Inclusivity in climbing

Juan Neves wrote:

....aren't in themselves scary, showing up at the crag ...Same with leotardsame with Jolly Roger. .

Wait. I don’t know about you, but a bunch of fuckers in leotards waving the Jolly Roger show up at my crag and I’m gonna be on edge!  

Definitely let them climb through. 

Sorry, leotxrd is not an acceptable word anymore. New acceptable term is yxga pants. 

Steven Hwrote:

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.

I'm sorry you missed it on the first time through. I edited the post to more clearly point out the argument for you. If you're still concerned about how your particular example is addressed by the general argument, just imagine any location where a Latino man might feel more at risk than Asian woman (or vice versa). Maybe an area where there are lots of Latinos living near by, or a part of the world where the locals seem to dislike them.

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.  

That is a great counterpoint to where I said that people were upset because their white egos were being attacked. Let's take a look at where I said that... oh. But if I didn't say it, surely I implied it or I secretly meant it, right? Except in this case I'm here, and can assure you I neither implied nor meant that. I meant what I said. It would be enough to make a lesser man wonder if their ability to accurately judge someone else's super secret intentions was as foolproof as he thought. Fortunately you've got folks like Connor there to convince you all you need to do is keep believing, even (or especially?) without evidence.

Connor Dobson wrote:

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.

I'm with ya. If all we're expected to do is point fingers and decide this is someone else's problem, I'm on board. But if I'm going to be expected to be introspective or change, forget that. Let's stick to social movements where it can be that-guy-over-there's fault.

So does that mean routes developed where there are lots of latinos around are racist? GTF out of here.

JonasMRwrote:

I'm sorry you missed it on the first time through. I edited the post to more clearly point out the argument for you. If you're still concerned about how your particular example is addressed by the general argument, just imagine any location where a Latino man might feel more at risk than Asian woman (or vice versa). Maybe an area where there are lots of Latinos living near by, or a part of the world where the locals seem to dislike them.

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.

From what I can tell with the past posts in this thread, the majority of your defense that this is indeed a racial issue is that one's race affects their risk assessment, and the one big running example you come back to time and time again is location based, from the hitch-hiking, to the 10 mile approach vs parking lot of two identical rocks, to this latest example of climbing in Latino neighborhoods.

1)  My previous question to you then still stands, do you then think someone is automatically racist for developing a more remote crag vs one with a parking lot because they did not consider your perceived risk assessment for minorities?  How would one go about specifically mitigating that factor to make it more equal to all?

2) Does the racism level and cultural sensitivity of a developed route change if a neighborhood's demographic changes or if better road access open up 20 years after the FA?

3) Given that my original post was only took issue with how the women in the articles were unnecessarily injecting race into the topic of how routes are bolted and not dissenting with the idea that communities actions could be improved to be more inclusive, how would the the presence of a local latino community help a latino climber with poorly placed anchors?  

4) How would one go about placing bolts on a route in a way that either implicitly or explicitly targets a certain race/gender?  I can see skewing clipping stances to those with better crimp power, better reach, needing to have a strong heel hook, but I fail to see how it would be possible to bolt routes in a way that favors one skin tone or culture over another, unless you're ready to stereotype that one "race" is implicitly better at certain things.

I agree that there are facets of the climbing community that needs work, we should always strive to improve.  For the women in the article to come and say that "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"  though is a far reach and trying to look for drama where there isn't any.  There have been, and always will be I'm sure, bad route developers for a multitude of reasons but I just don't see how it's even possible for a racist individual to even attempt to reflect that in their line, no matter how hard they try. 

That is a great counterpoint to where I said that people were upset because their white egos were being attacked. Let's take a look at where I said that... oh. But if I didn't say it, surely I implied it or I secretly meant it, right? Except in this case I'm here, and can assure you I neither implied nor meant that. I meant what I said. It would be enough to make a lesser man wonder if their ability to accurately judge someone else's super secret intentions was as foolproof as he thought. Fortunately you've got folks like Connor there to convince you all you need to do is keep believing, even (or especially?) without evidence.

Except this is literally your post from a day ago saying exactly that....?

JonasMR · 1 day ago · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 6

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. 

Steven Hwrote:

From what I can tell with the past posts in this thread, the majority of your defense that this is indeed a racial issue is that one's race affects their risk assessment, and the one big running example you come back to time and time again is location based, from the hitch-hiking, to the 10 mile approach vs parking lot of two identical rocks, to this latest example of climbing in Latino neighborhoods.

1)  My previous question to you then still stands, do you then think someone is automatically racist for developing a more remote crag vs one with a parking lot because they did not consider your perceived risk assessment for minorities?  How would one go about specifically mitigating that factor to make it more equal to all?

Why would the developer need to be racist for a climb to be a different experience for different people? Surely we can agree that if you have to ask landowner permission to access a climb, and that landowner happens to be a klansman, climbers will have very different experiences based on their race. That has nothing to do with the racial views of the route developer. That's why, again, no one is calling route developers racist. Unless you're ready to assume that people implied that even though they never said it. 

2) Does the racism level and cultural sensitivity of a developed route change if a neighborhood's demographic changes or if better road access open up 20 years after the FA?

I have found that roads and houses and development in general change my experience of a climb. It will always be a different climb if you had a two week approach or a two minute approach. Is that in any way surprising, though?

3) Given that my original post was only took issue with how the women in the articles were unnecessarily injecting race into the topic of how routes are bolted and not dissenting with the idea that communities actions could be improved to be more inclusive, how would the the presence of a local latino community help a latino climber with poorly placed anchors?  

To reiterate, again, it could work like this. Climber A hikes 20 minutes to the base of a climb sees smiling faces on the way. Knows the local SAR is quick and good at their job. Climber B hikes 20 minutes and sees people hiding their kids and frowning. They've heard the local SAR may or may not come out. Then both climbers read the anchor at the first pitch is shit and both are risking a fall if they can't build a better one up there. But which is facing more risk? Will that affect what they are interested in climbing?

4) How would one go about placing bolts on a route in a way that either implicitly or explicitly targets a certain race/gender?  I can see skewing clipping stances to those with better crimp power, better reach, needing to have a strong heel hook, but I fail to see how it would be possible to bolt routes in a way that favors one skin tone or culture over another, unless you're ready to stereotype that one "race" is implicitly better at certain things.

Good question! Probably the first thing to do is talk to a lot of people that feel like climbs aren't bolted for them. The way Alan did in the article. Then, if a route developer wanted to, they could bolt in a way that other people wanted. If the developer felt like. At least in that case someone saying you "never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me ... would have," wouldn't just be stating the obvious. If we don't know what those needs are, it's a tautology that we didn't consider them

Except this is literally your post from a day ago saying exactly that....?

Read what I wrote again. Where did I say it was white people feeling ego attacked? I said it was all people being sold a story by cable news channels. I totally get that it seems like the first thing is the kind of thing I might say. And if we believe that assumption is the same as reading, then even after two or three times through I get one would still think I had said that. But, again, if we decide that assumption is the same as reading, that's a huge problem.

Jonas is good at writing 400 words and saying 0 things

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Jonas is good at writing 400 words and saying 0 things

Hey man, if you're not gunna bother reading the words, they'll all seem like they're saying 'nothing.'

I'm hard pressed to think of anything in society, any society, that isn't cliquish, something that develops its own subculture over time.  And that subculture is going to appear alien to outsiders.  Regardless of race or whatever.

Even within the subculture, it's not entirely homogenous.  Personalities mesh.  Personalities grind. Smaller cliques develop.

We all come from varied backgrounds.  We are always sizing each other up.  Are always tearing each other down.  Perhaps if only in our minds.

But, what's the common ground?  We came here for some reason, right?  Perhaps to get away from something. But, definitely to climb.  And, we all had to start somewhere.  And, there was always someone better than us.

It's the human condition.

If you look for division and grievance, you are going to find it.

If you look for meaningful interaction, conversation, relationships, I hope you find it.

A V wrote:

All I really got from your comment is that you TL;DR’d his reply. I don’t blame you, it’s hard to commit time and thought to a wordy post. Especially when it’s a subject that makes one inherently uncomfortable. That being said, it isn’t a good look to dismiss somebodies post without offering some kind of rebuttal.

You’ve done this before in the thread. Your comment is obviously popular amongst the MP choir, so I’m sure you feel some catharsis/affirmation - but I despite of that, try to actually say something with substance in response next time. That way, the conversation can develop. 

