Inclusivity in climbing

Ha! And it just occurred to me that folks will read this and put me in some kind of box too

Stereotypes are a timesaver for lazy people.....

If you think 12’ run outs are racist, why not climb trad?

Mike you just made every racist in the country look like an idiot.

Who else votes that we call black black and white white with no extra capitalization? As a white guy, I'm not offended. And it has the added bonus of making it appear like there are less SJW critical race theory turds in the world. Always a good thing.

Jamila W wrote:

One of a themes in the women's forum is how hard it is to find mountaineering or climbing boots in very small sizes (under 36).  Much like the author of the article this thread is about I could rightly claim that boot companies aren't making boots for Black women with small feet.  I could then insinuate that this is a racist decision.  Much like the author, I'd be making a non race related issue about race, and I'd hope someone would call me out for it.  

Why would saying that there hasn't historically been a market for small mountaineering boots mean anyone is a racist? Whose feelings do we need to tiptoe around when we say that gear has historically been marketed to one demographic? Why does the existence of an institutional bias in any area need to mean someone is getting insulted? 

I think we're in agreement that there is no need to automatically agree or disagree with the author of that article, or the people interviewed. But does it help things to put words in their mouths that they didn't say? Is it useful to pay more attention to an assumed subtext than the things written on paper?

I like Jamila. 

Mike Climbersonwrote:

If you think 12’ run outs are racist, why not climb trad?

'cause rocks are racist

Dave K wrote:

She didn't put words in anyone's mouth. She was describing an analogous, but hypothetical, situation. You're the one putting words in her mouth.

Give it up dude, you're clearly outmatched. Someone is making informed, articulate arguments that make you uncomfortable and you've got is "we're in agreement that there is no need to automatically agree" 

Qualified half truths and repeating "why?" like a five-year-old is the lamest form of virtue signaling.

For sure, questions are lame. A dozen pages in, and we still haven't found the part in the article where people get called racists, but that's no biggie. The point here is to feel attacked, and trying to find out if we are being attacked is pointless. 'Cause we got the angries, and that's what's important. 

Mike Climbersonwrote:

If you think 12’ run outs are racist, why not climb trad?

Because trad climbing is clearly classist. I mean, poor folk can't afford all that fancy equipment. Don't even get me started on El Cap...

Mountain Dillowrote:

Because trad climbing is clearly classist. I mean, poor folk can't afford all that fancy equipment. Don't even get me started on El Cap...

Climate change is the indigenous earth folx reaction to ice climbing.

Mark E Dixonwrote:

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

Right?!? - come on people... do you know how much work goes into bolting and developing a route? cleaning it? paying for the hardware? envisioning the line? Let's show some appreciation for route developers and not hate on them for their gender or their skin tone or whatever. If it doesn't work for you, don't climb it and until you put in the work to develop your own line; show some gratitude.

Halley Stockswrote: Right?!? - come on people... do you know how much work goes into bolting and developing a route? cleaning it? paying for the hardware? envisioning the line? Let's show some appreciation for route developers and not hate on them for their gender or their skin tone or whatever. If it doesn't work for you, don't climb it and until you put in the work to develop your own line; show some gratitude.

Finally someone who appreciates what the ladies in the article are doing! I don't know why everyone got all pissy at them. It's good you've brought sense back to the thread.

JonasMRwrote:

Finally someone who appreciates what the ladies in the article are doing! I don't know why everyone got all pissy at them. It's good you've brought sense back to the thread.

I feel like Jamila's last post neatly and succinctly conveyed what most people's issue with this article is : [ I think it's great that she's encouraging more people to get into climbing in groups that maybe they can relate more to.  I think it's great that she's making her own routes and doing so in a way that feels reasonable and safe to her.  I just don't understand the subtle digs and accusations that are sprinkled in with the great things she's doing that should stand alone on their own merit. ]

Literally nobody here(minus the obvious trolling posts) is taking issue with the fact that the ladies in this article are setting their own routes and developing their own community.   Nobody is getting pissy at them for putting in the hard work necessary to establish new routes that are safe nor is anyone even close to "hating on them for their gender or their skin tone or whatever". The facet that I personally take issue with after reading the piece is the unnecessary inclusion of race as an undertone to their struggles, purely in regards to how routes are physically bolted.   I can appreciate and agree with the feeling of your demographic being underrepresented, leading to an outsider effect or making it hard to break into the sport.  I can understand disgusting route names and bad gym culture turning newcomers away from trying what might come off as a bigoted or crass sport.   What I cannot understand or agree with is the idea that routes are bolted with some sort of inherent racial bias or discrimination.

I flat out do not understand how the author or you can make the claim that race has any role in how a line is bolted.   Barring the tangential social-economic and societal issues that were discussed in other posts, how would a pre-existing inanimate piece of rock have the ability to be racist?  I'm not saying that routes can't be bolted in a way to favors certain factors(also already discussed in this thread): tall/short, spicy/not spicy, bad clipping stances, but I don't see how someone can purposely make a route favor a particular race?

Let's take one of the quotes 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.”

I climb with individuals who are shorter in stature so I regularly see examples where being short has advantages/disadvantages, but explain to me how a 5'2" Asian woman would have different struggles than a 5'2" Latino man on the same route assuming all other factors are the same?  Does the fact that she is a woman of color inherently affect her climbing ability in some way?  The issue with the less-thoughtfully placed anchors directly correlates with her physical attribute of height, not her physical attribute of skin color nor her physical attribute of being a female.  Her previous statement "Like Prehmus, she also pointed out that the protective anchors on many sport routes are set in ways that are unsafe for shorter climbers." is a excellent point that addresses a legitimate issue with some established climbing routes without needlessly introducing race or gender as buzzwords.  Somehow the article managed to repeat the exact same thing twice immediately after itself, but the direct quote from Vo including that unnecessary racism/sexism undertone.  At some point it starts to feel like people who interject "Well as a parent..." into every conversation regardless if it's relevant to the discussion of network security protocol.

For sure, questions are lame. A dozen pages in, and we still haven't found the part in the article where people get called racists, but that's no biggie. The point here is to feel attacked, and trying to find out if we are being attacked is pointless. 'Cause we got the angries, and that's what's important.

The article doesn't directly attack any particular individual as a racist, but it should be pretty evident with some basic reading comprehension that the women in the article feel like it's a personal offense that route setters don't consider race while bolting.  The previous quotes as well as statements like “It was personally really amazing to climb a route that was set by" two women of color," Alvarez Matehuala said" feel odd to me because they seem to go out of their way to incorporate race into a topic where it isn't controversial.  Again to reiterate, it's great that they are building their own inclusive community and addressing the social issue of racism in their own way within an activity they are passionate about, but to claim that some climbing routes are inherently racist seems to be a stretch.

Many other posters have also made some great posts so I'll end with this: 

Crimpalot wrote:

There most certainly are areas of society suffering from inequality and those need to be dealt with. Climbing just isn't one of those areas, period end of story.

We run the risk of diluting and becoming numb from the importance of fixing/exposing true inequality by attempting to inject this narrative into all areas that aren't actual valid issues. This article is a prime example.

Also, runout =/= unsafe.

Steven Hwrote:

I feel like Jamila's last post neatly and succinctly conveyed what most people's issue with this article is : [ I think it's great that she's encouraging more people to get into climbing in groups that maybe they can relate more to.  I think it's great that she's making her own routes and doing so in a way that feels reasonable and safe to her.  I just don't understand the subtle digs and accusations that are sprinkled in with the great things she's doing that should stand alone on their own merit. ]

Literally nobody here(minus the obvious trolling posts) is taking issue with the fact that the ladies in this article are setting their own routes and developing their own community.   Nobody is getting pissy at them for putting in the hard work necessary to establish new routes that are safe nor is anyone even close to "hating on them for their gender or their skin tone or whatever". The facet that I personally take issue with after reading the piece is the unnecessary inclusion of race as an undertone to their struggles, purely in regards to how routes are physically bolted.   I can appreciate and agree with the feeling of your demographic being underrepresented, leading to an outsider effect or making it hard to break into the sport.  I can understand disgusting route names and bad gym culture turning newcomers away from trying what might come off as a bigoted or crass sport.   What I cannot understand or agree with is the idea that routes are bolted with some sort of inherent racial bias or discrimination.

I flat out do not understand how the author or you can make the claim that race has any role in how a line is bolted.   Barring the tangential social-economic and societal issues that were discussed in other posts, how would a pre-existing inanimate piece of rock have the ability to be racist?  I'm not saying that routes can't be bolted in a way to favors certain factors(also already discussed in this thread): tall/short, spicy/not spicy, bad clipping stances, but I don't see how someone can purposely make a route favor a particular race?

Let's take one of the quotes 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.”

I climb with individuals who are shorter in stature so I regularly see examples where being short has advantages/disadvantages, but explain to me how a 5'2" Asian woman would have different struggles than a 5'2" Latino man on the same route assuming all other factors are the same?  Does the fact that she is a woman of color inherently affect her climbing ability in some way?  The issue with the less-thoughtfully placed anchors directly correlates with her physical attribute of height, not her physical attribute of skin color nor her physical attribute of being a female.  Her previous statement "Like Prehmus, she also pointed out that the protective anchors on many sport routes are set in ways that are unsafe for shorter climbers." is a excellent point that addresses a legitimate issue with some established climbing routes without needlessly introducing race or gender as buzzwords.  Somehow the article managed to repeat the exact same thing twice immediately after itself, but the direct quote from Vo including that unnecessary racism/sexism undertone.  At some point it starts to feel like people who interject "Well as a parent..." into every conversation regardless if it's relevant to the discussion of network security protocol.

Equally, I can't understand why this is hard to grok. I feel like people keep saying "it ain't so" and "that's all tangential." But then aren't addressing the core issue. All the BS you cary to the climb is part of your climb. It's part of how you assess risk, and risk assessment is part of the climb. It's not the rock, but it is still part of the climb. I climb differently 10 miles from the car than I do 10 feet from the car. Even if it was exactly the same rock in the two places, the consequences would be different. 

Are you saying your risk assessment isn't part of your climbing? Or that risk assessment isn't different depending on consequences? Or that consequences aren't different depending on the racist views of the people around you? Cause it sure seems like if one agrees to those three things, it's easy to see how racism reaches out to a climb.

(It looks like Steve missed this first read through, so lemme edit for clarity. This above right here is how bolt spacing affects people differently. Because different people will have a different experience of the consequences, and thus differences in risk assessment, and this will affect how they experience the climb. And one of the many ways that people can be different from one another is their race.)

The article doesn't directly attack any particular individual as a racist, but it should be pretty evident with some basic reading comprehension that the women in the article feel like it's a personal offense that route setters don't consider race while bolting.  The previous quotes as well as statements like “It was personally really amazing to climb a route that was set by" two women of color," Alvarez Matehuala said" feel odd to me because they seem to go out of their way to incorporate race into a topic where it isn't controversial.  Again to reiterate, it's great that they are building their own inclusive community and addressing the social issue of racism in their own way within an activity they are passionate about, but to claim that some climbing routes are inherently racist seems to be a stretch.

Just so I'm understanding, good reading comprehension doesn't rely on understanding what someone else is saying. But it does rely on reading in a subcontext that is an insult to you, even if nobody actually said that? Cause that seems like the opposite of good reading comprehension to me.

I get everyone wants to get worked up about the implications of the article, or where they feel it fits in a culture war they've been told is important. But can we also agree that if there weren't a culture war going on, we wouldn't need to pissed? And if we're only pissed because we're worried about how this relates to a culture war we think is important, is that a good reason to be pissed? Does it really relate to people enjoying a new climb they put up? Or is all this pissy-ness just perpetuating a culture war that doesn't need to be part of climbing (or maybe even part of the world)?

Dave K wrote:

I think it would be great if everyone else boycotted routes put up by white men.

Jonas, if you are trolling you are doing a horrible job of it and if you are being sincere then your reading comprehension is abysmal. The OP article is clearly fanning the flames of what you call a culture war, and forcing it into a context where it doesn't apply. The people calling something ridiculous because it is ridiculous are not the troublemakers here.

Jonas is an inept troll.  

Dave K wrote:

I think it would be great if everyone else boycotted routes put up by white men.

Jonas, if you are trolling you are doing a horrible job of it and if you are being sincere then your reading comprehension is abysmal. The OP article is clearly fanning the flames of what you call a culture war, and forcing it into a context where it doesn't apply. The people calling something ridiculous because it is ridiculous are not the troublemakers here.

True. The culture war has come up in many of his 'posts.'

Dave K wrote:

Jonas, if you are trolling you are doing a horrible job of it and if you are being sincere then your reading comprehension is abysmal. The OP article is clearly fanning the flames of what you call a culture war, and forcing it into a context where it doesn't apply.

Oh man, I can't believe Steven and I missed that! For some reason we thought that was only "clear" if you don't pay attention to what they say, but to what you think they might be saying. And I get it, there is big money put into making people believe that POC talking about their deal is always an implied attack against white folks. But what if it isn't?

I know I won't convince anyone here. This is a thread for people that believe they are attacked to commiserate. So everyone here feels that the implied attack on white folks is there; no amount of not actually finding it will change that feeling. Maybe it's in the implication or the subtext or the tone, but damn it, it feels like it's there. 

But threads like this are how actual free speech works. Folks that want an echo chamber to believe things without evidence don't get it. Some a-hole or another will alway be there saying, "but is there evidence?" And, maybe, eventually, after multiple times when the evidence and the feelings don't line up, some portion of people might start to question the feeling they've been told to have. Or at least that's a faith we have to have if we think free speech won't just lead to people believing nonsense. 

JonasMRwrote:

If a POC bolts a route am I allowed to write an article about how they didn't consider my race and would you support me if I wrote something like that? Does your answer change if my race would be considered in the minority.  

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

If a POC bolts a route am I allowed to write an article about how they didn't consider my race and would you support me if I wrote something like that? Does your answer change if my race would be considered in the minority.  

Absolutely! Especially if they then went on for a dozen pages explaining they don't even think it's possible to consider your race, but also they totally did consider your race when putting it up. Nonsense is nonsense.

As a general rule, it's probably not the person asking "what does the evidence say," that's doing the gaslighting.