UKC

If you’ve no plans for the weekend 9-11 May and you fancy climbing in the Peak, come along to the Pinnacle Club open meet at Thorpe Farm near Hathersage. The only criteria are that you’re a woman (sorry, lads) and you lead trad - at whatever grade. You don’t have to come with a partner, we’ll make sure you have someone to climb with. And there’ll be cake.

If you’re interested, or want to know more, use the contact form on our website http://pinnacleclub.co.uk/contact or email me via UKC and I’ll put you in touch with our membership sec.

If you’ve not heard of the Pinnacle Club, it’s one of the earliest UK climbing clubs, set up in 1921 to encourage women climbers and has been going strong ever since. We’re a national club, with a hut in North Wales and a busy calendar of meets around the UK and overseas. Check out our website, or find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Pinnacle-Club/326413847441068

In reply to Abi Chard:


Not exactly equal opportunities, would you not say?

I don't recall many requests for men-only climbing because I could imagine the feminist's sharpening their nylon nails.

In reply to The Lemming:



http://www.wayfarersclub.org.uk/

HTH, HAND.

In reply to The Lemming:



Why does this always need spelling out, it doesn't work both ways. If you belong to a group that is in majority / not disadvantaged, you don't need a group.

In reply to The Lemming:
Perhaps they prefer to avoid mingling with sad little losers such as yourself whose attitude to women can summed up by one of your recent pearls of wisdom: "who was the blond with the legs up to her neck and fek me hard from behind smile?".

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I always thought the population was roughly 50:50 men and women? Are 50% of the country a disadvantaged minority now?

In reply to stroppygob:

Are 50% of climbers women though? Lets not completely hijack the OP's thread now.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Women are a majority, but never mind. How can a women only operation be legal, any more than the "Wayfarer's Club" mentioned above? I know the law provides, shamefully, a cop out for religious organisations but I thought this sort of discriminatory thing ran foul of the law these days?

Quite rightly a white, black, Asian or whatever set up would be illegal and like women whites are a majority in Britain, so what's going on here?

In reply to above:

For goodness sake. Women are in a minority as far as climbing participation is concerned; so are many ethnic minorities for that matter and there would be nothing wrong with a climbing group organised for them.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

She shoots, she scores.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Because there are a lot of dimwitted, Daily Mail reading, mysoginists around.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Thankyou.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Amen.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



No - none of those would be illegal. You can set up a men only club, lesbian only club, gay blokes with children only club, women only climbing club - pretty much whatever you fancy.

What you can't do is, say, set up a club for adults with physical disabilities, but then refuse to admit women, or Christians, or tall men with a physical disability. Or have a golf club that allows women to join, but only play golf on one day of the week (when men can play every day).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8...

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


My Stalker collection is growing.

I don't recall your pseudo name before, yet you quote me from a Friday Late Night down the pub thread about how crap a C4 program is.

I don't know whether to be impressed, flattered or afraid for my safety?

In reply to The Lemming:




Embarrassed about what you originally wrote perhaps? It was particularly memorable.

In reply to The Lemming:

Are you saying that was selectively quoted humour or are you annoyed somebody noticed. While some women struggle to deal with the casual sexism all too common in climbing or unwanted 'romantic' attention, or just want a female dominated climbing atmosphere for once, long live The Pinnacle Club where they can get on with the climbing experience they want in peace.

In reply to stroppygob:

Minorities are such because of power relations and it's not directly related to a number. What is minority? 49.9, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 percent? Who knows. Here are some figures from the BMC anyway.

"While climbing and hill walking are sometimes perceived in the media as largely male activities, the number of women participating is growing. The BMC has around 20,000 female members and they make up over 25% of the BMC’s membership. A 2006 BMC survey suggested the proportion of women increased from 16% to 25% from 2002 to 2006. Sport England’s current APS says 36% of those participating are women."

That's pretty good actually, I think most people would be hard pushed to label them as a minority purely on levels of participation, especially when one takes into account how white dominated climbing is. Clearly Women must be treated unfairly and represent a disadvantaged group if one is to pursue the argument that they are a minority. I'm not aware if this is the case or not but I'm not omniscient.

In reply to Carolyn:



>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8...

Legally speaking, this is the long and short of it. Carolyn is indeed correct. So technically speaking, the original poster is in the wrong for stating that one can not attend if they are a man? How do you read it?

In reply to FreshSlate:
Wow, some moronic replies on here, from the same small minded and either ignorant or bigoted types who usually post the same kind of thing all over UKC.

It's not about 'minorities' - it's about structural power, access to opportunities, and being disadvantaged in society due to your gender, honestly go and do some reading - and I don't mean the Daily Mail.

Men who think that most women aren't discriminated against and suffer specific issues due to being a woman really are a bit delusional.

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's really very clear and unambiguous:
"It is lawful to have a private club for women."

And it's really quite sad that we have all this whining every time anyone onganises anything for women only, or even something intended mainly for women that anyone is welcome to attend. Man up, men, and get over it.

In reply to The Lemming:

If you said something particularly nobbish and were called on it, the correct response is to be embarrassed.

It's hardly stalking you to read what you put on here, it is a form of publishing you know.

In reply to The Lemming:


Don't flatter yourself.

In reply to JayPee630:


To be clear, do you think it is small minded, ignorant or bigoted to be against gender discrimination?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Depending on why people are against womens' only events/clubs depends on whether I think they're small minded, ignorant or bigoted.

In reply to JayPee630:



How about you calm down mate and read my post. "Minorities are such because of power relations and it's not directly related to a number."

"Clearly Women must be treated unfairly and represent a disadvantaged group if one is to pursue the argument that they are a minority."


Edit: I do apologise if you were agreeing with me here.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I think it's pretty ignorant to assume, particularly as a male with no personal experience of being on the wrong end of this stuff, that the climbing community is totally gender-blind and unbiased and hence that a women-only climbing meet constitutes unfair discrimination against poor marginalized men.

In reply to JayPee630:


Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, it appears to say your opinion of an opinion is based on your opinion of the opinions held by those people rather than on the acceptability of the opinions themselves... Is that it?

If so it's rather weird, in my opinion.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:



How is that what the Pinnacle Club are doing? It's a women only club with women only meets.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yes... they are...

In reply to FreshSlate:

So which of those would you consider to be an analogous situation? Genuinely confused here...

In reply to The Lemming:




Clicked on your profile link to see what sort of a twit you are, randomely selected one of your recent postings, and first one was the gem I quoted (verbatim) above. Took all of 15 seconds, which to be fair is about all you're worth. Now you know how to use the system feel free to do the same with my profile. Let me know if you need further assistance; I realise that technology can be a struggle for the older gentleman.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Hmmm! Single sex clubs are fine apparently! It works both ways. I wasn't aware of this. I've blanked there clearly!

In reply to Ramblin dave:


It's discrimination though, you're for it or against it, you can't cherry pick. It's not in the interest of men or women. For example, the way the Wayfarer's club works is an abomination, although apparently it is still legal (the power of gentlemen's clubs is truly amazing) and yet, it seems, many of you approve this, I don't. How about a "White's only club", no one would approve that, would they? Even in the name of liberalism

In reply to FreshSlate:
As per that document:
"The Act protects people from discrimination
on the basis of ‘protected characteristics’. The
relevant characteristics for private clubs and other
associations are:
• disability
• gender reassignment
• pregnancy and maternity
• race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour and nationality
• religion or belief – this includes lack of belief
• sex, and
• sexual orientation."

However:
"The Act allows private clubs and other associations
(except political parties) to restrict membership to
people who share protected characteristics."

The examples you were quoting related to:
"However, it is still unlawful for a private club that restricts its membership to people who share particular protected characteristics to discriminate against members, associates, or guests because of other protected characteristics."
The key word being "other". The first of these, not the second, is what's happening here.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I don't but according to the pdf doc linked above it is. The anti-discrimination law legalises discrimination apparently!

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yeah I've gone into it! You're right! I wasn't aware men only clubs were still allowed thus my confusion.

Totally missed the 'other' part as per your post.