See, the thing is, I've been reading this thread for 13 pages, and I was reading all Jonas's replies from however many months ago this started. And all of them are like that. Soft insinuations, weird and unnatural points hidden with lots of wordiness, obfuscation of his goals, sly accusations of racism to everyone else he's opposing. It's concern trolling. Pretending like you care deeply and passionately about the subject, and winding everyone else up, then backpedaling without even backpedaling, because he never really cared about that in the first place. It's what Tradiban does as well, although he's much better and more amusing at it. I am a much more crass and obvious form of troll: I read his post several times, to confirm that he's still doing what he's been doing (in other threads now too), and made a snarky shitpost about it for that sweet sticky catharsis in the form of likes.

What we can all take away from this is that once a thread about a serious topic is 10+ pages long, it's not worth arguing about anymore. Especially since this one got necrobumped and then started right back up again just like it was before lmao

This is the second time in the last 10 posts or so where you've said this isn't worth spending your time on anymore. I think it's time to leave, Daniel, or people might start believing you aren't posting in good faith. 

Dave K wrote:

Agreed, anyone not posting in good faith should leave. Which means the posts about fuckers in leotards waving the Jolly Roger can stay.

BTW T Lego, you what were your thoughts on DiAngelo's White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism ?

I'm sure you have read it by now.

Haven't had time to read it, I took up crochet instead. Apparently there is a market for crochet penis replicas...who knew?!?

T Legowrote:

This is the second time in the last 10 posts or so where you've said this isn't worth spending your time on anymore. I think it's time to leave, Daniel, or people might start believing you aren't posting in good faith. 

Correction: it isn't worth arguing in earnest.

 Troll feed abounds.

I think climbing is one of those sports where every body type can figure out a way to excel so I disagree with everything besides the fact that low income minorities have less opportunity to access climbing. 

Lyle Murphywrote:

I think climbing is one of those sports where every body type can figure out a way to excel so I disagree with everything besides the fact that low income minorities have less opportunity to access climbing. 

Don't low income people in general have less opportunity to access climbing? What does race/ethnicity have to do with it? There are climbing gyms in every major city.

A V wrote:

Well, in the U.S there are races and ethnicities that are systemically deprived of wealth and opportunities. That’s what race and ethnicity have to do with access to climbing - because most of us have some degree of wealth and opportunity that enables us to live this kind of lifestyle and others don’t.

The minutiae of this truth is what we spend our time arguing about.

Systematically deprived of wealth and opportunity? The opposite is true. You've been brainwashed. What allows you to live this kind of lifestyle are values  that are the exact opposite of those found in most countries and cultures .

Without reading 13 pages, here's a simple request, for my main peeve with bolting.

Anchors. At 4'11", I don't expect anyone to go back and "fix" squat on a route. 

But the damn anchors being out of reach?

Those relics from BITD are getting replaced in many places. Maybe, just maybe, replacement anchors can simply have longer chains on them? And, on new development, keep height in mind? An anchor the average female can reach will benefit anyone who is shorter than average, and shouldn't exactly be a hardship for an average guy.

And yes, I can carry something to clip the anchor, but this is a pretty simple fix to even out average male height and average female height, without no extra effort at all, and not much expense either.

Runouts, ground fall bolting, etc, are burdens we all have to make our individual decisions on, for all the existing stuff out there. Or, once in a great while? Even an FA may scratch their head, decades later, and say "wtf?", lol! A few routes do get rethought.

Best, Helen

A V wrote:

You don’t think that access to the outdoors has anything to do with financial freedom?

I think there is a lot of irony that you are accusing others of being brainwashed...

Access to the outdoors has everything to do with a long chain of personal choices having nothing to do with somebody or something else, but with the individual making choices leading to an outcome. To think otherwise is to allow a preconceived formula , a political ideology,  to stand in for a basic truth. Such things are done as a means of control -- as a power play, and usually arrive into someone's mind due to indoctrination and the deliberate cultural spread of truly bad ideas. 

In all cases the systemic racism meme is one of these truly bad ideas. It plays upon racially based guilt and is a manipulative instrument used by bad. people to gain power over susceptible minds.

"Narcissism" wow. Is this one of the up and coming memes? That's a new one. I think it grew out the woke apparatchiks being widely and effectively tagged as dark triad types -- you know, narcissists, psychopaths, and Machevellian. Which most of them are by the way.

Not you though AV,  my intuition tells me.

A V wrote:

This is deranged thinking masquerading as rational thought.

I suppose I can’t stop you from believing things that feed into your narcissism and make you feel better

Narcissism?  What?