women as equals (was: Riding the Dragon's Tail)
kellie
Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every outing,
no
matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
I never insist, but generally I just am. If you have to insist, I
think there's something wrong between you and your partners.
Besides, sometimes I'm *not* an equal partner. When I first started
climbing, for instance, I led what I was capable of, or in
mountaineering/non-leading situations contributed what I could, and
basically kept my mouth shut and my eyes and ears open and my brain
turned on to learn all I could. Didn't mean I had no input as to
decisions about turnaround times, what to do, where to go, etc., and
no one was taking extra care on my behalf, but I was definitely in the
student mode. I contemplated going to Alaska this spring with a far
more experienced mountaineer. Would have done the same there.
In most instances, though, and for most of the climbs that I do, I'm
an "equal," insofar as anyone is ever equal to anyone else.
Do you willingly get on routes well over your head by relying upon a
stronger climber to carry the day?
No. Though I will, for instance, go get on Liberty Crack soon, with
the understanding that the hard aid goes to my partner, the hard(er)
free goes to me. Would I lead everything on Liberty Crack? No way.
Too little aid experience, too slow, etc. But I'm not getting dragged
up the thing either.
Do you insist on carrying an equal load and doing an equal amount of
leading,
taking the scary or dangerous leads so your partner can rest,
planning,
shouldering the bitter tasks, etc.? Do you take the lead on the
descent
after 15 hours of continuous climbing?
Yes.
Or do you TOO find yourself accepting traditional roles because, well,
its easier to go with the flow or you're just not up to the demands of
the leadership position the climb dictates?
Um, there have been times I've let the my partner step up because I'm
having a low confidence or high gravity day or am just too tired *this
time* to be the fast one or whatever. However, this happens
exclusively with my two primary partners, with whom I have long
relationships where it is understood that soon it will be my turn to
step up. And I don't mean I abdicate responsibility for myself,
either. I don't think this has anything to do with gender though,
it's just that everyone has good days and not-so-good days.
I find that people generally seem to assume I'm an equal climber. I
can only think of one guy I've met who obviously didn't. What I have
found is that EVERYONE assumes that my male partner is my boyfriend.
That's annoying, particularly when we meet cute climber boys in whom I
am interested. But it hardly ruins my life.
Another interesting thing I've noticed is that men who climb with
women and obviously consider those women to be equal or even superior
to them in terms of skill, will still say they don't want a climbing
girlfriend becasue they don't want to have to do easy climbs all the
time. Can't figure out if that's because they would never consider
dating a woman who climbs harder than them, or because they think a
woman who climbs harder than them wouldn't date them.
Kellie
Dingus Milktoast
"kellie" <kellie...@urscorp.com> wrote
> I never insist, but generally I just am.
Yup. You totally carry yourself that way.
I went bouldering this afternoon and was giving this thought. Pretty much
all of the women I've climbed with are strong willed people in charge of
their own destiny. Good partners, all; people to rely on. Never had a bad
experience yet. So I guess my own personal experience belies the stereotype.
Cheers,
DMT
Christian :?)
news:<33e67c96.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> Kellie
This is a really good thread. I am looking forward to the reading.
As for me, I've climbed w/ plenty of women, the vast majority of the
time who climb much harder than me. I'm a big fan of co-ed.
As for the climbing part, I have other things to contribute. Climbing is
not all about making the moves on the rock at a given point. For me,
it's a whole big rounded experience, and a bit of aid experience on a
free climb can go a long way towards pulling ones weight and not slowing
down ;?)
I can say I'm pretty sure there has never been a boyfriend/girlfriend
mix up, or a testosterone overflow that just dictates what when where.
I'm just not like that, nor do I portray myself that way around others.
I tend to take each partnership, be that male female or otherwise,
_very_ seriously (not in that way, but w/ a deep respect and a really
well rounded sense of what really matters).
Maybe that's why I haven't had many numbers of partners. But, I can
tell you that I've gone through every cycle of doubt, fear, you take
over, I feel confident we can do this, etc. with every single
partnership I've had privy to be a part of. I enjoy leaning and leaning
back, in every sense of an outing. Talking to walls, or mundane
encounters don't really interest me, be that at a bar or 2 g's up.
My bottom line is that there are so many aspects to a "successful" climb
that no matter how I am feeling, or what partner I'm with, we have both
added so much to the experience, and we value that. Each contribution is
just as important as the other- namely, the graded part of the excursion
is a fraction of the factor of the climb itself, and so is the food, who
drives, who prepares, who cracks a joke, who shares a tale, who stops to
add some perspective in general.
That's what it's all about, and honestly, I'm not interested in climbing
with folks who can't and don't appreciate every aspect of the shabang.
Ohhhh, nice opposing nut anchor there. Ohhhh, thanks! for leading that.
Ohhhh, can you get over that view? Ohhhh, I can't believe you made
that shite taste so good! Ohhh, I ... could just go on and on about
having wonderful partners.
Be well.
Cheers,
Christian :?)
Mad Dog
>As for me, I've climbed w/ plenty of women, the vast majority of the
>time who climb much harder than me. I'm a big fan of co-ed.
To add my 2 cents: I've done what I would call at least slightly serious routes
with quite a few women and maybe a few more men. On average, I've seen more of
the men misrepresent their abilities and/or willingness to carry through with
their commitments than the women. I've always wondered if the lousy treatment
women have received over the millenia have given them inherently more
determination than men. Or, have I just climbed with too many men that, like
me, are chickenshit wussies?
melissa
Here's my take...many of us women don't feel that we are expected to do big,
brave things, so whatever we actually do is gravy. I always feel that if I
outdo my partners expectations of me, I'm much more psyched than if I know that
I've failed to live up to them, so I often try to set the bar low for myself in
their eyes (i.e. long strings of disclaimers about how slow I can be or scared I
can get before climbing w/ someone new.)
I think that as climbers we all know about Lynn Hill, etc. and that women often
can and do climb harder than men. Outside of our little world, there are people
that are fully amazed that a woman (or for that matter, a man) would dare to
climb at all. I guess I've speant more time in the world that's obsessed with J
Lo than in the one that respects Hill, and it still affects how I view and
present myself. The sort of battle between what makes good sense and the
subconscious defaults of what I was raised with can feel sort of scitzophrenic
at times.
Here's an example...
A couple of weeks ago I was cragging at Yosemite Falls Ampitheatre with some
friends, all of whom were guys and climb harder than I do. The group of Mexican
tourists that had gathered only got to see me lead our "warm up" 5.8. They were
totally blown away. We all got a good laugh out of it. We understood enough of
their spanish to glean "SHE went! SHE went!" Emphasis on she. On the bright
side, even though they were shocked that the woman of the group was leading, at
least they thought it was pretty cool.
Sometimes for me it can be easy to find myself unconsciously feeling the same
way, although consciously I make every effort to act as though it's the same
because it should be. I was raised with mantras about what a proper lady does
nd does not do. (A lady does not raise her voice. A lady does not wear scuffed
shoes...) When I was sick as a child, my mom would bring home copies of Modern
Bride magazine so that I could look at the dresses. It seems almost gothic to
me now, but it's unavoidably part of who I am too. I remember my second-ever
camping trip just a few years ago, right before I discovered climbing...when I
insisted that we get a hotel when I found that our tent zipper had broken. (It
was August in a Zion NP campground.) So, I guess I'm use to thinking of myself
as a bungling coward who's scared of critters and doesn't want to get dirty, and
I get the most mileage out of proving myself wrong. It often feels like there's
more for me to loose if I were to lead a new partner to expect more from me than
I was certain that I could deliver.
I'm not trying to say that it's generally a good thing to set low expectations
for oneself or that I always aim to do that for myself...just trying to share
one of the reasons that I often find myself in the position of listing my gumby
disclaimers when I know that I can (but often don't) do better than I'm
admitting.
Mad Dog
>I guess I've speant more time in the world that's obsessed with J
>Lo than in the one that respects Hill, and it still affects how I view and
>present myself.
My condolences...
>I'm not trying to say that it's generally a good thing to set low expectations
>for oneself or that I always aim to do that for myself...just trying to share
>one of the reasons that I often find myself in the position of listing my gumby
>disclaimers when I know that I can (but often don't) do better than I'm
>admitting.
Assuming one is young enough, this is no problem whatsoever. There is time. If
you are like most people, progression is a natural thing. Eventually, most
climbers find their own comfort zone. Maybe after gaining more experience, that
zone will elevate. But in regards to Alex's Tail, patience can be a good thing.
To become elite, one will need at some point to push the envelope and do it
often. I like Jeff Lowe's analogy about taking the time to get the pulse of the
place before launching up a big objective. Worked well for Messner too.
Nate B
"melissa"
> I always feel that if I
> outdo my partners expectations of me,
> I'm much more psyched than if I know that
> I've failed to live up to them, so I often
> try to set the bar low for myself in
> their eyes
Seems hinging your own esteem and happiness on the perceptions and
expectations (or your perception of their perceptions and expectations..) of
others is the road to a life of misery.
I don't know you, but I've read a lot of your posts. Frankly, you seem
fairly insecure about your role as a women - because you sure bring it up a
lot - a lot more than any other female poster here.
Being a women climber in a predominately male sport is something I will
never experience. However, I have found that I don't enjoy my time around
women who take all-too-frequent notice of M/F roles, make comparisons, get
competitive, yada. It's high overhead and adds nothing to our time
together. Just me, my psyche, and my past experience.
Guys are more often the stronger climbers. You climb stronger than a lot of
guys. BFD. I'm guessing you could probably out-crank me given my current
free-climbing condition.
You seem smart, post interesting things, and generously share your climbing
experiences here. IMO, there is nothing more.
- Nate
Dawn Alguard
> However, I have found that I don't enjoy my time around
> women who take all-too-frequent notice of M/F roles, make comparisons, get
> competitive, yada. It's high overhead and adds nothing to our time
> together. Just me, my psyche, and my past experience.
Yeah, but weren't you the one doing that here?
I'm having mixed emotions about all of this because I have to admit
that I too often and too easily fall into that role of backup climber,
but I've never attributed it to being a woman. I got lucky and got
good mentors at the beginning of my career and it became a habit to
climb with stronger, more experienced climbers and now being the
stronger, more experienced climber myself feels a little scary to me.
I do fine when it comes up but I avoid it.
I don't have any trouble bossing guys around though. I've got three
younger brothers; I cut my teeth on beating up boys.
Dawn
Nate B
"Dawn Alguard"
> Yeah, but weren't you the one doing that here?
No, but fair. Just to clarify, I was actually criticizing the men who put
themselves in that role, whether that role is real or imagined.
It's a fundamental and primal male thing to do. We all do it. I know
nothing of Alex's female partner - just what Alex wrote here about his own
attitude and perspective toward her.
If you kick boys' butt, more power to you. There are a lot of guys who will
pick up on that and avoid you because you won't safely fulfill a needed role
for them.
- Nate
Gnarling
> To add my 2 cents: I've done what I would call at least slightly serious routes
> with quite a few women and maybe a few more men. On average, I've seen more of
> the men misrepresent their abilities and/or willingness to carry through with
> their commitments than the women. I've always wondered if the lousy treatment
> women have received over the millenia have given them inherently more
> determination than men. Or, have I just climbed with too many men that, like
> me, are chickenshit wussies?
Doggie, since you and I have lifted our legs on many a route together,
I think I can toss you a bone....
The reason you have had luck with female partners is because you don't
waste a lot of effort on the significance of your "manhood." You are
comfortable following and leading, you'll carry more or less, you
always acknowledge your partner's efforts and successes and you
console failure with kindness. You'll listen and concede because you
respect your partner's concerns. A certain bivy comes to mind....John
Vawter is like that, so is Peter Haan, just to name a few of my
favorite male climbing partners known to this forum.
And I have encountered a few insecure souls, male and female, who are
fine people in their own right but they wouldn't be good climbing
partners for me because I'd get sucked into feeding their weaknesses.
Some females prefer being told what to do, who need to be led and
haven't the courage and/or strength to go out on their own. It is
just how some women are and certain men gravitate to these women
because the are happier being the dominant partner, the provider, the
buffalo hunter. There is room for everybody in the bizzarre world of
climbing.
Inez
Eugene Miya
kellie <kellie...@urscorp.com> wrote:
>Dingus asked:
>Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every outing,
>no matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
>
>I never insist, but generally I just am. If you have to insist, I
>think there's something wrong between you and your partners.
>
>Besides, sometimes I'm *not* an equal partner. When I first started
>climbing, for instance,
It's great having partners who are equals, who can ski linked figure-8s
and swing leads. It's not always the case, but the diversity of how
people solve problems can be refreshing, as we don't all solve them the
same way.