Well it's nothing at all to do with minorities, whether defined by power or number but certain categories can have their own groups, however they can't discriminate against other groups within that group! I think it's fair enough, only if Men's clubs are banned would I see a problem here.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I thought that was pretty well known - hence the big fuss about why the Open should or shouldn't be held at golf clubs that don't admit women.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Please don't be put off by some of the tedious point scoring on here. I hope it goes well and I'll draw it to the attention of my better half.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You use the word discrimination like it is an inherently bad thing, but discrimination is very necessary and non-malicious in a lot of contexts. For example you wouldnt want to insure someone who's crashed 20 times in the last year, thus you'd be discriminating against them.

Of course there is also unfair discrimination, but a womens only climbing club is hardly going to limit the opportunities for men to go climbing.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Amazing - all the angry respondents that is.

Hope its a good weekend and hope to see you this weekend.

Steve B

In reply to remus:


Well no, you wouldn't, discrimination means when you do things which have no valid justification, clearly in your example there is a very good reason for at least upping the premium. I'm not sure if legally a company can refuse insurance altogether though.

In reply to andy:


Why the "big fuss" if one gender clubs are ok? Clearly a lot of people thought they weren't. None of which is altogether extraordinary as there is no reason to believe women should be less prejudiced than men, to claim they were would be gender prejudice itself. Hence some women favour women only clubs just as some men favour men only ones, all a bit sad though when you think about, prejudice in human behaviour is not ready to go away despite the efforts of many.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I've been refused insurance. I believe some companies don't insure the Bradford area at all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, the women in the Pinnacle club seem to disagree with you here. But I'm sure their personal experiences can be ignored in the light of your cast iron belief in your own rightness.

And anyway, yes you can cherry pick. The fundamental issue is inequality, not discrimination - discrimination is a problem to the extent that it perpetuates inequality. On the other hand, if when someone tries to do anything about inequality by trying to move things back in the opposite direction you throw your toys out of the pram and cry about discrimination then you're the one that's perpetuating inequality.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Have a great weekend. I'm sure you are used to a lot of this nonsense - 'women wanting to climb in a club with other women, ahh the predudice!'

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Not necessarily. Another useage is simply "recognistion and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". In that useage, it's entirely possible for discrimiation to have a valid justification.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Add ",discuss" at the end and you would have a classic philosophy exam subject. I can't say I agree though and in practical terms it's very difficult to legislate against inequality, whereas discrimination can be tackled, at least partially, by legislation. Only partially though, the real problem being human attitudes, as this thread demonstrates amply.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But isn't that the point? There's still considerable prejudice about the abilities of women (even if that's from a minority of the population) - the questions are the best way to overcome that, and if it's reasonable to prevent minorities from grouping together in a "safe" space until we're closer to equality.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I'm by no means afraid to hold my own in a group of blokes (I'm one of only a couple of women in the local MRT), and mainly climb with men. I'd largely prefer to change the mainstream than create my own little safe corner. But I have to say the idea of a women only climbing trip now and again is pretty appealling as light relief.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Get real Bruce. No it doesn't.

It means the ability to see or make a distinction.

It is my fine sense of grade discrimination that lets me judge whether I am grovelling up a Diff or a V.Diff. A similar developed discriminatory facility allows to me to appreciate Timothy Taylor's Landlord whilst discerning that Stella Artois is canned horse pee.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Yeah, wasn't aimed at you, just this odd reply function makes it look like it was, sorry.

In reply to Carolyn:

True but I notice you skipped the first, and more common these days, definition:

noun

[mass noun]

1 The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:

Examples:

‘victims of racial discrimination’

‘discrimination against homosexuals’



I agree that this may be seen as a way of helping "a population in difficulty to gain confidence and get out of their situation as victims of oppression", but I'm not convinced that this applies to women in Britain today, even in the "climbing world". And, of course, the existence of a few "women only" organisations provides an ideal argument for "men only" ones, which is a disadvantage that far outweighs any supposed advantage, in my opinion, but only an opinion, if I am to be allowed one that is.

In reply to Andy Say:

These threads when they appear on UKC are in equal parts hilarious and depressing. I get the feeling the vast majority of people either have no problem or are in favor of clubs to represent groups of people that are dis-advantaged in society, and then there's a few middle aged grumpy slightly ill-informed men getting all toddler-like about it with an underlying whiff of misogyny.

In reply to Carolyn:


I can see that!

But please ease off on the Lemming, he is only an inoffensive, furry creature who's time with us is only limited until the next massive cliff jumping episode.

In reply to Andy Say:

You are using the second and less common use of the word.

In reply to JayPee630:

Are to going to answer my question or is debating for you limited to invective?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yawn, of course you're allowed one, but not all opinions are valid, as they need to be based on facts, not knee jerk and ill-thought through bigotry. Any statistics you care to look at show that women are negatively discriminated against compared to men in nearly all significant areas of society. When that changes you can then legitimately go on about women only events and spaces as being unfair and not needed.

In reply to Abi Chard:
Well this is truly embarrassing to witness.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What's your question then?

In reply to andy:

I thought Men's only clubs were a thing of the past! I really did. This is interesting:

"The constitution of the Black Women’s
Culture Club states that membership
is open to any woman whose national
origins are in Africa or the Caribbean.
This would be permitted because, even
though colour is referred to in the
name, it restricts membership based on
ethnic origin rather than colour."

So a 'whites only' club would have something that said: "Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Romans only".

Actually, it would be easier just to say 'climbers only'!

In reply to FreshSlate:

I went to a gym in London at the weekend, and they've only just started admitting women, and now only at weekends. One of the sites till only admits men.

http://muscleworksgym.com/the-gyms/

In reply to FreshSlate:

The thing is that any club that only wants to admit whites WOULD be a racist club and full of EDL and BNP members and that ilk.

In reply to JayPee630:

Just had a quick look at the website - do they have any particular reason for being men only?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




TBF, I believe I mentioned that discrimination could *also* be defined in the manner I quoted. But you're right, this (original?) useage appears to be becoming forgotten.


I'm sorry, I didn't realise I'd been picking on the Lemming. I'd agree he's pretty harmless compared to some around these parts.

In reply to Tall Clare:

No, I was surprised when I heard after visiting. I suspect it's a historical hangover as it's an old skool muscle/strength club rather than a gym as people generally imagine it.

In reply to JayPee630:
Yeah probably! Not the type I'd want to socialise with! The main thing I've noticed just then is how difficult it is to pin down an broad ethnicity for white people.

Actually, can one have a Disabled Black Women's Christian pregnancy group?

I understood it as only being able to limit one 'protected criteria' at a time, but in their example it seems to say otherwise. It seems fine actually. There could be a creation of a Christian white male group hypothetically which isn't ideal. I'm not sure if 'able-bodied' would pass and that's just another way of saying 'no disabled people'.

It's weird with dichotomies, you can use 'men only' to discriminate against women. However with religious groups etc. you have to limit it to a certain religion. I.E Jewish club, rather than... Everyone welcome except Catholics or whatever. I'm certain a 'able-bodied' group would not fly at all, but how is that different from a men's group when one can group people into two halves (not necessary equal halves).

In reply to FreshSlate:

Yes, it's impossible, one of the many reasons why the racist 'whites only' stuff is moronic.

In reply to Carolyn:



I do try to stay harmless and as inoffensive as possible. Occasionally, on a Friday night after a few small libations, I tend to step over the hypothetical mark. As in the 8 out of 10 Cats thread that I was quoted on. I live or die on my comments, but I don't go out to deliberately offend in a malicious way.

In reply to Carolyn:


Sorry, it wasn't you it was Sally. I'll shut up now.

In reply to JayPee630:

Clearly I'm not Bruce, but it seems to me that the basic question is simply

"Do we still need a women only climbing club in 2014?"

The argument in favour can easily be made by searching the archive of threads UKC, which clearly indicate some male climbers still consider women's looks are more important than their climbing ability. Particularly after much beer. And spending your life assertively challenging that can get more than a little tedious.

The argument against is along the lines that sexual inequality is now rather limited, and clubs that restrict their membership to women (and so allow the existance of clubs which restrict their membership to men) do more to harm the cause than they do to advance it.

