to be used and where they fine with it or not?
Eh? Porn models are fine with it. Doesn't mean porn's not in some way oppressive towards women (not that I'm saying it is or isn't, but consent of the model's not the point).
jcm
In reply to Jenn: Get writting?
Re Red Chili Ads:
"When I first saw them, I thought they were sexist. Then, when >I thought about it ..."
I think they just wanted to be funny, because climbing magazines really don't use "sex" sells for the most part. The Outside Mag that Mick cited admitted that they were going to try for naked glory to appeal to the useless jock readers that subscribe to that magazine en mass.
I don't know if the new 5.10 ads have made it to the UK or not, but they got a new ad rep who knows nothing about climbing and thus the ads look totally different, but they still stay away from the sex-selling.
Personally, I have a theory as to why women don't climb more, and it has everything to do with the power and control they can wield. I'm blunt and opinionated and not easily intimidated, so I fit into all-male scenarios okay. More mild women who are used to all-woman scenarios will feel uncomfortable.
I've never had a problem with women's representation - but then again, I'm an English MA: I read old, dead white guys. Sometimes they force us to read sub-par women who don't effect change in history or literature production to balance it out, but frankly, if the majority of the movers and shakers are men, then it reflects that.
Climber guys are psyched to extoll the accomplishments of women. Women capitalize on this by claiming FFA (first female ascents) and it's ridiculous in my opinion.
Just climb. Sheesh.
"When I first saw them, I thought they were sexist. Then, when >I thought about it ..."
I think they just wanted to be funny, because climbing magazines really don't use "sex" sells for the most part. The Outside Mag that Mick cited admitted that they were going to try for naked glory to appeal to the useless jock readers that subscribe to that magazine en mass.
I don't know if the new 5.10 ads have made it to the UK or not, but they got a new ad rep who knows nothing about climbing and thus the ads look totally different, but they still stay away from the sex-selling.
Personally, I have a theory as to why women don't climb more, and it has everything to do with the power and control they can wield. I'm blunt and opinionated and not easily intimidated, so I fit into all-male scenarios okay. More mild women who are used to all-woman scenarios will feel uncomfortable.
I've never had a problem with women's representation - but then again, I'm an English MA: I read old, dead white guys. Sometimes they force us to read sub-par women who don't effect change in history or literature production to balance it out, but frankly, if the majority of the movers and shakers are men, then it reflects that.
Climber guys are psyched to extoll the accomplishments of women. Women capitalize on this by claiming FFA (first female ascents) and it's ridiculous in my opinion.
Just climb. Sheesh.
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
You seem to assume that 1. the climbing situations are all-male 2. that men are "the movers and shakers" 3. extolling female acheivements is ridiculous (and nigh on manipulative) 4. women cannot wield power and control etc. etc.
I appreciate where you're coming from but not everyone else is approaching from quite the same trajectory. You talk as a woman coping extremely adeptly in a male world. I would suggest that that world should be less gender directed in the first place.
And as for sub-par women in English literature who don't effect change...... AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Ahem).
Curly
You seem to assume that 1. the climbing situations are all-male 2. that men are "the movers and shakers" 3. extolling female acheivements is ridiculous (and nigh on manipulative) 4. women cannot wield power and control etc. etc.
I appreciate where you're coming from but not everyone else is approaching from quite the same trajectory. You talk as a woman coping extremely adeptly in a male world. I would suggest that that world should be less gender directed in the first place.
And as for sub-par women in English literature who don't effect change...... AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Ahem).
Curly
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
You make it sound like women are under-represented in the climbing world. That's not my experience. But then I inhabit the world of climbing punterdom, perhaps things are different at the levels where magazines get interested.
> I have a theory as to why women don't climb more
You make it sound like women are under-represented in the climbing world. That's not my experience. But then I inhabit the world of climbing punterdom, perhaps things are different at the levels where magazines get interested.
In reply to Kristin McNamara: Well put! Seiousley sensible. However if you climb near me and my mates we may have to whisper behind our hands that your a lesbian so that we dont feel threatend! (only joking)
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
Phew. Lucky that George Eliot is an "old, dead, white guy", then.
Also lucky for you that you've never been forced to read tedious tripe like Virginia Woolf, the Bronte sisters, Sylvia Plath and Christina Rossetti. Sub-par, in my opinion.
PS. I'd always thought FFA stood for "first free ascent", but maybe I've been paying too much attention to Lynn Hill. All those times she claimed FFA's of old hard aided routes - there was some minor route in Yosemite she did, can't quite recall the route or the crag, nothing noteworthy - she meant "first female ascent". It all makes sense now ...
Phew. Lucky that George Eliot is an "old, dead, white guy", then.
Also lucky for you that you've never been forced to read tedious tripe like Virginia Woolf, the Bronte sisters, Sylvia Plath and Christina Rossetti. Sub-par, in my opinion.
PS. I'd always thought FFA stood for "first free ascent", but maybe I've been paying too much attention to Lynn Hill. All those times she claimed FFA's of old hard aided routes - there was some minor route in Yosemite she did, can't quite recall the route or the crag, nothing noteworthy - she meant "first female ascent". It all makes sense now ...
