/ Women's Climbing Symposium poster
I personally think it is a clever idea to advertise a brilliant event.
What are people's views on it? Is it sexist?
Wouldn't be useful on heel hooks etc...
I think it's a clever image...
It makes me feel ever so slightly uneasy however, because I never wear high heels (can't walk in them, painful etc). I'm still very much a woman! I'm not going to lose any sleep over this though.
I'm going to this event, and very much looking forward to it :)
I think I prefer last year's - the one with the hawt looking babe in a bodycon.
It's a bit of fun, daring and challenging, encouraging people to look beyond the one-dimensional, stereotypical broken nails and chalk dust and think women climbers can be multi-dimensional individuals who can be hawt too.
I'm not offended by it and I don't find it sexist, I just don't think it's a clever or particularly creative image. Ooh, look it's a women's climbing day and we all know women like high heels, right? Personally I'd find a picture of one of the hard female climbers crushing some hard route or problem more inspiring but maybe that's just me.
Personally, I think it's not very good. Why do you have to have a high heel to be able to be woman and climb. A bit old style IMHO. I could do a whole feminist analyst on it, but I guess it was just a throw away thought by the organisers as to what would visually embody a "woman's" symposium.
Couldmake you think -even without full scale feminist analysis...:
I don't think it's sexist per se, it is just showing what is culturally accepted as the dominant paradigm. To be a woman's event it has to do with being sexy (embodied by the high heels)....There you go ;-)
So, to sum up, I think it's a great event, but maybe not the best picture to advertise it? I 'd personally rather see an inspirational woman doing some climbing on a poster than some cliched logo, but hey.
I understand that next years poster will a bra hanging off a jug.
Actually, the more I think about the poster the more I can pinpoint why it makes me feel uncomfortable. I think high heels epitomise what I dislike about traditional ideas of femininity - the idea of making yourself physically less effective to conform to an aesthetic ideal. I think sport is a brilliant way of trying to get rid of that mindset in women (especially the idea that you're only valued for your appearance and its attractiveness to men) so an image like this in a poster seems wrong to me. An image like a chalky gritrashed female hand, complete with chipped nail varnish, could create the same association (women + climbing) without the negative connotations that come with high heels. I suspect I'm overthinking what was probably 5 minutes of design work on photshop though!
Any event aimed specifically at women puts me off straight away, and an image which I really cannot associate with (I have never worn high heels, or or even skirts or dresses, nothing girly at all) puts me off even more.
Maybe I'm just not the target audience
God I want those shoes
Rock boots are far sexier than ridiculous high heel monopoints aren't they? Or am I missing something?
I'm amazed this poster could appeal to any woman. But then what do I know?
Well, what can I say...if I look in my wardrobe the only thing I can find are loads of new, semiknackered and knackered rock boots plus some approach shoes and a few vaguely formal work shoes. High heels...ehh no. But then what do I know, I've never had any high heels anywhen......?
Surely it should just be a Climbing Symposium, whether you are male or female shouldn't matter
Just because not all female climbers are tomboys, it doesn't mean they are necessarily going to be attracted by an image of high heels! I'd say there is a 'normal' middle ground.
I guess this image does tell you who it is aimed at though, so maybe a good image from that point of view. The women who would shy away from this kind of image are maybe the types who wouldn't get so much from it.
So I guess what I am saying is that I don't like the image, but it's probably a good image for attracting the right crowd. I'm presumably meant to not like it as I wouldn't like the symposium either, presumably!
The poster is appalling on many levels. I wasn't meaning to address the poster itself, TBH, I was kind of making a pre-emptive strike against the usual suspects who come on these threads mithering about how the existence of the symposium in the first place is inherently wrong (there were a few long threads about last year's inaugural one)
Don't ever recall ever commenting on it before, so hardly a usual suspect. (I could be wrong, my memory is crap.)
And anyway, are you saying I can't express a view (because I'm a man?) and if I do I'm somehow mithering. Talk about thought police!
In my view, the poster shows that women have a girly/sexy side as well as being climbers - although how that is relevant to a symposium, I'm not too sure.
In terms of the symposium itself, they have some cracking climbers there - I would imagine that many men would be interested in hearing them speak too - and probably also find them inspirational.
Blue - Your generalisation of confident female climbers as "rufty tufty tomboys" made me smile. I can't think of anything further from the truth as far as I'm concerned!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pirelli/3794593934/ - Sexist or empowering?
Neither! Unless I'm completely missing the point, the image is there to show that the fastest man in the world is not going to fulfil his potential in heels, ie "power is nothing without control".
I don't think the purpose of that message is to empower or to be sexist, it is to sell tyres.
> In my view, the poster shows that women have a girly/sexy side as well as being climbers.
Many of the female climbers I know would probably (possibly justifiably) slap anyone who suggested the word "girly" had positive connotations. And is there really any connection between "girliness" and sexiness? And what have high heels got to do with either? The poster is, I think, suggesting some sort of imaginary stereotype; I would be surprised if it didn't repel most women. A shame, since I think there is probably a place for this sort of event.
> In my view, the poster shows that women have a girly/sexy side as well as being climbers - although how that is relevant to a symposium, I'm not too sure.
I'd kind of read it more as a question than an answer, if that makes any sense - it's not saying "it's okay, women climbers can wear high heels too" but asking "how does climbing sit with what society expects of women and how do you deal with that?"
But maybe I'm over-analysing...
Five Ten should patent those piton heels. When things get out of hand bash in the piton heel and ab off your shoe.
> In my view, the poster shows that women have a girly/sexy side as well as being climbers - although how that is relevant to a symposium, I'm not too sure.
I always wonder if they use these types of images because they know it will start a debate and thus give the symposium more publicity?
I don't like the image myself - does being girly/sexy have to involve crippling yourself? Can't you be girly and sexy in practical, outdoorsy clothes? (Well - I know that you can be, Ava! :-))
What is there that represents intelligent women who climb? Is this really it?
For what it is worth, the symposium looked like it was an excellent event. I do think it is important for any minority to have the change to meet other members of that minority. Women are a minority in climbing, so might appreciate being shown different techniques which might be more applicable to them, and also discussing relevant issues - they don't normally get the chance to do this in an all female environment (when did you last see an all female group at the crag?)
I don't like the image myself - does being girly/sexy have to involve crippling yourself?
I agree, the Anasazi Arrowheads are really uncomfy.
The designer of the image is male, is wanting a debate to draw publicity and wanting debate about how climbing females dress. He is worried females in the outdoor industry think they have dress down and ‘roughty toughty’ in order to be accepted and perhaps they should be more girly. It’s fine for a pub discussion if you like but completely irrelevant to a climbing symposium. Last year there was a bit of an irrelevant debate at the symposium about American climbers being more accepting of hot pants being worn at the climbing wall. It’s all irrelevant you where what you like, what you’re comfortable with and largely determined by climate of the country in which you climb. The uk s climbing walls are often far more suitable for down jackets than smaller items of clothing!!
The days coaching will be fantastic however I really enjoyed it last year.
I think people are getting w-a-y too excercised over this. It's an advert and the purpose of an ad is to grab your attention and interest in a split second. This image does that brilliantly in combining a uniquely climbing image and a strongly female image that makes you look twice and think WTF is that?
Yes, of course they could have had a standard pic of yet another woman climbing yet another overhanging horror but would that really have stood out? Or would it have been just another standard climbing ad flogging shoes/ropes/clothes/ cams/ clips/ whatever to flick past? Such shots have lost their impact though overuse.
Full marks for creativity and originality to the woman (yup, it was a woman, Naomi Hart) who came up with this shoe. It's worked perfectly, grabbing attention and generating free publicity via this and other forums.
As for 'girly' only having negative connations, Robert, I'll let you tell that to Mrs C, who frequently wears high heels though never, to my knowledge, with her Black Belt.
That could be 'womanly' though :) Maybe the problem with the word girly is that it seems to imply (and value?) childishness/naivety in females.
Did you just have your own sexist moment there and assume it 'had' to be a man who produced the image! (the image designer is female)
> > That could be 'womanly' though :) Maybe the problem with the word girly is that it seems to imply (and value?) childishness/naivety in females.
For me "girly" is synonymous with "feminine" and isn't derogatory in the slightest.
When the drawing of a climbing shoe and a high heal first came out at the hangar months ago I asked who its was that created it before I critised it and he said mainly his!! So that was a drawing of a high heal and and climbing shoe. Some where else may have come up with the photo based on the orginal idea. So I expressed my concerns then with that and with a slogon he'd picked for the t shirts which I really hope isnt happening.
I wonder...are men banned from attending?
> When the drawing of a climbing shoe and a high heal first came out at the hangar months ago I asked who its was that created it before I critised it and he said mainly his!! So that was a drawing of a high heal and and climbing shoe. Some where else may have come up with the photo based on the orginal idea. So I expressed my concerns then with that and with a slogon he'd picked for the t shirts which I really hope isnt happening.
Can I ask how you would react if the person that created it had been a woman?
Naomi says it is hers - posted at bottom of this page:
If I wear high heels, can I come along......
Do it! :-)
Personally I'm disappointed that I'm not free on 3rd Nov* as I would have loved to have gone to this. And would have been happy for any of my male friends to accompany me if they'd have been allowed!
* I'm going to a night of Swing instead...but not THAT kind of swing ;-)
Good question. The same, I dont like it and worry it will put other women off attending what will be a great event. But I orginally wanted to direct my critercisum at who ever had come up with the desgin and the slogon 'high heeled hookers' which appered on hangar posters has hopefully been now been dropped.
It would be an interesting ironic statement is a whole load of blokes turned up in high heels and demanded entry to a not-for-men event.
Perhaps there should be a Y Front burning demonstration outside the Works
I have had a look on the website - only cursory though - but I can't actually find whether or not it is a "not-for-men" event. I am genuinely interested so might contact the organisers and ask - unless anyone knows?
> 'high heeled hookers'
Personally I think that's a cracking slogan!
> Perhaps there should be a Y Front burning demonstration outside the Works
I daresay the underwear of a lot of Works regulars is long overdue for the incinerator :-)
Mouthful of Jam?
This women's climbing symposium is a great way for females to talk about techniques that are advantageous for women.
I went last year and as a regular of the hanger, I think its great the way the team there support and encourage female climbers, because at the end of the day it is a male populated industry and it can be intimidating, because men 'stereotypically' think they are better.
The only thing I can say about the symposium is that the groups this year could be split into ability a bit because I felt very out of my depth with the group of amazing women climbers I was with, I couldn't do anything they were doing! :/
You're right, I don't think there is anything that explicitly bans men from the event however the content is specifically aimed at Women. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the women's climbing symposium but sad that there isn't an equivalent event, i.e somewhere with a lot of top climbers/coaches etc, that men could attend... Perhaps I've spotted a gap in the market!?
I've worked with big clients in advertising, and you cannot please everyone. It's a cliche. But it's true. What you can do is make an impact. The greatest adverts have created controversy. It's the whole point really. To create a emotive response.
It was asked what if a woman had created the ad. Well, I'm not, but it was a woman who had the idea of putting the heel on a shoe and it was a woman who physically put it on!
It was Shauna who was brave enough to say yes, it was also Shauna by the way who during her first full year on the tour competing globally, breaking a leg, missing the end of the tour and dealing with that disappointment who still found the time to organise this amazing event. Please bear that in mind... I've seen a young lady lay flat on a mat under the fingerboards with a cast on her leg, a mobile phone next to her and a note pad to get this done.
I'm glad some people like it. It was left a bit last minute so we had to start a bit of a fire. It isn't sexist or patronising. Some people may think so, but that's a split that I saw last year when I did that poster and it probably needs addressing within the community.
I'll finish with this, then you may take aim... Safe to say the majority on here would like to see climbing in the Olympics. Surely with everyone pulling together both the pro and anti cliched feminism attitudes, there is more chance of success.
Ps, my daughter wants the shoes too! She's 7, is totally stoked on climbing and loves heels.
> That could be 'womanly' though.
Precisely. Many women object (quite understandably) to the word "girl" (and it's derivatives) being used interchangeably with "woman".
The more I think about it, the more I think the poster is appalling, unacceptable and almost certainly counterproductive. Yes, lots of different types of women climb and that is great, so why the pathetic mono-cliche. The poster could have shown various women from beginners to world class, actually climbing - that would have been properly inclusive.
Can we just clear something up?
You designed the Poster and Naomi made the Shoe (as in, she actually made the thing)?
Do you ever see great male climbers climbing? Do you get the chance to climb in an all male environment ever? Can you discuss male issues with other male climbers? Do you ever see climbing techniques which suit male bodies?
There is a big difference between a minority creating the opportunity to meet with other members of that minority and with creating a group which is designed to exclude others.
I think it's an effective advertising image - ie it makes you actually read the poster! I'm not sure I like it, in fact I think I find it a bit strange, but I don't see it as sexist.....
You've found enough time to moan about people moaning? ;-) It doesn't mean that it is an overwhelming issue in other people's lives. It just means they like a chance to chew the fat...
> I think it's an effective advertising image - ie it makes you actually read the poster! I'm not sure I like it, in fact I think I find it a bit strange, but I don't see it as sexist.....
Oh! I forgot to read the poster! I looked at the image and went straight to the debate about the picture!!! I will go and have a look at the poster again now.
I think the problem is you’ve aimed to design a symbol to cause controversy to some women to promote the event but what’s its also done is exclude some people from attending when the whole event is about getting all women to attend.
I written my views on here as I don’t think mine and other women’s who climb at the wall had been taken into account before. Not to persuade people not to support the event.
It’s really put me off going even though enjoyed last years symposium, I love wall and people who work there!!
I just wonder whether stiletto wearing women outside of the climbing scene would see this as an attraction?
> I think the problem is you’ve aimed to design a symbol to cause controversy to some women to promote the event but what’s its also done is exclude some people from attending when the whole event is about getting all women to attend.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand how a picture has excluded women. Could you explain?
I understand your viewpoint about the picture but do the women organising and running the event need to arrange a meeting with female participants of the specific climbing wall to discuss the marketing approach to an independent event that may well be attended by women not necessarily active members of said wall?
I'm surprised that you feel you cannot attend such event because of a picture especially with your experience previously. Is the picture the single deciding factor? I would have thought the list of coaches and the programme of events would be of more importance?
Nick, Great poster. Bags of impact and it's got people talking. As you say you can't please all the people and some will always be able to find something to offend their finely honed sensibilities. Good job.
I WANT THAT T SHIRT/VEST!!!!!!!
> I WANT THAT T SHIRT/VEST!!!!!!!
(Mind you, I suspect I wouldn't dare wear it outside of the climbing wall!) :-)
That's as may be but Mrs C, highly educated (Masters degree) and successful (her own practice and on the national commitee of her professional body) seems perfectly happy with what she calls "girly nights", much as I go on "lads' trips" and am quite happy (indeed, at my age, positively grateful) to be called one of "the boys".
It was not created to cause controversy. The controversy was obviously going to happen, that doesn't mean you should ditch something knowing some people won't like it. Without taking risk we never achieve anything other than the ordinary. And if we all strived for that, none of us would go climbing!
> I'm sorry, I don't quite understand how a picture has excluded women. Could you explain?
The image has displeased alot of women on here and they in turn have been accussed of being petty minded by simply airing thier views. If you want to generate a contrisveral debate, which is not wrong in its own right you have to relise that by linking it to an important event you run the risk of putting off some women attending when you should be aiming to attract everyone. Its been said the image was partly desgined to spark a debate off, I'm trying to say its wrong to link it with the great event.
> I understand your viewpoint about the picture but do the women organising and running the event need to arrange a meeting with female participants of the specific climbing wall to discuss the marketing approach to an independent event that may well be attended by women not necessarily active members of said wall?
Of course not but you said you wanted feedback last time from women climbers about a womens climbing syposium. I understand some women love the image too, which is great but I really worry its really put other people off going. In reverse I wouldnt like to use an image I really liked but knew it would cause other people offence and put them off attending. You desgined a contrevsival poster last year and I suported the event. But you've done it again and its starting to divide people not bring them toether.
> I'm surprised that you feel you cannot attend such event because of a picture especially with your experience previously. Is the picture the single deciding factor? I would have thought the list of coaches and the programme of events would be of more importance?
Good points. I'm thinking of coming to grab some great coaching : )
> The image has displeased alot of women on here and they in turn have been accussed of being petty minded by simply airing thier views. If you want to generate a contrisveral debate, which is not wrong in its own right you have to relise that by linking it to an important event you run the risk of putting off some women attending when you should be aiming to attract everyone. Its been said the image was partly desgined to spark a debate off, I'm trying to say its wrong to link it with the great event.
Thanks for explaining - I can better understand your view from this.
> Of course not but you said you wanted feedback last time from women climbers about a womens climbing syposium. I understand some women love the image too, which is great but I really worry its really put other people off going. In reverse I wouldnt like to use an image I really liked but knew it would cause other people offence and put them off attending. You desgined a contrevsival poster last year and I suported the event. But you've done it again and its starting to divide people not bring them toether.
Just a point to note - I have no association with the event/poster/coaches etc - just a UKC contributor.
> Good points. I'm thinking of coming to grab some great coaching : )
Good news - great to hear this. Nick has suggested you bring the point up whilst you are there. It would be a fine opportunity to highlight your point of view and get some coaching from some great climbers.
Can I ask, was their feedback re the poster from last year with regards to this years event?
Whilst some women may not like the image on the poster, I would be surprised if it put them off attending. All the climbers they have coming to talk at the symposium are good solid climbers with a wealth of experience to pass on. If a potential delegate was put off by an image used on the poster, I would question whether they were serious about going at all.
> I wonder...are men banned from attending?
David Simmonite seems to have got under the radar!
Not read the whole thread, but it's actually been done:
> Whilst some women may not like the image on the poster, I would be surprised if it put them off attending. All the climbers they have coming to talk at the symposium are good solid climbers with a wealth of experience to pass on. If a potential delegate was put off by an image used on the poster, I would question whether they were serious about going at all.
Absolutely, it may be possible to design a vanilla, beige, magnolia poster but it won't inspire anyone.
People who say it is off putting can't demonstrate whether it is attracting 10 for every 1 that is put off or the other way round.
I wonder how many women are saying, I was just about to send off a cheque but given that poster, well, I just tore it up.
Hi heike, I'm not suggesting you need a heel to be a woman or to climb. I think that's a bit of a knee jerk assumption. That's a bit like suggesting you need a six pack and stubble to be a man, according to the media.
> For me "girly" is synonymous with "feminine" and isn't derogatory in the slightest.
I don't believe girly is a derogatory word either, but I can think of circumstances under which it might rankle. A 'girly' night out implies fun and silliness, just as 'boyish' implies playfulness. However if I was referred to as a girl at work I think it could start to sound condescending. Context - as so often is the case - is everything.
'Feminine' allows for a more grown up femaleness, and is a bit more all-emcompassing perhaps.
All I'm trying to say is that I can see how 'girliness' is an offputting concept to some women, but I don't know if I equate high heels with girliness. (Mind you, I don't equate them with climbing either!) I somehow doubt that if there were to be a men's climbing symposium the poster would have a bloke climbing in a shirt and tie, but then perhaps that is the point - that there may be barriers to overcome for some women who want to get into climbing. Anyway, I sincerely hope the posters don't put anyone off attending, that would be ridiculous.
No poster is ever simple when the subject is women.
No matter what you would have used it would have had stimulated mixed reactions and strong opinions either way.
> Hi heike, I'm not suggesting you need a heel to be a woman or to climb. I think that's a bit of a knee jerk assumption. That's a bit like suggesting you need a six pack and stubble to be a man, according to the media.
I know you didn't and no harm done, but the whole debate is very symptomatic of what it is like to be a woman in today's society. You have to be sexy, sporty, womanly, successful and take all the jibes ;-) I just don't think it helps if people use sexualised images to advertise a symposium/workshop that is to help women in a specific subject area/sport where they have been "marginalised" before. There are loads of successful woman climbers, but they aren't the audience, it's about drawing in a variety of women from all walks of life to come to a workshop to share their ideas about climbing. A sexy heel has nothing to do with it. It's similar to doing a workshop for guys on how to raise their new babies and having a big willy on the poster (for the want of better image ;-))
We rejected a woman climbing on the poster because would we have had her bouldering, sport climbing or trad climbing? Would it have been an elite climber like Shauna or just an unknown female? Something that looked hard (or inspiring as some have suggested)or easy? All of these choices would have sent out a distinct message about what the day was about or who it was for. None of which would have been accurate, as you pointed out the day is not for the elite, its for climbers that happen to be women that deals primarily with climbing based issues and some that are more pertinent to women.
Add to this that nearly all images in climbing are of someone climbing, then imagine our poster in your local climbing wall or climbing media, it would blend in and you would have to read the words to know what the day was about - Anna Stohr climbing does not say 'women's climbing' in the way Adam Ondra on another super route does not say men's climbing. Without words, they both just say climbing. As a piece of advertising media it HAS to grab your attention so it has to stand out.
The high heel was a risky cultural shortcut, we considered a chalky hand with chipped nail varnish, a handbag with climbing shoes poking out etc but this of course faces the same charge as the heel. So how does one encapsulate the notion of women climbers in a single image that is clear in what it communicates and quite inclusive?
The design team that wasn't Nick,(Steph, Naomi & Shauna) were mainly staunch feminists, (mostly Masters educated in areas related to feminism) but with an overriding inclusion principle driving their thinking and those who have decried the association of the heel with climbing seem to be unaware that they are saying to those women who choose to wear heels that they either don't belong in our exclusive heel free club or that they are in some way holding women back by choosing aesthetic over function.
As Sasha Digiulian's mum put it 'feminism is defined by strong ideas and choices not fashion.' (see the climbing works facebook page) The team were aware that by choosing any image they were taking a position, and that all positions are theoretically flawed, but a poster of a woman climbing in a climbing wall was felt to be as good as a blank one.
We knew the heel would annoy some, it was inevitable, but this was not its purpose. It was designed to say women and climbing. It said this and the explosion in ticket sales, post poster debate, indicates that many women felt it spoke to them.
The poster is out, it's final, the Symposium is currently funded (at a loss) by The Climbing Hangar as our 'grass roots' support of climbing and the development of it's culture, nearly everyone involved does it for free or tiny token amounts of covering costs money. We cannot afford to design again and reprint. WCS 2012 is decided already. So the question is about 2013, we are hoping to make it a charity and have it tour the country reaching more people. How will the climbing community help? The journey will be fraught with disagreement, it is the nature of the beast.
