UKC

Hi,

So some people will have seen my friends post on what's missing from outdoor clothing.

I have found that the womenswear garments tend to be of a lower technical spec and also not very attractive in comparisson to the menswear.

Do the ladies out there feel that this is an issue? Does it matter what the garments you wear look like? And what changes would you like to be made?

All your comments will be really helpfuly towards my university project.

Thanks

In reply to sammiKrogers:

In my opinion, women's outdoor gear is more attractive than men's these days - we can get some great looking stuff. The specs seem to be catching up, too, though sometimes it's harder to get hold of a women's version of an item. This seems to be particularly true for footwear - my approach shoe of choice, the La Sportiva Boulder X, isn't available in the UK in a women's fit.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I think women's gear is attractive enough. It is just far too small for me (I have 34" inside leg and massive boobs!), and the specs are usually not good enough, so most of my outdoor clothes are men's versions, with a cold gap around the waist....

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I think womens outdoor clothing generally Looks more attractive and is Better fitted/tailored or whatever the word is than mens.

Im a 6' man and the Comfiest and by far the best ruckSack ive ever owned was a big Lowe alpine womens job, so i guess technical Aspects are Pretty good as well (and thanks to the burglar who stole that one to put 200 CDs in. Didnt care about the CDs but bag was my favourite 7:^(

In reply to Choss:


I agree. I often see a jacket that looks good and realise it's a womens' model. Even more so for shoes (the trek/approach kind, not the stiletto kind).

To the OP - I think the problem, especially if you are in the UK, is range. There is some great womens' gear out there by Arcteryx, OR, Patagonia etc but you just can't get it, or much of it, in the UK (or NZ, Australia etc).

When I travel I spend a lot of time looking in gear shops and when in the UK in March I was really disappointed how stale the selection has become. Lots of Rab, a bit of ME, standard Berghaus, North Face, but even with the UK brands, very little Montane or Crux in most shops. Just row upon row of bog standard stuff, even when they have Haglofs or something better, they just have a fraction of the range. I understand the economics of it, one store can't stock everything, but even taken all together, across all stores, the range is meagre.

Fancy fabrics are no good if the garment doesn't fit you, as you won't buy it, so I think better fitting garments are more important than (usually overhyped) new fabrics or 'technologies'.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

The worst thing about women's outdoor clothing is the crappy colours. Some of us want something other than pink or purple.

In reply to upordown:

I bought a pink icebreaker for £30. Its very pink but keeps me warm so I love it. Pink wouldnt be my first choice in colour but for that price I couldnt resist.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

As a taller lady I find some brands too short in the body and arms. I had to shop round to get longer length trousers too.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Trouble is, there's good-looking in the catalogue, and there's good-looking in actual use.
In the catalogue: Glorious scenery. Perfect weather, which makes you wonder why the model is wearing waterproofs anyway. Model is a glamorous twenty-something with a very even tan and perfect hair. You can almost smell her perfume.

In actual use: There is probably some scenery lurking in the clag somewhere. It is pissing it down. Model is middle-aged with warts and a squint, and has mud in her hair and rain running off the end of her nose. Jacket is being worn with sleeves shoved up for cooling purposes, has two maps, a compass, a fleece hat and a leaking packet of peanuts crammed into the pockets, and has acquired an indelible greasy stain down the front due to a hasty campsite breakfast. Trousers are so liberally plastered with mud that it is no longer obvious what colour they are. You can indeed smell the model's perfume, and the scent in question is called "Eau de smelly helly."

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I think you guys need more pink and purple

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I've just read John Redheads article then this post.

I think we're doomed.

In reply to sammiKrogers:
Supply and Demand... I've got loads of womens kit!

In reply to upordown:


Unfortunately the market probably isn't big enough to offer a range of sizes and technical features as well as a wide range of colours.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Thanks everyone for your comments so far,

So touching on what damo said, is it the UK/NZ/AUS that is lacking in womenswear?

I think there is the scope to introduce different colours and still maintain a good business and I appreciate that in reality function/fit is much more important than aesthetics. So I am working on that aswell as my main background is pattern cutting and garment technology. I am also looking into non-sewn technologies and how they can improve comfort.

Do you think the fit needs to be addressed, such as maybe made to measure? Or made for your body 'type'? (such as garments for tall, petite,
or even pear, apple etc?)

thanks again

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes, I take your point. My objection is the typically 'girly' colours that are offered. I'd be quite happy with the same colours as in the men's ranges. My personal view, obviously.

In reply to upordown:


Less grandad colours in the mens range please. Blue and Black. No thanks.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Okay, it's official. I'm a woman who likes grandad colours

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I generally like the womens wear on offer. I agree with the Posters above about colour. Stop with the pink and purple! I live in my montane prism, nice red colour

I get frustrated when the men's range stocked is so much better with more options. They have three/four different options stocked where as we get one, and if it doesn't fit then you're screwed.

I'm lucky that most things fit me right, when I can find them small enough, and there's no where near enough size 8 stuff for sale on here!

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Too much pink/purple stuff (though I don't mind darker purple shades, I definitely am not a pink wearer). Sizing is good. Stuff comes smaller than high street stores, so is actually the right size for me without needing to be ridiculous and look for size 6 to keep my trousers up (Next & Zara, I'm looking at you and your giant trousers). This is fine buying online, but shops often don't stock all the sizes, or only get in one small size which promptly sells out, and which reminds me of a pub I worked in, where the manager hired only skinny women, but the head office sent him a range of uniform sizes for the staff...

Top sizes it's sometimes difficult to tell whether a brand has sized for more muscular women (wide chest/shoulders) or not when buying online. There's a lot of variety in this.

Shoes - men's climbing shoes fit fine, but are often not stocked in sizes under 6, which is really annoying. Can usually be found online though, and we often get really good sales on the small sizes at the end of a season (presumably because stores don't buy them in in the first place, the manufacturer doesn't sell them, then discounts them).

In reply to upordown:


Its probably a marketing mans nightmare ! My guess is that the market for women's technical clothing is much lower than for men's yet the market is split by those who want 'girly' colours (eg MrsD) or those that want 'men's' colours (eg you)

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Is that actually the case? Apart from when you get to down suits designed for 8000m peaks, or similarly small, specialist markets, I thought most stuff was available in a women's fit these days (from the manufacturers, if not from every stockist).

There are often some differences in design, but manufacturers tend to defend these because they've made the changes in response to feedback from women - eg less pockets, because feedback has been that many women don't like chest pockets, as they're not flattering or practical with boobs.

Tops and jackets - I'd say there are plenty of options available (in amongst some pretty unflattering stuff). I've got plenty of tops (mainly Icebreaker) that I can wear for work, and not worry about changing if I have a rescue callout in the day.

Trousers, maybe a gap for a flattering cut in a technical fabric, but only likely to be a walking trouser, because for more technical stuff cut will need to be tailored to the activity.

Fit's always going to be a bit tricky. I tend to find arms/legs can be a bit short (I'm 5ft 7 and size 10) as there's a tendancy to assume that you get taller as you get wider. And I tend to find that to get fit on hips/thighs, I have inches to spare round the waist, as I'm rather pear shaped. But I suspect you can find plenty with exactly the opposite gripes. And with a bit of shopping around between brands, I can generally find ones which as OK.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

It's loads better than it was 10 year ago, but some things still annoy me.

E.g. Finding full zip waterproof trousers - I have mens as I couldn't find any womens ones without having to special order and risk being stuck with them.

Insulated jackets - I would love one of these http://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/the_gear/clothing/insulation/fitzroy_ja... as I would like a bright coloured synthetic jacket - the womens option only comes in black and lilac!

My gripe is there is tooo much pink/purple/pastel blue

I would like to see more red and blue - like in menswear.

I've reached a stage where pretty much all my hill gear is black - if I ever break my leg on the hill- I will look like a rock to MRT - not very safe.

In reply to Katie86:

Oh yes, ban powder blue, lilac and pale pink in serious gear! I had a pale blue down jacket for a number of years (as it was the best fit when I was buying), and how impractical can you get - bound to get mucky, hard to wash....

