A Letter to the editor of Rock & Ice Concerning 'Tuesday Night Bouldering'

I don't feel entirely comfortable posting my name with with this, but this is a letter I wrote to the editor of Rock & Ice Recently, which I thought I'd share and see what your thoughts were regarding this: I was pretty mad at the time and still am, but was I over-reacting?

Dear Rock & Ice:
First off, I would like to offer my highest regards for the generally superb magazine you publish and say thanks for all the hard work you put into producing such a high-quality publication.
I am also writing to you, however, because I am appalled and disappointed that you chose to continue to publish Andrew Bisharat's offensive and sophomoric rants [see "Tuesday Night Bouldering"]. This past piece ["Five Things I don't hate about climbing"] finally crossed the line into what I think is clearly unacceptable. Mr. Bisharat, in his rant on the things he 'thinks are worth hating about climbing', talks about the 'haughty alpinists and their unrealized homosexual tendencies.' As a gay climber, alpinist, and member of the climbing community, I find this highly offensive and immature, and believe that as a responsible publisher, you should hold Mr. Bisharat accountable for his hateful words. If not, you can count me off the renewal list for this next year, and cancel my subscription.

I like to think of the climbing community as a welcoming, open-minded place, but apparently we still have a long way to go. I love climbing as much as almost anything in my life and have travelled the country meeting amazing people and seeing cool places, and like to think climbers like Mr. Bisharat represent the minority of how we conduct ourselves, but I'm afraid if we continue to voice and support such thoughtless, intolerant language, climbers like me will never feel comfortable being honest about themselves. I believe people like Royal Robbins, Layton Kor, and John Gill founded modern climbing with the idea that we are not like the rest of society, not content to sit around and embrace the stale, hateful status-quo; that we value diversity and each other. Instead, what I am seeing more and more of in your magazine is the reinforcement of negative attitudes and complaining rather than getting people stoked.
Shame on you.
Sincerely,
Name Withheld
Boulder, Colorado.

Why don't you just not read that guy's articles?

I agree with you that the climbing community is accepting and pretty open, but this seems like you just don't like this one guy's articles. I read his article and honestly didn't think twice about the alpinist comment. I thought his article was kinda funny ... but that doesn't mean I agree with everything in it.

I'm guessing you took that one comment a little personnally because of your own life circumstances (not dogging you). I'd hate to see the climbing community (and magazines) follow suit with most of society and become PC. I like that most of us climbers can be crass at times and not really have to worry about it. Not saying that gives anyone the right to spew hate (which I don't think the article writer did), but I just think that you took an offhand comment a little to personally man.

Climb for yourself and don't worry what people you probably won't ever meet think. Have fun out there.

I remember the article and the quote. I can see why it is considered offensive.

That said, I think your letter is a bit of an overeaction. I think his comment was naive more than hateful; you are inducing a lot about his attitudes towards gay people from that one comment, which, although used as a put down, usually does not have any real link back to the way the user views homosexuals. A letter about the fact that these articles have a broad readership and a necesity for discretion is more appropriate in my opinion.

I have found climbing magazine and Bisharat's column to be fairly equal opportunity offenders. I think he just found a nerve with you on this one.

Evan

No you weren't over-reacting. The use of the word "gay" as an epithet has been increasingly creeping into everyday usage as a derogatory term. Andrew is actually a very thoughtful writer and I think a reminder to him that he and R&I should be more careful is appropriate. Deadpoint Magazine is another periodical you should visit as they also like to "push the envelope" through sexist and homophobic language. For those who think it's just being too PC, try substituting "your mother" for the various groups selected for ridicule.

I also don't think it's an overreaction. Language is both a strong indicator of and a powerful influence over the way we think. Petty use of words like gay as epithets support and encourage homophobia and discrimination in a small but important way. The more we as a society use those words in a derogatory context, the easier it becomes to dehumanize the people those labels are applied to.

There are bigger problems in the world, but this is not a meaningless semantic argument.