I am hugely grateful for everyone getting involved in this debate, it demonstrates a need for the WCS and it demonstrates the diversity of the climbing crowd which our poster could not do without being unintelligible. Stay involved, stay passionate and help us develop it into something brilliant. Want to get involved and make it better? Get in touch: firstname.lastname@example.org
Finally men are not allowed, just like in the youth climbing competitions adults cannot compete and in the Paralympics able bodied athletes do not compete. It is a day for a group of climbers, the groups happens to be women, deal with it. If someone wants to organise a mens climbing symposium, be my guest, I floated the idea on the back of last years uproar about the WCS poster and what suggestions did I get? They were very Daily Star shall we say.
It may help if people like you stop sexualising things which are not sexual, imposing your own hang ups on events, and creating marginalisation where there is none.
I was a stay home dad for 5 years and a better image would be a mobile phone set to speed dial "Mum"... Being the only man at a stay and play group every week I learned a lot about sexism and being patronised.
> It may help if people like you stop sexualising things which are not sexual, imposing your own hang ups on events, and creating marginalisation where there is none.
I was wondering the same, specifically about the equating of high heeled footwear with the word "sexy".
> The poster is out, it's final, the Symposium is currently funded (at a loss) by The Climbing Hangar
Is there any financial input from the BMC? (just to settle a discussion I was involved in elsewhere)
How about a climbing symposium? Not men, not women - climbers. That features female speakers and male speakers. And female coaching and male coaching.
PS I am not criticising you for holding a womens symposium - as I've said previously, I am genuinely disappointed I can't make it!
The cost of the WCS will almost certainly rise again next year. In order for it to be sustainable, we need to become less reliant on generosity and if it is to travel to other walls in the UK, it needs to be able to pay the wall for the loss of earning incurred for closing the centre for a day. Currently the coaches are willing to input travel expenses plus £50! Considering most of them charge in the region of £200+ for a days coaching, you can see we are getting quite an excellent deal here, but also how with 10 coaches, if we were to pay commercial rates, we would be looking at £2000 just for coaches, plus speakers, plus wall hire, plus organisation etc etc. Hopefully that makes it clear why we are still making a loss.
The goal is sustainability, hopefully with small retained profits that can be fed back into improving the WCS each year. Fingers crossed.
> How about a climbing symposium? Not men, not women - climbers. That features female speakers and male speakers. And female coaching and male coaching.
> PS I am not criticising you for holding a womens symposium - as I've said previously, I am genuinely disappointed I can't make it!
No criticism felt! A climbing symposium - well I would be keen, I am very positive about anything that brings the wider story of climbing into the public domain.
It runs the danger, at least I feel it does, of being too broad and difficult to focus. This in turn may mean that many struggle to identify if the day is worth attending for them.
The crux is creating a focus that galvanises a certain group. WCS although primarily is just about climbing, the focused parts concern the biomechanics of the female body for example. Something that the entire audience might find interesting or relevant. It's not about training, its about how we see that body and its capabilities.
Even training as a focus isolates many as climbing is an escape from routine and structure and an antithesis to what they do it for. SO you might have to create a symposium along the lines of
'For the love of it' A symposium on keeping your climbing adventurous.
Then hopefully you would attract a crowd you could bring together for a common discussion.
I moight be being a bit blinkered here, so if anyone fancies knocking an idea back, I'll take it to the team and who knows what might happen?
There's a lot of talk about the poster, not much talk about the event.
Is the image overshadowing the event. In which case I think the poster hasn't worked.
Thanks for the clarity and transparency. :-)
It'll never work without a matching handbag...
> There's a lot of talk about the poster, not much talk about the event.
> Is the image overshadowing the event. In which case I think the poster hasn't worked.
Based on increased ticket sales since the debate kicked off, I would suggest that people have seen the chat, went to the website and checked the details of the event. This would indicate the poster has worked, but without a control group of an event with a poster that was unexceptional, it is hard to say for sure.
Also, the day has deliberately avoided taking a political stance so there is perhaps little to discuss as there is nothing that courts controversy in the day except David Simmonites talk on Women in the climbing media - but we don't know what he is going to say yet!
Which does pretty much vindicate the choice of climbing poster in my view ;-)
However, feeling pressurised, or feeling as though you have to, or ought to follow particular fashions in order to be sexually attractive, to feel that your own ideas about what makes a piece of clothing sexy are no good, now I would think that pressure is not a good thing. :-)
Hope this helps.
Any - all are climbing!
Just have more than one woman on the poster. It's still pretty unusual to see several women and no men out climbing together.
In reply to Heike:
>> I just don't think it helps if people use sexualised images to advertise a symposium/workshop that is to help women in a specific subject area/sport where they have been "marginalised" before.
Hmmm... nice. Just flatten someone for saying how they feel. That really helps and makes people feel that they are being listened to or taken seriously. Do you work in PR?
I've really enjoyed the way that you have written about this Becs - I feel very similar to the way that you have expressed yourself.
Nick, "tlm" is a lady, I think those are initials or some such thing - probably not a Tim though :-)
"Tim"...ha ha! She will forever now be "Tim" to me :-)
I'm sure it'll be OK. Tim is a lovely lady with a great sense of humour. :-)
No worries - I quite like the ambiguity of TLM when the L is in lowercase.
Anyhoo - I think the word 'Women's' in a large font would be sufficiently unusual in the climbing world to turn my own head. Well done on your work in organising the symposium. As to the advertising, I guess some people love it. But as for me, I just have an emotional response which cringes. Maybe it is my age. But high heels as a symbol to represent climbing women? Really?? The best alternative that you can come up with against last years mini-skirted mob? A bit of either a one dimensional view of what is great in women, or a lack of imagination or maybe just a different perspective and symbolism from the ones I have. It just feels like such a straight jacketed definition....
Anyway - all the best with what looks like a great event, and I saw some raving reviews last year from women who obviously got a lot out of it.
Thinking about women climbers and images of same, the most striking one I've seen to date is of Leah Crane on a wall with both legs at right angles to her body as she bridges out. Amazing. I'd find the image but I'm at work right now. Nothing to do with the poster, of course, just an amazing image. :-)
Whatever. Just letting you have some feedback. Do what you will with it.
ooooooooh, nasty picture of a women in heels there!
I did once try to climb in heels at Redpoint in Birmingham. They stopped me. Pah.
I climbed in heels and a minidress on my first hen night. Up the side of a multistory carpark... We were a bit drunk.
> It didn't.
> However, feeling pressurised, or feeling as though you have to, or ought to follow particular fashions in order to be sexually attractive, to feel that your own ideas about what makes a piece of clothing sexy are no good, now I would think that pressure is not a good thing. :-)
> Hope this helps.
Not much no, it's just another trite cliché.
Maybe if people like you didn't see the expression of any opposite views as "flattening someone", and understood that listening to someone doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with them or take them seriously, then you may get somewhere. Do you work in a the crèche of a holistic vegetarian shelter for disabled lesbian single mothers?
You're pretty dismissivery of views that oppose your own.
Don't like the poster, for what it's worth. Heels are a boring cliche.
Why not run a Womens' Climbing Symposium Poster Symposium? I will provide a chocolate cake, a white wine spritzer and a rom-com DVD for the designer of the winning poster.
I work in an office which is female dominated, my team leader and service leader are both women, as is the chief psychiatrist here. In our office women outnumber men 4:1. They are nurses, psychologists, an OT and social workers, as wall as two consultant psychiatrists. I showed them the poster over lunch today, and told them what it was for. Most found it a bit daft, some found it funny, some found it meaningless. I then read them some of the comments above from "the sisterhood", much mirth ensued.
If you put a bow tie on a rope for a mans climbing symposium many people would find it equally absurd to mix the two symbols.
If you haven’t excluded anyone from taking part 33.3% of attendees will hate the poster, 33.3% will be indifferent and 33.3% will love it.
Thank you, I really didn’t want to write anything negative about the symposium as I think the day in itself will be great. I hope to be able to attend. But I was not surprised at the some women’s negative reaction to the poster, and was a little upset how their views where being aggressively dismissed when I think the design had been a lot about trying to provoke a negative reaction to gain publicity. So I wished to present a more balanced argument against combining sport and fashion. I feel very strongly men and women shouldn’t worry too much about what they wear, well all of the time really and especially not doing sport.
I find it interesting how consistently you leap onto any thread which has a whiff of feminism about it in order to throw some insults about and set up some inane strawmen like 'When did being sexually attractive, or wanting to wear sexy clothing, become a bad thing?' (re: high heels) which you end up completely contradicting with 'It may help if people like you stop sexualising things which are not sexual' (re: high heels). So which is it to be dear boy? Is your attention span so short that you can't even remember what you're arguing in your rush to belittle as many people as possible?
I have high hopes that you come back in classic stroppygob style with a predictably boring putdown, because I've bet myself a shiny pair of Kurt Geigers that you do :)
So you can call him a boy, but nobody can call any woman a girl? Eh?
Or is he the only one allowed to belittle people? Should I rise above it do you think?
I think I might start a women only climbing club and called in The Sisterhood of Hookers. I'd very much like someone to design my poster please :-)
Of course I picked on it
> Of course I picked on it
#up on it.
Accidental irony there.
Fabulous. Loved his work on the Alien films. :O)
The design was intended to be noticed by being very different from all other climbing media that one is likely to encounter either on line or in a climbing wall. And it was designed to appeal to a very broad range of people by trying to juxtapose two things that would never appear together conventionally. I would suggest highly practical people like yourself are likely to engage in any sort of event for sporting people as that's how you see yourself. If we aim to increase participation we need to appeal to women outside of that group, those women who in our climbing wall, climb two or three times a week but still would not refer to themselves as climbers, because they are not 'good' (their words).
The poster was never aimed at people like you because you are interested in your own progression and would most likely participate in things you felt might benefit you. The hundreds of women I have spoke to in our wall and others who (this applies to lots of men too) do not see themselves as climbers because they are not like the stereotype of climbers (people like you and me).
Challenging the image of a climber is critical to opening the sport to a broader range of people. John Bachar felt we should all solo everything, now had we decided he was the high priest we should follow, then that would exclude many from, ever being 'real climbers'. Suggesting an argument against combining fashion and sport is as wrong as insisting on their pairing, both restrict the choice of the participants. It's up to people what they do, not you or I.
Maybe you feel people shouldn't worry about what they look like, me too, but I know people who love worrying about it and who am I to say my path is the greater one? I shave my face because I think I look better (a stretch I admit), do you shave your legs or armpits/wear a bra/cut your hair/wash your face? If the answer is yes, perhaps you might want to think about the integrity of your message. Where do we draw the line?
There is no angry dismissal on my part, but if there is only one thing I feel strongly about, it is as a wall owner, I know more people are intimidated by the image of our sport than feel welcomed and the 75/25 male/female split on our users indicates that women certainly are not rocking up at the door to join the club. The answer? God knows Becs, I know whichever path we choose in attempting to increase our attractiveness as a sport to women incurs the wrath of some women. Some even think the WCS is irrelevant and that there are no gender issues in climbing....(nre thread please!)
How far down the rabbit hole do we go?
How we think as a team:
WCS content design concept - a day for climbers who are women (visible hierarchy: climbers first, women second)
WCS Poster design concept - get noticed, appeal to a non traditional crowd
WCS future plan - become a charity, benefit as many as possible, increase participation.
> I find it interesting how consistently you leap onto any thread which has a whiff of feminism about it in order to throw some insults about.
Was the idea of women wearing high heels not portrayed as a bad thing above?
Look up "contradicting" in a dictionary. I did not contradict myself in any way. I asked "when did..." then pointed out that the only person "sexualising" a cartoon of a heeled climbing boot, was the author of the quote. There is no contradiction there.
