UKC

Is it just me or is it thoroughly out of order that High Sports have quartered the prize fund for the women's open in their bouldering championship? Men's prize remains at £1000 where as the women now get a degrading £250. Whilst the turn out in the men's has been much higher I think changing the prizes a few days before the final is just wrong. Not to mention misleading as all the female competitors have been under the impression they were competing for £1000 in the previous four rounds of the competition.
More important than the money is the discrimination. I thought climbing had got over this sort of thing about three decades ago. Is anything to be done about the under-representation of women in climbing or will they continue to get a raw deal purely because of their gender?

In reply to Hawkscry:

Personally I'd be happy for equality. No prizes and no prizes.

In reply to Hawkscry: I agree this is strange. Where did you find out about this? The prizes are still shown as equal here.
http://www.high-sports.co.uk/hsbc/prizes.php

In reply to Hawkscry: Does sound a bit out of order to be fair. If for money reasons they have had to reduce the prize fund they should have probably split it equally.

Could be a few reasons why they did it. Maybe the prize is defined as X percentage of entry fee's for each category. Or maybe they felt if they have to cut the prize money then it will effect less people if they just cut the women's. Or maybe (just to be little sexiest) its because the women's problems were not as hard and so completing them warranted less of a prize.

btw, the last one was just a joke don't whinge

In reply to Hawkscry:

As usual 2 ways to look at this.

1. firstly if the prize was stated before entering they shouldn't have changed it after earlier rounds. and on the face of it does very little to encourage women to compete in these events.

2. if the turnout of women is so much lower than the men, then is it really fair for a man to turn up, climb his heart out for a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 for his £10 entry fee when a woman climber turn up, climbs her heart out for a 1 in 10 chance of winning £1000 for the same £10 entry fee?

Having done SIBL a few years ago, it was quite clear that there were 10 times the number of men there than women, but they managed to get round this by having the prizes not monetary, but from sponsors which made it seem a lot fairer.

In reply to Juggler13:
I saw that too. I have it on good authority: straight from one of the women's finalists.

In reply to balmybaldwin: Must admit I've been to a few small comps where basic the girls just get the prize because they turned up.

In reply to Lord_ash2000: There are a few strong female competitors in the final though. Here's the list. I'm not sure why there are a lot less female finalists.

Men's Open Final

David Abbott
David Bone
Keith Bradbury (wildcard)
Sam Cox
Henry Forrester
Liam Halsey
Jack Hutton-Potts
Morgan Jenkins
Ty Landman (wildcard)
Rob Lloyd
Josh Loftus
Gaz Parry
Jon Partridge
Ben Read
Aleksandr Shorikov
Scott Soithongsuk
Seb Soithongsuk
Peter Wycislik

Women's Open Final

Kitty Wallace
Tiffany Soithongsuk
Leah Crane
Abi Heath
Storme Biggs

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
So perhaps more should be done to get girls to turn up? Rather than widen the gap by this kind of discrimination.

In reply to Lord_ash2000: Just so you know, there was only one set of problems for everyone

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Surely that's the luck of the draw - you can't set prizes after everyone has entered. Plus, with a prize like that it may even entice more to enter but to treat the ladies so shabbily after they've entered is a pretty shite thing to do.

In reply to Hawkscry:

So the girls should be offered more money than the boys?

I don't think there is an argument about discrimination, it's only about the money - if it's advertised as a £1,000 then it should be £1,000.

Unless low entries mean that the organisers do say they'll merge classes, so there could be one competition, no separate gender classes, but with a consolation prize for best girl?

In reply to winhill:
I think it's far more about discrimination than it is about the money. I agree, they should stick to what they said originally on principle but they feel they can change it because of gender. And why should girls need a consolation prize?! Could you be any more condescending?

In reply to Hawkscry:

If and it is if, they have changed the prize I would expect it's more to do with finance than gender. I'm sure they would prefer to award the biggest prizes possible. The 'consolation' prize would be if they decided to merge categories, which could leave the girls without a prize. (This is if they wanted to keep within the rules as stated, although it would be highly unusual to merge gender categories).


"Oh, that sounds like a wager to me!" (Homer Simpson).

In reply to winhill:
I find your flippancy disgusting. To me this is a serious issue in the sport, not a squabble over prize money

In reply to Hawkscry:

I find your disgust, disgusting, even discussing your disgust is disgusting to me.

If you could demonstrate what you claim is true, that might be a start, otherwise you might be libelling some perfectly innocent people.

Just so you're clear, you need to demonstrate that the prize money has indeed been cut, and secondly that it was cut due to reasons of sexism, or that the decision to cut it is based on sexism or results in gender disadvantage.

Do you see how that works?

In reply to Hawkscry:

Now to preface this post I would like to say that if they initially advertised equal prize money then that is what the final should be for. Regardless of financial issues. £500 is still a good reason to turn up to compete.

But.

A simple comparison of the people competing shows that the level of competition is simply not equal.

Keith Bradbury (wildcard) - British Team Member
Liam Halsey - Beat Partridge at a SIBL round
Ty Landman (wildcard) - Did rather well in CWIF recently
Gaz Parry - Multiple champion of everything
Jon Partridge - British Team
Ben Read - Pretty Darn Strong
Peter Wycislik - And Again

Women's Open Final

Kitty Wallace - British Team. Potential winner.
Leah Crane - Super Strong BBC champ 2009 will pretty much wipe the floor.
Abi Heath - Decent but simply not in the same league as Leah or Kitty right now.
Storme Biggs - Ditto
Tiffany Soithongsuk - Ditto plus injured atm.



Obviously the two categories are not even remotely similar. For any one of the men to win they would have to train non stop, then pretty much flash every problem to even be in with a chance of getting on the podium.
For the women Leah or Kitty is pretty much guaranteed victory just by turning up and competing.

Now as a bloke you would have to feel hard done by if the prize money is the same, simply because the two competitions are nothing alike.

Add that to the attendance money going into the pot being split equally (I assume) and you have a questionable 'equality' there.

I am all for equal pay for an equal job, but in a similar case at the last wimbledon where...
Well actually, this guy says it a lot better.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/thefulminator/thefulminator/6/stop-wimbledon-sexi...

In reply to winhill:
I've been told by female finalists who have been emailed by High Sports. Evidence to follow. Is the fact that prize money has been cut in one gender category not a perfect example of sexism? However you dress it up, the distinction here is based on gender and the result: inequality.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Do the competitors have to pay an entry fee?

In reply to Hawkscry:

If the prize money in the juniors was less would you still cry out?

No.

This is equality working as it should.
Same job, Same pay...this is not the same job.

In reply to archiecb:
The juniors are on different problems. Men and women have exactly the same routes to climb in this competition

In reply to EddInaBox: Normal peak wall entry

In reply to Hawkscry: but if they were on the same problems?

In reply to archiecb:

but it is the same job. Men and women are not competing with each other.

women are competing against other women, and men against other men. We should view them as two seperate competitions, which they are (mens finals and womens finals), the two catagories are still competing to achieve the highest level in their catagory.

Levels of ability (as mentioned before) are only relevant within each catagory. Levels of ability should not be compared between the two catagories, as ultimately, it's irrelevant.

In reply to rd11: So you would give a junior winner £1000 if he was able to climb say 10/30 problems while the second place managed 9/30?

In reply to archiecb:
surely the point of having a prize in a competition is so the highest level in the catagory gets it?

would you deny the prize to the junior in your hypothetical competition?

In reply to anyone that knows:
What is a wildcard entrant?

I notice there are none in the womens group.

In reply to Hawkscry:
Leaving aside the sexism argument, changing the prize money mid comp is appalling - people may have spent money on transport in the expectation that the prize money would make it worthwhile

But I also agree, the sexism stinks too

My suggestion is that all competitors - both male and female - are contacted and asked to boycott the event unless a change is made

In reply to rd11:

They certainly wouldnt get £1000, because that is ridiculous.
Now in the Male/Female debate the levels are much closer. However the quality of female climbing is still lower (in the same way juniors are weaker).

There is little debate to be had that kids get less, look at any major sporting event. Few complain about the lack of junior money at wimbledon (I'm sure some do) but the outrage when women are 'unequal' is out of sync with similar value judgements.

In reply to Juggler13:
...
...

Looking at it that way the expected prize (so the probability of winning it times the value) of a male contestant is (1/18)*1000 for men, or £56.

For women it is (1/5)*250 so £50.

Not really much in it is there?

Just seems like a product of the number of entrants, nothing else.

So saying it sucks a bit to alter a previously stated figure.

In reply to Hawkscry:

What is the justification given for the change?

If there was a caveat to say the money would be changed due to particular circumstances then it may not be sexism. That is why I mentioned the only caveat that I saw was the one about merging categories, which they seem to have done with the juniors. It would be highly unusual to do it with the senior finals though.

In reply to terryturbojr:

You do discount the previous rounds that they had to all compete in to get to the final - all of those had far more men in them I believe (I dont know if the ratios were kept the same though so apologies if this arguement is invalid)

That's not sexism or discrimination. People seem too earger to use those terms.

The women aren't receiving less prize money simply because of their gender, (which would be sexism) it's because there's a lot fewer of them, and hence the competition is much less.

In reply to archiecb:

I don't understand why you believe that women are worth less than men? For example, top women athletes train just as hard as the top men. Leah and Kitty are among the top women in the UK, just as Keith, Tyler and Gaz are among the men. Why should they win less? If a prize of £1000 was offered, then that is what should be given.

In reply to archiecb: men and women are intrinsically different, men are genetically built stronger so within the confines of an indoor bouldering competition which is heavily strength dependant they will always be at a disadvantage and their overall performance will always be lower.

but thats not really the point - as has been mentioned they are competing against women and their competition is against other women so their performance in relation to that of the men is in essence irrelivant. What is important however is the number of entrants into their competition and the general quality of the field.

I agree that the female competition is not as deserving of a 1000 prize but this is because there are simply less competitors, paying less entry, with a lower general standard meaning a few strong women easily stand out so winning is a less significant achievement. Democratically speaking the prizes should be representative of the fields they are coming from so twice as many competitors should be competing for twice the price money.

There is not equality in climbing, it is a male dominated sport for all sorts of reasons and arguably always will be due to the intrinsic differences between men and women (just like there will always be more female synchronised swimmers). However its noit such a bad thing to overly represent and support female climbers in an act of psative discrimination. I for one would be happy to accept a bit on inequality in order to promote the sport to a group which is slightly the minority. Seeing female stars suceed and be well respected for it is vital in encouraging the next generation of budding female climbers to take the sport seriously and lets be honest theres nothing sexier than watching a really good girl climb!!!

In reply to archiecb:

Aye, I imagine the number of places in the final broadly reflacts the number of entrants in earlier rounds.

As such it seems based purely on number of entrants, which happens to be based on sex, so not remotely sexist.

Do you think prize money comes from entrance fees over the course of the competition? If so how could they pay out as much to females if they've taken in less.

The only issue then seems to be the changing after the start.

In reply to Hawkscry:

I had just found that, plus £5 registration if done on the day, that being the case I would guess a reduction in the prizes awarded could amount to a breach of contract, anyone who entered a previous round or registered before the (alleged) reduction in the value of the prize(s) who achieves a placing and is given less than originally advertised could have grounds to sue... Maybe.

For anyone unhappy with the prizes being reduced (if indeed they have been) the most effective course of action (short of offering to top up the prize fund yourself) would probably be to complain to the event's sponsors:

Climb Magazine - http://www.climbmagazine.com/contact-us.aspx
Evolv - http://www.evolvesports.com/contact.htm
Evolv's importers - http://www.beyondhope.co.uk/contact.html
Boreal - Mike Pickwell, mpickwell@e-boreal.com 0800 404 9675
Wild Country - http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/ContactUS/
Red Chilli - http://redchili.de/en/core/pages/contact.html#tab3
Moon Climbing - http://www.moonclimbing.com/contact-info/press-media-c-285_330.html 0114 249 1821
La Sportiva - http://www.lasportiva.com/English/contatti/contatti.html
La Sportiva's importers - http://www.lyon.co.uk/contact-lyon-work-a-rescue.html

High Sports - http://www.high-sports.co.uk/hsbc/contact.php

In reply to Monk:

I do say in my first post that I agree that they shouldnt go changing the prize halfway through the competition. So please dont argue that line.

Equally bandying around phrases such as 'worth less than men' is tantamount to an attack on character.
I have outlined pretty clearly the argument I stick to, and on multiple occasions stated that women *are* definitely worthy of equal pay.
But *only* if they are doing the same job.

My basic argument runs that they are *not* doing the same job for the money.
I can understand your point of view, but until the quality of womens professionalism and competitiveness in competition reaches the same level as it is in Men's then I will not be able to agree.

The problems to climb in the competition are, in theory, the same.
However, it is obvious that the women will not really be climbing *all* the problems.
They will certainly be capable of many of them.
But the men will be competing over the full range of (30?) problems (if they are set well).
The women will be competing over perhaps 25 of them (on the basis that none of them will achieve any of the final 5 but they will be physically able to compete over the other 25 - I conjecture)

Now if the women were competing over 30 problems then perhaps this would be a reasonable arguement to wage.

Equally I refute the idea that by reducing the prize money they have reduce the number of competitors since the prize was only changed now we can assume that the women who were willing to compete for equal money was still significantly lower than the mens.

In reply to Hawkscry: The easy and fair answer is for them to all compete together for the same prize money.

In reply to terryturbojr:

Thankyou for agreeing, I am arguing that the 'sexist' accusation is wrong.
Which you seem to have picked up on, but people will always throw about the word when they havent truly analysed the situation.

You might as well claim that the prize money for any tennis tournament should be the same level as for Wimbledon, since the only thing that matters is the quality of competition and how hard everyone is trying.

I completely *back* the idea of subsidising the higher money for women from the mens prize fund to try and convince them climb competitively. But the point is that would be 'sexist' to the male climbers.

In reply to wayno265:

True Wayno, but in reality the women would never win and this would just result in a much lower turnout all round... which benefits no one.

In reply to archiecb: your close to being right but arguing the wrong point. suggesting that should get less because they are 'not climbing the full 30 problems' is bull. they are all competing over the full range of 30 problems - whether they complete them or not is irrelevant they will all try 30 problems - you could infact argue that more of the problems are below their maximum level for the men and therefore its easier for them but again missing the point.

the point is that the quality of the mens and womens competition and the amount of competitors is different so its harder for men to win - not because they are climbing more problems

In reply to Hawkscry: They should clearly have said from the beginning that if the number of qualifiers for the final was low in either the male or female division then the prize in that division would be reduced. This would not be sexist and there would be no legal problems if they had said this from the beginning. As far as I can see from the information available on their website, they didn't do this.

In reply to archiecb:

>


>
>
>

I simply don't agree. When watching or entering a competition, I don't really care how many of the problems get done. The competition is between the competitors, not against the wall. I simply don't understand your argument that women are less professional or less competitive than the men, or any less value to watch (not that this is particularly an issue with this competition, it's hardly the CWIF).

In reply to juntao:

I disagree, people arguing for equality claim they are doing the same competition.

Said 'competition' is the *mens* competition, set for the *men* and the final problems are set to split the *men*. The women are only realistically competing over the easier problems and therfore need to expend less energy (if they are sensible - I dont disagree that they can at least try the hardest problems).

Now, if the problems are set too easy for the men then this argument is pointless, but if they set the curve perfectly then it refutes the argument that they are doing the same competition.
The men *must* compete over 30 problems but the women probably wont, therefore they need to climb less to win. Therefore unequal competition. Therefore unequal prizes.

(this is a minor point to add to the argument though, I admit)

In reply to Monk:


You might as well say that you should pay the same amount of money in any competition then.
I realise Leah and Kitty are in this competition,
but imagine that they arent, or infact, push it a little further.
Imagine that the women competing are only capable of climbing 5+ problems.

Do you 100% think that it is fair that pay should be equal despite the winning man doing all the problems while the winning woman simply beats the other punters on 4 problems (even if she really tries)?

In reality you do care about the quality of clibing on show and the Men's competition is undeniably going to be more competetive and exciting than the Women's.

In reply to archiecb:

Your analysis of the situation is bogus. You are using the same dodgy analogy of 'equal work for equal pay' as the guy in the blog you quote above.

A winner in a competition is not 'doing a job' in the same sense as someone processing insurance claims, they are not being paid for volume of 'work done' and that would be a nonsensical way of awarding prize money.

In the sense that a prize is being awarded for 'work done' that work is winning a category, according to the scoring system and rules established by the organisers at the outset. Seen in that light, women, men and juniors are doing the same 'work', the only difference is the competition within respective category, which is not comparable across categories, that is the whole point of having separate categories.

The number of problems completed and their absolute difficulty is not relevant, problems are set in order to split the field.

I think High Sports are bang out of order. Setting prize money was their gamble to make, as the organisers, and changing it mid way through the comp stinks.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

The guy in the blog actually adresses this quite nicely if you read it.

His example would run as such:

The 'job' is doing a certain amount of 'paper work'.
whoever finishes first obtains 'money' for their effort.

but the men have 'more complicated' 'paperwork'
(and as I address above - potentially 'more paperwork' depending on the way you look at it)
and therefore 'spend longer' and have to 'try harder' on it than the women do.

You are suggesting that the women deserve the 'same pay' for doing what is simply not the same 'job'...this is most certainly not equality.

In reply to archiecb:

i have not at any point said that the women are doing the same competition, the whole point is they are not because they are physically different but they are competing in their own competition - the argument is over whether their competition is of the same value of the mens competition.

the quality of the competition depends on the quality of the field - as has been mentioned before they are competing against the others not the wall. your argument seems to be based on the fact that the men are simply putting in more 'physical effort' because they are climbing more problems. Like i said the women are going to at least try the problems - the likes of leah crane arent just going to look at something hard and go 'na cant do that' - so they are expending as much physical effort.

the logic in your point does work but is still wrong because you have chosen the wrong thing to assess the quality of the competition.

If theres a competition with 50 problems which is made up of 30 punters who cant climb for shit and a competition of 5 problems with the top 10 climbers in the world under your logic the competion with 50 problems is deserving of a bigger prize because 'they must compete over more problems'

In reply to the tedious ongoing argument:

I would like to point out that whilst the female competitors may not be able to climb as many of the problems as the men it still costs them the same amount to enter each round of the competition, i.e. standard wall entry. By extension of the logic that women cannot climb as many routes and thus should not be entitled to as great a prize, it naturally follows that all wall entry prices should be less for women than men.

In reply to EddInaBox: well no because you are paying for the opportunity to use the facilities and the chance to attempt the problems so thats a totally irrelevant point

In reply to archiecb:

Its not 'pay' it's a prize. You're not paying them for climbing problems, you're rewarding them for being the best amongst the competitors.

If it is accepted that women and men deserve different categories due to their inherent differences...

...why should men be rewarded more highly for being the best of their category than women for being the best of theirs?

I have considered what the term and do not believe myself to be bandying it around: I think that is sexist - it is discriminating PURELY on gender.

In reply to Ed Brighteldman:

Just because something is discriminated purely on gender does not make it sexist.

In reply to juntao:

I'm not going to argue with you any more on this point after this because you aren't understanding the point being made.


The point is merely a refutation of the 'its the same competition' argument.

Imagine a race over a mile, but the womens race requires only that they race over 70% of it as the last bit of the race is on a road with large bushes on either side so that no one can on. Naturally the first to the 70% mark will win overall. However, in the mens race the larger physicality means they can still race over the last 30%.
The races are intrinsically different so the prize fund should not be 'necessarily' be equal.
It could be higher (as the race becomes a sprint race) or lower (as it just becomes a shorter endurance race)
Either way, the reason for the prizes to be similar is not that Men = Women, but rather that the effort and talent required to win should be the same.

My logic does not state that more problems = more prize money.
It states that if the men and women are competing on the *same set* of problems, but the women are required to do fewer of them, then they are not doing the same 'work' for the prize fund.

In reply to archiecb:

How about imagine that only local punters such as me were in the men's competition, and Leah and Kitty were in the women's? Why should the men's prize be higher when the women have recognised climbers? Just because they have a few big name climbers in the comp shouldn't have any bearing on what the pre-announced prize fund should be. Obviously big prizes will attract big names (hence the big names in this comp, both male and female!). I just don't see why there should be any difference between an Open Male or Open Female prize fund.

In reply to GrahamD:

Ok but combined with what I said above, there is no justification for it. And therefore it would seem sexist. Care to address the argument?

In reply to archiecb:

Apart from the incipient sexism in the blog (yes, it is) what you and he happily reduce down to 'more complicated paperwork' is a thorny question of physiological and morphological gender differences, and I don't think you or I are in a place to evaluate which gender is trying harder.

Also I think you are doing a massive disservice to the womens' finalists, Leah and Kitty at least are among the top uk female talent and serious athletes, and realistically would be in the final even if it were contested more fiercely. Equally the other female finalists have earned the right to be there and compete even if you think they are not trying hard enough by judging them against men's standards.

Given that in this situation men and women are competing on the same problems, you could argue that the women are expending more effort as they are relatively closer to the top end of national and international standards for womens' bouldering.

But in any event the absolute difficulty of the problems is purely notional and set in relation to the strength of the field. The 'job' as you put it is an arbitrary task designed only to differentiate the competitors, the absolute number of problems completed or not is irrelevant and down to the vagaries of the route setting.

In reply to archiecb:


I think you misunderstand the concept of a competition. It's not work. There's no 'requirement' to do any number of problems to 'earn' the prize fund. That terminology does not fit with competitions.

I'll ask a direct question as it might help set out your position:

Why should the best female climber not receive the same reward as the best male climber? On what grounds are you discriminating between them?

In reply to Ed Brighteldman: If the situation was reversed, with many strong females in the final and only a few males I believe that high sports would reduce the prize for the male competition for the same reasons. For this reason I don't think it can be called sexist. I do think there's a problem with them not making this clear from the beginning and so I think the original prizes should stand.

In reply to Juggler13:

If it's done on numbers that's fine, although it should be made clear from the beginning what the prize fund should be - that's a valid ground for discriminating between the categories.

But the relative strength of the climbers in each category? Who is in any sort of position to judge that? I thought that was the whole point of having the categories in the first place...

In reply to Ed Brighteldman:

I don't think it is sexist. Think of a men's competition as a non profit making business and a women's competition as a non profit making business. Total out goings (prizes) = total income (sponsorship + entries). Fewer entrants, less money available for prizes. Or are you actually wanting positive discrimination ?

In reply to archiecb:


By that token, if two men were in the final, one flashed all 10 problems, the other on all 10 problems got to 1 move from the top on his first two tries but ticked them all on the third, who's done the most "work"?

Should distance athletes win more than sprinters because they have won further? Does the prize money for the 100m sprint fluctuate with the winning time depending on how much "work" the sprinter is deemed to have done?

The whole point is it's not about "work" done but about doing better than others in your field (by whatever criteria that is defined).

In reply to archiecb:
.
.

