sick of this feminist bullshit

[sk]

I just read a good article in climbing that was published right after Alisone Hargreaves died on K2. Interesting read. She actually thought it was more irresponsible for women with kids to climb, because she thought women are more important to kids then men are.

i am not sure i agree with the statement but i know that i feel it. especialy now on my own. Climbing though i still love it, is less important and i am way less balls out. the fact of the matter is my babbies need me more than i need to climb. so i am more careful and less badass then i want to be. they always come first in my mind and my heart

[Blake]

 

 

 

post more annabelle photos even though she never climbed k2

 

 

 

 

[Blake]

where are the pictures in giant puffy fur-lined coat from Vinson Massif?

 

 

[dmarch]

[it would be good to hear opinion of real female alpinist.]

 

I'm pretty sure they will all be drawn to post here by the title and content of this thread.

[marylou]

Well, maybe feminism is not dead. I just don't know what it means to be a feminist anymore. The word now has negative connotations, and multiple meanings, so I tend to avoid using it.

 

FC, I think you might have misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that when, for example, a man says women shouldn't still be dealing with gender inequity, well, I'd be more inclined the believe the women know better than the man if there is still discrimination against women.

[cj001f]

FC, I think you might have misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that when, for example, a man says women shouldn't still be dealing with gender inequity, well, I'd be more inclined the believe the women know better than the man if there is still discrimination against women.

I see the female sidde - I also see that these stories wouldn't get published if there wasn't a female market. I, i n a perhaps twisted mind, consider that sexist. Men aren't interested (for the most part) in stories of women overcoming sexism. Women climbing hard way intresting. Women climbing mediocre, and being women, not that interesting. At the same level as men climbing mediocre.

[Pandora]

I don't see what the big deal is. Someone wrote a book to make a profit. Isn't that what every author does? I mean, if you're going to skewer somebody for doing that, why not go after people who fill hundreds of pages about the Clinton sex scandal . At least this is about something positive. As with any book: if you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it.

[foolscongress]

marylou-

 

yeah, i misunderstood you, and we agree. i teach teenaged girls and it's disturbing how many of them feel feminism means something bad, like hating men. it's been a stellar success of the right to hijack a movement that only ever meant to promote gender equality under the law.

 

this question is similar to suggesting that black americans shouldn't write about the civil rights movement or later race issues, and if they do, they're doing it cynically for money and fame.

[carolyn]

I climb mainly with men, occassionally with women, often in mixed groups. If I were writing a book about some great climbing accomplishments as a woman I guess my focus would be on independence. Independence (or the lack of) I think tends to be a big issue for women in general. While climbing with men, to feel independent with everything from starting a stove, solving mechanical/techinical problems, the length of your stride, to your technique can be challenging. Its not to say either "sex" is right or wrong in regards to how it is done. Tho, it is often the woman who needs to "listen" and "follow" the advice of the man. Because men and women tend to process things differently this doesnt allow much room for confidence, individuality, and independence among the woman.

 

Let me offer an example. I climb with a lot of STRONG guys. They have a ton of experience and great technique. Keep in mind they are STRONG! I think I am fairly strong and have drastically improved on my technique. To keep up on some of the climbs with these guys took every bit out of me. Then I climbed with a woman friend of mine. One who has nearly as much experience as the guys I climb with. She taught me some techniques that are difficult for men to use, because of their body make up yet easier for women. When I see myself keeping up with these guys while practicing the "new" techniques I learned it just blows me away. It wasnt that their way is wrong. As a woman, it wasnt right for me. To try and mold myself into climbing like them kept me from feeling independent (if I didnt climb as well as them then I didnt know as much as them. I think that went both ways,so, they would wind up "doing more" of the set up , tear down, leading,basically taking "care" of me).

 

There has been occassional discussion of discrimination, women's roles, etc on this site in the past. Ive met quite a few of the women on this site. They dont post on here because they are they "majority". They post on here because they have gained that independence and confidence around men to express themselves. I dont know the author's agenda. My guess is its not geared toward the population who post on this site (men or women). Its geared more toward the general population. Hopefully its filled with Inspiration that woman CAN figure out how to do things without a man telling them how to do it differently or better. You CAN figure out a way that works for YOU.

