This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This week's Friday Night Video is a humorous take on climbing partnerships. Does your belay buddy live up to stereotypical gender roles? In this video, American husband and wife Mark and Janelle Smiley switch places on a typical day out at the crag.Who carries the heavier rucksack in your relationship?
Read more
23
47
In reply to UKC News:
Can't do any better than that for a Friday night vid? Not very funny and not very smart from where I'm sitting.
Can't do any better than that for a Friday night vid? Not very funny and not very smart from where I'm sitting.
28
17
In reply to UKC News:
What a load of sexist bullish*t! That's going to make UKC cringe in a few years.
What a load of sexist bullish*t! That's going to make UKC cringe in a few years.
17
14
16
11
10
4
24
10
20
3
In reply to UKC News:
After no friday night video last week then this video this week!!
Pretty poor show IMO! Is the usual video selector on holiday or something?
Dont get me wrong, I really appreciate all the effort that goes into UKC (you're great!) but you were better off not bothering this time!!
Another good option would be this, Dave Mason's recent font trip
vimeo.com/164054941
Enjoy.
After no friday night video last week then this video this week!!
Pretty poor show IMO! Is the usual video selector on holiday or something?
Dont get me wrong, I really appreciate all the effort that goes into UKC (you're great!) but you were better off not bothering this time!!
Another good option would be this, Dave Mason's recent font trip
vimeo.com/164054941
Enjoy.
5
6
10
14
2
sexist nonsence, lets have some climbing next week
8
11
7
5
In reply to Marcus B:
Worth it just for the amazing Alt-J 'Hunger of the Pine' track which I had never hear before - awesome!
Worth it just for the amazing Alt-J 'Hunger of the Pine' track which I had never hear before - awesome!
4
8
8
6
8
In reply to UKC News:
Didn't realise this sort of thing existed anymore. A poor show for men & women
Didn't realise this sort of thing existed anymore. A poor show for men & women
9
8
5
3
In reply to jon:
I don't mind offensive humour as long as it's funny. It just seemed like poor, tired chauvinism to me, without any redeeming features
I don't mind offensive humour as long as it's funny. It just seemed like poor, tired chauvinism to me, without any redeeming features
8
9
7
4
In reply to UKC News:
You could see she didn't really know how to carry the heavier rucksack and the friends were on back to front too.
You could see she didn't really know how to carry the heavier rucksack and the friends were on back to front too.
2
In reply to UKC News:
What plonker disliked my post that the video of ice climbing in Rjukan was beautiful?
What plonker disliked my post that the video of ice climbing in Rjukan was beautiful?
1
15
In reply to ericinbristol:
Not me, but it did seem a bit pretentious and I got bored and switched off after a few minutes. I actually wondered whether footwork was posting it ironically. Maybe it got better though...........
> What plonker disliked my post that the video of ice climbing in Rjukan was beautiful?
Not me, but it did seem a bit pretentious and I got bored and switched off after a few minutes. I actually wondered whether footwork was posting it ironically. Maybe it got better though...........
1
1
In reply to UKC News:
Not hilarious, but mildly amusing. I fail to see how a mick take of both men and women can be sexist. The video is an exaggeration of pretty typical things men and women do, and it picks these points out well.
Stop being so precious.
Not hilarious, but mildly amusing. I fail to see how a mick take of both men and women can be sexist. The video is an exaggeration of pretty typical things men and women do, and it picks these points out well.
Stop being so precious.
34
6
In reply to UKC News:
A very sexist video in my opinion. I'm surprised that UKC have posted this in all honesty.
A very sexist video in my opinion. I'm surprised that UKC have posted this in all honesty.
Post edited at 08:45
6
19
In reply to heelhookofglory:
Can you explain in what way it's sexist, cos I really don't get that at all? Who has been discriminated against? It's a piss-take, nothing more. It may not be very well done, but that's a different argument. I think some folk need to lighten up a bit.
> A very sexist video in my opinion.
Can you explain in what way it's sexist, cos I really don't get that at all? Who has been discriminated against? It's a piss-take, nothing more. It may not be very well done, but that's a different argument. I think some folk need to lighten up a bit.
33
4
In reply to Fraser:
"Sexism, noun- Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. " -Oxford dictionary
It's stereotyping on the basis of sex.
"Sexism, noun- Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. " -Oxford dictionary
It's stereotyping on the basis of sex.
2
6
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
You could argue that it is making fun of stereotyping rather than actually stereotyping.
Still shit though.
> It's stereotyping on the basis of sex.
You could argue that it is making fun of stereotyping rather than actually stereotyping.
Still shit though.
9
2
In reply to Fraser:
Women climbers are potrayed as crying, whiny, less psyched, less bold, don't pull their weight (and unaware of this fact), superficial, only participate because their boyfriends do, yada yada.
Yes there's also jokes about men being macho, overconfident, having a poorer diet and more likely to be a guide(?) but that doesn't mean it's even handed.
The main offense though is being utterly shit and devoid of anything remotely funny or clever.
Women climbers are potrayed as crying, whiny, less psyched, less bold, don't pull their weight (and unaware of this fact), superficial, only participate because their boyfriends do, yada yada.
Yes there's also jokes about men being macho, overconfident, having a poorer diet and more likely to be a guide(?) but that doesn't mean it's even handed.
The main offense though is being utterly shit and devoid of anything remotely funny or clever.
17
5
In reply to UKC News:
Okay so largely we are all either men or women so if it offends both sets of people its not sexist just offensive. Its not offensive though its just an amateur attempt at comedy and as for everyone kicking off over it being the friday night vid they have one a week are they not allowed to make a mistake? I do agree its crap though just not crap enough to delete my UKC account sell my rack by a boat and take up paddling.
Okay so largely we are all either men or women so if it offends both sets of people its not sexist just offensive. Its not offensive though its just an amateur attempt at comedy and as for everyone kicking off over it being the friday night vid they have one a week are they not allowed to make a mistake? I do agree its crap though just not crap enough to delete my UKC account sell my rack by a boat and take up paddling.
Post edited at 10:21
9
1
In reply to UKC News:
Perhaps this might have been funny in the 80s...
But seriously, and without getting all precious - while the vid is trying to be amusing and take the piss equally, its still sexist by reinforcing stereotypes. And while it draws on reasonably realistic observations about some male climbers, it resorts to a much more farcical caricature of the 'female' character. This topic could be addressed in an amusing/satirical way but would require a good bit more subtlety.
Im not saying I could do any better, mind. Have to assume both makers were happy with the film, and i hope they enjoyed making it.
Perhaps this might have been funny in the 80s...
But seriously, and without getting all precious - while the vid is trying to be amusing and take the piss equally, its still sexist by reinforcing stereotypes. And while it draws on reasonably realistic observations about some male climbers, it resorts to a much more farcical caricature of the 'female' character. This topic could be addressed in an amusing/satirical way but would require a good bit more subtlety.
Im not saying I could do any better, mind. Have to assume both makers were happy with the film, and i hope they enjoyed making it.
13
3
In reply to Tomtom:
It didn't really take the mick out of men though and seemed very one sided. All the 'male' role did was act strong, competent and confident although perhaps a bit uncaring. If the confidence had been shown to be bullshitting it might have been more even handed (and realistic) but it wasn't.
The 'jokes' seemed about 3:1 against the 'female' role who was presented as lazy, weak, cowardly, shallow, exhibitionist (wtf!?!) and generally pathetic.
Mainly though it was just shit.
It didn't really take the mick out of men though and seemed very one sided. All the 'male' role did was act strong, competent and confident although perhaps a bit uncaring. If the confidence had been shown to be bullshitting it might have been more even handed (and realistic) but it wasn't.
The 'jokes' seemed about 3:1 against the 'female' role who was presented as lazy, weak, cowardly, shallow, exhibitionist (wtf!?!) and generally pathetic.
Mainly though it was just shit.
8
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Hmm, I guess I just don't see it the same way. I recognise aspects on both sides of that stereotyping - and surely everyone realises it's an attempt at humour, those acts and attitudes portrayed are fairly commonplace, even today - but I just don't see its basis as being discriminatory. It attacks both genders so is relatively balanced.
> "Sexism, noun- Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. " -Oxford dictionary
> It's stereotyping on the basis of sex.
Hmm, I guess I just don't see it the same way. I recognise aspects on both sides of that stereotyping - and surely everyone realises it's an attempt at humour, those acts and attitudes portrayed are fairly commonplace, even today - but I just don't see its basis as being discriminatory. It attacks both genders so is relatively balanced.
1
In reply to JHiley:
Of course it did. Have we been watching two different videos?
More like impulsive, proud, oblivious of anything other than 'himself', over confident, condescending, more lucky than competent... and thoroughly uncaring!
> It didn't really take the mick out of men though...
Of course it did. Have we been watching two different videos?
> All the 'male' role did was act strong, competent and confident although perhaps a bit uncaring.
More like impulsive, proud, oblivious of anything other than 'himself', over confident, condescending, more lucky than competent... and thoroughly uncaring!
6
1
In reply to jon:
Granted 'he' was certainly proud and uncaring, I also forgot that at one point 'he' was kind of a pervert. But whether he was overconfident and lucky or just confident comes down to the imagination of the viewer while the female character was consistently portrayed as weak.
Granted 'he' was certainly proud and uncaring, I also forgot that at one point 'he' was kind of a pervert. But whether he was overconfident and lucky or just confident comes down to the imagination of the viewer while the female character was consistently portrayed as weak.
1
3
In reply to JHiley:
I thought it was.
> If the confidence had been shown to be bullshitting it might have been more even handed (and realistic) but it wasn't.
I thought it was.
2
1
In reply to jon:
More like impulsive, proud, oblivious of anything other than 'himself', over confident, condescending, more lucky than competent... and thoroughly uncaring!
Maybe the men that missed those obvious points, have them so ingrained into their own behaviour patterns, that they failed to notice them?
More like impulsive, proud, oblivious of anything other than 'himself', over confident, condescending, more lucky than competent... and thoroughly uncaring!
Maybe the men that missed those obvious points, have them so ingrained into their own behaviour patterns, that they failed to notice them?
5
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I can certainly be condescending but not over confident. The problem with presenting over confidence as a flaw (which I think it often is) is that confidence is often seen in society as a positive or even a virtue in itself that can magically absolve the Confident Person of any need to be competent.
None of the so called 'female' traits presented in this video are arguably positive.
I can certainly be condescending but not over confident. The problem with presenting over confidence as a flaw (which I think it often is) is that confidence is often seen in society as a positive or even a virtue in itself that can magically absolve the Confident Person of any need to be competent.
None of the so called 'female' traits presented in this video are arguably positive.
Post edited at 11:25
3
In reply to JHiley:
Yes, but there lies the balance. Not many male climbers are like that - but some are, just as not many female climbers are like that - but some are. Actually, if you lived where I do you'd see more or less exactly those scenes being played out with no role reversal!
Maybe the video is aimed more at an American audience than a sophisticated, intelligent and PC UK one. Oops, I seem to have stereotyped...
Yes, but there lies the balance. Not many male climbers are like that - but some are, just as not many female climbers are like that - but some are. Actually, if you lived where I do you'd see more or less exactly those scenes being played out with no role reversal!
Maybe the video is aimed more at an American audience than a sophisticated, intelligent and PC UK one. Oops, I seem to have stereotyped...
14
2
In reply to UKC News:
Great little vid. Thought that was really funny and a clever way of giving insight into male and female roles.
Great little vid. Thought that was really funny and a clever way of giving insight into male and female roles.
10
7
In reply to Fraser:
I think we might just look at this differently. Personally I thought it was sexist and I didn't recognise any of the attitudes/actions in it from actual climbing. That being said I don't think it was in anyway malicious for UKC to post it.
I think we might just look at this differently. Personally I thought it was sexist and I didn't recognise any of the attitudes/actions in it from actual climbing. That being said I don't think it was in anyway malicious for UKC to post it.
1
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Brilliant
> Maybe the men that missed those obvious points, have them so ingrained into their own behaviour patterns, that they failed to notice them?
Brilliant
5
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I think it's about sexism but that doesn't make it sexist.
The point of the role reversal is to firstly highlight certain behaviours and secondly to make fun of them. By making fun of them, showing them as ridiculous, it's actually anti-sexist. I don't think many people will come away from that vid thinking that's the way they're meant to behave.
I think it's about sexism but that doesn't make it sexist.
The point of the role reversal is to firstly highlight certain behaviours and secondly to make fun of them. By making fun of them, showing them as ridiculous, it's actually anti-sexist. I don't think many people will come away from that vid thinking that's the way they're meant to behave.
9
2
In reply to UKC News:
Please UKC - don't post stuff like this again. I found it really offensive to have women portrayed as whiney, pathetic, needy and clueless climbers who place more gear and are therefore hysterically funny.
I know that many Americans don't do wit, irony, satire or clever stuff but that's no excuse for uploading this tripe.
Please UKC - don't post stuff like this again. I found it really offensive to have women portrayed as whiney, pathetic, needy and clueless climbers who place more gear and are therefore hysterically funny.
I know that many Americans don't do wit, irony, satire or clever stuff but that's no excuse for uploading this tripe.
8
14
In reply to stp:
But it does give the impression that it's how people commonly *do* behave, and that we're meant to find it all humorously recognizable.
It's inviting a response of "oh yes, women climbers, always whining and panicking and crying and asking other people to carry stuff for them and taking naked selfies, ha ha I've seen that so often, that's spot on".
Plus a dose of "Oh yeah, and male climbers can be a bit brash and dickish too", but that doesn't somehow cancel out and make it less offensive.
> I don't think many people will come away from that vid thinking that's the way they're meant to behave.
But it does give the impression that it's how people commonly *do* behave, and that we're meant to find it all humorously recognizable.
It's inviting a response of "oh yes, women climbers, always whining and panicking and crying and asking other people to carry stuff for them and taking naked selfies, ha ha I've seen that so often, that's spot on".
Plus a dose of "Oh yeah, and male climbers can be a bit brash and dickish too", but that doesn't somehow cancel out and make it less offensive.
Post edited at 13:30
4
3
In reply to Babika:
There's a certain irony in that post...
