UKC

/ OPINION: Athlete Loses Sponsorship for Bullying: A Response to the Response

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC Articles - on 15 May 2018
Bullying in the climbing community, 5 kbPenny Orr analyses the climbing community's response to a recent incident on social media - a case of cyber bullying which was made public by the recipient of the abuse and brought consequences for the offending athlete. Personalities aside, what's more interesting - Penny suggests - is the mixed reaction to the fiasco...

Read more
planetmarshall on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

"If we take what DiGiulian has said about the situation at face value - and I see no reason not to - we know that this was ongoing harassment, something she obviously wanted to stop, and a situation that she tried to resolve offline and in private"

The whole analysis turns on this assumption - that Sasha's reading and reporting of this bullying is accurate. If it is, then I agree you're largely going to be preaching to the choir. But I don't think it's a trivial assumption to make, even in the wake of Kinder's apology - was it heartfelt, or was he merely trying to salvage his relationship with his sponsors? As you say, the line between joking between friends and bullying is a fine one, but I think your analysis of the distinction is maybe a bit brief given how important it is to the context - far crueller things have been done, successfully, in the name of comedy.

We aren't privy to the nature of these communications so I don't think it's possible to give an unbiased assessment either way - and I think that's important. Without it, I have a hard time treating the entire saga as anything other than celebrity rubbernecking.

bouldery bits - on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Am I responding to the response to the response?

 

Either way, the Yanks are funny folk.

Yanis Nayu - on 15 May 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

Thank you for reaching out with that. 

scot1 on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article. People have been using this banter excuse for bullying for too long. Banter is often about power, usually between working class blokes on building sites. If the banteree asks the banterer to stop and he/she doesn't then it is bullying. Kinder can't use the 'she promotes herself too much' excuse because he's a master of that himself. I think he was just jelly or maybe fancies her.

bouldery bits - on 15 May 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Thank you for reaching out with that. 

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

 

 

Victoriacake - on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Penny liking and commenting on a certain UK fake Insta page aimed at a similar thing

 

penny.orr - on 15 May 2018
In reply to Victoriacake:

You raise an interesting point (one that has also been directed at DiGiulian): if I understand it correctly, the idea is that my past behaviour invalidates my opinion and/or makes me a hypocrite.

Well, I don't know which account you're referring to because, as far as I know, I don't follow any fake trolling accounts on Instagram. But, either way, I don't deny that I've laughed at things in the past that I would now consider inappropriate... I even alluded to my own fallibility in the article. But I strongly believe that people should be allowed to reflect on and change their mind about things. And this is a courtesy that I hope we extend to Kinder too. 

penny.orr - on 15 May 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

Thanks for your comment. Just a clarificatory question: Which part of what Sasha has said do you think is dubious? That she found it offensive and upsetting or that she asked him to stop? (Or both?)

It's a good point that we don't know the finer details of the situation, but going on what DiGuilian and Kinder have said publicly, I feel like it's fair to assume that this is a case of bullying. And, if we don't take seriously accusations of bullying, we risk alienating victims further and discouraging others from speaking up.

Alun - on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

With respect to the article, which was well written and thoughtful:

it is impossible for us, as the general public, to get a real understanding of what actually happened. I have been (very casually) following the affair for the last few days, but (despite this article) still don't have much of an idea of what Kinder did or didn't do - as it has been deleted. All have have heard is hearsay, which by default is filtered by a third party's viewpoint.

This is good in one sense - if it was truly horrible and hurtful, it doesn't deserve to be in the public domain. The problem though is that now I don't know why Kinder has been fired by his sponsors. I just have to trust that what he did/said was bad enough to reflect poorly on them - but by who's standards?

I don't see another alternative to the situation, but neither do I think it's a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Alun - on 15 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

> but going on what DiGuilian and Kinder have said publicly, I feel like it's fair to assume that this is a case of bullying

I'm not sure that's fair assumption. Upon receiving wind that he was about to be fired, it is no surprise that Kinder would say whatever necessary to save his career. Given the lack of public information, we are simply accepting her (and Sanders') word against his.

TobyA on 15 May 2018
In reply to Alun:

> Given the lack of public information, we are simply accepting her (and Sanders') word against his.

But that's silly, you just said you don't accept his word because you think his admitting to the bullying was extracted from him under duress.

You seem to be saying that despite Joe Kinder publicly admitting to acting like an arse; apologising for acting like an arse; and offering some pretty lame excuses for acting like an arse; he probably hasn't acted like an arse because you never saw him acting like an arse.

You are giving him the benefit of the doubt to a huge degree. Some might say that's a jolly Christian/(insert appropriate moral code of choice here) of you.

But it is also saying that you think two women are lying about his misogyny, presumably to damage him financially (despite one of them saying that is exactly what they didn't want to happen). There's something much less nice feeling about that.

 

Paz - on 15 May 2018

Sponsors are entitled to drop athletes for any reason they please, like cashflow problems, or aid climbing not being so popular (and hence not as big a market) anymore. 

To reduce the chances of this happening to them, I would advise sponsored climbers, to always bear in mind they're representing a brand.  No climbing brands want to be assocciated with bullying.  They want to come across as desirable and aspirational.

I actually do believe the victims here, but I would point out to any future victims - you owe your bullies no guarantee of confidentiality, this goes a lot easier if you take screen shots, post the screen shots in public and let events take their course.

 

Post edited at 22:37
r0x0r.wolfo - on 15 May 2018
In reply to Alun:

> > but going on what DiGuilian and Kinder have said publicly, I feel like it's fair to assume that this is a case of bullying

> I'm not sure that's fair assumption. Upon receiving wind that he was about to be fired, it is no surprise that Kinder would say whatever necessary to save his career.

> Given the lack of public information, we are simply accepting her (and Sanders') word against his.

But his word has been to admit it, so it's not accepting her word against his it's accepting the words of both people involved.

A straight reading of the situation goes like this;

He'd been taking the piss and had gone too far on multiple occasions over a period of time (in Sasha's view, likely not in his), she asked him to stop, he didn't, so here we are. 

This is much more believable than a conspiracy to get him dropped from his sponsors. 

Now what we don't quite know, is how much 'going too far' there was and how bad it was, but if she asked him to stop repeatedly then it doesn't really matter. 

 

TobyA on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Penny, totally agree with the bit where you say:

"Too few people from different types of minority groups feel that they can speak out when they face abuse, harassment, and judgement by different standards."

And I think you are brave being willing to wade in on this (and how depressing that voicing the opinion that men shouldn't make sexist jokes would ever be considered 'brave' as opposed to just obvious), but don't let the inevitable response get you down. I think your article is almost too fair; some will refuse to see the problem; but that's not because you haven't explained it fairly, it's because sadly they are part of it.

I suppose the fact that we are all talking about such things is positive, but how it gets talked about feels pretty depressing all the same.

 

Pursued by a bear - on 15 May 2018
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

That's a believable summary. But many thanks to the author of the (justifiably) longer original article for raising points which, perhaps unusually, are more important in the general than the specific. #metoo is the tip of an iceberg which, like every iceberg, has a great deal more beyond that which can be seen.

T.

pasbury on 15 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

My take home message from this saga is don't be a tw*t online.

mrteale - on 15 May 2018
In reply to pasbury:

Unless it's on the UKC forums right? Best if we contain the tw*ttery here to protect the rest of the internet.

Misha - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

All good points but who on earth is Joe Kinder? Doesn’t matter now I suppose..

Commenting on people’s personal appearance is highly inappropriate, unless it’s banter among good friends (which this wasn’t). If a politician did something like this, there would be a scandal. A minister would surely get sacked. If someone at work did it, I imagine they’d get a pretty heavy rapping from HR or worse. It’s also frankly bizarre. If the idea was to suggest that she was overweight, that’s ridiculous because she isn’t.

It’s also unkind to the lady in the picture. She seems very happy with life, smiling with her partner or friend. So to use her picture to bully someone else is insulting to her as well as to the victim of the bullying.

It’s good that this guy has been sacked - it sends a message and sets a precedent. We don’t need immature, inconsiderate behaviour from people who are meant to be role models in climbing (if that’s what they are).

Post edited at 00:14
mysterion on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

I feel a little bit dumber for reading this, whatever it was

Andy Gamisou - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Misha:

 "Commenting on people’s personal appearance is highly inappropriate, unless it’s banter among good friends (which this wasn’t). If a politician did something like this, there would be a scandal. "

You'd think.  But Trump did this repeatedly before and after his election.  Doesn't appear to harmed him in the slightest.  The new norm?

 

Post edited at 03:20
planetmarshall on 16 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> But it is also saying that you think two women are lying about his misogyny, presumably to damage him financially (despite one of them saying that is exactly what they didn't want to happen).

That the women are lying is not the only alternative conclusion. The other is that they are perfectly genuine in their belief that they were bullied - but it may or may not look like bullying to a disinterested observer. That hinges on things we don't know about - the nature of these communications, and knowledge of the history and personalities of those involved.

Obviously the fact that two women have complained - I assume independently - tips the scales against Kinder, but I have my doubts that those of Sasha's 369,000 Instagram followers who chose to condemn Kinder have really considered that they're weighing in on an interaction that they've only seen one side of.

All that said, on the sponsorship angle I maintain what I said on the other thread - that's a commercial decision for his sponsors, and whether or not they think Kinder's behaviour is good for their brand.

planetmarshall on 16 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

> Thanks for your comment. Just a clarificatory question: Which part of what Sasha has said do you think is dubious? That she found it offensive and upsetting or that she asked him to stop? (Or both?)

Well, let me clarify something else first. I have no time for bullying, and even less for bullying dressed up as "banter". Sasha has decided to draw a line in the sand and use the weapons she has available to her - her considerable social media profile - to give Kinder a bloody nose.

It's not that I think what she has said is dubious - it's that I am admitting my ignorance of the personalities, the history and the nature of the communications that constituted this bullying. I don't think that these are finer details at all, I think they are crucial to determining whether the response has been fair - as you say the reputational damage done to Kinder is not a trivial matter.

> And, if we don't take seriously accusations of bullying, we risk alienating victims further and discouraging others from speaking up.

Agreed.

 
Coel Hellier - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

The article discusses "misogyny" and "hatred" towards women.  Isn't it more likely that he was simply sexist?   (Where "sexism" is milder than full-blown misogyny.)

Men actually hating women is rare; men being sexist is far more common.  Actual hatred of anything is pretty rare, boorish behaviour is far more common. 

