She summed it up, saying, “Basically, a lot of the ways in which these routes have been developed, never really took into consideration the kinds of needs that someone like me, a short, 5-foot-2 woman of color would have.”
This is probably the third article I've seen with this same sentiment. Aside from height and beta (valid concerns without a comprehensive solution), what exactly are those needs? How does race/ethnicity/religion/gender identity have an impact here? I've seen this a lot and I've yet to see someone explain it further.
CPR gets into it more in depth in the radio program than the article. In short, They dont think ethnicity or gender causes a physical barrier in climbing, but a cultural one that stops minorities from getting into or sticking with climbing.
Each one of them gave personal examples of feeling unwelcome in the climbing community. Both explicitly (by hearing about routes with names like N****r Lips, or Slavery Wall) and implicitly (not seeing anyone like themselves in the community)
They felt a need to change the explicit items, and build a space (Black Girls Boulder, That's What She Set) where people wont have to confront the implicit hurdles right off the bat and feel a bit more welcome in the community.
The actual development of the route at Staunton, definitely focuses on height. With a secondary benefit of showcasing a couple BIPOC route developers, which might make some BIPOC climbers feel a bit more welcome in the community.
Lastly, even if you think the race/ethnicity/religion/gender identity point of view is over stated. Its another view point on climbing; we don't need to agree with 100% of what everyone says to grow as a community.
She also thinks companies are racist for not manufacturing technical gear for “plus-sized”people, which makes you wonder why she’s not starting a company to produce those goods rather than seeking donations for their for-profit enterprise that assumes “brown” people can’t read Freedom of the Hills without her to translate the racism out of it for them. Aside from that, her claim to being part of the first “American American [sic]” team to “climb” Kilimanjaro is so tone deaf - a mountain, in Africa, guided by Africans every single day, that hikers of all backgrounds other than rich Americans have been flocking to summit for over a century. That’s a high horse she rides.
Exactly. Overall, and with risk of sounding like aclose-minded, self-centered, “I did it, so anyone can do it” white-guy, this latest buzz is really a bunch of marketing that at the end of the craze will not make any substantial gains, but I guaratee the upcoming “Giving Tuesday” campaigns will highlight all the warm-fuzzies you’d expect.
Yeah, I might come across as a bit of an asshole, but the problem isn’t diversity in route setting, it is diversity in demographics and exposure to climbing. Being exposed and welcomed into a community is critical to the cause. Perception of being seen as an outsider is a societal issue at large. No different then climbers being seen as “granola” types as mentioned in the article. Never considered myself a hippie or a granola-type, but I never quite felt like I didn’t belong. I’d say the average climber is more the engineer/IT/medical type then anything else these days. They can afford the gym membership and the expensive accesories and social obligations that accompany, which all gets mixed up in a giant circle-jerk that is anything that involved humans ever. We are social and we create cultural norms. It sucks, but it is rewarding for the in crowd. Whether you are at Camp 4 or Band Camp. Can we do better? Yup. Do we do so by further “monetizing” group-think? Unfortunately, that is the likely scenario. It will miss the mark.
15
u/Dotrue 22d ago
This is probably the third article I've seen with this same sentiment. Aside from height and beta (valid concerns without a comprehensive solution), what exactly are those needs? How does race/ethnicity/religion/gender identity have an impact here? I've seen this a lot and I've yet to see someone explain it further.