So which is it to be dear boy? Is your attention span so short that you can't even remember what you're arguing in your rush to belittle as many people as possible?
> Was the idea of women wearing high heels not portrayed as a bad thing above?
Women wearing high heels is not a bad thing. End of discussion.
> Women wearing high heels is not a bad thing.
What about Office Girls attempting to "run" across the office in them?
> Women wearing high heels is not a bad thing. End of discussion.
> What about Office Girls attempting to "run" across the office in them?
Women. Office Women.
Women. Office Women.
Being totally PC, it should be: Office Staff.
To be fair to Blue, I think he is referring to a particular "Office Girl" of his acquaintance and just "rounding up" to "Girls" :-)
Any woman worth her salt can run in high heels ;-)
I've just Googled "Office girls in high heels". Very interesting...
I'd say it was pretty sexist, it presents an image of women which is I'm sure many don't identify with. In fact I can't really see the point of a "Women's Climbing Symposium" at all... can we expect a "black climbers symposium" or an "islamic climber's symposium" in the future?
Having a vague idea myself that climbing is a male dominated sport I am in favour of any effort to support and nurture women to help get the best fun/challenges for them.
I learnt a lot from watching women competition climbers (especially footwork - maybe some fellas could learn a thing or two from watching women climb and their technique - and I'm not suggesting the lewd approach - I'm being serious here).
Some women feel threatened in a male dominated environment. This is an opportunity to relax - and you suggest they shouldn't have a symposium?
It has been organised. It has in the past been a roaring success. Long may it continue.
Oh and today I was in a big city and I would say that the majority of women I saw were in heels of 3 inches or more.
Do you mean "I'm sure many women climbers don't identify with"???
> Being totally PC, it should be: Office Staff.
I've never knowingly held anything against a transvestite, but I wasn't really picturing male office workers wearing high heeled shoes in the first place, let alone trying to run across the office in them
One of the climbing magazines had a cheery short report about a trip out to the crags by a British-Asian community group. I'm afraid I can't confirm whether all the members were Muslim, but there were at least no white people participating. Satisfied, Bruce?
Why do you think women need a special "symposium" just for them? Aren't they capable of going climbing without such "help"? This reminds me of the regular threads about why there don't seem to be many climbers of immigrant origins, soapy-speak for non-white... Someone usually says more should be done to encourage them, as if they too are incapable of knowing for themselves if they want to go climbing or not!
The need some have to help others do what they don't show sufficient desire to do never fails to astonish me :-)
> I'd say it was pretty sexist, it presents an image of women which is I'm sure many don't identify with. In fact I can't really see the point of a "Women's Climbing Symposium" at all... can we expect a "black climbers symposium" or an "islamic climber's symposium" in the future?
If you disagree with those happening, your an evil-right-wing-daily-mail-reading-middle-class-tory oppressor.
I've never knowingly held anything against a transvestite, but I wasn't really picturing male office workers wearing high heeled shoes in the first place, let alone trying to run across the office in them
What a sheltered life you lead...
> Why do you think women need a special "symposium" just for them? Aren't they capable of going climbing without such "help"?
I used to go on training camps in Majorca during the winter. This was to help me improve my cycling for racing. This was organised with coaches, workshop mechanics and ex-professionals taking us our on rides. It was mixed but I would say that 95% of attendance was male so there is nothing wrong with training courses.
As I said earlier - some women feel threatened in male dominated environments and climbing is predominantly male. Anything we can do to help them get the best out of climbing has to be a good thing.
If you have issue that it is female only then why don't you organise a male only event?
> The need some have to help others do what they don't show sufficient desire to do never fails to astonish me :-)
Lordy - next you will be claiming discrimination because wheelchair users get the opportunity to use ramps to get into buildings.
Women only events like this can only re-inforce this. Men aren't the enemy. They are 50% of the human race ffs.
> Why do you think women need a special "symposium" just for them? Aren't they capable of going climbing without such "help"?
You're talking about this symposium as if it's some kind of introductory event rather than a group of women getting together to talk climbing and learn from each other. (Also you're overusing speech marks.)
At night I walk past a new indoor skate park. And I get glimpses through the open door of the ramps and jumps and people on skateboards and I think it looks pretty cool, but I never had a skateboard when I was young and I don't have friends who skateboard so I know it's just not something I will ever do. Perhaps if someone had introduced me to it when I was a child, they'd have inspired a lifelong passion.
So there's a lot more to whether you will take up a hobby than thinking 'that looks like fun' and perhaps an examination of, say, outdoor education opportunities for children from inner city schools or deprived urban areas might increase the number of black or asian climbers. And that end result isn't a goal but a side effect; giving children from all backgrounds more athletic/sporting/outdoor opportunities is the goal.
"You're" Stroppygob, as in "you are", but otherwise it sounds like you have the later Bruce bang to rights. ;-)
I don't see how you can get there from a climbing symposium. If CAF runs an alpine training camp for young French climbers, does that mean next they'll be rebuilding the Maginot line to keep 'the Hun' out?
I don't think it is about feeling threatened. I think half the time, it is not wanting to be a nuisance, not feeling that you have any right to be there, that you can't take up resources as you have no right to them.
Also, it is about different techniques. Quite often, I have to come up with a cunning plan to climb something that a bloke would cruise up. I can't really use grades to decide if I can climb something or not, but have to look at the overall climb. If it is steep and needs jug hauling, it will maybe have a low grade, but I might not get up it. If it is something that needs flexibility, balance and a three dimensional approach, I will be able to climb something at a much harder grade.
So I personally find it helpful to see another woman climb something, as I can try copying her, whereas I simple am not capable of climbing using the same techniques as many men.
There are also issues like what sorts of gear suits women's body shapes, just enjoying the novelty of being with a whole HEAP of climbing women rather than a few, the novelty of being in the majority for a change, and a whole pile of other subtle stuff.
Why is it WE are helping THEM? Didn't women organise this event at all? Isn't it women doing something that they want to do?
Also - it isn't about putting men down or casting them as the enemy. Just cos I love strawberries doesn't mean that I hate steak. I LOVE steak too!!! I just don't get to have strawberries very often.
I love the men who I have met through climbing, have found them good fun, great to climb with, full of good ideas and a real delight.
> Why do you think women need a special "symposium" just for them? Aren't they capable of going climbing without such "help"? T
Don't you ever enjoy climbing in an all male group, without that meaning that you hate women climbers? Not being a man, I have no idea what it would be like for a man to be in a group of men with no women around, but I'm sure that it must be enjoyable now and again.
You might generally like being in mixed groups, or going out with all your women climber friends and just you, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't also enjoy a male only group.
I don't really get many chances to be in an all female climbing group, and I am sure this is also true for many other women.
They are when I use words which I think are used incorrectly by other, for example I don't think it is really helping people when you push them to do something they don't decide for themselves, in their own time, to do - or not, as the case may be. So I type "help" to indicate this. If you look it up in a book of English grammar I think you'll find it is legitimate.
In one of his early songs Bob Dylan sings "A lot of people have a lot of knives and forks so they gotta cut something" (approx) and this sort of event seems to be the same to me, a lot of people feel the need to organise others, either for monetary gain or some deep inner feeling of inadequacy or something so they spend their time organising people who never asked for it. At best it's condescending, at worst, in the case of a potentially dangerous hobby like climbing, it's irresponsible...
But they don't care, it gets their names, and those of their sponsors in print. Another aspect of the celeb culture that the present Saville "shock horror" drama illustrates so well.
Why not let people take up climbing of their own accord whether male female white or black, if they don't do it then they are perhaps simply not motivated enough, in which case what's the point of pushing them to crowd the already overcrowded hills or boost the accident statistics? Of course there is another reason, and that's purely mercantile, but if I say that then all those with a finger in the pie will be offended.
You are a genius....
> all those with a finger in the pie will be offended.
...and a conspiracy theorist!
Do you use the word "sheeple" much? :-)
Nope, never ever think of it, I just take things as they come - men can be tedious too. In fact all this men only, women only, black only, white only, young only, old only stuff is a pain in my opinion - pretty weird. What are you all afraid of? Other human beings who may be a wee bit different? I'm afraid I can't get my mind round the idea at all.
Is that a furry steeple?
If we take "threatened" in the widest sense (i.e. I would feel threatened if George Clooney was chatting to my wife; its not that I'm worried he is going to beat me up!) then what you describe does sound rather like being 'threatened'.
I've climbed with loads of female partners down the years, from my wife to people you just happen to meet at a crag and who need a belay. There is a distinctly specific dynamic. Having climbed now with lots of Finnish women, it doesn't seem any different - i.e. there doesn't seem to be anything particularly British about this either. I know from lots of female climbing friends that many of them do find something supportive about climbing with other women. It doesn't mean they always want to, or that they don't get loads done climbing with men, but sometimes its just nice to climb with other women. I suspect its similar that sometimes I really enjoy climbing with the other British climbers who also live in Finland. I have lots of great Finnish climbing mates as well, but sometimes its nice to climb with someone who shares certain experiences with you - be that having also watch Blue Peter as a kid, or being of the same gender.
It's not irresponsible, it has nothing whatsoever with getting women into something they're not already doing of their own accord and quite how you've managed to link it to Jimmy Saville is simply beyond comprehension.
> I don't see how you can get there from a climbing symposium. If CAF runs an alpine training camp for young French climbers, does that mean next they'll be rebuilding the Maginot line to keep 'the Hun' out?
Good point well made.
And it's not like this is some massive and expensive national project. There are a range of obstacles to female climbers that don't, in general, affect men: lack of role models, differences to training and technique coming from different physiology, feeling out of place in a male dominated environment, gender specific expectations from family and friends. Some people are more affected by these issues than others, but a bunch of women getting together and climbing and talking for a day doesn't exactly seem like a disproportionate response.
> Nope, never ever think of it, I just take things as they come - men can be tedious too. In fact all this men only, women only, black only, white only, young only, old only stuff is a pain in my opinion - pretty weird.
What "men only, women only, black only, white only, young only, old only" stuff?! Apart from the symposium under discussion?
I guess in the same way that people with piles of food don't ever think about hunger.
I have met some men in my life. ;-)
>In fact all this men only, women only, black only, white only, young only, old only stuff is a pain in my opinion - pretty weird. What are you all afraid of? Other human beings who may be a wee bit different? I'm afraid I can't get my mind round the idea at all.
That's the thing - it's all about getting the chance to enjoy ALL people, not just feeling that you are restricted to a small subset. It isn't about exclusion. It is about networking and creating chances to meet.
Have you ever experienced being in a minority in any way?
> But they don't care, it gets their names, and those of their sponsors in print. Another aspect of the celeb culture that the present Saville "shock horror" drama illustrates so well.
Is it just me or has Bruce just likened all sponsored climbers to Jimmy Saville?
Perhaps Bruce is frustrated by the blatant discrimination that offers funding-assisted nursery places to two year olds, and day centres for older people. I might go and picket my local day centre until they let me in.
I try not to point these things out but everyone on the thread's doing it - it's Savile with one l.
You know how Jimmy used to organise all those "women only climbing all over me" groups in his Rolls...
Thanks, I always thought (or KNEW) it was but I've seen it SO much with the double "l" that I began to be indoctrinated.
In other news, I have decided that the random comparison of a topic to anything Jimmy Savile related, shall be known as invoking the "Clunk Click Law" (cf Godwin's Law)
If you wait long enough (maybe another 50 years or so?) then they will do.
But what if I wanted to go now? Would it be discrimination if they didn't let me in, or is it fair to recognise that there's nothing wrong with having specific resources for different sectors of society?
