UKC

I used to be in a climbing club being very active (new members sec, president, etc) until I got pregnant when I was told in no uncertain terms that children and families are not desirable. I was very upset, but eventually got over it and continued to climb and child is now climbing too. Today, six years later, I receive an email from somebody from the club wanting me to suggest inspirational women speakers as it is their 20th anniversary of letting women into the club. I am lost for words. I was fuming, have calmed down a bit since. Shall I just let it wash over me? My hubby thinks I should leave it be, their loss. I had let it be til now, but the audacity to come back and ask me for suggestions lets my blood boil! Grrrrr.
Any humorous suggestions welcome, I just need to vent and have a laugh!!!!

In reply to Heike:

If I was in your position I would have found another club six years ago....You sound very tolerant to have put up with such prejudice in the first place.....

How about Janet Street Porter? I'm sure she would have a thing or to to say to your club.

In reply to Heike:

which club ?

In reply to Heike:

Could you not offer yourself as an inspirational speaker? Subject- climbing with kids...

In reply to Trangia:

Oh, I have found another club, that's people sending me an email several years later nevertheless...

In reply to Siward:

That was my first thought for a reply! Or something a long the lines

In reply to Doug:

Sorry, not saying, there are many nice people in it nevertheless

In reply to Heike:


....but women weren't allowed in until 1995?

In reply to Heike:

Caitlyn Jenner?

In reply to mbh:

but women weren't allowed in until 1995?

The SMC didn't allow women until 1990. So it can't be them.

In reply to Heike:


Make sure it is a woman with several children and explain that her children would have to accompany her to the anniversary function because her partner is not able to cope with them.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Certainly not the SMC! I am a member of them and it's a great club.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yeah, Hoew about Lynn Hill, she always used to take her child. I am sure he climbs 5.14d by now...

In reply to mbh:


apparently! There was a heated debate then and on the vote it just passed it, I believe.

In reply to Heike:
What postmanpat said, or have whoever does the speaking include your story in their introduction, how you were told you weren't welcome, and now you're asked for ideas and isn't it good that things have changed since you weren't welcome. There might be two ways people could absorb your story.

In reply to Heike:

Are you sure you had not joined a golf club by mistake?

In reply to Heike:


I wonder how many clubs and club members would be happy with young children at meets?

In reply to Timmd:

Nice idea...

In reply to Planks Constant:

This wasn't about young children at meets only, I would have never brought them along anyways, I have a van, it was about the whole outlook of the club, they didn't even want teenagers. Anyways that's not the issue.

In reply to Heike:

To clarify something.
Could you have continued being active with the club, as long as you didn't involve your child?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes

In reply to Heike:

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making? That it's sexist? If so, seems a little tenuous to me.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I am not making any point, I was just venting

In reply to Heike:
I'm a bit confused, you didn't plan to take your child to meets but you chose to leave because the club didn't want children on meets? Is that right?

In reply to Heike:

Long thread on clubs and children recently:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=620901

They do have a bloody cheek to come back and ask you. But then maybe their recollection of your leaving the club is different to yours...

Certainly find a speaker to talk about 'climbing and children', and the problems faced. Like finding a friendly club...

Or just tell them to piss off, and be very clear why you're telling them to piss off.

In reply to captain paranoia:






Clearly, they have a different recollection otherwise they wouldn't have asked me and yes I could just do the last thing you said (great option), but being a nice , moderate peaceful sort I won't and rather vent my anger here!!!

In reply to Heike: Assuming that someone reading this is from said club, perhaps they could do a small talk - well, essay - for UKC entitled 'Climbing as a level playing field; ensuring diversity and equality in club management'.

I'm sure we'd learn a great many interesting things.

T.

In reply to Heike:

I volunteer to be an inspirational female speaker...just point me at the club

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

>ensuring diversity and equality in club management.

Strange isn't it, a male precious parent complains about his kids not getting everything they want by joining a climbing club and people generally say tough luck chum but then a wimmin makes the same point and it suddenly becomes a diversity issue and the worst thing ever.


Doubtful.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Whilst empathising with the OP, and not knowing the full story, it's hard to assume that the club did anything wrong?
If I wanted to start a club that didn't allow certain sectors, would I be in the wrong? 'It's my club and I'll have whoever I want in it? ' or do clubs have to be subversive these days?
Ps I wouldn't be in a club as I'm unclubbable

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Quite right. A club is a club. And they can do what they like as you say. I can see that now, but to ask me to suggest some inspirational women seems a bit OTT. That's all.

In reply to Heike:


Pregnant pause....

Ha-ha, joke over.

Seriously though please keep venting, your vents are well justified in this case IMO.

In reply to Heike:


It's very over the top and rude. I would be out to stitch them, but then I'm very vindictive hence unclubbable

In reply to Heike:

Roy chubby brown sound just up their street, is he still alive?

In reply to Heike:

Maybe I read the OP differently to most. I took it that she was told "family life" was incompatible with being an active club member irrespective of her children coming into contact with the club?

If that is so then I understand the outrage and leaving was the best thing to be done. I'd be pissed too if they came back to me with such a question.

There's many people that juggle a tonne of commitments and do them all to the best of their ability. When someone commits to being part of a group then the commitment should be taken as offered, without others superimposing their own ideas about how others facets of a person's life may impact upon the individual's contribution to the group. Quite simply, anything outside of the club's activity isn't really any concern of the club unless it relates to general character.

In reply to Heike:

Six years is a very long time. Members will have gone and new members joined.

I'd be tempted to go back and see what's changed. You might be surprised.

In reply to gethin_allen:


"Good morning Chubby, ya big fat b**tard!"

"Good morning vicar"

Always makes me smile

In reply to Heike:


That may be why their recollection is different to yours... Did you let them know how you felt at the time, and why you were leaving the club, or were you nice and polite and left quietly...? Maybe they thought that now you had a proper job as a mother, you'd give up all that silly nonsense about wanting to be a climber. Women climbers! Dear me, they'll be wanting the vote next...

