First Female Ascent. Should this be an actual thing?

I'll be honest, I read the first page and the last page.

Has anyone mentioned that this should be something the female climbing community as a whole decides? 

^^^ lol yes. :)

King Tut wrote:

^^^ lol yes. :)

Damn. 

Carry on. 

I came to Mountain Project for beta on climbing areas.  Then I started ticking my climbs.  The forum though.....such a gem.

Emil. You can change that. the hardest part is finding an unclimbed or under developed cliff, then you need  belay slave or you do the gri gri rope solo thing but you also need vision and lot of ambition to want to to  do something that no one has ever done before.  Isa on the FA of P2 of The Cleaver

King Tut wrote:

Does a woman marathoner need the general population (you mean men) to recognize her achievements?

For her time splits? Of course not. But to note her time amongst other women to be recognized in general, I don't see why not. After all, there are pretty much infinite ways to sub-categorize the general population, but only very few are recognized wrt to marathon times.

But that's not the right parallel here: FFA isn't being discussed in a women's climbing festival or women climbing media; it's being brought up in general climbing media, so it's practically asking recognition from the general climbing population.

wonderwoman wrote:

That's not how MountainBroject works.

I've been following this thread out of interest, but staying out of it because I don't have a need to affect the outcome. That being said, wow, you really have a personal vendetta here.

You know what's annoying about PETA? It's not their message, or their goal, which are both rooted in empathy and logical rationality. What's fucking annoying about PETA is their approach. You're being the PETA of women's rights. That is all, carry on.

Pretty shure that shot is the FFA but no matter, she also got the FA  I got the 2nd free ascent but that really did not count for anything other than personal satisfaction. I did  however get credit for being part of the first ascent party.  Isa being on the lead her name is first then mine. When we came back and I led the pitch there was nothing to report. It was a 2nd ascent not a first ascent.  

 Obviously climbs that are on the cutting edge of difficulty or danger that rarely if ever get repeted a 2nd ascent is noteworthy and  certainly if the  ultra rare repete is a woman that is noteworthy.  If however the climb has been done a bunch of times and is not on the cutting edge it seems pretty condecending to make a big deal out of a woman climbing it.  Obviously you cheer her on and  giver her a high five for a good lead but do you really call the guidebook author over every climb you think that might be a first female ascent? heck we have a fair number of 2nd ascents  but we just figured we got there 2nd....  Heck maybe we should call the author up and get  our names in the book ;)

Mark Waterous wrote:

I've been following this thread out of interest, but staying out of it because I don't have a need to affect the outcome. That being said, wow, you really have a personal vendetta here.

You know what's annoying about PETA? It's not their message, or their goal, which are both rooted in empathy and logical rationality. What's fucking annoying about PETA is their approach. You're being the PETA of women's rights. That is all, carry on.

Except PETA is legitimately insane.  They call for total animal liberation (no pets), support groups like the animal liberation front that use terrorist tactics, and euthanize upwards of 60% of the animals they have in their shelters as opposed to humane societies which euthanize less than 10%.

i think it's the same point argued by both parties just misunderstood by both. 

women are equal to men in society - so everything society controls should be equal: rights, obligations, economics, freedoms, etc. 

women are not equal to men outside of society. everything that is decided by nature - physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc. 

here we celebrate a women's achievement. the gender is important because women have classically not performed at the top levels in any sport. why is this subcategory of gender more important? well, it isn't, actually. age and race are just as interesting. with many articles describing the age gap in climbing ability and sports. furthermore, it was a race question for a long time, with the preponderance of genetic expression playing a crucial role. when aishima sent v10 at the age of 12 or whatever, it was a significant issue as a testament to humanity's ability to overcome age. with dai koyamada repeating v16 at 36 it was a testament that any race and any age could send hard. both of which also modulated the race question.

the IFSC has men's and women's competitions. this is not climbing specific nor sport specific, but this segregation is definitely necessary. the competitions needed to draw a viewer base is a matter of financial feasibility. and this is the crux - treating them as if they were physically equal is not viable financially. nobody is saying women deserve less rights or all women are weaker than all men. this article is a perfect example of celebrating a women's achievements in climbing because it offers equality as an element in society that can be controlled. this recently happened in tennis - when serena williams was lauded as the top 'woman' player in the world. the commentator was berated for adding the word woman and that she should be celebrated as a top performer period. she was later defeated by world #600 who showed up drunk. this disparity was a significant event because of its impact on other sports as a testament to gender inequality. 

it would be wondrously ironic if a woman were to be emotionally invested and claim to be more intelligent while offering evidence promoting the stereotype(s). 

dangoesclimbing wrote:

i might be a dude but it would suck to have 30 lbs on ur chest while climbing

15lb bewbs?

Dylan B. wrote:

Oh for fucks sake.

Did you really mean to write that, or was it a goof?

seems like a joke..

I don't think he was joking at all...

*reminder of why i started avoiding internet forums.. i think ill revert..

I WAS starting to feel like the one thing this thread needed was some Social Darwinism and White Supremacy.

I just want to point out it's obvious that men are superior to women simply because of how we piss.

Men stand up; women sit down.

This is because men are emotionally stable and can control themselves while women are not and thus must sit lest they spray urine all over the place.

The obvious proof of this is easily found at any interstate rest area, where you never find piss splattered all over the walls, floors, and toilet seats in the men's rooms.

Why don't we start something more important FD... First Death. So we will always know who was the first person to die trying to climb a route.

*damn, I go climbing for a day, and 5 pages later...*

I think the decision should be up to the women. so in that case the IFSC should make a poll 

Downtownt Kay wrote:

*damn, I go climbing for a day, and 5 pages later...*

Yeah, that stupid fence of yours and those dang boxes got my butt in a wringer. Now I know where you were when I needed you to womansplain me out of this....... ;) I thought you were just watching me dig a hole with the shovel you gave me. 

I got the equity thing for sure Kay, (and I liked your analogy, not that it in any way needed my approval). I take people at face value, gender (etc.) has never factored into the character equation for me. JB