UKH

I find it odd that the fact the Wayfarers have voted to accept Women members has not had more coverage, on UKC and maybe on the BMC website https://www.thebmc.co.uk/articles. After all it is the last senior club to go this way and I believe a founder member of the the BMC (could be wrong there).
The membership has been trying for years, but blocked by voting rules, demanding over 75% for a rule change. ( I bet many wished the UK had, had similar rules vis a vis Brexit).
Maybe no one was really that bothered.
Anyway, its taken a long time, but got there in the end.

Regardless of one's views on the matter, it really was ridiculous that all it needed was >50% of the vote. Way to bring the country (or countries) together. 

A club going mixed may have been big news 40-50 years ago. Now mixed clubs are the norm so the only comment is why on earth did it take them that long to change. I think the CC went mixed in the 1970s. My local club has been mixed ever since it was founded 60 years ago.

I stayed at the Wayfarers’ hut for the first time a few weeks ago. Nice enough and certainly well located. It felt normal and lively - because there was a uni group staying there which was obviously mixed. 

The Pinnacle Club next?

Its the end of a long journey. Back in the 70s women could not even enter Ynys I am led to believe. 
I know older women who joined local clubs because they could not join the Senior clubs.
So this is a good news story.
As you have noted the atmosphere in the Wayfarers hut has been "normal" for years with Women made very welcome.
Some people point at the fact there is a Male only dorm, however I have stopped in many huts where by custom Men stop in one dorm and Women another.

As to the Pinnacle Club. I think they are ace.

I wonder what part Bob Pettigrew played?

I stayed there around that time when this issue was being discussed at length via entries in the hut book.  I vividly remember an essay by (I think) Jim Perrin which included the argument that "F****** isn't going to break the bunks".  He didn't use asterisks.

I suspect the Wayfarers will now receive applications not only from women but also from men who disapproved of their previous, and some would say outdated, policy.

I suspect that few these days would immediately recognise the idea of 'senior clubs' (thinking, perhaps with some justice, that these might be for the over-60s, rather than anything else...).

Frankly, it amazes me that the Wayfarers were allowed to maintain a BMC affiliation despite a plainly discriminatory membership policy, and I can't imagine that membership applications from women will flood in, now that the policy has changed; I certainly wouldn't want to be in such a club as a woman.

Do you have any insight into why it took quite so long to open up the membership, beyond the dubious excuse of the club being exhaustingly bureaucratic?

Perhaps, in response to your original post, few are that bothered about clubs anymore - and this story of old fogies who consider themselves part of a 'senior' elect, using the bureaucratic process to defend their privileges for year after year only underscores the reasons why...

Would their presumption be far from the truth?

I believe there were at least a couple of previous attempts to change the rules, which only just failed to reach the magic 75% figure.

Out of interest, what are your views on women-only clubs?

I fond it odd that there are still women only mountaineering clubs, or designated women only nights at climbing walls, or women only climbing symposiums etc.

p.s. The outdatedness of this reminds me of another climbing club where there was a minor sh^t-storm about people organising so-called "competing" meets via social media. In other words, a scheduled meet was posted on the club facebook page and someone posted in the comments along the lines of "I can't make the meet as it's too far, but will be at X Local Crag if anyone wants to join". People took the huff, accusing others of being disloyal, ungrateful, misappropriating the clubs resources,   etc. etc. What a lot of palaver. 

Women-only clubs are entirely different to men-only clubs. If you want understand this, go to your local wall and spend a day making notes on how many women tell men how to climb their project, compared to how many men tell women how to climb their project. Then Google "global gender inequality" and do a bit of reading. After that, wash the dishes. I'm pretty sure by this point you won't need me to point out why the idea of women-only clubs is entirely different to the idea of men-only clubs.

What if the official meet was in danger of making a loss, which encouraging people to do something else instead could only have made worse? To say nothing of how you'd feel if you were the organiser of the official meet and saw your potential attendees being encourage to go somewhere else instead.

Intuitively I agree with you than men-only clubs are daft whereas women-only clubs are fine. But it's hard to argue it convincingly (as I think you've found as your justification doesn't make much sense).

PS I've got a dish washer

What drivel

The Pinnacle Club is affiliated to the BMC and that has an equally discriminatory policy. 

So have I. 

Works best when you remind it how pretty it is.

I wish I had a dish-washer machine...

t's not so hard to argue. In an unequal society, you cannot make everyone equal by treating the same. Would you tell someone who relies on a wheelchair, "well, I have to walk up these steps, so why shouldn't you?" No, of course not - you'd expect a lift to be provided.

Likewise, women have been and continue to be discriminated against - in every sphere. So, if women say: we want our own climbing space, because it's a very positive way of bringing women together and also because we're sick of, e.g. being expected to second male leaders all day, or being told how to do our thing, or being judged for being "too muscular" or simply not feeling able to completely relax, or whatever else, then of course these women should be allowed to organise a women-specific club, event, night, etc.

Of course, it would be great if people weren't being made to feel that this was necessary... but, there you go.

And, whenever I've seen photos of women-specific trad events, there are usually a handful of men in the background, so I don't think that men are usually completely unwelcome - they're just not the focus.

But... I didn't think I needed to explain all of this, as I'm sure it's explained ad exhausteum elsewhere... and only bothered because you did a smiley wink-face and mentioned your dishwasher. However, someone has already made that into a stupid old man joke, which only proves the point, really...

p.s.s. I'd like to just laugh at the 8 dislikes to my first reply to Simon and say that they are men who hate washing dishes, but unfortunately what it actually shows you is how hostile many men are to the very concept that a) women are not treated equally and b) perhaps we should do something about this. Since point 'a' is a proven fact, it must be 'b' that is proving particularly troublesome to them...

I'm sure the feeling is reciprocal.

Well, apart from them having to sleep in the Annex, rather than the main hut. Or has this changed?

Nope, was still the case when we were there last week

I do wonder if that will change real soon now,

and I bet the Annex will improve in the near future as well ....

great hut

Honest question : why do you care about what anyone thinks/says to you? Just tell them to get f****d and get on with doing your thing.

But, since you brought up 'global gender inequality', I find the idea of fighting inequality with more inequality (sorry, I meant affirmative action) completely hilarious

Thats rather unfair and a bit of snide editing by you. In reply to Misha I said,

"As you have noted the atmosphere in the Wayfarers hut has been "normal" for years with Women made very welcome.

Some people point at the fact there is a Male only dorm, however I have stopped in many huts where by custom Men stop in one dorm and Women another."

Which you chose to edit to,

"As you have noted the atmosphere in the Wayfarers hut has been "normal" for years with Women made very welcome.

For clarity for people not familiar with the Roberston Lamb Hut, the annexe is an exstention on the building which The Wayfarers are looking at spending circa £80K on to upgrade it for all, but in particular female members. As I said previously in the part you chose to edit out, that some huts tend to have Male and Female dorms. How the sleeping arrangements with RLH will pan out in the future, I have no idea.  

As its Rock Talk I used the phrase that many climbers would understand

We live in a free society, in which people are free to do behind closed doors what they will. That is why people can set up clubs as they want. I am amazed that you are amazed that we live in a free society.

Yes I agree that the world is changing and clubs are maybe less relevant, but the issue does seem to have rattled your cage.

Women are still a minority in outdoor climbing (probably approaching parity indoors), so a women only club is a good thing to the extent it encourages female participation. If/when climbing is gender equal in terms of numbers and attitudes, there would no longer be a need for a women only club - but we aren’t there yet.  

I said the atmosphere was normal because there was a mixed uni group there. In fact a bit more lively than in an average club hut but in a good way - there were no raucous scenes. I have no idea what it’s like on an average night at that hut.

What was weird was the separate sleeping arrangement for women. The students did it that way because that’s what the hut rules said. There were a couple of Wayfarers members (with female friends) who did the same. It wasn’t a big deal as clearly everyone was asleep for 95% of the time they were in the dorms but it was still a bit weird. 

There are no separate male/female rooms in the CC huts by the way, just in case anyone is wondering. 

For the greater part I do agree with your points, however as sexism and gender discrimination become a historical lesson and not a current issue, ultimately women only clubs and meets will (hopefully) have to start accepting male members. Either that or society will have to accept that men only clubs and gatherings of any kind are once again acceptable.

I think alot of people may feel (perhapse unconciously) that they can be more open when surrounded by people of the same gender (this may just be a socialised trait but genetics will always play a part). My point being from that stand point gendered events aren't such a bad thing for anyone. But we first need to arrive at a point where inequality in no longer an issue

I have a feeling that the FRCC has male and female dorms, but could be completely wrong.

To be fair, the Wayfarers only had the vote last Saturday, there will be things to sort out. Personally I think it would be great if the club got flooded with women and they voted that they had the main dorm and the men the annexe. Thats how voting works

I wasn't criticising you; I was criticising the Wayfarers club. But, since you seem to have taken the hump and struggled to understand my points, here...

I've climbed for some time, and never heard the phrase 'senior clubs' used, though I do know that some are older, some have entrance requirements, and some are involved in producing guides - e.g. the Climbers' Club and the FRCC. Given that, in over 5 years of climbing, I've not come across the phrase, I suggest you revisit my original point: that the very concept of 'senior clubs' is out of date.

>I did say in the OP The membership has been trying for years, but blocked by voting rules, demanding over 75% for a rule change. ( I bet many wished the UK had, had similar rules vis a vis Brexit). Which part of that are you struggling with?

The part I'm struggling with is, who specifically managed to block this? Was it a significant group of people, or a few cranks who managed to take advantage of poorly attended meetings? Did it not change because no one in the club cared, or did it not change because there was an 'old guard' who only recently have been sufficiently diminished to finally pass the vote? But, I realise that in asking for insight I was expecting too much.

You seem quite bothered about protecting your right to do whatever you like behind closed doors.  But, you might note that the BMC has an Equality and Diversity policy that this 'male-only' club policy was clearly in conflict with - though whether or not it directly contravened it is hard to tell, given how woolly the BMC policy is. It says something to me about a lack of of commitment to that policy on behalf of the BMC, that the Wayfarers' Club was allowed to stay affiliated despite their exclusionary policy. And before you start yakking on about our 'freedom to exclude who we like', I sincerely doubt you'd find a 'whites only' club legitimate, so maybe drop that one.

On the whole, whilst some may applaud this recent decision, finding out that there was a BMC-affiliated male-only club until very recently slightly surprises and disappoints me. Although toff sports like golf might indulge in fetishising inequality in the name of tradition, I thought climbers were better than that.

I am the dishwasher in our household - you can't beat it for a bit of mindfulness!

It’s a different topic but I agree that the term ‘senior clubs’ is pretentious and out of date. I think national clubs would be a better terms. 

The 'senior clubs' is generally taken to mean those who formed the BMC. This includes the Pinnacle Club.

https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_2004_files/AJ%25202004%2...

Ah, but do you have to tell yourself you are 'pretty' first? 

I'm glad the Wayfarers have made this change... even changing their website  history in the process: http://www.wayfarersclub.org.uk/the_wayfarers_club_origins.html  ... good on them.... too many clubs seem a bit keen to hide their AGM 'dirty washing' away from outside eyes.

As a man I'll continue to support female clubs and meets while the women attending them in the main find them useful. Men are rarely banned altogether (some were welcome at tradfest to help look after the camp), The research done on such meets apparently shows we are a distance from their need to end soon. I'm sure the confidence several women have told me they gained in such meets is also not totally unconnected with seeing the rapidly increasing high performance in depth, on trad, sport and bouldering lists of female climbing achievements. At the other end of the scale  it was fab seeing two women succeed on their first trad onsights at Bamford from tradfest this autumn.

Since your having a look at the Wayfarers website, what sex do you think the figure is in the Logo?

I can assure you that my dishwashing is functional - never pretty.

Interesting. Other than the RL, I can't think of any huts I've stayed in where there have been separate male/female dorms - a couple have had "male" and "female" signs, but we always ignore them and they're not enforced. I've never stayed in a FRCC hut though as they prefer to have their huts lie empty than allow outsiders to stay, so perhaps they're different. 

Clearly you can't change the culture of an organisation overnight and the fact that the membership has been resistant to women joining until now speaks volumes. It will be interesting to see what their plan is for attracting women members.

As a guest, do you  always ignore your host's house rules? I'd have thought that if you are staying in another club's huts their is an obligation to conform  their rules. If you don't like them go elsewhere. Perhaps that's why the FRCC does not welcome you with open arms

Yes , the FRCC does have separate male and female dorms in its huts (as well as some mixed dorms in some huts).  As a member of the FRCC I've never seen this as an issue. It's nice to have a bit of privacy when getting changed etc and I find it a more comfortable arrangement when visiting the hut on my own.

However the FRCC's male and female dorms are all equally well appointed and inside the main hut, whereas the womens' sleeping quarters at the Wayfarers hut are in a grotty, cold, dank and dark annexe: jokingly referred to as the 'wenches barn' when I've stayed there before, and a stark contrast to the very comfortable male dorm inside the main hut. Last time I stayed there women weren't even allowed up the stairs to use the inside toilet - the resident Wayfarers member made us use the outside loo instead.

It had a laughably unwelcome atmosphere towards women, and to be honest I've avoided staying there since I've had access to the FRCC hut across the road.

In support of Toms comments I spoke to a lady who, under reciprocal rights as a member of another club, stayed in a wayfarers hut this summer she was made to feel decidly unwelcome as a woman due to comments made by other members of the club who were staying. I think some posters here need to wake up and smell the coffee regarding the ingrained sexism here!

As I said up thread, they are going to spend 80K spruceing them up.

This is simply factually incorrect. The annex is warmer than the upstairs male dorm. 

That really is piss poor

I don't blame you - however I still find it strange that women feel the need to put up barriers (single sex clubs) whilst at the same time breaking down the same barriers for single sex clubs

The dinosaurs you described will only be around for a short time, hopefully their attitude towards women will die out with them and not be passed on to the younger generation and more enlightened times / views will emerge

There are indeed some ingrained sexists in the wayfarers, but they've been in a minority for years. A female friend I climb with who has been to many wayfarers meets has already applied to join the club, and in a slightly bizarre twist is being proposed and sponsored by people that voted against allowing women members. 

84% voted for the change, I would guess that if you had a vote in your club to go men only, do you truly think it would be 100% against?

Also if you everyone took the line you are, the Wayfarers may as well have said bugger it, stay as we are. However they have voted to admit women and some are already trying to join. Obviously as more women join and people who would not before, the culture will change, in a positive feedback loop. So the most proactive thing you could do, would be join the Wayfarers.

I don't dispute that 84% voted for change. I'm sure I'm not the only person that finds it almost unbelievable that a climbing club exists that until 2018 didn't accept women members.

If you read the Wayfarer's website it says..

Until the AGM of 2018 the club maintained the men-only membership rule with which almost all the senior clubs were founded. It was a subject that was debated and voted on numerous times over the years not quite reaching the 75% voting majority required by the club constitution

25% of the club did not want women to join until this most recent vote.

The club will need to actively promote itself to women in lots of different ways if it is to go from 0 women members to having a significant number. I very much doubt that process will happen organically, as you suggest. It isn't the only climbing club in existence, after all.

100% agree.

 

In that case it really shouldn't bother you that much if women only events and such carry on for just a tiny bit longer.  Y'know, just until after the dinosaurs are gone. 

One indicator that might tell us when it's finally happened is nobody turning up to the Women's Symposium any more, on account of how it's superfluous and all.  But even before it withers away naturally I imagine we'll have already noticed there are no longer blokes coming on here to whinge that it's unfair for women to get women-only things while men can't have men-only things.  (Aw, diddums.)

Shucks, thanks dino

Whole heartedly agree. Men have had a ‘men only’ club for the best part of 5000 years (give or take a few outliers). If it takes some miserable old sod having to suck it up and allow some women to have fun without him to redress that history then so be it. 

When did two wrongs make a right?

When there is millennia of institutionalised prejudice to overcome. 

Besides, it’s not a negative  they aren’t excluding men because they see us as inferior, they are doing so to overcome/ remove our negativity towards them*.