I remember looking at the ME Fitzroy last year and dispairing of the colour choice - particularly as I think they made the women's version in red for the MREW jackets.

In reply to Carolyn:
IIRC TNF used to do a down jacket in *white* ... even worse!

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Actually I think you look stunning just as you are

I'm not at all convinced that the 'technical spec' on clothes aimed at the female market is lower than that aimed at males.

And 'attractiveness? You can obsess about gilding the lily but at the end of the day is it REALLY the style of clothes that we wear that determines how 'attractive we are'?

Or is it the inner person?

By the way - I'm male.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

On my wish list are...

Longer tops that fit under a harness, and don't ride up.
Sleeves with thumb holes.
A coat I can climb in (e.g. a higher cut at the front that doesn't interfere with my harness
Thick winter trousers like the men have (I mean you E9)
A chalk bag with a decent sized zip pocket.
A thermal buff.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I live in NZ i find that shops and importers don't stock technical womens gear.

Until recently a primaloft jacket with a hood was really hard to find even though men's had been on the market for over a decade.

Tramping boots are available but not alpine boots.

Basic over trousers and ski pants but not alpine climbing salopettes, let alone thermals you could access with a she wee.

I'm not sure if this is ordering or lack of availability from Brands.

I am too small for a man's size so often don't have my prefered item.

In reply to Wingnut:


I think that was a year or two after my (very) pale blue version. Clearly it was only supposed to be worn round town.....

I think now the stuff's generally made, just not widely stocked. I'm quite spoilt because I'm within easy reach of Keswick, and if necessary Ambleside, so can generally find all the more technical stuff (or at least someone prepared to order it). And there's the Internet now, which makes it easier to track down things. Last winter it took me ages to track down soft shell trousers with gaiters in the bottom, but UKC pointed me at the right ones. They were out of stock everywhere in the right size, but within a few weeks I got a bargain pair off eBay anyhow.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

There is so much more women's wear available in the UK these days than there was only a few years ago. I used to get a lot of stuff in Chamonix because you just couldn't get women's technical gear here. And I was working in a gear shop at the time. These days there are normally women's versions of everything that is available for men.

Challenges already touched upon above are
- finding it in stock to try on. The market is a lot smaller, so gear shops stock less.

- Fit... women vary in size and shape even more than men. This can be frustrating when you are buying stuff for the first time but after a while you learn which brands work for you. (Taller folk, you probably already know this, but try Scandinavian brands for leg length.)

-Style. In an ideal world the way it makes us look shouldn't matter, but of course it does. The comment above about John Redhead's article annoyed me quite a bit- men buy garments based on they way they look too. The comment was deliberately obtuse but could be taken to imply that interest in womens gear is a symptom of the commercialisation of the climbing industry. Yeah... whatever...

-Shrink it and pink it. I know that some gals like pink... I've been there... but here is an example of the world gone mad. Camp make a women's helmet that is ONLY available in baby blue or pink, and is smaller than the mens helmet. Not only that, but its the same size as the kids helmets, that come in "normal colours". Its so small I can't fit it on my head and nor can a number of my female friends. Womens helmets may seem a bit mad but some versions are pony tail friendly which is good. The Camp version isn't so its a bit pointless really.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Agree with others that I despise everything being in pink and purple. I love my pink Mammut down jacket but would have preferred it in green. There was no other option except black. I think gender specific colours are embarrassingly old fashioned now. Why not provide clothes in a variety of colours in both men and women's fits? I know a few male friends who would like a pink or purple jacket!
I think there should be the availability of a woman's fit for every single item created. We are over half of the population at the end of the day (although some might argue less women are involved with outdoor activities, I get that businesses must make a profit).
I own more outdoor wear than any other and would like the see more technical clothing for women.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I think you're asking about two things which cause problems for each other, technical spec and looking good, the former doesn't sell very fast and the latter means you have to stock a large range (because one persons looking good isn't the same as the next). Women's outdoor clothing seems to have a lot more work go into it, not just with shape, extra colours and fitting but with additional stylistic features like patterning or sewn on flowers for example. If a shop is trying to stock technical gear then a mans range is basically a small colour palate that wont change in years and medium to XL are the sizes that really sell. So you don't have to buy much variety in. In womens ranges though you generally get a lot more colour choices, which often change, plus you're more likely to need a 10 or an 18 than you are a Small or a XXL, so you end up having to stock a large amount of stock. Add to that the fact that a) womens technical clothing sells slowly and b) it's very expensive to buy then you get a scenario where the manufacturers are making all this lovely kit but no one can afford to stock it.

