Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 11:13am PT
|
Yup, in MSLA. Man, I need to hit that IzaakWalton for Nordic & metal edged skiing. I have heard lots of goodness about the zone....just need to go!! We were spoiled last year with about 4 months of Nordy things in town.
Coo, it is actually been a little windy, staying on the cooler side along with the doppler and DOT showing precip on the way!! xing fingers! YeeHaw! Stoked for the weekend!
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 11:44am PT
|
And blacks prefer lighter skin color, even among blacks. And black kids choose the lighter doll as the doll that's 'nice,' and they choose the darker doll as the doll that's 'bad.'
Just because every time we personally do the math we get the same answer, doesn't mean that it's the right answer. But it sure feels good.
150 years after slavery ended, and median white wealth is still 13 times median black wealth. See! Whites are just better at creating wealth than blacks are, and they always will be. What's the big deal - it's just science. Those PC folks who don't believe it are just fascists.
|
|
Robb
Social climber
Aloft on the wings of grace
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 11:48am PT
|
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 11:54am PT
|
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:01pm PT
|
I will say that my wife, Lisa Goldsmith, ex-nationally ranked triathlete, ex-professional bike racer (veteran of two Tour de Feminine de France, something which most Americans don't even know exists), and current women's masters (masters = over 40 years of age) Pike's Peak Ascent (mountain running) champion, agrees with you Kevin, on nearly all your points. And her politics in general are quite progressive.
I'm curious: for those of you with athletic, powerful wives who apparently agree with Kevin, did they read through his many posts about women and decide they agree (in other threads, too, such as the time he derailed a missing person thread with snide comments about how women can't navigate), or did they agree with your summary of his points? Because if the summary were phrased: "Kevin asserts that the average woman in our society is not as aggressive in her pursuit of sport as the average man," then there's nothing really to disagree with.
This is not, and has never been, a question of WHAT the situation is. It's a question of why, and whether the way we currently act is maximally empowering to all people. Kevin's posts ooze with the sentiment that both men and women should have lower expectations for women. He may respond with "quote me! quote me! I never said that!" but we all know that's what his words imply. It is hardly irrational or illogical for a human to interpret the tone of another person's words--if someone says "I love raw potatoes" while gagging and rolling their eyes, you know that indeed, they do not love raw potatoes.
I think the debate about female ability in sport is a diversion. Ultimately it doesn't matter--you should treat people with respect, and constant comments about how a subset of humans are "inherently incapable of top performance" are not mere observations, they are designed to undermine another person's confidence, independence, and enjoyment of the activity at hand.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:09pm PT
|
constant comments about how a subset of humans are "inherently incapable of top performance" are not mere observations, they are designed to undermine another person's confidence, independence, and enjoyment of the activity at hand.
This could be applied to the constant criticism against white men- the current whipping post in our society
Unfortuently its human nature to act in this manner. The herd always needs an enemy
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:15pm PT
|
This could be applied to the constant criticism against white men- the current whipping post in our society
It could indeed, but mutual mistreatment resolves nothing. Yeah, insisting that white men "cannot understand" the perspective of women or minorities is bullsh#t. Of course they can have opinions, and they can try to understand other people, and we're just running in pointless circles if their attempts are always met with disdain. But--what is accomplished by saying, "yes, what we're doing is unjust, but unjust things are also done to me?"
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:25pm PT
|
I think the debate about female ability in sport is a diversion. Ultimately it doesn't matter--you should treat people with respect, and constant comments about how a subset of humans are "inherently incapable of top performance" are not mere observations, they are designed to undermine another person's confidence, independence, and enjoyment of the activity at hand.
This.
Small minds will stall out on Diversion dr.; active minds continue on to other avenues.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:39pm PT
|
Go Cat go!
Certainly Kevin makes himself a target, but he's also extremely fluid, practical, and cogent. This is not to say I would sign off on exactly everything he says, to be sure.
You draw some important distinctions. And yes, my wife is only responding to the most basic reflections of his positions which I've offered up on the topic at large. There is no way I read all of Kevin's stuff (though I have in this particular thread, because I am loathe to post anything if I haven't done so), and Lisa wouldn't spend 3 min. on Supertopo trying to parse all of this.
You keep going with it, and I'll keep reading, until the whole thing implodes in a morass of posturing and convoluted and interlinked arguments, as things often do in this sort of arena, though not from you per se.
Watching Kevin take fire from six different sides is amusing as hell. And there's no way I could hold a consistent thought stream trying to handle the deluge of opinions that show up in these pages.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 12:57pm PT
|
eKat, I'm not sure why you think we're at odds. At the heart of my point is the hope that more people will raise their daughters like you got raised.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 01:07pm PT
|
Take away Ondra and Sharma (whose accomplishments in sport climbing continue to be out of everyone else's league) and the hardest female sends are only a letter grade less than the hardest male sends. Take away Nalle's V17 and the hardest female send in bouldering is only one V-grade less than what men have done. That's not much of a difference considering a much lower level of participation in the sport. I really don't see any innate reason why some women shouldn't be able to reach the same levels of difficulty in these disciplines as men, especially if they have a larger participation in that aspect of the sport (competing to get the hardest "sends").
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 01:15pm PT
|
I think too many people spend too much time yammerin' about stuff like this. It doesn't do anybody any good.
Probably true, I just keep hoping it will make just one person stop and think, "huh, maybe I should think about the offhanded comments I didn't realize my kids might take to heart."
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 02:06pm PT
|
This just in:
The science behind why stinky socks bug women more than men.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/well/family/why-stinky-socks-may-bother-women-more-than-men.html?emc=edit_nn_20170914&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=77568457&te=1
.................................
