Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 04:28pm PT
|
And even when it is turned around, I think Kevin is right, I don't think guys care. Call me hot, a babe, or a hunk, it's just not going to hurt. No matter the context.
It's quite easy to think of a context in which guys get quite riled up by these generalizations, actually--when they're told of the existence of "male privilege," or told that their phrasing of choice is sexist. Generally (hah!) men go quite wild when they hear these generalizations.
The label/generalization could be bothersome for two reasons, then, (1) the generalized quality is negative, and the individual feels their behavior does not match that of the group, or (2) the generalized quality is described as negative, but the individual disagrees and thinks the quality in question is a positive one.
edit:
Also, Roy, to elaborate a little further on the question of labels/generalizations:
I think I've mentioned this before in one of these threads (maybe even talking to you??), but one thing I find troublesome is when there's a false dichotomy set up between things like emotion/logic or sensitivity/stability. "Sensitive" and "emotional" are so often used to demean, and a woman might react negatively to their use for this reason. A human can be rational and logical and also feel deeply.
If somebody you love hasn't told you what a dipshit you are lately, you're probably thumbing your own butthole. The truest of poetry, man
|
|
uncrushed
Trad climber
North Vancouver
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
|
Wow..." scratching my balls" wasn't clear enough for you? I'm male.
And projection? jeez dude just re-read your posts if you want to see some projection.
+5 troll points
The reason you probably don't get answers is that people want you to argue their points rather than for you to try start making points about their imagined emotional state, or whatever other delusion you come up with about a poster...
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 05:10pm PT
|
Thanks for your candor though, cat, in admitting you do it just to f*#k with guys for your amusement. Whoa, not at all. I am embarrassingly earnest; if I say I think a comment is sexist, it's because I hope that the person who said it is NOT sexist and they didn't realize that their words could cause offense.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 05:26pm PT
|
Is sexism in the mind of the receiver truly sexism if being sexist honestly isn't the intent of the accused?
The question is simpler than that. If a speaker's words are consistently misunderstood, should they not adjust their choice of words to communicate more effectively?
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 06:24pm PT
|
Cat said:
edit:
Also, Roy, to elaborate a little further on the question of labels/generalizations:
I think I've mentioned this before in one of these threads (maybe even talking to you??), but one thing I find troublesome is when there's a false dichotomy set up between things like emotion/logic or sensitivity/stability. "Sensitive" and "emotional" are so often used to demean, and a woman might react negatively to their use for this reason. A human can be rational and logical and also feel deeply.
Yes, Cat, I remember the exact conversation!
Here was my response:
Jan 23, 2017 - 06:11pm PT
No, they, the capacity for reason and the capacity for emotion, are not, or not necessarily, inversely related. That would just be too much irony for one race to handle.
I think that these kinds of issues can hinge on a synthesis of the two, namely emotional intelligence. It's what keeps relationship and social interaction on the rails.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2932616&msg=2935128#msg2935128
.......................
So just up thread, did you review my analysis of the Serena/McEnroe details? I think I probably have that about right.
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 06:34pm PT
|
Coincidence. Working on a freelance piece today about substance abuse disorders - we used to call them addictions. I'm not qualified to talk about the subject, but it seems to be very different thing for men and women.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
|
I'd like to read that, Dana.
Toss us a link when you get it finished?
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 07:00pm PT
|
Haha, Roy, awesome; I just didn't look far enough back to find that post!
I suspect that with more and more women managing technical fields and reaching the upper levels of politics, the more this will level out, at least for them, but slowly it should improve for women of all vocational stripes.
Generalities, again, but Cat, as I recall your work heavily leverages statistical analysis. Is a woman in your field, or say in upper management, or medicine, fields where compartmentalized thinking, categorization, and very mechanically ordered worldviews are routinely engaged, are these women perhaps more likely to have thicker skins in terms of their intake of a man's reliance upon generalities, categorization, and labeling when dealing with people and decision-making?
Yes, I'm in cell biology/neuroscience. The gender-balance is pretty all right in the life sciences. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I don't think that women who chose technical careers are inherently more thick-skinned or comfortable with loose generalizations, but rather that when women work in an environment where their opinions are respected, they are less likely to expect these sorts of generalizations are intended as insults (because in that environment, they really aren't). Kind of rambling here, but basically if you have an environment where men and women are sharing ideas equally, then I think everyone gets less defensive.
If Serena says, to paraphrase, "Oh gosh, for sure Murray would take me down in straight sets of 6-0", then she's just acknowledging the biological differences. And importantly it is she that makes the statement. But when McEnroe offers, "Yes, and she wouldn't rise any higher than a ranking of 700", then Serena bristles, and women at large expect him to offer an apology, and she tells him to stick to facts. At this point he is treading too far into the waters of object relations and most importantly, control, by putting her up to too much of a yardstick, in essence, putting a lid on her and keeping her down by objectifying her with that number.