And yet it seems that in modern parlance one immediately  reaches for the more extreme words.  (If Kinder's acts are misogyny, what words are you then going to use for, say, Peter Sutcliffe?)

muppetfilter - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Interesting article, I wonder how as such an ethical rolemodel Sasha manages to balance the knowledge that her sponsor Addidas has a long and well documented history of labour abuse in the third world and even using child labour in the past.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18348247

Postmanpat on 16 May 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

  As I think you know, it is important to use such extreme terminology ("phobia" is another one) in order to cast those being described as not only behaving badly but actually evil or mad.

 The whole article is far too complicated for me. How does it differ from saying "this man behaved very unpleasantly to someone" and people shouldn't behave like that?

scot1 on 16 May 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

serial mysogerer

Robert Durran - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And yet it seems that in modern parlance one immediately  reaches for the more extreme words.  (If Kinder's acts are misogyny, what words are you then going to use for, say, Peter Sutcliffe?)

Serial mass murderer of women?  Maybe he didn't even hate them - in the same way that someone who shoots lions probably doesn't hate them.

But I do agree that Kinder is probably only guilty of sexism rather than misogyny.

 

yodadave on 16 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

In your parting thought you ask about breaking these cycles. Whilst I uphold the decision of sponsors to have a zero tolerance policy it would seem to me that zero tolerance is at odds with breaking cycles. If we say that these companies should embody the characteristics of the best of our community shouldn't we ask them to take part in breaking the cycles? Removing Kinder from the public eye or at least removing him from the oversight of two of his employers doesn't seem the best way to help break the cycle.

This is someone who was referred to as "kind kid Kinder" it would suggest there is something redeemable there. Wouldn't a better way to break cycles be for his sponsors and Sashas to work towards a rehab and reconciliation? get him to go run a climbing program for teens suffering from online abuse? 

don't dump him by the wayside and expect that our community will get any better. But then again are these brands trying to better our community or just their bottom line?

joshtee25 - on 16 May 2018
In reply to muppetfilter:

I would suggest starting a different thread if you want to talk about Adidas' ethics - as it is you come across as attempting to divert attention from the issue being discussed here.

J

Skotch85 - on 16 May 2018
In reply to pasbury:

For someone that is a somewhat public figure, needing to post online to keep up the sponsorship and cash-flow, it is surprising how stupid Kinder was treating that simple rule. 

bedspring on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Too much he said, she said, they said for me here.
But I will say one thing. Climbers are fatist. They can be oh so achingly right on about race and gender and anything you care to name. But you sit amongst climbers and they love to bitch about the fat guy or gal.
My weight goes up and down. When I am climbing well my non climbing friends think I look ill.
When I am a bit heavier and not climbing so well, I get comments about my weight from climbers, but non climbers say I look fine.
So like I say climbers as a breed are fatist, probably because weight is fundamental to performance in our sport. However they could be a little more circuspect with their comments and it would not surprise me if many climbers have body image problems.

Dan Arkle - on 16 May 2018
In reply to :

Is this thread about the Kinder Downfall? 

Robert Durran - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Dan Arkle

> Is this thread about the Kinder Downfall? 

No, it's about walking on Kinder Eggshells.

 

Post edited at 12:30
joshtee25 - on 16 May 2018
In reply to bedspring:

I agree - though I would describe myself as weightist - I have big legs and hate them! I look at heavy looking climbers and think they would climb harder if they lost some of it (whether that's muscle or fat). However I wouldn't dream of saying it, and for me it has nothing to do with the aesthetic, and everything to do with performance. 

If people make comments to you about your weight, and aren't involved in helping develop you physically (ie climbing coach or personal trainer), then they are not very nice people, who need to keep their beaks out of your business! I'm sorry that you come across that within 'our community'. 

team fat belly - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Kinders apology does seem to be genuine and heartfelt, and as the article suggests everyone makes mistakes and is important to give people the opportunity to learn from and move on from those mistakes. If Sasha chooses to accept that his apology is genuine (and that is something for her to work out) then that should be an end to it between them.

As for his sponsors I am less confident it is not simply a financial decision. Is continuing to support Kinder more financially beneficial to the brand than getting rid of him. A parallel would be Suarez when he was at liverpool, after racist behaviour then biting people not once but twice they stood by him. Safe to say they wouldn't have done that if he was a mediocre academy centre back. As it was he was one of the best players in the world and worth a fortune. Same is true here I suspect. 

Great article, and I would agree that the best that can now be hoped is that Sasha is left be and Kinder can be afforded the space to learn from his mistakes and continue to do what he lives even if he can't make a living from it.  

mhairi thorburn - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles: If you stick yourself out there so publicly via social media then you should be prepared to be heckled. The sponsored hero’s social media content more often than not hints towards elitism and the ‘I’m better than you’ kinda vibe. To be sponsored in climbing these days you have to be pretty shit hot and that’s great and admirable. But not everyone will see it that way. Elitism in men and women scunners some folk and some might feel compelled to lash out and bring down a peg or 2. Is it not all part of the deal if a person chooses to make their lives visible to the world? 

I shared a house with Joey Kinder for a week at a friends house in Spain and there’s no denying he’s a bell end. I’ve not met her but to me she seems like a bit of a bell end too. Great climbers mind you! Why involve the worlds climbing community in their petty little scrap?

 

timjones - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Is this article anything more than a sorry cross between tacky tabloid journalism and soap opera?

The "he said/she said" nature of it seems to serve as clickbait without offering any genuine extra facts or qualified insight into the alleged misbehaviour.
 

Robert Durran - on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

> If you stick yourself out there so publicly via social media then you should be prepared to be heckled.

Does the same go for gingerist heckling of people sticking themselves out there doing obstacle courses on the telly?  ;-)

Will Hunt - on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

> To be sponsored in climbing these days you have to be pretty shit hot

 

 

This is definitely not true. Just look at the Bouldering Noobs account. They post click bait climbing videos that look like they've crawled out of the innermost bowel of EpicTV. I think between them they've probably been to fewer than 10 different crags and I don't think any of them has even done a 6C! I believe they get free stuff from someone.

There's plenty of people who get free shoes for using the right hashtags. Some haven't even climbed in the 8s, let alone the high 8s or 9s.

rumblesan on 16 May 2018
In reply to timjones:

It's probably reasonable to say that analysing the "he said/she said" specifics of the argument will mostly just tell us about how these people deal with the situation.

Analysing the response to it though is going to tell you a lot about the opinions of others in the community, and it's probably only through public events like this that you'll get any data about that at all.

 

mhairi thorburn - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Heckle away! I’ll take it on the chin.

mhairi thorburn - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Will Hunt:

Fair point. I have little interest in what the sponsored hero’s (or sponsored punters) are up to and I won’t pretend to be up to date with who’s getting free shoes and chalk bags. So apologies if you feel my comment wasn’t accurate. 

Alun - on 16 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> You seem to be saying that despite Joe Kinder publicly admitting to acting like an arse; apologising for acting like an arse; and offering some pretty lame excuses for acting like an arse; he probably hasn't acted like an arse because you never saw him acting like an arse.

Sorry, either I didn't explain myself well enough, or you're intentionally mis-reading. I am not saying that Joe Kinder "probably hasn't acted like an arse". I'm saying I have no idea of whether he has or he hasn't - other than it must have been pretty bad, because he has been dropped by his sponsors.

> But it is also saying that you think two women are lying about his misogyny, presumably to damage him financially

I also did not say that, neither did I insinuate it, and I resent being accused of it. Please be respectful, enough aspersions are being cast.

JLS on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

>"Heckle away! I’ll take it on the chin."

<pulls up chair, not too close mind, sits down, opens popcorn, awaits Big Bob's heckling>

timjones - on 16 May 2018
In reply to rumblesan:

> It's probably reasonable to say that analysing the "he said/she said" specifics of the argument will mostly just tell us about how these people deal with the situation.

> Analysing the response to it though is going to tell you a lot about the opinions of others in the community, and it's probably only through public events like this that you'll get any data about that at all.

I'm sure that it would tell us a lot about attitudes in amongst a subset of climbers.

I'm not sure that the author is qualified to do that, they certainly don't seem to do it very well.  It just seems to be more cheap tittle tattle.

Tyler - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Will Hunt:

> I think between them they've probably been to fewer than 10 different crags.

When you live in the middle of Lancashire's finest quarries why would you need to travel?

danm on 16 May 2018
In reply to timjones:

> The "he said/she said" nature of it seems to serve as clickbait without offering any genuine extra facts or qualified insight into the alleged misbehaviour.

Weirdly, I felt exactly the............opposite to you.

The purpose of an analysis isn't to provide additional facts, more to frame the existing ones in context and ask interesting questions. The fact that the author got me think carefully about my own response to this episode meant it had worth and value to me at least. Thanks Penny!

Tyler - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Alun:

> I also did not say that, neither did I insinuate it, and I resent being accused of it. Please be respectful, enough aspersions are being cast.

You should have a word with his sponsors

mike reed - on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

Brilliant

Love it Mhairi. Beers on me next time youre over here!

Frank the Husky - on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

> I shared a house with Joey Kinder for a week at a friends house in Spain and there’s no denying he’s a bell end. I’ve not met her but to me she seems like a bit of a bell end too. Great climbers mind you! Why involve the worlds climbing community in their petty little scrap?

One of the few sensible observations on here, so thanks for that. Both parties in this ridiculous saga may well be bell ends of one sort or another, and this is a playground scrap where the truth is somewhere between the two accounts. We're all old enough to know that neither party is being 100% honest about what happened. Like someone said above, Adidas, who sponsor DiGiulian, have a well documented history of abusing their workers, yet she doesn't seem to be too bothered about the genuine suffering of poor brown people she's never met. Calling a bully to account in public with one hand, whilst accepting money from a worse bully with the other is far more troubling than what Kinder may have posted on Instagram.

In a few months, Kinder will have new sponsors. You only have to look at Kate Moss and her cocaine "scandal" to know that this will all soon be forgotten as sponsors realise that zero tolerance has an imPact on their bottom line.

 

 

 

Ramon Marin - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Very well articulated Penny. It's a complicated matter but I think it must be discussed openly. Kinder's job as a brand ambassador is to promote good values and to amplify the brands message. He failed so he got the sack, simple as. 

Robert Durran - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> In a few months, Kinder will have new sponsors. You only have to look at Kate Moss and her cocaine "scandal" to know that this will all soon be forgotten.

Really? I don't think anyone considers sexism "cool", but I'm not sure the same can be said for a little bit of recreational drug use in some quarters. I reckon Kinder will struggle for a new sponsor.

TobyA on 16 May 2018
In reply to Alun:

Kinder admitted the bullying, apologised for it and offered excuses/reasons for his behaviour. You originally said:

> I'm not sure that's fair assumption. Upon receiving wind that he was about to be fired, it is no surprise that Kinder would say whatever necessary to save his career. Given the lack of public information, we are simply accepting her (and Sanders') word against his.

It's not his word and their's, because he agrees with them that he was bullying. What are you suggesting then if you are not suggesting that he was forced to apologise for something he hadn't done to save his sponsorship deals?

Brendan - on 16 May 2018
In reply to mhairi thorburn:

> I shared a house with Joey Kinder for a week at a friends house in Spain and there’s no denying he’s a bell end. I’ve not met her but to me she seems like a bit of a bell end too. Great climbers mind you! Why involve the worlds climbing community in their petty little scrap?

Bravo! My sentiments exactly.

Michael Gordon - on 16 May 2018
In reply to bedspring:

It depends how it is said. I wouldn't necessarily hesitate to tell a good friend they were looking a bit podgy. As long as one isn't nasty about it. Who knows, it may even encourage them to do something about it. 

Si dH - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article, very well articulated.

From what we know, I agree with everything you say.

Yanis Nayu - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

It seems to me that life in the West can’t really be too bad if so much hot air can be expended over what’s in effect a playground spat between two privileged individuals. 

Fatts1 - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Will Hunt:

Sign me up for the #freeshoes ! Size 9.5 Adidas Blancos please. I climb in the sevens and am shit hot at them (sometimes if I haven’t eaten too many pies). 

pavelk - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

My conclusion of all this is I will not buy anything from BD and La Sportiva any more. They don't like stupid jokes (neither I do) and I don't like snobbish virtue-signalling and hysterical overreaction.

....." And, because women have been subjected to widespread and systematic oppression throughout history - and are, to this very day, judged more often and more harshly than their male counterparts especially when it comes to appearance and image - Kinder's actions are inseparable from this context...."  Penny, are you serious? Are men burdened with hereditary sin?

jess13 - on 16 May 2018
In reply to Dan Arkle:

> Is this thread about the Kinder Downfall? 

As is, "is it in".(condition)

5 words all of two letters but totally unintelligible to the non-climbing population sorry but had to give you this grammatical gem.

aln - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

I'd never heard of Joe Kinder till this thing. 

penny.orr - on 16 May 2018
In reply to pavelk:

> My conclusion of all this is I will not buy anything from BD and La Sportiva any more. They don't like stupid jokes (neither I do) and I don't like snobbish virtue-signalling and hysterical overreaction.

I hope you don't think that my article is snobbish virtue-signalling or hysterical (in any way). I tried to take a measured approach to the whole thing.

> ....." And, because women have been subjected to widespread and systematic oppression throughout history - and are, to this very day, judged more often and more harshly than their male counterparts especially when it comes to appearance and image - Kinder's actions are inseparable from this context...."  Penny, are you serious? Are men burdened with hereditary sin?

No, that is certainly not what I implied or meant. I don't believe in hereditary sin. Instead, I think that we are all (men and women) burdened by the context in which we exist. 

 

penny.orr - on 16 May 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

Then I guess we're in agreement? One of the central points of the article is that the (some of) the public response has been unfair to both Kinder and to DiGiulian and Sanders. I tried to focus on what we do know, not what we don't or can't. And, I hope that the community can allow Kinder the chance to recover, but I also think it was fair to take away his sponsorship. 

TobyA on 16 May 2018
In reply to pavelk:

I'm consistently amazed at your fluency in what I guess is your second or third language, so I know you didn't misunderstand Penny's point by mistake. Kinder's actions are just yet one more example of that history Penny references. Whether he, you or me bear any 'hereditary sin' is a different question. Kinder had obviously been committing 'sins' of his own, and doing it via Instagram just to make sure we all see the contemporary nature of those sins!

stp - on 16 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Awful article. One of the worst on UKC I've read.

All of the value judgements made are based on the opinion of one person. There is one image that is presented without any context and could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Was it really bullying? We don't know. It's probably hard to even agree what bullying is in this context.

The argument for misogyny has no basis. What exactly is the 'misogynist social environment' anyway? Is this saying that most, or a lot of, male climbers hate women? If so I've never found that to the case. Not at all in fact. Everything I've seen both publicly and privately runs contrary to that. But regardless there is no evidence to support this statement so again it's just mere opinion.

I always thought that grown ups understood that taking sides in personal conflicts was not good idea. Particularly the case when you don't know all the facts. Then publishing these opinions on a public site is just sadly very immature in my opinion.

If anything counts as bullying it's articles like this. It's an internet version of sticking the boot in when someone is down.

I much preferred Matt Groom's Epic TV reporting on this issue which was non-judgemental, unbiased and compassionate - a mature approach that's exactly what situations like this need more of.

TobyA on 16 May 2018
In reply to stp:

> Was it really bullying? We don't know. It's probably hard to even agree what bullying is in this context.

Funny, 'cos Joe Kinder thinks it was, which is why he, to his credit, apologised. You seem to be another one who wants to explain away his own admission and apology.

aln - on 16 May 2018
In reply to scot1:

> Banter is often about power, usually between working class blokes on building sites.

Is it?

penny.orr - on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

> Awful article. One of the worst on UKC I've read.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Yes, you're right, this is the opinion of one person (that's why is called an 'Opinion Piece'), but I did try to give reasons for all of my views and I explicitly pointed out that they were my opinions. The point of the article was not merely to recount or report the events; I wanted to go a little further and ask how we can use this unfortunate state of affairs in a productive way to reflect on the kind of community we want to create for ourselves. 

I also avoided "taking sides". In fact, the article is a partial defence of Kinder. I tried to focus on what we know happened, not on what we don't or can't know and I focused on the response to the whole event. 

I did not say or imply that all (or some) male climbers hate women. I explicitly said that I didn't know whether Kinder hated women - that is something that I couldn't possibly know. Your reading of this is a misinterpretation. 

> I much preferred Matt Groom's Epic TV reporting on this issue which was non-judgemental, unbiased and compassionate - a mature approach that's exactly what situations like this need more of.

Actually, I have just watched this reporting of the issue, and my article expresses the same general sentiments that Matt does. Although granted he doesn't make any comment on the question of misogyny or question whether it was right to end Kinder's contract. Again though, I took the time to point out that these were my opinions. 

For all of the above reasons, I'm pretty sad that you feel my article is immature, judgmental, biased, and constitutes a form of bullying.  

iantoday on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

A really well written piece, presenting well thought out points. Food for thought. Thank you.

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

V brave to stick your neck out ! I'm not sure that I could say it so assertively but I found the article wordy - felt a bit like a bandwagon reportage.

Before this fiasco arose I had never heard of Joe Kinder or Courtney Sanders. Sasha however - I used to follow on Facebook. But I quit. Made me reflect on why these women became the subject of harassment.

My opinion of the 'couple' post which Kinder made - untasteful and undesirable - but I'm not convinced it was bullying either. I would have expected it to be more offensive to the woman used rather than Sasha.

So, why did i quit following Sasha on FB ? Of all the women climbers she more than any trades on body image. I've never seen any picture of her looking mildly overweight - how could she climb so hard if that were the case ?  Is it possible that Joe like myself - reacted against this 'over-presentation'? And that Sasha defends her right to profit - as much from athletic prowess as from exposure of skin ?

For info - I still follow other climbers - male and female on FB. I am however dissuaded by unethical sponsorship - ( of which Red Bull is the epitomy ) and this also quits me out following people.

I can easily see that JK's public reaction under these circumstances is to keep the peace but implies his guilt - sadly its too late for his career.

pavelk - on 17 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

> I hope you don't think that my article is snobbish virtue-signalling or hysterical (in any way). I tried to take a measured approach to the whole thing.

Not your article but the reaction of BD and La Sportiva

> No, that is certainly not what I implied or meant. I don't believe in hereditary sin. Instead, I think that we are all (men and women) burdened by the context in which we exist. 

I am sorry, but I am not pretty sure what does it mean. Everyone feels and understands the context differently and it´s somewhat arbitrary to declare "the context" from the distance

I understandf the piece you wrote somehow like: "Because some men did (and steel do) something wrong to women we have to judge Kinder´s actions more strictly" If I understand it correctly it is call to double standard and reminds me the hereditary sin.

 

Yanis Nayu - on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

Isn’t Black Diamond owned by a company that makes ammunition and backs the NRA? Be nice if they had a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to kids being shot in American schools. 

Lemony - on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

Are you mixing Sasha Digiulian up with Sierra Blair Coyle by any chance?

pavelk - on 17 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Thank you! But my English is far from what I want it to be

The only meaning of Penny´s statement I can see is to judge Kinder more strictly because of "context"

The history of my country is full of such judgements and it didn´t bring more justice but less. May be because of that I am a little hypersensitive to a similar statements

PeakDJ on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

> V brave to stick your neck out ! I'm not sure that I could say it so assertively but I found the article wordy - felt a bit like a bandwagon reportage.

Agreed with the "wordy" point.  Not commenting on the rights and wrongs of Kinder's actions or withdrawal of his sponsorship, but too much navel-gazing and over-analysis isn't going to help resolve the issues at the heart of the situation, whatever they are - especially given that the we are all just guessing at the sentiments behind the offending posts and exchanges.  It's all a little "Hello Magazine" and celebrity-focused for my tastes. 

Post edited at 08:02
Ramon Marin - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

That's such a good point actually, the parent company, Clarus, makes Sierra Bullets, which go in Remmingtons, SigSauers (used in Las Vegas mass shooting) and most mainstream guns (according to their annual report). So yeah, safe to say they've killed a fair amounts of humans.  I had no idea until I research it. 

Dogwatch - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Isn’t Black Diamond owned by a company that makes ammunition and backs the NRA? Be nice if they had a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to kids being shot in American schools. 

More or less. Black Diamond is owned by Clarus Corporation, which also owns Sierra Bullets. The latter was historically and  not entirely amazingly, an NRA sponsor. Whether it still is, I am not certain.

Ramon Marin - on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

"Was it really bullying? We don't know."

I can't believe you actually said that. I'm pretty sure I know what bullying is. So you are saying Sasha is lying right? Kinder called her fat in public, when he knew she was vulnerable, and did it again after her messaging him to stop. If that's not bullying I'm not sure what is. And more outrageous is that now you a calling Penny a bully herself. It's looks to me like misogyny, you seem to discredit anything that comes from a girl...

