UKC

"Why is it important to empower and encourage more girls and women into the great outdoors? The point is not to tick a box or achieve a particular gender ratio, but because it's great for our bodies and minds". On International Women's Day, Keri Wallace celebrates the strides made towards greater female participation in the outdoors, and looks to the future.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Good article, if a little lengthy. As someone who has always been confident and independent it made me think more about support out on the hills or crags.

And as one of the 13% my answer to the question "what women want" is.........

........a proper fitting and robust shell jacket and mountaineering trousers..That really would be a giant leap for womankind 

would have been interesting to have a comparison with other countries in Europe & N America, but maybe that would be another article

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Coel seems a bit slow off the mark today 😉

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Fabulous article, thanks very much. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The article says: "One popular approach is the delivery of single-gender activities and courses" and: 

"There is a definite need for women specific courses" says Cooper. "They provide an environment that some women find 'safer' and more 'comfortable' to participate in. We are well aware that this is not required by all women, but for some it can make a real difference. We generally find this is more useful at the introductory end of participation, but that said, we get plenty of requests for women-specific intermediate and advanced courses. They are not about excluding others but about tailoring to women specifically, supporting physiological, psychological and sociological wellbeing."

"Single gender courses can be controversial and some suggest they reinforce gender divisions. But our research found that women-only spaces provided people with an environment that was conducive to learning. There is also evidence to support the value of all-female environments in terms of physicality and empowerment" say Dr Emma Boocock, Dr Zoe Avner & Dr Linda Allin of Northumbria University."

Okay, let's change a few words here and see what happens: "There is a definite need for male specific courses" says [someone]. "They provide an environment that some men find 'safer' and more 'comfortable' to participate in. We are well aware that this is not required by all men, but for some it can make a real difference."

And: "They are not about excluding others but about tailoring to men specifically, supporting physiological, psychological and sociological wellbeing."

How would such men-only course be received by the UK Climbing.com community?

Isn't it funny how "some men" only take an interest in men's issues when they are trying to distract from women's issues?

If enough men would benefit from a male-only course to make it commercially viable, I'm sure one could be arranged. Of course the truth is that many courses are male-only, or male dominated by default, so there's unlikely to be such a demand outside the mind of a misogynist. I suspect that most women would wish such a venture well though, were it to happen.

Anyway, shockingly, this article isn't about men. You OK with that, Boomer?

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Oh joy - another entitled old white dude, failing to understand the utter depths of his entitlement, feels it necessary to comment on an article that has the temerity to support women in some small way.  Bravo.  What's the weather like at the moment in Tunbridge Wells by the way?

In reply to Angry Bird:

I think dinosaurs hail from a much earlier period in the Earth's history

In reply to Angry Bird:

Not all..    ha ha, just kidding.

If eroica64 wants an all-male event, there's really nothing stopping him from organising one.  I don't think he'll find there's much demand, and perhaps when we finally reach a point that it's possible for a thread like this to exist without comments like his the demand for and interest in all-female events will begin to drop away as well.

For the time being they're appreciated and enjoyed by many, perhaps even necessary for some and good luck to them.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

On the subject of 'whataboutery', here is an interesting blog post.  It's about much more serious things than a climbing weekend, but I hope you'll see some relevance. 

The writer is quite angry which may make you feel a bit defensive from the off, but if that is the case may I suggest you try putting your indignation on a back burner and try to read through at least once with an open mind without half your brain formulating arguments for why it's wrong?  (You can always loop back around a second time to do that if you really want to.)

https://victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/stop-asking-me-what-about-men/

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Well, to state the eye-wateringly obvious, men are not women, and women have need of single-sex spaces that are not necessarily required by men. Women's only sport being another eye-wateringly obvious example.

But sure, setup a men-only activity week. No one's stopping you.

In reply to deepsoup:

Can't say I felt in the least bit defensive, I thought that was a well written piece that absolutely nailed 'whataboutery'.

In reply to Angry Bird:

Ha ha. Very good, Boomer indeed. I found it so ironic that after years spent storming the bastion of male-only organisations like idiot old golf clubs and the like on the basis that excluding anyone on the basis of gender is wrong, some women now want to set up women-only climbing groups/clubs/courses. And have the nerve (the nerve I say, wot, wot) to say "They are not about excluding others ..."

Pish. Fiddle sticks. You okay with that snowflake?

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

If I were you I'd put the spade down now.

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Oh, well riposted Blanche but, dear snowflake, you avoided answering the question I posed and instead tried pouring insulting water on my old duck's back. Could you give me an answer to this question please: Is it okay for women, who have spent years overturning male-only female-excluding things like golf-clubs, etc, to now set of exclusionary, female-only climbing groups/course, etc? And if it is then, sauce, goose and gander like, it should be okay for men to do the same innit?

And if you don't agree with that sentiment could you say why please? I am interested in what you think.

And consider, dear bunch of frozen water particles, that the fact that I am of a certain gender, age and skin colour is independent of the question, innit again. For all you know I could be self-defined trans person aged 15 and of non-caucasian background. (I'm just off to alter my profile to make this a tad more believable. Toodle pip.)

In reply to deepsoup:

Gosh deepsoup, that is a most magnificent rant. One of the best I have ever read. Terrific stuff. Still, whatabout the .... never mind, joking. I didn't find half my brain formulating arguments for why it's wrong; both halves were thinking she's making a strong point and is right to do so. Nice read, TVM.

In reply to planetmarshall:

So, planetmarshall, that's a 'yes' then. It would be okay to set up men-only courses. Of course I'm pretty sure no-one would attend but I'm only talking principles here. Seems a damn shame that after a long time supporting females storming a male-dominated sport some women now want to set up women-only zones within it. So I just wanted to be a tad provocative and pose another option.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I noticed that one of the words you changed (actually deleted) was "evidence".

If there was evidence that an all male environment was of benefit to attendees then you'd have a point. As it is it looks like you're getting a bit triggered.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Why does it need to be of benefit to anyone beyond people enjoying time with other people of their choosing?

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

When you derailed essentially the same thread with the same tedious nonsense before, Marsbar said to you: "You organise it if you want to".  If you think there should be one off you pop, go organise it.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/womens_climbing_symposium_2017_report...

Ah, so this is all about you!?  How dare these uppity women organise an event you're not invited to after all you've done for them.  And you say you did read (and applauded) the article I linked to, and saw no relevance to what you're doing here.  Extraordinary.

In reply to deepsoup:

That victimfocus link was brilliant....many thanks. I think the likes of Erioca need to go and see things like the women's trad fest in action and listen to the participant views (an event that does allow some men). However, sometimes, as that link points out, men are the minority that need the extra help. Another example might be some of the educational outreach work for white working class boys.

In reply to deepsoup:

I enjoyed (if that's the right word, considering the subject) that blog, thanks for posting. And any anger came across as entirely justified. 

Cheers!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

nice article, well written. Just in time for women's month

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A very worthwhile read. There is an error I noticed. I was only the 4th woman to be admitted into The Climbers Club in the late 70s. It is worth knowing that unlike the Fell & Rock CC, the CC did not vote to allow women members until the last AGM of 1975. A long campaign for women members was initiated by Ken Wilson in 1966. (The committee thought he was about to ask for membership for working class members - another area of historical interest!) The CC old guard, with Lord Hunt as CC president, were totally against women members & gradually, many of the prominent younger climbers left the club in protest. It was not until Hamish Nicol became president in 1972 that the membership for women had support.

The Climbers Club has, of course, moved on but the CC records of committee meetings about the support by men, for (& against) women members makes amazing reading for those interested in climbing history.