Women and development

Posted on 19. Apr, 2012 by B3 in News

One topic I have been opinionated about is the lack of development from women, and I wanted to touch on this a bit more, since I have received a number of emails from friends about it and I think it is a really interesting conversation.

I frequently advocate that the development of new climbs is crucial to our sport. Not only does it add to the pool of new rock, new moves, and new areas where climbing can happen, it changes our standards of what is good and bad, etc. This increase in climbing “information” is how the sport progresses. I would advocate for progression on the grounds that it opposes stagnation, and encourages productivity and creativity in a field which I have great interest, and I want to touch on several reasons why there is a gap between the number of men who develop new climbs and the number of women.

First of all, I would like to see areas developed by women simply because I think women would go about the process in a different way, and it would be interesting to see the differences. The lines they picked, the trails they built, the guidebooks they wrote, etc. It’s clear that in art, or architecture, for example, it is often difficult to infer whether or not a man or women created a work, and the same may hold true for climbing. However, there are sometimes very obvious and demonstrable splits in thinking and I would interested in how that played out. I think that women developing climbing is a new way in which climbing could progress and it is a way that hasn’t been explored with the intensity and depth with which men have explored it. An unfilled niche, if you will, the proverbial open space in Darwin’s dirt floor, awaiting the wooden wedge.

Secondly, I’d like to revisit why it is that women don’t do more developing, and to touch on some new ideas about why that is. If there are women out there developing, routes or boulders, I would love to hear about it, and in no way am I saying that women don’t or haven’t developed. They do, but there seems to be a demonstrable gap in their contributions when compared to men.

There are three main issues that are important to discuss in this regard. Firstly, there is a social expectation about how men and women approach climbing. For the men, the expectation is that they should be developing new climbing, and for many of the best and most well-known male climbers, that is what they spend their time doing. Men who don’t develop have been derogatorily referred to as “repeaters”, mostly by other men. It would be hard to argue that Fred Nicole, Dave Graham, Chris Sharma, Daniel Woods, etc don’t earn much of their recognition from the new climbs they have established. I don’t, however, see much evidence to suggest that that same expectation exists for the top women climbers today. Lynn Hill stands out as one woman who has really pushed the boundaries for everyone (with strong repeats and outstanding FAs), and she is one of the most well-respected climbers in the short history of our sport. Why is it that this gap in societal expectation exists? Or does it even exist? If it does exist, where does it come from? Does the expectation follow what happens, or does what happens follow the expectation? Are men (because they are the majority in our sport) fostering this gap, by “oppressing” women?

A second argument is that women are paid less and therefore have much less time to devote to developing. It certainly seems like more men do make more money in the climbing industry, based on my knowledge of professional climbers’ salaries. I think everyone should be paid for their value, and it’s surprising that companies don’t find more value in investing in women. I might then agree that lack of pay (given some statistical analysis on professional climbers salaries) gives women less time to climb, but the time issue itself is nonsense. There are countless examples of men who work full time and still head out the weekend to put up new problems.
Conversely, some climbers feel that the only reason men dominate the world of developing is that they feel the need to dominate, and leave a mark, literally and figuratively, and that need doesn’t exist in women. I develop because I enjoying contributing to a community that has done much for me, I like seeing new places and having the opportunity to interprate those places with in my own way, and I enjoy being first (it would be ridiculous and dishonest for me to not acknowledge that that is a motivating factor, it’s just not the only one). Are these feelings “Jamie” feelings or “man” feelings? Do women not have those same feelings? If women climbers were paid more, would they be out developing more? Is time, or money, the deciding factor as to whether or not new climbs get put up, by anyone, male or female?

