First Female Ascent. Should this be an actual thing?


Noah T · · Atlanta, Georgia · Joined May 2011 · Points: 0

*reminder of why i started avoiding internet forums.. i think ill revert..

Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 190

I WAS starting to feel like the one thing this thread needed was some Social Darwinism and White Supremacy.

Robert Michael · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 116

I just want to point out it's obvious that men are superior to women simply because of how we piss.

Men stand up; women sit down.

This is because men are emotionally stable and can control themselves while women are not and thus must sit lest they spray urine all over the place.

The obvious proof of this is easily found at any interstate rest area, where you never find piss splattered all over the walls, floors, and toilet seats in the men's rooms.

ViperScale · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 230

Why don't we start something more important FD... First Death. So we will always know who was the first person to die trying to climb a route.

Downtownt Kay · · Everett, WA · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 110

*damn, I go climbing for a day, and 5 pages later...*

dangoesclimbing · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2017 · Points: 0

I think the decision should be up to the women. so in that case the IFSC should make a poll 

John Barritt · · OKC · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 1,053
Downtownt Kay wrote:

*damn, I go climbing for a day, and 5 pages later...*

Yeah, that stupid fence of yours and those dang boxes got my butt in a wringer. Now I know where you were when I needed you to womansplain me out of this....... ;) I thought you were just watching me dig a hole with the shovel you gave me. 

I got the equity thing for sure Kay, (and I liked your analogy, not that it in any way needed my approval). I take people at face value, gender (etc.) has never factored into the character equation for me. JB

Downtownt Kay · · Everett, WA · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 110
John Barritt wrote:

Yeah, that stupid fence of yours and those dang boxes got my butt in a wringer. Now I know where you were when I needed you to womansplain me out of this....... ;) I thought you were just watching me dig a hole with the shovel you gave me. 

I got the equity thing for sure Kay, (and I liked your analogy, not that it in any way needed my approval). I take people at face value, gender (etc.) has never factored into the character equation for me. JB

You turned a post digger into a shovel! We were trying to build a bridge!


And I definitely think a via feratta on the dawn wall might be cool, ya know, in a effort for equity in climbing....

EDIT: The whole host of the rest of everything in this forum, doesn't really need commenting on. The last five pages...I think Helen summed it up pretty well: it depends. but if its at the top of the sport, its noteworthy. 

Circle jerks are more fun when they're co-ed. But most of us prefer echochambers...

John Barritt · · OKC · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 1,053
Downtownt Kay wrote:

And I definitely think a via feratta on the dawn wall might be cool, ya know, in a effort for equity in climbing....

That's funny! I'm an Okie, so I'm down as long as it has some scary "via feratta style" runouts......... ;)

PS That Erik Sloan guy is probably drilling one right now.......... ;)

Nate Doyle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 10

Equality to equity to liberation; where the fence is torn down. What does that look like in climbing FA? 

Downtownt Kay · · Everett, WA · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 110
Nate Doyle wrote:

Equality to equity to liberation; where the fence is torn down. What does that look like in climbing FA? 

thats a great question! i dont know.
i think we wont really know until things shift majorly in our world in general.*

someone touched on reasons there is a disparity in female FAs and route development in general, and many of their reasons are true, and there are other reasons too. like barrier to entry. the confidence gap (obviously not true across the board-but it is a real thing in general). the sometimes exhausting culture of even the most well-meaning and best of friends in the climbing community....

*my opinion on liberation in general has less to do with climbing and more to do with the rethinking of original 'sin'  aka sex and the idea that our bodies are shameful but thats a whole different post for a whole different day, on a whole different forum...

Kyle Elliott · · Everett, WA · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 375
Robert Michael wrote:

I just want to point out it's obvious that men are superior to women simply because of how we piss.

Men stand up; women sit down.

This is because men are emotionally stable and can control themselves while women are not and thus must sit lest they spray urine all over the place.

The obvious proof of this is easily found at any interstate rest area, where you never find piss splattered all over the walls, floors, and toilet seats in the men's rooms.

Equality is only 10 bucks tho. ;)

https://go-girl.com 

Lena chita · · Cleveland, OH · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 240
Emil Briggs wrote:

My daughter got the first ascent of a route about 2 years ago. She has enjoyed making teasing comments about the FMA too but she didn't bolt it. It was a moderate route bolted by someone else. I know a lot of guys who seem to enjoy putting up new moderate routes but  very few women who do the same but I don't know why this should be the case. Slightly off topic I think we met around 10 years ago at the New and chatted about our kids. My daughter was not that interested in climbing back then but she sure is now.

Hi Emil! Glad to hear that your daughter is enjoying climbing now.

as to why there aren't more female bolters/developers... Multiple reasons for it, ranging from women have less free time, to there are additional safety considerations for women bush whacking alone in the remote locations, to the fact that the bolting is a physically demanding hard work. 

Just couple points off the top of my head, by no means comprehensive. 

I do think it would eventually change. There is also a time lag. The ratio of men/women in climbing is much closer to 1:1 now (though still not quite), but bolters/route delepers are people who started climbing many years ago, not yesterday. If you look at the situation 10-15 years ago, there were a lot fewer women climbers back then. I think in 10-15 years, when this generation if new climbers matures, there will be more women bolters, just like there are more women bolters now than there were 20 years ago...

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 23,200
Dylan B. wrote:

Oh for fucks sake.

Did you really mean to write that, or was it a goof?

I dunno if it was a goof, bu tI know in order to eliminate context, it takes deliberate action, so I guess I'll have to presume you did that on purpose.
And it certainly reads differently once you did that to the 'quote.'

I think this particular post in question comes down to the difference between 'same' and 'equal' and lack of semantic sense.
But perhaps not.

Dylan B. · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 938

@Tony B,

I don't think I misrepresented what he wrote. I simply focused on one particular detail that could get lost in the sea of words.

I put an elipsis to indicate the omitted clauses, and the original material was readily available for anyone to cross reference, as you did. There was no intent to deceive, and indeed, I don't believe the editing was deceptive.

The portion I quoted fairly represented a detail that was present in his comment, but which was buried under other points. But for the sake of argument, here is the full quote with the relevant text in bold:

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote:

i think it's the same point argued by both parties just misunderstood by both. 

women are equal to men in society - so everything society controls should be equal: rights, obligations, economics, freedoms, etc. 

women are not equal to men outside of society. everything that is decided by nature - physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc. 

here we celebrate a women's achievement. the gender is important because women have classically not performed at the top levels in any sport. why is this subcategory of gender more important? well, it isn't, actually. age and race are just as interesting. with many articles describing the age gap in climbing ability and sports. furthermore, it was a race question for a long time, with the preponderance of genetic expression playing a crucial role. when aishima sent v10 at the age of 12 or whatever, it was a significant issue as a testament to humanity's ability to overcome age. with dai koyamada repeating v16 at 36 it was a testament that any race and any age could send hard. both of which also modulated the race question.

the IFSC has men's and women's competitions. this is not climbing specific nor sport specific, but this segregation is definitely necessary. the competitions needed to draw a viewer base is a matter of financial feasibility. and this is the crux - treating them as if they were physically equal is not viable financially. nobody is saying women deserve less rights or all women are weaker than all men. this article is a perfect example of celebrating a women's achievements in climbing because it offers equality as an element in society that can be controlled. this recently happened in tennis - when serena williams was lauded as the top 'woman' player in the world. the commentator was berated for adding the word woman and that she should be celebrated as a top performer period. she was later defeated by world #600 who showed up drunk. this disparity was a significant event because of its impact on other sports as a testament to gender inequality. 

it would be wondrously ironic if a woman were to be emotionally invested and claim to be more intelligent while offering evidence promoting the stereotype(s). 

His main point is that "by nature" women are "not equal" to men "physically" and the rest of his post elaborated on that point. I felt that was less controversial, and so I omitted it so as to focus on the buried comments about women's differences "intellectually, emotionally."

I pulled out his comment that by "nature" women are "not equal" to men "intellectually, emotionally." My redacted quotation simply made that clearer. Nothing in the rest of his quotation changes or contextualizes that portion of what he wrote.

Em Cos · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 5
grog m aka Greg McKee wrote:

Ladies, how about instead of being condescending and dismissive of the conversation you take the time to be patient and explain it? 

You thought this issue was going to be resolved in a single conversation? Wrong. You will eventually get equality but it will take time and patience. Maybe you shouldnt have to, but women's rights needs champions, not sarcastic brats. 

grog m aka Greg McKee wrote:

*At MP discussion table*

On FFFA's -

Men: okay explain what you mean and how this works?  We have every detail of a redpoint vs pink point vs send vs flash vs FFA vs FA  defined so lets discuss where this fits in.

Women: wow, your so ignorant I cant believe you

Men who 'get it': Wow I cant believe these men could even ask people to explain. How dare they question our new system. Insert condecending comment.

Look, if all we get is sarcasm and eyerolling when we ask questions then why do you think anything would change? Yall are going to have to explain this shit multiple times to multiple people. If that is too daunting then you don’t want it that bad.

grog m aka Greg McKee wrote:

And instead of changing it for the better you just complain and spread negativity, nice!

You really have a chip on your shoulder don't you!

Edit - you know what, i shouldnt be using sarcasm, ill tell you straight. You need to be the change you want to see in the world. If you want it fixed accept the burden for yourself. No one wants to hear any complaining on here or anywhere. I havent seen you post one solution, positive comment, or idea in this thread. All you have added to the discussion is negativity.

You've made this similar comment at least several times in this thread, and if memory serves (I could be wrong) in other similar threads as well, so I thought I'd respond to this one. 

It's not any woman's job to educate the misogyny out of any given man or men in general. If she is unwilling and/or unable to do this particular form of (unpaid, often unappreciated, perhaps impossible, and frankly exhausting) emotional labor, she doesn't forfeit her right to complain about the issue, and she doesn't have to be patient about it either. 

Here's an analogy (not an equivalency, I'm not saying these two things are an equivalent, it's simply an illustration): If someone punches you in the face, you can be mad about it and call them out for it, and yet you have no obligation to sit them down and share an ethics lesson on why punching is wrong, convince them it's wrong, and train them in alternative non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Not being willing or able to do this doesn't mean punching is ok, or that you can't still be mad about getting punched. 

Hey it's great if anyone, man or woman, is willing to take the time to share their point of view, most especially when those are intelligent, reasoned, and backed up by more than their own personal anecdotal experience - and when they do we should all be appreciative and take the opportunity to learn what we can. But you don't need to demand that from anyone. "If you can't explain it to me adequately then you must not really have anything to be upset about" or similar is not productive. A productive step would be to take some responsibility for your own education - seek out some sources (there are many well-written ones readily available for you!) ask questions, engage in discussions - but don't dismiss someone for not being patient enough or not explaining well enough. Also "be the change you wish to see in the world" (an often misattributed quote taken out of context) in relation to this discussion might mean, for example, if you wish everyone would treat each other with respect, start by treating others with respect - it doesn't mean accepting the burden of others' behavior for yourself. 

Now, I'm not perfect and neither is text-only communication via internet - so it's possible I've misconstrued your intended message here. If I have, then I apologize - and please take it for nothing more than evidence that you have spoken in a manner that may be misconstrued - either way a good learning opportunity. 

Nick Goldsmith · · Pomfret VT · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 440

When I first got involved in this thread I did not even think about the thin air of who just climbed a 5.15 whatever. I pay zero attention to  super hard sport climbs and even less than zero attention to bouldering news.  I totally get that in the rareified air of hot flashes (which i have not read in several years) and only did read that one time when i googled one of my ice climbing partners and  he showed up there...) anyways I digress. Yes if the climb is hard enough to make hot flashes then its worth noteing when a woman repetes it.  It seems quite silly to make a big deal about a woman getting the 2nd ascent of one of our moderate climbs when we all know she climbs circles arround us anyways... and she allready hogged most of the FFA's

Old lady H · · Boise, Idaho · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 265

Hey Nick, does she develop routes also? Just curious!

Best, OLH

reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
Em Cos wrote:

Here's an analogy (not an equivalency, I'm not saying these two things are an equivalent, it's simply an illustration): If someone punches you in the face, you can be mad about it and call them out for it, and yet you have no obligation to sit them down and share an ethics lesson on why punching is wrong, convince them it's wrong, and train them in alternative non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Not being willing or able to do this doesn't mean punching is ok, or that you can't still be mad about getting punched. 

That's great from a fairness POV. BUT practically, only one party is getting punched in the face, not the puncher and not any bystanders. And if I was a bystander, I probably will NOT be inclined to help if the person getting punched doesn't do something to address the situation. IMO, it's absolutely reasonable to say if all you do against injustice toward you is getting mad, you don't really care enough.

That's life.

Em Cos · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 5
reboot wrote:

That's great from a fairness POV. BUT practically, only one party is getting punched in the face, not the puncher and not any bystanders. And if I was a bystander, I probably will NOT be inclined to help if the person getting punched doesn't do something to address the situation. IMO, it's absolutely reasonable to say if all you do against injustice toward you is getting mad, you don't really care enough.

That's life.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm not sure you can place a value judgment on how much someone cares based on whether they react with frustration, sadness, withdrawal, anger, or engaging in patient educational discourse. Further, deciding that you don't have to concern yourself with injustice that you witness because in your subjective judgment the recipient of said injustice doesn't care "enough", (whatever "enough" means to you), is a bit of a cop out. 

Put another way, if a bystander doesn't feel the need to do anything about witnessing someone punched in the face, simply because they are not currently being punched themselves, then that's their choice but they may have to accept that they are part of the problem. 

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply