UKH

On International Women's Day, we'd like to encourage more women to pitch writing ideas to UKClimbing.com and UKHillwalking.com. In recent years, we have increased our in-house coverage of women's climbing and women in the outdoors, alongside more female-specific gear and training editorial, but we'd still love to feature more freelance commissions produced by women.

More women are climbing, walking and getting outdoors than ever before and the media landscape is slowly becoming more representative, but - despite a fair number of female editors in outdoor media - contributing writers in the field are still disproportionately male.

Perhaps you can help us get towards a more equal balance? If you've got an idea - no matter how big or small - get in touch!

In reply to SR1970:

Yes. It's the 19th November. I'm sure Google could have told you that.

Great stuff, will you be running a piece on the front page for it?

In reply to SR1970 and olddirtydog:

Ignorant and passive-aggressive responses like this are a major reason why women don't pitch, or would prefer to do so in a space aimed at women.

It's also an excellent illustration of the ways that men often exert control over a space, whether geographical or online - and it's so normal that you don't even consider that you are exerting exclusionary control with your comments.

When would have been a better time for UKC to highlight that they would like more pitches from women?

That would be an interesting pitch, wouldn't it? 

Men--who already contribute the majority of articles and don't seem to need encouragement to get in touch--to be encouraged to get in touch to discuss their experiences, which are frequently discussed...

 Totally worthy of front page news, that.

Well said both Gritstone Widow and Wil.

In reply to:

I watched a really good talk last night arranged by my work for International Women's Day.  The talk was about the personal experience of being a woman working in the film and television industry for many years.  I am sure much of what was said could be applied to many (most?) industries.  Whilst much of what was said are things I have heard before it was really interesting and stark to have it presented in one single talk and with a really personal take.  I think and hope that equality, diversity and inclusion have moved a long way in the last 20-30 years but there is still a long way to go.

Good piece on the AMI facebook page yesterday about some of the pioneers in the instructional world. Would be good to give it a bit more exposure by publishing it here as well?

In reply to LevenRowan:

https://newsthump.com/2017/03/08/international-misogynists-day-ruined-by-wo...

I'm so sorry your international misogynist day was ruined.  

In reply to Luke90:

Second this. I am a woman and comments like this are why I don’t post on here. 

Heaven help us if they come up with such a stupid idea as Mother's Day as well. 

I think you're reading a bit too much into my comment there.

   I'm all for women writing on the front page, whether it be articles that are of broad interest or on topics that might be more for women like the ones on training. My question was just about int men's day and if there could be something specific for blokes. I've no idea what form that could take and I'm not too bothered if that happens or not.

Some posters are too eager to attack members for posts that are not anti women. Let's keep the discussion pleasant and not drag it down into a game of insult tennis. Thank you.

But responding to International Women's Day with complaints or jokes about International Men's Day is such a ridiculous cliché. At best, it's pretty thoughtless, because it doesn't take much pondering to figure out why International Women's Day might be treated differently. In fact, the reason is right there in the summary at the top of this thread. And I think most comments along those lines do tend to be based on at least some level of hostility towards the concept of inclusion. That's certainly the impression that comes across.

What you did by posting on this thread was like a toddler shouting "me me me, what about ME".  

Not specifically anti women in your opinion maybe, just yet another man making it all about the men.  

I can't say that I blame you, but that's such a shame.  It'd probably be a better place if you did.

Instead of insulting me, why not try and reason with me in a polite way. It might be we're in total agreement but you've decided to read an interpretation into my post and attack me.

I watched a great lecture a while back on discussion and the value of the exchange of ideas. The speaker who is a clinical psychologist talked about going into a discussion like an argument and turning what you think is your opponent into a 'straw man' to win your fight. Humiliating and attacking a person isn't going to win anyone over, why not engage with me, see if there are matters of difference and then we can have a civilised discussion and hopefully enlight each other.

What can be contentious topics, can also be great subjects of discussion, give it a try. Thanks for your feedback.

I have no real interest in wasting my time trying to persuade someone who has so little self awareness.  

Instead of complaining about the people calling  you out while refusing to see how your post is in anyway problematic you could take responsibility for your words.  

One of the main sticking points here in your post is that you're saying female representation, diversity and inclusion are subjects for "discussion". Can you understand that it doesn't feel to a lot of people that diverse representation should be a question "for discussion"? How best to include the quieter voices is absolutely up for discussion and debate (and I'm certainly not going to claim that a potentially tokenistic single day out of every 365 is magically going to bring about gender parity, a closing of the pay gap, and equal participation in society, or is indeed the best way to do things) but I don't feel that encouraging the participation of women alongside that of men is fundamentally a "contentious topic" in a 21st century democracy.

 Subsequently, having to then try and justify (yet again) why women should have a seat at the table and patiently explain that, no, International Women's Day doesn't mean that men are going to be oppressed and excluded is--quite frankly--really annoying. No-one assumes that highlighting Black History in November is going to wipe Magna Carta from the annuls and deny the existence of the Spanish Armada, so why should International Women's Day work differently? Comments about International Men's Day turn the focus back to men (as though the previous centuries weren't enough!) and defeat the object of trying to highlight women's voices. At best, those comments come across as tone-deaf and ungracious. At their worst, comments about 19 November come across as mean-spirited, misogynistic and egotistical. Therefore, when you make inquiries about whether UKC will be highlighting International Men's Day on an attempt to create a more inclusive forum, you're writing into a long cultural context of female representation being ignored and that's why people get narked, resent feeling it incumbent upon them to write long explanatory posts, and post convenient short cuts instead.

I didn't refuse anything, we just have a differing view of what I said up there.

I was watching another great interview with Johnathan Pie, I'm a big fan of his material. In his interview he was lamenting how speech has been reduced by a radical shift to shout down voices we don't agree with. The sad part is the far right have now tried to set themselves up as the protectors of free speech and are using it to great success, what a terrible state of affairs.

Now before we get carried away, I'm not accusing you of being far radical left and I'm certainly not far right but the point about discussion I thought has far reaching benefits in the wider society. I take full responsibility for my words and I really do value any poster that disagrees with me.

 Pretty much most of what you've said I agree with, I'm all good with the article that this discussion is linked from.

Ok, I'll just offer a reply to a couple of points you've made. Firstly I think that all topics should be game for discussion, even those as a wider society we've come to an agreement on. You don't have to justify women's specific presence on here to me, I'm all for it and I don't think the int women's day marginalises men.

Int men's day comments I don't think are anti women for the same reason as I stated above about women's day. I'm not trying to suggest that having the men's day up on the front page makes the site more inclusive, it's not a big issue for me, I simply asked a question.

Your post is really well thought out and I'm greatful for the time you've put into it. What I would suggest is that we ease off the idea that we all know what I really meant when I posted my question, the only person who knows that is me and for what it's worth I'm being 100% straight and honest. Thanks for the reply.

So you still don't accept that posting about IMD on IWD was inappropriate?  

I don't no. One thing that might add some context was my post was a follow on from the first 2 posts, one of which has been taken down so now my post stands alone.

I'm going to say this in the nicest possible way, don't be too quick to judge what a person is thinking when they post something.

Thanks for your reply. I think your point about easing off on original intention is interesting (without wanting to get too Derridian here) as what you're getting at is one of the underlying factors in systemic bias. Even if every single action is well-intentioned, the system is such that it produces biased results and your question--irrespective of whether you think it's appropriate/it's a genuine question/it's the first time you've asked it etc--lands on an audience that has encountered that query 18 billion times already that day and it's interpreted as yet another moment when women have to justify their existence. And sadly, as someone (Luke90?) mentioned earlier in this thread, this kind of question generally isn't well-intentioned. Consequently, it's like dragging a cheese-grater across an open wound, and if we're going to engage in open debate and discussion I think we all (not just you--society/forums/the media/etc) need to engage a bit more closely with the impact of previous socio-cultural "discussions" and consider the state of the audience a bit more.

(E2A: This wasn't an argumentative discursive comment, btw. Just a reflective comment).

I saw the 2 posts in question.  

It seems to me that banning people from a conversation only fosters resentment and furthers uninformed comment behind closed doors. 

Why not invite them in and have the discussion. If their views are ill founded, bigoted and blatantly one sided then they will be found out and exposed for what they are. If their argument is reasonably and equitably made then an opportunity exists to change their point of view, and therefore the narrative, in an visible way.

If that is what you wish. 

Now we're all getting on well again, apologies to Nat Berry for dragging the forum section into debate on gender/sex/stuff. I hope she gets plenty of women offering their skills for the front page.

On topic, I caught an absolutely brilliant article on Outsideonline from Sequoia Schmidt whose father and brother died on K2. Quite a heart breaking story but one worth listing to. Anyone else got any articles from women you found to be inspiring, engaging or something else?

It seems to me that you've gone down a bit of a Jordan Peterson rabbithole, as I'm guessing that's the "clinical psychologist" you refer to above. That's not a particularly interesting observation except that I think you might have taken on board his whole 'the left has taken over our institutions and stifled free speech' dogma, which if you read around has been pretty well refuted by quite a few commentators, and can also be achieved if you stop and think about the ludicriousness of that idea for 30 seconds or so. If you're interested in a nuanced and pretty fair take on Peterson, check this out:  youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas&

The reason I bring all of this up is because one of Peterson's big talking points is that the left represses healthy debate, and he really likes that idea because it allows him to argue that the left is one monolithic entity and that its behaviour is that of its most aggressive, fringe members. That's just not the case, however, in the same way as it's untrue that the majority of conservatives in this country are racist, nationalist, etc. 

In this case you've come into a discussion that is specifically about women and tried to make it about men, which doesn't really make a lot of sense - it's a classic UKC response in the vein of someone replying to a thread about cams to argue that nuts are far superior, but it doesn't add anything. That's not to say that no one in this thread cares about men or that anyone feels that men should be excluded, just as a thread about cams doesn't mean that the posters don't own and appreciate nuts; it simply means that this one thread is focused on women, and hopefully more will be in the future. That's not shutting down debate and it's not exclusion in the sense that you're not allowed to be involved; it's just that bringing up International Men's Day in this context at best has nothing to do with the discussion (in the nuts v cams debate it's basically the equivalent of someone extolling the virtues of tri-cams for no reason) and is at worst disrespectful to those who are passionate about the subject at hand.

Also, to be a little more blunt: you've got multiple women telling you that they feel excluded by your behaviour. It might be worth reflecting on the irony of that in relation to your argument.

OK, I'm beginning to think that if this is something we're all going to discuss further then it might be better on another thread rather than swinging a wrecking ball through Nat Berry's thread on her article, I genuinely feel rather bad for my part in it.

I did quote Peterson earlier about the 'straw man' debate. I like his early vids, not so much his later material where he's attacking the radical left, that's the 'radical' left, not the moderate left. I don't agree with his opinion on the institutions being over run with leftists shutting down debate or much of his other ideas. Please don't assume I'm a Peterson fanboy, I can agree with points from many sources. I noticed you skimmed over my Jonathan Pie reference and attributed it to Peterson instead. I'll have a look at your vid tomorrow when it's not so late.

I'm also not trying to turn this thread into something about men, just simply defending a comment I made without any intent. Have multiple women come in telling me they feel excluded by my behaviour?  Thanks for the post.

I think the point is it that a really positive and empowering article has once again been brought down by overly negative comment/s.
 

I think I would enjoy writing a creative piece/article for UKClimbing however its comments like this is what puts me off.  

Please do not be put off writing something.  I would very much welcome more people writing articles for UKC and I am sure everyone else would welcome it to.  I think there are then two ways to deal with the resulting forum thread.  Completely ignore it but I would find this difficult due to natural curiosity.  Or, actively engage with the thread as an integral part of the article.  When authors have wholeheartedly done the latter I think it has immeasurably enriched the original article.

Alternatively UKC could give the option for authors to request that there is no directly attached forum thread for the article.  This does not stop someone starting one but at least dissociates the thread a little from the original article.

"I was watching another great interview with Johnathan Pie, I'm a big fan of his material. In his interview he was lamenting how speech has been reduced by a radical shift to shout down voices we don't agree with"

Can you link that? One of the funniest things that Pie does is escallating rants in the pre broadcast period and how when things go live he effortlessly switches to a calm news delivery. Pie shouting about shouting sounds quite meta... might be worth a watch.

Back on subject I agree with the women here and those supporting their views.

UKC/H forums sadly has a few too many grumpy men who don't cope well with equality and diversity. UKC/H as a site reaches an audience a hundred times those who post on the forums. I'd strongly encourage you to write for the wider audience and ignore any negativity on the forums. 

I can see how you'd find some of the comments in this thread offputting, but please don't be put off!

The piece you would enjoy writing might be exactly what Natalie is asking for.  I'd like to read it, I'm sure a lot of people who post here would and maybe more to the point the majority of UKC subscribers who don't post in the forums would probably like to read it too.

You might be interested in this:

https://explorersweb.com/2021/03/08/a-ladies-tale-the-first-women-up-mont-b...

I'll echo what's been said: the forums are not UKC, they are just a part of it. An important part of it, but I wouldn't like for anyone to be put off by any users here. 

A more general pitching comment: I've updated our Articles submission page (https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/help) to say that we no longer want unsolicited articles sent through, ideally, just pitches outlining ideas. Of course if you have something pre-written, that's OK, but we recently became aware that our guidelines had evolved from our old online user article submission form, and it's just not really how things should be done. Pitching saves you and us a lot of time, rather than writing something and hoping it lands. 

Despite any negative opinions of a post I've made on here, I'd love to see you pitch an article. Diversity makes society much more interesting so seeing pieces from a broad range of people will no doubt improve the whole experience.

It's on the Channel 4 news youtube channel and the interviewer is with Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Great watch and shows the man behind the character. That 5 min attack on Trump the other week was a verbal clusterbomb!

Great little read. I've read similar articles in the past about the women in the 19th cent who climbed the alps but this article digs into a specific character. Thanks for the link.

Great to see so many pitches coming in. Just a note that it'll take us a while to get through these. I'll try and get back to you all as soon as I can!