UKC

Yes the title is raw provocation :P ...I'm sorry.

But apparently some famous female climbers have made a calendar focusing on 'positive body shapes' rather than them climbing. Have I just missed the thread? I searched but got no results.

This seems like finest Colombian grade A storm-in-a-teacup material. Can there really be no post?

I think it's a shame but only because I'd rather have a calendar of people doing amazing and inspiring climbs, way more likely to hang on my wall. Seeing as my girl friend and I can both get excited by it. But ultimately 'sexy' calendars are pretty prolific and it's for charity so I don't object. I also understand that a calendar of rad climbing in wild locations is massively more expensive to shoot, but I would actually buy it.

In reply to Kemics: I can't help but hear the "Smashie and Nicey" voice in my head saying "It's for Charidee"...which is the bad decision equivalent of Daz non-bio.
Probably a bit of a poor direction at the brainstorming session given that whatever this fantastic cause released would have generated a good deal of revenue for the cause. Its called "Climbers against Cancer", not "Pretty young things in not very much with their bits on display" against Cancer so they are off message by a bit.

In reply to Kemics:

how dare you use the term 'porno' falsely. its things like this that give porn a bad name.

we have alpinist for awesome locations and edgy climbing. without skimpy shorts and oiled curves in calenders, where else is climbing voyeurism going to live? bearded mountaineers and ultrafit hi-alt athletes on the wall of the toilet? thats plain weird (tho each to their own).

and dont deny you havent thought about your girlfriend also being interested in the bikini DWS shot from september as well.

In reply to Kemics:
Before judging, read what Shauna and Mina say about it:
http://www.shaunacoxsey.co.uk/2013/10/climbers-go-pin-up-for-cac/
http://www.minalesliewujastyk.com/cac-calendar-thoughts

In reply to birthers: You beat me to it

Graeme, CAC Trustee who had no input into the calendar other than working on pricing and distribution.

In reply to Kemics:

A load of people made tits of themselves over the whole Women's Symposium too.

But I think that's mostly been done with now.

Some people seem to like jumping in with 2 left feet.

In reply to muppetfilter:
>Pretty young things in not very much with their bits on display"

No bits on display I can assure you and I can guarantee that Alex Puccio is definitely covering up a LOT more than when she is training/climbing down the wall/crag.

In reply to Kemics:

So you're not buying one then? If you want an inspiring climbing one, buy a climbing one.

These women are athletes at the top of their game, there have been countless semi-nude men athlete calenders for charity.

This is fine then? http://s2.ilooove.it/~files/library/spots/aesthetic-climbing-gym/.thumb/ban...

In reply to Kemics:

Why are there no links to pics in this thread

In reply to needvert:
+ 1

All this fuss and no evidence presented!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

That's just blatant advertising for the Works !

In reply to Chris the Tall: She has moved back to Boulder, so it's blatant advertising for the Spot

In reply to Kemics: So is this just a sneaky way of showing off that you've got a girlfriend?

In reply to Kemics:

So your girlfriend doesn't get excited by other girls?

In reply to birthers:

How is a 1950's 'pin up' style calendar ".... different, fun and light hearted for the cause ......".

Its about as trite as it gets.

I can't say as I'm going to get hysterical about the 'exploitation' aspect. But whereas I would wear a t-shirt with big positive statement of CAC written on the front I would not buy a calendar of scantily clad climbers because I'm not really into putting pictures of half dressed women on the wall no matter how athletic, nubile and pretty they happen to be or how positive the cause is.

Does seem like a bad call, but doesn't seem worth getting huffy about either.

Here is a question for UKC readers:

This thread is currently being dominated by petty 'lads-style' posts - "show me the photos", "doesn't your girlfriend like pictures of women then". We have a rule against lads-style posting and my inclination would be to remove these stupid posts.

However there is also a point here that they illustrate the image the calendar is creating and hence could be seen as part of a discussion about how this calendar actually portrays of women climbers.

In the context of yesterday's discussion about moderating the forums, do people think that this is an example of a thread that should be cleaned up, or should we let it run in the risk that any decent discussion could get drowned out?