I think this particular episode was bothersome because it makes it seem like the accomplishments of an amazing woman cannot be taken at face value--like there will always be this qualification tacked on. To me it came across as a sort of pointless one-upmanship. Like, if someone put up some rad 5.14d route, it would be bizarre to go on a rant about how it's actually not impressive at all because harder routes have been climbed. It's just so unnecessary.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 07:34pm PT
|
For Lisa, taking Serena at face value includes McEnroe's evaluation, most of which Serena made herself.
She doesn't really see his remarks as a cut down, just a reality. She knows how women generally stack up against men in various sports. I mean, she's a sports junkie, we follow most sports. Her claim to fame is she hasn't had more than two weeks off of training since soccer in 4th grade. Not that I don't get your perspective. Namely the "yes, but …" sort of rebuttal to a woman's sporting achievement.
But, for example, often, when she wins a race, and an uninformed person hears of this, say the guy that ran the bed and breakfast where we stayed when she recently won the Women's Masters trophy at the Pike's Peak ascent, she will just say: "I won the Masters division". And then because he's a neophyte, he'll be surprised: "for the whole event?"
To which she will casually respond, "No, of course not. For the women's category". She thinks it's just understood that women don't compete at men's levels at most sporting events. The clarification doesn't bother her, to the contrary, she thinks people should know better than to expect anything otherwise.
I have to say though, I was stoked when she beat Christian Griffith at his own hill climb event on Mount Sanitas here in Boulder!
......................................
BTW, Cat, is this you?
Jeebus, what a cutie. Er, um … I mean, awesome smile for starters!
Not flirting or anything, just saying. Always nice to put a face to a name so to speak. Happy to take it down if it's inappropriate.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 07:45pm PT
|
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I don't think that women who chose technical careers are inherently more thick-skinned or comfortable with loose generalizations, but rather that when women work in an environment where their opinions are respected, they are less likely to expect these sorts of generalizations are intended as insults (because in that environment, they really aren't). No, you understood me, Cat. This is pretty much what I would expect. But not necessarily what I always encounter. Some women friends I have tend to take things, generalizations, as some sort of quasi-intentional insult. Like they are jumpy about it.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 09:03pm PT
|
Oh yikes; that took me by surprise. That's Maria, one of my best friends, who died a year ago this Sunday.
The other woman is me. This is from some very pleasant day when we looped around cathedral to unicorn.
This is me, a couple weeks ago, after taking my SO up conness, trying to relearn how to love climbing. Because I'm quite an emotional person, actually, and it's been hard to climb this past year.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 09:17pm PT
|
Okay, still total Cutie, fab smile, bright eyes, but without close friend ... now gone, Bummer.
Looking at the other photos of some terrific Sierra targets. Fabulous!
Mt Goode, Pigeon Spire (Bugs), and etc. love it! You rock, as they say.
And this one totally cracks me up, CAT ears and all:
How did you lose Maria? If I might ask. Climbing? If so, that's more than rough ... Devastating no matter how it happens, and so young...
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 09:23pm PT
|
Have been parsing the Serena thing more closely with Lisa over the past half hour. Not that simple actually. Though she did agree with my analysis that putting a number or a metric to Serena's standing, one which is only conjecture, isn't so tactful.
Training (3-2-1 mile repeats at 14K) on Pike's Peak, Lisa still kicking ass and taking names at age 52!
Cover girl, 10 years ago:
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 10:02pm PT
|
So, taking my wife Lisa's perspective a little further.
She thinks it should be obvious to most, but understands it's not the case for all, that men and women don't compete at the same level. And just the same, Kevin, to your ageism point, when she wins a race in her age group, she often has to correct that fact, and she certainly doesn't see it as any sort of slight, and in fact, like you, wants obbjective reality to be correctly portrayed.
If she gets second place at a marathon in the Masters, that's way different than second place in women's overall, and she makes sure that that is noted.
First-place Masters women at Pikes Peak, 13+ miles and 7800+ vertical feet, in 3 hours 11 minutes, nets her 11th place overall with the women. She wants that known.
She gets your point that McEnroe just pulled that number in an offhand way, and doesn't think he should be excoriated for it.
So I check her on rockclimbing. There is no handicap for age or gender. Men and women climb the same climbs with the same ratings. She says she strives to take ego out of it. If someone posits that men and women are hitting the same marks in climbing, and notes that a woman just recently hit the 5.15a benchmark and you correct that, noting that Sharma hit that some decade or two back, she thinks that's fine. So, speaking objectively about records and about comparing men and women, she's backing you up, Kevin. As long as it's not done to belittle, so perhaps to Cat 's point, tone matters.
