UKC

Epic TV's latest vid  

youtube.com/watch?v=q6L46kcUXMM&

We had a few threads on the topic of race that ran from articles on the front page. The discussion always starts quite well on here but sadly it often descends into personal insults. I decided to leave these forums after a member used labels towards me that I found extremely offensive but this vid just popped up today that sets it apart from the narrative, I couldn't resist linking it.

   We've had well intentioned articles published on here but the missing piece has been an articulated piece from a person of colour. Trevor Massiah is explaining things from his view and it's worth a look. His experiences from the climbing community, privilege and all that other stuff we've discussed and debated are all in there. He comes across as a great guy and much of what he says resonated with some of the points I shared in discussion here regarding my own personal experiences with friends of ethnic backgrounds.

   Feel free to express an opinion but do us all a favour, let's keep all the nasty personal stuff out of it, be nice.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

In addition to that, if you find Trevor's thoughts interesting, he was on the Curious Climber podcast a while back:

https://anchor.fm/curiousclimberpodcast/episodes/Black-in-65---Trevor-Eugin...

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Thanks for that - well worth watching.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

A good video - thanks for sharing. His argument that 'representation' as an end in itself is not as important as addressing the economic inequalities that disproportionately disadvantage minoritie is on the mark, and an important corrective to a mediatised but depoliticised anti-racist politics dominated by the spectacle of white people proclaiming how guilty they feel. Black Diamond doing an instagram post isn't what we need; Marcus Rashford leading a critique of Tory policies that are driving up child povety and hunger - that's the anti-racist politics we need. Nonetheless, whilst Bear Grylls and the Duke of Edinburgh continue to represent the outdoors, I still think there's a lot of positive change that can be affected in the outdoors community.

In reply to Luke90:

Thanks for that Luke, a really interesting podcast.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Thanks for posting that, a very interesting and thought provoking watch.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Nice one

He's not the Massiah, he's a very naughty boy

<gets coat>

In reply to C Witter:

The actions of Marcus Rashford have nothing to do with race, he just happens to be black. One of the main causes of poverty and hunger is companies paying less than a living wage. If they can’t pay a living wage they shouldn’t exist. Simple! After that, genuinely vulnerable people should be provided for, possibly by the tax credit money saved. That’s what a modern society should do. Pay a living wage and you remove the need for tax credits, whereby properly functioning, tax paying companies subsidise despicable work practices by certain individuals who have no conscience or morals, but probably do run around in Range Rovers. In this vogue and for an obvious example check out BooHoo and it’s supply chain.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Good video I agree with his sentiments

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Thank you for posting that....well worth watching.

In reply to Philb1950:

There’s a theory that the introduction of tax credits was an attempt to create a situation where many people would be grateful to and dependent on the government of the time and would therefore vote for them in future elections.

In reply to Philb1950:

I agree with most of what you're saying: a punative "welfare" system is precisely about undermining working conditions, so that people have little choice but to work for companies like Amazon distribution centres in awful conditions. Bezos is the richest man in the world ($200Billion) precisely because he exploits his workers more intensely than anyone else. And, yes, that is one of the things that desperately needs to change.

But, people from ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to be working class and affected by poverty, because we live in a racist society in which wealth and opportunity are not distributed equally. That's not even a point of debate: it's a fact proven by endless academic studies.

As for a living wage: I think £10/hr is not enough. £14/hr might be getting somewhere. A significant problem, though, is asset prices - e.g. housing - have become so inflated by a stagnant economy, a government that actively defends rentiers, and QE. Tackling wealth inequality means tackling the problems of the housing market - but you're not likely to win an election based on driving down the prices of people's houses. That's nub of the Tories' election strategy.

In reply to baron:

Especially as Tax Credits weren’t just for ‘poor’ people, the middle classes did extremely well out of them. 
 

But that’s digressing. The whole benefits trap is a problem for all poor people independent of race. 

In reply to C Witter:

 

I think you have horrendously managed to get cause and effect mixed up there. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I don't think you'll find that I have. What else are Tory so-called "reforms" to welfare (e.g. Universal Credit being not enough even to subsist on) about other than undermining working class power and empowering bosses?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It should be the case that, for those able to work, people should be better off in work than on benefits.

I suppose that keeping the current minimum wage and cutting benefits might achieve this aim but that’s not justifiable.

People need to be paid enough to live on even if the added costs are passed on to the general population.

In reply to baron:

The problem is a lot more than minimum wage. Part of the problem is housing. 
 

In my opinion you don’t solve the free market rental boom by simply paying people more benefits to fuel it. And by extension you don’t fix it by increasing the minimum wage. 

In reply to C Witter:

That’s contrary to what you’ve written above. 
 

It’s a simple mechanism. If you start paying people who are in work, then you are subsidising big business. The more you pay them, the more you are allowing big business to pay less. 
 

If you pay nothing to people who are working, big business have to pay a decent wage to get them off their sofas and out to work. 
 

