And the Accusations Begin!

[mike1]

This is just too unbelievable not to repost:

 

 

The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.

 

But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.

 

To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.

 

Now 11 good men have lost their lives climbing a mountain for no particular reason. Because it was there, they no longer are.

 

What a magnificent waste!

 

 

 

 

 

She's correct.

 

uh, which part? that 11 mountaineers died on some peak she'd never heard of, or that women don't climb mountains?

 

That climbing a big mountain like K2 (or any dangerous peak) serves no purpose and that "heroism" has better definitions already available. I think it was Mallory's son who recounted later in his life that as a boy he didn't understand or care that his father would be a climbing hero and legend--only that his dad never came home.

I agree. Climbing is without a doubt selfish. To take on extreme adverse dangers, especially when you have family is even more so. Hell, the local climbs I do are selfish, though nowhere near as extreme. I have always acknowledged that.

It is sad that these people perished up there. I find it disgusting that some of you seem to enjoy - arm chair analyzing their mistakes and joking about it.

 

MOVE THIS TO SPRAY!

Edited August 9, 2008 by Mikester

[StevenSeagal]

But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.

 

To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.

 

 

That climbing a big mountain like K2 (or any dangerous peak) serves no purpose and that "heroism" has better definitions already available. I think it was Mallory's son who recounted later in his life that as a boy he didn't understand or care that his father would be a climbing hero and legend--only that his dad never came home.

 

FW and Mikester made some provocative statements here that I appreciated reading. Therefore, I'm going to amend, partially retract, and clarify my crude assessment above.

 

It's certainly true that there is a cross section of climbers who view their own climbing of mountains as "heroic". Personally, I don't identify with this mindset, nor would I ever climb with anyone who holds it. There's nothing heroic about climbing mountains, it's largely a personal- some will say selfish- endeavor, although I would stress that for myself, the entirety of the activity is validated by the amazing friendships and through the company of fine men and women. So in any case, this lady may have- accidently- touched on a valid point. I say accidently, because she clearly has almost zero understanding of mountaineering and the attractions of it, and it's obvious that her perceptions of climbing have been formed chiefly by hysterical news bites and hype coverage of high profile Everest type disasters, which the rest of us understand to offer a very biased, presumptive, and limited perspective into the entirety of why people choose to climb mountains.

 

It's especially galling, then, that someone with such ignorance on the subject would attempt to paint an entire sport and all of it's participants under such a broad brush- not the least of which is her simpleton's attempt to equate climbing with an outlet for "masculinity". In the context of this incident, she's also made a strong judgment about the characters and motivation of 11 deceased individuals whom she clearly knows nothing about, but she makes her pronouncements of them in such a way that she clearly thinks she doesn't need to know any more. That's pathetic.

 

Back to the perceptions of "heroism": one can certainly make the case that a person climbing a mountain does nothing tangible for society, insofar as comparing it against the obvious and immediate benefit of a firefighter running into a building, a policeman pulling someone from a burning vehicle, or a soldier defending the country from an attack. But I might counter that many climbers- at least many I've been fortunate enough to encounter- offer something very intangible back to society, beginning with the example of living, out of necessity, outside of the drudgery and mechanism of everyday culture. Any of us who have been out in the mountains for a long period of time can appreciate that there's a clarity and insight into your surroundings that is there on return to the city that was not there when you departed. People notice that clarity, in relationship. I remain convinced that there is a hidden social benefit in this that cannot be quantified, much the same way that the ripple effect of a random act of charity cannot be quantifiably demonstrated or described, yet most of us would agree that there is something to that. People who are less attached to the culture serve to prevent stagnation of the culture by bringing in new ideas and making visible new ways of living.

 

The fact that this lady focuses so heavily on the assumption of the pursuit of heroism and purely base selfishness as the primary motivations for climbing makes me question whether her problem with climbing stems mainly from the fact that she can't see anything in it that directly benefits her; therefore she must condemn it outright and she must put all climbers into the same basket.

