Sexist Grading System

I have my own issues with the overly politically correct but before I rant, please, read:
mojagear.com/journal/2015/1…

That's the dumbest shit I've ever read. Period.

I can't even

Worst example of dude grades I've ever seen was a guidebook that listed the grade for a route with the caveat "downgrade if you're short".

I made it through about 6 paragraphs, and even that wasn't easy

Josh Lipko wrote:I made it through about 6 paragraphs, and even that wasn't easy

+1

I thought grades were there to make sure you don't F your self over.

brenta wrote: I just checked 8a.nu, and I found that the current top 10 sport climbers are: Ondra, Marin, Amma, Puigblanque, Ghisolfi, Skofic, Bouyoud, Schab, Reffo, and Haladj, in that order. Their mean height is 173.6 cm, which translates into a bit more than 5'8". The shortest is Puigblanque, who is a tad taller than 5'2". Are we talking about the same rankings?

Never mind... apparently I can't math today

Saying that a route is more difficult for someone who is shorter is not sexist. There are men that are not very tall, there are also several children that climb hard. Height does have an effect on climbing, that is just a fact and it doesn't matter about gender. I realize I'm a guy and so some may take this as me ignoring my sexist nature because all men are sexist, but I don't think that is true. And there are routes that can be more difficult for taller people, so are those sexist against men?

Brady3 wrote:Saying that a route is more difficult for someone who is shorter is not sexist. There are men that are not very tall, there are also several children that climb hard. Height does have an effect on climbing, that is just a fact and it doesn't matter about gender. I realize I'm a guy and so some may take this as me ignoring my sexist nature because all men are sexist, but I don't think that is true. And there are routes that can be more difficult for taller people, so are those sexist against men?

I think you're missing the point. He's not saying that routes are sexist. What he is saying is that when the grading system is specific to a certain body type that is predominantly male that can be sexist.

I know I've heard people say things like "oh that crack was just easy for her because she has small fingers". A sexist grading system that went the other way would rate it 5.8 because a tiny girl can hike it while a big guy flails on it. But we don't usually have ratings based on what feels easy or hard for small people which are more frequently women.

Yeah all ratings are pretty arbitrary and are completely dependent on body type. Fucking writers are just trying to make a buck. Get a real job.

In reality the argument should be:
P1. Some body types can climb certain climbs better than others. Sometimes short people have the advantage, sometimes tall people do.
P2. Male and females generally have different body types.
P3. The grades, ideally, are an averaged input from a variety of climbers.
P4. More males climb than females.
Conc. Grades generally reflect male input.

author wrote:There’s not a single V3 or V9 in the entire book. In place of grades, we use colors that correspond to grade ranges.

Ha! Why not just use V1-3, V5-6? 'Color' grades aren't really changing anything other than adding unnecessary obscurantism. He later goes on to say Yellow means V6-8. Why not just say V6-8? lol.

This is a weird attempt to link it to sexism and the need for immediate action and that, I quote: "We must do something, because dude grades are a problem for everyone". No, no they really aren't. There are better things to worry about.

I am definitely not sexist. I raised a healthy, assertive girl (and Division I athlete) who is now a smart, assertive woman and I admire women and what they can achieve just as much as much I do men.

But this article is pointless. What are we supposed to do? Have a man and a woman climb every route and give their subjective so we can post it? Body type does come into play, so are we supposed to have a short grade and a tall grade?

I'm only 5'4" and I never used my lack of verticality (now doesn't that sound ridiculous) as a reason I failed on a route... And that actually happened once! I'll usually just say it felt reachy or I think it's a little harder if you're short. What's the point of bitching about it? And if I can't do it, so what; there are plenty of routes to go after. I haven't heard Lynn complaining about it either and she's shorter than I am.

But in the final analysis, a route is as hard as it is. The number or qualifier you put on it doesn't really change anything.

author wrote:In place of grades, we use colors that correspond to grade ranges.

I think they should be called out for their insensitivity to the colorblind.

I have giant hands...some routes with 5.10A fingers feel like 5.11 finger tips to me...oh the humanity--I couldn't finish the article as my head started to hurt.

Josh Lipko wrote:I made it through about 6 paragraphs, and even that wasn't easy

+2

Josh Lipko wrote:I made it through about 6 paragraphs, and even that wasn't easy

+1

Can we make a fat grade too? Maybe sliding scale based on weight?.. Didn't think so :)

Don't forget lack of any discernible athletic talent

Basing grades on gender is silly but basing grades on height is something that should be taken into account when grading a route. It is especially critical at places like the Gunks where you have horizontal cracks. If you are tall and can make the reach to the next horizontal it my be 5.easy but if you are shorter and can't make the reach it may be 5.impossible. I climb with some short women and there is no way they can make the moves I make.

frank minunni wrote:Don't forget lack of any discernible athletic talent

Good call! I can lose weight but I always have no talent.

Brian wrote:Basing grades on gender is silly but basing grades on height is something that should be taken into account when grading a route. It is especially critical at places like the Gunks where you have horizontal cracks. If you are tall and can make the reach to the next horizontal it my be 5.easy but if you are shorter and can't make the reach it may be 5.impossible. I climb with some short women and there is no way they can make the moves I make.

On a few routes, but not a lot. I climbed in the Gunks a long time and with several women, all of whom were shorter than me, and I'm a runt.