In reply to bird: I have had an old white dead and Irish lilt recently.
WB Yeats, Patrick Kavanagh and a I suppose fairly rare Irish first world war poet whos bloody name escapes me.
WB Yeats, Patrick Kavanagh and a I suppose fairly rare Irish first world war poet whos bloody name escapes me.
In reply to bird: Maybe she should read this first.
http://www.womenclimbing.com/climb/biodetail.asp?id=1
http://www.womenclimbing.com/climb/biodetail.asp?id=1
In reply to Flatlander:
steady on... that would imply some sort of understanding of what she was talking about...
go bird and curlymynci - well said.
steady on... that would imply some sort of understanding of what she was talking about...
go bird and curlymynci - well said.
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
My God, I think I may be in love.
In reply to some other idiot (bird, maybe?):
FFA is used to mean both first free and first female ascent, the latter having been more popular at certain times and places.
As to your comment that because there have been certain excellent and influential female authors there aren't also certain unimportant and uninfluential women's authors whom one is forced to study while acquiring an English MA in wimmin modules of one kind and another, I think you need to do some reesarch.
jcm
My God, I think I may be in love.
In reply to some other idiot (bird, maybe?):
FFA is used to mean both first free and first female ascent, the latter having been more popular at certain times and places.
As to your comment that because there have been certain excellent and influential female authors there aren't also certain unimportant and uninfluential women's authors whom one is forced to study while acquiring an English MA in wimmin modules of one kind and another, I think you need to do some reesarch.
jcm
In reply to Anonymous:
Oh, Mr. Cox. What a surprise.
I think that the point here is nicely proven by the fact that the male replies praising Kristin's post have all used romantic or sexual referencing within the first two lines.
As for the unimportant, uninfluential women's authors (as opposed to the universally influential and important writers *for* men, who *are* all men etc.) you have to study in "an English MA in wimmin modules" - well, what can really be said?
Curly
Oh, Mr. Cox. What a surprise.
I think that the point here is nicely proven by the fact that the male replies praising Kristin's post have all used romantic or sexual referencing within the first two lines.
As for the unimportant, uninfluential women's authors (as opposed to the universally influential and important writers *for* men, who *are* all men etc.) you have to study in "an English MA in wimmin modules" - well, what can really be said?
Curly
In reply to curlymynci:
I don't think there's any such comment in Simon Caldwell's post, is there?
Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Virtually all men would agree that Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf and George Eliot, to name but three, are universally influential and important writers *for* people. I'm not sure what writers *for* men is supposed to mean. Christine Reage, maybe?
jcm
I don't think there's any such comment in Simon Caldwell's post, is there?
Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Virtually all men would agree that Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf and George Eliot, to name but three, are universally influential and important writers *for* people. I'm not sure what writers *for* men is supposed to mean. Christine Reage, maybe?
jcm
In reply to Anonymous:
Nope - he wasn't praising her (as I specified).
I was playing on the way you had phrased your own sentence in the previous post. The crap authors seemed to be *for* women. Freudian slip-typing?
Curly
> I don't think there's any such comment in Simon Caldwell's post, is there?
Nope - he wasn't praising her (as I specified).
> I'm not sure what writers *for* men is supposed to mean. Christine Reage, maybe?
>
>
I was playing on the way you had phrased your own sentence in the previous post. The crap authors seemed to be *for* women. Freudian slip-typing?
Curly
In reply to curlymynci:
I really am going to have to learn how to do bold and italic - this *star* business is making me look ridiculous.
Curly
I really am going to have to learn how to do bold and italic - this *star* business is making me look ridiculous.
Curly
In reply to curlymynci:
Aha - 'women's authors', you meant. That was a slip. Although I might have defended myself on the grounds that the promulgators of these wimmin modules - in my experience anyway - seem to be the only people who feel the sort of writer I have in mind speaks to them, and also seem - well, don't usually seem to be men, shall we say?
jcm
Aha - 'women's authors', you meant. That was a slip. Although I might have defended myself on the grounds that the promulgators of these wimmin modules - in my experience anyway - seem to be the only people who feel the sort of writer I have in mind speaks to them, and also seem - well, don't usually seem to be men, shall we say?
jcm
In reply to curlymynci:
< b > Bold < /b >
< i > Italic < /i >
Just remove all the spaces in the <>, insert your text where it says 'Bold' or 'Italic' and you'll be good to go
< b > Bold < /b >
< i > Italic < /i >
Just remove all the spaces in the <>, insert your text where it says 'Bold' or 'Italic' and you'll be good to go
In reply to Anonymous:
Thankyou for your recommendation that I do some research, jcm. Unfortunately I've already spent several years at Thames Valley Technical College reading English, so I can happily agree with you that there are both good and bad, female AND male, authors which one may be forced to study. Your selective comprehension, evident so often on these forums, seems to have missed the point slightly.
The "other idiot" (a pointless phrase, but applicable to so many ...) made rather a sweeping generalisation in her use of "sub-par", although you are probably too smitten to notice such faults. I was attempting to b-a-l-a-n-c-e this. It's a concept you could consider for your own posts.
I consider Sylvia Plath to be rather overrated, but nowhere near as overrated as Ted Hughes. Personal opinion, you understand, though I'm sure your informed debate can re-educate me, through your skilled use of insult and poor diction.
