UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: jwi on March 08, 2019, 01:43:55 pm
-
So today is international women's day. A day as good as any to reflect on what needs to be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing.
To this end, I've been looking for literature on women in sport. I have found lots about gender equality in the administration of sport associations etc. but very little written from the perspective of athlete's agency of their own sport. Has anyone read something of quality along those lines? Preferably written by female participants rather than outside observers.
-
So today is international women's day. A day as good as any to reflect on what needs to be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing.
Can't comment on your request for literature.
But can you explain why you - presumably - think women don't currently have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing?
Before you do, it's worth defining what actions in climbing actually 'shape the future of climbing'. I can think of some, there are no doubt others I haven't thought of. But for starters:
1. Establishing significant new routes or boulder problems
2. Developing significant new areas
3. Significant repeats
4. Competition success?
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say women are massively absent from 1 and 2 relative to men. Not so from 3 or 4.
What possibilities do they lack, and why?
-
I don't think it is my place to discuss this subject extensively as I would much rather hear from people who, unlike me, are knowledgable. So just on short comment.
But can you explain why you - presumably - think women don't currently have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing?
I agree that women are massively absent from 1 and 2 above; except for a few exceptions like Lynn Hill's absolutely groundbreaking first free ascent of The Nose — still one of the hardest route on El Cap — I'm struggling to come up with names. Either this is because Women are inherently worse at establishing new ground or they are somehow held back by something else e.g. lack of mentors, loud criticism, falsification of history etc. I have a hard time believing the former so I conclude it is the latter and that something should be done about it. I certainly did not mentor any women back when I was an active developer (alas, bringing significant other or love interest does not count), I just wanted to hang out with mates when doing this which seems unwise in retrospect.
In addition to 1-4 I can also think of:
5. Teaching climbing to the next generation (writing, guiding and instructing).
6. Designing and constructing new forms of climbing gear.
-
Running the BMC?
That has to be, at least moderately, influential...
Edit:
Too obscure again, sorry.
I mean, maybe if we (men) gave them credit for what they are already doing, have done and have been doing since the dawn of the endeavour; they wouldn’t feel as disenfranchised?
Not as if their contribution, to date, has been minor or peripheral is it?
Write a list of accomplished, influential, female climbers and it’ll give you blisters on your typing finger (I only use one, normal /people can replace that with “fingers”).
-
Quite a lot of these 1-4's etc.. may reflect a historical legacy...
I have no figures but I would doubt anyone would disagree with me that there is a far better gender balance now in indoor climbing/bouldering centres than there was even ten years ago. Personally, I find it superb that our best competition climbers are female - and from my perspective everyone gets right behind them in the climbing world.
However, a better gender balance does not make everything correct / perfect / ideal BTW.
Tangetally - but importantly, I think there is a huge issue in the UK of a lack of participation in outdoor activities like climbing and hill walking by people of BAME background. BAME represent (at last census) 7.6 million or > 10% of the population. But on a sunny day in the Peak its all pretty white...
-
OK so a definition of 'shaping the future of climbing' so far looks like:
1. Establishing significant new routes or boulder problems
2. Developing significant new areas
3. Significant repeats
4. Competition success
5. Teaching climbing to the next generation (writing, guiding and instructing).
6. Designing and constructing new forms of climbing gear
7. Taking positions in representative bodies
I've always found odd the disparity between men and women in 1 and 2. I used to imagine it was something to do with women being inherently less adventurous, but now I don't think that's true.
edit: I'd be interested to hear anyone put forward what barriers to entry women face for 1, 2, 3 or 4. I'm unable to think of any - in my experience (1 and 2) they just rely on going and doing it and don't need anyone else's input really.
On the other hand I can think of some cultural barriers to entry for 6 and 7 that might be found in any other workplace.
-
I reckon I have been back following this forum for six months or so and don’t recall a single post by a woman.
I could be mistaken.
That has to be a bad thing.
-
I reckon I have been back following this forum for six months or so and don’t recall a single post by a woman.
I could be mistaken.
That has to be a bad thing.
*coughs politely*
-
👍😃
-
I feel the North Wales scene has always had women quietly working away without any fanfare, from Bonny Mason new routing in the 70's to Glenda et al 80's and 90's through to the girl crush movement today. As for teaching, they've been present from brede arkless through to Libby peter. Plenty of role models, but maybe not enough to sway the majority. Am I also the only person who immediately thinks of Deadpool when they see the thread title?
-
Am I also the only person who immediately thinks of Deadpool when they see the thread title?
:lol: that whole scene is gold!
Agree about N Wales, Emma Twyford seems to be a forerunner these days and has been doing more and more impressive ascents each year.
-
I reckon I have been back following this forum for six months or so and don’t recall a single post by a woman.
I could be mistaken.
That has to be a bad thing.
I actually agree that climbing forums can be very dude-heavy, which in turn tends to be self-reinforcing, and that this is not ideal.
However, it can also be easy to assume that all posters on the internet must be men unless they state otherwise (because we're trained to think of male as the "default" identity, unconscious social assumptions and all that). Which is also not ideal!
-
Mark, I don’t disagree that there are plenty of women in n Wales climbing well but the OP specifically mentioned ‘shaping the future of climbing’ which immediately got me thinking ‘what defines shaping the future of climbing?’.
It isn’t just having a good scene, and repeating a bunch of 8as, E7s, or font 8As. Or redpointig 8c. Undoubtedly great as that is.
I’m just aware of the weird and obvious anomaly in who has actually put up the overwhelming majority of climbs upon which ‘the future of climbing’ is based. Any honest discussion of gender and ‘shaping the future of climbing’ can’t ignore that (bull) elephant in the room.
-
I reckon I have been back following this forum for six months or so and don’t recall a single post by a woman.
I could be mistaken.
That has to be a bad thing.
I actually agree that climbing forums can be very dude-heavy, which in turn tends to be self-reinforcing, and that this is not ideal.
However, it can also be easy to assume that all posters on the internet must be men unless they state otherwise (because we're trained to think of male as the "default" identity, unconscious social assumptions and all that). Which is also not ideal!
That was what I was trying to say before I fell in my own trap and ended up saying something completely different.
-
Am I also the only person who immediately thinks of Deadpool when they see the thread title?
I always think of Richard Herring and his annual lonely Sisyphean task:
https://twitter.com/Herring1967
https://www.gofundme.com/whensinternationalmensday2019
-
I always think of Richard Herring and his annual lonely Sisyphean task:
https://twitter.com/Herring1967
https://www.gofundme.com/whensinternationalmensday2019
I’d not encountered this quest before. What an absolute legend!
-
Good topic.
5. Teaching climbing to the next generation (writing, guiding and instructing).
6. Designing and constructing new forms of climbing gear.
I run a climbing club in a girls’ school, so I contribute to 5. We were out climbing tonight in fact. Except I’m a middle-aged male so not representative of female climbers. And in a small school, as a climber, I’m in a majority of 1, so that won’t change soon.
It is surprisingly tricky to get good role models for them (in real - not digital - form). The Pinnacle Club don’t work with minors and the local wall hasn’t got a ladies’ night or similar. Not yet anyway, though it’s been suggested.
Mina was good enough to do an assembly - and she was brilliant :clap2: I plan to contact local clubs but any other ideas/knowledge would be very welcome.
-
PS Tomtom - your BAME observation I’ve pondered too.
-
Whilst I complete believe women’s rights has a long way to go and should be shouted about.... I really do not understand why climbing is always touted as an area that needs that change.
I really believe that its one of the few area in which equal opportunities exist!
-
But can you explain why you - presumably - think women don't currently have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing?
I agree that women are massively absent from 1 and 2 above; except for a few exceptions like Lynn Hill's absolutely groundbreaking first free ascent of The Nose — still one of the hardest route on El Cap — I'm struggling to come up with names. Either this is because Women are inherently worse at establishing new ground or they are somehow held back by something else e.g. lack of mentors, loud criticism, falsification of history etc. I have a hard time believing the former so I conclude it is the latter and that something should be done about it.
What about a third option along the lines of women are inherently less interested (generally speaking of course) in 1 and 2 type activities? Assuming one doesn't cling dogmatically to the idea that there are no psychological differences between the sexes, I'd guess the disparity that exists in 1 and 2 could almost entirely be put down to simple and benign factors such as interest and preference. Which is fine and suggests we don't actually have a problem? Obviously you'll get outliers (worth celebrating) but owing to general trends in inherent predisposition, you'll always have a significantly greater proportion of men doing 1 and 2 type stuff simply because they're (generally) more into it.
-
What about a third option along the lines of women are inherently less interested (generally speaking of course) in 1 and 2 type activities? Assuming one doesn't cling dogmatically to the idea that there are no psychological differences between the sexes
Except that science has pretty thoroughly debunked the idea of male/female brains.
-
Whilst I complete believe women’s rights has a long way to go and should be shouted about.... I really do not understand why climbing is always touted as an area that needs that change.
I really believe that its one of the few area in which equal opportunities exist!
Yeah, agreed - as far as I can tell in climbing they we have already won. The veil of ignorance type thought experiment confirms it for me - I can't think of any variety of human where it'd be bad news re climbing. Apart from coming back as Joey Kinder maybe...
-
What about a third option along the lines of women are inherently less interested (generally speaking of course) in 1 and 2 type activities? Assuming one doesn't cling dogmatically to the idea that there are no psychological differences between the sexes
Except that science has pretty thoroughly debunked the idea of male/female brains.
not sure what the idea of male/female brains means exactly but as I read/understand it, scientific consensus is that there are clear differences in certain personality traits and behaviours that are caused at the genetic level? Overlapping bell curves type stuff? would be keen to update my understanding if that's wrong.
-
Nature vs nurture? Not sure that’s quite been put to bed yet.
-
Shout out to Emma Alsford. If we take guidebook production as an important part of shaping climbing then she's been working wonders with the CC Pembroke guides. Not to mention her developing and documenting lots of new stuff in Morocco.
-
I've always found odd the disparity between men and women in 1 and 2. I used to imagine it was something to do with women being inherently less adventurous, but now I don't think that's true.
I've wondered if there's a thing that the hardest-climbing women still feel the need to focus on proving themselves by repeating routes put up by guys.
(And there's the historical phenomenon where routes suddenly get downgraded as soon as a woman does them. Which seems to be diminishing, but still lingers on.)
And when women do do really hard first ascents, they often don't get repeated for ages, or get quasi-sidelined. Think of how long it took for the Nose to be repeated -- or Meltdown, especially relative to other super-hard cracks. You just get the "small fingers" line, and then the strongest male climbers are weirdly unwilling to test themselves against it.
On the Enormocast, one Yosemite climber of Lynn Hill's generation (blanking on the name atm) suggested it was because, after Lynn freed the Nose, if you went and repeated it, well, you were only being "as good as a girl". And if you went and tried to repeat it and failed -- you're "not even as good as a girl"!
Apparently Carlo Traversi's been suggesting privately that he thinks Meltdown might be 5.14d, which would mean that it was the first trad route of that grade. Now he's proved it's not a "small fingers" thing, it'll be interesting to see if anyone else is willing to have a go.
So, yeah. I wonder if all that -- the sidelining, the reluctance to repeat -- might tend to deter the top women from doing hard first ascents, versus "proving" their ability through repeats. Women are still mentally playing on other people's terms, rather than setting our own.
Hopefully we'll see that changing ...
-
And when women do do really hard first ascents, they often don't get repeated for ages, or get quasi-sidelined. Think of how long it took for the Nose to be repeated -- or Meltdown, especially relative to other super-hard cracks.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that The Nose and Meltdown are both just really hard (a serious testament to Lynn and Beth), and hard routes see less attention and get repeated less frequently.
If we look at other hard single pitch cracks the ones that stand out are Cobra, Recovery Drink and Century Crack. Cobra is ~8b+ (where the others are ~8c+, or harder according to Carlo) so it makes sense that it gets more ascents. Meltdown, Recovery Drink and Century waited 11yrs, 7yrs and 5yrs to see a repeat so it's not like any of these routes are getting loads of attention. Maybe Meltdown isn't getting much attention because it's really hard, rather than because it was put up by Beth?
It seems similar to some of Alex Huber's hard stuff (Open Air, Weiss Rose) or Tommy Caldwell's Flex Luthor. Era Vella they are not!
-
I think as well as being incredibly hard, Meltdown suffers from terrible conditions a lot of the time - spray and flooding from the waterfall. I think Traversi had two or three years where it just wasn't feasible.
-
I reckon I have been back following this forum for six months or so and don’t recall a single post by a woman.
I could be mistaken.
That has to be a bad thing.
I actually agree that climbing forums can be very dude-heavy, which in turn tends to be self-reinforcing, and that this is not ideal.
However, it can also be easy to assume that all posters on the internet must be men unless they state otherwise (because we're trained to think of male as the "default" identity, unconscious social assumptions and all that). Which is also not ideal!
That's masterful understatement. UKB is the most male dominated forum I use. Its my biggest gripe about the place. I can't quite see why either; its certainly much less sexist than the other channel. Maybe its the hanging on to adolescent humour (something that I like).
-
Emma is a star. The person you were just sitting next to is well into the teens on guidebooks worked on as well.
