UKC

Seems to be an interesting debate going on in the US about sexism in climbing at the moment. The debate is whether or not it's real or imagined. The case for it being imagined is summed up eloquently here with some opposing views in the comments.

When Feminism Goes Too Far
http://eveningsends.com/when-feminism-goes-too-far/

Is there any parallel debate in the UK? The lack of a language barrier often means such ideas often travel easily between the countries so if not maybe in the near future?

In reply to stp:

I would say it's not just the US and it's not just complaint feminism and it's not just climbing.

2 examples on here recently, the Helen Mort digital feature and the complaints over the trivial GQ bouldering advert show it's not just the US.

Complaint feminism is just one symptom of a wider post-truth world where narrative is supported by a synergy of consumerism and identity politics, which results in the feelings of intense injustice at the smallest perceived slight. (The complaints over the British passport page pictures a very good example).

It's not just women though, top rope debates on here, for example, where men now claim that the only real purpose is to do what you want, not what is ethical or environmental, because people see themselves as consumers of the rock experience rather than responsible actors within it.

The white working class identity politics of Brexit and Trump tells us that it's not just sport either, just as the racial debates about appropriation or the religious debates about who is the most oppressed religion describe identity politics on steroids.

A couple of years ago a Belgium psychotherapist wrote an interesting book about consumers using their purchasing power to create individual identities defined by what you buy and spend. And makes a case for the rise in the volume and type of mental health problems that result.

It's that social context that defines problems and then creating these fake identities means that we are over sensitive to anything that challenges them.

Women in particular are prone to that because they rely much more on social contexts for identity and police the social domain accordingly.

In reply to winhill:

What is a fake identity?


I'm sure you've read something that makes that point, but it sounds arguable to say the least. We all live in social contexts, I can't see how my identity can be less dependent on that than my mum's, sister's or wife's? Can you explain it more?

In reply to TobyA:

A quick Google of Sierra Blair Coyle says everything you need to know about objectification of a female climber, when it becomes more about the hotpants than the climbs then something is wrong...

In reply to muppetfilter:

Why does Sierra Blair Coyle have 5 times the google representation that Janja Garnbret have?

Because she intentionally makes money and a lifestyle out of selling herself as a sex symbol as well as a pro climber. She only just about makes the US Natl bouldering team.

But of course, it's the orrible men that do it to er! We should really care about her climbing skills?

No thanks, I'd rather watch Jain Kim.

In reply to winhill:

Why do you consider the Helen Mort digital feature to be an example of complaint feminism, out of interest?

In reply to winhill:


"Women, know your place!"

In reply to stp:

Here is the link, to the article, that the article, in the link above, discusses.

http://www.climbing.com/people/women-in-climbing-accept-and-adapt/

It isn't a bad read with a few stats thrown in. Whilst I'm not sure I agree with the article it aspires for things to be "better"which seems more reasonable than winging about the past. I'll just mention a couple of quotes

"As I got better, I started going outside more often, finding even fewer women there than the handful I had seen at the gym"

I've been to a fair few walls this winter. I'm sure I've seem more men than women. But "a handful" of women, no way. It's also worth saying that over the last month I've twice been at a wall where the best climber present was female. I'm not saying that is a surprise. But i would say it must makes it a tad harder for men to judge the women at the wall as being less good

"The aim of the Women’s Climbing Festival is to open an experimental space that helps us acknowledge the growing community of women climbers, build solidarity with one another, and play with the possibility of climbing differently"

This is where my physical scientist brain explodes. I think climbing means going up bit of rock. I'm not sure that is gender specific. To me the article means "the climbing community being different"

What actually matters is that the climbing community accepts people for who they are and lets them enjoy their climbing in the way that they want to, with the obvious rider that they are themselves accepting and that all are respectful of the environment. In general I think climbers do do this. But I'm not going to pretend that I know what it is like to be female and how they are reacted to.

However I'm sufficiently rubbish at climbing that I assume that everyone I meet whilst climbing, irrespective of gender, will be better than me at climbing

In reply to winhill:


I'm really struggling to understand what you mean by this. Any chance you could explain?

In reply to muppetfilter:


By herself.

To exploit us hormone riddled males.

For money.

And good luck to her.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

It's because it just a load of meaningless waffle.

In reply to snoop6060:

I had my suspicions...

In reply to seankenny:


Here's a rope. Here's a woman. On no she's tying on the wrong end. The leading end.

Women, for pity sake.....

In reply to Chris Harris:





But she is an absolutely dreadful role model for teenage girls, giving the impression that it is as much or more about image, sexualisation and clothing than the activity of climbing and all the good things that go with it. On Monday I'll be taking a couple of 12 year old girls to Ratho who are dead keen on climbing. One is excited about when her dad will take her into the Cuillin and the other has been watching climbing comp videos with her dad and is all excited about the next Olympics. It's great. May they be spared the abomination of Sierra Blair Coyle. It's the last thing girls of that age need.

In reply to stp:

That comment section to the article on eveningsends is a real shitstorm or comedy goldmine depending on how you look at it.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Sierra Blair Coyle isn't exploiting males. She is a businesswoman marketing clothing for teenage girls and young women. The people paying the bills are the women that buy the clothes. Males watching the adverts for hormone related reasons is irrelevant to the business. If anyone is getting exploited it is the girls/young women that are persuaded to buy clothing because they want to be like Sierra Blair Coyle.

In reply to Robert Durran:

But she is an absolutely dreadful role model for teenage girls, giving the impression that it is as much or more about image, sexualisation and clothing than the activity of climbing and all the good things that go with it. On Monday I'll be taking a couple of 12 year old girls to Ratho who are dead keen on climbing. One is excited about when her dad will take her into the Cuillin and the other has been watching climbing comp videos with her dad and is all excited about the next Olympics. It's great. May they be spared the abomination of Sierra Blair Coyle. It's the last thing girls of that age need.

Alternatively, it could show that 'girly girls' too can enjoy climbing and that it's perfectly acceptable to wear the same clothing that they might wear for other sports that they're aware of and/or participate in, etc. If a Cosmo reading teenage girl sees Sierra Blair Coyle and it gets them to try climbing, then that's a good thing surely?
I know that you think all climbers should wear cheap knackered clothing and drive around in beat up cars, but some people think differently to you and if they choose to climb in crop tops and shorty short shorts, then let them.

In reply to stp:

There is a thread on here promoting a video about girls climbing cracks, or something similar.
The inequality is obvious. Why is it not "climbers climbing cracks" bar the obvious lack or alliteration?

In reply to angry pirate:

There is a thread on here promoting a video about girls climbing cracks, or something similar.
The inequality is obvious. Why is it not "climbers climbing cracks" bar the obvious lack or alliteration?

Ever heard of the Wide Boyz?

In reply to FactorXXX:


It is the sexualised images of her in those clothes and the message they send out that is bad. She could wear the same crop tops and shorts and just get on with the climbing without the sexualisation (just like thousands of good climbers projecting a healthy image) and there wouldn't be a problem.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It is the sexualised images of her in those clothes and the message they send out that is bad. She could wear the same crop tops and shorts and just get on with the climbing without the sexualisation (just like thousands of good climbers projecting a healthy image) and there wouldn't be a problem.

What message is she sending out?

In reply to FactorXXX:

That it's got to do with image and sex. Teenage girls tend to get this message rammed down their throats all the time. It's not healthy. It would be nice if climbing were a refuge from it - actually seeing all the the kids getting on with their climbing at Ratho, I think it still is.

It was done to death in this thread two ears ago: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=607883
My view hasn't changed and I have nothing to add.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It was done to death in this thread two ears ago: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=607883
My view hasn't changed and I have nothing to add.

I actively took part in that thread and agree that it was all covered (or uncovered in SBC's case...) there and that there is no point in opening up that discussion again.

In reply to winhill:

Are you a Social Scientist?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, did they:
never lose it
never chose this way
never close your eyes
always shine?

In reply to stp:

Def an issue, not in climbing per se - definitely not more so than in football, motorsport or golf - but it's an issue in society certainly.

I wish we could all get on...

BB

(By way of explanation for the above garbled mess there was offer on Brewdog at Asda and I've had a lovely long run this afternoon in the Langdales)

In reply to Robert Durran:


Definitely, she should be banned. Cant have women exploiting themselves for financial gain FFS, how does she think her looks make other women feel? She's as bad as that girl on the "beach ready" poster, how dare they be fit and attractive, let alone be climbers, do they not realise what a bad role model that is?

I reckon a burqa should be mandatory for them myself.

In reply to stp:

I don't understand how there can be sexism in climbing

1. Choose your mate
2. Choose a crag
3. Choose a day
4. Go climbing

There can be sexism in magazine articles and web forums and blogs and marketing but none of this is climbing, which you can just go and do.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I guess that's a possibility. It'd be nice to have the perspective of some of the female climbers on here.

In reply to Big Ger:
If you haven't listened to teenage girls talking about the effects that the images they can see every day have on their self esteem and self image and things, you might find it interesting.

What any kind of answer might be, which doesn't go against some of our ideals to do with what it means to be free, is something else perhaps...

In reply to Timmd:

I am the father of a young woman (now 22 yrs old,) , so I know a little bit Timmd mate.

So, ban good looking people from existing, no one should strive to look good, all sexual attractiveness should be banned, and sports people especially are to be look down on if they are anything but ugly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

My impression of Sierra Blair Coyle is that she is a very smart individual.

In reply to Timmd:


So how about all the images of hunks with 6 packs in the media? How are us fat blokes meant to cope?

In reply to Chris Harris:


Ban them too! Only fat ugly people should be allowed to be seen, you know it makes sense.

In reply to Big Ger:


You are clearly utterly clueless about the issue - no grasp of what it is about at all.
Read that old thread I gave a link to.

In reply to I like climbing:


Absolutely.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You are clearly utterly clueless about the issue - no grasp of what it is about at all.
Read that old thread I gave a link to.

That old thread came to no definitive conclusion about SBC.
Some supported her, some didn't.
To allude that thread gives credence to your stance is both ludicrous and disingenuous.

In reply to Timmd:

Out of curiosity, have you read the article linked in the Opening Post?
If so, It would be interesting to know your take on it.
For the record, I essentially agree with what she says and that some parties deliberately go out of their way to suggest sexism when nothing of the sort was meant, implied or intended.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm going to bed, I'll try and remember to. I'm not sure how qualified I am as a bloke to ponder on things affecting women climbers though. WTF do I know?

https://www.outdoorresearch.com/blog/stories/5-ways-men-can-help-fight-sexi...

I've just stumbled across this, though, written by a woman, essentially saying guys should ask themselves if they'd say the same kind of thing to another male climber. Obviously there's going to be some differences in how people of the same gender and different genders interact...

In reply to FactorXXX:


There were some people as clueless as Big Ger about what sexualisation is (as ilustrated by his post earlier about "banning good looking people"). If he read the thread he would be educated. He might then be in a position to have an opinion on her activities.

In reply to Timmd:

To be honest, that article that you've just linked is pretty much what the article in the Opening Post is criticising.
Maybe read the Link in the OP and then reply on that basis?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Really? I'm afraid you're going to have to enlighten me, I'm not reading though a 2 year old thread with several hundred replies, just to find out your "view hasn't changed and I (you) have nothing to add."

