Julie Rak\u2019s paper on the politics of gender in mountaineering, focused on the way that previous mountaineering literature not only excluded female climbers, but also emphasized the importance of masculinity in the mountains. Feminist accounts concerning mountaineering have been almost non existent, and Rak questions why this particular topic is a tough subject to speak openly about, while masculinity and racism appear to be easily discussed. Rak believes that \u201cit is a politics that makes its meaning gendered by what it does not<\/i> say about manliness, and by what\u2014in contrast\u2014it shows about how to be a real man or (much less often) a real woman in physically and emotionally trying conditions\u201d (Rak 116). Here she argues that even though some mountaineering literature does not particularly mention, or attack, feminism in the climbing world, it insinuates it by simply emphasizing masculine characteristics and looking down on any feminine characteristics, such as crying. She claims that even innocent quotes such as \u201cthe brotherhood of the rope\u201d, is dangerous in the fact that it implies \u201cprofound bonds between men\u201d (Rak 117).<\/p>\n
Aside from highlighting the lack of a feminist presence in past, and present, mountaineering literature, Rak also takes a deeper look into the battle between what true masculinity really means through the eyes of Herzog, in his story of the 1950 climb, Annapurna<\/i>. In his account of his own heroism, Herzog tends to break the mold of masculinity, showing the vulnerable side of male climbers. \u201cHerzog\u2019s account of his summit experience conforms to this association of manly heroism with idealism\u201d, argues Rak, \u201cBut his account of the ascent does something else: it equates the (temporary) loss of ideals to the loss of masculinity itself\u201d (Rak 122).<\/p>\n
Rak provides evidence of the lack of respect that women mountaineers encountered through several books, but the strongest affirmation (in my opinion), comes from Bonnington\u2019s Annapurna South Face<\/i>. Rak describes how Bonnington offends female climbers, by referring to an Annapurna expedition of Japanese women, as \u201cexotic and childlike\u201d (Rak 129). She continues to explain that \u201calthough he admires the physical fitness of these women, Bonnington\u2019s rhetoric makes clear that the climbers are not colleagues and are merely and exotic social distration\u201d (Rak 129).<\/p>\n
Rak explains how prevalent sexism still is in mountaineering today, through the reading Annapurna: A Woman\u2019s Place<\/i>. In this book, the author Arlene Blum, describes her own personal experience of sexism that even kept her from joining an expedition in Afghanistan (Rak 133). She also describes how Sir Edmund Hilary believed that \u201cwomen should not climb but stay at home instead while their husbands go out climbing\u201d (Rak 133).<\/p>\n
This leads me to the question, has sexism changed at all in the world of mountaineering, and if it hasn\u2019t by now, does it ever have a hope of becoming less sexist, and more welcoming to women climbers?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Julie Rak\u2019s paper on the politics of gender in mountaineering, focused on the way that previous mountaineering literature not only excluded female climbers, but also emphasized the importance of masculinity in the mountains. Feminist accounts concerning mountaineering have been almost non existent, and Rak questions why this particular topic is a tough subject to speak…<\/p>\n