BTW, ladies, really good article in this month's R&I by Colette McInerney on (specifically) First Female Ascents, but (more generally) on women's position in climbing as it relates to the fact that everything, from grades to style to bolt placement on routes, is a matter of us being measured against male standards, rather than our own. (What would the world be like if men had to measure up to values and standards set by women in all ways of life??)

She just did a really good job with the article and I felt many of my own thoughts validated when reading it.

I would have provided a link to it but I do not think it's available online.

Are you familiar with the essay "White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack"? The basic premise is that privilege exists in our society, that is to say, members of certain groups get privileges that they haven't earned. Ironically the people who are most likely to deny that such privilege exists are those who benefit from it.

-- e.g. kiss the chains and take a ride instead of clipping. I don't know any girls who do it-- even girls who push the limit and climb until falling rather than saying 'take' just accept those falls as inevitable thing, instead of getting an active enjoyment out of it like some guys do.

Easily explained by evolutionary psychology: Males of many species are more attractive to the females when they can take risk and survive. Risky behavior by (particularly younger) males can be seen as an effort to increase reproductive value.

For example, in some species of birds the male will take risky flights over an open field where hawks could prey on him, in an attempt to show the female that he is strong enough and fast enough and give his offspring a better chance to outrun future hawk attacks. It is in the female's interest to choose a male who can survive such risky behavior so that her babies are strong too.

It isn't hard to imagine that back when men had to hunt wild beasts to survive, women developed similar criteria for judging worthy mates. Thus a man who can engage in riskier behavior and survive is more desirable, men recognize this, and jump off from the anchor.

Men on the other hand might find such behaviour in women less important than other attributes, like hip size and loyalty. Not to be glib.

Sure! A fascinating concept too. One only has to view the montages of Hillary bashing on Youtube to see this in action and it isn't subtle either. I believe also though that each group has privileges that they in turn are in denial of. The end run around this is that any individual can avoid a "group" privilege or handicap through adoption of specific values and voila--they simply deal as an individual with individual challenges--something that is much easier in our country than in other repressed ones.

Men's default thought process seems to focus mostly about what women canNOT do that they CAN do, not the other way around. If they cannot do something a woman can do, their automatic response is, "Hey, that's not fair--you're cheating/it's way easier for you because you have xyz (little fingers, massive hip flexibility, better balance, insert your favorite phrase) that I don't have!" It may be said in a friendly and joshing way, but I feel it really reflects what they're thinking and I find it weird that men may view such a situation as "unfair" but seem to view their own gender strengths as par for the course for all.

Secondly to think that when a guy says things like this in a joking sort of way that you take as meaning they think it is unfair is mistaken. Usually they are just admitting in their own self-conscious (or embarassed depending on the ego) way that the woman in question is just better at climbing. Has very little to do with being fair.

Good point! I was actually thinking of it this weekend... the hike to the crag was steep, and it was hot. We were taking my rope, so I had that extra bit of weight to carry up the trail. As I shouldered the pack and the rope bag, the guy I was with offered to carry the rope. And I gratefully said YES-- and passed the bag to him.

But as we hiked, I started thinking-- you know, that is a priviledge of being a woman. Make no mistake-- I was prepared to carry that rope, have carried my own rope many times and wasn't expecting an offer. But I did get an offer -- and accepted it gladly, happy to get rid of that extra weight on my back. However, the offer would have never been made if I were a guy... So at the end of the day, when the offer was made again, I said-- thanks, but I can carry it now. And then I wondered all the way to the car what made me say it, LOL.

Yes, but there's a difference between taking your share of the load and taking too much, being slow, and bogging everyone else down.

I guess I used to be a lot more stubborn, taking "my fair share" and my husband would always be left waiting for me to catch up. It took breaking a leg and pelvis to break my pride. If we split the load in half he'd be waiting 3x longer now and I'd be misserable.

why are they embarrassed? not by the mere existence of someone better at climbing than them. but at a WOMAN climbing better than them. case in point.

psh, gear split should be proportional to body weight for "fair."

I'm inclined to agree.

However, this rule only applies when climbing with women.

So I'm inclined to disagree.

seriously? if it was two guys and one weighed ~100 lbs and the other weighed 165, you'd still split the gear in half?

I weigh 160 and a guy I climb with a lot weighs 200. I'd bite off my fingers before I let him carry any of my gear.

Right. I'd carry my gear and he'd carry his. Men are possessive.

No, it's actually pride.

I hear ya....

...maybe you need to break your leg?

I hear ya....

...maybe you need to break your leg?

I'm inclined to agree.

However, this rule only applies when climbing with women.

So I'm inclined to disagree.

seriously? if it was two guys and one weighed ~100 lbs and the other weighed 165, you'd still split the gear in half?

edited to add: in my experience there's rarely more than ~10% weight difference between guys in the group (150 and 165, for example, or 135 and 148), so it doesn't come into play. When I'm with women of comparable size, we don't worry about it, either, but it seems like you'd just be slowing yourself down to split a big rack between people, even two guys at very disparate sizes.

Actually, it doesn't only apply to women. Think about it this way-- backpacks come size-tailored, and that is not limited to women.