"Either you find them or you make them": how the North American rockclimbing subculture has shifted from male-dominated to heteronormative


Céline Hequet, McGill University

So-called “lifestyle sports” are ideal sites to study changing gender relations because they are, in theory, mixed-sex. Moreover, they value individuality, freedom, and hedonism, over the competitiveness, aggressiveness, and authority promoted in mainstream sports. Lifestyle sports are termed as such because they come to organize not only participants’ values, but also their leisure time, their career choices, where they live, and their social circle. However, despite their alternative ethos and the absence of rules preventing female participation, these sports have historically constituted themselves as male-dominated. Women were not previously absent from lifestyle sports subcultures, but they were most often (potential) girlfriends occupying the passive role of fan/spectator or “camp follower,” in the climbing subculture. The few active female participants were treated as “one of the guys,” so the cultural contradiction between femininity and sporting prowess would not have to be resolved. Romantic and sporting lives could sometimes prove difficult to reconcile, so in the 1970s, when a male friend would give up climbing, other climbers would say that it was because his wife would not let him climb anymore.  More recently, the gender ratio of lifestyle sport participants has started shifting significantly. It is estimated that women now account for about a third of rock climbers. Sociologist Victoria Robinson (2008) has tried to understand how male climbers in the U.K. have reacted to this increasing number of female climbers, especially women climbing at high standards. In my ethnography of the North American rock climbing subculture, I observed that, far from being treated as “one of the boys,” active female participants were highly desired by heterosexual male climbers. So much so that, as argued by a research participant: “either you find them or you make them.” That is, heterosexual male rock climbers were so eager to share their lifestyle with a girlfriend that they were willing to teach them from scratch if they had to. Most women I interviewed were in fact introduced to the sport in such a way, and heterosexual climbing couples were an extremely common sight at the cliff. It seems, therefore, that heterosexual men are not merely reacting to a changing gender ratio but in fact, causing it because rock climbing as a lifestyle has come to engulf romantic life. I argue that this new desire for the “active couple lifestyle” has turned a historically male-dominated subculture into a heteronormative one. As defined by Stevi Jackson (2006), institutionalized, normative heterosexuality is a double-sided social regulation. Not only does it marginalize those outside its boundaries, but it also regulates those within them. In my fieldwork, homosexual or queer couples were a rare sight at the crag, as were unambiguous friendships between single heterosexual men and women of similar age. Moreover, even heterosexual climbing couples living the most unconventional lives would behave in a way that reflected the conventions of broader society and that, ultimately, impeded the further development of gender equality in the rock climbing subculture. Most couples were exclusive romantic, sexual, and climbing partners. Therefore, the climbing dynamics specific to their relationship would characterize most of their climbing life. This is crucial because most couples were also asymmetrical; men were most often more experienced/comfortable than their girlfriends with rope systems. This gave them more authority over the unfolding of days out climbing. Moreover, women often relied on their boyfriends to protect them when they felt too scared and, in some couples, men’s climbing objectives were prioritized. Those dynamics inhibited women from developing the competencies necessary to become autonomous climbers, and they were thus over-represented at the bottom of the status hierarchy. Ultimately, it meant that few women would mentor others and that men remained the primary gatekeepers of the subculture.

This paper will be presented at the following session: