Bluestsky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'd love to hear from another lightweight how you liked Saffron 7. I demoed, and loved, them in the same length, but it was on really hardpack. Since the season's over I need to wait to try them in other conditions.
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
The end of 'shrink it and pink it'
- Thread starter climbingbetty
- Start date
- Status
I'd love to hear from another lightweight how you liked Saffron 7. I demoed, and loved, them in the same length, but it was on really hardpack. Since the season's over I need to wait to try them in other conditions.
Bluestsky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'd buy from company B or company X that sells a QUALITY product that suits me. Whether the company is run by men or women or a mix is irrelevant.
Agreed. I also think that if we nitpicked every other ski company's marketing literature, no one would come out unscathed.
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@Jen Gurecki , I do take the politics/stances of a company into consideration if I know them, but I don't go out of my way to find out. I'm a big fan of the way Powder Magazine seems to put a little more effort into highlighting female athletes and female industry members (and the dearth thereof) in their magazines, although still bummed that their gear guide separated out powder / all mountain / blah blah blah / and then "women's", as if that's sufficient when men's/unisex get broken down into terrain types. And I'm psyched to know that the CEO of Icelantic is female.
All things being equal, I'd probably choose to support a minority or female owned ski company, but I wouldn't choose a lesser product (not that I'm saying that's what you make) to support such a business. But it's a tick in the "pro" column when considering a purchase or an endorsement (or a sticker on my roofbox!).
I'm trying to figure out why this thread rubbed some people (including me, to be honest) a little the wrong way. What I saw was the implication that a few long-term members of this community, who certainly know their skis, just didn't know better than to ski on short skis. And I think for anyone who's bought skis in the last 5 years, you'd have to work real hard to not have a ski with some rocker. The subject of rocker has been done to death on this forum, and we all know that rocker reduces the effective edge / running length of the ski (although it doesn't make the ski any shorter for the purposes of not hitting trees!). To me, that felt a bit condescending. And the offer of the hug ... yeah, that was actually dismissive in the way that men usually dismiss women, bypassing the topic under discussion entirely in favor of acting as though the entire problem is the person's emotional state. So I'm sorry, I know ski diva strongly implied we should drop it, but I do think there were reasons for people to have responded the way did. Your best assumption is that the women around here have done a lot of research, know a lot about skis, and have reasons for what they choose. I suggest taking the research-based approach, ie "What don't you like about skiing a longer ski?" and maybe trying to find out if there's something other than length that is playing into that person's impressions, than to outright state that people are skiing the wrong ski without really knowing anything about their experiences.
Also, on forums, people tend to trust people they recognize. Jen, I see that you're posting in a few more threads, and I think that is a great step in reaching out to the community - in the long run, it may actually develop more business and support for Coalition than any direct statement you've made about Coalition. Again, trust.
Anyway, all that being said, I'm excited to demo some Coalition skis, although probably in a shorter length than you'd suggest.
All things being equal, I'd probably choose to support a minority or female owned ski company, but I wouldn't choose a lesser product (not that I'm saying that's what you make) to support such a business. But it's a tick in the "pro" column when considering a purchase or an endorsement (or a sticker on my roofbox!).
I'm trying to figure out why this thread rubbed some people (including me, to be honest) a little the wrong way. What I saw was the implication that a few long-term members of this community, who certainly know their skis, just didn't know better than to ski on short skis. And I think for anyone who's bought skis in the last 5 years, you'd have to work real hard to not have a ski with some rocker. The subject of rocker has been done to death on this forum, and we all know that rocker reduces the effective edge / running length of the ski (although it doesn't make the ski any shorter for the purposes of not hitting trees!). To me, that felt a bit condescending. And the offer of the hug ... yeah, that was actually dismissive in the way that men usually dismiss women, bypassing the topic under discussion entirely in favor of acting as though the entire problem is the person's emotional state. So I'm sorry, I know ski diva strongly implied we should drop it, but I do think there were reasons for people to have responded the way did. Your best assumption is that the women around here have done a lot of research, know a lot about skis, and have reasons for what they choose. I suggest taking the research-based approach, ie "What don't you like about skiing a longer ski?" and maybe trying to find out if there's something other than length that is playing into that person's impressions, than to outright state that people are skiing the wrong ski without really knowing anything about their experiences.
Also, on forums, people tend to trust people they recognize. Jen, I see that you're posting in a few more threads, and I think that is a great step in reaching out to the community - in the long run, it may actually develop more business and support for Coalition than any direct statement you've made about Coalition. Again, trust.
Anyway, all that being said, I'm excited to demo some Coalition skis, although probably in a shorter length than you'd suggest.