They are climbing the same problems, so yes they are actually doing the same job.
>

Why in theory? I have read the rest of your post, but you can't assume women won't climb the same amount of problems as the men. You just can't. There are 30 problems for EVERYONE to try. Women compete against women, men compete against men. Fair enough, reduce the pot for the women, but state that before the competition. Don't decide after the competition has ended that actually, you don't think the women should get as much because the turnout wasnt as high. That is just degrading and patronising.

You also seem to be saying climbers such as Leah Crane and Katy Whittaker are not professional, which is incredibly rude. They put the training in same as the men and they're at the top end of the sport.

In reply to GrahamD:

See above post

In reply to GrahamD:

But that is a gamble that is made by the organizers of the comp before the prizes are publicised. Once the comp has started, they it's pretty low to then decide that actually they didn't make as much income as they were hoping and cut prize money accordingly. Doing so only penalizes the women who have entered and discourages women from competing in the future.

And for the record I don't believe they would do it for the men's comp if the situation were reversed. That's speculation and not based on fact, but I just can't see it happening, ever.

In reply to archiecb:


What you are implicitly saying with this, is that the reason women don't climb as hard as men is because they are less talented and not trying as hard.

Are you sure that is what you think?

In reply to GrahamD:

I have no problem with that. But when you have been advertising a £1000 prize for 6 months, I don't believe it is acceptable to decide that you can't afford that just before the final.

I can see why they have done it though. Every one of the female competitors is due a cash prize even if they don't climb more than 1 problem according to the prizes they set out before the competition started. I don't believe that is sufficient justification though.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:



It wouldn't be called unreasonable if two men were on different wages based on their performance. The fact that it is a woman vs a man shouldn't make any difference. I dont know his motives for writing the blog, he could belong to a vehement anti-feminist movement for all I care, the points are still valid regardless of where they come from. Please stop trying to discredit it with a negative word like 'sexism'. Equally stop tarring me with the same brush. I am not being sexist, I am making a well structured argument based on facts and statements that have not been refuted.



This is more closely relevant to the last thing I posted. The last problems are the hardest. The women dont have to compete over them. I suppose the 'paperwork' analogy is slightly weak in this regard.



Again, tarring with sexist innuendo does neither yourself nor your argument any favours. I have not said this at any point.



tssk, while the problems that have been set *for the mens competition* may be close to the womens international level, it is not a given that the women are competing on them at all.

Finally, I am not really sure what your last point even means, does it support either side? It seems to me to have been a good excuse to use the word vagaries.

In reply to archiecb: like i said before. i understnad your point but your totally missing and not even bothering to listen to mine.

how else am i meant to intepret 'they are not doing the same work' if your only defnition of work is the number of problems they climb???????????

your saying more problems is more work so more prize money. so your argument is more work is more prize money and if more problems are more work then more problems is more prize money?????

like ive said already. youre close to being right but barking up the wrong tree with this whole number of problems bullshit. if you ask a competiton winner why they won a competiton they wont say because i climbed 30 problems they will say because they climbed more problems than anyone else. you cant draw an analogy between a running race and a climbing comp because that would be a speed climbing comp. a better analogy is a weight lifting competition. its not about the total weight you lift its about being the one who lifts the most weight.

In reply to archiecb:


Stop using the wage analogy - it does not hold fast. The only reason the situation you describe is true is that the employers are paying on the basis of the value each employee adds to the company - fair enough. But that is not even remotely close to the situation here.

The competitors are not being employed, they are not being paid, and they are not attempting to add value to a company by climbing problems.

It is a reward. Why should their REWARD differ?

In reply to archiecb:


Your argument is based on the spurious analogy between office work and prizes awarded in competitions. Many have pointed out that they are not at all comparable, so using that analogy to make appeals to emotion based on men being treated unfairly, is not a strong argument. Is that better?


Christ, look it up if you're not sure.

It means that the whole point of competitions is based on your relative performance against other competitors. The absolute difficulty of comp problems is meaningless, so to base any ideas of relative amounts of 'work done' on the absolute number of problems completed by any competitor, makes no sense. With a different route setter, the average number of problems completed across all competitors may be different (so according to your argument, more or less 'work' has been done) but the relative positioning of the competitors should be roughly the same.

In reply to cathirst:


Yes, yes I can - all you have to do is look at the scores from previous round which were competed on the same problems to prove it.
http://www.high-sports.co.uk/hsbc/results.php

Are you genuinely saying that you think the women will be able to succeed on all the same problems as the men? This will only be the case if the setters get their job horribly wrong, which - as I said, underpins that argument.


So you agree with my point anyway!
I explicitly stated that they have made the whole thing worse by promising one thing then producing another.


Dear lord, someone rude on the internet?
No. Not in this case. I was saying that the average level of professionalism on the womens side of the final, relative to the number of podium places on offer, is significantly lower than on the mens side. Gaz parry and Partridge might as well be competing with me and a couple of my mates for the money. I do know Tiff, Storme and Abi by the way and this is most certainly not a post saying that they do no training.

In reply to archiecb:


But that is basically what is happening. There is a very small handful of climbers who will be competing for the prize money. Now that Tyler has been added to the mix, where do you think the prize will go? The women's is a 2 horse race, but the men's isn't that much better. There's just more filler beneath the top few climbers (counting myself as someone who has been that filler many times).

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

I have been looking at this argument for far too long.

If two people are not competing under *exactly* the same circumstances then there is no reason that they should recieve the same prize.
And in this case, the Men and Women are competing in different competitions held by the same sponsor on the same holds.
It might be a nice idea to pay equally but the logic behind it doesnt ring true.

I can't argue with everyone at the same time and as it gets later it seems more people are joining the massing throng of the PC crew. If you really want to continue this somewhere else then find me at the wall.

I need to do some work anyways, seems like I have avoided the listlessness normally brought on by a rest day though, so overall I think I'm in profit.

In reply to archiecb: basically your being an anal bastard and arguing a point to death because you have a grain of logic which works but completely misses the rest of the argument. well done. im def not part of the PC crew for the record.

i must say your willingness to sit in a corner and defend a shit argument is to some extent commendable.

In reply to archiecb:

Correct me if I'm wrong but basically your argument is:

'inherently, women aren't as good at climbing as men, therefore the best woman doesn't deserve to be rewarded as highly as the best man because objectively she hasn't done as well'

If that's the case, I'm not going to argue with you because it should be obvious to most - that's a pretty unpleasant point of view.

In reply to Hawkscry:

What's with all this talk of sexism? Contestants pay an entry fee, there are 10 times as many male entries, meaning 10 times as much money raised by this, meaning a larger pot for the winners of that section. Male or Female doesn't come into it.

It's simple logic surely?

If the women want to be on a level keel with the blokes they need to raise awareness & numbers in the competitions. Why focus the energy on complaining on online forums, generating negative media towards the events, leading to a decline in numbers and inevitably a smaller pot next year? Seems to me like this is VERY counter-productive.

I would go so far as to say it would be sexist FAVOURITISM towards women if cash from the males entry fees was going towards the prize for the women just because they couldn't bring in the numbers!? Don't blame the organisers for having faith in the commitment of the ladies. They WANTED to give a big prize clearly but from the sounds of it the numbers were nowhere near where they needed to be. Not their fault if you ask me.

Everything is relative.

Don't complain, campaign to get more females interested in competetive climbing. It's the only answer!

They are two of Britains top female climbers are you are questioning their professionalism? They compete on a world stage and you are questioning their professionalism? Yes it is rude. And since when has being rude been ok, just because it's on the Internet?

Yes I agree the pot could be reduced for women. I don't agree this should be done post competition.

I don't agree with your view it's because comparing men with women when you can't compare men with women (see someone elses post of the physical differences between men and women). Ignore the fact there's Gaz Parry et al in the mens competition. Even ignore the fact Leah Crane and Katy Whittaker were in the womens competition. At the end of the day, X amount of problems were set for EVERYONE, and EVERYONE had a go at completing them. Everyone paid the same enter. Everyone had the same opportunity. Yes you can look at previous rounds and show women climbed fewer problems than the men, but you couldn't make an assumption like that before a competition started. You can never assume anything. You can predict, but not assume. If you're predicting women won't climb as many problems, you put up a smaller pot. That's how it stays. If the prediction is right, fine. If it's wrong, then more fool the organiser for not thinking about it, but you swallow the cost and learn a lesson.

In reply to PebblePusher:

Primarily it's about a commitment you make to your competitors. You organise a comp and do some back-of-the-envelope sums about how many people you think this will bring into the wall, and how much publicity you will get as a result. On that basis you offer a prize as an incentive for entry.

On the basis of that prize money, people pay to enter your comp to compete for that prize. At this point, when you realise you got your sums wrong and don't have as many competitors as you hoped, changing the pot of money on offer breaks all of the commitments you established when people entered, is unfair and rude to the competitors who have already entered, and gives people a strong incentive not to bother next time.

If the prize was going to be variable based on the number of entries in each category, this should have been made clear at the outset.

That this is happening in the women's, may or may not be sexist in addition.

In reply to cathirst: the was a wonderfully inept rant.

In reply to juntao:

Why was it inept?

In reply to juntao: Why thankyou! I aim to please.

In reply to Hawkscry: OK, so here is the official line on why the competition format has changed:

In the rules it clearly states that if a category is undersubscribed then it can be merged with another category. In the case of the Women's Open category there were only 5 entrants across all the rounds. The minimum required for the final was 15.

We could have elected to apply this merge but given the strength of the Men's category this didn't really seem like the best option. So, we wrote to the 5 women finalists and offered the option of a Women's Mini Final that reflected the lower turnout.

There is nothing remotely sexist or discriminatory about this approach, its just the application of some common sense rather than blindly enforcing the rules as stated.

Interestingly, we have had no complaints from any of the Women finalists. So quite why such a forceful post was deemed more appropriate than an email or phone call to us is beyond me.

Anyway, lookiing forward to Sunday, should be a blinder!

Hawkscry - why not give me a call and discuss?

Paul

In reply to archiecb: Do you think that Jess Ennis shouldn't get full medals when she wins her heptahlon events because the men do the decathlon? Should her medal only be 70% as big as the men's?

In reply to High Sports: so long as you clearly stated this somewhere which competitors could see BEFORE they entered then completely fair enough. if not then good luckl defending that.

In reply to High Sports: Sorted. Thanks for clarifying the situation. UKC police have released you without charge, move along now...

In all seriousness, that's all that was needed. If I'd have been in the competition, I wouldn't have complained - rules is rules and they do make sense. Cheers for that.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Well this has been entertaining.

If anything this thread is a good example of why not to post inflammatory conjecture/jump on a band wagon/cry wolf before being in full possession of the facts.

In reply to catt:

It's traditional.

In reply to Monk:


I agree that aspect isn't great. Hard to see what else you can do if your income isn't as high as you budgeted for.

In reply to High Sports:


Nicely balanced considering the accusations being made against yuou, I thought.

In reply to High Sports:
That's fair enough. Logistically I sympathise. However, I struggle to believe it would be the same if the male/female numbers were reversed. And whilst you may not have had any formal complaints I doubt you had jubilant replies from the female finalists. They certainly complained to their friends.
I felt the need to make this public in order to see what UKC makes of issues like this (my voice alone would have had an unacceptably high p value). The lack of female entrants is clearly indicative of a problem in the climbing community and whilst the change in prizes may superficially seem be nothing to do with gender it strikes me as being sexism so deeply ingrained you don't even notice it. If you want to have a better female turnout in future you need to ensure they have proper incentive.

In reply to High Sports:

On the website http://www.high-sports.co.uk/hsbc/how_it_works.php it says, and I quote

"15. The organisers reserve the right to merge categories if there are insufficient entrants in any category"

Vague. Also It doesn't say anywhere that this will result in the £4000 prize fund being slashed to £2250 and a bit of kit. Surely if we are going to get legal on this, stating that there is a "prize fund" rather than coming clean about the prize structure from the start means that the £4000 prize remains in-tact after a merger? In this case surely the categories would be merged and then first prize for the "total final" would be in the region of £2000-£3000?

I can accept (might I add, barely accept) the fact that as there were much fewer entrants than you would have liked you feel that you might need to exercise your ridiculous merging rule. However even in this comical situation YOU STILL HAVE TO OFFER THE PRIZE MONEY THAT GOT EVERYONE DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE!! I mean no offence when I say that the higher calibre athletes that have entered will only have entered to win the money.

Stick to your guns and lose any respect that the High Sports brand is trying to earn or stick your neck out, apologise and suck it up and you will no doubt win many admirers. It takes a much bigger man/corporation to admit they are wrong than to put its head in the sand.

In reply to High Sports:

5 entrants across all the rounds? What about the 9 on this list?

http://www.high-sports.co.uk/media/uploads/HSBC_Results_Round4_OpenFemale.p...

In reply to GrahamD:

Collins Dictionary definition of 'sexism' : 'discrimination on the basis of sex..'

In reply to lanky_suction1:
>>


Thank you. I had deemed that statement too moronic to make a response

In reply to lanky_suction1:


That is clearly not a good definition though is it? If that were true then the competition was sexist from the start because men were not allowed to compete in the women's competition and vice versa. It would also make public toilets sexist....

Sexism quite obviously refers to a specific type of gender discrimination.

<whilst the change in prizes may superficially seem be nothing to do with gender it strikes me as being sexism so deeply ingrained you don't even notice it>

Thank you, it means a lot to hear another woman speak up!

In reply to Woollybum: You're welcome. But why would you assume I was a woman? =D

In reply to Markel:

discrimination = unfair treatment of a person or group based on prejudice.

do you think its unfair that you cant go in the girls toilets?

jackass

In reply to Hawkscry:

>If you want to have a better female turnout in future you need to ensure they have proper incentive.

Thats a pretty shallow view on what motivates people to climb.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Am I right in thinking that many of the competitors have already travelled to four rounds at four different walls in the London area, and paid entrance at each one on the night, before the prize fund for women was cut?

There also appear to be six sponsors for the series, so the prize fund presumably doesn't entirely come from entrance fees.

I also notice that in the 'how it works' section on their site, they talk about the super-final involving the 15 best competitors from each sex after four rounds. If they've decided to cut the prize fund for women on the basis of only five finalists, surely by the same logic they should be cutting the men's prize fund by a certain amount - because they only have nine super-finalists listed there?

In reply to GrahamD:
If you assume I'm talking about the money. What I meant was that even less women will turn up if issues like this go unaddressed

In reply to Hawkscry:

The mens super final has 17 Finalists. The 15 Qualifiers plus 2 Wildcards.

The full results of all 4 rounds are here.

Female:
http://www.high-sports.co.uk/media/uploads/HSBC_Results_Round4_OpenFemale.p...

Male:
http://www.high-sports.co.uk/media/uploads/HSBC_Results_Round4_OpenMale.pdf

Qualification was automatic for round winners and runner-up with the 15 made up of the next n best scores totalled.

In reply to RFWilkie:

Looking at those scorecards it appears the female event has been fantastically poorly attended, even by the finalists. Only one has scored in the previous four rounds, another scored in two, and all other entrants have only scored in one, or none of the events. I'm assuming a score of 0 means a no show?

In reply to catt:

I think that female competitions are nearly always poorly attended. I'm not sure whether it is because there are fewer female climbers to start with, or whether females are less competitive, or perhaps less inclined to put themselves on display. It's probably a combination of all these factors and more.

In reply to MHutch:

No-one has said when the communication was dispatched, being in possession of salient facts is frequently frowned upon.

I would have thought competitors ought to know before starting if categories are being merged, however, with this type of event, people are encouraged to join throughout the rounds, so a decision may be premature if announced at the beginning.

In reply to Hawkscry:


Clearly not that many less.

The real issue (if lack of entries into competitions is an issue - debatable) is the lack of women climbing at the highest levels in the UK, fullstop.

In reply to GrahamD: From your profile it looks like you don't have a clue about performing at the highest levels and would therefore suggest you don't comment upon it!

The number of british women climbing at a standard you can only dream of has increased massively, last week 68 women registered for the Climbing Works International Festival with 56 handing their score cards in. yes this was still significantly less competitors than the men, but over double that of the year before.

And guess what, in the finals a british lady won, beating climbers ranked 15th, 22nd and 24th in world cup rankings. In that final, 3 out of 6 were british, a pretty strong showing really!

In reply to crazymonkey: anyone can enter the climbing works international festival...............

In reply to crazymonkey:


Of course I don't have a clue about performing at the highest levels but that is not what we are talking about. I am not commenting on participation rates and grades achieved by British women, as reported.

Since you obviousl are an expert, perhaps you can comment on top Women's grades and number of participants compared with, say, France, Spain, Italy, US, Czech republic etc. ? is Britain on a par with them ?

In reply to juntao:



I do, of course, recognise the tendency amongst the simple-minded to take the most fashionable usage and forget that other definitions exist, but 'discriminate' is a fairly straightforward word with a relatively simple etymology and meaning.

To discriminate is simply to distinguish between two groups. This can be fair or unfair, prejudiced or judicial. I can, for example, discriminate between red and blue light (though perhaps you consider this unfair of me). I can discriminate between candidates based on qualification. I can even discriminate between entrants in a bouldering competition based on sex.

As I said: discrimination on gender is not synonymous with sexism.

In reply to GrahamD:

Let's not make a serious debate into a name calling contest

In reply to Markel:
Lets not make a serious debate into a semantic/pedantic contest

In reply to catt:

So women should be encouraged to attend more events like this by having their prizes slashed?

In reply to Hawkscry:

Hey, I wasn't the one who opened the dictionary! You, on the other hand, called someone moronic for using a word correctly.

This isn't pedantry; if you genuinely don't know what words like 'sexism' and 'discrimination' mean, then (however clearly you have thought about the subject) you are singularly poorly placed to instigate or contribute to this discussion. We have to understand what you mean too.

In reply to Hawkscry: 1) They advertised the prize money as £1000, they can't let people go through however many rounds, face all their expenses getting to and from the competitions, additional expenses for the day (food, drink). To then 3 days before the final go, "actually we changed our minds, only £200 now". People entered the competition with £1000 in mind, they might have not entered or deemed all their expenses worth it if they knew the prize money was £200 from the start.
It is false advertising and definitely not legal.

2) It is sexist, if they had designed the competition to not be gendered at all, and just had one competition for all then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on. But they didn't, they designed the competition in such a way to show they valued female athletes to the same as male athletes. Then they subsequently, almost at the end of the competition, retract 80% of the female prize money. Demonstrating that they value female athletes at only 20% the value of male athletes.

The number of female participants is irrelevant, High Sports advertised a certain amount of prize money, with no disclaimer. As a business it is their responsibility to have done their research into their financial risks and prepared for certain numbers of entries from different demographics, and decided DEFINITE prize money amounts BEFORE the competition started.

This is not legal, the Advertising Ombudsman would agree.

The low number of female participants is a symptom of women being undervalued in sport, if things like this didn't happen we'd get a lot more female climbers. This is a perfect way to ensure even less women participants in subsequent competitions.

Someone needs to go to a paper, citizens advice and the advertising ombudsman about this.

In reply to Markel:


ok fine if you want to be a dick about it then yes discriminate orginally came from discern and was and reffered to someones ability to perceive cognotive differences. since the 1830s however the word has had negative connotations and all modern definitions of the word including legal definitions and dictionary definitions (feel free to look them up it might do you some good) imply a negative attricbutes.

I am not using the 'most fashionable usage of the word' I am using the commonly acceepted usage of the word as has been for the last 200 years....langauge evolves and words change in meaning and only a pedfantic tosser goes back to a words common usage 300 years ago to try and make a point.

i presume from your hollier than though attitude and pedantic use of language you have at least a shred of intelligence so why dont u use and accept that whilst gods such as yourself still use every meaning of the every word the majority of the modern world, the law, and the people in this thread are using a different definition of discriminate. Any point you try and make based purely on playing with the meaning of the word discriminate is pretty weak

In reply to Hawkscry:

Any sign of this evidence yet?
Their website still shows the original prizes.
Is it possible this whole thread is the result of a misunderstanding?

In reply to Toreador: try reading the thread.....

In reply to Toreador: No, I've heard this from a competitor who has been contacted.

In reply to Lucaj:

I wrote to the BMC. How's that?

In reply to Toreador:
Sorry I had assumed that High Sports' official response in which they admit cutting the prize was enough.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Its a serious question : How does the rate of participation at the top(ish) level of climbing (irrespective of competitions) for women in the UK compare with a) men and b) women from other countries. It may be a misconception but the impression I get is that it is very low for both a) and b)

In reply to Lucaj:


Lets assume for a minute that you are right - what do you think should be done ? is there any benefit to be had for driving an events organiser out of business ?

In reply to Lucaj: I don't know as to the legality of this situation, but which ever way you look at it, it reflects very poorly on High Sports and if I had qualified for the final I would not turn up. I seem to remember they had a series last year that ran into controversy due to rule changing.

In reply to Mike Hunt:

I had thought of that, but protest by non-attendance rather defeats the point. High Sports get to keep all of their prize money and the issue remains unresolved. Never turning up to their competitions in future seems to be a popular idea

In reply to Hawkscry:
Nice one, I'll do the same
I wrote to high sports and have also passed this onto a few friends who are active feminists, they are also going to write.
Spoke to my brother who's a solicitor who has advised my friend who's competing to make high sports aware of the legal implications and then to sue them if they do not pay the original prize money.

In reply to GrahamD: They wouldn't be run out of business over £2000.
They'd just have to pay it to those who earnt it

In reply to Lucaj: i think its been made clear that they wrote into the rules that this was a possability and i would imagine its the competitors responsibility to read the rules. its no doubt a shitty thing to do but i cant see you doing anything more than wasting time and money trying to sue. making public feeling aware to highsports in a grown up fashion is a much more productive approach.

as for femminists....

In reply to Hawkscry:
In reply to Mike Hunt:

I spoke to my brother who's a solicitor, he said people should make high sports aware of the legalities:

There is sex discrimination legislation and advertising misrepresentation legislation protecting people from what they are trying to do. Also it is not legal for them to unilaterally change the terms and conditions at this stage.

Then to enter the competition anyway, and sue them if they don't pay out the advertised prize money. They would definitely win if it went to court

In reply to Lucaj:

Excellent. I'd like to stress again though, that whilst I think High Sports should deliver the promised prize, this matter goes far deeper than money. This type of thing is evidence of a problem in our sport and it should be made clear that it's not acceptable. Rather than pick them up by ankles and shake till the money comes out, I would advocate a method that shows less greed and more principle.

In reply to juntao:
what about feminists? seems as sensible an ideology as anti-racism to me

In reply to juntao:

The rules mention that categories may be merged, but they don't ever mention that the prize fund would be slashed.

In reply to Monk:

If the categories had been merged, women only prize money would have been slashed to zero. As it was, it was only reduced.

In reply to Lucaj:

i have no problems with the ideology its they way they go about it. personal opinion though. each to their own.

In reply to Hawkscry: of course, I made the moral issues clear when I emailed high sports

In reply to juntao:
You don't have to be a feminist to see this stinks

In reply to GrahamD:

But they are still calling it the Female Open category.

In reply to Chris the Tall: never said you did....i quite clearly said it was not good. i just made the mistake of mentioning femminists. sorry, should know from past experience its best just to leave well alone. carry on.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Does it ? If the womens category had been merged with the mens and the women only prize zroed - as the they should have done by the rules - would that have been better ?

In reply to Hawkscry:


The sport's problem is not sexism - it is lack of women participation.

In reply to GrahamD:


If you are interested why not do a little of your own research?

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php?page_name=resultservice&comp=124...

Ok it's the Sheffield round of the bouldering world cup so you would expect a decent turn out, but female GBR competitors placed 12th, 14th, 18th, 20th, 23rd and 30th. For comparison, GBR men placed 13th, 14th, 19th, 23rd, 28th, 41st, 46th, 48th, 51st and 54th.

On rock a number of British women eg. Mina and Leah (and I'm sure I have forgotten some - sorry!) who are regularly ticking Font 8a and above, Suzan Dudink has done font 8a+. Internationally I think the top end for Women's bouldering is around Font 8a+, although Angie Payne recently (last year?) raised the bar to font 8b.

If you put much faith in 8a.nu ranking, Mina's bouldering scorecard is currently ranked 4th internationally.

I would have thought women's bouldering would actually be a prime example of a climbing subdiscipline where Britain is well represented internationally.

Search the news articles, it's all there.

In reply to GrahamD: the lack of women participation is perpetuated by actions like this.
The low number of female participants is a symptom of women being undervalued in sport, if things like this didn't happen we'd get a lot more female climbers. This is a perfect way to ensure even less women participants in subsequent competitions.

In reply to GrahamD:

I've just entered my first MTB race, does it bother me that the prize funds for men and women are the same, despite the fact that there will be 3 times as many men as women - No!

Why not - because I think the world is a better place when women are encouraged to take up sport, are not marginalised or treated as second class

P.S The fact that I won't be anywhere near winning a prize and that most of the women will undoubtedly beat me is irrelevant

In reply to Lucaj:

Maybe the chicks should boycott the final to raise awareness, I am sure it would get some magazine column inches. The men could show solidarity too.

In reply to Richard Horn:
Hawkscry pointed out, "I had thought of that, but protest by non-attendance rather defeats the point. High Sports get to keep all of their prize money and the issue remains unresolved. Never turning up to their competitions in future seems to be a popular idea"


I spoke to my brother who's a solicitor, he said people should make high sports aware of the legalities:

There is sex discrimination legislation and advertising misrepresentation legislation protecting people from what high sports are trying to do. Also it is not legal for them to unilaterally change the terms and conditions at this stage.

They to enter the competition anyway, and sue them if they don't pay out the advertised prize money. They would definitely win if it went to court.

In reply to plexiglass_nick: Suzan ain't British

In reply to Lucaj:

Do you really think women take up climbing because of prize money ? I would have thought that prize money was only really a concern to the one or two that might conceivably win some. The vast majority are motivated to climb (and maybe even compete) because they enjoy doing it.

In reply to juntao:

Discrimination:
1*
Recognize a distinction; differentiate
o
babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion
2*
Perceive or constitute the difference in or between
o
bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second
o
features that discriminate this species from other gastropods
3*
Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age
o
existing employment policies discriminate against women


It is indeed possible to correctly use the word discriminate to mean making either just or unjust distinctions between two things i.e. Males and Females or squares and triangles. So yes it would be correct to say that male and female toliets are the result of discrimination between genders, without insinuating any unjustness. However, it is not this word in which the argument originally arose however but 'sexism'.

Lankysuction1: "Collins Dictionary definition of 'sexism' : 'discrimination on the basis of sex..' "

Markel: "That is clearly not a good definition though is it ...
Sexism quite obviously refers to a specific type of gender discrimination."

Now if we take sexism to always mean unjust then there is a valid argument for the case that the definition quoted by Lankysuction1 is at least ambiguous or imprecise. If sexism is merely taken to mean 'discrimination on the basis of sex' then sexism does not always have to imply something unfair. Under this definition one could lable the seperation of toliet facilities into two genders sexist but this would not place a fair or unfair value on this.

The two remaining options are:

1) Sexism can either be fair or unfair.
2) Sexism is a specific (unjust) type of discrimination between the two genders.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

In an ideal world I'd agree but when the discrepancy becomes so large it becomes a bit ridiculous. At what point do you say a women's competition is not really a competition anymore ? High Sports clearly have a limit set and the prize money is only available whilst the competition is viable (which it wasn't according to the rules - too few women participants). Strikes me they are being slagged off for trying to do the right thing by offering at least some women's prize money rather than zeroing it as their terms and conditions would have allowed.

I repeat - I don't think the main issue is how High Sports tried to make a gesture towards keeping some sort of women's competition going rather than simply canning it - it is why there were so few women participants in the first place

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

no but I thought worthy of a mention anyway...

In reply to juntao:


That is not true. I gave a few examples, but any dictionary definition will include a neutral definition fairly high on the list (no1 in my dictionary, no2 on dictionary.com). The negative usage may be the most common, but the true meaning is by no means rare or archaic. Besides, if you were aware of the distinction, then it should have been clear to you what usage I (and Graham) were employing. In short, there was no need for you to have been such a 'dick' in your initial reply.


Well, fair enough, but I think that it obvious (from the rest of the discussion), that there is a need to distinguish between 'discrimination on gender' (in its true sense) and 'sexism'. I won't apologise for being precise in my use of language, and neither do I think that its fair for you to assume that the other contributors here share your level of literacy.

In reply to Markel: ok markel, you win, there are many definitions of sexism or discrimination if you want to be pedantic be my guest but your missing the point of the argument.

it is clear that this entire thread is regarding negative discrimination on the basis of sex also known as sexism.

In reply to GrahamD: Of course the love of climbing is what spurs all climbers on.
But in this case a number of people entered a competition with promises of a certain amount of prize money, the organisers have subsequently reduced the amount of prize money by 80% for only the female competitors. This is recognised by law in this country as sexual discrimination.
If women feel they are getting a raw deal, it will put them off (not climbing) but climbing competitions.
And actually seeing professional female climbers in competitions crushing V10's will encourage other girls to take up the sport.
Doing what high sports are doing hinders the growth of women's involvement in sport generally

In reply to Lucaj: your maths is awful. the sexism point is still debateable

In reply to Lucaj:


It is far from clear that this is the case. It was stated that the provision was applied based on entrant numbers rather than gender. At best it can be classed as 'indirect discrimination' under the Equalities act. However, you could probably just as well frame a case for 'indirect discrimination' against the men if the females had the same prize fund for fewer entrants. I don't think that either is likely.

As I see it, the real issue is whether the change in conditions represents a breach of contract. The sexism case seems to be a bit of a red herring.

In reply to juntao: pretty sure 200 is 80% less than 1000

In reply to Hawkscry:

In reply to Markel: I am not a law expert but I spoke to my brother who's a solicitor who believes, there is sex discrimination legislation and advertising misrepresentation legislation protecting people from what they are trying to do. Also it is not legal for them to unilaterally change the terms and conditions at this stage

In reply to Lucaj:

I would agree on points 2 and 3. I doubt that point 1 would apply. We shall see (maybe).

In reply to Hawkscry: Just to play devils advocate if the women want equal pay lets make the competition equal and throw them all in together to compete for £1250 prize pot......

In reply to Lucaj:

By their terms and conditions they could have reduced the prize by 100%. What is better : 80% reduction or 100% ? would you have prefered the womens category to have been merged into the mens as it should have been ?

In reply to tatty112: Alright then (as long as we do the same in every other sport too).

In reply to Hawkscry: this is nothing to do with sexism, its to do with the no. of competitors(of course they shouldn't have changed the prize after stating it to be £1000). "A racist incident is any incident which is PERCIEVED to be racist by the victim or any other person.". This is the same thing and this idea is stupid as it means that something becomes racist or in this case sexist simply if you want to

In reply to thomas m:
I'm not sure what your point is? It's not about wanting it to be discriminatory. By your logic, if I call you names, you could perceive that to be abuse even if though I think it's justified. It remains abuse. Even if one doesn't intend to be sexist, it's still sexist to give women less prize money for the same competition.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Surely it's sexist to say that women are different than men, therefore there should be one prize and the best wins it. Having a second competition for women is separatist and sexist.

In reply to billy no-mates:

Surely it's pointless to take this line? It borders on ridiculous as well as needlessly provocative. There's no denying the physiological differences between the genders but that should never effect the spirit or ethics of a sport. Essentially if both genders were to compete together it's probable, I suspect, that more men would get better scores. Does this make women any less worthy to compete? Is a man less of a father because he can't give birth?
I also found this interesting: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=110

In reply to Hawkscry:I clim HVS regularly, and i once saw a girl climb e2 ONSIGHT and she led it aswell.
Basically however if, that was a competition between us then she would win the thousand pounds, but if i was the only entrant, in the mens, and she the womans, then i would win 1000 pounds and she 250.
Obviously its in my interest to win that money, so i understand how i think it would be fair in that situation.
High sports women are just jelous because its run by mostly men, germane they will award higher moneies to those who are male.


Conclusive.

In reply to nadeem: I'm glad that's been sorted out.

I feel the need to properly clarify a few things before the final tomorrow:
Firstly, as I have said already, I really believe that there is an issue deeper than money here. Try to imagine this situation with the male/female numbers reversed. I think it would play out very differently.
Secondly, this is not a vindictive attack on High Sports. I would do exactly the same were it any other organisation or competition. I put the matter out in public because it is important that the climbing community at large hears about things like this. Some of you think I'm reading into this too much and I'm glad that despite the trolls there has been real discussion with a variety of views. I don't think this would have happened if I had made a quiet complaint.
Finally, my motivation is purely moralistic. As some of you probably know or have worked out, I am a finalist in this competition and I still plan to attend. I will be more than happy to talk in person tomorrow at K2 in Crawley. If you can't make it feel free to send me an email: jack.huttonpotts@gmail.com.
My aim in this has been a constructive one even if it may not have been immediately obvious as such. Climbing means too much for me to not raise my voice at what I see to be serious issues. I am prepared to deal with whatever consequences come my way.
Jack

In reply to Hawkscry:

High Sports will pay - next year. People have just been touring their rather boring little walls for the prizes. It's their fault they've failed successfully to market it to women; they should take the hit, not the climbers. All the chat tomorrow among big names in the climbing community will be about this rip-off. It'll be terrible for their brand - it's a real Ratner moment and they're not getting it. And next year team members will probably decide they'd rather rob their granny than take money off High Sports and no-one will turn up. Just desserts.

You might enjoy rule 13 of the comp:

13. Cheating will not be tolerated and has the potential to ruin the spirit of climbing competitions. DO NOT be tempted, its not worth it.

In reply to Hawkscry:

So was your thread title, sexism has nothing to do with it.

In reply to billy no-mates:

oooooooooooooh take that hawksfart

In reply to allymar:

If you study the results it appears that only one woman has been touring their walls for this competition. I wonder if her motivation was a big prize or the fun of taking part?

In reply to Hawkscry:



After all that discussion, you now admit that your (potentially libellous) comments come down to nothing more than intuition! If I were you, I would be a little more circumspect about raising issues like this in public.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Because a man will only ever take a stance against sexism when there are no other men around to hear him.

In reply to Woollybum:

I think I've soundly disproved that theory.

In reply to allymar: Totally concur with you my friend re theRatner moment, what crazy logic to reduce the prize. Brilliant that they offered the prize in the first place, insanity to then undo that positive PR with such stupidity. What self respecting female climber would consider entering any future High Sports comp. In fact what self respecting female climber would turn up today having got wind of this prize alteration, although having checked their web site it still shows original prize money at stake, so maybe they have seen error of their shabby ways!

In reply to allymar:

Which big names are they? Is this going all the way to the top


I think it far more likely that they'll just decide it's not worth forking out, what is after all, a pretty generous prize fund for just a few people and a lot if hassle.

So all in all in the atmosphere at the final was actually quite good. There was a lot of grumbling and nobody from High Sports wanted to comment, despite sticking to their guns and giving the women a reduced prize. Another thing was how oddly structured it was. Basically it took forever! It seemed afterwards that the general consensus is that people wont return to any High Sports comps in future. Ho hum.

In reply to Hawkscry:

Basically it all depends on prize distribution.

You couldnt have a competition where the women (or men) got significantly higher prizes because no one turned up. The best way would just have been to match the 1st/2nd/3rd prizes with the mens comp and then scrap any surplus rather than inflating the other positions prizes. Cant see anyone could possibly complain about that.

>the womens prizes are the same as the mens
>but the women still have a nice incentive knowing they are guaranteed a prize however they place
>the men wont be miffed that the women are getting bigger prizes
>the competition saves a bit of cash and avoids a bunch of problems

Kemics -Problem Solver.


p.s It's funny but i'd always thought of climbing as a sport/activity with very minimal/no sexism. I mean one piece of often touted advice for improving technique is "watch a woman climb". Perhaps it's because where i climb, there are a bunch of girls kicking ass on hard routes. Maybe at the 9a level men edge out a level, but at mortal level (grades im exposed to every day im out) 7c and below. I see women climbing just as hard as men. I say mortal, because i dont see anyone climbing harder, men or women

Infact i think sexism in climbing is such a non-issue the only time i've thought about it before is on a trad route when i shouted up while belaying to a friend having a bit of wobble/depsyche on a scary move "Dont be such a big girl!" only to watch minutes later a girl climb past him on an adjacent much harder + bolder route.

In reply to Hawkscry: To use the word 'sexism' is just hilarious. What happened is that they planned the prize money badly, not realising that they perhaps didn't have enough until it was too late.

It is still a kick in the face that they only announced just prior to the event, but I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they are women and more to do with the fact that there's almost no competition in the womens event.

In reply to High Sports: Personally, I think High Sports deserves some thanks for what they tried to achieve. There are very few bouldering competitions in Britain that offer that kind of money.

The structure of the competition was unusual and it is a great shame that very, very few women were interested in competing, even with £1,000 up for grabs. However, I can't see that High Sports made any money out of the series so it is rather commendable that a commercial venture chose to support the competition climbing community.

In reply to Julie Z:

It was sponsored by HSBC though. I don't know to what extent, but i'm pretty sure that a huge multinational bank can afford to cover the proffered prize fund. I'm also not at all certain that High Sports did the comp to earn themselves cash, more likely it was to stimulate some custom to their range of walls. I only know Alton, which is reasonable but not on a par with other specialist centres despite charging similar entry fees.

In reply to Monk:

Was it, there is no HSBC logo on the website

In reply to Monk: HSBC stands for High Sports Bouldering Championship.

In reply to Juggler13:

Doh!

That's an embarrassing mistake to make. I had been idly wondering why HSBC would sponsor a local bnouldering league.

In reply to Monk:

Dont worry your not the only one!

In reply to timjones:

If you study the results it seems that up to the final (which isn't up yet) it looks like most of the women entered one attempt, sufficient to get an invite to the final. It shows only thirteen attempts across all the women? 1 entered 4 attempts, 1 entered 2 and 7 entered 1 attempt.

In reply to winhill:

That's an awesome line!