Inclusivity in climbing

This outrage calls for a total boycott of all routes established by white men!

Eric Chabotwrote:

Way cool, thanks for sharing this. 

For those of you that don't like it, what do you suggest people do if they don't like the development style in an area for whatever reason? These ladies are out there putting up their own routes in the style they want, which is rad. If you don't like it don't climb the route.

The article really rubbed me the wrong way.

I’m all for more female route developers, and I think it is great that these women are going out and bolting new routes. I also think it is wonderful that Alan Prehmus has reached out to these women.

But the rest of it... ugh!

1) Yes, I’m one of those short women. And god knows, I hate unnecessarily reachy bolt placements. They certainly occur. Unlike the rock, that just happens to have a feature that makes it harder, or easier, for some people, bolt placement is a choice of the developers, and some route developers are WAY worse in this respect than others. But to imply that reachy or dangerous bolt placement is the case on majority of routes is simply ridiculous!

2) the article makes it sound as if a 12ft runout is specifically meant to be anti-women. Bullshit! Don’t get me wrong — I think a runout just for the sake of runout is stupid on a rap-bolted sport route. But it is stupid regardless of gender. And I have certainly heard both men and women complain about it. Just stick with the norm of the area you are developing... I know women who like big falls, and I know guys who whimper 2 feet above the bolt. This doesn’t have anything to do with anything. 

3) what’s the deal with putting these climbing-related discussions in nonclimbing publications that can’t even understand the difference between “setting” a route in the gym, and bolting an outdoor climb. There was a Jezebel article earlier, now this? Why? 

Lena chitawrote:

The article really rubbed me the wrong way.

I’m all for more female route developers, and I think it is great that these women are going out and bolting new routes. I also think it is wonderful that Alan Prehmus has reached out to these women.

But the rest of it... ugh!

Good points, once you get through the woke-ness the article actually makes some strange, possibly discriminatory insinuations.

Here's a few : 

1. Women are naturally more afraid of run-outs than men. There's only a 5 inch difference in the average heights between American Men and Women, hardly anything in context of a 15 ft runout. Yet for some reason it's fine to assume women will be more afraid of them?

2. Outdoor routes are harder for Black men than they are for White men. Although it doesn't outright say it, it does say that routes are made for White male bodies specifically and no one else. Is the article insinuating that black male bodies are somehow worse at climbing these routes?

I think we should start putting the FA's race and gender in the guidebook so that people will know if routes are oppressive. 

And if that doesn't work I say we start separating crags for different kinds of people.

In terms of the article: cool, glad to see people pushing themselves. If you want to put up routes that's sweet. Probably shouldn't complain about other people putting up routes you don't like unless you are fine with others doing the same to you. 

Bolting for people who are 5'-2" will lead to gym bolted routes. I would guess 40% more bolts. 

It doesn't matter what color or gender you are how a route is bolted outdoors. There are clipping stances, put a bolt at a reasonable spot from that stance. Don't contrive runouts. Protect from falling into hazards.

This wedging of inferring somehow racism and sexism are part of the route installation process is actually just another act of aggression on behalf of Critical Theory in an ongoing culture war. This culture war is settibg us up for some very bleak futures if the dominoes fall in certain ways. It's a very stupid, dangerous game.

JonasMRwrote:

So here's an easy one from a few weeks back. Out running with my buddy, he tweaks his ankle near the end of the trail. Not a bad twist, but he's not running on it any more. We got about 2 miles along the road to get back to the car, so I figure we'll just hitch a ride.

He really doesn't want to, we're a bit off the beaten path, not a lot of cars. I convince him I've hitched plenty in the area, no problem. Sure enough, first car pulls over, I explain the situation, but they look hesitant. Totally fine, it's two women, reasonable to be nervous. I ask if they can just take my friend back; he can get off his ankle and I'll run the rest of the way. No go. They will take me back to our car though. So I go to the car and drive it back while my buddy waits on the side of the road.

Now I'm a good 6 inches taller and broader than my buddy, and can't figure out what the problem is. It takes getting back to my friend before he explains the problem is just that I'm white and he's not. In my life, where we live, if I get hurt on a trail, I go hitch a ride. I've been in that situation before, it's never been a problem. In his life, in the same place, if he gets hurt on a trail, he ends up having to limp back. That's been his experience.  

That isn't a big difference, most of the time no one gets hurt. But it does change your risk tolerance. Not a lot, but a little. And that's just the little extra inconvenience of limping back to a car. How about if one group is twice as likely to not have medical insurance as another? I've been insured and I've been uninsured, and I'd be lying if I didn't say the added financial cost of a fall makes me more wary of runouts.

You're saying that sport routes favor white men because black men are less likely to have health insurance? That's a stretch dude.

I get what you're saying in terms of overall safety/feeling of safety in the outdoors. I've hitch-hiked plenty of times intentionally or after getting lost, and I've also had plenty of run-ins with angry landowners while scoping out cliffline in Appalachia. None of these run-ins would have gone better if I'd been non-white.

But that's getting into some pretty macro stuff. For a writer to just say "routes are bolted to favor white men" is a stupid and intellectually lazy comment.

Jeffrey Elfont wrote:

Climbing has always been the most welcoming and warm of sports, this WOKE stuff is bullshit.

Definitely the best way to show how warm and welcoming we are is to yell at people who don't feel welcomed and tell them they're wrong for feeling that way. Empathy is for suckers.

I get that folks in this thread are feeling attacked. I'm assuming the logic goes; "If there is bias in which routes get put up, it must make the person putting up those routes an asshole. So people are calling me an asshole." 

I think the claim that is being made in the article is that routes are biased toward a body type because it's that body type putting up the routes. And people put up routes they like. Putting up the kind of route you like doesn't make you an asshole. Sure, it would be cool if we were mostly concerned about every other climber, and being welcoming to different shaped people, and so on. But generally we're not. We're worried about putting up a technically safe climb, often with a minimum of time and expense, while sharing the route we enjoyed.

Racial/sex bias can creep into things simply by people doing their thing and not trying to avoid that bias. And if you asked 90% of climbers if they're climbing for themselves, we'd unapologetically say yes. If we say that about ourselves, can we be pissed when someone else says it about us? I know everyone wants to reframe this as an attack on a culture, cause the talking heads on the news keep telling us we are always under attack. But if we ignore those dudes in suits for a minute, is someone else saying they'd like routes to look a little different a cultural attack? If they put up routes they like, has that invalidated our work/lives/culture/fun? Maybe, if I say I was climbing for me (and maybe my buddies), and someone else says the same thing, we're actually just agreeing?

Them boys that bolted Laurel Knob must have giants!

Pnelsonwrote:

You're saying that sport routes favor white men because black men are less likely to have health insurance? That's a stretch dude.

I get what you're saying in terms of overall safety/feeling of safety in the outdoors. I've hitch-hiked plenty of times intentionally or after getting lost, and I've also had plenty of run-ins with angry landowners while scoping out cliffline in Appalachia. None of these run-ins would have gone better if I'd been non-white.

But that's getting into some pretty macro stuff. For a writer to just say "routes are bolted to favor white men" is a stupid and intellectually lazy comment.

It's true, if you ignore cultural context, then cultural context doesn't exist. If you don't ignore it, it does.

I can't say for certain what the author was trying to say, and neither can you. Is it possible they were saying that different people have different risk tolerances because they feel differently in the woods? Sure. Is it possible they were saying "death to white men?" Sure. If we want to get offended, we can. But we don't have to. We could take the opportunity to see what useful things they might be saying.

Fletcher Spillerswrote:

...

1. Women are naturally more afraid of run-outs than men. There's only a 5 inch difference in the average heights between American Men and Women, hardly anything in context of a 15 ft runout. Yet for some reason it's fine to assume women will be more afraid of them?

To be fair, shorter height often means having to do lower-percentage deadpoints, and all of us here would treat a low-percentage deadpoint ten feet above a bolt much differently than we would a secure, static lockoff.

Two other thoughts:

1. Most of the time that folks complain about "runouts" in sport climbing, they're talking about potential falls that are longer, but probably not more dangerous; i.e. a gently overhanging sport route that has bolts 12-15 feet apart instead of 6-8 feet apart. A lot of first-generation sport crags (Smith, CoR, Endless Wall) have routes put up by developers who assumed that if you were on a 5.12, you should be comfortable doing 5.10 moves 15 feet out. A lot of climbers (male and female) who are coming from a background of gym fitness more than outdoor adventure have a problem with this.

2. This article and most discussions about gender and climbing really miss an important nuance: because climbing has been dominated by males with a bit more reach for so many decades, the very definition of a "classic" climb will often dismiss climbs that favor shorter people with less upper body strength. Seriously, what will most guidebooks give most stars to, a climb whose crux is a v6 precise and obligatory deadpoint from an undercling to a slot, or a climb whose crux is a series of 5.12+ outward-facing slimpers scattered every 10"?

JonasMRwrote:

I can't say for certain what the author was trying to say, and neither can you. 

That's a sign of a pretty terrible writer.

FrankPSwrote:

Dumbest statement in the article:

"It’s not surprising that sport climbing routes are geared toward white men’s bodies"

nope. THIS is the dumbest statement in the article...

"Blount, a competitive climber who lives in New Jersey, leads Black Girls Boulder."

seriously, NJ??? ;)

edit: Alan is also a stand up guy who has put up some great routes in CCC and Staunton. 

Joffy Jenkins wrote:

Conveniently ignoring Laura Rogora the 5ft nothing women who has climbed 9b.

Ya, but everyone knows that anything above 5.13 has bolts 4’ apart so all routes at that grade are inclusive of all genders/races.
On the other hand, the most discriminating routes are in 5.10 range. I’m white, 6’2” with +4 ape index,  and there are a crap ton of climbs that I’m afraid to do because of scary run outs.

Joffy Jenkins wrote:

Haha, so the answer is that anyone who complains just needs to climb better!

Yes. Scared of sport climbing? Stick to toprope. Scared of trad?  Stick to sport.  Just don't expect the rocks or the bolts to conform to your personal needs.  Half the fun of climbing is improving and making yourself better suited to things that were too difficult for you originally.

This article seems to bring about a stronger feeling of exclusivity than inclusivity". "Black girls boulder club", "white men", "black climbers" "woman of color". Do we need to only climb with our kind??? That sounds scary.

Last I checked we're all just climbers regardless of ethnicity or gender. Articles like this are creating a problem that DOES NOT exist in the vast majority of our community (theres always some a-hole).

If I were new to climbing and reading this nonsense, I would come away feeling that climbers only climb with their ethnicity and gender. This couldn't be further from the truth. 

And incase you're new to this sport, routes aren't developed for an ethnicity or gender, they are developed by and individual that saw a line amongst the rock...a natural formation and a sequence that they wanted to climb. Its literally about as pure as it gets.

The idea that someone goes out and deliberately developed a route so that only a man, woman, cat, etc can climb is is absolutely absurd. If you cant climb something you probably need to develope some more skills and eventual you will be able to climb it, but dont limit yourself and others by creating a falousy that it was only climbable by (Fill in the blank).

Fehim Hasecicwrote:

Ya, but everyone knows that anything above 5.13 has bolts 4’ apart so all routes at that grade are inclusive of all genders/races.
On the other hand, the most discriminating routes are in 5.10 range. I’m white, 6’2” with +4 ape index,  and there are a crap ton of climbs that I’m afraid to do because of scary run outs.

True that!

Though some of it has to do with the timeline of those routes development. As was touched on by Pnelson, the “old-school” routes tend to be more sparsely bolted, because that was the norm back-in-the-day. Most of the 5.13s were bolted later, when the norms have shifted.

I would say that the sport routes should be safely bolted, for people who are working the grade, whether it’s 5.10, or 5.14. 

The sport routes in the 13-14 range are typically bolted by people who work that grade, and they generally don’t put in arbitrary spicy runouts just for the sake of adding spice. They just want the bolts to be on the best clipping stances, and the route to be safe, because they will be taking falls as they work it.

But 5.10-5.11 routes are generally bolted by people who climb much harder that that. Few things piss me off more than the the “tough” 5.13 climber telling everyone that people should “grow a pair” and enjoy the spicy falls, in order to climb a random 5.10 that he just bolted, not in 1980, but in 2020. If you are a developer who likes spicy routes, bolt your own hard projects with as much spice as you want. Don’t bolt an easy climb that a climber working that grade cannot reasonably work.

But really, going back to the article, my tirade above should not be taken to mean that this is a large and common problem. Most route developers bolt routes appropriately for the grade, and taking the rock terrain into consideration.

And I do think that more route developers NOW take the variety of heights of people climbing the routes into consideration when they choose the bolt placements. Which is good, and proper. I don’t think anyone here would object to this.

I came here by accident, but now I'm really, really glad I mostly do adventure climbs. Because I will never have to interact with someone who believes that the route developer was slighting them by not placing a bolt where they wanted it LOL..

As a 5'1" white male, I always thought it was just that I was short and the FA tall.

What an idiot I was to fail to realize that I was being mistaken for a 5'2" woman of color and discriminated against!

I'm hiring Rudy (when gets better from Covid) and suing someone, by hell!

 Given that quote, can we ask what special considerations she requires?  

I don't know, do you have her email address?

I can guess the #1 answer:

1. When opening a new sport route, please place the bolts such that a 5 foot tall human can expect to clip those bolts from the same (however secure) stance the taller climbers would use.

Now was that so fucking hard to understand?

Oh and don't name new routes with dick headed names. You dick heads know what I mean there too.

I'd say if you adhere to those two concepts I think you'll be in the money.

FrankPSwrote:

Dumbest statement in the article:

"It’s not surprising that sport climbing routes are geared toward white men’s bodies"

This is the most white supremacist sentence I've read in a long while.