Do do you feel personally victimised by women having their own meets? I’m not sure I can see the negaitive side of their choice to do so, but perhaps you could explain? 

*as always this is the royal we... im not insinuating that you are sexist or misogynistic just that these things exist in enough people to be an issue for a lot of men

Absolutely no problem with women only events and clubs.
However, there shouldn't equally be any problem with men only events and clubs.

25% of the club or of those that attend the AGM ?

I would imagine many of the women who have been going along as partners/friends will join. I am not in the club but doubt they have a target number of women.

What reason would there be to have men only clubs? If they had a reason other than to exclude women for being women then have at it. 

What would be your view on a hypothetical 'whites-only' event in the UK?

I do not feel personally victimised by women having their own meets, just dismayed that they feel the need to put up barriers (single sex clubs) whilst at the same time breaking down the same barriers for single sex clubs - when has creating division ever solved anything?

Do you think there are issuse around gender equality? Do you think there are inbuilt sociatal imbalances between genders? 

If you do it's not hard to understand the difference between a men's only club and a woman's only club. Maybe in a hundred years these imbalances won't exist, we will live in a truly equal society and your arguments will be entirely justified. But we don't and if you accept that sexism is an issue you can choose to either be part of the solution or ignore it and be part of the problem.

You should be dismayed at the reasons they have for needing them, not the fact that they are doing so. 

It’s the same problem every time with arguments like this. People who aren’t *insert social defect* can’t understand why there is a need for an action because they themselves aren’t, and have never experienced it. 

Im not black but I wouldn’t begin to tell a black guy that he shouldn’t seek support from a black only group to deal with the issues he faces through this day to day. 

For pretty much the same reasons for women only clubs. i.e. men sometimes might prefer to climb in a male only environment.
 

To be fair, looking at it it could be either. If I was being critical I'd say the figure seems to have quite a belly for a mountaineer...

I would say that you would need to apply the same logic to women only clubs and events.
You can't call men only clubs discriminatory, whilst at the same accepting women only clubs as OK.
Note, I'm not saying that women only events should be stopped, etc. just that if they're deemed acceptable, then should their male counterparts.

Anyway for anyone who wants to join Male or Female http://www.wayfarersclub.org.uk/docs/Membership_Criteria.pdf

and for info, the person in the Logo, is a Woman, a Russian Princess I believe.

Which clubs have been going that long?

25% of those voting.  Proxy votes, postal votes and emailed, signed and scanned votes were all accepted in the most recent consideration of the topic.  

This seems overly simplistic. It's more a case of well ingrained gender relationships throughout society, which are perpetuated by both men and women almost unconsciously. The reason women-only clubs exist as far as I can tell is that the dynamic is different and many find this refreshing and enjoyable. Plus it seems likely that the likes of the LSCC formed as a result of the SMC being a men-only club, even if it perhaps wasn't originally conceived to be. 

Allthough I can't fault your logic you are completely ignoring the massive power imbalances between men and women due to centuries of ingrained sexism, surely must understand this? As John said do you really think a whites only event would be totally fine?

If the thought of women only clubs really gets you down you can always take solice in the fact that you'll get paid more and have more opportunities in life than your female counterparts, it's like one big fun mans only club!

Now come on, you seem to have dodged the question. Are you saying you would be happy with a 'whites-only' club?

The reason women-only clubs exist as far as I can tell is that the dynamic is...

As as far as you can tell because you’re a man? Apologies if you’re not...but you cant really make assumptions on what people feel and why they do things. If they’re telling you their reasons maybe just believe them?

It's a strawman argument.
A 'Whites Only' club would exist because the assumption is that the members don't like non-whites and only want to associate with white people. i.e. it's easy to assume that it's done for racial reasons.
By the above logic, you would be assuming that a male only club would be because the members don't like females and are members because they're misogynistic, etc.  Whereas, the real reason is probably that they just prefer male company on occasion - essentially no different to the female counterpart.
You get similar with Boys Nights out and Girls Nights out.  Should we ban the Boys Nights out and view the Girls Nights out as some sort of victory for feminism and empowerment?
 

How about we let women have women-only clubs if they want, and let men have men-only clubs if they want, and the rest of us can join clubs that accept both (or not join a club at all)? So everyone's happy and we can concentrate on going out climbing/walking/biking/whatever.

Of course. I wouldn't presume to know for certain, so that is why I have to surmise.

"you cant really make assumptions on what people feel and why they do things."

I don't think I was making assumptions. I was just relating my thoughts, and was careful to say "as far as I can tell" so that people wouldn't think me arrogant enough to think I knew for certain what someone else's reasons were for doing something.

"If they’re telling you their reasons maybe just believe them?"

There will be multiple reasons, and different people will have different reasons. So is your complaint that I didn't include every reason that might possibly exist?

Besides, I thought the LSCC example is likely to be a fair assessment, but if not please explain why.

Unfortunately, there are many that would.

OK. It's just that you view men-only and women-only clubs as being essentially the same thing as each other. So would you view 'club for (insert specific ethnic minority)' in the same way as a club for whites? 

You make an interesting point. My partners ex employee had a monthly boys curry night where no women were invited but much business was discussed and so severely disadvantaging women employees. Allthough she could have organised a girls night out there were no female staff in senior positions (as is often the case) and so she and all the other female employees would still be missing out on career development opertunities. Which is a good example of why the two things arnt equal. Should this boys night out be banned? Yes absolutely.

Hmmm, where do you draw the line. Should someone going out with their friends after work ensure there's an even split in genders? 

That would rather depend on the club, as I'm fairly certain some of those clubs hold equally abhorrent views to the their white counterparts.
Anyway, we're getting sidetracked here as we're currently comparing male v female only climbing clubs/events, etc. Unless you can say that the male only clubs are only there because the members are misogynistic women haters, then we have to assume that they exist for essentially the same reasons as women only ones. i.e. the members sometimes prefer to climb and socialise with members of their own sex.
Nothing wrong with that surely? 

Right, one male only event is being abused and that means all male events should be frowned upon and efforts made to ban them?

I really can't see the problem of a men only club. There are plenty of mixed clubs so it's not as tho women are precluded from using other huts or joining other clubs. Meanwhile  an openly men only club which advertises its rule serves the very useful purpose of letting me know where there are a bunch of men I have no wish to be trapped with in a small room on a long, dark winter's evening.

I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that. In my experience the proportion of men to women in most climbing clubs, on UKC and in most other climbing settings with which I'm most familiar with (trad/winter) is so marked anyway that I can't see any need for a men-only club, as going climbing with other men is unavoidably the usual way. Women-only clubs seem more valuable in that respect (finding climbing partners of their own sex).

Can someone join the Pinnacle Club if they self-idntify as a woman?

Dunno, but there may be a LGBT club which might better suit them.

But it might be important for the self-identifying person to be validated as female?

As I am not a member of the Pinnacle club, I cannot help, sorry.

I suppose the point I'm making is that we should think about why folk feel the need for partitioning.

The problems seem to arise because we *assume* a set of motivations. 

a.  In my trans example, a person *might* be seeking validation of a self-identified gender choice.

b.  A person *might* be seeking a romantic partner with similar interests.

c.  A person *might* be avoiding a set of other people whom they feel might be in category b.

d.  A person *might* be avoiding a set of other people because they fear being categorised as the person that c is fearful of.

e.  A person *might* be assuming that a particular subset of people will better understand their perspectiv on the world... and wish to exclude those that don't.

And so on.

I think most of the desire to partition is rooted in assumptions (sometimes based on experience to-date) about how other people think, and assumptions about their motivations and behaviours.

Which is a shame when 99%+ of people are decent and just want to go climbing with other people that love the outdoors and the experience of climbing in all its forms.

Anyway.  Enough fluff.  Pass me my pitchfork sharpener!

By 'validated' I presume you mean accepted? If the situation hasn't arisen before I guess it could be a matter for the committee or membership to decide.

I don't quite follow the logic. The situation of a membership wanting to exclude seems to reflect their own motivations and behaviours, not the person excluded. They do so because the person IS different in one way or another, not because their motivations are different.

Amen to that!

Fixed that for you.

I think you're failing to understand and/or accept that male only and female only clubs exist for different reasons these days.

Female only = promote female participation and achievement in climbing in a supportive atmosphere (some, though not all women, take particular inspiration from seeing other women climbing hard),.

Male only = get away from women to behave like a bunch of 'lads' and potentially express misogynist views.

This is in context where women are in a minority in outdoor climbing and some (though not all) women can sometimes feel somewhat intimidated/perturbed by certain male attitudes in a climbing context (beta spraying, showing off, etc).

I'm deeply, deeply troubled. Mrs Coyote is going away this weekend on  what she has described to me as 'a girlie Christmas shopping trip'. It will be women-only but as I occasionally  go out for a few beers with 'the lads'  for an evening of male bonding over tasteless jokes, brutal p1ss-taking, talking football and bitching about life under the thumb I took Mrs C at her word. I foolishly assumed it would be a weekend of female bonding, quaffing prosecco, trying on unfeasibly ridiculous shoes, inflicting GBH on the credit cards and bitching about life being married to 'the lads'.

How foolish I now feel, discovering as I have from this thread, the seething misandry which clearly lurks beneath this once innocent-sounding  trip. Presiumably the 'girlie spa days' without even the distraction of shopping are even more brutal.  Should I empty the bank accounts and change the locks while she is away with this cackling coven of man-haters? Or might that be an over-reaction  to what might just, just might, be the  gentle pleasure of time spent  having a laugh with friends of her own gender - rather like my 'lads nights'?

Is this all getting very het up over something that really does not matter that much at all?

Fair point but it's apples and pears. Most men would have little interest in shopping for women's clothes and most women would have little interest in talking about football. Whereas climbing is something both male and female climbers are interested in.

I'm not aware of any climbing huts having a spa but it's a good idea. I'm not usually one for going to a spa but could be nice after a hard day's climbing.

Oh for goodness' sake. You prove my point above.

Maybe. I think Cwm Dylie is a pleasant, nicely situated hut but the fact I can't join the Pinny and use it except as a guest  because they want to be women only   does not seem like  the end of the world to me. There are plenty of other clubs with huts in North Wales I can join. Likewise it seems to me that if the odd (whoops Freudian slip there) club wants to be men only, so what? Again, there is no shortage of mixed clubs so it's no hardship to anyone unless they want to make it so

Apples  and pears are stairs, you might mean apples and oranges. Why shouldn't women be interested in football? I believe they even play it thesedays 

Surely not!

As the meets secretary for a club, I can tell you that a considerable amount of effort goes into organising meets, and often financial outlay is required. Of course you cannot expect all members to go on the meets, or expect them to limit their activities to exclusively club meets, but there is little point having a club (and paying the annual subscription) if these things are not supported.

I still believe, even in these Facebook days, that a club forms the best way into climbing or mountaineering for most beginners, and it's unfair to denigrate the voluntary work put in by so many who are involved in clubs (of whatever type) - it's not all 'just politics'

I've heard comments like that for going on three decades. And yet they still live.

Do you think unpleasant sexist attitudes don't exist among some young men and boys?

Seriously? 

I was struggling to find the right verb and intimidated/perturbed is probably too strong but yes I think there's an element of that in some cases. Hence one of the reasons for women's clubs/meets. Clearly there are other reasons (not least historic) including positive factors such as being inspired by other women.

Bob played no active part in the debate. Don’t even know if he voted!

Unless you can say that the male only clubs are only there because the members are misogynistic women haters, then we have to assume that they exist for essentially the same reasons as women only ones. i.e. the members sometimes prefer to climb and socialise with members of their own sex because the members are misogynistic women haters.

Are you actually serious?
Are you really saying that men who want to climb and socialise with other men on occasion are by default misogynistic women haters?
Really?  
 

Does it really matter why the individual sexes might want separate climbing clubs/events?
I'd also suggest, that a lot of women only climbing activities are as just as much about having a good laugh with similar kindred spirits i.e. women talking women stuff as it is about having deep and meaningful conversations about equality, etc.  In pretty much the same way men talk amongst each other.
As for men expressing misogynist views, etc. do you really think that women are above making such remarks when in a female only environment?
 

Yes, that might be the case.  However, why does that mean that male only clubs/events have to be eradicated?
By all means have as many female only clubs/events as you wish, absolutely no problem - it isn't harming anyone and if it does indeed inspire people then all well and good.
By the same token, why the negativity about male only clubs/events?  From what I can tell from reading this thread, it seems to stem from some sort of 'Pay Back' scenario where because males have had it good in the past, they should be expected to be treated badly in the present.

Thanks. Surprised he hasnt been involved. Presumably this has  been debated and voted on a few times before? What were the reasons put forward for remaining male only?

Misha, just my opinion: I'd urge you to read that again and think about how it might be offensive to both women and men.

Now, you generally seem like an A-OK person so I think it's probably just one of those things where, were we in a pub, I'd say "you what?", and you'd say "yeah - fair enough" - which is all fine.  So I hope you don't mind me saying (and I'm genuinely not offended) - that it's, well, bollocks.

May be I was being a bit drastic but the gist of what I've been saying is that these days there are good reasons for having female only clubs (this might change with time as others have said) but I can't really see any good reasons for having male only clubs. I'm not on some kind of crusade to ban them. There probably aren't any other male only climbing clubs left anyway (thought there will be some out there in other sports/hobbies). Male only clubs are outdated and unnecessary (and never have been necessary). I'm sure there are decent people in male only clubs but inevitably they are going to attract 'dinosaurs'. As others have said, it's a bit like having a 'whites only' club.

Not going to get into a more long winded debate about it because it would be pointless. This kind of issue seems to attract fairly polarised opinions.

That's your opinion. Fair enough. But it seems to me that if some guys want a men only club let them have it. In a truly free society even dinosaurs are entitled to their clubs no matter how odd it may seem to the rest of us. I'd certainly not be rushing to join but it is surely a matter for them

If someone could offer a credible reason as to why "some guys want a men only club" it might help in our understanding  and appreciation of why it should be protected as a legal right.

Anyone?

I agree, hence I’m not proposing banning them or anything like that. Just saying they’re unnecessary and frankly ridiculous. But if people want to be in them, that’s their choice. Although as far as climbing is concerned I’m not sure it’s a choice any longer - anyone know if there any other ones out there?

Well, you know, to do bloke things that women can’t do and talk bloke stuff that women won’t understand. Nothing sexist about it of course, just, you know, it’s so much better when there are no women around. Not that we have anything against women, far from it, just that we need our own space away from them to go climbing and drink beer and talk shit and stuff.

I think some people on this thread just don’t get it - and that proves the point really. 

The question you should be asking is why there shouldn't be a men only club and unless you can find a valid reason, then there is no reason not to have them.

I’m going to guess that factor, desdeye and Wiley are all men in there late 40s/ 50s. They have never been sexist and therefore cant see how it’s a ‘thing’. 

What exactly is the problem with that?
So what if some blokes want to climb in such an environment? 
What harm is it doing to anyone?  If it is indeed doing no harm, what right has anyone else got to interfere and try their damnedest to get it stopped and then celebrate that action as if it's some sort of victory for 'something'? 
Are you really trying to say that 50% of the population can have separate clubs catering uniquely for themselves whilst the other 50% can't? 
That to me sounds like discrimination personified... 

In the past, I used to run Blokefest each year.  This was camping in a field next to a great pub, constant BBQ, lots of beer, dangerous toys, climbing, walking, talking, laughing.  Basic rules were no women, no washing, no vegetables, no pink.  You get the gist.  It was most welcomed by all participants, and was felt to be a great release for one weekend a year.  There was a shared interest and investment in the event that simply would not have happened with a different dynamic of partners of potential partners there.  And I guess that's the point, it was only one weekend a year like a mini holiday, the rest of the time it was at home with wives,girlfriends, kids.  Some people would like more than one weekend a year, some less.  Personally, I like a life where it is predominantly a mixed society all the time, I like the diversity and enrichment that comes from it, some don't fell as comfortable with that.

I don't think there are any at all. This thread was started after the wayfarers voted to accept women members. 

