Inclusivity in climbing

Gravity is racist and sexist. It's also a theory invented by a white man. Only by exploring minority narratives using subjective reasoning will this injustice be rectified. Unfortunately, the very existence gravity and the fact it affects different people differently is proof we have a long way to go before we can end sizism, strengthism, reachism, and gritism. 

You are all guilty of mass insensitivity and should be ashamed! Just think of how we could explore the stars without the collective injustice of gravity holding us down. 

Fletcher Spillerswrote:

JonasMR, I don't think many people at all feel attacked by this, I think that the vast majority just think it's goofy to involve race in a conversation about benign rock and steel. Gender and height? yeah that's a reasonable discussion. Skin color? sowing extra division where it's not needed.

I dunno man, looks like Trad Man one post up is pretty butthurt. I think a lot of folks seem to be. 

How do you feel about including race in discussions of risk tolerance? Is risk tolerance part of climbing and route development? How about other aspects of climbing? Are you sure enough that the climber in the article doesn't have any race-related differences in her climbing experience that you're willing to tell her she's wrong?

JonasMRwrote:

I dunno man, looks like Trad Man one post up is pretty butthurt. I think a lot of folks seem to be. 

How do you feel about including race in discussions of risk tolerance? Is risk tolerance part of climbing and route setting? How about other aspects of climbing? Are you sure enough that the climber in the article doesn't have any race-related differences in her climbing experience that you're willing to tell her she's wrong?

 Please stop referring to route development as route setting since you know, it’s wrong.

JonasMRwrote:

How do you feel about including race in discussions of risk tolerance? 

I think that's a bad idea.

I've advocated for a very long time to have all basketball hoops lowered to the 8' level to make the highly regarded "slam dunk" more accessible to me, a white guy who really loves basketball but barely jumps three vertical inches to save his goddamn life.

So far no luck, but I'm hoping a journalist somewhere will hear about my efforts and bring them to public awareness to effect real  and lasting change to b-ball courts everywhere.

Dave K wrote:

She's the one that's labeling everyone that has put up routes before her as wrong.

No. She's literally not. She says there's something wrong with some of the names. She never says there's anything "wrong" with all other routes. She doesn't like some of em, and is making different ones. But she's not attacking you or anyone else as "wrong" in your route development.

Yet you feel like she is. Why do you feel that way? Re-read her quotes; it's not something she says. So why are you so certain she does? 

JonasMRwrote:

No. She's literally not. She says there's something wrong with some of the names. She never says there's anything "wrong" with all other routes. She doesn't like some of em, and is making different ones. But she's not attacking you or anyone else as "wrong" in your route development.

Yet you feel like she is. Why do you feel that way? Re-read her quotes; it's not something she says. So why are you so certain she does? 

Basically, a lot of the ways in which these routes have been developed, never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me, a short, 5-foot-2 woman of color would have.

I think the word developing is implying the actual bolt placement and not the process of naming a route. If developing does mean naming a route then I don’t know what being short has to do with naming a route. Either way the article links two things that are separate; the naming of routes and the bolting of routes. 

JonasMRwrote:

No. She's literally not. She says there's something wrong with some of the names. She never says there's anything "wrong" with all other routes. She doesn't like some of em, and is making different ones. But she's not attacking you or anyone else as "wrong" in your route development.

Yet you feel like she is. Why do you feel that way? Re-read her quotes; it's not something she says. So why are you so certain she does? 

From the article-

She summed it up, saying, “Basically, a lot of the ways in which these routes have been developed, never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me, a short, 5-foot-2 woman of color would have.”

That is an implicit criticism of route developers for being at a minimum oblivious to the needs of a 5'-2" BIPOC. Silence is Complicity, remember? By extension, without even getting into route names it means racism is at work.

The overall goal being narrative. To make white people understand everything they have built here originated from the economic engine of slavery and stolen land. 

The infuriating nature of our Culture War is that the battle is over narrative, and obfuscating the general principles and goals is a big part of that.  

Here in FL we have a phenomenal ethnic and cultural melting pot and our route naming reflects it.

Routes in Tampa area crags sport names such as "Cuba is America" and "Greece>Grease", while in Tallahassee you have the chance to top out the classic and notoriously tricky high-ball boulder "Seminole Empowerment". 

Miami is particularly noted for Ponce de León's "Goldberg Narrows"  which holds Adam Ondra's latest 5.15h FA "Philipino Jailor". 

