UKH

Hi there, I'm currently working on a project for The North Face showing that the brand is as much about females as it is males.

Personally I feel as though female climbers/ expeditionists are under represented in the climbing world and seen less able then men, when they're not! 

If you are a female, do you feel as though you are under represented within climbing/mountaineering/adventure 'fashion brands' such The North Face, Patagonia etc in their advertising. And do you feel less acknowledged than men in this sport? if so why?

Look forward to hearing your comments. Thanks in advance 

I don't see that at all. Most of the brands have female sponsored athletes and there are always articles in climbing magazines and on notable websites featuring/written by or aimed at female climbers. 

Maybe it's just a North Face problem? 

Would you expand on that point. Is that a personal point of view or something you have viewed happening in the media/on forums such as UKC etc?

When i look on UKC i see the achievements of female climbers being publicized the same as male climber achievements. e.g. the recent interview from KMF with Emma Twyford, performing at the same high level as male elite climbers. I doubt any would view her and other leading female climbers as "less able" than men. 

If the attitude of "women can't climb as hard as men" still exists surely the men with said attitude are now the minority?

There is a bridge around here somewhere 

No. Personally I feel the opposite; the whole reason why I got into climbing is because it seemed one of the few sports with less gender-differences.

All of my non-climber friends know who Shauna coxey is and none can name male climbers. My experience has been that when looking for climbing partners; gender doesn't seem to come into it. Guys approach women for beta and I wouldn't see this happen in other sports.

Furthurmore; in terms of clothing; I think most outdoor brands represent female climbers well - most climbing shops dont use models and just picture the clothes on their website and actually one thing that puts me off about north face is that they do use attractive female models - that makes me less likely to buy the stuff as it makes me question whether they're more of a fashion over practical brand. but even so; looking at their sports bras etc. still females dont appear oversexualized like lets say if you're looking at high-street sports bras on h&m etc. so for me, I feel females are (maybe not perfectly) but satisfactory  represented in a way that favours our strength over attractiveness.

I think there has been massive improvement but there is still poor representation in some areas. Bouldering, indoor & sport climbing and trad rock climbing now have lots of really great female female role models and lots of choice of gear. However there are noticeable differences in winter climbing, alpinism and expedition climbing, as well as the amount of women in leadership roles. 

I don't really feel that women are represented as less able as such, just not represented, have less kit options, put in pink etc. I don't see many brands showing women leading, doing hard routes etc. Lots more 'gazing into the distance' and following guys up routes. Yawn!

What a load of nonsense. Pie sums it all up, as usual.

youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog&

Really!? How?

One of the most exciting things that happened to me this year was being vigorously waved at and gesticulated to by Ms Coxsey, from the front window of trendy Sheffield cafe bar. Of course, Shauna wouldn't have a clue who I am but wanted me to get the attention of UKC's own star, Rob Greenwood, who I was walking down the street with having just bumped into him in Lidl.  Being vigorously waved to by world champion was really quite exciting, even if she wasn't actually interested in me! But whenever I tried to tell anyone not a climber about this amazing experience they all just said "who?"

Bet they all knew who Rob is tho :p

In reply to the OP:

I think outdoors stuff is pretty good gender wise but can be better. Stuff like competitions to win stuff having male and female version of the prize for example? 

Not sure what your TNF project is but if you could tell them to stop making tracksuits and other nonsense as it's diluting the brand, that'd be sick. 

Funny concept this representation business. I read the new interview with Hazel Findlay on the front page and I connect just as much with what she is doing as I do any of the other male trad climbers I read about. Who cares?

Completely disagree all I seem to watch and notice being promoted these days are Shanti Pack smashing cracks, hazel Findlay also smashing cracks and corners, Emma Twyford and her achievements, easily equally if not more represented than men in climbing. 
 

Outside of climbing however, if we’re talking about ‘fashion’, as someone who’s very knowledgeable of, and a retailer of The North Face, id say 90% of my sales are to males, but I think that’s possibly just because there’s a lot more choice for women and guys tend to stick to one or 2 ‘cool’ brands. The fashion side of TNF appears heavily Male-promoted especially all the collab work with Supreme etc.
 

This definitely isn’t the same for brands like Patagonia or Finisterre who seem to much more represent the spectrum of men women and children in their advertising. 