I also don't think you are overreacting. In the article, it is clear that "unrealized homosexual tendencies" is a bad trait and it is implied that this is something worth hating. The article is not meant to be serious, but the questionable statement should also not be thought of as appropriate. My two cents.

Everybody has the right to feel hurt by wording and commentary, just as Andrew has the right to publish it. Where the rubber meets the road is the fact that R&I and other mags are driven by readership and advertisements. If enough people get offended or turned off, they stop buying. That will change the tone in a hurry. I'm tired of all the random stupid articles that pop up under the "Lifestyle" type headings in all the mags. That's why I rarely get them any more.

Well, whatever experience you had reading an article is certainly your own, and it did happen, so it is real. The question is if it merit's action from 1) you, 2) the author, and 3) the mag.
1) You are the only person qualified to decide if or how you should react to it.
2) The author can react according to you and according to the overall public reaction, in reflection of that to reframe both his intent and attitude.
3) The mag will have to decide what is right for it. It may not be the right decision for them to censor or edit or even so heavily review for such opportunity, the various authors and articles in the mag to control potentially offensive content if there are not a large number of people reacting to it. If enough people apply pressure and they see it is not a rogue opinion, then I'm sure that they will take some corrective action. To note: you've taken the first step in that direction by asking other people to consider your opinion.

I sometimes question if we are not giving words more power than they deserve by 'reserving' them as we do. I've heard more than once when a gay man has tried to insult a straight guy by telling him he was latently homosexual. So hmmm... well, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily an insult unless you take it that way. It might be, but it might not be. I once told a gay climbing partner of mine who had asked me what I thought of his matching helmet and sunglasses pairs (all of which were pretty Hollywood): "That's pretty gay..." He replied: "I know." The point there being that it was meant to be funny and taken as such. I suppose that someone could have viewed that from their point of view, unknowing, and called it offensive. But whatever...

Anyway, I do think alerting the author and publisher to your feelings on the matter is a totally valid first step, but perhaps instead of threatening ultimatums, an alternate first course of action could be to ask for an explaination of the author's intent. (That's what I'd do) Maybe he thinks alpinists are either homophobic and will react or actually are gay and hiding it. I can't say, but I'm not ready to hang him over it. It's up to you what is appropriate for you- I'm just tossing out ideas for consideration.

If it turns out he is truely a 'hater' then there are various courses of action that can be taken. A guy once told me, in my own house, that "All gays should be drug out in the steet and shot." My response was that "All homophobes should be drug out in the street and F^%$ed in the @$$, which I believe is a much gentler treatment, since it would probably turn out that most of them enjoy it." The guy was really offended... which is exactly what I was going for.

I'm insulted because I'm an alpinist!! Why pick on us and use such non PC language? My guess is he's not much of a real overall mountaineer to make those kind of statements. (cuz everyone knows that real alpinists must 'spoon' in those cramped tents, just to keep warm at altitude!)

Relax and enjoy freedom of speech. You dont have to like what he says. But we should all let everyone have their say.I dislike half of what most americans have to say but I dont think I should have the right to quiet them. Accept who you are, and you wont be offended by what others think of you.

Anyway most of these magazines are just like Teen Beat or some other high school literature. Out to make money and sell advertising space.Young hard climbers stretching their ego's and making money.My opinion is if you read these magazines like rock and ice and climbing your just being a dork anyway.Just climb. Dont bolt natural pro.Hang with folks you like and stop commercializing a wonderful outdoor adventure. Climb for fun, not for prestige or money. Keep it real stop capitalizing on every human emotion. Capitalist pigs.

dale polen wrote:Relax and enjoy freedom of speech.

Really? You're going to go running for the 1st Amendment on this one?

How about if I approached you and your wife/child/boyfriend/transexual-life-partner/etc. and started verbally abusing them in front of you? Would you smile at me and commend me for taking full advantage of my right to speak freely?

I concur that Andrew's article is absolutely mindless and should be removed from the magazine. I have considered writing to the mag many times. He's a fantastic climber and good writer, but these articles are terrible!

Peter Franzen wrote: How about if I approached you and your wife/child/boyfriend/transexual-life-partner/etc. and started verbally abusing them in front of you? Would you smile at me and commend me for taking full advantage of my right to speak freely?

If in fact that was what A.B. had done in the article, then I'd jump on that bandwagon with you, but I'm not so sure that was what he did.

Tony B wrote:Anyway, I do think alerting the author and publisher to your feelings on the matter is a totally valid first step, but perhaps instead of threatening ultimatums, the best FIRST course of action could be to ask for an explaination of the author's intent. Maybe he thinks alpinists are either homophobic and will react or actually are gay and hiding it. I can't say, but I'm not ready to hang him over it.

Intent is a really slippery standard for things like this, though. It is quite possible for a writer/speaker to write/say something intended as a lighthearted joke that is deeply hurtful to a reader/listener. I don't think that we can or should gloss over that by saying, "Well that's not how it was meant."

JulianM wrote: Intent is a really slippery standard for things like this, though. It is quite possible for a writer/speaker to write/say something intended as a lighthearted joke that is deeply hurtful to a reader/listener. I don't think that we can or should gloss over that by saying, "Well that's not how it was meant."

Agreed. That's why it may be proper to ask for an explanation. In most trials they try to get both sides of the story. Sometimes there are suprises that don't appear when the lynch mob takes over.
I took it as I read it to be that the haughty alpinists were what was to "hate" about climbing, though it was what he called a good thing worth hating or something like that... I took the unrealized tendancies thing to be a jab at the alpinists, but I'm not sure he was saying gay is bad, I wonder if what he said was intended to get at people who even care if 'gay' matters. To me, in matters of climbing, it doesn't.

I worry that we are approaching a time when that which is shocking is squeezed out by the Stalinism of political correctness.
- Joe Eszterhas

Language is a very powerful thing. The language we use and are exposed to shapes our perception of the world. Using the term homosexual to describe a reason to hate climbing is, in effect, saying that homosexuality is something to hate.

I think the writer's choice of words was, at best, inconsiderate. I think the magazine is responsible for the views expressed by its writers. And, unless Rock & Ice wants to take an anti-homosexual stand, which I highly doubt, it should take actions to apologize and clarify its stand on this.

I find it quite odd that so many of the "AB has every right to his opinion, that's freedom of speech" proponents feel that the OP should just relax; that he has no right to express his own opinion (freedom of speech).

While some one may have the 'right' to express something you personally find offensive or just plain stupid, don't you have the right to tell them that you find it offensive or just plain stupid?

furrymurry wrote:I worry that we are approaching a time when that which is shocking is squeezed out by the Stalinism of political correctness. - Joe Eszterhas

I'd like those of you who hold this opinion or are making the 1st amendment argument to consider something.

What if the author said, "I hate sport climbers because they're as lazy as niggers."?

Would you feel the same way? And, more importantly, would you go on a forum and defend the author or suggest that someone who took offense was overreacting?

I doubt very many of you would. At least not publicly. If the thought running through your head is, "well, that's different.", I'd like to know how it's different.

Edit to add disclaimer: In case it's not completely obvious, I used that term and stereotype simply to draw an analogy between language considered unnacceptable by the vast majority and language that is offensive to many but often overlooked as hate speech. I do not feel the term's use in everyday speech is appropriate (especially for a white guy like me) and do not use it. Nor do I believe in the antiquated stereotype that I referenced.

They are different in that one is derogatory toward skin color, and the other toward lifestyle. Where they are similar is that they are both speech acts of hate. Hate, unfortunately, has remained in ways as vague as its counterpart. Where it matters is in the organization of a community to cast out acts of hate (taboo). So to "Name Withheld" I suggest a couple options: 1. (the union approach) creating a petition, or posting an address of Rock and Ice in which others may dispatch a complaint. 2. (the Ghandi approach) Create a pledge list of subscribers that are willing to cancel their subscription due to the writing. 3. (the Taoist approach) Subscribe to the Alpinist and get your revenge through living well.