Next entry: So history can end when you do
Previous entry: Missouri's Rep. Scott Muschany: This week's Republican Sexual Hypocrite
Maggie Gallagher lazily laces up her evo psych shoes and decides to take a walk in the mind of the mountain-climbing man.
Mountains, you see, are taking our men, like the stealthily placid geological ninjas that they are.
When you are a woman, a lot of the things men do are, well, hard to understand.
This weekend, tragedy struck on a mountain I had never heard of: K2—a 28,250-foot peak in Pakistan. Since 1939, only 280 people have reached the top of K2; more than 70 men have died trying.
l have no reason to stop here other than to throw in a gratuitous mention of 1991’s K2.
Why do men do these things?
I’m going to guess that “men” (and by men, Gallagher also means several women, none of whom count because hey look ocelots.
Long story short, men have a culturally bred higher tolerance for risk which has a lot more to do with generations of expectations that men go out and risk themselves to provide while women stay home and tend to what’s provided. Except when women do it, which again doesn’t count because jungle cats!
There is, in other words, and upside and a downside to men’s greater taste for risk. I don’t know how many of the men falling or freezing to death up on K2 had children, but I know that no children are going to lose their mother up there on the mountain this time.
...What? Goddamn, she’s better at this random tailing off thing than I’m not a fan of paisley.
Women—feminism aside—have always looked at this male propensity for risk with a double-edged vision. On the one hand, we cannot help human nature: The successful man, who braves risks and emerges triumphant carries a fascination for both women and other men that, well, the evolutionary biologists can have a field day with. At the same time, we look askance at the way our own desires pull us into a relationship with this strange, opposite sex, with his odd priorities and who does these bizarre things for reasons that no woman, I think, can ever fully understand.
Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with it - the large number of female entrepreneurs, aforementioned mountain climbers, artists, leaders, etc. all teach us that the biology of gender isn’t the driver of risk, it’s the availability of opportunity to risk something along with the cultural allowance to do so. Of course, this gets in the way of our admiration and lamentation of our stupid, brave, genetically driven men.
The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.
But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.
The women who died on K2, incidentally, were told there was a new kitchen in it for them.
There’s a rather obvious reason why men (and women) might want to climb K2. It’s pretty much the hardest thing you can accomplish in the realm of mountain climbing. It provides an incredible sense of accomplishment to do something that so few people have, particularly performing an activity that you love. If they wanted to be firefighters, they could. If they wanted to go fight terrorists somewhere, they could. If they wanted to be deep sea divers or bodybuilders or pilots, they could. But this is what they want to do. I’m sure their frozen corpses are apologetic to Maggie for not turning their drive and passion towards a cause that she found more personally fulfilling (and it really does make you wonder how she feels at all those right-wing conferences when she meets the pudgy, beofficed men of her ilk, bravely forwarding the latest Mark Steyn column around and talking about who they’d nail from the firm on the other corner if they were ten years younger).
To the 11 dead on K2: Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.
How utterly sad it is that we don’t live on a larger planet, and that all those men of earlier generations went out and discovered all the good continents and slew all the dirtiest savages. Damn you, God, and your insistence on sticking us on this tiny, stupid rock with your mere seven continents, four oceans and several billion people. You didn’t pull this shit in Alpha Centauri, that’s for damn sure.
People dying doing what they love, in a testament to the sheer willpower and determination of mankind, simply isn’t enough - there’s some “masculine” bloodlust (driven, of course, by a proper lady) that must be fulfilled in order for something to be worthwhile. If only there were an indigenous culture to be displaced, another country’s identity to piss on, then maybe, just maybe, these people would have died for a real reason. Instead, we’re just left with pizza tastes funny when you leave it out too long.
Posted by
Jesse Taylor on 08:07 AM •
Permalink
“Why climb that mountain?”
“Because it’s there! Excelsior!”
People - all people, females as well as males - want to test limits imposed on them by society/nature/their own physiognomy. Along with the spirit of exploration for the sheer randy hell of it - what really is on the other side of that hill?
And Gallagher seems to be about as uneducated as they come. I know K2 is the second-highest mountain on Earth (right after Everest). I blame the public education system for that, though.
Why are there so many rock-stupid people who get newspaper columns?
If God is just and benevolent, why wasn’t Maggie Gallagher flung into the sun 20 years ago?
She lost me at a mountain I had never heard of: K2
If she’s so ignorant she’s never heard of K2 (ever buy skis, Maggie? Ever know someone who bought skis?) what the heck is she writing about mountain climbing for?
But somehow we live in a world where not enough men find real avenues for masculine achievement. They are moved to take enormous risks, like climbing K2, for no particular reason in a world that (apparently) offers them insufficient real outlets for their heroism.
That would seem to be the main point of her post, from what I know of Gallagher (if only women would let men run our lives and feel all manly, they wouldn’t feel the need to take these risks!), but oddly, she’s buried it at the end and barely said anything about it. The column borders on pointless. Weird.
Why are there so many rock-stupid people who get newspaper columns?
Just look at the editors who make the hiring decisions. They ALL need to be flung into the sun.
Did she really need to somehow tie 9/11 into this sack of shit? Seriously, give me a fucking break.
People - all people, females as well as males - want to test limits imposed on them by society/nature/their own physiognomy.
Humans wouldn’t be populating every continent except Antarctica if we didn’t have this impulse. And yes, that means both men and women. If our risk taking and curious natures only lived in men, we’d all still be kickin’ it old school on the savannah, because generally when you go populate a new continent you need to convince someone who can bear children that climbing that mountain would be a totally sweet idea. Otherwise you’re not going to be populating much of anything.
Oh, and I got the whole “I’d never heard of K2” as an attempt to be all, “oh, I’m just an empty-headed little girl! we don’t even know the names of mountains, let alone want to climb them...”
If she’s so ignorant she’s never heard of K2 (ever buy skis, Maggie? Ever know someone who bought skis?) what the heck is she writing about mountain climbing for?
Yeah, that kinda struck me as the killing blow right there. Like listening to someone start a rant against NASCAR with “… so there’s this thing called a V-8...” When did pundits feel they were required to have opinions on shit they knew absolutely nothing about? Perhaps next week we can hear her take on art, as she discusses a funny little thing called “cubism” that I’m sure no one has ever heard of. Then we can get ten paragraphs about how Picasso just wanted to get laid and oh, whoa are we, for missing the opportunity to see a man become an artist and not journey to Africa so he could kill a bunch of people.
The saddest part of it all is how senseless these 11 deaths are. The Marines rushing into urban conflict in Anbar province I can wholeheartedly admire. The firemen who ran into the burning towers of 9/11 and lost their lives, I remember in my prayers with gratitude and admiration.
While I too have gratitude and admiration for these people, they still lost their lives senselessly. The firefighters sacrificed themselves to save the lives of people endangered by a senseless attack and the marines in Anbar sacrificed themselves for a senseless war. The only difference is that the mountain climbers did so by choice.
And g, I’ve never bought skis and never known anyone who has (or, at least, I care so little for the activity I never discussed it with anyone who did). Sure I’m fairly cognizant that K2 is a big ass mountain but I couldn’t have told you it was in Pakistan before reading the article. Jeez, do people who don’t know about Akagi-yama or Deal’s Gap (what? Never bought tires!?) not get to opine about street racing being dangerous and risky?
Humans wouldn’t be populating every continent except Antarctica if we didn’t have this impulse. And yes, that means both men and women.
Hey, there’s a fair population even down in Antarctica. Quite a few women down there to boot. I wonder how Maggie explains all the female antarctic scientists. Since men are the only ones with any sense of adventure, I’d have assumed it would be a total sausage fest down there.
The firefighters sacrificed themselves to save the lives of people endangered by a senseless attack and the marines in Anbar sacrificed themselves for a senseless war. The only difference is that the mountain climbers did so by choice.
Um...the firefighters and marines had choices, too. We currently do not have a draft for either the armed forces or for municipal services, so all the men and women in those professions choose it. Whether it’s nobler to die trying to save others or in pursuit of a life’s dream is debatable and variable person to person.
It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know K2 was in Pakistan until you read the article, b/c you weren’t writing an op-ed piece on climbing it. Just a minor bit of Googling is necessary to write a short article and not sound like a complete asshole. Of course, Gallagher’s main point, men like to do risky stuff and women prefer to sit at home and knit, is ass as well, so she probably doesn’t see the point of any research. Pulling everything out of her ass works just fine!
Sure, street racing is dangerous, and that’s why only the manliest of HE-MEN (tm) ever attempt it. We poor women will just never understand that manly desire to race cars and climb mountains b/c we’re just the weaker, frailer sex. Please take care of us!
I know virtually nothing about mountain climbing, but even I have a copy of Into Thin Air. I may not know where K2 is or exactly where Everest is (it’s Tibet, right?), I at least know that they’re frickin’ mountains.
I wonder how Maggie explains all the female antarctic scientists.
With that “And yes, that means both men and women.” line there, as she realizes that oops, someone might point out that women have been known to do risky things on occasion, so she better cover her ass with a line that indicates she knows women do these things, even though everywhere else she claims it’s manly man stuff.
Those women are probably lesbians, anyway. They certainly never shave their legs.
none of whom count because hey look ocelots.
Awesome. I think this is the best line I’ve read all week; nicely done, Jesse.
Wait, I’m sorry, what is this “car” thing y’all keep mentioning?
I guess I’m just such an empty-headed little girl that I don’t really understand what you’re talking about, with all this “car” nonsense. Not to mention “skiing”? “v-8”? (that’s tomato juice, right?)
I guess I’ll just never understand all you big strong men and your adventurous ways…
1) How do you get to be a syndicated columnist without having heard of K2?
2) Of course, women do climb mountains, and sometimes die. When one of Britain’s leading climbers, Alison Hargreaves, died on Everest, people like Gallagher <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/28/gender.familyandrelationships"pilloried her</a>. To Gallagher’s small credit at least, she’s willing to pillory men as well. Doesn’t mean she’s not an idiot, though.
It’s this sense that exploration and pushing yourself to your personal limits isn’t worthwhile that has helped destroy the space program. And that leads to underfunding of oceanic research.
A piece of evo psych I believe. Humans are explorers. It’s part of why we’re so successful as a species - we have a drive to find new things, see new places, test our limits. Maggie Gallagher doesn’t think these things are worthwhile because she lacks imagination.
Of course, Ms. Gallagher doesn’t really care about the perceived senselessness of exploration. It’s really just a backdrop for her point that women want to be kept safe at home. She lacks imagination - or perception - there too.
Why do men do these things?
We can correctly gauge the behavior of 3.5 billion men from a stunt pulled by less than 280 of them.
However, the vast majority of women will undertake, at some point in their life, the extremely risky task of pushing a baby out of a hole that’s not quite as big as a baby. Nowadays, many of us have access to medical science to reduce the risks, but still, childbirth is a momentous task of pushing your body to see what it can do, and it’s a routine part of female life.
Why are men defined as risk-takers based on the actions of a few but women don’t get defined that way by the actions of the majority?
Question:
How do you get to be a syndicated columnist without having heard of K2?
Answer:
Townhall.com
Every day, I risk my precious brain cells by reading the stupidest things i can find on the internet. How’s that for the life of Danger Man, eh? I bet MG just crapped her pants reading that.
We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians.
Jeebus. When I read that I nearly got whiplash. I know it’s Townhall, but I always forget that these people still pine for the days of unbridled colonialism.
Yes, Cris, and I for one wish that someone would sit these folks down and explain to them that the people they’re trying to paint as Teh Moast Sooperiyer Jinetic Stalk were the original barbarians. One would think it would be hard to hold “The White Race Is Being Outbred By Those Stinking Brown Hordes” and “The Barbarians Had It Coming” in your mind at the same time. Maybe that’s why wingnuts are so stupid, because they used up all their brain cells on cognitive dissonance and doublethink?
I assume that Ms. Gallagher typed this from the safety of the bubble in which she lives?
Having done some mountain climbing, I can tell you why those of us who climb mountains climb mountains.
We enjoy it.
I’ve not climbed in the Himalayas or Karakorams (K2 is in the Karakoram Mountains, not the Himalayas) and doubt I will ever be that good. But I do climb in the Sierras and Cascades. You basically get the same physical rush that others may get from other forms of strenuous exercise. I don’t enjoy running, but I can imagine it is the same feeling a marathon runner may get from finishing a race. It’s a sense of elation/exhaustion/accomplishment.