Youth Clubs, too. Why not just have "People Clubs" and young people can go there if they feel they want to.
Exactly - it might sound flippant, but they're all forms of discrimination, albeit (to most minds) positive forms.
> Youth Clubs, too. Why not just have "People Clubs" and young people can go there if they feel they want to.
Why not have 'living creature' clubs?
or just 'matter' clubs?
or energy and matter clubs?
> Exactly - it might sound flippant, but they're all forms of discrimination, albeit (to most minds) positive forms.
I thought they were warnings. Maybe anyone can come, but they are going to have a session about dealing with periods, lumps and clots? So to warn the faint hearted, they used the euphemism 'women's'?
I've felt I was in a minority of one all my life :-) I think that's the human condition.
One reason for women not participating in sport that regularly cited is worrying what they look like while participating. To me by combining an image which is sport and fashion is reinforcing this negative association that you need to worry what you look like while taking part in climbing. Also regularly wearing high heals will restrict your sporting ability whether your male or female, occasional climber of full time sponsored!! You wouldn’t put an image of climber smoking just to attract an audience that didn’t normally call themselves climbers or felt intimidated at the wall. If you must use a fashion item to create a quirky design there are less physically harmful fashion items surely?
I can understand the poster was not aimed at me, but the event is surely? I’m a woman who climbs once or twice a week. The coaching was up to a high level last year. What I’m saying is if I didn’t know the wall and the staff I won’t go based on the poster. That many other women have made a choice not to go based on the poster. Which is real shame.
I am sorry to air this one criticism of a design but I still feel it is a valid one. I hope the WCS is a huge success this year and in the future. I have no doubt all your intentions are honourable and it’s an interesting point you feel that the image of our sport is intimidating to others. Perhaps that’s something I know nothing about. What I find intimidating about climbing is falling off at height!!
The Hangar has got everything else right, I think that can be seen from the mix of people climbing there, male and female young and old and one of the many reasons climbing is such an exciting sport is that these factors don’t limit ability.
> I don't see how you can get there from a climbing symposium.
Well Toby, I got there via 'some women feel threatened in male dominated... '
In the 80s Mrs jon worked on a few women only climbing courses. At that time she felt that the idea was a very positive one. And for the most part it was. There were however a couple of individuals who not only needed an all women environment, but who WANTED an all women environment. The sort of person who would feel uncomfortable being in the same room as a man. Sadly they tainted the experience for the others and also had the effect of turning Mrs j off working on other similar courses. When asking her a minute or so ago if she minded me relating that, she added 'There are exceptional and rare circumstances where men constantly put women down, but in general if women are still blaming men for failing to achieve their full potential, they are fooling themselves.'
That's a tricky sentence with lots of complicated ideas in it but they're not fooling themselves if they think that women get paid less than men for example. On a national level that's simply not in dispute, 'the stats' are in as they say. I don't know if its right to blame that on 'men', perhaps better on 'the system', but obviously that's a system that has only taken the idea of equality seriously in recent decades.
> I don't know if its right to blame that on 'men', perhaps better on 'the system', but obviously that's a system that has only taken the idea of equality seriously in recent decades.
General point, but I think it's really really important to emphasise in this sort of discussion that saying "there is a 'system' in place that favours men and that the people (many of them male) who could be doing something about this aren't (possibly because they aren't aware of its existence)" is not the same as saying "men are actively and consciously conspiring to keep women down".
I realise you're not saying this but how could men be holding women down in a climbing sense? Once anyone is out on the end of the rope there's only him or her and the rock, nothing else.
PS. Assuming no macho at the bottom gives a tug at the wrong moment deliberately but I don't think any one's suggesting that :-)
> I realise you're not saying this but how could men be holding women down in a climbing sense?
But no one does say or think this??? It's just people thinking that this might be the sort of thing that others might think? No one on this thread is saying that at all?
A full answer would be thesis length, but a couple of thoughts are:
* women feeling out of place or unwelcome at climbing walls and in climbing clubs because they're male dominated environments
* women feeling disapproved of because they're doing a sport that's about shiny metal gear and big muscles and mud and sweat instead of something more ladylike
* training advice assuming male bodyshape and physiology
Obviously none of this is going to stop a determined female climber, but then the solution that's being proposed isn't to take climbing walls to the European Court of Human Rights, it's to run a one day workshop that will hopefully encourage more female climbers to be determined and not put off.
Also you'd be right to point out that it's not just men pushing the idea that climbing isn't girly enough etc and that a lot of it has to do with the way that women feel they're being perceived rather than people actually lining up and telling them they shouldn't be there, which is part of what I mean about it being a larger system which just generally makes life a bit easier for men rather than being something individuals are doing.
My personal observations are proportion of women in a sport decreases as amount of gear required for said sport increases.
Are they? I can honestly say I don't give that a second's thought from one year's end to the next.
As someone once said: "We would not worry so much what people thought about us if we realised how seldom they did."
> A full answer would be thesis length, but a couple of thoughts are:
> * women feeling out of place or unwelcome at climbing walls and in climbing clubs because they're male dominated environments
> * women feeling disapproved of because they're doing a sport that's about shiny metal gear and big muscles and mud and sweat instead of something more ladylike
Some women. Not all women. I quite like a male dominated environment, even though I am a woman and tend to feel more at ease around men. I like mud and sweat.
> only some.
Obviously, no argument there. If you ever wanted to make my girlfriend do something, your best bet would be to tell her she shouldn't do it because it's not ladylike.
But women who are already keen enough climbers to join a forum about it probably aren't a fair sample for these purposes!
I feel like I come from a different world as, taking your examples:
Never been to a climbing wall and can't understand why anyone would,
I've never been into any of these things either, wandering around the Snowdon horse shoe, following a circuit in the wood at Fontainebleau on my own early on a spring morning doesn't require any of these things and a days climbing at a medium grade in the Pass doesn't require any of them either.
Training advice? You must be joking!
I can see why I'm not on the same wavelength :-)
> I feel like I come from a different world as, taking your examples:
> Never been to a climbing wall and can't understand why anyone would,
> I've never been into any of these things either, wandering around the Snowdon horse shoe, following a circuit in the wood at Fontainebleau on my own early on a spring morning doesn't require any of these things and a days climbing at a medium grade in the Pass doesn't require any of them either.
> Training advice? You must be joking!
> I can see why I'm not on the same wavelength :-)
So why on earth are you wading in on a thread about something in which you take zero interest and have no comprehension?
Is there something we're all missing here?
> Any woman worth her salt can run in high heels ;-)
You are going to have to teach me. I have some gorgeous heels, but I can barely walk in them, and stairs are an issue too.
There's something you seem to be missing!
Apart from a bit of "savoir vivre" maybe you should try to understand that many climbers don't go in for indoor walls, muscles and coaching and all the other commercial claptrap that has invaded the hobby over the last years. Perhaps this could explain why some women are "put off"?
Gotta love that selective quoting, Bruce.
In fairness, "and all the other commercial claptrap" was probably appended just to "coaching". Feel free to defend coaching against charges of being commercial claptrap, but don't mangle the English language for the sake of a silly Internet argument.
And if we're using imperatives today, don't give internet a capital I.
FFS women have spent 100,000 years trying to break free of the shackles imposed by biology ... and then in 2012 some naive dimwit thinks it's clever to link an activity that should be about freedom and self expression, with a device whose only function is to convey sexual availability and submission.
I wish I was being ironic, but I'm not.
> And if we're using imperatives today, don't give internet a capital I.
It's pretty much a personal choice, Alyson - there isn't really a "right" or "wrong" way regarding capitalisation. I choose to treat it as a proper noun.
With no way to link the topic to Hitler the thread descended into the only other possible outcome; grammar pedantry.
Feel free to pick at my use of semi colons and exclamation marks.
> I don't see how you can get there from a climbing symposium. If CAF runs an alpine training camp for young French climbers, does that mean next they'll be rebuilding the Maginot line to keep 'the Hun' out?
You missed your chance here you see.
Better luck next time.
> With no way to link the topic to Hitler
But Bruce had already invoked the Clunk Click Law; Godwin's Law would have been seen as a lame afterthought
Plus, a girlywoman started it
Not true! They make my legs look longer too.
With no way to link the topic to Hitler
There is now: -
Huh? High heels convey sexual availability and submission???? Which century are you living in??
> You are going to have to teach me. I have some gorgeous heels, but I can barely walk in them, and stairs are an issue too.
Always happy to pass on techniques :-)
> FFS women have spent 100,000 years trying to break free of the shackles imposed by biology ... and then in 2012 some naive dimwit thinks it's clever to link an activity that should be about freedom and self expression, with a device whose only function is to convey sexual availability and submission.
> I wish I was being ironic, but I'm not.
I must let my missus know that, she only wears high heels as she's a shortarse. I bet she doesn't know they make her available and submissive.
You must be sure to tell her that. Be sure to preface it with "By the way, wench...." ;-)
Get your facts right before you go slating the work of volunteers working on a not for profit event.
Everyone involved is at best getting expenses or a small token fee as thanks. The Hangar will make a loss (coming out of my sticky mercantile pocket). The day is about training, biomechanics, nutrition, talks from a world champion and a national champion and climbers who have been on the cutting edge of the sport for decades between them. Where is Bob Dylan's foot tapping song about the evils of introducing people to principles of training or how to get your head around dynamic movement skills.
I get why some people think the poster was crap, I understand and funny enough, in many ways agree. We were not speaking to, ou representing them, but they're female climbers and the event was advertised for female climbers, I see the disparity and I acknowledge their comments, I may disagree, but I think that's healthy. But you? Where the F do you get off? Posting your ill informed drivel about something I very much doubt you have taken the time away from your BNP manifesto to read the details of. You have not seen the voluntary effort that has gone into to making a grass roots climbing event and to slander those involved, none of whom will profit, and none of whom have any intention of pushing anyone anywhere - do you think women are cowering in their homes by their laptops, 'Oh my, the WCS team are making me buy this ticket - I don't want too...'
You are a cancerous little person with nothing to contribute. You are one of those who seeks not to better themselves, but to smear others with your mistruths in order to make your own rusty halo shine.
Perhaps one might turn your mighty intellect to tearing apart the Youth Bouldering Competition we are hosting for the BMC this winter. Another day of pushing the ill informed masses into the hills to boost yellow helicopters in the sky. Cunning climbing coaches flicking through the wads of fifties they have conned out of the little children? What does Bob Dylan have to say now?
Posting your ill informed drivel about something I very much doubt you have taken the time away from your BNP manifesto to read the details of
This might prove to be interesting...
Rise above it or at least use more professional language (or take it off-forum). Regardless of what I think of Bruce's postings, you as host of the WCS have not done yourself any favours with that.
and then in 2012 some naive dimwit thinks it's clever to link an activity that should be about freedom and self expression.
The dimwit to which you refer is:
1. Naomi, a professional artist who has displayed in the Tate and is a hardcore feminist. She's on El Cap just now.
2. Nick, a designer who has Saatchi and Saatchi on his CV,
3. Shauna Coxsey (intro needed?), climbing in Margalef
4. Stephanie, a sociologist and feminist too (DWS'ing in Mallorca)
5. Me, simple Ged the dimwit climbing wall managing director.
If you happen to be in Liverpool, swing by the Hangar and outline the fine details of why we're naive and dimwitted over a coffee eh? I love a bit of constructive feedback. Cheers for the heads up though, shame we didn't get you involved earlier to be fair, will have to get a better qualified team next year - what do you charge?
Do you really think, that even though you're the Managing Director of the wall that happens to be hosting the event, that it's wise and professional to attack individuals on UKC?
Wasn't this always going to be a "no win" situation?
> Do you really think, that even though you're the Managing Director of the wall that happens to be hosting the event, that it's wise and professional to attack individuals on UKC?
+1 to what Ged said.
> Do you really think, that even though you're the Managing Director of the wall that happens to be hosting the event, that it's wise and professional to attack individuals on UKC?
Given the attack made on the event, I think its reasonable for The Hanger to respond. The post from Bruce Hooker was idiotic and as explained by Tall Clare; utterly pointless, based on complete uncomprehension and urgently required refuting by someone involved. The Hanger's response was emotive, but I feel it was also balanced.
The arguments over the poster have been interesting and I think highlight some of the issues that some people have, it's certainly encouraged a lot of different people to discuss a range of topics around climbing, discrimination etc etc. And that I guess was part of the point of the poster; it appears (to me) to be utterly tongue in cheek and it worked in raising interest in the event. To then suggest that the event is somehow cynical and manipulative, is plain wrong. I think a passionate, slightly rude response from one of those involved is fair enough. Let's face it, The Hanger's response was well argued and I'd rather someone spoke their mind if they're cross about something.
> With no way to link the topic to Hitler the thread descended into the only other possible outcome; grammar pedantry.
ps going to go to this now, just to see what the fuss is about for myself!
And the poster claims another victim dragged un-willingly into this corporate, money grubbing, trap ;-)
Obviously I'm wrong - all the good feminist stuff that was around 40 odd years ago when I was getting my first degree (in sociology and politics, as it happens) seems to have been blown away by irresistable march of capitalism.
Again, I wish I were being ironic.
Every time you post some inane drivelly claptrap I wonder to myself if your wrongness has bottomed out, but then you go and surprise me with some new, odious and deeply wrong opinion about something else. In a sense I have to admire you for that. I'd have thought you'd have reached critical wrongmass by now and imploded in a puff of smoke.
There are many posters on here who I fundamentally disagree with, or who I think are irritating wastrels (and I'm sure many who'd say the same about me), but you really are a cut above. I can't recall a single post that you've ever made which has brought anything to any argument.
Wading into this debate, having admitted that you neither know or care anything about the context, is ludicrous. Are you an incredibly elaborate troll?
but isn't this symposium for climbers who happen to be women who are keen enough to go to a symposium about it?
It got me wondering about a completely female society, where there are no men, no sexual competition, and women give birth only to girls using synthetic sperm or cloning of some kind (I'm not making a film about it, I don't have to figure out the fine details!) - would the women still wear high heels? I don't believe they would. However this doesn't necessarily mean women are being subjugated by footwear, more that we still need men and therefore sexual reproduction, and this will lead to competition.
To my mind, women are always going to want male attention and men are always going to want female attention and as long as there is no discrimination or inequality, the choice of wearing of a heel is neither here nor there. Personally I think it odd that a formal occasion usually requires a man to garotte himself with a pointless length of fabric :) Have we yet got to a perfectly equal, non-descriminatory society? Nope. I'm not sure whether or not that battle will be won or lost in Jones the Bootmakers but the fact that we are discussing it at all shows that it is still a pertinent issue, and it's great that you have expressed such a strong opinion on it. I would be as forthright myself were it not for the fact that I occasionally like to strut about in ludicrously impractical shoes (for short periods of time and as long as I don't have to walk down a slope).
With regards to the poster, I think the women who are reacting negatively to it are doing so because it doesn't represent them but then the idea that one image could somehow encapsulate the experience/personality of every female climber is ludicrous. It is just a piece of advertising, designed to draw attention to an event; on that point it succeeds. The event in question is the bit which is really important - and bringing women together to learn from each other and celebrate a shared enjoyment of climbing is a positive and generous thing which I'm sure the participants will benefit from.
You imply we don't have a choice. You're right - it's a fashion and fashion is all about choice. There are a lot of women (several on here) that choose not to follow it. I do. I like wearing heels. I don't do it to make myself appear sexually available or to make myself into anything for a man. Seriously, there's no need to pity or deride women for wearing heels!
> It got me wondering about a completely female society, where there are no men, no sexual competition, and women give birth only to girls using synthetic sperm or cloning of some kind (I'm not making a film about it, I don't have to figure out the fine details!) - would the women still wear high heels? I don't believe they would.
Why do a lot of women at the women-only swimming sessions at my local pool still wear "sexy" swimsuits instead of some bog-standard one?
Only the heterosexual ones, I'd have thought (yes, yes, I know there is a "spectrum")
"Sexy" is all in the eye of the beholder. Whilst you might not find a "bog standard" swimsuit sexy, others could be mentally rubbing thighs and drooling. ;-)
Ha! I missed that!
> Why do a lot of women at the women-only swimming sessions at my local pool still wear "sexy" swimsuits instead of some bog-standard one?
AIUI there's quite a lot of research that suggests that on some subconscious level women wear "sexy" clothing for the impression it'll make on other women rather than the impression it'll make on men. I'd guess that (straight) men who work out and show off their muscles are doing something similar, if even less subtle.
I think it's still a socially conditioned thing - saying "maybe I just like wearing them" sort of assumes that you've just this minute beamed down from Mars rather than being bombarded with cultural images for your whole life - and still a sign of gender imbalance in society, but I don't think that people should feel guilty about what they prefer to wear, whether it's heels, Doc Martens, muscle shirts or whatever - it's a symptom rather than a cause.
> Obviously I'm wrong - all the good feminist stuff that was around 40 odd years ago when I was getting my first degree (in sociology and politics, as it happens) seems to have been blown away by irresistable march of capitalism.
Possibly just out of date - Germaine Greer is regarded as a pariah now, the fcuk-me shoes and her transphobia relegated her to the stone age of feminism (so I'm told).
Now it's called slut shaming and privileged men shouldn't interfere.
and that spending their limited resources on uncomfortable, impractical and downright dangerous fashions is a way to acheive that.
I think the point of marrying a footballer is that you DON'T have limited resources ;-)
What is slut shaming?
There is a public mixed session just before the women-only one, so if you are leaving at the end of the public session, you see the women who are there for the women-only session waiting for the pool to become a male-free zone.
> Maybe they only have one swimming costume.
I knew that would be your answer.
As it happens I see a few of these women in mixed sessions wearing "bog standard" swimming costumes and then wearing a "sexier" one for the women-only sessions.
Let's not have a debate about what I mean by "bog-standard" and "sexy"; but really I think Ramblin Dave's post where he says "there's quite a lot of research that suggests that on some subconscious level women wear "sexy" clothing for the impression it'll make on other women rather than the impression it'll make on men. I'd guess that (straight) men who work out and show off their muscles are doing something similar, if even less subtle" alongside my observations, kind of negates the second paragraph of your 10:42am post.
Unless you were being shoe-specific, or you think these women are in their "sexy" swimming costumes for the benefit of the men who are just leaving the earlier session as they come in.
> So which is it to be dear boy? Is your attention span so short that you can't even remember what you're arguing in your rush to belittle as many people as possible?
> Isnt that statement a little bit ironic?
No, cos he started it, sir :-)
I could have linked it to the H***** person, passing by Jimmy Savile-shock-horror-no-one-knew, but I decided not to... had to go to bed anyway.
Perhaps you should read the OP? The question was:
"What are people's views on it (the poster)? Is it sexist?"
And That's what I replied to, I think it is very sexist, and the fact that it was, we are told, churned out by very competent people some of whom are keen feminists say more about them than me. As said already when I started climbing the whole feminist movement was just started but no one would have been surprised at the time that such a ghastly poster be criticized, now money has bought out feminists, apparently, or maybe the feminists concerned are not very clear where they are going.
It seems to have hit a raw nerve, but again that says more about the poster, and his commercial capacity, than anything else. This is a forum, a question was asked and we are all free to answer it - those who refuse me the right to disagree provide the link to the H**** person requested above. My views on climbing walls, the commercialisation of climbing and the best way for new climbers to get fit for climbing (ie. a walk up Snowdon rather than a highly payed expert rip-off coach) are nothing to do with my opinion as to whether it is sexist or not.
It could have been worse though, maybe a Barby Doll in climbing gear with a strand of wool as a rope leading to a ball complete with knitting needles... the "competent artist" would only need to photoshop one of the hostile poster's face on to the doll to complete the male chauvinist masterpiece :-)
PS. It's always instructive the way people get really violent whenever anyone criticises the commercial rip off lobby... do they feel guilty? Seems unlikely.
Bruce - knitting's been reclaimed by the feminists. Perhaps scratch that bit.
My views on climbing walls, the commercialisation of climbing and the best way for new climbers to get fit for climbing (ie. a walk up Snowdon rather than a highly payed expert rip-off coach) are nothing to do with my opinion as to whether it is sexist or not.
That's kind of the point Bruce. What you have gone on to say has nothing to do with the OP, which you have drawn our attention to.
As for still going on about it being commercial have you not read the part where most involved are giving their time freely and it will make a loss ? Not very good capitalism is it ?
As for coaching etc. the world changes i am afraid. You are most welcome to disagree of course but being insulting is not the grown up way to do that is it ?
But that's the big problem, advertising, and the way it presents women, in particular, but also men is enormously powerful in moulding opinion. Every evening millions of people are bombarded with images which present women as sex objects, this poster is small fry in comparison but the question was posed, what's wrong with answering it, or giving an opinion?
It seems things are going back rather than forward, so women may chose to wear torturing footwear as it's their own "freewill", just as some say muslim women may freely chose to cover themselves in cloth from head to foot! It couldn't be because of archaic social pressure could it?
My point was that we live in a world where there IS sexual competition. Yes I'm sure there is something going on where any straight, single gender group may have some kind of subconscious jostling for pecking order. Maybe it's a trait of some people more than others, maybe we all do it. Quite frankly I don't see the relevance unless you wish you assert that you think women in a purely female society will choose to wear high heels. Maybe they will. Maybe they'll all wear fake beards or dress up like leopards.
Read the thread, the post that upset the climbing wall magnate (thur 17.59) was a humorous reply to the post just before, conceding points not attacking anyone... I should have remembered the old saying "never show any weakness".
It's true the world moves on but if we think it is going the wrong way should we not say so? Take the way Tilman and his mates climbed and compare it with the circus that is Everest nowadays, which do you prefer? When I was young enough to do it we were inspired by Tilman and Messner, and had a good time for little money, you may prefer the present trend but at least accord me the right to say I think you are wrong.
I guess if I'd forgotten what I was arguing it would be deeply ironic. Otherwise no. And it was a question not a statement! :-P
> But that's the big problem, advertising, and the way it presents women, in particular, but also men is enormously powerful in moulding opinion. Every evening millions of people are bombarded with images which present women as sex objects
and climbing has been no different....
Check these out..
All my views on gender politics were, for better or for worse, shaped by a Polish political satire from 1984
Umbrage has been taken as you have written about
1. the integrity of the climbing wall manager in a negative fashion (pardon the pun)
2. the integrity of the volunteers
3. the integrity of the coaches
4. the integrity of the speakers
5. accused all of being in a celebrity culture
6. the integrity of sponsors which presumably are helping to fund this loss making event (eg the BMC, UKC)
None of which were asked for in the original question.
Not replying to such accusations would say more about them than about you.
This is the problem people often have with you Bruce. You play the victim very well ( never show any weakness ) and then continue with sharp words such as 'climbing wall magnate'. Totally un-called for and bad form.