> Please UKC - don't post stuff like this again. I found it really offensive to have women portrayed as whiney, pathetic, needy and clueless climbers who place more gear and are therefore hysterically funny.
> I know that many Americans don't do wit, irony, satire or clever stuff but that's no excuse for uploading this tripe.
There's a certain irony in that post...
7
4
In reply to Jackspratt:
Nah, there's plenty of sexist stereotyping which is demeaning to women *and* men.
In fact, that's very often how it goes. The flipside of stereotyping women in one way is often that an equally limiting stereotype gets applied to men.
Think of all the old cleaning products ads that went: "Men! So hilariously incompetent at any kind of housework! Here's a guy trying to iron or clean -- wacky comedy ensues, because that's women's work! Now the hyper-competent woman gets to roll her eyes and smile indulgently and clean up his messes with New Lemon Fresh Alpine Meadow Whoosh, because women naturally exist to look after everyone else."
Or, as we rabid feminists like to say: patriarchy hurts men too.
> Okay so largely we are all either men or women so if it offends both sets of people its not sexist just offensive.
Nah, there's plenty of sexist stereotyping which is demeaning to women *and* men.
In fact, that's very often how it goes. The flipside of stereotyping women in one way is often that an equally limiting stereotype gets applied to men.
Think of all the old cleaning products ads that went: "Men! So hilariously incompetent at any kind of housework! Here's a guy trying to iron or clean -- wacky comedy ensues, because that's women's work! Now the hyper-competent woman gets to roll her eyes and smile indulgently and clean up his messes with New Lemon Fresh Alpine Meadow Whoosh, because women naturally exist to look after everyone else."
Or, as we rabid feminists like to say: patriarchy hurts men too.
8
1
8
6
In reply to stp:
Interesting that's not what I got from it at all. I think the longer people keep bringing up these old stereotypes the longer the whole thing will stick around. If it was anti Sexism surely there would have been a message at the end? Obviously no one's going to think this is how to behave but I think people will think it's okay to use this sort of stereotyping as humour. Especially as it's endorsed by UKC.
Interesting that's not what I got from it at all. I think the longer people keep bringing up these old stereotypes the longer the whole thing will stick around. If it was anti Sexism surely there would have been a message at the end? Obviously no one's going to think this is how to behave but I think people will think it's okay to use this sort of stereotyping as humour. Especially as it's endorsed by UKC.
3
2
In reply to FreshSlate:
Is that not a play on the fact that he is a guide and she isn't?
> Yes there's also jokes about men.....more likely to be a guide(?)
Is that not a play on the fact that he is a guide and she isn't?
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
jesus f*ckng christ. sometimes ukc is awesome, some times it really is full of self righteous pricks. this is not a sexist video. its taking the piss out of stereotyping. what do you expect from a forum that is predominantly full of labour voters i suppose.
anyway. i need to go and make sure my misses is doing the cooking and cleaning like she should be
jesus f*ckng christ. sometimes ukc is awesome, some times it really is full of self righteous pricks. this is not a sexist video. its taking the piss out of stereotyping. what do you expect from a forum that is predominantly full of labour voters i suppose.
anyway. i need to go and make sure my misses is doing the cooking and cleaning like she should be
14
10
In reply to elliott92:
Don't take it the wrong way but based on that post I'm not going to take your word on what's self righteous and what isn't.
Don't take it the wrong way but based on that post I'm not going to take your word on what's self righteous and what isn't.
5
2
In reply to UKC News:
This is for those of you who are so easily offended, whether on your own behalf or someone elses: youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U&
This is for those of you who are so easily offended, whether on your own behalf or someone elses: youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U&
6
In reply to UKC News:
come on! it was funny. The bit about "it's a shortcut" is totally me... sorry for all my mates X-D
come on! it was funny. The bit about "it's a shortcut" is totally me... sorry for all my mates X-D
2
In reply to jon:
Now that's a good video!
> This is for those of you who are so easily offended, whether on your own behalf or someone elses: youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U&
Now that's a good video!
1
Did not like this. It's not funny, or interesting.
4
In reply to elliott92:
Does it upset you so much that some people are saying this video is nasty and a bit shit? If so maybe you shouldn't go on the internet.
Does it upset you so much that some people are saying this video is nasty and a bit shit? If so maybe you shouldn't go on the internet.
2
In reply to elliott92:
>stereotyping. what do you expect from a forum that is predominantly full of labour voters
Well done.
>stereotyping. what do you expect from a forum that is predominantly full of labour voters
Well done.
9
In reply to UKC News:
Well, it's certainly got people talking about it.
Not sure what the 'it' is though...
Well, it's certainly got people talking about it.
Not sure what the 'it' is though...
1
In reply to slab_happy:
I suppose the thing with any art is that it can be interpreted in different ways and that's the beauty of it.
Yes but I think that's true to certain extent. Obviously in the video there's a whole bunch of traits that are exaggerated and crammed into two minutes but I think if you take them individually then you do see a lot of them. I'm not even convinced they're all sexist anyway.
For instance when I was in Spain with my partner I usually carried the heavier bag. The reason is not gender stereotyping but simple biology. I was a lot bigger and stronger than she was so it only seemed fair and sensible that I should have the heavier bag. And if you want to generalize that then in pretty much all couples the man is the bigger and stronger of the two.
It's also true that in almost all climbing couples the male is the better the climber. This is something I've noticed and what's interesting is that it seems holds true even where the female is a top climber, and thus far better than the vast majority of male climbers. Someone on a thread a few months back said she wouldn't be attracted to a male climbing partner if he was not as good or better than she was. That has implications too. If you're both trying the same route maybe it makes sense for the better climber to go first and put the quickdraws in for example.
The reasons for these things are pretty interesting topic for discussion. Is it gender stereotyping or something else. Personally I think the reasons are more likely to do with evolutionary psychology. Females who chose bigger stronger males were more likely to be protected from Sabre tooth tiger attacks and have a big deer brought home to the table. That means it's more likely their offspring would survive. All that is irrelevant today of course, but our genes are our genes and have not changed that much since the advent of civilization.
I suppose the thing with any art is that it can be interpreted in different ways and that's the beauty of it.
> But it does give the impression that it's how people commonly *do* behave
Yes but I think that's true to certain extent. Obviously in the video there's a whole bunch of traits that are exaggerated and crammed into two minutes but I think if you take them individually then you do see a lot of them. I'm not even convinced they're all sexist anyway.
For instance when I was in Spain with my partner I usually carried the heavier bag. The reason is not gender stereotyping but simple biology. I was a lot bigger and stronger than she was so it only seemed fair and sensible that I should have the heavier bag. And if you want to generalize that then in pretty much all couples the man is the bigger and stronger of the two.
It's also true that in almost all climbing couples the male is the better the climber. This is something I've noticed and what's interesting is that it seems holds true even where the female is a top climber, and thus far better than the vast majority of male climbers. Someone on a thread a few months back said she wouldn't be attracted to a male climbing partner if he was not as good or better than she was. That has implications too. If you're both trying the same route maybe it makes sense for the better climber to go first and put the quickdraws in for example.
The reasons for these things are pretty interesting topic for discussion. Is it gender stereotyping or something else. Personally I think the reasons are more likely to do with evolutionary psychology. Females who chose bigger stronger males were more likely to be protected from Sabre tooth tiger attacks and have a big deer brought home to the table. That means it's more likely their offspring would survive. All that is irrelevant today of course, but our genes are our genes and have not changed that much since the advent of civilization.
7
7
In reply to stp:
Oh please! Leave the junk science out of it!
It is often me with the heavier rucksack, but generally the load is equal. Its not a 100kg dead weight its a climbing sack, and we are both perfectly capable of carrying that kind of load. This is normal in ourdoor partnerships where both people are equally fit.
Or do you divide gear up that way with you male climbing partners? I can see that going down well "you are a short arse so I'll take the ropes and rack.... simple biology"
Oh please! Leave the junk science out of it!
It is often me with the heavier rucksack, but generally the load is equal. Its not a 100kg dead weight its a climbing sack, and we are both perfectly capable of carrying that kind of load. This is normal in ourdoor partnerships where both people are equally fit.
Or do you divide gear up that way with you male climbing partners? I can see that going down well "you are a short arse so I'll take the ropes and rack.... simple biology"
7
3
In reply to stp:
You seem to have gone from saying that the video is "actually anti-sexist" and making fun of stereotyping, to saying that it's not sexist because the stereotypes are true.
So your response basically *is* "oh yes, women climbers, always whining and panicking and crying and asking other people to carry stuff for them and taking naked selfies, ha ha I've seen that so often, that's spot on"?
Obviously it's exaggerated for comic effect, but you think it's basically exaggerating a truth.
That's one person. And I'm sure you could find a man or two who'd say they wouldn't date a woman who climbed better than them. Which, IMHO, is silly in either direction, and down to the ridiculous ways we're socialized, rather than anything to do with genes or sabre-toothed tigers.
Incidentally, did you know that the majority of calories in hunter-gatherer societies usually come from gathered plant foods plus fishing/gathering shellfish?
See http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.long -- despite placing a strong emphasis on the importance of animal versus plant foods, its estimate is that hunted animal foods (as distinct from fished foods) provide an average of 35% of total energy intake.
I wouldn't describe this as art, but YMMV.
You seem to have gone from saying that the video is "actually anti-sexist" and making fun of stereotyping, to saying that it's not sexist because the stereotypes are true.
> Yes but I think that's true to certain extent. Obviously in the video there's a whole bunch of traits that are exaggerated and crammed into two minutes but I think if you take them individually then you do see a lot of them.
So your response basically *is* "oh yes, women climbers, always whining and panicking and crying and asking other people to carry stuff for them and taking naked selfies, ha ha I've seen that so often, that's spot on"?
Obviously it's exaggerated for comic effect, but you think it's basically exaggerating a truth.
> Someone on a thread a few months back said she wouldn't be attracted to a male climbing partner if he was not as good or better than she was.
That's one person. And I'm sure you could find a man or two who'd say they wouldn't date a woman who climbed better than them. Which, IMHO, is silly in either direction, and down to the ridiculous ways we're socialized, rather than anything to do with genes or sabre-toothed tigers.
Incidentally, did you know that the majority of calories in hunter-gatherer societies usually come from gathered plant foods plus fishing/gathering shellfish?
See http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.long -- despite placing a strong emphasis on the importance of animal versus plant foods, its estimate is that hunted animal foods (as distinct from fished foods) provide an average of 35% of total energy intake.
> I suppose the thing with any art is that it can be interpreted in different ways and that's the beauty of it.
I wouldn't describe this as art, but YMMV.
3
2
In reply to slab_happy:
Good points above- and thanks for the data on hunter gatherer nutrition. The pseudo science of evolutionary psychology is very weak and it always gets bandied around in discussions like this. Its the sexism equivalent of Godwin's Law.
Just want to add, these traits may be familiar in some contexts and settings, this has lots to do with social conditioning, participation levels etc etc. Some people may even find the video funny.
What I want to know is, what the hell is UKC doing promoting such negative gender stereotypes? Gives a very unwelcoming air to female climbers. Disappointed and disheartened.
Good points above- and thanks for the data on hunter gatherer nutrition. The pseudo science of evolutionary psychology is very weak and it always gets bandied around in discussions like this. Its the sexism equivalent of Godwin's Law.
Just want to add, these traits may be familiar in some contexts and settings, this has lots to do with social conditioning, participation levels etc etc. Some people may even find the video funny.
What I want to know is, what the hell is UKC doing promoting such negative gender stereotypes? Gives a very unwelcoming air to female climbers. Disappointed and disheartened.
4
2
In reply to Snoweider:
It seems to be becoming quite fashionable for people to dismiss branches of science as pseudo-science when they feel uncomfortable with their possible implications.
Just watched the video again. I don't think the premise is sexist. Done better it might have been quite funny and perceptive - but it's done excruciatingly badly. And how could anyone take a man with that designer beard seriously?
> The pseudo science of evolutionary psychology.......
It seems to be becoming quite fashionable for people to dismiss branches of science as pseudo-science when they feel uncomfortable with their possible implications.
Just watched the video again. I don't think the premise is sexist. Done better it might have been quite funny and perceptive - but it's done excruciatingly badly. And how could anyone take a man with that designer beard seriously?
Post edited at 12:03
6
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Not uncomfortable, just have some understanding of the subject (palaeolithic archaeologist in previous life), so calling it as I see it.
Not uncomfortable, just have some understanding of the subject (palaeolithic archaeologist in previous life), so calling it as I see it.
Post edited at 12:04
3
3
In reply to UKC News:
Brilliant vid!
Just showed it to Miss Bogwalloper who pissed herself laughing because there was a girl just like that at the crag yesterday.
Wally
Brilliant vid!
Just showed it to Miss Bogwalloper who pissed herself laughing because there was a girl just like that at the crag yesterday.
Wally
3
1
Extremely disappointing and distasteful video. At a time when the climbing and mountaineering community is making efforts to encourage women in the outdoors this is very unhelpful of UKC.
3
5
In reply to Snoweider:
Most of my climbing partners of a similar size but on mountain marathons, pairs often split the kit to be an equal percentage of body mass, as adding 5kg is a greater relative weight for the smaller runner than the larger.
This happens is same sex pairs (who want to win and don't get hung up on stuff like that)
Most of my climbing partners of a similar size but on mountain marathons, pairs often split the kit to be an equal percentage of body mass, as adding 5kg is a greater relative weight for the smaller runner than the larger.
This happens is same sex pairs (who want to win and don't get hung up on stuff like that)
3
In reply to Dawn_K_B:
So are you generally in favour of positive discrimination for the fair sex? Think a bout the hypocrisy before replying.
UKc Can we have part 2 please
> Extremely disappointing and distasteful video. At a time when the climbing and mountaineering community is making efforts to encourage women in the outdoors this is very unhelpful of UKC.
So are you generally in favour of positive discrimination for the fair sex? Think a bout the hypocrisy before replying.
UKc Can we have part 2 please
6
4
In reply to UKC News:
Despite this film being pretty poor, I would recommend some of you take a look at their other videos posted in the past.
https://smileysproject.smugmug.com/Film
https://vimeo.com/user2604859/videos/page:1/sort:date
Mark and Janelle Smiley have been trying to climb NA's 50 classic climbs over the past few years and have documented it in some awesome videos on their website. They inspired me to go out climbing and see the world when I first started...maybe they can do the same for the armchair alpinists on this forum...
Despite this film being pretty poor, I would recommend some of you take a look at their other videos posted in the past.
https://smileysproject.smugmug.com/Film
https://vimeo.com/user2604859/videos/page:1/sort:date
Mark and Janelle Smiley have been trying to climb NA's 50 classic climbs over the past few years and have documented it in some awesome videos on their website. They inspired me to go out climbing and see the world when I first started...maybe they can do the same for the armchair alpinists on this forum...
7
1
In reply to Snoweider:
The video is pretty unfunny though and if it had been done right, might have been an amusing poke at climbing stereotypes, instead of what it turned out to be.
From what I know of the couple, they are a pretty equal partnership but he's a stronger climber and she's more of a skier (3 times US Ski Mountaineering champ I think....) so I think they were trying to take the piss out of each other.
Maybe an in joke that shouldn't have been posted for public consumption.....
The video is pretty unfunny though and if it had been done right, might have been an amusing poke at climbing stereotypes, instead of what it turned out to be.
From what I know of the couple, they are a pretty equal partnership but he's a stronger climber and she's more of a skier (3 times US Ski Mountaineering champ I think....) so I think they were trying to take the piss out of each other.
Maybe an in joke that shouldn't have been posted for public consumption.....
3
2
In reply to Name Changed 34:
Nice choice of words there.
Don't think any of this is about positive discrimination. Its about creating a website that feels welcoming for minority members of the climbing community. You might not care about that, but it is a stated aim of UKC.
Edit: Just checked around the site and actually I can't find it as a stated aim of UKC, which I'm surprised at to be honest, although they say in the posting guidelines that they don't tolerate laddish behaviour.
Would be interested in the UKC perspective on why this video was chosen as the Friday Night Vid?
> So are you generally in favour of positive discrimination for the fair sex?
Nice choice of words there.
Don't think any of this is about positive discrimination. Its about creating a website that feels welcoming for minority members of the climbing community. You might not care about that, but it is a stated aim of UKC.
Edit: Just checked around the site and actually I can't find it as a stated aim of UKC, which I'm surprised at to be honest, although they say in the posting guidelines that they don't tolerate laddish behaviour.
Would be interested in the UKC perspective on why this video was chosen as the Friday Night Vid?
Post edited at 13:40
1
2
In reply to Snoweider:
I had reply to the phrase '' making efforts to encourage women in the outdoors'' As, I see it that is a positive discriminatory comment.
I think the film its just a tongue in cheek light hatred poke at Him and Her, and the end has [out takes] that en-ply fun was had in the making- all be it from one side.
''Its about creating a website that feels welcoming for minority members of the climbing community.''
And why is this not doing that? I think it is and doing it well, highlighting the stereotypes, if of course He, She is not receptive then yes its on deaf ears.
If it makes just one person think , Oh, I see my self like that, then that's a out come, you, I, and 'every one and their dog' has seen the reluctant partner being put way, way outside of what is appropriate
But the Climbing community, has male and female, clubs, it has Homosexual and Heterosexual clubs, I am not awhere of clubs on Race, So if UKC and others feel the need to stop this being the case and level all out to one big mix so be it.
For my part I will take it as it comes, as things change all the time, its not a big issue.
However We ALL need to stop being so hyper hysterical about discrimination, we all do it, all the time.
ask. are you a member of a mountaineering club? And does that club have its membership open to all? BUT is open to all after a year of provisional membership? that allows time for the members to ------------------- discriminate?
ps. just wonder if the large numbers that have responded is because something uncomfortable in them has been woken?
I had reply to the phrase '' making efforts to encourage women in the outdoors'' As, I see it that is a positive discriminatory comment.
I think the film its just a tongue in cheek light hatred poke at Him and Her, and the end has [out takes] that en-ply fun was had in the making- all be it from one side.
''Its about creating a website that feels welcoming for minority members of the climbing community.''
And why is this not doing that? I think it is and doing it well, highlighting the stereotypes, if of course He, She is not receptive then yes its on deaf ears.
If it makes just one person think , Oh, I see my self like that, then that's a out come, you, I, and 'every one and their dog' has seen the reluctant partner being put way, way outside of what is appropriate
But the Climbing community, has male and female, clubs, it has Homosexual and Heterosexual clubs, I am not awhere of clubs on Race, So if UKC and others feel the need to stop this being the case and level all out to one big mix so be it.
For my part I will take it as it comes, as things change all the time, its not a big issue.
However We ALL need to stop being so hyper hysterical about discrimination, we all do it, all the time.
ask. are you a member of a mountaineering club? And does that club have its membership open to all? BUT is open to all after a year of provisional membership? that allows time for the members to ------------------- discriminate?
ps. just wonder if the large numbers that have responded is because something uncomfortable in them has been woken?
5
3
In reply to UKC News:
It's really interesting reading the comments here. As someone who is very sensitive to issues surrounding sexism and has studied feminism and gender within courses at university, it made me rethink why I didn't consider this video to be an issue.
I took it to be a lighthearted mick-take of gender stereotypes, rather than any sort of confirmation or glorification of them. In my view, the humour is in the realisation that stereotyping is mostly a load of nonsense - there are always crossovers and 'role-reversals' in real life. I think we do have a tendency to spot recognisable patterns in behaviour which are often categorised by sex, race and nationality - though admittedly we don't always handle these in a politically correct manner. It's human nature and relating to certain behaviours and characteristics brings people together and the humour stems from this: "That's just like me!/my girlfriend/my boyfriend/etc!"
I am all for equality, but I do believe that men and women are wired differently and that some sex-specific traits exist. It's important to differentiate between a person's biological 'sex' and their subjective sense of 'gender.'As much as stereotypes are unhealthy and can be ugly, I don't think they would exist if there weren't some general trends in male and female behaviour. Of course, whether these are due to nature or nurture, biology and/or social conditioning is a much trickier question to answer. Looking at gender as a binary concept rather than a fluid one also adds to the problem: it is widely considered a social construct and therein lies our issue of what is 'masculine' and what is 'feminine'. As a society we have consciously (or subconsciously?) created and now recognise these stereotypes, but this doesn't and shouldn't mean we have to live up to them. The video is by no means an accurate representation of the sexes, nor is it intended to be, as far as I can see. Is it perpetuating negative stereotypes? I suppose it depends on how you view their sketch. You could look at it subjectively and either relate to some aspects or be offended by them as they don't represent you, or look objectively and see it either as an exaggerated parody or as a serious representation of how gender roles are or should be.
The irony is that Janelle is a highly competent climber and mountaineer in real life - she doesn't appear to live up to these stereotypes. Even if she were not an experienced climber, I wouldn't consider it sexist - both sides of the coin are dealt with. Does Mark as a mountain guide always feel pressure to be the bolder of the pair, being 'masculine'? I think we do have to consider how stereotypes for one gender reflect on the other - if women are perceived as the 'weaker' sex, how can men be expected to live up to the 'macho' stereotype and vice-versa? Some women are bold, some men less so and it works both ways.