The real problem is getting started, which you note.
Gravity, as a basis, doesn't really discriminate [however I know women
{and a few men} who have tried to charm their way talking up climbs].
Now tall people, Murray for instance, I remember doing a climb with him
where the crux was 2 moves for me, and he just did it as one move, just
not fair.....
Julie
> kellie <kellie...@urscorp.com> wrote:
> >Dingus asked:
> >
> >>Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every
> >>outing, no matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
> >
> >started climbing, for instance,
>
[no sarcasm intended] I'd love to hear your ideas of that 'problem':
why, from your perspective, do women have a harder time gaining the
equal footing?
JSH
colleen
>
> Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every outing,
> no
> matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
>
(snip)
I have some friends who were married recently. She vowed to lead all
of the scary pitches and he vowed to make coffee before morning bike
rides.
And she did not teach him how to climb. They met climbing.
However, I am guessing that she is often looked at as the "lesser" of
the pair as she is 5" tall and 100 lbs dripping wet and he is about
6"2' and not skinny.
I will defer to the more knowledgable person. I will gladly surrender
the lead (or beg the other person to take it) when I have the option.
I have also taken friends out climbing, men and women, and kept my
head together the entire day. I have been accused of downclimbing
things that I will not lead, and it is true. I think that most of us
step up to the plate and do what we need to do when we need to do it.
I am not a hardwoman and no one will ever see me that way. The sexist
idiot who may be standing next to me anywhere is not someone whose
opinion I really care about anyway. Anyone who would do the macho
thing would not climb with me. I don't get out enough, so it is an
accomplishment to just be there.
colleen
Eugene Miya
None taken.
The problem is not unique to climbing.
Society as a whole is trying to figure out what roles people want.
My Dad went into shock in 1964 when my Mom announced that she was going
to learn to drive a car. A lot of women don't know what they want
themselves (from Mom, sisters, nieces, friends), and a few take comfort
in old role models. I ran a hiking club in the 70s and I struck the word
"male" from the membership clause in its constitution (but I hard to
learn the insurance and other consequences along the way).
You get to live this life once. And every one makes stupid decisions.
The trick is surviving. So make it a good life.
The general problem for all novices is learning.
If you get Robert Pelton's Dangerous Places travel guide he will point
in the first paragraph of what constitutes Danger it's basically ignorance.
That is how you are going to survive (and maybe prosper).
Novices see and have this chicken-and-egg problem.
You will over come this problem by combinations of reading (read well),
personal experience, selection [very important step to judgment].
Mentorship is a fine way to start (I had 2 fine mentors long before
the term became popular with Star Wars(tm)). {added note: my sisters
and a female cousin had these same teachers, but excepting the cousin,
they are not outdoor people}
In addition to running a couple of climbing/hiking clubs, I also used
to run a professional society involved with computer graphics.
The problem most clueless newbies have is that their take their experts
for granted: you are either paying for them: classes, guides, etc.
or else they get bored. The trick is to be able to offer the
experienced value with the novice. This is lost on most novices.
A good college/school example: many people go to college w/o cars.
You tend to need a car to get to climbing locations (trust me, I have
also biked to them as well as flown and trained). If you don't have a
car, but you have climbing skills, your knowledge is worth something to
a novice with a car. Think about barter, it is still done in society.
Prerequisites.
If you went to college, it's a term that you have seen.
Figure out what prereqs you need. Physical strength isn't one of them
despite what any one will tell you, you can work some on that later.
Concentrate working on your weaknesses:
they are your easiest to identify problems.
Then turn them into strengths. Then work on the next set of skills.
"I don't like crack climbing..." That's a signal for you to either
1) get out of the activity before you spend gobs of money, or
2) work on your crack technique NOW.
Be warned.
If you think that the solution to a particular problem falls to money or
technology, think again. Think smart. Some things are impossible
(truly, avoid them).
Most of this has nothing to do with gender.
One part of the problem for women to learn to deal with is simply being
thrown into situations. Many do fine. Some break down. Some guys
would break down in similar situations (e.g., military).
Have as many experiences as you can. I'm trying to get 2 women friends
down to the Antarctic right now.
You want to be equals in a climbing team, because hazards make the
activity dangerous. You may be called upon to act. For instance take a
first aid class. Figure out what you need to learn without being told.
My NZ friend Catherine works for Trimble Navigation (GPS) introduced to
me by Hugh Grierson (used to post in the group died of brain problems says:
No whinging.
I have heard other interesting things about physical skills and stuff,
but it doesn't get you up the rock or ice faster.
You want to be as good or better than the men you are around just
because you want to be better.
I guess I should put some of this on the learning panel to save typing
it in again in the future.
More if you want it on Monday, I have to drive up to Donner pass
(a trip leader [Carol] is depending on me).
My perspective is as a non-white male who won't take shit.
Reference:
%A Robert Young Pelton
%A Coskun Aral
%A others
%T The World's Most Dangerous Places, 3rd ed. (now in 5th)
%I Fielding's Travel Guides
%C Redondo Beach, CA
%D 1998
%X www.comebackalive.com
%X In the Foreword, in the subsection "Who This Book is For" under
'Adventure Travellers' reads:
Most adventure travellers rely on politically correct but militarily
naive guidebooks like Lonely Planet, Moon and Rough Guides.
They provide minimal coverage of war zones and simply tell you
to stay away.
And "A Polite Discourse on Liability (ours) and Gullibility (yours):"
This book is more likely to kill you than save your life.
Good sections on Bribery, Terrorism, Land Mines, what to take,
Dangerous places, Dangerous Jobs, Dangerous diseases, and examples
of dangerous things. Includes the United States as a dangerous place
(NYC and LA). Quite nicely done. Not completely cynical.
Useful for journalists. This book properly notes the utility of a
Polaroid (tm) camera.
%X Now in the 5th edition. 2 co-editors have now died (Wink Dulles
(1956-2001)...
Christian :?
> It is
> just how some women are and certain men gravitate to these women
> because the are happier being the dominant partner, the provider, the
> buffalo hunter. There is room for everybody in the bizzarre world of
> climbing.
>
> Inez
Great, but Inez, what if I lika da deer huntin' and also like being
the submissive partner ;?)
OK, so a friend comes over the other night for dinner. On her own she
provides the ingredients, and I cook w/ what she brought.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN??????
Clueless in Colorado,
Christian ;?)
Mad Dog
>WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN??????
It's like Zen - something that, if you don't know, our words won't take you
there...
Dingus Milktoast
"Christian :?" <cj...@my-deja.com> wrote
> WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN??????
It means its time to go climbing. Up Donner Way, with my enabler partners
Ken and Jason.
DMT
Keith
> No. Though I will, for instance, go get on Liberty Crack soon, with
> the understanding that the hard aid goes to my partner, ...
The aid on Liberty Crack isn't too bad, the route can be used as a
beginers intro into big walling... the free climbing pitches are more
challenging.
Theresa Ho
> If you kick boys' butt, more power to you. There are a lot of guys who will
> pick up on that and avoid you because you won't safely fulfill a needed role
> for them.
And there are also a lot of guys who will pick up on that and respect
your strength and independence. These will be the non-needy ones who
are confident enough not to be threatened by a strong woman. The best
kind.
T -- we all know it, but it just needed to be said.
Theresa Ho
>
> Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every outing,
> no
> matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
Of course not. Ask the same of the men. I do insist, however, that
my opinions and decisions are considered and respected. I do insist
that I am the one who has control over what I do... and therefore that
I have the ultimate responsibility for the things that happen to me.
> Do you willingly get on routes well over your head by relying upon a
> stronger climber to carry the day?
Yes, if I think that as a team we will have a good chance of achieving
our goal. Men also climb with people who are stronger than they are.
Men will hire guides. What conclusions are you trying to draw from
these questions?
> Do you insist on carrying an equal load and doing an equal amount of
> leading,
> taking the scary or dangerous leads so your partner can rest,
> planning,
> shouldering the bitter tasks, etc.? Do you take the lead on the
> descent
> after 15 hours of continuous climbing?
No. Pack-weight should be distributed so that the team makes the best
time. Sometimes that means carrying more, sometimes it means carrying
less. I used to be a stickler for dividing the pack weight up evenly,
but was convinced that ultimately that strategy just isn't the most
efficient. I try to make things equal in terms of suffering rather
than in terms of pure weight. So do my male partners.
Honestly, Tom takes most of the scary and dangerous leads. He takes
them from me and from our other male climbing friends. In fact, I
just asked him, and he's thinking the last time someone took a scary
or dangerous lead for him was in '96 - ice climbing - and rock
climbing it's been 'forever'. So, I figure at least I'm in good
company (male and female). On the other hand, I've taken the scary
leads for other male partners several times in the last few years, and
I've gunned my party (2 men) up a route as the sun was setting. The
conclusion is...?
Personally, I have to say that my *partners* have always treated me
based on my experience and ability rather than my gender.
I re-read the thread, and to try to clarify my point, one of the
things that really struck me about Nate's response was:
> But, I'll think you're a dick
> until I read the conclusion of your report, where you apologize to Stacy
> for being selfish and almost killing her with your ignorance.
Maybe he needs to apologize to Stacy, but not for his selfishness and
'almost killing her'. She went up into the mountains (a local,
presumably knowing the weather). She picked the route. She studied
the topo. She (presumably) also saw the weather coming in. She chose
to go up there. She agreed not to descend. The thing that threatened
her life was not his 'selfishness' or ignorance. That, combined with
the 'little mountain girl' comment, made me think that Nate somehow
saw her as helpless and not responsible for her own actions and
decisions. And that is what I thought was a bit offensive.
T
Dingus Milktoast
"Theresa Ho" <havepositi...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Of course not. Ask the same of the men. I do insist, however, that
> my opinions and decisions are considered and respected. I do insist
> that I am the one who has control over what I do... and therefore that
> I have the ultimate responsibility for the things that happen to me.
Right on Theresa. The responses to this thread have been interesting. Its
good we can discuss such a potentially inflammatory subject without
resorting to the typical gender-one-liners that are so mentally lame.
The notion of self-reliance, at least in my mind, doesn't preclude following
a stronger climber up a route. I've done it and will continue to do so. Some
of my best friends are stronger climbers (hehe).
My notion of self-reliance sets those things I listed as goals. I do seek
those traits in climbing partners, but just as importantly, I try to hold
myself to those standards as well. That's my climbing ideal at least. Man of
clay that I am I don't always achieve those lofty ambitions. And it isn't
about being in charge either. I prefer two independent but like minded
thinkers, discussing and mutually agreeing, rather than one dictating to
another.
Lastly, my issues in climbing with stronger climbers aren't just about ego
or self perception. The mental state I achieve when leading is a superior
climbing experience to that of the mental state I wallow in when following
my better up a route I could not lead. I'll be blunt: I get scared following
stuff over my head. I have irrational fears about falling down beneath
overhangs and other little phobias that lurk just beneath the surface. I
have the same "fear-set" on lead, but the demands of leading usually
suppress those anxiety-driven impulses. On TR they are always there. There
is a satisfaction in crafting a good lead that is just not present in the TR
world.
And there is the old conservative adage (one I too have not followed
religiously) about not getting on any long route unless you feel you can
lead all the pitches.
You know, its a big garden out there, with plenty of room for all the
flowers. Just because I hold these ideals doesn't mean others can't dance to
the beat of a different drummer, nor does it mean I look down my nose upon
them either. Besides, there are plenty of reasons for them to look down
their noses at me too!
I have a last question and it needn't be indelicate. To all:
You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you encounter
another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the climbing
with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any leading and from that
point on most of the conversation shifts to your partner. It is clear that a
judgment has been made. Are you offended and if yes, why? Is it a gender
based thing, or is it more to do with the time honored roles and demands of
climbing?
Cheers,
DMT
Nate B
"Theresa Ho"
> The thing that threatened
> her life was not his 'selfishness' or ignorance.
I guess I was trying to point out that he appeared to think he didn't owe
her anything, and that he was the one who was harmed by her pace. My point
was that it takes two and he should pick up and own his side of it. I think
you see that.
> That, combined with
> the 'little mountain girl' comment, made me think that Nate somehow
> saw her as helpless and not responsible for her own actions and
> decisions. And that is what I thought was a bit offensive.
Fair. I don't think anyone I know sees me as sexist. I do get feedback
about being overly blunt, though. The reactions are often polar - hilarious
or offensive - probably some defect in my psyche that needs attention.
Here, it just seems to save some typing. I'm lazy and should probably pick
better words, though.