I think the manufacturers themselves make some lovely tecnnical clothing for women, a quick look at HH base layers for example and the mens is green, black, navy, the womens have about 8 different colours and loads of patterned garments. The manufacturers are making the nice technical gear, it's just very difficult to stock and sell. Also, not all women want bright colours, so you're going to have to stock the olive greens and the blacks as well!

And by the by, women don't come in more shapes and sizes than men, I'm not sure what your logic is for that Snoweider. I think perhaps more women are interested in getting their clothing fit right than men are. In my anecdotal experience men are more likely to just size up for sleeve length (for e.g.) even if the rest of the jacket then doesn't fit, where as women are perhaps more likely to just accept that neither size fits and move on. In other words, more men will just put up with a fit that doesn't quite suit their body type. Just my own observations from working in a shop and not meant as a generalisation.

To the op, you mentioned trying to introduce different sizing types into a range. I think you'd have real trouble marketing this, also I'm not sure how many women would be comfortable asking if you have this is "pear shape"!

The outdoor market is largely fashion based, whatever technical kit you end up designing and selling it's probably going to help if you've got one eye on the highstreet fashion at the same time, otherwise you're going to find it very difficult to get anyone interested.

In reply to Sharp:
These are my observations from working in a gear shop and are obviously a generalisation... (which yours are too?)
Men tend to be tall, short fat or thin, its variations on a 4 way graph. Women can be all these things but can also have wide hips, small waists, huge boobs or none at all! More variables!

In reply to Snoweider:

I think it's particularly relevant to trousers - men tend to be fairly straight up and down, and if waist fits, then hips and thighs are fairly likely to - whereas some women are far more curvy than others. Or maybe I just notice that more, as I have small boobs and so pretty easy to get tips that fit.

But probably also true that women are fussier about fit. I tend to know which brands fit (tends to be US ones for trousers for me) and stick with them. My husband, OTOH, hates shopping, tries on one or two things, and buys one to get out of the shop. And later decides it doesn't fit very well.

As for an earlier comment about some men wanting a pink or purple jacket - isn't that just that they still hanker after the 80s gear, rather than being all modern?

In reply to Sharp:

Your mention of the "additional extras" like sewn on flowers is what really grates me. It's what stops me buying a product I might really like. I haven't spoken to my female outdoorsy's about this but can imagine they wouldn't be too fused about pretty little shapes when they are beasting up a multipitch or trying to stay upright in Scottish winter gales. Us women want technically solid clothes that fit. Looking good is also a nice bonus but for me fit and spec comes first.
Women, in my opinion, do have more variety in terms of shapes. Hip size, breast size etc I think, simply from general observation and knowing my female companions, vary so so much. Men of course differ too but I think less. In terms of women asking for pear shape clothes, don't think it would matter unless they were buying a onesey!! Oh and by the way I am pear shape and proud of it :P

In reply to Carolyn:

Perhaps about the pink clothes! But seriously I really don't think people are that blinkered anymore by "gendered colours". Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a world where companies didn't pick tradtionally barbie like colours for strong women who just want to keep warm and dry etc!

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:

I think my girlfriend would cosign on that, too - she'll actively avoid pink and other girly pastel shades if at all possible.

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:

Although in the 80s/early 90s it was far less "gendered" than it is now - plenty of bright purple in the men's ranges, and pink too.... the obsession with pastel colours for women's stuff is really quite recent, maybe mid-90s onwards?

And yes, as far as I'm concerned, it's a trend that can go away again! And neither do I need embroidered flowers.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

These folks seemed to have pretty much nailed the attractive/technical combination for general sports/athletic clothing for women. They just need to branch out into climbing.

http://www.athleta.com/

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I've seen some pretty attractive women's underwear, and have even on occasions worn it.