However it’s a massive catch 22 situation because housing costs are unaffordable.

But the whole idea of tax credits is seriously flawed. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Prior to benefits though, many people worked full time and lived in poverty so it seems unlikely that simply removing benefits would cause wages to rise, in all likelihood poverty would simply increase.

Setting a minimum wage high enough that no one in full time work needed benefits would have some pretty dire effects on certain groups and areas of the country. Say, for example a single parent working full time in London with two children. They are probably going to need upwards of £35k per year (before tax) to pay for rent, after school and holiday clubs, food, clothing etc. If the national minimum wage was increased to £35k many jobs would simply become unaffordable. Any job that wasn’t absolutely essential and is currently paid well below £35k would in all likelihood cease to exist as their customers could no longer afford, or would choose not to purchase, whatever service it was that they were supplying. Office workers would have to clean their own offices, climbing walls would disappear, everyone would make a packed lunch rather than pay café prices, supermarkets would have a single worker supervising 40 self-check out machines and products would just be dumped in the isles rather than being arranged on shelves.

This in turn would trigger a massive recession as the spending power from the newly redundant people collapsed and a vicious cycle would commence. Therefore, I doubt that any society could substantially reduce poverty without benefits/tax credits playing a major role. I’m not even arguing against a higher minimum wage, I have no opinion on exactly what level it should be set at, just that raising the minimum wage on its own will not eradicate poverty. And all of this is ignoring the relationship between wages and rent which simply makes matters worse.

In reply to S Ramsay:

‘Poverty’ is a relative term. It’s certainly defined as relative to other sectors of society. 
 

I would argue that poverty has got ‘worse’. There are more people living in poverty. Not because those in poverty have less, but because those not in poverty have more. If you see what I mean. The scale has been stretched. 
 

The advent of zero hours contracts is shocking. Lets have minimum hours contracts rather than minimum hourly wage. Start at 8 hours a week and ensure that it increases in multiples. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It's difficult though, as much as zero hours contracts and under employment is a scourge on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, there are some people who that type of arrangement works for - for example someone juggling childcare with a few hours work here and there, or somebody who has another source of income that wouldn't be able to commit to more hours.

I agree something has to be done however, I jus think that minimum hours contracts isn't the correct solution.

In reply to Iamgregp:

If you’re juggling childcare, 8 hours is a start. Even if you only work an hour a day. Or maybe 4 one day and 4 another. What has the employer actually lost? How about banking hours across the month so 32 hours a month. 
 

It may not scale, but zero hours contracts should be exceptions for small organisations on the bread line. Not for multi-national conglomerates dodging their responsibilities. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I have to say the application of ZHCs is a problem for me. If you have a busy warehouse/factory/climbing wall (!) then there should be a number of full time staff to cope with the base load. ZHC staff should be employed to cope with peaks (just before Christmas for Amazon, for example). Running most of the warehouse / factory / climbing wall on ZHCs seems morally wrong.

Could this be the fastest drifting thread on UKC?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It's a good suggestion, but like you say it doesn't scale, and there would be some people who would be impacted by this legislation.

For example, I have a friend who is an actress, she has a job where she can come and go as she pleases up to a maximum of three days a week.  If she gets a part in a play she might not be there at all for a couple of months, maybe even more if she gets a tour.  Once it's over she can walk straight back in and carry on working as many days as she pleases.  If she was forced to commit to 8 hours a week or 32 a month she would have to resign her position as she wouldn't be able to do that.

Now of course there are a great many people who are being exploited by zero hours contracts so something has to be done.  Unfortunately any legislation we pass is going to have to apply to all sizes of companies and even if we try to avoid large businesses trying to take advantage they'll find a way.  Call employees self employed, pay then through and agency, set up a separate company etc.

I agree with your aims and your suggestion comes from the right place, but this is a difficult problem to solve that needs a more nuanced solution.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No... you just can't read properly.

It's actually quite complex: yes, most claimants are in work, and to a certain extent taxpayer money is being used to subsidise the profits of companies like Amazon, as most of their distribution workers are paid so poorly and on temp contracts that force them to claim benefits. BUT - a stronger, more generous welfare and less punative welfare system would empower workers to turn down shit working conditions. Even better would be a Universal Basic Income. This would mean, contrary to your bizarre second claim, that employers would have to raise working conditions.

Yes - other measures are needed, e.g. more council housing and measures to tackle housing. Greater taxes on property would be a start, but it would probably need to be carefully designed to avoid increasing rents for ordinary people and businesses.

In reply to C Witter:

Knock that off. Keep it civil please.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Love it when people criticise Amazon when they have literally no idea about the scale of the good work they do. 

Do you want your climate forecasts? Safer vehicles? Greener technology? Machine learning to help find Covid and cancer treatments? Better understanding of the creation of the universe and fundamental physics? Where do you think all the compute power comes from? AWS. 

Yes they do profit from it, but there's no non-profit organisation which can deliver a huge data centre of high tech racks at $1million per piece. 

