Please someone explain this to me

"Why are outdoor companies sexist towards women? Do we not like cool stuff too, do we not like sales on preferred items too? Clothing in boring colors I don't mind, but pockets so small as to not be functional? Have great brand wide sales sure, put the equivalent women's item on sale too, no. Fail, they all fail."

How are outdoor companies being sexist? En contrare, they're taking into great consideration that the majority of women will be utilizing purses or hand bags, larger pockets aren't really necessary. That's pretty thoughtful.

Outdoor companies know women like sales on preferred items…..but…. in the spirit of good business, they know that women are going to 'swipe the card' if they see something they like whether it's on sale or not, they're only responding to the patterns dictated by the consumer. Can you blame them?

Equivalent women's item?

What equivalent women's item? I thought that was what this thread was about, how women's clothing is NOT created equally?

@Sarah,
Yeah, I don't know if it was a yuppie…lol. But I just envisioned some tourist who just stepped out of the bus looking like they are in a north face catalog but can't stand to get a little mud on their brand new boots.
It's amazing how far you can see a red dot in open tundra.
I was overeating, but to me it was little annoying. It was fluorescent red, not plain red is what really made it catch my eye.
I sometimes care about fashion… I don't like the look of most technical, new age outdoorsy clothing. I prefer the grizzled hitchhiker look with a slight metrosexual flair.

@Eugene – Show me a woman carrying a purse in the middle of the woods and I could agree with you, but the truth is I don't need a purse on a week long backpacking trips. I could however use a pocket that held more than a scrap of paper. If you want pants to go with your purse you're not shopping at an outdoor store. I understand that there a lot of women out there who are shopping for "travel" clothes that are cute and not high activity clothes, but as many women I as I see and know who backpack, paddle, and climb you'd think the least companies could do is have one or two items that worked. I really don't think that's asking too much.

@Eric – Gotta say I'm interested to see what First Ascent comes up with. Looks very promising!

@Eugene If I was buying something from the modern day mall to not wear in the outdoors, then by all means, take away my pockets. You're probably right in that sense, those women don't need massive pockets. But we're talking about outdoor stores, not your typical "mall stores"

I was at my local REI annoying my fiance about this very subject a few days ago. The women's dept was useless, all fashion clothing with very little real outdoor clothing, the men's dept had hiking pants, multiple different brands, we had some columbia pants and some REI branded pants. And that's about it. The men's section had a fair amount of insulating clothing, us, we had some pretty cap sleeved loose fit shirts, nothing truly practical.

If a brand wants to make the claim that they are an outdoor company, then let them make true outdoor clothing for both genders. If they want to make a travel line in addition to the technical clothing, then by all means do so, both men and women will purchase that stuff, if that's what they are in to. I am not one of those people.

Give me pockets or give me death!

thats odd over here womens clothing is giving at least the same amount of space as mens clothing …

and the selection is just as good … not to say picky women will always find something … but there is a LOT here

and the sale racks are even more full of womens clothing …

i personally dont care about pockets … if its too small or there are none … if it fits and its cheap, its mine … i guess thats the difference between men and women … men will literally wear anything

once you add in the kid n todler outdoor sections … id say retailers know what sells and what doesnt sell to the average consumer … their POS systems provide pretty instant sales summaries on what is moving and whats not … a company like MEC or REI doesnt waste dead space if they can help it

maybe there is a market for outdoor gear with pear shapes, bigger pockets, etc … for women … but manuf dont seem to think so .. or rather they think theyd rather not have those people wear their "fashionable" lifetsyle clothes … which honestly the majority are

I know not everyone hikes like I do, but the only times I really need pockets is off the trail for my wallet, keys and cell phone; none of which I have on the trail. What do you need pockets for?
I prefer my jackets to not have pockets to save weight, bringing gloves if it's chilly. I primarily hike in pocketless running shorts. My hiking pants have your standard hip and butt pockets, all of which go unused. I suppose if I was hiking off trail I'd use them for a map and compass. I put a data sheet in a hipbelt pocket when I bring my hipbelt, otherwise that goes in a plastic bag in the side pocket of my pack.

It seems like the main problem is getting a proper fit, whatever that means. Hopefully that issue can be resolved by the ladies at First Ascent.

Its not pockets per say, its more a lack of functionality. Men's clothing seems to be made to be used, women's clothing seems to be made to look at, regardless if its outdoor specific clothing or not.

The sheer amount of women's clothes available doesn't change the fact that, compared to the men's clothes, a much smaller proportion of them are fit for actual outdoor use and sized to fit actual outdoorswomen and not catalog models. At least that is what I what I understood Jessica to originally be saying.

Right. I shop at REI with my boyfriend, and there are far more functional pieces of clothing on the men's side, that I constantly drool over.

The stuff on sale is almost always XS or XL, by the way.

I had to get the ugliest colored Montbell UL Parka last week as that was the only one that they had for women except for S and XL.

I think the above is the key difference. The amount of clothing is approxamately the same but the functionality is not. This however is not sexist, or in fact the companies faults. This trend is all on the consumer. If we go back to common stereotypes men will by for function first whereas women will buy for appearance. Now this is definately not 100% true however Outdoor companies know who they are selling to and know what products sell well.

So the real question isn't how come outdoor retailers don't supply equivalant women's clothing it is How do you convince women(general society not BPL) to buy a product based solely on function rather than fit and form.

What women (and people) want to buy is influenced by marketing.

We are bombarded by advertising telling us what we want to buy.

They wouldn't do this if it wasn't effective.

I like to think it doesn't affect me! It probably does, on some subconscious level, though.

I fully agree. I just went on a back packing trip and I love my new pants but I wish i had more pockets like my husband's pair same brand but he has a knife pocket he has other loops for things and other things.. just nice for backpacking. I was never into fashion but always love the extra pockets. More times then not you can shop in the boys section and get the same stuff for a bit less with more pockets.
I'm tiny so it's hard to find anything that fits adults to fit me..
My issue is the pack size. EVERY single pack is to large for me. the one that I was sized for is still to small.

So whem pay more for backpacking gear, for less of a multi use.. How many times does your male friend ask you to hold on to something for him. yet they have more pockets.
I find old navy and meijer have great selection on "cotton" pants but they are nomrally to heavy for me on trail. so yes i'm stuck with my wonderfully nice name brand with a pocket that a pack of smokes could almost fit in!
Still have no place to put my knife. maybe they want me to run with it! lol Joking!

"Why are outdoor companies sexist towards women? Do we not like cool stuff too, do we not like sales on preferred items too? Clothing in boring colors I don't mind, but pockets so small as to not be functional? Have great brand wide sales sure, put the equivalent women's item on sale too, no. Fail, they all fail.

End rant, Jess"
Jess,

I will have to disagree with you. Whenever I go to the columbia store or mountain hardwear, the style in the women section is 100% better than the one in the man section.
Women also have better deals out there.

That has to do with the fact that we only take note of what interests us .

Ever noticed you hear a word that annoys you all the time ?
Funny thing is that people that use that annoying word probably don't know that they do….

In other words , if you were a 6'2" male looking for a shirt with pockets in the material you like, you will also note how everything else is on special except for your shirt.
Franco

For me the bottom line is fit and function. I don't want cutesy colors or designs. I'm not so sure that I would wear lavender or chartreuse for my street, work or other play clothes either for that matter.

But I do find it amusing that even in this day and age that when I go into a shop with outdoor gear, or a car lot for that matter, that some moron will try and sell me something based on it being a "girly" color.

As a side note, after a career in a SAR agency, I do like to have some piece of gear in international orange, just in case…..

>"some moron will try and sell me something based on it being a "girly" color"

I've noticed in the last few years, all the gun shops now have pink-handled revolvers, pistols and rifles (at in .22). So some moron must be buying them. An ex-governor comes to mind.

Amen on fit of women's outdoor clothes that actually serve a purpose. I have a 24" waist and 33" hips, and cannot for the life of me find any kind of hiking pants/shorts that fit. Kids sizes are too short or straight through the hips and don't zip or button up, the smallest women's pants I have ever found were still several inches too big. It's getting to the point that I'm learning to sew garments just so I can have something that doesn't snag on everything, get caught under my boots, or make me look like I'm wearing a potato sack.

Example:
I'm doing a dayhike tomorrow and grabbed a hiking skirt I got a while back but haven't worn yet… it's a size 0 and has about 4-5" around the waist that don't need to be there, so I have to alter it. I'm not super picky about my gear so long as it is functional, but what I mostly want is for it to *fit me*

FIRST> I agree women need more options for backpacking clothing. No question.
It seems that Patagucci, REI, TNF and Eddie Bauer or even LL Bean do attempt to do this to some extent.

SECOND> Part of the problem is quantity sold v.s. men's backpacking clothing. As mentionsd before, the women's market in this niche may not be large enough.

That said when companies DO design women's outdor clothing they need to design in functionality with fashion. **Those two things are not mutually exclusive.**

Another part of the problem may be, as a buddy of mine once said, "Men buy clothes, women buy 'outfits'!" Tough to wear that avocado green WPB parka with your pink fleece. Just sayin' ;o)

I think that part of the problem might be that people (of all shapes, sizes and genders) vary an awful lot. It's hard for a clothing company to create a pant (or shirt, or jacket) that suites everyone. What works for one body type doesn't for another.

I'm a tall, slim and downright gangly (male, but it doesn't really matter for this) with long arms and a relatively short torso, I had pretty much given up on shirts that fit in all dimensions. Then I realized anything off the shelf should be treated not as a finished product, but as a place to start. About ten dollars a shirt to a local tailor (and I'm sure many of you MYOG people could do it yourself) and they actually fit.

As it is though, I have a lot of trouble finding something that fulfills my criteria for functionality and isn't hideous. Maybe the men's side of the store needs some of the extra fashion from the women's.

"That said when companies DO design women's outdor clothing they need to design in functionality with fashion. **Those two things are not mutually exclusive.**"

Absolutely correct. As a woman, I often buy men's outdoor gear because in my experience women's outdoors gear (particularly outerwear and boots) are sub-standard in terms of construction. Sure, they're pretty, but they don't offer the same protection from the elements as the corresponding men's gear. I am not willing to give up functionality for attractiveness. My goal is to stay warm, dry and alive- not to be a corpse in a pretty pink outfit.

Location might have something to do with it as well. In Colorado, the various REI stores stock things quite differently.

@Greg… /end thread