UKBouldering.com

International women's day (Read 30067 times)

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#50 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 12:15:27 pm
Of course, but then who would be an objective commentator? Show me someone who has no agenda. Perhaps we need AI reviewers.

Quote
but given that he's written a lot of popular science arguing that there's an essential difference between male and female brains (and that autistic people have "extreme male brains" and so forth), he can't be an objective reviewer.
 
Are you actually saying that anybody who's been involved in the research that this book criticises as biased, can not be deemed an objective commentator? That's insanely prejudiced.

By that measure who then is an objective scientist? One that doesn't dare investigate subjects that some other people find objectionable?

...and who is an objective author? By the argument you're suggesting, not Cordelia Fine.

Personally I'm happy to take Fine's views on board and weigh them against other, conflicting views. Happy that they each may have some agenda playing in the background, but also that they each have a great deal of objectivity. And weighting up the probability of what is most likely to be true.


BTW I'm aware there may be many more women with ASD undiagnosed then previously thought. It was partly through reading Baron Cohern's research and his book on autism, among other sources.

As far as I'm aware the extreme male brain theory is nothing to do with being male or female. It's just the term used to describe a set of traits common in ASD. Perhaps the term extreme male brain is an unfortunate choice from a feminist's point of view. Especially a feminist with an ASD condition. 'ASD brain'?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 12:25:34 pm by petejh »

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#51 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 02:08:47 pm
]
Are you actually saying that anybody who's been involved in the research that this book criticises as biased, can not be deemed an objective commentator? That's insanely prejudiced.

By that measure who then is an objective scientist? One that doesn't dare investigate subjects that some other people find objectionable?

...and who is an objective author? By the argument you're suggesting, not Cordelia Fine.


Umm..

I don’t think that’s what she wrote at all and pointing out that his review, is actually a defense of his own work, criticised in her book.... is actually a fair criticism of the review, since it is not an unbiased review, it is an argued refutation. Valid (as Slab Happy mentioned) as such, but not an unbiased review. That would need to come from an expert in the field (or associated field), unconnected to either parties research.

Leaves me nonethe wiser on which of the two is correct. I sense that Slabs is writing with some foundation of knowledge (even authority) of the subject?
Seems a little beyond casual reading, anyway.

Of the Autistic youths and adults we work with here, it’s about 60/40 split of male to female.
These are diagnosed, residential care, (is it ok to say severe?) cases. The females seem to be younger, or at least, there aren’t any girls over 25 in the home.
For ref, we run phys ed for the school/home.

There are two, diagnosed, girls (both under 16) who climb on our youth squad. They’re both what I would have refered to as Aspergers, though I know that term is discredited I don’t have a better reference. High functioning?
Both in mainstream education, both Grammar school students.
There are no boys though we did have one previously.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#52 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 02:29:50 pm
That would need to come from an expert in the field (or associated field), unconnected to either parties research.

Except that the implication in what slab happy wrote is that any expert who works in the field of researching male/female brain differences can't be objective - because it's implied that the very field itself is starting from a biased hypothesis that there may be biological differences between male/female brains:
Quote from: slab_happy
but given that he's written a lot of popular science arguing that there's an essential difference between male and female brains (and that autistic people have "extreme male brains" and so forth), he can't be an objective reviewer.]

Hmmm.. So one expert in the field isn't objective. But another expert in the field, who writes a book accusing other experts of bias, is? Seems a bit topsy turvy to me. The author of the book could just as equally be said not to be objective.

That's a problem when gender politics gets involved. It becomes difficult to separate the politics from the science and when people try to argue it's very easy to pull out accusations of gender bias!

I'll go with the weight of evidence.


Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#53 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 03:38:10 pm
We’re drifting off again, but, this was a direct conflict, as opposed to (for want of a better term) “challenging the orthodoxy of the field”.
The latter, should have produced a review more akin to “It’s a novel hypothesis and the work has merit, but we need to see replication of these results and more research... blah... blah... blah...”
Whereas, that review was more “I’m right, she’s wrong”.