-
And when women do do really hard first ascents, they often don't get repeated for ages, or get quasi-sidelined. Think of how long it took for the Nose to be repeated -- or Meltdown, especially relative to other super-hard cracks. You just get the "small fingers" line, and then the strongest male climbers are weirdly unwilling to test themselves against it.
On the Enormocast, one Yosemite climber of Lynn Hill's generation (blanking on the name atm) suggested it was because, after Lynn freed the Nose, if you went and repeated it, well, you were only being "as good as a girl". And if you went and tried to repeat it and failed -- you're "not even as good as a girl"!
^THIS. In retrospect it is clear that Lynn Hill was by far the best American climber during the 90s and that they shouldn't be ashamed to fail as they where all clearly worse than her at everything except bouldering. At the time, I don't think anyone wanted to admit that. I believe that Lynn Hill's onsight first free ascent of Mingus in Verdon also more or less killed the route for 20 years, it still has curiously few repeats and no other onsights so far, I belive.
Hopefully we'll see that changing ...
I certainly hope so. At least one guy (Arthur Guinet) has had the balls to repeat Anak Verhoeven's Sang neuf (9a) and to try the extension/linkup she also freed (Sweet Neuf 9a+).
-
I've always found odd the disparity between men and women in 1 and 2. I used to imagine it was something to do with women being inherently less adventurous, but now I don't think that's true.
I've wondered if there's a thing that the hardest-climbing women still feel the need to focus on proving themselves by repeating routes put up by guys.
....
So, yeah. I wonder if all that -- the sidelining, the reluctance to repeat -- might tend to deter the top women from doing hard first ascents, versus "proving" their ability through repeats. Women are still mentally playing on other people's terms, rather than setting our own.
Hopefully we'll see that changing ...
It's a theory. I'd be interested to hear some of the top women climbers speak on why they (relatively) rarely establish significant new routes. Like you say women are currently playing the climbing game on men's terms, climbing routes put up by men, but it needn't be like that. If any activity has equal barriers to entry it's climbing.
An interesting outlier is Innes Papert. She has a long history of putting up significant first ascents of hard mixed climbs. I recently returned from arctic Norway with group of mates, we established 4 new mixed routes between us and repeated a bunch. Papert has been active there putting up new routes and they're amongst the hardest routes there, too hard for most climbers. Same all over the world. I realise it's not fashionable to suggest 'nature' but I can't help wonder if her brain is wired slightly differently to 'the average' female brain were you to examine in an mri. Or whether the difference is all down purely to 'nurture'.
-
I'd be interested to hear some of the top women climbers speak on why they (relatively) rarely establish significant new routes. Like you say women are currently playing the climbing game on men's terms, climbing routes put up by men, but it needn't be like that.
Agreed and agreed! It seems like women in climbing are hitting new levels of confidence, so I hope that we'll see it starting to change.
... now I really want a workshop on development and new routing at the next Women's Climbing Symposium.
An interesting outlier is Innes Papert.
Pamela Shanti Pack would be another, it occurs to me.
I realise it's not fashionable to suggest 'nature' but I can't help wonder if her brain is wired slightly differently to 'the average' female brain were you to examine in an mri.
That's a classic "no true Scotsman" argument, though. Women aren't into new routing -- except for this woman (and this other woman, and these other women before that ...), so maybe she really has a "male brain"!
In the 60s and 70s, women were a pretty small minority of climbers, full stop. If people had postulated that this was bcause of "nature" (as I'm sure they did) and that women just weren't wired to be interested in that sort of thing, they'd look pretty silly right now.
It just seems like common sense to me to assume that social factors have a significant effect, before we start having to postulate special neurological differences that determine whether someone's into new routing or not.
-
I agree that it's that type of argument. And I realise that type of argument holds no water if it's just based on having a narrow uninformed perspective or a biased outlook. But I'm yet to be convinced that it doesn't have some merit in this case.
I say that because my layperson's understanding of the brain science (been fascinated with reading about if for years) shows it is indisputable - plenty of recent brain scanning evidence and references to back it up - that the centres of the brain that work with emotion (and that underlie powerful drives and instincts) do not work in exactly the same way in males and females; and therefore the drive and instincts that result do differ on average between males/females. Some females have more typically 'male' emotional centres and some males have more typically 'female' emotional centres. But on average there is a distinct difference. The emphasis on behaviour that results is different - typically a stronger drive for dominance in males and a stronger drive for maternal instinct and security in females. That isn't intended to characterise with a broad brush and there's way more to it than could be expressed in this post so don't kill the messenger, maybe question the evidence instead?
Before anyone says. This isn't the case for the rest of the brain. The parts of the brain that work with reason and logic work the same in female brains as they do in male brains.
It isn't that much of a leap of imagination therefore, to imagine a link between a difference in emphasis on drives between males/females, with different behaviours expressed in an activity involving risk, uncertainty, ego, competition and territory. Not that I think it 'should' be that way. I don't.
edit: For a start, new routing needn't be an egotistical, territorial 'thing'. It's probably males that make it that way. But then it gets a bit chicken and egg.
-
If you assume (incorrectly, but more on that later) that to do new routes you have to climb hard, then the answer is fairly obvious. If men as a population are performing at a higher level than women as a population, then by the time women are able to climb grade x, the men have already been there for years gobbling up all the new stuff, of which there is only a finite supply. It's certainly the case that new stuff that is quite hard is more likely to be widely reported, so that's part of the picture.
Obviously, if you're prepared to explore then you can find new ground at any grade, and most of it will be fairly steady just because of the nature of rock. I'm not sure why there aren't as many women doing this, but based on my own personal experience I'd say that I find this to be the case. Maybe a confidence thing, as slab_happy says.
-
#mansplaining
-
I was waiting for that.
On a forum with one female poster, an element of mansplaining is inevitable 🙄
-
Haven't read it yet, but I hear very good things about Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender as a review of the science. Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain also looks promising.
-
We are a climbing family and have a girl (9) and a boy (8 years). Both kids are keen climbers, the girl (even if you remove the difference in age) doing a bit better than the boy at the moment. I occasionally put up routes, both sport and multipitch. Mostly projects for myself, but also did some things for and together with the kids.
The girl just enjoys doing it with me, which means belaying and the trying the route once it is finished, etc.. She never expressed any interest in operating the drill etc.. Complete the opposite for the boy. He at least wants to bolt together with me or even prefers to realize his own ideas (about where the bolts should be or where the route should go).
I never had the impression that I treat(ed) the kids differently due to their gender. I know it's just an n=1 observation, but I guess it's still pretty typical, even at this very young age.
-
If we’re exploring apparent gender roles, as a slight aside to the main topic...
We have two boys and two girls.
I usually tell friends we have “one of each”.
Our eldest daughter, 13, seems to exhibit a mix of characteristics, probably fits into the “girlier” end of the tomboy spectrum. The best climber of the kids, likes to get muddy. Very pretty, sings onstage, staring roles in school productions (in a school that takes it seriously), mid range roles in a couple of small movies. Surfer. Kayaker, hiker, likes to bivi etc and obsessive Dr Who and Red Dwarf fan, who carries at least two books everywhere she goes. Paints and draws and plays piano (in the livingroom, fucking constantly, might be better when she gets better).
Eldest boy, 12, stopped climbing 😱. Obsessed with football. Trains four nights a week. Plays in Junior FA league every (EVERY SINGLE FUCKING) weekend. If not kicking something vaguely spherical, he’s playing rugby, basketball or sat in front of the PS4 playing Fortnight. Spends his money on football gear and hair products. I constantly tease him for looking like he’s part of a Korean Boy Band.
Couldn’t be more cliched if he tried.
Youngest Son 10 is sensitive. Very good climber, very keen Boulderer, shits himself (I mean totally freezes) more than 6mtrs above the ground. Obsessed with Greek mythology and history, wants to be a Palaeontologist and probably will be. Does not conform to male stereotype inthe slightest. Prone to tears. First to whine. About as tough as a damp tissue. Despite living in a Zoo of a household.
Youngest daughter 10, complete thug. Despite us all being somewhat posh, well spoken and her own very high academic abilities; she sounds as if she was raised on the streets of the Eastend. Football obsessed. Only girl in her team. Quick with her fists and good with them too. Uncontrollable temper. Struggling, now, because she has no female friends, but all the boys she’s hung out with until now, are suddenly starting to feel “odd” around girls. Fearless, would jump off a cliff on a dare. Skateboarder. Mountain biker. Reminds me sometimes of Joe Pesci’s character in “Goodfellas”; a three foot ball of pissed off psyco.
Point being...
They just don’t fit into any particular “gender” package, across the board. They sort of touch on different points of a wide spectrum (with All Male at one end and All Female at the other) and I mean, many different points, depending on which aspect of their “character” you choose to assess.
It would be interesting to know what gender they would choose to be, given their impressions of the roles and opportunities society has allotted then based on their reproductive organs. I might have that conversation.
-
I never had the impression that I treat(ed) the kids differently due to their gender.
I doubt that you managed to raise them in a bubble immune to all outside social influences, though.
One of my nieces (aged 5) came home from school distraught because the boys in her class had told her that "girls aren't allowed to like dinosaurs".
-
On the theme of influences on children - I enjoyed this article over the weekend.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/09/how-to-raise-good-feminist-boys-sons
-
Off-topic: your descriptions of your kids are charming. They sound like a splendid bunch.
It would be interesting to know what gender they would choose to be, given their impressions of the roles and opportunities society has allotted then based on their reproductive organs. I might have that conversation.
Gender identity is different from gender expression and gender roles, though. There are trans women who are total tomboys, but who are very clear that they're women doing masculine things, not men. And of course plenty of cis women who are tomboyish or butch or whatever or have "masculine" qualities", but never feel that we're anything other than female (and cis dudes who have "feminine" qualities etc. etc.).
It seems like there's a deep sense of gender identity (male/female/neither) which is quite distinct from whether or not you fit into the role or qualities society thinks you should have. Which is fascinating.
-
On the theme of influences on children - I enjoyed this article over the weekend.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/09/how-to-raise-good-feminist-boys-sons
If I'm honest, I didn't know how to be a good feminist man when I was raising my kids, I had my son at 23 and my daughter four years later.
And that's probably the problem right there - education comes too late.
-
On the theme of influences on children - I enjoyed this article over the weekend.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/09/how-to-raise-good-feminist-boys-sons
If I'm honest, I didn't know how to be a good feminist man when I was raising my kids, I had my son at 23 and my daughter four years later.
And that's probably the problem right there - education comes too late.
My take home from the article was that kids get their influences from places you didnt expect - and that they're all different. I enjoyed the article from the context of how kids growing up compared against their parents plans/expectations and how wonderfully random children are!
-
Haven't read it yet, but I hear very good things about Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender as a review of the science. Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain also looks promising.
I've been meaning to post a link to "The Gendered Brain."
-
Off-topic: your descriptions of your kids are charming. They sound like a splendid bunch.
It would be interesting to know what gender they would choose to be, given their impressions of the roles and opportunities society has allotted then based on their reproductive organs. I might have that conversation.
Gender identity is different from gender expression and gender roles, though. There are trans women who are total tomboys, but who are very clear that they're women doing masculine things, not men. And of course plenty of cis women who are tomboyish or butch or whatever or have "masculine" qualities", but never feel that we're anything other than female (and cis dudes who have "feminine" qualities etc. etc.).
It seems like there's a deep sense of gender identity (male/female/neither) which is quite distinct from whether or not you fit into the role or qualities society thinks you should have. Which is fascinating.
That’s it, isn’t it.
It’s just identity. Not a male identity or a female identity; just identity.
I mean, it might turn out that, even without societal straight jackets, there are more females who enjoy flower arranging, than males; but ultimately, that sort of preference doesn’t define either gender and any ascribed “gender role” is just the tyranny of the majority.
I hope these old tropes fade away. I’m already pretty sure my kids have a very different view on the matter than I and my peers did at the same age, 36 years ago.
And I’m damn sure my generation had much more opportunity and a more reasonable attitude than my parents did in the late 50’s/60’s.
Whilst it might not be fast enough, whilst there is still a long way to go; progress is moving the right way.
-
Some good posts in this thread recently.
-
Haven't read it yet, but I hear very good things about Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender as a review of the science. Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain also looks promising.
Thanks for linking those two books, I'll certainly have a read of one or the other. I don't hold strongly onto the belief that male and female brains are different. I'm open minded to both *sides'* theories. I certainly don't feel I have any position to defend and I'm not interested in the labyrinth of gender politics - I'm only interested in what the truth is.
I know which theory I currently find more convincing. As far as I can tell the weight of evidence currently suggests that the truth is, male and female brains are not identical. The science suggests there are slight but important differences between the emotional centres (but not the rest of the brain).
Those two books you linked challenge that view and question the validity of the research. As far as I can tell they're the minority view against the established scientific opinion. Doesn't mean they're incorrect though.
It's interesting to read some of the reviews written by critics of Cordelia Fine's theory. Some critics claim she's introducing gender politics into what 'should' be a straightforward scientific question - the very thing that she argues has skewed the research. Who knows..
Another critic points out a logical fallacy in some of her reasoning around the importance of social factors: ''.. showing that a manipulation of social variables changes behaviour does not prove that it was those very social variables that cause the spontaneous sex differences in the first place. Social manipulations are forms of intervention, and we shouldn’t fall victim to the old fallacy of assuming that the absence of a treatment is the cause of a condition. Aspirins can make headaches vanish, but headaches aren’t necessarily caused by the absence of aspirin''
I wonder if there would be as much political interference in the theory that there are biological differences between male/female brains, if it was viewed as dispassionately (and didn't have an associated legacy of power imbalance) as the theory that there are biological differences between levels of lean muscle mass distribution between males/females...
A review on the British Psychological Society website by Simon Baron Cohen:
Delusions of gender – ‘neurosexism’, biology and politics
Cordelia Fine’s new book is a bold new attack on the very idea that there are any essential sex differences in the human mind and the brain. Her barely veiled agenda, in this long, scholarly book, is to show that any sex difference found in humans can be made to vanish! How? Simply by a quick manipulation of a social-psychological variable. If, for example, men on average score higher on a maths test or a mental rotation (spatial) test, then simply by telling women ahead of time that women on average score higher on such tests can not only lead women to perform better than they usually do, but can make the sex difference vanish.
These are just some of the dozens of social psychological studies that Fine reviews, and her argument has an appealing simplicity: if women and men can score equally in areas where robust sex differences have been reported, then surely they don’t constitute essential sex differences. They must instead be a remnant of the centuries of sexism that attempted to portray women as less intelligent than men. Fine goes further to argue that any modern cognitive neuroscientist who suggests there may be any essential sex differences in the human mind is just perpetuating these historic sexist attitudes. And she coins a new word for the exploration of sex differences in the mind by contemporary scientists: ‘neurosexism’. She litters her book liberally with quotes from 18th- and 19th-century sexists, as if contemporary scientists in the field of sex differences are no different from those who wished
to deprive women of the vote, keep them confined to domesticity, and as if to say ‘look: nothing has changed’.
So what’s good and what’s wrong with her basic argument? What’s good is that this book examines the role of social psychological factors in how men and women perform on psychological tests, and this is a welcome contribution. As one of those psychologists Fine has in her sights, it might surprise her that I strongly agree that social variables are important and doubtless play key roles in shaping our behaviour. Indeed, the kinds of effects Fine highlights can be thought of as commonsense demonstrations that if you make someone feel more confident, they do better on a test; or that if you change a person’s expectations of how they will perform, their performance is influenced by their expectations. We should thank Fine for reminding readers not to forget the importance of social factors influencing sex differences.
But showing that a manipulation of social variables changes behaviour does not prove that it was those very social variables that cause the spontaneous sex differences in the first place. Social manipulations are forms of intervention, and we shouldn’t fall victim to the old fallacy of assuming that the absence of a treatment is the cause of a condition. Aspirins can make headaches vanish, but headaches aren’t necessarily caused by the absence of aspirin. Where I – and I suspect many other contemporary scientists – would part ways with Fine is in her strident, extreme denial of the role that biology might play in giving rise to any sex differences in the mind and brain. My own book The Essential Difference was I think quite moderate in suggesting that sex differences are the result of both social and biological influences, and the same is true of Melissa Hines’ excellent book Brain Gender. But for Fine, even a hint of biological influence is too much biology.
So how does she deal with experimental findings that show either prenatal or neonatal influences on sex differences? Here, her main strategy (arguing that sex differences can be made to vanish by using the trick of manipulating social psychological variables) just doesn’t apply. So she is forced to adopt a different strategy, namely, dissecting the experiments that purport to show prenatal or neonatal influences, to reveal that such experiments are flawed and therefore incorrect in their conclusions. This is Fine’s last-ditch attempt to make sex differences go away.
Being a co-author of some of these experiments I can examine her criticisms with the benefit of close knowledge of the studies she discusses, and found errors in her critiques. For example, in our newborn study (Connellan et al., 2001), which showed that girls look longer at a human face and boys look longer at a mechanical mobile, Fine attempts to dismantle this evidence by saying we should have presented both stimuli at the same time, rather than one at a time, since one at a time might have led to fatigue-effects. However, she overlooks that it was for this very reason that we included counter-balancing into the experimental design, to avoid any risk of such order-effects.
Secondly, she argues that the experimenter may not have been totally blind to the baby’s sex because there might have been ‘congratulations’ cards around the bed (‘Congratulations! It’s a boy!’). However, she overlooks that it was precisely for this reason that we included a panel of independent judges coding the videotapes of just the eye-region of the baby’s face, from which it is virtually impossible to judge the sex of the baby. Fine is right that our newborn baby study needs to be independently replicated, given its importance for establishing a human sex difference in the mind at a point in development before culture has had a chance to have any influence. But it is
an example of where Fine’s scholarship shows some shortcomings, where details are overlooked in order to fit her biology-free theory of human sex differences.
Although we would all like to believe in Fine’s extreme social determinism, efforts to explain (purely in terms of social variables) why neurodevelopmental conditions like autism, learning difficulties, and language delay affect boys more often than girls lead to the ludicrous position of blaming these conditions on sexist factors in society (or in parents). And extreme social determinism has major difficulties explaining why left-handedness is more common in boys (12 per cent) than girls (8 per cent). In contrast, a moderate position that recognises that – over and above the important role of the social environment – biology may also play a small role opens up all sorts of lines of inquiry (e.g. into the effects of prenatal hormones and genes). Autism runs in families and many genes have been implicated, and it may turn out that some of these are relevant to why it is sex-linked.I have also been impressed to see consistent correlations between amniotic fetal testosterone (FT) levels and measures of social development across 10 years of follow-up studies of a cohort of typically developing children we have been tracking, whose mothers all had amniocentesis during pregnancy (Baron-Cohen et al., 2005). An extreme biological determinism would be equally ludicrous, since there is no doubt that social variables can amplify and interact with such biological effects.
Fine is of course obliged to try to find fault with these hormone studies, challenging, for example, whether FT in the amniotic fluid reflects FT in the brain. Again she overlooks that if we could measure FT in the brain in an ethical way, we would. FT in amniotic fluid is the next best ethical option, and it seems to be showing us that FT is associated with sex differences in the mind.
Ultimately, for me, the biggest weakness of Fine’s neurosexism allegation is the mistaken blurring of science with politics. Her book reads as a polemic about the implicit political bias underlying the science of sex differences. However, this ignores that you can be a scientist interested in the nature of sex differences while being a clear supporter of equal opportunities and a firm opponent of all forms of discrimination in society. One endeavour need have nothing to do with the other. Fusing science with politics is, in my view, unfounded.
-
A review on the British Psychological Society website by Simon Baron Cohen
.... who's really not an objective commentator on this one.
I mean, you could consider it a "right to reply" from him to criticisms of his work, 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.
Also, on a quick glance:
"efforts to explain (purely in terms of social variables) why neurodevelopmental conditions like autism, learning difficulties, and language delay affect boys more often than girls lead to the ludicrous position of blaming these conditions on sexist factors in society (or in parents)."
That's straightforwardly wrong. Conditions can be sex-linked because they're gene-linked -- for example, Rett syndrome only affects girls -- without indicating anything about fundamental differences between male and female brains.
Also there are now strong indications that autism is seriously under-diagnosed in girls/women -- which may be partly because of gendered stereotypes about how it presents (the Asperger "little professor" is assumed to be a boy not a girl, etc.). There may well still be a gender skew in the incidence (given that we know there are genetic factors), but it's somewhat ironic to pick that as an example when assumptions about "extreme male brains" are part of why we don't know what the ratio actually is.
-
Of course, but then who would be an objective commentator? Show me someone who has no agenda. Perhaps we need AI reviewers.
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'?
-
]
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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?
😉
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.... ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
All of this b😮lox is based on the assumption that things like free will and choice are a reality.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Haha. Fair point man. Probably best leaving it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
You could check here?
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26077.msg581028/topicseen.html#new
-
Just getting around to catching up on this thread.
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.
I honestly struggle to understand what social barrier exists anymore that's a barrier to women more than men. That doesn't mean there aren't any, I just can't think of any. On my last few visits to two different indoor walls in N.Wales this week I was interested to look around and estimate the ratio of women to men. Honestly the ratio was near 50/50 - at most it might have been 60/40 men/women. Hopefully this ratio will emerge outdoors on crags and boulders. It hasn't yet but as you say there is time for it to trickle through. If it doesn't, then that suggests there is a factor that makes women less attracted or motivated to climbing outdoors than men (I don't think this is true, just that there must be an explanation for a difference); and onward the same for new routing if the ratio doesn't equalise.
.. 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 disagree with this interpretation. It isn't controversial to acknowledge that there are male/female biological differences that have an effect, especially in sports. Differences in muscle mass an obvious example. Differences in hormones another pertinent one. If there are differences on average in the way a male's/female's amygdala functions - the evidence suggests this is correct - then that's just a biological fact the same as muscle mass is. It needn't mean anything is behind a barrier - it all comes down to whether or not you're motivated. The key point about all this is 'motivation', because that's the manifestion of a drive. If you're a woman and you're motivated to smash out new routes outdoors then there's nothing whatsoever that I see that should stop you from doing that. That to me is more empowering than looking for straw men arguments - haha literally! - to fight against to explain a difference in numbers of male to female new routers.
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.
See above
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.
When does a social factor become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
If you have the inherent drives required of new routing outdoors then you'll have the required motivation. If you have the required motivation then there is no social barrier that I can think of that should stop you following your drive. Male or female.
edit: typos
-
So I was just reading the BMC Peak Area Newsletter, and funnily enough, the Climbing News section mentions the "interesting-looking bits and bobs" that Rachel Briggs has been finding at Burbage North:
https://www.instagram.com/newascents/
-
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.
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.
-
I honestly struggle to understand what social barrier exists anymore that's a barrier to women more than men. That doesn't mean there aren't any
The key point about all this is 'motivation', because that's the manifestion of a drive. If you're a woman and you're motivated to smash out new routes outdoors then there's nothing whatsoever that I see that should stop you from doing that.
If you have the inherent drives required of new routing outdoors then you'll have the required motivation. If you have the required motivation then there is no social barrier that I can think of that should stop you following your drive. Male or female.
With respect: it's frequently very hard to notice or appreciate social barriers if you're not in the group that's affected by them. They can be subtle but pervasive and still powerful.
Even the assumption that a woman who does new routing is a weird anomaly who probably has a "male brain" -- that's a teeny little social barrier, all by itself.
-
Rather than trying to explain the nature of social barriers, how about just cutting to the chase and stating what social barriers you think exist.
I'm assuming I can't be the barrier that's been preventing all these women from establishing new routes to date?
BTW it's an anomaly for a man to establish new routes too, as pointed out elsewhere on this thread and as is obvious in reality. That fact doesn't stop those men who chose to establish new routes..
-
So I was just reading the BMC Peak Area Newsletter, and funnily enough, the Climbing News section mentions the "interesting-looking bits and bobs" that Rachel Briggs has been finding at Burbage North:
https://www.instagram.com/newascents/
Assume that's T_B's trouble and strife.
-
Assume that's T_B's trouble and strife.
New lower-grade problems at Burble North, good stuff! I will definitely be checking some of those out, I think.
-
I'm assuming I can't be the barrier that's been preventing all these women from establishing new routes to date?
No, but if you're expressing a more widely held attitude -- that new routing is such a "guy thing" that it's a bit weird if a woman does it (and requires explanations about how her brain might be "male" in some way) -- then that kind of attitude can certainly help discourage people.
And yes, you're right that some people can and do push past social barriers, which is why I expect to see more women new-routing, especially as those barriers get flattened.
But attitudes and expectations and stereotypes have an impact on what people do, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.
BTW it's an anomaly for a man to establish new routes too, as pointed out elsewhere on this thread and as is obvious in reality. That fact doesn't stop those men who chose to establish new routes..
No, it's a (relative) rarity for men to establish new routes, not an anomaly. There's no shortage of male new-routing role models, and no-one reacts to a man doing a new route by suggesting that he has a "female brain".
-
I'm assuming I can't be the barrier that's been preventing all these women from establishing new routes to date?
No, but if you're expressing a more widely held attitude -- that new routing is such a "guy thing" that it's a bit weird if a woman does it (and requires explanations about how her brain might be "male" in some way) -- then that kind of attitude can certainly help discourage people.
And yes, you're right that some people can and do push past social barriers, which is why I expect to see more women new-routing, especially as those barriers get flattened.
You keep stating that there are social barriers in climbing. But I don't accept there are any barriers. If you could give some convincing evidence I might be convinced.. But you still haven't given a concrete example of a social barrier which is preventing women from new routing.
And you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that I'm expressing the view that I think new routing 'is a guy thing'. I'm not expressing any such view. I doubt other posters on this thread think I'm trying to say that either. My response to any female going out new routing would be the same simple response I expect it would be from the vast majority of climbers - 'nice one'.
It's almost as if you're actively seeking to construct a social barrier to crash against, to prove there is a social barrier. I mentioned self-fulfilling prophecy in one of my previous posts..
I'm not saying new routing is a guy thing - I'm simply pointing out what everybody knows, that guys do mostly all the new routes, and pondering what the reasons are for that. Seeing as I'm entirely unconvinced that there are any legitimate social barriers in climbing, I therefore look at other reasons. It might be down purely to a numbers thing, but if so then that leads me to question why the large number of females climbing indoors hasn't, yet, translated to outdoors new routing. Maybe they will, we'll see.
But if it's not a numbers thing (I'm not convinced) then I can't help but wonder what? I know from experience what new routing is like, and what sort of mindset/motivation it requires - it's a solitary, niche, obsessive and slightly different from the norm type of climbing activity. And I'm a bit of a layperson geek and have for a long time been fascinated by brain science, psychology and how people tick. And I'm aware there are, if you accept scientific consensus, clear differences in male/females amygdala and other brain regions - a result of which are differences in typical male/female drives. That to me has more than a ring of possibility to it - certainly more ring of truth than some undefined unspecified social barrier that many people in climbing think doesn't exist.
But that doesn't preclude any female from doing anything. We're just talking bout averages here. Plenty of possibility in climbing - what with its freedom to do as you please - for anyone who has the motivation to do whatever they wish.
So none of this comes from an origin of thinking - 'what, xyz? That's a guy thing'. It comes from a position of curiosity and looking at the evidence.
-
I wrote a long reply to Petes earlier post where he asked Slabs to “name specific” impediments (or similar).
Then deleted it.
It’s quite hard to put the reply in context without laying out our entire lives here at OMM HQ.
So, in brief...
Life sucks right now. It’s stressful. That lead to some pretty heavy arguments. Over the weekend, we had our car broken in to and my daughter poured boiling water over her foot (yep, the real deal. Hours in A&E, debriding on Gas and air, morphine and gel dressings etc).
There’s a pending court case hanging over us.
And...
The wanker that murdered the father of two of my kids, is up for parole (apparently “life” means 10 years) and they and Mrs OMM have had to write “impact statements” and she was supposed to attend his hearing to read it to the board (couldn’t do it, in the end, not sit in the room with him and try to speak. So it will go ahead without her).
And some other complicated shite.
But, mainly, our biggest problem is my son.
You see, he’s probably Autistic, but in that high functioning way that makes it hard to diagnose. There is some extremely challenging behaviour, that I’d rather not detail, but has driven us to breaking point and we’ve called for outside help.
It all prompted some rather deep conversations and analysis, in that post blazing row sort of way.
It also brought to light, how many expectations there are, of Mrs OMM, the role she’s expected to play and the things she’s expected to forego, in order to be “mother” (even to a child that’s not actually hers).
These expectations and assumptions, come from the “professionals” supposedly planning our parenting strategies, from the school, from her own mother.
Without exception, all of those mentioned there, are female.
It’s a lot of little things (she’s expected to take time off work to deal with this, they were shocked that I said I would, for instance), that add up to a serious mill stone, chained around her neck, of peer judgement and pressure; that is eye opening to witness.
I mean, this post doesn’t even come close to relaying all the little links in that chain, that in truth I only began to notice, these last few years.
And, for shame, that’s more to do with being the father of a teenage girl, who wants to pursue a “male” career and a younger girl obsessed with playing football and reaching the age where she has to leave her team, because boys and girls are not allowed to play together after age 12 (now there’s a misogynistic cabal of total wankers (The Junior FA)).
And,also, because I quit my career, to be a (at first) a single parent and dropped into this female world of “single parent”. I was usually the only man in the play park. As a widower, I was a rarity in the various support groups that were filled with widows (Mrs OMM was one of them). I heard so many things, realised so many things.
Do you understand how many women have been raped? I fucking didn’t! I actually thought it was rare, that most men are basically good and it’s just a few bad seeds and...
Then you sit in some support group session, with all these women who have finally got up the courge to date another human and put their fragile hearts on the line, only to be “date raped” (or worse). It’s a majority! Pretty sure, something like 70% of the women I got to know.
It all adds up to a metric shit tonne of social pressure for women to act in a certain way and takes a very strong person to push through. And then they will get shit, from all angles, including their peers.
Ride a motor bike like a twat?
If you’re a boy, your a “Lad” (insert knowing grin).
If you’re a girl, your a slut, or a lezzer (insert sneer).
Perhaps the worst part, though (possibly) is realising how much you (I mean me) are actually pressured to behave in a certain way and fill your gender role, to the satisfaction of society at large.
Another story, but that’s something that becoming a widowed father, etches into your consciousness. We’re all victims of that crap.
So, what I’m trying to say is, maybe asking Slabs to point to that particular thing, that clear impediment, that obvious barrier; is missing the point.
I don’t know, ask your mum, your partner (if they have the requisite genitalia), your sister, your daughter, A.N.Other human of the female persuasion; before you reach for “biological differences” as your first choice of character defining influences.
I’m going to regret writing this, aren’t I.
Fuck it. Been a long week and it’s only Tuesday.
-
That's some post Matt, sounds very hard. I hope things improve for you guys. Hard to follow that really.
Being the father of girls does open ones eyes to the different ways girls and boys are treated. Clothes wind me up. Clothes for boys tend to be about doing cool stuff - astronaut, adventurer, dinosaurs! - while girls are about being pretty or a princess - these are not things I want my kids to aspire to. By 5 they're telling you only boys can like dinosaurs. Even liking dinosaurs is genderr biased wtf!
-
Thanks for writing that, and I hope you're not regretting it too much. It can't have been easy to write (or to live, fuck), but it's important. I hope your week gets easier ...
-
Just read your post again Matt. It's good. Thanks for posting it.
-
That’s a brave post- and more besides. Wad.
-
Bravo Matt.
-
I have read this topic with interest, quietly, as I always do with ukb... Probably other women do the same. Not entirely sure why?
Anyhow, I've only ever made one first ascent of a route and I wonder what the reason is for that. On reflection, here's my answer from a female perspective:
I'm too lazy/busy. I choose to use my energy and climbing time for quality stuff, and there's not much spare for cleaning and equipping routes that potentially might not even 'go'.
I'm not especially bothered about posterity, leaving a legacy or my mark on the rock. At least, I did enjoy the feeling but it's not a strong, motivating force.
The good rock seems pretty much climbed out. I watched statement of youth last week and it stood out to me just how much that generation had to go at, it really was a blank canvas. It's not like that these days, new king lines are rare in the UK (not nonexistent, but few and far between).
Finally, I have noticed that the climbers who find ace bits of 'new' rock have a tendency to keep it secret so that they can develop it themselves. When they have climbed all within their range, they seem to open it up to their friends first before sharing with the wider world. Fair enough, but it means fewer people getting a piece of the pie.
All these hurdles are not gender specific as far as I can see.
-
All these hurdles are not gender specific as far as I can see.
Great post and I agree....
I think (really) there should be a new/different thread about "why do people put up new routes/problems?" (or something like that). SHARK/mods is this possible to fork / split the thread from here?
There were a couple of posts earlier in the thread where people explained why they thought putting up new problems was so ace etc.. that (from memory) seemed to espouse about its greatness. I've done a few new problems (probably less than 10) that has included de-veging, cleaning, a wee bit of digging etc.. and if I am brutally honest.
Meh.
Its nice when other people repeat them and say "great" or "scrittly choss shit hole" or however they may describe them - but if no-one ever goes near them I'm not fussed :D
Quite simply: I don't get a big buzz out of finding/doing new problems.
Some people do - great! I think I can see the reasons why - and its brilliant people do this - but not me. I love bouldering and going and climbing in new places. I also love seiging problems for ages, but I'm happy to leave the problem hunting to those who love it.
-
All these hurdles are not gender specific as far as I can see.
Great post and I agree....
I think (really) there should be a new/different thread about "why do people put up new routes/problems?" (or something like that). SHARK/mods is this possible to fork / split the thread from here?
I would hate to split out NaoB's :wave: first post when it specifically answers something in this thread from a personal gender angle (even if the conclusion was that gender had nothing to do with it!) to a a new topic that was not to do with gender specific motivations.
How about you start a new thread maybe with some relevant quotes from this one on new routing motivations.
-
Thanks for the welcome Simon.
I forgot to say earlier that I am incredibly impressed by the few climbers I know who are prolific new routers. Folk like Pete, Robin and Greg work so hard looking for and developing new climbs that the rest of us can then enjoy. I don't want to do that myself.... But I do appreciate it!
-
By coincidence, I got into an argument with some “formers” on insta.
It wasn’t private conversation, but it is a bit of a special interest group (mainly ex-service personnel now involed in PT or coaching etc), so people tendto be somewhat unguarded in their responses.
No names, no pack drill; but this is the kind of attitude that persists in many quarters..
The Gent in question is a former of both SAS and SBS(R) and an accomplished mountaineer and author.
(https://i.ibb.co/br9FxhC/68-C03-D4-D-9223-445-E-92-CE-2-CC3-E3-BB3-F6-E.jpg)
Now, many years ago, as a PO Tiff, I was part of the build crew for HMS Westminster, a type 23 Frigate and the first ship in the RN to be built to carry (and therefore the first to carry a full compliment of) women. We were an experiment, previously the female compliment had been (effectively) supernumerary.
There were numerous problems.
As an example, at sea, the crew are the firefighters. You can’t call Trumpton in the middle of the Southern ocean. All members of the ship’s company have to train as fully fledged Firefighters and re-qualify annually. At sea, there will be a “Standing Sea Fire Party”, who rotate to provide a first response team.
In those days, we used a single piece compressed wool firefighting suit, called a “Fearnaught”, heavy leather fireproof boots and welders gloves. With BA sets and commed helmets (actually pinched from the Armoured regiments), a large, lead acid battery pack and miners head lamp.
All told 53lbs of kit, over top of Nomex Overalls, cotton under gloves and balaclavas and thick wool knee length socks.
(Fighting fires, inside a steel box full of diesel fuel, Avcat and a variety of things designed to go bang in a big way; is not fun).
So, before we even left Swanhunters shipyard, on the first night the entire crew spent on the ship; we have a major firex.
Like clockwork. No worries.
Next day, we put to sea for initial trials.
First order of business, an “at sea” fire drill, because that’s different to an “alogside” drill.
Disaster.
You see, this time, half the forward fire party were women. Turns out that the ship only carries “Large” or “Extra large”, the boots are either a 10 or a 12 and the women (3 out of the eight person team), cannot actually move.
You see, there were (in those days) height (min) and weight (max) requirements for men joining the Navy, so that Standard locker met the needs of most men. If you were a size 8 shoe, the 10 was ok with extra socks so, you took them with you. If you were a 13, you could squeeze into the 12.
One of the girls (she was 19), was just under 5’ and a size 3 shoe.
Ok.
We can sort this. Other sizes exist, it’s just a matter of calling stores and re-equipping the lockers.
So, that’s exactly what the Chief Stoker did (the man in charge of firefighting and damage control).
A few weeks later, another firex and it all grinds to a halt, before it starts. This time the ship is full of CS (Chemical Smoke or Tear Gas) used to make it more realistic. Bloody uncomfortable for the entire crew and nobody is amused that it’s all stopped.
Turns out, on this rotation, the Aft party is all male, have rocked up to don gear, only to find 2x Large, 2xExtra large, 2x Small and 2x Extra small suits in the locker and one of them wanders out onto the flight deck to model his bermuda short/ 3/4 length sleeve Fearnaught suit, aka a “Chocolate Fire Guard”...
Anyway. Turned out they had to change the protective clothing completely, fleetwide.
But, not until after the “women are too physically different/little/weak/not supposed to be here” shit reached an absolute crescendo of Daily Fail-esque wailing.
There was also the occasion when a girl on the team couldn’t lift the hatch to make re-entry into a compartment, because she wasn’t strong enough, just to add to the shouting match.
But.
Those blokes were wrong.
The kit was crap. Swapping out for a two piece suit, meant it fitted everyone better and reduced dressing times. Storing extra boots, wasn’t hard.
The women coming in, had either transferred from the ( now disbanded) WRNs or were being recruited under their fitness standards (much lower).
Thirty years later. It’s a faint memory. Funny that it ever happened. The answer always turned out to be a change of attitude for the institution and the existing personnel (men).
Now, the Army and Marines have been told to suck it up. It’s bloody disheartening that lessons learned 30 years ago are going to have to be re-learned...
-
Like you I've lived through all of that stuff about female/male roles in the forces and experienced first-hand some of the attitudes. Maybe people on ukb would like to hear war stories, I don't know.. but it's got tit-all to do with the specific topic at hand really.
To reiterate - **in climbing** I don't think there are any demonstrable barriers to doing whatever the heck you'd like to do, whether you're a man or a woman.
-
Hmmm, possibly.
But, I’m only trying to give context to the last two paragraphs. Otherwise, it’s just random assertion, without basis.
It really was just that, I was reminded again, that social pressures (and perceived gender roles) were, are and probably will continue to be part of the context of “Life” and cannot be so narrowly defined as (for instance) “in climbing” and divorced from the rest of “Life”.
Also, that given a level playing field (like, the same fitness test (or at leadt comparable) regardless of gender) the problems which might be considered “biological” were not the serious barrier imagined by the “blokes”.