You've made six posts since not having anything to add.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Some people have more clue as to what sexualisation is about than those who cannot see that a urine extracting post about banning good looking people has nothing to do with sexualistaion. Maybe that's why it didn't mention, refer to or have any relevance to sexualistaion.

Your obsession blinds you.

In reply to Big Ger:

It was in direct reply to my "It is the sexualised images of her in those clothes and the message they send out that is bad" which you chose to quote. So what the f*ck else was it meant to be about.


Your stupidity cripples you.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It was a p!ss take out of the attitudes shown by some in this thread, you were just the lucky recipient of my hitting the "reply" button to your post.

But seeing as you seem to want your obsession indulged, can you tell me which images from Ms Coyles site you see as "climbing sexualised".

This may give us a clue as to where you're coming from.

Ever hear the expression "de gustibus est non disputandem" BTW?

Can you let me know how much of her physique you would like her public banned from seeing, should for instance she wear trousers at all times?

In reply to Robert Durran:

There were some people as clueless as Big Ger about what sexualisation is (as ilustrated by his post earlier about "banning good looking people"). If he read the thread he would be educated. He might then be in a position to have an opinion on her activities.

Doesn't that just mean that some people agreed with your viewpoint and some didn't?

If you can be bothered, do a Google Image Search for Alex Puccio. If you do, you'll find some shocking and disgusting images of her in nothing more than sports bras and knickers! Outrageous!

In reply to FactorXXX:
Methinks Robert has looked lustfully on women climbers, and has hence committed adultery in his heart, and now seeks absolution by blaming them.

In reply to Timmd:


"The survey, conducted online by Flash Foxy, found that 64% of the female climbers who responded feel uncomfortable, insulted, or dismissed at some point during their training."

Only 64%? Only women? Feeling sometimes uncomfortable, insulted, or dismissed is a general part of the human experience.

In reply to climbwhenready:






5. Hear lewd comments about yourself from a group of men close by

6. If you're climbing with a man, expect any climbing related conversation to be directed towards him.

7. If you tie into the sharp end then expect to be offered plenty of unsolicited advice whilst you climb.

8. When you succeed on anything harder than HS expect plenty of 'well-done' comments that your (male) partner didn't seem to get when he leads something at around the same level.

I could go on, but what's the point. A bunch of middle class, middle aged blokes have decided sexism doesn't exist. So that's that.


Try and have a stronger imagination. (5) above doesn't happen often, but does happen. 6-8 (and others) - frequently.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well said Robert.

In reply to the original post (stp): I find the article uncomfortable because it comes across well but in my view is putting across a set of poorly informed arguments. In addition, I find her examples strange. For me, 'Beta Babes' is an example of the sort of thing that does need stamping out because it does give totally the wrong impression.

In a lot of these cases it's important to consider not just what seems offensive to us or how we feel about our own actions/motives (eg thoughts like 'I have no misogynistic intentions or thoughts so surely anything the feminists accuse me of doing wrongly, or anything they complain about that I have an involvement with, must just be complaint feminism' or something along those lines.) We need to consider also how the overall resulting culture affects people in other parts of the population (ef women or subsets of women) and also how it affects the opportunities people (eg girls) get growing up. Then we need to think about how to fix this, and what things we need to change to help do so, even if this means changing our own actions that we felt were individually reasonable and well motivated

In the example of Beta Babes, while it might not be obviously offensive to any one individual, the word 'Babe' is a clear example of a sexualisation of the women involved because it generally means an attractive woman. Is an unattractive woman ( or one who feels that way) in some way excluded from that evening at the wall? Should the women who attend feel as if they have to look good (to men) as well as just climb hard or be a good person, in order to have peoples' respect? Secondly, use of words like 'Babe' in general to apply to large groups indiscriminately need to be reduced, because they generally make girls grow up thinking that attractiveness disproportionately important, which has follow on problems.

If one has grown up with these things they always seem normal, but doesn't mean they aren't harmful in the long term or in an indirect way.

I will confess I used to 'not get' any of this myself and it took a conversation over almost a whole 4 days while we were walking part of the Pennine Way for my wife to explain the problem to me, and persuade me that it was real. So I don't expect to have done it well in this post!

In reply to stp:

I've already debated this article online so won't go into it again, this response articulates most of what I think.

https://fringesfolly.com/2017/01/18/a-response-to-evening-sends-when-femini...

In summary, I think she, and others on this thread, is guilty of assuming that because she or her friends doesn't experience those issues, they don't exist. Well they do exist. You only have to read the responses to the article. Has Feminism Gone too Far? Has it f*ck.

In reply to Helen Bach:



This is a tricky one. I'll relay a brief anecdote. It is worth saying that this is over 20 years ago. Attitudes and the size of most people racks has changed since then.

I was stood at the bottom of MillStone and I watched 2 women approach the bottom of Bond Street and tie in. But I couldn't help noticing that the largest piece of gear on the leaders harness was a rock 9. I think had done the route twice and I knew that this could be more than a trivial problem. I had reservations about saying anything but I felt we'd strayed into the realms of safety, which i always let over ride reserve. So i said "I think you'll need some bigger gear than that, do you want to borrow my hex's?, I'm not using them". They said "yes" so I fetched them from my rucksack with no further comment beyond. "Put then in my pack when you done".

I'm only slightly peeved that I received no gratitude. "Yes" was really the only word they said to me, the body language was a bit like I was passing them a turd. Now, more than then, I can see if you're use to crap advice because your a girl then you might be jaded when you get some practical help. In my mind I'm as sure as I can be that I stepped in without any regard to gender. Of course gender might not have been an issue in their minds either, some people are just rude.

I'm happy to receive feed back on my actions. Or explanations as to how they might have felt.

In reply to planetmarshall:


I can certainly see that but also the view from the other side also seems only based on personal experience too. It's then down to interpretation as to whether such experiences are: a) sexist as opposed to someone just being a little rude, annoying etc. and b) whether such experiences are endemic to the climbing community as a whole or more down exceptional individuals.

Obviously only women can can say what they do or do not experience. But as men I think we can judge whether some claims have a sexist basis. For instance the claims that giving beta is sexist seems untenable to me for the simple reason that men share beta with men and women share beta with men too.

There also seems to be an issue with the rapid evolution of language. The term 'babe' initially struck me as a sexist term. But later I read elsewhere that these days in the US the term is used just as much for guys as girls and so doesn't necessarily have the same connotation as it used to. (Apparently 'girls' is now a faux pas as is 'female' according to the footnotes of the article you posted, which I think is the kind of thing being objected to - ie. feminism gone too far.) Such changes mean the same word can mean one thing to one person and be different to someone else which implies a significant subjective interpretation of any interaction.

In reply to stp:

In one of the attached articles there was a "5 things you should do" type thing. One of them was to think "would I say the same thing to a man?" which I think is a very valid point. So in response to your point above, just because you give beta to men doesn't mean it's not sexist. If you would have given beta to a man in exactly the same way at the same time then I would say it's not sexist. If you gave the beta because it was a woman, or you gave it differently because it was a woman, because you consciously or subconsciously (because of conditioning) thought that she might need it, etc. then it would be sexist.

Having established that, there's then the question of whether it is unacceptable sexism. There seems to be an agenda that all sexism is unacceptable; I don't agree. For example saying "one way of doing it would be to just campus between the holds, but you'd have to be very strong to do it that way" might be construed as a sexist assumption that the woman you're giving beta to is not strong enough. However, men are (on average) stronger than women, so it's less likely (but not impossible) that this woman will have the strength, so I would say that this remark would not be unacceptable. (The ideal follow up would then be her:"I'm pretty strong you know", you:"go for it")

Men and women are not the same, people tend to forget that gender equality does not mean equivalence.

In reply to Big Ger:


So you are now saying that you actually agree with me and your post was an ironic piss take of all those who ignorantly think that "sexualised" is more or less synonymous with "sexy", "scantily clad", "naked" "attractive" etc? Yet you randomly chose to direct your post at me, who just happened to be the one person at whom this piss take was not aimed, even (I presume randomly), editing my post to reply to a specific point in it?


But of course this actually just shows that you have absolutely no idea what the word "sexualised" means and that you are posting ignorant shite.

In reply to winhill:


An interesting observation which explains a lot, particularly some of the posts you see on the UKC forum.

What is also interesting to me is that at the climbing walls you have lots of rules which people are happy to accept. But on the crag where no one sets any rules and we rely on ethics some people seem to positively go out of their way to do things differently (sometimes at the expense of others or the environment) as if they need to do this to prove something.

In reply to Big Ger:


Oh please do f*ck off. Stupid, Ignorant dick.

In reply to FactorXXX:


No, it means exactly what I wrote: "There were some people as clueless as Big Ger about what sexualisation is (as ilustrated by his post earlier about "banning good looking people"). If he read the thread he would be educated. He might then be in a position to have an opinion on her activities."


And it appears you too don't know the meaning of the word "sexualisation".

In reply to Robert Durran: Don't just harangue them, please define it; just to make sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):


We can make guesses but, bottom line, we'll never know for sure how they felt (well unless one/both come on here and tell us).

Did you do the right thing? In my view, yes, absolutely. And thank God they readily accepted the hexes. Which, in a way, is a little odd. They obviously realised they needed bigger gear but were going up without any...

I'd have been bloody grateful to you.

Mick

In reply to Michael Hood:

Good points. I think there's definitely differences between the way members of the opposite sex treat each other and I think that's hard wired into us. I've heard it said fathers will treat daughters differently, (more sympathetically?) than sons and mothers will treat their sons differently to their daughters too. I think that's understandable. Members of the opposite sex will be a little bit more alien to us in certain ways. So if sexism means we're supposed to treat everyone the exactly the same, wearing tinted spectacles that cannot differentiate sex I suspect that is an unrealistic and unattainable goal.

I don't entirely agree with the campus comment though. For me it wouldn't be sexist because campusing between holds requires more strength for everyone. Plenty of men can't campus very well, myself included. In fact even Adam Ondra says that's one of his weaknesses. Also at my local wall there are plenty of very strong female climbers - a growing number that can out perform most guys. But I suppose that just shows how much personal experience can affect our views too.

I think a key thing for me is from Helen's point above. It seems that patronizing women is one of the most common forms of sexism in climbing scenarios.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):


So you thought girls wouldn't know how to use cams?

In reply to stp:
I wanted a better example but couldn't think of one. To me campusing is something I watch on videos

Which comes back to the "would you say the same thing to a man" - the difficulty is training ourselves to think that BEFORE we open our gobs.

In reply to stp:

My experience of climbing is that at one time, it was one of the least sexist areas of life for me, just people who liked the same sort of thing getting out and doing it. At the same time that I felt like this, I saw other women saying that it was sexist. It was almost as though we were different individuals, living different lives, and having different experiences, rather than being the female hive mind.

Over the years, as it's got more commercial, and more mainstream, it feels more sexist in some areas. I've more or less stopped using UKC because of the types of comments I was seeing. It wasn't just that there were the occasional sexist comments, it was more the reactions to those comments in the majority of the comments in the threads, for example, outright saying that what you described about your own experiences and points of view was simply wrong.

My own climbing doesn't feel sexist, because I climb with people that I like, who are reasonably intelligent and well educated.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):


Giving women advice is not sexist. Giving women advice when you would not give the same advice to men in the same situation is sexist.

As for their reaction, I have found that being a dick is not exclusive to either gender.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And it appears you too don't know the meaning of the word "sexualisation".

I know exactly what it means and if you're saying that SBC's are sexualised, then so too are a lot of Alex Puccio's.
Anyway, who gives a stuff what photo's people decide to post on the Internet of themselves. I don't and I certainly don't look at photo's of SBC and think that she is somehow destroying the culture of climbing or that she is traumatising teenage females.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Maybe, though I've not seen any which I thought were. Anyway, going back to your earlier point, the fact that she is wearing sports bra and shorts no bigger than knickers does not mean they are sexualised as you were presumably implying. That is why it seemed you did not know the meaning of the word.

In reply to Chris Harris:

I'm slightly confused by the possible tone of your post, I've not said that this wouldn't be an issue?

Men with body issues have increased in number over time, a weird kind of equality has started to form.

In reply to stp:

Anyone who discounts the genuine, lived experiences of anybody whatever their background is a reactionary ******* in my opinion. I've stopped reading eveningsends due to the problematic history of AB and women

Feminist: I was groped under the pretext of being "spotted"
Other person: OK but because it has never happened to me or any of my friends it isn't a problem

Feminist: Men always make negative assumptions about me because I am a woman
Other person: OK but because women are literally not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and forced into marriage in many countries it doesn't matter.

And so on...

Articles I thought were good:

https://fringesfolly.com/2017/01/18/a-response-to-evening-sends-when-femini...
http://upthatrock.com/everything-wrong-with-when-feminism-goes-too-far/

In reply to jsmcfarland:
'Anyone who discounts the genuine, lived experiences of anybody whatever their background is a reactionary ******* in my opinion.'

Some people don't seem vaguely prepared to consider another perspective to their own.

In reply to Timmd:

Some people don't seem vaguely prepared to consider another perspective to their own.

Do you include yourself in that appraisal or just people that don't have the same viewpoint as yourself?

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):


In spirit, I'm quite a straight forwardly friendly person in offering help or advice, and with the practical side of conservation being pretty male dominated, I've noticed that some of the females I've volunteered with can seem to feel like they have something to prove (I can feel similar when working with children when I'm the only male there, like it's taken for granted among the others one another are good with children and at making them happy - and under a small amount of pressure to prove that I can too). If seeing a female looking like they were vaguely struggling, I might put it like ''When I was doing this, I found that a good way was to do XYZ, there could be other ways, but it worked for me'' It can seem like for men as well as women, if you preface any advice with what you found yourself when doing something, it's accepted a bit more readily, or less like you're implying you don't think they know what they're doing.

Not everybody will be agreeable if they're offered help or advice in a friendly way, but talking about what I found when doing the same thing does seem helpful, and I probably wouldn't hold back if it's something to do with safety.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Of course I include myself. UKC has taught me that it's often people's life experiences which shape their viewpoints.

For clarity, I was thinking along the lines of, something vaguely unpleasant happening to a black person, and a white person dismissing it out of hand as something worth thinking about, or something happening to a female and then being dismissed by a man. If we haven't walked the path which somebody else does, it seems rather unfair to dismiss straight away something they've experienced (which we wouldn't come across through being different to them).

In reply to Michael Hood:


Fair enough.

A woman, and it doesn't really matter how she is dressed (she could even be naked) is filmed doing a boulder problem. The filming and editing concerntrates entirely on the actual climbing (moves, movement, effort etc).

She is now filmed again doing the same boulder problem, identically dressed. This time the filming and editing at least some of the time concentrates on cleavage and crotch shots just for their own sake.

The second film is sexualised, the first is not.

And whether anyone finds her attractive, sexy or underdressed is rrelevant; it might well be that most people find the first film sexier than the second in fact.

In reply to Robert Durran: Fair enough - I think that's a pretty good example that makes it clear.

In reply to FactorXXX:



And there, ladies, and whatever the f*ck the rest of you (99%) like to call yourselves, is the nub of the issue. FactorXXX. Robert Durran, Big Jerk: give yourselves a big smug pat on the back. You are all awesome!

In reply to Helen Bach:

And there, ladies, and whatever the f*ck the rest of you (99%) like to call yourselves, is the nub of the issue. FactorXXX. Robert Durran, Big Jerk: give yourselves a big smug pat on the back. You are all awesome!

What exactly is your point?
I merely asked Timmd if he included himself in his statement: "Some people don't seem vaguely prepared to consider another perspective to their own".
To me, that hinted that people with an opinion different to his had 'closed minds' and that his statement had a bit of a superior air about it. He has subsequently clarified his position, so all is good in that respect.

As for your actual comment: "And there, ladies, and whatever the f*ck the rest of you (99%) like to call yourselves, is the nub of the issue. FactorXXX. Robert Durran, Big Jerk: give yourselves a big smug pat on the back. You are all awesome!"
Why the aggression? It doesn't add anything to the thread and it just makes you look as if you're being deliberately belligerent for no reason.

In reply to Robert Durran:

A woman, and it doesn't really matter how she is dressed (she could even be naked) is filmed doing a boulder problem. The filming and editing concerntrates entirely on the actual climbing (moves, movement, effort etc).
She is now filmed again doing the same boulder problem, identically dressed. This time the filming and editing at least some of the time concentrates on cleavage and crotch shots just for their own sake.
The second film is sexualised, the first is not.
And whether anyone finds her attractive, sexy or underdressed is rrelevant; it might well be that most people find the first film sexier than the second in fact.

So what?
If an individual decides to portray themselves in a particular fashion on film, etc. then what business is that of anyone but themselves?
My conclusion in your case, is that you somehow think that climbing is 'special' and that it should have different rules to the rest of the modern world.

In reply to FactorXXX: Without reading the whole thread again I don't think that's what RD was saying.

Firstly he gave that example as a "definition" following my asking him to.

Secondly I don't think he's said that it's his business except in how sexualisation affects everyone (especially the young and vulnerable) in their attitudes if they think that sexualisation is a necessary thing rather than an option. Surely we don't want our kids growing up thinking that way.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure that he's not separated climbing from the rest of the world, it's just an area where climbers have relevant experience and one which they can (through forums like this etc.) try and change their world to how they would like it to be. Changing the rest of the world is a bit trickier.

But of course RD can defend himself if necessary.

In reply to FactorXXX:



They can of course legally do so. But I think there is a general consensus that the way teenage girls are constantly bombarded with idealised sexualised imagery of young women is unhealthy and I therefore think SBC is, as I said, a dreadful climbing role model.


Not at all. I'm sure I might be saying the same stuff about other such role models if I was a a skier, say, and this was a skiing website or whatever.

In reply to FactorXXX:



It seems we do have at least some common ground!

In reply to Helen Bach:


I have just given your first post in this thread a very well deserved "like". I don't do "dislikes" on principle but I shall say that the above was, to say the least, uncalled for with regard to me at least (I'm sure Big Jerk can speak for himself!)

In reply to Robert Durran:
You are the one who "sexualised" her are you not?

Let me ask you again;

But seeing as you seem to want your obsession indulged, can you tell me which images from Ms Coyles site you see as "climbing sexualised"? This may give us a clue as to where you're coming from.

Ever hear the expression "de gustibus est non disputandem" BTW?

Can you let me know how much of her physique you would like her public banned from seeing, should for instance she wear trousers at all times?


Sierra Blair Coyle is 22 years old, the same age as my daughter.

P

In reply to FactorXXX:


Check out the rest of his postings, it's all he has to offer.

In reply to Big Ger:

Er....no.


This is a video which was discussed in that old thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=D6yCi_2ExtM&

This is what I said about it at the time. My thoughts on it have not changed.

"The video starts out all girly with painted nails, shoes, clothes etc and sets us up to see Sierra having a really fun time bouldering - all pretty harmless so far. But then we get these blatant crotch shots wearing shorts with are really nothing more than a pair of pink knickers. And the shots ARE blatant. They are edited to be blatant; they deliberately draw attention to her crotch rather than her footwork. I really don't think that I was focussing on her crotch mid-screen rather than her footwork because I'm a pervy middle aged man. It was not just a video of a girl having fun bouldering; there is another agenda there and I think it is slightly creepy."

And, by the way, I don't find it sexy (which is subjective). I just think it is sexualised, which is something which would have been consciously done by the film maker and SBC.


FFS. There really is absolutely no point in you continuing with this until you know what sexualisation is. I think I made it clear in this context in my earlier post but you can always google a definition. She could be climbing topless without a hint of sexualisation.

In reply to Big Ger:


I assume Helen is a "she".

In reply to Robert Durran:






I think you've chosen to find her video "sexualised" because it fits your political agenda. Google "women at the climbing wall" and you will find no end of women who choose to wear similar clothes to her. The fact you choose to focus on the times that her crotch is in shot, twice I counted, while she is doing some quite extempore moves, just goes to show your obsessives.


sexualize

verb (used with object), sexualized, sexualizing.
1. to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics.
sexualize

verb
1.o make or become sexual or sexually aware
2. to give or acquire sexual associations

Sexualisation is all in the eye of the beholder, it says FAR more about you than her.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I chose not to be sexist about it.

In reply to Robert Durran:




So, in your mind, you have sexualised the video shots.

Sexualisation is a perception of the intent and qualities of a person or their portrayal. The perception by the beholder.

In reply to Big Ger:

Maybe, but they are not being sexualised; you really do need to get past thinking it is about the clothes being worn, though obviously if you want to draw attention to a girl's crotch in a film it helps if they are wearing tiny tight shorts rather than baggy trousers.


No, I believe it is because the film was made to draw attention to her crotch.


Neither of the definitions you give say that.

This explains what sexualisation is and why it is a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization

In reply to Robert Durran:

I just checked that video and I didn't find it blatent at all, and I was looking for the sexualisation.

Having long legs (which are more visible than arms) going in different directions is more interesting and better from a compositional point of view, and so crotch just ends up in the middle.

Also this video isn't about climbing, it's about a Barbie doll having fun climbing so I wouldn't expect foot placement shots.

So whilst I don't disagree with your argument, I don't think this video is a good example of sexualisation.

Having said all that I think she knows exactly what she's doing with her Barbie doll image.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Well, it was either sexualised or it was not. Without actually asking the film maker or SBC, we'll not know for sure, but it looked very much like it to me. It might be worth bearing in mind that sexualised images have become so ubiquitous that a lot of desensitisation is happening.


Of course. And the Barbie Doll image is generally considered pretty unhealthy as an ideal for young girls.

In reply to Robert Durran:

LOL!! So it couldn't be her own choice to wear them, as it is the people at the wall's choice, it was the person who "sexualised" her?


YOU believe, yes true. As I keep saying, you have decided to sexualise her.


Niether of the definitions say it is not in the eye of the beholder either. You have CHOSEN to sexualise her, others may think didfferent.


Fiirst line;
"Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality, especially in relation to men and women. "

You've become aware of her sexuality. She is a 22 year old woman, one who has a career as a climbing model and competitor, you have chosen sexualise that.

In reply to Michael Hood:


As in "making the best of it, and some money on the side?"

It's not her fault that Robert has chosen to sexualise her. Should middle aged men be in charge of defining what and how and where and when and who among 22 year old women, can present themselves?

In reply to Big Ger:
I give up. You are a f*ckwit who understands nothing and makes no effort to do so. You have been given every opportunity to understand what sexualisation is but either refuse to do so or are incapable of doing so. It is therefore pointless further discussing with you whether or not images of SBC or anyone else are sexualised.

Try googling "sexualised images". You'll easily find loads of stuff about how they are used in advertising and so on - deliberstely and knowingly used to promote stuff. Nothing to do with the eye of the beholder - the images are sexualised at the photographing and editing stage, not when any particular person views them.

In reply to Robert Durran:

LOL! Embarrassed that your sexualisation of SBC has been shown for what it is?

Truth of the matter is that sexualisation, (like sexy,) is subjective, and not absolute.

You have chosen to perceive her videos as sexualised, whereas others would see them as not.

You are guilty.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I asked the opinion of a 22 year old woman climber (via messenger) ;

In reply to Big Ger:


I have not sexualised anything. I just think that the images are sexualised. A bit like if I think a painting looks fake it does not mean that I have faked it.

In reply to Big Ger:
You don't think she's showing off her body to sell clothes at all? Or that people video in different ways to do just that? It is subjective, but it's also deliberate.

Not that I have a problem with it, just Robert D's right that its being done.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I think she is modeling to sell clothes, I don't think she's sexualisng it.


I don't think he's right, I also think he's pushing a political agenda rather than dealing with the actuality.

Robert wants conformity to his norms, he wants to dictate what SBC and others should be able to do, and how they should present and disport themselves. He has a political belief, which, just like a religious belief, grants him the right to condemn and control others.

He's also denying that sexualising is in the eye of the beholder, I think we're seeing far more of Robert's psyche than he realises..

In reply to Robert Durran:


If you think a painting looks fake, then you have made a value judgement on that painting.

If you think something is sexualised, that value judgement comes from within you.

Your whole point is that YOU think this video sexualises SBC, others may find different, you have imposed YOUR values on her.

In reply to Big Ger:

I'm not sure you understand the way that verb works in relation to the subject. Sexualisation is in the way someone chooses to portray themselves, or are portrayed by someone (e.g. a photographer). Someone who simply sees the images cannot choose to sexualise them (without somehow changing the image).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

>Someone who simply sees the images cannot choose to sexualise them

Is this really 100% true? There is no room for any subjectivity at all in whether someone 'finds' something sexualised or not?

I find it a subtle and nuanced term - the definitions above certainly allow for Ger's "eye of the beholder" interpretation, but I also get that there is a sense in which a majority might agree that certain images are sexualised by intention of the model or photographer. A bit like finding something tasteful, or moody, or shocking.

Can't agree totally with Robert's "it's either sexualised or it's not" comment, as if it has an objectivity as concrete as " the shorts are pink", or that the photographer or model could tell us "for sure" - I suspect they'd worm out of it, alluding to the Big Ger interpretation. "I dunno dude, if that's how you want to see it, it's not was I was doing.."

But I guess I'll have to admit that, unlike anyone else on thus thread, I don't really know what sexualisation means. I've tried, and I'm no clearer. Must be too thick.

In reply to tlm:

Which is entirely understandable, though a shame. You were always one of the outstanding voices of reason on the site.

In reply to Just Another Dave:

If the film had zoomed in on her crotch then I think that would have been an obvious piece of sexualisation.

I'm sure that she's aware that her self portrayal will result in some people seeing her as a sexual object. She's probably quite happy with that but if you think about it, she does limit it because she always comes across as squeaky clean Barbie.

In reply to stp:

Christ - according to "Winhill", having a UKC feature by a woman poet that explores the history of women climbers is "going too far". "How dare a woman raise her voice...!"

According to the other habitual trolls of UKC forums, women who critique representations of top female climbers as sexualised have "dirty minds"...

Anyone who, like Trump and his supporters, enjoys the "feminism has gone too far" line of argument - this is our response: https://www.womensmarch.com/

Jog on stupid misogynists...

In reply to C Witter:
I wonder if it's the actual word itself that's the problem because it has sex in it.

If we replaced the word sexualised with glamourised throughout, would the meaning change significantly? I'm sure we wouldn't be debating it so much because I reckon that most would agree that SBC ensures that she is always glamourous.

In reply to Big Ger:


I just suspect it is a fake. I may be wrong, but whether I am right or wrong does not in any way affect whether the painting is a fake or not. Some fakes will be blatant and no one will be fooled by them, others will be less obvious.


I think the SBC video is sexualised. Michael hood thinks it is not (I can respect his opinion, because, unlike you, he knows what the term sexualised means), but only SBC and the film makers would be able to tell us for sure whether the crotch shots were used for their own sake rather than being incidental to the climbing. There are loads of photos and videos around that everyone who knows the meaning of the word sexualised would agree are so (just like there are some blatantly fake paintings).

Maybe a better analogy is racism (all right thinking people would agree that racism is a bad thing). There are statements which absolutely everyone would agree are racist, while with others it is arguable whether they are racist or had racist intent. It is the same with sexualised images - the SBC video is clearly arguable (otherwise there would not be disagreement between myself and Michael Hood about it), but an internet search will quickly find sexualised images that only a really sick person would argue are anything else.

You may not have a problem with the sexualisation of images, but that is not really any different from saying that you do not have a problem with racism - there is massive evidence of the damaging effect of the pervasiveness of sexualised images in society today, particularly on young girls.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Yes, I think it would, because we would effectively be denying that it has anything to do with sex and sexuality (which it does). Sex need not be glamorous and glamour need not be sexual.

And yes, I am aware of such euphemisms as "glamour photography".

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not another UKC thread with pretty much men only arguing agressively around feminism. Oh the irony. More posts from women please.

Maybe just ignoring the likes of BG is best.

In reply to Big Ger:

This took me about fifteen seconds to find:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6376421.stm

In reply to Offwidth: You're right, it is quite ironic. It would be (mildly - as in MS ) interesting to know the gender split on views and like/dislikes. I wonder if there are a load of women amusedly viewing this thread to see what kind of rubbish we men can all spout.

In reply to stp:
I think there's a few things here and it's really complex.

In real life, at the climbing wall and at the crag, I think that outright sexist behaviour is relatively rare (I have heard little, and asking a few female climbers has resulted in a response that sexism at the climbing wall and on the crag is vastly lower than in the rest of the real world). I'd say, at our local wall, about a third of climbers are female, and the interaction between both genders is respectful and as equals. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's rare.

What is more difficult to judge is the less overt sexism which I, as a man, am never going to experience. Again, asking female friends indicates that they don't have much direct experience of this in a climbing environment, and again vastly less in the climbing environment than in the real world. This isn't saying it's right, merely that I'm not in a postion to comment.

However online is a different story. If we take our own UKC as an example, it is awash with unpleasant highly mysogynistic behaviour. Sexual and sexist comments are not only routine, but really unpleasant stuff is routine as well. FFS, a posted video last week asking for thoughts about a video on women climbing headed into fisting "jokes" within a few replies. This is despite a forum policy which bans crude and sexist comments. This is a guideline which is blatantly ignored. Despite the split of actual climbers discussed above, I would suspect that 99% of the posts on this forum are made by men, and this is no real surprise when I know several female climbers who avoid the forum in part because of the sexual unpleasantness of many threads and others who go out of their way to avoid revealing their gender.

The irony, as offwidth mentioned, of this thread being mainly male respondants is well put.

As to the comments made on the SBC video by many on this thread, it might be worth mentioning she appears to have a relationship with the maker of the clothing (given they describe her as their "Roxy Outdoor Fitness athlete")? I may be cynical, but suspect this may have a bearing on some of the shots, not least the last shot of the video which prominently displays the name of the manufacturer on the back of the shorts. That the shorts are attached to her may not be as relevant as many think.

In reply to John_Hat:


Whether you think the video is sexualized or not, I don't think it is in any way cynical to think that SBC is employed as a marketing tool by clothing brands. It's her career. And if you do think it is sexualized, then it hardly comes as a surprise; sexualised images are of course rife in advertising - sex sells.

In reply to Just Another Dave:

I'd tend to be with Big Ger on this one.

Claiming that these images are sexualised is a bit like a conservative Muslim chap telling me any girl not wearing a burka is being provocative, or me telling the French that their topless beaches are obscene.

In reply to C Witter:


Hmm, I've spent a fair bit of time working in the environs of pretty radical, third wave, feminists. They weren't in any way pleasant people, in fact quite obnoxious, and every bit as bad as the people they rally against. They were (verified by some of their facebook posts over the last few days) the type of people who cheered the punching of Richard Spencer the other day and seemed to think being as "bad" as the worst male was an obligation.

If that's what feminism represents (certainly not equality), then you don't need to be a Trump supporter or a misogynist to feel feminism has gone too far. Call anyone who disagrees a Trump supporter and they just mind end up voting for him.

In reply to David Martin:


In that case you simply don't get it either.


It is NOT simply a function of the clothes being worn (or not). If that was the case then I'd be claiming that a photo of a woman breast feeding was sexualized or that a photo of people sun bathing on a nudist beach was sexualized, when they obviously are not.

In reply to John_Hat:


That's very worrying indeed. I'd assumed (yes I know, one shouldn't) that we were better than this. But perhaps not - in which case, we need to change.

Mick

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think "pervasiveness" is the issue, though. I don't want to start policing what SBC wears to go bouldering or which pictures or videos she puts up on her Instagram account - the bigger question is whether images like that are the main way that female climbers are presented in climbing media and advertising rather than being balanced by, say, Hazel Findlay on a massive sea cliff or Pamela Shanti Pack fighting with an offwidth or Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner on a snowy summit.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Nor do I then.



OK, I get that.

I don't get that it is NOT at all a function of the observer's interpretation. Like whether an image is disgusting/beautiful/dull etc.

In reply to Offwidth:

Not another UKC thread with pretty much men only arguing agressively around feminism. Oh the irony. More posts from women please.

Like Helen Bach's contribution to the thread at 1745 Sunday?

In reply to Big Ger:
Do you think that Steve Climber is being sexualised to sell more products?

youtube.com/watch?v=1nM6wfjuirE&

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I don't think sexualized images are at all pervasive in climbing, and long may that remain the case. But that doesn't mean that there should be complacency and when they do appear they should be called for what they are.

In reply to John_Hat:

FFS, a posted video last week asking for thoughts about a video on women climbing headed into fisting "jokes" within a few replies.

I replied to the OP with this: -

That's a nice fun video of climbers enjoying themselves despite doing something that they're slightly rubbish at
If those two famous crack climbing blokes are called the 'Wide Boyz', what should this lot be called?
Clean answers only please...

I intended my post to be a bit of banter in that I said that I liked the video, but I also had a bit of a micky take at them for noticeably and vocally having a hard time on something. I presumed that was OK, as I would do that to anyone regardless of gender, etc.
I then followed it up with what was intended to be a tongue in cheek comparison to the 'Wide Boyz'. Again, I thought that was within the remit of banter, etc.
However, I have noticed that it has got some 'Dislikes'. In your opinion, was my post OK - if so, no problem. If it isn't and you deem it to be sexist, etc. then myself and a lot of other people on UKC are going to have to really modify their behaviour...

In reply to stp:

Well sexism doesn't exist in my climbing world as far as I can ascertain - I have the greatest respect for my female partner, who is a great asset when we get to a scary pitch as I can send her up first so I get a nice top rope! (mind you she admits she can't jam though, so I get those pitches).

In reply to FactorXXX:
I didn't dislike your post and, in fact, you made the specific point in your post last week that you didn't want the whole thing to get unpleasant (the "keep it clean" bit). Absolutely zero problems whatsoever with that.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I think it was one of the responses to your naming request where they just couldn't restrain themselves. Hopefully, it wasn't my "3 threads in one" post which was also meant to have humour behind it - hence the - although I was trying to stir a little bit to generate a response or two that could then be debated.

In reply to Just Another Dave:





Certainly there will be different points of view whether something appears to be sexualised or not. But it does by definition come down to the intention of the model and/or their photographer(s)/filmmaker(s). I agree that asking them would not likely lead to a reliable answer!

In reply to Michael Gordon: I would suspect that the definition will alter to cover both sides (if it's not already) to end up something like "intimidate".

I can behave in an intimidating way or not, you could feel intimidated or not by my behaviour, but the two wouldn't need to coincide - all 4 combinations would be possible (does that make sense?).

In reply to David Martin:

Richard Spencer is a white supremacist Nazi (self-proclaimedly; it's not me doing the labeling here) who has advocated the genocide of "the black race". Frankly, he needed punching.

If you're bothered by a Nazi being punched (bearing in mind that being a Nazi means identifying with and advocating for the historical Nazis, who established a totalitarian state, instigated a brutal war and committed genocide on an unprecedented scale) then I'm quite skeptical of your general outlook on life - nevermind your ability to accurately discuss the nuances of different feminist theories, practices and movements.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Maybe, but I think the analogy with racist language is better. There will be different opinions on what constitutes racist language and it is possible to use racist language either knowingly or, perhaps through ignorance, unknowingly, but the language and responsibility for it do always come from and lie with the speaker.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I'm struggling to come up with an equivalent verb to 'sexualise' ('intimidate' doesn't work). It's basically to render something in a specific context by the way it's presented. Someone came up with 'glamourise' earlier which does work in a similar way, the main difference perhaps being that it is less likely to be done intentionally (whether something has sexual connotations or not is probably easier to determine). If you take the subject as being 'war' and the medium a film, this could be glamourised in the way it's portrayed, or it could not be. I think many would be able to identify when war is being glamourised in a film, but the viewer has no say on whether it takes place or not.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


So if someone "sexualises" an image of themselves, we have no option but to see it as a sexualised image?

I have to say I agree with Robert that the video is a little bit sexualized...
If you disagree, find another climbing video with similar editing. I doubt you will find one with quite such a quantity of crotch/bum shots.

I would however make the following points.
1) It is everyone's right to make and release videos of themselves in whatever fashion they choose. It doesn't matter what they are wearing, what they are doing, what sexual activities are going on...
2) The issue is usually with the viewers. If people want to make a video that is sexual, and people watch it and enjoy it is a sexualized way, that is fine. If people want to make a video that is not sexual, and people watch it in a non-sexualized way, that is also fine. If people watch a video that is not explicitly sexual and choose to sexualize it, then I guess as long as they keep it in their heads that probably has to be OK but if they start objectifying and sexualizing the performer who has NOT given their consent for this, this isn't OK. Generally people should be better about consent, even if they are heavily separated from the person giving or not giving it... Ask yourself if you would be happy doing and saying the things you say about people in front of them or if you were friends/related to them...
3) There is some element of responsibility towards vulnerable adults and children. Media organizations (which I guess could include a sponsored/public climbing figure) should consider the message they are sending out. If that is a mixed message that is harmful to people, they should consider refraining.

In reply to Robert Durran:


No, but it does affect the way in which you view and appraise the picture,


But you or Michael assess whether it is sexualised based on your own value judgement, which is what I have said all along.


There are loads of photos and videos around that everyone who percieves sexualisation in the same way as you do would agree are so (just like there are some blatantly fake paintings).


Racism is not an aesthetic appreciation.



So now you are arguing it is a mater of degree of sexulaistation, that there is room for value judgement.


Now that's the biggest bunch of arse you have posted as of yet, strawman debating at it's finest.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well done! Have a biscuit. Who argued that sexualistaion did not harm young girls? The fact that you choose to sexualise SBC's videos only adds to that harm, doesn't it?

In reply to Offwidth:


Of course they should ignore all contrary views. Having their left wing "ism" posts challenged is dangerous to them, it may make them think.

In reply to andrewmc:


Absolutely. A legal right.


Absolutely. A moral responsibility.

In reply to Big Ger:


Of course not. People view things in different ways. And like the glamourisation example, perhaps they have best achieved their aim if the sexualisation goes unnoticed.

Media is not neutral. What is the point in advertising? To sell things. And perhaps this works better if the person promoting the product is good looking and seems to be having a good time. Of course this can be done without sexualisation, but guess what, that helps too.

In reply to David Martin:


It's certainly true there's a wide range of what is and what is not acceptable or as sexualized. Different cultures have very different norms. But I think the intent is the key thing. That girl not wearing a burka may have chosen to remove to be deliberately provocative. Or she may have just had it ripped off her after an attack by a guy. Same clothing but very different in intentions.

In advertising and marketing there's always an intent and generally the people who are putting stuff out know what they're doing. As Robert said, sex sells. So from a pure marketing perspective using sexualized imagery is just good business sense.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

My point all along mate, "sexulaistaion" is a matter of personal perception, values, taste and culture. Although to a degree we share the majority of our perception of what is sexualised or not, degrees of difference are acceptable.
As I said right at the beginning; "de gustibus non disputandum est".

This is why you and I may not see Sierra Blair Coyle's video as sexualised, but others may.


No argument from me there.

In reply to Big Ger:

Whether we see it as such or not is down to personal perception etc, yes, but whether it is or not is down to the intent of whoever is portraying it.

In reply to David Martin:


While I respect your pacifism, as I do Corbyn's, I think it's rather naive and fortunately in the not too distant past our society did not show the same reluctance to punch large numbers of Nazis in the face.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I think you are wasting your time. He clearly isn't capable of seeing, understanding or discussing the distinction. As Offwidth said, best ignore him.

In reply to jsmcfarland:


I think there's the question of things like this even need to come under the domain of feminism in the first place. Would it not be simpler if the groped person just called the guy out there and then? eg. 'Get your hands off me you filthy pr!ck'. Or am I just viewing the situation through an overly male perspective? Do women need the extra protection of community involvement and agreed cultural norms at this level?

In reply to planetmarshall:


Well, right up to the point of no return, there was considerable reluctance - primarily because people were psychologically devastated by the carnage of World War I.

For the survivors of a generation which had incurred such terrible losses, to watch their children go to war must have been terrible.

Mick

In reply to stp:


For behaviour to be deemed unacceptable, people need to be educated. Every advance in egalitarianism in human history has been achieved through struggle, and sometimes bloody and armed struggle. It doesn't happen magically. One girl calling out a guy who gropes her is fine, but it doesn't help anyone else. It may seem absurd, but some people don't know that this behaviour is unacceptable - the current President of the United States doesn't know that this is unacceptable.

In reply to Mick Ward:


No doubt, and I would never suggest that the decision to fight violence with violence should be reached lightly. I believe strongly in free speech, however some views, such as those of Richard Spencer and his ilk, have no place in a civilised society and I shed no tears if someone decides to give him a bloodied nose.

In reply to Offwidth:


Maybe the aggressive arguing is the reason there are so few posts by women? Or is it such a suggestion sexist? If we're all equal no reason suppose that women would leave aggressive forums any more than men.

I think we do treat members of the opposite sex differently, at least some of the time, and that is normal, healthy and not necessarily sexist.

In reply to planetmarshall:


That's true but I would think that surely depends on how often such behaviour happens. If it's a common problem then it should be up for public debate. But if it's rare, just one guy being an arsehole then maybe not. We all have negative interactions with people from time to time but we usually just pass them off on that particular individual. We deal with them in the moment and don't try to instigate new social norms to make sure they never happen again.

Is that what feminism gone too far is about? We don't need to instigate 'feminism' or 'sexism' for every negative interaction between a man and a woman.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Yeah, agreed. I don't think punching Nazis is the solution to all of our problems, but I do worry for our collective moral compass if someone who's a public advocate of "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and the establishment of a "white ethnostate" gets dobbed and we all fall over ourselves to condemn the person doing the dobbing.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


But where do you draw the line? Nick Griffin? Nigel Farage?

In reply to stp:


Maybe it's a coincidence, but people normally seem to think that feminism (or identity politics generally) has "gone too far" when it starts questioning the behaviour of a group that they feel like part of as well as ones that they can denigrate from a safe distance.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Odious individuals both, but to the best of my knowledge neither has identified themselves with the perpetrators of genocide. In any case, I don't think we need to draw lines. We're human beings and capable of making non-binary decisions.

In reply to andrewmc:

Really good points.


But this seems the key. Aren't all sexualised ads or marketing always going to be mixed messages: buy this product, our product is sexy, looking sexy gains attention, big boobs are cool etc. ?

Also what counts as harmful and to which people? Most advertising is unrestricted in the sense it can be anywhere and thus accessible to anyone. Even young children can't avoid the massive wonderbra billboads.

In reply to stp:

I'm a bit scared to write this, but I'm a woman and I believe that sexism exists in climbing. I've mentioned it on here before which resulted in a number of responses informing me that I'm wrong. Yet I've experienced it and I hate this idea that 'feminism has gone too far'. So what? Maybe it needs to.

In reply to stubbed: Don't be scared, please give us an example (or examples) of this sexism. The more we get of actual examples (as opposed to philosophical debate), then the more of us (men) are likely to consider whether we are inadvertently behaving in a sexist way; i.e. do I do that? I hadn't realised the effect it had.

In reply to Michael Hood:

One example is a pair who were climbing on the route next to us (with shared belay, we were there first so they waited for us to move). My partner, who was a man, led off from the stance while they watched quietly.

When I set off to follow, they talked me through every move on the rock above them until I eventually said, look, part of the fun for me is to work it out for myself, can you please stop. Obviously they did. But why did they assume I couldn't do it myself? They had assumed that my partner could do it himself.

They weren't being mean, they thought I needed help. When I posted about this before, I got a response that was along the lines of, well, they assumed that because you are a rubbish climber (I'm not). Ok, fine, no sexism then.

In reply to stubbed:

The thing is this is all normal. I've seen men react in shock when women climbing with me were leading (never seen this with a male partner). Unsolicited help, sometimes forcefully 'offered' in advance for assistance with belays, erecting tents (never seen this with a man). Much more likely to get unrequested beta on routes or problems. This is a mix of a minority of male morons and a wider group of blokes who muddle politeness of holding doors open with participation with an adventure sport. That some UKC posters are in denial about this is no surprise to me: these days we have too many boorish idiots on UKC and too few proper climbers (sexism is much rarer in those at the top of the games). It matches a post truth theme in western society I guess.

It is utterly depressing so few women comment on this site. The gap here is much wider than it is on outdoor trad (where women are still wildly unrepresented in an activity that aside from some of the silliness around risk I think possibly even marginally favours them). In contrast I greatly appreciate the attitudes of the site and especially the work of Natalie in this.

