Inclusivity in climbing

JonasMRwrote:

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. 

Stop gaslighting people Jonas. It's not cool.

He is going to keep doing it but the point that someone's race/gender has nothing to do with how far they can reach to clip a bolt. The other stuff argue what you want it's more nuanced I guess but you aren't wrong about the physics and don't let bad actors make you feel like you are wrong. 

JonasMRwrote:

 This is a thread for people that believe they are attacked to commiserate.

This entire forum seems to be for white dudes who bristle at the slightest implication that climbing might not be the perfectly egalitarian utopia they perceive it to be.

Big Redwrote:

This entire forum seems to be for white dudes who bristle at the slightest implication that climbing might not be the perfectly egalitarian utopia they perceive it to be.

I am amazed at the cognitive dissonance to jump on a certain group of people who may have felt slighted by something and try to invalidate their point at all costs while simultaneously defending another doing the same thing without a second thought.

JonasMRwrote:

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.

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)?

I feel like you quoted my text just for something to respond to with righteous indignation without actually interacting with any of the substance.  The core of my argument that was ignored is: 

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.

You still need to explain how someone's bolting practices either explicitly or implicitly target someone's race or gender.

Using your own example, does the fact that someone decided to develop a more remote crag "10 miles in" rather than one with parking lot access automatically make them racist?   You would rather view them as a plague upon social equality rather than appreciate someone who attempting to their part in bettering the sport for posterity?  I'll readily admit I would be more likely to make a sketchy move closer to my car rather than after a 10 mile hike due to a multitude of reasons but I fail to see how the location of the rock is the fault of the route developer, much less somehow relate that some hypothetical racially charged biases.  More than anyone else in here, you seem to be finding reasons to take offense to things that are simply not there.

For the record, I am not a white male trying his hardest to read into a subtext in order to get offended; I am a minority and also deal with racism is many aspects of my life.  I don't feel like I'm personally attacked by this article either; I just feel like the article is trying too hard to push a narrative that doesn't exist, and you are trying too hard to defend an absurdity for reasons we clearly don't understand.  Somehow it seems as if you feel like everyone's problem is we're dismissive of issues brought forth by a minority in order to not shake up our egos, when many of us are attempting to clarify what exactly is and isn't a racial issue.   It has nothing to do with "POC talking about their deal is always an implied attack against white folks".  You keep harping upon this supposed evidence of underlying oppression, but I don't see where you nor the article have provided any specifically with how routes are bolted.  I'm not trying to engage in your culture war, but from the wise words of the Incredibles: "when everyone is super, no one will be."  Racism is a huge ongoing problem that needs to be addressed, but when it's injected into every discussion, warranted or not, it dilutes from the severity of the situation and becomes background noise.

I agree with the rest of the article except the bolting. But for those of you in the bolting is racist camp how would determine something like waffles as being racist or not racist (I like bolts as much as I like waffles and they are both things white people enjoy)?

Trevor Taylorwrote:

I agree with the rest of the article except the bolting. But for those of you in the bolting is racist camp how would determine something like waffles as being racist or not racist (I like bolts as much as I like waffles and they are both things white people enjoy)?

I like my waffles with Aunt Jemima syrup!

FrankPSwrote:

I like my waffles with Aunt Jemima syrup!

Of course you do

Anybody who thinks bolting is racist reveals that they don’t know the first thing about how routes are established.

99% of routes are bolted by Wypippo.

POC climbing those routes are acquiescening to an established hierarchy, thus perpetuating oppression. 

This isn't hard to understand. 

Along these lines, the subject of Reparations is percolating back up to prominence. 

I submit that Federal Reserve Notes are a quickly fading commodity with each $Trillion added to the debt, hastening their inevitable collapse. To issue more FRNs as Reparations, via adding even more debt, is a hollow gesture at best. Real wealth is property. The US owns a lot of land, but most of it is desolate and barren and devoid of wealth building capacity. 

But, then there's the Parks and Monuments. There is value in those, especially Yosemite.

Every climber who is sufficiently Woke for The Cause needs to demand we hand over ownership of our National Parks and Monuments (especially Yosemite) to the African American community as Reparations.

Because if we don't do this now, the CCP will eventually gain said ownership as collection for unpaid debts anyway.

FrankPSwrote:

I like my waffles with Aunt Jemima syrup!

That’s my point. The aunt jemima is racist that doesn’t mean all syrup is racist or waffles are racist. Just because one aspect of one thing is racist doesn’t mean all aspects are racist. You can say climbing is discriminatory but that doesn’t guarantee the installation of bolts is.

Haha, this thread has everything....

It’s interesting how post after post everyone can warp, exaggerate, or completely ignore what each other is really saying.

And once again, as usual, Zippy has me buying gold this morning. lol. 

The biggest problem I have with some posts here is that disparity does not equal racism. Guess what, groups of people are affected by things differently and have different strengths and weaknesses. So if the natural outcome is that one group is less interested in climbing, we shouldn't claim racism. Is basketball racist because the lack of caucasians? No, and no one would ever seriously make that claim.

Juan Neves wrote:

It depends on how one defines racist. And scare quotes, "racists" people who marginalize actively because they're rotten folks (or haters), or racists, people who distinguish one person from another based on what are ethnic or biological variations.

I don't think the average climber is the hood wearing variety but I do think folks buy into the construct, race, perhaps unintentionally since they were raised to believe in it and it affects how they act upon the world. Hence some climbers say they're not racist, when they really mean they are not "racist." A person who claims they're white or black buys into the construct, they may not be running around burning crosses or buildings but the belief, ideology, plays into their perceptions.

We live in a society 

Edit: funnily enough that makes woman in the article racist. Glad we could figure that out. 

Juan Neves wrote:

That's right, anyone can be racist, however, the power hierarchy they leverage depends on how race operates in the social structure or how they are perceived by other folks. 

Cool I'm white and live in a society. I am racist. Racism has shifted in meaning so much that everything is racist :) why even care about being racist anymore, sounds like you can be a good and tolerant person and still be racist, glad we figured that out.

Juan Neves wrote:

That's right, anyone can be racist, however, the power hierarchy they leverage depends on how race operates in the social structure or how they are perceived by other folks. 

I would not disagree, but everyone has E Coli but we don't treat everyone for E Coli poisoning. It is important that material problems are addressed. We can spend all day arguing whether or not bolting is racist but at the end of the day moving bolts or not moving bolts has no material impact to racial disparities. Addressing material problems first is generally the best approach. I work in insurance and the California Department of insurance wants insurance companies to give discounts to homeowners that rake up their leaves. Well, that does lower your fire risk, doesn't change the fact that the home is going to get destroyed in a wildfire.  

Before I get attacked for insurance being discriminatory, I absolutely agree that it is. It is just the most regulations actually make things worse for disadvantaged communities.

Juan Neves wrote:

It depends on how one defines racist. And scare quotes, "racists" people who marginalize actively because they're rotten folks (or haters), or racists, people who distinguish one person from another based on what are ethnic or biological variations.

I don't think the average climber is the hood wearing variety but I do think folks buy into the construct, race, perhaps unintentionally since they were raised to believe in it and it affects how they act upon the world. Hence some climbers say they're not racist, when they really mean they are not "racist." A person who claims they're white or black buys into the construct, they may not be running around burning crosses or buildings but the belief, ideology, plays into their perceptions.

Hood wearing variety? Guess I'll stop wearing mine at the crag. Hate to scare anybody.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Cool I'm white and live in a society. I am racist. Racism has shifted in meaning so much that everything is racist :) why even care about being racist anymore, sounds like you can be a good and tolerant person and still be racist, glad we figured that out.

Yes, you benefitted from your skin color. Until you're dumb enough to believe it you're a racist.. 

F Loydwrote:

Yes, you benefitted from your skin color. Until you're dumb enough to believe it you're a racist.. 

I literally don't give a shit anymore then. Never believed in religion all that much so I'm not gonna in this one and it's original sin. 

Juan Neves wrote:

No need, hoods or hoodies aren't in themselves scary, show up at the crag in a hood or hoody, who cares? Same with leotard same with Jolly Roger. Show up on someones porch at night wearing one, the context changes. While one person might laugh at finding a person on their porch in a hood or hoody another might send them on their way with a load of buckshot. That's why my analysis includes perception and everyone.

What? Where the hell do you live?

And it's spelled 'hoodie.'

FYI the fly fishing message boards now have debates over whether or not the names of certain flies are misogynistic or racist. We ain't special.