People will see elements of themselves and their partners/friends in both 'roles' - how seriously one interprets this 'caricature' of these stereotypes and their wider implications is highly individual.
We have a piece coming up shortly about women's climbing in Iran - where climbing with men is rare and indeed a punishable offence. Working on it has shown me that in the UK and many other countries we are incredibly fortunate simply to be able to climb with the opposite sex, no matter who carries the heaviest bags, is the better climber, gets the most scared...
I am glad that the video has encouraged a healthy debate. Apologies to anyone it has offended!
It's really interesting reading the comments here. As someone who is very sensitive to issues surrounding sexism and has studied feminism and gender within courses at university, it made me rethink why I didn't consider this video to be an issue.
I took it to be a lighthearted mick-take of gender stereotypes, rather than any sort of confirmation or glorification of them. In my view, the humour is in the realisation that stereotyping is mostly a load of nonsense - there are always crossovers and 'role-reversals' in real life. I think we do have a tendency to spot recognisable patterns in behaviour which are often categorised by sex, race and nationality - though admittedly we don't always handle these in a politically correct manner. It's human nature and relating to certain behaviours and characteristics brings people together and the humour stems from this: "That's just like me!/my girlfriend/my boyfriend/etc!"
I am all for equality, but I do believe that men and women are wired differently and that some sex-specific traits exist. It's important to differentiate between a person's biological 'sex' and their subjective sense of 'gender.'As much as stereotypes are unhealthy and can be ugly, I don't think they would exist if there weren't some general trends in male and female behaviour. Of course, whether these are due to nature or nurture, biology and/or social conditioning is a much trickier question to answer. Looking at gender as a binary concept rather than a fluid one also adds to the problem: it is widely considered a social construct and therein lies our issue of what is 'masculine' and what is 'feminine'. As a society we have consciously (or subconsciously?) created and now recognise these stereotypes, but this doesn't and shouldn't mean we have to live up to them. The video is by no means an accurate representation of the sexes, nor is it intended to be, as far as I can see. Is it perpetuating negative stereotypes? I suppose it depends on how you view their sketch. You could look at it subjectively and either relate to some aspects or be offended by them as they don't represent you, or look objectively and see it either as an exaggerated parody or as a serious representation of how gender roles are or should be.
The irony is that Janelle is a highly competent climber and mountaineer in real life - she doesn't appear to live up to these stereotypes. Even if she were not an experienced climber, I wouldn't consider it sexist - both sides of the coin are dealt with. Does Mark as a mountain guide always feel pressure to be the bolder of the pair, being 'masculine'? I think we do have to consider how stereotypes for one gender reflect on the other - if women are perceived as the 'weaker' sex, how can men be expected to live up to the 'macho' stereotype and vice-versa? Some women are bold, some men less so and it works both ways.
People will see elements of themselves and their partners/friends in both 'roles' - how seriously one interprets this 'caricature' of these stereotypes and their wider implications is highly individual.
We have a piece coming up shortly about women's climbing in Iran - where climbing with men is rare and indeed a punishable offence. Working on it has shown me that in the UK and many other countries we are incredibly fortunate simply to be able to climb with the opposite sex, no matter who carries the heaviest bags, is the better climber, gets the most scared...
I am glad that the video has encouraged a healthy debate. Apologies to anyone it has offended!
Post edited at 16:10
29
6
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
For me, the problem with the video isn't sexism. The problem is that last week there was no Friday night video, and this week, the video wasn't funny, entertaining or inspiring. QQ
For me, the problem with the video isn't sexism. The problem is that last week there was no Friday night video, and this week, the video wasn't funny, entertaining or inspiring. QQ
2
3
3
3
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Just watched this with my other half we thought is was really funny.
Her words:
If you cant see the funny side of this then you need to get a life.
What you going to do when you stop complaining??
Just watched this with my other half we thought is was really funny.
Her words:
If you cant see the funny side of this then you need to get a life.
What you going to do when you stop complaining??
Post edited at 18:59
8
4
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Very well explained and basically the way I viewed the video.
I didn't think it was offensive/sexist. However, I also didn't find it funny. Saying that, there was a certain amount of truth in many of the observations, shame it was done in such a cringe worthy fashion though...
Very well explained and basically the way I viewed the video.
I didn't think it was offensive/sexist. However, I also didn't find it funny. Saying that, there was a certain amount of truth in many of the observations, shame it was done in such a cringe worthy fashion though...
2
1
In reply to BloodyJam:
That doesn't mean it is funny though does it. (How do you like this funny thing? http://tinyurl.com/zvjpclv )
au contraire!
> Just watched this with my other half we thought is was really funny.
That doesn't mean it is funny though does it. (How do you like this funny thing? http://tinyurl.com/zvjpclv )
> Her words:
> If you cant see the funny side of this then you need to get a life.
au contraire!
4
2
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and thought out response. My thoughts are that it does perpetuate negative stereotypes, and that while this may be seen as humorous and light hearted by many, it is also potentially discouraging for women, and the research shows that there are a lot of discouraging barriers to women taking up sport, eg body image issues, low confidence. I don't for example, feel that this is a video that the BMC or MCofS would promote, as it would pretty clearly contravene their equity policies. The video is fairly inoccuous compared to some of the stuff that has been written about women's climbing especially in the US, (which interestingly is where the vid originates) its really the placing of it by UKC that I'm questioning.
Looking forward to your feature on climbing in Iran. The situation for women climbers is dire over there, but that is not a reason to be sloppy about how female climbers are presented on a website for UK Climbers.
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and thought out response. My thoughts are that it does perpetuate negative stereotypes, and that while this may be seen as humorous and light hearted by many, it is also potentially discouraging for women, and the research shows that there are a lot of discouraging barriers to women taking up sport, eg body image issues, low confidence. I don't for example, feel that this is a video that the BMC or MCofS would promote, as it would pretty clearly contravene their equity policies. The video is fairly inoccuous compared to some of the stuff that has been written about women's climbing especially in the US, (which interestingly is where the vid originates) its really the placing of it by UKC that I'm questioning.
Looking forward to your feature on climbing in Iran. The situation for women climbers is dire over there, but that is not a reason to be sloppy about how female climbers are presented on a website for UK Climbers.
8
7
In reply to FactorXXX:
I think it had to be, no?
> shame it was done in such a cringe worthy fashion though...
I think it had to be, no?
5
1
In reply to jon:
I think it had to be, no?
As you said earlier, it's for an American audience, so maybe subtleness wouldn't have worked...
I think it had to be, no?
As you said earlier, it's for an American audience, so maybe subtleness wouldn't have worked...
In reply to slab_happy:
Well I did say as a piece of art one can see it different ways. As I've thought it about it more I can see it in multiple ways too.
I think you are changing what I've said here to suit your argument here. I didn't say any such things.
If there was no truth in it then the video wouldn't make any sense to us. It plays on the fact that we can recognize these traits. I also don't see why the fact than men and women are different and behave differently has to be viewed as a negative.