In reply to Heike:

Hmm interesting one that. In the eyes of the law it'd be a tricky situation, pregnancy is a protected characteristic and hence you shouldn't be discriminated against because of it. However this seems to only apply sometimes as you still get men/women only clubs but no-one would put up with racially selective club. Personally I think they're well out of line. A choicely worded email is in order IMO.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Equality and diversity in the extreme. I don't want any men with kids in my club. They just blather on about kids and how hard life is

In reply to Heike:

Where you the only female member they had? Seems odd that they asked an ex-member of 6 years, rather than existing members.

I think even the Boy Scouts let girls in before 1995.

In reply to Heike:

Sounds a bit rough to me. Could I suggest perhaps Jessica Ennis and her return to top sports following having a child?
Maybe Beth Rodden who has shared some interesting experiences in her blog including about managing breast feeding and pumping whilst training and recovering from pregnancy and also injury.
As a generous suggestion, what about Donald Trump? Nigel Farage? Jeremy clarkson?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

I'm not following here? The discrimination protection extends to men with kids to.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


I may want to set up a club with people without kids. Am I not allowed to do this for fear of vilification/legislation?
Not having a pop at you, just interested

In reply to Heike:

I would not be in a club that would have me, and this lot are crawling back, asking you for help.........

Not the Wayfarers then,

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Tbh I'm not sure. Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy is definitely illegal. I also know that in a job interview you can't ask whether someone has or is planning to have kids because of the discrimination thing. But you also get "no kids" holidays ect. All a bit bonkers really.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Is employment law different to the regs on members' clubs?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


That's a whole different can of worms. Mrs C once booked an 'adults only' resort in Jamaica. When I pointed out that the island was well known for its swingers' resorts and 'adults only' might be some sort of euphemism she nearly had kittens. Sadly, er I mean luckily, it was all above board.

In reply to Heike:


Very odd to "make it clear to you that you were no longer wanted with a family". If you were already climbing (and I know you have done some good stuff), it would surely be down to you to decide what you did or did not want to carry on doing. Why anyone should think this was the business of the club collectively is a mystery.


That is fairly understandable. Teenagers are a potential nightmare for clubs, what with boisterous behaviour risks, CRB check type risks, sexual exploitation risks, safety risks etc, all the modern "duty of care" panoply for a small voluntary organisation, whose members basically want to climb, not endlessly write out and police "safguarding policies".

The time was when clubs could just take teenagers along and let them both literally and metaphorically learn the ropes, and occasionally cuff them round the ear if they were being stroppy. That time has long since gone, and most clubs won't take the risk, so will be confined to "consenting adults". Children, even at meets, is easier since they will normally be with their parents, also can be confined to family meets.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Again I don't really know sorry. But the "protected characteristics" do cover pretty much every situation, I know that much. Great story btw .

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Indeed. It does sound as though the OP could have been discriminated against.
Personally, if I ran a club, I wouldn't want the kids of members turning up as it would change the dynamics of the group. Got kids meself and left without being asked. Sort of anyway

In reply to mbh:

Or 1989

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

The equality act (is it called that?) is not only employment law and is what now describes what is legal and not regarding discrimination.

Caveat: I think this is the case and that this law would apply to clubs also but I'm not sure.

In reply to puppythedog:

The equality act (is it called that?) is not only employment law and is what now describes what is legal and not regarding discrimination.
Caveat: I think this is the case and that this law would apply to clubs also but I'm not sure.

Except she hasn't been discriminated against...

In reply to FactorXXX:

I wasn't suggesting she had. I was replying to a comment which responded to the question does employment law apply in a club and I was pointing out there is legislation which I think would apply to clubs.

In reply to Heike:

Yes

Thanks. So it's more about a disagreement about the acceptance of children on club activities, as opposed to the club actively barring you?
Either way, bit of a cheek for them to ask you for advice!
Maybe you could use it as an opportunity to 'bury the hatchet' and get involved in the club again?
As for female motivational speakers, there are quite a lot of women who seem to be climbing independently of men at the moment. Not sure if any give talks, etc. and I'm not sure if they charge.
Matt Heason might be a good person to get in touch with: -

http://www.heason.net/

In reply to puppythedog:

I wasn't suggesting she had.

Apologies.

In reply to Heike:

20 years ago, I thought I might consider taking climbing seriously, so I approached my local town club, but it became pretty apparent that they weren't child-friendly. I'm afraid to say that I took a bit of an 'oh well, **** you then approach in response to that and I decided I'd spend my time with more open-minded folk.

Last year, I finally got round to joining a club - a different one in our county town that doesn't seem to have an issue with people with kids - not that it bothers me now that they've grown up, but it does make the point that it's perfectly possible to find clubs that are child-friendly. But coincidentally, I've got to know some people from the first club, and they seem to be OK now. Probably not the same people, but then some of them might be because people change, and sometimes they actually become more tolerant as time passes. Maybe if you approached this with an open mind, it might be an opportunity for something positive to come out of all that you've experienced?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Oh yeah, nobody barring anyone (apart from kids). It's a free country - fortunately.

Thanks for suggestions, I have quite a few ideas myself, and will pass them on, I guess, once I have defumed, probably!!! I am quite a peaceful character, but this really got me wound up, but no doubt it will subside
by tomorrow!

In reply to Heike:

Maybe they just don't want responsibility for kids., Plus it must be said some (not all) parents are pretty lax at supervising their sprogs. At our hut kids can camp outside but may not sleep in the hut except on family meets. The risks are not just from the climbing but also simply from the fact that kitchens etc are not childproof and those without kids can be careless about leaving, say, knives on work tops.

On one occasion I came across a toddler helping himself to biscuits from other people's boxes and on another a kid was absent mindedly tapping a car in the car park with a stone while staring off into the middle distance. I don't think it was malicious, he was miles away daydreaming, but the paintwork was just a damaged. I told his dad and all he did was call 'Sebastian, don't do that, darling'. I suspect the car driver was less complacent.