I don’t normally feel compelled to write my view in these forums for dislike of being criticized but I actually have a hard time trying to understand why the topic of male/female representation in the mountains is so popularly discussed; when I first started mountaineering around 18 years ago there really was very little choice for female outdoor clothing, so I just bought men’s stuff and didn’t see it as problem. The range of female options in outdoor clothing and representation of women climbers and mountaineers by outdoor gear brands today seems endless in comparison, both in terms of colours (not just pink), styles and functionality.

On the topic of women in the mountains generally I think people’s attitudes have changed and it seems too be a bigger deal now, perhaps helped by the presence of social media and being able to share views. When I first did my first alpine course back in 2002 the fact that I was the only female (aged 18) in a group of about 10 other blokes didn’t seem unusual or particularly awkward and I definitely don’t remember being treated any differently. Coincidentally I also spent a week being guided by the late Brede Arkless together with another woman in the Alps in 2003 and I don’t once recall any kind of gender issue being raised back then either – by us or anyone else we met at the huts. Now I live in a fairly outdoorsy city and pretty much everyone I go ski touring, hiking and climbing with are females, so there is no lack of female participation in the mountains from my point of view, though admittedly few of them are actually interested in alpine mountaineering or trips to the Greater Ranges.  

I’d like to add that from a sunny day at Tirpentws in Wales to a busy weekend at Smith Rock in Oregon I’d say groups of female friends or at least Male/female teams have outnumbered ‘groups of males’ by far. 

I see it as a problem as I am 5 foot tall with a teeny waist and big thighs and hips! The increase in women's kit has helped me a lot, but it's still not great as the assumption seems to be that outdoorsy women don't have hips. Still, there is a bit more choice than there was!

Otherwise I would agree with your post in that I couldn't care less what gender of person I go into the mountains with and I have never noticed anyone caring about my gender. I have never felt discriminated against or "underrepresented". I don't need to feel represented, I just go into the mountains and enjoy myself.

Fair enough... I can see how you might struggle to find decent fitting outdoor clothes in male sizes if you're not very tall, probably something I overlooked as someone who's 5ft 9  

It's not because you're female though, it's because you're not the 'typical' shape. Even for women, 5 ft is still way too short (I believe the average women height in the UK is 5' 3")

I don't fit in probably around 95% of the stuff on the market today, and I'm a guy.

Does that mean that there's some sort of 'oppressive, patriarchal conspiracy' to keep people shaped like me out of the sport? Of course not. It just means that there's not enough people with my body shape for companies to justify spending money in making clothes that only a tiny number of people will ever buy. To expect any company to make stuff that will fit every shape and size is simply ridiculous.

I've got a proposal: why don't all the women whining about clothes not fitting their particular shape band together and start a company that makes clothes that fit them? If you look at all the major brands on the market today, most of them have started as a one-man band in someone's garage or shed, so it should definitely possible. However, you'll probably find that you won't get that many sales, since the reason clothes currently being made don't fit you is because YOU'RE NOT THE TYPICAL SHAPE.

That feels like a bit of an uncalled for attack!! I merely commented that I appreciate the increase in female specific clothing as it has made it easier for me!!

I am not "way too short"!! I am just the size I am meant to be!! And actually for a Scottish woman I am not THAT unusual. I have several friends of a similar height

Women's bodies come in several "typical" shapes. I am possibly towards the more extreme end of one such typical shape, but a woman with wide hips and a small waist is not "not typical". I'm not saying all should produce all shapes, but a few ranges accommodating different shapes would be nice (and is starting to appear more. Stretch fabrics help a bit).

Right. I don't work for an outdoor equipment manufacturer, but it's not that far fetched to believe that, when they work out what to produce and in which sizes, they do some market research in order to know who they are catering for. It's also not that far fetched to believe that 'the size you are meant to be' (whatever that means) just so happens to be outside the range they have identified to be most profitable for them. 'I have several short friends' and other such anecdotal data does not equate market research.

Although I'm 'in the same boat' as you (you seem to have missed the fact that I also find it hard to find stuff that fits because of my atypical shape), I refuse to sympathize with you (or anyone else complaining about poor fits on outdoor gear) because I understand how market forces work and I don't expect for anyone to start making stuff that will fit me and like another 17 guys in the whole damn world.

What I am objecting to is you calling my shape a-typical. I am not. I am shaped like a woman. Women come in a number of "typical" shapes. 

My post that started this was saying that I objected to there being a lack of female clothing in the past, because I am not shaped like a man, being a typical female shape! Now there are more female clothing ranges available, I am able to find more things which fit (or almost fit). I would appreciate there being more, but it is better than it was. I only responded to someone else saying she had no problem with there not having been so many female specific kit available in the past, by pointing out why some people need female clothes. I don't really get why you feel the need to attack me about this. 