Thankyou for clarifying the point on FFA's, I am aware that both meanings have been taken in the past but wished to point out that the other idiot only made a derogatory reference to one. Again, a point rather lost on you, but others seem to have picked it up. Perhaps you should spend your time contributing to less complex threads?
Thankyou for your recommendation that I do some research, jcm. Unfortunately I've already spent several years at Thames Valley Technical College reading English, so I can happily agree with you that there are both good and bad, female AND male, authors which one may be forced to study. Your selective comprehension, evident so often on these forums, seems to have missed the point slightly.
The "other idiot" (a pointless phrase, but applicable to so many ...) made rather a sweeping generalisation in her use of "sub-par", although you are probably too smitten to notice such faults. I was attempting to b-a-l-a-n-c-e this. It's a concept you could consider for your own posts.
I consider Sylvia Plath to be rather overrated, but nowhere near as overrated as Ted Hughes. Personal opinion, you understand, though I'm sure your informed debate can re-educate me, through your skilled use of insult and poor diction.
Thankyou for clarifying the point on FFA's, I am aware that both meanings have been taken in the past but wished to point out that the other idiot only made a derogatory reference to one. Again, a point rather lost on you, but others seem to have picked it up. Perhaps you should spend your time contributing to less complex threads?
In reply to bird: Oh Hughes' October Salmon is for me a masterpiece. Sylvia, buried not far from where I type, was unfortunate to be used by feminist groups and promoted to a status far above where her work would have taken her. Not that that is her fault.
Though thats not the point.
too many people come on here with no other intention than to throw insult or to pick argument.
The "confident" female had a point which seemed to upset the two downtrodden doormats
Though thats not the point.
too many people come on here with no other intention than to throw insult or to pick argument.
The "confident" female had a point which seemed to upset the two downtrodden doormats
In reply to Liathac:
Downtrodden doormat! If you manage to interpret that, no wonder we differ on whether or not Hughes wrote masterpieces! N.B., do not implicitly criticise a contributor for being insulting, then do exactly the same thing yourself. It dilutes your impact.
If someone feels it necessary to state that they are confident and outgoing, it immediately raises questions about whether or not they really are. But of course you will have considered that and come to your own conclusions.
Downtrodden doormat! If you manage to interpret that, no wonder we differ on whether or not Hughes wrote masterpieces! N.B., do not implicitly criticise a contributor for being insulting, then do exactly the same thing yourself. It dilutes your impact.
If someone feels it necessary to state that they are confident and outgoing, it immediately raises questions about whether or not they really are. But of course you will have considered that and come to your own conclusions.
In reply to Liathac:
Arguing your corner in a forum debate is not "coming here with no other intention than to throw insult or pick arguement". I have no problem with the posters confidence, it was that her position seemed to look down on women who wanted a more gender-equal perspective put on things. Every woman and man has to lead by example at the end of the day, it's whether society supports or inhibits that that's in question.
Curly
Arguing your corner in a forum debate is not "coming here with no other intention than to throw insult or pick arguement". I have no problem with the posters confidence, it was that her position seemed to look down on women who wanted a more gender-equal perspective put on things. Every woman and man has to lead by example at the end of the day, it's whether society supports or inhibits that that's in question.
Curly
In reply to bird: Point taken, it was a very philistine use of the english language on my part. I apologise.
In reply to all: why not get back on topic instead about female authors?
In reply to Flatlander: OK, yes the media can be blamed as can all those who are transforming a pastime into an industry
In reply to Flatlander:
I apologise. It's just that women have such short attention spans ...
The reason it appeared relevant (well, some of it!) is that the same arguments have been batted backwards and forwards in relation to many different fields. The essence of these arguments is also applicable to the "Climb Like A Girl" article.
Much of the article refers to pictures, and stories, which are some years old. In literature, when you study "wimmin's writing", it's usually historical - the women's writing movement headed up by Virginia Woolf being a case in point, and Sylvia Plath's heyday was in the Sixties. However, not all spheres of human activity have developed at the same rate.
Climbing is behind the times on this one. It's only recently that women have started to be on the same playing field as men. They've constituted a minority in the sport (with a correspoding media emphasis and marketing focus), and so fewer natural talents have been realised. Lynn Hill and Bev Johnson were trailbreakers to some extent - and they did the same routes as men without claiming FF(emale)A's on them. Mick's article makes this quite clear - there have been many areas where equality has been hard-won, and climbing has not been any different in this respect.
I think that climbing has moved on now. Pictures of Lucy Creamer onsighting E6 don't get accompanied by any inference that it's a good effort - for a girl. The incident of Lisa Rand's bouldering circuit being downgraded isn't entirely suprising (although appears rather petty) - if anyone whom the guilty parties didn't consider to be unisex top-flight did this, the route gradings might be reconsidered. Many climbing magazine adverts now appear to address a unisex market, increasingly featuring women (e.g. Wild Country's current ad for wires with Airlie Anderson "product testing").
I'd consider that female climbers get treated with a greater degree of equality than female drivers, and deservedly so - most women are hopeless behind the wheel
I apologise. It's just that women have such short attention spans ...