I don’t see how you can argue that “No demonstrable barriers exist” in climbing (to gender equality) when barriers, attitudes, role expectations, peer pressure, historic belittlement and “since birth” social programming; is so blatent and ever present, before our hypothetical woman even reaches these Elesium fields of barrier free acceptance and encouragement.
Seriously, your argument boils down to “ APART FROM barriers, attitudes, role expectations, peer pressure, historic belittlement and “since birth” social programming and the impossibility of divorcing climbing life from the rest of life; WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US? EH?”
Edit:
Shit, I almost forgot. Did you miss the bit where I said the man who made that post is “an accomplished mountaineer and author”? Because that’s critical to my point. He’s one of us.
Also, it was meant to be an observation, because the topic has been on my mind, not a refutation to you specifically.
More that I see more barriers, the closer/longer I look.
-
To reiterate - **in climbing** I don't think there are any demonstrable barriers to doing whatever the heck you'd like to do, whether you're a man or a woman.
I know of girls who, as teenagers, were teased for the muscularity they gained from climbing. I'm aware of lots of women who find things like the training area at their local wall to be male dominated and intimidating. And at the crag, the vast majority of people I see climbing are men (last time at the Tor I think there was one woman climbing, and about half a dozen male pairs dogging around on routes). I think all of these things are demonstrable barriers for womens involvement in various aspects of climbing. They aren't closed doors, of course, but a barrier doesn't have to be a closed door, it can be a small thing that makes it just a little bit harder.
-
I just wanted to say, I hadn’t heard the NASA spacewalk story, prior to my post on the 27th.
Turns out, things haven’t changed much:
https://bbc.in/2FDupii (https://bbc.in/2FDupii)
Edit:
Meant to ask if there were equipment oversights, that impact on your climbing. I’m guessing that clothing, shoes and harness type stuff is fairly well provided for, but is there anything less obvious?
-
To reiterate - **in climbing** I don't think there are any demonstrable barriers to doing whatever the heck you'd like to do, whether you're a man or a woman.
I know of girls who, as teenagers, were teased for the muscularity they gained from climbing. I'm aware of lots of women who find things like the training area at their local wall to be male dominated and intimidating. And at the crag, the vast majority of people I see climbing are men (last time at the Tor I think there was one woman climbing, and about half a dozen male pairs dogging around on routes). I think all of these things are demonstrable barriers for womens involvement in various aspects of climbing. They aren't closed doors, of course, but a barrier doesn't have to be a closed door, it can be a small thing that makes it just a little bit harder.
None of those things are really barriers inherent in climbing though. Some of those aren't even specific to women.
For example you say you know girls who get teased for the muscles gained from climbing. For every teased girl there is a teased nerdy boy, who doesn't like football but loves climbing. Or did male bullying stop?
If a training area in a climbing wall feels male dominated to women then there's a very simple fix for that. I mentioned a few posts back that in the walls I've visited over the past month the male/female ratio hasn't been far off 50/50 - probably around 60/40 M/F on average. Any of those women can walk into the 'male dominated' training area and even out the ratio. Nobody is going to stop you, and nobody is going to change it for you. It's the same as in any gym where males and females congregate.
Regards M/F ratio at crags - nothing other than a bit of social apprehension should be stopping women from going outdoors to - in your example The Tor - and hence evening out the ratio. That isn't a sexist barrier put in place by anyone (not suggesting you're saying it is btw).
Mentioning lack of equipment for space walks and an acquaintance's views about females in special forces as if they have anything to do with female opportunities in climbing seems to be grasping at straws. 'Climbing' is not lacking in all the equipment designed for women you could possibly want to spend your money on. Climbing isn't a job, or an institution with a male hierarchical structure. Climbing doesn't exist for the core purpose of the application of state-approved violence against almost exclusively other extremely violent men. ::) Making those comparisons is self-fulfilling prophecy stuff, seeking out a problem for a solution.
Some people have used the point that 'hardly any other women do xyz, therefore it's harder for women to do xyz'. In new routing this is no justification. By it's very nature, hardly anyone establishes new routes and nobody will have done *that* route before. It's a total free for all, which hardly anyone gets involved in. That's part of what's so attractive about it to me. If everyone did it I'd probably not be attracted and would just enjoy the fruits of their work instead. Lack of precedent is part of the attraction of new routing not part of a problem!
I accept lack of precedent/lack of numbers might be a hurdle for people whose traits make them attracted to following the 'norm', but that isn't a female-specific hurdle.
I got into this topic because the original poster stated: So today is international women's day. A day as good as any to reflect on what needs to be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing.
I struggle to think of a more egalitarian activity than climbing - I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that women don't have exactly the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing.
Why they haven't done so in the specific realm of establishing new routes is an interesting question. I accept that part of the answer is down to timing and numbers - as in if it were the 80s but with the current ratio of men/women then things would probably look different. But that doesn't seem to be the whole answer.
-
😱
-
I've avoided adding my views on this because I hate debating on the internet because more often than not it's like talking to a closed-minded brick wall. This will probably have no effect on petejh, but hopefully it will enlighten some others.
The points joel182 make are all very valid and align to what I see as being some of the biggest barriers to women's equality in climbing. The counterpoints petejh makes are an excellent example of something already mentioned in this thread, a white middle-class male not being able to see everyday prejudices, and therefore determining "there are no barriers to women in climbing."
For example you say you know girls who get teased for the muscles gained from climbing. For every teased girl there is a teased nerdy boy, who doesn't like football but loves climbing. Or did male bullying stop?
This isn't even recognising the point, let alone addressing it. Body issues in females have been discussed here at great length recently. It goes beyond vanity to self-confidence. If a woman is made to feel uncomfortable because climbing changes her body, then that is a barrier to women in climbing. The football analogy is bizarre; it's because I hate football that pushed me towards (former) countercultural activities such as climbing. In that respect, that analogy is the opposite of a barrier. Either way, it's unrelated to the point joel182 makes.
If a training area in a climbing wall feels male dominated to women then there's a very simple fix for that. I mentioned a few posts back that in the walls I've visited over the past month the male/female ratio hasn't been far off 50/50 - probably around 60/40 M/F on average. Any of those women can walk into the 'male dominated' training area and even out the ratio. Nobody is going to stop you, and nobody is going to change it for you. It's the same as in any gym where males and females congregate.
Again, you appear to have missed the point entirely. Using the Depot board room as a prime example of this (and perhaps partially contributing towards it myself by climbing in there when there's a group of us), it can seem very laddy and intimidating. There's a thick stench of masculinity in that board room that is no doubt intimidating to women. There's strong language, banter, tops-off-for-power strong lads in there, it's hardly a welcoming environment. Of course, if a woman did walk in there and start climbing, which happens occasionally, then they're welcomed. More often than not though, these women already know the men in there. So for a woman (and indeed, probably many men too) who sees a big bunch of strange lads huddled away in a back room ripping the shit out of each other, it's going to appear vulgar and off-putting. This is a barrier to women using the training equipment, therefore a barrier to women in climbing.
I can't really be bothered to argue any of the other points, but just wanted to make those two key points. On the whole, I feel the situation is improving; more and more women seem to be getting into climbing, no doubt thanks to things like the Women's Climbing Symposia, Shauna Coxsey being the best in the world, and increased female presence in climbing media. However, climbing to me still seems largely male-dominated and not necessarily a welcoming environment towards women. When popular social media accounts (run by close friends of sponsored climbers) make "joke" posts about sexual violence towards women and it's accepted as part of the climbing scene, then there's a huge issue of toxic masculinity pervading climbing. Frequently, phrases like "I just need to man up and go for it," "don't be such a pussy," and "I've not got the balls for that move" are used, which just exacerbates the situation. Masculinity should have nothing to do with how a person climbs; movement on rock or plastic is not gendered so don't make it so.
I could go on huge rants about social media in general (look on instagram's #climbing or #mountains and things like that, it's mainly scantily clad women being sexualised to sell a lifestyle and/or product) but I'll save that for another time.
There are barriers to women in climbing. Not acknowledging there are barriers to women in climbing is itself a barrier to women in climbing.
-
Good post andy.
-
Your examples of 'barriers' can very quickly be shown not to be genuine female-specific barriers by considering if removing the 'issue' is reasonable.
A training board full of lads with their tops off, jibing each other and sessioning problems. What's the solution to this supposed gender specific 'barrier' - rules against removing tops? Rules banning banter? Rules against groups of greater than 'n' males allowed to congregate?
No of course not (I wouldn't argue against the tops..). Because none of that would be a reasonable response to what amounts to extremely trivial issues of differences in how some men and women behave in the real world. That doesn't constitute 'a gender specific barrier in climbing'.
The example of a boy being bullied or teased because he isn't into football - change for whatever 'norm activity' you want - is just to point out that for any example of a girl being teased for not fitting the norm there are just as equal male examples. It doesn't constitute a gender specific barrier to climbing.
The obvious answer in the two examples above is live and let live, treat others as equals, show a bit of consideration and treat people how you would like to be treated. Nothing dramatic just everyday courtesy.
-
😱
Yep.
-
Your examples of 'barriers' can very quickly be shown not to be genuine female-specific barriers by considering if removing the 'issue' is reasonable.
A training board full of lads with their tops off, jibing each other and sessioning problems. What's the solution to this supposed gender specific 'barrier' - rules against removing tops? Rules banning banter? Rules against groups of greater than 'n' males allowed to congregate?
No of course not (I wouldn't argue against the tops..). Because none of that would be a reasonable response to what amounts to extremely trivial issues of differences in how some men and women behave in the real world. That doesn't constitute 'a gender specific barrier in climbing'.
The example of a boy being bullied or teased because he isn't into football - change for whatever 'norm activity' you want - is just to point out that for any example of a girl being teased for not fitting the norm there are just as equal male examples. It doesn't constitute a gender specific barrier to climbing.
The obvious answer in the two examples above is live and let live, treat others as equals, show a bit of consideration and treat people how you would like to be treated. Nothing dramatic just everyday courtesy.
You are Jordan Peterson and I claim my £5.
That’s gentle ribbing Pete, I get you’re not an extremist, even remotely.
It’s a little stubborn of you to decide to so selectively isolate climbing from the rest of LIFE, because it’s kinda hard for the rest of us, male and female alike. It’s also obstinate to ignore the multiple examples of “LIFE” being weighted against women, everywhere you look.
But hey, anyone who disagrees is just “virtue signaling” right?
And so you perpetuate the thing you deny.
-
Pete, your refusal to even contemplate the possibility that there are barriers to female participation that you as a man either cannot see or cannot understand really says it all.
Is it any wonder so few women post here?
-
Seeing as there’s still a dearth of opinion from actual women on this thread, I just asked t’other half what barriers she’d experienced as a woman in climbing..
Her answer was “none, but I face barriers all the time for being too short!”
I asked her if she found groups of topless overly-serious male youth in the training area off-putting: She said “no, I just really enjoy watching the male students on Wednesday night failing on the problems I’ve done :devil-smiley:” although she does cry sexism that she’s not allowed to take her top off too :slap:
She says she doesn’t do new routes because she’s got more important things to do with her time, and it doesn’t interest her..
She doesn’t post on UKB because she’s “allergic to social media”
This may seem flippant, but is coming from someone who has fought hard to break through some very real glass ceilings to be successful in her career as an army surgeon, and doesn’t suffer fools, nor patronage from those who see her as a member of victim group, gladly.
-
See, that’s fantastic.
I mean that sincerely, without a hint of sarcasm or irony, because it gives me hope.
I asked my partner to contribute, because she has a different view, but she refuses to have anything to do with UKB anymore (Pollylolly I think is her user name). She calls it UKBollocks, because it’s all cock swinging, confrontational, balls.
She’s an ex-Trinity House Deck Officer, from a millitary family (Navy) etc. She’s no shrinking violet. (Jesus, but no one else could deal with me).
She is also my boss. That is to say, she owns the Climbing gym I run. She, though, is a firmly V1 boulderer or laps of a 5 on an auto belay. Prefering to belay or act as photographer on our family climbing days.
I wanted her to explain, how the climbers using the wall, treated her when she was on duty, in the early days and how she has developed a strong dislike of most climbers who don’t climb in family groups; since we opened the wall.
I often disagree with her, or think she’s being over sensitive, but she won’t even use her own gym if it’s actually open. I didn’t just invent everything to piss Pete off.
-
Thanks measles, it's good to actually have some data! More would be useful. If anyone else female (or indeed from a minority, I'd be intrigued by that perspective too) would like to contribute to this discussion, that would be awesome.
-
There are three female contributors to this thread saying there are no specific barriers in climbing for women:
RB
Nao
Measles' partner
-
There are three female contributors to this thread saying there are no specific barriers in climbing for women:
RB
Nao
Measles' partner
Are you bringing it back for a 3rd MV? 😂
-
Apols for trying to state facts. :shrug:
-
I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with Pete's points. I think I'd hazard that women certainly do face barriers to being involved in climbing, as do men, but they're different. I'd agree that climbing is noticeably more egalitarian than most sports. The tor is a poor example of a cliquey 'Male' environment, it is no doubt at all cliquey, but that isn't gender specific!
To accuse Pete of being Jordan Peterson is pretty offensive. Well, I'd be offended. A voice like Kermit and a 100% beef diet? Cambridge university must have been worried about his farts more than his views... anyway sorry to veer off topic.
-
Seriously Toby, I specifically stated that the JP thing was a joke, in the next line; of course I don’t think Pete is even remotely in that region of lunacy, and he’s certainly not being anti-woman.
Pete, Slabs actually stated there were social impediments, which you asked her to detail and pinpoint. Relevant, surely. Unless we’re going to say that society wide equality has been achieved? So I don’t see how pointing documented instances of bias in wider society should be excluded as a counter to your argument. Nor do I see that as branding women as, or corralling them into, a “victimhood culture”.
I do think you missed my point about the Instagram post, too, it’s not the SF aspect, it’s the language used. “Splits”? I haven’t heard that phrase for 20 years, I thought we were passed that. (He also run the company that organises some pretty high profile endurance races, worldwide; so the attitude seemed even more irritating).
You moved the goal posts, as far as I’m concerned, because we were discussing your assertion that brain structure/ neuroscience was the most likely reason for (in your eyes) female under representation in new routing and I reckon you’re wrong, because I can see/have witnesed a myriad of wider social pressures that seem way more likely to be influential, than your proposed notions.
I’m perfectly well aware of the similar, but perhaps not gender specific impediments that all of us face, I just didn’t see it as part of this discussion.
Further, as I read it, none of the reasons given by the actual experts, for their limited new routing work, reflect aything other than the exact same reasons the vast majority of male climbers don’t do it either.
-
The women whose voices I would most like to hear are those who most strongly experience there being gender-specific barriers in climbing; however they are the people least likely to post here. Nonetheless, to add to the data I've asked my girlfriend, Marie, about her perception of barriers to women in climbing.
Marie could think of a few examples of barriers as she experiences them, such as there being fewer female partners for trad (a diminishing factor as more women get into harder trad); her finding it easier to climb with climbers of a similar height & style (which rules out most men but not necessarily women, which reduces availability of partners, although she acknowledged that living in Sheffield reduces this factor due to the number of women regularly climbing); women are more likely to be sexualised than men or judged on their appearance (i.e. if climbing in a sports bra).
What I found most interesting is that the examples she gave were not what I expected her to say, even though I thought I had a good idea of what constituted barriers for women in climbing
Tangent: Marie is sat next to me and really likes the fishing emoji: :fishing:
-
Pete, your refusal to even contemplate the possibility that there are barriers to female participation that you as a man either cannot see or cannot understand really says it all.
Is it any wonder so few women post here?
This needs a reply because of how far off the mark you are Andy.
'My refusal to contemplate'?! Could you be any more wrong? It's exactly my contemplating the possibility ''that there are barriers to female participation in climbing'' that's driven me to ask the questions I've asked in this thread!
I've questioned the premise that lies behind the OP's statement: 'A day as good as any to reflect on what needs to be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing'. I.e. the premise that women have less possibilities in climbing than men.
I'm actually completely open-minded to being shown that yes, women really do have fewer possibilities in climbing than men. So far I haven't seen very much convincing evidence for that claim.
And yes, I readily admit I'm starting from a belief that women have exactly the same possibilities as men do (I'm talking about in climbing). I'm open about that and not trying to hide it. But, I'm an open-minded, rational and fair person, open to evidence that conflicts with my beliefs and I'm happy to be proved wrong. So prove me wrong. So far I think many, hopefully fair-minded, people would say the evidence hasn't been very compelling. Including at least three female contributors who've said they believe they have the same possibilities in climbing as men.
To your second remark. This thread has prompted more female input - directly from Slabhappy, and a new contributor - Nao, and indirectly from partners of TB, Measles and Andy - than I can remember in years of UKB posts (that isn't a high bar to surpass admittedly!). So your second remark is as equally nonsense as your first.
Matt - I don't think I moved anything. The brain stuff is a side topic. The main point was about possibilities in climbing.
-
Seriously Toby, I specifically stated that the JP thing was a joke, in hithe next line; of course I don’t think Pete is even remotely in that region of lunacy, and he’s certainly not being anti-woman.
Sorry if you thought I was really criticising you Matt, not at all I just wanted to get at JP! I would say that women clearly encouter barriers to progression in many if not most areas of life but climbing doesn't seem to be one of those.
-
😱 😱
-
Seriously Toby, I specifically stated that the JP thing was a joke, in hithe next line; of course I don’t think Pete is even remotely in that region of lunacy, and he’s certainly not being anti-woman.
Sorry if you thought I was really criticising you Matt, not at all I just wanted to get at JP! I would say that women clearly encouter barriers to progression in many if not most areas of life but climbing doesn't seem to be one of those.
Nah, you just reminded me that any and all jokes, (intended) humorous retorts or hyperbole (for colour) need to be clearly labled and explained. I wonder if there should be a font delineation? All humour or exaggerated language to be written in comic sans?
-
So far I think many, hopefully fair-minded, people would say the evidence hasn't been very compelling. Including at least three female contributors who've said they believe they have the same possibilities in climbing as men.
... This thread has prompted more female input - directly from Slabhappy, and a new contributor - Nao, and indirectly from partners of TB, Measles and Andy
Your post ignores the fact that Joel, Reeve and Matt all reported female partners or acquaintances who believe they have experienced barriers.
The fact that two women posting directly reflects more female input than in years is hardly a cause for celebration.
-
Apols for trying to state facts. :shrug:
And I thought it was closet sexism dressed up as intellectual argument. Don’t disappoint Pete! I grew up with in inherent knowledge that women made good nurses but terrible drivers. Now you guys are saying this isn’t true?
-
Apols for trying to state facts. :shrug:
And I thought it was closet sexism dressed up as intellectual argument.
Why?
Or am I supposed to accept 'it just is OK'.
-
I don’t disagree at all man. Nothing wrong with proving oneself right. It is a bit boring in the long run though, probably quite hard work too. All I hear at work is evidence based practice blah. Someone inevitably comes along with a better version of the truth or counter argument. This thread reads a bit like I’m not sexist but, yes you are cos, I’m not sexist but..... funny huh
-
This thread reads a bit like I’m not sexist but, yes you are cos, I’m not sexist but.....
Yup.
-
Pete, your refusal to even contemplate the possibility that there are barriers to female participation that you as a man either cannot see or cannot understand really says it all.
Is it any wonder so few women post here?
I think this post is a bit 'Westminster bubble'. Of course there are barriers to entry barriers to entry for women but they occur way before a woman sees the inside of a climbing wall or logs on to UKB and the idea that there are specific climbing ones caused by the climbing community is, in my view, nonsense. The barriers are the result of women frequently being left as sole carer for children (or parents) and as a result being poorer, its the result of them facing patriarchal attitudes in their communities outside of climbing etc. I always raise an eyebrow reading reports about women's climbing events breaking down barriers etc. when most attendees are already well travelled, well educated, from relatively privileged background, childless or with supportive partners, from second or third generation recreational outdoor people, etc. etc. I know there are women climbing who don't fit this stereotype but if someone has already overcome social conditioning, childcare issues, time issues and monetary problems to go to a wall they would pretty disdainful of someone describing the lack of female representation on UKB as a barrier! In fact they would probably find climbing a pretty welcoming environment compared to others they'd experienced.
As for the idea that walls/\training areas are intimidating to women, well guess what? They are intimidating to men as well. The wall I go to has a team of very strong young (mostly female) climbers and as nearly 50 year old punter I feel self conscious flailing around but that's life. Some people are self conscious walking into pubs, training areas, work, anywhere and it has nothing to do with gender.
There is no doubt lots to be done to help women get into recreation but I'm with Pete on this.
-
I have read this topic with interest, quietly, as I always do with ukb... Probably other women do the same. Not entirely sure why?
I definitely lurked for a while before I first posted, but I grew up in the era when that was considered good internet etiquette anyway, to get a sense of the context somewhere before joining in, so no idea if that's a gender thing.
Wonder if we could get more lurking women to come out of the wallpaper ...
-
Damn, I thought this thread had stopped after Matt's amazing post; I didn't post a reply I had drafted then because some respectful silence seemed more appropriate than me trying to have a slapfight about Simon Baron-Cohen.
(Also I had to go and climb some things.)
For example you say you know girls who get teased for the muscles gained from climbing. For every teased girl there is a teased nerdy boy, who doesn't like football but loves climbing. Or did male bullying stop?
The nerdy boy who hates football gets into climbing, and he's socially rewarded for it, because it's something he can be good at and it's an "extreme", macho-sounding sport. The nerdy girl gets into climbing -- and she's socially punished for it because ewww, look at her arms, she looks like a guy, who'd want to fuck her.
And from that you're inferring that there aren't social barriers for women in climbing?
If your point is that both women and men get socially penalized for stepping outside the barriers of what's deemed acceptable for their gender roles, then hi, yes, patriarchy hurts men too, thanks for noticing what the feminist movement has been pointing out for a good forty years at this point.
Any of those women can walk into the 'male dominated' training area and even out the ratio. Nobody is going to stop you,
Out of interest, what would you accept as constituting a "social barrier"?
You don't seem to accept that anything might be a barrier unless women are being physically prevented from doing it (or, I guess, legally prevented from doing it).
-
I know there are women climbing who don't fit this stereotype but if someone has already overcome social conditioning, childcare issues, time issues and monetary problems to go to a wall they would pretty disdainful of someone describing the lack of female representation on UKB as a barrier! In fact they would probably find climbing a pretty welcoming environment compared to others they'd experienced.
Okay, I know that most of the female input on this thread (apart from me and NaoB) has been from women who choose not to participate on UKB but whose opinions are being relayed via male partners/friends.
But this is the first time we've heard the opinions of a hypothetical woman being relayed by a guy imagining what they would be.
the idea that there are specific climbing ones caused by the climbing community is, in my view, nonsense
I don't think anyone's claimed that the climbing community is uniquely sexist or more sexist than the rest of society or that it has special barriers which don't exist elsewhere -- just that it doesn't exist in a magic bubble insulated from the rest of society, and that as a result, the climbing community contains some of the same assumptions, prejudices and barriers that exist elsewhere.
As a card-carrying angry feminist, I actually do think that the climbing community's relatively good and that climbing's a relatively (and increasingly) equal playing field compared to many other fields. I've recommended it as an awesome thing for women to get into for that reason!
But we're not in a magic bubble, so of course climbing (and who even gets to become involved in climbing in the first place) is shaped by some of the social prejudices from the wider society. We are not immune.
-
But this is the first time we've heard the opinions of a hypothetical woman being relayed by a guy imagining what they would be.
That reminds me of something... https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwZjB0cPQ4
-
But this is the first time we've heard the opinions of a hypothetical woman being relayed by a guy imagining what they would be.
Post of the decade that. Superb. Chapeau!
That reminds me of something...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwZjB0cPQ4
(fixed the link foryou jr)
-
But this is the first time we've heard the opinions of a hypothetical woman being relayed by a guy imagining what they would be.
Less hypothetical more an amalgam as I didn't want to go into too much personal detail but I can see that that won't wash.
Former partner, struggling for money, two young kids. Liked the idea of going climbing but there was no way she could have managed it for child care, expense, opportunity issues. Point being the barriers are there but they are higher than sexism within the climbing community and in our little middle class bubble we lose sight of that. As it was she did go climbing and enjoyed it but found the participants 'snobby' rather than sexist.
My wife also liked the idea of climbing but never went until we got together, partially due to opportunity, again single parent and also ethnically Chinese so not really any UK role models (we've been together 10 years, I guess things have changed even in that time). Since then she's climbed lots, enjoyed it, never encountered sexism that has bothered her. Interestingly (or not) she did join a women's climbing group based out of one of the walls here in the NW and found it very unwelcoming, however enjoyed going out with an old school climbing club.
The only other person I have discussed this with at length is my long time climbing partner who is of the view that the notion of sexism in climbing is over played (paraphrasing and possible poor choice of words but can't think how better to phrase it).
So three more to add to the list of women unaffected by sexism in climbing, not sure if it adds to the debate felt I needed to justify my earlier words and it seems second hand relaying of opinion is acceptable.
-
It seems to me that
So three more to add to the list of women unaffected by sexism in climbing, not sure if it adds to the debate felt I needed to justify my earlier words and it seems second hand relaying of opinion is acceptable.
I always raise an eyebrow reading reports about women's climbing events breaking down barriers etc. when most attendees are already well travelled, well educated, from relatively privileged background, childless or with supportive partners, from second or third generation recreational outdoor people, etc. etc. I know there are women climbing who don't fit this stereotype but if someone has already overcome social conditioning, childcare issues, time issues and monetary problems to go to a wall they would pretty disdainful of someone describing the lack of female representation on UKB as a barrier! In fact they would probably find climbing a pretty welcoming environment compared to others they'd experienced.
I think you might be confusing the magnitude of the barriers people are describing. Yes, outside of climbing there are greater social injustices and widely held outmoded beliefs which preclude some sections of society from having the same opportunities as others and which they should be entitled to. That, on the whole, isn't the case in climbing (from my perspective). That doesn't mean that some women's experience of other barriers (the uninvited and unwanted sexualised attention my gf described experiencing at a wall for example [I have never experienced - probably too ugly]) is not real and does not create a genuine, although not immediately obvious barrier. Just because climbing is probably ahead of other areas of life when it comes to these things doesn't mean that we should all stop caring about it, because there are clearly still barriers.