TobyA on 17 May 2018
In reply to pavelk:

I see it as he chose to make fun of her (and other women's) appearance. But the history or the context is many men feeling entitled to pass comment on women's bodies, and of course in too many contexts (both historically and even today) control women's bodies. What he did wasn't the worst thing ever done, far from it, but it was sexist. We are all products of our environments, exactly as you point out.

simes303 - on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

What a ridiculous article.

In reply to stp:

I think we read into the article whatever we want to read, but what you read (assuming you have indeed read the whole of it, which I'm still not convinced you have given your conclusions) is quite interesting.

 

Firstly, people are capable of having more than one opinion and I think within this Penny balances a great many opinions, not least of the individuals involved, but also around the wider reaction. In fact, when I read it (and I've read it several times) I never saw it as being specifically about Sasha/Kinder, I saw it as almost entirely about the wider context and societal implications, which differs pretty wildly to the your viewpoint in which there is no context at all.

 

With regards to misogyny, it’s a big, deep, and emotive word that inevitably gets under peoples skin and tends to be taken to extremes. Of course Penny isn’t saying all male climbers hate women, that’s ridiculous, so much so that I can barely believe you have genuinely read the article and got that from it. What she is saying is that - like it or loathe it - society does treat women differently. Just take a look at implicit bias and you’ll see that irrespective of what you view on equal rights is, deep down your mind thinks differently. 

 

Finally, just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, did you ever considered that you found Matt's report more palatable because it was coming from a man? I’m not calling you out for being an outright sexist here, because you’re not (or at least I don’t think you are), I just think that you - like I - have certain predispositions and biases that make accepting this information more difficult from a woman. It's easy to bracket Penny into that 'oh no, here's another raging feminist nagging away' category, which essentially leads to you shutting off and drawing your own conclusions (such as the one's voiced within your original post).

 

Dare I say it, but this is the key message of the article.

 

 

 

 

OCRmaster - on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Best bit of the article as it applies to nearly everything in life, “With a little reflection and awareness, we can also try to be aware of our own biases...”

Robert Durran - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Dogwatch:

> More or less. Black Diamond is owned by Clarus Corporation, which also owns Sierra Bullets.

So maybe it would make commercial sense for BD to sign up Sierra Blair Coyle as a replacement for Kinder.  Ah......Ok.......maybe not........ on several levels.......

planetmarshall on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

> So, why did i quit following Sasha on FB ? Of all the women climbers she more than any trades on body image. I've never seen any picture of her looking mildly overweight - how could she climb so hard if that were the case ?

Yeah, I think you may be confusing Sasha with Sierra Blair-Coyle

 

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Ramon Marin:

> you seem to discredit anything that comes from a girl...

I'm afraid you just committed a fundamental sexist error - when would you ever refer to a man of their age as 'boy' ??!

 

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Yeah, I think you may be confusing Sasha with Sierra Blair-Coyle

u mean she is the worst case example ? its true I didnt research that assertion rigorously … but I never followed her ever - I see they both play the same game 

jon on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

> I see they both play the same game

Well not really. The majority of SBC's photos are nearly always sexually provocative but SDG's hardly ever. If that's what you mean?

 

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to jon:

sounds to me like you've done your research ;) 

planetmarshall on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

> u mean she is the worst case example ? its true I didnt research that assertion rigorously … but I never followed her ever - I see they both play the same game 

Sasha is certainly a very attractive woman (in my opinion), but a quick glance through her Instagram doesn't show anything I'd describe as "trading on body image".

Compare her feed with, say, Chris Sharma. Would you say he "trades on body image"? Does he "play the same game"?

TobyA on 17 May 2018
In reply to LeeWood:

I'm very interested by what you mean by saying that SDG "trades on her body image". How exactly?

I find many fit, strong, athletic women physically attractive and I suspect many other straight men do as well. But you seem to be saying she uses that attractiveness to gain financially in someway. How exactly? 

If DiGiulian said something like she wears tighter or more revealing clothing specifically to get more followers on social media, then OK. But I'm not aware that she has? Should we ban women from climbing in lycra and crop tops as we, as straight men, like it too much?! I don't follow DiGiulian on Instagram, but I do follow UKC favourite Franco Cookson. Now Franco is a fit, strong, athletic young man who in many of his photos on Insta is wearing ronhills and no top. I'm sure this is quite attractive to some! Is Franco trading on his body image or do we just look at the nothing-holds he somehow pulls on and think "wow!"

I'm sure I read that the UK Olympics squad employs make up artists and many of the female athletes seem to want to look good when they compete. Is that wrong? Are they trading on their body image? Should make up be banned in international athletics?

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

>  Does he "play the same game"?

Yes, but given the ratio that men outnumber women in the sport they both have a v different audience.

Misha - on 17 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

I’m not sure the context of male sexism is the key point here. Any bullying is wrong, whether it’s a man bullying a woman or another man, or indeed a woman bullying a man or another woman. 

lorens holm - on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

I believe that everyone deserves a second chance because it is human to seek redemption. If we don't give people that chance, we are foreclosing them their humanity. I would like to see both DiGiulian and Kinder use this event, either singly or together, as an opportunity to put some good in the world.

Post edited at 15:00
Stew99 on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Why do I feel scared/intimidated to comment on this thread/topic?  (Maybe OT)

Read the article, thought about it a bit, read it again, spent some time trying to see if I could pull back the offending Instagram account posts using Internet Archive (you can't - but you can pull back active Instagram Accounts - boo!  Surely that would be the entire point of https://archive.org/ ??), work in a mixed male/female environment, have done my annual mandatory unconscious bias training twice(!) this year, have tested my unconscious biases on the Harvard Uni https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html pages in the past (they exist - no surprise there), am married and have a daughter, googled to make sure that what I was thinking wasn't out of line, checked it with the wife.  None of the above am I suggesting gives me immunity to rampant sexism on the part of males the world over.  I am a male btw. 

And yet ... I still find myself intimidated to comment on this thread for some reason.  

I reflected on it with the OH last night.  On first reading of Penny's article (Good job Penny!  Don't let the haters get you down!) we both took quite different things from it.  My wife immediately declared "good - he is a foul scum bag who got exactly what he deserved" and I responded with "well hold on a second ... we really have at best 50% of the story regarding what actually went on here and based purely on the facts that are actually out there about this it looks like a fairly extreme out come".  We both gave it another read and, as usual, both moved a little towards the center ground from our starting points.  My OH decided "maybe loosing his lively hood does appear a little strong (but if I had more facts I might change my mind back again!) but he does still appear to be a scum bag" and I moved to "well you know what ... if she asked him, as she said she did, to f*ck off and leave her alone and he didn't ... well he got what was coming to him."  Then we moved onto inevitable discussion of why do you think we both reacted to that as we did.  

Eventually we resolved, as we always do, women (as have others) have been oppressed for a long time now, it's going to take a long time to fix it (longer than our lifetimes), but it feels like things are moving slightly more now than they have for a while and finally "Jesus ... i hope the world is a nicer place for our daughter to grow up in".

After all that ... I still feel as if I ought not be comment on this topic .. as if it's not okay for men to make comment on this topic or as if this is a topic for women to write about and men to only listen to?  (Apart from the obvious  fear before posting on UKC of being ripped to pieces like the poor chap who made the comment asking after the fallen climber at Kilnsey last week.  I am sorry UKC did that to you @Rawstron1. Pls do don't do that to me UKC .... ) 

FYI:  I do think he got what he deserved.  Male or Female, if some one tells you they don't want your attention (and they have been telling you that for 8 years! And they have told you that offline/in private), and you decide to press on anyway in a public domain and in regards to someone who makes there living in the public eye .... then you have made your bed and you lie in it.  Reads like Sasha had explored other reasonable avenues of resolving the problem and decided eventually to take out her big guns.  If I was advising my daughter how to resolve the same situation in nursery school i would tell her first to speak to a teacher and if that fails to pull his hair, kick him in the balls and then run like hell.  I really don't see how that is any different from how Sasha eventually dealt with the problem she faced.

Goucho on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

I don't condone bullying in any form, and certainly not when it's sexist and masoginistic, and I've no sympathy for Kinder - you don't have to be Einstein to figure out that behaving like a cock on social media, is probably a good way to lose sponsorship contracts.

But, having said that, doesn't all of this smack of being a bit 'first world' problem?

 

JLclimb on 17 May 2018
In reply to Misha:

> All good points but who on earth is Joe Kinder? Doesn’t matter now I suppose..

> Commenting on people’s personal appearance is highly inappropriate, unless it’s banter among good friends (which this wasn’t). If a politician did something like this, there would be a scandal. A minister would surely get sacked. If someone at work did it, I imagine they’d get a pretty heavy rapping from HR or worse. It’s also frankly bizarre. If the idea was to suggest that she was overweight, that’s ridiculous because she isn’t.

> It’s also unkind to the lady in the picture. She seems very happy with life, smiling with her partner or friend. So to use her picture to bully someone else is insulting to her as well as to the victim of the bullying.

> It’s good that this guy has been sacked - it sends a message and sets a precedent. We don’t need immature, inconsiderate behaviour from people who are meant to be role models in climbing (if that’s what they are).

Well said.

Thank you Penny for a well written and thought provoking piece. Regardless of people's opinions on what you have written, there is no denying the disappointment in seeing someone so talented risk losing so much over such an obvious and immature mistake.

stp - on 17 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

 

> I also avoided "taking sides". In fact, the article is a partial defence of Kinder.

Your article uses highly emotive, and negatively charged language: misogyny, bullying, fake accounts, body shaming. All of this is aimed at one side and not the other. None of it is substantiated.

As others have pointed out we're in neither the position to defend nor blame Joe because there are insufficient facts. The account has been deleted and I'm unsure as to whether the account was ever public in the first place. Not all Instagram accounts are. Also we have no idea of what Sasha did, if anything, to invite such behaviour.

Even if there were more facts I think making judgements about people we don't know in public is a bad idea. It's actually none of anyone's business. Bringing it into the public sphere was a mistake that's got completely out of hand.

 

 

> I did not say or imply that all (or some) male climbers hate women. I explicitly said that I didn't know whether Kinder hated women - that is something that I couldn't possibly know. Your reading of this is a misinterpretation. 

Then what exactly does 'the misogynist social environment' actually refer to? In my experience most climbers are really cool and I can't remember any instances of overt misogyny. I've met one blatantly racist and homophobic climber in a lifetime of climbing many years ago and it was such a unique encounter that I still remember the incident vividly today. I also remember one young homophobic climber years ago, who quickly changed his views on contact with the local climbing community.