The reason it appeared relevant (well, some of it!) is that the same arguments have been batted backwards and forwards in relation to many different fields. The essence of these arguments is also applicable to the "Climb Like A Girl" article.
Much of the article refers to pictures, and stories, which are some years old. In literature, when you study "wimmin's writing", it's usually historical - the women's writing movement headed up by Virginia Woolf being a case in point, and Sylvia Plath's heyday was in the Sixties. However, not all spheres of human activity have developed at the same rate.
Climbing is behind the times on this one. It's only recently that women have started to be on the same playing field as men. They've constituted a minority in the sport (with a correspoding media emphasis and marketing focus), and so fewer natural talents have been realised. Lynn Hill and Bev Johnson were trailbreakers to some extent - and they did the same routes as men without claiming FF(emale)A's on them. Mick's article makes this quite clear - there have been many areas where equality has been hard-won, and climbing has not been any different in this respect.
I think that climbing has moved on now. Pictures of Lucy Creamer onsighting E6 don't get accompanied by any inference that it's a good effort - for a girl. The incident of Lisa Rand's bouldering circuit being downgraded isn't entirely suprising (although appears rather petty) - if anyone whom the guilty parties didn't consider to be unisex top-flight did this, the route gradings might be reconsidered. Many climbing magazine adverts now appear to address a unisex market, increasingly featuring women (e.g. Wild Country's current ad for wires with Airlie Anderson "product testing").
I'd consider that female climbers get treated with a greater degree of equality than female drivers, and deservedly so - most women are hopeless behind the wheel
In reply to bird:
But they are on that same playing field - so Mick's articles are rather behind the times and of historical interest only
> It's only recently that women have started to be on the same playing field as men
But they are on that same playing field - so Mick's articles are rather behind the times and of historical interest only
In reply to bird:
>Pictures of Lucy Creamer onsighting E6 don't get accompanied by any inference that it's a good effort - for a girl.
They don't need to be accompanied by that. Punter men can onsight E6. The very fact that Lucy's in the mags at all, long hair flowing and all, is because she's a girl and what she's doing, while it wouldn't attract a great deal of attention for a man, is a good effort for a girl.
Not that I say there's anything wrong with that, but there it is. Deal with it.
jcm
>Pictures of Lucy Creamer onsighting E6 don't get accompanied by any inference that it's a good effort - for a girl.
They don't need to be accompanied by that. Punter men can onsight E6. The very fact that Lucy's in the mags at all, long hair flowing and all, is because she's a girl and what she's doing, while it wouldn't attract a great deal of attention for a man, is a good effort for a girl.
Not that I say there's anything wrong with that, but there it is. Deal with it.
jcm
In reply to Anonymous:
I think it was a general crag feature - on Pembroke, if my memory serves me right. As well as presenting the lovely Lucy to look upon, it made the mistake of featuring a load of male punters - pah! - climbing E4 through to about E8. Even included a picture of some gasping old lardass called Emmett, although they probably had a footnote about it being a good effort for a numpty.
You're right, if there was a feature on Hardest New Lines Of The Last Year, there wouldn't be very many pictures of women. However, as magazines tend to focus on features that are of relevance to their general readership - e.g. destinations, new crags, new guidebooks - these will appeal to a wider range of the climbing community, and there appears to be an increasing trend towards depicting a balance of male and female climbers. There was a recent feature on Northumberland with Karin Magog pictured climbing several pleasant routes, the hardest of which was E1 (I think). Not anywhere near a grade achievement for her, or for the top echelons of the climbing world, but it still made for a good picture and a good article.
I don't see what there is to deal with - there are fewer top women climbers than men, and there's still an achievement gap. Doesn't mean to say that pictures of women climbing middle- to upper-grade climbs aren't as worthy as pictures of men on the same routes. The only point I was making was that pictures of female climbers are used in the same context as pictures of men, without any apparent need for justifying their inclusion.
I think it was a general crag feature - on Pembroke, if my memory serves me right. As well as presenting the lovely Lucy to look upon, it made the mistake of featuring a load of male punters - pah! - climbing E4 through to about E8. Even included a picture of some gasping old lardass called Emmett, although they probably had a footnote about it being a good effort for a numpty.
You're right, if there was a feature on Hardest New Lines Of The Last Year, there wouldn't be very many pictures of women. However, as magazines tend to focus on features that are of relevance to their general readership - e.g. destinations, new crags, new guidebooks - these will appeal to a wider range of the climbing community, and there appears to be an increasing trend towards depicting a balance of male and female climbers. There was a recent feature on Northumberland with Karin Magog pictured climbing several pleasant routes, the hardest of which was E1 (I think). Not anywhere near a grade achievement for her, or for the top echelons of the climbing world, but it still made for a good picture and a good article.
I don't see what there is to deal with - there are fewer top women climbers than men, and there's still an achievement gap. Doesn't mean to say that pictures of women climbing middle- to upper-grade climbs aren't as worthy as pictures of men on the same routes. The only point I was making was that pictures of female climbers are used in the same context as pictures of men, without any apparent need for justifying their inclusion.