Just means it’s not the best criticism to choose to balance the argument, that’s all. It doesn’t inform, certainly not the layman, merely illustrates that a difference of opinion exists. Aka, I’m not more informed if I read both, than I was prior to reading and it becomes a matter of opinion, for me to choose one over the other as the basis for my own knowledge base.

Going with the weight of evidence is indicated, for sure. Ain’t it always?

So, you need to know how other experts view the two and (unfortunately) then try and guess where the academic inertia is pushing/dragging opinion and paradigm, and then weight your opinion based on those guesses, and after that, you need to...


Wait and fucking see basically.

Sooner or later another piece of the puzzle will drop into place, one assumes, and then it will make a little more sense.

I suppose, from the stuff I’ve been exposed to, my own ideas of the male/female, hard wired, biological, brain/personality/character, split; has shifted towards the “less important” end of that spectrum.

Seems as though, regardless of where the majority characteristics lie, for both genders, there is substantial cross over, possibly even fully so, within the broader population.

It’s more a matter of establishing how prevalent that cross over is, and whether the “majority” trend is actually significant.

You know what I mean Pete, if it turns out that 52% of Women love flower arranging, but 48% think it sucks big dogs testicles, does that actually make “Loves flower arranging” a defining “female” characteristic?
😉

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#54 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 05:11:54 pm
I’ve privately thought for a long time that sex differences in the brain are akin to two largely overlapping bell curves. And that the differences are very slight, once social effects are stripped away.
But if someone claims there’s zero biological difference I take issue.

I don’t think it helps to mix scientific questions with politics.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 05:38:42 pm by petejh »

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#55 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 05:45:06 pm
I’ve privately thought for a long time that sex differences in the brain are akin to two largely overlapping bell curves. And that the differences are very slight, once social effects are stripped away.
But if someone claims there’s zero biological difference I take issue.

I don’t think it helps to mix scientific questions with politics.

That seems approximately the nail’s head, there or there abouts.

What politics?

No idea what you’re referring to.

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
#56 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 06:40:00 pm
Except that the implication in what slab happy wrote is that any expert who works in the field of researching male/female brain differences can't be objective - because it's implied that the very field itself is starting from a biased hypothesis that there may be biological differences between male/female brains:

Uh, no. I'm pointing out that Baron-Cohen is reviewing a book which criticizes his own work. Obviously he's going to disagree with it!

Hmmm.. So one expert in the field isn't objective. But another expert in the field, who writes a book accusing other experts of bias, is?

Apart from the bit where I didn't say anything of the sort, sure ....

I didn't claim that Fine has objectivity that Baron-Cohen doesn't. My point is just that if you're going "Well, this reviewer thinks she's wrong!", it's relevant to note that the reviewer has a lot of dogs in this particular fight!

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
#57 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 06:41:41 pm
As far as I'm aware the extreme male brain theory is nothing to do with being male or female. It's just the term used to describe a set of traits common in ASD.

No, it's the term coined by Simon Baron-Cohen to express his opinion that autism is an exaggerated form of the traits which he considers inherently characteristic of "male brains".

He concedes that some women can have "male brains" ( and men can have "female brains"), but he absolutely thinks that these traits are intrinsically associated with gender.

Perhaps the term extreme male brain is an unfortunate choice from a feminist's point of view. Especially a feminist with an ASD condition.

Indeed! But also from the point of view of anyone interested in accurate description, I would have thought. If I had to try to explain what being on the autistic spectrum means and how it affects me, I would not go WELL I JUST HAVE AN EXTREMELY MANLY BRAIN.

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
#58 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 06:51:09 pm
And that the differences are very slight, once social effects are stripped away.
But if someone claims there’s zero biological difference I take issue.

The trouble is, how do you pinpoint any possible "very slight" biological differences against a background of overwhelmingly strong social effects?

And if any hypothetical biological differences are "very slight" at best, why reach for them as the first option to explain things like why there are fewer women involved in new routing?

I don’t think it helps to mix scientific questions with politics.

In this case, you can't unmix them. It's not like male scientists were looking for potential sex differences in the brain from a position of perfect objectivity and neutrality, before those feminists like Cordelia Fine came along and started "mixing" politics into it.

All scientists have their own biases and personal opinions, which can shape the questions they ask and how they interpret their results. Arguing that the results of a study should be interpreted differently or that there's a flaw in how the study was carried out or that it didn't control for a certain factor -- those are all normal, standard parts of how science progresses!

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#59 Re: International women's day
March 13, 2019, 07:59:38 pm
Pinpoint?

Unlikely, I’d think.

Hoooowever...

Hormones affect mood, mood affects personality, day by day and differently day to day; this in turn gives rise to long term trends in individual behaviour. Given the disparity in hormone distribution, between males and females (in general); it seems reasonable to hypothesise that such trends might show a gender bias.

I mean, it’s not as if we can ignore Male aggression, is it?

If you look at artificially induced hormone shifts, aggressive traits and mood swings, amongst Anabolic Steroid users; you can see a basis for that hypothesis, surely?


Did I just defend Pete’s argument?

Well, I’ll be buggered.
Sorry won’t happen again.

I just think there is a possibility that some bias might be demonstrable. How significant that might be.... ?

T_B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3078
  • Karma: +149/-5
#60 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 10:26:08 am
Mrs T_B has got into developing new stuff. I asked her what attracts her to it and they are the same reasons why most people do new stuff. She did comment that she'd asked Melissa le neve whether she'd done new stuff in Font (where she lives)? And Melissa had said she didn't have the time/was too focussed on repeating stuff. Horses for courses.

There are no barriers to women in climbing so as participant increases via indoor walls, so will women's influence. Maybe the Olympics will cause a boom like running had in the '70s? I can see climbing evolving in a similar way to track/road/trail/fell/mountain running. Fell running (or racing at least) still has a greater number of men doing it than women. Some folk do all, others focus in one or two areas. It's all running.

What will be interesting to see is whether national climbing clubs like the CC survive? Ageing membership, 14% women, expensive huts to maintain, no interest in attracting children due to fears over child protection. Pretty depressing compared to my running club that has family membership and 50/50 gender split.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#61 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 10:31:02 am
Actually, the anti-family attitude of local walls, here, when I first returned to the UK in 2008; that ended up with me opening my own...

“NO CHILDREN UNDER 8 yrs” everywhere.

Ok, fuck you then.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#62 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 01:53:04 pm
OK so a few replies!
I feel like I need to preface much of what I'm going to post with: 'on average', 'not applicable to all men or all women', 'there are no absolute male or female characteristics'. Etc.

Indeed! But also from the point of view of anyone interested in accurate description, I would have thought. If I had to try to explain what being on the autistic spectrum means and how it affects me, I would not go WELL I JUST HAVE AN EXTREMELY MANLY BRAIN.

No, but you might instead say ‘well I just have an extremely systemising brain’. And someone might point out that, on average, systemising is a trait found more often in male brains than in female brains and thus it makes sense - at least it does in a world devoid of gender politics - to label the constellation of systemising traits that you exhibit as 'extreme male brain'.
 
But I accept your point that 'EMB' isn't a particularity sympathetic use of language in a world with a legacy of male v female power imbalance and resulting gender warfare. 'Extreme systemising brain' would perhaps be a better, gender neutral, label..

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#63 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 01:54:15 pm
The trouble is, how do you pinpoint any possible "very slight" biological differences against a background of overwhelmingly strong social effects?