Sounds like a drunken bunch of potential rapists to me and I hope you're all now living in a monastery to repent for your sins... 

You're right with your age guess - clever you.
I'm sure that I've been sexist and I'm also pretty sure that plenty of women display equally sexist behaviour. 
I'm also guessing, that 'all women' meets aren't all about discussing the issues surrounding women climbing and that a lot of time is spent having a laugh in a female only environment in the same way that men would in a male only environment.
However, for some reason, the female only environment is being extolled as being all nice and wonderful, whereas, the male one is seen as evil and unnecessary.   

There is the Outdoor Lads, I do believe.

also there are three female.
Pinnacle and to Scottish Mountaineering clubs.

But as I stated in the OP, I am surprised at the lack of newsworthyness in this. The Wayfarers represented a symbolic connection with the past, and was a founder member of the BMC.
Other than that lets face it, who gives a stuff really if 150 blokes want a Gang hut to go and get pissed in.
If women wanted a club to join in Langdale there are two others within 100 feet of The Wayfarers, so its not like anyone was being excluded from anything.
Same with The Pinnacle loads of clubs to join and dozens of huts in Wales, so who is disenfranchised if they cannot join the Pinnies.
The issue people have, is tell them they cannot have something, and by crikey they ache to have it, thats why I believe a climbing club that you had to climb harder than some random grade to join would thrive.
If there is a prejudice in climbing I would say it by colour. I do not know any racist climbers, however I have only met 3 of colour, and can name 3 others. Climbing is very much a White middle class pastime. Maybe there are more people of colour at the Climbing walls in London and Birmingham, I have no idea, never been, but Manchester has a large population of coloured people, and I have rarely seen people of colour in those climbing walls.

I would promote men only clubs. That way all the egotistical sexist men won't be joining the mixed clubs. Problem solved.

I agree, my partner encountered the odd dubious attitude through the years. She might take novice friends climbing indoors and would get the kind of comments asking if she needed help with anything that would never happen with guys. The presumption that in any climbing pair the female if present must be inexperienced novice. 

We did an individual mountain race many years with differing start times and at the start they organisers; were saying stuff like "oh you are running on your own" and "It's ok it is not too tough" etc.. 

Ah Ha, you miss the point entirely.

Egotistical men, need women around to be egotistical to. I have come across what you describe loads. The, if that woman could climb it, it cannot be that hard, attitude .

Most climbing clubs have there fair quota.

   How do you reconcile these two statements?

I cannot. Maybe prejudice is the wrong word. But I do find it noteable how few people of colour climb. I do think it is something the BMC should do more to address. I know they do a bit.

Prejudice is the wrong word because you have effectively stated that it is not a function of prejudice.

 Actually at London walls (eg.Westway) there are lots of people of colour climbing although probably a smaller proportion than in the local population or playing football or cricket next door. There are even a lot of French! (climbing, not playing cricket). Amongst the school ( I assume they are school) groups the ethnic breakdown appears to be representative of the local population.

  Why do you consider underrepresentation of minorities to be a problem?

Not really sure I do. When women could not access huts and clubs, that was a definite barrier, that was a problem.

Now as far as I can see women are welcome pretty much everywhere in climbing, yet still clubs seek to encourage women.

All I suppose I am saying, if they want to encourage anyone, ethnic minorities would appear to me to be more of an issue.

But really, its there, have a go, there are no barriers, no need to encourage anyone. TBH it almost implies that these people are so feeble that they need special treatment.

I sympathise with your points, but I think this kind of 'emotional blackmail' ("think of the volunteers!") is used to refuse a bit of frank and creative rethinking - not aimed at replacing clubs, but at reworking how meets happen. After all, the point is to get people climbing and to help them develop friendships - not to block that from happening. Beyond that, do we want large groups of people turning up to a crag? Is that good for conservation and for other users of natural spaces? Another problem with fixing a time and place for a meet, is that some people may be free earlier or later, or unable to attend certain meets due to work, or childcare, transport, costs, mobility issues, etc. Perhaps social media can help clubs move past the traditional meets model - but not if they're too precious to accept that things change.

p.s. A case-study: About a year ago I started a 'thread' on a popular social media platform, with a small group of friends who climb, in which we drop messages each week to ask if anyone is keen to climb. These friends added other friends, and the thread now has about 15 people involved, most of whom climb regularly. We've used it to organise a regular Tuesday night indoor session, spontaneous indoor and outdoor meets, and trips away. Some things are planned weeks in advance, others the same day. People drop in and out as they please and everyone is able to propose a meet. Obviously, this is an extended group of friends, not a club, and there are some disadvantages to this, but perhaps a kind of 'mixed model' could work well. Just my thoughts, obviously! 

Isn't there a difference between an informal night out and a voluntary organisation? 

As an aside, doesn't the stereotypical men's night out sounds just as hideous now as it always has done? Men with a crap sense of humour talking about football and their wives like it's the 1950s. No wonder it's pretty lonely out there for a lot of blokes. 

The Pinnacle Club is of equal status to the Wayfarers.

What's wrong?
Not intellectual enough for you?
I don't like football, but have been on many enjoyable 'Boys Nights' out where I've managed to have a good time without discussing football, etc. as there will always be someone in the group that will be only too happy to discuss something else.
I'm guessing that 'Girls Nights' outs follow a similar pattern, with them getting equally drunk, being equally vulgar and saying untoward things about blokes that happen to come within range of their collective radar.

I would go along with 'odd dubious attitude' but find it hard to believe that attitude is widespread these days. In the past it was certainly the case but the  days of 'she must be his belay bunny' are gone. Yes, some guys do like to dispense their 'wisdom' but they do it to men as well. Perhaps not as much as they do with women because men may be more plainspoken in rejecting the advice.

Every wall I go to and most sport crags have lots of hard women climbers.  Dinosaurs may have small brains but they still have eyes.  Ask most modern climbers to name the five best known rock climbers active today and I'm pretty sure Hazel Findlay, Mina and Shauna Coxsey would feature very heavily.

I know what you mean but we tried discussing  gender politics, radical syndicalism and art house French films and it just wasn't the same.

Aside from the minor fact that women do not have equal status in society. Easily overlooked, I know.

No, it's just tedious and arid. That whole "expressing friendship by ruthless piss-taking" just sounds like a lot of men who struggle to express friendship in any meaningful way. 

Scratting around a social group to find someone - anyone, goddamit! - who doesn't want to talk football. Sounds delightful. Surely there are better ways to spend one's time.

So in your view would the "Boy's Night Out" traditionally involve saying "untoward things about women that come within range of their collective radar"? Would that be a bunch of drunk, loud men doing this by any chance? 

I think you'll find if you shift the discussion to Iranian art house films the night will go much better. 

Nobody "got it stopped". In this case, the members of the club voted to change it. Themselves. Because they wanted to.

I don't know that anybody outside the club has been campaigning on this issue with any vigour (or at all), or that anyone's "interfered". I'm sure many people have expressed the opinions that it's a bit sexist and outdated and should be changed, but that's not the same as somehow forcing the members of the club to change it.

How do those going on about lack of equal pay and status reconcile themselves with the situation in professional tennis tournaments? As far as I understand it, pay in grand slams is now the same for both men and women. And yet men play best of five sets and women best of three. Same pay for different amounts of work, at least in the matches. It actually has the end result of individual women earning more overall, as a (frequently) <2 hour match is far less draining physically than a (frequently) >5 hour one, so they are able to play doubles also. The likes of Andy Murray have said that this simply wouldn't be possible for men in the grand slams - they have to choose one or the other. I have absolutely no doubt that if this situation was reversed many women would be up in arms about it. 

Just out of interest, what was the original reason for the exclusion of women when the club was set up in 1906? Does anyone know?

I don't know if it's come up, but as a member, I would damn well hope so. Trans women are women.

For that matter, when I applied to join the Pinnacle Club no-one asked me to specify what my genitals looked like at birth (that being a thing it's usually considered rude to ask random strangers), so for all I know there are trans members already.

However, this doesn't mean that some random bloke who turns up going "haha my name's Dave but I totally 'identify as a woman' so you have to let me in right?" is going to get in.

Because that bloke is not a trans woman, he's a wanker. It's not that complicated.

I don't see why "better", though I know there are some Pinnacle members who are members of LGBTQ  clubs/informal climbing groups as well. What with there being some overlap between the categories of "women" and "people who are LGBTQ".

With self id you would have no grounds to exclude Dave. Under self id if Dave said he was a woman he would be a woman. It's one of the reasons self id is flawed.

And trans women aren't women. 

I think the point was that it would depend on if 'Dave' was serious or taking the piss. It is likely he'd have changed his name to something less usually masculine.

Respecting how people actually identify doesn't mean you have to accept people who are joking or ostentatiously trying to make some sort of point.

Also the club gets to choose who it lets in (and requires references from other members who've climbed with you), so yes, you can exclude people for being wankers.

If someone lives as a woman, identifies as a woman and gets discriminated against as a woman, then as far as I'm concerned, she's a woman.

I'm not going to start demanding that her chromosomes are checked, or quizzing her about what her genitals look like or once looked like, before I feel a sense of solidarity!

Not really, if we had self id why should Dave change his name in order to be a woman? You can't have a male name and be a woman? Really, you can have a cock and balls and self id as a woman but the name Dave is a stumbling block? Sorry, you can't have self id and then have a committee to decide who's taking the piss.

I suspect, and obviously none of us know, most of the older clubs were set up like this because it never occoured to the working class men who set these clubs up that women would ever want to indulge in such activities.

I know that seems strange when judged by todays standards but we shouldn't judge actions from over 100 years ago by current standards.

It is quite probable that many of the things we all think of as perfectly normal now will appear abhorrent to future generations.

That might be the case at the moment, it wouldn't be under self id. 

But if Dave self ids as a woman you can't say she's pretending to be a man. You'll have to find another excuse. 

I completely accept that opinion. But factually it's incorrect.

That's fine, entirely your choice.

If someone's obviously taking the piss (presumably because they think being trans is a big joke), of *course* you can decide they're taking the piss.

And if people want to get into the whole "well what if a cis guy dressed as a woman and lived as a woman and seriously tried to convince everyone that he was a trans woman so he could try to get into the Pinnacle Club what then???" -- I mean, it's amazing how much time cis guys *don't* spend engaged in elaborately pretending to be trans women, in order to enjoy all the huge social advantages that trans women get.

(Note to the obtuse: trans women are among the most discriminated-against groups in our society. The stats for violence against trans women are beyond horrific. This is not something people do for shits and giggles.)

I'm not sure what you think "self id" is (some sort of authoritarian regime with thought police, apparently?).

I filled out my response to the consultation on potential changes to the GRA, and none of it involves "you have to believe people who want to make ostentiatiously false claims to be trans as a joke or in order to make some sort of point."

How about "Dave's a massive wanker and is not going to contribute to the activities of the club because they're too busy running round shouting 'haha if I say I identify as a woman you have to accept me as a woman don't you feel stupid now!!!" to climb anything"?

(Meanwhile, Davina who is actually a trans woman is eating pasta and discussing whether Tremadog is a good option for tomorrow.)

Out of interest, when you're introduced to someone, do you ask them what their genitals look like (or looked like at birth) before you're prepared to treat them as a man or a woman? Because that must lead to some interesting social interactions.

It was another world then. To exclude women would be normal. I was reading an article about the sit ins the other day. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in . You may know this but basically Negroes could not sit, only white people. This was quite normal. I knew this had gone on, but never really looked into it, I was staggered.
So the reason women were not allowed is because that was the norm.
It does make you wonder though, what things we do now which we think are normal, which in 30-50- 100 years will just seem outrageous, even barbaric, Meat Eating maybe or possibly burning fossil fuels and destroying the atmosphere, who knows, not I.
 

Well, it doesn't exist as in law yet.

No, if self id is accepted people will be able to legally change which sex they are. Their reasons for doing it would be irrelevant, the legal status would have changed.

It's not that Dave says he's a woman, legally she would be a woman.

I treat them as how they present/want to be treated. But that doesn't make trans women women. 

It's not a case of 'should'. But is someone was making the effort to dress differently etc, then it is likely they will have considered a name change also.

But I'm not sure this conversation is really going anywhere.

Working class. I doubt that Andrew, the Wayfarers was spun out of Liverpool Uni Climbing club I believe, and I bet most of them would not have spoken to someone who speaks like me. They would speak to you, because you is edukated. Marco Palis`s dad gave him what in todays money would be several million, when Marco was about 21.

Well it stemmed from a hypothetical question about self id. And if we had self id and Dave had changed her status to female then her name is irrelevant, legally Dave would be a woman.

Yes, and they had to go to the back of the bus with whites at the front - just another form of segregation. Some whites swapped places with them during the sit-ins, and incurred similar violence/abuse as a result.

People already *can* change what sex they legally are; what's been proposed is to make it a somewhat less lengthy and medicalized process.

It still wouldn't mean that people can legally change sex from moment to moment just by announcing "I'm a woman!" or "I'm a man!" as a joke or a whim.

As explained above: nope, incorrect.

However, it doesn't actually matter what legal gender/sex Dave is; Dave as described is a wanker and is not going to contribute to the activities of the club.

Maybe not in some aspects of society, but I'm fairly certain that the climbing community is pretty much fair in the way it treats both genders and as we're talking about climbing clubs, then surely that's all that matters?

Whoopee, you don't like someone elses choice of a night out.
I'm fairly sure that people would find your choice of a night out equally irksome.  The difference is, is that they wouldn't state it in such a snob like manner... 

Yes and also a bunch of equally drunk shouty women.
Unless of course you believe that women don't discuss such matters amongst themselves?

I'm just saying that the situation is unlikely since many (most? nearly all?) change their name. 

Would you have swapped places?
The piece I was reading was an academic journal article and it was saying that the reason the 4 sat in the Woolworths, was because they had close bonds from school and sharing a dorm.
To put yourself on the line for some person you do not know and who is not like you, was an incredibly brave action by the whites who swapped places.

Yes, if Dave legally changed her status to female, she could keep on being called "Dave" if she wanted and it wouldn't change her legal status.

However, none of the proposed changes to the GRA would mean that people could legally change their gender from moment to moment just by announcing "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman", as a joke or a whim, which is what you seem to imagine.

People keep on pulling out "but what about self-id" and "but what if someone says they identify as a woman???" as if it makes some sort of devastating point about single-sex groups, and it really ... doesn't.

Never been in a situation remotely like that, but on balance almost certainly not.

Agreed.

Neither would I.

 

I know that, but I think the thread has now moved on to essentially say that men only clubs shouldn't be tolerated regardless of the members wishes.

And I have said no more than that.

That is purely your imagination. The problem is that Dave isn't very nice, she's a misogynist and gets off on making women feel uncomfortable and she's legally changed her sex so you can't use that as a reason to exclude her. As we've already established you have to find another excuse.

Well it, self id, could rather change the nature of single sex groups because, believe it or not, there are Daves.

So Dave comes back and has changed her name, but presents exactly as before. Is everybody happy now? Or has the name ceased to be an issue?

I’m not saying male only clubs should be banned. I’m just saying they’re ridiculous and unnecessary in this day and age and there’s likely to be underlying sexism involved (but they will never admit it because they probably don’t see this kind of atmosphere as sexist when in fact it is). 

No, that is the actual nature of the proposed changes to the GRA.

As I have pointed out repeatedly: it's a private members' club and you need references from two other members who've climbed with you in order to join.

"Dave is a shitty person who likes to make other people uncomfortable" is more than sufficient reason to exclude Dave, regardless of Dave's legal gender.

Do you imagine that if Dave was a nasty *cis* woman who got off on making other women uncomfortable, the club would be forced to to let her in?

I'm aware that there are misogynists who get off on making women uncomfortable, thank you. 

However, the idea that they're all going round elaborately pretending to be trans women is nonsense. As is the idea that the proposed changes to the GRA would somehow leave people helpless against them.

If you're actually interested, here's a report based on interviews with professionals providing single-sex services in the domestic violence and sexual violence sector, where you'd imagine this would be most acute. Short version: most of them are serving trans women already, they don't have a problem including trans women on the basis of self-identification, and it doesn't prevent them from excluding violent or abusive people, trans or not.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_and_nfpsynergy_r...

It's really lovely that you're certain about this but I am not. I think the climbing world is perhaps a bit  better but it's hard for me to say, what with not being a woman. Questions: why would men seem to treat women unfairly in most areas of life - or not notice if other men are doing this, or if our systems/ways of life have unequal outcomes - and then suddenly change when they are at the crag?

The snobbishness is entirely in your own head. I love to knock back a few drinks and go out dancing, don't tell me that's only enjoyed by quinoa munching middle class luvvies. The kind of blokey fun I find tedious manifests itself across the social spectrum - plenty of braying posh boys do this too. My point is that this stereotypical "boys night out" has loads of shitty, grim aspects. 

I don't think you've really thought this through - but I guess that is the privilege of being a man. We never ever have to consider the real possibility of being sexually assaulted in our daily lives. At all. 

I love the way that supporters of the status quo try to paint anyone disagreeing with them as naive waifs who do not understand the ways of the world. Do remind me the last time a group of women was accused of getting drunk and attempting to rape a man, or indeed gang rape him. Bonus points if it happened more recently than the Kavanagh appointment. 

Ethnic minority ‘participation rates’ in climbing are low. Even here in Birmingham there aren’t many ethnic minority climbers going to the walls. I don’t know why that is (there may be some economic and cultural reasons for example) but I don’t think it’s because climbers in general or climbing clubs are any more racist than the general population. Significantly less so, I would hope!

As I've, now repeatedly, said you have a reason other than doubts about her sex to exclude her, you seem to be violently agreeing with me.

You're welcome. 

How would you stop them?

Yes, but they haven't legally changed their sex via self id.

Say we have self id, what would be the downside for Dave in legally becoming a woman? He's never going to be challenged as a man, because that's how he presents, but any time he's challenged when uses the women's toilet/changing room/refuge he whips out his birth certificate and, ta da, he's legally a woman and he can be there. Win win for dirty Dave.

I'm guessing it's because we share a common hobby and that climbers generally tend to be a bit more relaxed about life in general than many of counterparts.

It's your whole 'My night out is better than other peoples nights out because I don't get drunk and discuss football' that makes you come across as a bit snobbish.
I'm fairly sure that your nights out are indeed marvellous, then again, to some people, getting drunk and discussing football is equally marvellous.  Who are you to judge which is better?

I'll tell you one thing, I've said massively crude things about women, but guess what, I've never sexually assaulted one.
Anyway, we're kind of getting sidetracked from the discussion about men only climbing clubs.  Unless of course you're saying that their existence is likely to be a breeding ground for rapists, etc. 

As. I. Said: these are services which are already including trans women on the basis of self-identification.

None of them are demanding birth certificates or legal proof of gender *at all*.

And they're all doing just fine excluding people who are violent or abusive.

If you actually have any interest in the issue at all, as opposed to using trans women as some sort of rhetorical prop, I suggest you read the report.

I'm fairly sure that a great deal of unsavoury things get said in such environments, just as I'm sure the same is said in the female equivalent.
Pro quid pro...

IIRC changing your gender will still require a statutory declaration (ie a statement under oath) that you intend to live full-time as the gender you're identifying as, so if it turns out that Dave (no relation) is cheerfully presenting as male whenever he isn't trying to annoy climbing clubs or use womens' changing rooms then the downside is a perjury charge and up to seven years in quod. Plus whatever he gets for any sexual harrasment that he does while claiming to be female.

Several times in my 20 odd years in the Club.

The proposal to change was made by the committee as a whole, with our arguments issued with the proposal.

There was no co-ordinated response to this, and nobody raised any argument on the day of the vote!

"The group of which I'm a part is an exceptional one, immune from the vices and problems that are prevalent in all other areas of society," said someone displaying massive amounts of humility and awareness. 

Actually what I said was: "... doesn't the stereotypical men's night out sounds just as hideous now as it always has done? Men with a crap sense of humour talking about football and their wives like it's the 1950s. No wonder it's pretty lonely out there for a lot of blokes." 

I've hated that sort of thing ever since I was a teenager. A lot of men seem so chipper and defensive about this archetypal male experience that I suspect it's driven by a difficult-to-admit recognition that it is actually a bit rubbish. What's more, we have evidence that when offered something else, lots of men take it: drinking is down amongst young people, pubs are closing, etc. Perhaps they want something more? I know I did when I was their age. 

Phew. Problem solved! For a minute I was worried that you were unaware (either genuinely or for rhetorical purposes) that groups of drunk and leery men were a bit different to groups of drunk and leery women, but now I'm reassured. 

If you wanted to create an environment in which the full range of misogynistic attitudes and behaviours were created and fermented, then strict male-only environments would probably help. 

Dave is violent or abusive, he's just happy that his presence makes some women uncomfortable. And if Dave is legally a woman how can he be excluded?

And I'm not using trans women as any sort of prop, there's no need for this imagination, if you don't want to discuss then don't, but don't try and close it down by saying you think I have some ulterior motive.

What does living as a woman look like, do tell? And how do you present as a man? Or is it one of those "well, you know it when you see it"?

As above, Dave is doing anything, he's happy that being there makes some women unhappy.

I'm sure this has been answered already. If someone wants to join a club and they seem to enjoy the fact that them being there makes other club members uncomfortable, the club will reject them. Or if they are already a member, the club will stop their membership. I thought this would be obvious?

Apart from the 'working class' tag which is very inaccurate (!), I agree with the above. I would also suggest that some clubs wouldn't have started with this rule at all and it was only because there weren't any women despite this that the club gradually became to be thought of as a men-only club in the eyes of its members. There was then resistance to the idea of women joining, and thus written into the constitution of some clubs.

Good to hear. Thanks

Leery?
It's perfectly possible and in my experience the norm, for groups of blokes to perv and discuss the physical characteristics of women without becoming leery.  That's certainly the case with the mates I used to drink with and I'm fairly certain women have similar conversations about us blokes.
If men are indeed being leery to the point that it's noticeable, then I agree with you that, that is indeed a problem which shouldn't be tolerated.  

Right, so a male only climbing club such as the Wayfarers is a breeding ground for women hating misogynists?  
By the same token, I assume that a female only climbing club such as the Pinnacle Club is a breeding ground for men hating feminists?
I personally think both scenarios are ridiculous and would imagine that members of the Wayfarers would be appalled and offended at such an accusation.

This seems to be the subtext behind many of your posts from where I sit - that you see 'feminist' as somehow equivalent to 'misogynist'.  I doubt there's any way I could be articulate enough to persuade you of it but nevertheless, you're quite wrong about that.

Here's what I actually wrote in full:

Right, so a male only climbing club such as the Wayfarers is a breeding ground for women hating misogynists?   By the same token, I assume that a female only climbing club such as the Pinnacle Club is a breeding ground for men hating feminists? I personally think both scenarios are ridiculous and would imagine that members of the Wayfarers would be appalled and offended at such an accusation.

You'll note, that I'm using the 'men hating feminists' description as a comparison to your assertion that men only clubs are full of misogynists.  As also stated, I don't think either is true and that I believe both types of clubs are full of normal people who want to occasionally meet up with people of their own gender once in a while.
For some reason (and in particular yourself it seems), some people seem to assume that the male only club is only there for nefarious reasons and the female one is there for altruistic reasons. 
Is that what you essentially believe?

You and other posters seem to struggle with what those reasons are though.

I thought that the only motivation to join a club was for the use of the car park for bouldering in The Pass. I hope the Wayfarers have a well situated car park

With the greatest of respect, it doesn't appear that you read the post you were replying to, as it contained an important point that seems to have slipped by unnoticed.

Well, no, I noted that you seem to equate 'feminist' with 'misogynist' as if they were related like 'doe' and 'buck' because that is what you actually wrote.

But equivalent somehow, as if 'feminist' is to 'hen' as 'misogynist' is to 'cock'.

