Inclusivity in climbing

@BigRed11 Wow dude. Who hurt you? Nobody cares about different folks joining the climbing community. People care about being blamed for the hardships of others. That's the utter bullshit.

Buff Johnsonwrote:

I know I'm 14th page in oblivion here, but I'm super siked they are getting out and expressing themselves on their own routes made by them.

fucking awesome

Buff has the right takeaway.   Simple.  Not 14 pages of  “sturm and drang”  about their misguided thoughts on bolt spacing.   

I will confess, "BLM" still registers first as Bureau of Livestock and Mining, before the new usage. Lifelong westerner, can't help it.

Big Redwrote:

I agree that the ideal outcome is a society where race, gender, sexuality, etc are treated equally and we can all sing kumbaya at the crag, share a laugh and a discussion about the routes named "Trail of tears" or somesuch, and then wave to the folks with rainbow and BLM flags on their front porches as we drive home. Please tell me if you find such a place.

However, this country is based upon and built on centuries of actions and arguments premised almost entirely on the color of people's skin, their genitalia, and who they love. But now that non-dominant people are entering historically white, male spaces, they need to tread lightly, make sure everyone feels included, and not reference race/gender/etc lest they make the dominant group feel uncomfortable in their utopian "politics-free" zones... To me, that's utter bullshit.

Except the argument for something like gay marriage shouldn't be, "people are just intolerant therefore gay marriage is okay." The argument is that, "a civil union should be allowed regardless of gender, gender is not a requirement for marriage." 

When someone is on trial we don't say Gary was an dick therefore he probably murdered somebody. We supply facts that are removed from our personal bias. So any argument that is based personal bias is weak and undermines the credibility at large. Gary aint a murder causes hes a dick he is a murder because his DNA is on everything. 

Yoda Jedi Knightwrote:

@BigRed11 Wow dude. Who hurt you? Nobody cares about different folks joining the climbing community. People care about being blamed for the hardships of others. That's the utter bullshit.

Sincerely, Why do you care?   I simply cannot muster any butthurt no matter how inaccurate the accusation.   I just think, hmmmm. Wonder why they think that.  And maybe seek to understand.  I typically often don’t agree with many of their conclusions (like in the article in question) but I still lend my hand and support.   

Old lady Hwrote:

I will confess, "BLM" still registers first as Bureau of Livestock and Mining, before the new usage. Lifelong westerner, can't help it.

How bout Bureau of Land Management?

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

How bout Bureau of Land Management?

https://www.ti.org/blmintro.html

It's an intentional misnomer.

It's the culture in which you live that largely determines the things you do, not your race. 

Growing up, the rich kids played hockey, went to camp and took ballet or music lessons. It was the poor ones who climbed things.

Taylor McKenziewrote:

https://www.ti.org/blmintro.html

It's an intentional misnomer.

Uh, no.

Big Redwrote:

Ah yes, the enticing promise of "politics-free" crags... always there, just out of reach because someone brought up race, gender, or something else that white male climbers are uncomfortable talking about.

Why on earth do you think it's appropriate to bring this up at the crag? Prigs just don't know when to quit!

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

How bout Bureau of Land Management?

Yes, of course. Old, old, joke.

I have friends in both the mining and cattle sides, plus BITD the biologist who helped reintroduce desert bighorns to southern Idaho's canyonlands. That was fun! My hubby was on the helo rides, and he brought some of us out to be simulated hikers, to see how the bighorns would react. Pretty cool stuff!

Idaho is public lands by a hefty percentage, many millions of acres, and a good part of that is wilderness. Very little of the climbing could happen, if it wasn't for all the land managers. Really complicated, sometimes. City of Rocks is a real mix of all interests, public and private, and most of the public land agencies, except maybe the Bureau of Reclamation, but that's only because a big river isn't on that land. 

;-)

FrankPSwrote:

Uh, no.

