Barbie Doesn’t Want to Wear Pink Outdoors

This week marks the first week of the Barbie-craze that has hit the Box Offices everywhere with a fervor that burns as bright as the pink on the pants of its patrons. It's a funny thing to watch, really, as someone who has had a love-hate relationship with the brand. When I was a scrappy 10 year old with rips in my jeans, homeemade tie dyed shirts, and a bike I couldn't keep away from mud, my mother's best friend thought it a brilliant idea to get this hot-wheel fun loving girl her first Barbie. But not just any Barbie. Oh no.... it was wedding day Barbie. Needless to say, it sat in its box politely while I wish my mother would allow me to burn its tulle into "destructo-Barbie".

That shelf-sitter represented a part of femininity that I felt claustrophobic in, restricted by. Other girls played House; I waited for the next National Geographic in the mail I plan my first worldwide trip. But since those days, Barbie has had a re-brand…. one that has made even this naysayer an avid fan. Anyone tall to short, onyx to pearl, chair-enabled or amputee, engineer to teacher to Jane Goodall herself can find a barbie that's right for them. But there's one thing to which they almost all remain loyal.

And that seems to be the color Pink.

I'm here to say that Outdoor Adventure, White Water Rafting, Mountaineer Climbing, *insert your sport here* Barbie....does not need Pink. In fact, don't let the Outdoor Industry get on this re-visited Barbie Trend at all. Because Pink has been their undoing to their women consumers before.

To the point: Let's talk about "Pink It & Shrink It" [1]

***Pink Has its place, but is not a one-size fits all matter….***
***Photo by Rachel Claire: https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-wearing-sweater-standing-on-mountain-top-7263756/***

The outdoor industry has had a notorious history of under-supplying the women demographic of outdoor gear. For a start, the gear that was available as recreational outdoor sports was initially designed with men in mind. Throughout the gear company startup boom of the late 60s and 70s, and the arrival of companies like The North Face and Patagonia on the scene, these companies focused on what appeared to be the interest group in the sport: European-like men. Yet, as the demand for women gear became more apparent, a solution was given for the gear that -supposedly- worked for everybody: "Pink it & Shrink It."[1] The idea behind the concept is if the technical gear worked for the guys, a smaller version would work for the ladies, right? The consequence being women's considerations were being lost to the design. Shrinking didn't account for hip structure in relation to the backpack weight, didn't account for wear the zippers need to be to use the restroom on an icefall, didn't account for hip to thigh ratios on a harness. And pink just made you a target on the slope. Lastly, if the men have five differently structured options of a product in five different colors, what is to say the one pink option would fit all women?

As early as 1990, this issue was so apparent that Vogue Magazine picked up a noteworthy headline on the issue which they dubbed "New for Women: Outdoor Gear that Fits” [2] However, "gear that fits" was limited, and didn't tailor to the more advanced elements of the sports marketed. This issue was again in 2015, Outside Magazine writers Navas & Brown [3] who ALSO put the Mattel girl tie-in (these ladies were ahead of the times!). In their article "No More Barbie Gear," Navas & Brown plead their case for Outdoor Companies to stop ignoring the fact that, indeed, women can also "rip." Think men are better than women in the halfpipe? Maybe that's because their gear is far more superior performing and specifically designed to their multitude of body-types in greater capacity...just a thought. [4]

Now, some may suggest “why should there be more gear for women if the demand is obviously more present the male demographic?” This is an unsubstantiated assumption; one that I've held in the past before my own research and I would like to promptly squash for you here today. In 2016, women gear product sales was already a $14 Billion industry [5]. The Outdoor Participation Report that publishes annually from the Outdoor Industry Association, consistently showed from 2020 to 2022 that women are approximately 50% of the industry consumer base [6]. That's a lot of customers potentially looking to go from the bunny slope to the half pipe with the right equipment.

I'm NOT saying that the industry hasn't taken strides to close the equity gap. They have. As more and more women enter the outdoor leadership sphere and vocalize the equity gap in gear accessibility, it is apparent where the shifts in the industry have driven change [1][7]. I go to shop for an Osprey pack and I KNOW that I will always be able to find a good fit that emulates exactly what the men offer and still not pull my shoulders out as it gives me the support I need. And while the light grey is going to end up being a helluva lot dirtier than the men's reds and dark blues...it isn't pink and I won't look like I'm here just to play dress-up. I'll look like I mean business on this trail.

Yet when I go shopping for mountaineering shoes, there is no comparison. The men just have more options, and I might just have to resign to wearing my fluffy pink socks to make up for my smaller feet to get one of the 8 models of boots to work for me, because that one on the shelf for "women" is just a smidge too skinny for me to wear my winter sock (I can't normalize women in mountaineering if I can't walk there!). Also, as I walk to the cash register with my boots and fluffy pink socks, I can almost guarantee I'll find the yoga gear RIGHT next to the women's clothing section to work on those foot stretches after the climb.