Climbing with women - on my way out now with the SO. I refused to climb
with her until after we had been dating for some time. I met her though
non-climbing friends, and we mountian biked together alot. I'm often end up
in control when climbing. Just the way it is. In general, M or F partner,
I don't like being the guide. The SO is a carefully considered exception,
and we don't climb together very much at that. For others, I try to find an
objective that both can be comfortable on.
Things are best, even magical, when both are engaged, on their edge. Such
partners are hard to find, and I consider myself lucky that I have one right
now.
- Nate
Hal Murray
>another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the climbing
>with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any leading and from that
>point on most of the conversation shifts to your partner. It is clear that a
>judgment has been made. Are you offended and if yes, why? Is it a gender
>based thing, or is it more to do with the time honored roles and demands of
>climbing?
Your partner gets half credit for not including you in the conversation.
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
David Kastrup
> You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you
> encounter another team that also did the climb. You are chatting
> about the climbing with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do
> any leading and from that point on most of the conversation shifts
> to your partner. It is clear that a judgment has been made. Are you
> offended and if yes, why? Is it a gender based thing, or is it more
> to do with the time honored roles and demands of climbing?
I climb entirely differently when leading than when following. When
leading, I have decisions to make about placement, and will commit
only to those moves I am sure to be able to undo when necessary, and
to those holds I will trust my weight on completely, at least when not
in immediate vicinity of bomber pro. And there are situations where
just a tiny amount of rope tension will help you immensively keeping
the balance, or serve as a fifth hand moving over some passage. If I
can't manage some passage when leading, I have to resort to really
ugly measures. A0 often helps only marginally if I am outwitted by a
route. I have to put out footslings and the like. Ugly climbing.
People will politely refrain from asking me about how I did a route
after I resort to such measures.
In contrast, you can get the equivalent support quite less obviously
when following, if it really needs to be done. And the question of
"how and when do you clip" is usually a much easier one.
Still, I'd find it awkward to stop talking to a follower about a
route when going over it in a party. It is not that he does not know
the difficulties of it, too.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
A. Cairns
Keith wrote:
Hey, no hand-holding, please. Did she ask for an opinion?
Andy Cairns
A. Cairns
Dingus Milktoast wrote:
> You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you encounter
> another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the climbing
> with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any leading and from that
> point on most of the conversation shifts to your partner. It is clear that a
> judgment has been made. Are you offended
How hard was the route? Any traverses? Protection? Consequences of a fall?
> and if yes, why? Is it a gender
> based thing, or is it more to do with the time honored roles and demands of
> climbing?
Was the other party male or female?
What time honored roles and demands? The second carrying the rope?
I'm usually relieved when people don't want to talk to me.
Andy Cairns
Keith
> Lastly, my issues in climbing with stronger climbers aren't just about ego
> or self perception. The mental state I achieve when leading is a superior
> climbing experience to that of the mental state I wallow in when following
> my better up a route I could not lead. I'll be blunt: I get scared following
> stuff over my head. I have irrational fears about falling down beneath
> overhangs and other little phobias that lurk just beneath the surface. I
> have the same "fear-set" on lead, but the demands of leading usually
> suppress those anxiety-driven impulses. On TR they are always there. There
> is a satisfaction in crafting a good lead that is just not present in the TR
> world.
You could argue that this isn't really a gender thing at all. As a male
I have experienced all these feelings when climbing with a stronger
partner . Nowadays I try only to lead routes I really want to do,
following harder climbs, imho, can actually be more difficult sometimes
than leading the dam things!
Climbing is really, for me, all about leading, where you are in control
and making the decisions. I personally don't have much interest in
following or TR routes I couldn't lead - what's the point! You can't
really boast about it to your friends afterwards!
If the lady above doesn't like following routes that she possibly
wouldn't lead - then why is she doing them? Go out and have some fun
would be my advice...
On single pitch routes all the team can have a go at leading if they
wish, so there isn't much of an issue about who goea first. On
multi-pitch I certainly wouldn't want to hog the lead - but would be
happiest with a partner who could share the responsibility fairly
equally.
pat caruthers
...
> Here's my take...many of us women don't feel that we are expected to do big,
> brave things, so whatever we actually do is gravy.
i think that is close but not quite it.
i'm almost certainly showing the battle scars of being a female engineer
for the last 25 years, but i don't think it's that we are not 'expected to
do big brave things'. i think it is more ugly than that. i think it is
that people are assuming, if not flat out counting on, us failing. And that
background "you're gonna fail" murmur tends to make us not say a word until
we are 100% sure that we are 100% correct and not do a thing until we are
100% sure that we will 100% succeed. it tends to get in the way of us pushing
our limits...
pat
Tom Jones
> things that really struck me about Nate's response was:
>
> > But, I'll think you're a dick
> > until I read the conclusion of your report, where you apologize to Stacy
> > for being selfish and almost killing her with your ignorance.
>
> Maybe he needs to apologize to Stacy, but not for his selfishness and
> 'almost killing her'. She went up into the mountains (a local,
> presumably knowing the weather). She picked the route. She studied
> the topo. She (presumably) also saw the weather coming in. She chose
> to go up there. She agreed not to descend. The thing that threatened
> her life was not his 'selfishness' or ignorance. That, combined with
> the 'little mountain girl' comment, made me think that Nate somehow
> saw her as helpless and not responsible for her own actions and
> decisions. And that is what I thought was a bit offensive.
>
> T
I agree with Nate, I think. One should not have an adventure on one's
first climb with a new partner.
When I read the TR, it was looking bad pretty quickly. Mistakes were
made. No one wants to call the climb off, with a new partner, old
partner, any partner, but sometimes it has to be done. My reading is
that the writer was the more senior climber, and it was his obligation
to be responsible for the team. Its certainly clear from the TR that
he realized things were not hunky dory fairly early, when retreat was
possible but messy. His responsibility has nothing to do with the
Male-Female axis of difficulty, but lack of taking responsibility
maybe did.
Sometimes it helps to be willing to be an asshole. Sometimes it can
save your life.
Tom
johnnyG
don't think the average woman comes close to sharing your views
Theresa. Not saying you're wrong just that you have a stronger
independent streak than most women.
havepositi...@yahoo.com (Theresa Ho) wrote in message news:<f57880ae.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dingus asked:
> >
> > Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every outing,
> > no matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
>
> Of course not.
You think "of course not" just like you think "of course the sun will
rise". You're knee jerk response implies that you believe most women
also have the same belief. It would be nice if that were true but I
don't think most women would reply the same.
> > Do you willingly get on routes well over your head by relying upon a
> > stronger climber to carry the day?
>
> Yes, if I think that as a team we will have a good chance of achieving
> our goal. Men also climb with people who are stronger than they are.
> Men will hire guides. What conclusions are you trying to draw from
> these questions?
Another example of taking the view to an illogical extreme. We're not
talking about hiring guides just the usual climbing.
> I used to be a stickler for dividing the pack weight up evenly,
> but was convinced that ultimately that strategy just isn't the most
> efficient.
And another example of having the need to prove yourself. Why would
you ever always want to divide the pack weight up evenly unless you
wanted to prove something. A hundred twenty pound person carrying the
same weight as someone weighing two twenty? Did you seriously used to
be a stickler for this?
> > But, I'll think you're a dick until I read the conclusion of your
> > report, where you apologize to Stacy for being selfish and almost
> > killing her with your ignorance.
>
> Maybe he needs to apologize to Stacy, but not for his selfishness and
> 'almost killing her'. She went up into the mountains (a local,
> presumably knowing the weather). She picked the route. She studied
> the topo. She (presumably) also saw the weather coming in. She chose
> to go up there. She agreed not to descend. The thing that threatened
> her life was not his 'selfishness' or ignorance. That, combined with
> the 'little mountain girl' comment, made me think that Nate somehow
> saw her as helpless and not responsible for her own actions and
> decisions. And that is what I thought was a bit offensive.
Again you're misinterpreting things based on your need to bring this
equality topic up. I don't think Nate's response in any way implies he
thinks he sees Stacy as helpless. He is explicitly saying that he
thinks Alex was irresponsible. Completely different. Not the same.
Come to think of it you're the one that hijacked Alex's original
thread by saying:
> I thought that there were some interesting (and somewhat offensive)
> assumptions that went into these paragraphs.
Until then there were no explicit or implicit gender assumptions
unless you really went looking for one which you did. Looks like
you're out to prove something which goes against the we're all equal
stance to being with.
johnnyG
nafod40
> Of course not. Ask the same of the men. I do insist, however, that
> my opinions and decisions are considered and respected. I do insist
> that I am the one who has control over what I do... and therefore that
> I have the ultimate responsibility for the things that happen to me.
Kinda funny related story. While at a Navy ceremony where student pilots
get their wings upon completing flight training (big deal with friends
and family at the ceremony), us instructors were in the back drinking
beer and hanging out watching. One of the students was fairly senior,
having got into the aviation side after a couple of years of ship
driving. He had married his college sweetheart. She was now already a
pilot in the Air Force, and had flown in with her jet to see her
husband's ceremony.
We were "hanger flying" in the back, when she got called up to the front
where all the other student's wives were lined up for some sort of
mini-ceremony. Our Skipper then had the supremely embarassing task of
giving this female air force fighter pilot a plaque that said "Navy Wife
- Toughest Job in the Navy"
Old habits die hard...
Mad Dog
>Sometimes it helps to be willing to be an asshole. Sometimes it can
>save your life.
Been there. Some people tend to think that if they go climb with a more
experienced partner, then nothing can get in their way. I climbed a few days in
Garnet Canyon (Tetons) with a woman that couldn't seem to make up her mind. On
one hand, she made a big deal out of the gender issue and at times demanded
equality but many times shrugged off her responsibilities. Like Alex, I got to
deal with her hijacking the itinerary, but that was OK because it was her party
too. But she ultimately pushed too far into the control arena by blowing off my
safety concerns. Not far below a summit, on the way down, I finally got pissed.
I dropped my pack, put on my pile and shell and had a seat. Exasperated, she
asked what I was doing. I told her I was getting ready for a cold night out,
because if she wasn't going to do it right, I wasn't budging.
That was the end of our short partnership. But she got what she wanted - a few
summits. And she got to go back to her friends and tell them what an asshole I
was and how I was threatened by her need to be an equal. I heard that through
the grapevine and got quite a laugh out of it, considering the trip was her
first time on alpine snow and ice, her first multipitch climbs, etc., and
because of the fact that she wasn't exactly in the speed-learning mode. The
moral of the story is this: think twice before climbing with people of the
opposite sex that have just gone through an ugly divorce or other severe
relationship stresses. It might be a prescription for an incredible climb if
the two of you are well-matched in ability, but odds are it will be a bummer.
The same could hold true for same-sex partnerships, so maybe it's better to stay
away from stressed-out partners unless you're in the mood for something
extremely stressful. I wonder if Spongebob climbs?
Mad Dog
>i think it is more ugly than that. i think it is that people are assuming,
>if not flat out counting on, us failing.
Excellent point, Pat. I've seen women on both sides of the fence, in their
professions and while climbing. Just witnessing the bullshit my wife Karen has
endured while out climbing is enough to be convincing. One example is the Chuck
Pratt story I posted here years ago. But Karen is an extremely tough and
capable woman - tougher mentally and physically than most men I've climbed with.
So it's fun for me to see her in a situation where some uninformed dipshit
assumes she will fail, only to see her succeed and the dipshit fail. Poetic
justice at it's zenith. I think many men are horrified that women will succeed
where they themselves might fail.
There's humor potential in these issues too. Once, we got an early start in to
Velvet Wall, hoping to be first in the queue for the pitch shared by Prince, YBR
and Turkeys. Drats, were had to wait anyway, and wait a long time - there were
3 parties waiting and 1 on P1. The next team to go was German and the guy that
would lead first made the mistake of saying: "I've gotten cold sitting here.
I'd better warm up or I'll climb like a woman." Having seen him climb the day
before, I said: "I doubt that you've improved that much overnight". That got a
good laugh from the peanut gallery, but not nearly the laugh that Karen got when
he was finally ready to lead and Karen offered to belay. He said: "I am a brave
man, but not THAT brave."
Dawn Alguard
>
> You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you encounter
> another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the climbing
> with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any leading and from that
> point on most of the conversation shifts to your partner. It is clear that a
> judgment has been made. Are you offended and if yes, why? Is it a gender
> based thing, or is it more to do with the time honored roles and demands of
> climbing?
I haven't seen this happen. Well, OK, I've been on maybe 2 10-pitch
routes and I swung leads on those so I don't have the exact experience
you're discussing, but I've certainly followed routes I couldn't lead
and have discussed them with other people afterwards and I'll fill you
in on a little secret here: Todd's not much of a talker. Therefore,
the people talk to me.