Not to be argumentative (I'm genuinely curious as I've always thought this was the case), but do you have a source Frank? I can't find anything about BLM ever officially being called anything but Bureau of Land Management, and uses of Bureau of Livestock and Mining all seem to be tongue-in-cheek (though that phrase goes back to the early days of BLM). A few quick search results:

https://theconversation.com/the-twisted-roots-of-u-s-land-policy-in-the-west-52740

https://www.hcn.org/articles/in-latest-skirmish-of-land-wars-congress-supports-mining-and-ranching

https://therevelator.org/reform-blm-biden/

Edit: Nevermind, thanks to Helen for clearing that up.

Ha, I didn't know that was a joke. Nice, OLH.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Worth being said, white supremacy isn't born out of people magically deciding that one race is better than another race. Its people who feel alienated trying to find community and the community they find ends up being white supremacy. When someone says your opinion does not matter because of x, that is a form of exclusion. 

It's a good point. Could you imagine what would happen if people knew this, and used it to their political advantage? Like if people spent time and money convincing some group of Americans that they were being disregarded or attacked when they weren't? And then they started making things up like 'culture wars' to 'fight back?' And convinced them that the complete lack of evidence wasn't important compared to that strong feeling of being attacked? Who knows what kind of madness that might lead to.

Listen, if we could all just agree that Wypippo are a scourge, ban them from procreating and take the living ones property for redistribution that would be just great.

Feeling very love/hate with you Jonas

Edit:  @JonasMR:  I don't understand your point about what's said versus what's implied. Implications and tone are important. The psychologists will tell you something like 90% of communication is nonverbal. I think something similar could be said about the connotation of written words. And I don't know how you can deny the implication in the article with a straight face.

I think we can all understand the argument you are making about risk assessment being different for different people. But the question then becomes, "is it reasonable to take that into consideration for bolt spacing?" And I think the answer is no. For one, practically, bolt placement is largely dictated by where there are good stances. Second, there will always be someone who is less comfortable with the bolt spacing until eventually you have a bolt ladder aid route. And who is uncomfortable is much more dependent on an individuals feelings and experience then their race.

JonasMR wrote:

That's right, just like there is no evidence that it couldn't. Which is why the only reasonable stance to take is "I don't know if race affects how a climber feels about bolt spacing, I should ask some folks  from other races (like those in the article) to find out." Any "that's impossible" talk, we agree, would be nonsense.

But I'm glad you also finally agree that route developers aren't under attack! It only took a dozen pages. But it's great you've finally come around, makes all those extra words we all had to write worth it.

Interesting edit between when I saw your post  that was just the second paragraph and now, but I still can't tell if you're willfully ignorant or purposely unwilling to acknowledge the basis of people who disagree with you.

If I'm wrong I apologize but it feels like Dave K and I have been mostly in agreement, and I'm pretty sure the "some people seem to have strong feelings that they are being attacked when they look at a sport route" refer to the women in the aforementioned article, as per quotes like "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 somehow doubt that he came around to your position.

Also I realize you spent time and effort in a big post in response to my previous one, and there's been a lot of weird stuff in the middle. For me at least, it all is essentially this:

1) I don't believe that the physical way a route is bolted can be racist because no one has been able to demonstrate how bolt spacing or anchor placement can be biased either towards or against particular races/genders etc.  There's been much discussion on the climbing community, climbing area accessibility, general history and society at large, but nothing specifically about how a route is bolted on a crag that would lead me to conclude it's possible for bolt spacing to be racially biased.  

2) The women in the article, while doing great work for their community and developing climbing in general, made several statements like the one above about how routes were not established with them in mind, specifically listing gender and racial traits.  It's not to say that they were calling the original route developers racist, but it's not a far stretch that they were heavily implying that routes are somehow racially or gender insensitive.

3) A number of us has then pointed out that language and terms used in the article make it feel like this article is injecting racial issues into a specific topic that doesn't seem to have any.  In that process, it might dilute the severity of racism as an issue overall.