 

I guess I just encourage folks to step back and think about the MAJORITY of the population when things like this surface. just because YOU feel confident as a woman, or becuase you see that in your girlfriend or climbing partners, because YOU dont treat woman that way doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

 

Well, its early and I took a good knockin to my noggin last week, so I hope my thoughts are somewhat coherent. If not, I will try again tomorrow!

 

Cheers!

[mattp]

Good point, Pandora.

 

People publish books to sell them, and this means everybody has to have some kind of "hook" or "angle." Mark Twight writes about the new Fast and Light type of climbing and calls it "extreme." Many around here seem to think that is pretty cool, and it is, but I don't see many people critical of his self-indulgent writing about the inner angst he experienced as an alienated post modernist or whatever, and how this propelled him on his quest to probe the margins off our great sport. We read John Krakauer, with his self-analysis in the wake of an accident on Mount Everest, and many are impressed with how insightful or riveting it was, but relatively few feel the need to blast him because he is somehow attacking US (Anatoli Boukreev excepted).

 

Even writers who avoid the overtly self indulgent like, say, Andy Selter's in his recent book on Mountaineering history, write books with a "hook." In that book, Selters presents a fascinating collection of vignettes and photos from mountaineering history, and he offers a series of "classic climbs" in the successful format first presented by Roper and Steck twenty years ago. I would guess that somebody decided the historical presentation needed some window dressing in order to sell. Is that bad? I don't think so. And it DOES add to the spirit or value of the book to think about not only historical events, but how those great deeds of a hundred years ago can in some way be re-lived by climbing the old classic climbs.

 

So what if Jennifer Jordan writes about "the turmoil of entering a traditionally male sport." Is it a self-centered presentation of her experience? Sure. But, even if we don't want to hear about HER experience, is there anything really all that wrong with her wanting to tell that story?

 

All of us have our "schtick" which some people find appealing, others do not, and at least some people think is over-the-top, ill-advised, or somehow wrong-headed.

[minx]

I don't see what the big deal is. Someone wrote a book to make a profit. Isn't that what every author does? I mean, if you're going to skewer somebody for doing that, why not go after people who fill hundreds of pages about the Clinton sex scandal . At least this is about something positive. As with any book: if you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it.

 

 

i just want to ask any of the women/girls/females in the audience this: how many of you personally have felt that a guy wouldn't climb with you b/c you were female? this assumes you were going to be climbing that you had the physical skills to climb. If some guy says "hey i'm looking for a 5.11 partner today and you don't climb 5.11 you can't claim discimination you can only claim lack of skill.

[Thinker]

..

[fern]

here is an essay on what feminism means.

 

I hope Jennifer Jordan makes a truck load of money off her book, even more so if it is a heap of garbage.

[JayB]

As long as male climbers are insulting one another by calling them "women," the playing field will not be equal.

 

This will only be true for weak women, who would never climb much of anything anyways. Seriously.

 

In the case of the woman I mentioned earlier, if someone was talking smack about women or speaking to her in a condescending tone, her response was to size the guy up, look for a route that she suspected would be over the guys head - and lead it right in front of the guy with a smile. If the guy was still displaying the "if she can do it then it can't be that hard" attitude and she had the chance she'd smile, make encouraging comments - and enjoy the spectacle of the dude flailing, taking, and cursing his way to oblivion on the route in question. Even if they succeeded they'd come away with a respect for her skills.

[RuMR]

I don't see what the big deal is. Someone wrote a book to make a profit. Isn't that what every author does? I mean, if you're going to skewer somebody for doing that, why not go after people who fill hundreds of pages about the Clinton sex scandal . At least this is about something positive. As with any book: if you're not interested in the subject matter, don't read it.

 

 

i just want to ask any of the women/girls/females in the audience this: how many of you personally have felt that a guy wouldn't climb with you b/c you were female? this assumes you were going to be climbing that you had the physical skills to climb. If some guy says "hey i'm looking for a 5.11 partner today and you don't climb 5.11 you can't claim discimination you can only claim lack of skill.

HA! My preference is to climb with a chica all other things being equal...

[Harkin_Banks]

I am so happy the term "talking smack" has made it past the vernacular and into the literary.

[marylou]

As long as male climbers are insulting one another by calling them "women," the playing field will not be equal.

 

This will only be true for weak women, who would never climb much of anything anyways. Seriously.

 

 

Dude, that is just so wrong.

[DirtyHarry]

Truth hurts, huh?

[forrest_m]

fern wrote:

here is an essay on what feminism means.

 

from the site fern is pointing at:

If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

 

Yes, you are.

 

[marylou]

Cool, thanks.

 

 

Oh and Harry, I don't know or care who the remark was directed at. It's just kind of a dumb strawman argument, that's all.

[DirtyHarry]

If you assume that climbing is a playing field. Poor metaphor usage in my opinion.

[glassgowkiss]

just want to ask any of the women/girls/females in the audience this: how many of you personally have felt that a guy wouldn't climb with you b/c you were female? this assumes you were going to be climbing that you had the physical skills to climb. If some guy says "hey i'm looking for a 5.11 partner today and you don't climb 5.11 you can't claim discimination you can only claim lack of skill.

and this was my point all together. so first of all i wanted to say that i climb with female partners a lot. and this is exactly how a lot of my climbing friends and i think. if i want to climb a hard route i want a partner that can manage- male or female.

my problem with this situation is: she decides to write a book about events that took place many years ago and the players are dead. so people described in her book can't respond to so called "facts" in her writtings. there was always unspoken law among alpinists not to write about people who are no longer with us. some things are better left alone. as i stated before: to me stuff like this is just analysis of an analysis. there are plenty of subjects and people to write about, people who can respond. and to wrap it into a so called "feminist packge" leaves very bad aftertaste. tregedy sells, controversy sells.

Do you think Lynn Hill is tired of everyone saying "the only free ascent of the nose was done by a woman?"

i can say this for fact- she always called it F(irstF(ree)A(ascent) of elcap in a day, not the FFFA (first free female ascent)

the turmoil of entering a tradiationally male sport, their insatiable [lethal] desire to climb in the death zone,

let me go back to this- this is what i was writing about- crash and burn. tragedy sells, controversy sells.

and to continue topic of boundries- krakauer was the first to brake it down. what was said in the article in outside should have been enough. imo some of the shit he put in the book was nothing more then slander.

Edited January 26, 2005 by glassgowkiss

[David_Parker]

I don't think you have to be a "feminist" to "want to puke" because some people think an accomplishment by a woman appears to be more profound than the same accomplishment by a man. We have "first ascents", "first free ascents" and "first winter ascents" and thank god NOT "first woman ascents." Ironically it might just be some woman that will actually make a bigger deal out of the fact it was a woman who did this or that, and not necessarily the woman who did it but another woman who thinks it was a bigger accomplishment than a man's. Does that mean that woman is feeling repressed by the dominant paradigm that we as a society have no control over? Or is SHE truly a feminist?

 

It seems to me that it is feminists themselves that always bring up the ideals of feminism (duh!). We can't ignore the fact that statistically there are fewer woman doing 8,000 meter peaks and so when one rattles off an impressive list like Wanda did, we can't help but notice it's a woman. That is what separates her from Joe Blow who isn't famous and quietly does the same. Perhaps we should blame the press for bringing the attention to the public it was a woman.

 

And why are women with children criticized more harshly for climbing than men with children? I suspect it would be the "feminists" that would be the first to defend her.

 

As long as people, men or woman or the press, make a big deal about the fact a woman did this or that, then the steps to the podium will always be an easy climb for feminists. If you don't like what feminists have to say you shouldn't be making a big deal out of anything a woman does.

 

Do you think Lynn Hill is tired of everyone saying "the only free ascent of the nose was done by a woman?"

 

I think Bob is a feminist!

[minx]

as usual mr. parker is right on point

[DirtyHarry]

I don't think Bob's consternation comes from the assertion that feminists find it valuable when a woman does a first woman ascent, its the concept espoused by Jennifer Jordan who somehow thinks women have a more difficult time being successfull in the mountains because they aren't excepted into the male dominated activity of climbing - that somehow the "playing field is not level."

 

That's what's bullshit. How can you have an unlevel playing field in an activity that is based on the concept of the individual, where the challenge lies in overcoming the adversity of the natural environment. Do gear shops not sell you gear if you're a woman? Or is the friction somehow less if you're a woman? Climbing is probably the one activity where the "playing field," so to speak, is the most level.