And yes, some people may get hurt, and some people may die, even in places like the Sierras. Some people can get altitude sickness as low as 8000 feet above sea level. Some people overstress themselves running, too.
Take care, have fun, and live a little.
“Why are men defined as risk-takers based on the actions of a few but women don’t get defined that way by the actions of the majority?”
Because God designed you to be a baby machine, Amanda. You HAVE to give birth. Duh.
I wonder how long Maggie Gallagher has been human. Because in my experience all humans take risks — some bigger, some smaller, most unrecognized, but still subject to occasional failure (of some sort or other — but maybe not immediately fatal).
This is a fact of existence.
Granted, there are people who seek out risk, and people who try to risk as little as possible, with most of us in-between. Welcome to human variation.
Categorizing risks as heroic or stupid is typically an after-the-fact exercise. These judgments are completely subjective, culturally-based, and highly contextual. And it’s highly doubtful that most people would consider whether a given risk is “heroic” or “stupid” when making the initial decision to engage in it.
In the end, this is just another pointless attempt to take something that happened and recruit it into serving some political point. At least this time it isn’t a movie about penguins or a guy who fights crime while dressed as a human bat…
Good effing god. I am a total couch potato and **I** have heard of K2. This is really more like “Fuck you, mountain climbers!” How wonderful to write a column telling people she’s never met just how stupid and pointless their deaths are! Their families will love that. Good to know she’s comforting all those surviving women and children she professes to care so much about…
OK, I’m sure the picture of the Japanese cereal box has something to do with this post, but I’m damned if I can figure out what.
Maggie Gallagher does know that people were climbing mountains even when there were wars to be fought, etc., right? Right?
Cripes, at least find an example that supports your argument, Maggie! And I wonder how she explains the people who regularly die on Mount Washington.
K2 is the second highest peak in the world. Not exactly an obscure mountain. Difficult and dangerous yes, but not even approaching the hardest thing you can do in the mountains. There are literally thousands of harder routes that have been climbed than the std route the K2 climbers were on (Abruzzi Ridge, most likely). Karakoram is a sub-range of the Himalaya, Everest is on (or is, if you prefer) the border of Nepal and China.
As a climber, everytime there is a publicized fatal accident, we hear the same laments from people who know fuck-all about climbing or the motivations behind them. The motivations for climbing are as varied as the people who pursue it. We get people like Bill-O the clown calling for regulations or “closing the mountain”. Close them all you want, we’re going to climb them anyway, closure or no. Climbers aren’t exactly a conformist, law abiding crowd to start with.
Finally, there was a big to-do when Allison Hargreaves, a world class mountaineer and MOTHER, perished on K2 along with some other really strong climbers back in the early 90s. “How could she do that when she had children” “What a waste” etc. Climbing is a little like LSD, if you haven’t done it or don’t do it, you really can’t have any idea of why people do it or what it’s like.
Bitter Scribe - random trailing off into other things 
re: the first comment: blaming “public education” for one person’s ignorance is, in itself, pretty damn ignorant. give me a break.
Dude, still don’t see any ocelots. Seriously, where are they?
Um...the firefighters and marines had choices, too. We currently do not have a draft for either the armed forces or for municipal services, so all the men and women in those professions choose it.
Yes, they chose (usually sensibly) their profession and those professions require abdicating their right to choose. It’s a different choice though and doesn’t really change the sensibility of their deaths.
Whether it’s nobler to die trying to save others or in pursuit of a life’s dream is debatable and variable person to person.
Sure, but nobility and sensibility are often two different things.
It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know K2 was in Pakistan until you read the article, b/c you weren’t writing an op-ed piece on climbing it. Just a minor bit of Googling is necessary to write a short article and not sound like a complete asshole.
But that wouldn’t change the fact that she’d never heard of K2 until reading about these folks dying on it.
Of course, Gallagher’s main point, men like to do risky stuff and women prefer to sit at home and knit, is ass as well, so she probably doesn’t see the point of any research. Pulling everything out of her ass works just fine!
Tru dat.
Sure, street racing is dangerous, and that’s why only the manliest of HE-MEN (tm) ever attempt it. We poor women will just never understand that manly desire to race cars and climb mountains b/c we’re just the weaker, frailer sex. Please take care of us!
