Social Climbing on Annapurna seems anything but what the title conveys. Throughout discussion and class, we’ve touched on gender and climbing, but I guess I hadn’t really thought too in depth regarding the politics and stigmas that women faced not only from society but also from the climbing community, native peoples, and their respective parties as well.

I had found the piece to be a bit “all over the place” as the author went from one ascent to the next, one climbers experience to another and then back again, but what really caught my attention was the conclusion and the depiction of the Wanderer painting.

The reasoning for my captivation was due to the painting being expressed as a “pure” experience that one can view but it is an individual feeling and a feeling that is different for each person, this is the same opinion regarding Annapurna. The climber in the painting is also a man, which clearly expresses the traditional view regarding a mountaineer; an affluent and gentlemanly individual who is in pursuit of the great adventure or in pursuit of proving himself as a man to society. The painting does not reveal the ethnicity of the man, which allows the viewer to also believe in the ideology that any ethnicity of man can pursue mountain climbing, just so long as it is a man pursuing this endeavor.

So where does that leave a woman should she decide to pursue the same endeavor and sense of adventure?  The very thought and definition of mountaineering has always been that of masculinity, a male dominated sport, the ever changing idea of what it meant to be a man and the boundaries that were constantly pushed as “machismo” characteristics became more extreme the more prevalent female climbers became. With the boundaries of masculinity being pushed, a brotherhood of the rope, and criticisms from society, it left female climbers stuck between a rock and a hard place as they did not quite belong within these constructs. Women climbers, political and social movements also caused mountaineering to adapt as well; it became less of an elite-based recreational activity and more open to the public, with that came differing opinions, beliefs and thus brought forth a multicultural ideology, which meant that leadership styles and styles of climbing became more egalitarian and collective rather than an individual male taking on the role of leader. It was more important to have individual differences than sexual ones, women were viewed more as an individual and less as a sex, this multicultural climbing community allowed women to now belong within the mountaineering community.

I do understand that at times, an individual does need to take charge for the greater good, which is expressed within the readings in both men and women led expeditions, but I also feel that a person regardless of gender should have the opportunity to express their opinions in a respectful manner as it is also their life in jeopardy, which seems to be lacking when the male and female parties came into contact, in both the Caucasian expeditions and the Sherpa/Women expeditions. The lack of respect between the parties also allows for discrimination, lack of acknowledgement should a woman lead a successful ascent, and also a sense of superiority in intelligence and ability also felt present, which felt wrong as it degraded women climbers specifically because of their gender and their pursuits to exist within a world that had been viewed as male dominated for a long time. As Blum states, women and men have complimentary abilities, and they can and should climb their “Annapurnas” as equals, with mutual respect.