 

Separately: Fairweather: is there any tangible purpose to climbing any mountain, not just big or dangerous ones? Heroism may indeed have better definitions already available but this only matters if one attaches heroism as an integral part of climbing. I'm not sure how you view this, but my view is that the perception of heroism in climbing mountains resides strictly in the realm of "me", therefore it's contrived.

Your Mallory quote is interesting- I agree with it completely, but at the same time, you can apply this sentiment all the way down the ladder to someone taking a day hike and falling to their death. The recent Dragontail accident will, and should, affect no less grief than the K2 accident. The end result for those left behind is the same in either case. Which I why it's imperative that everything involving risk be done with total seriousness. And a personal agenda that is caught up in pursuing heroism is not serious.

 

Risk in climbing, all the way down to living in the city, is largely relative, while death is a certainty at some point- in the end, everyone's life is a process of managing these risks as they apply to us while pursuing the things that we cherish. I'm going to guess that most of these climbers, even if they made some mistakes, had a grasp and understanding of this and were trying to live the best life they knew how, and despite the grief that their deaths has brought, none of their loved ones would trade it for the joy that they had in knowing them for who they were, for the time they had on this planet. To that end unlike this lady, I will not so disgustingly and self righteously assess the deaths- and lives, by extension- of these 11 climbers by pronouncing them a "waste".

 

 

[tomtom]

Maggie Gallagher is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage. Comments for Maggie? maggie@imapp.org.

 

[chirp]

[ivan]

dude, i thought seagal just knew how to kick asses, not write w/ such profound deep-thinking-insides-wordy-stuff

[blurpy]

This is just too unbelievable not to repost:

 

 

The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.

 

But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.

 

To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.

 

Now 11 good men have lost their lives climbing a mountain for no particular reason. Because it was there, they no longer are.

 

What a magnificent waste!

 

 

 

 

 

She's correct.

 

uh, which part? that 11 mountaineers died on some peak she'd never heard of, or that women don't climb mountains?

 

That climbing a big mountain like K2 (or any dangerous peak) serves no purpose and that "heroism" has better definitions already available. I think it was Mallory's son who recounted later in his life that as a boy he didn't understand or care that his father would be a climbing hero and legend--only that his dad never came home.

 

serves no purpose? serves no purpose, perhaps, that she can fathom. i'd posit that there might be 'purposes' served by such activities that are not strictly utilitarian. she even makes the point herself, though she doesn't realize it: 'Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians'

 

heroism? is that the only motivator for hiking, climbing, mountaineering? is everyman trying to prove something to others each time he engages in such frivolity?

 

selfishness. this can be pressed to extremes in either direction, i suppose, but couldn't you assert that any activity not directly related to the acquisition of food/shelter (in reasonable amounts, mind you) is 'selfish', especially if any level of risk is involved? Let us suppose that today your are going to travel to Beacon Rock and hike to the top. Now suppose that some doorknob above you (no shortage there) trundles a stone (i've seen 30 pounders knocked down / thrown down by teenages who won't keep to the trail) which kills you. Have you now been killed in the selfish and useless pursuit of 'heroism', and thus needlessly deprived your friends and family of your presence (and economic support). Like I said, such arguments can be pressed to extremes, but where do we draw the line?

 

The woman who wrote this note clearly doesn't get much of what she is talking about, and she draws easy (and specious) comparisons in order to express her righteous rage about this ridiculous, selfish waste, and lets her get on to her true purpose, bashing men.

 

Once she realizes that many women have climbed (and died on) K2 and other peaks, and once she admits the possibility that the troops in Iraq are there in large part to protect her own selfish interests (which she probably wouldn't do), then she might, possibly, admit that her statement is vapid, insipid, insulting and banal. I'm not holding my breath though.