Discuss

Not particularly clear cut IMO.....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Awe - middle-aged, middle class bloke feels victimized. How cute. Interesting though that you are so insecure that alternative opinions to your own you view as suppressing your own in some odd way. Quite strange if you think about it.

In reply to Tall Clare:

My guess it's because women might get between them and the mirror.

But seriously, most Pinnacle Club members are not isolationist, many climb as much, if not more, with men than with other women, and we hold joint meets that are mixed.
There's a dynamic among a group of women climbers that is different from a mixed or male majority group.

In reply to Carolyn:

Documents like that really do make we glad I am not trying to run a club or similar (which is a pity really). It starts off in the introduction with

"The main change is that the Act builds on the previous obligations on associations not to discriminate because of disability, race and sexual
orientation by extending the ban on discrimination to also cover gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief and sex"

which seems clear enough. But then later it contradicts itself and we find that clubs can discriminate on any of those grounds if they like ( as e.g. the Pinnacle does) and, further, can positively discriminate on some grounds. But if they do discriminate of those ground they can't then discriminate on others, or something> Gahhhh!!

"It is lawful to have a private club for women, for people from Australia, for transsexual people or for people who are HIV positive. However, it is still unlawful for a private club that restricts its membership to people who share particular protected characteristics to discriminate against members, associates, or guests because of other protected characteristics."

In reply to hazeysunshine:

One of my friends is a member (or was on the brink of becoming one) and I was considering coming along to a meet with her to get myself back into climbing, but she's now snapped her leg so I don't think she'll be climbing for a while... I agree that the dynamic amongst a group of women can be different and I don't see what people's problem is - it's not as if someone, on choosing to be a member of the Pinnacle Club, couldn't also be a member of a mixed club, or climb with men at other times.

In reply to MG:


Yup. And we pay people to write them.....

My understanding is that a club can discriminate on as many protected characteristics as it fancies, so long as it declares them as part of its aims. But if they're not declared as part of its aims, it can't discriminate on those grounds.

But still a minefield. A local charity for older people has started running a "men's shed" (workshop space for older blokes to recycle wooden furniture). I suspect that's strictly illegal. It probably won't offend anyone. But does it actually need to be restricted to men?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Why don't you come along anyway, then by the time your friend's back in action you will be too? (I don't mean that to sound heartless

In reply to Carolyn:



Hmm, the odd thing is, is that you are allowed a 'name' for something and your goals can be fairly different. There are plenty of 'Working Men's' clubs that are anything but, so I guess if they allowed Women into this shed then it's just a name really.

However had the overall group been a 'older Gentleman's club', there wouldn't be a problem with the shed.

In reply to Carolyn:


I would say that the restriction is unnecessary, and that although the likelihood may be low of causing offence, it's still a possibility. A local woman who's into recycling furniture might find it annoying if it's the only local resource. Of course, she has the option of finding other people and creating her own group (which could be women-only or mixed). Much simpler to join an existing group, though.

As a matter of curiosity, do you find the existence of that group annoying at all?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


Still got that chip on your shoulder, I see.

In reply to JayPee630:


Yes, that's moronic because (despite your first comment) whites or able bodied people are not minorities. Minority is not purely numerical, in fact it's possible to be a minority group whilst retaining numerical majority. It's about being a challenged demographic.

In reply to bpmclimb:


Annoying enough to have noticed and remembered its existance....

But I'm not old enough to be a beneficiary of the group's services yet. And IME there are differences between the generations in views of what women can and should do, so to some extent I'm prepared to accept such things as a dying breed.

In reply to Abi Chard:

I have no problem whatsoever with women only clubs/meets.

Good on them.

This discussion could have been had on a Separate thread. Its Pretty hard for an Interested woman to Express an interest in Coming along to the OP now.

all the male bigots have just Proved why women feel the need for an all Female club, away From all the chest beating male Loons.

In reply to Jonny2vests:
Agree, people bandy about the 'discrimination' term but it's about being less powerful and being discriminated *against* as a category, not discrimination per se. It's the same principle why (generally in the UK) you can't be racist against 'whites' or sexist towards men.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


I disagree. The terms 'minority' and 'majority' are primarily numerical terms. In South Africa, for example, much of the wealth/power is held by the white minority.

In reply to JayPee630:


You can!

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I think you're just ignoring the point, rather than disagreeing!

In reply to Michael Gordon:
It's kind of a semantic point, I think - common usage just refers to prejudice (possibly backed up by actions), but a lot of academic discussion of racism (say) uses the term only to refer to something that exists in the context of a broader power imbalance.

In practice, though, white people who bang on about anti-white racism or men who bang on about sexual discrimination against men almost always need to wake up and smell the privilege, particularly if they bring it up in the context of a discussion of racism against non-white people or sexual discrimination against women...

In reply to The Lemming:


Such a lame, ignorant comment. I consider myself a feminist. I ain't got any nylon nails though.

I can't believe you've hijacked this persons thread with your stupidity.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
Yeah, Minority is a pretty poor word when you think of it.

'Minority group' is supposed to refer to a group of people who have less social power or are under represented in someway. It doesn't really work the other way round. But of course by that definition we have both: Majority minorities and minority majorities, which is which do not ask me.

It's just a shitty phrase to be honest. But in the vast majority (numerically) of cases the minority (numerical) is the minority group (under-represented in the higher echelons) so it normally works out fine. But Feminists and the Women's rights movements wanted to equate their majority group (numerical) to minority groups (both numerical and social) because of the shared social imbalance.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
I'm sure you *might* be able to find a very specific time when someone once was, but generally you can't be. What gender and race theory have you read that says otherwise, or in fact any theory (and I mean well argued and backed-up with proof, not generally bleating by a middle aged man on an internet forum) anywhere that says that you can be racist against whites in the UK?

Racism and sexism are about structural power allied to discrimination. Society, culture, and politics in the UK gives advantages and privilege to whites and men over people from BME backgrounds and women (and if you want to argue against that you're delusional!). You can discriminate against whites and men, but it's generally accepted that you can't be racist or sexist against the category that holds structural power.

In reply to Abi Chard:

All this gibberish on here. The sexist morons and the left wing authoritarians don't like it.

Christ, some women want to climb not in the company of men. Full power to them.

D

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I certainly wouldn't bang on about it, but it would be silly to suggest that racism, sexism etc doesn't exist or has no effect just because the individual concerned doesn't belong to a marginalised group.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


...who hold the majority of social power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's not silly, it generally accepted definitions and theory in this field.

In reply to JayPee630:

OK then, say a white person walks into a black neighbourhood. They are physically attacked because of their colour. Is this not racist?!

In reply to JayPee630:


I respectfully disagree.

Racism is the belief of the superiority of one race over another.

Sexism is the belief of the superiority of one gender over another.

There's no link to the status Quo or any power imbalance. You do not have to be white or in the majority group to be racist. You can also be racist against the particular race that you are, if you believe that race to be inferior to others.

If you discriminate against someone based on their race or gender, then that is sexual or racial discrimination. A woman can be sexist and sexually discriminate against men. There is no contradiction here.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I hope it goes really well too. It feels pretty embarrassing reading through this thread-hijack man crap.

In reply to JH74:

Yes, it is truly cringe worthy.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Does that matter though? Surely to climb or not to climb is a choice. To claim that women are a "disadvantaged minority" as few of them choose to climb is a bit daft/weird isn't it?

In reply to stroppygob:

Not saying this is the case here, but in some instances people feel that the overwhelming presence of the opposite sex can be a barrier to them participating - perhaps there's a men only synchronised swimming club out there.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's not just about free will, there's all kinds of variables which might affect someone's decision to become a climber.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Well, I expected a few comments ....

Thanks for all the messages of support, and thanks to everyone else too for keeping the post bumped up. Nice job!

In reply to Abi Chard:
So glad you're not mad at us for hijacking.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Well your thread has kept me up a bit later than intended as I was thoroughly entertained.

Just to hi-jack your thread a little more (and keep it on the go I suppose):-How many people have to limit the amount of access they give themselves to the forum part of UKC? I find that otherwise I just don't have the time to spare.