Finally, perhaps it is simply the lack of relative female participation in the sport. Unfortunately there are no statistics that I am aware of out there (although it seems quite possible that the marketing divisions of any number of climbing related companies would have such information) that demonstrate that there are more men participating in the sport than women, but that certainly seems to be the case to a casual observer. Men are leading in the development of new climbing, however, it is also easy to say that there are thousands of male climbers who make no effort whatsoever to develop anything. There doesn’t seem to be anything to suggest that of the thousands of male climbers who don’t develop new climbs, there is something about them being a male that doesn’t encourage them to do FAs. Why would this be any different in women? If more women climbed, would we then see more women developers? It’s hard to imagine we wouldn’t.

This is an extremely complex issue and I feel this post barely scratches the surface of all the thoughts and ideas I have on this subject. However, I’ve left things somewhat ambiguous (as I often have in the past) in hopes to encourage and generate discussion. Discussion not just on this site, but at the crag or the gym, at dinner after climbing, or just over drinks with climber friends. I’m not sure the answer to many of these questions exists with our current knowledge of science, but it is interesting as always to think about. As always, I encourage your feedback, particularly on a subject matter as complex as this! Enjoy!

46 Responses to “Women and development”

Todd

19. Apr, 2012

I think you miss one big reason for it as well. The number 1 reason I develop is because I’ve climbed everything else locally that has been developed(that I know of). I think this is a big driver and naturally explains part of the difference in development. More males are at the edge of what has been done in their local areas, while there are far fewer women in this situation.
B3

19. Apr, 2012

Todd, that’s a good point and my list wasn’t intended to include everything, thanks for sharing. I think I didn’t include it because I know a number of people here in Colorado who don’t climb V10 but still get out all the time and scrub new boulders. But I agree, in areas where the strongest climbers have done everything, developing is a motivating factor for those who want to keep climbing.
big poppa chosscrush

19. Apr, 2012

study why many species of male birds and fish are more brightly colored.

also study how in pack animals, young juveniles are forced out of the pack by dominants to explore the wild and develop their own pack.

determine the gender bias in postmortem cryogenic freezing and doomsday prepping.

these studies are as likely to lead to an answer as any else.

until the supernova.
jf

19. Apr, 2012

Jamie, it’s a great topic and, as usual, you do a great job of riding the line of ‘sufficiently provocative.’

At my super secret under the radar mega project crag, men are responsible for the majority of the prep work – the vision to see lines, trail building, cleaning, first ascents. However, both my and my main partner’s girlfriends participate in the entire process and are incredibly supportive and encouraging.

Maybe women not bagging FAs is a bigger part of a gender role discussion? Some women feel a need to support a man in what he does, and I realize that sounds incredibly sexist, but I don’t mean it as my personal philosophy and I’m just offering it as one possible biological explanation.

I know my girlfriend has been crucial in her support of my FAs at that area – driving long distances with me, schlepping pads and crowbars and brushes and rocks and logs, spotting me, encouraging me.

Also, occasionally one of the girls finds a line she really likes, cleans it, and the male developers consciously respect their actions and let them get the first ascent – same as we would do for each other if there was a line we were really psyched on. Honestly, none of my own FAs have ever made me as psyched as seeing my girlfriend finally climb a project she cleaned months before and worked on over many weekends. I encourage her every time we’re there to find a similar project, and I can’t wait until she does!

I think at the end of the day, developing is just fucking hard work. Man, woman, whatever, it takes a community to do it. It’s unfair that one person’s name goes in the guidebook. I really like the “Opened by, first ascent by” methodology, but even that is a pale descriptor of a complex set of events necessary for new hard problems to be found, cleaned, made accessible, and eventually climbed. Perhaps as climbing gains traction we will see new ways people can be given credit for their contribution to a community, with gender a misleading, forgotten label.
Mason

19. Apr, 2012

I’ve noticed recently, since this was brought up the first time, that even at the gym male climbers at a certain point start making up there own problems. I’ve seen female climbers try the problems made by other male climbers but I’ve never seen a group of women stand around discussing which hold to go to and from where. Is this something you’ve noticed at all in your gyms there? Maybe it is just a guy thing? Simple as that.
B3

20. Apr, 2012

Interesting thoughts Tom, thanks for sharing. Do you think Lynn Hill was “desexualized” for her climbing? I recall her saying famously when she freed the Nose “it goes, boys!” Perhaps she needed to make the gender issue and issue because of this expectation that we both are speaking about.
B3

20. Apr, 2012

I didn’t say you did say that. I just asked if you thought she was.
me

20. Apr, 2012

why do i check this sit even every blue moon now??
SeanP

20. Apr, 2012

I think it’s a combination of the factors listed, but mostly because of the number of women climbing. Since there are a fraction of women climbing compared to men, I think it takes longer for women to reach milestones that men reach fairly quickly. For example, it may take a motivated male a few months to find people in the gym to climb with outside, but a female may take longer to become motivated enough to seek climbing partners because the climbing population is so skewed.

This effect is exaggerated as the milestones become more difficult or obscure because the number of women willing and able to achieve them drops significantly. Not only does a woman have to be motivated to get on real rock, she also has to be willing to climb with a bunch of guys because that is almost always her only option.

So as the climbing population’s gender imbalance becomes more neutral, we will see more women climbing hard and developing than we are seeing now.
B3

20. Apr, 2012

@me I’m curious as to you your complaint. Do you care to elaborate? This is the second time you’ve commented. The first time you wrote “this site has gone to hell” nothing is going to change, but I am curious as to your reasons. Thanks.
Seth Robinson

20. Apr, 2012

While the greatest contributing factor surely is the comparative number of women in the sport compared to men, there may also be other innate reasons for this “phenomenon”. I disagree with the assumption that it takes females longer to progress to higher levels than men. Too many, current, examples abound of females climbing near the pinnacle of difficulty (10 yr old v13, Dufraisse 14d, Josune/Liv 14c ten yrs ago, etc), for that to be accurate.
An evolutionary biologist I am not, but it seems there may be innate responses to this type of activity that differ among the two sexes. The drive to explore new areas, develop new problems, make our mark on the terrain, so to speak. There is just a significant lack of that type of activity on the female side. Of course, there are always exceptions, and all of us know a couple females who do engage in this activity but the numbers are so small it is negligible. Bouldering may have a comparatively higher number of female pioneers, than roped climbing for example. I can think of only two that get out there and establish routes, or at least, used to. Most of these were trad routes as well, which definitely involve way less non-climbing labor than developing sport routes.
Nonetheless, a great topic, and one that hopefully gains more attention mainstream (R&I, Climbing, DPM, etc.). I, for one, am going to bring up this topic with a few females climbing today to see their response. I look forward to reporting back to this lopsided, male dominated, forum post.
Davin

20. Apr, 2012

I went into the deepest part of my brain to rouse a memory or two of women developers. Liz Hajek is all I could really come up with in the category of actual development (searching, cleaning, and completing worthwhile lines). She contributed a good number of quality lines in Wyoming, Minnesota, and surely other places. Often in the depths of winter when it was too cold for the boys.

Why she developed new boulders? “Because they are there”…perhaps? I don’t actually know why I do it. But it is an enjoyable activity and one to make a life long pursuit of no matter the motivation. I would be interested to hear from a woman developer on the reason(s) it is done. Maybe there is something more in depth, more complete than simply because they are there and it is enjoyable?
Michael Rathke

21. Apr, 2012

Rough Ratio of girls climbing vs guys climbing in GL 1/10

Rough Ratio of strong females vs strong dudes in GL 1/20

Rough Ratio of girls developing vs guys developing in GL 0/3

Conclusion, there is not enough girls climbing in GL to say that they dont develope enough because there is not many guys developing either.

