Chicks With Nuts℠ Summertime Event In Seneca Rocks, WV!

I find green wall to be the easiest of the 5.7's. It's usually our 1st climb of the trip to get aclimated to Seneca again. What a wonderfull place! Enjoy!

A bit off topic but to respond to the remark about the route "Psycho-faggot".
While the name is ugly, Greg Smith, the first ascentionist, was one of the nicest people you could ever know, he was one of those guys who literally would give you the shirt off his back.. 'Smithy, (Greg's nickname) was one of the boldest climbers Seneca ever saw.
It was the early eighties and I guess he had some ort of issue with the folks who put up PsychoKiller, named I believe after the Talking Heads song. While PsychoKiller was an impressive endeavour in its day, it was nothing compared to the route Smithy put up right next to it in terms of boldness. PF is rated 12a X. I've never heard of it having a second ascent. He also put up Total Malfunction 5.11 X immediately right of Triple S--this route has seen one other ascent.He did both of those on-site.
Smithy was making a statement about how he felt about a specific clique not an entire group, the community now and the community then has never been unwelcoming to anyone....except rap bolters...:)
TC

Hi Tom,
yeah the name sucks but it was west virginia in the 80's. I appreciate all you do for the climbing community. Same to Kelly, I met you once and you were pretty awesome. I don't know why these threads get so ridiculous.

Hope to see you all at the summit!

thanks for the chat everyone. Most people stayed on topic and only one or two people felt the need for personal attacks and insults

Nicholas Gillman wrote:How soon in advance do you think you will announce the western location/date ? My fiance really wanted to attend last year at jtree but we had a scheduling conflict.....also consider RedRock? Haha

Just wated to re-up on this question incase it got kinda lost in the "discussion"

Austin Baird wrote: I'm with Mitch here. As a straight, white, Christian male, I'm definitely one of the most discriminated-against people in this country. I'm so sick of political correctness ruining my life and I'm even more sick of historically marginalized groups doing things together without inviting or consulting me. And Beyonce doesn't even try to make music that resonates with me. Anyway - see you at the protest to demand White History Month?

I just threw up in my mouth. I mean really? White males are the most privileged members in our society. All this spew to the contrary is just politicians (on Fox) blowing smoke up your ass.

As for the women only event; while I'd love to be invited, I'm not feeling indignant about it. It seems to me that this event is geared towards getting more women involved in climbing. When I started, there just so few women climbing. I think it's great that women are breaking out of previous societal norms to accomplish great things.

My daughter played DI softball in college and her involvement in sports made a huge impact on her life and how she feels about herself and her body. You girls rock and I hope you get as much out of climbing as I have.

From an old curmudgeon

FM

Nicholas-- I can't quite figure out how to 'quote' you via the app, but the Jousha Tree dates are brewing. We will announce them in June. Thanks so much for the love -- hope to see you out West!

No, he was sarcastic. I'm the troglodyte.

Didn't pick up the sarcasm. That happens when your attention is divided.
Retracted it. But either way, I'm totally down with what the women are doing.

Out of curiosity, does "chicks" refer to birth sex or gender? Mine is fairly fluid, would I be able to attend or shunned due to my birth sex?

SDY wrote:Out of curiosity, does "chicks" refer to birth sex or gender? Mine is fairly fluid, would I be able to attend or shunned due to my birth sex?

It's called Chicks with Nuts. I think you're good.

Here's another ladies only event happening in Denver.

So to those who have a problem with this event because they feel left out or excluded - what are your thoughts on why the forum response was so different for these three events (two aimed at veterans, one aimed at ovarian cancer survivors, found with a quick forum search):

mountainproject.com/v/parad…

mountainproject.com/v/opera…

mountainproject.com/v/volun…

.. than for these two threads? (the one you're reading now, and the related one below)

mountainproject.com/v/chick…

The impression I get is that generally folks don't have an issue with special events aimed at specific groups (which by default would exclude anyone not belonging to that group); until the group is women. It's hard not to feel there must be some elements of sexism behind this, since there does not ever seem to be a similar outcry about, for example, a climbing event for veterans which excludes all those who have never served in the military - even though that would exclude a far larger percentage of the MP community. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this?

Also:

Hunter McPherson wrote:Maybe the point here is don't post an exclusive event on a public forum that excludes 90% of its users. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me

This is just an unreasonable metric for what makes a forum post acceptable.
What percentage of MP users have to find a post relevant to them? No advertising anything for sale unless it's something EVERYONE wants and can afford. No "local pick-up only"! You have to be willing to ship anywhere so as not to exclude any potential buyers. No looking for climbing partners unless you are willing to climb with anyone and everyone who responds. Obviously most posts will be interesting to a small number of users. That is not usually a recipe for disaster, though it appears discussing gender is.

Also, there is no way MP users are 90% male. If so, or even if it just seems that way based on who is comfortable posting - again may be worth pondering why that might be.

Em Cos wrote:So to those who have a problem with this event because they feel left out or excluded - what are your thoughts on why the forum response was so different for these three events (two aimed at veterans, one aimed at ovarian cancer survivors, found with a quick forum search)

Excellent point. Dividing things by these niches (veterans, ovarian cancer survivors, etc) doesn't evoke the same response since it is easier for those on the outside to recognize there is a unique shared experience within these groups. Many men seem to have a hard time understanding that women also have a unique shared experience that differentiates them from men as a group, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to arrange an environment where women can focus on this.

I suspect the other half of the answer is that many men feel that if the tables were turned (a men-only event) there would be cries of sexism, even from those who argue there is nothing wrong with women doing the same thing. Cue cries of male privilege in 3, 2, 1, ...

ubu wrote: Excellent point. Dividing things by these niches (veterans, ovarian cancer survivors, etc) doesn't evoke the same response since it is easier for those on the outside to recognize there is a unique shared experience within these groups. Many men seem to have a hard time understanding that women also have a unique shared experience that differentiates them from men as a group, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to arrange an environment where women can focus on this. I suspect the other half of the answer is that many men feel that if the tables were turned (a men-only event) there would be cries of sexism, even from those who argue there is nothing wrong with women doing the same thing. Cue cries of male privilege in 3, 2, 1, ...

Interesting thoughts - thank you! I would point out that there ARE cries of sexism when women organize events like this - case in point... personally I wouldn't have any problem at all with seeing an ad for a Men's Climbing Event - but you're probably right that some would. It is interesting to think about why those types of events aren't seen very often (ever? I can't think of any...) and perhaps that's because men don't feel a need for such events? And perhaps, the reason they don't feel the need for it is the same reason they have trouble understanding others' need for it?

I wish I could afford to send my wife to the event. I've seen it in action - it is a fabulous event - heck - I'm sure I'd learn a ton from her myself and I've been at it over 30 years.

Kelly FIelds wrote:...To this day, in this country, women are paid 80 cents to a mans dollar. Women in this country were not granted the right to vote until 1920. Women in this country did not gain 'equal' opportunity in sports until 1972. With no fault to women whatsoever, there simply is no doubting the fact that men do have a social leg up on women in this country and in this world as a whole. It is simply the way it is -- simply the way the world's history has written it....

I have no more or less issue with a female only climbing group than I have with any male only, black only, white only, etc, groups. I don't associate with them nor wish to support them. But, people are free to assemble based on whatever criteria they see fit. And other people are free to comment on it.

I don't have much to say on climbing groups composed of members meeting some arbitrary criteria, though I do have something to say regarding the underlying motivation/agenda you've presented which is one of injustice.

There's nothing inherently wrong with one group being paid less than another group, that may reflect their the tendencies of that group to make a different set of life choices. Men work more hours than women, are 12x more likely to die at work, and have a life expectancy 5 years less than women.

Speaking of dying, and social legs up, which gender's lives do you suppose society considers more valuable? I think there's a reasonable argument to be had that it's not males. In recent history it's been mostly men sent off by societies to die in war time, while some choose it for many it is mandatory - the US still requires men to register for such potential service at the age of 18.

Wartime aside, even in peacetime females frequently appear to be more valuable. The phrase "women and children first" is one I frequently heard growing up, one only need to look at the chances of survival by gender of the most infamous case of there not being enough seats in the lifeboats - the Titanic (72% of women survived, 16% of men) - to see how much true there is in those words.

Yip...As far as I'm concerned, there is a lot of doubt as to if men have the social leg up on women.

Tim Lutz wrote: uh yeah dude, you just CRUSHED the women's lib movement with your strawman statistics and anecdotal evidence.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Tim, as you're no doubt aware I highly value your input and will be taking it to heart.

Kind regards.

Em Cos wrote:So to those who have a problem with this event because they feel left out or excluded - what are your thoughts on why the forum response was so different for these three events (two aimed at veterans, one aimed at ovarian cancer survivors, found with a quick forum search): mountainproject.com/v/parad… mountainproject.com/v/opera… mountainproject.com/v/volun… .. than for these two threads? (the one you're reading now, and the related one below) mountainproject.com/v/chick… The impression I get is that generally folks don't have an issue with special events aimed at specific groups (which by default would exclude anyone not belonging to that group); until the group is women. It's hard not to feel there must be some elements of sexism behind this, since there does not ever seem to be a similar outcry about, for example, a climbing event for veterans which excludes all those who have never served in the military - even though that would exclude a far larger percentage of the MP community. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this?

So, just to be clear, men are comparable to cancer and the Taliban?

Hunter McPherson wrote: So, just to be clear, men are comparable to cancer and the Taliban?

Wow, hard to believe I used so many words to try to express my thoughts when you have managed to sum it all up so eloquently! Yes, of course, men=cancer is exactly what I was trying to say.

Whether that is truly the conclusion your reading comprehension has brought you to, or you are being intentionally obtuse to pick a fight, either way I don't see a productive way forward in this conversation with you.

To those of you who were contributing to the civil and very interesting discussion, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Em Cos wrote: Wow, hard to believe I used so many words to try to express my thoughts when you have managed to sum it all up so eloquently! Yes, of course, men=cancer is exactly what I was trying to say. Whether that is truly the conclusion your reading comprehension has brought you to, or you are being intentionally obtuse to pick a fight, either way I don't see a productive way forward in this conversation with you. To those of you who were contributing to the civil and very interesting discussion, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Seems like the biggest problem is men understanding the woman's position in the matter. If you could provide an example of a situation in which the roles would be reversed to help men empathize with you, it would go a long way.
The last point I'm going to make is that $500 would go a long way building a rack. It would seem wiser to network with the climbing community and find someone that would teach you for free, male or female, and invest that $500 in a BD C4 package instead