Hargreaves Husband Interviewed...

Wow! Honest opinions... Cool.

Dan, when I said free climbing ('do you mean trad or solo?') there were no ropes involved, it wasn't on rock routes. It was real daredevil stuff on bridges and other man-made structures; and stretching or leaping from stance to stance. I was quite good at it, no fear of heights (then). Sadly, like the 14 peakers, the success rate was unsustainable....

Despite initial reservations about joining this debate, I’m moved to stick my oar in because this discussion has some personal relevance to me and I also have a professional interest in all this psychology and gender stuff and given that some of you have mentioned this I just can’t help myself.

My father has been a mountaineer/climber/mountain biker/racing cyclist since before I was born. He has therefore done some things that are slightly more risky than the average person (e.g., he did some first British ascents of some peaks in the Alps). He has never had a particularly serious accident - although a few fairly minor ones and at least one potentially serious one (on a road bike). He is very fit and has never had any serious health problems and many people are surprised that he is 65. My mother has tended to avoid physical exercise and, although she was quite a keen walker when she was very young and growing up in Cumbria she has not tended to engage in risky sport - or, in fact, much exercise to speak of for several decades. Recently my mother had a heart attack caused by sclerosis in her arteries (she’s fine now). It is at least *possible* that my mother could have reduced her chances of heart disease in a number of ways: not smoking; eating less saturated fat; taking regular moderate exercise. Which, if any, is the irresponsible parent?

I agree with Jeannie that not all people have a stronger bond with their mother than their father. This fact can be ascertained by simply observing the world around us. Something other than biology is clearly operating here. People who propose that women are biologically pre-programmed to be better mothers (rather than this coming about through social factors like social learning and stereotyping) need to describe the biological mechanisms by which the following come about: women who have no desire to have children or to perform other family care work; women who neglect and abuse children. Saying that these things are relatively uncommon is not a reasonable scientific argument.

Dan (I think) noted that not all psychologists are of the opinion that the social roles of men and women (including parenting) are entirely socially constructed and not influenced at all by biology and I would agree that this is the case. However, there is also a large amount of evidence that social factors are incredibly influential in shaping roles, behaviours and attitudes that relate to gender.

So, all in all, I think that it is very tricky to try and start policing parents (or anybody else) in terms of what is too risky and what is irresponsible (in relation to risk to themselves, that is). Should we ban all parents from travelling in cars, for example? Parents who smoke - should they go to prison? Furthermore, I think (you can perhaps guess this bit by now) that all that backlash against Alison Hargreaves was clearly an example of gender discrimination and the ‘policing’ of mothers.

Oh, and finally, people don’t always make a clear cut rational decision to become parents. Sometimes it just happens that way and you just have to do your best.

Well said, Cath.

Maybe, just maybe, some of the backlash against Alison was due to some men not liking a woman being 'out of role'. Perhaps some of them found it a bit emasculating. I just wish I'd had her strength (internal and external) and skill.

erm... I'll get me coat

Yes, well said, the other thing about this daft world of ours, I get the feeling that, as more day to day activities are messed with by people who have "our interests" at heart, making the world a safer place, surrounded by legislation to achieve this, the more we look for pastimes where there is some risk, surely this is part of the attraction of many outdoor activities, and the sense of achievement after completing, safely, something that requires judgement and skill to overcome, cannot be gained in most peoples daily life, and as for not taking risks, from the moment you stand up in the morning, you run the risk of falling over, the level of risk you take throughout the day is all about personal choices, which I for one want to decide for myself, obviously personal cercumstances should affect those choices, but again, it's for the individual to decide.
Folks like Alan Hinkes do this with a pretty large amount of knowledge, but they can still make mistakes or have bad luck, but this is what stops the vast majority of people from climbing 8000 metre peaks, and makes the people who do, a bit special, no doubt if it was deemed to be very safe, lots of people would be doing it and Alan & Co would be looking for something more daring to do instead.
The thing with Alison Hargreaves was that the motivation MAY have clouded her judgement, she was setting very high standards but getting little recognition, recognition would have given her a certain amount of wealth and the freedom that goes with it, if you compare that with Alan Hinkes, he always seems to be in control of his motivation, knowing when to turn back is a very valuable skill, many people have died through summit fever

You cant decide for other people what is safe for them to do and what isnt.

Dan, loosing EITHER parent is a trauma that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I feel that it is the individual relationships kids have with their parents that decide if the loss of a mother or father is more significant.

Yet again media attention seems to have blown this somewhat out of proportion.
Yes she took risks.
Yes you are entitled to feel that by your standards they were unacceptable.
No she didn't do anything different to many parents who die every day.

Parents join/stay in the Police, Fire Brigade, Armed Services etc. These are potentially dangerous careers.

Parents choose to ride motorbikes, drive a car without a seatbelt, drink drive etc. All less safe than readily available alternatives.

Parents choose to continue smoking, even though they know the risks.

Many of these parents wind up dead.

Please beleive me when I say that I dont think this a trivial subject, quite the opposite as last week was the 5th anniversary of my mums death due to cancer (yes she smoked for quite some time). However I dont feel that anyone other than the family has the right to critiscise Alison in this way, and even they need to consider her motivations and the situaution in which her choices were made.

Si

Well put Simon - thank you.

I also feel I would like to add my opinions although they are less educated and informed than the above.

Risk can not be judged. My brother broke is neck while riding his road bike and ended up in a wheelchair - there were no outside factors. In my family I was the risk taker - he is / was a very careful person. If he was a parent should he of chosen not to ride his bike. His opinion is that he lived his life (and continues to do so) doing what makes him happy and being a happy contented individual makes him a better brother, husband and son. Surely driven individuals should continue to do what fufills them as it makes them better people.

I have no answer to the next part. I have always stated I would not have children until I had fufilled some ambitions in my life some of which are high risk. I am now at a stage in my life where I am not sure if I can live by this.