Jesus is the way, the truth, & the life
B3

21. Apr, 2012

Great comment Davin, thanks for sharing!
cardboard_dog

21. Apr, 2012

@ Seth Robinson .. when you said “Bouldering may have a comparatively higher number of female pioneers, than roped climbing for example.” was that speculative? because I feel like there have been, over the last 30 yrs, far more pioneering female route climbers. I mean, Lynn Hill, Bonnie Pruden, Steph Davis, and Beth Rodden come to mind immediately as route developers and first ascensionists. ? And they’re just the top of the list. It’s a long list.
cardboard_dog

21. Apr, 2012

actually, Bonnie Prudden shouldn’t be included in that “last 30 yrs” category, but certainly she was a pioneer.
Seth Robinson

22. Apr, 2012

@ cardboard dog, yes my comment may be a bit speculative perhaps, but I’m guessing there are more girls scrubbing lichen off new boulders than drilling holes and hammering off choss for sport routes. My point being, there are so few in either category it is negligible, and most of those that do, turn up in the trad climbing genre. Also, I am referring really to the last 10-15 years of the sport (coinciding with the rapid growth of bouldering as its own “sport”).
Sex! | Gear Whores

22. Apr, 2012

[...] Women and Route Development [...]
Carlos A

23. Apr, 2012

There was a post that said “maybe it is just a guy thing.” As simple as that is stated, it seems to be the most logical answer. I am by no means an expert on human psychology so I decided to cheat and quote the experts rather than ramble my way through a poor explanation. Enjoy!

“The male brain is characterized by systemizing tendencies (to use Baron-Cohen’s term) and mechanistic thinking (to use Crespi and Badcock’s term). “Systemizing” is the drive to analyze, explore, and construct a system. The systemizer intuitively figures out how things work, or extracts the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system. The purpose of this is to understand and predict the system, or to invent a new one.

In contrast, the female brain is characterized by empathizing tendencies (to use Baron-Cohen’s term) or mentalistic thinking (to use Crespi and Badcock’s term). “Empathizing” is the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to them with an appropriate emotion. Empathizing occurs when we feel an appropriate emotional reaction in response to the other person’s emotions. The purpose of this is to understand another person, to predict his or her behavior, and to connect or resonate with him or her emotionally.

The difference between “mechanism” and “mentalism” is similar to the difference between “systemizing” and “empathizing.” In short, mechanism is about figuring things out (folk physics); mentalism is about understanding people (folk psychology).

There are many individual exceptions to any empirical generalization, but exceptions do not invalidate generalizations. For example, there are many women who are taller than the average man, and there are many men who are shorter than the average woman. But the generalization “Men are on average taller than women” is still valid. Similarly, not all men have a strong male brain, and not all women have a strong female brain, but there are average differences between men and women, and men are far more likely to have the male brain and women are far more likely to have the female brain.

These sex differences emerged during the course of human evolution because men and women often faced different selection pressures. Men have come to acquire systemizing and mechanistic skills because such skills were necessary for inventing and making tools and weapons. At the same time, low empathizing ability was helpful for men in tolerating solitude during long hunting and tracking trips, and for committing acts of interpersonal violence and aggression necessary for male competition. (It is very difficult to kill other people if you strongly feel for them.) Similarly, women have come to acquire empathizing and mentalistic skills because they facilitate various aspects of mothering, such as anticipating and understanding the needs of infants who cannot yet talk, or making friends and allies in new environments, in which ancestral women found themselves upon marriage. (In the ancestral environment, women left their natal group and married into a neighboring group upon puberty, a practice necessary to avoid inbreeding.)”

Published on March 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

SO…. long story short men and women in general have different interests. Not to say there won’t be exceptions, but men and women are different. We will never fully understand the differences are why they are there, but @big poppa chosscrush gives you a good idea on where to start learning.

“Maybe it is just a guy thing?”

YES, it is.