The reason I trot out Lisa's opinions is because she's a woman who competes. So to me, that's a stronger perspective to offer here on this topic. I'm just some guy with an opinion and I don't necessarily care to defend my opinions, because I tend to recognize that they change as I take in new information, and I'm not particularly argumentative. I'm into collusive experiences/engagements and understanding the nuances and the nature of our connections and our strivings.
Frankly, I just want to go climb Goddamn rocks! In the mountains, preferably. (pardon my French, but sometimes it's the right language, pour moi).
But I also dig penetrating analysis. Especially if it helps people to get along.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 10:26pm PT
|
Kunlun said:
Roy, this was the accident involving Maria :-(
Well, I walked ass backwards into that one, didn't I. My sincere condolences, Cat.
This elegant & eloquent photograph is just too many kinds of poetry. Brings tears to my eyes.
Maria ...
Photo: RP3
PhD med student studying bacteriophage. Crap. Loved the mountains and was competent and artful in her movement within them. I don't know if it helps, Cat, but you know, I'm 57. I've had my fun. Plenty. If I could trade places with her for you, I would do it. I mean that.
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2017 - 12:23am PT
|
TW wrote: Is it possible that the words were actually not sexist along with the person, but you took offense because you read sexism into them, like your bro uncrushed does?
no. [as long as we are not speaking in generalities, but are rather speaking specifically about some of your words on this board, TW.]
as you and some of your defenders seem not to understand, the following, or something similar, is the generally/collectively held definition of sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
as a bunch of people seem to view your statements through either rose coloured glasses and/or with a selective memory here’s a little bit of copy/pasta just from prior statements… ie. i’m assuming there is more, and so i would hope that those reporting the supposedly TW agreeing thoughts of their female significant others will make sure that they read verbatim some of the following TW quotes and then report back so we can make sure that we are getting a full and honest telling of their significant others, in response to TW, opinions:
I love climbing with women, not because they climb as hard as men, but because they're a different kind of fun to be out with - less competitive, generally more appreciative and enthusiastic about natural beauty, and dare I say it - more naturally beautiful to watch making the moves.
Women should, and do, revel in the fact that they don't do the stupid, dangerous sh#t men do.
And women have strengths that men will never have - they're just not as obvious. Mens' strengths are mostly overt, females' - not so much.
If these feminist women would accept their biological limitations in athletics like most of their sisters do, their enjoyment of the activity, and their confidence level wouldn't be tainted by the fact they'll never consistently outdo the best men.
because let’s be clear, while the greater cultural conversation [as Tarbuster has pointed out] may involve some radicals who deny there are average differences between the sexes, despite TW’s best efforts to control the words of those who are debating with him, that has not been the issue debated by anybody i’ve seen on this board. if i’m wrong please copy/pasta where someone on this board has denied any of the following:
a. healthy average adult males have a literal order of magnitude higher amount of testosterone [one reference i just looked at put 19+ males at 240-950 ng/dL of testosterone and 19+ females at 20-75 ng/dL] flowing in their blood stream.
b. testosterone, as anyone paying any attention to professional sports and the questions of how to or not to deal with synthetic steroids must know, does among other things enhance muscle growth.
c. ergo [and has historically been the case], those sports and endeavours having a large pool of persuants and highly dependent on pure strength, are and will in all likelihood continue to have at the most elite levels, males to one degree or another outperforming females. this is true in everything from power lifting to tennis. climbing is somewhat more arguable due to the strength to weight issue, but historically it is true that males have almost always led the charge and there is reason to believe that this is quite likely due not just to cultural constructs, but is also in part due to foundational differences between the sexes.
ie. if your/TW’s intent is to debate the third wave feminazis, the heforshes and whatever other derogatory term you’ve got for those that debate with you, who believe that there are no average sex differences, you should find another board or bar where people are actually making those arguments.
at least me, myself, and i, am disagreeing with your category based statements and sentiments.
not, your when cornered, factually stated and innocuous truths that at the most elite levels of strength based competition, males as a rule outperform females.
as an aside and to tie up a loose end: TW, you should also be honest in your accusations. you’ve said a couple times that i’ve used ad hominem attacks against you, when the only thing i can see that i’ve done remotely close to an ad hominem, was to call you a woman... except the context was my using a reductio ad absurdum logical approach to your own verbiage: [1. men climb harder than women + 2. there are women who climb harder than The Warbler = 3. The Warbler must be a woman]. in general i’ve attempted to give you cogent arguments in response to your arguments and don’t believe i have attacked you as you claim… [i can however be snarky... :) ]
now… while i appreciate your [TW’s] willingness to post a selfie and open yourself [himself] up to a good ole fashion and at least in my case, intended in good humour roasting [i truly do think you are in the greek god territory :) ]… some of this ain’t funny.
that’s because conscious and not so conscious sexism [stereotyped and/or category based thinking] is, imo, at the root of a society where the following is true:
 every major and minor city has to have women’s shelters whose locations are often secret, and whose entrances are often protected with bullet proof glass and bollards. [and so that we are clear, there are also sometimes men’s shelters… afaik, they are generally not nearly as needed nor as used]
even if the numbers are to some degree exaggerated by methodological issues [and i don’t disagree that there are sometimes methodological issues with some of the numbers generally bandied about] still far too many women are raped and sexually and physically abused during their lifetime [also to be clear, far too many males are as well… but the numbers no matter how you count them, are not equal when it comes to in general sexual and physical violence]
now i get that the above is heavy and might seem out of place and i get a bunch of you probably know TW in real life and know that he’s a good guy. so that we keep this conversation in context, i have no doubt that i’d be happy to share a beer with him. as we both build shIte for at least some of our livings, we’d probably have much to discuss. and to throw a bone i’d even agree with him, that females, as a general rule and for physiological average reasons, will never make up even anywhere close to 50% of the brute force based trades [say roofing, cribbing, framing, etc.]
that doesn’t change the danger in the words that he sometimes uses, no matter how benign he tries to make them when he gets cornered.
because regardless of whether that is his intent or not, his words are, at times, words of control. they, intentionally or not, define what women [and men], as categories are and what they are and are not capable of.
to give one very small example, here’s the problem:
purely by the numbers, margo hayes [a female] redpoint sport climbs equally well and in the vast majority of cases far better than, approximately 3.7 billion [that’s 3 700 000 000] males.
also purely by the numbers, there are approximately one to two dozen [ie. 12-24] males who have redpoint sport climbed a letter grade harder than margo hayes [a female]. and exactly two [2] males that have redpoint sport climbed two or more letter grades harder.
but by TW’s logic this can, until he is cornered for a second, be summed:
men redpoint sport climb harder than women.
[not the average man climbs harder than the average woman, or even the most elite men currently climb slightly harder than the most elite women, but rather simply men climb harder than women]
do some of you seriously not see the insidious problem with verbiage like the above?
and how it is the definition of sexism in its intentional or unintentional stereotyping and categorization?
and most importantly, how it underpins and contributes to a societal foundation of constraints put on female potential?
because for those of you dismissing this as pc fascism…
first, my assumption is that you are not using fascism with any kind of dictionary like definition or historical accuracy, but are rather just using it pejoratively as a synonym for “control”.
assuming the above is correct, let’s break this down.
please identify who on this board is advocating for control?
i know i’m not, and i haven’t seen anybody on this board advocate for it either. i personally believe that letting a little sunshine onto even some potential darkness is only possible if we let people speak honestly and openly. even if they are sometimes hurtful and/or mistaken in their words…
how is this fascism?
hint: it’s not. [sorry i had to allow myself one bit o’ snark]
finally, thanks for taking the time to read this tome. i’ll leave with one more TW question: Is sexism in the mind of the receiver truly sexism if being sexist honestly isn't the intent of the accused?
short answer: yes.
longer answer: it’s almost requisite. a racist, rarely believes they are racist, and doesn’t in general “intend” to be racist. they are just trying to communicate “facts”. and the problem isn’t even that their facts are even necessarily mistaken. the issue most often is how they employ them.
and so they say true things like:
in 2009, the median weekly wage for african americans was about 65% of white workers.
and then follow them up with the not so true in implication:
they should just accept who they are.
wait a second… where have i heard words like that around here?
seriously: peace.
[and sorry about your friend cat t... as tarbusier alludes to, given the context, that picture of her jumping into the lake is absolutely hauntingly beautiful]
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2017 - 09:13am PT
|
Thanks eKat, Roy, frostback. This past year I've felt more like an angrily self-indulgent grief-tornado than a human at times. I had lost (young) family and not-super-close friends before, and thought I understood sadness, but I guess nothing really prepares you for the chasm that opens up when you lose someone with whom you'd mutually told every silly detail about your life.
Maria was a very driven and competitive person, and one of my favorite thing about her was that, when our perspectives differed (as they often did) we'd get into hours-long, probing conversations trying to understand each other, which usually ended in what we thought were deep revelations about ourselves and human nature. :)
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2017 - 10:52am PT
|
I read Nah000's tome also, of course, as I read all of this stuff once I get involved.
Just had an in-depth conversation with Lynnie (Hill) concerning the topic at hand. I'll see if I can put something together that accurately reflects her perspectives.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!