In fact, your own example of your ethnically Chinese wife having no role models strikes me as a particularly good example. There are far fewer female climbers sponsored or gaining media attention (and when they do the routes they have done stand a fair chance of being downgraded). It's interesting that you cite this as a barrier for your wife ethnically, whilst ignoring that the exact same reason could easily be cited as a barrier for someone due to their gender.
As an aside, it's only a year since this gem: https://medium.com/@georgieabel/sasha-digulian-joe-kinder-and-the-reframing-of-normal-b0e70d933642 which accuses the whole of the rock climbing world as supporting and promoting a 'rape culture'. I actually think things like this have done more to damage people's willingness to engage with these kind of debates than they have helped their cause, despite there being some grains of truth amongst the chuff.
-
Less hypothetical more an amalgam as I didn't want to go into too much personal detail but I can see that that won't wash.
Okay, thanks for elaborating further.
Point being the barriers are there but they are higher than sexism within the climbing community and in our little middle class bubble we lose sight of that.
But one of the barriers you're talking about is "women frequently being left as sole carer for children (or parents) and as a result being poorer, its the result of them facing patriarchal attitudes in their communities outside of climbing etc".
That's not a result of sexism within the climbing community specifically, but it's certainly the result of sexism, and shapes women's participation (or not) in climbing.
Also it's not like you have to pick sexism OR class/poverty issues and decide that only one of them is real and important. They can both be real! They even intersect! (And women being stuck as sole or primary childcarers would be a prime example of that intersection.)
I feel like there's a weird disjuncture here, where some people are saying "Sexism has an effect on whether and how women get into climbing, and can affect things like whether women get into new routing, because the climbing world isn't magically immune to social attitudes" and other people are hearing "The climbing world is uniquely sexist and bad and male climbers are sexist and terrible" and are reacting against that.
-
I asked my partner to contribute, because she has a different view, but she refuses to have anything to do with UKB anymore (Pollylolly I think is her user name). She calls it UKBollocks, because it’s all cock swinging, confrontational, balls.
I was having an interesting discussion with a (male) climbing partner about why there are so few women posting on UKB, given that both of us felt there's possibly less casual sexism here in some ways than on UKC.
(This thread notwithstanding; I'm really rather heartened that there are a bunch of other dudes arguing with petejh.)
Neither of us could come up with a theory we found convincing. There's definitely a certain style, and it's one women tend not to be socialized in as much (or to be as invested in), but I don't think that can be all of it.
Maybe because it's got a rep for being focused on training and therefore for people who are really strong? I know plenty of women who train a lot, but we're sometimes shyer about our achievements and efforts, and worse at believing that we belong with the Serious Climbers if we're not crushing like Shauna.
I mentioned during the course of this conversation that I'd posted in the YYFY thread when I got Bananafingers and that people had been sincerely pleased for me -- and it's not like I literally thought anyone was going to go "Fuck off out of here with your pathetic classic 6a, this thread is for Font 8a and upwards only!", but it still took a tiny bit of nerve for me to do it.
And that's nothing to do with people's actual responses, which, as I said, were entirely positive; that's the internalized stuff I'm bringing with me in the first place.
-
Before I reply to some of that. For the millionth and one time.. if you're going to accuse me of sexism first try to understand that what I'm questioning here is the premise that lies behind this statement:
''A day as good as any to reflect on what needs to be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing.''
I.e. the premise that:
'women, right now, have fewer possibilities than men do to shape the future of climbing.'
I do not believe we live in an equal society outside of climbing. I do not believe climbing sits in a magic bubble that protects people who climb from the effects of the outside world and what goes on there.
I do believe women have exactly the same possibilities as men do, to shape the future of climbing.
I do believe the culture within climbing is an unusually egalitarian one remarkably lacking in prejudice and discrimination.
I don't believe much good comes from unquestionably accepting things. I'm unable to at least. This leads me to contemplate (yes contemplate Andy P, imagine..) a statement like the one about women's possibilities and question whether it's accurate or even useful to use the argument - that because much of the world suffers from discrimination, it also applies within climbing.
A little context from me, seeing as we're all getting cosy with each other. I was for a short but happy time partners with one of the very, very few female UIAGM mountain guides in this country - at that time I think we're talking single digits. I naturally was interested in her experience of navigating the *extremely* male environment of international mountain guides and what sexism or prejudice she thought she encountered. Her replies that she didn't think she encountered any sexism or prejudice at all actually surprised me.
A previous partner who was also on the (Canadian) mountain guides scheme once persuaded me to put a good word in for her to get her a job working in rope access...
If you think everyday life is unequal and sexist, try being a woman in the construction industry in redneck Canada. She got the job and I basically spent the next year getting into serious arguments with her 'supervisors' on the worksite after hearing about the latest inappropriate remark they'd made to her. That was her close colleagues..
Two other longish term partners, both climbers (bit of trend here..). Neither I recall ever mentioning any negative experiences of prejudice or barriers within the climbing world. Hey maybe they did and I'm just such a stone-hearted dead to the world of emotion automaton that I blindsided it.
That isn't meant as a 'whataboutery' to say hey chin up love things could be worse (though things *could* always be worse). It's just to illustrate that I do have some first-hand experience and insight of seeing and dealing with sexism and prejudice in the workplace; or its surprising lack of.
-
Slabhappy I'm glad you asked what I consider a social barrier. This seems about right:
Differences (inequalities),in gender, ethnicity, race, religion, health or socioeconomic status, between individuals or groups that prevent them from achieving or accomplishing their goals, or deny their opportunity to access resources and to advance their interests.
I don't see any significant barriers within the sphere of climbing. I do see barriers in the wider world outside of climbing. No, I'm not so naive to think these don't have an effect on people who end up becoming climbers but I'm not even trying to argue that.
What I'm questioning is the assumption that many seem to unquestionably have, that there are barriers *within climbing* which are gender-specific and which mean women have fewer opportunities to shape its future. So far nobody has come up with anything of much substance *within climbing*.
As usual in debates I feel that I'm probably in agreement with a lot and that I'm probably being too specific; and people are taking my stance to mean I'm saying sexism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't affect other areas.
I think I'm making this point because, as I think Andy R said somewhere earlier (not suggesting in agreement with my point), I don't think it does anyone any favours in the long run to make the right arguments in the wrong places.
-
I thought it might be useful to post three real things that happened to me and my partner. The first with my now wife.
We were in Costa Blanca and and we told someone at the place we were staying we were going to wild side. Upon hearing this he asked my wife what she did there while he's climbing. The assumption being she wasn't good enough to climb there. Strange because her guns are bigger than mine. I'm seem to recall we referred to him as knobhead after that, although not to his face, which I wish we had.
I spoke to a women once, get me, about the women's climbing symposium. She said she hadn't gone before because she didn't understand the need for a women specific symposium. But there were women there who were basically too scared to climb in front of men.
My wife reports regularly that she feels she gets comments on her appearance while climbing that she feels men wouldn't get. These comment make her feel awkward and self conscious.
-
Before I reply to some of that. For the millionth and one time.. if you're going to accuse me of sexism first try to understand that...
I think I'm making this point because, as I think Andy R said somewhere earlier (not suggesting in agreement with my point), I don't think it does anyone any favours in the long run to make the right arguments in the wrong places.
Presumably that's refering to me bringing up the 'climbing supports a rape culture' chestnut. "Right arguments in the wrong places" isn't quite what I meant, rather 1. I'm actually pleased that you're continuing to be so vocal, even though I disagree with a lot of what you've written and think you keep missing what many people are posting; and 2. statements like Andy P made re. 'if you don't get it then you're part of the problem' actually does nothing to push the conversation forwards - it closes it down. For example, I remember reading or posting (not sure now) about something similar on FB ages back and someone pulled out a similar line, which completely shut down any conversation, when actually there were good points being made by both protagonists.
I think you might have hit the nail on the head Pete when you said that you often get stuck in debates by being too specific. Well almost, it seems to me that you're stuck in this debate because where everyone else sees social barriers as things that are encountered by women (and others, of course), you are adamant that individual women are capable of overcoming them:
Quote from: petejh on March 30, 2019, 10:27:36 am
Any of those women can walk into the 'male dominated' training area and even out the ratio. Nobody is going to stop you,
so you don't define them as barriers. I think (certainly speaking for myself) that this has been confused for you denying their existence or power. I certainly don't remember you acknowledging the power that these things can have though so I can see how this would happen. I suspect this is the source of comments suggesting that you don't get it or that you are sexist. Do you believe that social forces like this can exert can influence on people?
-
So 6 pages in and still, despite a polite second request, no-one has answered jwi’s intial question!!
No examples of literature written by women about their agency in sport (there’s actually plenty with a quick google).
Also despite plenty of healthyish debate about whether disadvantage exists, not a single suggestion about what could be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing??
I tell a lie, the only suggestion I can find is this one from Pete, which is nail on head for me:
live and let live, treat others as equals, show a bit of consideration and treat people how you would like to be treated. Nothing dramatic just everyday courtesy.
Having re-read all, I can’t find a single comment that would damn Pete as sexist. I politely disagree with him about brexit, but in both debates he has remained absolutely level headed, and has earned my respect for standing his ground in a civilised manner under fire..
I was going to post more of a more humorous bent, but my wife has now read some of the thread and has become really quite upset at the patronising nature of the dominant tone that women are an oppressed group that need to be given a leg up. She is finding this message much more disempowering than an occasional inappropriate comment from a passing git..
-
In general terms and maybe not specifically to climbing, does she think equality is reached simply through removing barriers such that they are? I’m aware of the problem of patronising people and suggesting that they would not be able to reach a goal/job/status or whatever without a friendly white male hand reaching down to pull them up, and I completely accept that point.
At the same time it is undoubtedly true that more subtle (or not) prejudices and barriers still do exist across our direct society even after you remove some of the most obvious ones. So I have to also be aware of my own privilege as a member of the white, male middle class, where the opportunities that have been so abundant for me have certainly made my life much more easy and comfortable than if I didn’t belong to those groups. Is it enough then to aim to remove barriers? Or does society in general (and not just benevolent patronising white men) need to do something more active given that as yet we simply have not levelled the playing field?
Edit: this is a general observation, I have followed this thread mostly but haven’t read every post in absolute detail.
-
So 6 pages in and still, despite a polite second request, no-one has answered jwi’s intial question!!
No examples of literature written by women about their agency in sport (there’s actually plenty with a quick google).
Also despite plenty of healthyish debate about whether disadvantage exists, not a single suggestion about what could be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing??
I tell a lie, the only suggestion I can find is this one from Pete, which is nail on head for me:
live and let live, treat others as equals, show a bit of consideration and treat people how you would like to be treated. Nothing dramatic just everyday courtesy.
Having re-read all, I can’t find a single comment that would damn Pete as sexist. I politely disagree with him about brexit, but in both debates he has remained absolutely level headed, and has earned my respect for standing his ground in a civilised manner under fire..
I was going to post more of a more humorous bent, but my wife has now read some of the thread and has become really quite upset at the patronising nature of the dominant tone that women are an oppressed group that need to be given a leg up. She is finding this message much more disempowering than an occasional inappropriate comment from a passing git..
So 6 pages in and still, despite a polite second request, no-one has answered jwi’s intial question!!
No examples of literature written by women about their agency in sport (there’s actually plenty with a quick google).
Also despite plenty of healthyish debate about whether disadvantage exists, not a single suggestion about what could be done in order for women to have the same possibilities as men to shape the future of climbing??
I tell a lie, the only suggestion I can find is this one from Pete, which is nail on head for me:
live and let live, treat others as equals, show a bit of consideration and treat people how you would like to be treated. Nothing dramatic just everyday courtesy.
Having re-read all, I can’t find a single comment that would damn Pete as sexist. I politely disagree with him about brexit, but in both debates he has remained absolutely level headed, and has earned my respect for standing his ground in a civilised manner under fire..
I was going to post more of a more humorous bent, but my wife has now read some of the thread and has become really quite upset at the patronising nature of the dominant tone that women are an oppressed group that need to be given a leg up. She is finding this message much more disempowering than an occasional inappropriate comment from a passing git..
Done?
I thought that was both implicit and rather obvious.
I confess I actually meant to highlight Pete’s comment about live and let live, too; but as is the way with these things, I never remember everything I intended to write andtwo lines in to typing I’ve thought of something else and...
I would have put it differently, something like “actually we should stop being such wankers to each other”.
But I pretty much said that on page one:
Running the BMC?
That has to be, at least moderately, influential...
Edit:
Too obscure again, sorry.
I mean, maybe if we (men) gave them credit for what they are already doing, have done and have been doing since the dawn of the endeavour; they wouldn’t feel as disenfranchised?
Not as if their contribution, to date, has been minor or peripheral is it?
Write a list of accomplished, influential, female climbers and it’ll give you blisters on your typing finger (I only use one, normal /people can replace that with “fingers”).
I don’t think I’ve “savaged” Pete for political incorrectness, I just argue against “Neuroscience” as the basis for any gender differences in the Climbing world. I agreed there might be biological differences, just that their significance was probably less than being stated. If you want a biological reason, reproductive biology is asfar as you need look for impediment to just about everything. Males being equipped with a “Fire and Forget” tactical system, compared to the female, more strategic “Guided missile” type system, that can take circa 18 years+ to discharge...
Measles, Father-in-Law is a Surgeon Captain (RN, Ret), his wife (the step mum) Surgeon Cdr (RN), Sister-in-law is a Wildcat pilot (LtCdr RN) now a Test Pilot. None of them, male or female, are representative of “normal”, “typical” or “common”. They are exceptional people who have achieved things of uncommon difficulty, within a hard, demanding and unforgiving environment. Basing any assessment of the wider population on such outliers, seems a might unreasonable.
(I’m sure I mentioned before, but we’re all a bit posh. Family gatherings are like a rerun of “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, without the humour).
-
When I first started climbing (25 years ago!!) I was actually the ONLY female who regularly climbed at our local wall. At the legendary Barden Boulder Bash comps, there wasn't even a female category cos I was the only girl who competed. It took years before I realised that I was even allowed to lead stuff because the 'boys' always did the decision-making. Things have changed a massive amount in that time, for the better obviously.
What is interesting to me is that, looking back, I encountered tons of barriers to climbing properly but I never viewed them that way, it has almost been a case of water off a duck's back. So my instinctive reaction if people ask me about barriers to females in the climbing world is to say that there aren't any, we can do whatever we want to do, and that is sort of true. However, when I analyse it more deeply and look at it from other women's perspectives, there are many things about climbing that are still intimidating to SOME, depending on their situation. For instance, I have coached at the WCS and also run a few 'Ladies Night' events at climbing walls and you would be amazed at how many attendees truly find it liberating to climb with other women, they are usually too timid or uncomfortable to get involved when they are 'on their own' with a bunch of guys at the wall.
I am aware that there are tons of women who are very sensitive about sexist slurs and who are looking for battles to fight about their rights. I am at the other end of the spectrum - I honestly don't notice much in the way of sexism in climbing. But that doesn't mean it isn't there! What I'm trying to get at is that you can't judge this debate on the response of one or two women, because we may not be at all representative. It would be easy for me to say to other women who feel strongly that there are barriers to their opportunities in climbing that they should just ignore them and get on with it, and stop being so sensitive. Yet it is clear that my viewpoint is maybe a bit weird and probably 'wrong'.
With a bit of a stretch of my imagination, I reckon these are some of the 'barriers' that other women perceive:
- Guys assuming that girls will be weak and rubbish (eg Highrepute's Costa Blanca experience) and then in some cases taking this further by permanently taking the lead in a climbing relationship. It can easily become self-fulfilling prophecy where a lass is never given the opportunity to push herself because they have fallen into these prejudiced roles.
- Sexist comments that make them feel intimidated and then reticent about putting themselves in that environment again. I think this is nearly stamped out now, but there are definitely areas of the country or even specific venues that still have hints of this mentality.
- Hot jets of man foam! If loads of testosterone spewing men are together, they can seem like a pack of animals - on their own they may be lovely and considerate, but the more you fit in a small space, the more laddy it becomes. At least, that's how it looks from the outside to a timid lamb of a woman (or man, this is applicable to anyone excluded from the pack of course).
- Downgrading after a first female ascent. Look, this still happens a lot, you can call it coincidence but let's face it, that's a lot of coincidences.... Fortunately, most of the women pushing boundaries of top end ascents are of the personality type to be able to shrug off this stuff. It still hurts though, and may well put some off trying hard routes.
- Lots of social factors that aren't climbing specific, but nevertheless affect our hobby. As has been mentioned before, women often end up with a lot of time consuming responsibilities such as looking after a family or a home, and even in relationships where both parties are climbers it can end up that the female has less time free to devote to climbing.
Just to make this clear, this is not a list of my opinions or my experiences exactly, but I have observed these things affecting other women. Are they real barriers or just perceived? Either way, the balance of equality in climbing is improving all the time and heading in the right direction, maybe in another 25 years it won't even be a matter for debate. :shrug:
-
Couldn't agree more with all of that post NaoB, and the nub is (as others have posted as well) that one person's barrier may not be noticed by someone else. It may be readily overcome with enough effort. But it doesn't mean it isn't there...
- Downgrading after a first female ascent. Look, this still happens a lot, you can call it coincidence but let's face it, that's a lot of coincidences.... Fortunately, most of the women pushing boundaries of top end ascents are of the personality type to be able to shrug off this stuff. It still hurts though, and may well put some off trying hard routes.
I wanted to comment on this one example, for two reasons. One is that it appears to be the most overtly sexist of all the examples you give. The second is it's something I've done in the past, so I'm a bit sensitive about it!
Obviously this is a side issue to the general thread; but I think the explanation for this is more innocent that you hint at. Suppose Climber X (Male) ticks an 8c, which is well known to be soft and possibly due a downgrade. This ascent gets discussed at the crag, and amongst mates. Probably some jerk says the route needs downgrading. Climber Y (Female) ticks the same route, and it's national or international news. Probably some jerk says on the internet it needs downgrading. The only difference is that the same discussions are more publicly visible. Outrage ensues...
I totally get how this is uncomfortable and difficult for women and how it might be a barrier for some. I just don't think it's sexist behaviour.
-
Great post NaoB, thank you.
-
Hi Stu,
I agree with you, I know that these downgrades happen because often a 'first female ascent' shines a light on a grade that has already been debated. It isn't that suddenly climbers think "hey, she's done it, it must be easy". What irks though is that if a climb needs a downgrade, people mess about and don't make it official, then it turns into a bigger issue if a woman repeats it. Like you say, it's not necessarily sexism, it's more likely that folk just want to keep the higher grade on their logbooks ;)
-
:agree:
(looks at logbook)
:oops:
-
Do you believe that social forces like this can exert can influence on people?
Hi Andy, good question. Absolutely, I believe social forces have the power to exert influence on people. And where there are obvious unequal negative social forces I believe that should be challenged.
A few people on here (Stu, Nao etc.) have pointed out that social barriers are a matter of perception and I completely agree. Everyone has a unique perception of what constitutes a barrier to them. That said I do think you can look at things 'on average' to get a gauge. You have to do this otherwise the world couldn't function.
In return here's a question for you, first a bit of context.
It's widely accepted that negative expectations have the power to influence people.
For context, here's one small example, given by Cordelia Fine from the discussion earlier in this thread:
''If, for example, men on average score higher on a maths test or a mental rotation (spatial) test, then simply by telling women ahead of time that women on average score higher on such tests can not only lead women to perform better than they usually do, but can make the sex difference vanish.''
and here's SBC's reply:
...I strongly agree that social variables are important and doubtless play key roles in shaping our behaviour. Indeed, the kinds of effects Fine highlights can be thought of as commonsense demonstrations that if you make someone feel more confident, they do better on a test; or that if you change a person’s expectations of how they will perform, their performance is influenced by their expectations.
I'd suggest one of the most powerful social forces is negative expectations.
Hey.. I can think of a superb way to instil powerful negative expectations in a certain group of people - construct a narrative that has as its underlying premise the theory that women have fewer possibilities than men to shape the future of climbing. Bingo, climb out of that hole women!
Do you believe negative expectations can influence people? :)
-
If you want an example of "negative expectations", then promoting the view that women's brains just aren't naturally adapted to new-routing (and that any women who do new routes must have more "masculine" brains than normal) strikes me as a prime example.
Hey.. I can think of a superb way to instil powerful negative expectations in a certain group of people - construct a narrative that has as its underlying premise the theory that women have fewer possibilities than men to shape the future of climbing. Bingo, climb out of that hole women!
Ah yes, if we just pretend that discrimination and sexism isn't there, it'll magically go away! It's all in your head, women!
Notice how Fine's example is about beliefs about how women perform? In which case, it'd be equivalent to pointing out (truthfully) that there are plenty of women who put up new routes, and paying attention to significant new routes put up by women. Which would be likely to help encourage more new routing by women.
Pointing out that women face discrimination and sexism doesn't equate to claiming that women are inherently incapable of doing maths or new routes or whatever; in fact, it's usually the opposite, pointing out that women are more capable that we are sometimes allowed/encouraged to be.
Also, I thought you thought Cordelia Fine was sullying the pure objectivity of cognitive neuroscience by dragging politics into it? If you now think she's an authority, maybe you should read her book.
-
In return here's a question for you, first a bit of context.
It's widely accepted that negative expectations have the power to influence people.
...
Do you believe negative expectations can influence people? :)
Slab Happy has already answered this really, but as you directed the question to me I'll put in my piece too.
We are all subject to our own implicit biases, that is, expectations, assumptions, ways of seeing the world and biases in how we see the world. Particularly with something so ambiguous as the social world. Becoming aware of these can help us to mitigate against them ourselves. So, if someone becomes aware that they have an expectation which is holding them back, they can try to change (or ignore) these thoughts, and go ahead and try hard irrespective of them.
A couple of examples. Say I'm doing CBT with a client (for the benefit of those who are not Pete and so don't know, I'm training as a clinical psychologist), and alongside the client we come to the conclusion that they have a tendency to catastrophise about future events. By identifying this I am not saying "yes you're right, everything will go wrong next week". Instead, it's giving the client the chance to notice themselves doing this (their implicit bias as mentioned above), and to think or behave differently, in a way which works better for them.
Second example - some of my own implicit bias. In this thread about para-climbing in the IFSC (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29959.msg582079.html#msg582079) Slab Happy (again! :) ) asked "Do you think they ever even considered moving the able-bodied comp?". I'm a bit embarrassed to say that this never even occurred to me that they had this as an option. Some of my own implicit bias. By having this pointed out, I'm better able to challenge my own tendencies. I am not more likely to stay stuck with my my implicit bias.
People highlighting the ways in which women (or anyone, but this thread is about women) may be held back is a way of deconstructing these barriers, rather than unwittingly colluding with them.
-
I really like the CBT example here, that's great.
Second example - some of my own implicit bias. In this thread about para-climbing in the IFSC (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29959.msg582079.html#msg582079) Slab Happy (again! :) ) asked "Do you think they ever even considered moving the able-bodied comp?". I'm a bit embarrassed to say that this never even occurred to me that they had this as an option. Some of my own implicit bias.
To be honest, it took a fair while for it to occur to me, and I identify as disabled!
It just suddenly went ping in my head when danm was giving reasons why it was better to move the paraclimbing comp rather than the able-bodied comp, and I thought "yeah, but I bet they didn't actually ever consider moving the able-bodied comp, did they?"
Maybe I'm maligning the IFSC terribly here and they did! But the point is that it is really easy to see it in terms of "should the para-climbing comp be moved or not?" and never think for a second that moving the able-bodied comp would be also be an option.
Implicit bias is like the water we swim in; we all absorb it, and having implicit biases doesn't mean we're bad people, it means it's in the fucking water, and it takes work to try to identify and undo those biases.
-
it takes work to try to identify and undo those biases.
This.
-
In return here's a question for you, first a bit of context.
It's widely accepted that negative expectations have the power to influence people.
...
Do you believe negative expectations can influence people? :)
A couple of examples.
..
Both of those of examples are from the point of view of the person 'with' the negative expectations. I was asking do you think negative expectations have the power to influence people. As in - people perform and behave differently depending on what pre-exisitng expectations there are of them. No need to answer because I think it's accepted that they do.
People highlighting the ways in which women may be held back is a way of deconstructing these barriers, rather than unwittingly colluding with them.
I agree with that. And if you believe in that principle then please explain why you (not Andy in particular) don't believe the same principle must apply for:
People highlighting areas in which they think women are not held back is a way of reinforcing the equality of possibilities in these areas, rather than unwittingly colluding in an attempt to deny barriers exist.
It seems to be a matter of perspective and perceived intent, again.
As many have pointed out, if someone perceives something to be a certain way then that's their lived experience. Hard to argue they're 'wrong'. But it's far from generally accepted that a majority of women feel like they have fewer possibilities within climbing. Some do some don't.
Think I'm out! Thanks for the good points everyone.
-
This seems a good place to post this:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/11/shauna-coxsey-britain-no1-climber-olympics-tokyo-2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/11/shauna-coxsey-britain-no1-climber-olympics-tokyo-2020)
-
Good read apart from;
she is now the most successful British climber in history.
competition climber surely?
-
Good read apart from;
she is now the most successful British climber in history.
competition climber surely?
Pretty sure she hasn't conquered Everest?
-
Not when i last looked. Or climbed the hardest sport routes in the world at the time....
-
Not when i last looked. Or climbed the hardest sport routes in the world at the time....
You know the general public couldn’t give a flying fark about any of those things? Everest is ancient history, hard climbing is esoteric and niche; medals and championships, they can understand.
Pretty sure she knows who she is, regardless of how a mainstream media article describes her.
-
Natalie Berry has just posted up a thoughtful essay on harassment of (predominantly) female climbing athletes called Climbers Against Dick Pics - Athletes & Social Media Abuse (http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/climbers_against_dck_pics_-_athletes+social_media_abuse-11795)
-
Great post Natalie.
-
Yep, brilliant. Worth dedicating 15 minutes to.