You really seem to have taken a lot of offence at a pretty mild post wishing that there were more clothing sizes available. I don’t think she’s suggesting it’s your fault personally. 

What does 'shaped like a woman' mean? Everything - man, woman, or any of the other 376 genders available to choose from nowadays - are shaped like 'whatever gender they identify as'.

That doesn't change the fact that there will be an average shape for each and every one of them, which clothing is normally based on. You seem to be different from that average. There: is 'average', rather than 'atypical' more to your liking?

I'm not offended at all - just fed up. So many people whining that they can't find stuff that fits them and somehow associating that with the 'patriarchy' instead of accepting that they're just different from the average and there's no incentive for brands to cater to outliers. That's all.

girlymonkey just happened to be the one that set me off. I apologise. I shouldn't have taken it out on her.

I can only think of one brand (PHD) that doesn't make clothes with a female fit. I don't buy from them, simple. 

Nobody was whining until you came along and took this post way off subject. It was quite interesting until you started spouting crap.

To get the post back on track, I now see TNF as a fashion brand worn by neds with huge logos all over it. As such, I even though they have soome good gear, I would rather buy something by Montane, patagonia, arcteryx etc. The socially / environmentally responsible credentials are more important to me.

Which part of my post is wrong? Do you believe that some women (just like some men) don't find clothes that fit because someone 'doesn't want them to'?

I will agree though that there wasn't any whining in this particular thread, but this 'issue' comes up time and time again on several forums I frequent and I'm just fed up with it.

The irony in your contribution, of course, is that you haven't commented anything on the actual subject of this topic (female climbers and their representation - it's in the title), so you are actually more off topic than me.

Usually I'm the first to oppose this big gender debate in climbing but the replies from the female members on here have been very measured and reasonable. I understand your frustrations with the current climate but on here, I find the membership can be reasoned with, even if at the end we respectfully dissagree with one another.

Might be worth making yourself a cuppa and a few deep breaths.

It might be worth considering that if it's not really an "issue", then why does it keep coming up?

Exactly this. I've been trying to figure out how to write a reply that makes sense and this sums things up nicely - theres lots of women doing outdoors stuff and I've never felt underrepresented. Neither have I felt it an issue if I'm in a hut full of men nor if I'm in at a crag full of ladies. The 'women vs men' thing keeps going round in circles and as I female I'm perplexed!

I agree.

I have already apologised to the member in question and I won't be commenting any further.

...because fighting discrimination / underrepresentation / etc where it just doesn't exist has become a tedious national obsession in recent years. to the detriment of the efforts to fight the real thing.

Brand sizing is one issue. Agreeably being outside the “average” (whatever that means) of sizing, girl or guy means less demand and thus companies have less desire to manufacture products for. That’s not sexist that’s just how business works. 

However I do still much believe it is still skewed in male favour. With male size having greater choice at either end. As you called out 5ft being extreme, but if is 5’3 is average then 3 inch difference is the same as a 6’1 male (average 5’9). It would be completely absurd for a company not to account for this, yet most trousers even women’s do not come in lengths suitable for someone 5ft tall. Mountaineering boots is another example, if the average uk female foot is 5/6 Eu 39 and male 10- eu 43 most popular male boots go from 38-48 and female 36-42. A much reduced range offered seems strange if there’s apparent equal representation. In addition even when smaller sizes exist less stores will stock eg. Joe browns instagram post stating they stock scarpa 36-50, but not 35. It might be the case that there is a smaller of proportion that falls into the low end of this scale than the high. Hard to tell. Personally would say there is probably a much larger group of women who have below a size 4 than men above a size 14 uk.

Personal gripe here as by unfortunately of anomaly of being quite below average female size has meant winter boots and ski touring boots have been many years of saving to buy new the SINGLE only model in each that is a somewhat acceptable fit. Similar issues with belay jackets, short skis and climbing shoes. As supposed to the thousands of second hand options afforded to an average guy, not that I’m bitter or anything 🤷‍♀️. 

Back to issue of representation. Yes girls crush, and it is increasingly popular in mainstream to see it. This is great. In sport climbing, competitions and bouldering in outdoor brands and magazines it’s pretty on par. This is still somewhat recent, and even a couple years ago on ukc massive notable Europe and rest of world female ascents were nowhere as near hyped as they probably should’ve been. Will say ukc writers are much better than the ukc forum reaction for these things. 

Would argue in things like winter and some alpinism there is more of a disparity. I feel for the so called gnarlier stuff it’s often male models. Female winter marketing is snowy strolls. Spindrift beaten, technical ice axe climbing, steep skiing is guys. Rab, mountain equipment, jottnar etc. all a bit guilty of it. That’s just my personal take from what I see, and I feel fits with the product lines most these companies offer. Very warm synthetic belay women’s jackets lacking, same with gloves lines they often have only less beefy models, not offering there top model shells etc. It feels like acknowledgment of they exist but like not at top level or more lifestyle. Eg. Thousand of choices for female medium weight down jackets. Likely in this area they are going with market trends and there is maybe less comparatively females in this sort of territory and therefore less demand. However portraying that kinda message can be self fulfilling and damaging.

I feel Britain is much worse for these kinda ideas and in Europe things are more equal and also brands better account for this. It’s only been uk or from Brits I've had the comments of “oh what, your partner is a girl” “wait you’re leading??!?” or “You managed to carry that big ole pack up here!??” Similarly Scandi brands  french and Italian brands often use girls actually doing the sport(Ice climbing, skiing) in their advertising. 

Need to consider the uk population as a whole. More people buying, more money. Far more people will want clothes for dog walks and lifestyle when it’s a bit chilly out than brutal ascents. Companies probably look at how to market this into the psych of average non climber/adventure person to make more money. Imo a non outdoorsy guy is maybe more likely to be impressed and thus buy the product of a jacket being worn to thrutch up a massive alpine face than a female looking for fashionable but warm attire. The disparity is probably not helpful, but I don’t really have a problem with north face for example doing lifestyle stuff like trakkies and hoodies. Much of the bitching here lies within a need to feel special and superior to the general public imo. They just wanna make money. Problem lies if it results in a reduction in quality of actual outdoor oriented gear or insinuating that women are only fit for lifestyle photo shoots. 

In short, in rock climbing representation is pretty on par. Other areas, less so. This likely somewhat representative of numbers involved, a winter skills course is much more likely to be evenly gender mixed than leading hard technical routes VI+. Of course many the girls that are getting out and doing “hardcore” things don’t really give a f*ck about these sorta of things and whether their ascent gets 20000 likes on Patagonia’s Instagram. Been doing them since the sport has come about and will continue to whether they get a poster or massive sponsorship not. However, few more pics of them going around would probably only do good to inspire. Brands should also take note if they wanna capitalise as kit required for multi-day winter ascents is £££ compared to a day bouldering. Not meant to demean anyone female or otherwise that prefers either. Just should be inspiration and representation across genders whatever discipline, regardless of exact numbers participating. Just my 2p/ exam procrastination rant.

Hmm,

I’m not interested in climbing walls, bouldering or sports climbing, so I can’t provide any first hand observations. But the climbing magazines seems to have a huge focus on female climbers in these arenas.

When I climb in the winter I cannot recall when I saw females climbing. However when I climb on road side crags there are usually a fair number of female climbers of all abilities. In contrast on mountain crags females are, and always were, a rarity.

If anybody had any doubts about females’ capabilities then Alison Hargreaves put those to bed 20-30 years ago. I don’t think she saw fashion as a barrier to climbing!

Bigger hips than waist 

IS THE TYPICAL SHAPE OF A WOMAN 

Ffs.

I'm shaped bang on.

Everyone else is weird. 

Not if your handle's accurate.

Here's the thing, if an outdoor gear manufacturer is staffed by lots of men, are they really going to appreciate the different shape requirements for girls, other than just making it smaller and in pink? It's only in recent years that Mountain Equipment (or possibly RAB) have bothered to put helmet compatible hoods on their female jackets. Why? Is it that women don't need hoods, or because the people designing the jackets don't use them in the outdoors?

Girls are smaller than guys, generally speaking. So many girls end up having to use either warm winter boots that are two sizes too big, or risk frostbite in the lighter boots that the manufacturers deem worth making. And even when they are made in smaller sizes, they're basically impossible to get hold of.

I don't believe media representation is particularly unbalanced but I do believe high end kit is; if you go out and potter in the not too cold mountains you'll be able to find kit as a girl but try to do any real mountaineering and you're going to struggle to find good kit in either the right size or shape. That is unfair, and borderline dangerous.

Hehehe,nice!

This is purely my own opinion, but I honestly don't notice female representation for better or worse - I like reading about people's achievements and I don't really care if it's a man or a woman who climbed a route I can only dream of! Same with advertising - I look at the route, the rock, the kit, but not really if it's a male or female body. I bought a new harness recently and all the female versions were several inches off fitting. I considered that clearly several brands don't cater for the chubbier lady like me, thought ah well and bought a men's harness instead! No big deal  

Personally I have never asked myself or thought about whether I’m represented enough in the climbing world. I’m an individual, not a group, and don’t really like this male female sexist divide thing. Yeah, generally there are more guys at the crag, but we are all just people going climbing. 

In reply to amber_207:

In terms of female clothes not having a wide enough range of typical sizes, I have generally found that they all start at size 6 (which is pretty small) and go up to maybe 16. I think this is a reasonable range of clothing sizes? It’s pretty rare to see sizes larger than this, and if someone is smaller than a size 6 then they could just buy children’s climbing clothing which is widely available too! 
 

If you can’t find clothing/climbing gear to fit you then I would assume it would be reasonable to assume you’re an atypical size. Not because the clothing brand doesn’t want to represent you. At the end of the day they want your money! It’s a simple fact ! 

 

I agree with your point however why do males get referred to as an adult and females referred to as a child? This happens consistently throughout sports media and advertising. At what age / level of accomplishment does a female become an adult? 

I think this sums it up very nicely.

Indeed.

for not finding anything that fits (be they male or female), there are two obvious reason. The shop you are visiting does not find it economically viable to keep in stock such sizes (they will often order for you, but will they fit). Or the brands have decided that the market share for your particular size/fit is not economically viable to cater.

heck I’m a reg. Built male in the 5’9 range, and still have difficulty in finding technical clothing that fit just right. So being an outlier I can certainly understand the frustration. And I actually have a really petite friend, she often resorts to buying from children’s selection... but from what she has said, that doesn’t really work unless you happen to have the body shape of a young boy. So it’s not as simple.

As for the original topics. No women are not under-represented by major brands in general level. Sport climbing, skiing, comp. climbing and bouldering have actually rather big media presence. That isn’t true on say winter climbing, expeditions or aid stuff. But there isn’t much media presence from males either from said fields globally (well, western media anyway).

And from what I remember, TNF has pretty much always had both genders re-presented in their media material. From Antarctic, Peru to closer locations. So pretty much ranging from full on expeditions to single pitch sport in say Rifle.

What a bizarre response. Particularly given that girlymonkey explicitly said she has never felt discriminated against.

The issue as you outline it can either be that the market for certain things isn’t big enough, or that it hasn’t occurred to manufacturers that the market exists (for whatever reasons). If they don’t make something it’s hard to meaningfully argue about sales figures. I know a lot of women who historically have struggled to find decent waterproof trousers, in any female size. Is that because women don’t go out in the rain? Or because no one has stopped to think that there might be a need and a market there? The comments in this thread seem to suggest this is changing slowly, so the manufacturers clearly to see a market opportunity. I have no idea if these changes are due to addressing biases or whether manufacturers are just catching up with a shift in the demographic of the market. Probably a bit of both, but point being that you seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.

No one on this thread seems to be crying out about oppression, but you seem to think that it’s impossible for a manufacturer to misread the market opportunities. They are run by people, who are prone to biases and missing things. Not by some perfect economic oracle. 

Anyway, all I really wanted to say was that you come across as a total dick. Whatever axe you are grinding feel free to do so elsewhere, and come back once you’ve wiped the froth from your lips. 

I think women are increasingly well represented in the outdoors media (I scrolled through Outside Magazine's homepage and half their articles profiling specific sports-people are about women -- so good for them) but I think the high end technical clothing industry has a ways to go.  If you are 5'4 and size 4/5, you usually can't wear men's boots or trousers (unless they're made by Montane), and good luck finding technical winter softshells or Gore Tex trousers.  Many of the ones which do exist assume you have no hips.  Maybe in the minds of designers, the ideal female climber looks like Barbie, but in the real world, most women have hips.  It's hardly an 'atypical' shape. 

Nor do I understand why women's clothing is often form-fitting in a way that men's is not.  I don't want a belay jacket that will show off my figure.  I want one I can stack five layers underneath.  For stuff like that, I just buy the men's clothing, and I don't care that much, but to answer the OP's question, female climbers/mountaineers would be better represented if the women's clothing were as functional as the men's, or if items like belay jackets didn't differentiate between gender at all. 

And here's an interesting one.  For some of their new softshells, Montane offers men different leg lengths -- short, medium, long.  This is great, especially for short men like my partner.  Do they offer women equivalent softshells in different leg lengths?  Nope.