Since it's impossible to make rules that only well-supervised, well-behaved kids are allowed, it's easier to ban the lot.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

perhaps they could do a small talk - well, essay - for UKC entitled 'Climbing as a level playing field; ensuring diversity and equality in club management'.

Why should they?
The club hasn't stopped the OP from partaking in activities as an individual. All they've done, is said that they don't want club activities to have children/families involved.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Andy, thanks, that might be the case. I have since discovered I don't need a club, and found (climbing) friends elsewhere, actually all over the place through UKC and other places, so no need to go and revisit. I am sure there are more child-friendly clubs, but frankly I can't be bothered. I never wanted a child-friendly club for anyone to look after my kid, I just didn't want to be rejected because I became a parent. It's a minefield I guess, and I have certainly overcome this, I just found it so ironic and outrageous that they should ask me for women speakers - that's all.

In reply to Heike:

Oh yeah, nobody barring anyone (apart from kids). It's a free country - fortunately.

The only real solution is to have some weekends children free and some children friendly.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Ps I wouldn't be in a club as I'm unclubbable

I think some people would find you distinctly clubbable...

In reply to FactorXXX:



Huh huh huh. Huh huh huh, . I bet you're a legend in your own lunchtime?

In reply to Andy Morley:



What a bizarrely pejorative and uninformed attitude, like others on here it seems you have very limited experience.

I've been in a range of clubs, non-climbing and they've all been adults only, I've never been in a club with my kids.

Lots of examples available but my local running club is a good example, adults only but very closely connected to the AAA (all races, for example), trained coaches and with members who have run for their county and even country. Warmer evenings are frequently female dominated, especially for the social runs and many (most?) members are parents, some with children who are county standard runners.

You'd struggle to find anyone who was less than tolerant or open minded about children but it doesn't mean they want to open the membership to them, it's never mentioned.

In reply to winhill:


Lol - there's always one (at least!) in any discussion like this. But I tend to find that when people in internet debates start slinging mud at other participants for whatever reason, they often resort to self-description in the brickbats they hurl at others. Perhaps that's because their own limited experience (and whose experience is not limited?) offers the readiest source of data to provide language and examples to fuel their expressions of ire.

In reply to Thread:
Something doesn't quite add up in this. The OP says they were ostracised by the club not because they wanted to bring their kids to meets but just because they'd had them. I can understand why individuals might choose not to climb with new parents if it meant organising the day around childcare etc but for a club as a whole to take a stance against the inclusion of parents seems strange. Were they the only parents in the club? As the old saying goes there are always two sides to every story.

In reply to Planks Constant:

Something doesn't quite add up in this. The OP says they were ostracised by the club not because they wanted to bring their kids to meets but just because they'd had them.

No she hasn't.

In reply to Planks Constant:

Well given that Heike before she got pregnant was certainly a committed climber not some sort of belay-bunny, I am inclined to believe her account, also that she does not go around looking for things to get indignant about, a professional offence taker.

Very strange to see this as a general club attitude, normally people restrict themselves when they have children, mostly much more severely than any club would seek to do (though why a club would seek to do this at all is moot). But in terms of meets, generally kids have to be confined to family meets, it is much more practical that way.

I'd just like to reassure any childless people who suffer from paedophobia and who might have been disturbed by this thread at the thought of families being involved in climbing clubs. Having children is not contagious and there is absolutely no risk of your falling pregnant or having a paternity writ slapped on you simply from being in the same club as people who have procreated. Quite the contrary - word on the street is that exposure to other people's children is one of the best forms of contraception available.

As for people with children of their own who suffer from a similar aversion to children - yes it may be disturbing to be confronted with the proximity of other parents who have made different lifestyle choices from your own and who choose to involve their offspring in their passions. But you're going to have to deal with that one anyway and my advice if you're in that bracket is to send your kids off to boarding school as soon as possible and join a golf club with its own exclusive premises and course. You may be able to exclude children from a climbing club, but most clubs climb at crags and most popular crags have children at them, so you'd be better off picking a different leisure activity.

In reply to Heike:

Digression; I think I'm correct in thinking the original Creagh Dhu club was unmarried men only.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I'd just like to reassure any childless people who suffer from paedophobia and who might have been disturbed by this thread at the thought of families being involved in climbing clubs. Having children is not contagious and there is absolutely no risk of your falling pregnant or having a paternity writ slapped on you simply from being in the same club as people who have procreated. Quite the contrary - word on the street is that exposure to other people's children is one of the best forms of contraception available.
As for people with children of their own who suffer from a similar aversion to children - yes it may be disturbing to be confronted with the proximity of other parents who have made different lifestyle choices from your own and who choose to involve their offspring in their passions. But you're going to have to deal with that one anyway and my advice if you're in that bracket is to send your kids off to boarding school as soon as possible and join a golf club with its own exclusive premises and course. You may be able to exclude children from a climbing club, but most clubs climb at crags and most popular crags have children at them, so you'd be better off picking a different leisure activity.

Alternatively, it's quite nice to be in a children free environment whilst relaxing at a climbing club hut.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Do these adverse reactions come from people whose family and friends and social circles are dominated by badly behaved children and poor parents, or are they perhaps purely theoretical objections born of over-active imaginations rather than concrete experience?

The climbing club that I'm in seems to accept people of all ages, status, family circumstances etc. There were some rather lively small boys jumping on flower beds at the annual BBQ last year, but no-one seemed to mind. There are also what someone above called 'rowdy teenagers' amongst its members- one of those is probably one of the people I've climbed with the most this year, and I think I've probably learned more about climbing from her than from any of the older guard because she is particularly switched on to new ideas and techniques. There have never been any children misbehaving at huts or camp sites or climbing venues. It's in the nature of climbing that you hook up with partners at a similar level to you, and the presence at crags of other teams of different ability, or people who are just spectating, shouldn't detract from anyone's enjoyment. Maybe the biggest benefit of clubs with an anti-child policy or of those few that still only admit men or only admit women is to coral all the grouches in a few sequestered places and to keep them away from the rest of us, rather than the other way about?

In reply to Andy Morley:


Quite, redolent of Jim Perrin's observation:

"That sexual chauvinism was strongly in evidence in climbing is made apparent by the fact that, even as late as the 1970s, most of the senior British mountaineering and climbing clubs did not admit women as members.... The reasons for preserving the status quo were for the most part utterly spurious..... I remember one particularly angry debate at a Climbers' Club Extraordinary General Meeting [where] A.B. Hargreaves..... proclaimed that when a chap came down after a day on the hill, he simply wanted to strip off, bathe, and dry himself naked in front of the fire. How could that be done with ladies around?"

(Perrin, J. 2006. The Villain. Arrow Books, p137).

In reply to herbe_rouge:


Let's not forget that this 'chauvinism' exists on both side of the sexual divide. There is at least one club extant in the UK right now that will not admit men as members as far as I'm aware. I personally don't have an issue with that - it's a feature of people with more traditional values to want to keep the sexes segregated for certain activities and for people with a more up-to-date outlook to incline more towards mixed groups where this is practical. Personally, I much prefer mixed groups, but for those who are in that more traditional mould, as long as they do what they do 'between consenting adults' and don't try to impose it on the rest of us, that's their right when it comes to the world of their leisure activities.

I just want to emphasise that point because I was actually a guest at the hut of a female only climbing club earlier this year and it was a privilege to be in what was a beautifully maintained hut in a lovely location, with a very traditional feel and evidence of a long history. But that is the point really - to my mind, such institutions are valued for their history, but most people in my circles these days prefer more cosmopolitan, open, unsegregated groups.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Andy, point taken. My motivation to refer to Perin's observation was to exemplify how people invoke spurious post hoc explanations for their arbitrary bans on women/children rather than to shout 'chauvinism' per se. In so doing the signal is inevitably drowned out by the (spurious) noise.

bw

steve

In reply to Andy Morley:

As someone rather coarsely put it 'Kids are like farts. You can just about stand your own'

In reply to Heike:

It seems like the OP was miffed with the clubs no children policy but took it on the chin and moved on. But was annoyed that they had tried to invite her back as an 'inspirational female speaker'. I think she is well within her rights to reply with terse two word answer the second one being 'off'.
However clubs are formed for people with a common interest and in my case it doesn't include children when I go climbing and would probably not join a family orientated club. Luckily there are plenty of clubs full of old farts like me. I cant understand the no teenagers bit as most of my generation started at this stage in their life and were really keen to climb.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

These kids may well be changing your bed sheets at some point in the future, let's hope they're more charitable about your bodily odours should that be the case.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

A little earnest, aren't we?

In reply to Andy Morley:


Ah, the My Shit Don't Stink argument.

You've described people who don't conform to your limited vision as grouches, as less tolerant, open minded and later somehow less Modern than yourself but you think that someone who doesn't agree is mud slinging. Quite ridiculous, yet common in the narcissist who feels the need to create the world in their own image.

In reply to summo:

the original Creagh Dhu club was unmarried men only.

Well known as w*nkers

In reply to winhill:


No, it's drawing attention to what Sigmund Freud called 'projection' but which is an age-old human phenomenon that he simply gave a name to. I was responding to someone who knew nothing about me or my life but who criticised me for my 'limited experience' and then went on to talk about all the clubs she had been in, none of which she informed us was a climbing club. Pot, kettle, black and all that.

It's actually a fascinating phenomenon. I've lost count of the number of times I've witnessed someone have a hissy fit on the internet and in the process, they come up with a really accurate self-description which they then hurl at those around them. It's such an obvious trait that I sometimes have difficulty believing that people are not aware of what they're saying when they do this, but they always seem completely oblivious to it. Presumably those people who are aware of this risk have the sense to keep such reactions to themselves.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

That's not really necessary now is it! I'm sure they've read this thread with interest.

In reply to Planks Constant:


I don't see why it's an issue - after all, on meets everyone tends to go off and do their own thing during the day and head for the pub, if there is one nearby, in the evenings. The main problem is going to be for those bringing kids finding a way to still get involved with all this.

In reply to Heike:

Growing up, the London Hospital Climbing Club allowed me and my siblings to attend trips with my Mum and Dad with the club all over the UK. Was fantastic camping, and good introductions to climbing doing some easy multipitch stuff and top roping single pitch stuff, or just some walking. Memories:
- with encouragement from my dad, pulling out the tent pegs of a couple bonking in their tent, and getting chucked in the river for the effort
- climbing my 1st multipitch and having to reverse it having topped out into a full on thunderstorm with lightning striking ahead of us
- dealing with the emotions of my brother being a more confident climber than me
- climbing ordinary route with my dad and sitting eating a sandwich at a belay and watching a soloer climb past us, and being fascinated by the no ropes approach
- correcting my dad's bad navigation in zero visibility on the top of the saddle on Arran (the first memory of an instance of my dad being wrong)
- my mum tearing her meniscus and getting carried 6miles back to the car
- climbing great gable, watching climbers on Napes Needle, then going off to walk to the top with my brothers, one of whom tripped and fell 50-60ft fracturing his femur. I was the 1st to him, and he was shocked, confused with the shape of his leg, but not crying. 20 hospital doctors coming to help him, and him getting choppered off. Sliding down the scree on my butt, chilling out with a cuppa in the MR hut. Brother being in the daily express the next day.
- eating baked potatoes cooked in the embers of a camp fire after a day climbing
- being secretly in the pub at night with the climbers after another day climbing. was chatting and playing pool with the approval of the landlord, before getting turfed out as the police walked in. Walking out onto the street seeing a glasgow biker getting treated by my dad. getting taken by some random German lady to the hospital in Arran. Getting pissed off with the smokers in the waiting room, and going wondering. Wondering into the resus room, seeing my dad kicking the ventilator because it wasn't working, and the enduring memory of these huge black boots at the end of the trolley. Apparently I said to my dad "no hope hey dad?!", which was the sum of it.

I wouldn't have changed these experiences for the world, but looking back you can see why sprogs on trips might be an issue these days, but we were going from when we were babies and it couldn't have been more supportive of my parents keeping climbing.

In reply to Jimbo W:


That's a fantastically compelling account Jimbo. 'These days' sprogs are 'an issue generally' and in all sorts of ways, due to the hysterical reactions towards keeping them away from the real world. This has all kinds of bad consequences, and I'll give you a couple more examples:

First, one related to climbing: an old friend of mine has two boys aged 10 and 11, and I've taken him and his sons out to crags a couple of times so far this year. On each occasion, my friend has gone through a constant near nervous-breakdown whenever either of his boys went near the edge of a path, leant on the handrail of a bridge, stood on a rock, etc. etc. The boys themselves loved it because they spend almost their entire lives indoors, in cars or on carefully H&S managed school sports premises and getting outdoors was a whole wonderful new experience for them. To cap it all, after the last such outing earlier this month, when we got back to my friends' holiday house in France where we were all staying , my friend really laid into his sons for being 'pussies' when they were too scared to go into some undergrowth to retrieve a lost football. This was the same day that he himself had been giving them a really powerful lesson into how scary the outdoors was (through his own paranoid reactions) and how all risks associated with it should be avoided at all costs. I really felt like saying something, but I bit my tongue.

Another example comes from an article about a different but related hysteria that is sweeping American college campuses right now. Though not directly linked to climbing, it's good to read because it gives some insight into the underlying causes behind all this. Here it is:

"Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma."

You can read the full thing here, which explains why baby-boomers in the USA (and in the UK too probably) have become wildly overprotective of their offspring. This is the other side of the coin represented by some people in the climbing world who want to keep people with children away from outdoor pursuits:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-ame...

In reply to Andy Morley:

Spot on. Another example, my kids' school tried to stop my 7 and 10 year old walking home after school because 'It was dangerous'. I had to explain that I would regard it as false imprisonment before they conceded. This kind of approach is a self-fulfilling prophecy. My kids would be safer if there were dozens of other kids walking home too, thanks to their school, there aren't but since they can lead 4cs, cross violent cascades and wild camp above 3000m I'll trust them to look both ways on the way home. Unfortunately, the prevailing wind seems to be casting children into some mysterious category that isolates them from, rather than integrates them into, the real world.

In reply to Andy Morley:

which explains why baby-boomers in the USA (and in the UK too probably) have become wildly overprotective of their offspring.

I know we boomers get blamed for most things these days but I think you are a bit out on this one. We are the ones who grew up in the 50s when we could leave the house unsupervised and free except for an instruction to be home for tea or before it got dark. So we are probably the ones now slowly shaking our heads in disbelief at the modern day mollycoddling of kids and muttering about 'political correctness gone mad' and taking the p1ss out of today's H&S culture. Biologically we're also a bit long in the tooth for sprogs that need protecting, I just scrape into the late Boomer bracket and mine are both 40+ now and even my late breeding friends' kids are in their late 20s and early 30s.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Speak for yourself Wiley! In the example I gave of my over-protective friend with the two boys of 10 and 11, he's coming up for 60 and so he is slap-bang in the middle of the baby-boomer generation while his missus at 50 is at the tail end of it. But these things are loose terms in anycase, and also there tends to be a time-lag when it comes to change in social attitudes and behaviour. Those generations whose formative influence was WWII, having grown up while it was going on or in its 20-year aftermath, are the real drivers behind all this because they are the ones who wanted the childhoods of their children and their children's children to be very different from their own. They are the ones who came up with all the radical ideas that they collectively talked about but did not live by. They are the ones whose motto was "don't do as I do/did, do as I tell you" and who talked about sex and drugs and rock'n'roll while most of them led fairly traditional lifestyles. And crucially, they are the ones whose daft ideas became embodied in new policies, rules and working practices that subsequent generations grew up with, aimed at creating the Brave New World that everyone hoped would come out of the war, and which seems to have often turned into a dynamic example of the principle 'be careful what you wish for', particularly when it comes to the public sector where those ideas often still persist.

However, hopefully the march of history is starting to leave them behind now. I think I can see a bit of a reaction against all that beginning to emerge amongst the younger generation, but we shall see.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Well speaking as someone who is 63, therefore born in 1952. I have to say I've not got a clue what you are talking about or where you get your ideas from. They certainly do not chime in the slightest with the world I know (except I agree there was not a lot of free love or drugs in our leafy suburb in 1968. We seemed a n awfully long way from San Francisco). WW2 had absolutely zero impact on me or my attitudes. It had been over for six years before I was even born and for considerably more than a decade before I was ever really aware of it. I only vaguely recall the Cuban missile crisis but if anything coloured our views it was probably the certainty that we would all die before we got to 18. The Beatles had broken up before I took any interest in music. As for my daft ideas re policies, rules and working practices it was probably well into the 1980s before I got anywhere near having that the slightest influence on that and even then precious little of it. As I recall the people making the rules back then were a few decades older than me. Party leaders and captains of industry were in their 60s Blair was the first PM to be younger than me and the Boy Steele probably the first young party leader.
Sounds to me like your mate is just another sorry parent who has swallowed the safety first litany. My daughter tells me she always got conflicting messages from us. Mum always said Take Care and I always said Have Fun..

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


It doesn't surprise me at all that you should say any of that. Your generation seems to have quite a sharp divide from the one that came immediately after - most of the people who were young adults (18-35) in the white heat of the 1960s had no idea about any of that stuff either. Most of my wife's 13 aunts were uncles are like you I would guess, most of the girls met a guy who was a friend of their father or one of their brothers when they were about 18, went out with him for a couple of years and then got married to him. If you've never worn a trilby or flat cap yourself, or smoked a pipe or worn a tweed sports jacket, I'd imagine that you have plenty of contemporaries who did own those items at some stage.

But you can't deny that it was your generation that produced all the radical new ideas about the new world order. As with anything new or anything creative, it was a small minority that was responsible, and because their ideas were not born out of any grounding amongst the masses, they were entirely free of the constraints of mundane things such as common sense.

All the same - your generation certainly had very similar prejudices to the current ones born out of that era of daftness, the only difference being that yours were the steam-driven versions. When a woman got married, she was expected to leave work as it was assumed that her husband would look after her while she looked after the home. Meanwhile when a man got married, he was expected to leave behind him all the wilder pursuits of his youth and become a steady, reliable chap, as climbing routes with names like 'Bachelor's Buttress' will attest - actually a very unchallenging route according to current opinion, but considered far too dangerous for married men back in the day. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" as the French really do say.

Herbe Rouge is the guy who's really on the money here. As he says, all the objections raised in this thread are all just red herrings that some people dream up, after the event so to speak, to justify their pre-existing prejudices that climbing is for hairy **sed young men and not for married mothers or whoever else they don't think fits the bill.

In reply to Andy Morley:

You don't think that you are perhaps rather over-analysing things and projecting pre-existing ideas onto a situation?

It seems more like :

1. Heike was climbing with a club when she got pregnant
2. For whatever reason she was rather brusquely told by someone apparently of some authority within that club that she was no longer welcome
3. Reasonably enough she saw this as being both rude and intrusive and resented it considerably at the time
4. Having got over it and largely forgotten about it, she got what in context was a very cheeky request from same club
5. This re-ignited the annoyance, but probably isn't worth raising pitchforks and burning haystacks over

To project this onto baby-boomers (itself a largely imaginary group), collective responsibility, imposed expectations and whatever seems to be stretching a point just slightly. Or to put it another way, it is total, unmitigated b*****

In reply to Simon4:

2. For whatever reason she was rather brusquely told by someone apparently of some authority within that club that she was no longer welcome

She was welcome, the child wasn't.

In reply to Simon4:
I think your 1 2 3 4 & 5 are pretty accurate.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Herbe Rouge is the guy who's really on the money here. As he says, all the objections raised in this thread are all just red herrings that some people dream up, after the event so to speak, to justify their pre-existing prejudices that climbing is for hairy **sed young men and not for married mothers or whoever else they don't think fits the bill.

Whose said anything about married mothers not being allowed to climb?
The main subject of the thread is about children attending club meets and in particular staying in huts. Shock, horror, some people like to sometimes have an environment which is child free. That might even include a mother/father that has left the child with the other parent, etc.
If some clubs have such a policy and you don't like it, go to another one.
Conversely, if the club has the opposite policy, then the 'child haters' can go to another club.
As a compromise, maybe individual clubs could have a mix of non-family/family meets. Everyone should be happy then...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, and children sleeping outside in tents to help avoid safe guarding issues.

I remember a boy who'd been abused having his first night away with his would be foster parents at a hut I go to, and he had to sleep somewhere which wasn't being shared with men (I don't know if this was related to his history of being abused), so they all slept in the garden of the hut.

Poor kid has been in and out of jail as a young adult, child abuse stacks the odds against you.

In reply to Andy Morley:

What?!?!?! What colour is the sky on your planet? I think you are confusing the 1970s with the 1930s. Trilby? Flat hat? Pipe? A friend of my wife's father? I'll confess to tank tops, flares, kipper ties and platform soles but a tweed sports jacket? Do me a favour! Your maths seems to be letting you down pretty badly here. About the only thing you go right I was not in the 18-35 year bracket in the so-called white heat of the 60s. I was actually still at school. I turned 18 in 1970. As for my wife staying at home to look after the 2.5 children once we got married, that idea ended while the world was still in black and white. She was straight back to work - and back to climbing. None of our friends was a stay-at-home wife/mother either. As for settling down, I'm still climbing today, as are most of my friends from that period, so that's another fantasy squashed. I could go on but since the whole foundation of your thesis is based of a total nonsense there's not really much point is there?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


In that case, you're right on the cusp in my reckoning, so it's possible that you could swing either way

In reply to FactorXXX:


Good point, we're all probably putting our own interpretations on the events described which are only presented as a fairly sketchy account (no criticism intended of Heike who did say she was only 'venting'). However, I seem to remember that Alison Hargreaves came in for a fair amount of flack for climbing when she was pregnant in the '80s or '90s or whenever it was and so I think it's fair to say that one kind of prejudice has been replaced by another kind that may look different but probably has a similar kind of effect.

In reply to Andy Morley:

However, I seem to remember that Alison Hargreaves came in for a fair amount of flack for climbing when she was pregnant in the '80s or '90s or whenever it was and so I think it's fair to say that one kind of prejudice has been replaced by another kind that may look different but probably has a similar kind of effect.

Are you actually serious?

In reply to Andy Morley:
Alison Hargreaves would have been during the 90's I think. Reading between the lines, it seems to be that you're saying that female climbers continue to get a raw deal when it comes to looking after children and things child related compared to men, but the way in which they do has changed?

Possibly, the expectation may always be that the looking after children will fall to mums a bit more than it does to men, but hopefully it won't.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Yes - In the making of a legend, the bad stuff seems to have been edited out, but I can remember reading pieces about her back in the day that were quite critical. It was a long time ago and I may be confusing some of this with controversy about her marriage to someone a lot older than her - a one-time climbing partner of mine came from the area she lived in and used to talk about them as a couple. But though it may be beginning to be airbrushed out of current accounts of her life, it is a matter of record that she did come in for a lot of flak, while she was alive and also, particularly in the immediate aftermath of her death:

"In the emotional public reaction to this tragedy, her triumphs were suddenly eclipsed by controversy. Instead of eulogies, her death was greeted by anger: How dare the mother of two young children risk her life and her family's future on so deadly an undertaking? Was her lifelong passion for climbing a badge of courage or the mark of supreme irresponsibility? Should she be remembered as a superlative mountaineer or as an immature and selfish woman? It was a bitter end to an extraordinary and misunderstood career. In "Regions of the Heart," David Rose and Ed Douglas set the record straight. "

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Regions-Heart-Triumph-Tragedy-Hargreaves/dp/0792276...

In reply to Andy Morley:

The point is that there is no objective reason to arbitrarily ban children who are supervised by their parents but there are countless after-the-fact, spurious, incorrect 'reasons' given by clubs for doing so (such as blaming the BMC's insurance regulations). The upshot of such bans is that either Mum or Dad will have to look after the kids or pay for childcare if they wish to climb in that club. There are plenty of working class families that just can't afford extra childcare and in these cases, typically, it will be the Mum who takes the burden of childcare. So, arbitrary bans on kids are bad news for all but those who can afford and wish to leave their kids behind whilst they climb and are particularly bad for women who are statistically more likely to look after the kids. This doesn't really matter to us, we climb with our kids and friends and then go to the pub with them, so nothing missed, but I was very surprised by the number of, as you put it, 'traditional' people who think this inappropriate. In future I'll try to make sure the kids don't swear on the rocks lest they offend one of them......

In reply to Andy Morley:


I asked Heike what point she was making, didn't get a proper reply but collected a rake of dislikes for asking a question. I couldn't understand whether it was that they treated her like shit and then asked for a favour, or whether it was a question of being treated badly as a result of being a woman, then being asked a favour about women and climbing. If it was the latter, I don't quite get it because both men and women have kids.

In reply to Andy Morley:

You seem to be getting a bit confused.
Hargreaves climbed the Eiger when she was six months pregnant with her first child.
She died on K2 when she was the mother of two children.
She was indeed criticised for both, but not I believe by the climbing/mountaineering world.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

The main reason why people don't want children in huts is because they want to have a child free environment.
As for working class families and the cost of childcare, etc. Why not camp? It's what my parents did when I was a baby/child/teenager.

In reply to FactorXXX:

She was criticised by all manner of people in various publications. I think it's highly unlikely that only people not associated with climbing would have been involved in that. Not all climbers are the same, there's a range of opinions and political views in climbing, as there is in most activities. Sounds like it's something that you personally would rather not believe but I'm afraid you get bigots in 'the climbing world' - we're not immune from it, and that's really what this thread is all about.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I asked Heike what point she was making, didn't get a proper reply but collected a rake of dislikes for asking a question. I couldn't understand whether it was that they treated her like shit and then asked for a favour, or whether it was a question of being treated badly as a result of being a woman, then being asked a favour about women and climbing. If it was the latter, I don't quite get it because both men and women have kids.

In response to a question I asked, she said that she was welcome to use the club as an individual, but she wouldn't be allowed to take her child.
Think she then left and joined a family friendly club and was a bit miffed about being asked for advice six years after she left.
Simple as that really.

Obviously, the thread has evolved into something else now and maybe been hijacked by some people trying to make it into a feminist and/or clubs hate children issue...

In reply to Andy Morley:

She was critisized by all manner of people in various publications. I think it's highly unlikely that only people not associated with climbing would have been involved in that. Not all climbers are the same, there's a range of opinions and political views in climbing, as there is in most activities. Sounds like it's something that you personally would rather not believe but I'm afraid you get bigots in 'the climbing world' - we're not immune from it, and that's really what this thread is all about.

Of course there are bigoted people in climbing, but I've never heard a climber criticising a parent for climbing. Have you?
As for what this thread is about. Well, it started off as someone saying that she couldn't take her child on club meets, but was welcome as an individual. They went their separate ways and she was then a bit miffed when the same club asked her for advice.
It's primarily you that's turned it into some sort of personal crusade...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Who mentioned huts? Not the OP nor me, I was talking about climbing. As it happens, they do camp, in their own four season tent. This is another red herring - not a reason for an arbitrary blanket ban, just a spurious post-hoc defence to a non-existent problem.

In reply to FactorXXX:





That's fair enough, I completely understand then.

In reply to FactorXXX:

As a matter of fact I have. I was chatting to someone down my usual climbing wall only last Wednesday who told me that she carried on climbing while pregnant until the point came when the people climbing with her at the time refused to climb with her any more for that very reason.


Yes, it's all a dastardly plot by me, by Heike, by those people writing the precis of the book I quoted, we're all in a conspiracy together, trying to bring climbing into disrepute. Believe that if you want to - believe whatever you like, most people do.

That is exactly why herbe_rouge is the person who really does have it nailed when he/ she says that we all come to issues like this with pre-formed ideas and then basically "invoke spurious post hoc explanations" (bend the facts to suit our personal theories) to support whatever particular set of prejudices drives us.

In recognition of that trait that is present in all of us, I personally try to quote relevant sources and evidence to support what I am saying. However I'm not naive enough to imagine that someone as fixated as you appear to be will let mere evidence spoil a good personal conspiracy theory, nor am I blind to another example of the projection that is so rife in conversations like these when you attempt to lay your own fixation at my door.

In reply to herbe_rouge:
Who mentioned huts? Not the OP nor me, I was talking about climbing. As it happens, they do camp, in their own four season tent. This is another red herring - not a reason for an arbitrary blanket ban, just a spurious post-hoc defence to a non-existent problem.

Fair enough, neither you or the OP mentioned huts, but it has been mentioned by a fair few besides me.
Anyway, I think like most people, the main reason to be in a club is to use the huts and that is where any issues will arise.
If you're a member of a club, don't stay in the hut and go climbing in the same place as the club during the day, then I can't see how they can really stop you. They can obviously kick you out if they think you're upsetting the apple cart, but you can still go if you're bloody minded enough...

In reply to FactorXXX:


Yes, as I pointed out days ago, into a re-run of this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=620901

That and Andy Morley's ramblings...

In reply to Andy Morley:

As a matter of fact I have. I was chatting to someone down my usual climbing wall only last Wednesday who told me that she carried on climbing while pregnant until the point came when the people climbing with her at the time refused to climb with her any more for that very reason.

Questioning someone climbing whilst pregnant is perhaps understandable. However, that isn't what I asked.
Have you ever heard a climber criticise another climber on the sole grounds of being a parent (of the non-pregnant variety)?
I personally don't care, it's their unborn baby that they could end up killing or disabling before they're even born. How about climbing with a baby in a carrier? Is that OK?


That is exactly why herbe_rouge is the person who really does have it nailed when he/ she says that we all come to issues like this with pre-formed ideas and then basically "invoke spurious post hoc explanations" (bend the facts to suit our personal theories) to support whatever particular set of prejudices drives us.

Pot, kettle, black!!!

In reply to FactorXXX:

>> That is exactly why herbe_rouge is the person who really does have it nailed when he/ she says that we all come to issues like this with pre-formed ideas and then basically "invoke spurious post hoc explanations" (bend the facts to suit our personal theories) to support whatever particular set of prejudices drives us.


I've acknowledged that this is something that we all do, myself included. However, I have also pointed out (and you have conveniently ignored this) that in recognition of this tendency, I do actually back up what I have to say with facts, evidence and examples, even though I know that people like you will ignore that evidence and won't let fact get in the way of your own theories and biases.

In reply to FactorXXX:


As a matter of fact, on this very forum:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=370920

In reply to Andy Morley:

However, I have also pointed out (and you have conveniently ignored this) that in recognition of this tendency, I do actually back up what I have to say with facts, evidence and examples, even though I know that people like you will ignore that evidence and won't let fact get in the way of your own theories and biases.

Facts, evidence and examples?
You haven't really though have you. All you've really done is refer to other peoples posts that agree with yours and then proclaim therefore that you must be right!

In reply to Morty:

...but I've never heard a climber criticising a parent for climbing. Have you?

The person in your article (The OP as it happens) was pregnant. That wasn't what I was asking...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Are pregnant people not parents?

In reply to FactorXXX:



http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=73103&v=1#x975391

Better?

In reply to FactorXXX:


As well as quoting the documentary sources about the criticism of Alison Hargreaves, I have also given you the example of my friend who was told by her climbing partners not to climb when she was pregnant. It's interesting that you appeared to support those people, saying that their reaction was 'understandable'. It's all understandable, it's 'understandable' when someone nicks your wallet, but is it right and are they/ you right to suggest she shouldn't climb in those circumstances? It so happens that the lady in question is a senior nurse working for the NHS. I'd very much like to know what qualifies you to suggest she was wrong in her judgement when she expressed a desire to keep on climbing? Do you, like the people she previously climbed with, think that you know better than her what she as a pregnant woman and nurse should or should not have done in that respect?

In reply to Morty:

Better?

Much better. You appear to have found one person in the entire history of UKC that disproves me...
I'm sure there's more though, but still not really proof that there's any significant number of climbers that think other climbers should stop when they become a parent.

In reply to left_edge:

Are pregnant people not parents?

If you're not pregnant and you die climbing whilst being a parent, the child at home wont die as well...

In reply to Andy Morley:

As well as quoting the documentary sources about the criticism of Alison Hargreaves

Is that the link to the book on Amazon? If so, totally irrelevant. Post a link to a study of climbers attitudes to Alison Hargreaves and that will be relevant.


I have also given you the example of my friend who was told by her climbing partners not to climb when she was pregnant. It's interesting that you appeared to support those people, saying that their reaction was 'understandable'.

People criticising pregnant people for doing dangerous things is understandable. They see someone endangering a life before they're even born, which is similar in essence to the abortion issue. I note that you haven't quoted the rest of what I said i.e. I personally don't care one way or the other.
Additionally, you didn't answer the question about climbing with a baby in a carrier.


It so happens that the lady in question is a senior nurse working for the NHS. I'd very much like to know what qualifies you to suggest she was wrong in her judgement when she expressed a desire to keep on climbing? Do you, like the people she previously climbed with, think that you know better than her what she as a pregnant woman and nurse should or should not have done in that respect?

As above, I don't care if she climbs whilst pregnant or not. It's her baby, if it dies with her or gets maimed, then that's her problem and/or her partners.

In reply to Heike:

Sorry for mucking up your thread, but at least it's staying active and someone might actually read what you want and suggest a speaker!

In reply to FactorXXX:

so you're not going to answer the question then....

In reply to left_edge:

so you're not going to answer the question then....

To be honest, I don't know at what stage a pregnant person becomes a parent.
Not sure what difference it makes though, as there is obviously a difference between someone who is pregnant and someone who isn't pregnant, but has a child.
Is this some sort of clever trick question?

In reply to FactorXXX:
Perhaps s/he was thinking of parents who feel grief when they have an early stages miscarriage?

Even further off topic, but that's what occurred to me.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Is this some sort of clever trick question?

apparently so... sorry, didn't mean to confuse you

Out of interest, whereabouts do you usually climb?

In reply to left_edge:

apparently so... sorry, didn't mean to confuse you

No need to apologise, I'm easily confused!


Out of interest, whereabouts do you usually climb?

Wye Valley/South Wales mostly. I see that you're in the climbing mecca that is Surrey, but at least it's probably dry and sunny!

In reply to FactorXXX:

Ah yes, South Wales....... I've just finished two weeks in the Pyrenees, Gedre and Auzat, before returning home for a quick tour of South Wales where I found the littered condoms at the Gap almost as slippery as Southern Sandstone..... If you're ever nearby......