I guess we all have our strengths. ;->
Dawn
Charles Vernon
<snip>
>
> Lastly, my issues in climbing with stronger climbers aren't just about ego
> or self perception. The mental state I achieve when leading is a superior
> climbing experience to that of the mental state I wallow in when following
> my better up a route I could not lead. I'll be blunt: I get scared following
> stuff over my head. I have irrational fears about falling down beneath
> overhangs and other little phobias that lurk just beneath the surface. I
> have the same "fear-set" on lead, but the demands of leading usually
> suppress those anxiety-driven impulses. On TR they are always there. There
> is a satisfaction in crafting a good lead that is just not present in the TR
> world.
I know what you are saying here. If I'm to follow an entire climb
(one that is at or above my limit), I simply can't muster the mental
focus. I freak out, and feel that I am engaged in some pointless
activity--I start questioning why I climb. I remember following the
Naked Edge, 3 years ago. At the time, I had never led or followed a
5.11 (though I was beginning to feel capable of following), and the
Naked Edge has three such pitches. Not yet out of focus, I kept it
together and followed the first pitch cleanly. By pitch 4 (the next
5.11), I was beginning to freak, and taking a couple of falls made it
that much worse. On the final pitch I no longer had any interest in
attempting to free climb (not that I could have done so successfully
anyway), and aided the whole thing on toprope while desperately trying
to minimalize any whimpering. When I look back on the climb, it feels
more like a was going for a guided tour of the route than an actual
hands-on ascent--like watching a video or something, but getting to
caress a few of the holds. Ranks right up there with the worst
experiences of my climbing career.
At the same time I'm no longer comfortable in the role of
guide/ropegun. Particularly on hard and long routes, I find the role
too mentally traumatic--I may have an adventure, but a largely
unenjoyable one. The best days, as others have said, have been with
"equal" partners--*not* identical, but better yet, with complimentary
strengths. My favorite feeling is climbing a long/hard route, and
knowing that there was no way either of us could have led every pitch.
Perhaps when one partner steps up halfway up the route, but then
turns it over near the top, too exhausted mentally and physically.
Those types of adventures are truly exhilarating, and take me beyond
the ego that I tend to have so invested in performance of the
climbing. And you get the give and take of swapping leads, which
personally is perfect for me mentally.
>
> And there is the old conservative adage (one I too have not followed
> religiously) about not getting on any long route unless you feel you can
> lead all the pitches.
I now follow this religiously on long routes, but only in the sense
that I feel could lead all the pitches *individually*. But I will get
on a long route knowing that if we both can't do our share, we'll be
bailing or epicing.
Charles
Brutus of Wyde
> Climbing is really, for me, all about leading, where you are in control
> and making the decisions. I personally don't have much interest in
> following or TR routes I couldn't lead - what's the point! You can't
> really boast about it to your friends afterwards!
Leading, following, climbing up, climbing down, it's all good.
> If the lady above doesn't like following routes that she possibly
> wouldn't lead - then why is she doing them? Go out and have some fun
> would be my advice...
Perhaps she's not into boasting rights. Perhaps she can have fun on a
route even if she is not leading it. Maybe some folks climb for
different reasons than you do? Or maybe I'm way off base.
> On single pitch routes all the team can have a go at leading if they
> wish, so there isn't much of an issue about who goea first. On
> multi-pitch I certainly wouldn't want to hog the lead - but would be
> happiest with a partner who could share the responsibility fairly
> equally.
I like swinging leads. I'm also happy to follow every pitch. Or lead
every pitch. Pulling the rope on single pitch routes so everyone gets
a chance to lead it seems both contrived and strange to me. (not that
I haven't done it, but even so...) I guess I still view cragging and
gym and sport as prectice for the real thing... the "real thing" being
heading up into unknown territory with a partner, exploring something
that has never before been climbed.
Brutus
Julie
>
> You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you encounter
> another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the
> climbing with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any
> leading and from that point on most of the conversation shifts to
> your partner. It is clear that a judgment has been made. Are you
> offended and if yes, why? Is it a gender based thing, or is it more
> to do with the time honored roles and demands of climbing?
Yes, yes, and yes.
It's happened (well not 10 pitches, but I'm a right-coaster after all),
and I do get offended, and usually it's easy to affirm that gender has
played a role in that elitism.
I shrug it off, and figure that whoever makes ill-formed judgements,
gets what they've bargained for. At any rate, I'm not missing out.
JSH
Julie
> Julie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote
> >> kellie <kellie...@urscorp.com> wrote:
> >> >Dingus asked:
> >> >>Women... do you insist on being treated as an equal on every
> >> >>outing, no matter the partner, the climb or the demands?
> >> >
> >> >Besides, sometimes I'm *not* an equal partner. When I first
> >> >started climbing, for instance,
> >>
> >> The real problem is getting started, which you note.
> >
> >[no sarcasm intended] I'd love to hear your ideas of that 'problem':
> >why, from your perspective, do women have a harder time gaining the
> >equal footing?
>
> None taken.
>
> The problem is not unique to climbing.
Sure. And you made some great statements about the learning process,
but what's specific to climbing, and even more specific, to gender? Why
do women climbers have a steeper learning curve?
JSH
Mad Dog
>Leading, following, climbing up, climbing down, it's all good.
>I like swinging leads. I'm also happy to follow every pitch. Or lead
>every pitch. Pulling the rope on single pitch routes so everyone gets
>a chance to lead it seems both contrived and strange to me. (not that
>I haven't done it, but even so...) I guess I still view cragging and
>gym and sport as prectice for the real thing... the "real thing" being
>heading up into unknown territory with a partner, exploring something
>that has never before been climbed.
As usual, the voice of reason. Right on, Brutus!
Nate B
"Julie"
> Sure. And you made some great
> statements about the learning process,
> but what's specific to climbing, and
> even more specific, to gender? Why
> do women climbers have a steeper learning curve?
Jesus Christ.
His post was really an M-file. I'm surprised you didn't notice. Go run it
in Matlab and let us know what you come up with.
- Nate
Geoff Jennings
> It's happened (well not 10 pitches, but I'm a right-coaster after all),
You've been here long enough. That excuse won't hold water much longer.
Geoff
Keith
> My favorite feeling is climbing a long/hard route, and
> knowing that there was no way either of us could have led every pitch.
> Perhaps when one partner steps up halfway up the route, but then
> turns it over near the top, too exhausted mentally and physically.
> Those types of adventures are truly exhilarating, and take me beyond
> the ego that I tend to have so invested in performance of the
> climbing. And you get the give and take of swapping leads, which
> personally is perfect for me mentally.
Ditto - I used to climb long multi-pitch routes in the Verdon (S France)
with a guy who could climb ANY off-width, which I found extremely
challenging at the time, I was better than him on steep wall stuff, so
we climbed very well as a team and had some wonderfull adventures.
Keith
> the "real thing" being
> heading up into unknown territory with a partner, exploring something
> that has never before been climbed.
Couldn't agree more! All I was trying to say earlier was that if someone
says they aren't happy doing something - then I'd ask why?
Eugene Miya
Julie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Sure. And you made some great statements about the learning process,
>but what's specific to climbing, and even more specific, to gender? Why
>do women climbers have a steeper learning curve?
I will post some observations later this evening.
I have to run a time dependent errand first.
Sunshine McGillicutty
If a person who 2nded an entire route is expecting equal
respect or treatment as the person who led it, that person
has unrealistic expectations. Sex has nothing to do with it.
Now if a person is a "victim" of this sort of prejudice (the
prejudice in favor of lead climbers), that person might not
always understand its not about sex. Its about lead
climbing.
Lastly, the idea of dividing loads according to the size of
the pack wearer is a great example of rationalizing not
doing one's fair share. That's preferential treatment to
skinny people, pure and simple.
The women I've climbed with seem to have no problem at all
carrying their share of the community load and ALL of their
own gear, even when it involves haul bags and really big
loads.
DMT
Hal Murray
>first climb with a new partner.
That depends upon what type of people you/they are, how much they
like adventure and/or how much of an adventure they get into.
I started climbing with the MIT Outing Club back in the early 60s.
We started on 5.2s and did the slow conservative up through the
grades thing.
After a while, I met some guys from the Harvard Mountaineering Club.
They started on 5.6s and moved up fast. (Chuck them in the deep end
and see if they come back.)
As far as I can tell, both groups were happy. Neither approach is
wrong. Just different.
A friend and I use "Adventure" as a code word for "we don't know yet".
Often our friends are smart enough to say "No thanks". But we are
basically chicken enough that our adventures rarely turn into more
than getting back a bit late or walking a few miles farther than we
had planned. Just a bit more adventure than our friends appreciate.
Usually, just right for us.
Hal Murray
>respect or treatment as the person who led it, that person
>has unrealistic expectations. Sex has nothing to do with it.
"Respect" and "expectations" are interesting words.
Are you/they having fun? If I had fun, why should I care
if somebody else respects what I did?
I often climb with friends who can lead a grade or two harder
than I can. If they want to do something exciting (aka an
"adventure") they need a solid belayer. Guess where I fit in.
In return, they are willing to second me on something of my choice.
I've had a lot of fun at places like JT alternating between
"I pick", and "You pick". (I do get to veto or drag my feet
if he picks something silly, aka over my head.)
Theresa Ho
> My point
> was that it takes two and he should pick up and own his side of it. I think
> you see that.
Yes, absolutely, when you put it that way.
> I do get feedback
> about being overly blunt, though. The reactions are often polar - hilarious
> or offensive - probably some defect in my psyche that needs attention.
=) Polar reactions for sure! Sometimes in the same person. Reading
through your posts on this thread I was caught by conflicting urges to
either strangle you or invite you up for a beer and some fun
conversation. At the end of this round, it looks like the invitation
wins out.
Best,
T
Eugene Miya
Julie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Sure. And you made some great statements about the learning process,
>but what's specific to climbing, and even more specific, to gender?
>Why do women climbers have a steeper learning curve?
Well, these are context dependent questions.
The answers are dependent how you (and others) see them.
i.e., what you want?
I don't have time to check out your post history as to why you are
asking this.
The answers for individuals lie between 2 perpendicular axes:
Women climbers don't have a steeper learning curve.
Women climbers have a steeper learning curve.
Somewhere between these two lies your answer.
You also have to distinguish learning/practice from climbing/experience.
This is also a time dependent answer which may or maybe be clearer
with time. A lot of people quit climbing after about 2 years
(I have been climbing 33 years, I had no doubt this was an activity for me).
There are women climbers who don't have a steeper learning curve.
I witnessed in my friend Camille in High School this talent.
We was a powerful athlete, but ultimately left climbing and joined the
military police [the irony for me was her first assignment was the
military depot at Herlong not too far from me near Reno].
Camille would wear hair rollers and robe at night in Yosemite campgrounds, and
one time she came back saying that she passed a man in fur coat,
and someone from that direction of the rest rooms yelled "Bear!"
The experienced climbers (men and women) will almost always be able to
give a talented example given time.
End simple case.
Women climbers have a steeper learning curve.
[I should have used numbers sections.]
So if, you believe that you have a steeper learning curve, those shades,
will poke at you. The points here will start to become more fragmented.
So to break this down in 2 more subdimensions: gender (women) and climbing.
I'll iterate a few comments that I have heard over time, and observed in
a few individual cases. This is not to say that I agree with these
reasons or rationalizations.
Climbing first.
Some people reject an analytic/reductionist view of climbing: tough.
The best essay on climbing in the US is Games Climbers Play
[perhaps the most plagarized title by climbers in school]
which identified 7 "games:"
Bouldering (I put climbing walls here)
Crags (e.g, UK)
Continuous Rock climbing (LTF: id'ed this as Calif. as an e.g.)
Big Walls
Alpine
Super-alpine
Expeditions
This is a framework for various thinking about kinds of climbing (it has
a weak ordering for gear, complexity, economics, various measures like
trends like minimizing big expeditions).
It's a little weak on the easier-end like peak bagging as practiced by
many people. But I think there are enough examples to be useful.
A beginner needs to master first moves, then figure out how to link
moves into pitches, and then complete climbs. These are gender independent.
Each of these is quite respectable. John Gill in the US does not get
dumped upon for his bouldering work by climbers established in the other
games (in general). Can you ID a female equivalent of equal stature
as John Gill (who has a book by Ament after him)? I am not current
on bouldering literature. Clearly Lynn Hill has a book or now likely
books about here, but she is likely in one of the latter games.
Intergame conflict:
You will find subtle references, for instance in
climbing literature where Rowell and the Whitakers (2 different
games men), didn't get along [1975 on K2]. But these are minor.
It should also be noted, as indication, ratings and grades on climbs
should and largely are made leading pitches. It is different on the
sharp end. You can have off days, but it's more the average consistency.
A reader might expect to see inroads by women into each of the 7 "games."
But it is not clear that this has happened. It depends on how you
view the situation. It is difficult to compare this in a world where
football dominates (the local winning womens soccer just dissolved).
These games also get more expensive. The economics of most women are, as
you know, women make less money. To get into expedition climbing,
women have to work longer for the same amount of money [See Roberts'
reference at the end.]
1) Time.
Experience time vs. time as evenets.
2) different values.
Time isn't reversable /invertable.
Some where in my 20s I first heard the phrase biological clock.
If a woman wants to have kids, she has to have then earlier rather than
later. Yep, there is a sort of natural unfairness between the
women and the pemen (I save "human" and "men" for the species and
"women" for females and annd trying to stay a trend to say "pemen"
for an equal lettered equivalent 'women' and make 'men' more neutral).
That's life (mostly), "Get over it." Sorry I don't follow some of the
arguments put forward by Betty Friedan.
One friend recently took a psychological test. It was a completion test:
Boys ___.
Girls ___.
That person wrote:
Boys do.
Girls say.
I'll leave that person's gender in the dark, but I thought that was
interesting, but I didn't answer that way (which might give it away).
A whole industry has cropped up attempting to study sex differences:
education, industry, etc. One of the "cutest" studies asserted that
little girls not playing like boys don't learn about friction the way
boys do pushing, moving car toys, etc. Well it was empirical.
I have to balance skepticism and open-mindedness. I didn't bother
to look more into this, you could a life time researching, and you would
get little climbing done.
I know women who have consistently complained that their time in the
Camp Fire Girls and Girl Scouts (GSA) was a waste of time.
They tended to jealously view the "Boys" [BSA] has doing more fun
outdoor activities. This got as far as a spoof movie (Troop Beverly
Hills?) which merely ended up reinforcing stereotypes.
Blame here can be pointed to the lack of experience by Den mothers.
If you want to explore this, you should troll for experiences in rec.scouting.*,
in particular rec.scouting.usa, but also misc, issues, and guide+girl.
If you were a teenage girl, it is still a little discriminatory in
US Scouting at the highest ends, when every 3rd year, a Boy Scout is
selected from all BSA Eagle Scouts to visit the Antarctic like Paul Siple
(the Siple Scout) who was taken South by Adm. Byrd, and Girl scouts were
only recently added during the last 2 decades, but whereas the Boy Scout
goes all over the Antarctic to field camps as well as the major bases,
the Girl Scout only goes to the major bases. This is may change with
time and accumulated institutional experience.
In a parallel vein, I know a friend who yelled the words outside at Stanford
"What is it about my gender?"
who was really pissed about what they perceived as their gender's lack
of interest in technology (is climbing any different in this case, maybe not?).
Other classic statements:
upper body strength. it's not everything.
Climbing is largely about balance: both in the first sense of the inner ear
but it is also about balancing strength/effort vs. or over time.
All climbers learn to conserve enegery.
I never had a great amount of upper body strength, but I also learned to
climb in the era of aid climbing. It's another skill.
"Socialization"
Few of us these days grow up with climbers as parents.
We are mostly 1st gen. climbers. The few "lucky" kids born to notable
climbers, written about by their parents, for the most part have not
stayed with climbing at the level of their parents. A few
reigning climbing familes exist in the US (the Lowes perhaps the most
notable) and other in Europe. This is the area of social baggage
"it's not lady like" or "you won't find a 'provider'" come.
But male climbers get a version of this shit, too, and they overcome it
("Get a real job...", ski bums, surfers, too).
Emotions. I have heard this. "Hormones."
What, do the women who have made it as experienced climbers have
fewer female hormones and ...etc.
I don't buy this. But Arlene Blum (an expeditioner) has written a little
about this noting that at altitude, the women compared and noticed
beast fluid reduction, which I think she noted was temporary.
But thing to do rather than rely on my flawed memory, is check her
Annapurna book or establish a correspondence with her. Fan mail
can be fun for anybody, again gender independent contact with a source.
You can attempt to find out a lot about physiological differences,
but that is not a substitute for experience.
Ambition.
What are you into climbing for? In the prehistory of r.c., in r.b., like r.c.,
where there has always been a M%>F%, there was one notable F who really
could not get down to admitting that she really needed attention in the
form of wanting to have her name in a guidebook for a First Ascent.
These get into the whole Mallory [Because it's there] thing.
The guy climbers emailed between themselves about similar experiences
about that person. Are you going to stick with climbings?
What is the reward climbers get [Mallory's joy].
Media influence.
The afforementioned F was likely unduely influenced by the media.
The climbing talent was there, but as the climbing got harder,
the interest and skill started to wane despite statements to the contrary.
Most people aren't going to make a living doing this.
The US is not longer an outdoor culture (my 2 sister and mom prove
thatin my family).
So climbing's motivations are a vast discontinuous bunch of ideas.
Gawd, I con't believe that I blabbered over 230+ lines.
Clearly more could and has been said by others. This is a summary.
If you have skipped up to this point, a person has to be crazy at this
time of evening hacking time, I need to get back to my database.
I have had both good and bad times climbing with various Ps and Ws.
Editing and ilustrations could improve to make this more coherent,
but it will never be fully continuous.
Other references: Beverly Johnson had a book written about her (now deceased).
Dave Roberts wrote a classic, and scathing, article in Outside almost
2 decades ago on "the failure" of American women's climbing and hoe it
affected funding sources on expeditions.
Mad Dog
>Reading through your posts on this thread I was caught by conflicting
>urges to either strangle you or invite you up for a beer and some fun
>conversation. At the end of this round, it looks like the invitation
>wins out.
Right on. Get him drunk, THEN strangle him. More fun that way.
nafod40
> Yep, there is a sort of natural unfairness between the
> women and the pemen (I save "human" and "men" for the species and
> "women" for females and annd trying to stay a trend to say "pemen"
> for an equal lettered equivalent 'women' and make 'men' more neutral).
I'll have to mention that one to my huswife...
> Other references: Beverly Johnson had a book written about her (now deceased).
>
> Dave Roberts wrote a classic, and scathing, article in Outside almost
> 2 decades ago on "the failure" of American women's climbing and hoe it
> affected funding sources on expeditions.
There's a great book on the efforts of women to break into carrier
aviation. Lots of parallels, breaking into a world of overgrown boys
with expensive toys.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557503354/002-0736857-4481667?v=glance
Dawn Alguard
>
> Lastly, the idea of dividing loads according to the size of
> the pack wearer is a great example of rationalizing not
> doing one's fair share.
> The women I've climbed with seem to have no problem at all
> carrying their share of the community load and ALL of their
> own gear, even when it involves haul bags and really big
> loads.
I honestly don't understand why you'd say this. I've typed two
replies and deleted them both. I can't justify it in my head except
as a cheap attack. Do you want to have a bench pressing contest? If
I lose is it because I'm tanking?
Dawn
Geoff Jennings
> Lastly, the idea of dividing loads according to the size of
> the pack wearer is a great example of rationalizing not
> doing one's fair share. That's preferential treatment to
> skinny people, pure and simple.
You're right. I'll remember to tell my 95 lb girlfriend that the next time
I hand her a 70 pound pack.
Geoff (240 ish)
kellie
Lots of people commenting on pack weight here....do y'all really sit
around around with a scale and weigh each other's packs? Do you
really care that much? Jeez.
I couldn't say whether I've *ever* carried exactly the same or less or
more weight than my partners, except for those times when I've snuck
rocks into their packs (or vice versa---I got all the way to Yosemite
once before I found two big chunks of Indian Creek sandstone in the
bottom of my pack). For me dividing up the weight has always pretty
much consisted of "You take the rope, I'll take the rack." "You take
the tent, I'll take the food" "My pack is smaller so gimme the heavy
stuff." etc. Very scientific. It's no doubt unequal, but I really
can't bring myself to care.
Julie
> OK. So to my original point...
>
> If a person who 2nded an entire route is expecting equal
> respect or treatment as the person who led it, that person
> has unrealistic expectations. Sex has nothing to do with it.
Bull.
Seconding a route is not at all necessarily correlated to a gradient
between partners. Mentors second routes of mentees. Truly empathetic
partners second routes just to let their partner have it, if that's
their partner's goal. A YOSAR 'god' might take a rest day on TR.
Whatever - to each their own. If you snub them for your elitist
reasons, you fail to respect 'their own'.
Few people deserve left out of a conversation entirely. Even if they
freakin' jugged the route; they're still a human being. Snobbery,
elitism ... yuck.
> Now if a person is a "victim" of this sort of prejudice (the
> prejudice in favor of lead climbers), that person might not
> always understand its not about sex.
The prejudice might not always be about gender; but I (almost) always
understand the difference.
> Its about lead climbing.
> Lastly, the idea of dividing loads according to the size of
> the pack wearer is a great example of rationalizing not
> doing one's fair share. That's preferential treatment to
> skinny people, pure and simple.
See Geoff's comment.
> The women I've climbed with seem to have no problem at all
> carrying their share of the community load and ALL of their
> own gear, even when it involves haul bags and really big
> loads.
You've already explained how ... picky ... you are about partners'
ability levels. I wonder whether you're a little too picky. Or rather,
I'm worried that you project your demands of yourself, onto them.
JSH
Mike Garrison
>
> I couldn't say whether I've *ever* carried exactly the same or less or
> more weight than my partners, except for those times when I've snuck
> rocks into their packs (or vice versa---I got all the way to Yosemite
> once before I found two big chunks of Indian Creek sandstone in the
> bottom of my pack). For me dividing up the weight has always pretty
> much consisted of "You take the rope, I'll take the rack." "You take
> the tent, I'll take the food" "My pack is smaller so gimme the heavy
> stuff." etc. Very scientific. It's no doubt unequal, but I really
> can't bring myself to care.
Exactly the way we do it. My pack is big, I take the bulky
tent and rope. Your pack is small, you take the more dense
rack, stove, and fuel bottle. Etc. The group gear goes to
the group.
Once this is done, if anyone compares pack weights it is
mainly to ridicule those who have not managed to keep their
personal gear light. "Yikes, what are you taking? Canned
food and your marble collection?"
-Mike
Mike Garrison
>
> Sunshine McGillicutty wrote:
>
> > The women I've climbed with seem to have no problem at all
> > carrying their share of the community load and ALL of their
> > own gear, even when it involves haul bags and really big
> > loads.
>
> I honestly don't understand why you'd say this. I've typed two
> replies and deleted them both. I can't justify it in my head except
> as a cheap attack. Do you want to have a bench pressing contest? If
> I lose is it because I'm tanking?
I don't know Dawn, DMT's experience has also been my
experience. All the women I go climbing with carry about
half the group gear. Their own personal gear tends to be
smaller and lighter, which makes up for some of it. And some
guys (and a few women) are really strong and tend to quietly
volunteer to take much bigger loads than others. But a lot
of the Alpine game is about being self-sufficient, and the
women who get involved with that tend to want that
experience.
And what happens if there is an all-female party? Why, they
carry their own gear. What makes them less able in a mixed
party?
-Mike
Mad Dog
>Do you want to have a bench pressing contest? If
>I lose is it because I'm tanking?
No, it's because you got too wasted while kicking your brother's asses.
Mad Dog
>do y'all really sit around around with a scale and weigh each other's packs?
No way. I did once weigh our packs before a 13 day backcountry trip, out of
curiosity because they were so frigging huge, but the loads were already set. I
have on occasion given each a heft to see if they are in the ballpark. I'm
certainly not very strong, but I always try to do at least my share. I've known
more than a few climbers that chose to carry much less than their share. I
don't tend to do climb again with people that are afraid to make it a real team
effort. Why not share the pain? OTOH, I don't mind carrying more than guys or
ladies that are significantly smaller than I. Then you run into a guy like
Guillaume that is adamant that he'll carry half. Knock yerself out, dude!
Andy Gale
Mike Garrison wrote:
> I don't know Dawn, DMT's experience has also been my
> experience. All the women I go climbing with carry about
> half the group gear. Their own personal gear tends to be
> smaller and lighter, which makes up for some of it. And some
> guys (and a few women) are really strong and tend to quietly
> volunteer to take much bigger loads than others. But a lot
> of the Alpine game is about being self-sufficient, and the
> women who get involved with that tend to want that
> experience.
>
> And what happens if there is an all-female party? Why, they
> carry their own gear. What makes them less able in a mixed
> party?