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

This thread is now about biscuits! Discuss......

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Do you remember now why you left. Will you join me in a cup of tea and a couple of Custard Creams.

In reply to JohnBson:

I don't care how much good work a company does, they ought to pay their taxes.

In reply to Luke90:

I thought the interview/chat on Curious Climber podcast was excellent.  Not only was it entertaining and enlightening it was also completely believable

In reply to JohnBson:

Similar to the mafiosi approach to business. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

I agree they should pay what's due, the rate selected by government. However some of there are many benefits they have to society which non-profit organisations, who don't pay tax, cannot actually deliver. I suppose it's for policy makers to really decide what is the correct cost/benefit ratio for a company. The debate however should be informed by a good understanding of the whole truth rather than headline grabbing stories and rage. 

In reply to J1234:

If you bite off a small corner off each diagonalend of a Rocky bar, you can suck your brew through the biscuit and throw it in your gob just before it breaks down.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

All this time wasted on UKC, and at last I have learnt a new life skill that makes it all worthwhile, thank you.

In reply to J1234:

Well this is a climbing forum so Rocky bars are definitely within its remit 😁

In reply to JohnBson:

Through my partner, and some friends occupations, I’m pretty aware of some of the excellent csr work a lot of these major multinationals are involved in, it really is excellent and is to be applauded.

But what they spend on these is much smaller than the amount of tax they avoid (Amazon paid 10% of the true amount in the uk, something like that?) so whilst what they’re doing is great, it doesn’t absolve them from blame for their tax affairs.

Of course the govt. is in a tough place as if they push too hard they’ll simply relocate or avoid their tax liabilities even more. 

I’m all up for a balanced view, but are hundreds of millions of pounds worth of tax going unpaid, and that’s not right. 

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Is this a localised adaptation to what New Zealanders (and possibly Australians - not too sure of the distribution) do with TimTams? Or vice-versa?

Or maybe a coincidental, unrelated addressing of a universal problem? Convergent evolution in it's full glory

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

To get back on the topic and not dwell too deep into politics, I don't think climbing is racist. Is it predominantly straight white men's hobby, why yes. But there are people participating (and even making a living) of all sexes, sexual preferences, and all skin tones.

The only big prejudice I've seen in climbing circles is about those liking pies a tad too much. And to be honest, I've ever hear anyone being vile to those that carry more than their fare share.

But as there are a lot of climbers, some might be racist, sexist and all that.

And this isn't to say that the business behind climbing couldn't be a tad racist, in the sense that perhaps gettin' a sponsorship might be harder for non-whites, I really don't know if this is the case or not. 

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Basically if you’re white it’s not your opinion whether climbing is racist or not

In reply to HeMa:

Doubt that as many of the ad's I see from companies are generally well represented in the minority dept, everybody is onboard when it comes to representation in the outdoors.

Montanes front page shows a woman leading a man using alpine style, Berghaus are using what looks like a mixed race woman and an Asian man, Scarpa have copied Montane and didn't bother to check any others.

More importantly, if you dunk a Jaffa cake into your brew I find it works best only dipping 2 thirds. The heat from brew makes the orange taste sharper after you've sucked the chocolate off.

I'm available to contact directly if anyone needs specific advice on biscuits. I know $%&£ all about climbing.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I've worked a zero hours job before. I didn't mind it in the main and worked there for a few years whilst studying.

I turned down a shift once because I had a clash on my end. They needed staff and I was asked to reconsider but my thing had been booked in months ago. I stopped receiving texts. 

I did manage to get back on the rota fairly quickly but god forbid you need to look after a family in that position. I know that it works for some who don't want or need financial security.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I tend to agree, from what I've seen. But a proper research would be really needed, problem is that most or all sponsorship deals are not open to public. And trying to see if there is any prejudice in getting a sponsorship will be hard to really measure (can it, yes... will it, not bloody likely).

And easier research subject would be to assess the climbing populace around the globe and record how people react when a non generic local comes to climb (indoors, but also at crags). Again rather hard to do, so every ones basing their assessment on how their local people react (or how their friends react). And for that, people might not even notice/realize some actions are racist, sexist etc.

But as I wrote, there are almost certainly racist or sexist or such climbers around. The real question is that are they over- or under-represented in climbing circles to general population, other sports and such....

PS. It's raining outside.

In reply to HeMa:

That's a really good question, I don't know the answer but I'd guess they're slightly over represented, as people who hold racist views are probably going to gravitate towards, and stick with, sports and activities where they are less likely to mix with the people they hold these views about.

Purely a guess, but let's face it, if someone is a bit racist and goes to try out for the local cricket team and find that there's a high BAME representation there, they're going to get put off a bit more than if they go down the climbing centre and find a load of white men there.

Likewise people from BAME backgrounds may feel a bit put off by the lack of BAME representation in climbing and that why we have to do more to be more inclusive towards people from more diverse backgrounds.

Not here it isn't, sunny but cold.