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1) I would hardly say that it is being "dominated" by such posts

2) This is an example of a thread that should be allowed to run. Nobody is being downright abusive - merely immature. It is useful for other posters to see peoples' true colours

I will message you about another point related to moderation.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

This is an interesting point. It might also make sense to see the pictures before passing judgement on them, although I understand this suggestion can be made and read in a number of different ways.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I can't decide if the so-called 'lads-style' posts are entirely serious, or intended to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, and thus parodying the very attitude they purport to be portraying. I'd hazard that Many/most of the people on here are well capable of appreciating the subtlety of that as writer or reader. I also can't decide if Alan's post is doing the same thing. One? both? neither? I think I need to see some pictures to better understand this topic...

In reply to ripper:

You can get a rough idea of the photos from Shauna's post here and the image at the top - http://www.shaunacoxsey.co.uk/2013/10/climbers-go-pin-up-for-cac/

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Alright - if you want a serious answer, how is this worse than the gratuitous images that you see every day of the week in magazines, adverts, on billboards etc. These girls are fit (in the sporting sense of the word) and showing off what women can do, that they can be strong and atheltic and that theres nowt wrong with that, rather than worshiping inane, thick as two short planks, z list celebs who have done precisely sweet FA with their lives like all the "any way" girls (and boys) or people in reality shows. These people are dedicated work hard, play hard and achieve at the very highest standards and send nothing but a positive message. What is actually wrong with looking at these people with admiration? Would we not be kidding ourselves if we forbade ourselves to look at them? They are not only physically attractive but mentally attractive because they do the things we wish we could. Its all rather puritanical to get on ones high horse about it - if you don't want to buy it, then don't. If you do, then do - you'll be giving money to a good cause. The girls in the calendar are having a bit of fun in the name of a good cause - good on them.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Oh, what's the rule?

Sometimes some of the football threads seem very lads-style are these going to get removed too?

I wondered why we never see posts about the Lad Bible, do they get chopped before they germinate?

In reply to Kemics:

as an advocate of looking at consenting girls in minimal attire, id say it ranks pretty marginally on the laddish-scale. i see no yobbo language or anything offensive, anything i wouldnt say to my mum, sister, daughter, grandmother or wife.
really, i think most of whats been said is tounge in cheek (except for my post, i actually think like that).

voyeuristic, yes. chauvanist or insulting, no and hopefully not at all. if it does become sexist and offensive, by all means chop the posts. i will happily ball out any one does so as well.

also, if the ladies here choose to ooh and ahh over some gristly fellas flexing, or whatever turns them on, im 100% behind that too. in fact how about a 'men of ukc calender'? gimme a month to connect my farmers tan and i will volunteer for mr september.

wait for real rules to be broken before enforcing them.

In reply to mike kann: Men do it too.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Rugby-boys-join-calendar-girls/story-1984...
http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-news/rugby-club-s-calendar...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2244154/Posh-totty-Players-Oxford...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sorry - I thought the fact that I was joking rather than asking was clear!
or maybe it was, and your reply was also a joke. Tricky business, reading the true meaning behind a forum post, isn't it?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

My last post I made was while thinking "I've known more girls who are excited by girls than by climbing".

We seem to do a lot of gender stereotyping, like your reference to "lads style", which is in itself offensive to those who don't identify as lads but who may post like that.

But, delete as you see fit and you won't build any resentment with myself. I certainly don't expect or have any right to freedom of expression here, and as I'm from a different culture there will be clashes in what's considered socially acceptable.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Tricky one, how much is of this is mockery of the pre-existing laddish behaviour that they emulate and how much of this is just laddish behaviour? Should one remove the posts or should people ignore/frown upon them?

In reply to needvert: That backtrack. You could say you know more girls excited by women than a lot of niche activities/sports. Doesn't exactly make a witty comment now does it?

I'm not sure if we should take the right to look like an ass away from anyone but censorship is a tricky issue.

I think the thread is probably fine as it is. I am not sure if my post may have taken it on a different course though.

To go back on course; I can see both sides of this calendar. On one hand it is a bit of fun, much cheaper to put together than an action calendar, and all in a good cause; on the other hand I can see a conflict with the "please treat us seriously as climbers" message that so many of these women have been very successful in portraying over the last few years.

Alan

In reply to Kemics:

This thread is completely inoffensive to any reasonable person.

However the pics of Ondra and Honhold on the home page will have to go, scantily clad athletes gratuitously flaunting their bodies. It makes me feel inadequate and objectified. From now on the only pics that should be allowed on UKC are of people wearing oversized onsies so that I do not have my own body image undermined.

Or, put another way, get a flamin' grip!

In reply to Kemics:

Given the pic at the top of Shauna's post I can't really see any problem with this. The pictures aren't what I'd class as exploitative or even tasteless. There's much worse hung around me at work at the moment (mostly a local 'fireman' calendar that countless ladies have put up on their desk).

It's light-hearted, for a good cause and if they want me I'll be up for doing a male version. I may need a double page spread to fit in my gut though.

In reply to Kemics: This calendar is a tricky topic for me. Normally I frown upon lingerie calendars for being frivolous and playing with the lowest parts of the human psyche.

However, I find that climbers bodies, like dancers bodies have an aesthetic quality, like Michelangelo drawings of human bodies. The very precise definition of muscle groups, without exaggeration of their mass is always astonishing I find. Have you seen a ballet? It is hard not to admire the precision of the shapes of the muscles, both for male or female dancers, whether you are attracted by males or females. The same goes for climbers I find (some boulderers are a bit OTT now though). I think you can admire their bodies in an artistic way without any sexual connotation.

I'd like calendar to have this michelangelian perspective, but I expect to be disappointed.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


>I can see a conflict with the "please treat us seriously as climbers" message that so many of these women have been very successful in portraying over the last few years.

Maybe their message here is "we can all make up our own minds, thanks very much".

In reply to drolex:

(Just playing Devil's Advocate)

So you're saying these kind of calendars are ok, providing you find the people in them attractive?

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes and it suggests that women like Shauna are confident to express themselves, whereas people who feel that OMG it's sexist are less confident in that area.

In reply to drolex:

Yeah but you're french. You have all that art film stuff and were brought up with a heady mix of porno's on the bottom shelf at motorway services and emanuelle. Us Brits are far more repressed than that and get all hot and bothered at the thought of a nipple.

In reply to Kieran_John: I wouldn't use the word "attractive" as it has a sexual connotation. They are beautiful as an inanimate object can be. It would be like a calendar of beautiful vases - you just consider the curves and colors without drooling (I hope you don't get aroused by Song porcelains).

I see the problem with what I say, as it sounds like objectifying people - but I think it is only an objectification of the image of their bodies. I don't reduce climbers or dancers to their bodies, on the contrary I find that their bodies have reached such an aesthetic perfection that you can consider them as works of arts independently of the rest of what these people are (not sure I am clear).

I don't look at Anna Stohr body thinking "wow I would bang that", I am really admiring the way that her training has managed to achieve such a beautiful balance of curves and proportions (Renaissance style, I hope).

The notion that its fine to look at a set of images and admire a set of images providing its not from a sexual perspective, has an implicit value system attached to it.

Is it any more wrong to look at a calendar of consenting vases and find them sexially attractive than it is to find them merely aesthetically pleasing?

In reply to needvert:

A good point, where has the idea of sexualisation = bad come from? This paradigm hasn't always existed as it does today.

Mainly any offence from this seems to stem from feminism rather than sexualisation. Women are exploited, men self publicise. Women who break ranks and appear in calendars are letting the entire sex down, whilst men who do so act alone. Obviously this sexism is designed to level out, to counter the gender inequality of modernity but it still is intrinsically hypocritical. I hope one day, a women's choice to do what she wants will be recognised as an individual action rather than one that reflects badly on an entire sex or movement.

In reply to ice.solo:


What is happening to this site?

I'm such at the Vet Hospital and am wandering through the topics for some light hearted entertainment and banter.

An I now a member of a PC form which is now moderating the life out of it for fear of offending somebody somewhere?

I fear that I may become one of those fossils of this site who's views can't evolve quick enough to keep up with the 'virtual perfection' that can never be achieved in the real world.

It's sad but I feel that this site is losing sight of its roots.

In reply to needvert: Sexuality should involve the brain of your partner (if they have one) imo, which implies that you shouldn't reduce them to their physical qualities in that case.

Vases are always up to it, I know that from personal experience.

In reply to The Lemming:


You can also argue that the Site is Protecting its Sponsors income. I wouldnt want my company or organisation Associated with Immature Lads mag Type of stuff.

They can also be seen as exercising a Pro active duty of care to its users, who may be of any age.

A Laugh and a joke is good, sexism etc isnt. It narrows participation and puts people off.

As to the calendar Issue, im not sure i feel strongly either way. I do Know what my 16 year old Daughter and sometimes Climber would say without asking. It wouldnt be favourable, and would involve a fair bit of swearing.

In reply to drolex:

I think that an interesting ideal. I'm still in two minds as to if the ideal of only the mind being important is any better or worse than the converse situation of only considering the body important. In either case the world would still be full of attractive and unattractive people. The measuring stick is different, but its still there and still beating people unfairly.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I think it's possible (and important) to be able to recognize when something's problematic in the broader context of a sexist society without just placing all the blame on the people who are directly involved or telling them what they are and are not allowed to do.

It's also important to realize that "yeah but sometimes men get their kit off too and noone has a problem with that" is a fairly specious argument given that the pressures and expectations that men have to deal with are often very different.

In this case, though, I can't really argue with Shauna and Mina since they've clearly thought it through and are happy with it and they know a lot more about being a female climber than me.

In reply to Choss:


That's probably one ultimate crux of it. Which makes it interesting for those of us who have no desire to protect someone else's income. (I believe this forum component could exist on donations of time and resources alone by its participant's, which would free us from concerns that may affect sponsorship. But, much like Facebook is a huge invasion of privacy, could be much better, we use it anyway because the user base is the important part.)

In reply to The Lemming:

What roots? The site has always been clear on offensive posts and in the grey area of borderline PC stuff nothing has really changed much here.

I had no idea I was signed up to the forum for military wing of the PC brigade.

This is a charity calendar! I don't remember all the up raw when the calendar girls brought their calendar out.

Do I like seeing ladies in underwear - yes
Would I be offended if there was an equivalent mens calendar - no
Would a calendar with modestly revealing ladies generate more sales than a generic 'climbing' calendar - most likely, yes
Would these additional sales generate more funds for the charity - yes
Is this a bad thing - no

Do some people need to step down off their high horse - yes

In reply to mrplastique:

Curious response considering the majority of the posts above are in support of the calendar, and the rest appear to be in two minds.

I don't see any high horsing going on here.

Alan

In reply to The Lemming:

Possibly my mistake for introducing the 'lads style' posts point above which is not really connected to the Calendar itself.

The point I was trying to discuss was as an extension to yesterday's thread about the forums in general where the limits of what people want to tolerate was a topic.

Just to clarify - removing 'lads-style' posts is something that we will still do, although the ones on this thread were very mild and have prompted discussion rather than inhibited it.

The merits of the calendar is a different topic.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Much different to the Andrea Boldrini banner ad that's been featuring at the top of the page recently, showing an apparently naked Esther Bruckner?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



I think for me the key issue is that this is a collection of climbers who have come together for a charitable cause, rather than to promote themselves or a brand. I'd feel uncomfortable about it if it was being done for their sponsors but I'm not offended by the CAC calendar. And hopefully we'll see a male one next year - can we suggest which climbers we'd like to see featured?

In reply to mrplastique:

I don't think this bit is true, as they may have alientated half of their audiance... A "generic climbing" calendar would have universal appeal, men & women would be interested in buying it.

A calendar of "girls who climb" I think would take out half (or more) of that market...

(These figures are all made up)

In reply to Durbs: A generic calendar would be at odds with climbingpixies point about no sponsors logos etc.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Right, you are placing some but not all of the blame on women who take part in shoots. You are placing some of the blame onto these climbers who took part in this shoot for the sexist society that we live in. Interesting.


Yes, I acknowledge that the sexism, by this I mean the different treatment that women and men receive for appearing in these kinds of shoots is down to a gender inequality that the feminist movement is trying to overcome. But at heart, disregarding the pressures and expectations placed on each sex, it would be strange take this nonchalant attitude towards men whom appear in these shoots whilst denigrating women for it. This is intrinsically sexist, but is currently viewed as a greater good to close the perceived* gap between men and women.


Except that you have inferred that they are (although to a tiny extent) responsible for reinforcing certain aspects of sexism. So you kind of are arguing with them.


* This isn't mean to imply that I am playing down the inequality between men and women, but denigrating a 'real naturalistic' gap in favour for a largely social one that can be overcome.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Pipe down Alan, can't you see people are trying to argue here?

This thread is missing the one important piece of information - does anyone know where can I buy the calendar please?

In reply to The_JT: It will be available on www.climbersagainstcancer.org within the next 2 weeks. It will be £20 inc P&P. To maximise the money going to the research charities we will be asking walls to act as kind of distribution centres ie you pay on the website then your pop down your wall to pick it up instead of us putting cash into the filthy (ex) Royal Mail shareholders pockets

Some walls will even be selling the calendar on behalf of CAC (eg The Works in Sheffield and the Hanger in Liverpool)

In reply to Kemics:

I do wonder if this would have had all the whoohar if it had been a male calendar.

Perhaps this is what the BBC was on about with the great storm?!

In reply to Kemics:

Just seen this being advertised on my Facebook page - http://totalwomenscycling.com/news/pro-tour-pin-ups-2014-calendar-released-...

I hope all of those who are offended by the CAC calendar are equally as offended by the idea of all those poor exploited male pro tour cyclists being degraded in such a way. It seems a shame that everything they do to be taken seriously as professional male cyclists could be undermined by them posing in their pants.

In reply to climbingpixie:
It seems a shame that everything they do to be taken seriously as professional male cyclists could be undermined by them posing in their pants.

They don't bleat about not being taken seriously though, do they? Unlike many sportswomen who then get their kit off for a bit of sponsorship and a higher profile. I'm not talking about this calendar or any of the women involved by the way.

In reply to Kemics: I can't believe there is a debate about this. It's a great calender. For a great cause. Buy it and stop moaning. Gees some people don't have enough to worry about.

In reply to matt pigden:

Quite the contrary. I'd say they have too much to worry about.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

>We have a rule against lads-style posting

Good grief. Do you really?

One applauds, but it could do with much stricter policing.

jcm

In reply to matt pigden:

Another one! Have you read the thread? There is virtually no moaning on it, just a bit of discussion.

We do get this quite often on UKC - people over-reacting because of what the expect to read rather than what they actually have read.

Alan

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As with many of our policies, it is up to the Readers to moderate this kind of thing since we simply haven't got time to read all the posts. If it is pointed out then we will act on it.

Alan

In reply to needvert:


I guess only the body being important is a bit depressing for all those women who have won nobel prizes. I read this today:

please just stop and read this entry to the Everyday Sexism project from a 15-year-old girl – and feel your heart break a little: "I'm 15, and feel like girls my age are under a lot of pressure that boys are not under. I know I am smart, I know I am kind and funny, and I know that everybody around me keeps telling me that I can be whatever I want to be. I know all this but I just don't feel that way. I always feel like if I don't look a certain way, if boys don't think I'm 'sexy' or 'hot' then I've failed and it doesn't even matter if I am a doctor or writer, I'll still feel like nothing. I feel like successful women are only considered a success if they are successful AND hot, and I worry constantly that I won't be. What if my boobs don't grow, what if I don't have the perfect body, what if my hips don't widen and give me a little waist, if none of that happens I feel like whats [sic] the point of doing anything because I'll just be the "fat, ugly girl" regardless of whether I do become a doctor or not … I know the girls on Page 3 are probably starving themselves. I know the girls in adverts are airbrushed. I know beauty is on the inside. But I still feel as if I'm not good enough."

