This time I am quoting DPM with the intention of praising them, mostly anyway. In a story titled "2010 Winter OR / SCS Open Championships" the writer says the following:
"This year’s trade show saw industry wide team consolidations (read: Cuts). This movement has been largely overdue. The term “pro” has been diluted in the sport of climbing with some companies having 300 or more athletes representing them in the United States alone. This presented a logistical nightmare for team managers, allowing athletes to act without consequence.
In an obvious backlash, the industry finally moved as a cohesive group to reign in their pro ranks, choosing only the athletes that they felt demonstrated their worth in the previous season. Unfortunately for some athletes, this change meant they were left without a sponsor or were forced to find another.
In several cases, especially for the women within our sport, their desire to be paid equally to the men resulted in their dismissal from the team roster. (My emphasis--PB)Unjust as it may be, there does seem to be some level of sexist inequality within the sport of climbing, especially when it comes to sponsorship salaries."
Good for DPM for at least broaching the topic. I wish they had named names, not least because I would like to know whose gear to avoid buying in the future...I wish the author had not remained anonymous as the story would have a bit more punch/credibility with a byline.
I would be happy to explore this topic further. Any athletes who want to comment confidentially on this situation please feel free to contact me via email.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
From DPM:
"Alex Puccio, was seen wearing Prana, which marked her departure from long time sponsor Verve."
Congrats to DPM for their hard-hitting, no-holds-barred, courageous journalism in bringing this controversy to the attention of the climbing community - a matter which might otherwise have slipped under the radar, much to the detriment of our sport and its integrity. And to you as well, Peter. Would that the rest of the international climbing media had their priorities in as correct order as is on display on your fine website. I look forward to similar exposees, which left me personally gasping in amazement at both it's relevance, and the obvious failure and gross negligence of other climbing media sites. Keep up the excellent work!
thanks for writing on this. it was interesting to read.
Anonymous, your prolix effusions are a splendid tribute to both your intelligence and subtle sense of humor. Would that all my readers had your acuity of wit and keenness of perception allied with an unerring sense of the bon mot. I look forward to similar comments leaving me in a state of awe at "there" relevance and despair at the inability of other readers to understand me at all. All the best!
the disparity between mens and womens endorsement salaries has nothing to do with sexism. Climbing companies have a bottom line, so they choose which athletes will ultimately sell the most gear for them. Some of the highest paid, highest exposed athletes in the sport were women, namely Catherine Destivel, Isabelle Patissier, and Lynn Hill. In fact, there are several women athletes now that are paid more than their achievements garner, simply BECAUSE they are women, attractive, etc.
You as a professor Peter should know that it is a logical fallacy to look at this situation and say "women are paid less, therefore there must be sexism in climbing."
Anonymous Two,
There is no logical fallacy in my point as far as I can see.
You claimed
"Climbing companies have a bottom line, so they choose which athletes will ultimately sell the most gear for them."
If the bottom line is founded in sexism, i.e. the valuing of men over women, then sexism is going to be reflected in the company's marketing and salaries. Thus the argument appears to be "since women are seen as inferior to men, they are worth less and should be paid less or fired when they speak up." Citing the example of women who are paid more because they are "attractive" simply reinforces the message that women are worth what their appearance can bring, a sexist message if there ever was one. Blaming the market is just passing the buck.
If a company's bottom line is the justification for their moral decisions, I would like to hear about it. Patagonia for instance claims they value other considerations a great deal more than the bottom line and make that part of their marketing. It seems to work for them.
Again kudos to DPM for bringing this topic up.
I guess I am not seeing how you are coming up with companies "valuing men more than women." Again, as I the women I named are some of the highest paid, if not THE highest paid athletes in the sport, ever. Right now perhaps there are just no women who are accomplishing the top levels in the sport, have sufficient media coverage, etc. to justify as much as some of the men are making.
your argument fails because you are making assumptions that have no basis, such as that companies "bottom line is founded in sexism" or that companies are making moral decisions based on their bottom line. Moreover, it seems pretty convenient to say that "blaming the market is just passing the buck." If, for example, companies selling feminine hygiene products refused to sponsor any men (probably because they were not purchasers of the companies' products and therefore did nothing towards advertising and selling those companies' products), would that be considered sexism?
Your extrapolation of the argument that "women are inferior to men and therefore should be paid less or fired" seems totally baseless, I don't know of any companies who believe that (even subconsciously).
"no women who are accomplishing the top levels in the sport, have sufficient media coverage, etc. to justify as much as some of the men are making"
Seriously? Until you can names, perhaps yourself included, I'm inclined to think otherwise.
I think a company that dismisses a female athlete for the cause that DPM describes is in fact sexist.
Dear Peter,
Great topic to get out in the public for discussion!
I agree with anonymous #2 a bit in that it seems like just a return on investment decision by the company.
If the job of the sponsored climber is to generate revenue via increased sales, and sponsoring climber a generates more revenue than sponsoring climber b, it makes sense to reward climber a more. In this view sponsorship is just an advertisement expense.
If climber a is a man and b is woman, that doesn't make the company sexist. And if climber a is white and climber b is black, the companies actions are not racist. Its just roi, and the demographics of the climbing industry may play into this.
Unfortunatly I think you have a bit of a 'candide' view of sponsorship. These companies are just funding the athletes based on what the athletes are in turn doing for the company, not the sport or society.
On the other hand, I would totally agree with you if the company is claiming otherwise. If the company is saying that they fund athletes as 'ambassadors' of their brands ethos, or to 'advance the sport' then I think it is worth being very critical of differences in salary being paid to women and men for what is the same outcome / service provided. So in this situation if a man is paid more than a woman for getting his picture in a climbing magazine wearing the companies product, then the company is clearly placing less value on the the females 'contribution', and full shame on them.
And what about the flip side? Do we expect sponsored climbers to be advocates for the brands they promote? In such case, are the athletes sponsored by Black Diamond keenly aware of the labor practices used to create black diamond products in china? And are they saying they agree with those practices by being spokespeople for that brand?
In both cases it seems to come down to what the athlete thinks they are being paid to do for the company.
Sincerely,
Keith B
Hi Keith
Great comment and exactly the kind of response I wish I saw more of. Ultimately I think a company has some obligation to society beyond its bottom line.
Your comment
"Do we expect sponsored climbers to be advocates for the brands they promote? In such case, are the athletes sponsored by Black Diamond keenly aware of the labor practices used to create black diamond products in china? And are they saying they agree with those practices by being spokespeople for that brand?"
struck me as particularly profound. The issue of offshoring, outsourcing, etc. particularly in a country with a dismal human rights record is a legitimate concern.
Post a Comment