First Female Ascent. Should this be an actual thing?

ViperScale wrote:

You said you want equality which is never going to happen because men and women are different physically and mentally. I am sorry but I don't think I would want to date a copy of myself it would get old aka probably good that women and men are different... why is it always about making things the same instead of just enjoying differences.

I think you didn't read what I wrote...

Equity and equality are different things.

Downtownt Kay wrote:

I think you didn't read what I wrote...

Equity and equality are different things.

I blame the caps they hurt or maybe it was google changing words around when i was searching which happens sometimes!

Downtownt Kay wrote:

I think you didn't read what I wrote...

Equity and equality are different things.

Great conversation, thanks for flowing with the banter.  We mean well and appreciate not being labeled while we honestly discuss and seek to understand. 

So, my analytical self looked it up, "Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial."   I think almost every guy here can agree to that.  I suspect the "devil is in the details" of what a person deems to be fair (which can be subjective, to a degree).  Ultimately, if we can all offer equity of respect we might just have something. Cheers!

Eric L wrote:

Great conversation, thanks for flowing with the banter.  We mean well and appreciate not being labeled while we honestly discuss and seek to understand. 

So, my analytical self looked it up, "Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial."   I think almost every guy here can agree to that.  I suspect the "devil is in the details" of what a person deems to be fair (which can be subjective, to a degree).  Ultimately, if we can all offer equity of respect we might just have something. Cheers!

A great example of equity:

If there is a fence and three people looking over it.

One person is a foot taller than the the fence, one is a foot shorter and the other is two feet shorter.

Equality would be giving everyone on box (in an effort to peer over the fence). Equity would be giving two of the people boxes each of differing sizes so they all can be one foot over the fence in order the have the same view.

I don't know why I have Internet patience today :)

It's follows that I love men and have to live with them and therefore find it somewhat rewarding to offer perspective, we must find patience to get on the same pages... before we blow the world apart.

Cheers!

Downtownt Kay wrote:

A great example of equity:

If there is a fence and three people looking over it.

One person is a foot taller than the the fence, one is a foot shorter and the other is two feet shorter.

Equality would be giving everyone on box (in an effort to peer over the fence). Equity would be giving two of the people boxes each of differing sizes so they all can be one foot over the fence in order the have the same view.

I don't know why I have Internet patience today :)

It's follows that I love men and have to live with them and therefore find it somewhat rewarding to offer perspective, we must find patience to get on the same pages... before we blow the world apart.

Cheers!

Thanks Kay!

Internet boys will be boys....:(

Keeeeep smilin' :)

I think women should feel about FFFA's the way the men in this thread tell them makes sense.

I think some men should learn what sexism is. Guess what it doesn't mean "being shitty to a woman" (prompting comments about things such as "anti male sexism" 

Sexism is ideas and behaviours that set up a culture/environment/system that harms people based on their sex or creates expectations based on sex or judges based on sex rather than on the basis of individuality.

The fact that our culture of MISOGYNY also exists...gives the impression that sexism is inherently only ever capable of being negative to women. sexism and misogyny are intertwined.

People are so adamant about gendered differences...and they truly get caught up in the small average difference outweighing the HUGE variety of individuality 

If we measure men and women in most things you'll see tiny average differences aka like instead of distributions matching 50-50 in a perfect mirror, it might be 53-50, where one group has a marginal difference 3 pts comparing male to females

But individual men might range from 35-65 and women similarly...and thus the variety / difference amongst men might be far wider than the gender gap...

Even in terms of biology...women and men are incredibly similar. VASTLY similar. in terms of brains. In terms of chemistry. In terms of a wide range of overlapping biological potential. It is truly only a tiny fraction of men that may outperform the very best women...and if women work hard enough they can be better than probably 90% of men anyway.

Female accomplishments are important. Think about what it means to say FFFA's don't deserve attention and should basically be "invisible" in a world where men have already claimed a huge portion of possible accomplishments. These folks would have us believe that somehow its better if we simply see only like a fraction of tye media about women, in a world already male dominated.

Indeed we should trust this voices. Who downplay a female 5.14 or whatever.

All the while the ones sitting here discussing it have probably never even touched 5.13 potentially ...it's laughable

While you're at it folks. Try not assuming that the folks you're mocking aren't present

ps I'm still climbing as hard as ever, new addition of estrogen doesn't stop me from climbing like I did before, not like I'm that great or anything

Brian57 wrote:

Yaaaay!  Equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of motivation, skill/ability, commitment, work ethic, etc.  We'll eliminate all those awful perceived 'privileges' that anyone might have.  Utopia is sure to follow.  What a wonderful idea that has never been tried before and has never lead to some of the most epic societal collapses known to man.  

All those Tommy Caldwell routes out there are just too damn hard, and it's not fair that TC has the privilege of growing up on the doorstep of RMNP, god given talent, unstoppable work ethic, and futuristic vision.  Surely everyone wants to free the Dawn Wall, so in search of equity, perhaps we should jackhammer some ladder rungs up the side of El Cap.  Then we can all do it and claim our 5.14 El Cap free ascent.  Anyone who disagrees will be silenced by any means necessary.  A new golden age of climbing will ensue--one where everyone can climb anything with no commitment required.  

Way to take an analogy and completely run face first into the wall with it.

Hard repeats by women ARE a big deal. I suggest that those who claim that female accomplishments are noteworthy only if they meet or exceed those of men, remove their blinders and consider that for every Lynn Hill there is a Gullich, for every Margo Hayes there is an Ondra, for every Ashima there is the Finnish dude, and for every Pamela Pack you have the Wide Boyz. 

Absolutely first female ascents matter. Climbing, at least as its portrayed in the media, is a (white) male-dominated sport. We (white) men need to do whatever it takes to celebrate achievements of women climbers as well as other groups (people of color, etc).

Patrick Beeson wrote:

Absolutely first female ascents matter. Climbing, at least as its portrayed in the media, is a (white) male-dominated sport. We (white) men need to do whatever it takes to celebrate achievements of women climbers as well as other groups (people of color, etc).

Hmmm why? I don't give a shit about what anyone else climbs and why should I care what anyone thinks about anyone who climbs?

Lets face it if you do something that is out there you may get notoriety but doing it just for that is stupid.

John Barritt wrote:

Some people think equality means treating all three people as if they are the same height.

Even if they aren't.

Equality doesn't apply to the physical world. Prejudice does. Treating the tall person badly (or the shortest) is prejudice, NOT "inequality"

Adding boxes is handicapping.

Applying value to an accomplishment losses something if gender or race is applied.

JB

John, don't take it personally, I like you, but...

"Adding boxes is handicapping." That caught my eye, and immediately brought ADA compliance to mind, and the HUGE pushback that got BITD. Now? No one thinks twice about it, usually.

The OP question has been responded to rather well, and with a traditional answer: "it depends".

If you are talking about an FA at my local crag, it's an FA, or not, no matter what gender. If someone puts up the hardest line in the state, and Steph Davis comes for a visit to send it, yeah, that's cool and inspiring, especially since the Fins are straight up climbing on invisible holds. (And I don't know what she hit when she was here, for the record.)

If you are talking about all the rest of us wankers? Yes, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask (and I am doing so) for concessions to my height (4' 11") for something as stupid as an indoor gym lead test that leaves me with cruxes that don't exist for others, including at the anchor. Outside? I have to climb harder than you for the route grade I am on.

I'll state again, climbing is the most egalitarian pursuit I've ever been associated with. Period. Further, the vast majority of ladies out there climbing are just as capable as out climbing the gents, as the gents are of out climbing us.The only advantage for males might be one of raw strength and sometimes reach, but females generally are smaller, more agile, and have more endurance (all arguable, of course).

I will say that I think women have a distinct advantage as beginners/intermediate climbers, precisely because they may not be able to just muscle through, and learn to use their whole body right from the start. So, ya know, we ladies need to cut you guys some slack...

;-) Helen

JSH wrote:

Seriously, the best post in this thread was "whatever women want" as that in fact is the only answer.

The very idea that some men think they get to decide this issue is fundamentally indicative of bias in climbing.

Women's climbing is for them to define, just as our own is for ourselves to define. That is what climbing is all about, despite those that want hegemony over other's experiences that have little to do with their own.

ViperScale wrote:

Hmmm why? I don't give a shit about what anyone else climbs and why should I care what anyone thinks about anyone who climbs?

Lets face it if you do something that is out there you may get notoriety but doing it just for that is stupid.

A number of people have said something like this in this thread, but it's an answer to the questions "Are first ascents a thing?". 

When we're discussing Female FFA's, we're already operating under the assumption that the climbing community has broadly answered this question: "First ascents are a thing."

King Tut wrote:

Seriously, the best post in this thread was "whatever women want" as that in fact is the only answer.

The very idea that some men think they get to decide this issue is fundamentally indicative of bias in climbing.

Women's climbing is for them to define, just as our own is for ourselves to define. That is what climbing is all about, despite those that want hegemony over other's experiences that have little to do with their own.

Yes and no.  There's the whole thing about what a guidebook author wants to track, record and publish, sooooo...
And guide-book authoring, as you have said in parallel, is for the author to define.

In many/most cases, Male participation may be necessary if you want it done at that level.

Well, we are not talking about female ascents of middling or even just hard routes, but routes at the very top of difficulty. When the first female ascent of 5.14 in Rifle went down it was a big deal, mainly because the consensus at the time was that a Rifle 5.14 by a woman was all but impossible. Bobbi Bensman I think it was. 

Brandon.S wrote:

I know I'm just a white man and all, but doesn't all this pandering get old.. for women, for "people of color", etc.. I see white people all the time hmm what's the word.. overcompensating? 

"We need to celebrate the achievements of women climbers and people of color" ...yeah I guess, but if I was black and this college educated suburban white guy was being all super nice to me for no reason, congratulating me on my "first black ascent" In my mind I'd kinda be like... oh fuck off and let me just climb, why make a point of my race?  Wasn't the latest Climbing Mag all about women?  Soo, does the "media" really promote climbing as done by mostly white men?  I don't think so, I think they promote great climbing, and occasionally they pander to certain groups to preempt any accusations of sexism of racism, in other words they act like white people. (Fuckin white ppl...) 

How about climbers treat climbers as climbers and not get so twisted into knots over race, gender, eye color and all the other shit that doesn't matter. 

I hate myself a little bit for responding to this post.

Doesn't first black ascent or first female ascent just isolate people and make them feel hey your not that good so lets create a different category for people like you who can't compete with others up here in the elite?

Old lady H wrote:

John, don't take it personally, I like you, but...

"Adding boxes is handicapping." That caught my eye, and immediately brought ADA compliance to mind, and the HUGE pushback that got BITD. Now? No one thinks twice about it, usually.

Handicapping like in golf. ADA has nothing to do with this........If you level the playing field (in a height vs fence analogy) it negates the accomplishment of seeing over the fence on your own. 

The people on the boxes have no gender in the analogy.

Yet you turn it into a short women need all the help we can get thing.  

FYI, I like you too H, but a first female ascent is as rude as a first black ascent etc.

We need to acknowledge the accomplishment and the doer, not their gender.

Mic drop.........