What is this paragraph in the service of?
I chose an example of arcane knowledge relating to my own preferred dangerous activity in order to point out that knowledge of such minutiae is not really required in order to know the activity in question is, in fact, dangerous. I made no implications regarding sex whatsoever.
Shit, I wish I could “take care” of the woman who has beaten me out for top spot in class at my past dozen or so (legal) races. But I can’t because she’s so damned fast.
Be fair; it’s hard to hear about mountains like K-2 when you’ve buried your head in the sand as long as she has…
Didn’t Mesus explain the other day about how with “some people” it’s as if they take great pride in being ignorant?
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/06/obama-mccain-proud-to-be-ignorant
Next thing you know, she will write that someone should compile a list of how these idiot risk taking men all died in stupid ways… maybe call it the “Darwin Awards”. Maybe even publish it, if she can come up with enough examples!!
http://www.darwinawards.com/
“I wonder how Maggie explains all the female antarctic scientists”
She would say that men went first and set up the station and women followed. Which would actually be true.
As far a risk taking, in onvservance only, I have 7 and 9 year old daughters and a 17 month old son. There is zero comparison in risk taking between the sexes at this early age. The girls were much more risk averse and the boy will climb and open and eat and touch anything. Call is higher levels of curiosity or risk taking, but they are clearly different by nature.
“Call is higher levels of curiosity or risk taking, but they are clearly different by nature.”
Clearly they (I assume you’re talking about just your children and not boys and girls in general?) are different. I don’t think it’s so clear that it’s “by nature”. There are several other different influencers that could have shaped their risk-taking or risk-averse behavior that have nothing to do with their genetic makeup. For example, you as their parent may have raised them slightly differently, being far more cautious when raising your eldest children while perhaps being more willing to let your youngest have a bit more latitude.
The girls were much more risk averse and the boy will climb and open and eat and touch anything.
You should meet my coworker’s kids. Daughter dashes around the office, climbs things, jumps off things, demands to be hoisted into the air, has a bad habit of taking physical risks she shouldn’t and getting a split lip or a skinned knee as a reward. Son prefers to lie on the floor and draw pictures of robots.
My brother had a much higher level of risk taking than I did as a toddler. In some ways he still does (propensity to blow things up), in other ways I do (interest in traveling to obscure places)—we’re both male.
On the other hand, my cousin’s son is quiet and well-behaved, while his youngest daughter has a propensity to climb around and rip things out of my hands.
So, I guess this proves that different people have a different tolerance for risk.
Dr T, you should meet my daughter.
OTOH, she would probably shatter your inflexible views of women, and I can’t say it would do her a whole lot of good to meet yet one more of what she’ll already see way too much of during the rest of her life...so, ah, nevermind…
***
BTW (OT), Dr T, I challenged you to explain this: “No, it’s because your ideas lead to the slaughter of millions of citizens by their own government over and over again within the last 150 years.”, but have yet to see anything.
No actual facts to back up your slander? Reluctant to admit that without including totalitarian governments which merely dressed up as “the left” (without being progressive in any meaningful way), your argument falls apart? Or was there some incredible genocide involving Sweden annihilating Norwegians that didn’t make the papers?…
“Why are there so many rock-stupid people who get newspaper columns?”
“Because it’s there! Excelsior!”
I agree with Sarcastro.
I started motorcycle racing last year. A Canadian woman came down to Yakima and took all of our lunch money, gave us wedgies and drank our milkshakes.
Possibly one of the sexiest things I’ve ever seen.
Dr T - the Ralph Wiggam of Pandagon!
She would say that men went first and set up the station and women followed. Which would actually be true.
Yes, because everyone knows there were absolutely no social, economic or educational barriers for women in 1902 when the first base was established. In 1902, women could get any job they wanted, go to any university they wanted, and were allowed to board a ship with a mostly-male crew.
I realize that your entire worldview depends solely on remaining ignorant of history and thinking that the way things are now is exactly the way they’ve always been for the past 100,000 years, but that really is probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you say here, and there’s a lot of competition for that category.
Possibly one of the sexiest things I’ve ever seen
And, I’m pretty sure she couldn’t give a flying fig whether or not you found her sexy. I know I don’t.
My friend just found a NON PINK bike for her daughter - made by K2 ...
She would say that men went first and set up the station and women followed.
I might add that men, too, followed. No one claims that those men are inherently risk-averse.
(and by men, Gallagher also means several women, none of whom count because hey look ocelots.
WIN! And mind if I borrow that phrase for use in a LiveJournal icon? Please?
double-edged vision
That fucked-up metaphor--or whateverthefuck it even is--needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery. Seriously. Where does Townhall find these double-edged vision wackaloon fuckwits? Can’t they at least find some right-wing wackaloon scumbags who can write a motherfucking English sentence?
heeheh the title of your post, Jesse, makes me want to go to Mt. Rainier this weekend, get down on my knees and yell “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Damn you… damn you ALL TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!” with all the drama I can muster.
I’m with a few of the other commenters - I stop reading when an author proves her/himself ignorant of basic facts. “Never heard of” K2? Ugh.
There is zero comparison in risk taking between the sexes at this early age. The girls were much more risk averse and the boy will climb and open and eat and touch anything.
It’s already been said, but my family had only girls, and my sister took risks like they were candy while I preferred to just sit still with a picture book. Individuals have different risk tolerances, and it may be somewhat inherent, but I don’t think the inherenet part is particularly related to gender.
I’m pretty sure she couldn’t give a flying fig whether or not you found her sexy. I know I don’t.
I love the willingness to educate. Rather than try to explain to someone that finding someone sexy because they just kicked your ass at motorcycling is a bad thing (an explanation I’d love to hear), just come with the dismissive put-down. Awesome.
Oh, and just to be on-topic, I’m a guy and I’m about the most risk-averse person you’re likely to find. A real “mama’s boy” (and that’s another cultural phenomenon that bears on this subject- males who are “mama’s boys” and females who are “tomboys” are equally looked-down on and shunned by a lot of people, apparently including Maggie not-Gyllenhall there).
MikeEss - I have a one word response to your challenge. Stalin.
Rather than try to explain to someone that finding someone sexy because they just kicked your ass at motorcycling is a bad thing
Actually, there’s NOTHING wrong with finding someone sexy because they kicked your ass at whatever.
Her point was that women don’t exist to be sexy to men. We exist to live our own lives, just like you. Sorry that you consider this a personal insult.
“MikeEss - I have a one word response to your challenge. Stalin.”
Wow. Who feels stupid for seriously responding to Dr T before? This guy.
Actually, there’s NOTHING wrong with finding someone sexy because they kicked your ass at whatever.
But mentioning it is a horribly sexist crime!
But mentioning it is a horribly sexist crime!
No. But feeling as though your right to be God’s Gift to Women has been snatched away when the fucktoy...I mean woman...DOESN’T CARE what you think about her, is.
Or, in other words, the SECOND SENTENCE of my original post. Which you were apparently too busy foaming at the mouth with all of your thwarted masculinity to read.
We exist to live our own lives, just like you.
Probably true. None of which justifies GGrace’s decision to get genuinely pissed off at cynickal’s observation.
Seriously? You know exactly how both liberalrob and the bike riding woman felt, do you?
Well, I’d best not argue with a psychic, lest you reveal my hidden hatred for women as well.
Oops, too late! My masculinity… thwarted!
“MikeEss - I have a one word response to your challenge. Stalin.”
Here was my challenge to you: “Okay Dr T, since this thread is just about dead, please explain what you mean, as if I didn’t know.
If you can do so without mentioning Marxism, Leninism, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Fidel Castro, or Kim Il-sung, great. I might even take it seriously.
If you can’t, you lose and your troll credentials have been proven once and for all.”
So I guess you never could find that middle-of-the-road democracy-with-socialist-benefits that was responsible for millions of deaths over the last 150 years.
Just as Fascism is a feature of the extreme Right, but not really reflective of conservatism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are products of the extreme Left, but not reflective of either “Liberals” or Progressives.
If you believe Stalin’s evil reflects on the Democratic Party of today, then you must accept (or you’re a liar) that Hitler’s evil reflects on the Republican Party of today. Do you really want to go down that road?
Just admit it — you threw out that bullshit about liberals leading to the slaughter of millions without thinking. ‘Cause that’s what it is, pure unadulterated bullshit. Which you know damn well…
MikeEss - I have a one word response to your challenge. Stalin.
Stalin hadn’t even been born 150 years ago, dumbfuck. Where is your “150 years” from? Oh, yeah, supporting treason in defense of slavery, wasn’t it?
Thanks to public education, when I was 11 years old I knew that Kx meant that the mountain referred to was believed to be the x-highest mountain in the world. I think K5 was the one featured in the story in our text.
So is a male only adventurer’s club paying Maggie to write this article on their behalf or did she come up this bit of crazy on her own? Not that I’m accusing Maggie of being a hack that writes BS op-ed pieces for bribes.
Samantha, I only know this because I happened to read it last week, not because of my public education, but you’re wrong. (Or your education was wrong.) A surveyor was sketching the Karakoram Range, and he called the two most prominent peaks K1 and K2 (Karakoram 1 and Karakoram 2). K1 is actually shorter but because of the angle and perspective and distance the guy had on it, it appeared to be the most prominent. The Karakoram has many of the tallest mountains in the world (though not Everest), so there are many K# mountains that are very, very tall, but that designation is only used there.
“It’s already been said, but my family had only girls, and my sister took risks like they were candy while I preferred to just sit still with a picture book. Individuals have different risk tolerances, and it may be somewhat inherent, but I don’t think the inherent part is particularly related to gender”
We have two boys, one eleven, one six, and a recent amusement-park trip showed the difference between the two pretty clearly: Older Son did not wish to go on any of the exciting rides, much to the disappointment of his mother, who did want to but doesn’t like to go by herself; Younger Son wanted to go on everything, though he was unfortunately too short for all the really exciting stuff. One risk-averse, one without any discernible fear gene. Both boys. Same family.
Probably true. None of which justifies GGrace’s decision to get genuinely pissed off at cynickal’s observation.
Really?
The “observation” in question was a judgment on the fuckability of a woman. Specifically, a woman who we have no reason to believe cared. The appropriation of her body by making this judgment--and <i>sharing it with a feminist audience<i>, for cripes’ sake--is what we’re objecting to.
It is a demonstrable element of male privilege that assumes that anyone, under any circumstances, would care which women any given man does or does not deem “sexy.” Nothing wrong with calling that out.
Climbing is a little like LSD, if you haven’t done it or don’t do it, you really can’t have any idea of why people do it or what it’s like.
Speaking as a OMG!-Straight-middle-aged-leg-shaving-female-type-person! Who climbs! this is the truest statement in this thread.
Before I started climbing I couldnt have imagined why anyone would do it - after I got hooked, I couldnt imagine why anyone *wouldnt* do it, but I’m still unable to explain to non-climbers why we climbers climb. We just love it.
It’s the damned coolest most fun thing you can do while standing up.
Having just finished reading the blog of a female friend who’s both a mountain-climber and a figure-skater today, I LOL’d at the idea that only men mountain-climb. I didn’t know what K2 was before this, but then again I’m not trying to write an article on mountain-climbers, either.
I know the comment on calling the motorcyclist sexy was meant to be a compliment--as in, “And being a kickass motorcyclist didn’t even make her an un-woman! Even the patriarchy can’t complain!” But that’s picking the wrong thing to use as a compliment. (Kinda like saying, “And this black guy is employed and married! Wow!") It actually validates the idea that her being sexy is one of the most important things about her. Whether a woman’s sexy or not shouldn’t be brought up as evidence to prove whether she rocks as a human being, you know?
Effin’ patriarchy. Sneaky damn thing. I’m guessing cynickal didn’t think it through--but it’s important to think it through.
Also: wtf Japanese cereal box? It’s about as intelligible as the article under discussion, but otherwise I don’t see a connection....
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
“Why climb that mountain?”
“Because it’s there! Excelsior!”
People - all people, females as well as males - want to test limits imposed on them by society/nature/their own physiognomy. Along with the spirit of exploration for the sheer randy hell of it - what really is on the other side of that hill?
And Gallagher seems to be about as uneducated as they come. I know K2 is the second-highest mountain on Earth (right after Everest). I blame the public education system for that, though.