To me the argument about misogyny is tenuous at best and could easily viewed as sexist. It seems to imply that it's OK poke fun at a man's appearance but not a woman's.

 

> For all of the above reasons, I'm pretty sad that you feel my article is immature, judgmental, biased, and constitutes a form of bullying.

Well I'm not sure how to respond to that. If one critical response makes you sad I suppose just imagine how Joe Kinder must be feeling right now. There are thousands of negative posts about him strewn about the internet touching almost every part of the climbing community and even beyond. Added to that he now reckons this incident has ended his professional climbing career. I can only imagine the guy must be completely devastated.

 

TobyA on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

Do you know Joe Kinder stp? Somehow your posts sound like you might. Seeing someone you like or admire criticised is hard but again, like the other guy, you seem to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to a huge a degree. This means disregarding the experiences of two separate women who say that his "jokes" at their expense went on over prolonged periods of time, even after at SDG asked him to stop. You also seem to be willing to discount his admission and apology, basically him accepting what he did was wrong.

>  what exactly does 'the misogynist social environment' actually refer to?

How about an environment where a man who says that he is so famous and special that he can grab women "by the pussy" can be elected the president of one of the worlds bigger democracies? Or where a man can kill ten other (predominantly women) and justify it by explaining that women weren't letting him have sex with them? Or where many hundreds (normally over a 1000) of sexual assaults are reported to police each year as having taken place in UK schools? Or where two women are killed each week by a current or former partner in England and Wales?

I suspect the climbing community might be a bit better than average for various complex social reasons, but I hear young male climbers call each other "pussies" for not trying hard enough, or telling each other to "man up" still, and the other weekend I was flicking through old (80s and early 90s) mags in a club hut and the level of casual sexism and homophobia in letters, articles and adverts were quite horrifying. Times change but attitudes don't change so fast, and we are all products of society around us. I took that as Penny's point in the article.

penny.orr - on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

> Then what exactly does 'the misogynist social environment' actually refer to? In my experience most climbers are really cool and I can't remember any instances of overt misogyny. I've met one blatantly racist and homophobic climber in a lifetime of climbing many years ago and it was such a unique encounter that I still remember the incident vividly today. I also remember one young homophobic climber years ago, who quickly changed his views on contact with the local climbing community.

The way I'm using 'misogyny', it is not an individual psychological characteristic that particular men have. Rather, it is "a social and political phenomenon with psychological, structural, and institutional manifestations" (Manne, 2018). The 'misogynist social environment' refers to the society-wide context/environment in which we all exist and act, one in which all women are disadvantaged to some degree. 

 

Post edited at 18:54
stp - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

To me the entire subject matter is extremely tacky. This is the kind of thing that I would expect find in low quality tabloids like The Sun or those dire gossip magazines about celebrities.

 

> What she is saying is that - like it or loathe it - society does treat women differently.

That's true but as someone else pointed out that's not misogyny it's sexism. But more than that I don't see that has anything to do with a personal conflict between two people. Just because one of them happens to be female doesn't mean it's sexism.

 

> did you ever considered that you found Matt's report more palatable because it was coming from a man? I’m not calling you out for being an outright sexist here

Well you've just gone ahead and insinuated exactly that so thanks for that. Based on what? Absolutely nothing other than I favoured one individual's reporting over another and they happened to be a man. Well if sexism means men who don't automatically side with a viewpoint just because it comes from a woman then yes I am sexist and proud of it.

Making suggestions like that reminds me of the way critics of Israel get labelled as anti-Semitic. It's ad hominem fallacy but it's worse than that. Calling this, that and the other sexist (or anti-Semitic) for no good reason is ultimately debasing the meaning of the term. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf.

I already gave several reasons why I preferred Matt's reporting. I don't understand why you would assume those are not genuine. Matt's sex has nothing to do with it. I preferred it because it's entirely consistent with my own views. There is absolutely no hint of blaming either party, he acknowledged it without providing any fuel for more gossip or speculation and he came across as genuinely kind, considerate and thoughtful.

Michael Gordon - on 17 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> How about an environment where a man who says that he is so famous and special that he can grab women "by the pussy" can be elected the president of one of the worlds bigger democracies? >

I put this down to stupidity (on behalf of the voters, electoral college system aside) rather than misogyny. Presumably around 50% of the American public are women?  

penny.orr - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Michael Gordon:

See above (brief) explanation of the term misogyny. Both women and men are capable of holding misogynist attitudes.

aln - on 17 May 2018
In reply to scot1:

My previous reply was about your assertion that banter is usually between builders on building sites. What a load of class prejudiced shite....and wrong. 

TobyA on 17 May 2018
In reply to stp:

> Making suggestions like that reminds me of the way critics of Israel get labelled as anti-Semitic.

Some are.

> It's ad hominem fallacy

It's not if they are (sexist/anti-semitic).

> Calling this, that and the other sexist (or anti-Semitic) for no good reason is ultimately debasing the meaning of the term.

But there is reason. Have any male climbers said that Kinder used his fake Insta account to take the piss out of their appearance/body shape? Genuine question.

stp - on 17 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

No I don't know Joe Kinder at all. I've never met him or interacted with him in anyway. I've seen some of his climbing videos and get the vague impression that he is well liked among his peers. The fact that Emily Harrington also states that he has a heart of gold also suggests to me he might not be the all evil mysogynist bully the way he is being portrayed.

The reason I'm sceptical about the claims made is probably because I'm sceptical about everything. In my experience people talk an awful lot of sh*t. They believe in tons of stupid stuff like invisible Gods that no one has ever seen or that the position of the stars at birth has something to do with the personal life over the coming week. Being sceptical doesn't mean I don't believe Sasha's claims. It just means I'll suspend my judgement until I know more.

 

> This means disregarding the experiences of two separate women who say that his "jokes" at their expense went on over prolonged periods of time, even after at SDG asked him to stop.

Just because SDG asked him to stop and he didn't doesn't tell us anything. If Donald Trump asked people to stop mocking him and portraying him in a bad light does that make anyone who continues doing so a bully? As long as he continues saying and doing stupid things then people will continue and rightly so.

I actually despise bullying but what does it even mean in the virtual world? Sticks and stones and all that. Making jokes at other people's expense is an accepted part of our culture. Professional comedians do it on a regular basis, often to make a serious point in the process.

I watched one of Sasha's videos last week. All I can say was is that it was really really bad, cringeworthy in fact. If that's the kind of stuff she puts out on a regular basis then she fully deserves to get a lot of flak. Asking someone to stop is not going to cut it.

Is that what has happened here? Again I don't know. But unlike you and many people on here I haven't ruled it out as a possibility either. I think it's wrong to be judgemental before knowing the facts, particularly when doing so can be potentially harmful for other people.

A form of bullying I particularly dislike is the many against the one. That to me is both cowardly, cruel and totally unfair. If people are going to fight then at least let it be a fair one, one on one.

Why do people feel need to chime in on Sasha's behalf at all? Is that a form of sexism? Poor young girl is the victim of big evil man? Are we rushing to defend the fairer sex perhaps? From what I can see Sasha seems more than capable of defending herself.

Victoriacake - on 17 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

I’m glad to see that this incident has changed your actions and you no longer follow Chosscollective. Well done you

LeeWood - on 17 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

'Joe posted hurtful and inflammatory content on a private Instagram account, which assumingly, he never thought would reach the subjects of his posts '

this comes from Courtney Sanders interview in The Outdoor Journal

Basically, we all expect the right to say what we want about other people - in private; the problem exposed is that using social networks it is often unclear who our audience will be.

If JK's fake account was really private, wouldn't he have the right to post what he liked about anyone ? Obviously within the constraints of not offending his own known pals ….

Brendan - on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

This is an extract from So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson - I think it's really worth a read, especially if you find yourself taking sides in one of these online shaming episodes:

https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a7933/exclusive-extract-from-jon-ronson-book-so-youve-been-publicly-shamed/

It's also worth thinking about who the real winners are in a spat like this. It's certainly not either of the athletes. Instagram has generated a lot of traffic from it, and this ukc forum currently has over 100 comments and 6,000 views, way more than on most articles on the site.

I've found this thread interesting but I'm not convinced you can have a reasonable debate when it's possible to 'like' and 'dislike' comments. Whoever is in the minority just ends up getting swamped - it almost becomes a form of public shaming in itself. 

 

 

 

Lusk - on 17 May 2018
In reply to scot1:

> Great article. People have been using this banter excuse for bullying for too long. Banter is often about power, usually between working class blokes on building sites. If the banteree asks the banterer to stop and he/she doesn't then it is bullying. Kinder can't use the 'she promotes herself too much' excuse because he's a master of that himself. I think he was just jelly or maybe fancies her.


You haven't got a clue about what a bit of 'banter' is amongst a group of 'Working Class' men.
Go back to your bitching over your office latte breaks.

Dan-Cheetham - on 17 May 2018

I can’t think of anything I find more unpleasant than bullying. Like most people I’ve experienced the misery which comes with that several times throughout life. I’ve logged into UKC a few times over the past week and have been happy to see they hadn’t reported on this story. Until now. I feel incredibly uncomfortable about this article and it’s content, and a bit like one of the posters above uncomfortable about posting about it. Maybe it’s natural assumption of ‘moral high ground’ the intellectualusation and language used in this piece and others that leaves anyone making anything other than an agreeable response in a ‘double bind’. The (Rob’s) interpretation of stp’s unconcious beliefs being a good example of this. I can’t see how publishing this article can create anything other than more misery, particularly for Joe Kinder. 

 

sheavi07 - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Brendan:

The Jon Ronson article is certainly worth a read.

Michael Gordon - on 17 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

> See above (brief) explanation of the term misogyny. Both women and men are capable of holding misogynist attitudes.

I'm sure they are, but that's not my reading of the term. As others have said, you seem to be using quite an extreme word to describe what is really more just gender cultures. Fair enough, but that isn't misogyny. And I'd like to think the Trump example too explicit for the American public to accept as simply being an example of gender norms. Presumably most found what he said objectionable, but were won over by other issues (hence stupidity).  

WVRox - on 17 May 2018
In reply to UKC Articles:

Why are we giving this squabble oxygen?

Scarecely believable that there is an online discussion about a fairly ‘intellectually’ written piece about some bloke being rude and offensive to some girl, then appologising when he realised it could cost him. 

Robert Durran - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Dan-Cheetham:

> I can’t think of anything I find more unpleasant than bullying................ I can’t see how publishing this article can create anything other than more misery, particularly for Joe Kinder. 

Sorry, I'm not clear whether you see Kinder as the bully or the victim (or both).

 

Misha - on 18 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

I think that’s a bit too scientific for a UKC discussion, my head hurts!

Misha - on 18 May 2018
In reply to stp:

Putting sexism / mysogyny to one side (it really isn’t the key point here), I think you’re ignoring a few facts.

1. Two people accused him of bullying, so it’s two people’s word against one for starters.

2. The screenshot posted is clearly evidence of bullying, insulting and inappropriate behaviour.

3. He himself admitted that he was being a bully.

I can’t see how there can be much doubt over the facts of the situation.

 

 

Post edited at 00:35
Lusk - on 18 May 2018
In reply to Misha:

I usually find rubbing the chin bristle, moving the lips around and wobbling the head from side to side gives a good impression that you agree but disguises the fact that you think they're full of shit.

Misha - on 18 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Sorry you lost me there!

Si dH - on 18 May 2018
In reply to Misha:

> Putting sexism / mysogyny to one side (it really isn’t the key point here), 

A couple of people have said this now. I disagree. I think the whole topic is an example of a result of a mysogynistic culture, whether or not Kinder had any real negative intent, and it sets a poor example to people who look(ed) up to him. I do agree that from the evidence, he appeared to be bullying, but if it wasn't for the mysogynistic context, the whole topic would not be significant to anyone other than the two/three protagonists and close friends. It's the only thing that makes the whole 'spat' important to the wider world.

I think its important that his sponsors are seen to not support his behaviour. If he rehabilitates himself and shows contrition over a period of time, maybe they'll change their mind.

Post edited at 06:18
Michael Gordon - on 18 May 2018
In reply to Si dH:

Again I think folk are going over the top with these terms. A society-wide culture of sexism? Maybe. A society-wide culture of misogyny? No. Unless we say that most people are misogynistic, which doesn't ring true, without completely changing the meaning of the term. 

Howard J - on 18 May 2018
In reply to penny.orr:

> The way I'm using 'misogyny', it is not an individual psychological characteristic that particular men have. Rather, it is "a social and political phenomenon with psychological, structural, and institutional manifestations" (Manne, 2018). The 'misogynist social environment' refers to the society-wide context/environment in which we all exist and act, one in which all women are disadvantaged to some degree. 

That's not how you've defined it in your article though, where you've quoted the standard dictionary definition "contempt for, hatred of, or prejudice towards women", and that's how most people here are intepreting it.

As for banter, that is not just for working class men on building sites, it is the usual form of male expression.  Perhaps because we are poor at expressing our feelings, especially to our mates, we resort to insults.  The worst insults are reserved for our best friends, and taking the piss is at the heart of male bonding. However if you are going to communicate in this fashion it is very important that the other person understands the game and is willing to participate on the same terms.  Perhaps women don't communicate in the same way, and maybe they more inclined to take this sort of behaviour at face value rather than see the intended meaning that lies beneath. 

Of course sometimes it can be used as an excuse for bullying, and it's difficult to dismiss Kinder's behaviour as 'banter' or 'humour', it seems a deliberate attempt to belittle.  What people like him seem to fail to understand is that the sort of behaviour which may pass with your mates and even be admired by other 'skater-kid punks' will not do for a professional athlete who is being paid to promote his sponsors' image.  Professionalism goes beyond pocketing the money, it requires a change of behaviour - growing up, in short.

 

Robert Durran - on 18 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> I hear young male climbers call each other "pussies" for not trying hard enough.

It would never have occurred to me that that is sexist. I imagine you suppose it refers to female genitalia, but I can't see how that could relate to timidity. Doesn't it just mean the same as "big pussy cat" - someone who would rather take it easy like a domestic cat?

Post edited at 13:54
TobyA on 18 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

So perhaps Trump was saying on the Access Hollywood tape that he was so famous that he could go around grabbing women by their domestic pets? Puts a whole new spin on it doesn't it! You could probably get a job on the Whitehouse Comms team with that one.

Do you insist that gay really just means happy?

LeeWood - on 18 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

You should have checked this 1st !!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy

Meanings of the verb relate to the common noun senses, including "to act like a cat", "to act like a coward",

Yanis Nayu - on 18 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It would never have occurred to me that that is sexist. I imagine you suppose it refers to female genitalia, but I can't see how that could relate to timidity. Doesn't it just mean the same as "big pussy cat" - someone who would rather take it easy like a domestic cat?

I agree. 

Robert Durran - on 18 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> So perhaps Trump was saying on the Access Hollywood tape that he was so famous that he could go around grabbing women by their domestic pets?

Of course not. It's all about context. If I looked out the window and said there was a pussy in the garden would you assume I was saying there were some female genitalia visible?

> Puts a whole new spin on it doesn't it!

No.

> Do you insist that gay really just means happy?

Of course not. It can mean happy or homosexual depending on the context.

I really don't think calling someone a pussy (or a scaredy cat) if they are being timid in their climbing is offensive, let alone in a sexist way (I was a complete pussy myself last weekend). On the other hand calling someone gay because they are timid in their climbing is clearly homophobic.

 

 

Post edited at 18:55
TobyA on 18 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If I looked out the window and said there was a pussy in the garden would you assume I was saying there were some female genitalia visible?

The use of pussy as derogatory term for vagina is so prevalent in contemporary culture, that I don't think I would refer to a cat as a "pussy" because it frankly sounds a bit silly. Just like there aren't many Richards around now who would use Dick for a shortening - that ship has sailed. I'm not sure if you are actually that naive or being deliberately naive.

I've heard non native English speakers use the word pussy as an insult of emasculation, believe me, they are not thinking "scaredy cat", I've NEVER in my life heard a woman called a "pussy" in terms of bravery or lack of athletic prowess, because the word is about emasculation, like calling a man or boy "a big girls blouse" or a "big pink skipping rope". While those might seem silly or even a bit funny, those terms (along with the use of homophobic terms to suggest a man lacks masculinity) I think make Penny's point perfectly about the culture we are surrounded by.

Robert Durran - on 18 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> The use of pussy as derogatory term for vagina is so prevalent in contemporary culture, that I don't think I would refer to a cat as a "pussy" because it frankly sounds a bit silly.

If we were talking about the C word then you would certainly have a point, but, quite frankly, I don't even think it's derogatory - more endearing and affectionate like "Willy".

> .......that I don't think I would refer to a cat as a "pussy" because it frankly sounds a bit silly.

Oh come on, little children talk about pussies just like they talk about bunnies - it is normal, endearing and and utterly harmless. I use it myself; I really don't think anyone could seriously get offended by that unless they are sadly wasting their lives actively looking for ways to be offended.

> Just like there aren't many Richards around now who would use Dick for a shortening.

Plenty of Willams happily get callled Willy, which, as I said, is a much better comparison. And I really don't see a problem with Dick either which I would probably compare to Fanny - perhaps just understandably old fashioned.

> I'm not sure if you are actually that naive or being deliberately naive.

Neither. I genuinely think you are mistaken.

> I've NEVER in my life heard a woman called a "pussy" in terms of bravery or lack of athletic prowess, because the word is about emasculation, like calling a man or boy "a big girls blouse" or a "big pink skipping rope".

I wouldn't call another climber (of either sex) a pussy (or indeed a scaredy cat) unless I knew them, but between acquaintances I just don't think it's an issue; as I said I think it is just affectionate, perhaps like "big softy" and, unlike your other examples, nothing to do with emasculation - you are just choosing to read something into it which I simply think isn't there.

I am entirely with you in opposing this so called "misogynistic" culture (though I do agree with others that, in common parlance, that is too strong a word and much prefer "sexist"), but I really think that objecting to "pussy" in this context is probably counterproductive; the sort of thing which risks giving this opposition a bad name.

Post edited at 22:32
r0x0r.wolfo - on 19 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

I'm not sure if I buy your 'afraid genitals' route of etymology but I could be wrong. To be honest, no one who says pussy in that scaredy cat type way is necessary thinking of genitals either. They are probably just thinking "pussy".

Whether or not something is sexist depends on the intent and not the derivation from dangly bits or a hole of some sort. Dickhead, arsewipe, prick, tw*t, shitface, c*nt, cock and knob are pretty generic insults, that are used simply because these things are taboo to show or talk about in public. 

 

Post edited at 00:17
Paz - on 19 May 2018
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Words can have baggage.  Regardless of what the speaker or writer intends.  To ignore the baggage is to be at best a clumsy insensitive ignoramus.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 19 May 2018
In reply to Paz:

In some contexts, yes and there's a correlation between certain language and certain opinions. However even words with baggage can be disempowered and re-purposed to mean something else and used in good faith. Ignorance isn't always unreasonable and you can easily find yourself using a word which has a alternative meaning without realising it so intent is crucial again here. 

Paz - on 19 May 2018
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

You're right, and when you use terms face to face, even the N-word in Brooklyn as a white guy, you'll probably get away with it, it's generally cool.  But on the internet?  Not so much.

The line is crossed when you use a term as a derogatory remark.  I personally think (outside of intimate pillow talk - different rules - communicate with your partner) the word 'Pussy' is always derogatory, even if used to describe a furry.  I don't think anyone from the LGBT community has tried to reclaim it, or self- identifies as one.  

Personally I do regard Cowardice as a virtue, (climbing failure excuse #654) but let me reinstate, no group has claimed 'Pussy' as a positive term of empowerment.

It's down to the disparaged communities to re-own formerly derogatory terms, as they see fit, on their terms. 

I myself constantly use Gringo as a term of white empoweremnet, but you know me, I find it funny, and I'm constantly drifting off into a fantasies with a Sergio Leone soundtrack anyway.

Robert Durran - on 19 May 2018
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> To be honest, no one who says pussy in that scaredy cat type way is necessaily thinking of genitals either. They are probably just thinking "pussy".

Yes, I can honestly say that, when using or hearing the term "pussy" in the scaredy cat sense, a connection with or the idea of female genitalia has never once entered my head. No more than the idea of male genitalia when talking about "knobbly" rock.

 

Robert Durran - on 19 May 2018
In reply to Paz:

> Words can have baggage.  Regardless of what the speaker or writer intends.  To ignore the baggage is to be at best a clumsy insensitive ignoramus.

I think that whether or not the female genitalia version of the "word" pussy has baggage is irrelevant here because I believe we are talking about the cat version.

 

 

Robert Durran - on 19 May 2018
In reply to Paz:

> The line is crossed when you use a term as a derogatory remark.  I personally think the word 'Pussy' is always derogatory, even if used to describe a furry.

Are you serious? Are children to be rebuked for talking about pussy cats? Absurd!

> I don't think anyone from the LGBT community has tried to reclaim it, or self- identifies as one.  

Eh? I thought we were talking about supposed sexism, not homophobia!

> It's down to the disparaged communities to re-own formerly derogatory terms, as they see fit, on their terms. 

Well I hereby reclaim the word "pussy" on behalf of the cat loving community everywhere

 

Post edited at 07:16
Goucho on 19 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I can honestly say that, when using or hearing the term "pussy" in the scaredy cat sense, a connection with or the idea of female genitalia has never once entered my head. No more than the idea of male genitalia when talking about "knobbly" rock.

When Mrs G calls me a big cock, prick or knob, she is not referring to my genitalia

However, the use of the term 'pussy' - along with 'big girls blouse' - when referring to timidity, probably has its origins based on women being seen by men, as the weaker sex. So ultimately, it can be seen as a derogatory, sexist and mysogynistic term.

How people see this, depends on both the circumstances and intent.

There are times when I can use the term 'pussy' to Mrs G, and it is well received, there are other times when I'd get my teeth kicked down my throat

I suppose it's all down to context.

 

 

LeeWood - on 19 May 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Extreme freudian confusion here ;)  … my mother used to amuse me with this as a kid : 

I know a little pussy, her coat is silver grey;

She lives down in the meadow, not very far away,

Although she is a pussy, she'll never be a cat,

For she's a pussy willow, now what d'ya think of that ?

Miaow, miaow, miaow, miaow, miaow, miaow, miaow, scat!

Post edited at 07:56
stp - on 19 May 2018
In reply to Ramon Marin:

> "Was it really bullying? We don't know."

> I'm pretty sure I know what bullying is. So you are saying Sasha is lying right?

No I'm not saying she is lying. You need to stop thinking in black and white. I think a discussion about what bullying actually is in an online context is probably worthwhile and interesting.

Certainly before the internet bullying implies a power imbalance. In the real world context the small scrawny school kid can't bully the muscular kid who's twice their size. It often means to force someone to do something against their wishes. For instance a school bully might force another child to hand over their dinner money.

Now we're trying to use the same word in a completely different context. Online physical size, strength etc. has no value.

 

> Kinder called her fat in public, when he knew she was vulnerable, and did it again after her messaging him to stop. If that's not bullying I'm not sure what is.

To me calling people names, however rude and unpleasant, is not bullying. There is no necessary power imbalance and their is no intent to force the person to do something against their wishes. In fact the person being made fun of is perfectly free to ignore the offensive material entirely by simply not following that particular Instagram account. Alternatively the person being made fun of is also free to mock the other person back if they so wish. In the real world sense that's not possible. The scrawny little kid can't fight back against the big strong kid.

So if there's is no coercion and nothing that spills over into the persons real life is it really bullying? When the computer is switched off the person's life carries on exactly the same. I also think the use of fear is an essential component of bullying too.

Now I'm not arguing that bullying on the internet cannot happen but I don't think name calling is it. However if online stuff affects someone's real world life, like they end losing their career, then maybe the term would apply.

 

So there, what I think of bullying is completely different to you. Maybe SDG has a wider definition like you. If so she's not lying. She's just using the word in a different way, or I would argue in the wrong way. To me it would be hyperbole. But, as I've said repeatedly I, like everyone else, is completely in the dark regarding the other messages so I'm not in a position to judge.

 

TobyA on 19 May 2018
In reply to stp:

Again I think that's a desperately naive view of bullying in the modern world. I teach, and almost all problems of bullying between the kids are either wholly online or partially online. And that's just the stuff schools get to hear about, normally when parents and quite possibly outside agencies like police or social services get involved. The results of bullying that I know of like this (in what you are saying isn't in the "real world sense") have been self harm, mental health issues and suicide attempts.

It's interesting but I've known you for what seems like well over a decade now for your thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions on UKC - but I still have no idea of who you are beside stp, the dude with gasmask profile pic. I don't know if stp are your initials, a joke with your friends or something totally different - and by the way I've got absolutely no problem with that - but you seem to be very conscious of protecting your offline identity from your online contributions. That just seems quite at odds with what you've described above as online abuse not being real bullying.

Dogwatch - on 19 May 2018

"When the computer is switched off the person's life carries on exactly the same."

It really doesn't. The stress induces by online bullying does carry over into "real life".

stp - on 19 May 2018
In reply to Misha:

> Putting sexism / mysogyny to one side (it really isn’t the key point here), I think you’re ignoring a few facts.

> 1. Two people accused him of bullying, so it’s two people’s word against one for starters.

Most people will say that God exists but that doesn't make it true. Statistically it's irrelevant. Also it's obvious he chosen, wisely IMO, not to debate the issue in the public arena.

 

> 2. The screenshot posted is clearly evidence of bullying, insulting and inappropriate behaviour.

The screenshot is posted entirely without context. As such it's meaning could be interpreted in a number of different ways.

 

> 3. He himself admitted that he was being a bully.

He said he doesn't want to be connected with bullying. I'm sure you and I would say the same, as could everyone. He admitted to offending someone - which is really no big deal at all since people can get offended by all sorts of stuff. And he admits he made memes and jokes poking fun at people (just like the Choss Collective) and that he went overboard. To me this sounds no worse than what some professional comedians do for a living.

Interestingly the very first reply currently says: "everyone is way too sensitive. Besides it's obvious that was a joke". So clearly not everyone sees this the same way as you.

 

Robert Durran - on 21:00 Sat
In reply to Goucho:

> However, the use of the term 'pussy' - along with 'big girls blouse' - when referring to timidity, probably has its origins based on women being seen by men, as the weaker sex. So ultimately, it can be seen as a derogatory, sexist and mysogynistic term.

But it has, quite obviously, nothing at all to do with women at all. "Pussy" is clearly being used in the utterly commonplace and totally inoffensive "cat" sense - indeed, it is interchangeable with "pussycat" in this context. So I fail to see how it could in any way be construed as derogatory, sexist or misogynistic. It is just a friendly, really quite endearing, way of saying someone, man or woman, is being a bit timid. People seem to be looking for a problem and offence which really isn't there.

And once again I was a bit of a pussy on the crag today.............

 

FactorXXX - on 21:04 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> And once again I was a bit of a pussy on the crag today.............

Fannying about again?

 

Robert Durran - on 21:17 Sat
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Fannying about again?

Before replying, I googled to get some idea of whether that phrase is considered offensive, misogynistic or whatever. To my surprise (because I know of no harmless homonym as in "pussy(cat)", apart from the American meaning of "bum") it appears not to be so!

So, anyway, yes:  much up and down, much gear in and gear out...........

Post edited at 21:18
TobyA on 22:41 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

It really really isn't Rob, but I truly respect your gameness at doing your best to live in a world where pussy just refers to cuddly cats! I suspect you are a jolly nice person, just watch out for anyone trying to sell you a bridge in the nation's capital!

Robert Durran - on 22:58 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

> It really really isn't Rob, but I truly respect your gameness at doing your best to live in a world where pussy just refers to cuddly cats!

FFS! I am, as I said earlier, totally aware that the word "pussy" can mean "cat" or "female genitalia" in different contexts. Just as "gay" can mean "happy" or "homosexual" or "tit" can mean "breast" or a type of small bird.

> I suspect you are a jolly nice person........

And I know (not just suspect) that you area intelligent person, so why do you persist in apparently refusing to recognise that a word can mean different things in different contexts (or, to put it another way, two different words can have the same spelling). I am honestly baffled by this - dare I say it, but you might, to some, be coming across as a bit dim!

> Just watch out for anyone trying to sell you a bridge in the nation's capital!

Lost me there!

Edit: It wasn't me who "disliked" your last post - I never, ever use the "dislike" button on principle since I believe it's existence discourages good discussion.

Post edited at 23:03
Yanis Nayu - on 23:11 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

Can’t you just admit you’re wrong for Christ’s sake? 

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23:26 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It would never have occurred to me that that is sexist. I imagine you suppose it refers to female genitalia, but I can't see how that could relate to timidity. Doesn't it just mean the same as "big pussy cat" - someone who would rather take it easy like a domestic cat?

It would be an odd choice of animal to reference in this context, given that cats are excellent climbers (though I suppose you could ask, what have they done on grit...?)

 

it never occurred to me that anyone would have taken it to mean other than a reference to female genitalia. I can’t imagine anyone over the age of 8 using it to refer to cats; even 4 decades ago it was a mainstream term in the genitalia context, from pussy galore to mrs slocombe’s pussy (well that was actually a cat, but that was the joke...)

Post edited at 23:27
Robert Durran - on 23:43 Sat
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> it never occurred to me that anyone would have taken it to mean other than a reference to female genitalia. I can’t imagine anyone over the age of 8 using it to refer to cats.

Well I do and I'm 54. And even if it is mainly used by children to refer directly to cats, that does not mean it can't be used in the "timid" cat sense by adults.

> Even 4 decades ago it was a mainstream term in the genitalia context.........

Yes. So? Why do I have to keep repeating that I am fully aware of that meaning FFS!

> .........from pussy galore to mrs slocombe’s pussy (well that was actually a cat, but that was the joke...).

I presume that you are conceding that the word can have two different meanings by pointing out that this provides scope for amusing double entendres.

 

Post edited at 23:46
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 00:03 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, indeed-  but even 40 years ago the point of the mrs slocombe pussy joke was that it was incongruous for an adult to use it in the cat sense, and to be seemingly unaware of the alternative use, which all her colleagues immediately defaulted to. 

 

And the reason I find the ‘timid like a cat’ explanation so unconvincing it that it doesn’t square with my experience of cats- vicious balls of teeth and claws that fight noisy turf wars with each other at night in our garden... if I was trying to choose an animal to serve as a shorthand for lacking in courage, a cat is definitely not the one that would come to mind...! And with their retractable claws, excellent climbers- seriously, I can’t think of a worse animal to compare someone  to to try to suggest they were a timid climber...

Robert Durran - on 00:39 Sun
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> And the reason I find the ‘timid like a cat’ explanation so unconvincing it that it doesn’t square with my experience of cats- vicious balls of teeth and claws that fight noisy turf wars with each other at night in our garden.

When I hear the term "pussy" in this "timid" sense it conjures up the slightly slothful domestic cat, content to settle for the easy life by the fire.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 00:58 Sun
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Yes, indeed-  but even 40 years ago the point of the mrs slocombe pussy joke was that it was incongruous for an adult to use it in the cat sense, and to be seemingly unaware of the alternative use, which all her colleagues immediately defaulted to. 

> And the reason I find the ‘timid like a cat’ explanation so unconvincing it that it doesn’t square with my experience of cats- vicious balls of teeth and claws that fight noisy turf wars with each other at night in our garden... if I was trying to choose an animal to serve as a shorthand for lacking in courage, a cat is definitely not the one that would come to mind...! And with their retractable claws, excellent climbers- seriously, I can’t think of a worse animal to compare someone to to try to suggest they were a timid climber...

Cats are weird, I've definitely seen cats do some brave stuff I wouldn't dream of doing, but I've also seen cats get spooked by their own tail. 

So I can bend my brain around the concept of a fraidy cat, but I've never associated women with being afraid or timid at all. It may be obvious to some on here that pussy is a reference to a female disposition of some sort it's but never occurred to me before. 

Post edited at 00:59
FactorXXX - on 02:11 Sun
In reply to TobyA:

> It really really isn't Rob, but I truly respect your gameness at doing your best to live in a world where pussy just refers to cuddly cats! I suspect you are a jolly nice person, just watch out for anyone trying to sell you a bridge in the nation's capital!

Stop being such a cock!
It's perfectly possible for words to have two or more meanings.
In the case of 'Pussy', it can obviously refer to the female genitalia directly or indirectly.
However, it can also refer to people who are timid, or act timidly, etc. 
Most intelligent people should be able to differentiate between the two usages - the context should make it clear. 
Surely you can see that?     

Robert Durran - on 07:55 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> In the case of 'Pussy', it can obviously refer to the female genitalia directly or indirectly.

> However, it can also refer to people who are timid, or act timidly, etc.

Sorry, but I think you are missing the point here. We all know it can refer to timidity. The difference of opinion is whether "pussy" in this usage refers inoffensively to the cat meaning or offensively/misogynisistically to the genitalia meaning.

Robert Durran - on 08:02 Sun
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I can’t think of a worse animal to compare someone  to to try to suggest they were a timid climber...

But cats sometimes spend ages dithering over commiting to a leap - I think this has direct parallels to timidity in climbing. There are some amusing youtube compilations!

 

galpinos on 08:03 Sun
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I’m not quite sure why, but cats are often used to signify cowardice/lack of courage, hence the use scaredy-cat and pussycat. You must have used the phrase scaredy-cat as a child?

I would imagine that pussy is a shortened version of pussycat so was originally used in the cat sense but as the other meaning/use of the word has become more prevalent it could be perceived as misogynistic.

LeeWood - on 08:39 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Stop being such a cock!

> It's perfectly possible for words to have two or more meanings.

:D

Andy Gamisou - on 08:42 Sun
In reply to galpinos:

> I’m not quite sure why, but cats are often used to signify cowardice/lack of courage

Not sure why this would be either. Our 3 kg moggy is more than happy to have a go at our 35 kg German shepherd pooch, or to take on scarily large (and rather venomous) vipers.  There's quite a few YouTube videos of domestic cats having a go (often successfully) at all manners of bigger beasties (including at least one driving off a crocodile).  Cats are basically mini psychopaths, so why they have become synonymous with cowardice is beyond me.

 

Post edited at 08:42
1poundSOCKS - on 09:22 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

This seems to support you Robert...

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=24012

"The idea that the "weakling" sense of pussy should be treated as a taboo word because of a connection to the slang term for female genitals seems to be almost as historically incorrect as the pusillanimous ? pussy theory."

TobyA on 20:24 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

> so why do you persist in apparently refusing to recognise that a word can mean different things in different contexts

I don't, I agree. But like I said the main meaning for certain words change - almost no one use "gay" to mean anything other than homosexual now, and pussy is the same - PARTICULARLY when it is used by a man to belittle the efforts or the bravery of another man. The fact that it isn't commonly used shows this, it's vulgar - most people understand that ultimately its use in that way is derogatory to women. The fact that I at least have never heard a woman called "a pussy" when they have failed on something also suggests this.

I agree the context is everything - if a drunk man on a dark street yells faggot at you, would you agree he is not calling you a bundle of sticks?

I totally wussed out of pulling through the crux of a route today, even though there were OK runners and it is (in the book at least!) a grade I'm normally comfortable on. I belayed just below on the ledge and brought Dave up to 'send' because he's quite good. I'm happy to describe myself as a wuss, a chicken, a coward, yellow, or just plain old "crap" but if Dave had called me a "pussy" for failing, I would be a bit offended - not because I'm not a wuss - but because I find it a bit offensive, just like kids who still occasionally describe something a bit rubbish as "gay". And Dave wouldn't say that anyway, because he's a gent.

Anyway, you think I'm wrong, I'm certain you're wrong so I guess we can leave it at that! I accept your view, and would just ask you in return to consider that if you use the word "pussy" as a synonym for wuss, some people might find it a bit rude because they don't think scaredy-cat.

Dislike or like away (or don't either way - my normal position too), I don't mind in the slightest! 

 

 

TobyA on 20:37 Sun
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Interesting - although I agree with a lot of the commenters, the derivation isn't actually that important and I wouldn't dispute it but the contemporary meaning is clear.

I had forgotten that Lexicon Valley had done an episode on the word pussy (linked in the comments). I'm going to have to re-listen to it now. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2015/11/pussy_the_etymology_and_history_of_a_cat_a_coward_and_female_genitalia.html

Anyway, enough on this - it is linked quite closely to the points Penny makes in her original article, but it is a, albeit quite interesting, side-road.

FactorXXX - on 20:52 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Sorry, but I think you are missing the point here. We all know it can refer to timidity. The difference of opinion is whether "pussy" in this usage refers inoffensively to the cat meaning or offensively/misogynisistically to the genitalia meaning.

Fair enough and point taken.
I would side with you and say that the origin of the word in this context is more likely to be feline than pudenda.
However, does it really matter?  If a particular usage of a word has evolved enough to totally distance it from it's original meaning, then isn't it to all intents and purposes a different word?
Using 'Pussy' as an example. If someone called me a 'Pussy', I would automatically think that they are calling me a 'Wuss', etc. and wouldn't connect that with either cats or female genitalia. 
I think people trying to connect it with the latter and making a fuss about it are basically going out of their way to be offended.
 

Robert Durran - on 22:15 Sun
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't, I agree. But like I said the main meaning for certain words change - almost no one use "gay" to mean anything other than homosexual now, and pussy is the same.

I disagree. Every child knows and uses the word pussy or pussycat and and so do many adults. I really do think that the genitalia meaning is a bit of an add on (I can only rarely recall actually hearing this usage) and when I hear the word it is a cat that immediately springs to mind. So I think it is quite unlike "gay" where the common meaning is now "homosexual". I suppose it would be interesting to do a survey on what people' first image is on hearing the word - I would like to bet that it would overwhelmingly be a cat.

> The fact that it isn't commonly used shows this, it's vulgar.

Is it really that vulgar?  I might even go as far as to say it is barely vulgar at all - as I said earlier I would put it about equivalent to the very mild "Willy", certainly less vulgar than "fanny" and "tw*t", which might roughly correspond to "dick" and "prick".

Post edited at 22:17
TobyA on 22:25 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

Maybe don't keep googling the word if you are on a work computer, someone in the IT dept. might think of it more like I do! ;-)

TobyA on 23:17 Sun
In reply to Robert Durran:

Rob, you have to give this 25 minutes of your time http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2015/11/pussy_the_etymology_and_history_of_a_cat_a_coward_and_female_genitalia.html its sums up this argument perfectly with their not really being a neat answer!

Robert Durran - on 23:19 Sun
In reply to TobyA:

> Rob, you have to give this 25 minutes of your time http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2015/11/pussy_the_etymology_and_history_of_a_cat_a_coward_and_female_genitalia.html its sums up this argument perfectly with their not really being a neat answer!

Half way through it already............ fascinating.

Post edited at 23:20
Robert Durran - on 00:35 Mon

Well, interestingly he defended its use by saying that by long repeated usage in the "timid" sense it has become divorced from its sexual origins. But they did not really discuss the direct "scaredy cat" or "big pussycat" meaning which I found surprising having introduced the "cat" meaning earlier.

Dauphin on 02:11 Mon
In reply to UKC Articles:

There was time when bullying ment getting smacked in the face everyday at school, after school and before school if you didn't make up some excuse to be late. Now it's posting unflattering Instagram pictures in order to troll your team mates.

We just lost cabin pressure. 

D.

Michael Gordon - on 07:20 Mon
In reply to Dauphin:

I'm guessing that the online stuff affects how other children act towards the 'victim' while at school. Otherwise, yes, it's hard to see how it could have an effect.

Robert Durran - on 09:01 Mon
In reply to TobyA:

> If you use the word "pussy" as a synonym for wuss, some people might find it a bit rude because they don't think scaredy-cat.

I would have assumed that wuss was a variant of pussy and a quick google suggests that the word indeed arose in the 1980s as a combination of "wimp" and "puss", so, if "pussy" is offensive, then presumably "wuss" should be too.

One final (maybe!) point. Presumably, if you think it's got nothing to do with the scaredy-cat thing, then you would deny that the two statements "I'm a bit of a pussy  in my climbing" and "I'm a bit of a pussycat in my climbing" are not equivalent - I think that you would have trouble explaining that way!

Robert Durran - on 09:03 Mon
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I'm guessing that the online stuff affects how other children act towards the 'victim' while at school. Otherwise, yes, it's hard to see how it could have an effect.

Cyberbullying is considered particularly nasty in schools because, unlike direct name calling or even physical bullying, children have no escape from it even at home - it invades their whole life.

Michael Gordon - on 16:50 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Cyberbullying is considered particularly nasty in schools because, unlike direct name calling or even physical bullying, children have no escape from it even at home - it invades their whole life.

But in comparison to other forms of bullying, there is the option of not visiting the social media sites in which it takes place, no? This is different to bullying in person where the only way to avoid it could be not to go to school.

Robert Durran - on 16:59 Mon
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> But in comparison to other forms of bullying, there is the option of not visiting the social media sites in which it takes place, no? This is different to bullying in person where the only way to avoid it could be not to go to school.

I think you may underestimate the extent to which today's teenagers live their lives online - forcing them to avoid social media would amount to bullying by ostracisation. It is all a major issue.

TobyA on 21:43 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

Totally agree Robert. I've seen a sort of bullying (or at least ostracisation like you say) of kids being pushed out of Whatsapp groups, snapchat groups etc. Many kids social world are half in day to day at school, with neighbours etc. and half on social media often with the same people. It might seem crazy for those not in regular contact with secondary school aged kids, but that's how the world works for them.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.