In reply to Mick Ryan:
>
> Many people are now climbing that don't have the same values as those who started say 15 years ago. The way people start is changing. Hence the use of mainstream imagery (the urban aesthetic) both in advertisements and editorially, Blurr is one example, Rock and Ice is another, Outside mag is yet another. Some of these images use women, to sell, not a new concept in the climbing world but an increasinging one.
And your point? Considering that this is a series of articles about, and I quote; "women in climbing". Not "how women are climbing compared to 15 years ago" and not "women in climbing advertising" but "women in climbing".
I'm not disagreeing with any of your statements above btw, just the validity of devoting an entire article to discussing the effects of totty (both male and female) on the climber's psyche, the advertiser's pocket and one clothing company's balance sheet.
> More people climbing and changing values will change climbing, how it 'feels' to you and how you experience it, and maybe on your freedom to climb outside.
Absolutely true and had you touched on any of these issues in the article or even expanded on how climbing entering the mainstream has made it less of an 'out there' thing to do, especially for women, i might have been less judgemental. But you didn't, in your 4th instalment of your series of articles billed as "Mick takes a look at the position of women in climbing today" you talked exclusively about a bunch of ads, only one of which featured a female climber and all for a clothing line that doesn't really aim itself at climbers anyway.
> Do you think these are important issues?
Absolutely and I hope that in the future yuo write an article discussing them in depth. Seriously.
> What I wrote in CLAG4 touches on some of these issues. I even posed a question at the end.
>
You did indeed add a question at the end. I take this as an admission on your part that you couldn't actually answer this yourself, at least not in a way that you thought was worthy of putting down for pedants (and writers) like me to disect. In some ways I admire that because if you can't answer it yourself you throw it open to the floor and in some ways I think you should have at least ventured your opinion.
>
> I could have added not just marketing, the use of women to sell, but also, more people at the crag, more access issues, climbers with different climbing values than you (like those bloody top ropers, dry toolers, darn boulderers and damn sport climbers, those annoying school groups)
Yes you could have but it still wouldn't have been in the vein of how the original article series was marketed. I think that all these are extremely important issues but still, in the context of talking about women in climbing, they're not so relevant.
> Intresting you mention Saatchi and Saatchi, I'm a big fan of Nigella....in fact I have all her books. The photos are great, but the recipes are too die for.
And their ad campaigns are often contrived and are getting a massive amount of bad press over here (all to do with not encouraging kiddies to have cell phones but S&S using kiddies exclusively in ads for the major cellphone supplier here in NZ)...
I'd just like to finish by saying that I really do think you're a good writer Mick, but in this case while the article was interesting, it wasn't particularly thought provoking in terms of women in climbing and it really did (IMHO) miss the point by quite a long way. Stick to the subject because lets face it, you've been around forever
and yuo nkow a lot of women climbers and they've all got stories to tell, so tell them. I am looking forward to part 5 btw. And all the subsequent articles visiting all the points you brought up in your previous post.