This summer I went hiking several times in California’s Eastern Sierra. Each time I went I counted the number of male to female hikers and ended up with a 5:1 ratio. This reflects many women’s experience of the wilderness and outdoor sports such as rock climbing or mountaineering. These are male-dominated arenas.
One of the reasons for that is because these activities are advertised to women as an escape from their stressful lives, not as a sport meant to challenge their physical ability. Outdoors equipment marketed towards women, then, consistently focuses on comfort and style, in contrast to men’s marketing. Moreover, much of the gear that is produced for women assumes less of a desire to do activities that are as physically demanding as men — the gear is often less hardy and more decorative. The assumptions behind these marketing strategies reinforce stereotypical ideas of gender: that women are physically weak, that women are fascinated by fashion, that there is one specific female body type, and that women are “soft.”
Exhibit #1: Women’s backpacks
Osprey is generally acknowledged as the maker of the best backpacks for hiking and backpacking. Their top-of-the-line backpack for long multi-day backpack trips for men, the Xenith, can hold 105 L and between 60-80 lbs. The women’s pack, the Xena, on the other hand, can hold 85 L and between 50-70 lbs. This is because the women’s pack is shorter. Osprey is betting that most women have a shorter torso and thus need a shorter pack. While this might be true for some women, they could attempt to engineer another type of pack that would allow women to carry the same poundage as men. Moreover, it is unclear why these packs are labeled “men’s and women’s.” Plenty of women have longer torsos and men shorter ones. And, indeed, on backpacking forums on the internet, you constantly see stories of people buying gear of the “wrong sex” so that it actually fits.
Exhibit #2: Choose your sex!
Many hikers and backpackers buy gear online and oftentimes the structure of the websites of the major companies who sell gear reveals the companies’ assumptions about the interests of their consumers. Some, such as Arc’teryx, open their websites with gender distinctions. One must choose men’s or women’s products immediately upon going to their site. Other companies, such as REI, open their site with the opportunity to choose an activity, such as hiking, climbing, cycling, running, etc. or sex category, which is better. By so dividing their products, Arc’teryx is making it harder for those who need to buy gear from the “wrong” sex or to market unisex gear while REI is making consumers feel part of a larger community of climbers or backpackers or hikers.
Exhibit #3: Playful gear
The marketing of backpacking gear is itself highly gendered, with women’s gear being presented as comfortable and stylish. Oddly, it is not marketed with an eye towards serious wilderness excursions. Take, for example, the Yumalina pant manufactured by Mountain Hardwear. The men’s version is described as “Durable softshell seriously protects on the outside, while lightweight fleece on the inside keeps you warm on those chilly hikes” while the women’s version is described as “Serious on the outside and soft on fuzzy on the inside. Perfect for work or play during the winter.” The women’s pant is thus not seen as for someone who is serious about backpacking.
Exhibit #4: Decorative, sexy climbing
The naming and color palette of much women’s gear also reflects the idea in the backpacking industry that women needed to be treated delicately. Black Diamond, which manufactures popular rock climbing harnesses, has named their women’s harnesses “Primrose,” “Siren,” “Aura,” and “Lotus,” emphasizing the stereotypical connection between women and flowers and sexuality. Women are connected to passive agents. The harnesses themselves are typically in pastel colors as well. This is in contrast to the men’s harnesses, which are named “Chaos,” “Focus,” “Flight,” and “Momentum,” which are strikingly active words in comparison and are designed in bright, bold colors.
As Brendan Leonard points out in his post, Girly Girls and Manly Men, “No company feels like they have to do anything special to men’s gear, or ‘masculinize it’ it. Yoga is arguably maybe the most feminine (or just female-dominated) of any active pursuit, but you don’t see any companies making yoga mats with patterns on them that look like cascades of hammers or football helmets or beer mugs, to encourage men by saying, ‘It’s OK, dude. You can own one of these and still love Home Depot.’” Why do companies thus feel that women cannot be serious backpackers, hikers or climbers without feminized gear?
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post.
Adrianne Wadewitz, PhD is a Mellon Digital Scholarship Postdoctoral Fellow at Occidental College specializing in emerging media from the 18th-century to the present. Peter James is an avid outdoor photographer and wilderness traveler. You can follow them at @wadewitz and @PBJmaesPhoto.
Comments 43
Ana — November 22, 2013
I agree with most of what you've written. As an avid backpacker, I have to disagree with your discussion of women's packs. The packs do tend to have shorter torso lengths, but most are also adjustable. The rest of the pack has ergonomic differences that make it fit better to a curvier body. Men with curvier bodies might find a woman's pack to be more suitable while women with fewer curves may prefer a man's. They could describe body types more explicitly rather than using male and female, but for packs and some other gear, having the different options for different body types allows for a much more comfortable and ergonomically correct experience.