Claudine Longetwrote:

She summed it up, saying, “Basically, a lot of the ways in which these routes have been developed, never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me, a short, 5-foot-2 woman of color would have.”

Again, not sure how you're reading that as saying previous route developers are wrong or are bad people. I agree with Jonas - the fact that so many people are taking this point so personally and ignoring the main thrust of the article speaks volumes. What are you actually upset about? That race is being brought into conversations that you think shouldn't involve race?

It's like a tall climber saying "pants haven't historically been made with long enough legs, and I'm tired of wearing too-short pants, so I'm starting a company making long-legged pants". Doesn't mean that all previous pant makers are wrong or that there aren't pants out there that fit, but it does mean that other tall climbers can now have an easier time finding pants that fit.

Big Redwrote:

What are you actually upset about? That race is being brought into conversations that you think shouldn't involve race?

Nailed it

Big Redwrote:

Again, not sure how you're reading that as saying previous route developers are wrong or are bad people. I agree with Jonas - the fact that so many people are taking this point so personally and ignoring the main thrust of the article speaks volumes. What are you actually upset about? That race is being brought into conversations that you think shouldn't involve race?

It's like a tall climber saying "pants haven't historically been made with long enough legs, and I'm tired of wearing too-short pants, so I'm starting a company making long-legged pants". Doesn't mean that all previous pant makers are wrong or that there aren't pants out there that fit, but it does mean that other tall climbers can now have an easier time finding pants that fit.

I also think folks might be reading too much into her tone. I make off handed comments all the time about 'Huh, those bolt guns, they never think of me, they must hate disabled people!' but it comes from a joking place. I have a hunch that's what she said it in, an offhanded semi-humorous comment that isn't totally wrong, and is worth contemplating and acknowledging, but isn't coming from a place of attack. The reactions here are making a butt ton of vain assumptions.

Props to her for being the change and all. 

BigRed and Jonas are in a close race for troll of the thread award.

La MoMofacewrote:

I also think folks might be reading too much into her tone. I make off handed comments all the time about 'Huh, those bolt guns, they never think of me, they must hate disabled people!' but it comes from a joking place. I have a hunch that's what she said it in, an offhanded semi-humorous comment that isn't totally wrong, and is worth contemplating and acknowledging, but isn't coming from a place of attack. The reactions here are making a butt ton of vain assumptions.

Props to her for being the change and all. 

I'm gonna side with you on this. There is a bit too much butt hurt going around in this thread. I'm all for light heartedly poking fun at the verbiage in the article, but i'm sure the woman the article is about isn't trying to attack you or me. Not everything has to be a battle. Imagine if someone took anything you said on any given day out of context and slapped it into an article on the internet. Any one of us could be eviscerated for any number of comments we might make.
Yea, it's funny they repeatedly said "set routes outside". Yea, it's silly to correlate someone's race or sex to bolt placement choices. Sure, "not all of us" are naming routes with horribly offensive names. She still has the right to her opinion and world view and people getting butt hurt over it isn't going to help bridge the gap of understanding one another.
The most this article deserves is a light hearted jabbing and a high five that she's getting out there and doing something new and empowering other women and people of color. Any more emotional response than that is just whinging.

Claudine Longetwrote:

From the article-

She summed it up, saying, “Basically, a lot of the ways in which these routes have been developed, never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me, a short, 5-foot-2 woman of color would have.”

That is an implicit criticism of route developers for being at a minimum oblivious to the needs of a 5'-2" BIPOC. Silence is Complicity, remember? By extension, without even getting into route names it means racism is at work.

The overall goal being narrative. To make white people understand everything they have built here originated from the economic engine of slavery and stolen land. 

The infuriating nature of our Culture War is that the battle is over narrative, and obfuscating the general principles and goals is a big part of that.  

Yup, that's exactly it. If you're paying attention to what is being IMPLIED because of how it fits into a culture war, then there is criticism. But what if you stopped being a culture warrior for a sec? What if you didn't have to belong to a side and just read the actual words instead? As long as we prioritize being in a culture war all the time, we will find enemies everywhere.

Big Redwrote:

Again, not sure how you're reading that as saying previous route developers are wrong or are bad people. I agree with Jonas - the fact that so many people are taking this point so personally and ignoring the main thrust of the article speaks volumes. What are you actually upset about? That race is being brought into conversations that you think shouldn't involve race?

It's like a tall climber saying "pants haven't historically been made with long enough legs, and I'm tired of wearing too-short pants, so I'm starting a company making long-legged pants". Doesn't mean that all previous pant makers are wrong or that there aren't pants out there that fit, but it does mean that other tall climbers can now have an easier time finding pants that fit.

I disagree with your interpretation that people are having an emotional and personal backlash based on a defensive interpretation. This is an intellectual backlash to the intentional obfuscation of the facts in order to create a false narrative and possible benefit from click bait. Its a low-brow and base attempt at manipulating our emotions. EDIT: I do think the idea of a more accessible (closer bolted routes) crag is interesting and more inviting to a wider range of people. I don't think climbing has an inherent obligation to be inviting but I'm also not against it. 

Dan Daugherty wrote:

Try finishing the article before you summarize it.

After Vo uses the term 'granola white boy' (aka cracker) to describe the folks 'setting' routes outside, she goes on to say how racist their route names are. Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Then there's this gem:

So, she did actually say the things folks are calling her out on

Hmm...where to begin? Thanks for the advice on finishing the article--obviously, I only read the headline and then cherry-picked...eyeroll.

Quite a leap from granola white boy to cracker...where did you get that?  When Vo discusses granola white boy, she notes, "That seemed to be a thing that I felt very strongly when I came into the climbing gym...it took me quite some time to find community.”  Then, the writer (who many seem to be convoluting into a mixture of the four folks quoted in the article--and is likely responsible for the discrepancy between setting and developing) puts Vo's quote on "horrible racist names," which definitely do exist.  So...no, not quite hypocritical, I do think.

I've heard thousands of excuses across decades of climbing.  Many times I've heard folks note that taller developers put the bolts too high, and curse the bolter's name before getting after it.  Are we to assume that Vo is degrading the route or simply noting a frustration that generations of climbers have echoed?  She doesn't say she is considering retro-bolting, she doesn't say she didn't get on X route, she just noted that most developers (myself included) think primarily of ourselves when cleaning and bolting.  You're fishing for critique.  Vo and Blount worked with an experienced local mentor to make a more accessible (read: likely closer together bolts) crag--isn't this exactly what we want rather than some ham-handed bolt job with no knowledge of locality? 

From the pictures, the routes seem low angle and likely lower in grade...perfect for accessible rock climbing, and made at least four climbers happy...pretty good results.

JonasMRwrote:

Yup, that's exactly it. If you're paying attention to what is being IMPLIED because of how it fits into a culture war, then there is criticism. But what if you stopped being a culture warrior for a sec? What if you didn't have to belong to a side and just read the actual words instead? As long as we prioritize being in a culture war all the time, we will find enemies everywhere.

My pointing out hxr injection of hxr racial identity in hxr statement repudiates the assertion zhe isn't flinging the race card. Xe is. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining

Claudine Longetwrote:

My pointing out hxr injection of hxr racial identity in hxr statement repudiates the assertion zhe isn't flinging the race card. Xe is. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining

Don't spend your time assuming everything is a "card," then get angry at other people for things they're not saying. If you assume everything is a battlefield, enemies are easy to find. 

Dave K wrote:

Many of us believe that climbing has been a great positive in our lives, that climbing culture is a positive model for society and that others can benefit from the sharing the same values and experiences. The media outlets that are using their power to amplify the voice of people that are promoting the toxic myth that climbing culture is exclusionary and racist are benefiting no one but a few cynical opportunists trying to sell a story (you know, "tyranny of the loud") 

This narrative of "climbing is dominated by lanky bro culture white dudes" is false, and those who spread it are undermining the goal of inclusion. The message the article sends to potential climbers is "don't bother, unless you can go with a niche group of people that look like you, because otherwise you won't be welcome." 

Again, it's hard to understand how it's possible that the very people who feel excluded by climbing are somehow the ones promoting the exclusion by speaking up about it. I'm not sure what climbing community you inhabit that is not dominated by straight cis white dudes, but that's been my experience in most of the communities and crags I've been in around the world. Recently there have been many BIPOC, LGBTQ, and other climbers who have spoken up about their experiences of not feeling safe or welcome in climbing, and somehow to you that's a threat to the climbing utopia you inhabit.  

What if you tried to view those who speak up not as cynical opportunists but real people who have experienced real discrimination and aggression? That's not incompatible with the largely positive experience you and I have had in climbing. It's a truly cynical view you hold that BIPOC climbers are drumming up racist divisiveness in the interest of instagram likes and website clicks, as if that's the best thing they could be doing with their time. What do you think is the big plan here, to sow discord and rake in the advertising dollars from local news stories and blog posts?