JonasMR, your responses all have to do with surrounding circumstances of a climb, which I have willingly conceded to affect all groups of people differently from the beginning.  Daniel Montgomery makes a good point though in that you respond but talk past any real responses to people's arguments.  For example, I asked "How would one go about placing bolts on a route in a way that either implicitly or explicitly targets a certain race/gender? " and your response was "good question, we should ask some minorities".  As a counterexample, if I had asked "how would one go about placing bolts that discriminate against short individuals?" one could easily say "Placing the anchors extremely high from this ledge, forcing a short climber to make less secure moves to clip in.  The solution would be to place the anchors lower or add chains to facilitate the needs of shorter climbers."   I don't see any examples of that type of logic applying to race/gender while bolting a route.

I'm sure you disagree with that assessment so we're probably at an impasse at this point.  

Yoda Jedi Knightwrote:

Feeling very love/hate with you Jonas

Well, it's definitely got to be one of those things. There are only two sides, right?

Daniel Montgomery wrote:

I'm afraid you may be a little too invested in this, Jonas.

Yeah... the bit about a lot of words was a joke. Most adults aren't afraid of thoughts, or even sentences that have several words in them. Of course, we also consider a response that boils down to "I read everything; I didn't get any of it," less of a rebuttal and more of a mild embarrassment.

1) I don't believe that the physical way a route is bolted can be racist because no one has been able to demonstrate how bolt spacing or anchor placement can be biased either towards or against particular races/genders etc.  There's been much discussion on the climbing community, climbing area accessibility, general history and society at large, but nothing specifically about how a route is bolted on a crag that would lead me to conclude it's possible for bolt spacing to be racially biased.  

Sorry it keeps being a confusion. Maybe read it again, like you did with my point about people being fooled by the media? Apparently it can take a few read-throughs.

But to paraphrase again, bolt spacing "means" nothing. It only affects a climb insofar as it affects the consequences of a fall. Even the consequences of a fall only matter in the light of a climbers risk assessment. And risk assessment includes the complete assessment of consequences. Even things "not related" to a climb are related to a climb if they affect risk assessment.

2) The women in the article, while doing great work for their community and developing climbing in general, made several statements like the one above about how routes were not established with them in mind, specifically listing gender and racial traits.  It's not to say that they were calling the original route developers racist, but it's not a far stretch that they were heavily implying that routes are somehow racially or gender insensitive.

And so long as you are concerned about what might be implied instead of what is actually said, you're going to find yourself not getting things. And needing to read them through a few times. You absolutely could assume they were saying all kinds of things. But it seems more interesting to ask what they were saying, right? And we would surely agree that in fact their needs weren't considered, since we are still trying to figure out what those needs would be.

3) A number of us has then pointed out that language and terms used in the article make it feel like this article is injecting racial issues into a specific topic that doesn't seem to have any.  In that process, it might dilute the severity of racism as an issue overall. 

If they are playing in a culture war, then they may very well have messed up. But what if how things appear in the culture war isn't all that important? What if the war doesn't even exist? What if we don't always have to be political actors, but can just be climbers?

"Placing the anchors extremely high from this ledge, forcing a short climber to make less secure moves to clip in.  The solution would be to place the anchors lower or add chains to facilitate the needs of shorter climbers."   I don't see any examples of that type of logic applying to race/gender while bolting a route.

To reiterate: it is possible that people of different races will have different risk tolerances. If that is true, it would be helpful to place bolts closer and make climbs more accessible to all risk tolerances. But the way to find out if that is the case, again, is to do like Alan and ask those who feel their needs aren't being met. Until we do that, we can at least admit we aren't addressing those needs, since we don't even know what those needs are.

I'm sure you disagree with that assessment so we're probably at an impasse at this point.  

I suspect we started out in disagreement. The goal, it seems, is to not assume what that disagreement is about, but to read the words. Sometimes many words. And then we can at least get to the point of seeing where folks are actually coming from.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

I'm afraid you may be a little too invested in this, Jonas. It's OK; this is a safe space to release your self-destructive tendencies to get attached to forum discussions, when these forum discussions have no bearing on (or really connection to) reality. I'd stay away from Reddit if I were you. Just to play things safe.

Would you like a Kickstarter for your future therapy? It's no trouble. No trouble at all.

Why are you so offended that someone actually wants to have a serious debate? Sure this one thread has little impact but you never know who or how it will change the discussion from hurling mental health insults to genuine discourse.