In the meantime the weather better pick up for your May meeting.

Rob

In reply to Abi Chard:
Unbelievable, isn't it... Nice meeting you and Ian at the weekend, hope you get similar weather for the Peaks meet... and our trip!

In reply to JayPee630:


That's generally accepted, is it?... I see, would "to deny it be delusional"?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

I'm not middle aged, I'm old, the middle would be 40ish, and I don't feel victimised. Have you thought about improving your communication skills, your present method doesn't exactly work in favour of the your cause?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, its just common sense isn't it. How can a minority group or an individual significantly diminish your rights if you are part of the majority?

In reply to Jonny2vests:


The Tories have managed it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

The Tories aren't a minority group. Pay attention.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

There's a difference between 'significantly dimishing rights' and racism/sexism.

You don't have to diminish anyone's rights to be a racist.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Of course they are, that's why they had to try and form a coalition!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm 40ish, and now I feel victimised

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I think the term minority is the wrong one to use. The Super-Rich, MPs and members of the royal family are all minority groups but not disadvantaged.

Some have suggested that, as things have got so much better, the need for the Pinnacle Club has disappeared and I see some sense in that. On the other hand things can get a lot got better still and the active encouragement that got us to where we are should not be withdrawn prematurely.

In reply to Abi Chard:

my my what a male dominated ranting you seem to have received

I totally understand a group of girls wanting a no perving day out

women and men will never be "equal" 'cos we're different

I'm a bit weird 'cos I work with women and I often don't understand men

well mebbe I'm just a bit weird

In reply to Jonny2vests:


So racism is only when your "rights" are actually diminished? Isn't this moving the goal posts to suit the way the ball is heading?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, it doesn't. It just means making a distinction. Look it up.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Oh yes they are! Take a look at the last election results.

In reply to Carolyn:


I wouldn't mind being 40 again... make the most of it, physically things don't get better!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No. Anyone can be racist. But how effective is it at diminishing your rights if you hold all the cards?

In reply to Tall Clare:


And to some it would be a definite plus to the activity. I think the cold, broken nails, rough skin, strenuous nature, unflattering clothes, general grime, and pointless nature of climbing would be more of a disinclination than the prospect of catching man germs would be.


Icky!!

In reply to FreshSlate:



I know, I was trying to (poorly I know) make that point.

In reply to yeti:


Is that how you see the world? It seems a rather archaic way of looking at humans, I thought we had moved on from there. Maybe I've just been lucky as I don't know any men, or women for that matter, who see things like this... "perving", what an odd concept!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


There you are, thinking it's purely about numbers again. It's about power.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


We already have, read higher up the thread - been there, done that.

In reply to yeti:

>[...]


[...]

I think, judging by the responses on here they're wanting a 'no blokes wittering on' day out, which would get my vote.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


The terms "minority" and "majority" are numerical terms, if you want to speak of power balance find more appropriate terms.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce is too old to perv. I, on the other hand am a filthy letch!

JamesDubya touched on this,

There might well be an argument on the lines of whether single-sex clubs are now old fashioned. At my primary school there were different entrances for girls and boys, by the time I attended that school they had stopped using the entrances strictly for one sex or the other. However the words 'Boys' and 'Girls' are still etched in weather beaten stone, I see them every time I pass.

I don't think the idea that gender segregation isn't necessary anymore is sexist. I think the best reply would be something like 'why can't like-minded individuals organise trips together?'. Which is a fair argument too.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I think The Lemming has provided a good demonstration of why some women still sometimes prefer to climb in women only groups. Perhaps The Lemming is a cunning invention of Abi. ;-D Abi, good luck, hope it goes well, can't believe some of the grief you got on here.

In reply to pebbles:
You're possibly right! Crafty of Abi that! Notice neither lemming or Abi post at the same time? Coincidence? I think not!

In reply to pebbles:


But women only activities are so old-fashioned, if not archaic - like women only swimming pool sessions that some "traditional" muslims demand. Do you think the latter is a sign of a progressive attitude favourable to gender equality or the opposite? The answer seems clear enough to me, and it did 40 years ago, it's seems amazing that there is this swing backwards these days.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Giggady

In reply to stroppygob:



That list appears to assume that women are more concerned with their appearance than in participating in an absorbing, challenging, invigorating sport.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Quite a few women have joined the Climbers Club since the barrier to women went down, yet kept their membership of The Pinnacle Club. The CC and the PC have a joint meet every year and the PC and CC are kindred clubs as far as huts are concerned.
One of the big resistances of the older male members was that the CC would need to make 'women only' dormiteries in the huts (as the FRCC had), thankfully this has never happened.

In reply to Tall Clare:


Well for quite a few that's clearly true. Stroppy was suggesting that this, rather than an over-powering male atmosphere, is a bigger reason for fewer women climbers than men. Do you think he is wrong?

In reply to MG:

I think what he says might be true for some women. Lots of women like to do things without involving men - for instance, I prefer mountain biking with female friends than with male friends. It's just less gung ho.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Maybe you should change your male friends? (joke)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Are you telling me a proportion, (majority even,) aren't?

In reply to stroppygob:

No I'm not - I'm saying *I don't think* it's true. I have no evidence to confirm either way - do you?

In reply to Tall Clare:



None at all. But still, I'd speculate that the reason for the few women participants has more to do with the reasons I outlined, than there being too many men in the sport.


http://matadornetwork.com/sports/women-rank-rock-climbing-as-the-sexiest-sp...

In reply to Tall Clare:



I do a lot of climbing, and like different sorts of climbing days - relaxed pottering, scenery-based, intense and challenging, or with four or more climbers and primarily social. I don't particularly do "gung ho" in the sense of unthinking and careless enthusiasm - but am probably guilty of that too, once in a while! I also have a variety of climbing friends of both sexes, and in my case I can detect no correlation between gender of partner and type of climbing day.

I suspect there are many male mountain bikers out there who are very much the opposite of gung ho. Assuming that's the case, there's probably a reason why you've managed to avoid them. It seems likely that we're not fully conscious of many of the factors that influence our choice of friends (or partners, for that matter). Perhaps you select male friends, in part, for their gung ho characteristics, but then find them a pain to go biking with. (Not saying there's anything wrong with that, by the way - just interested).

In reply to stroppygob:

That still doesn't say anything about whether women don't participate in climbing because they're scared they'll crack a nail or ruffle their hair though!

In reply to stroppygob:
So you're assuming with no evidence that not many women climb because they're afraid of breaking a nail, but you also don't think sexism is a major thing in climbing?

FWIW I know quite a few female climbers who regularly get pissed off at people assuming that they'll want directing to the beginners slabs when they get to the wall, or that if they turn up at an alpine hut with their boyfriend it's because their boyfriend is leading them up something (rather than vice versa), or that they'll want to hang around and chat at the wall rather than cranking on the big overhang. Most women I know through climbing are bloody minded and take that sort of constant minor attrition as a challenge, but that's rather a self-selecting sample, and a lost of people who aren't that bloody minded may not have stuck around for long enough for me to meet them!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Why do women prefer women's groups? Is it because they are making assumptions about other women in general? Less 'gung ho' and what not?

In reply to stroppygob:


Wow. I'm not surprised because this assumption is entirely in character for you but I think this says quite a lot about your attitude. I would go further and respectfully suggest that having to deal with bullshit like this is part of the reason why some women, quite legitimately, prefer climbing with other women, at least some of the time.

Sorry for contributing to this embarrassment of a thread, I'm hope all those attending the pinnacle meet will get a good laugh out of it at least.

In reply to FreshSlate:

FWIW, I wasn't saying male climbers are 'gung ho' - I used that as a personal example of why I prefer mountain biking with women.

In reply to Ramblin dave:




Every single female climber that I know and climb with is vastly superior to my ability in strength and technique in every discipline, except for Trad climbing. This is not because I think I'm better, its just that I am not in a club and only climb Trad with two other friends on the one rope because I trust them and know their abilities. I don't personally know any female Trad climbers.

At the wall or crag I admire and respect the talent and ability of the individual irrespective of gender.