In reply to HeMa:

I don't think climbing is racist either, or sexist for that matter too.  I think the reason you see mainly white blokes climbing is that it is a past-time that on the whole appeals to blokes more than women (that's not to say it doesn't appeal to all women - that's clearly not the case) and like the interviewee said, there has not been a tradition in other cultures in the same way there has been in say, upper class Victorians and working class Northerners.

What will be interesting to see is if the demographics change with the advent of bouldering 'gyms' as that removes the barrier to entry of needing an experienced person to show you the ropes whilst at the same time it becoming more advertised with things like it being in the Olympics.

In reply to climberclimber321:

Why do you think that?

In reply to Iamgregp:

This term BAME is really, really quite dogshit. I would be considered from a BAME background and every time I see or hear it it's like nails on a chalkboard.

Not aimed at you Iamgregp I just think the term BAME is a well-intentioned but terrible way to descibe people.

In reply to cp123:

For me, and I realise I'm a bit more of a bleeding heart liberal lefty than most people it comes down to the question of "Is it ok to be passive about diversity?"

That is to say, if you happen to be a bunch of white blokes who aren't racist or sexist and are as equally welcoming to women or people from a BAME background as you are to other white blokes is that ok?

For me (and I realise I'm gonna get hammered for this) it's not, I think we need to do more.  

In my work I've done a lot of work for orgs like the BBC etc (I don't work for the BBC before anyone starts!) and my employers diversity stance was basically a paragraph explaining we're not racist or sexist, welcome all people equally etc etc.  And that was fine for 10 years or so, now if you want a big BBC contract your diversity policy needs to be a real dossier in which you show what you've done to survey your employees and actively identify and address underrepresentation.

Now I know that's work and climbing is play so they're never gonna be held to the same standards but is it not time climbing took active steps to be more welcoming to people from more diverse backgrounds? 

In reply to ALF_BELF:

I hate it as well... It's shit.

Fancy way of saying "not white" really innit?

In reply to Iamgregp:

I don't think you are going to get hammered nor should do. I think we are all trying to do the right thing, which is be fair to everyone, and this should be remembered when we discuss these ideas.

I think that as long as you treat each person as an individual and judge them based on their character, in the majority of cases that is the correct thing to do*. Otherwise you are changing your behaviour based upon gender, BAME background etc which goes against the idea of judging by character.

I wouldn't want to think someone is treating me differently, even in a positive manner, purely based on some immutable characteristic - are you inviting me along because you like me, or because you need more XXXXs in your group to appear diverse?

I think climbing, these days at least with bouldering walls springing up everywhere, (at least until covid came along) has an incredibly low barrier to entry such that everyone has an equal opportunity to take part. If you want to go climbing you can, there is no clique to join, no need to find partner's to apprentice under, you just go bouldering. If some people prefer football, or cricket, or golf, or whatever, that's totally up to them, and fair enough.

*I think there is a valid argument about producing role models so that young people in particular, have examples to follow.

In reply to cp123:

Good response, absolutely agree with everything you've written.

Absolutely nor would the majority of people I'm sure!  My idea of how we can address diversity in climbing isn't about individuals or groups asking people from diverse backgrounds to come climbing with them on an individual basis.  I'm sure my Black, Asian or gay mates would be appalled if they thought I invited them to come climbing because of some kind of "diversity in climbing" mission rather than just because I wanted to hang out with them!

I'm thinking more along the lines of  climbing centres (or clubs) promoting themselves and running outreach programmes to inner city state schools (not just the private ones where there's already plenty of kids who climb!), running LGBTQ+ groups, local community outreach programmes, women only sessions and groups.  It's really just about making people aware that should they want to give it a go, climbing will welcome them, and making then aware of that before they walk through the door.

Here's an example - there's a Cricket club behind my house, everybody who plays there is Asian.  I'm not much of a player, but if I was I don't think I'd feel very confident about signing up.  I just feel that as the one white bloke I might not be welcome, they might not always speak English... I dunno, it just might not work out or whatever. 

Now imagine if they'd stuck a flyer through my door this summer and had a summer bbq, all welcome, meet some of the team, have a quick knock in the nets, get to know people a bit....  

   

In reply to Iamgregp:

Cheers greg, a good conversation.

I've been thinking about increasing participation rates from under-represented groups since the summer as on one hand this is clearly a good thing, unless the reason why there is less participation is a lack of desire.

On the other hand I don't like XXXXX-only events, as the idea of judgement based on character is one that should only not be followed in very carefully considered circumstances. They are by definition exclusionary. Take the women only climbing festival, teaching people trad climbing, why is a young man who also wants to dip their toe into a new sport excluded? This is then a bit of a difficult circle to square.

I think the best way forward is to say, advertise open days, and focus the advertisement in such a way that it is aimed at the groups you are after, maybe say by contacting the youth groups and telling them 'this is aimed for you, please do come' but it remains open to all. Your cricket one is an excellent example of what I think the right approach is.

In reply to cp123:

I guess you missed the whole shebang last spring about route names being disregarding to females etc. That counts as sexists. 

And you often hear (at indoor gyms) that this and that problem is too powerful to you, from a bloke to a gal. Again that is sexist, unless he really knows this to be the case. Anecdotally a lot of the female climbers are a lot stronger than the males I climb with. They are smaller yes, so they need to do a lot more work to climb the same problems (which they do).

In reply to cp123:

I guess he's going for the "if you can't see the problem, you're part of the problem" approach...

Your earlier comment (not being racist or sexist) amplifies that notation.

But to be honest, this is only valid in Yurp and 'merica. In say China, the white male would be the minority (well, the white part anyway).

In reply to cp123:

I do understand it, as I've heard and also seen that women might feel being intimidated by how males behave (womanizing, downplaying, being sexist). And the fact that there is a calling for such festivals (womens climbing symposium, trad festival in UK, bouldering festival in 'Bleau and so on), should be a hint that perhaps climbing is a bit more sexist that white males tend to think.

In reply to HeMa:

There is a false link of causation there: 'because some women want women only festivals must mean it is because there is sexism' and I don't think that's the case. Its more likely that women like climbing with women and enjoy the novelty as normally it is a male dominated sport. There is nothing wrong with that, except of course it is exclusionary, which we as society has decided is not a good idea.

In reply to HeMa:

I reject that frame of reference. Why am I part of the problem if I go about my live, trying to be fair to everyone? We don't make this claim about other parts of society we don't like. For example am I part of the road rage problem if I choose not to road rage but don't say, actively campaign for it to stop? Am I part of the murder problem if I choose not to murder?

And that's not to say I don't call it out when I see it, for sexism, racism, road rage and murder. That's me trying my best to be a good person being fair to everyone.

In reply to HeMa:

I'm not saying there are examples of sexist behaviour in the climbing community. The community afterall is made of individuals who behave in their own way. But that doesn't mean 'climbing' as a past-time is sexist. To imply that it does is the fallacy of composition.

To use a personal example, have you ever done a single bad thing? If so, does that make you a bad person?

Again, this isn't excusing a blind eye, we all have the personal responsibility to admonish bad behaviour of individuals where we see it.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

What I never understand in these threads which suggest the climbing community is racist, is why the people who think the climbing community racist do not introduce all their BAME friends to climbing, because you need to start somewhere. They could even go down their street to some of the BAME people who live near them and knock on their doors, and invite them along.
 

In reply to cp123:

Reject all you want, but similar frameset is quite often used in social studies. As an "insider" you're blind to the problems observed by "outsiders".

I don't either fully agree to that remark, nor mindset either. But I do understand the reasoning behind it, from a scientific point of view.

That's good on ya, as as you said, it's what good persons should do.

In reply to cp123:

Why do women like to climb with other women and no males around?

There is an underlying reason behind this. What you listed is a symptom, not the underlying reason.

I can't answer that question, being a white bloke. But from again social studies point of view, that is the question we (white? males) should think about. Why is there such a need?

The business aspect of demand is clearly there, so there is demand in climbing circles for female-only things.

In reply to HeMa:

A lot of the social studies are bunkum, relying on postmodern, neomarxist ideas of opposers and oppressed being the only valid viewpoint of the world. I also reject this frame.

There is nothing scientific about it. Its stems from a postmodern viewpoint which, by definition rejects the idea of absolute truths.

In reply to HeMa:

That may be the case, but its a logical fallacy to conclude the underlying reason must be sexism against women by men.

Standpoint theory (which again I reject) - you are certainly allowed to read the evidence and from that reach a conclusion. You may not have personal experience, not being a women, but even if you did, it would be wrong to extrapolate that to 'all women' as they all have their personal experiences which may be similar, but not identical to yours.

The buisness demand may be there, but buisnesses should be very careful as discrimination based on gender is illegal in the Uk: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discriminat...

In reply to cp123:

I'm not saying it is, I'm only raising the point that there is a core reason for that. And certainly sexism is a plausible alternative. 

But I certainly can't debunk it either.

So unless it debunked or proved, the answer is "it can be so". And if you fail to understand that, then you certainly are the problem.


That being said, I do agree that since the last 10 to 5 years, everybody has been overly sensitive about everything... You can't even call a spade a spade anymore, without somebody being butthurt about it. I blame the populist political movement about this, they'be been lately butthurt about everything not following their agenda (and then being moronic/blunt about issues they don't care).

Yes, that gender discrimination is actually based on UN treaty, so almost all countries have it in their legislation in some form or the other. You're more than welcome to take it up the proper channels, if you think that e.g. Womens Climbing Symposium breaks that local law...  Just be sure to accept the shi!tstorm you'll prolly get for it.

In reply to HeMa:

See I don't think it is, when I look around me when I'm in a climbing environment I see men and women on roughly equal footing. Its not perfect but its better than a lot of things.

Yes 'it can be so' but that's not a high enough burden of proof in order to label it as such.

The blame lies squarely with left wing identity politic players who use Critical thinking [not critical as in careful, but simply 'to criticise'] to try and deconstruction in the name of freeing the oppressed.    

I think we can both agree with the last point!

In reply to cp123:

You're not wrong but there are still plenty of private members clubs that don't admit women, so if they are able to continue to exist I can't see how WCS or other limited admission events or clubs wouldn't be allowed to continue?

For what it's worth I think the WCS sounds fantastic and I get green with envy every year my other half goes, and we normally have this conversation:

"I wish I could come"

"You can't"

"I wish there was a men's climbing symposium" (joking)

"That's called a climbing symposium"

Although limited entry events such as this might seem a bit exclusive, I think they're a necessary part of reaching true equality on our sport.  After all if there was truly equal representation and parity between men and women in climbing, there would be no need for a WCS.

In reply to cp123:

Postmodernism is either "bunkum" or a "viewpoint". I don't think you can have it both ways. 

In reply to Martin Wood:

I can if I'm a postmodernist!

But actually, I said those 'social studies' are bunkum, because they are based on a post-modern viewpoint. That is consistent. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

The line is clearly blurred here and its a tough one to navigate.

I don't like clubs & groups who actively preclude others from joining based upon immutable characteristics, but clearly some people do. It seems like forming single-sex associations is not illegal but they can only discriminate if they have a good reason to do so. That probably feels like a reasonable way of navigating the space, as it can be done on a case by case basis.

I think in the case of the WCS if there was a similar symposium that was available for all then that would be easy enough - maybe there is a gap in the market [not now clearly!].

In all honesty I'm not too fussed over the WCS event, its just a shame that it is not as inclusive as it could be.

In reply to cp123:

When you don't call it out, you are part of the problem. We may not accept it but we are in a massive position of privilege, no matter what. Just walking in a wall knowing everyone will be white is a barrier for example. We don't appreciate those barriers because for us they don't exist.

In reply to J1234:

It's far more complex than that. Obviously a nice start but it's, for example in the US, 100 years of city planning ensuring POC live in the inner cities with poor education. We don't reverse that by inviting friends out.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

No I reject that as an idea, its a false dichotomy, which admittedly seems to be popular.  in the example I gave earlier, am I part of the road rage problem?

This provides an excellent in depth discussion into why it is a false dichotomy: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/how-to-be-not-racist/

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Remember as well, the US and UK are very different places with very different historical attitudes towards racism.

In reply to cp123:

That's fine. We don't have to agree. I don't see it the same because we don't benefit from road rage, we do from racism. And yes the US and uk aren't the same it's just an example.

In reply to cp123:

Ah yes! Clever, I see what you did there

Should we dismiss everything that challenges your strong scientific orthodoxy?  I'm not sure the latter is contributing much to can how sex/gender identity is being framed/experienced in this thread, which seems to be about our subjective feelings or opinions. Perhaps a viewpoint that evacuates THE truth is precisely what is needed to think about the issues in this context. Sadly, like broader society, I guess climbing still rests mainly on popular gender stereotypes, being largely created by men, for men and being about men.   

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I also reject the idea of systemic racism, that is society itself is fundamentally racist, unless of course you can point at a law which either intentionally or unintentionally causes racism, but historically we have done a pretty good job (not perfect) in getting rid of these.

This idea arises from critical race theory. Kemi Badenoch gave a good speech on why this needs to be rejected: youtube.com/watch?v=3vf7yX9ESRc&

In reply to Martin Wood:

So the reason I'm a big fan of scientific orthodoxy, or modernist, or enlightenment views, is that it is quantifiable the best method we have come up with, as humans, as understanding the world around us.  The reason I can say that with confidence is that it has given us the tools that allow us to manipulate the world around us in a successful manner.

For example, this method has given us the ability to understand physics, which means we can understand electricity, make wires and cables to power our homes and give us the internet so we can communicate, which we are doing right now. It has given us medicine, decreasing child morality and raising life expectancy. It has given us chemistry, so we can make medicines, and plant fertilizers, and film cameras, to record climbing movies [cudos to the dude who soloed FBD in your pics]. That's not to say there has not been unintended consequences, like global warming, but even our understanding of that comes from being able to analysise it using the scientific methods.

So if something is anti-science, you had better be ready with the proof that it is a better method of understanding the world around us than the one that seems to be working quite well already.

No, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, why would you stop using the a method that has worked so well, unless you have come up with a better one, just because the problem hasn't yielded its answers yet?

In reply to Iamgregp:

Not really. The rest of my family I guess qualify as the "ME" bit of BAME, but they're white. Considering how many people in the UK would tick the "white - other" box on the census, it's actually millions of people who are white but not "white - British".  Of course there's endless discussion to be had on whether people who are not "visible minorities" face prejudice to some or any degree, and if they do is it in any way comparable to that faced by visible minorities, British or not.

In reply to cp123:

There doesn't need to be laws which cause racism for systemic racism to be present.

There are hundreds of studies which have shown bias, albeit often unconscious.  For example there was one where researchers sent replied to job applications using identically qualified cv's, one with a western name, the other with an Asian name. 

Guess which had a significant higher likelihood of being invited for interview?

Obviously this bias towards the western named applicants, now whether that bias was unconscious or conscious is another topic, but the important part is that it exists.

You can also see the disparity between BAME households and white households by many different criteria - access to higher education, household income, etc.  Of course this is a complex issue with many contributing factor, but the differences are so stark and consistent that  systemic racism must be part of the cause. 

In reply to cp123:

"I also reject the idea of systemic racism, that is society itself is fundamentally racist,"

Again, fair enough. I totally disagree.

But I'm in the US now so see the systemic racism here daily. It's hard for me to look back at the UK without bias of what I see here. I think it's more overt racism here.

We just watched Just Mercy which is a classic example of a racist justice system.

In reply to TobyA:

My other half is Irish (very NOT British) so would always tick the "white - other" or "white - Irish" box so I am quite aware of this status.  But she would never refer to herself as BAME.  Reason being is that the ME in the BAME acronym does not include white ethnic groups:

This is from the Mayor of London's office:

The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation.

As far as possible, the GLA seeks to adhere to the Office for National Statistics' harmonised output categories for ethnic groups. In this classification, BAME comprises all Mixed, Asian, Black and Other (non white) ethnicities. White ethnic groups comprise White British; White Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller; and Other White.

 So actually, it is a fancy way of saying not white.  It's just that white people can be in other minority ethnic groups that are not considered BAME.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Exactly, it's there. We just often don't see it. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

OK fair enough - I've tried tracking down the thinking behind the ONS exclusion of white minority groups from the term BAME but without any quick success.

There's an interesting blog on the Civil Service website from a senior cabinet office civil servant who mentions this:

"There is also a problem in that the terms ‘BAME’ and ‘BME’ aren’t always associated with White ethnic minorities such as Gypsy, Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage groups, which we know are among some of our most marginalised and disadvantaged communities."

https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2019/07/08/please-dont-call-me-bame-or-bme... although that suggests that sometime they are! Maybe that's where my confusion comes from. It's obviously a bit of a quixotic quest trying to define it in a way that will satisfy everyone!

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I happened to watch "Detroit" last night - good film but a depressing experience.

The Wikipedia article on the "Algiers Motel Incident" which the films dramatizes says "The Detroit Police Department at the time was 93% white,[2][3] of whom 45% working in black neighborhoods were considered to be "extremely anti-Negro" and an additional 34% were "prejudiced".[4]" You wonder how many generations it takes to really reduce the level of systemic racism that the US contends with coming out of slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era.

In reply to cp123:

Ok, I think we probably differ in degree rather than in the kind of schemas of knowledge we might adopt. I certainly don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just trying to understand why you won't recognise a different sort of water, which may (or may not) be useful. 

Scientific method is clearly one of the most important tools we use to make sense of the world, including general principles that relate form and function, motive and action and cause and effect, certainly in the worlds of electricity, wires and cables and global warming. But, at its "strongest", it does assume an ideal world of perfect vacuums, frictionless surfaces, perfect information and noise free environments.  

My point is that there might be alternative knowledge schemas better suited to accommodate the more arbitrary and messy everyday realities of social life; a "weaker" (i.e. postmodern - although this has become a somewhat overused, catch-all term - i.e. its not all just French theory) version of knowledge that takes lived experience into account. 

It might also be about using these knowledge schemas in combination as regards values and attitudes towards race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, age and disability, and so on, where a degree of contextualisation and relativism might be needed. In the case of the distinction in gender in this thread, who defines whether men and women should be more or less masculine of feminine? What models exist?

PS - I watched an episode of Enslaved with Samuel L Jackson last night. To connect with our discussion, how well did strong science work for the 12 million enslaved Africans? 

Thanks for the brain stimulation between dreaded Zoom meetings!

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah agreed, it's all a bit of a mess isn't it?  Like I said upthread, I don't like the term BAME either, but I'll use it till a more fitting term comes along.

I think most people would prefer to be categorised by what they are (for example Black, White or Asian), rather than what they aren't (for example Non-white) so when you're grouping together large groups of different people this can cause problems as you end up with long cumbersome acronyms, that often still don't include all groups included.

It's for this reason I don't really like LGBTQ+ as it's a long, cumbersome way of saying "non cis straight" but again. it's a term I'll happily use until a better term exists.

Writing this it's made me, as a straight white male, how it would feel if I was referred to as "non-gay" or "non-black" there's a couple of terms you never hear eh?

In reply to TobyA:

I'll have to watch that. We tried to watch When they See Us about the central Park 5 and my wife found it too upsetting. Some of it is really uncomfortable. There are people still on death row who shouldn't be. For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated. 

We need to get rid of the death penalty.

I think the last 3-4 years have shown how far we have to go in the US and the police are largely pro Trump. His son-in-law just came out with the racist statement.. 'they just need to want to be successful'. This was after a guy born into riches came out and said NBA players are lucky to have money..

In reply to TobyA:

I'm sure the classification was something  to do with "visible ethnic minorities" which was a phrase I have seen used a few years ago. Totally disappeared now - not sure why.

In reply to off-duty:

Yeah, I used the term visible minorities up thread and I've heard it used officially - it might even be the Canadian term? Then it would sort of cover indigenous Canadians as well as Black and Asian Canadians. Something like that. But I guess you end up with yet more "edge cases" that don't fit properly and end up being angels on a pinhead stuff.

When I used to do research on extremism stuff and go to network meetings in Brussels, it seemed that every EU country were having the same sort of arguments about terms for minorities, something that the UK was often well ahead on even though we've still not got great answers to!

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Its not really, people just need to communicate and speak with each other more, tea and biscuit mornings around the country with people from different communities invited, would solve a lot of problems.

Yes the USA is very different, when we can next travel we are hoping to do a trip through Alabama from Huntsville to see the Rocket place down to the Gulf Coast, there are quite a few places on the agenda, but a highlight is this https://museumandmemorial.eji.org and also I think it will be interesting to visit communities which are predominantly Black, and I suspect it maybe unsettling to be in an ethnically minority in a first world country (can we say first world now?)
But even to speak of the USA as a homogeneous entity is a little bit like speaking of Africa and to ignore the diversity of peoples and attitudes.

My interests lie in the Social Sciences and I do find the Philosophical discussions rather interesting, well fascinating, however I also find them equally frustrating as the language used is often exclusive and puts a wall up as strong as the physical wall Mr Trump wants to build or the financial wall people erect around their communities. People will look at what cp123 and lamgregp are saying and think what a load of bollocks, though in fact it is academic talk, but it really pushes people away and excludes people not in the club, so to speak.

If you listen to Trevors video he touches on this in saying that climbing being a common interest brings disparate people together, I had a very poor education and speak with a distinct accent, but Climbing has introduced me to people I would never have come in contact with.

So its complex, but not complex, and if some of these Social Science wonks are so keen, they could do more good if the organised a few tea mornings, rather than talking about various high faluteing concepts, come on down out of that Ivory Tower.

I remember who you are now, do you still have the Lurchers

In reply to J1234:

No Lurchers.. never had a lurcher.

I think we silo ourselves though. I taught at a very conservative catholic school and the parents sent their kids there to make sure they didn't see the other kids, no climate change, no evolution.

I had a kid in my class, at a $40,000 a year liberal prep school in Mass, say that every kid gets the same opportunities in life. Which for him was probably true from his experiences, he'd only known private prep school. Lives in a million dollar home. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I agree with that, I have noticed I can be rather dismissive of people who speak posh, because they are not like me, inverted snobbery or siloing or if it was a foreign accent, it would be racism.

Its all rather natural, we just stick with people like us. The problems seem to arise because people are now more mobile, for many reasons, such as wealth or poverty. A module I did was called IIRC Worlds Collide using the Mexican/US border as one example because of the huge difference in wealth on either side and it was contrasted with the US/Canadian border.

In reply to J1234:

I'm not an academic! 

But I take it as a massive compliment that you say I sound a bit like one.  Most people just tend to stick with the "load of bollocks" description

In reply to J1234:

That just triggered a memory. A good while back there was one of these EDL marches in a Muslim area next to a big mosque, I believe it was somewhere up in N Yorks. The mosque took a very brave step and put out tea and biscuits outside to hopefully pacify the mob. I was shocked to see it worked, many of the marchers engaged with them and were literally won over with kindness.

The lesson I took from it is that much of the problem is ignorance. I'm lucky I was born in a city that had a success story on diversity but it must be very hard for someone whose social media feed is telling them lies about group of people they have had no contact with.

The real burning question is, What biscuits would you use to win a person round and what type of tea will pacify the far right?

Thanks so far to the majority of posters in keeping the discussion civil.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

McVities Family Circle, PG tips and Jar of Mellow Birds.

 

In reply to J1234:

Whilst I'm a fan of your regular Rich Tea, it is a gamble, can be an infuriating dipping biscuit...

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Absolutely, the sight of half a rich tea knowing the other half is at the bottom of the cup is one of life's little tragedies. The biscuit of choice for many dunkers, is the Ginger Nut.

In reply to J1234:

Petit Beurre biscuits are my choice for dunking, especially if you just nibble a tiny bit off a corner to allow the coffee in with no delay - as long as you don't dunk too much at once, they can get pretty coffee-logged without falling apart - and that's the way I like it 😁

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's a rare biscuit that can absorb your brew and still keep its form without going limp and falling into the abyss. I do like the plain choc Leibnitz squares for that. Bite the chocolate off the edges and then allow the brew to soak in, underated I feel.