Anna — November 22, 2013
Why would any woman in her right mind lug so much weight around? Women cannot endure carrying 80 lbs of gear for as long as men can (and it's hardly ideal for men either), therefore doing so would actually impede their mountaineering, not to mention compromise their long-term health. And even in short spurts it's more potentially damaging to their bodies than to men's. Are we talking about being forced to carry 80 lbs in order to pass the Marines exam here, or in order to pursue a freaking hobby?
This is precisely the criticism that the French have towards Anglo-culture feminism/gender studies, from a few posts back. French feminism asserts that we do not have to claim sameness with men in order to strive for equality, and in particular, it celebrates rather than irresonsibly obsufucates our differences and different preferences as corporal, aesthetic, and tactile beings. This article is a textbook example of what it criticizes. This blog has obscured and minimized men and women's differences before, but never to the point where it actively encouraged women to risk damaging their bodies.
Both the products for men and women are equally gendered, so why are the men's things treated as the default in the article? And why is the feminine angle presented as negative and inferior? The authors are making that projection, not the companies. The women's stuff appeals more to me, seeing as I don't have some stupid complex that preferring pastels and having a company acknowledge that I'm likely to wear my hiking pants for "off-label" use somehow diminishes my interest in mountaineering.
Oh and yoga does, in fact, have an image problem when it comes to men, and there are plenty of attempts at masculinized yoga marketing towards men.
Meghan K — November 23, 2013
These are not items gendered just to be gendered. They are designed for the hypothetical 'average' male or female body. The backpacks are not just shorter, they are also canted at the waist to accommodate curvier hips and the shoulder straps are angled to accommodate breasts. Sure, not every woman will fit these and not every man will fit a men's pack, but it is a great starting place and likely to fit the majority of men/women better when they buy a men/women's pack.
Likewise with the climbing harnesses.
I worked for years at REI and have found that while sometimes women fit better in men's packs, they most often fit better in women's packs. I have also fit men in women's packs. But most of the time men fit best in a men's pack.
True,
I wish the colors for all were more neutral and that companies would stop putting flowers on lady things. But I feel this article misrepresents these products. They are not merely smaller, but shaped differently
Pelirroja Peligrosa — November 23, 2013
The comments so far have done a good job of outlining some of the physical differences in gear, but they almost completely miss the more compelling part of the argument--why aren't women supposed to be taken as serious outdoor athletes? It's fine that there be a variety of gear designs for diverse body types--this is ideal, I suppose. But why the difference between "Primrose" and "Chaos"? Or infantilizing women by taking out longer words and listing pants as "soft and fuzzy" on the inside...?
The point in feminism is NOT that we don't have differences, it's how those differences are portrayed. If women on average have smaller bodies than men, does that make them less tough? The marketing is perpetuating this image of women.
[links] Link salad for a chilly Saturday | jlake.com — November 23, 2013
[…] The Gendered Forest: Women Relax, Men Mountaineer […]
reikokorin — November 23, 2013
The issue with the weight limits for backpacks is not related to socialized expectations of gender, but rather to the safe limit that larger and smaller bodies can carry. Women generally weigh less than men, therefore would expect to carry a smaller load. For longer backpacking trips, you should carry no more than a third of your body weight. As the average weight of men is higher, the weight that they can safely carry is also higher.
Alex — November 23, 2013
Compare to Sweden's Fjällräven website for fun.
NancyP — November 23, 2013
Anyone packing 80 pounds should read up on "ultralight" backpacking technique. ;) I am not concerned about being seen as an outdoors athlete, I am more interested in getting to interesting and beautiful locations to photograph, not bragging about weight carried or record short times.
Some outdoors recreational gear and clothing is overly feminized into a less useful form for women. I buy REI men's pants because they have good room in the butt, huge pockets, and allow maximum flexibiity - they fit my very average figure better than the women's-cut equivalent. The sales staff said lots of women do this. Cabela's and Bass Pro women's clothing are also cut skimpily, except for the fairly small selection in the hunting gear area away from the rest of the clothing. About the colors: I am not crazy about pastels and embroidery flowers, but it doesn't bug me that much. I don't care all that much about flowery adverts, either. These are written by advertisers, not gear users. I pay more attention to the opinions of the women gear testers in online reviews or in Backpacking magazine. It is true that women are more likely than men to _admit_ to liking a bit of comfort.
Some sleeping bags are cut and designed differently for women than for men, not only in length but in the distribution of the insulation (women get more around the feet, yay) and the cut. Sleeping bag lines are also rated differently for men and for women based on perception of comfort or life-sustaining warmth - average men have increased heat generation during sleep, so a model of bag that is good at freezing temperature for men might be rated for 10 degrees Fahrenheit over freezing for women.
Personal flotation devices for sure aren't one size fits all. I love the ones that make room for larger-breasted women, the design is comfortable although the colors and designs are pastel flowers.
Backpacks aren't one size fits all. I am an average-height average-weight medium-build woman. I bought a very well made, expensive flexible-use 62L backpack designed to carry heavy photo gear in an easily accessible manner. The back panel opens up with a u-shaped zipper to reveal a second removable anchored padded camera compartment with configurable dividers - the camera equipment is totally separated from the rest-of-kit stuff. Tripod is strapped on the back. Rest-of-kit is packed from the top opening, like a standard backpack. After much strap-adjusting I took it out for a trial hiking weekend and it just didn't carry right. I have had to hand-craft shoulder strap pads to reduce the effective torso length, and make some other alterations, and the bag passes muster. I talked with the owner of the small company, praised the concept, and asked him to design a next generation pack in different torso lengths (most important measurement in fitting a pack) and with interchangeable straight and curved shoulder straps so that women could have a good fit and not have the straps squashing breasts. He was genuinely surprised, and said that he hadn't thought about women wanting to use an "adventure photography" pack. The pack had been designed for the average man's torso length and build. I told him that he was missing out on an opportunity, because there wasn't a similar relatively large pack for women who pack/hike/camp to photograph.
Amy Fried, Ph.D. — November 23, 2013
I was frustrated looking for coats for my grad school daughter studying in Siberia. When I would look for the lowest temp. ratings, I often found they only made that style for men! So not only do they assume men carry heavier loads, but also that they withstand colder temperatures!
Shannanigan — November 25, 2013
So topical! I went on a rant recently because finding women's waterproof hiking boots was such a disaster for me. I find that especially in shoes there is fairly commonly an up-charge for a more "stylish" (read: pink, teal, or purple) women's shoe that is simultaneously less functional than the closest male counterpart. And for anything above a very limited size range, forget it. I am tall with large feet, and thus end up purchasing the "male" version of everything except pants.
I don't think I am that different when it comes to wanting to do outdoors-y things. I do wonder if some women aren't as discouraged as I am by trying to purchase acceptable equipment. I'm fine acknowledging realistic physical differences (narrower feet, being shorter, etc) but I really, really, really don't need stylish hiking shoes.
Just as a corollary, I have also found this to be a major issue in purchasing motorcycle-riding equipment. The women's pants are generally tighter with less protective barrier between you and the road. Lovely.
Asmodeus Belial — November 27, 2013
More of Professor Wade's penchant for illogical assumptions with no evidence to support them. She begins here with a statement that she saw more men than women on the hiking trails, then goes on to claim a cause for this: "One of the reasons for that is because these activities are advertised to women as an escape from their stressful lives, not as a sport meant to challenge their physical ability. "
Surely, a Ph. D in Sociology must have learned at some point along the line that claims about what is causing subjects to act or not act in a certain way must be informed by some study of the views of those subjects. Yet not a peep in the article indicating Wade has actually verified that this 'cause' is a reason why women are not going hiking. That would require harder work, of course, than going on a hike: doing some interviewing, perhaps conducting a survey.
The intellectual content of Wade's posts here is pretty close to zero.
Muscles on a Lady | November post round-up — November 30, 2013
[…] Sociological Images talks about “the gendered forest” and how hiking gear is needlessly gendered. […]
lunarcamelco — December 4, 2013
Being a woman who loves to hike, I'm scowling at what appears to be the central premise of this article: the idea that we aren't as outdoorsy as men "because these activities are advertised to women as an escape from their stressful lives, not as a sport meant to challenge their physical ability." That's two distinct ideas and the article doesn't go nearly far enough in examining the relationship between them. It's one thing to say that women generally don't participate in hiking and mountaineering as often as men do; it's quite another to say that the *reason* for this is that our feeble little woman-brains soak up and internalize the idiotic marketing we're subjected to. Yes, it's hard to buy outdoor gear that isn't hideously girly-looking, and I own more my share of mens' stuff, but this hasn't for a moment kept me from doing what I enjoy. It's not news that marketing people are generally tasteless, retrograde, posturing creeps who don't ever seem to tire of trying to reinforce icky, heteronormative sentiment. Let's not pretend that women are generally uncritical fools who buy into it.