Cheers,
Carlos
cardboard_dog

24. Apr, 2012

@ Seth .. I can agree to that, however, I don’t think the number is negligible to woman climbers .. only to our sport as a whole. because there are so many more male climbers than female climbers. However, i have to reiterate the idea of Bonnie Prudden and Lynn Hill as pioneers of the sport. Not just as woman pioneers, but pioneers period. Bonnie Prudden has over 30 FA’s in the Gunks to her credit, and she was climbing at a time when there were very few woman climbers period. Let alone woman who beat out men for the FA of extremely coveted lines. Her most famous FA is Bonnie’s roof, which clocks in at 5.9 and she led that, ground up, at a time when 5.9 was the top of the YDS. And the same goes for Lynn Hill. She has several FA’s in the Gunks, both boulder problems and routes, including what was one of the first, hey maybe even THE first, V10′s in the Gunks. And even though her husband a the time Russ Raffa, has more Gunks FA’s to his credit, Lynn has FA’s all over including Hueco Tanks, Cuba, and her most famous the Nose. These woman were reall pioneers, and not just because they were woman. The number of woman in climbing today who are doing what they did is certainly negligible, if not almost non existant. Katie Brown has several hard FA’s to her credit .. so does Liv Sansos, Bobbi Bensman, etc. but alot of these FA’s were projects that had already been bolted.

But to get back to the original point, I don’t know of one female in this area who has scrubbed and sent new boulder problems. But thats just the perspective of one boulderer from one area ..
Jeff

24. Apr, 2012

I think it is worth noting that (unless I’m mistaken) every response to this post has been from a male climber…

jb
Slabdyno

24. Apr, 2012

Women are too lazy to develop anything but knockers. And even those can be bought while shopping! They need to learn to fold laundry and clean dishes before venturing out alone in the mountains. Isn’t this common knowledge?
B3

24. Apr, 2012

If there are few women who develop there seem to be fewer who read this blog.
Narc

24. Apr, 2012

I think female climbing blog commenters (at least on blogs run by males) are even more rare than women developers
robin

24. Apr, 2012

@B3
You should probably write another post it. I think it would be important for the progression of the sport to see more comments from women on your blog.
B3

24. Apr, 2012

Very funny robin.
cardboard_dog

24. Apr, 2012

there’s also this side to the argument .. Climbing is just a predominantly male sport. 80% of the woman you see at the crag are there because their boyfriends are climbers. They are the female equivalent of the poor bro’s who are forced to stay home and watch Grey’s Anatomy and Twilight movies. Occasionally, you find a man who actually likes Grey’s Anatomy. And occasionally you find a woman who actually likes rock climbing.

Why aren’t there more black people playing golf? Why aren’t there more female hockey players? Why aren’t more less lonely, straight men playing laser tag, or paint ball? who knows.
Jabroni

26. Apr, 2012

I kind of agree with Robin. This kind of armchair analysis doesn’t contribute much to knowledge or change. If you want women to develop more boulders, all you can do is encourage them. If they choose not to, then enjoy the glory yourself.

There’s a festival held every Easter over here to encourage finding and developing boulders in a (massive) boulder field on private property – the only time in the year when this area is open. Quite a few women came along last time. The FAs predominately seem to have gone to men however (noting I haven’t done a statistical analysis).
MarkC

27. Apr, 2012

Well, with a surge of awesome female repeats of sport climbs recently, I can only assume that the gals are doing what most guys are doing and testing their mettle against what other, stronger (yes, mainly male) climbers have set up for us. The ones in the limelight (or even simply feel accomplished) are the ones that climb the hardest climbs and the drive to feel accomplished is far more focused on hard sends than it is hard (or any) FA’s at the moment. That is all speculation, of course, but the notion of being an accomplished climber (male or female, v5 or v15) is not focused on developing. I’m personally glad that so many people have found personal joy in developing new routes and boulders, but for most of us the major test is to see if we can do what other hardpersons have been able to do before us, and the personal test is the reason why I see most people climb. I know that idea doesn’t explain any genetic or ideological difference between male and female climbers but it does address the reason I think most people climb. The small percentage of climbers that develop new climbs are motivated by a completely different set of factors (and once again, thank you all!), and given the offset ratio of male and female climbers, it only makes sense that an even smaller fraction of female climbers would feel the same impulses to develop.
MarkC

27. Apr, 2012

And, thanks for the interesting and thought provoking conversations
Slabdyno

27. Apr, 2012

That made about as much sense as me folding the laundry
kevin

27. Apr, 2012

Dudes like to get stoned and get lost in the woods, lost in the hood, what have you. Show me an instant of developers not running around half baked, just show me.
Mike B

28. Apr, 2012

First @ Kevin ^^^
One instance of developers that don’t get stoned and lost in the woods. All of and I mean all, of the Idaho climbers that consistently develop, promote and send new lines in new areas are not stoned. I know that is probably a rarity but it does actually happen.
@ the rest of the commenters:
Here is the reason that I think that female climbers don’t do as much developing. it has to do with more than just how hard you climb, or your motivations. I would have to agree with Jabroni on this one. If you want to find out why female climbers don’t do more developing, just ask them. I think that might be a lot more informative than analyzing things via web posts. I know that you, as I am, are in school and don’t have time to do this and that is completely besides the point. The reason that I feel that female climbers don’t develop as much is the same reason as I did not start developing boulders and routes when I started climbing. I was not strong enough to exhaust the areas where there were already boulders and routes that were established that would challenge me without having to branch out and find my own things to clean and climb.

The physiological differences between males and females is one HUGE thing that separates us in climbing. I know female climbers that are much stronger than the average male, Angela Payne, Alex Puccio, Jill Church, Alex Johnson, Anna Stohr, the list goes on. But in the same sense, for all of the strongest female climbers, there are many more male climbers that are as strong and stronger. In general, not in a climbing sense, the male physique is stronger than the female. Apply that to climbing. Extrapolate that across the difficulty realm and you have the fact that there are more male climbers that are pushing the upper limits of grades, therefore there is a necessity to find, clean and climb new lines in search of the next Island, Story of Two Worlds, Terremer or Warpath. Thinking that female climbers do not want to develop areas is false. There are plenty of female climbers that are contributing to new areas, it may just be that the problems or routes that they are opening are not newsworthy. For example there is an area in Idaho (one that you should visit it blows Lincoln Lake out of the water) that Tammy McClure has been instrumental in developing. She hiked into this area in snowshoes with Mike last spring with a load of gear to stash, and spent all her free time scrubbing and sending fresh problems.

I also think that it is funny that here are a bunch of dudes talking about why women don’t develop more. It runs parallel with the articles in Cosmopolitan of the likes “How to Please your Man in Bed”–written by Some Lady.

Kind of defeats the purpose. I would love to poll female climbers about the topic, and collaborate with you about the results. By the way, please respond to the Fb message I sent you, I need some advice about a guidebook!
slabdyno

29. Apr, 2012

i think it comes down to laziness. these sluts aren’t going to fold the laundry? then what makes you think they’re going to clean the lichen off the next mega proj for you? women.
SeanP

30. Apr, 2012

To Seth Robinson: I was talking about the time it takes a novice male vs. a novice female to hit these climbing milestones (going from the gym to outdoors, climbing harder grades, and developing new problems). The examples of strong women climbers you listed are exceptions and not the rule.

To greater illustrate my point using 8a (it’s the only data we’ve got) there are around 20 ladies that have climbed V10 in the past year. Compare that to 500 men that have done the same and you get a ratio of about 1 strong woman to every 25 strong men. I have no data on the gender ratio of the climbing population, but I would guess it is less skewed than 25 to 1. I realize this isn’t the most sound analysis, but it is better than anecdotal evidence and it does show a barrier to entry for the more obscure climbing accomplishments.

With more female climbers in the population, there will be more women climbing hard and (eventually) more that explore development. The desire to explore may be an inherent male trait, but that doesn’t mean that all of the exploring will be male driven. We need a gender equal population of climbers to know how much that desire really affects men vs. women.
Eric

02. May, 2012

Looks like Therese Johansen is putting up some harder stuff in Norway…
http://therese-johansen.blogspot.com/2012/05/icebreakerproject-sendt-and-done.html
Angelique

07. May, 2012

Hi I’m a female climber from the netherlands and I find this an very interesting topic!!
I’m going to read further on this,bud for now I do have to agree with SeanP answer on 20 April.
He talked about women finding it harder to have climbing buddy’s in the gym.
If I take my own situation this couldn’t be more true,like this week…no climbing buddy ready to climb until (maby) sunday. Frustration for me today because I had to stay home.And I dind’t feel like approaching the guys.
Besides that is it,for us dutch climbers,the we-don’t-have-any-rocks factor ofcourse haha….