It's a question of efficient travel for the group as a whole. If Geoff
insists that his 95 lb girlfriend carries as much weight as he does than
they will probably be slower on the hike, than if they split the gear so
as to maximize group speed. Maybe the all female party with the same
amount of gear would just travel a bit slower. And it isn't just a
question of strength and weight. When I climb with Inez she has to take
about two steps for every one step that I take. She's working harder to
cover the same distance because her legs are a lot shorter than mine.
Andy
Julie
"Fair share" is not necessarily 50%.
Or at least I hope that's what he meant.
JSH
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
>If I had fun, why should I care
> if somebody else respects what I did?
Maybe you should refer to Theresa's initial post.
DMT
Dawn Alguard
>
> I don't know Dawn, DMT's experience has also been my
> experience. All the women I go climbing with carry about
> half the group gear.
I suppose I should be chastised but I'm not. I'm not so obsessed with
being "equal" that I have to carry *literally* half the weight when
there's a clear disparity in strength. If there are women out there
carefully breaking the loads in half so that they can be treated as
"equal" then I personally think they have self-confidence issues and
that they're missing the point of "equal" to begin with.
Equal doesn't even mean equal. It means that how you're treated is
based on who you actually are and not based on a stereotype or mean
average or something. It's fine for you to treat me as someone who
can't carry as much weight as you. I *am* someone who can't carry as
much weight as you. And it's fine for Todd to treat me like someone
who can't lead as hard as he can. I *can't* lead as hard as he can.
But it would be dangerous for every man I meet to treat me like I
can't lead as hard as they can, because some of them will be wrong.
I've always known from reading Dingus's TRs that he was more SERIOUS
than I am, but honestly, climbing his way sounds like a chore. I'm
just going to go have fun and not weigh or count anything, OK? I'm
pretty sure that the people who know me respect me for my strengths
and don't take off any discounts for weaknesses I don't have. I've
never needed more than that.
Dawn
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
>
> I honestly don't understand why you'd say this. I've typed two
> replies and deleted them both. I can't justify it in my head except
> as a cheap attack. Do you want to have a bench pressing contest? If
> I lose is it because I'm tanking?
What's so hard to understand Dawn? I must admit to a certain
bafflement on this entire thread too, where everything seems
misconstrued.
Example: Four people agree to go climb a mountain, sort of
expedition style. Three of the four spend a freakin year
working out, dreaming, planning, dieting and climbing in
preparation for this outing. The 4th climber doesn't care
all that much about preparation and so spends the same time
swilling beer and eating potato chips. Hasn't climbed a
thing in months.
So now they all meet at the appointed time at the trailhead.
#4 says, hey, I'm out of shape and I can't really be
expected to carry these loads. Since all three of you are in
so much better shape you really should carry more of the
community load proportionally.
Now where is the justice in THAT??? There ain't none. Three
people paid their dues and spent the time in the trenches.
And the 4th wants to ride on their backs. He claims lesser
ability as a reason for not doing his share.
OK then, Bench press - climber #1 boldly declares "I can
bench 300 pounds. And she lays down and does it. Viola.
Climber #2, the same climber who drank all the beer, says "I
think I can do 200 pounds." But when he tries he can't even
lift the bar off the bench. So he says to #1, "How about you
lift 50 of this and I'll handle the rest." #1, being the gal
she is, readily pitches in and helps out.
Later, at the bar, the two are discussing the day's bench
pressing with their mates. #2 proceeds to tell everyone how
he benched 200 pounds today, a personal record.
I cannot honestly fathom how one climber can expect a
partner to carry his loads for him, and then make a case for
equal treatment.
DMT
Julie
>
> Equal doesn't even mean equal. It means that how you're treated is
> based on who you actually are and not based on a stereotype or mean
>
> I've always known from reading Dingus's TRs that he was more SERIOUS
> than I am, but honestly, climbing his way sounds like a chore. I'm
> just going to go have fun and not weigh or count anything, OK? I'm
> pretty sure that the people who know me respect me for my strengths
> and don't take off any discounts for weaknesses I don't have. I've
> never needed more than that.
Word!
JSH
Sunshine McGillicutty
Why would you be HANDING her anything??? Telling her
anything? Is she your equal or not? She can't pack her own
pack? She has to have you do it? She can't sort the loads?
Can't do the planning? Doesn't want to? Whats up with
that??? Who decided to carry 70 freakin pounds in the first
place, you or her? She can't make two trips if she agreed to
the gear list?
With me and my mates, packing is usually like this:
Here is my gear. How I get it to the climb is my affair.
Same with my partner's. Oh, why here is a rope and a rack, a
tent, stove, cook gear, etc. All that goes in a pile in the
middle of the floor. We then split that pile according to
weight and size. Then we like pack our own packs and go
climbing.
This is a most amazing turn of a thread!
DMT
Julie
>
> So now they all meet at the appointed time at the trailhead.
> #4 says, hey, I'm out of shape and I can't really be
> expected to carry these loads. Since all three of you are in
> so much better shape you really should carry more of the
> community load proportionally.
>
> Now where is the justice in THAT??? There ain't none. Three
> people paid their dues and spent the time in the trenches.
> And the 4th wants to ride on their backs. He claims lesser
> ability as a reason for not doing his share.
Fine. Use your scale to split it up. Have a good time nursing #4 after
he collapses; none of you get to climb your route. Happy now?
Life ain't fair, buddy. If you were that much of a stickler, why is #4
on the trip anyway?
JSH
Sue
<da...@alguard.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose I should be chastised but I'm not. I'm not so obsessed with
> being "equal" that I have to carry *literally* half the weight when
> there's a clear disparity in strength. If there are women out there
> carefully breaking the loads in half so that they can be treated as
> "equal" then I personally think they have self-confidence issues and
> that they're missing the point of "equal" to begin with.
>
> Equal doesn't even mean equal. It means that how you're treated is
> based on who you actually are and not based on a stereotype or mean
> average or something. It's fine for you to treat me as someone who
> can't carry as much weight as you. I *am* someone who can't carry as
> much weight as you. And it's fine for Todd to treat me like someone
> who can't lead as hard as he can. I *can't* lead as hard as he can.
> But it would be dangerous for every man I meet to treat me like I
> can't lead as hard as they can, because some of them will be wrong.
>
> I've always known from reading Dingus's TRs that he was more SERIOUS
> than I am, but honestly, climbing his way sounds like a chore. I'm
> just going to go have fun and not weigh or count anything, OK? I'm
> pretty sure that the people who know me respect me for my strengths
> and don't take off any discounts for weaknesses I don't have. I've
> never needed more than that.
>
Thank-you Dawn
sue who is determined to otherwise stay out of this discussion.
Gnarling
>
> Lastly, the idea of dividing loads according to the size of
> the pack wearer is a great example of rationalizing not
> doing one's fair share. That's preferential treatment to
> skinny people, pure and simple.
Excuse me, let me rephrase this for you: If you are 170 lbs and your
partner is 120 lbs, you gladly carry your 50 lbs and said partner
carries the other 50 lbs? There is a proud division of labor! You
are doing less than your fair share in my opinion!
I climb with A.S. who is in his late 70's, has had some health issues
and though I am smaller than he, I will carry more weight to give
preferential treatment to an older person. I have no trouble with
that. I like displaying chivalry. I also have no trouble giving
another partner who outweighs me by 30 lbs and is 10 years younger
than me the extra rope to carry.
> The women I've climbed with seem to have no problem at all
> carrying their share of the community load and ALL of their
> own gear, even when it involves haul bags and really big
> loads.
I hope for your sake, that these women weigh what you do and are 6
feet tall. If not you are making a pack mule out of somebody just so
you can insist on equal weight distribution. What a gentleman! I
somehow can't imagine that this is what you really meant. Perhaps you
simply point out that the women you know and climb with will carry
their share of the weight, it doesn't have to be the same weight
though?......
Inez
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> I couldn't say whether I've *ever* carried exactly the same or less or
> more weight than my partners, except for those times when I've snuck
> rocks into their packs (or vice versa---I got all the way to Yosemite
> once before I found two big chunks of Indian Creek sandstone in the
> bottom of my pack). For me dividing up the weight has always pretty
> much consisted of "You take the rope, I'll take the rack." "You take
> the tent, I'll take the food" "My pack is smaller so gimme the heavy
> stuff." etc. Very scientific. It's no doubt unequal, but I really
> can't bring myself to care.
Every climber really should get access to a decent scale and
weigh everything they have, yes. No, loads aren't divided to
the nth degree. But I know that my water filter is roughly
equivalent to the stove and gas canister. Or one 8 mil rope
is equal to the alpine rack. Or the food bag is equal to the
climbing rack or the other rope... or whatever. At the
trailhead we use the scales of justice... put an item in
each hand, decide if they are close and then divvy it up.
It seems to me Kellie we did just what you said. However...
Had you said to me, "Dingus, I'm a lot lighter than you (and
better looking too!), so you need to carry both the rope and
the rack, plus my harness. I'll be able to keep up better
and we'll be more efficient." Ida done it too. Just as I
have had to lean on partner's more times than I can count.
That's part of a partnership too.
But see, you didn't do that. I bet the thought never entered
your mind. You are among the more self sufficient people I
have ever met. I'm not just flirting with you when I declare
I'd go climbing with you any time. After you solo'd that
couloir I realized you were one of us. I mean it and the
above is a big part of the reason why.
Cheers,
DMT
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> It's a question of efficient travel for the group as a whole. If Geoff
> insists that his 95 lb girlfriend carries as much weight as he does than
> they will probably be slower on the hike, than if they split the gear so
> as to maximize group speed.
I don't understand this whole "insist" thing. Is she an
equal or not?
See, I'm not talking about a guided climb, or an expedition
with a wide variety of skills in attendance, or an advanced
climber taking a noob out for the day. I'm talking about
partners.
> When I climb with Inez she has to take
> about two steps for every one step that I take. She's working harder to
> cover the same distance because her legs are a lot shorter than mine.
And my gut is much larger than hers, so I have to carry
twice the weight with every step. Yet, when we went
climbing, the subject of one carrying the other's gear never
came up. I can't imagine it's any different now.
DMT
Julie
>
> Had you said to me, "Dingus, I'm a lot lighter than you (and
> better looking too!), so you need to carry both the rope and
> the rack, plus my harness. I'll be able to keep up better
Oh, puhleez.
JSH
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> they're missing the point of "equal" to begin with.
You can say that again!
> Equal doesn't even mean equal.
This is one time when my hahahaha reflects genuine, smiling
mirth.
> It means that how you're treated is
> based on who you actually are and not based on a stereotype or mean
> average or something.
And my entire point is that in climbing, how you are treated
in a very large way is determined by how you climb. And
climbing includes those other things... whether you
acknowledge them or not.
What if you were climbing alone?
DMT
Jason Liebgott
melissa I got stuck with the haul bag!!!
and the poop. and the poop bag ripped. and
Sue
<sunshinemc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand this whole "insist" thing. Is she an
> equal or not?
>
> See, I'm not talking about a guided climb, or an expedition
> with a wide variety of skills in attendance, or an advanced
> climber taking a noob out for the day. I'm talking about
> partners.
Arrgg I could not stay out. Dammit Dingus.
A long time ago I went on ski expedition to Kluane. Me and 3 guys. A
month of gear on your back and in a sled, man I could hardly move
under the weight. I was going to be dammed if I was going to complain.
I was the physically weakest member of the team. No doubt, I slowed us
down. The second slowest guy on the team had a problem with how slow I
was. Ironic isn't it. By picking on me, he was deflecting attention
away from his skills. You see, other than being slightly stronger, he
didn't have an special skills. But I did. I had skills that no one else
on the team had. I had medical training and at that time a lot of
training in first aid and emergency medicine. No one got to see them
though, and that was just fine by me.
My point is that sometimes partners have skills that may not manifest
themselves at all times. For example, If you and I go out climbing and
you get hurt, I am going to deliver a hell of a lot better emergency
care than you could do for me if the circumstances were reversed. Are
you lazy? underprepared? I mean after all, assuming you were
sufficiently motivated, and assuming you had the intellectual capacity
(and I don't mean this as an insult, BTW, I assume you do, but I'm
trying to draw the parallel with your expedition example) you could go
to medical school or become an Paramedic and we would have the same
skills. It seems to me that that is the parallel you are drawing.
should I only climb with other MD's ? No because between partners the
skill ***set*** is important. Complementary skills mean the whole is
greater that the parts. isn't that what a partnership is about?
Mike Garrison
>
> It's a question of efficient travel for the group as a whole.
