UKH

After experiencing injustice when hiking in the English countryside, Amira Patel decided she wanted to help create a safe space for Muslim women outdoors. She founded her own group, the Wanderlust Women.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Brilliant. I wonder what the dislikers dislike...

In reply to jon:

I thought it was very interesting film. The only thing that jarred a bit with me, (I'm not one of the dislikers BTW), was the waving of the Palestinian flag on the summit. A bit too overtly political for my tastes, and I don't think it helps inclusivity (and I'd think the same about any political symbolism).

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Lovely film. The flag didn't bother me at all; I found it kind of poignant when you consider how many British flags have been raised in the past on hills and beaches in our colonial history. It's not like the group was staking a claim to anything; I understood it as a simple sign of unity and pride. 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Amira, what a beautiful film. I felt your pain over appearing as an outsider in the outdoors. We need more films like this to inspire others, and educate those of us who need reminding about inclusivity. The outdoors should be for everyone.

Thank you.

In reply to jon:

At a guess? Broadening their horizons…

In reply to Ridge:

Given the amount of exclusion the Palestinians have suffered, flying the flag is a plea for inclusivity. This goes beyond "politics" in the same way that supporting anti-Apartheid movements went beyond "politics".

In reply to jon:

I wondered that too. It won't be an objection to the film quality or direction, or the personalities involved or the choice of music. I suspect it will be an objection to brown people (even worse - women) getting involved in the outdoors as joyfully as these folk have. If it's something to do with the Palestinian flag being raised, then that's as bad as the racism. I could be wrong, and if one of those dislikers would like to explain why they didn't like it then that'd be interesting.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I am not one of the dis-likers but I suspect a lot of people do not like face coverings in a western society and see it as contrary to the argument and plea being made for inclusivity.

The outdoors is of course for everyone and I for one would welcome anyone, face covering of not.

Al

In reply to John Stainforth:

It's a possibility but I think the adoption of the Palestinian cause is far more multifaceted and complex than that. I knew that there was a close connection historically between the Palestinian struggle and and the Irish Republican struggle for example, and I knew that the Palestinian flag got flown in Northern Ireland because of that, but going to Northern Ireland this summer on holiday I didn't realise just how common it was. We went straight from the airport to Derry and around the Free Derry and H Block monuments I reckon there were more Palestinian flags than Irish ones! I also saw driving out of Londonderry Israeli flags on lamp posts above Union Jacks. But the Palestinian flags were everywhere.

I think its close to being a universal symbol or resistance and rebellion, but when an Irish Nationalist flies it in Derry, or football "ultras" at one of the leftist clubs in Germany fly it, or when a British Muslim flies it when hillwalking - I don't think you can say it is simply a plea for inclusivity. 

I did wonder in Belfast this summer what your average Palestinian from Ramallah or Jenin (or indeed Haifa or Tel Aviv) might make of their national flag being on a thousand lamp post of Northern Ireland! Or indeed what Israelis might make of their flag being being flown on lampposts across the street from UVF memorials...

Lovely film by the way. 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Yes, I fail to understand and find it sad how anyone can watch it and fail to be moved... and instead prefer to find fault with something as inconsequential as face coverings.

In reply to jon:

Maybe just the use of the term "wild swimming". 

In reply to jon:

Segregation along religious lines? Spent many days walking with men and women who were of major theisms and I don’t recall either category being considered a barrier to being outdoors. I spend many days walking in my home national park (Peak) and people of colour (and by appearance faith) are well represented. 
 

I understand there is a confidence in being in a group of like individuals (my university Scottish and Irish society, gay climbing clubs etc) and I’m delighted this group exists to encourage people to the outdoors.  However are this group not excluding women of colour of other faiths? And, on the wider point, some of us really do regard religion as a negative in this world.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Do you honestly think that there is that sort of racism and mysogyny on here? That people simply object to brown women enjoying the outdoors?

In reply to TobyA:

Well, I agree with you. My second sentence, which you did not quote, expressed the view that this is a broad, i.e., multi-faceted, issue.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well...... having listened to them talk a few times now, they have faced actual racism in the hills.

A few points:

1/ The meaning of diversity & inclusion

If I were to envisage a utopian vison of diversity and inclusion, I would imagine groups of men and women from different races and cultural backgrounds all enjoying the countryside together, something I myself regularly experience when climbing in the UK and abroad. For some reason, when presented from certain ideological viewpoints, segregation is seen as some form of ideal, where people from one sex and/or racial group doing activity x is said to be progressive.

2/ Equality

Right to access public land is something that has long been fought for in this country (an interesting article on the subject can be found here: http://www.marionshoard.co.uk/Books/A-Right-To-Roam/Introduction.php). My point is that public access to spaces such as the Lakes has today been long established and is already accessible by people from any cultural background = equality.

3/ Cultural differences

My understanding of the world is that there are cultural differences between people of different races and backgrounds. For example; cricket is not widely followed in China, rugby is not a large part of Indian culture, and so on. I can only speculate as to the popularity of hill walking and/or rock climbing in a country such as Saudi Arabia. From this perspective then, why do we frame the low participation of different cultures in specific activities as being some form of problem, or even worse, due to racism? 

4/ Cultural integration

On the subject of the religious clothing worn in the film, to understand why this may be an issue for some people I find it useful to illustrate the counter example. If a western woman were to walk around a country of Muslim prevalence, and not conform to the norms of the women living there it would be viewed as inappropriate at best. I could only imagine the reaction if this was then further compounded by that individual complaining about the reaction they received.

As a nation built by the mixing of diverse peoples over centuries, we should not then be surprised that we have established a culture with its own practices, beliefs and norms. This is something that can be found specific to every nation on the planet and should be treated respectfully by anyone living in or visiting these places.

5/ Numbers

In the UK people from Muslim backgrounds represent 4.4% of the total population, if we assume that 50% of these are female, then we have 2.2% of the total UK population represented in the film. As highlighted in point 3, what proportion of this 2.2% would we reasonably think are interested in the great outdoors? Taking a guess at 25%, this would give us a total of 0.6% of the UK population. Looking at it from this perspective, are we then surprised that we do not see a large proportion of people from this specific background in the UK countryside?

All this said, I am happy to see these people enjoying the countryside, as it’s a great way to meet a diverse range of new people and hopefully break down some the cultural barriers that exist in this country. What I cannot stand is the framing of reasonably justifiable differences in outcomes presented as problems within our society. Furthermore, anyone who demands we should accept their cultural practices without respecting the cultural norms of another society is a hypocrite.

In reply to Dutton:

I think at least one of the women in the video is from Lancashire. I know Lancashire folk are a bit odd, but it's not Saudi Arabia.

Seriously!?

In reply to Dutton:

I heard this sort of thing a lot over the decades, yet from the earliest obsessive climbing days in my Uni club the ethnic diversity and gender balance quickly improved to an excellent level. There seemed to me to be no lack of interest from people based on skin colour or gender. Climbing and mountains are not for everyone but I see no massive differences where people have exposure to the activities and a real choice.

The Saudi bit is as hilarious as it is sad: women lived controlled lives in Saudi.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Live and let live. People can do what they want with who they want. Seems like a great promotional video for the group and outdoor swimming in general. 

I can't argue that it's diverse (obviously) or inclusive (there won't be any Jews or other faiths joining) but they're not harming anyone. 

In reply to TobyA:

I'm not saying that they are from Saudi Arabia, my point is that people from different cultural backgrounds tend to have different interests. I don't quite understand why this is seen to be either controversial or a problem.

In reply to Dutton:

But Amira is British, like me (and presumably like you), and she likes hill walking and being in the mountains, like me (and presumably like you) - and swimming outdoors, which I also enjoy, although I have to admit I do it a lot less now I'm living back in the UK.

So why did you start going on about people in Saudi Arabia maybe not liking hiking or climbing? Unless it's that you think that Amira being Muslim makes her culturally more like someone from Saudi than her being a British hillwalker makes her like any other British hill walker?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't think there are many out and out bigots on here. But there's a consistent accumulation of dislikes and argument on posts about initiatives to widen participation in outdoor activities or highlight diversity issues and barriers to entry. So yes, I think it would be burying your head in the sand to say that we don't have a substantial number of users, perhaps increasingly silent, whose knee jerk reaction to inclusion is that it's somewhere between unnecessary and unwelcome.

And sure, maybe some of those dislikes this time are specifically for face coverings or the Palestinian flag. But the arguments or dislikes are consistently there, to varying levels, on almost every post or comment about inclusion and diversity.

I do think it's gradually getting better as these discussions go on, with more people coming around to the idea that maybe their personal experience isn't the best guide to everybody else's experience. But still every time this discussion comes up there's somebody saying "well I've seen plenty of <minority in question> on the hills" or "I've never seen anybody being blatantly discriminatory towards <x>" and concluding that the initiative under discussion is therefore unhelpful.

And I kind of understand where those people are coming from. If you're part of the majority groups in climbing, as I also am, barriers to entry or discrimination that others might experience tend to be pretty invisible. But I think there's pervasive enough discussion around these kinds of issues now that unless you're deliberately not listening, you really ought to have grasped that different people have very different experiences.

In reply to TobyA:

actually not walking but swimming it does, all three are wearing cultural or religious attire. Women who follow Islam willingly or through family pressure are much less likely to learn to swim publicly etc.. there have been plenty campaigns in sweden to try and catch as many kids from such families and have them swimming at least 200m(400 or 500m) before leaving school, because they know it's unlikely to happen at home. In a nation with a lot of lakes and where it's just the norm to swim in them, it's considered an essential life skill (as you likely know).

I've never seen 3 Islamic women swimming in a lake here, but if they did it certainly wouldn't generate any excitement like the article. Whilst folk might look etc..  99% would think it's great they've broken cultural norms and become a little more swedish, especially if they've got kids in tow. 

Note: over here it's just called going to the lake, no reference to wild or swimming! 

In reply to Dutton:

I think this is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation. I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that segregation is the ultimate goal or a progressive ideal. Attempts to encourage minorities into particular activities by providing opportunities for them to specifically participate with a group similar to them is a pragmatic response to a wider lack of similar people in the activity, not some kind of generalised drive towards balkanization. I genuinely can't imagine how you arrived at this picture of things in good faith but if it's a common view of things then it would certainly explain some of the hostility.

In reply to TobyA:

The term British is too vague and does not generally describe a singular group of people with a shared system of values and beliefs, I could say that all plants are green, but that doesn’t mean there are no differences between different types of plant.

The census allows people to describe themselves as more than just British for example, probably because there are sufficient differences between groups of British people to make it useful to measure. Even amongst people that are defined as white British there are big differences, I know lots of people from this group that do not enjoy the outdoors at all. My own brother who was brought up in the same house, by the same parents and value structure does not get outside and enjoy the same activities as me. When there can be so much variation between people from almost the exact same upbringing, why then would we expect equal outcomes in participation across all recreational activities from people brought up in different cultures.

I used Saudi Arabia as an example as it’s an economically developed country that can be used as a reference to the typical recreational preferences of people from that type of religious culture. I’m not saying the people in the video fully represent these values, only that it might be reasonable to assume that people from a heritage similar to this may pursue different activities in their spare time.

I’ve never come across an outdoor community that discriminates against people based on race or cultural background. Based on the premises I’ve already described, this may more likely come from within their own communities and not from people that promote getting involved. If the argument is that assumptions/comments made against people gowned in full religious dress in outdoor spaces deters participation, this is clearly unavoidable based on point 5 above, the reaction to which explained in point 4.

In reply to Luke90:

I agree with you, I think that what they’re doing is good and can only help to improve participation and further integration. What I don’t like is the framing that people involved in outdoor culture are somehow preventing anybody from getting involved. You cannot be blind to the fact that certain prevailing ideologies want to present segregated group participation as some form of progress.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I feel like the world would be a better place if people actually listened to what others had to say rather than tell them the issues they raise and have experienced actually don't exist as seems to happen every bloody time UKC do an inclusivity piece.

In reply to Dutton:

But what's that got to do with this video about people who do like to going hiking (and swimming) and scrambling in the hills?

It very big of you to concede that "The people in the video" don't fully "represent these values" (that's Saudi Arabian values I think?). You know all Muslims aren't the same? So we have a British-Asian woman (Amira's family heritage is Indian), a Boltonian, a hill walker, a scrambler, an outdoor "social media influencer", who has made a film about her love of the British hills. But you seem to think because she is from a "heritage similar" to Saudi Arabians (again WTF?) she shouldn't want to go hill walking? What's this film about then?

Well that will be a great relief to people who say they have faced prejudice. Presumably the prejudice Amira says she has faced doing her hobbies, isn't from the rest of society, it was actually her own community*?

*And is that the Saudi Arabian community or the Lancastrian community? I'm getting a little confused by this point.

In reply to Luke90:

I very much hope we can assume not.

I doubt that is actually true. I think there is just disagreement and misunderstanding about how that inclusion should be achieved.

Along with various other things about the article. I just don't believe that more than a tiny number are from people who don't think brown people should be enjoying the outdoors.

In reply to TobyA:

Amira is British, but not like you. Yes we have a lot in common, but we have to recognise we have many differences too. That is the essence of multi-culturalism surely? 

In reply to Robert Durran:

The preference from some people seems to be "magically" without anyone doing anything at all or preferably even mentioning it. And I'm not sure that denying a clear imbalance, or admitting it but opposing attempts to redress it, is very many steps from being quietly pretty comfortable with the status quo.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I see your point, but on the simplest level if you are a British citizen, then you are British like me. I'm very wary of accepting different types of "being British" because that very easily becomes different levels or classes of being British. All of my children are now dual nationals, but two of the three weren't born in the UK. Does that make them British in a different way to their little brother or indeed me? If I understand what Patel (home sec Patel, not the star of this film Patel!) is trying to do with the citizenship law, she seems to think so as she believes UK citizenship should be able to be removed from foreign born dual citizens, in certain situations without even telling them.

To say we are all British is of course not to say we are all the same. But if we are UK citizens, then I think we are British in the same way.

In reply to TobyA:

I couldn’t quite make out all that was said, but at one point a purpose of the group is stated as  showing that Muslim women are not oppressed and can do as much as anyone else. Does having to swim so encumbered show the opposite? 

In reply to summo:

I've seen many wealthy looking muslim women swimming in full body cover in Dahab next to Russian women swimming in things that really needed a good bit more material to justify being called a bikini. No one seemed fussed on either side.

In reply to TobyA:

I think that is way too simplistic. In what way is everyone "British"? Even an apparently homogeneous section of UK society (for instance members of the local church) will have different views about what constitutes societal norms.

Pertaining to this thread my norms would make me feel any woman wearing a veil is under some degree of patriarchal control (notwithstanding the wearers stating it's their choice etc) and by implication the wearer rejects norms that I accept / expect. The fact that we live next door and have the same passport is irrelevant.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

In that we're not Finnish or Mexican or Filipino or French. In that sense it's very simple. In the same way that we are married or not married - of course there are millions of different types of marriages out there, but you can't be "sort of married" or "63% unmarried".

It's not irrelevant to which queue you stand in at the airport though is it? Or right now, if you are allowed into France for a holiday or not. Or whether you have the right to vote in a UK general election but not in, say, the next German federal election. It's very relevant to those things.

I'm talking about being British because the guy I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that Amira's attitudes to hill walking or wild swimming should be shared with Saudis. It struck me that, as she comes from Bolton and I think I read now lives in the Lakes, that seemed quite unlikely!

Does your belief that there are different types of Britishness differ from Priti Patel's - where certain British people should have less rights than other British people?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/34/2020/05/15607-d... I guess not.

In reply to TobyA:

Maybe this is because her attitudes to wearing a veil are shared with Saudis?

The guy you respond to might be miles off the mark but everyone makes judgements and applies / projects their experiences all the time.

Yes it does. We are all equally British in the sense that the law applies to us all equally (in theory anyway) nobody has fewer rights because they're female or Muslim or non white. I'd hoped that was obviously my position. A written forum where I am typing on a phone is probably not the ideal medium to discuss this because of the probability of being misconstrued.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

That's a massive (and I think hugely unfair) assumption. Which Saudis anyway? One of the Wahhabi ulema? A women's rights activist languishing in one of MBS's prisons? An upper middle class woman just back from a shopping and clubbing trip to London? Or a working class shia woman living in a slum and trying to negotiate life in a police state as the wrong sort of muslim. I'm sure all those Saudis see the niqab in rather different ways.

You said originally that "Amira is British but not like you", then a bit later "in what way is everyone 'British'?" Well, in that way you say above. We all have equal rights as citizens, along as the Home Secretary doesn't get to change that.

In reply to TobyA:

The point is the veil is not a feature of British* culture, whereas it is a feature of middle eastern culture. As far as I know none of my female ancestors wore veils (apart from on their wedding days)

I agree with that. The reason Amira is not the same British as you and I is simply she has a different set of cultural norms to you and I. I never said better or worse but different.

*One of the big problems with this sort of discussion is the loaded nature of the word "British" perhaps I should replace this with Northern European?

In reply to TobyA:

Except of course the UK citizens that happen to identify as Irish.........

In reply to TobyA:

Is that mens triathlon? Mixed gender sports not allowed, and additional garment required over wetsuit!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I find all the negativity bizzare. 

For all I object to women's groups (I refuse to sign up for anything which is aimed solely at women), I accept that for some people it is a useful gateway into the normal outdoor world. Once someone has gained confidence in a setting which is more familiar to them (Muslim women often socialise with other Muslim women), then they might feel confident pushing out with other groups too. 

As for objecting to face coverings etc, why do you care? They aren't asking you to do the same. They are choosing their clothing based on their own needs and preferences. It shouldn't matter one bit to anyone else! I can choose to wear a wetsuit when the water is 20 degrees, some people think that is insane and swim skins all year round. I see no difference.

I thought it was a lovely film and pleased these ladies are enjoying the outdoors 😊

In reply to jimtitt:

If they only have a British passport or at least are only travelling on a British passport, good luck on persuading that French immigration officer you're Irish!

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I don't really understand your point then. I mean obviously she's ethnically Indian not white British, but I've already said of course we are all different in loads of different ways. British is a compound identity anyway, and they are all "imagined communities" at the end of the day, so I think if you say British it's just simplest to think of that meaning citizenship.

In reply to girlymonkey:

A lot of privileged people feel slightly uncomfortable whenever someone without the same privileges points out their difficulties.

It's a guilt reaction I think - people feel like they are being accused of oppression, rather than just being asked to acknowledge that life rolled them a six in some regard.

In reply to TobyA:

I guess the problem is that if you use the word "British" to describe yourself or someone else, you are not simply describing their passport. Every decoding is another encoding and all that.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

If you said "English" you might have a point but "British" is such a contested and political/politicised idea it is actually way more inclusive (and I would argue progressive) if you say being British is simply what your passport says. If we don't demand anything of people to be British beyond that, it isn't an ethnically or religiously or anything else-ly defined.

In reply to TobyA:

If we were playing word association and I said "British" how many words would you say before "passport"? 

In reply to Ciro:

I think that's a very good point. I always thought the country side was open to everyone, until I listened to a radio programme about 15 years ago where a black woman gave a really good explanation about how everyone else was white, she felt alien, and even though there was very little actual hostilty she could see the sideways glances and the more overt stares.