[pink]

who cares, go climb for yourself and if you die your dead

[AlpineK]

Climbing isn't heroism it's only a human pursuit that both males and females have engaged in since the dawn of time. We've done it to find food and just out of curiosity about what's up there.

 

It doesn't take much experience to know that climbing involves risk, but so does driving a car. I recently looked at statistics from England. From their records you have roughly a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car wreck. It's a lot safer not to leave the house.

 

This woman is an idiot, and she fails to take a long look at human activity.

 

Perhaps she is in a man hating club.

[dougd]

The "butter hog" observation was funny...

 

The woman has no clue obviously.

 

d

[mike1]

 

selfishness. this can be pressed to extremes in either direction, i suppose, but couldn't you assert that any activity not directly related to the acquisition of food/shelter (in reasonable amounts, mind you) is 'selfish', especially if any level of risk is involved? Let us suppose that today your are going to travel to Beacon Rock and hike to the top. Now suppose that some doorknob above you (no shortage there) trundles a stone (i've seen 30 pounders knocked down / thrown down by teenages who won't keep to the trail) which kills you. Have you now been killed in the selfish and useless pursuit of 'heroism', and thus needlessly deprived your friends and family of your presence (and economic support). Like I said, such arguments can be pressed to extremes, but where do we draw the line?

 

 

The chances of adverse danger are much greater in mountaineering than most other things we could be doing and we know that going in. That would seem to be a good place to draw a line. I love climbing! But I do it for myself. It leaves me with a great amount of self pride and I get a feeling of accomplishment. It gets me into the most beautiful country anyone can imagine. I don’t go into it telling myself I need a fix on those things, but do you see a pattern here? Me, me, me. It really doesn't do anything for my wife who doesn't climb.

 

self-ish: concerned only or primarily with oneself without regard for others.

 

Seems to fit me anyways. Maybe I’m the only one...

 

I would like to clarify that when I said I agree, I agree with Fairweather's post and not the author of that piece.

[Dechristo]

There are few activities that cannot be found to be "selfish" in their motivational base.

 

Even activities borne upon attempts to assuage guilt, to do "the right thing", or heart and spirit-lifting acts of sacrifice are, in effect, selfish.

 

Selfishness, or the pursuit of activities that bring to oneself a sense of contentment, purpose, or well-being, is a requirement of human existence.

[blurpy]

 

selfishness. this can be pressed to extremes in either direction, i suppose, but couldn't you assert that any activity not directly related to the acquisition of food/shelter (in reasonable amounts, mind you) is 'selfish', especially if any level of risk is involved? Let us suppose that today your are going to travel to Beacon Rock and hike to the top. Now suppose that some doorknob above you (no shortage there) trundles a stone (i've seen 30 pounders knocked down / thrown down by teenages who won't keep to the trail) which kills you. Have you now been killed in the selfish and useless pursuit of 'heroism', and thus needlessly deprived your friends and family of your presence (and economic support). Like I said, such arguments can be pressed to extremes, but where do we draw the line?

 

 

The chances of adverse danger are much greater in mountaineering than most other things we could be doing and we know that going in. That would seem to be a good place to draw a line. I love climbing! But I do it for myself. It leaves me with a great amount of self pride and I get a feeling of accomplishment. It gets me into the most beautiful country anyone can imagine. I don’t go into it telling myself I need a fix on those things, but do you see a pattern here? Me, me, me. It really doesn't do anything for my wife who doesn't climb.

 

self-ish: concerned only or primarily with oneself without regard for others.

 

Seems to fit me anyways. Maybe I’m the only one...

 

I would like to clarify that when I said I agree, I agree with Fairweather's post and not the author of that piece.

 

well, i suppose there is 'selfishness' (face it, it makes the world go round) and then there is 'irresponsible selfishness'. it would be, for example, irresponsibly selfish for me to climb K2 for a few reasons. To raise the funds I'd need to mortgage my house, placing my family at financial risk. I would also be placing others in needless danger because I haven't the skills or experience to take on something like that, especially if something goes wrong. Moreover, I have two young children and a wife, all of whom seem interested (for now anyway) in keeping me around. So for me, more moderate goals like Hood (maybe Rainier someday) are suitable, and while 'selfish' they are not irresponsibly so.