On a forum, especially the 'Down The Pub Forum' I'm just being a tit. I think this is a given after being on here for 12 years.

In reply to Tall Clare:


The good thing (well, one of them anyway) about women who climb is that they tend not to care about breaking nails or ruffling their hair. Life really is too short for bothering with women who do.

In reply to Robert Durran:

As it goes, I used to climb a lot with someone who regularly broke off bouldering sessions to carry out running repairs to her nails. It didn’t seem to stop her climbing E6 or winning various national competitions.

My theory, similar yet subtly different to yours, would be that life is too short to worry about what other people worry about.

jcm

In reply to stroppygob:


Well done for bringing the level down and providing proof for those seeking it that men climbers really are a dumb, macho and unfrequentable lot!

Sometimes it seems that human evolution has reached a brick wall!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well done for refuting my argument with such detail and logic. I said nothing about men, BTW.

In reply to Quiddity:



translates as; Blah, blah, blah...I cannot refute what you said by argument, so I'll insult you instead." That the best you can do, really?

In reply to Tall Clare:

True, but, if as this survey says, "women find climbing men sexy", then why are they not attracted to participate in the sport in numbers? Probably because the physical aspects and hardships do not appeal to them.

In reply to stroppygob:

Given that what you posted was an assumption baldly asserted as fact with no actual evidence I don't think it needs to be dignified with refutation, to be honest, I thought the fact you felt happy posting it on the internet of more interest.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Why not try debating what I actually wrote, instead of your fantasy about what I wrote eh?

Anyway, I'm off to be now. I look forward to reading more fantasies about what I wrote tomorrow.

In reply to Quiddity:

Reads as"I cannot refute what you wrotem, so I'll run away"

In reply to stroppygob:

Just because someone finds someone else attractive doesn't mean they want to participate in the same sport at the same time *for that reason*. In a different example, I could say that I found men in suits attractive but that wouldn't automatically mean I wanted to work in a corporate environment.

I think your 'physical aspects and hardships' is a red herring - I can't prove it though, and I'm not sure you can disprove it.

In reply to stroppygob:

Sorry, I can't think what part of
"Do you have any evidence?"
"None at all. But still, I'd speculate..."
I misinterpreted as you assuming stuff with no evidence...

In reply to Abi Chard:
Thanks Abi. Will there be a similar meet later in the year? I had planned to do a leading course at PyB this summer as my leading is not very confident and quite rusty.

I used to climb with my husband, but he has become obsessed by golf (I know) and I'd like to get away on few weekends. I've always climbed with him or other men, similarly with cycling and other outdoor sports, so certainly don't have an issue with it. But active outdoor women *are* a minority, and I'd like to meet some others!

In reply to Abi Chard:

Getting back to the point, I'm still toying with coming along to the Peak, but are there likely to be any open meets in the Lake District coming up?

In reply to rousse:

We've got another open meet in July based at our hut in North Wales. Prospective members are welcome on any meet, to be honest, but it's good to have a couple each year where new members are the focus. Check out our meets list on the website.

Quite a few of our members joined because their partners stopped climbing so they needed to find new people to climb with, so you wouldn't be the first there.

In reply to Tall Clare:

We've got a meet in the Lakes in September, and other meets before then in North Wales and Scotland, if you can't make the Peak in May. Hopefully one of the dates will work for you.

In reply to stroppygob:

I think it is well and truly established that women are attracted to the sport in very significant numbers.

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, thank goodness all that gender stereotyping is a thing of the past eh?

In reply to Tall Clare:


It is a fair point - that is definitely the case for many. Otherwise why do a lot more men (than women) take part in sport and a lot more women (than men) go shopping as a leisure pursuit? Clothes shopping for the fun of it seems closely related to taking an interest in appearance.

In reply to deepsoup:

Many stereotypes have a factual basis - that is how they have come to exist in the first place. The problem with them is that they generalise - they assume that everyone in a given group fits the same picture.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not in the social sciences, which is our context. I agree that it can be confusing, so I shall desist henceforth.

In reply to Abi Chard:

I don't get to trad climb with women as much as I'd like so this sounds a good idea Abi Thanks for raising it.

But my reasons for usually enjoying female partners more are pretty basic.....

I'm 5'4" and its a joy to find that I'm not struggling on some blasted move where Mr 6' climber with a high ape index just shouts up/down "the edge is really good..."

In reply to Al Evans:



Are you sure about this? I don't think the FRCC has separate dorms for men and women because of their reciprocal rights with the PC. As far as I know, we (FRCC) always had separate dorms anyway. Also, the dorm in the Pinnacle Club hut is a mixed dorm so I'd be suprised if the Pinnacle Club members would have insited on a women only dorm in the CC huts as part of the terms of their reciprocal rights.

It is also worth noting that male and female members of clubs who have reciprocal rights with the Pinnacle Club have identical access to the Pinnnacle Club hut. I understand that for some time the FRCC had reciprocal rights with the Wayfarers in spite of the fact that the Wayfarers did not allow women to sleep in their hut. To some, this seemed unfair as it meant that the FRCC were extending reciprocal rights to all the Wayfarers members while the Wayfarers were only extending reciprocal rights to some of the FRCC members. Anyway, that is all sorted now as the Wayfarers do allow women to sleep in their hut (AFAIK).

I'm a member of the Pinnacle Club and also two other mixed sex clubs and, to be honest, I am still a little undecided about some of the obvious issues surrounding single sex climbing clubs. I didn't join the Pinnacle Club because it was a women only club. To me that was incidental. One of the earliest PC meets I went on was what really convinced me to put aside my ideological qualms about single sex clubs and just get on with the climbing. I had been trying to join in with a meet that was planned for a forthcoming weekend by a different club that I was a member of at the time. It was proving hard to get any information or find anyone else who was planning to attend and in the end the proposed meet never really happened due to general apathy. Anyway, frustrated by this, I gave up trying to go to that meet and went on the Pinnies meet instead. I was amazed to see such a strong, keen, friendly group of active climbers who were just busy getting on with climbing. There were teams climbing all kinds of grades and I was just so impressed. It became blindingly obvious that if I wanted to maximise my opportunities to climb, joining the pinnacle club was the best option at the time. So, I did and on reflection I think it was a really good idea.

There are of course many issues around single sex clubs and views differ on whether they are useful in moving us towards the goal of reducing gender discrimination. Debating such issues is obviously a legitimate pursuit but I suspect you might find that many members of the Pinnacle Club will number amongst the large group of people who are too busy doing other stuff (e.g., climbing) be able to spare the time to join in.

In reply to cathsullivan:

I think you misunderstood. Al meant simply that the CC didn't want to have separate dorms like the FRCC had.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Very true.

As with this "women don't climb because they prefer shopping" line of debate, two points stand out:

1. There's a hint of statistical truth here somewhere. Survey a million men and million women picked at random from the population and I expect you'll find significantly more female leisure-shoppers and more male outdoor/extreme sport enthusiasts.

2. Thing is that climbing involves only a very very small number of either the male or the female population, so applying this very broad, vague trend to that tiny subset is pretty meaningless, since other factors are clearly required to put either a man or a woman into the climbing population.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Al seemed to be suggesting that some in the CC had felt that having reciprocal rights with the PC would necessitate having separate dorms. Anyway, I guess it's all a bit irrelevant now as they do have reciprocal rights.

In reply to Abi Chard:

What have you started Abi?

In reply to cathsullivan:

Perhaps Al will clarify.
Text can so often be read with different meanings.

In reply to Carolyn:



I suspect it can be justified o the same grounds as the charities that run dad's clubs in areas with social problems. Z

Men are much less likely to join in with self help groups and are reluctant. If they can get them in by activites like that, then they can help them and stop them being isolated. Older men might not want to trouble people or see the traditional support for older people as being for them. This is a good alternative.

In reply to Babika:

I see your reasoning, although not a gender specific probem, you're at least stacking the odds in your favour.


To Tallclare: Heard the club is really rubbish don't go.

(Got you covered Babika)

In reply to marsbar:


Very true

In reply to Abi Chardn
Do you have any events for women that don't lead yet? I'm not quite up to it at present and I'm not as fit as I would like and out of practise.

In reply to marsbar:

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't needed - I think it's a great idea. But as far as I can see, it's probably illegal under the new(ish) legislation.

Similarly for Dads' only groups.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.



No.


1. I couldn't give a shit. 2. What is my cause?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:




You and the Lemming deserve eachother. It's quite cute to be honest.

In reply to Abi Chard:

If the elderly, white, middle class, misogynists that inhabit the UKC (and seem to be the dominant voice on this bailiwick (to use a phraseology sufficiently archaic that they might actually understand)) really want to know why women might wish to have the impertinence to arrange a female only meet, then I refer you to a recent thread in which a female, whose profile picture suggests she is somewhat atttractive, posted a request for a climbing partner. Oddly enough, whilst most such posts for partners elicit maybe 3 or 4 responses at best, responses in this case numbered several dozen. And they were almost all male. I wonder why? Pervs.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Not sure if that's supposed to be a compliment or insult. Whichever, I still couldn't give a shit.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Is wanting to meet an attractive woman really the act of a 'perv'? Strange way to view the world.

Still I'm sure that, in your inimitable phrase, you couldn't give a shit.

jcm

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Does being obnoxious come naturally to you, or do you put effort into your venomous posts?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

on your side Sally

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


It's a lonely hearts club UKC is! Sally, have you ever wanted to meet a person of the opposite sex before? Have you ever found someone attractive? Did you consider yourself a pervert?

In reply to The Lemming:


It comes naturally, but still takes practise. Only reason I post on here TBH.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Are you Shona?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Yup.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Just looked at your age in your profile. Ha ha! I think I just wet myself a bit.

In reply to Abi Chard:

Tsk, tsk... all this bickering about the Pinnacle Club.

The real reason that there are no men in the club is that no male applicant has as yet managed to achieve the 'Proudfoot standard' of meet cake which I have to say is exceptionally high and which is, as everyone knows, a prerequisite for membership.

In reply to MingDynasty:



What is this proudfoot standard? Reckon they'll fall for the finest cake I can find in Tesco?

In reply to FreshSlate:


You trying to come on to me???

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:
Damn, rumbled!

Haha, it looks pretty bad without that last question.

In reply to The Lemming:


And of course suggesting that anyone female and vaguely attractive has a "fek me hard from behind smile" is not in the slightest bit obnoxious nor venomous. Actually, in your pathetic little world, I strongly suspect it isn't.

In reply to MingDynasty:

The real reason that there are no men in the club is that no male applicant has as yet managed to achieve the 'Proudfoot standard' of meet cake which I have to say is exceptionally high and which is, as everyone knows, a prerequisite for membership.

Is a 'Proudfoot' the male equivalent of a 'Cameltoe'?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:
You still haven't answered my questions?

Or just more generally, would you be the pervert had you responded to a thread started by someone you found attractive?

In reply to marsbar:



At the informal UKC peak meet last summer we had both sexes climbing with each other old hands and newbies alike. Just a really good couple of days with loads of climbing done. Sometimes the informal meets are much better than club meets if you don't want to be regimented and don't mind going with the flow.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Oh dear... what a dunderhead you must be!

A quick look on Wikipedia and you could have found the following:

In men, the equivalent to "camel toe" is male organs showing through clothes at the crotch, which has been referred to as a "moose knuckle".

Neither have anything to do with the Proudfoot Standard of cakes.

In reply to marsbar:


We always welcome new members, but we're not a club for beginners - I'm not clear from your post if you've lead before but need to get back into it or are fairly new to climbing? If the latter, the best bet would be to do a course somewhere like PyB to get the initial skills, but then you could start coming along on some meets as a prospective member to build on that. It's worth getting in touch with our membership secretary through the website in any case, as she can chat to you about what climbing you've done and the sort of experience we expect.

Hope that's helpful!

In reply to Babika:




Sorry Babika, I have to own up - I'm 5'9". But there are plenty of PC members shorter than me ... and you. As one of our blog posts from 2011 shows: http://pinnacleclub.co.uk/empirical-research-at-baggy-point/

Hope to see you at a meet sometime (I promise not to make helpful comments about useful holds ...)

In reply to MingDynasty:

In men, the equivalent to "camel toe" is male organs showing through clothes at the crotch, which has been referred to as a "moose knuckle".

Neither have anything to do with the Proudfoot Standard of cakes.


Maybe a 'Proudfoot' only applies to me then...

In reply to Tall Clare:


Very true. However, if a single person finds that a sport have potential attractive mates, it is rather an incentive to participate. Whereas sports like women's netball or basketball do not have potential mates to straight women, yet seem to have better participation rates. Could this be due to them taking place in warm dry environments?

I wonder what the difference in indoor and outdoor climbing rates are for women?


Doesn’t mean we cannot have a reasoned and reasonable debate on it though?

Oh, and what about "risk aversion" as a reason less women participate? I think a far stronger case could be made for that than this ludicrous idea that sexism is the reason for low female participation.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Best example of broad brush gender-stereotyping sexism I've seen for years.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

A little googling finds;



Read more: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/economics/extension-nail-salons-are-now-a-th...

I find UKC to be the only forum I witness these sorts of discussions on such a frequent basis. (It's also the only forum I witness people frequently calling others misogynists).

Having never been to the UK, I start to wonder if the countries I've lived in are just much more civilized. Or, alternatively, that for whatever reasons people in the UK are just more sensitive (or to be generous, aware?) about it.

In reply to cathsullivan:


Sorry Cath, you misinterpreted what I meant to say, the older members fears were nothing to do with TPC, but merely having women members and as I recall the FRCC always had separate dorms for women (do they still?).

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Shallow behaviour perhaps but not necessarily pervs.

In reply to stroppygob:


You really are making youself look a bit foolish now.
(even more so actually)

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, I can't actually find that quote in the reference you give, but perhaps that's because I can't open its references or tables on my iPad?

However, the figures appear to come from clients of nail salons, or readers of "Nails" magazine, rather than a sample of the general public......

In reply to Carolyn:

yep that 'research' looked questionable at best!

In reply to stroppygob:


I find this very hard to believe... I don't know any women who ever go to such joints. It sounds to me a bit like the report put out by the University of Bordeaux that claimed regular drinking of red wine, Bordeaux for example, reduced the risk of heart attack

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Now, I prefer that research finding!

In reply to stroppygob:


I think this has very little to do with gender. A lot more men go to the gym than go climbing outdoors.


You are more on to something here. There is definitely a much stronger gender differential when you just consider outdoor climbing. However, this could be down to a number of reasons. Differing attitudes to risk (as you suggest) could well be one of them, particularly when it comes to trad climbing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The wife has been twice since ive known her, she thinks falsies are simply holding places for germs

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Not even shallow. Single heterosexual men are always on the look out for ways to meet attractive women (especially if they have an interest in climbing). It is perfectly normal human behaviour.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well I did say perhaps. Shallow in the harhest sense (harsh seems to be Sallybustyerface's way) in that the decision is clearly based on physical appearance alone. In that sense normal human behaviour for men in regard to their attraction to women is often shallow. I'm happy to admit it.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Fair enough, but it is perhaps a bit harsh to call normal behaviour hard wired by evolution (and, of course, the vast majority of the time moderated by social convention) "shallow". Anyway, being a climber is generally a far more attractive trait in a woman that physical appearance (to me it doesn't matter how gorgeous looking a woman is if she is worried about messing up her hair or getting dirty nails).

In reply to Michael Gordon:


A sport like running, which generally involves being outdoors (often in lousy weather), appears (before I do any research) to have a pretty even gender split.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Very harsh. But the post I replied to suggested said behaviour was 'Perving'.
I agree wholeheartedly with the second... bit of your post too.

In reply to Tall Clare:


This doesn't mean that Women or any great number of them go running in bad weather, in a strictly logical sense.

In reply to Carolyn:

No one is going to use such worthless number... surely...

In reply to FreshSlate:
True - it seems to follow as much logic as Stroppy's assertion that women don't climb because we don't want to break nails.

(edited to change 'they' to 'we' - seems strange to talk about 'women' as a species separate from myself...)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Yes, can't fault that logic!

In reply to Robert Durran:

So are you saying that female climbers should expect plenty of unsolicited male sexual attention when they are trying to get on with climbing, because it is


?

The implication is pretty insulting to both men and women.

In reply to Abi Chard:
But it's not unsolicited is it?

Nor was it sexual for that matter!

Well that's that out of the window!

In reply to FreshSlate:

But your post was unsolicited by Abi.

In reply to Quiddity:


No.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks for clearing that up.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I meant sally's posting about this thread, I.E. the higher than average response rate to a female asking for a partner (climbing that is!)

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=584057


About this thread:

Your posts are just as unsolicited as mine! So ner!

In reply to FreshSlate:

I don't think that is the thread Sally was referring to.

In reply to Tall Clare:


Not really my experience, but then women have a long history of not being allowed to run more than 1/2 a mile to contend with.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathrine_Switzer

In reply to Quiddity:

no this one

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=581520&v=1#x7728805

Julies last post in particular is telling.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I meant in the sense that you were 'replying' to the wrong person.

In reply to whoever raised point of 'unsolicited male sexual attention'

Unless women are 'soliciting' for male sexual attention (which I believe used to be a criminal/civil offence), then it is all 'unsolicited'. Most sexual attention men give to women is unwanted; the female of the species is generally much choosier about sexual partners than the male. Woman are 'chatted-up' in all social circumstances, whether they like it or not, but if men don't ask they don't get (there are rare males pursued by hordes of women). This is the current nature of sexual politics/behaviour in our culture (quite different in other cultures & times). Why would it be any different in the climbing social sphere? If men left women alone & did not burden them with unsolicited sexual attention then perhaps the dating game would change its format. Until then we will just have to keep rubbing each other up the wrong/right way!!!
No offence intended in this post. No relevance either to the original theme. Hope the weather doesn't spoil the weekend. No chatting-up in the pubs either.

In reply to buxtoncoffeelover:

Sweeping generalisations here. And I know quite a few single women that can be just as predatory.

In reply to broken spectre:

That thread has had a lot of views (maybe bumped up a bit by being mentioned here) and the people viewing it wouldn't have know if the poster was male or female when they clicked on it. Maybe it just got a lot of views as the subject didn't specify a date or location.

In reply to buxtoncoffeelover:



It wouldn't be.

If I was offered the choice between a day climbing with a random woman and a day climbing with a random man off UKC, then, all other things being equal (keenness, climbing grade, location etc) then I would probably choose the woman. Either way, I would hope for a good day's climbing. Either way I would hope that I might gain a climbing partner and friend. But only with the woman would I have the tiny, tiny hope that, in the very, very long run I might end up with the win, win, win, win situation of having a climbing girlfriend or wife. There is a very,very long sliding scale between this approach and dragging her behind the nearest convenient boulder and raping her. I don't think some people recognise this.

In reply to Ava Adore:

Two wrongs dont make a right. Most women I got to know reasonably well and met first through this site have had at least minor problems with unwanted attention at times. A subject that has barely been an issue for the vast majority of the men I know in similar circumstances (I do know an example though). Its a male dominated site and men maybe get less worried about pests so that will distort things, but not that much. Reading the thread linked just above, the complete change of character in the last posting is pretty depressing.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
ohhhhh!

I thought you were talking about the thread derailment!

In reply to Ava Adore:


Can't you fix them up with the predatory men and we could all get a bit of peace?

In reply to broken spectre:
Ah right ok. If that's the thread then that's the thread! It's a couple pages back so missed that. I'm pretty sure she's joking here though, however if you wanted you could ask her if he's genuinely had any trouble.

"Haven't checked this in a while, so sorry for delay in response
Happy Easter weekend. Its funny to think I never climbed before 26 feb ? I am definitely hooked and have loved getting outside. In general, everyone has been a real help and given me loads of support and thankfully any kind of unwelcome advances have been kept to a minimum I.m a climber it feels great and exciting to part if it. And yeah I have intention of joining karabiner club haven't got round to it. Just wanna go outside with folk in the sunshine and I explore how far I can push myself xxx"

It sounds she's had a really positive experience, I'm not 'depressed' by this post. She seems unaware she's on a site full of rapists, weird. But honestly, if anyone who genuinely thinks she's had someone push their luck, we should find out, and Alan can get his ban hammer out. In all seriousness.

In reply to Robert Durran:


You can marry men now so that rather scuppers your argument.

In reply to Robert Durran:


And people wonder why women might actually want to climb with other women.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Do single women not think the same way? That they may do something that has a slim hope of a relationship as opposed to going somewhere where there will definitely be only be other women?

I might just break up with my girlfriend.

I've realised that going out with her as friends climbing was a despicable act, men should only do things that have absolutely no chance of leading into a relationship or forever be labeled a dirty pervert! Every women that I have climbed with before or since, I must have overstepped the mark because men are incapable of having platonic relationships with members of the opposite sex.

In reply to Ava Adore:
Which is why our media & legal system is full of complaints from sexually harrassed men!! You women just can't get enough!! A generalisation is always sweeping (oxymoron) and every majority has its corresponding minority. I did not claim anything exclusive. Most of my friends are climbers, but it is a minority pastime!! Nik

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That would be no doubt be a very convenient solution if I happened to be gay.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Some specify this in their "lifts and partners" posts and that is absolutely fine.

Though I do wonder whether you have either completely missed my point or are living in a completely unrealistic cloud cuckoo land.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's alright, I've just broke up with my climbing girlfriend because of what Planetmarshall has said. It all makes sense now!

I've actually been in the circumstance when a friend of mine (who I met through climbing) wanted a relationship and I did not at the time. We're still friends because normal people can handle that, she wasn't 'creepy' or 'pervy' as a result of this.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Worse than that, they're all potential rapists, just waiting for their chance.

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is a distinction Though, Julies partner request rapidly became overtaken by her Looks, etc. Leading to her last post being quite of a Concerned Nature.

Has any male partner request ever gone into what the OP Looks Like?

In reply to broken spectre:
Any post that has a smilely face in it is not of a 'quite a concerned nature'. I took it as a joke, however this is the internet. If you feel so strongly send her a PM and let's get the f*ckers banned.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Not feeling overly strongly, just putting another angle.

In reply to broken spectre:


This is you, is it not?



Forgot that advances from yourself didn't count.

That's how it works.

In reply to Robert Durran:


You might pause to consider the ratio of men to women posting in "Lifts and Partners", or indeed UKC Users in general, versus the climbing community as a whole, and wonder why that might be. Although the general content of this thread and the necessity for women-only groups makes it patently obvious.


I live in the same world as you. Perhaps you like it the way it is, I just think it could be better.

In reply to FreshSlate:

More of a comment on the threads Previous Transactions, dont you think?

In reply to broken spectre:



I haven't looked at that thread for a while, it was all becoming depressingly predictable.

In reply to broken spectre:



Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I'm glad you let her know you found her attractive though.

In reply to broken spectre:


I havn't read the thread, but if that is the case then it is certainly indefensible. My posts have been on the absurdity of expecting single men men to completely put aside all totally normal thoughts of looking for female life partner in any aspect of their life including climbing.

In reply to FreshSlate:

No, i was commenting and Joking on number of PMs she was receiving, not Approaching her myself.


Never addressed Julie personally, the Point made wouldnt have made sense without that reference now would it.

Youre Taking that post totally devoid of context. Read it after everything before it and itll become Clear as comment on the thread, not the OP.

In reply to planetmarshall:


You've obviously got the statistics. Please enlighten me.


If women want women only climbing groups for whatever reason that is absolutely fine by me,


Yes, I am quite happy to be labelled a predatory potential rapist just because I happen to be single but, in an ideal world, would have a climbing girlfriend or wife.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Replying to 'Ugly Munter needs Belay Bunny' requests, in Private eye is the way forward!

In reply to broken spectre:
Yeah big laugh, 'It must be because you're well fit'. You're the reason that thread looks bad. There were about 10 men who managed to avoid talking about her looks but you and a few others couldn't resist the joke.