Being so dead set against unfounded assumptions and all perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out exactly where I made the assertion you're ascribing to me here, or anything remotely like it.

A "men-hating feminist" would certainly be equivalent to a misogynist which is defined as:

"a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.". 

You seem to disagree.

I fully understand the reason behind women only clubs in that it gives women a chance to climb and socialise in an environment without men and that it gives them an opportunity to do things without arrogant/superior men interfering, etc. 
I also understand, that one of those reasons is to hopefully encourage more women to partake in the sport and then have the confidence to participate in the sport outside of that female environment.  I also maintain that women also want to climb in such clubs/events because they just enjoy climbing with other women for no other reason that they can do girl talk without being eavesdropped by nosey men. 
If you believe that I don't agree with that concept, or that I want women only clubs banned, then maybe I have been vague in what I have been saying and you've misconstrued what I've said. 
My real beef is that the male equivalent is seen by some to exist only so that males can partake in misogynist acts and that somehow they're damaging to equality within the climbing community.   

I compared 'Men Hating Feminists' with 'Women Hating Misogynists'.
Maybe the language is a bit clumsy, so to clarify matters, how about:

'Men Hating Misandrist' instead of 'Men Hating Feminist'?

Still equally ridiculous, as is suggesting that male only clubs are full of women hating misogynists. 

Is it groundhog day already?

Explain what you mean and I'll do my best to reply.

Oh, well that's good then.

<facepalm>

Why do you keep insisting on selective quoting?

You accused me of asserting that not merely suggesting it, but ok.  Please indicate where I have suggested this.  Failing that, perhaps you could point out where in this thread anybody has.

I fear we may wake up tomorrow having not progressed from today.

Indeed.  The equivalence I'm talking about, made expressly in the post I was responding to but often hinted at in a vague, nebulous way in this thread and others is between "feminist" and "misogynist". 

Regarding the phrases, the "woman-hating" in "woman-hating misogynist" is tautological, whereas the "feminist" in "man-hating feminist" is redundant.  "Misogynist" is sufficient to describe one who dislikes women, but "feminist" does not in any way imply one who dislikes men.

I'm just a bit baffled by people (usually, but not always men) who seem to think feminism is somehow an attack on men.  It really isn't.

I have been accused of assuming that men-only clubs are full of misogynists, god knows what's being projected there, but to be clear I don't think they're remotely 'nefarious'.  More than anything, I think they're just a bit embarrassing really.

Clearly it is not for everybody (every woman I should say), but I can fully understand why a woman might want to join a women-only club, or attend an event like the WCS.  I can't for the bloody life of me get my head around anyone would want to join a men-only club to be honest, though I don't have an ideological objection to it as long as it doesn't wield undue influence (say over the BMC, if being a "senior club" still actually counted for anything).  More than anything, it just strikes me as a bit sad.

That isn't because one is for women and the other is for men, it's because one group is usually in the minority and the other isn't.  It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp is it? 

I mean, I could understand why someone might want to organise a professional symposium for male midwives, say, whereas a symposium for female midwives only would be pointless.

<edit: spelling>

Some examples:

...the members sometimes prefer to climb and socialise with members of their own sex because the members are misogynistic women haters.
Male only = get away from women to behave like a bunch of 'lads' and potentially express misogynist views.
I’m just saying they’re ridiculous and unnecessary in this day and age and there’s likely to be underlying sexism involved.
If you wanted to create an environment in which the full range of misogynistic attitudes and behaviours were created and fermented, then strict male-only environments would probably help. 

If you believe that I have accused you of such, then I apologise for that as I don't believe you have said anything to that effect.

I clarified that in my post at 1404 today and I apologise if my clumsy language caused confusion.
To summarise, please feel free to replace 'Men Hating Feminist' with 'Men Hating Misandrist' if you think it improves accuracy, etc.

Has the wayfarers voted to allow women in or all members of the human race without prejudice.

Just wondered how it was worded.

I'll certainly cede that feminist doesn't equate to misogynist and that misandry is certainly a better fit. Although I'm always quite charitable when it comes to contextualising the statement into it's intended meaning. The inclusion of 'men-haters' and 'women-haters' conveyed the idea of gender-prejudiced people across to me anyway. 

I think words get redefined over time depending in how they're used. Feminism has garnered some negative conotations that civil rights activists, and egalitarians have managed to avoid.

Unfortunately as with any label, you cannot control who decides to self-identify under that same label. 

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same of female/male only swiming times? Males can also have body issues and self esteem issues around members of the opposite sex. 

I'm slightly astonished that you can't imagine any situations where a male-only climbing group might offer a legitimate and positive alternative to mixed and female-only settings. 

I actually don't think it's as simple as that at all. Women are very much the majority and swimmings baths but often there's only a ladies night and no equivalent for men. 

Whilst you pick a reasonable example I don't think the minority / majority issue is the crux but the crux is actually whether or not there's enough issues that are only relevant to male midwives to make it worthwhile to create a male-specific symposium. 

Males could be the majority of people in say a workplace but that doesn't mean they couldn't run an event talking about male suicide and associated pressures. Some men might find it difficult to discuss such topics in front of women. 

It is worded thus.
The Wayfarers will henceforth accept all members of the human race except that miserable gear nerd Rick Graham, because he will not buy anyone a pint.

Seemed fair to everyone.

Bit of a trek from the RLH but as a member of The Wayfarers' Club you can get a CC hut key.

No apology necessary and certainly no offence taken - it just struck me that you were setting up something of a 'strawman' argument.

I don't think any of those others you quoted were arguing that this or other clubs were full of misogynists with nefarious intent either.  The furthest any of them go, it seems to me, is to suggest that there may be a 'Sid the Sexist' or two.  It's a far cry from saying they make up the entire membership.  Well, you're not arguing the converse are you?  That any club is entirely free of such people?  In my experience it's like the loony on the bus - there is always at least one.

Glad to hear it.  I was being much less charitable, for sure, and seizing on a negative connotation.  It struck me as indicative of an attitude lurking 'between the lines' of many posts, but rarely seen so baldly stated.

No, I don't think I buy that.  Look at all the bile that's been thrown at Colin Kaepernick in the US over the last year or two for being in the vanguard of a perfectly reasonable and completely peaceful protest movement.  As a university undergraduate, our previous prime minister (old whatsisname, the pig guy) was active in a not-really-joking-at-all Tory student campaign propesing that Nelson Mandela should be executed by the South African apartheid regime as a terrorist.

Indeed you can't control who self-identifies under any given label, but I do think feminism generally has been more mistreated by commentators, media, etc., than any other civil-rights movement.  The trope that the most stereotypical 'shrieking harpy' the tabloids can conjure up is representative of feminism is incredibly pervasive and absolutely mainstream.

It's been years since I've been swimming indoors, so can't speak from experience.  I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a pool holding a men-only session if they also have women-only times.  And I'm sure most would if they had the demand for them.  Of course I'm aware that men can also have erm..  'body issues', my own confidence has not always been tip-top, but I really don't think a single-sex open session offers a similarly supportive environment to such a man that it does to a woman.  Wouldn't for me, I think, but again can't really speak from experience.

On the subject of single-sex climbing clubs, the same applies regarding 'demand'.  What you or I think about it is moot.  we can argue about it in this curiously male-only thread until we're blue in the face.  The fact is though that however we may feel about it, it's still perfectly possible and legal for such a club to exist.  That they don't doesn't reflect 'political correctness', it reflects the fact that there is not the demand for one.  Not even among the existing membership of the last one to go.  Good.

Why have you typed all this? Do you actually think anyone is going to read it?

https://www.xkcd.com/386/

Well said. The following paragraphs, in quotes, are the opening on the wikipedia page on the subject, which I'd hope the majority of people could support, and if so they could call themselves feminists, even men. So how have we got into a position where feminism, which is really about equality, has gained so many public negative connotations, unless those people complaining don't beleive in equality (like those who opposed the political and social changes that have so benefitted women in the west)? It's got to the point where I've had women tell me "  I'm not a feminist but I believe in equality"....!!??

"Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to ensure access to legal abortions and social integration, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[3] Changes in dress and acceptable physical activity have often been part of feminist movements.[4]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism