First Female Ascent. Should this be an actual thing?

Kyle Elliott wrote:

Sorry if its been mentioned (the walls of text on this thread are insane) but wasn't there just a first female 5.15 FA in Belgium? That's pretty sweet. 

Anak Vehoeven, Belgian climber,  proposed 5.15a for her FA

On September 11, 2017, Anak Verhoeven, a 21 year old pro climber from Belgium, completed the first ascent of Sweet Neuf, a linkup at Pierrot Beach at Vercors, France. She graded the line 9a+/5.15a. If confirmed, Verhoeven is the first female to complete a 5.15a first ascent.

https://www.climbing.com/news/anak-verhoeven-completes-first-female-5-15a-first-ascent/

FosterK wrote:

I'm incredulous. Person getting punched curls into a ball and you're like "Well nope! They must not dislike being punched enough to do something about it".  

I KNOW!!! My first thought was, you see a big bully hitting a little guy, who has no hope of landing any punches back, and is desperately cowering and trying protect his head/face.. And the bystander thinks, yeah, that guy doesn't look like he is standing up to the bully, he deserves it! I'm totally not going to help him.

amarius wrote:

Anak Vehoeven, Belgian climber,  proposed 5.15a for her FA

https://www.climbing.com/news/anak-verhoeven-completes-first-female-5-15a-first-ascent/

Yup. I liked her quote too.
As someone who struggles with body image issues, she's like: dont worry about anything. eat good food, climb.
which coming from her as a slimmer woman has its own problems. but is a good reminder. I hope the consensus isnt a downgrade on her FA. She's got quite the resume.

If we could just ban women from climbing and voting, 99.9% percent of this problem goes away

Tradiban wrote:

The FA is so muddled anyway, perhaps we should do away with the term entirely? Why do we need to know who the FA is? It seems only to serve the ego.

Actually, it can do a lot to explain what to expect.  A 1980's Alec Sharp 5.11 'PG' FA is approached very differently than other routes, By way of example.

So question is this about climbing on top of a female or a female climbing on top of something?

Or is Female the name of the route?

Tim Lutz wrote:

Sorry to hear about your supermarket experience Tony, the struggle as a white clumsy man with poor shoulder stability is real.  

Not common, no.  And the struggle to find something to get offended about is nearly 0.
You can just pick something and make it so, right?
She must have been 'too fatigued' of explaining it to other people to give it some thought in my case.

Tony B wrote:

Kat, one of my climbing partners, recently had an incident where a ranger asked her, 'Where is Your Husband?' She responded 'I don't have one of those, but I do have one of these." And handed him her backcountry permit. Yep.  That happened.  My guess is that the guy was going to give her the business about her dog off leash and was more comfortable in conflict with a guy than with her (she's tiny), which is a second form of sexism...  Anyway, he gave her a warning and left. (Perhaps a 3rd sexism - would a dude have gotten a ticket?)
I suggested that she go ahead and call the guy in to report it to his supervisor 'if for no other reason, to point out what that looks and sounds like, so he does not repeat the mistake.'

And I'm sure that the 'fatigue' is a real thing.  But I notice the plantifs who bring it up to get done more when the assertion they are making is pretty weak.  Kind of like "oh, you know what you did."  And I've seen it used, in my assessment, as a way to leverage a weak arguement.

On the other hand, you are making a pretty good case for things and perhaps it will help people wrap their thoughts around what it's like on the other side of the experience.  ANd about how we should watch our assumptions.

In the super market last night I was tryign to weigh a mellon.  The hanging scales are about 5' up.  I put the mellon in left handed and it slipped - there was  abang, the whole thing shook and rattled, and a woman 30 feet way loudly exclaimed 'Gssshhhesh! and gave me a disgusted look.
"Sorry if I have disturbed your shopping, I can't palm this, I'm right handed, and I cant lift that hand above my navel because I tore two tendons out of my rotator cuff.  I'll be getting the surgery soon." (As I struggeled to get the mellon back out of the weight basket clumsily.
She shook her head and rolled her eyes at me and walked away with a "hmmmph!"

