If someone ever says there's no barriers to female climbers, this is what I say

don'tchuffonme wrote: If by "camp" you're referring to my comment, then you should expound to include the whole of what .....et al

 This response is fucking genius!  Good job to whoever said this!

Why are there less women in ice, alpine, etc? Same reason there are less female cops, excavator operators, wildland firefighters, etc. Part of it is simply time. I don't think there's any reason, now, why women can't pursue whatever interests them. It hasn't been this way very long though, and it is still a work in progress. It is still harder to find specialty stuff that is sized for women at all. Which means you may have no choice but to buy new, and may have to buy more than once to get it right. A woman going into ice, for example, may not ​be able to just borrow gear/clothes from a buddy.

This sort of thing isn't oppression, it's just fact. And it is changing. Only this year, some women are lobbying to get female specific wildland fire fighting gear, even though women have been firefighters for decades. Critical mass is tipping the scales to make this praticable, yay!

By the way, "Algorithm" at the Fins, the hardest thing in Idaho, only got it's second ascent recently. By a woman. Neener, neener, boys! :-)

Best, OLH

I guess the reasons that I'm more inclined to think that the reasons not as many women climb are societal/cultural as opposed to biological are these:

1) The proportion of women who climb has increased over the past few decades. While evolutionary arguments like "if women were more reckless and more inclined to throw themselves up and off cliffs.... the species as a whole would suffer" seem plausible at first, these give no explanation for the recent uptick in female climbers, while shifting societal influences/climbing itself and climbing environments changing may. Plus, beginner climbing like toproping is almost entirely risk free anyway. In fact, a lot of other climbing disciplines done correctly are fairly low risk as well.

2) From these comments alone, it seems like women who climb are 50/50 or close in a Santa Barbara gym, a Boulder gym, an LA gym, and from Senor Arroz's experience at Malibu Creek. An equal number of men in the population climb as women in these places. How could biology explain that? Did prehistoric Boulder women want to throw themselves off cliffs more? :) I would see Boulder as a place where climbers may move to because they want to climb, which could explain it, but not so much for LA and Santa Barbara.

3) My own experience - my coworkers (male and female) confirmed that after Women's Night ran for a couple months, they saw more women climbing during regular hours than before. So it seems to me that what was stopping these women before had to due with maybe the things I listed originally, being nervous to enter a male-dominated space, or something else related to our physical climbing environment.

As for the comment about about Shot Put: I don't think climbing is anything like shot put. It's well known that females are less strong than males generally speaking, especially when you look at elites for anything. I'm focusing on non-elite climbing. Clearly women having lower capacity for being strong doesn't stop them from participating at equal levels in the places I listed above.

Señor Arroz wrote: That's an interesting data point about the resident climbers in the Yosemite Valley being overwhelmingly male. I'm curious were the majority of male climbers you encountered also working summer service jobs or were they dirtbagging? Were the male hotel/restaurant workers climbers?

I don't get to Yosemite very often but where I climb outdoors (J-tree, Tahquitz, Eastern Sierra, local LA crags) I see a lot of women. Some places, like Malibu Creek, I'd put the numbers at close to 50%-50% on a weekend. I was on Mt. Whitney earlier this summer and saw a ton of women up there. So I'm encouraged by the level of female participation in this sport. 

That's awesome! I too was at Whitney for a few days this summer as well, and I saw a couple other women camped at Iceberg Lake in the few days I was and maybe 10 men, but it was a small sample really. 

Yeah I'm mostly referring to the concessioner staff. I didn't see many proper dirtbaggers since it wasn't prime climbing season. It's also a tricky sample to analyze because there were a lot more men than women in general (climbers or not) working in Yosemite too.

I laughed when I read the comparison between climbing and the shot put because, strangely, the only Olympic shot-putter I ever knew was a woman who grew up in the same town as me and later went on to a successful career in acting. Two things with lots of barriers to entry.

The 50/50 question is mildly interesting to me, maybe something I'll chat with someone about on a drive to the crag. I'm a curious person and like to occasionally ponder nerdy academic questions. But it's really just a twist on the age-old nature-vs-nurture debate. And that won't be settled soon, probably never.

I don't see demographic participation rates as a problem or a goal. Because there are so many variables and so many ways to measure it, will probably never see exactly 50/50.  Who knows? The balance may tip the other way... but these statistics are certainly not something that I would let distract from my climbing fun.

Mae Rae wrote: The 50/50 question is mildly interesting to me, maybe something I'll chat with someone about on a drive to the crag. I'm a curious person and like to occasionally ponder nerdy academic questions. But it's really just a twist on the age-old nature-vs-nurture debate. And that won't be settled soon, probably never.

I don't see demographic participation rates as a problem or a goal. Because there are so many variables and so many ways to measure it, will probably never see exactly 50/50.  Who knows? The balance may tip the other way... but these statistics are certainly not something that I would let distract from my climbing fun.

I think it's only relevant because it seems to point away from there being substantial barriers. Or, at least, that said barriers are being surmounted in great numbers. In terms of the future of the sport, I know that in the youth climbing competition scene there seem to be about 25% to 30% more girls than boys competing in every age group in SoCal. 

Lol! Shot put amused me also. My son's swimming instructor was a college shot putter (?), and after meeting her, the most muscular female by far I'd ever met, I grasped that those height weight charts are complete crap at times!

Best, OLH

Nate Tastic wrote:

#1 I'd say a lot has to do with the fact that companies are marketing the outdoors to women more, climbing included. I use to work for a "travel" company that marketed hotels to the gay community. Hotels paid to be included on this site and this to appear inclusive. Gay men often have two high incomes and generally no kids i.e. we don't care what you do behind our closed hotel doors, we just want your money. Women are powerful! Just as much so as men! Hip hip hurray! And you have money.

#2 Gyms changed the dynamic too; more marketing; your thread, case in point, how do we get more women climbers? Gyms are a "safe place" compared to outside. Turnkey. Super popular areas are a bit more safe and turn key too. Lots of rock out there, though. When we are putting up new routes we see no women out there doing the same. In fact, we see no one. But there are no barriers out there, aside from drive (a bit of learning) and money for equipment and hardware. Get after it ladies!

Nate? Please, please, pretty please? When you install anchors, put them wherever you see fit, but consider putting a longer length of chain on, if they are on the high side, from the last stance? That's what I face here, on our old stuff, out of reach anchors where the "one more move" puts me in a really sketchy place to try and clip the damn things.

Best, Helen

After reading this thread yesterday, I decided to count the number of men and women at the gym yesterday afternoon, and low and behold, there were more women than men in the gym.  A general breakout was multiple groups of either two or three women, several 1 man and 1 women partnerships, a single 2 man partnership, and an equal split of single men and women using the autobelays.  Now, this was in the roped section, so I'm not sure what the bouldering section looked like, and it was before the 5:00 rush, but I found it interesting (especially because it does seem to me like there is a pretty even split at the gyms I go to).

I kind of wonder if we are just playing catchup with outdoor climbing.  In the past, climbing was mostly a male sport, but that is changing.  In my experience, there is a pretty equal split with gym climbing, there is a bit of a disparity when outdoor sport climbing, and a pretty big disparity with trad climbing (though all areas have improved in recent years).  I wonder if now that we are at (or getting close to) an equal split in the gym, this will transfer to an equal split in the outdoor sport climbing areas within the next 5 years as these gym climbers move outside, and then if that will translate into an equal split in trad climbing a few years later as those same climbers transition to trad.  

Nate Tastic wrote:

#1 I'd say a lot has to do with the fact that companies are marketing the outdoors to women more, climbing included; see #2 below too. I use to work for a "travel" company that marketed hotels to the gay community. Hotels paid to be included on this site and this to appear inclusive. Gay men often have two high incomes and generally no kids i.e. "we don't care what you do behind our closed hotel doors, we just want your money." Women are powerful! Just as much so as men! Hip hip hurray! And you have money.

#2 Gyms changed the dynamic too; more marketing; your thread, case in point, how do we get more women climbers? Gyms are a "safe place" compared to outside. Turnkey. Super popular areas are a bit more safe and turn key too. Lots of rock out there, though. When we are putting up new routes we see no women out there doing the same. In fact, we see no one. But there are no barriers out there, aside from drive (a bit of learning) and money for equipment and hardware. Get after it ladies!

Very true, gyms have dramatically changed the climbing demographic. They have changed the definition of what we call "climbing" and they have provided a huge business incentive to increase market size.  Climbing gyms used to be an oscure, risky business idea. Now they have found a formula that works, targeting the right demographics, attracting enough investment to build large, high-quality facilities, etc.

When the pharmaceutical industry realized the massive commercial success of Viagra, they immediately asked "how can we market this to the other half of the population?"  (and they've been trying for decades, in sometimes comical ways, to develop "female viagra") The outdoor industry is not much different today.  REI used to be a small company run by hobby enthusiasts. It's now a massive corporation run by MBAs.

Ken Noyce wrote: After reading this thread yesterday, I decided to count the number of men and women at the gym yesterday afternoon, and low and behold, there were more women than men in the gym.  A general breakout was multiple groups of either two or three women, several 1 man and 1 women partnerships, a single 2 man partnership, and an equal split of single men and women using the autobelays.  Now, this was in the roped section, so I'm not sure what the bouldering section looked like, and it was before the 5:00 rush, but I found it interesting (especially because it does seem to me like there is a pretty even split at the gyms I go to).

The gym membership stats that i have seen (I believe it was 2017 commercial gym survey) indicated that the F/M split ~40/60 when averaged across US. Someone brought up regional differences before, and I am sure they exist. The 40/60 split is close enough to 50/50 that it doesn't feel uneven at a glance, and you could statistically get the numbers like what you saw.

The thing that caught my eye was the comment about 'before-5pm'. I know several mothers who can only make it to the gym during the day, while the kids have afternoon activities, and before the dinnertime. I'd be curious to know if the ratio in your gym changes later in the evening.

I do think that in large gyms the overall 'feeling' is roughly equal number of men and women, but from personal observations in several gyms around here, there are fewer women in bouldering areas, and fewer women leading, even though the overall feel of a crowd in the gym is close to 50:50.

In smaller gyms things tend to fall apart. I can tell you that in the smallish  bouldering gym yesterday there were 4 women, and 15 men when I was there--I also was induced to count by this thread. My (male) climbing partner goes most frequently to another bouldering gym, that is a bit too much of a drive for me, and he calls it a sausage-fest, because there are hardly any women there.

I kind of wonder if we are just playing catchup with outdoor climbing.  In the past, climbing was mostly a male sport, but that is changing.  In my experience, there is a pretty equal split with gym climbing, there is a bit of a disparity when outdoor sport climbing, and a pretty big disparity with trad climbing (though all areas have improved in recent years).  I wonder if now that we are at (or getting close to) an equal split in the gym, this will transfer to an equal split in the outdoor sport climbing areas within the next 5 years as these gym climbers move outside, and then if that will translate into an equal split in trad climbing a few years later as those same climbers transition to trad.  

It is possible, and I hope you are right.

I do think that there are some biological differences in risk aversion-- ONLY at the very tail end of the bell curve, mind you -- so we might always see more male free soloists, or more male climbers who love alpine R/X routes. But on recreational level of outdoor climbing there is no biological reason who we wouldn't eventually get to 50:50.

Lena chita wrote:
I do think that there are some biological differences in risk aversion-- ONLY at the very tail end of the bell curve, mind you -- so we might always see more male free soloists, or more male climbers who love alpine R/X routes. But on recreational level of outdoor climbing there is no biological reason who we wouldn't eventually get to 50:50.

It'd be interesting to know the gender splits on other sports such as downhill skiing and SCUBA where the ACTUAL risk is as great or greater than climbing but the perceived risk is different. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

It'd be interesting to know the gender splits on other sports such as downhill skiing and SCUBA where the ACTUAL risk is as great or greater than climbing but the perceived risk is different. 

These numbers are hard to find! All I found by googling is skiing participation in high school athletics (46% females for downhill skiing, 51% females for crosscountry skiing), which isn't the same as recreational participation by adults. I found the number of adults who went skiing by year, but it wasn't split by gender.

Lena chita wrote:

The thing that caught my eye was the comment about 'before-5pm'. I know several mothers who can only make it to the gym during the day, while the kids have afternoon activities, and before the dinnertime. I'd be curious to know if the ratio in your gym changes later in the evening.

Yeah, this is exactly why I put that comment in there.  I am in UT where there tend to be a lot of stay at home moms who may be frequenting the gym during the day, then the ratio may skew much more toward the male end of the spectrum after people get off work.  I like going to an uncrowded gym though, so I am rarely if ever there after 5:00!

Nate Tastic wrote:

Get after it Helen!

Also, let me contradict my last comment; see, nothing is ever so cut and dry.

I saw Betsy putting up a route. She's pushing...okay I'll leave her age out of this. Ney is 60 though, just to give you an idea so... What's your excuse (barrier)?

http://www.supertopo.com/tr/The-Mokelumne-Tetons-The-What/t13341n.html

Nate, our rock has a bulge at the top, often. That's where anchors went in. Fine. The last stance is usually good. However, that last stance leaves me needing to invent one or two more moves to get to the anchors, on very smooth rock. That's why the climb ends there. 

I had the great pleasure of being out with a climber past 70 this weekend, extraordinarily good climber, with close to 40 years of experience. The other partner was a tad younger than me, but again, decades of experience. I'm not making excuses for myself, age or otherwise, just simple statement of fact. With more females coming into climbing, the average height will be going down. The average developer is still male, and likely taller. That's all. Just look to the future, if you can, until more women are developing routes.

My local stuff was put up decades ago, it is what it is, that's my problem. But it doesn't have​ to be done that way in the future.

Best, Helen

Señor Arroz wrote:

It'd be interesting to know the gender splits on other sports such as downhill skiing and SCUBA where the ACTUAL risk is as great or greater than climbing but the perceived risk is different. 

The risk of recreational SCUBA is significantly lower than climbing.  Unless you’re doing severely deep dives or wreck/cave diving, you’d have to do something extraordinarily stupid to get injured.  People flip upside down and/or deck all the time while climbing, even with “safe” sport climbing.  I’d agree with you about skiing, though.

I've seen a few studies that attempt to rank risk in various outdoor sports and I recall some of these studies conclude that scuba is more dangerous than climbing.  One I recall in particular measured the risk per "hour of activity" and scuba came up higher than one would think because scuba divers don't relatively spend much time in the water where climbers are often moving over rock all day.  When you are actually underwater it's pretty high risk, but a "day" of scuba may only consist of a couple hours in the water.

In any case it's hard to measure but the take away for me what that scuba was far more dangerous than public perception, and climbing is the opposite.  Sorry I don't have any links available, so take my recollections FWIW.

Ted Pinson wrote:

The risk of recreational SCUBA is significantly lower than climbing.  Unless you’re doing severely deep dives or wreck/cave diving, you’d have to do something extraordinarily stupid to get injured.  People flip upside down and/or deck all the time while climbing, even with “safe” sport climbing.  I’d agree with you about skiing, though.

You may be right. My perception is probably tainted by my friend who is a LA  County Baywatch boat captain out at Catalina. He pulls injured or dead SCUBA divers out of the water on a pretty routine basis. This peaks, really, right about the beginning of lobster season here, which is coming right up. People get stuck in cracks, have heart attacks, forget to watch their depth, etc. all over chasing a lobster.

(BTW, I do SCUBA dive and think it's great.)

Who cares. Do it if you want to. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

stolo wrote: Who cares. Do it if you want to. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Translation:

"White Man reporting World is my Oyster, all barriers benefit me, nothing to see here, move along...."