I'm familiar with the concept. And when someone is having
trouble (regardless of who it is), of course the party
adjusts. Sometimes it's the big strong guy who picks up a
virus or tweaks his knee. Divi up his gear and everyone else
expects to go slower.
I'm just saying that in my experience, women I climb with
expect to grab half the group gear, or a third of it, or
whatever their approximate share is. So do little guys.
Sometimes big husky guys just grab the heaviest stuff and
say "I'll take this", but typically it all gets split more
or less evenly. I'm not talking theory or what is "fair",
I'm talking about what actually happens among the people I
climb with.
The (rare) exceptions to this that I have seen among people
I know tend to follow along bf/gf lines. I guess there is a
sort of quid pro quo there beyond the climbing partner
relationship.
> And it isn't just a
> question of strength and weight. When I climb with Inez she has to take
> about two steps for every one step that I take. She's working harder to
> cover the same distance because her legs are a lot shorter than mine.
And if you climbed with me, you would probably also be going
slower, because I'm slow (and overweight and out of shape,
but I've always been slow). I tend to be like a mule -- you
can keep piling things on and I don't break down, just go
slower.
I don't insist that everyone carry an equal load all the
time. I'm just saying that in practice most of the people I
know (men and women) *want* (and expect) to grab an equal
(or approximately so) share of the group gear. YMMV.
-Mike
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> Arrgg I could not stay out. Dammit Dingus.
That's ok Sue. At least you're not chucking insults at me.
> A long time ago I went on ski expedition to Kluane. Me and 3 guys. A
> month of gear on your back and in a sled, man I could hardly move
> under the weight. I was going to be dammed if I was going to complain.
> I was the physically weakest member of the team. No doubt, I slowed us
> down. The second slowest guy on the team had a problem with how slow I
> was. Ironic isn't it. By picking on me, he was deflecting attention
> away from his skills. You see, other than being slightly stronger, he
> didn't have an special skills. But I did. I had skills that no one else
> on the team had. I had medical training and at that time a lot of
> training in first aid and emergency medicine. No one got to see them
> though, and that was just fine by me.
I have two points:
1. You make a good point!
2. Why were you there (on the tour)? Were your medical
skills a planned part of the tour or were they an "accident"
of your participation. If they were planned, then I agree
with you 100%. Those skills clearly have a value to a team
and sacrifices might have to be made in order to achieve
that. Cool. Like a climbing team that wants to make a movie,
they have to make allowances for the ability of the camera
team.
But if you were just sort of planning on this tour from the
start and your med skills were a byproduct, then I would
suggest you simply bit off more than you could chew. A
lesser tour would have been more appropriate.
DMT
DMT
Mike Garrison
>
> Mike Garrison wrote:
> >
> > I don't know Dawn, DMT's experience has also been my
> > experience. All the women I go climbing with carry about
> > half the group gear.
>
> I suppose I should be chastised but I'm not.
It wasn't my intention to chastise you or tell you what I
think should be how things work. All I'm saying is that in
my *actual* experience, this is what I usually *actually*
see happen.
> If there are women out there
> carefully breaking the loads in half so that they can be treated as
> "equal" then I personally think they have self-confidence issues and
> that they're missing the point of "equal" to begin with.
No, read Kellie's posts. No one is weighing things down to
the ounce or tracking who carried what on the last three
trips. But usually no one is coming along as a passenger
either. Except sometimes a friend who is only "camping" and
stays back at the tents when everyone else ropes up and
straps on those crampons.
> But it would be dangerous for every man I meet to treat me like I
> can't lead as hard as they can, because some of them will be wrong.
I pretty much treat everyone who knows how to tie a figure
eight as being able to lead harder than me, and I am usually
correct.
> I've always known from reading Dingus's TRs that he was more SERIOUS
> than I am, but honestly, climbing his way sounds like a chore.
They don't call it slogging for nothing. Much of my style
climbing *is* a chore. It's only worth it if you are
addicted to summits. I know as many women as men who are
just as wacked in that way.
-Mike
Sue
<sunshinemc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have two points:
>
> 1. You make a good point!
> 2. Why were you there (on the tour)? Were your medical
> skills a planned part of the tour or were they an "accident"
> of your participation. If they were planned, then I agree
> with you 100%. Those skills clearly have a value to a team
> and sacrifices might have to be made in order to achieve
> that. Cool. Like a climbing team that wants to make a movie,
> they have to make allowances for the ability of the camera
> team.
I don't know how it is now but in those days you had to apply for a
permit, and you had to list the skills of your team, and if the team
didn't pass muster, no permit. Also it was remote enough and the
prospects of a rescue in case of a problem were essentially zero. In
fact we spent a few extra days because of weather. So it wasn't planned
that we would have medical problems, but like having emergency gear for
a bivy, it was prudent to plan for the possibility ya know? One of the
other guys, the team leader had very strong glacier skills, the rest of
us had mostly just dinked around in the coast range.
> But if you were just sort of planning on this tour from the
> start and your med skills were a byproduct, then I would
> suggest you simply bit off more than you could chew. A
> lesser tour would have been more appropriate.
ahh but Dingus. I was also a very strong skier. I'd done some first
descents with these guys. I just was loaded down, and was slow on the
uphills. We still got all our objectives.
melissa
>
>hmmm. I'm thinking that when I did the descent from leaning tower with
>melissa I got stuck with the haul bag!!!
You carried it up too. But I wore the rack for the descent and went first and
drove all the way back to Berkeley. If you want to be truly equitable about it,
we could have handed off the bag at the hanging rap where I had to stand on your
head to unclip. Naaaahhhh....
Melissa
Mad Dog
>Life ain't fair, buddy. If you were that much of a stickler, why is #4
>on the trip anyway?
That's a totally appropriate question for the scenario. Why would 3 serious
climbers take on a 4th that wouldn't be a real part of the team when the route
will demand a huge effort? OTOH, I fully agree with Inez and others that look
for what's best for the TEAM when they both know that one is not the equal of
the other.
Mad Dog
>I'm just saying that in my experience, women I climb with
>expect to grab half the group gear, or a third of it, or
>whatever their approximate share is. So do little guys.
>Sometimes big husky guys just grab the heaviest stuff and
>say "I'll take this", but typically it all gets split more
>or less evenly. I'm not talking theory or what is "fair",
>I'm talking about what actually happens among the people I
>climb with.
You must live a charmed life. I remember being with a sizeable group heading
into the back country. One person took 2 down bags, stuffed them into the pack
with a bag of cookies and a water bottle. To show my compassion for having to
carry such a heavy load, I said: "Let me help you get that on." and lifted it
with my little finger. That's the most extreme example I've seen, but I've seen
variations on the theme.
Mike Garrison
>
> Here is my gear. How I get it to the climb is my affair.
> Same with my partner's. Oh, why here is a rope and a rack, a
> tent, stove, cook gear, etc. All that goes in a pile in the
> middle of the floor. We then split that pile according to
> weight and size. Then we like pack our own packs and go
> climbing.
Exactly my experience. Except this last usally happens in a
parking lot more than somebody's house. People grab what
they can fit and what they can carry, and it usually ends up
being about 50/50. After all, people are there because they
*want* to go climbing, and this is the ticket they have to
buy to get on the ride.
-Mike
Mike Garrison
>
> "Sunshine McGillicutty" <sunshinemc...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > So now they all meet at the appointed time at the trailhead.
> > #4 says, hey, I'm out of shape and I can't really be
> > expected to carry these loads. Since all three of you are in
> > so much better shape you really should carry more of the
> > community load proportionally.
>
> on the trip anyway?
You can bet that on the next trip #4 won't be invited.
Especially if this has happened more than once.
-Mike
Nate B
"Sue"
> Complementary skills mean the whole is
> greater that the parts. isn't that what a partnership is about?
The funny thing about this threadlet is that everyone probably agrees, but
can't convey it.
I'd like to add that someone whining about anything - be it their pack, that
they want special treatment for being a girl, whatever - will have a hard
time making up in other ways. I can't stand whiners. I rarely have
problems with them because of how quickly I have learned to detect and
filter them from my life.
Life is full of negotiations for equity. Relationships even more so. Two
people who can't stuff some shit into a pack and go for a climb do not
belong together.
- Nate
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> Sunshine McGillicutty wrote:
> >
> After all, people are there because they
> *want* to go climbing, and this is the ticket they have to
> buy to get on the ride.
You'd think Mike, you'd think. But just like on an airplane
I guess, the guy in the next seat paid a far different fare
than I yet expects the same "treatment."
DMT
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
> Julie wrote:
> >
> > "Sunshine McGillicutty" <sunshinemc...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > So now they all meet at the appointed time at the trailhead.
> > > #4 says, hey, I'm out of shape and I can't really be
> > > expected to carry these loads. Since all three of you are in
> > > so much better shape you really should carry more of the
> > > community load proportionally.
> >
> > Life ain't fair, buddy. If you were that much of a stickler, why is #4
> > on the trip anyway?
Because it was my idea in the first place?
DMT
Jason Liebgott
"melissa" wrote ...
> In article , Jason Liebgott says...
> >
> >hmmm. I'm thinking that when I did the descent from leaning tower with
> >melissa I got stuck with the haul bag!!!
>
> You carried it up too.
OH YEAH!!! That's right, quite a bargain you got there. But somehow I was
excited about doing that too. To be honest I felt like you got stuck with
the more strenous pitches on that route. I got off relatively light, and you
ended up doing some physical overhanging roofs. Payback for the approach, i
guess. 8-)
> But I wore the rack for the descent and went first and
> drove all the way back to Berkeley.
If you only knew, I would have paid you big bucks to drive! that was the
sweetest sleep ever.
> If you want to be truly equitable about it,
> we could have handed off the bag at the hanging rap where I had to stand
on your
> head to unclip. Naaaahhhh....
I think that suggestion would have ended with you demonstrating the foot jam
in my mouth! LOL.
Ahhh, somehow those memories have faded into a nice golden hue. I'm very
excited about the upcoming fun.
Jason
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
>
> ahh but Dingus. I was also a very strong skier. I'd done some first
> descents with these guys. I just was loaded down, and was slow on the
> uphills. We still got all our objectives.
Ahh but Sue, where were you when the lists were drawn and
the loads planned? Did you participate and simply misgauge
your ability to manage such loads or just didn't appreciate
what a staggering load a month in the winter bc would
produce? Were you not part of this process? Sounds more like
a screw up really, than someone not wanting to hump her
share of the loads.
I understand the adjustment of the team. Of course. That's
what friends and mates do.
But I don't understand a mindset that goes *into* an
expedition such as this, knowing the loads are too large to
carry, with the expectation that other team members will
pick up the slack (and waiting till the trailhead to do it).
I flat out refuse to believe thats what happened in your
particular case.
I'm not saying miscalculations or bad days don't occur. They
do. But it is clear that some climbers hold the expectation
that others will carry their gear for them!!!!!! It has been
stated bluntly and it honestly blows me away. The thread has
in its own usenet way made my point for me.
If you can't do the time.... don't do the crime! Self
sufficiency.
Those people might want to consider a lesser objective next
time, a week outing instead of a month, a grade III instead
of a V.
DMT
Eugene Miya
nafod40 <may...@SPAMAWAY.psu.edu> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>> Yep, there is a sort of natural unfairness between the
>> women and the pemen (I save "human" and "men" for the species and
>> "women" for females and annd trying to stay a trend to say "pemen"
>> for an equal lettered equivalent 'women' and make 'men' more neutral).
>
>I'll have to mention that one to my huswife...
Hey, I changed the Oxford English Dictionary once, this is another shot.
I'm surprised that this contraction was introduced in the 70s.
>> Other references: Beverly Johnson had a book written about her (now deceased).
>>
>> Dave Roberts wrote a classic, and scathing, article in Outside almost
>> 2 decades ago on "the failure" of American women's climbing and hoe it
>> affected funding sources on expeditions.
>
>There's a great book on the efforts of women to break into carrier
>aviation. Lots of parallels, breaking into a world of overgrown boys
>with expensive toys.
Talking to women astronauts (one close colleague/friend was on STS-107)
and women FBI agents is enlightening.
The American world is changing. I wonder when the rest will catch up?
It is important to appreciate non-brute force solutions to problems.
Experiences in the Antarctic were useful for that.
If the human race is going to be smart in the future, i.e, get out of
the stone age, or get out of the Middle ages, we had better start NOW.
Brutus of Wyde
> "Nate B" wrote:
>
> > If you kick boys' butt, more power to you. There are a lot of guys who will
> > pick up on that and avoid you because you won't safely fulfill a needed role
> > for them.
>
> And there are also a lot of guys who will pick up on that and respect
> your strength and independence. These will be the non-needy ones who
> are confident enough not to be threatened by a strong woman. The best
> kind.
Then there are those of us that don't avoid Gung Ho, but nevertheless
just can't crank anywheres near as hard, so we don't often end up on
the same climbs together.
Brutus ["Thin fingers??!! Your lead!"] of Wyde
Sue
<sunshinemc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sue wrote:
> >
> >
> > ahh but Dingus. I was also a very strong skier. I'd done some first
> > descents with these guys. I just was loaded down, and was slow on the
> > uphills. We still got all our objectives.
>
> Ahh but Sue, where were you when the lists were drawn and
> the loads planned? Did you participate and simply misgauge
> your ability to manage such loads or just didn't appreciate
> what a staggering load a month in the winter bc would
> produce? Were you not part of this process?
I was.
> Sounds more like
> a screw up really, than someone not wanting to hump her
> share of the loads.
wait a minute. No one screwed up. I did hump my "share" of the load.
that's my point. 25 % more or less went into my pack maybe a little
more than my "share" b/c I had the medical kit which although as light
as I could make it, it was not part of the other gear. We pooled
food, fuel, pots etc, and divided it in 1/4. To me it would have made
more sense to divide up the load to have max travel speed instead of
equal lbs all around but that is not what we did.
But no one though about this: I don't eat as much as a 200 lb guy,
should I carry 25% of the fuel and 25% of the food? Hell Craig only
outweights me by 10 lbs and he eats twice as much as I do (the next
great famine the clarence gene pool is outta here). Why should I suffer
for some guys biological ineffiency? :)
My point is still different skills, different abilities, different
liabilities, not always obvious.
Sunshine McGillicutty
>
>
> My point is still different skills, different abilities, different
> liabilities, not always obvious.
And its a great point.
And my point is climber's should expect to hump their share
of the loads. All you and I are doing is clarifying whats
counted in the load.
DMT
Andy Gale
Sunshine McGillicutty wrote:
> Andy Gale wrote:
>
>>It's a question of efficient travel for the group as a whole. If Geoff
>>insists that his 95 lb girlfriend carries as much weight as he does than
>>they will probably be slower on the hike, than if they split the gear so
>>as to maximize group speed.
>
>
> I don't understand this whole "insist" thing. Is she an
> equal or not?
You are placing much more emphasis on that turn of phrase than I
intended. I could have just as well have stated, suppose Geoff's 95 lb
gf insists on carrying the same amount of weight that he does. The
result of this is that the team would needlessly be slowed down. But,
practically speaking, unless Geoff makes a point to carry more gear,
they will probably carry about the same each. That's all I mean.
In my particular case, if I have a long approach with someone who is
petite I have never had that person insist, or even suggest, that I
should carry more weight. But I myself have insisted (or strongly
suggested) that I carry more weight in some instances (not all).
Actually, chivalry has very little to do with this. By nature, I am not
a patient person. My goal is to speed up the team so I don't have to
wait a lot on the hike.
>>When I climb with Inez she has to take
>>about two steps for every one step that I take. She's working harder to
>>cover the same distance because her legs are a lot shorter than mine.
>
>
> And my gut is much larger than hers, so I have to carry
> twice the weight with every step. Yet, when we went
> climbing, the subject of one carrying the other's gear never
> came up. I can't imagine it's any different now.
Yet you may have been faster, as a team, if she had insisted on carrying
some of your gear.
Andy
Geoff Jennings
> partners.
So am I. My girlfriend and I live together. Even at home, she and I split
tasks. There are things she's good at (remembering to pay the bills) that
I'm bad at. there are things that I'm good at (cooking). We share
responsibilities and tasks. We split almost every bill 50-50. In my eye,
that is a far better, more pleasant, more efficient and fun partnership than
if we insisted that every task be split evenly.
It's the same outside.
I agree with Sue. And with Andy . It's all about skillsets. My favorite
climbing partner kicks ass and is happy as a clam on runout slabs. I like
crack climbing. When we climb together, and I pass up leading a hard slab,
I don't have such a tiny ego that I feel like a lesser partner. I've
watched him struggle on cracks I've lead. On trips where I'm not the
strongest climber, I've made up for it by cooking or humping a larger chunk
of the load. Everybody has fun.
I get paid to guide kayak trips, so that's obviously a different story, but
on non-guiding trips, I'm frequently the more experienced person. I
certainly hope my friends aren't obsessing and worrying about being the
"less respected" person. And their are kayak equivalents. On hard, new
rivers, I often run first, allowing others to see the line I pick out as I
go.
And suggesting that Sue shouldn't have been on the trip because she was
slowest is silly. Someone has to be. Reminds me of the old Richard Bachman
Book, where they have a race, and periodically, the person in back is
eliminated. Soon there's only one person.
Dingus, I find it hard to believe that you are so perfectly matched with
your partners that there aren't places where he/she is stronger, and others
where you are.
Geoff
Geoff Jennings
never been before, and I wanted to make sure she had a good time. She helped
plan the trip, but it was clear she left most of the decisions to me, fair
enough, I done it allot at that point. Fit girl, Soccer player and
swimmer. We were going for 7-8 days in the maze district in Utah's
Canyonlands, march.
I was determined to that she have a good time. While packing, I put the
down sleeping bags in her pack, a ton of fleece, and I think the tent. In
my pack went the stove, fuel, 8 days of food, water, pots, etc etc. I
could barely lift the thing.
Staggering under this colossal load, all day she kept looking at me funny as
she waited for me to catch up. On the second day she complained that her
pack felt heavier. I kept up better.
Geoff
"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bk7ru...@drn.newsguy.com...
Geoff Jennings
time
> > I hand her a 70 pound pack.
> >
> > Geoff (240 ish)
>
> Why would you be HANDING her anything??? Telling her
> anything? Is she your equal or not? She can't pack her own
> pack? She has to have you do it? She can't sort the loads?
> Can't do the planning? Doesn't want to? Whats up with
> that???
Oh she's more than capable of packing and planning her own trip. She's
about to take off for a month to a third world county where she doesn't
speak the language. I'm not going.
But yeah, I'm a more experienced climber. She climbs harder, but I'm more
experienced. that's my point. I tend to decide the gear list for a climbing
trip. I tend to pack (to her chagrin the time I only brought her right
climbing shoe). I _like_ looking at that pile of gear, and going through
the process of picking gear. I do it. I don't think that makes her less of
an equal. She takes care of allot of other things in our life that I don't
care to deal with. When we camp, I cook, she cleans. There are many
aspects to taking a trip, and packing and carrying are only one part. We
go to Baja allot. she speaks pretty good Spanish, I don't. Am I not her
equal? I could learn Spanish, but haven't.
I don't understand the obsession with everything being equal. When we eat
out, sometimes I pick up the check, or buy the groceries, sometimes she
does. It all comes out in the wash. Neither person in the lesser of the
other.
With other partners, it was the same way. When my buddy who weighs 140lbs
and I did a wall, I carried more gear, and did more hauling. He pulled his
share, has medical experience,climbs hard, and there's few people I'd
rather have on the other end of the line when I'm sketched out, or that I
enjoy hanging on a ledge with more. All those things have a value too.
It just seems that recognizing that everyone has strengths and weaknesses,
and working with those strengths and weakness makes for a sweet partnership
where everyone is equal but not the same, and has more fun and gets more
done because of it.
An example. I won two bikes. I have a road bike optimized for the road, and
a pretty sweet mtn bike. Between those two I can ride just about everything
I care to ride. Seems like in your world I'd have two hybrids. Pretty good
at everything, but not as good at anything.
I agree with Dawn, sounds like a chore your way.
>Who decided to carry 70 freakin pounds in the first
> place, you or her?
70 lbs would be pretty easy to get to. I've carried far bigger when doing
walls, carrying climbing and camping gear, even just long backpacking trips.
Hell, I'm planning a trip for next spring (hopefully) where I'll be hiking
in over the Whitney portal trail with camping gear (minimal), food for 4-5
days, and a 65 lb kayak, plus paddle, helmet, drytop, etc. I'm HOPING to
get the load under 100lbs, but it's going to be tough.
> She can't make two trips if she agreed to
> the gear list?
<sarcasm>
Yeah, that's clearly efficient. Makes much more sense than me, being as
that I'm 2.5 times her size, carrying a little more. </sarcasm>
Geoff
Brutus of Wyde
> You follow a 10 pitch climb start to finish. At the top you encounter
> another team that also did the climb. You are chatting about the climbing
> with them. One of them remarks that you didn't do any leading and from that
> point on most of the conversation shifts to your partner. It is clear that a
> judgment has been made. Are you offended and if yes, why?
I am deeply offended.
Because I know that I didn't tell anyone else about this climb, so
obviously my partner blabbed, in spite of being sworn to secrecy.
This place is getting too crowded.
Time to find a new area.
Brutus
Geoff Jennings
> An example. I won two bikes. I have a road bike optimized for the road,
and
> a pretty sweet mtn bike. Between those two I can ride just about
everything
> I care to ride. Seems like in your world I'd have two hybrids. Pretty
good
> at everything, but not as good at anything.
>
that should be - "I own two bikes"
I never win a damn thing. =>
Geoff
Mike Warren
Hash: SHA1
"Nate B" <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> "melissa"
> > I always feel that if I outdo my partners expectations of me, I'm
> > much more psyched than if I know that I've failed to live up to
> > them, so I often try to set the bar low for myself in their eyes
> Seems hinging your own esteem and happiness on the perceptions and
> expectations (or your perception of their perceptions and expectations..) of
> others is the road to a life of misery.
Isn't that just plain old extroversion?
Anyway, my two cents on this whole "equality" thing:
The likelihood of two partners being "equal" in an ability shoot-out
is probably pretty slim; someone is going to have better skills in
certain areas and so will the other person. (Obviously, one could
easily dream up fantastic mismatches, but for realistic pairings, I
think this will generally be true.)
I think (especially with alpine climbing or longer routes) that most
of the "equality" perception really comes down to responsibility over
decision-making. I mean, it's easy to treat each other equally on
sport crags; just take turns picking climbs or something similar. When
one of the partners perceives the other as a stronger or
more-experienced climber (or the converse), the perception of
inequality creeps in, I think; the weaker climber will perhaps not
take an active role in discussing decisions and maybe the stronger
climber will gloss over their reasons (by "stronger" and "weaker" I
mean in whatever decision is being discussed).
A lot of so-called "decisions" in climbing (and ski touring, etcetera)
boil down to risk assessment (i.e. ``is the risk within my
bounds?''). If the more experienced party doesn't explain themselves
and discuss the situation with the less-experienced party, the latter
will probably feel zero responsibility. If, however, the situation is
explained by the more-experienced party, the less-experienced party
should feel at least some responsibility after agreeing (or
disagreeing). This should lead to a more-equitable sharing of the
responsibility, and hence (IMO) lead more towards a general feeling of
being partners.
For example, consider the original trip-report spurring this
discussion: I don't know how much discussion was taking place during
the climbing, so instead I'll completely make up two different
scenarios.
Scenario A:
``Hey Stacey: I think we're moving too slowly, and it's starting to
rain. Perhaps we should consider retreating. I don't like the looks of
the raps, and we don't know the terrain. I think we basically have a
couple options: we can try and push for the summit and a walk-off,
possibly in the dark, we can try these suspect raps or we could try
downclimbing the route until we can rap into good-looking
territory.''
``I'm tired and cold; I'm not sure how fast I can move; maybe we
should explore the retreat options.''
``I'm leaning towards pushing for the summit; I think we can make
it. It's only a few more pitches and then we can walk off.''
``Well, okay.''
Scenario B:
``Hey Stacey: I think we're moving too slowly and it's starting to
rain. We have to move faster; I'm now leading all the pitches. If
you're feeling sketched out, just yell for more tension...''
``Okay, I guess so...''
Obviously, I've set this up to make Scenario A look better; Stacey
will perhaps now feel some responsibility for the summit push. Under
the second scenario, Stacey will likely feel very much like she's
``along for the ride''. Even though in both cases a summit push is
going to be made, I would feel better about Scenario A (no matter
which party I am).
More importantly, though, I think that under Scenario A a much more
friendly and collaborative atmosphere is set up: if Stacey starts
feeling like the summit push isn't likely, maybe she'd be more likely
to start a discussion about going down or exploring other options.
[Note: I'm making wild presumptions here, so if this isn't like what
really happened, don't apologise or blame me. Thanks.]
Thoughts?
- --
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAj9nqqQACgkQEIcIhFeZEb2BpwCfeWEJu0iif01dJ11KduBLrXq8
YpQAmgJWkz/+F0oUZ+DBPVyoc+fpgV75
=fLJ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----