Response to Flash Foxy & Outside Magazine Article
|
Geez. we should fix this sexism issue so ladies feel safe to remain in the gym and everyone else can stay climbing outside. Yep, I'm going to be me at the crags outside. Somewhat crass, somewhat vulgar, & somewhat aiming for fun and inspired. Not too concerned about other peoples feeling of equality. |
|
Mitchelle Kelly wrote:Searches for flashfoxy spiked after everyone got their underwear of choice in a bunch over it. so props to them for getting lots of attention i guess.upswing in searches for flashyfoxy Foxy thanks U |
|
Stich wrote:Ummm, Stich, jeez, 10 pages of this thread and you have learned NOTHING! Look at the photo you chose to represent flashfoxy 1. The placement of the female against a white background makes salient the imagery of women being photographed outside awards shows, a context which only values the looks of the female. 2. It reinforces the notion that women only are valuable or beautiful if wearing makeup. 3. The slight "teasing" smile makes it seem the woman is only good for showing interest in men and thereafter is to be used as a sex object. How dare we show a photo of a female actually looking truly happy (like a full smile), or confident (with a neutral look). 4. The spikey nature of her attire suggests that she is may have a "hands off" personality, suggesting that women are cold hearted, hard to get to know, and thus are only to be used for their body. 5. Black is a color that when worn on the body, makes the body look more petite. This invokes imagery of the ideal woman needing to be petite to math our culture's beauty standards. 6. Furthermore, the black dress implies that women are indeed small, small compared to men that is. I'll bet if you chose a picture of a man he would be in a white tuxedo, Stich, you sexist bastard. 7. The outfit covers most of the woman's body, indicating that she herself is to be wrapped up, by men, who shall not allow her to express herself or embrace her femininity through non-conservative dress. 8. At no point in this photo is she demonstrating safe climbing practices (she isn't even wearing a helmet), reinforcing the notion that women are "unsafe," "wild," and not trustworthy. 9. By captioning the photo "Thanks, MP!" you clearly state your belief that women can accomplish nothing on their own and thus their fame could only be the result of a bunch of men on an internet forum making her famous. 10. She embodies all of these negative stereotypes and then you surround her with cash, need I now make another top ten list of prostitution themes that you have invoked? You MPers will never learn! |
|
throwaway5000 wrote: I'll bet if you chose a picture of a man he would be in a white tuxedo, Stich, you sexist bastard.Oh, really? |
|
Trolllllllllll acct. made today |
|
Case in point that women aren't taken seriously as climbers. |
|
ITS BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THE CLIMBING COMMUNITY WASN'T PASSIONATE, ACTIVE AND UNIFIED AS NOW. |
|
ClimbLikeAGirl wrote:Case in point that women aren't taken seriously as climbers. Borrowed from the neighboring $800 Sweater thread: "So we took three premier climbers and a couple of cute friends weekend warrioring" I'll let you guess which ones were the men and which ones were the women.The women in the article weren't even climbers! Besides, this was taken from a GQ article about rock climbing, which I wouldn't exactly consider a voice representative of the climbing community. |
|
I spent over an hour watching a guy work on a 5.13+ project the other day when I finished climbing. Based on this thread he must have thought I was into him... wish I knew his number so I could call and say sorry. |
|
Thanks Tim Lutz for illustrating my point. I was literally going to post some of the same photos, but you beat me to the punch. I would also like to add this quote from Alex Johnson: |
|
Yesterday I helped a homeless African American lady feed a parking meter so her car/home wouldn't get towed while she went to court. Was it a microaggression that she called me baby, that she put coins in my hand without my "consent" and asked me to feed the meter for her because she was nervous, was it a microaggression because she touched my arm and started twerking when she told me she was about to take a bird bath in the public restroom and look real good? |
|
ViperScale wrote:I spent over an hour watching a guy work on a 5.13+ project the other day when I finished climbing. Based on this thread he must have thought I was into him... wish I knew his number so I could call and say sorry.10 pages and none of it has made any impact on your aggressive refusal to understand. |
|
bryans wrote:But wearing a sports bra and having a guy look at your chest is not an act of microagression!You're still missing the point - *you* don't get to decide. Did you ever consider why they're called microagressions? Small, and often/usually from the male perspective, theoretically insignificant. For you it's a one-off; for the women, how many per gym session? Per day? Don't you think it just might be different if it was something you had to constantly deal with? To the point where it makes you feel unsafe? bryans wrote:Men are just more visually stimulated in general, so naturally...Populist pseudo-scientific, defensive-male bull shit. Not true. bryans wrote:PPS -viperscale, all these posts are public and someday you may need a job, a wife, a reference, and those posts aren't going to look good, regardless of what you "really think."Now *that* I agree with 100% |
|
I just want to say that probably THIS comment will get to page 11. |
|
Antonio Caligiuri wrote:lol at white males^ lol this right here. Speaking as a white privileged male.... If you're getting butthurt about this article than maybe you need to stop and take a long while to think about why. |
|
Marc801 said: |
|
There was a time not too long ago where it was just a fact of the world that a black man walking down the street could be lynched for (being perceived as) looking at a white person the "wrong way". It certainly could be 'safer' for people of color to stay in segregated areas where there was less risk of attracting attention from whites. Knowing that this was a fact of the world, should blacks have accepted the status quo and avoided situations where they could have been vulnerable to lynchings or other racially motivated violence? Are victims of lynchings partially to blame or have some personal responsibility for their victimhood, since they knew the facts of the world made them vulnerable but still decided to put themselves in an unsafe situation? |
|
Dan Austin wrote:There was a time not too long ago where it was just a fact of the world that a black man walking down the street could be lynched for (being perceived as) looking at a white person the "wrong way". It certainly could be 'safer' for people of color to stay in segregated areas where there was less risk of attracting attention from whites. Knowing that this was a fact of the world, should blacks have accepted the status quo and avoided situations where they could have been vulnerable to lynchings or other racially motivated violence? Are victims of lynchings partially to blame or have some personal responsibility for their victimhood, since they knew the facts of the world made them vulnerable but still decided to put themselves in an unsafe situation? Looking forward to all the indignant responses about me comparing women wearing tight clothing to lynchings. But before you miss the forest for the trees, just remember: it's really easy to say that people should just accept the status quo if you're not threatened by it. It's what makes this whole rhetoric of "I'm not saying she deserved to be raped, but at the same time, she had to have known that what she was wearing would attract attention" so disgusting. the prevalence of this type of rhetoric on MP is pretty telling about what kind of sexism exists in the climbing communityYep.^^^^ Women are drugged, raped, beaten, and murdered far too frequently. By men ("some men"). Sometimes by a stranger, who's advances are rejected. But also by friends, acquaintances, boyfriends, or husbands. Men don't live with the background fear of being victimized (drugged, raped, beaten, murdered) by women. So that's something to keep in mind. The fear (or concern, or simply awareness) of violence is often overlooked when digging into this topic. |
|
Dan Austin wrote:There was a time ...Dude, that was completely racist, go to the racist forums this is a gender issue. |
|
NRobl wrote:Marc801 said: bryans wrote: Men are just more visually stimulated in general, so naturally... Populist pseudo-scientific, defensive-male bull shit. Not true. Marc801: Please see the following article from Nature neuroscience: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/150… If you want the full article, I can send it to you.I was referring to the use of that bit of ancient limbic wiring as a pseudo-scientific excuse to act like an ass ("so naturally..."). NRobl wrote:also Marc801 responded the following: bryans wrote: But wearing a sports bra and having a guy look at your chest is not an act of microagression! You're still missing the point - *you* don't get to decide. Marc801: What if bryans interpret your comments as sexist, mysogynistic microaggressions? Since that is how he interprets them, does it make it so?In his mind, yes, although he'd have to ignore the definitions of sexist and misogynistic. It's a bit of a strawman argument on your part. We're also using "look", "stare", and a few other terms loosely, but they also defy clear definition. If a woman feels she is being stared at and it makes her uncomfortable then no, the man can't really say "I wasn't staring, just looking". |