Yeah it's the nature or nurture debate. Though I'm not really sure anyone has been socialised to not date someone who is better or worse at climbing (or other things) than they are. I appreciate socialisation can be subtle and can work subconciously but I can't think of any such messages that apply. Maybe the closest is that the man is meant to be the breadwinner, a common idea to suit a certain era of capitalism (and patriarchy) decades ago. I think this is different but interested to hear what others say.
I think it depends where you read and there are very differing opinions on the matter. Its going to vary tremendously from society to to society. I don't think Innuits for instance gather any plant food living in frozen tundra. But I guess they're not hunter-gathers because they don't gather. I've also read that most existing societies outside of civilization live off of meat and that we are partially evolved to eat meat too. But I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter and I'm a vegetarian.
> You seem to have gone from saying that the video is "actually anti-sexist" and making fun of stereotyping, to saying that it's not sexist because the stereotypes are true.
Well I did say as a piece of art one can see it different ways. As I've thought it about it more I can see it in multiple ways too.
> So your response basically *is* "oh yes, women climbers, always whining and panicking and crying and asking other people to carry stuff for them and taking naked selfies, ha ha I've seen that so often, that's spot on"?
I think you are changing what I've said here to suit your argument here. I didn't say any such things.
> but you think it's basically exaggerating a truth.
If there was no truth in it then the video wouldn't make any sense to us. It plays on the fact that we can recognize these traits. I also don't see why the fact than men and women are different and behave differently has to be viewed as a negative.
> That's one person. And I'm sure you could find a man or two who'd say they wouldn't date a woman who climbed better than them. Which, IMHO, is silly in either direction, and down to the ridiculous ways we're socialized, rather than anything to do with genes or sabre-toothed tigers.
Yeah it's the nature or nurture debate. Though I'm not really sure anyone has been socialised to not date someone who is better or worse at climbing (or other things) than they are. I appreciate socialisation can be subtle and can work subconciously but I can't think of any such messages that apply. Maybe the closest is that the man is meant to be the breadwinner, a common idea to suit a certain era of capitalism (and patriarchy) decades ago. I think this is different but interested to hear what others say.
> Incidentally, did you know that the majority of calories in hunter-gatherer societies usually come from gathered plant foods plus fishing/gathering shellfish?
I think it depends where you read and there are very differing opinions on the matter. Its going to vary tremendously from society to to society. I don't think Innuits for instance gather any plant food living in frozen tundra. But I guess they're not hunter-gathers because they don't gather. I've also read that most existing societies outside of civilization live off of meat and that we are partially evolved to eat meat too. But I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter and I'm a vegetarian.
1
1
In reply to Snoweider:
No because usually there's not much difference in size and more importantly we pack at our different homes and aren't a unit in the same way one is with a partner. I do however carry the heavier pack when going out with my son. By the same logic I guess that must make me ageist.
> Or do you divide gear up that way with you male climbing partners?
No because usually there's not much difference in size and more importantly we pack at our different homes and aren't a unit in the same way one is with a partner. I do however carry the heavier pack when going out with my son. By the same logic I guess that must make me ageist.
1
In reply to stp:
So, as a control, we need to know what gay climbing couples do.
> No because usually there's not much difference in size and more importantly we pack at our different homes and aren't a unit in the same way one is with a partner.
So, as a control, we need to know what gay climbing couples do.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Great point Robert. There would have to be significant size difference too of course. With my gf I was 10 inches taller, which I think would be unusual in a same sex couple.
Great point Robert. There would have to be significant size difference too of course. With my gf I was 10 inches taller, which I think would be unusual in a same sex couple.
In reply to UKC News:
Continuing on the theme of sexism, this climbing competition poster has hit the French headlines this week:
http://www.kairn.com/fr/escalade/97411/l-affiche-d-une-competition-d-escala...
Quote translated: "This image shows that climbing is more complicated for women than for men, that the men either expect the woman won't succeed, or believe they are helping her to climb. It is plain sexism."
Continuing on the theme of sexism, this climbing competition poster has hit the French headlines this week:
http://www.kairn.com/fr/escalade/97411/l-affiche-d-une-competition-d-escala...
Quote translated: "This image shows that climbing is more complicated for women than for men, that the men either expect the woman won't succeed, or believe they are helping her to climb. It is plain sexism."
1
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Funny, I didn't see it like that. I thought each of the spotters wanted to be the one to catch her should she fall... Is that sexism?
Funny, I didn't see it like that. I thought each of the spotters wanted to be the one to catch her should she fall... Is that sexism?
1
3
In reply to jon:
My thoughts entirely. I was really struggling to see the sexism, and eventually contrived that the spotters were maybe hoping for a touch of her bum.
> Funny, I didn't see it like that. I thought each of the spotters wanted to be the one to catch her should she fall... Is that sexism?
My thoughts entirely. I was really struggling to see the sexism, and eventually contrived that the spotters were maybe hoping for a touch of her bum.
2
In reply to jon:
Not sexism I'd say, but over-sexualisation and degradation certainly. Just a bit tacky using it to promote participation in an event.
Robert: Yes, I think that's the idea.
Not sexism I'd say, but over-sexualisation and degradation certainly. Just a bit tacky using it to promote participation in an event.
Robert: Yes, I think that's the idea.
Post edited at 11:12
3
1
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Your translated quote doesn't seem to imply that's the problem.
> Robert: Yes, I think that's the idea.
Your translated quote doesn't seem to imply that's the problem.
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
I agree to an extents, but that's not what Marie-Noëlle Bas sees. But then maybe someone who sets herself up as a female watchdog - chienne de garde - might just see what she wants to see?
I agree to an extents, but that's not what Marie-Noëlle Bas sees. But then maybe someone who sets herself up as a female watchdog - chienne de garde - might just see what she wants to see?
1
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
Indeed, it seems a bit over-analysed. I doubt that men 'expect' women to fail, nor are they really 'helping' her to climb simply by spotting, men spot other men etc - it's simply an instinctive reaction to keep people safe. However, the exaggerated image of loads of men unnecessarily spotting one female climber to no avail suggests a different motivation which we've picked up on.
Indeed, it seems a bit over-analysed. I doubt that men 'expect' women to fail, nor are they really 'helping' her to climb simply by spotting, men spot other men etc - it's simply an instinctive reaction to keep people safe. However, the exaggerated image of loads of men unnecessarily spotting one female climber to no avail suggests a different motivation which we've picked up on.
2
In reply to jon:
Great expression. Is Chienne the actual real French word for bitch?! (and if so, does it have the same unpleasant connotations in French?)
> Chienne de garde.
Great expression. Is Chienne the actual real French word for bitch?! (and if so, does it have the same unpleasant connotations in French?)
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes it is. I had to google the second part of your question and yes it can have the same connotations though milder than in English.
Yes it is. I had to google the second part of your question and yes it can have the same connotations though milder than in English.
4
7
In reply to DanDDJ:
What does this have to do with anything? I haven't seen a single armchair alpinist. Good for them that they are accomplished climbers, certainly more than I but it means nothing in a debate about sexism. There's no standard of alpine climbing necessary to have an opinion on sexism, however, as sly unrelated digs go you're onto a winner.
> Despite this film being pretty poor, I would recommend some of you take a look at their other videos posted in the past.
> Mark and Janelle Smiley have been trying to climb NA's 50 classic climbs over the past few years and have documented it in some awesome videos on their website. They inspired me to go out climbing and see the world when I first started...maybe they can do the same for the armchair alpinists on this forum...
What does this have to do with anything? I haven't seen a single armchair alpinist. Good for them that they are accomplished climbers, certainly more than I but it means nothing in a debate about sexism. There's no standard of alpine climbing necessary to have an opinion on sexism, however, as sly unrelated digs go you're onto a winner.
Post edited at 20:02
1
6
In reply to FreshSlate:
I think you're forgetting that this is a debate about the video as a whole, not just about whether it is sexist or not...I purposely stayed away from the subject of sexism because I don't know enough about it to have a valuable input.
Having said that Nat Berry seems to be the most educated about it and makes a very valid opinion for both sides.
As for the armchair alpinists quip I was referring to those on the forum who simply post comments such as 'this is s@*t' or 'poor show UKC' without any valuable explanation as to why or how it could be improved in the future.
I was purely making a comment to support a couple who inspired me and who I look up to, as they seemed to be getting a bit of stick, and being labelled by many as sexist and narrow minded, based on one short video.
Therefore fine sir it appears that 'sly unrelated digs' are more your forte. I shall leave them to you in the future.
Hope you had a pleasant days climbing with such fine weather...
I think you're forgetting that this is a debate about the video as a whole, not just about whether it is sexist or not...I purposely stayed away from the subject of sexism because I don't know enough about it to have a valuable input.
Having said that Nat Berry seems to be the most educated about it and makes a very valid opinion for both sides.
As for the armchair alpinists quip I was referring to those on the forum who simply post comments such as 'this is s@*t' or 'poor show UKC' without any valuable explanation as to why or how it could be improved in the future.
I was purely making a comment to support a couple who inspired me and who I look up to, as they seemed to be getting a bit of stick, and being labelled by many as sexist and narrow minded, based on one short video.
Therefore fine sir it appears that 'sly unrelated digs' are more your forte. I shall leave them to you in the future.
Hope you had a pleasant days climbing with such fine weather...
8
1
In reply to UKC News:
I was waiting for a clever twist but it never arrived. I agree with some of the criticism above found the video rather disappointing.
I wouldn't conclude this video is sexist. But if the makers were trying to defy gender stereotypes somehow cleverly, it didn't really come through, unfortunately, let alone in a funny way. It just seemed a bit tired and cliche.
I was waiting for a clever twist but it never arrived. I agree with some of the criticism above found the video rather disappointing.
I wouldn't conclude this video is sexist. But if the makers were trying to defy gender stereotypes somehow cleverly, it didn't really come through, unfortunately, let alone in a funny way. It just seemed a bit tired and cliche.
In reply to UKC News:
What is one to do if these stereotypes run true very often in the people and clubs that I have climbed with?
Do I reprimand life for being sexist, demand that nobody be exposed to real life as it might offend them or just laugh at the less flattering traps of personality that each gender can fall into?
The French cartoon of the girl bouldering is far more degrading to men than women if you think for a second. Girl is struggling (that's what everyone does, competitions are meant to be hard), guys are all perverts hoping to sexually assault her. You have to have a pretty warped worldview to see that as 'guys find it easy, girls find it hard' (are route setters sexist when they set most of the top male competition boulders entire grades harder than the female blocs?)
What is one to do if these stereotypes run true very often in the people and clubs that I have climbed with?
Do I reprimand life for being sexist, demand that nobody be exposed to real life as it might offend them or just laugh at the less flattering traps of personality that each gender can fall into?
The French cartoon of the girl bouldering is far more degrading to men than women if you think for a second. Girl is struggling (that's what everyone does, competitions are meant to be hard), guys are all perverts hoping to sexually assault her. You have to have a pretty warped worldview to see that as 'guys find it easy, girls find it hard' (are route setters sexist when they set most of the top male competition boulders entire grades harder than the female blocs?)
Post edited at 08:49
2
1
In reply to DanDDJ:
So you decided to take a swipe at random people on the internet you don't know because you have nothing to contribute. Well that's refreshingly honest.
That's someone just giving their opinion and not explaining it fully. That will happen on every forum, it's not a condition exclusive to armchair alpinists, if anything armchair climbers would have more time on their hands to make longer posts...
No one's labled the climbers, a lot have criticised this piece of work. You need to separate the two, I haven't seen any stick given out the the individuals who created this work. You're the only one making it personal.
This makes no sense. Please explain.
Aha I'm a armchair climber now too? I thought sly digs were my forte you sad bastard (direct dig).
> I think you're forgetting that this is a debate about the video as a whole, not just about whether it is sexist or not...I purposely stayed away from the subject of sexism because I don't know enough about it to have a valuable input.
So you decided to take a swipe at random people on the internet you don't know because you have nothing to contribute. Well that's refreshingly honest.
> As for the armchair alpinists quip I was referring to those on the forum who simply post comments such as 'this is s@*t' or 'poor show UKC' without any valuable explanation as to why or how it could be improved in the future.
That's someone just giving their opinion and not explaining it fully. That will happen on every forum, it's not a condition exclusive to armchair alpinists, if anything armchair climbers would have more time on their hands to make longer posts...
> I was purely making a comment to support a couple who inspired me and who I look up to, as they seemed to be getting a bit of stick, and being labelled by many as sexist and narrow minded, based on one short video.
No one's labled the climbers, a lot have criticised this piece of work. You need to separate the two, I haven't seen any stick given out the the individuals who created this work. You're the only one making it personal.
> Therefore fine sir it appears that 'sly unrelated digs' are more your forte. I shall leave them to you in the future.
This makes no sense. Please explain.
> Hope you had a pleasant days climbing with such fine weather...
Aha I'm a armchair climber now too? I thought sly digs were my forte you sad bastard (direct dig).
Post edited at 09:19
2
6
In reply to FreshSlate:
I think this forum has seen its day, and as you have nothing more to say apart from vulgar insults, I'll call an end to it and let the user likes speak for me.
Thank you for an exciting and intellectually stimulating discussion.
I think this forum has seen its day, and as you have nothing more to say apart from vulgar insults, I'll call an end to it and let the user likes speak for me.
Thank you for an exciting and intellectually stimulating discussion.
2
2
In reply to DanDDJ:
So no response to any of my points?
If anyone of voters would like to make an argument please go ahead. I'm struggling to see the relevance of calling everyone who simply thinks the video is shit an armchair climber but if there's a justification please enlighten me.
So no response to any of my points?
If anyone of voters would like to make an argument please go ahead. I'm struggling to see the relevance of calling everyone who simply thinks the video is shit an armchair climber but if there's a justification please enlighten me.
Post edited at 20:51
2
4
3
2
In reply to UKC News:
I loved this for it's simplicity so having seen a few, aren't there (meaning many) dirge things to consider about male and female stuff that are well man, so bad, tonight on't web I wanted to again state I enjoyed this not serious effort.
I loved this for it's simplicity so having seen a few, aren't there (meaning many) dirge things to consider about male and female stuff that are well man, so bad, tonight on't web I wanted to again state I enjoyed this not serious effort.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...