 

is it irresponsibly selfish for anyone to climb K2? I don't think so, yet that is the assertion this woman has made, and which Fairweather seems to support (apologies if i'm mis-characterizing you).

 

and besides, you never know, your wife might selfishly enjoy getting that hairy, smelly lout out of the house for a few days every now and then.

[Couloir]

I too feel the urge to "magnificently waste" my life when faced with the thought of this butter hog getting her hooves on me...

 

POTD, if not POTM for sure.

[catbirdseat]

We need to get the only cc.com regular who has attempted K2 to chime in here. Where is he?

[mike1]

and besides, you never know, your wife might selfishly enjoy getting that hairy, smelly lout out of the house for a few days every now and then.

 

That thought had crossed my mind

[sobo]

FW and Mikester made some provocative statements here that I appreciated reading. Therefore, I'm going to amend, partially retract, and clarify my crude assessment above.

 

It's certainly true that there is a cross section of climbers who view their own climbing of mountains as "heroic". Personally, I don't identify with this mindset, nor would I ever climb with anyone who holds it. There's nothing heroic about climbing mountains, it's largely a personal- some will say selfish- endeavor, although I would stress that for myself, the entirety of the activity is validated by the amazing friendships and through the company of fine men and women. So in any case, this lady may have- accidently- touched on a valid point. I say accidently, because she clearly has almost zero understanding of mountaineering and the attractions of it, and it's obvious that her perceptions of climbing have been formed chiefly by hysterical news bites and hype coverage of high profile Everest type disasters, which the rest of us understand to offer a very biased, presumptive, and limited perspective into the entirety of why people choose to climb mountains.

 

It's especially galling, then, that someone with such ignorance on the subject would attempt to paint an entire sport and all of it's participants under such a broad brush- not the least of which is her simpleton's attempt to equate climbing with an outlet for "masculinity". In the context of this incident, she's also made a strong judgment about the characters and motivation of 11 deceased individuals whom she clearly knows nothing about, but she makes her pronouncements of them in such a way that she clearly thinks she doesn't need to know any more. That's pathetic.

 

Back to the perceptions of "heroism": one can certainly make the case that a person climbing a mountain does nothing tangible for society, insofar as comparing it against the obvious and immediate benefit of a firefighter running into a building, a policeman pulling someone from a burning vehicle, or a soldier defending the country from an attack. But I might counter that many climbers- at least many I've been fortunate enough to encounter- offer something very intangible back to society, beginning with the example of living, out of necessity, outside of the drudgery and mechanism of everyday culture. Any of us who have been out in the mountains for a long period of time can appreciate that there's a clarity and insight into your surroundings that is there on return to the city that was not there when you departed. People notice that clarity, in relationship. I remain convinced that there is a hidden social benefit in this that cannot be quantified, much the same way that the ripple effect of a random act of charity cannot be quantifiably demonstrated or described, yet most of us would agree that there is something to that. People who are less attached to the culture serve to prevent stagnation of the culture by bringing in new ideas and making visible new ways of living.

 

The fact that this lady focuses so heavily on the assumption of the pursuit of heroism and purely base selfishness as the primary motivations for climbing makes me question whether her problem with climbing stems mainly from the fact that she can't see anything in it that directly benefits her; therefore she must condemn it outright and she must put all climbers into the same basket.

 

Separately: Fairweather: is there any tangible purpose to climbing any mountain, not just big or dangerous ones? Heroism may indeed have better definitions already available but this only matters if one attaches heroism as an integral part of climbing. I'm not sure how you view this, but my view is that the perception of heroism in climbing mountains resides strictly in the realm of "me", therefore it's contrived.

Your Mallory quote is interesting- I agree with it completely, but at the same time, you can apply this sentiment all the way down the ladder to someone taking a day hike and falling to their death. The recent Dragontail accident will, and should, affect no less grief than the K2 accident. The end result for those left behind is the same in either case. Which I why it's imperative that everything involving risk be done with total seriousness. And a personal agenda that is caught up in pursuing heroism is not serious.

 

Risk in climbing, all the way down to living in the city, is largely relative, while death is a certainty at some point- in the end, everyone's life is a process of managing these risks as they apply to us while pursuing the things that we cherish. I'm going to guess that most of these climbers, even if they made some mistakes, had a grasp and understanding of this and were trying to live the best life they knew how, and despite the grief that their deaths has brought, none of their loved ones would trade it for the joy that they had in knowing them for who they were, for the time they had on this planet. To that end unlike this lady, I will not so disgustingly and self righteously assess the deaths- and lives, by extension- of these 11 climbers by pronouncing them a "waste".

SS,

That was very well spoken. Perhaps you should forward your comments to Madame Butter Hog herself at the link provided in tomtom's reply immediately below yours. Shit, man, forward her the URL to this whole damned thread. It appears she could certainly use the education.

[Buckaroo]

This is just too unbelievable not to repost:

 

 

The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.

 

But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.

 

To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.

 

Now 11 good men have lost their lives climbing a mountain for no particular reason. Because it was there, they no longer are.

 

What a magnificent waste!

 

 

It's all about keeping the gene pool at the razor's edge. Somebody has to do it, otherwise we would descend...

 

So it's okay to die of heart disease because you don't exercise, or diabetes caused by coca-cola, or from pharmacuticals cuz you can't handle reality, or in a car accident because you don't know how to drive in your "safe" rollover SUV?

 

11 is a pretty small number actually from the total population of climbers.

 

 

[Bug]

This is just too unbelievable not to repost:

 

 

The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.

 

But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.

 

To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.

 

Now 11 good men have lost their lives climbing a mountain for no particular reason. Because it was there, they no longer are.

 

What a magnificent waste!

 

 

It's all about keeping the gene pool at the razor's edge. Somebody has to do it, otherwise we would descend...

 

So it's okay to die of heart disease because you don't exercise, or diabetes caused by coca-cola, or from pharmacuticals cuz you can't handle reality, or in a car accident because you don't know how to drive in your "safe" rollover SUV?

 

11 is a pretty small number actually from the total population of climbers.

 

In my experience, women who do not work out and consider a vacation to be laying on a beach for 10 days, will not in a thousand years consider their husband "a good man" if he is a climber.

These two types are from such different worlds they should make no effort to comment on each others' activities.

[sobo]

In my experience, women who do not work out and consider a vacation to be laying on a beach for 10 days, will not in a thousand years consider their husband "a good man" if he is a climber.

These two types are from such different worlds they should make no effort to comment on each others' activities.

Neither should they wed, for that matter...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In my experience, women who do not work out and consider a vacation to be laying on a beach for 10 days, will not in a thousand years consider their husband "a good man" if he is a climber.

These two types are from such different worlds they should make no effort to comment on each others' activities.

Neither should they wed, for that matter...

 

No self-respecting climber would marry a butter-hog.

[G-spotter]

The thicker the cushion the finer the pushin'

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The thicker the cushion the finer the pushin'

 

so you love American women after all!

[G-spotter]

What's love got to do with it?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What's love got to do with it?

 

Whatever you say Tina

[Alpine_Tom]

Not to get back on track, but it seems like an important point here is that there were 17 people up there at the same time. If there's an equipment failure or avalanche and someone, or a climbing party of two or three is killed, that's tragic. But if there's so many folks up there, tromping (or trudging) up to tag the summit than come down again, then the odds are magnified and the chance for a "small" disaster to turn into a really big one.