In reply to tlm:

You think the fat kid with glasses feels any different whether they are male and female? You don't think they're are guys who won't feel like failures unless they are 'tall dark and handsome'? Guys are so obsessed with being 'strong' that you have people heading to the gym, taking steroids. There is penis envy and obsession with how big their package is, small boobs are much more accepted in society and many of the women we consider attractive have a small bust.

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's a fair point that similar issues about self esteem and body image and what have you exist for both boys and girls, but is anyone really qualified to say that it is equal for both? FWIW my suspicion is that girls are more bothered by this type of pressure than boys, for a lot of different reasons.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Alan, having had a quick look at your forum rules, I reckon that in the last month i have broken (at least) numbers 1,2,3,7,8,12 and 14.

Sorry.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yeah, it's a hard one. Women seem miles more open about it, more likely to talk about issues with friends and they are probably much more known. I think a lot of guys have self esteem issues but don't talk about it. I have no idea who's more affected, but I would like to refute this idea that only girls are worried about their looks and how they mature growing up. Lots of pin up blokes to makes us feel inadequate these days.

Body issues...

My entire f*cking life people have tried to feed me more than other people, have told me to eat more than I felt like.

It's because I'm "too" skinny. It's a life long condemnation that others judge my body type as not good enough.

I put that "too" in quotes because its all f*cking relative, in some countries/cultures I'm perfectly acceptable, but in my current country with its 25% obesity rate, well I don't really fit in.


But, I don't have to hang around those people who have some preconceived notion of what I should look like. So as I get older, I get better at avoiding those people.

I think if you fell through the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, the best thing you can do is not hang around people for whom ugly-branch-hit-rates are an important metric. Likewise, if you ate all the fruit from the lead tree, maybe don't hang around the crowd that thinks you're dirt if you don't have a PhD*.

In reply to needvert:

...Yeah, I didn't have much of a point there.


I think I'll get a calendar.

I'll buy the calendar. Not because it's for charity, but because it has beautiful women in it. I'd like it even more if they wore less clothes. I also don't believe any red blooded male who doesn't feel the same way, and I object to the prudness of anyone else who doesn't support this.

In reply to StuartCJones:

You don't suppose your gender segment of the population could be slightly more diverse than yourself?

In reply to StuartCJones:

Red Blooded? Are there other types of male?

E

In reply to Kemics:

as a real man im willing to see beyond the beautiful girls wearing not much clothing, sweating and in flexed positions, and contribute to the good cause. whatever that is.

In reply to climbingpixie:



I vote Graeme

In reply to shark:

You need a greek classical theme to provide highbrow distance in taste. They get away with all sorts of stuff in the classics that would shut down a WHSmith web-book site. Graeme could be Pan. You could be Sisyphus (imagine how during effort you could show muscle tone in the right lighting).

In reply to Kemics:

I suppose the novelty of the (in)famous WI calender when it came out was that it played with stereotypes on gender, even undermined them in ways - particularly over age. When the calender is out it'll be interesting to see who's in it, as from the limited pictures on the blogs, it does give the impression that generally the women who modeled are all in the 'classically attractive' bracket for the UK/Europe - young particularly but white as well; common ideas of femininity etc. Of course they're all brilliant climbers in their own rights, so they are going to be very fit in both the old and laddish sense of the term, but it will be interesting to see if being a woman and a great climber gets you included, or if you need to be what most people think of as "attractive" to? The words of that prat of a tennis commentator about Marion Bartoli come to mind.

In reply to Offwidth:



Bacchus more like

In reply to shark:

Judging by Paul B's avatar he'd be keen to be in it and take the photos!

In reply to shark:

I wasn't brave enough to say that.

In reply to TobyA:

I got the impression was that the models were a) climbers, b) friends of Shauna's c) willing to do it. You may be thinking about it a bit too much.

In reply to The New NickB:


There are something like 80 posts here now, and I'm thinking too much about it?

In reply to TobyA:

Fit girls climbing in minimal clothing? Im happy to think about it too much.

In reply to Enty:
Red Blooded? Are there other types of male?

This chap has green blood

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

In reply to Offwidth: I am interested in this theme, I will discuss it with John and see what we can come up with

In reply to FreshSlate:


So you are saying that you agree that it is depressing when people only consider what a person's body looks like as important, and dismiss everything else that they have achieved?

In reply to TobyA:

- young particularly but white as well;

A wild guess says Akiyo Noguchi might not be classically white, not that I actually know the lady.

jcm

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

"on the other hand I can see a conflict with the "please treat us seriously as climbers" message that so many of these women have been very successful in portraying over the last few years".

Oh Alan, why should posing for a charity calendar affect how these women are considered as climbers? I don't recall David Beckham being treated less seriously as footballer after those Calvin Klein underwear shots.

Perhaps the real issue is not the calendar, but goes a lot deeper, how you look should not determine how your abilities are viewed. But it does (pretty/wears make-up/does hair therefore must be "thick as" or "not tough enough" attitudes).

In reply to blockhead15:

>I don't recall David Beckham being treated less seriously as footballer after those Calvin Klein underwear shots.


You don't?! Seriously?

jcm

In reply to blockhead15:

I agree with JCM - bad analogy.

In this case it has been acknowledged that the women in question would have preferred to have done a climbing action calendar, and that it is all in a good cause and put together fairly quickly, but the presence of blog posts defending the calendar before anyone has seen it tends to indicate that the women themselves are aware of the possible mixed message it presents.

Alan

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: And also http://meaganmagoo.blogspot.fr/ might not be classically white

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Act your age John - Toby did use the word "generally" in that sentence, and I think it was a fair use of the term (for the sake of brevity)

In reply to Kemics:

I am still trying to form an image of you and your girl friend being excited by a calendar. Do you get excited together? Or do you take turns? How do you express your excitement?

Yes I am being puerile. It's Friday and I make no excuse

In reply to Blue Straggler: Yeah, it was more that there are so few non-white British climbers, either male or female, that it's hardly 'misrepresenting' the British climbing community if there isn't one black or South Asian woman in a calender of 12 people.

In reply to TobyA: How do you know how many people are in the Calendar. Or who is in the Calendar. Could you be guessing?

Ps there are 11 people plus a group shot.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Of course I'm guessing which is why I said "if", but I took an educated guess on 12, it being a calender and all.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Given that Shauna C chose to thank 12 people for their contributions on her blog, 12 people seems a reasonable guess.

I'd have thought 2 non-whites out of 12 was a pretty ethnic sort of mix for a calendar of this kind. It seemed an odd criticism.

I'm more worried about the baby in Shauna's group shot. I trust that's not going to be appearing?!

jcm

In reply to Alan James:

If you want to police laddish remarks, hop over to the Rebecca Brookes (sic) thread and delete all posts referring to her physical appearance and whether the poster would or would not do her. There don't seem to be any similar ones about Andrew Coulson for some reason.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'd argue that the posing in the undies didn't do the dmaage by itself, its the lifestyle he adopted for a short while that did some damage. The point that I think blockhead was trying to make (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that it doesn't lessen what he has acheived in football, and doesn't effect the fact that he can kick a ball in all kinds of fancy ways.

More generically (and to take it away from one specific bloke) I think the point is that men seem to be able to pose in things like this without it calling their professionalism, dedication to their sport, or their character, in to question, yet when the girls do it, then it certainly does....for some people.

I think women probably do have it harder than blokes in respect of body image, but I'd venture that this is more to do with market saturation. Even adverts for men's clothes/aftershave etc often feature some semi-naked lady, for the simple reason that men like to look at pretty girls. Is that really such a bad thing when women equally enjoy looking at pretty men?

You are never going to please everyone on an issue which is as emotive as this.

Whether people think it was misguided or not, I don't think that we can (and thankfully no one seems to ahve been doing so) argue that it was done for the right reasons, and with the best intentions, and for me, that's the important bit.

Oh, and yes, I think I will be buying one, and I'll probably buy the blokes one when/if that comes out too, but only to stick on the fridge to dissuade me from that 2nd helping of cake.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If you want balance instead of censorship, I'm happy to state I wouldn't.

In reply to TobyA:

If you want balance instead of censorship, I'm happy to state I wouldn't.

Would you be tempted by a threesome though?

In reply to TobyA: HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHA


I have nothing other to say so HAHAHAHA again.

Well done that man.

In reply to I'd rather be climbing:

>More generically (and to take it away from one specific bloke) I think the point is that men seem to be able to pose in things like this without it calling their professionalism, dedication to their sport, or their character, in to question, yet when the girls do it, then it certainly does....for some people.

Does it? Victoria Pendleton and Lance Armstrong both posed naked on bicycles. I didn't notice any difference in how seriously they were each regarded as cyclists after that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Maybe Shauna thanked the photographer

In reply to TobyA: I love all the guessing that is going on. My guess is that i am the only one on here to have seen the calendar

And of course the old adage of all publicity is good stands here.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

"I can not thank my good friends and fellow female climbers enough for giving up their time and making this calendar happen. Anna Stöhr, Juliane Wurm, Mina Leslie-Wujastyk, Meagan Martin, Angie Payne, Melissa LeNevé, Alex Johnson, Akiyo Noguchi, Alex Puccio, Sierra Blair-Coyle, Kati Peters and Leah Crane. All of these ladies look incredible in our calendar and they have created the fun, light hearted and unique vibe that we were hoping for. You would never normally get a group of climbers together like this. We share no mutual sponsors, we don’t all compete, we don’t live in the same country but we are all together here to support this cause."

Sounds like 12 models (aka 'ladies looking incredible')
to me, but whatever.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I am guessing that Shauna herself is also in the calendar but is too modest to thank herself.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Actually Alan i read the threads and think the threads simply seem.... oh i can't even be bothered to finish my sentence. Have fun ;0)

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Dammit! Rumbled me!

E

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Yes, you should get Alan to put a link to where we can buy the calendar into the original post. This thread has had over 6,000 reads so you would imagine that by now at least a handful of climbing-fans/supporters-of-the-patriarchal-hegemony would have clicked through and bought the damn thing!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

It gets better, uh oh too laddish?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

But there is twitter and facebook to respond to and Mina says this is what she's doing.

Some people, (lots of men) reacting predictably isn't the same as a mixed message.

As I said above, lots of people made tits of themselves over the Wimminz Climbing Symposium but I don't think we'd say that sent mixed messages, would we?

In reply to winhill:

I am not sure what you are saying here?


I don't think anyone has said that it is.


er, no. Again, not sure what your point is.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I've been thinking of doing a calendar of me in various positions...a bit of wide bridging, toeing a delicate mantel, rocking up on Tody's Wall etc etc. In my split crotch Ronhills. Give the ladies a thrill. Balance things up.

In reply to TobyA: But it's not on sale yet as we are still working out the distribution - and it hasn't arrived in the UK yet

In reply to birdie num num:

I've been thinking of doing a calendar of me in various positions...a bit of wide bridging, toeing a delicate mantel, rocking up on Tody's Wall etc etc. In my split crotch Ronhills. Give the ladies a thrill. Balance things up.

Will it be full on gratuitous all revealing colour, or are you going for the dark, grainy and moody black and white look?

In reply to needvert: No.

In reply to MJ:
I'm thinking gratuitous. Full colour. Vivid rusty bullet hole. Dangling hairy ollies.

Well as a first attempt at a troll post I think this went remarkably well. I am of course now going to retire with a perect 1-0 record. I would like to thank my coaches and everyone who helped contribute. I am, if anything, a little disappointed that everyone kept things so civil, rational and polite. UKC I am dissapoint. However, if the end results of all this is a HD photo of birdie's rusty sheriff's badge...i think that's a win for everyone.

In reply to birdie num num:

I'm thinking gratuitous. Full colour. Vivid rusty bullet hole. Dangling hairy ollies.

Will you be flaccid or sporting a proud and mighty 'Redhead'?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


It would be rather unrealistic not to expect 'laddish' comments on a pin-up calendar - ironic or not. Serves to highlight some of the potential issues imo