Oh, outdoorwear...

In reply to sammiKrogers:

>lower technical spec

Yep, you're trolling.

Go away.

In reply to neuromancer:

People don't troll under their own names. You can't just call troll on everything you disagree with. I guess it's easier to post useless shit than actually contribute in any meaningful way. She's asking questions and looking for advice, so many informative posts on this thread but there's always one...

In reply to Carolyn:


YES! This annoyed me also. As if to say, MRT is the only place where there are women who want high spec kit. Grrr!

In reply to andyathome:



We aren't after attractiveness - we are after practicalness.

But mens stuff doesn't fit women - i.e mens size small would be the best fit, except mens clothes don't have hips. Not comfortable!

In reply to sammiKrogers: And how about men's outdoor clothing that is available in other colours than black or navy?

In reply to FreshSlate:
> everything you disagree with

I'm not responding to an opinion, I don't know how I can disagree with a fact. Whilst not every single model in every single outdoor equipment manufacturer's lines comes with a female specific model, 90% do, and when they do their technical spec is identical.

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/shell/latok-alpine-jacket.html
http://rab.uk.com/products/womens-clothing/shell/women-s-latok-alpine-jacke...

http://mountainequipment.co.uk/the_gear/clothing/softshell/pulsar_jacket---...
http://mountainequipment.co.uk/the_gear/clothing/softshell/womens_pulsar_ja...

I could continue for a long time but it's quite obvious.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I admit that my background research into the technicality could have been better, I based that comment from a masters student, who when working with mountain rescue operators, found that women were given a unisex garment as there wasn't a specific female garment that fitted their requirements. This information was from a few years ago and obviously the industry has improved.

There is still the colour issue and also how does everyone feel about a print on a garment? Kai is right about hitting the nail on the head with athleta, I particularly like this: http://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?pid=930162 , would you like to see more garments like this in the UK/for climbing?

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Not for £71.93p!!!!!!

In reply to tlm:

A print wouldn't necessarily mean an extra cost so it wouldn't make the garment price extortionate, I appreciate athleta are a little pricey.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

My 'placed testimonial spidey-sense' is beginning to tingle...

In reply to sammiKrogers:

My experience of Mountain Rescue is that until recently the teams didn't necessarily ask for it in a women's fit - or that whilst manufacturers made a women's fit, it came in different colours, and the team wanted everything the same. The last couple of bits of team kit we've ended up with slightly different colours to the rest of the team.

Prints - actually, I'm not a great fan of most of them, but I thought I'd seen plenty out there, and for a number of years.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

IMHO aside from maybe when it gets to more technical clothing and beyond B1 boots (a female friend struggled to find a suitable pair of B2 boots earlier this year) I think women have the better end of the deal.

They have the option of both the men's and women's choices, stuff tends to be cheaper with better bargains to be had (oh how often I've wished I could get away with buying the women's version).
I believe it is the case that women's versions don't take in to account differences in shape (variations in bust size seems to be the most common bugbear I've come across), but contrary to the 4 dimensional male figure suggested there are a wider variety of male shapes who don't meet the general slim-as-a-rake-with-gibbon-arms many brands produce.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I think "Do we want more print on climbing clothing?" is one of the more important questions to be answered in the world of climbing.

In reply to nathan79:

Buying a women's jacket does sound like it would feel slightly 'wrong' for reasons that aren't clear to me but are almost certainly stupid, although I am pretty sure I would overcome this resistance and buy it if it was a better fit and/or cheaper!

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Having spent some time wandering round outdoor gear shops recently, perhaps it's that my local gear shops sell 'nicer' brands, but there seems to be a lot of really well-spec'ed, bold coloured women's clothing out there - some great Mountain Equipment, North Face, Rab and Haglofs clothing in particular.

I think the range is getting better - for instance, I'm tall and I don't seem to have a problem finding clothing with long enough arms or legs nowadays.

Regarding colour, I definitely see less mauve/baby blue/pale pink clothing around.

In reply to nathan79:


If women have the choice of men's and women's ranges, why don't men?

Surely you could compromise and buy a cheap badly fitting women's jacket with sleeves that aren't long enough, just as I could compromise and buy a badly fitting men's jacket that has masses of spare space round the chest and arms 6 inches too long.....

I'm not particularly short, but still find a men's size small is massive on me, so can't often "get away" with buying the men's version.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

It would be good to see women's clothing available in more "unisex" colors, and more equivalent models available (eg compare the range of men's vs women's Montane insulated jackets and it's 16:7). Before anyone comments, yes I'm male, but at 5'8", 34"chest, 26" waist and size 5 feet, men's kit isn't always the best fitting... Personally, I find that women's clothing can fit better, though the garish pinks and purples do put me off, and lack of availability/range of women's specific or small sized mountaineering boots quite frustrating.

In reply to neuromancer: Calling people trolls who obviously aren't is just lazy and selfish. Wasn't so hard to say that actually the market is more gender equal than she believed was it? Not sure why you're bringing the fact/opinion distinction up like it entitles you to be a knob.

In reply to FreshSlate:

>bringing up fact/opinion distinction

Since you quite obviously did not understand it the first time, it seemed both expedient and helpful to explain it to you - and I'm a helpful sort, so I'll happily assist you out the next time you struggle.

>wasn't so hard

Took me roughly ten times as long and the truth is quite obvious and exactly the same. If someone hears themselves being called a troll, they will instantly recognize that they are wide of the mark.

Reply to neuromancer:



It's not that I don't understand. It's that it doesn't matter. People can be mistaken either factually or in someones opinion, just because you disagree doesn't entitle you call someone a troll. Do you understand now it is spelt out?


Please tell me, roughly, how much more time it has taken to:

1) Call someone a troll
2) Actually explain your position
3) Repeatedly attempt to justify 1.


This was your post:

"Yep, you're trolling.

Go away".

Keep digging mate. You could have said 'You are wide of the mark on this comment'. Or alternatively you could have not bothered posting.

Instead, you chose to be a dick. You are now desparately defending a stupid comment. How's that time saving going for you?

Your spell check is on American English btw.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Colourwise
I would never buy cream pastels or white...It gets so Dirty straight away.
I don't like pink But if you have to bright not pastel. I own a primaloft jacket and an icebreaker in Fushia pink. I would prefer bright green, Orange.. But Black is always the alternate colour.

In reply to neuromancer:

Nice pointing out the obvious in these links- look at the pretty purples and pinks that we are soooo lucky to get as females. YAYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I assume you were speaking of the techincal nature of the clothes but have also shown how even the technical stuff still leans towards "pretty lady colours", nauseating.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Totally disagree with your findings. Womenswear is equally as technical as menswear with the same spec items made for both men and women in any of the decent manufacturers.

As for attractiveness, not sure that's important in technical outdoor wear. Function, fit and performance are the most important thing surely?

For those complaining "its all pink" have you actually looked at womens ranges from Berghaus, ME, Montane, etc? Just because the adverts might show the pink version doesn't mean they don't do other colours. Same with menswear. They always show bright green or red or yellow, etc, but are often available in black.

A few examples of womens technical gear in black:

http://rab.uk.com/products/womens-clothing/down/women-s-infinity-jacket.htm...

http://rab.uk.com/products/womens-clothing/synthetic-fill/womens-plasma-hoo...

http://rab.uk.com/products/womens-clothing/shell/womens-nexus-jacket.html

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/women/soft-shell-and-fleece/panther-jacket

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/women/soft-shell-and-fleece/alpine-stretch-j...

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/women/insulation/antifreeze-jacket

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/women/shell/direct-ascent-event-jacket




But don't let facts knock anyone's chip of their shoulder...

In reply to Martin1978:

You will always be able to find examples that don't fit the norm. Generally speaking, women's otudoor clothing is available in soft blues or purples and pink. The alternative is usually black. Generally.

Give me any generalisation and I will find you a vast amount of evidence that does not support it. No one on this thread is saying that every single female product is pink and glittery flowers on it.

And yes, chip on shoulder fully intact.

In reply to Snoweider:

Interestingly enough I'm tall, with a thin waist, fat thighs (ex rugby and rowing) completely negligible chest muscles but massive shoulders and a plus 6 ape index to throw into the mix. I find it pretty hard to find trousers that fit over my thighs but don't fall down at the waist, definitely don't manage to get long enough legs. I tend to find larger mens jackets add a tiny bit for the shoulders whilst the added beer belly increases exponentially. Guess my point is that boys and girls vary just as much, being equally human and all that.

I've recently been looking at stocking a range of womens climbing shoes, with the aim of having a good range of shoes, equal for men and women and it is a complete nightmare, whilst the shoes often do exist they often aren't imported by UK suppliers, and when they are the guarantee of supply is really tenuous, most so in technical shoes. I think it's a shame that the two sets of products for two genders thing can't become a bit more overlapping, if the womens shapes and sizes available were scaled up I'm sure they would fit a lot of blokes and vice versa. It also doesn't help that womens stuff often says that it's womens in the title or on the product, although a few brands are cottoning onto this and saying "narrow back" for rucksacks or low volume for example.

Sorry, bit garbled that. bed time.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

Oh and for the attractiveness thing, I always think my girlfriend looks best when she's burning me off at the crag, or running up a rainy hill. It's the activity and the place, doing it with her, and not whether her waterproof is "attractive". Odd thought anyway, how can a coat be attractive? It surely needs to be on a person for that to be true, and in some cases no amount of goretex will help... Although I suppose it's about as breathable as a paper bag?

In reply to Martin1978:

Fair point. She's already taken on board that the women's variant of a garment is seldom different from the mens in the ways you describe. Just got her wires crossed with something else.

However thinking about it, ME don't seem to do a womens version of that awesome technical, ME eclipse hooded tee. Strange omission as it is the bomb and sells too.

I like what berghaus have done with heat mapping and putting differing weights of down in crucial places, women and men lose more heat from different parts of the body. So the womens variant is more specifically women's rather than just different cut/colour job and visa versa obviously for men.

Most outdoor stuff is reasonably styled and function/performance must always come first. The fact that something performs so well makes it attractive and perhaps eventually fashionable to a certain audience. Although, I am sure we could all find some truly awful looking gear.

In reply to Martin1978:

Black being the least practical colour for outer wear, of course - at least in the UK. As soon as the sun comes out from behind the rain cloud its boil in the bag time.

In reply to Martin1978:
I think you'd be more correct in saying that what's available is equally technical; it can't be equally technical if it doesn't exist.

And yes black is often an option, though often with colored linings and zips,often in pinks, etc; also as people have already said, is it a practical color?? I certainly wouldn't wear a black outer layer in winter for example.

In reply to Martin1978:


Just looking at your examples (Rab & Montane):

Montane do 4 women's shell jackets vs 12 for men.
There is no heavyweight eVent women's shell, no climbing specific cut neoshell jacket, and no smocks.

Rab do 8 women's shell jackets vs 12.
There is no heavyweight eVent women's shell, no walking cut shell, and no smock.

It doesn't really matter what colours are available, when the equivalent items are actually missing from the product line up!

In reply to sammiKrogers:

The point (to all) is that there are options out there, and this isn't a women specific problem. There are plenty of mens clothing in colours I don't like (black or green for example, why no red or blue option?).

And if one manufacturer doesn't do a technical garment in the colour you want, try another. Again, men have to do the same.

In reply to sammiKrogers:

I'm not sure about the attractiveness of women's kit vs men's but I do agree that womens kit often seems to be lower spec. I keep trying to buy my partner kit (despite her protestations) and find it difficult to match the specifications on my kit. Here are some URL's of mens kit where there is no corresponding women's equivalent spec.

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/down/batura-jacket-1.html

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/down/jannu-jacket.html

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/synthetic-fill/photon-pants.html

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/shell/latok-jacket.html

http://rab.uk.com/products/mens-clothing/shell/-latok-salopettes.html

http://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/the_gear/clothing/insulation/gasherbrum...

http://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/the_gear/clothing/insulation/lightline_...

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/men/shell/alpine-endurance-event-jacket

http://www.montane.co.uk/range/men/shell/fast-alpine-stretch-neo-jacket

In reply to Martin1978:


I don't think the original point was about colour; it was about the paucity of provision of technical clothing for women. I think Dan_S has provided a good example of this, showing the difference in available products for men and women for a couple of manufacturers. Whilst some manufacturers are more enlightened, I think they're in a minority. So it's all very well to say 'go to another manufacturer', but that's not a lot of use if the other manufacturers don't offer the product (or body model) you're looking for.

The lack of technical clothing for women is a problem specific to women...

In reply to captain paranoia:


I beg to differ:

"Women's Outdoor Wear- Do we need better looking clothes?"
"...also not very attractive in comparisson to the menswear."
"Does it matter what the garments you wear look like?"

In reply to FreshSlate:

Yep, that's still definitely it. You can't disagree with a fact. I chose to call someone a troll, there's neither entitlement nor a lack thereof.

> how long has

Stage two of your process took me the longest because I justified myself quickly and sharply. So, actually, my point was proven.

> spell check
I'm going to see a doctor for these third degree burns.

Here I want to quickly apologize to the rest of the thread for roxor's (and mine, I have kept him going) behavior - we're only having fun, don't mind us.

In reply to Dan_S:

TBF, I think I'm one of the few women who likes smocks. They're not very compatible with larger boobs (or at least a pouch pocket below them isn't, and that's one of the big advantages of a smock in my book), and so I think a lot of manufacturers stopped in them in response to feedback from women.

In reply to sammiKrogers:
Regarding the lack of certain pieces of technical clothing for women (as we've established that where similar pieces exist, they are technically equal) - would you be comfortable with outdoor manufacturers making women's technical clothing more expensive than mens to counteract the fact that there is a smaller market and therefore smaller economies of scale to be captured?

(here's a hint; they couldn't because price discrimination is illegal - this is why women's ranges are smaller)

In reply to Carolyn:

I quite like smocks. I can give my bresticules a quick fondle whenever I'm getting my hanky out of my pocket....

In reply to Martin1978:

I took the opening words as being the main thrust:

"I have found that the womenswear garments tend to be of a lower technical spec"

Okay, there was a mention of clothes looking attractive, but no mention of colour.

I guess the OP could have been less ambiguous in her original thesis, but whatever the thread was about, I'd disagree with your statement:

"Totally disagree with your findings. Womenswear is equally as technical as menswear with the same spec items made for both men and women in any of the decent manufacturers"

Maybe you don't consider Montane or Rab to be 'decent manufacturers', but it's been demonstrated that they do not have one-for-one equivalency in their product range.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Just to complete my boredom busting (being off work for 10 weeks will do this to a man!) number collecting of shell jackets, and to cover the point that at least some of the brands below could be considered "decent manufacturers":

Arc'teryx
w 25
m 34

Berghaus
w 16
m 28

Haglofs (actually all shell jackets inc windproofs)
w 28
m 34

Jack Wolffskin
w 5
m 6

Keela
w 3
m 5

Marmot
w 35
m 44

Mountain Equipment
w 9
m 15

Mountain Hardware
w 17
m 21

North Face
w 94
m 115

Norrona
w 20
m 20

Paramo
w 11
m 12

Patagonia
w 28
m 33

Regatta
w 18
m 18

In reply to captain paranoia:

You're issuing a straw man.

Not having one-for-one equivalency in their range is not the same as womenswear garments being of lower technical spec.

To prove the second you would have to show examples of equal models in the range (pricing, makeup, intention) that have lower technical specs for women.

In reply to neuromancer:


Your pendantry here is still wrong. Even though you would like to hang the rest of this entire thread on my one usage of the word "disagree", which in and of itself regardless of veracity, is a pretty sad statement for yourself.

Anyone can disagree with a 'fact'. If I were to tell a 8th century man that the world is round, he could say "I disagree". Whatever the truth is, doesn't actually preclude the possibility of him disagreeing. Arguing otherwise is getting stupid now.