You say i should accord you the right to say you think i am wrong. Do me the courtesy of looking at my post again. It says that of course you have the right to disagree but just don't run to insults to do so. So why do you say that i am not giving you that right ?
Ah yes because you want to play the victim again.
When all around you say you are mad maybe you are, no matter how sane you think you are.
> and climbing has been no different....
> Check these out..
You certainly put a lot of effort into those article!
Just to round them off, as far as I'm concerned, there was the ad for the bolt fund at the bottom of the second one :-)
There are also adverts all over this page. I recommend you stick to your morals and leave the forum. It is after all bringing capitalism to climbing and leading to the irreversible modernisation of climbing in a way you don't like, and you're helping it.
I hope you're not denying anyone the right to free speech, you... you capitalist oppressor pig!
You are so generous!
> 1. the integrity of the climbing wall manager in a negative fashion (pardon the pun)
> 2. the integrity of the volunteers
> 3. the integrity of the coaches
> 4. the integrity of the speakers
> 5. accused all of being in a celebrity culture
> 6. the integrity of sponsors which presumably are helping to fund this loss making event (eg the BMC, UKC)
> None of which were asked for in the original question.
> Not replying to such accusations would say more about them than about you.
I won't bother answering point by point but in short, most of this is in your head. If to say that this sort of sexist event is not my idea of a good trend to follow means all this to you just what do you accept as "fair comment"... Is it like Mrs T used to say "There is no other way" or the Daleks "You must surrender", or maybe "Sexism rules OK!"
You might extend your references to studying the wall tycoon's post, saying I was a BNP supporter, idiot and all other sorts of niceties. Do we really live in a world where saying you don't like, or making fun of some aspects of daily life is "verboten", like those that go bonkers and run amok every time someone makes a cartoon of Momo?
This event is a promotional event, that it doesn't make money is neither here nor there, like all sorts of sponsorship it is not aimed at immediate gain but does that mean it is entirely altruistic? And anyway when have I said that making a living is a criminal activity? The man, at least I think he's a man, then goes on to tell us of a "bouldering competition" that he is organising - apparently he cannot even imagine that this might not be a totally worthwhile trip either. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds climbing competitions as irksome as sexist symposiums, apparently this hasn't even occurred to him!
It's a free world, he does what he wants, but what he shouldn't do is deny others the right to have different views and express them freely on a public climbing forum... that goes for you too.
It must be really upsetting the way that you keep being forced to go to them, then...
Just noticed this gem, I didn't read to the end first time... You really are a sweety, aren't you? It happens here you are not far from the truth, congratulations, but is it the sort of language that improves your image of "integrity" that some pretend I have challenged? Up to now I haven't but reading this...
PS. Which mistruths have I "smeared" anyone with, and how? I have looked again and can't see any smearing... could you clarify the point, and while you're about who have I "slandered" and how?
I think the poster is sexist, which was the original debate, but taking things further I have also said I didn't think much of such single gender events, so yes I think the notion is sexist. If it's the other way round, if the BMC organised a male climbing session I think this would justify criticism as a sexist thing to do, what about you?
> I won't bother answering point by point but in short, most of this is in your head.
Quite interesting Bruce - I took the info from your post and not from my imagination. As there seems to be a few responses to your post I'd suggest it is either a collective network of brains or, many will disagree with your opinion that it is solely in my head.
I could but I doubt he would have said as much if you hadn't got personal with your references to mercantile and fingers in pies.
You live in a dream world if you believe you are entitled to express views freely.
> I think the poster is sexist, which was the original debate, but taking things further I have also said I didn't think much of such single gender events, so yes I think the notion is sexist. If it's the other way round, if the BMC organised a male climbing session I think this would justify criticism as a sexist thing to do, what about you?
Shall we point out for the seventeenth time the various obstacles to women getting (more) involved with climbing that an event like this might help to overcome? I know that these obstacles don't bother you because you aren't interested in "walls" and "training" (or alpine huts - which I didn't mention, but which are another male-dominated environment, or climbing clubs, which I did mention but you ignored because they didn't fit in with your "commercialisation" jeremiad) and hence by extension they can't possibly bother anyone else either, but weirdly enough, people seem to keep coming along to this sort of event...
I too have missed a point you have made - the last one.
Can you please point me back to when I have denied you the right to express a view?
Positive descrimination: A policy designed to favour some deprived region or minority and to redress, at least in part, uneven development.
There is no implicit suggestion that men are repressing women or stopping them from participating, simply a recognition that as a climbing is a male-dominated activity a large proportion of available training advice, nutrition advice, injury advice etc is geared towards men. Also that women who climb might like the chance to meet other women who climb, as they are more thinly spread out than men who climb.
The fact that you personally find training, muscles and indoor walls not to your taste is irrelevant, as is the fact that you 'don't think much of single gender events'. Nobody is asking you to go to one.
> Oh Lordie there goes another bucket of petrol on the fire!
Steady on there Alyson ;-)
I used to work for an organisation that took part in positive discrimination to recruit more females and minority ethnic staff.
They then realised the word discrimination doesn't look too good.
I believe it's now called positive action.
> I too have missed a point you have made - the last one.
> Can you please point me back to when I have denied you the right to express a view?
It'll be somewhere near where i clearly said he was allowed to have whatever opinion he liked, just don't insult people, and then he accused me of not letting him have free speech.
He still hasn't got back to me on that one, just like he cunningly ignored all your ( well his actually ) points that you put to him.
> you think these women are in their "sexy" swimming costumes for the benefit of the men who are just leaving the earlier session as they come in.
They might be, y'know. Do you go every week? ;-)
Regards the poster, im female and I am not getting my knickers in a twist over it. Id be interested to know what sort of poster would be deemed acceptable for this sort of event. I havent seen any suggestions yet, but then I have only skim read half the thread cause its a bit long now.
> so women may chose to wear torturing footwear
As may climbers - male and female ;-)
P.S. I have yet to be crippled by a pair of high heels or to wear a pair that is uncomfortable but then I have only been wearing them for about 35 years so there's probably time.
> Regards the poster, im female and I am not getting my knickers in a twist over it. Id be interested to know what sort of poster would be deemed acceptable for this sort of event. I havent seen any suggestions yet, but then I have only skim read half the thread cause its a bit long now.
A bit long and not very enlightening in that respect. Good save of your time :-)
> P.S. I have yet to be crippled by a pair of high heels or to wear a pair that is uncomfortable but then I have only been wearing them for about 35 years so there's probably time.
Crikey, you've been "conveying sexual availability" for 35 years without injury. You must be well limber.
It wasn't a personal remark to him, read the post, it was general, but anyway what's wrong in saying he is part of the "commerce of climbing"? He runs a climbing wall, earns his living from it, why should he be sensitive about it.. The same for guides, bunk-house owners, training instructors, gear manufacturers, "expedition" salespeople etc., they all make a living out of climbing, why is it problematic to say so? It's not an insult and it is altogether reasonable to examine if this commercial aspect does not sometimes have negative results - consumerism may not be great?
No, I live in 21st century Europe and I not only state that I am entitled to freedom of speech I can point to a number of texts and treaties that guarantee this. I think you have got tangled in your twisted logic if you really refuse this.
In answer to your post at 16.13 asking where you had smeared people:
You are quite competent at weedling out of things Bruce by saying comments were general or playing the wronged victim time and again. However we can all see that the comments you made ( such as the one about people organising events like these doing it for monetary gain or because of a deep inner inadequacy )whether general or not included this event and the organisers of it personally. They must have done as you were talking about people who organise events like the one we are talking about.
You then went on to say 'they' were at best condescending or at worst irresponsible, called 'them' a commercial rip off lobby and used phrases like wall tycoons. Are they pleasant comments or insulting ? If we have all got the wrong end of the stick then please clarify that you meant everyone else involved commercially in the climbing world and not the climbing hangar. That way we will know they were wrong to take it personally.However you are still smearing all of them.
Your freedom of speech with all your articles, texts and treaties also has many limitations you seem to have lost track of in your twisted logic. We cannot express views freely, we can only express views freely that are deemed to be suitable by those texts and treaties. If i have sexist views i have to keep them to myself, quite rightly.
Could you also please answer my post earlier asking you to clarify where i infringed your right to freedom of speech when i said you were entitled to have freedom of speech ?
> It wasn't a personal remark to him, read the post
But it was a personal remark about him and he had posted earlier so there was every chance he would see it.
For the context of your post of Fri 18:32 you are correct - he is in climbing commerce but you were referring to the commercial context of the women's symposium (you never clarified otherwise) which was factually wrong in this previous post.
> No, I live in 21st century Europe and I not only state that I am entitled to freedom of speech I can point to a number of texts and treaties that guarantee this.
You might want to explain this point to Abu Hamsa and Geert Wilder. Whilst you are at it - prove to me freedom of speech exists by going up to a policeman and telling him to "F*ck off". Whatever response you get only reply with "F*ck off" - nothing more, nothing less.
If you are prevented from continuing then you do not have full freedom of speech.
You are perfectly free to express sexist views, no law prevents you, nor does any law prevent sexist behaviour or sexist exploitation in advertising - we see it every day.
I have just checked out all my posts and I have not said this, why are you making it up?
To get out of fantasy land and back to fact, in the post that got the manager's knickers in a twist, which I presume you are referring to I wrote:
Notice the "and this sort of event seems to be the same to me" which makes it quite clear I am making a general comment, and the last sentence makes it even clearer "but if I say that then all those with a finger in the pie will be offended."
> You are perfectly free to express sexist views, no law prevents you, nor does any law prevent sexist behaviour or sexist exploitation in advertising - we see it every day.
You are confusing sexism (gender discrimination) with lazy stereotyping (advertising). The latter is predictable and boring but getting from there to 'sexual exploitation' is a huge leap of logic and undermines the huge amount of very real exploitation of women which happens around the world.
There are laws are in place (eg the Equality Act 2010) which do prevent sexual discrimination (ie sexism) and outlaw a range of sexist and discriminatory behaviours.
> Notice the "and this sort of event seems to be the same to me" which makes it quite clear I am making a general comment, and the last sentence makes it even clearer "but if I say that then all those with a finger in the pie will be offended."
> Clear enough?
Very clear Bruce, yes. As i and GPCG wrote you make a general comment which includes the event, and by association the organisers, that this thread is talking about. That makes it personal. Your views were expressed on a thread about THIS event where you talk about " THIS sort of event" i.e. events like the one this thread is about. Can you understand why people have either terribly mis-understood you or can see right through you ?
Also saying: " but if i say that " after you have just said that doesn't make it general, or clearer, it's just a childish way of saying it and then not having to accept responsibility for doing so.
Have a look at your post 14.15 I had said at 13.58 that you were most welcome to disagree of course but being insulting is not the grown up way to do it.
You replied at 14.15 that i should at least accord you the right to say i think you're wrong.
I find the way you approach these things to be somewhere between a politician and my 13 yr old son. Politicians use words carefully to ensure they can slip away from any crap that may come their way in future and devolve responsibility onto someone else, or claim people have misunderstood their words and that wasn't what they were saying at all.
My 13 yr old actively participates in hopeless lying. You catch him red handed with all the evidence pointing to him and he will claim it was aliens not him. Anything to escape the responsibility of his own actions. He may even ask why i am making things up against him.
I have enough arguing with him and am not sure why i have let myself be dragged into this so far.Do you enter these threads for debate or do you enjoy annoying people ? I hope you do some serious navel gazing. As i sort of said earlier if everyone around you says you're wrong maybe it's time to consider that you might be. Not necessarily in what you say but how you go about it. Much of your message is lost in all the to'ing and fro'ing.
I am off now. Early start tomorrow for a weekends climbing.
This isn't entirely truthful either, I made these remarks after he made one of the most aggressive and revolting posts I've ever seen on ukc. It's hard to believe that someone who calls himself the manager of a commercial concern would type such a post on a public forum, especially one that could be read by his potential clients, but there you are.
Threads have been pulled and poster banned for for less than this, a few quotes:
"flicking through your morning Daily Mail and got confused about just what gives you cancer today or which new group need be feared/mocked",
" Where the F do you get off?",
"I very much doubt you have taken the time away from your BNP manifesto",
"You are a cancerous little person with nothing to contribute.",
And many more of the kind - at 01:26 Fri.
But that would be if someone complained, and as I believe in freedom of speech I would never complain... anyway it's not exactly to his credit, nor does it do much to boost his credibility. So I'll leave him to his bile, maybe he'd had a hard night and is regretting his words ever since.
Discrimination because of gender in the work place (sexual discrimination) for example is illegal, even if it still goes on, but this is not what sexism, or sexist attitudes mean, you are reversing the two.
They haven't misunderstood me, on this point, saying "this sort of event" obviously includes "this event", why would I deny it? I was clearly expressing a negative view on the event, and also in general. Do you have a problem with this?
Neither am I, and no one dragged you in, why do you feel the need to defend something so strongly and take so much umbrage about someone you don't even know, me, having a different view? Why can't you just accept that others think differently to you, maybe including your son, you might find it refreshing?
> This isn't entirely truthful either, I made these remarks after he made one of the most aggressive and revolting posts I've ever seen on ukc.
Guffaw. Ironic doesn't even begin to cover it.
Bruce, if you look like a pointless waste of space, quack like a pointless waste of space and everybody else tells you that you're a pointless waste of space, is there a point where you begin to question whether or not you might be better keeping your ignorant, offensive, weasel words to yourself?
As I've said already check out my post (09:43 Thu), it was not particularly heavy but the manager is clearly a very touchy person and since then most of those denigrating me have not been posting to what I said but to the versions presented by others. It often happens in threads, people have prejudices and argue them rather than what people actually post.
Just read what has been posted instead of your own prejudices.
Such as? All you do is insult, you don't actually give any reasons for your views. Have you even read the thread?
> Just read what has been posted instead of your own prejudices.
> Such as? All you do is insult, you don't actually give any reasons for your views. Have you even read the thread?
Again, there is a deep, deep irony in you finger waving at others bemoaning their 'prejudices'.
I enjoy your suggestion that I might not have bothered to read the rest of the thread and have just jumped in with a few random insults aimed at you for no particular reason. It's certainly more plausible than that I might have read the thread, and your contribution to it, added it to the large number of other posts you've made on countless other threads in which you spout offensive drivel and then duck and dive your way out of any actual head-on debates with people, and concluded that you are a bad, bad person.
> As I've said already check out my post (09:43 Thu), it was not particularly heavy
In your opinion Bruce, in your opinion.
Whilst I cannot comment about other people - my note about people's umbrage was solely on your post and not based in my imagination as you claimed.
> Discrimination because of gender in the work place (sexual discrimination) for example is illegal, even if it still goes on, but this is not what sexism, or sexist attitudes mean, you are reversing the two.
Sexism refers both to gender discrimination AND to conditions or attitudes which foster stereotypes of social roles based on gender. So saying that there is no law against sexist behaviour is factually incorrect.
Ah, so the wearing of them is to 'convey sexual availability and submission', not 'be sexually available and submissive.' Does teh wearer have to wear a badge to convey this?
So being a shortarse has nothing to do with it then? Or choosing to wear heels as they feel nice and the wearer may feel good wearing them. Or any of the myriad of other reasons for wearing them, they valid?
But I hate molecules.
I'm off climbing tomorrow, with a bird.
My climbing partner last year was one of those women doohickeys and she climbed nails harder than me.
What law prevents the exploitation of archaic images of women, presented as mere sex objects of the Barby doll variety for example, on TV adds, or for that matter the poster in question? There are none or we wouldn't have to them polluting TV screens, press advertisements and bill boards.
It would be very difficult to formulate such a law as all is a matter of subjective judgement and degree - even on this thread at least one women defends ardently the wearing of high heels and doesn't appear to see them as something imposed on her by social modelling in a male dominated society. So no law exists, which is probably just as well as it would be hard to avoid it limiting freedom of artistic expression.
All people can do is not buy products using such methods and/or have a go at those that do and denounce the practice... as the OP did in starting this thread. A number of posters like myself have replied that they thought this was sexist and disapproved, others have, rather more violently, defended, or minimised the deed. It's a forum, there is a debate, it's just a pity that some are unwilling to debate calmly and without abuse.
Why do you think people, in this case women but men sometimes, feel so worried about being smaller than average? For that matter why do you use such an emotive and pejorative term as "shortarse"? Couldn't be social conditioning too, could it?
> Why do you think people, in this case women but men sometimes, feel so worried about being smaller than average?
Well it's not because thy feel being short makes them seem, to use your terms, less "sexual available and submissive", so they wear high heels to ensure they are perceived as such. So you've shot your own foot again there lad.
Did you not know that any deviation from societal "norms" brings feelings of unease? Hence you see so many shortarsed men with spiked up hair.
"Emotive and pejorative", ROTFLMFFAO!!! God, what a world you must live in Bruce! I used the word originally as it's one, (note "one") of those little endearments used between me and the wife. I call her "shortarse" she calls me "the deaf tw@t"
But Bruce don't let me stop you in your crusade to reduce society to your own happy world of non-difference, where we are all perceived as equal in all ways and totally homogeneous, where everybody conforms, and humour and individuality are all eradicated.
Should we set the universal climbing grade at moderate, so that no one ins inconvenienced nor feels a less good climber than those who climb E1? In fact, should we ban climbing all together, as it promotes competition, risk, highlights different abilities, shows up the discrepancy between tall and short, the male and the female, and is a male dominated, ego driven, rape of the environment.
Joe Brown isn't very tall, and yet....
What about his ape index?
It's great to hear you arguing so fervently against gender stereotyping, even if I disagree with your target in this instance. It is true that SOME adverts are sexist and the key is that phrase "mere sex objects". Saying a person is sexy or attractive is not objectifying them. Portraying someone as sexy is not objectifying them or their gender. To count as objectification you have to be saying that the primary or sole trait of that person is how they look, while disregarding their personality and abilities. By the very nature of the phrase, to reduce someone to a sex object is to dehumanise them.
The poster which we are still, remarkably, debating does not objectify women. It does not reduce us to sex objects by ignoring our strength or capability - the main feature of it is a climbing shoe! Now perhaps if the symposium turned out to be about the best non-chip nail polish, the latest climbing fashions and how to belay your partner then some kind of alarms would be going off in Feminism HQ. But none of that is the case. So not only does the poster not objectify women but the symposium doesn't patronise women and while I'm sure you still have some beef with it because - horror of horrors - it's at an indoor climbing wall, I think you're needlessly directing criticism at people who don't deserve it.
Let she who has never done so herself cast the first stone :-)
It's a laptop for women (Japan release only) it has a preloaded horoscopes app, a manicure friendly opening doodah and its available in feminine pink. The video is amazing, in a terrifying way! Have a look!
Two important points: 1. I have never or will never read the Telegraph, a mate sent me the link and 2 The Climbing Hangar did not fund tech giant Fujitsu to make this sexist device as part of our reversing equality program, we obviously put in a tender....
Oh dear Oh dear. 'Shrink it and pink it' has long been one part of the marketing to women, putting out the same innards in a My Little Pony Pink casing. Some women like that. Some prefer the chunky macho metallic stuff. Each to their own. Buy the one that suits your style and ignore the others
How can anyone really be bothered to get into such a muck sweat over this trivia?
So why don't we see men in high heels? They used to wear them in the past...
What afraid your ideological purity will be corrupted? Terrified your received wisdom will not stand challenge?
You really are pretty much of an intolerant bigot, aren't you?
I don't understand the problem. A climbing symposium for women is OK, but a computer for women isn't?
> So why don't we see men in high heels? They used to wear them in the past...
Sexist, or not?
Here we see a rather attractive young lady leading a route on the cover of a guidebook none the less!
Now is this sexist, as it shows a pretty young woman, scantily clad climbing an over protected route in the hope of flogging a few guidebooks?
Or is it an apt image which shows a woman unencumbered by a helmet or long trousers, boldly leading a route in the sun, and serves as a model for other women aspiring to conquering the heights?
(Oh and look at the bloody bolts right next to the crack line she's following!)
fantastically done advert, its a metaphor rather than a statement and if you are genuinely offended by this you need to realise that this isnt intended as a literal interpretation of what makes a female. A stereotype for the right reasons is very important in the world of design as it instantly points you to a target market. If you want to get really pedantic blame schools for teaching the population with stereotypes from such a young age. its not a malicious attack on females that dont wear high heels.
I like the colour pink but doesn't mean im about to moan because its not used to bring in the male target audience.
Think you missed the point a tad there! :-)
Have you read the feminism thread? You might find that interesting?
Careful, you'll have Mick Ryan apropos of nothing, pointing you to
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=107 (which isn't bad actually and - though I have not re-read it recently - may just cover all points raised in this thread)
or if really unlucky:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1841 which is just appalling
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=107 (which isn't bad actually and - though I have not re-read it recently - may just cover all points raised in this thread)
The Mick Ryan definition of women (as compared to men):
" [they] have lower volume heels, lower ankle bones, and higher arches. They have shorter lower legs, smaller waists, wider hips, narrower shoulders, smaller hands, longer necks, smaller eye sockets"
He hasn't met some of the women that I have!
> or if really unlucky:
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1841 which is just appalling
Ooh a short bunfight afterward (where a lot of people were throwing sticky buns at me!)
Intolerant bigot, I know I knee jerked and said no, but maybe I am, I will need to consider this more before reaching a firm conclusion, I can't think of any specific groups I really hate just now, but I just made a very nice spiced apple cake and eating that has left me blissful so not inclined to hate certain groups as we speak. However, tomorrow is another day and by the end of a good Monday, I reckon I could be in the market for a spot of bigotting...
> I don't understand the problem. A climbing symposium for women is OK, but a computer for women isn't?
The Telegraph only commented on the laptop, they made no reference to the WCS. But reading the article, the author is clearly unimpressed with Fujitsu.
I guess I put it up because the WCS poster took a fair old battering for being sexist and I guess I felt assured that even global corporations with millions for marketing and research and PR, much like our humble volunteer team, can knock something out that can alienate a few folk.
I agree with this only inasmuch as each individual paper panders to a viewpoint. I don't really read newspapers now, but when I did I cycled between The Independent, The Grauniad and The Telegraph.
Solves the issue of just reading what you want to hear (Guardian by politics)
Elsewhere on the site
Nuts, wires, stoppers, chocks, wedges, whatever you want to call them, have been around for a long time. Initially made from... Read more
Pete Whittaker has flashed the 32 pitch route Freerider 5.12d on El Capitan in Yosemite Valley over three days,... Read more
From a personal point of view, photographing the night sky is one of the most difficult, frustrating yet ultimately rewarding... Read more
The Grivel A&D Ascender & Descender is brand new for Autumn 2014 and incorporates a revolutionary and innovative patented... Read more
This survey is being conducted by the Outdoor Industries Association in order to find out more about how and why people... Read more