I wonder what her presumption was that made my clumsiness so contemptible?  I have no idea.  I guess she wanted to remain offended.  Could have been a dude.  I'm not saying it was sexism, I'm just saying that some people are easily offended for no reason.

Poor man!

My guess is you just startled her, and the glare was in response to the slightly sarcastic remark.

I might have had the same response, but then good humor would have prevailed, you would have gotten a very exaggerated eye roll and smile, and an offer of help, if my 4' 11" was of any use  

Then, I probably would have said "I hope you at least were having fun up until that happened", with a nod at your arm, a pretty standard response of mine to injured people.

This thread has one small part of an answer, from another thread: just be kind.

Me? I'm short fused and will always go directly to pissed off, but, that doesn't have to stay that way. The adult can rush in and be a heck of a lot nicer.

Usually.

Best, OLH

Dylan B. wrote:

What I notice is that this topic comes up in thread over and over and over again, and those thread go on for pages and pages over days and weeks. And there are about four women speaking up and writing articulately, but there seems be be an unending stream of men who need to hear the arguments yet again, and many are quite boorish about it. 

I, for one, am not surprised that this is fatiguing. I know I get exhausted from it, and I'm not likely to be harassed based on taking feminist positions. Like many, i have heard privately from women who simply are too uncomfortable to speak up, and with some justification given what we know about harassment online.

So no, in my view it's rarely (not never) just a cover for a weak argument. It generally seems to me to be a genuine, understandable and warranted exhaustion or fear that stops women from participating in these kinds of discussions

I think that people like Kay make a very good case for their point and the articulation there of may be very effective at driving re-examination of the behaviors and cultures in question.  I'm all for it.  If more people (male and female) did this, I think that change would come more quickly.  Most of my female friends are more likely to roll an eye about subtle sexism than point it out, but if engaged in conversation, I have yet to see one of them say that they are too tired to engage in it.  I respect the energy that they put into the effort.  Joseffa has been told (beta) 'there is a girl way to do that climb and a boy way...'  Recently Kat and Jo were asked if they would let a male team go ahead of them on a 5.10a so that the male team would not be held up behind them.  (And that's a laugh.)  People ask how hard Medicine Man (12a/b) was.  I shrug - I dunno.  Ask Kat, she lead the crux, I followed it.

I get tired of explaining to people why I prefer that they didn't keep tellign my daughter 'how pretty' she is and why I want her to get her identity and esteem from something other than looks and ask if they go on and on about handsome boys at 4 years old.  But it is an investment I am willing to make since I don't honestly think that the folks doing it realize what they are participating in.  It is particularly awkward considering that the vast majority of the folks I end up having this conversation with are women, including my neighbor who finally told me 'You know you can not change the world, right?' To which I responded: "Maybe not, but I intend to change hers.  If nothing else, at least when she is old enough to wrap her head around it, she'll find it odd that people evaluate her for her looks and not do that to herself." (Which is a more female issue than male, though GI Joe syndrome is a real thing, like Barbie syndrome.)

As you mentioned that "in my view it's rarely (not never) just a cover for a weak argument."
If you re-read what I said, complete with context, you may find that we are in agreement on that.  
What I should have said instead of:
But I notice the plantifs who bring it up to get done more when the assertion they are making is pretty weak.
Was:
But I notice the plantifs who bring it up "to get done" more when the assertion they are making is pretty weak.(as in with the purpose of ending discussion)

Old lady H wrote:

"My guess is you just startled her, and the glare was in response to the slightly sarcastic remark."

What part of:  "Sorry if I have disturbed your shopping, I can't palm this, I'm right handed, and I cant lift that hand above my navel because I tore two tendons out of my rotator cuff.  I'll be getting the surgery soon."

Is sarcastic?  I was entirely serious.  It was my intention to point out that it was not carelessness, and hopefully get her to re-examine her mood about it, but that's not sarcasm.  I wasn't biting, I think she was either having a bad day or looking to be offended.  Given that she was critical of my accident, either was possible and I thought re-examination of that might have helped if she realized 'I'm having a bad day - maybe I should avoid taking that out on other people.'  I'd be psyched if she got to that thought prior to interacting with other people.  I have to get there before I spend time with my kid on bad days so I am not short-tempered with her. 

Tony B wrote:

I think that people like Kay make a very good case for their point and the articulation there of may be very effective at driving re-examination of the behaviors and cultures in question.  I'm all for it.  If more people (male and female) did this, I think that change would come more quickly.  ...

Thank you. Anger can come quickly, some people are not as apt as accepting these ideas as true. 

I get tired of explaining to people why I prefer that they didn't keep tellign my daughter 'how pretty' she is and why I want her to get her identity and esteem from something other than looks and ask if they go on and on about handsome boys at 4 years old.  But it is an investment I am willing to make since I don't honestly think that the folks doing it realize what they are participating in.  It is particularly awkward considering that the vast majority of the folks I end up having this conversation with are women, including my neighbor who finally told me 'You know you can not change the world, right?' To which I responded: "Maybe not, but I intend to change hers.  If nothing else, at least when she is old enough to wrap her head around it, she'll find it odd that people evaluate her for her looks and not do that to herself." (Which is a more female issue than male, though GI Joe syndrome is a real thing, like Barbie syndrome.)
....

THIS! So often I am close to doing this with my own niece. You're daughter is lucky to have someone this thoughtful as her pops.

....  I wasn't biting, I think she was either having a bad day or looking to be offended.  Given that she was critical of my accident, either was possible and I thought re-examination of that might have helped if she realized 'I'm having a bad day - maybe I should avoid taking that out on other people.'  I'd be psyched if she got to that thought prior to interacting with other people.  I have to get there before I spend time with my kid on bad days so I am not short-tempered with her. 

This kind of thoughtfulness develops slowly, and even when we have it (or claim to, like I do) we all have our days-mine was Tuesday at work. Talk about a bad attitude.
Perhaps that was hers, and that's where your ability to know, that perhaps she was having a bad day, and to show compassion. Eh? It obviously wasn't the melon. 

Lena chita wrote:

I KNOW!!! My first thought was, you see a big bully hitting a little guy, who has no hope of landing any punches back, and is desperately cowering and trying protect his head/face.. And the bystander thinks, yeah, that guy doesn't look like he is standing up to the bully, he deserves it! I'm totally not going to help him.

I never said such thing. In fact I prefaced it by agreeing it's unfair. It's easy being an internet hero, but I'm not inclined to help someone to doesn't even try to fight back, because then it's not about just helping, it's about solving someone else's problem FOR them instead of WITH them. And if it's a repeated incidence and the victim doesn't do the minimum to avoid the bully or take up self-defense, then yeah, I'm not sure I'll have much empathy.

P.S.

Bullies pick easy targets not just because they are looking to win a confrontation, they very much want to minimize their own costs. Being willing to fight back goes a very long way toward making yourself a tougher target.

Tony B wrote:

I think that people like Kay make a very good case for their point and the articulation there of may be very effective at driving re-examination of the behaviors and cultures in question.  I'm all for it.  If more people (male and female) did this, I think that change would come more quickly.  Most of my female friends are more likely to roll an eye about subtle sexism than point it out, but if engaged in conversation, I have yet to see one of them say that they are too tired to engage in it.  I respect the energy that they put into the effort.  Joseffa has been told (beta) 'there is a girl way to do that climb and a boy way...'  Recently Kat and Jo were asked if they would let a male team go ahead of them on a 5.10a so that the male team would not be held up behind them.  (And that's a laugh.)  People ask how hard Medicine Man (12a/b) was.  I shrug - I dunno.  Ask Kat, she lead the crux, I followed it.

I get tired of explaining to people why I prefer that they didn't keep tellign my daughter 'how pretty' she is and why I want her to get her identity and esteem from something other than looks and ask if they go on and on about handsome boys at 4 years old.  But it is an investment I am willing to make since I don't honestly think that the folks doing it realize what they are participating in.  It is particularly awkward considering that the vast majority of the folks I end up having this conversation with are women, including my neighbor who finally told me 'You know you can not change the world, right?' To which I responded: "Maybe not, but I intend to change hers.  If nothing else, at least when she is old enough to wrap her head around it, she'll find it odd that people evaluate her for her looks and not do that to herself." (Which is a more female issue than male, though GI Joe syndrome is a real thing, like Barbie syndrome.)

As you mentioned that "in my view it's rarely (not never) just a cover for a weak argument."
If you re-read what I said, complete with context, you may find that we are in agreement on that.  
What I should have said instead of:
But I notice the plantifs who bring it up to get done more when the assertion they are making is pretty weak.
Was:
But I notice the plantifs who bring it up "to get done" more when the assertion they are making is pretty weak.(as in with the purpose of ending discussion)

Old lady H wrote:

"My guess is you just startled her, and the glare was in response to the slightly sarcastic remark."

What part of:  "Sorry if I have disturbed your shopping, I can't palm this, I'm right handed, and I cant lift that hand above my navel because I tore two tendons out of my rotator cuff.  I'll be getting the surgery soon."

Is sarcastic?  I was entirely serious.  It was my intention to point out that it was not carelessness, and hopefully get her to re-examine her mood about it, but that's not sarcasm.  I wasn't biting, I think she was either having a bad day or looking to be offended.  Given that she was critical of my accident, either was possible and I thought re-examination of that might have helped if she realized 'I'm having a bad day - maybe I should avoid taking that out on other people.'  I'd be psyched if she got to that thought prior to interacting with other people.  I have to get there before I spend time with my kid on bad days so I am not short-tempered with her. 

Sorry, sir, "Sorry if I disturbed your shopping experience" could be taken that way, it's clear now you didn't intend it.

And yeah, as I am angry first, it is hard to rein that in!

I also wanted to bravo you on fighting the "pretty" thing. That is almost conditioned into us, women especially, and it is a really hard habit to break.

If someone's looks catch my eye I do tend to go ahead and comment, but very specifically. For example, if a woman has a great sheath style dress, I might say so, and compliment her on getting a great fit, which is not a given and entirely makes or breaks that style. Or, maybe a young guy in a tailored suit has sneakers and tatts or something that makes his look entirely his own. 

These sorts of things are true compliments, because it is something the person has done. Saying "pretty" is awful, precisely because it is largely out of our control, subject to change, and judgemental in the first place. 

Awesome job, sir, raising kids is tough!

Best, OLH

reboot wrote:

I never said such thing. In fact I prefaced it by agreeing it's unfair. It's easy being an internet hero, but I'm not inclined to help someone to doesn't even try to fight back, because then it's not about just helping, it's about solving someone else's problem FOR them instead of WITH them. And if it's a repeated incidence and the victim doesn't do the minimum to avoid the bully or take up self-defense, then yeah, I'm not sure I'll have much empathy.

P.S.

The subtext here is that victims need behave a certain way to deserve help. 

Bullies pick easy targets not just because they are looking to win a confrontation, they very much want to minimize their own costs. Being willing to fight back goes a very long way toward making yourself a tougher target

Or it makes you dead.

FosterK wrote:

The subtext here is that victims need behave a certain way to deserve help. 

From someone under no obligation to help? I don't see why that's unreasonable.

Or it makes you dead.

What do you suppose a bystander getting involved is risking?

There are plenty of wrongs everywhere. Feel free to get involved in all of them. I like to reserve my energy for cases the victims make an effort.

Tony B wrote:

I think that people like Kay make a very good case for their point and the articulation there of may be very effective at driving re-examination of the behaviors and cultures in question.  I'm all for it.  If more people (male and female) did this, I think that change would come more quickly.  Most of my female friends are more likely to roll an eye about subtle sexism than point it out, but if engaged in conversation, I have yet to see one of them say that they are too tired to engage in it.  I respect the energy that they put into the effort.  Joseffa has been told (beta) 'there is a girl way to do that climb and a boy way...'  Recently Kat and Jo were asked if they would let a male team go ahead of them on a 5.10a so that the male team would not be held up behind them.  (And that's a laugh.)  People ask how hard Medicine Man (12a/b) was.  I shrug - I dunno.  Ask Kat, she lead the crux, I followed it.

I had a woman get angry at me once for giving her beta that she thought was sexism due to a poor choice of words on my part. I was climbing at a crag called Sauratown that I'm really familiar with and she walked up with her partner (another woman) and asked if I knew where the route Leisure Time a 5.9 was. I told her it's over there but it's not going to feel like 5.9 to you. She got annoyed at that and I didn't get a chance to explain further. She got on the route and got shut down at the crux. Leisure Time only feels like 5.9 if you're over 6 feet. I'm 5'8" and it's doable but feels harder to me than some 11's I've been on. For someone around 5 feet tall like she was it's going to feel super hard. She appeared to be a decent climber and probably got tired of having people underestimate her because she was a woman which prompted her annoyance with me. On my part I realize that a better way of putting things is to focus on how the climb felt to me. So "Yeah it's a 5.9 but I thought it was really reachy" would have let her make her own judgement.

reboot wrote:

I never said such thing. In fact I prefaced it by agreeing it's unfair. It's easy being an internet hero, but I'm not inclined to help someone to doesn't even try to fight back, because then it's not about just helping, it's about solving someone else's problem FOR them instead of WITH them. And if it's a repeated incidence and the victim doesn't do the minimum to avoid the bully or take up self-defense, then yeah, I'm not sure I'll have much empathy.

P.S.

Bullies pick easy targets not just because they are looking to win a confrontation, they very much want to minimize their own costs. Being willing to fight back goes a very long way toward making yourself a tougher target.

YAY the the bully can go PICK ANOTHER WEAKER still target just like you mention! YAY problem solved (for that one person) right?!!!

reboot wrote:

From someone under no obligation to help? I don't see why that's unreasonable.

What do suppose a bystander getting involved is risking?

The fundamental questions is do people have a moral obligation to help a victim. Your fundamental answer is No. That's not a gap we can bridge if you don't believe humans have fundamental moral obligations to each other.

Your analogy has been stretched into being taken literally, but a bystander does not have to be physically involved in order to intervene. Other interventions include soliciting help from other bystanders, videotaping the assault to provide evidence for conviction, alerting police and security services, providing aid after the fact, etc. All of this aid, by your comments, the victim is undeserving of because they did or were not capable of defending or extricating themselves from the situation.

FosterK wrote:

Your analogy has been stretched into being taken literally, 

And you have NOT?

but a bystander does not have to be physically involved in order to intervene. Other interventions include soliciting help from other bystanders, videotaping the assault to provide evidence for conviction, alerting police and security services, providing aid after the fact, etc.

So what you are saying is you are willing to do the low risk/low effort stuff. Got it.

reboot wrote:

And you have NOT?

Yes, I have, by continuing to engage with it after pointing out it didn't make sense on the face of it.

So what you are saying is you are willing to do the low risk/low effort stuff. Got it

Well, I was pointing out examples of non-physical intervention while you're advocating no-intervention at all.

reboot wrote:

And you have NOT?

So what you are saying is you are willing to do the low risk/low effort stuff. Got it.

Indeed he's talking all about his judgements About how the victim should act in a high pressure, high risk, high effort situation, while he uses that to rationalize his OPTIONAL involvement...

man oh man, he's under no obligation but haha but rationalizing it openlyz jeez