After living in Bradford for many years I have a similar view of going to places where my (white) skin colour marks me out. There's bits of Bradford where I know I'm going to get verbal abuse and maybe a kicking, there's more genteel areas where I'm perfectly safe..but there's the looks and stares, just like a person of colour might get in Keswick.

Yes, there's no official apartheid, anyone regardless of race, creed or colour can visit a NP, but that doesn't mean they automatically feel comfortable there, the attitude of the people there has an effect.

 I'm perfectly at liberty to go on holiday in an African country near the Somali border, the resort might be exclusive, in a wonderful environment and be really safe, but I wouldn't be comfortable. I'd be wanting to sit with my back to a wall, with a good view of the entrance and scope out the exit routes. Not really a relaxing break IMHO.

I can see how other people might feel similarly hypervigilent somewhere I feel completely at ease, (like the Lakes). Just because I feel free to visit somewhere doesn't mean other people aren't reticent and maybe need a bit of understanding.

This is where it gets complicated, whoever rolls the six changes in terms of environment.

 A middle class, educated black person might feel uncomfortable in a National Park, but perfectly at home in, for example, a professional body. I feel at home in a NP but know when I open my gob and my Leeds council estate accent comes out in a work environment my perceived IQ drops by about 50 points. It's why I don't belong to any professional bodies or attend various dinners or lectures I get invited to. I feel I don't belong.

Some ppeoplemight think that's utter nonsense, but it's real to me. I can see why Amira and her friends might feel the same about enjoying the Lake District.

Edited due to too many beers.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Citizen might come before but passport... No, if I think of my house and life, "passport" probably still comes before that. Maybe 30 years ago it might have been Telecom or Airways, but everyone just goes for BT or BA or BAEsystems and so on these days don't they?

Many years ago when I was doing my first Finnish course the teacher was asking where we all came from. I tried "brittiläinen" which I thought described me best, I'm English but before I moved to Finland I had lived in Glasgow for four years. She asked me where I had moved from and I said Glasgow so she helpfully suggest I was "Skotlantilainen", it was hard to explain why I wasn't with my very limited Finnish, but finally she concluded I was "Englantilainen". You can actually say "Britti" although it's not commonly used, it is a bit less of a mouthful than "Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kansalainen" (UK citizen) though. To the chagrin of plenty of Scots I know, in many countries all of us from the UK just get called "English".

Do you consider yourself British before you are English? I don't know anyone from England who thinks of themselves as that except for in a considered and generally political way; often that political way can be progressive - normally a conscious decision to move away from the ethnic connotations of "English". I remember when I first started doing undergrad politics tutorials - an obligation of my PhD funding - at Manchester Met, having a local mature student, a black guy, who when we were talking about identity said "I'm a Manc, I'm British and my family is Jamaican. But I'll never be English, because I'm Black." That was 20 years ago, and I've often wondered if he has changed his opinion at all since but it seemed common then. I think the England football team has probably done more than anything else to recast "English" as beyond ethnicity. But still I get the impression that plenty of people from ethnic minorities in England at least, still identify as British before English, because British is what is on your passport and partly escapes ethnic and exclusive dimensions.

In reply to TobyA:

It's odd: If someone asks me where I'm from, I'd likely as not say England, but I never would describe myself as English, always British. It's like England is the descriptor for my geographical roots, but Britain is the descriptor for my cultural and political ones.

In reply to TobyA:

As ever, it depends who's asking. If I was in France I would describe myself as British (to a Frenchman). If I'm in Scotland I would describe myself as English (although they'd probably guess). If I'm talking to someone else from England I'd say I'm from Stockport (not really manc, not proper Cheshire)

In reply to Ridge:

Absolutely, and I think this is where a lot of the resentment comes from.

The word "privilege" conjurs up images of wealth and being born with a silver spoon in your mouth - people who don't *feel* privileged sometimes resent being told that in some ways they are.

The fact is we're all a mixture of privileges and disadvantages.

As a white male, with two teachers for parents, I was privileged as a kid. 

Being of Irish Catholic descent growing up in a mainly Protestant village in sectarian West Central Scotland I was disadvantaged.

That sectarianism still exists, but these days it's unlikely my CV is going to be binned on account of my surname or the high school I went to, so on the whole I can recognise that I'm fairly privileged in most situations.

For the main part I don't have to experience or worry about discrimination, sexual violence, or being negatively stereotyped. I won't be stopped and searched by the police because of the colour of my skin, and I'm never going to get told to "go home" in the land of my birth.

None of that means that I feel privileged - in fact as someone who experiences low self esteem, anxiety and depression, I tend to feel the opposite - it's just that I have a framework within which to recognise it at an intellectual level.

I can easily see how, if I was still experiencing the direct discrimination of my youth, I might not be able to acknowledge my privileges at all.

Certainly some of them didn't feel like privileges at the time. I hated the middle class aspirations my parents were pushing on me, and I hated the fact that I stood out from my peers intellectually (on account of my mother teaching me reading and arithmetic before I went to school). I just wanted to fit in with the working class kids around me.

So I think a lot of the time we end up talking at cross purposes on the subject, and it's very difficult to separate the academic and emotional aspects of the word "privilege".

In reply to john arran:

I'd probably go the other way around - I might say I'm from the UK, but would describe myself as Scottish.

I'd say I used to think of myself as Scottish first, Irish second, British third, and European fourth.

It's switched now and I'd say I think of myself as Scottish first and European second. 

My UK passport is due to expire in February and I don't think I'll bother replacing it.

My mum used to travel on her UK passport to avoid the suspicion that was attached to an Irish passport coming back into the UK , and I remember feeling privileged to own one of the passports that really opens the world to you.

It's funny to feel like that's no longer part of my identity.

In reply to Robert Durran: yes I do. Climbers don’t have a moral high ground on racism or sexism, and the intolerance towards women and brown people that exists in society also exists in the climbing community. It’s charming to think that all climbers are tolerant and open minded but that simply isn’t true, and how could it be?

Why do you think the dislikers disliked?
 

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Probably for all the more nuanced reasons than outright racism that have been brought up in the thread.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've been thinking of saying this, but was fearful of putting my head above the parapet....

From my experience of UKC [dis]like machine, people tend to focus on one or two parts of a post ( or video) and then will respond based on the bits that they feel strongest about, even if those bits form a tiny percentage of the OP or video being assessed.

Quite often people have completely different parts if the post/vid in mind and so you see a situation where people are incredulous that others don't agree with their viewpoint, when in actual fact some of the other voters might have completely glossed over the bits that mattered most to someone else.

Taking a rather stupid made up example, you could have a video of mother Theresa walking to camera whilst asking people for donations for her charity to stop global warming, end poverty and prevent the oncoming 3rd world war.  A huge proportion of people would vote that up for obvious reasons, but I'd be frantically stabbing the dislike button because she listened rather than looked when she stepped into the road, so causing a cyclist to swerve around her.

Likewise I expect that I'll get a stack of dislikes for this post, at least some of which are completely unrelated to what I'm waffling about, how irrelevant it is to the OP, but simple because THEY HATE CYCLISTS,  I've outed myself as one and that's the bit that is most important to them.

You'll be surprised at the various reasons that people voted the OP down.  Some of them will be utterly trivial, and will have been from people who actually firmly agreed with the general thrust of the generaln inclusively statement.

IMHO

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think people on here want to see articles and posts about climbing. Preferably trad. On gritstone. So when they see an article like this they hit dislike to say “less of this sort of thing please”

I was half joking when I said that the dislikers don’t like broadening their horizons. But only half. Some people I think really don’t.

Added to that, there’s at least one or two fairly regular posters on here that are just plain old common or garden bigots. Times that by several, as most visitors here never post and there’s the rest of your dislikers.