Well for a start, I don't think the 'background of social effects' in the activity we’re discussing – climbing, and especially new routing -  are so 'overwhelming strong' as to make biological effects moot. I'll explain why below.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#64 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 02:23:03 pm
And if any hypothetical biological differences are "very slight" at best, why reach for them as the first option to explain things like why there are fewer women involved in new routing?

This is an easy one to answer. But it's a long answer.

Firstly though, if you side with the scientific consensus which is based on 'overwhelming' (see what I did..) weight of evidence then biological differences aren't 'hypothetical'.

So, the reason I use slight brain differences to explain the new routing discrepancy is kind of simple. While brain differences between males/females may be ‘slight’ in absolute physical terms, the effects those differences have in the real world are greater. That's because the differences exist in parts of the brain that work with emotion and which are associated with powerful drives and instincts. For example, the amygdala works differently in males and females.
 
Drives and instincts originate in areas of the brain such as the amygdala and are largely outside our conscious control. They're hard-wired in at birth (and can be managed, but not eliminated). On average, drives in males and females differ with females having stronger drives for parental, security, threat awareness (overlapping bell curves remember, there isn’t a definitive male or female characteristic and there are plenty who don't fit the average for their gender), and males having stronger drives for dominance, territory, control and power.

Without wanting to discount free will and our ability to manage our behaviour, drives and instincts are very powerful guides which can compel people to act in certain ways, pursue certain things, and shape behaviour over the course of a life. Behaviour is compelled by, among other ways, reward pathways that produce pleasure when drives are satisfied and anxiety when drives remain unsatisfied.

Then there are well-established differences in hormones – notably testosterone and estrogen - which interact with gene expression, mood states, emphasise different reward pathways and are implicated in many behaviours. As Matt noted aggression in males being one example but there are lots of others. 

What has any of this to do with me using brain differences as a possible reason why hardly any women establish new routes relative to men? Well, do you have you any experience at all of doing much new routing? I have a lot of experience, gained over a long time of new routing in winter and summer and in different countries, in different types of climbing - trad, sport and mixed climbs.
From experience I can tell you that when I reflect on why I enjoy spending so much of my time new routing when I could get far more climbing done by repeating things, part of the answer for me is that new routing satisfies certain drives in me such as inquisitiveness, adventure, risk-taking (for an uncertain 'reward'), independence and control.

I think climbing is pretty much a level playing field and whilst I don't accept that social factors are the main reason why hardly any women establish new routes, I can think of some social factors that could *possibly* still be at play:
In establishing new sport climbs - factors such using not growing up using power tools; the sheer physicality of the work (it can be body-breaking).
In establishing new trad routes or winter climbs - well in the UK there aren't many left to do in the lower grades. But then there are loads to do at all grades in Ireland, somewhere where again hardly any women establish new climbs.
I accept the lack of historical precedence may have some social impact - people might not want to 'be one of the first' etc.

But consider bouldering..
Here in N.Wales we've just had a typical 'pre-guidebook' period of 3-5 years of new problems established leading up to the publication of the new North Wales Bouldering guidebook. During that time there was a surge of new problems put up of all grades all over the area - I think I'm accurate in saying (Doylo can correct me) that literally hundreds of mid 6s to mid 7s were established. What explains the discrepancy that I think I'm correct in saying around five out of hundreds of new boulder problems in the 6s and 7s were established by a woman?

I'd be interested to hear what social factors you think can explain the discrepancy.

None of those new boulder problems were outside the ability of many female boulderers operating in N.Wales - difficulty can't explain it.
There are loads of female boulderers around - numbers or lack of peers can't explain it.
Bouldering first ascents don't involve the sort of workload that establishing new bolted routes/crags -  heavy physical workload can't explain it.
Establishing new boulder problems doesn't involve any unknown technical skills such as using resin guns, bolts and power tools - lack of technical knowledge can't explain it.


I suggest that women on average just don't get as much pleasure from new routing as males; and that's because pleasure is often the evolutionary response to satisfying a drive. And women have on average different drives to males. And women on average have different drives to males because there are, on average, slight biological differences in parts of brains where drives originate. It's obvious to me :)

I'll happily eat my words if in ten years time the landscape looks totally different and there exists something approaching parity between men and women in new routing activity. I'd also be happy to wager you any bet you like that it won't happen.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 02:32:13 pm by petejh »

r-man

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Glory lurks beneath the moss
  • Posts: 5030
  • Karma: +193/-3
    • LANCASHIRE BOULDERING GUIDEBOOK
#65 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 02:57:57 pm
Speaking as an obsessive developer, when I look around at everybody else and wonder why they aren't developing, the answer seems to be: Cannot Be Arsed.

Developing is its own niche discipline, like dry tooling or winter climbing, or sieging an 8b all your life. Obviously it's better than those. The number of keen developers in the climbing community is tiny. It's not because there are no great problems or great areas left to find - great new problems and areas have been developed recently everywhere I can think of. And at all grades.

But lots of people are time poor, or training-focussed, or want to tick the classics, or whatever. I understand. And as a result, the percentage of people who have this obsession is small. In a crowd of climbers there will only be two or three of us.

As there are more men climbing outside, the chances are that the two or three developers will be men.

When you have equal numbers of women climbing outside, then maybe the gender balance will change in the small percentage of people willing to spend their time scouring maps, cleaning rocks, digging, and going to places nobody else goes to...

Seems to me that amongst younger climbers (teens and students) there is a more equal ratio of men and women climbing indoors. Perhaps in a few years they will filter outdoors and the scene will look different.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 03:07:59 pm by r-man »

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#66 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 03:00:12 pm
I didn't read this thread because I could guess how a forum of men might talk about this subject. And lo and behold we've got someone saying men and women's brains are inherently different and that's why the don't do something.

Even if it were true, it's a very shit way of talking about it, because it just doesn't leave the possibility open that anyone can do anything.

Pete can we have some numbers on your NW bouldering example. Because the way I look at it spending time putting up new stuff is unusual behaviour. How many climbers are there in NW and how many put up FAs - it's a small percentage right? Certainly this is true in't Peak. And there are many less female climbers than male and a small percentage of less is even less.

Rman had just posted and i agree with his statement. Do you think this applies to NW Pete?

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#67 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 03:16:21 pm
I accept it might be just a numbers thing and as you trickle down from indoors - outdoors - establishing new stuff outdoors, it *may* be just that the numbers aren't there. We should see over the next 10 or so years as the ratios change. There seem to be already a lot of women bouldering outdoors though. 

But to say
Even if it were true, it's a very shit way of talking about it, because it just doesn't leave the possibility open that anyone can do anything.

to me is the worst thing of all. It does no such thing. For me, believing a fairy tale is more prohibitive to equality than being aware of factors that are true. Same for any realm of life really. If you think I'm attempting to say women 'shouldn't' or 'are unable' to do something then you couldn't have misunderstood me any more really.

user deactivated

  • Guest
#68 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 06:24:49 pm
All of this b😮lox is based on the assumption that things like free will and choice are a reality.

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#69 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 07:44:07 pm
I wasn't intending to say you said women shouldn't or can't. I'm sorry that's how it came across. I can see you are trying to think of an explanation for why women might not be more involved in FAs.

This is what I think You are saying... women's brains are different and that's the a possible reason why they don't put up FAs.

This is what I think... it's possible it may be a very slight factor but more likely it's to do with the fact less women climb and the reasons why less women climb. I think that there are social barriers that exist that make harder for women to get into climbing (not necessarily caused by climbers but by wider society as well). I think this has obviously improved a lot and we're seeing more women climbing inside. But there still is not parity so we still have a way to go and barriers still exist. I think that the same barriers that might stop someone climbing in the first place might also stop a climber getting into development.

This is the reason why I feel uncomfortable with what you think. I'm not commenting on whether brains are different or not but I do feel like it's quite are large leap to go from this difference to say that's it's a factor in their lack of involment in development. But it's fair enough, you're just trying come up with a possible explanation and it is one. I don't think there is much evidence for it as an explanation. the reason I think this is a unhelpful explanation is because it absolves everyone of responsibility to change the status quo. It also denies that there are barriers to women getting involved because its something innate in women rather external factors.

I'm interested about the numbers of female climbers. I would guess I see 1 in 10 climbers are female when I'm out bouldering in peak, at my most generous estimates. Are the numbers better than this in NW that you observe? I'm asking because numbers seems a factor for your explanation.

also, I'm interested that you can't think of any social factors that may make it harder for women to get into the development game.  Could you try and think of some? I'll start with one... there are no women role models putting up new problems in NW to emulate.

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#70 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 07:45:53 pm
All of this b😮lox is based on the assumption that things like free will and choice are a reality.

I'm surprised at this Dan considering the "b :wank: llox" you post about many other subjects. Care to elaborate?

user deactivated

  • Guest
#71 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 08:55:06 pm
Haha. Fair point man. Probably best leaving it.

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
#72 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 09:17:53 pm

No, but you might instead say ‘well I just have an extremely systemising brain’.

Except I wouldn't, because that's one speculative theory of autism which doesn't explain a large number of its features.

Simon Baron-Cohen is one clinician and researcher in the field, who (like many others) has tried to come up with a theory of autism. That theory is far from universally accepted and has in fact been criticized in various ways within the field.

Personally, I'm rather fond of the central coherence theory, which in many ways postulates the opposite of the systematizing theory, in that differences in information processing aren't because people with autism are focused on "systems" but because we're not pulling information together in certain ways to derive an overall gist, and therefore see the trees rather than the forest.

But there are a lot of theories of autism around!


And someone might point out that, on average, systemising is a trait found more often in male brains than in female brains

They might, but then I'd point out that the whole "systematizing-empathizing" theory wherein these traits are opposite poles and an increase in the one inherently means a decrease in the other is an extremely speculative and controversial theory of how human brains work.

And it's a huge conceptual edifice propped (if I recall correctly) on things like SBC having done one small-scale study which found that baby boys looked more at objects and baby girls at human faces, which hasn't been replicated and has various methodological issues.

The "systematizing-empathizing" theory isn't remotely "scientific consensus" within neuropsychology, nor is it based on "overwhelming weight of evidence".  It's SBC's personal theory which he wrote a book or two about.

Maybe in the future all the evidence will turn up to show that he's right (and evidence currently contradicting it will go away), but it doesn't have the kind of status you seem to think.

part of the answer for me is that new routing satisfies certain drives in me such as inquisitiveness, adventure, risk-taking (for an uncertain 'reward'), independence and control.

Remember when most women's purported lack of those drives was being used to explain why women just aren't into climbing?

I'll happily eat my words if in ten years time the landscape looks totally different and there exists something approaching parity between men and women in new routing activity.

I'd be very surprised if we have parity in ten years, because social change is slow (and my impression is that people often don't get into developing until they've been climbing for some time), but I absolutely expect to see things trending in that direction.

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
#73 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 09:35:33 pm
Well, do you have you any experience at all of doing much new routing?

Living entirely in London until fairly recently has limited my options for that (also being a mediocre climber).

But I do in fact have my eye on something that might be a boulder problem or ... not. And intermittently I go and stare at it and brush the holds and then fail to climb it. I have a dream that I might someday contribute a very trivial V2 to the world!

Of course, I realize that you can attribute my anomalousness to my diagnosed EXTREMELY MANLY BRAIN, so there we go.

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
#74 Re: International women's day
March 14, 2019, 10:35:58 pm
Sorry to interrupt (most) everyone's ill-informed reiteration of hundreds of years of confused debate on gender.

So it there any quality up to date literature on gender issues in sport from the perspective of the athlete that anyone could point me to?

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal