“Social Climbing on Annapurna” forced me to add an extra dimension to mountaineering that I had not considered, that being that it can not be above political or social discussions. I would prefer to gaze at the Wanderer as the first description, that being one individual above the problems of men and women, only on the mountain to prove his ability to himself and to bask in the wonderment of adventure. Placing it in a context of gender, I now have to reconcile that it represents a stereotype of young, well off, men, proving things to himself, and the implications that has on his society and on mountaineering. I would like to take a second to clarify, however, that in my view, there is nothing inherently politically incorrect about the painting. Instead, it merely represents a stereotype. There is nothing wrong with a young man seeking adventure, and it does nothing to dissuade the opposite gender or ethnicities from doing what he is attempting.

The problem with gender and mountaineering, seems to me to be centered around the concept of machismo, and how it has had to adapt to newer definitions and stereotypes, as things that were once considered to be purely masculine, have had to face women participating in “machismo” activities. Mountaineering, just like every issue that includes an aspect of machismo, since the women’s suffrage movement, has had to endure changing stereotypes of machismo. It is more than true, especially during the “siege” mentality of mountaineering, that concepts that excluded women, such as brotherhood and machismo, not only flourished but where necessary to the mentality of mountaineering. Taking a relativist point of view, one can hardly blame the man who had spent his life around a society that contributed certain qualities to men and others to women. As women entered the mountains, their pre- conceived notions of machismo disallowed women from sharing in the same spirit of adventure, in the same way, as them. Our conception of machismo is much different than it was in the era of siege mountaineering, or before the Women’s Suffrage Movement. Mountaineering, being the sport of the most literary content, I would assume, would have volumes of literature contradicting the previous notions of machismo. There is no quality to climbing that I withhold strictly to myself. In relation to that statement, I think mountaineering would not be as gender stratified as it used to be, for the one very simple yet complex reason that women’s rights has come a long way since 1950.

I find it very accurate that mountaineering tries to transcend “bodily politics”, and I have a hard time trying to shake the notion that this is how it should be. Of course, we do not exist in a social vacuum, but I believe that intent of trying to separate indeed all politics from mountaineering would be a worthy endeavor. We can peer into the discriminations and inequalities of authors, pressures from the public put onto women climbers, and the general socially gendered discourse that force women into, or out of particular roles in mountaineering. However, as the author points out- even Herzog did not undermine women’s abilities on the mountain. On the other hand, there will always be the Messner’s who adhere to a more sexist and antiquated view of machismo in the mountains. The fact of the matter is that antiquated notions of machismo will not stand the test of time as women achieve the same level of success in the mountains as men. The mountaineers, the authors, and the artists who portray aspects of antiquated machismo will die out, but in the mean-time, don’t discredit the authors, artists, and especially the mountaineers who found happiness from “brotherhood on the ropes,” or who happened to fit the old stereo-type of white men looking for adventure. There is nothing inherently wrong with these concepts (unless intentionally degrading women), it is only when others maintain a quality of masculine exclusiveness that they are in the wrong.