In reply to bird:
Yes, fair enough, there are articles of the 'look at these nice routes available at this crag variety' which are illustrated sometimes by men and sometimes by women, and equally there is very little 'good effort for a girl' connected with them, mainly because quite a few of such articles are about VSses.
But when it comes to newsworthy ascents then, obviously, the vast majority of women's ascents are only being reported because they are good efforts for a girl, and some people do have difficulty in dealing with this, although as you say it's not easy to see why they should. The fact you spoke of LC 'onsighting some E6' suggested you had this second class of article in mind and had this same difficulty, but evidently I was wrong to take that inference.
jcm
Yes, fair enough, there are articles of the 'look at these nice routes available at this crag variety' which are illustrated sometimes by men and sometimes by women, and equally there is very little 'good effort for a girl' connected with them, mainly because quite a few of such articles are about VSses.
But when it comes to newsworthy ascents then, obviously, the vast majority of women's ascents are only being reported because they are good efforts for a girl, and some people do have difficulty in dealing with this, although as you say it's not easy to see why they should. The fact you spoke of LC 'onsighting some E6' suggested you had this second class of article in mind and had this same difficulty, but evidently I was wrong to take that inference.
jcm
In reply to UKC News: Considering we are almost to the point of "first man with AIDS caught through blood transfusion (no scandal there then) to conquer Everest" or "first blind man to walk unaided with their Y fronts on backwards to the North pole" instead of umpteenth man to reach north pole oh and by the way he happened to be blind and the funny thing was he had his Y fronts on back to front. It makes FFA look perfectly legitimate
In reply to bird:
>Bev Johnson were trailbreakers to some extent - and they did the same routes as men without claiming FF(emale)A's on them.
I think actually you'll find Bev J was into claiming FFAs; in fact I think Mick refers to this in his article.
jcm
>Bev Johnson were trailbreakers to some extent - and they did the same routes as men without claiming FF(emale)A's on them.
I think actually you'll find Bev J was into claiming FFAs; in fact I think Mick refers to this in his article.
jcm
In reply to bird:
>Unfortunately I've already spent several years at Thames Valley Technical College reading English
My God, that IS unfortunate.
The poster you were slagging said that 'they force you to read some sub-par women writers'. Your reaction was to point out that George Eliot wasn't sub-par. I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. It doesn't go to the point being made.
Have your studies encompassed a lady called Maria Edgeworth (or some such name: Author of a fine volume called Castle Rackrent)? I imagine she was more the sort of sub-par author the object of my adoration had in mind. Sylvia P is borderline, I agree: it seems to me that many women force themselves to like her stuff because they feel sisterly solidarity demands it, and put Ted H down for the same reason, but like you say that's only my own opinion.
Speaking of authors, I of course meant Pauline Reage, not Christine.
You've also lost me about FFAs. The OOMA was clearly using only one of the two senses of FFA, and said so. What relevance has the other sense in which it's used?
jcm
>Unfortunately I've already spent several years at Thames Valley Technical College reading English
My God, that IS unfortunate.
The poster you were slagging said that 'they force you to read some sub-par women writers'. Your reaction was to point out that George Eliot wasn't sub-par. I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. It doesn't go to the point being made.
Have your studies encompassed a lady called Maria Edgeworth (or some such name: Author of a fine volume called Castle Rackrent)? I imagine she was more the sort of sub-par author the object of my adoration had in mind. Sylvia P is borderline, I agree: it seems to me that many women force themselves to like her stuff because they feel sisterly solidarity demands it, and put Ted H down for the same reason, but like you say that's only my own opinion.
Speaking of authors, I of course meant Pauline Reage, not Christine.
You've also lost me about FFAs. The OOMA was clearly using only one of the two senses of FFA, and said so. What relevance has the other sense in which it's used?
jcm
In reply to bird:
Which bad male authors do you find yourself being forced to study, by the way? I'm interested.
jcm
Which bad male authors do you find yourself being forced to study, by the way? I'm interested.
jcm
In reply to the debate:
Bad authors? Good authors? No. You read something, it resonates or it doesn't. It sets emotions and thoughts sparking through you... or it doesn't. Bad author/ good author... load of arse. The resonance is an interaction, between self and the work you're reading... the writer has done half the job, what's in your own mind does the other half. So, very obviously, what is brilliant for me, may not be brilliant for John Cox (say), for we each bring to the work our distinct minds, our own histories, our own emotions.
Ranking authors is, therefore, a fool's game.
Secondly, would anyone reading this thread who knows about printers kindly check out my question in DTP, because my printer is driving me mad.
Thirdly, I've really enjoyed Mick's articles. I wouldn't agree with all he's written ... the claim that Stone Nudes shots are 'warts and all'... unconvinced ... but what I've enjoyed about them most is the thoughtfulness that inevitably results in a lack of clear conclusion, the acknowledgement that there's a tension here, between different people's realities, and the flux of differing feelings inside each one person.
Aaargh, the kids are busy constructing a DIY jumanji game, it's impossible to think here.
(Incidentally, I think the surprise is that any woman has ever managed to produce brilliant literature in the same lifetime as having babies, rather than that they've not produced as much 'great' work as men...)
So yes, there's a whole lot of other stuff to say that Mick doesn't really touch on... for example, the fact that for many many women climbers all this ranking and 'who's the best woman climber' stuff and 'is she as good as a man' stuff is irrelevent, because they're climbing for themselves, not as a competitive endeavour... and then there's a whole debate that could be had about the celebration of risk-taking, and the biology of risk-taking...
But, yes, I really enjoyed parts 1,2 and 3, because they didn't give answers, they just pointed intelligently at questions... and I find that quite refreshing when most journalists _will_ have their spin on any issue they mention; IMO it's so bloody archaic and troglodyte, this insistance on delineating sides and then affixing ourselves to one or the other. I like Mick's writing because he doesn't do that.
And... there's a certain illogic that always appears in these debates about gender. Anytime anyone voices any opinion that in some aspect of life, things are tilted against women, there's a sort of defensive rush of reaction to say, 'but it's no different for men'. Without people apparently noticing that life can tilt against women in one place, and against men in another? I think being female and being male are very different experiences, and there are quite definitely ways that being female can be tougher. But there are ways that being male is tougher too.
It seems to me there are no nice neat answers but only interesting questions... and I'm glad Mick has posed some of them.
Bad authors? Good authors? No. You read something, it resonates or it doesn't. It sets emotions and thoughts sparking through you... or it doesn't. Bad author/ good author... load of arse. The resonance is an interaction, between self and the work you're reading... the writer has done half the job, what's in your own mind does the other half. So, very obviously, what is brilliant for me, may not be brilliant for John Cox (say), for we each bring to the work our distinct minds, our own histories, our own emotions.
Ranking authors is, therefore, a fool's game.
Secondly, would anyone reading this thread who knows about printers kindly check out my question in DTP, because my printer is driving me mad.
Thirdly, I've really enjoyed Mick's articles. I wouldn't agree with all he's written ... the claim that Stone Nudes shots are 'warts and all'... unconvinced ... but what I've enjoyed about them most is the thoughtfulness that inevitably results in a lack of clear conclusion, the acknowledgement that there's a tension here, between different people's realities, and the flux of differing feelings inside each one person.
Aaargh, the kids are busy constructing a DIY jumanji game, it's impossible to think here.
(Incidentally, I think the surprise is that any woman has ever managed to produce brilliant literature in the same lifetime as having babies, rather than that they've not produced as much 'great' work as men...)
So yes, there's a whole lot of other stuff to say that Mick doesn't really touch on... for example, the fact that for many many women climbers all this ranking and 'who's the best woman climber' stuff and 'is she as good as a man' stuff is irrelevent, because they're climbing for themselves, not as a competitive endeavour... and then there's a whole debate that could be had about the celebration of risk-taking, and the biology of risk-taking...
But, yes, I really enjoyed parts 1,2 and 3, because they didn't give answers, they just pointed intelligently at questions... and I find that quite refreshing when most journalists _will_ have their spin on any issue they mention; IMO it's so bloody archaic and troglodyte, this insistance on delineating sides and then affixing ourselves to one or the other. I like Mick's writing because he doesn't do that.
And... there's a certain illogic that always appears in these debates about gender. Anytime anyone voices any opinion that in some aspect of life, things are tilted against women, there's a sort of defensive rush of reaction to say, 'but it's no different for men'. Without people apparently noticing that life can tilt against women in one place, and against men in another? I think being female and being male are very different experiences, and there are quite definitely ways that being female can be tougher. But there are ways that being male is tougher too.
It seems to me there are no nice neat answers but only interesting questions... and I'm glad Mick has posed some of them.
Hey! This got really interesting, and I appreciate it. Go UKClimbing!
Curly said:
"You seem to assume that 1. the climbing situations are all-male 2. that men are "the movers and shakers" 3. extolling female acheivements is ridiculous (and nigh on manipulative) 4. women cannot wield power and control etc. etc."
You are making assumptions about what I am saying and not exactly hitting the mark:
1. Most climbing situations *are* all male here in the Western US. I spend most of my time being the token female in most destinations. There are more women climbers in gyms and top roping, but very few in Yosemite Valley, the Needles, etc. I cannot speak for the UK.
2. Men are technically the movers and shakers, yes. Think about the most ground breaking ascents in history. Okay. Think about the sex of those ascents. I'm also getting to know people in the climbing industry, and . . . hey . .. oddly enough they are all . . . men. Women have not designed new cams, have not put up bold first ascents, etc. I am one of these, and it's too bad, but as such, I claim my place as being not a "mover and shaker."
3. I have some friends that have done the First Female Ascent (and I did FFA to save time, I know what the traditional acronym stands for) of a few fairly bold trad routes. But they've been done countless times by men and mixed parties. So is gender that important in the sport? I think not. I think women just feel the need to make a mark anyway they can. I just don't know if I think Female Ascents are noteworthy if that's all that's noteworthy about it. Lynn's FFA is noteworthy not because she is a woman, but because no one else has repeated it, and no one else can claim it, male or female.
4. I think that many women choose not to wield power or control, and this is why women do not typically hold places in power. Note I said typically. Simply by being a vocal climber on this forum proves that you are a woman who can and . . . guess what? The way you argue your point is typically male in its execution. You are able to wield what western culture has determined as power (which is excuted in a male fashion).
I have certainly read George Eliot, Woolf, the Brontes, etc . . . but . . . again, hold that up to the mirror of the literature canon - who is it? Men. I've also read stuff by women like Aphra Behn, a black woman poet from the Colonial era and it's horrible. It did not affect change or literature trends, so why am I reading it? Because women are uncomfortable with an unbalanced ratio and want me to read it because it is a female first, or an example of a woman doing what men do, but not nearly with the impact they have done.
How do you balance the ratio? Not by claiming First Female Ascents, but by claiming First Free Ascents.
Curly said:
"You seem to assume that 1. the climbing situations are all-male 2. that men are "the movers and shakers" 3. extolling female acheivements is ridiculous (and nigh on manipulative) 4. women cannot wield power and control etc. etc."
You are making assumptions about what I am saying and not exactly hitting the mark:
1. Most climbing situations *are* all male here in the Western US. I spend most of my time being the token female in most destinations. There are more women climbers in gyms and top roping, but very few in Yosemite Valley, the Needles, etc. I cannot speak for the UK.
2. Men are technically the movers and shakers, yes. Think about the most ground breaking ascents in history. Okay. Think about the sex of those ascents. I'm also getting to know people in the climbing industry, and . . . hey . .. oddly enough they are all . . . men. Women have not designed new cams, have not put up bold first ascents, etc. I am one of these, and it's too bad, but as such, I claim my place as being not a "mover and shaker."
3. I have some friends that have done the First Female Ascent (and I did FFA to save time, I know what the traditional acronym stands for) of a few fairly bold trad routes. But they've been done countless times by men and mixed parties. So is gender that important in the sport? I think not. I think women just feel the need to make a mark anyway they can. I just don't know if I think Female Ascents are noteworthy if that's all that's noteworthy about it. Lynn's FFA is noteworthy not because she is a woman, but because no one else has repeated it, and no one else can claim it, male or female.
4. I think that many women choose not to wield power or control, and this is why women do not typically hold places in power. Note I said typically. Simply by being a vocal climber on this forum proves that you are a woman who can and . . . guess what? The way you argue your point is typically male in its execution. You are able to wield what western culture has determined as power (which is excuted in a male fashion).
I have certainly read George Eliot, Woolf, the Brontes, etc . . . but . . . again, hold that up to the mirror of the literature canon - who is it? Men. I've also read stuff by women like Aphra Behn, a black woman poet from the Colonial era and it's horrible. It did not affect change or literature trends, so why am I reading it? Because women are uncomfortable with an unbalanced ratio and want me to read it because it is a female first, or an example of a woman doing what men do, but not nearly with the impact they have done.
How do you balance the ratio? Not by claiming First Female Ascents, but by claiming First Free Ascents.
In reply to gingerkate:
>Bad authors? Good authors? No. You read something, it resonates or it doesn't. It sets emotions and thoughts sparking through you... or it doesn't. Bad author/ good author... load of arse.
Funnily enough, that's what the lecturer I chiefly had in mind said. Jane Austen has no objective merit as compared to Maria E, according to her, it is simply that more people (many more people) find something in the former's books which speak to her than in the latter. But that is a function of our times and consciousness rather than a function of the writing (if I understood the lady correctly).
Load of arse, to use your expression, in my view. But perhaps we should agree to differ.
jcm
>Bad authors? Good authors? No. You read something, it resonates or it doesn't. It sets emotions and thoughts sparking through you... or it doesn't. Bad author/ good author... load of arse.
Funnily enough, that's what the lecturer I chiefly had in mind said. Jane Austen has no objective merit as compared to Maria E, according to her, it is simply that more people (many more people) find something in the former's books which speak to her than in the latter. But that is a function of our times and consciousness rather than a function of the writing (if I understood the lady correctly).
Load of arse, to use your expression, in my view. But perhaps we should agree to differ.
jcm
In reply to Anonymous:
>something in the former's books which speak to her than in the latter
Sorry - speak to 'them'. Curly and Sigmund between them will have a field day with my typoes on this thread.
jcm
>something in the former's books which speak to her than in the latter
Sorry - speak to 'them'. Curly and Sigmund between them will have a field day with my typoes on this thread.
jcm
In reply to Mick:
I haven´t read any of your stuff for quite some time but these articles and the threads they have started have been something I have really enjoyed. Some of the tangent subjects in the threads have been as great as the main theme in themselves.
I couldn´t hold a watertight discussion if I was faced with drowning. So I´ll keep it simple "thanks" Mick.
Pete
I haven´t read any of your stuff for quite some time but these articles and the threads they have started have been something I have really enjoyed. Some of the tangent subjects in the threads have been as great as the main theme in themselves.
I couldn´t hold a watertight discussion if I was faced with drowning. So I´ll keep it simple "thanks" Mick.
Pete
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
Now, or historically too? Because from what I've read, many women who claimed First Female Ascents through the 20th century (eg Annie Peck, Miriam O'Brien, Phyllis Munday, Arlene Blum) were told point blank that women were incapable of doing it, so they thought they were proving that women could do it, *too*. Which made it easier for others to follow.
Glass ceilings, old boys' networks, or problems of being expected to do the bulk of the family/household work on top of regular job are all red herrings, then?