Greetings Angie
News & Notes – 5/9/2012 | Climbing Narcissist

09. May, 2012

[...] Interesting discussion at B3Bouldering about women and the development of new climbing areas. [...]
strangehappens

09. May, 2012

I can barely figure out how to get out of the kitchen let alone place a bolt or hold a piece of machinery in this big white mans world.

Don’t get me started on my concern of overdeveloping my shoulders in my search for a suitable mate to bring home to my family.

But…hell if I’m going to be the 174th person to send the warmup and NOT call it a FFemaleA on my 8a scorecard because it’s obviously more noteworthy when lugging a vagina up the wall.

Slabdyno – I think you’re my soul mate?
Laura

10. May, 2012

I recently completed my senior project studying the motivations, lifestyle and demographics of professional climbers in the United States. 36 professional climbers participated in my study, of those, 23 were male (64%) and 13 were female (36%). Two of the motivating factors I looked at that seem relevant to this discussion were: “progressing the sport” and “getting first ascents.” Progressing the sport motivated 69% of women and 61% of men (pretty similar). Getting first ascents was a motivating factor for 38% of women, compared to 61% of men (pretty different, although not statistically significant for the sample size). It seems to me that, for many men, “progressing the sport” often becomes synonymous with “getting first ascents.” Perhaps this is not the case for women and the reason they aren’t out getting FAs is because they are focusing their time and energy on progressing the sport in different ways.

Suppose women did go out and develop tons of climbs, but suppose none of those climbs were “pushing the limits” difficulty-wise. Would these contributions be duly noted/would the gap between male and female development be considered bridged, or would we be having a discussion about why women don’t develop “hard” climbs? Thoughts?
B3

10. May, 2012

Laura, thanks so much for you comment! It’s great to have some statistical data, even if the sample size is small. I think if women did go out and do FAs, even if they weren’t V15, they would still be considered notable contributions. I think most of the reason Fred Nicole is known for his huge contribution in Hueco is for the easier problems. Certainly it helps that he has done some of the hardest ones there, but I think if a woman were developing V12s and V13s, that would command a similar amount of respect as Fred garners, not unlike Lynn Hill.
Slabdyno

23. May, 2012

Laura
You seem smart, if you’re hot and make lots of money, I think you could be my soulmate. We can pay someone to fold.
Michael Rathke

24. May, 2012

Hey Slabdyno, Coarse joking is not cool. you have a wife and kids so you really shouldnt be saying things like that.
Will

27. May, 2012

It seems like for women to “progress the sport” they really don’t have to develop anything. If a girl climbs V12 that 100people have done, she is “progressing the sport”. A guy climbs the same V12 and it’s no big deal. For a guy to “progress the sport” he has to some crazy hard first ascent or flash, and even then 2 days after, another guy throws down even harder. The bar is so much higher for men, and I think that is a big motivator for development. There are so many climbs in the world for women to repeat that would still be considered “cutting edge”, there doesn’t seem to be as much motivation for them to develop much. That isn’t to say there aren’t some women who develop for developments sake. I am not trying to say there aren’t strong girls out there either, because there are. There just don’t seem to be as many at a really high level when compared to the male population.
slabdyno

31. May, 2012

oh michael, its cool, they can’t read. we’re still working on folding laundry.
Climbing-Related Things I Have Bookmarked In The Last Year [An Exhaustive List] | One Girl, On the Rocks

27. Dec, 2012

[...] Women and Development [B3 Bouldering] [...]