You never addressed Julie personally? So if I start talking about one of the women here in a sexual way it's fine as long as I don't respond directly to them?

In reply to FreshSlate:

You seem to be Having trouble contextualising things today, Like your deleted post to Robert Durran, Which you realised you had Taken the wrong way as well.

In reply to broken spectre:
Okay, context:




If anyone desires any more context. Here's the thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=581520

I know you were joking but do you not think that's exactly the kind of thing that contributes to the male dominated atmosphere and unwanted attention, precisely the very reason that Women ask for 'Females only please'?

In reply to FreshSlate:





And in that context it becomes Obvious that i am Having a bit of badinage Casting Aspersions on the respondents motives in Replying to Julie.

whys that hard to Grasp?

In reply to broken spectre:

I know you were 'only joking', heard it all before.

But don't say this:


When you were the one telling her how attractive she was in the thread, it's called hypocrisy.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


Well put

In reply to FreshSlate:

I had a read through the relevant thread, you have definitely got the wrong end of the stick.

In reply to dek:


I'll give it a try.

In reply to Offwidth:


Hmm, interesting correlation...

In reply to The New NickB:
I have read the thread too. How about you explain? He's the one who highlighted it, not I. He's used that thread as an example of guys making women feel uncomfortable on this site.

Who's he criticising if not himself?

If the threads not all that, then he's decontextualised it for his own means.

If there is laddish behaviour in the thread, then he himself was contributing to it.

Either way.

In reply to Tyler:

That could be funny if the situation wasn't so sad. Mistaking real enthusiam for climbing for (absolutely no) desire for a different kind of partnership is pretty dumb and trying it on in the middle of a climbing day dumb, scary and potentially dangerously distracting. If I wasn't sitting next to my wife Moff in the evening pub trip of a few meets I may never have got to know some of the bad things that happened in any case: she has plenty of stories of her own and swaps tales of sexism and pests sometimes. Its unrelated to relationships that do happen between climbers: quite a few of our friends met through climbing following a genuine mutual attraction very different from the inappropriate behaviour of pests.

In reply to Robert Durran:


More excuses! Not even prepared to make even a tiny bit of effort, are you?

In reply to Abi Chard:

Luckily you didn't say "the Peaks". Someone might have come along and derailed your thread!

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:



To make oneself look foolish all you have to do is say someone has posted something wrong, totally fail to offer any refutation of their point, and then insult them personally.

Which is exactly what you have done.

Twice.

It's called "playing the man not the ball", (aka cheating.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't know any women who go to pole dancing clubs, I'm sure they exist though.

In reply to broken spectre:


Well now, she asid...


In reply to juliesunray:



And her last post was;

In reply to juliesunray:


She then added her telephone number.

Which doesn't make her seem "concerned" to me.

I think you are trying to weave cloth out of thin air

In reply to stroppygob:

Ey up, he's woken up, that f*ck it's bed time in UK!

In reply to Lusk:

Up and ready to go to work. (I hate Saturday shifts!)

In reply to Lusk:

ZZZzzz

In reply to stroppygob:

Two circuits of Chew Skyline for me. I can feel the pain now.

In reply to stroppygob:


Why's that, fruityboy?

In reply to Abi Chard:

This thread is a disgrace. Worst thread hijack I've seen. If you're a man who insists he doesn't get the point of this meet then you're at best disingenuous, maybe a bit thick, or maybe you're sexist. The men on here going on about a woman's climbing meet being sexist sound like a load of whiny losers. No wonder women want to climb without you around. I'm a man and I don't want to climb with you.
Well done to Abi for not rising to the bait.

In reply to aln:


That's my surprise of the day, I always imaginged ou to be female. (No offence meant by this.)

In reply to stroppygob:


But is anyone claiming women go to pole dancing clubs on average twice a week? Just do the maths, >30 million having their nails done professionally twice a month, 30 000 000 x 12 x 2 = 720 000 000 visits per year, these nail operatives must be millionaires!

In reply to aln:


Don't you realise that it's single gender clubs that are sexist? It's not hard to understand.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/economics/extension-nail-salons-are-now-a-th...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10286588/These-bright-fingerti...


Appendix II:
Below is the summary of money needed to start up Nicer Nail Salon

Start-up Expenses

Rent deposit £1,500

Legal £500

Brochures £500

Stationery £1,000

Sundry salon equipment £2,500

Total Start-up Expenses £6,000


Read more: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/economics/extension-nail-salons-are-now-a-th...

http://www.scratchmagazine.co.uk/


http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_7358884_much-do-nail-techs-make_.html

In reply to stroppygob:

You also only have to look on your local facebook buy&sell groups, local services groups etc. There is a huge number of mobile nail technicians working 'off the grid'. There is a scarey number of tattooists out there too.
I had a girlfriend who couldn't face the weekend unless her week was capped off by having her nails done and buying herself some frilly things. Great for me I suppose but a sheer waste of money IMO but hey, climbing is a waste of money in some opinions as well.

In reply to stroppygob:


So they are quiet a way from being millionaires... see what I mean? Your figures don't work.

well I have met a girl who said she sometimes went to a pole dancing place for a few drinks with female friends

I think the main reason was never having to wait for the toilet, 'cos every "normal" club has a queue

In reply to aln:

Happily there have also been on-topic replies to the OP here and there throughout, and presumably more by email.

From the club's point of view, there may be a small up-side to the thread hijack in that it's been a sort of continuous rolling 'bump' and made the thread more prominent than a premier post would have been.

In reply to Abi Chard:
Pole dancing, nail salons it makes you wonder where the cliche will go next. Plenty to sigh, eye roll and laugh about in the post meet pub session. Enjoy your trip.

In reply to stroppygob:

>I always imaginged ou to be female. (No offence meant by this.)

None taken. Why?

In reply to deepsoup:

Indeed, no effort required on Abi's part.

And I've rarely come across a more apt opportunity to use the term QED.

In reply to stroppygob:





Actually I thought I was doing you a favour.

In reply to aln:

Just your attitudes and posting style. As I say, no big thing...

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Another non reply.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Who cares Bruce, its all a falderal eh?

Still waiting for any, ANY, ANY AT ALL, evidence to be posted to show that "male sexism" is more responsible for the low numbers of female participation in climbing.

I still stand by my assertion that; "cold, broken nails, rough skin, strenuous nature, unflattering clothes, general grime, and pointless nature of climbing would be more of a disinclination than the prospect of catching man germs would be."

I still posit that women generally tending to be more risk adverse than men is a far more likely cause of low female participation numbers than the sexism of male climbers.

In reply to stroppygob:


You think I have the attitudes and posting style of a woman? What attitudes and posting style do women have?

In reply to aln:
Female ones.


Let's not divert the thread though eh?

In reply to stroppygob:



No, go on. Keep digging.....

In reply to stroppygob:


Has anyone actually said this? It's pretty obvious that this is unlikely to be a major problem as a minority of macho males are present everywhere not just in climbing - fortunately the Wayfarer's club is quite small, who had heard of it before reading this thread? It is probably true the macho attitudes are more prevalent in organised clubs than in the mass of climbers, but even in such elitist havens change has arrived mostly.

That's what seems such a pity, when these male enclaves are crumbling some women seem to want to rebuild female ones, segregation as a reply to apartheid. Maybe just another sign of the swing to the right in British society over the last few decades, a backlash after the 70s? Certainly climbers as illustrated (on average) that I have discovered when ukc came along are a world away from those I knew when I climbed in Britain back then...

Cue for accusations of "good old day mania" and other ageist invective - funny how sexism seems to be combined with ageism in the posts by supporters of sexual segregation on this thread, maybe there is a underlying "fear of the other" behind it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Offwidth:

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm really struggling to understand your motivation for this continuing rant. The Pinnacle Club is no rebuild, it's been around for ever and its members are hardly some right wing seperationalist enclave. Have you actually talked to any british female climbers in the last few decades? The club doesn't suit everyone but many support it and I think anything that allows women to get on with their climbing in a supportive atmosphere and helps reduce the trad gender imbalance in the UK must be a good thing.