[moose]

Did someone abuse you with a thesaurus when you were little, or have you recently eaten one?

I deeply regret any discomfiture my sesquipedalian, nay logorrheic, ways may have caused you.  Next time we meet, I will strive to express myself in a more laconic, monosyllabic if you prefer, manner. Ugg?! 

[Stu Littlefair]

I do thank you all for your efforts on Sunday. Moose - maybe the hat would help, if it had jangly bells on.

[moose]

Anything for the birds'-nest excavator-in-chief.  I'll make doubly sure by getting a hat with both jangly bells AND a propeller on top - no sense in taking any silly chances (though it might be a struggle to find one in the office Arco catalogue).

[duncan]

Dear Diary
15 September 2014, 2:09 pm

However, I did get to watch super-slo-mo videos of people re-creating volcanic explosions in the lab. Those guys are in the right job.

Source: The Spherical Cow

Something like this? My dream job as a 13 year old. It's a shame I was too thick to stay with physics.

[Stu Littlefair]

That's exactly the stuff Duncan. Such a cool thing to work on...

[comPiler]

Unsolicited thoughts on women in climbing - part I
17 September 2014, 5:27 pm

So, on September the 27th, the women's climbing symposium will be held in Glasgow. Let me be frank. When I first heard about the women's climbing symposium I thought it was a really bad idea. Nowadays I'm not so sure. It's certainly true that women climbers face different issues to men, and this is an oft-used justification for women-only events. The issue I have with this is that too often this makes assumptions about whose fault it is that women face those issues. In a recent, and very inspiring blog post, Hazel Findlay puts it better than I can, discussing a time she let a male climber dissuade her from an onsight attempt:

"Although I was psyched to send my hardest route, I was annoyed that I had been discouraged from trying to flash it. Of course, it wasn’t Sean’s fault; it was my fault.

The reason this send was so important to me wasn’t because I don’t believe in rehearsing routes first. It isn’t even to do with what male climbers expect from the average girl at the crag. It has to do with self-belief. I know how well I can climb a lot better than a random guy I met two days ago. So why did I trust his judgment and not my own?"

Let's call this point of view the deficit model. In the deficit model, the issues women face when they climb is their own fault. Find all-male groups intimidating? Have a male partner who assumes you won't want to lead? Then man the fuck up and do something about it.

The phrase in italics highlights the problem with the deficit model. It views male behaviour as the norm, and forcefully suggests that women alter their behaviour to be more like men. Obviously, there are alternative points of view. One point of view is that if you do have a male partner who doesn't let you lead, then that guy is a dick, and he needs his world view adjusting. Preferably with a swift kick in the balls.

I believe that, for most situations, the issues women climbers face lie somewhere in between the two extremes. My issue with most discussions of women in climbing is not that the issues aren't genuine, or that the deficit model is entirely correct. It's that the deficit model is under discussed, and anyone suggesting that women share responsibility for solving their problems can be met with strong opposition.

Hey - here's an example. Women quite often shy away from power training, because they are afraid of getting arms like Sam Whittaker. Once again, the deficit model says the answer is to man the fuck up. Get over it. After all, it's not impossible to love a climber's physique. In a great blog post on the WCS, Michaela Tracy says:

"I remember hearing about a talk about body image amongst female climbers. This was something I just couldn’t understand at all. I love having big arms and broad shoulders, really I do. For me, having the build of a climber means that I can do what I love - and I get a lot more joy out of that than finding a dress that fits me."

But of course, it's not that easy. Because women face a lot of pressure from society about how they are supposed to look. It's hammered home from a young age. Their Barbie dolls are so ridiculous, if they were real they'd have to walk on all fours. The images they see in magazines are all airbrushed to present impossible ideals of femininity. It takes tremendous self confidence to ignore all this and be proud of your amazing body, and the training that got it that way.

When I first heard about the WCS, I assumed the deficit model would be totally undiscussed. To my mind that would make it actively dangerous - it would promote the idea that women faced special issues for which they shared no responsibility. For example, it would indulge women who found all-male groups to be intimidating, and suggest they climb in all-female groups instead. On the flip-side, a WCS that discussed the deficit model might suggest trying to overcome these fears, which would lead to a more positive, and less self-limiting result.

Of course, I've never been to the WCS, and so it is totally wrong of me to make this assumption. And no-one can deny that there are many many women who face issues that men will never encounter - and these women are whom the WCS is aimed at, and who give it overwhelmingly positive feedback every year. I'm sure that once again it will be a tremendous success, and I wish it all the best. Maybe those of them who I will force to read this blog might like to discuss the issues raised? Oh, and while I'm at it I have something else on my mind, which I'll harp on about in part II...

Source: The Spherical Cow

[comPiler]

Unsolicited thoughts on women in climbing - part II
17 September 2014, 5:55 pm

In the previous post, I annoyed almost everyone for explaining why I thought the women's climbing symposium was a waste of time, and why I think I'm wrong about that. One of the examples I used in that blog post was body image in climbing. It goes without saying that I've been thinking a lot about women's bodies recently, and something struck my mind.

This image is the #1 google hit I get for "professional women surfers". It's from an article about why, to be a top women surfer, you've got to be sexy. Go ahead, spend your lunch break finding pictures of the top 10 women surfers in the world. I promise you won't regret it. They are all hot. And these are the top surfers based on ranking, and not hot-or-not ranking either. What is going on here? And what the hell does it have to do with climbing?

[tr][td][/td][/tr][tr][td]Sisters Ellie-Jean, 18, front, and Holly-Sue Coffey, 16, are both vying for the same spot in the Roxy Pro. Pic by Luke Marsden.[/td][/tr]

[/table]Admit it. At least half of you were betting the next paragraph would mention Sierra Blair-Coyle. Well it does, so give yourself a pat on the back and keep reading. This year I have been watching the IFSC climbing world cup avidly. It's great. The streaming is usually good and the competition has been incredibly impressive. But there are always some duller moments in any competition, and in one of this duller moments the wife and I were having one of those horrifically shallow conversations about who you fancy. It rapidly became apparent that whilst the male competitors were typically attractive (there were maybe two or three that Jules thought passable), that a very large number of the women climbers were blond and really very pretty.

So - I know what you're thinking. This result merely reflects the fact that I am a pervert and a lech. But no! It turns out that Jules also shares my opinion on the attractiveness of top women climbers, and so do the small sample of friends I have dared raise the topic with.  "OK", you respond, "it is just that these are young, athletic women with fine bodies. Isn't it natural that they'll be attractive?". So I spent some time comparing my results with the attractiveness of women in other sports, for example athletics. I did this purely in the interests of scientific rigour, you understand. It turns out that, whilst women athletes are all young, and are obviously in peak physical form, they are just as pretty as the general population. Some are, some aren't.

So climbing, like surfing, seems to have found itself in a situation where most of the top women climbers are quite attractive. How did it get here? In surfing, you could argue that you have to follow the money. Sponsorship money flows easily to those who can sell product, and in the awful male dominated society we have, that means the pretty girls. This doesn't take away from the awesome talent of those at the top, it's just that you have to be an incredible athlete and pretty, which is not something the men have to put up with. Is this happening in climbing? I don't know. I get the impression that sponsorship money is pretty meagre, so maybe it's something more subtle? How would you feel entering your first competition, and all the girls around you were tall and pretty? What if you felt pretty self conscious about your appearance to start with? Would you feel at home? Would you climb your best? Maybe we're caught in a vicious circle, where potential top climbers don't feel at home unless they fit the profile? It's the same argument that's been made many times, in all walks of life to explain why we do not see diversity, even though we arguably have equality. It has been used to explain everything from the glass ceiling, to the lack of women on University Challenge:

"Diversity is looking at outcomes. If there weren’t any women at the Ritz, you might ask whether you were making them feel welcome, as well as whether they had the price of admission."

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I don't know if most will agree with the basic premise of this post. However I do know that I don't want climbing to go the same way as surfing, where a young girl with tremendous talent will choose another sport, because she feels shy competing in her underwear.

Source: The Spherical Cow

[Wood FT]

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I don't know if most will agree with the basic premise of this post. However I do know that I don't want climbing to go the same way as surfing, where a young girl with tremendous talent will choose another sport, because she feels shy competing in her underwear.

Right on

[Nigel]

Roundabout way to say you want to see more girls in their underwear, but you got there in the end.

[Paul B]

Personally, I'm yet to hear a good argument of what issues women face in climbing that don't apply to men. The one that applies only to women (in my mind) is the 'masuclisation' of their body i.e. becoming athletic and being embarrassed/judged about it. I've spent a lot of time climbing with Nat and having posed the question to her, we both agree that there isn't a single example we can identify of something or someone being different to her due to gender.

I expressed this after being asked to like the WCS page and had a significant debate with a few of the people involved which went precisely nowhere.

The main arguments in retort were:
1) well what's the harm? - none that I can see bar splitting an event purely on gender which seems somewhat contradictory but hey ho.
2) some women struggle to be involved with a 'masculine' sport - I couldn't understand or empathise with this at all.

It didn't get much past this.

Fair enough if there are certain aspects of climbing (physiologically speaking) which women differ from men and would benefit from a gender-based approach to this then crack on, but this isn't how it's presented.

If you think men don't get judged on body image (or that they aren't exposed to the same imagery) then you're on crack. I walked into town with two women from my office during the summer who spent the entire time telling me how 'ridiculous' the guy in front of us wearing a vest looked as he had large shoulders (muscular), I have other examples of this .

BTW why does Sean Mccol have a rope draped around his torso in those Mammut adverts?

I'm not sure I believe in what Stu has written above. Perhaps it could be seen to be going that way but I remain unconvinced (I'm more convinced it's a reaction to any heat he's been getting on the topic).

From my memory banks, the people who used to routinely beat me at comps and who have progressed to do many impressive things (from both sexes) are doing equally well. Maybe the women seem to be doing a tad better, but isn't that because they're a tad closer to the world-level they're engaging in (I'm thinking Shauna / Hazel here in this last statement)?

Right, where's the 'burned at the stake' smiley? Good job I'm fleeing to France shortly and won't have time to revisit this thread.
 

[petejh]

Burn the witch.. err I mean wizard.  No that sounds stupid. Witch. See even cliches are sexist.

Couple of thoughts. Where are the female voices on here? It's interesting hearing smart blokes' views on female climbers but I'd like to hear views from the horses's mouth - no no no, shit! - I mean I'd welcome it if more female climbers opined and generally talked shit on here as do us men.

My other thought - WCS, good thing?: tick. Marketing angle: possibly.

[Bonjoy]

It's an interesting question, why the low female climber participation in online discussions, of any sort. Female climbers online presence (with exceptions of course) seems to be confined largely to facebook and a bit of twitter and this is often in some sort of 'official' context, e.g. media items for sponsors. There are no doubt various reasons why this is the case, it would be interesting to know what reasons women gave.

[T_B]

Personally, I'm yet to hear a good argument of what issues women face in climbing that don't apply to men. The one that applies only to women (in my mind) is the 'masuclisation' of their body i.e. becoming athletic and being embarrassed/judged about it.

I would put height in there. Problems at indoor walls are still set mostly by men and flat panels + blobs does mean you are at a disadvantage if you're 5'3. Outside, I remember Lucy Creamer saying years ago that she didn't really get on with grit as so often she was shut down by reach. Generally speaking, being tall in climbing helps. More women than men are short. It's an 'issue' for a lot of women.

[SA Chris]

An "issue" i hear about quite a lot when my partner (in both senses of the word) Is 5ft 2 and I'm 6ft 2.

[abarro81]

Ramon is ex world champ and Napier sets the foundry.. No excuses there.

[T_B]

I'm 6'2, my wife is 5'3 and to be fair, she's not really one to moan about it (she's pretty strong and has very strong fingers). But I climb with her enough and other women where it's obvious that the hold are just too far apart!

[Johnny Brown]

Dawes, Bransby, McHaffie, McClure etc. all lead me to think height is less of an issue than skill. Or maybe power/weight.

[tomtom]

This is all really interesting (worth a thread split mods?) and I wish we had female contributors to this discussion...

I find the idea of 'masculinisation' interesting - but is there also a 'feminisation' of male climbers? E.G. Lithe frames and skinny legs are seen as good physical atrributes for climbers (sometimes enviously looked upon), leggings/lycra (OK that was back in the 80's) and a widespread obsession with weight and diet? (edit - sorry that last point shouldn't really be gender specific.. but it is funny how climbers are obsessed with diet!)

Maybe its just more of an androgyny thing?

Sorry if this is OT or daft - just some thoughts..

[tomtom]

Dawes, Bransby, McHaffie, McClure etc. all lead me to think height is less of an issue than skill. Or maybe power/weight.

I think its really only an issue with indoor wall setting... where the holds are where they are placed etc.. outdoors theres normally more than one way to do something etc...

[T_B]

There's a big difference between being 5'8 and 5'3. Like, er, 5 inches. Apart from the Dawes and Ramon, not many men are 5'3. Whereas a lot of women climbers are around 5'3 with 5'8 actually being quite tall for a woman.
 

[T_B]

Dawes, Bransby, McHaffie, McClure etc. all lead me to think height is less of an issue than skill. Or maybe power/weight.

I think its really only an issue with indoor wall setting... where the holds are where they are placed etc.. outdoors theres normally more than one way to do something etc...

Yeah, says a bloke! Let's hear from the women

[SA Chris]

Woman. I think we only have one on UKB.

[Johnny Brown]

There's a big difference between being 5'8 and 5'3. Like, er, 5 inches.

I guess we midgets all look the same from up there Tom. I'm 5'8". I look down on the aforementioned, who are all 5'6" or less. So 3", not 5". Which is less of a difference than the everyman and the giant, or just me and you. You can argue it's somehow an exponential effect below 5'8", but I think you'd be clutching at straws.

[T_B]

So you're citing 4 of the very best male climbers the UK has ever seen to argue that being short isn't an issue for a lot of short women climbers. Sorry, not convinced! There are always exceptions. Of course, I also buy into the other end of the argument that being tall is a distinct advantage most of the time. Or do you also disagree with that?

[tomtom]

Sorry - I'm having difficulty in hearing you from up here

Point me at some sit starts and laugh at me fail... I'm happy to humiliate myself to make the undersized feel better

Anyway - what about Ashmina?