>climber on this forum proves that you are a woman who can >and . . . guess what? The way you argue your point is >typically male in its execution. You are able to wield what
Curious...what do you mean by "typically male"?
Back to women in climbing ads: Just picked up the June 2005 Rock and Ice, which includes a Beal ad featuring Lynn Hill draped in a climbing rope and big snake (Beal's symbol for dry cover), with a list of her notable ascents, and smaller insets with several other big names in climbing (one female, others male) also draped in a big snake. So much for snake as phallic symbol (unless there's a gay climber demographic out there?)
> 3. I just don't know if I think Female Ascents are >noteworthy if that's all that's noteworthy about it. Lynn's
Now, or historically too? Because from what I've read, many women who claimed First Female Ascents through the 20th century (eg Annie Peck, Miriam O'Brien, Phyllis Munday, Arlene Blum) were told point blank that women were incapable of doing it, so they thought they were proving that women could do it, *too*. Which made it easier for others to follow.
> 4. I think that many women choose not to wield power or >control, and this is why women do not typically hold places >in power. Note I said typically. Simply by being a vocal
Glass ceilings, old boys' networks, or problems of being expected to do the bulk of the family/household work on top of regular job are all red herrings, then?
>climber on this forum proves that you are a woman who can >and . . . guess what? The way you argue your point is >typically male in its execution. You are able to wield what
Curious...what do you mean by "typically male"?
Back to women in climbing ads: Just picked up the June 2005 Rock and Ice, which includes a Beal ad featuring Lynn Hill draped in a climbing rope and big snake (Beal's symbol for dry cover), with a list of her notable ascents, and smaller insets with several other big names in climbing (one female, others male) also draped in a big snake. So much for snake as phallic symbol (unless there's a gay climber demographic out there?)
In reply to Wendy:
Just read somewhere that the French climber Jibe Tribout said that women were incapable of climbing 5.14.
Uhhh, he is French though.
Mick
Just read somewhere that the French climber Jibe Tribout said that women were incapable of climbing 5.14.
Uhhh, he is French though.
Mick
In reply to Kristin McNamara:
I agree. I won two bouldering contests at my local wall, but it was in the 'female' category. I don't know the scores for the second one, but for the first one. I would have never won if there was a 'mixed' category.
Which lead me to believe that I didn't actually win it... however, when does being slightly over 5'3'' come into play or that men are just stronger by rules of biology?
> How do you balance the ratio? Not by claiming First Female Ascents, but by claiming First Free Ascents.
I agree. I won two bouldering contests at my local wall, but it was in the 'female' category. I don't know the scores for the second one, but for the first one. I would have never won if there was a 'mixed' category.
Which lead me to believe that I didn't actually win it... however, when does being slightly over 5'3'' come into play or that men are just stronger by rules of biology?
In reply to Jenn:
height has nothing to do with it, surely - after all, if Lynn Hill can climb in such an amazing way being, what, 5'1", then there's no excuse for anyone else...
> (In reply to Kristin McNamara)
however, when does being slightly over 5'3'' come into play or that men are just stronger by rules of biology?
height has nothing to do with it, surely - after all, if Lynn Hill can climb in such an amazing way being, what, 5'1", then there's no excuse for anyone else...
In this 4th part of Climb Like A Girl, Mick Ryan focuses on a single controversial advertising campaign by the US outdoor clothing retailer Blurr and looks at how this campaign was received.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=114
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=114
In reply to UKC News:
on first skimming, I have one question: is that girl's name really Lisa Dumper?
lord.
on first skimming, I have one question: is that girl's name really Lisa Dumper?
lord.
In reply to UKC News:
Dear UKC
Mick's 1st part was so good, I never read his other ones, I did not think he could better it. Are the others up to his high standard?
Norrie
> In this 4th part of Climb Like A Girl
Dear UKC
Mick's 1st part was so good, I never read his other ones, I did not think he could better it. Are the others up to his high standard?
Norrie
In reply to curlymynci:
No venom, per se, I just don't appreciate having strong, accomplished, respected iconoclasts like Lynn Hill being reduced to the level of a snivelly victim in MR's articles.
Nor was I particularly impressed by Mick's reply to my first post; namely that I was drunk and my husband (?!?) should limit my access to booze.
Plus, the Mick's journalism is really poor--disjoined, irrational, inconclusive, semi-hysterical and unsupportable.
> (In reply to NotJudith)
>
> You seem to be pissing on this with an almost personal level of venom. What would your approach be to covering this topic?
>
> Curly
>
> You seem to be pissing on this with an almost personal level of venom. What would your approach be to covering this topic?
>
> Curly
No venom, per se, I just don't appreciate having strong, accomplished, respected iconoclasts like Lynn Hill being reduced to the level of a snivelly victim in MR's articles.
Nor was I particularly impressed by Mick's reply to my first post; namely that I was drunk and my husband (?!?) should limit my access to booze.
Plus, the Mick's journalism is really poor--disjoined, irrational, inconclusive, semi-hysterical and unsupportable.
In reply to NotJudith: I cant help how I percieved it but it felt condescending, as if women should give him a a big pat on the back for showing us the plight of these weak women.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...