In reply to Offwidth:


How is that ironic? Anyway, isn't it better that there is an argment about what is considerate behaviour than the issue being ignored?

In reply to stubbed:


As it happened, they were the ones who needed help!

At least they weren't being mean (but it appears they were being sexist). You responded accordingly. Hopefully they've reflected on it and changed their ways. We all get stuff wrong and need pointing in the right direction by others.



Err, how did the posters know you were a rubbish climber (or not)?

Mick (male, rubbish climber)

In reply to MG:

Someone like you can do better than that... do you really need a definition of what irony is and why it applies in this thread?

In reply to Offwidth:


I've certainly noticed that women rarely figure on protracted debates on here. They seem an exclusively male pursuit. And I can't think of a single instance where a woman has participated in the odious witch hunts which we've had.

If women are put off contributing to this site, it's wrong and it's something we need to address. Maybe Natalie could put together an article which is essentially feedback from women on what they see as lacking/not right. And what they see as good. (The feedback could be anonymous.)

If you're male, there may be sexist stuff going on under your nose which you just don't see. And, worse, you may be inadvertedly contributing to it.

When I was at uni in Bradford in the '70s, pretty much every female I knew said they'd been accosted in the street. So it's reasonable to postulate that this happened on a very large scale. Which begged the question - how come I never noticed it (I'd certainly have intervened)? Was I so blind? Seemingly so.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Id love to see Natalie take that up. It won't change all the minds I like to see changed but it might help the site become a nicer place with more women posting and might even increase traffic as a result.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, that is probably the best way to describe it - unsolicited help & unrequested beta. I would class this as sexism, I guess others wouldn't.

In reply to Mick Ward:


I don't think it's an isolated phenomenon, and it extends way beyond attitudes to women. Just look at what Saville was able to get away with for decades, and the recent sex abuse scandals in Football. I can't believe that people didn't notice these things going on, but similarly it's hard to believe that no one intervened. So what happened? I think people are blind to a lot of what goes on in the world until it gets pointed out, and then it becomes hard *not* to see.

Recently I went to a climbing wall with a partner who bemoaned the lack of 'totty' at the wall. It was like hearing a glass shattering, but I doubt it was the first time a climbing partner had said something like that. Merely the first time I found it objectionable.

In reply to stubbed:


Unfortunately, we are all stuck with the bad as well as the good parts of our background, upbringing and social conditioning. What you experienced there, sounds like the echoes (thankfully weakening across the generations) of a time when women were pretty much universally considered the weaker sex, so "obviously" they need help with anything that requires strength. These attitudes are difficult to erase quickly and without thought.

I've seen first hand an enlightening view of how poor (or less than ideal) conditioning can weaken across generations. I (white, middle class male) was brought up in a very honest, moral (but not strict/oppressive) household. I don't consider myself at all racist but I know that I'm subject to the conditioning of my times. When my son was about five, we were watching boxing on the TV, a white guy against a black guy - to me, colour of skin was the most obvious differentiator. My son, said something and I must have asked "which one". He said "the one with the red shorts". To him the colour of the shorts was a more obvious differentiator than the colour of skin. I thought, well at least we're getting something right in his upbringing.

Hopefully, latent sexist behaviour will similarly weaken over the years as we become more aware of it.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm sure traffic would increase - but that's surely a secondary consideration. If we're doing something wrong, we should address it. It's up to individuals how much they're willing to change but at least we'd have increased awareness and clarity about civilised behaviour re this issue.

Mick

In reply to planetmarshall:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Yes, of course, irony re the present discussion. Personally I wouldn't give Burke too hard a time - but yes, clearly he was being sexist and needed some help.

Re Saville, I can't believe that dozens of people (loads of police?) didn't know right well what was happening - and did nothing. So shame on them forever. A bit like High Noon, where the point is made forcefully that knowing what's right/wrong and acting accordingly (standing up to Frank Miller and his mates) can be very different.

Three times on trains, I've stepped in to help people who were being harrassed/threatened. Everyone else just looked down at the floor/their newspaper.

But if you're genuinely unaware (as I was in Bradford), then you don't even see the wrong in front of you. And that's what I'm worried about here. (For all I know, I may be contributing to it unintentionally.)

Mick

In reply to stp:

The follow up article is interesting and well written I thought....

http://eveningsends.com/celebrating-women-and-climbing/

In reply to Mick Ward:
I knew people who were close to nurses who worked in places Saville visited and suffered from him. They were told not to complain further when they raised it with their management. In those days people who 'rocked the boat' by whistle-blowing tended to lose their job and struggle to find work again.

In reply to stubbed:

Thanks for your comments and I'm genuinely a bit surprised that such stuff still happens. In recent years women have more than proved their abilities in climbing (thinking of at the top of the sport) so why people would still make such assumptions is surprising. Suggests they are very out of touch to me.

In reply to stp:

As an anecdotal point of interest I cant recall any problems with sexism at the crag when climbing in the US. Adding all my holidays up I suspect I've spent almost a year out there in the mountains, crags and parks, mostly climbing, nearly all with Moff (who seems to be a magnet for sexism in the UK). There were always more women active there than in UK trad. Never climbed indoors in the US though.

In reply to Offwidth:



Irony: "Happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this" Don't see it.

In reply to MG:

I see you're playing with the Socratic method.. very droll.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Conudrum then;


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/art-or-porn-photographer-facing-obsc...

Now, if Bill thinks his works are truly artistic, and not pornographic OR sexualising, we have to accept that they are not, as his "intent" is not to sexualise?

In reply to Robert Durran:

LOL!! If someone betters you in debate, then pretend you have some secret understanding, and advise others to ignore him, what a cowards get out you are using.


Fortunately Michael is a better and more honest player than you.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Mick, if I may suggest something if you're serious about sorting this out? Only ideas.

1) You already have forum guidelines which ban 'Lads' Style Postings - The forum is read by both men and women. Please refrain from crude and sexist comments about other posters, profile photographs or people in the wider media". I would amend this to crude and sexist comments *at all*. We wouldn't accept racist comments on here, so why do we only ban sexist comments if they are about a known individual? Also, obviously, enforce it. A paper warning that everyone ignores is no warning at all. We've got that in place now.

2) Do some homework. I would suggest running some queries against the database looking at average number of posts by women and men, by forum, and whether the total number of posts reflects the number of each gender. If you have 20% female members and 99% male posts something is out of sync. Obviously restrict to active members, etc. Then you've got something you can measure your efforts against. It also may help in understanding whether a subjective impression is actually real.

3) Talk to the women on the site. I'm a bloke and know very little. There's a few (and only a few) really active women on the site - that I know about anyway. People like Alyson, Marsbar, etc - intelligent, reasonable long timers. Talk to the less active/inactive women as well (you know gender from the profile form?) tlm and stubbed appear a good place to start! How about an anonymous survey asking people why they don't post? Include an option for the usual suspects of not climbing much, time, etc, but also for other reasons. Encourage people to list the other reasons and say it's becasue you're worried about the gender split of posts (if (2) shows it)

4) Encourage people to report postings that are out of order from a sexist point of view. The guardian even has a drop down list to report abuse. It could be done.

Obviously the above doesn't solve the problem. But it means you'll start to know how big the problem is and hopefully get some ideas of where to start.

Quite apart from my own and others comments - and I am a bloke and hence can only have a secondhand and partial sight of the issue, we've got two women on this thread who have said things that indicate there's a problem. One said she's scared to write something on the forum. That's not a time to still be saying "if we have a problem", that's a time to say "we've got a problem...... now lets sort it".

John

In reply to Big Ger:

Interesting one. Without looking at them (which I have no desire to do!) I would guess the works probably aren't 'sexualised' (as others have pointed out repeatedly, the lack of clothes does not make something sexualised), but that doesn't stop them being pornographic and exploitative.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's not the lack of clothes mate.

If they are not sexualised, how can they be pornographic? How can images of young children be pornographic if there is no sexualisation of their portrayal?

In reply to Big Ger:


Sexualisation means giving a sexual slant or emphasis to something which need not or should not have anything sexual about it (such as a bouldering video). Pornography is just sexual content for it's own purpose - usually the arousal of the viewer.

In reply to Robert Durran:


So, images of children not have anything sexual about them. So how is it possible for images of children to be pornographic, without sexulaising them?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sorry, I'll type that gibberish again;


So, if the "sexualisation" of images of children means giving a sexual slant or emphasis to them, which fulfills your criteria " giving a sexual slant or emphasis to something which need not or should not have anything sexual about it", I think we can all agree on that.

So how is it possible for images of children to be pornographic, without sexualising them?

In reply to stubbed:

Michele often tells me that the best way for a man to lead a hard route is for a woman to lead it first. I have witnessed many occasions outside and at the wall where men have virtually given up on a route only to find renewed strength and vigour once she has lead it. Suddenly they "have to" do it

In reply to stubbed:




Once upon a time I was soloing, decided to back off and started to down-climb. Another climber (not known to me) decided to talk me down move by move, including physically placing my feet on the lowest few holds. I didn't ask for it, I didn't need it, it somewhat spoiled the moment for me but it seemed rude to ask him to stop as presumably his intentions were good.

I'm a man. If this happened to a woman, would she assume this happened because she is a woman? I suspect that is likely. I don't deny there is sexism but I think there is a danger of assuming too much about the reasons for behaviours one may not like.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


At the risk of sounding sexist, I think it's more complex than that. At least sometimes. Watching a woman climb a route is often a good demonstration of technique rather than strength and that does tend to inspire me to emulate the style. It would also apply to a talented man leading the route with good style ("like a woman?"), but that doesn't happen too often at the grades I climb.

Hmm, have I been doubly sexist here, or not at all?

In reply to John_Hat:

Hi,

Some ideas back. We see things somewhat differently but I’m trying my best to find common ground and not be at cross-purposes!

Firstly - and I don’t mean to be trite – if there is a significant problem, I can’t sort it out. Only we can - or as many of us as care about it.


For me, there are two questions:

1. Is there a significant problem with sexism on this site?
2. Is there a significant problem with sexism in British climbing?

The human condition, de facto, is messy and problematic. For me, a key word is ‘significance’.

Obviously ‘sexism’ is an even more key word! Given the problems above with ‘sexualisation’, agreeing a working definition of sexism may be problematic! But I’ll try.

Clearly men and women have certain differences. That either gender should be socially disadvantaged because of difference (either real or perceived/assumed) has always seemed unfair to me. My working definition of sexism is a situation whereby a person or persons is/are socially disadvantaged because of gender.

Has such social disadvantage existed in British climbing? Yes. A simple example: women weren’t allowed to join the CC until the 1970s. Courtesy of Ken Wilson, Al Evans, Dave Cook and others, this was redressed – good on them.

Does such social disadvantage still exist in British climbing? My guess is yes – but to a far lesser degree. Are there double standards? Well we still have a women-only climbing club, occasional women-only climbing meets and women-only performance climbing courses. Clearly in these circumstances men are socially disadvantaged. For practical purposes, does it matter? To my mind, no.

Does significant social disadvantage because of gender exist on this site? It would be interesting to have a graph of posts by men and women (across all topics) from the early 2000s to the present. It would be a blunt instrument but something. My guess (a guess!) is that there would be a lot more males. If so, such disparity may indicate social disadvantage because of gender, though it wouldn’t prove it. For instance there’s a huge disparity re new routes. My guess (another guess!) is that less than 5% of climbers put up more than 10 new routes. Are the other 90% socially disadvantaged? Nope.



Me too! (I’m said twice before that I may be part of the problem and may have to pull my socks up. We all may need to pull our socks up.)

I completely agree with a survey asking people if there are social factors (such as disadvantage because of gender) which inhibit them from posting? (As an aside, when I climb with new partners from here, they nearly always say they don’t post – apart from looking for partners. When I ask them why, they cite two factors: shyness/reticence on their part and a feeling that there’s too much bollox!)

Surely the more feedback we get from women, the better. Why not have an article from someone such as Alyson or Marsbar or Helen Bach or Helen Mort sumarising the results of the survey, giving an overview and focusing on specific examples of disadvantage through gender? That way we’d be able to see our warts in the mirror.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


An article would be an excellent idea, but, judging from their posts, I suspect the four women you mention would bring rather different (though equally valid) perspectives on the issue. I really like the idea someone else suggested of Nathalie doing an article bringing together the views of various women on sexism in climbing and on UKC.

In reply to Big Ger:

I think that if the purpose of the images is for a target audience's sexual gratification, then that is simply pornography. Sexualisation, as I said, needs to bring an irrelevant sexual slant to something else such as bouldering, or, in the case of children, say the controversial US style child "beauty" pageants where the children are wearing "adult" sexually provocative clothing and make up. I think that both the pornography and sexualisation would be exploitataive.

In reply to Robert Durran:

OK, well let's go for that then.

Maybe historical analyses of male/female membership of UKC and male/female posting.

If a survey could be arranged, that might give us more quantatitative data (e.g. is there a significant % of women who feel deterred by gender from posting) and qualitative feedback: if they feel deterred, then specifically why?

Is there a silent majority out there? If so, their views would be gold-dust.

I'd also like to get feedback from people such as the four women mentioned above - obviously only if they're willing and feel they have something to contribute. But surely the wider the spread of opinion canvassed, the better. If there some extreme views, well surely better that than being too anodyne.

If Natalie did an overview, we'd be cooking on gas (oops, my last cannister's run out and it was a four hour walk-in!)

I'm going to email Natalie about something else so will mention this to her.

Mick

In reply to Robert Durran:

Indulge me, I'm thick:
Do you think Lucien Freud's paintings of his own daughters in the nude are examples of 'sexualisation'?

Certainly intimate, uncomfortable, questionable, perhaps exploitative... I doubt anyone could find them 'sexy'; they are unlikely to provide sexual gratification, but I'd think there is certainly a sexual slant or attributes embued.

There are many, starting with his first child Anna, painted naked at age 14, but I'm thinking in particular of his portrait of Rose, 19 at the time, reclined with arms over face in total physical abandon, one leg bent up to the side, thighs wide, genetalia displayed.

In reply to Dogwatch:

Well yes, of course. They might have just been being annoying to everyone. But they hadn't been talking my partner through the moves, and since they didn't know either of us, I made that assumption.

Another example: I went climbing with a different male friend and afterwards we were commenting on the queues; it was a popular multi pitch route in the pass. I was saying, we should have done the HVS next to it which was quiet (we could both lead 5b at the time) and someone else there said, 'that's all very well for you to say, you weren't going to lead it'. Why assume I can't lead? They had seen me at the wall, they knew I could do the moves.

I know you can read all this and think this perceived sexism is all in my head. But it happens on a daily basis and yes, I guess that I am sensitised to it. I do think that it is pretty common in the climbing world though.

In reply to Just Another Dave:



I've not seen them and might look them up later. From your description it sounds as though they might just be a celebration of sexuality without being pornographic, sexualised or exploitative.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I tried to find a link, but any images seem to be imbedded in lengthy articles or interviews. Often fascinating, but only slightly relevant here.

Oh, found it: not as sexualised as I remember!

https://www.wikiart.org/en/lucian-freud/portrait-of-rose-1979

In reply to Just Another Dave:




I think a celebration of sexuality would be a fair assessment. It's not bringing a sexual slant to any unrelated activity and, as you say, I doubt it is intended to or would bring sexual gratification to people. And if the model was entirely consenting then it is not exploitative.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ok then, I tend to agree.


Not totally sure it's that simple: there are all manner of grey areas of control/coercion. I think four of his daughters posed nude for him by age 16, explained by one that it was the only quality time they would get. (He lived with none of his 14 acknowledged, and at least as many unaknowleged, childeren). Complex to say the least.

Sorry if I'm derailing things here, just trying to get my head round where lie the boundaries of sexualisation and it's harmful effects.

In reply to Just Another Dave:
'And if the model was entirely consenting then it is not exploitative. '

Seems like a big if - I don't see how it could have been anything else. Call me a prude, call me a philistine but asking your daughter to participate like that seems pretty dodgy to me.

Like Eric Gill, Freud had a 'colourful' love life - bullying, misogynistic, exploitative. I don't suppose he was much different with his daughters.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I agree. IF then........

In reply to Big Ger:

In today's society images of naked children tend to often be seen as pornographic, even if they weren't intended to be. And there is significant justification for that.

In reply to stubbed:
It can be a real minefield for men trying to get it right though.

I was once climbing with a woman whom I knew (to my past cost) to be a pretty outspoken feminist of the "all men are bastards" (only in banter of course.....) variety and a very able and experienced climber, just as able to look after herself as I was. We had completed a single pitch route on a crag. I went off ahead to find the descent gully (which was obvious), but which turned out to be a fairly short but awkward, vegetated and slippery thing. At the bottom, I realized I had a dilemma: I could either head on back to the sacks and get on with sorting the rack but risk being labeled a typical male bastard for leaving her to fend for herself, or else wait at the bottom of the gully to offer moral or otherwise support and risk being labeled a typical patronizing sexist bastard.

Which was the correct option? I mentally tossed a coin. I thought I'd got away with it until at the end of the day walking back to the car: "I don't mean to be critical BUT........"

In reply to Robert Durran:

Probably to head back to the sacks actually. How did she react?
I'm not sure I would have waited for my partners or offered moral support for a descent route, so I don't expect them really to wait for me.,

In reply to Robert Durran:

'Which was the correct option? '

Same as you would have done for a bloke of similar experience and ability and similar position, I would have thought.

In reply to Dogwatch:


I think there's an element of truth in this. Just as some men might think women are weaker and need help, I think women also internalise some of these feelings and feel a bit defensive. So if someone offers unwanted help or commends me on (what I see as ) a trivial lead I might assume it's because they're being sexist rather than assume they're just a bellend.

Fwiw I don't personally feel like climbing has a problem with sexism. I've had the odd patronising comment or occasion where men have seemed surprised that I've done a necky lead but I don't think it's endemic and I've never felt any negativity towards me as a result of my gender. I don't know how my wall compares to other walls but there's a whole load of really strong girls and women who climb there and it doesn't feel like there's a macho atmosphere (even when, god forbid, the guys have their tops off in the summer).

That said, I feel less at home on UKC than at the wall or crag and I think there's a much more blokey atmosphere. Not in a sexist way, more of a tedious middle aged pedantic bores shouting at each other way. So I don't post anywhere near as much as I used to because I can't be arsed arguing online with people.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Had she been ahead of you, would you have wanted that she wait for you, to offer support?

In a partnership of equals that seems as good a yardstick as any. The problem is that partnerships are rarely equal, and then it becomes hard to separate considerate from condescending actions.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Indeed.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


One would have thought so......

I once led Crack Attack in Glen Nevis and was abseiling off to strip the gear when a quite well known climber asked my then girlfriend who had belayed me whether she was going to top rope it. She was so annoyed at the presumption that she immediately replied that she was going to lead it. She then did so with an extraordinarily determined effort. It was her first ever E3 having only led her first E2 the day before. She'd led the E2 after a massive row over me offering some well meant advice on completely screwed up rope work to stop her decking out on her warm up route (I don't care if I'd been belaying F****** Reinhold Messner, I'd have said the same". "How can I learn if you don't let me make mistakes?" "What? And stand by while you break your legs FFS?" etc. etc.......). Not sure what the moral is..........

In reply to Robert Durran: The moral is, she's right, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what it was about

In reply to Michael Hood:


True, but at least she didn't break her legs.

In reply to Robert Durran:


The moral is you did the right thing. I once traversed across to someone in extremis and told her to place a wire, which size and where. She faffed around. I'm pretty sure I placed it for her but I was so in the zone I'm not absolutely certain. One way or another, that wire went in and it was bomber.

I certainly remember suggesting she lowered off it. (I suppose, with the wire in, I was less in the zone/selective attention.) Her (female) belayer yelled at her to go for it. She did and took a huge whipper. That wire saved her life. She never climbed again.

Did I do the right thing? I think so. Was it sexist? For me, gender was irrelevant. The bottom line - that wire saved her life.

Mick

In reply to Robert Durran:



In that situation I'd probably have waited and checked she was okay, and talked about doing the same for male climbers too if it'd got mentioned, which wouldn't have been untruthful.

In the end you can't always get it right, and have to be your natural self at some point, the people we 'naturally mesh with' seem to notice our good intentions somehow*.

Edit: *As human beings in general that is.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Hi Mick

I hadn't heard of Sierra Blair Coyle, so I googled her, and worryingly she seems to be dressed like most of the blokes hanging out and training on Minus Ten Wall and, say, Carreg Hylldrem from mid '70s to mid 80's. Multicoloured tights and snug shorts which were all the rage, never heard it discussed in terms of sexism though where's Pollit when you need his input?

Paul

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Hi Paul,

I've got a sneaky feeling that if SBC went head to head (so to speak) with AP.... she'd come in a close second - especially in these androgynous times.

However my climbing partner has climbed with SBC and insists she's a really good climber (no argument from this quarter). He's also climbed with Alex Megos. Which kind of begs the question... why on earth is he climbing with me?

Mick

In reply to stubbed:

Really? Isn't it just generally polite not to walk off leaving people? I would wait for anyone normally, or walk off for anyone if feeling keen to start the next route. Either way it would have nothing to do with their sex, and I would be stunned if they assumed it was, like Robert's partner seemed to.

In reply to Mick Ward:

You and Megos are such punters.....

In reply to winhill:


Really? Is that what we have come to? Do you even imagine that what you have written is meaningful (in the sense of likely to be interpretable in an intended way by the majority of readers)?

Or, in summary, bollocks.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Eh? So you're saying women never like to admit they're wrong then? Aside from being sexist it's probably more true of men. Or perhaps I've misunderstood?

In reply to Michael Gordon:



I don't doubt that at all, I'm just trying to get Robert off his "sexualisation" obsession, and into the real world.

In reply to Robert Durran:


And while you're splitting all these hairs what sense of meaning do you get?

In reply to stp: No, they really are more likely to be right - or at least that's what my wife tells me

It wasn't really a serious comment, it was more a comment about relationships and how sometimes you can't do the right thing whatever course of action you take.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Thought it had to be something else but thought I'd ask just for clarification.

In reply to JJL:

I think you're wrong. There's a reality out there - I see it in my daughter - who is an intelligent and thoughtful character but has frankly been close to being overwhelmed by consumerism and body consciousness. It's like the 70s and 80s never happened, when women didn't have to shave any parts, not even armpits - nowadays they all want to be smooth (why? to look like children and appeal to paedophiles?), and they're all wearing the equivalent of Playtex bras and trying to look like the women out of Friends. And it's post truth because NO-ONE looks like that without makeup.

It seems to be a bit tough at the moment for women, we seem to have gone backwards.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


And the likes of SBC and other impossible ideals are to blame?

In reply to Marek:

I don't know if you've been sexist, but what you have described does happen.

In reply to Big Ger:


Eh? Different words have different meanings which describe different things. I'm sorry if this concept is too subtle for your intellect.

In reply to MG:


For what it's worth, I walked off and got on with racking up. I got criticised for it. She coped fine with the descent, just as I had (though it wasn't very nice). Would I have waited for a male partner? Possibly - I know I wouldn't have worried about getting criticised for it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Obviously different words have different meanings which describe different things, unless of course we are talking about synonyms.

I was more wondering about your need to define your fapping over Ms SBC's protrayal being due to you defining her video as "sexualised", rather than sexy or porno.

Do you get more satisfaction, or feel more secure, due to that?

Does it somehow alleviate your guilt?

In reply to Big Ger:


I thought it appeared sexualised (intentionally by the makers of the video). I personally didn't find it sexy. I didn't think it was pornographic. I don't know what fapping means.


What the f*** are you on about?


Ditto.

In reply to Big Ger:


I've just looked up fapping. You are a monstrous brain dead dickhead with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. F*ck off.

In reply to Robert Durran:
You are the one who defined the young lady's video as "sexualised", therefore you must have had some sexual response to it.




fap, fap, fap, fap, fap.....

In reply to climbingpixie:


Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm/irony in your post, but...

Maybe they thought what you achieved or the effort put in was better than what they normally see from people of your stature/build and so congratulate you on it? I'm not sure that "sexist" or "bellend" are the only two categories such people fall in to, surely? I'm a male, was ok at climbing, and received a fair bit of unsolicited advice. I took it for what it was: something helpful and well intentioned or, at worst, someone simply trying to highlight their own ability.


Without wanting to sound like a bellend, I'm not sure I could get away with criticising a forum that was mostly female for being girlie, adolescent and over-emotional, without being labelled sexist.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Ah I understand now. Women are to be encouraged to post more, but only if their posts hold up to the high standard set by the middle aged male bores that festoon UKC. Heaven forbid that they post anything contentious, rude, or inflammatory. That simply wouldn't do.

Now, let's see how many likes Alan Thomas' suggestion that Robert B masturbates to SBC images has got......

In reply to Big Ger:


This absurd statement alone proves that you are simply too unintelligent to contribute anything of worth to the discussion.

In reply to Helen Bach:

Oughtn't you be attacking Offwidth's (sexist) suggestion that only men argue aggressively, rather than Factorxxx's highlighting of your valuable contributions?

In reply to David Martin:
Sorry, bellend in my first post was in relation to people giving unwanted help. I do find myself somewhat nonplussed when I'm congratulated on completing a warm up. I don't climb particularly hard (I'm not warming up on extremes) and my stature/physique is relatively normal.

I'll rephrase my second point. The UKC forums seem to be mostly full of tedious middle aged pedantic bores shouting at each other. For some reason this seems to be almost entirely men. I use other forums which are mostly men but that don't have the feel to them so it's clearly not all men though.

Some women are over-sensitive and accuse men of being sexist when they are not. Sure, some women are arseholes. However, as the phenomenon doesn't translate equally to men (and we have no reason to suggest women are innately more arseholey than men) , perhaps a better explanation is that some women have been the victim of so much sexism in the past that their best working hypothesis in many situations is that the men are being sexist.

So the man being unjustly accused in this case is the second victim of men being sexist. Sadly some men who have been in this situation go on about "feminism having gone too far" when actually what would have prevented the problem is more feminism!

In reply to MG:
I think everyone is aware some women argue agressively but way more men do online and by a huge factor here. Women have even been prosecuted for nasty internet troll posts. Yet I'd suggest Helen has clear reasons to be angry if personnally facing sexism as opposed to dealing with the abstract idea. The original link is a good article but I think a tad naive: its easy to argue some branches of academic feminism have become rather tangential to real life but most feminists (of either sex) just want equality. Also top female US climbers are going to be the women least likely to notice. Its the least sexist place I've climbed and they are much less likely to meet the small minority of sexist UK male punters or so many OTT old fashioned gentlemen.

As a kid, political correctness worried me until I witnessed the reality for women (and other 'so called' disadvantaged groups); I'd still prefer we are careful about how we deal with language but the PC aims are noble. Most people seem to be saying and doing the right things in public these days (if clearly begrudingly given the anger on the internet) but the structral equality problems remain. These days I feel a bigger risk is anti-political correctness gone mad... manipulation of its own and with no nobility that I see. Trump epytomises it.

Yet its way more than borish agression that bugs me, I just dont want my main online forum becoming a incresingly small world single sex club. Climbingpixie is saying what I hear from too many men and women who are giving up with UKC.

In reply to John_Hat:

Hi John, tried to email you but it bounced back. Am up to my ears chasing photos for an article on here. Will phone when I can but it may not be for a few days. But please don't think I'm being rude or am not bothered.

At least Natalie's going to get an article together - so some (probably considerable) good will come out of all this. But she's up to her ears in stuff too so it will take some time. And, in my experience, medium/long term problems don't get solved in the short term; we just do what we can each day to make things better.

Mick

In reply to Big Ger:


Non sequitur. It's perfectly possible to regard something as 'sexualised' yet have no sexual response to it. We live in a world of sexualised images, many of which leave me absolutely cold because it's 'painting by numbers', dehumanised, clinical, manipulative. By contrast, I might find a lady with a sexy smile devastatingly attractive (probably would!)

But hey, why am I even bothering to have a rational discussion with you, because:



In the past, you've shown not only obsessiveness but (far worse) real nastiness. I thought you might be changing your ways - but seemingly not.

I'd be grateful if you would take your nastiness elsewhere.

Mick

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I'm not denying what you've written. My point was that the OP's expression of it was so jargon-laden as to be meaningless.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Odd...... have checked the obvious reasons for a bounce and nothing, which worries me. As it happens I'm updating my mail provider right now due to a few issues but I've not got around to changing UKC yet. I'll update my email addy on here now just in case. If you don't mind trying again that would be useful to me to ensure it works. If you've not got time then that's OK too.


Sounds cool.

In reply to climbingpixie:

I took exception to this phrase of yours - " tedious middle aged pedantic bores" .... suppose I described you as a disrespectful bimbo? Would you like that, you tedious young inaccurate bore?

Show a bit of respect why don't you?

And while I have stepped onto my soapbox; blokey banter is not inherently sexist, and if it's addressed to women the blokey banter bit should be acknowledge rather than than assuming the whole thing is sexist.

And sexism is a 2-way street. Just sayin'.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:
Sexism is a two way street, agreed, but we need to have very clearly in our mind that women have been subject to hundreds (thousands)? of years of maltreatment at the hands of men. A problem that we, as society, are still trying to solve, and haven't yet.

So whilst both are wrong, it is understandable that sexism against women attracts a higher priority and greater concern than sexism in the other direction.

As to blokey banter (or crude and misogynistic conversation, to use another term), in a single sex environment, OK, fine, if you really want to and no parties are offended. However UKC is not a single sex environment. There are women (and kids ? Is UKC over 18s only?) here and crude and misogynistic "banter" is alienating and does not encourage a wide and engaged conversation from all parts of the climbing community, which - I understood - was what UKC was all about.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Yes, I have to say I agree with your first point.

As for sexism - it IS complicated, because let's face it, sex, sexual banter, physical attraction are all built in. It's particularly complicated because it seems likely that women and men are genetically wired differently, which is plausible. So there is an inevitable tension between men and women (no sh*t!) and the potential for misunderstandings to occur.

However, that does not absolve blokes from making every possible effort to respect other people's feelings, and be mindful of how easy it can be to make someone uncomfortable, even when that is not intended.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Well said. I expect a lot of people on here feel the same..

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


Have you ever read one of the Brexit threads? Or even half of this thread, particularly the stuff around SBC? Discussion gets undermined with ridiculous strawmen, deliberate misreading or twisting of what's been said and the general sense is of people posting just to point score or show that they're cleverer than someone else.


I didn't say UKC was sexist, I said it was boring and argumentative. It seems to have become more so over the same time period that the number of female posters has reduced. I'm not complaining that it needs to change but the question was asked why women don't post on here more. As a woman I thought I'd answer.

P.S. you can call me whatever you like. I don't feel like I have a right not to be offended - freedom of speech and all that. I'd argue that I've got more evidence backing up my phrase than you do though

Yours, climbingbimbo

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


"Tedious middle aged pedantic bores" is not gender-specfic and not sexist.

"Bimbo" is gender-specific and denigrating.

We need to be clear about the difference.

In reply to John_Hat:

It is a bit ageist though. I should have been more inclusive to allow for bores of all ages.

In reply to climbingpixie:

Ageism is a different problem, let's solve one at a time.

John (age 44 and a quarter)

In reply to stp:

I was climbing a mountain rock route with the then girl friend who had been keen to do a multi pitch instead of the normal crag climbs. She seemed fine but when she reached the top she was in total terror and broke down crying. I gave her a hug and sat reassuring her she was never in any danger, etc.
Would I of done the same if a guy came up likewise. I think not! Sexist or not I would of done the same if she wasn't my girl friend but if a guy, I would need to be a bit sexist. Maybe I should of just told her to "get a grip ya big baby" as I would likely say to the guy.

In reply to climbingpixie:

Middle aged - guilty, tedious - maybe, pedantic - can be at times, bore - matter of opinion, shouting - not guilty, I don't do that.

However I can totally see where you're coming from and why some people avoid UKC.

In reply to John_Hat:

You're just a baby

The real problem with ageism is with employability; real versus perceived. There's much less problem in social interactions although I do miss never being asked my age when buying alcohol.

When I saw the "inside grit" video I was surprised that it was girls - sexist & ageist at the same time!

Why? reasons I can see...

One was because it was posted by Charlie and my without thinking assumption was that's a male name (and I know at least one female Charlie). Was that a sexist assumption, probably/possibly not simply because there are more M Charlies than F, but certainly close - let's call it a near miss in HSE parlance and try and keep it in mind.

Another was because that kind of climbing is usually quite knarly and I tend to associate women climbers with better finesse and technique because they tend (generalising but I think true) to rely on strength less than men. That doesn't mean I think women are weak or unable to do this kind of thing. Was that a sexist assumption - probably yes but is that a problem where my thinking was that it was less likely to be female "actors", based on some generalisations that do have some supporting reality. What would have definitely been a sexist problem would have been if I'd thought that there's no way women could (or even worse should) be doing that.

Was thinking "girls" ageist? - could be, if I called one of them a girl would she object because she's obviously not a child so should be referred to as a woman. The reason why I thought girl is simply because they were young enough for me to be their Dad - no ageist intent.

It's little nuances like this that make sexism (and ageism) so difficult to deal with - if it was all black and white (definitely not a racist phrase, it's describing a binary situation) then it would have been sorted ages ago.

In reply to Michael Hood: