In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
> I honestly didn't expect them to say anything. I am aware that this sort of material is pervasive in numerous publications worldwide, but I don't have time to scrutinise every article out there. This particular case seemed like an opportunity to use our typically forward-thinking climbing community to at least make a small effort to show the mainstream media that times are changing and that many climbers don't want media related to our activities to be presented in this way.
> Whether you look to GQ for gender equality or not is to miss the point, though - even if it's not expected, it shouldn't be accepted. The fact that the article was written for men makes it even more pertinent as topic of contention, after all - equality involves both genders and men have a crucial role in working towards it. I wouldn't take issue with the piece if top female climbers were used instead of models, whose purpose in this article is to accessorize the males and merely bolster their success. It's the deliberate juxtaposition of successful male climbers with non-climbing models reduced to 'cute friends' that grates; it's not a question of whether the models were willing to take part in the shoot as some have suggested elsewhere. It's the editor's portrayal of the women that is being questioned.
> The images made me cringe before I had even read the sentence confirming my initial reaction in the writer's comically candid standfirst: 'three premier climbers and a couple of cute friends'. They're so numb to this degrading representation of women that a sentence like that can roll off their tongue. It's not acceptable.
> I completely agree that the articles you link to are undignified. I don't agree that it's acceptable to objectify men. However, according to the definition of sexism, the article about the Olympics - despite being horribly tacky - would not be considered sexist as women lack the institutional power to systematise their prejudice against men. Personally, though, I still find it degrading and inappropriate.
I don't agree that it's not sexist. I don't think you can say on average men have more power in society so they can't be victims of sexism, because it's quite possible that men can be disadvantaged in situations where women do have a concentration of power (in certain workplaces for example which have more females at the top than men) and those females who see articles like the Cosmo one can be just as influenced as in the reverse situation. Plus, if society is moving to equality, why accept stuff like that going forward? Although, to be fair my main objection to it is that it's just a f*cking horrible thing to do.
> I do find it interesting, however, that when a man is objectified it rarely denies him his subjectivity. He retains his status as a sportsperson/successful career man. Often when women are objectified, her achievements and professional status are overlooked. Objectification is often more 'reductive' for women and often has wider implications.
Ask Linford Christie..Also, I'm not sure you're right. I think there's a degree of interpretation applied to that.
> The concept of 'situation' shaping a person's experience in the world is fascinating. 'The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir offers an eye-opening explanation of situation and the patriarchy, immanence/transcendence, subject/object relations in a biological, social and historical context.
You've lost me)
> It's not helpful to pit genders against each other and I dislike advocates of 'feminism' who work towards superiority over men, rather than equality.
Totally agree. We all occupy the same planet.
Beauvoir pointed out that humankind is flawed in its attempt to divide men and women, as each entity is essential to the other in terms of reproduction and there is no justification for the inferior position of women, despite indisputable biological differences.
Agree.
Social conditioning with all its injustices throughout history have contributed to women's situation today, with Beauvoir concluding that 'One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.'
I don't understand this.
> I don't suspect Outdoor Research will be travelling to Afghanistan anytime soon, but they've likely encouraged the climbing community to continue working towards better representation for women in sports media as climbing gains more attention from mainstream outlets. You only have to look at downhill mountain biking and surfing to see that it can be an uphill struggle. If we perpetuate these misrepresentations, it only serves to hinder women's participation in sport and damage decades of gradual progress.
> One step at a time.
It's an interesting discussion. Finally, can we adopt some common ground and all agree that fashion is a load of bollocks?