Hey Cat,
I often notice in conversation with women, that sometimes, when I offer a generality about differences between men and women, say, in pursuit of seeking the proper line of action in a situation where choices abound, a great percentage of the time, when the generality involves the difference between how men and women approach certain kinds of problem solving, approaches which I have observed over a broad spectrum, I get kick back. And sometimes these differences of approach are ones which were not brought up by me in the conversation, but were actually tabled by the woman in some way, and I'm merely following that line of thinking. In these situations I see kick back like I'm being overly presumptive or disingenuous.
Forgive me for not supplying discrete examples.
And the loop within a loop: now I've just made a generality … About women's responses to making generalities. So hold the line for a moment, please.
Surely we can base generalities on life experience, it's something we do all of the time, as an aspect of developing our judgment skills, and of course we need to be careful that we are not engaging in inductive reasoning, in using too broad a brush, I get that. But following trends are a basic predicate of decision-making, no?
My offhand theory says that this is the case (the kickback) because men too often use, or have used in some overarching cultural sense, these generalities to control women. Or at least there's been, in the case of women who don't like these, or seemingly any, generalities one bit, a history of experiencing that in their case. But it is something I find consistent, not with all women, but it's like a landmine that crops up every now and then in casual conversation. And I usually don't get it in conversation with men friends. It seems to be a uniquely (but not necessarily exclusive) male-female rubbing point.
Clearly the idea is to avoid laziness, especially when appreciating a person's perspective or experience, and to try to approach every person and every experience with the freshness and regard for the uniqueness of the person, place, thing, or occurrence. But I find it often gets tighter than it seems it ought to, when expressing things in this way, to women. Surely there are valid trends and valid generalities that assist us in understanding or discussing things, no?
Am I onto something here? Am I being completely naïve? Isn't this in fact much of what this thread is about?
Cheers,
Roy
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 02:14pm PT
|
If you wanna make a valid point, cat, you shouldn't have to resort to emotionally exagerrated
Your turn of phrases are so revealing.
Mansplaining at its finest. "do it this way Cat and then maybe I'll listen". . . Clear as day subtext of your meaning.
Susan
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 02:37pm PT
|
Hey Roy!
And there's no way I could hold a consistent thought stream trying to handle the deluge of opinions that show up in these pages.
It always gets wild/incomprehensible after a few pages, ha! I mostly missed the whole middle of this thread, thank goodness.
But I find it often gets tighter than it seems it ought to, when expressing things in this way, to women. Surely there are valid trends and valid generalities that assist us in understanding or discussing things, no?
Am I onto something here? Am I being completely naïve? Isn't this in fact much of what this thread is about?
As you mentioned, it's hard to answer precisely without concrete examples, but I think what you wrote ("My offhand theory says that this is the case (the kickback) because men too often use, or have used in some overarching cultural sense, these generalities to control women.") does hit the mark pretty well. I think maybe lot of women are expecting these questions to be veiled insults, not real questions?
I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but here's a pretty silly example:
I know a number of women (myself included) who get teary-eyed when they are talking in a super animated way. It is just a slightly-unexpected physiological reaction to excitement, and it happens in response to positive things as well as negative ones. Maybe we're forgetting to blink; maybe our faces got too hot; I certainly do not consider it "crying" and I pray no one notices. If a guy simply tried to inquire "why do women cry so much?" it would be easy to assume condescension where none was meant, because of the history of using phrasing like "women are so hormonal/crazy/emotional" in an attempt to quash the validity of women's opinions. Such a question sounds like mockery, not like a real inquiry. In this example, perhaps a better question would be, "Do you think there are gender differences in how emotions affect physical state? Is it socialized? Or is there just huge individual variation?"
|
|
uncrushed
Trad climber
North Vancouver
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 03:07pm PT
|
cool story bro.
Reminds of the time a couple of posts later some dude said.
>>>
I've observed other women having very little sense of direction consistently in my travels, markedly more so than males, to the point I'm surprised when I meet one that is well oriented in the wild.
<<<
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 03:39pm PT
|
Thanks, Kev, Cat for your responses.
It's coming back to me. A trigger for some women, in some conversations, are generalities, categorization, and labeling. The latter being a hot button for sure, especially when talking about people and behavior. I think the nerve that gets pricked … runs directly to the war worn cultural nerve center known as the objectification of women. And of course for women this is much more an issue than for men. Maybe it's just patently obvious that labeling is an often used tactic when leveraging the stratagem of object relations. And throughout our cultural history, that has been a one-way flow, from men to women and rarely the other way around.
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.
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?
Perhaps that's rhetorical. It seems anytime those three modalities arise in gender relations, a man best be careful what he is saying and ought to tread with care as he is composing his analysis. Let's go to the Serena Williams/John McEnroe dustup.
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.
Just thinking aloud here.
......................
And Cat, you probably should read the central portion of this thread, if for nothing else, just to see how darn complicated and multidirectional this thing got. I'm talking entertainment value here!
... I'm sure they'll be back, armed and ready for battle, before long!
|
|
uncrushed
Trad climber
North Vancouver
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
Emotional - I'm human... so to some degree? but not especially.
You're quick to try and push that though...
Seeing someone in a SAR thread use it to push their worldview, trying to it dress up with simplistic interpretations of specific, narrow studies, to imply someone who is missing for unknown reasons brought it on themselves... makes me want to join the conversation. That's it.
Anyway thanks for thanks for your amazing insights Warbler
I'll just sit here scratching my balls marvelling at your perceptiveness.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!