[Paul B]

I'd like to think that comments from climbers about how muscly a woman looks are not intended pejoratively

I think they almost never are. They may indeed be intended as a complement. It's just a bit insensitive not to realise that most women won't take it that way...

I had this discussion with a female foundry regular after I said she was looking 'quite strong', meaning in the shoulders and as a definite compliment. It took some persuading that his was how it was intended and wasn't a bad thing.

Doesn't this just go back to your summary of Julie's post though?

I'd also say with the rise of cross-fit amongst other things, body image, and what people may try to attain (i.e. that of healthier role models) is changing.

[abarro81]

Stu - those head shots look like they're done pretty pro, so probably so make up peeps, hair peeps, best shot of many, bit of post-processing etc... You'd really need to spend the afternoon googling far more photos of them all to get a more representative idea Even then, photos that you choose to put on the internet - as publicity for a pro athlete - are always going to be the ones you think make you look good.

[Stu Littlefair]

And yet I have never seen you manage it.

[Johnny Brown]

tell me with your hand on your heart that that's an average cross section of sporty women.

No, but a cross-section of surfy women? Maybe. It's not caving. And as Alex points out, there's a lot you can do with long hair, a tan and a tiny headshot.

[abarro81]

And yet I have never seen you manage it.

There's only so much the camera can do..
I think one of those photos you took on LA makes me look good, I just need to do the damn thing now! And you never even offered to touch up my makeup.

[Stu Littlefair]

No, but a cross-section of surfy women? Maybe. It's not caving.

thank you, for making my point for me.

[gme]

Stu its not nonsense at all.

I have seen them at comps in the flesh and i can assure you a majority of them are athleticly built to a point where i would guess the normal womens mags would not put them into print.

All of the top ten other than Sally fitz and perhaps Laura enever would look pretty big next to a majority of girl climbers, built very much in the Jess Ennis mould that was championed by so many. All of them are there because they are the best athletes, yes you can make money from the sport by being a pretty surfer but non of them fall into that category.

[Jaspersharpe]

One of the surfers is called Coco Ho.

[SA Chris]

One of the surfers is called Coco Ho.

She's the one who was filmed surfing in the nud.

[Stu Littlefair]

Stu its not nonsense at all.

I have seen them at comps in the flesh and i can assure you a majority of them are athleticly built to a point where i would guess the normal womens mags would not put them into print.

All of the top ten other than Sally fitz and perhaps Laura enever would look pretty big next to a majority of girl climbers, built very much in the Jess Ennis mould that was championed by so many. All of them are there because they are the best athletes, yes you can make money from the sport by being a pretty surfer but non of them fall into that category.

Gav - maybe we're at cross purposes here. I'm not bothered about their build. They're top athletes, of course they're going to have athletic builds. I'm talking about the fact that they're all pretty. If getting to the top of the women's rankings is all about talent, where are the ugly surfers? There are *plenty* of not terrible attractive female athletes, or tennis players, or gymnasts, or bike riders etc etc. Not so much for surfers.

Then look at surfing's image. Read the quotes in the article I linked. I can tell you with 100% confidence that if, hypothetically, my wife was an enormously talented surfer she would never have competed because of the sport's image.

[Johnny Brown]

Bit harsh on the wife there Stu. With the same makeover etc she wouldn't look out of place. Photography innit.

[Jaspersharpe]

Exactly. They've all had the same makeover to try to create the same image. I would in no way agree that they are all pretty (which is subjective anyway) I'd agree that they've all been made to look as similar as possible in those particular photos.

[a dense loner]

What a random set of dogs

[Stu Littlefair]

Bonjoy? Never mind, it's gone now. Didn't get that at all...

I've been corrected by Jules anyway. She says she would compete, but wouldn't seek sponsorship. I still count this as a win since she wouldn't be able to surf full time, so she'd be shit.

And JB, you fart-knobbler, I'm not suggesting Jules isn't pretty enough! Just that she wouldn't be comfortable in that scene.

High-standards dense. I'm surprised a man with your face can afford them.

I guess you just don't see what I see in surfing. Why not ask your female friends what they think?

[Johnny Brown]

Hah! The sponsors would seek her out anyway, you really should give her a bit more credit.

As Gav keeps pointing out, they might not look so amazing in reality. Stick them in PVC overalls, smear some mud on their faces and they might pass for a caver.

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy? Never mind, it's gone now. Didn't get that at all...

It was Greg Mitchell the sandy coloured labrador off one of the old Vic Reeves things. He had a certain catchphrase. Watch one on youtube you'll get what I was saying. Deleted it as I thought it might be misunderstood.

[Jaspersharpe]

 

[Stu Littlefair]

Thanks Bonjoy. 

[a dense loner]

Stu I've inferred from that that you think I'm ugly? How could you I'm shattered. I can't believe five ten dropped Ryan in their cull, he's so much fitter than the others.

Obviously nonsense aside I really don't see your point at all tho stu. Are you saying to me that all the sponsored women in climbing are more attractive than their peers / underlings? If so what utter rot. On top of which you're doing them a disservice by asking people to judge them on looks, which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

[Stu Littlefair]

Stu I've inferred from that that you think I'm ugly? How could you I'm shattered. I can't believe five ten dropped Ryan in their cull, he's so much fitter than the others.

Obviously nonsense aside I really don't see your point at all tho stu. Are you saying to me that all the sponsored women in climbing are more attractive than their peers / underlings? If so what utter rot. On top of which you're doing them a disservice by asking people to judge them on looks, which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Not quite - I'm suggesting that the best female climbers are more attractive *on average* than their peers. This doesn't mean that they're all stunners, and I'm not explicitly linking it to sponsorship. I thought long and hard about posting, and checked my opinions out with other people, who agreed. I expected people to disagree, but I'm pretty stunned that some people don't see this effect even in surfing, where to me it seems blatant.

I don't think I'm doing anyone a disservice BTW, and I certainly don't intend this. I'm not implying that the best female climbers got there because of their looks. They got there on merit. What I'm saying is that there may be women who aren't making it, despite their talent.

Five minutes googling revealed a couple of 'pro surfer quits because of sexism' articles. It seems like this is, or has been,  a problem in surfing. Maybe it isn't in climbing. It's obviously a contentious and arguable point.

[Johnny Brown]

What I'm saying is that there may be women who aren't making it, despite their talent.

Define making it.

I can name you any number of male climbers who haven't 'made it' in any financial/ sponsorship sense despite being brilliant, and some gorgeous to boot. You have to be commercially minded and you have to be prepared to promote yourself, which most climbers aren't.

[Stu Littlefair]

What I'm saying is that there may be women who aren't making it, despite their talent.

Define making it.

I can name you any number of male climbers who haven't 'made it' in any financial/ sponsorship sense despite being brilliant, and some gorgeous to boot. You have to be commercially minded and you have to be prepared to promote yourself, which most climbers aren't.

I'm not talking about sponsorship. I'm talking about getting to the top of your sport. Didn't I already say this in a reply to you earlier? I thought I did anyway.

IF you agree with the observation that top women surfers and/or climbers are more attractive than the average*, there are only two possibilities

1) being good at climbing and/or surfing somehow makes you prettier
1a) prettier women are naturally better at climbing and/or surfing
2) some effect is making it harder for less pretty women to reach the peak of their sport.

I don't buy (1), and I don't think much of 1a either, since it doesn't seem to apply to other sports.

*and I do accept that some will disagree. For climbing at least.

[Wood FT]

C'mon Stu, point 1 is clear cut -  I thought women (and men) get an extra 2 marks on the out-of-10 system for partaking in the same activity of the observer.

[a dense loner]

"I'm not talking about sponsorship I'm talking about getting to the top of their sport" you're making no sense at all Stu. Are you saying the best women climbers, ie the women that are best at climbing, are prettier *on average* than normal women climbers?

[Johnny Brown]

there are only two possibilities

Or, as I said at the start:

3) It's a coincidence.

Unless you (of all people) are suggesting that correlation must imply causation?