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I just pledged.
No one said it so let me say it...
Are you going to put your money where you mouth (or finger) is and support Ski Diva then? How about one of those new skis for tall, strong and aggressive woman who rip to be raffled on SkiDive.com?
Late to this party!!
Soul 7's come in 164, 172, 180 and 188
Savory 7's come in 162, 170 and 178.
So they may or may not be the SAME ski. Technology wise they are. My catalogue doesn't mention if the centre of the Savory is ahead for example.
As an instructor this is one of the biggest obstacles I see. If I can just get "X" to move faster, it'll all come together. Some cases it's in the head, some cases it's the equipment. And after my recent "double eject" I'm not going to skiing that fast either!!
I like the idea of this company. Like a few I'm not sure I'm in the target market, but I would love to demo some of the models. I have a current quiver of 4 skis, 3 are "lady specific" models. My daily driver is a tuned down race ski. Some call it unisex, some call it men's. I call it MINE! - including the Ski Diva sticker on them.
Soul 7's come in 164, 172, 180 and 188
Savory 7's come in 162, 170 and 178.
So they may or may not be the SAME ski. Technology wise they are. My catalogue doesn't mention if the centre of the Savory is ahead for example.
As an instructor this is one of the biggest obstacles I see. If I can just get "X" to move faster, it'll all come together. Some cases it's in the head, some cases it's the equipment. And after my recent "double eject" I'm not going to skiing that fast either!!
I like the idea of this company. Like a few I'm not sure I'm in the target market, but I would love to demo some of the models. I have a current quiver of 4 skis, 3 are "lady specific" models. My daily driver is a tuned down race ski. Some call it unisex, some call it men's. I call it MINE! - including the Ski Diva sticker on them.
DeweySki
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
As a female Tahoe skier, I was excited at first to support a local, female-run company. However, after 8 pages of comments, I feel like there is a lot of back and forth with no clear message on if/why I should. Some hesitations that have emerged (for me, at least):
1. I'm pretty sure I'm in the target audience, as I am a very average height, weight, and size. But because I'm near the top of women's ski sizes, that means I'm also near the bottom of men's sizes (or unisex or whatever), so I actually feel like I have A LOT to choose from. Coalition skis would just be another one to add to the list when I start shopping for a 105-115 waister.
2. I know that sexism is rampant in the ski industry, but my experiences with it have been limited. I've been in several situations where male ski reps or shop guys have encouraged me to go with longer skis, and in general I feel like I'm treated with respect, especially if I go into a shop armed with knowledge about the skis I'm looking at. Perhaps this my naiveté, age, or the fact that a I work in a female-dominated profession (libraries), and gender/sexism issues are minimal in our industry, so maybe I'm not seeing something that's right in front of my face? Either way, it's been especially disappointing to feel like I am being lectured on this forum (in this thread), or even worse, on the receiving end of a sales pitch, neither of which I want when choosing a ski. Man or woman, I just want help and advice in choosing the right ski for me.
3. This thread has me thinking a lot about brand allegiance and how fickle it can be. For example, I'm partial to Patagonia because it fits me well and is a California company. I also like Mountain Hardware because I think their price point is reasonable. But I don't care for The North Face because I associate that brand with the mean popular kids in high school. None of these things have anything to do with each other. I'm evaluating each brand by different criteria. That's just how consumers are. I'll also easily and quickly abandon a brand if I don't agree with their politics (Chick-fil-A), if their CEO/Founder is an a-hole (Uber), or after bad customer service experience (ahem, United Airlines). But I'll forgive a company for a major PR gaffe (Starbucks trying to talk about race relations) if I still like their product. I'm going to file this tread and the comments made within under "PR gaffe" and move on. I also don't have any brand allegiance in skis, as I have purchased Lines, Aramadas, and Atomics...
4. I think the proof for Coalition will really be in the skis. My SO purchased a snowboard from a Tahoe-based company this year, mostly because he's exhausted his quiver, is always looking for something new, and wants to support a local operation. This company also made skis this year. But SO is kind of "Meh" on the board and doesn't love it enough to evangelize to others about buying from them. I was going to try their skis, but now maybe not. I hope that Coalition can start by filling a niche market, and doing it well, and focus later on expanding their offerings to include a wider range of skiers.
5. All of this being said, though I'm certainly no economist, I think competition in the marketplace is healthy and is ultimately good for the consumer. I welcome another ski gear company and hope that it can start small and eventually become a major player.
@Jen Gurecki, please do some demo days in South Lake, I'll be there
1. I'm pretty sure I'm in the target audience, as I am a very average height, weight, and size. But because I'm near the top of women's ski sizes, that means I'm also near the bottom of men's sizes (or unisex or whatever), so I actually feel like I have A LOT to choose from. Coalition skis would just be another one to add to the list when I start shopping for a 105-115 waister.
2. I know that sexism is rampant in the ski industry, but my experiences with it have been limited. I've been in several situations where male ski reps or shop guys have encouraged me to go with longer skis, and in general I feel like I'm treated with respect, especially if I go into a shop armed with knowledge about the skis I'm looking at. Perhaps this my naiveté, age, or the fact that a I work in a female-dominated profession (libraries), and gender/sexism issues are minimal in our industry, so maybe I'm not seeing something that's right in front of my face? Either way, it's been especially disappointing to feel like I am being lectured on this forum (in this thread), or even worse, on the receiving end of a sales pitch, neither of which I want when choosing a ski. Man or woman, I just want help and advice in choosing the right ski for me.
3. This thread has me thinking a lot about brand allegiance and how fickle it can be. For example, I'm partial to Patagonia because it fits me well and is a California company. I also like Mountain Hardware because I think their price point is reasonable. But I don't care for The North Face because I associate that brand with the mean popular kids in high school. None of these things have anything to do with each other. I'm evaluating each brand by different criteria. That's just how consumers are. I'll also easily and quickly abandon a brand if I don't agree with their politics (Chick-fil-A), if their CEO/Founder is an a-hole (Uber), or after bad customer service experience (ahem, United Airlines). But I'll forgive a company for a major PR gaffe (Starbucks trying to talk about race relations) if I still like their product. I'm going to file this tread and the comments made within under "PR gaffe" and move on. I also don't have any brand allegiance in skis, as I have purchased Lines, Aramadas, and Atomics...
4. I think the proof for Coalition will really be in the skis. My SO purchased a snowboard from a Tahoe-based company this year, mostly because he's exhausted his quiver, is always looking for something new, and wants to support a local operation. This company also made skis this year. But SO is kind of "Meh" on the board and doesn't love it enough to evangelize to others about buying from them. I was going to try their skis, but now maybe not. I hope that Coalition can start by filling a niche market, and doing it well, and focus later on expanding their offerings to include a wider range of skiers.
5. All of this being said, though I'm certainly no economist, I think competition in the marketplace is healthy and is ultimately good for the consumer. I welcome another ski gear company and hope that it can start small and eventually become a major player.
@Jen Gurecki, please do some demo days in South Lake, I'll be there
Just wanted to poke my nose in and say that this is one hell of an interesting thread! I just sat down and read it in its entirety, and wow, what an amazing group of women. There's an incredible amount of information about how we feel about skis and the ski industry. It's a treasure trove that any ski company would be wise to pay attention to. I salute you all. 
Last edited:
Hi Divas, I decided to jump up and join this forum when I read this thread (I've been following the Coalition Kickstarter).
I've actually had the pleasure of demo'ing a pair of Coalition SOS ( all-mountain) skis this season. The skis I currently own range from a 163 ( traditional camber) to a 178 (123 underfoot -powder, reverse/ reverse), and I've been looking for a gutsy in-between ski, that can get to work for me off piste and in a range of conditions. ( Over the years I've grown to prefer a stiffer, but playful ski) I was initially curious about my ability to ski the 173 length as an everyday ski, but I forgot immediately when I started down my first groomer, it really skis much shorter, like around a 165 , but has some nice length that engages in softer snow. The day I demo'ed had less than ideal conditions (rockhard groomers with occasional soft spots), but I look forward to skiing these skis again. I live in Tahoe and they have had some pairs at Tahoe Mountain Sports, in Truckee.
I am enjoying the entire discussion on this thread, it is certainly an overdue conversation about how women's preferences are addressed by the industry, and how to engage women's voices to constructively change that. Thanks for starting this!
I've actually had the pleasure of demo'ing a pair of Coalition SOS ( all-mountain) skis this season. The skis I currently own range from a 163 ( traditional camber) to a 178 (123 underfoot -powder, reverse/ reverse), and I've been looking for a gutsy in-between ski, that can get to work for me off piste and in a range of conditions. ( Over the years I've grown to prefer a stiffer, but playful ski) I was initially curious about my ability to ski the 173 length as an everyday ski, but I forgot immediately when I started down my first groomer, it really skis much shorter, like around a 165 , but has some nice length that engages in softer snow. The day I demo'ed had less than ideal conditions (rockhard groomers with occasional soft spots), but I look forward to skiing these skis again. I live in Tahoe and they have had some pairs at Tahoe Mountain Sports, in Truckee.
I am enjoying the entire discussion on this thread, it is certainly an overdue conversation about how women's preferences are addressed by the industry, and how to engage women's voices to constructively change that. Thanks for starting this!
NZfarmgirl
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
No one said it because hopefully no one else was thinking it. We are not that sort of group, that would guilt-trip or pressure a business into giving us free stuff.No one said it so let me say it...
Are you going to put your money where you mouth (or finger) is and support Ski Diva then? How about one of those new skis for tall, strong and aggressive woman who rip to be raffled on SkiDive.com?
Ski length is for me a constant issue, we have many other threads discussing it and promoting that some women need to be on longer skis. Note that I said 'some' .
I've discovered that I don't have 1 perfect ski length, my 163 Kenja are great for a lot of my skiing. And I like the volkl code in 161. My 170 old model aura are probably too long for my home mountain but great when I ski the back bowls or over to the Remarkables. But they sometimes just feel like too much work. However the new fully rockered Aura feels very short in a 163 and you guessed it, they didn't have a 170 demo. The 173 Samba felt fine to me when skiing, but I noticed the extra length when manoeuvring and kept nearly tripping myself. The 173 Savory feels just right for length and the 170 Cham feels super short.
The difference in these skis that affected the feel was their weight but mostly rocker profile.
I'm an average size and weight and feel that there are enough options for me to find some skis ( when I can find them in my country ) but I'm all for having more choice, and I know there must be many women taller and heavier or more aggressive than me who don't have as much choice if they don't want to move up to really burly skis designed for men. Sure they have a few unisex options but not that many. I don't see a downside to more choice for women.
I'm very interested to try Coalition skis as I think the profile and construction sound good. I like camber under foot teemed with rocker and the multipoint side cut is 'ahem' cutting edge technology. These are the kind of skis I would put on my demo list even without the other pluses of supporting a small women friendly business.
NZfarmgirl
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
We salute you Ski diva , it's so good to have somewhere for women to discuss this stuff. Many of us have grown as skiers or made decisions about the direction of our careers because of discussions and encouragement on this forum.Just wanted to poke my nose in and say that this is one hell of an interesting thread! I just sat down and read it in its entirety, and wow, what an amazing group of women. There's an incredible amount of information about how we feel about skis and the ski industry. It's a treasure trove that any ski company would be wise to pay attention to. I salute you all.
ZealouslyB
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
WOW.
Super late to this thread but anxious to join in on the convo!!
First and more most- Welcome @Jen Gurecki! Missyski told me about Coalition on the chairlist last weekend and I have been gobbling up anything I can on the movement online. Very exciting. While I am DEFINITELY well in the target audience for the actual skis in production right now, I am more excited about having more women in the field and contributing to the science/technology/concepts behind snow sports and ski development. I just submitted an inquiry via the company website too :-)
My diva dude is 5'6" and 145lbs, he skied and fell in love with the Head Super Joy this year, which smartly is neon yellow and black, he may by a pair next year. He's also talked- only half jokingly- in the past about purchasing a woman's ski and just spray painting the top sheet black, lol. The super heavy metal skis can be too much for him even though he's a charger as well.
Yes, I had this issue this past year demoing at Sunday River. Shooting a "you've got to be kidding me" look to the reps who didn't carry a women's ski past 163 or only brought 1 pair to demo. Blizzard didn't even have the Samba (!??!$%#!). The Head rep falsely led me to believe the Big Joy only came in a 168- I then later found out it came in a 178 as well and leaped for joy (pun intended?). Couldn't purchase them fast enough! They are BIG but lightweight and stiff. And I won't profess my undying love for them again, feel like I've posted it 10 times this season, lol.
This makes me very happy, I recall a long thread not that long ago about marketing in women's snow sports and how it's been reduced to scantily clad women in boots versus highlighting women's athleticism and power (I know there are many dissenting opinions about that as well!). Sadly that's the result of men in marketing doing what they think will sell- focusing on the body- instead of empowering and inspiring women, IMO. And that's my interpretation of the 'shrink and pink' concept we get now with skis. And honestly, I hate pink! There have skis I like that I did NOT buy because the top sheets were hideously over girly. Not all women want florals and pastels!
I think 'keeping up' is more general, not just about going fast but being able to ski a wider variety of terrain. Sometimes- and I say that in a very general sense- our male counterparts/friends/companions are more willing to take risks, ski that chute, take that steeper line: and women shy away from it, thinking they don't have the ability when it's really about confidence, or not having the right equipment to take your skiing to the next level. Some people don't care for it or want to do that stuff- and that's fine too. It's about the women who dream on the inside about being able to, but just can't get there. It can be hard to enjoy a full ski season with your other half if you feel like you can't ski the same stuff.
.... and finally a note about ski length. Ah, the everlasting debate. There are differences in size, height, weight, preference, etc. And, back in my racing days pre-shape skis, I skied on 180s. I'm 5'6", was probably 5'4" at the time. It's doable, people used to do it all the time. When I swapped to shaped skis I was told I wouldn't need longer than a 160- nope, not happening! Then I slowly started demoing longer skis and found I was a lot happier and a lot more comfortable on longer skis. I am now 5'6" and 190 lbs. Even if I lost 50 lbs, my ski length would be the same. I'm aggressive and dive down the hill. I have a 174 carver, a 177 all mtn quiver, a 178 big mtn ski and my teles are a 164! What it comes down to is don't be afraid to try longer skis made by different companies and for different purposes. The results may surprise you. AND... you may not like it, which is ok too, just don't be afraid to try because of an old convention. Also keep in mind that longer, more aggressive equipment may extenuate flaws in your skiing which, if you're interested, my provide fodder for improving you skills further. Tele skiing certainly did that for me!
In the end I would love to help facilitate or at least try out Coalition skis in the future on the East coast and look forward to possibly chairlift convos in the future, Jen! Thanks for candidly soliciting so much thoughtful input!
Super late to this thread but anxious to join in on the convo!!
First and more most- Welcome @Jen Gurecki! Missyski told me about Coalition on the chairlist last weekend and I have been gobbling up anything I can on the movement online. Very exciting. While I am DEFINITELY well in the target audience for the actual skis in production right now, I am more excited about having more women in the field and contributing to the science/technology/concepts behind snow sports and ski development. I just submitted an inquiry via the company website too :-)
My diva dude is 5'6" and 145lbs, he skied and fell in love with the Head Super Joy this year, which smartly is neon yellow and black, he may by a pair next year. He's also talked- only half jokingly- in the past about purchasing a woman's ski and just spray painting the top sheet black, lol. The super heavy metal skis can be too much for him even though he's a charger as well.
Yes, I had this issue this past year demoing at Sunday River. Shooting a "you've got to be kidding me" look to the reps who didn't carry a women's ski past 163 or only brought 1 pair to demo. Blizzard didn't even have the Samba (!??!$%#!). The Head rep falsely led me to believe the Big Joy only came in a 168- I then later found out it came in a 178 as well and leaped for joy (pun intended?). Couldn't purchase them fast enough! They are BIG but lightweight and stiff. And I won't profess my undying love for them again, feel like I've posted it 10 times this season, lol.
This makes me very happy, I recall a long thread not that long ago about marketing in women's snow sports and how it's been reduced to scantily clad women in boots versus highlighting women's athleticism and power (I know there are many dissenting opinions about that as well!). Sadly that's the result of men in marketing doing what they think will sell- focusing on the body- instead of empowering and inspiring women, IMO. And that's my interpretation of the 'shrink and pink' concept we get now with skis. And honestly, I hate pink! There have skis I like that I did NOT buy because the top sheets were hideously over girly. Not all women want florals and pastels!
I think 'keeping up' is more general, not just about going fast but being able to ski a wider variety of terrain. Sometimes- and I say that in a very general sense- our male counterparts/friends/companions are more willing to take risks, ski that chute, take that steeper line: and women shy away from it, thinking they don't have the ability when it's really about confidence, or not having the right equipment to take your skiing to the next level. Some people don't care for it or want to do that stuff- and that's fine too. It's about the women who dream on the inside about being able to, but just can't get there. It can be hard to enjoy a full ski season with your other half if you feel like you can't ski the same stuff.
.... and finally a note about ski length. Ah, the everlasting debate. There are differences in size, height, weight, preference, etc. And, back in my racing days pre-shape skis, I skied on 180s. I'm 5'6", was probably 5'4" at the time. It's doable, people used to do it all the time. When I swapped to shaped skis I was told I wouldn't need longer than a 160- nope, not happening! Then I slowly started demoing longer skis and found I was a lot happier and a lot more comfortable on longer skis. I am now 5'6" and 190 lbs. Even if I lost 50 lbs, my ski length would be the same. I'm aggressive and dive down the hill. I have a 174 carver, a 177 all mtn quiver, a 178 big mtn ski and my teles are a 164! What it comes down to is don't be afraid to try longer skis made by different companies and for different purposes. The results may surprise you. AND... you may not like it, which is ok too, just don't be afraid to try because of an old convention. Also keep in mind that longer, more aggressive equipment may extenuate flaws in your skiing which, if you're interested, my provide fodder for improving you skills further. Tele skiing certainly did that for me!
In the end I would love to help facilitate or at least try out Coalition skis in the future on the East coast and look forward to possibly chairlift convos in the future, Jen! Thanks for candidly soliciting so much thoughtful input!
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
QFT. A bit off topic, but I wasted several years following DH down runs I really didn't enjoy. He wanted to ski bumps and ungroomed terrain; I liked groomers, but didn't feel comfortable asserting myself. (ME. Can you believe it??) We'd get to the bottom of something, me hanging on by the skin of my teeth, and he'd point uphill and say, "Look, you skied that!" And I'd think, "So what? I didn't feel right at all." Thank dog for the lesson program at Breck. Now we ski more or less the same stuff, and *both* enjoy it. And I'm more likely to explore unfamiliar, consequential terrain than he is. Go figure.
Equipment matters - I remember going from an intermediate ski to an advanced ski, and my ski buddies said I was suddenly skiing much better off piste - but I also think that *in general* women are less likely to want to take a leap into the unknown. I see far more men on terrain where I frankly think they have no business than I do women. Actually, I can't think of any women I've seen doing that, unless they were dragged there by their spouses. (I've rescued a number of them, when "just ski down it!" from their SO wasn't helping.) One time I was in a group of women, standing at the top of Joker in Breck's Contest Bowl - fairly steep and bumped. A guy skied by us and kept going down the hill, in terrible form. What a mess. But he was skiing it. The woman next to me said (something like), "See, that's the difference between men and women. I can't think of any women who'd ski down that run with his (lack of) skill."
ZealouslyB
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Bwhahahaha- so true. We call those 'relationship enders.'
I know I'm definitely like that sometimes- if I don't *know* I can ski it, I avoid it. But I'm learning to enjoy to push my own boundaries, because that's what I want for myself. Certainly not pushing the limit like the guys you mention above though!
I know I'm definitely like that sometimes- if I don't *know* I can ski it, I avoid it. But I'm learning to enjoy to push my own boundaries, because that's what I want for myself. Certainly not pushing the limit like the guys you mention above though!
Hahaha! I used to do just that!
My thinking was more like "if he can SURVIVE it, so can I". And I would do it just to prove I can. It's a different mindset. I used to believe I must "manage" whatever terrain I find myself on top of. What are my choices anyway but to go down it?
It took experience to recognise, before getting to the top of it with no way out, what terrain I can ski comfortably and enjoy it. And not go to terrains I have no business on. Still, without pushing my boundry from time to time previously, I wouldn't have been able to figure out the extent of terrain I do enjoy now.
Jen Gurecki
Certified Ski Diva
Hi @DeweySki, thanks for the thoughtful response. I want to get @bounceswoosh in on my response too because I read her post and think that what I have to say is relevant to both of you.
I'd like to take a moment to respond by revisiting the purpose this thread. It was originally started by @climbingbetty to tell Ski Divas about Coalition's Kickstarter. I didn't ask her to post it -- in fact we don't know one another! But @ski diva sent me a message about it and I had to check it out.
Because the thread started with the Kickstarter, I assumed that people had clicked on the link, read through our campaign, watched the video, and looked our website. All of these things explain in detail why someone might be interested in supporting our company, and that's why my comments may seem vague. And when I say support, that doesn't mean buying our skis -- it means extending a hand to a female-owned company whether that's through buying a t-shirt, sharing the Kickstarter with your network, or just learning about the company. I thought we were all operating from the original post.
I'm not on here to market my company, I'm here as another women dialoging with other women. My participation in this forum has never been about convincing women to ski on Coalition skis. I have my opinions (based on personal experiences and an incredible amount of direct conversations/market research with other women) about how women have been treated and positioned in the industry (both as professionals and consumers), how that affects the types of skis that are made for them, and how that ultimately affects their confidence and skill on the mountain, and that's what I've been sharing. Prior to starting Coalition I owned a white water rafting company and I also worked in outdoor education for about 10 years. Women aren't treated equally in the outdoor industry and it's super disappointing for many reasons. I've entered this forum as myself, with my own suite of experiences, as another person interested in meaningful conversation.
But then, quite honestly, I felt personally attacked as a newcomer to this forum. There's no possible way for me to know everything (or really anything) about people on this forum. (Take for example my comments about rocker skis -- how am I supposed to know the historical conversations about rocker skis on this forum and what people actually ski on -- it was a question about if they have tried rocker skis and a suggestion to demo a bunch because they're all different.) And like I said, I was just talking from personal experience, and sharing the perspective of so many women who are both recreational skiers (like myself) but also professionals in the industry who I've talked to.
I'm one of the only people on here who uses my real name and is attached to my daily bread and butter. I felt like I was put in a really difficult position to have to "stand up for" myself and the company that I am literally putting my blood, sweat, and tears into. It's almost as if because I represent Coalition everything I say is met with circumspect -- for example when I say our skis are high-performance, it feels like that's not believed to be an honest statement, but rather a marketing message. When I say that women have been told that can only ski on short gear simply because they're women (ignoring any sort of preference or skill), it's like I'm trying to sell long skis. It's perceived as a sales pitch, but it's not. It's real women's experiences (and my own) that I'm sharing.
And it's not a lecture -- it's passion and a belief that women deserve the best, and that for far too long we've played second fiddle to men, and it's time for things to be different and equal and better.
I've not only reached out to people in private messages to try to heal unintended wounds, I've also written over and over again that this is about making choices that are best for you, feeling confident, and having fun. But it feels like even that has been met with circumspect, rather than an honest statement of support.
This whole thing has felt really crummy. Even though a few people have come out to say that the tone needs to change, I continue to be at the center of it, and it doesn't feel good. I really appreciate the positive comments that have been generated both in this thread and in private messages -- thanks ladies. Without that I'd really be in the dumps.
I hear you that you can chalk this up to a PR-gaffe, but it was never meant to be PR. I'm not on here with a marketing message. I'm a real human being--another woman--with feelings and opinions and experiences that are real. And because I want to have the upmost transparency about who I am and what I do, I have used my real name and my company's name. And that perhaps is the lesson to be learned -- don't put yourself out there like that.
I'd like to take a moment to respond by revisiting the purpose this thread. It was originally started by @climbingbetty to tell Ski Divas about Coalition's Kickstarter. I didn't ask her to post it -- in fact we don't know one another! But @ski diva sent me a message about it and I had to check it out.
Because the thread started with the Kickstarter, I assumed that people had clicked on the link, read through our campaign, watched the video, and looked our website. All of these things explain in detail why someone might be interested in supporting our company, and that's why my comments may seem vague. And when I say support, that doesn't mean buying our skis -- it means extending a hand to a female-owned company whether that's through buying a t-shirt, sharing the Kickstarter with your network, or just learning about the company. I thought we were all operating from the original post.
I'm not on here to market my company, I'm here as another women dialoging with other women. My participation in this forum has never been about convincing women to ski on Coalition skis. I have my opinions (based on personal experiences and an incredible amount of direct conversations/market research with other women) about how women have been treated and positioned in the industry (both as professionals and consumers), how that affects the types of skis that are made for them, and how that ultimately affects their confidence and skill on the mountain, and that's what I've been sharing. Prior to starting Coalition I owned a white water rafting company and I also worked in outdoor education for about 10 years. Women aren't treated equally in the outdoor industry and it's super disappointing for many reasons. I've entered this forum as myself, with my own suite of experiences, as another person interested in meaningful conversation.
But then, quite honestly, I felt personally attacked as a newcomer to this forum. There's no possible way for me to know everything (or really anything) about people on this forum. (Take for example my comments about rocker skis -- how am I supposed to know the historical conversations about rocker skis on this forum and what people actually ski on -- it was a question about if they have tried rocker skis and a suggestion to demo a bunch because they're all different.) And like I said, I was just talking from personal experience, and sharing the perspective of so many women who are both recreational skiers (like myself) but also professionals in the industry who I've talked to.
I'm one of the only people on here who uses my real name and is attached to my daily bread and butter. I felt like I was put in a really difficult position to have to "stand up for" myself and the company that I am literally putting my blood, sweat, and tears into. It's almost as if because I represent Coalition everything I say is met with circumspect -- for example when I say our skis are high-performance, it feels like that's not believed to be an honest statement, but rather a marketing message. When I say that women have been told that can only ski on short gear simply because they're women (ignoring any sort of preference or skill), it's like I'm trying to sell long skis. It's perceived as a sales pitch, but it's not. It's real women's experiences (and my own) that I'm sharing.
And it's not a lecture -- it's passion and a belief that women deserve the best, and that for far too long we've played second fiddle to men, and it's time for things to be different and equal and better.
I've not only reached out to people in private messages to try to heal unintended wounds, I've also written over and over again that this is about making choices that are best for you, feeling confident, and having fun. But it feels like even that has been met with circumspect, rather than an honest statement of support.
This whole thing has felt really crummy. Even though a few people have come out to say that the tone needs to change, I continue to be at the center of it, and it doesn't feel good. I really appreciate the positive comments that have been generated both in this thread and in private messages -- thanks ladies. Without that I'd really be in the dumps.
I hear you that you can chalk this up to a PR-gaffe, but it was never meant to be PR. I'm not on here with a marketing message. I'm a real human being--another woman--with feelings and opinions and experiences that are real. And because I want to have the upmost transparency about who I am and what I do, I have used my real name and my company's name. And that perhaps is the lesson to be learned -- don't put yourself out there like that.
As a female Tahoe skier, I was excited at first to support a local, female-run company. However, after 8 pages of comments, I feel like there is a lot of back and forth with no clear message on if/why I should. Some hesitations that have emerged (for me, at least):
1. I'm pretty sure I'm in the target audience, as I am a very average height, weight, and size. But because I'm near the top of women's ski sizes, that means I'm also near the bottom of men's sizes (or unisex or whatever), so I actually feel like I have A LOT to choose from. Coalition skis would just be another one to add to the list when I start shopping for a 105-115 waister.
2. I know that sexism is rampant in the ski industry, but my experiences with it have been limited. I've been in several situations where male ski reps or shop guys have encouraged me to go with longer skis, and in general I feel like I'm treated with respect, especially if I go into a shop armed with knowledge about the skis I'm looking at. Perhaps this my naiveté, age, or the fact that a I work in a female-dominated profession (libraries), and gender/sexism issues are minimal in our industry, so maybe I'm not seeing something that's right in front of my face? Either way, it's been especially disappointing to feel like I am being lectured on this forum (in this thread), or even worse, on the receiving end of a sales pitch, neither of which I want when choosing a ski. Man or woman, I just want help and advice in choosing the right ski for me.
3. This thread has me thinking a lot about brand allegiance and how fickle it can be. For example, I'm partial to Patagonia because it fits me well and is a California company. I also like Mountain Hardware because I think their price point is reasonable. But I don't care for The North Face because I associate that brand with the mean popular kids in high school. None of these things have anything to do with each other. I'm evaluating each brand by different criteria. That's just how consumers are. I'll also easily and quickly abandon a brand if I don't agree with their politics (Chick-fil-A), if their CEO/Founder is an a-hole (Uber), or after bad customer service experience (ahem, United Airlines). But I'll forgive a company for a major PR gaffe (Starbucks trying to talk about race relations) if I still like their product. I'm going to file this tread and the comments made within under "PR gaffe" and move on. I also don't have any brand allegiance in skis, as I have purchased Lines, Aramadas, and Atomics...
4. I think the proof for Coalition will really be in the skis. My SO purchased a snowboard from a Tahoe-based company this year, mostly because he's exhausted his quiver, is always looking for something new, and wants to support a local operation. This company also made skis this year. But SO is kind of "Meh" on the board and doesn't love it enough to evangelize to others about buying from them. I was going to try their skis, but now maybe not. I hope that Coalition can start by filling a niche market, and doing it well, and focus later on expanding their offerings to include a wider range of skiers.
5. All of this being said, though I'm certainly no economist, I think competition in the marketplace is healthy and is ultimately good for the consumer. I welcome another ski gear company and hope that it can start small and eventually become a major player.
@Jen Gurecki, please do some demo days in South Lake, I'll be there
Last edited:
Jen Gurecki
Certified Ski Diva
And when I say "play second fiddle" here's what I mean by that:
1) There are far more professional male skiers than women (when I say professional I mean both at the competitive level but also as guides, coaches, instructors, etc.)
2) Female professionals are paid less than men.
3) Because female pro skiers in particular aren't compensated as much as men, they don't have the ability to be featured in films or compete (their sponsoring companies won't pay for it). Why does this matter? Because it reduces the number of role models for younger women and it alters our perception of what women in the sport.
4) Female pro skiers have a long history of being featured in bikinis rather than skiing sick lines (Lynsey Dyer wrote an open letter to Freeskier about this a year or so ago).
5) Companies make strategic decisions about how much money and other resources are invested into R&D for women's skis (tends to be far less than what they dedicate to men's skis).
6) Women aren't consulted on ski design. Women like you and me, and pros. There are a number of female pros who have told me their frustration around giving feedback to their sponsors and the companies not implementing their ideas for ski design. They don't like what they are skiing on and they say it affects their performance.
7) The result of 5 & 6 is the "shrink it and pink it" paradigm that I've spoken about which does nothing to amplify the strengths of women.
8) There are very few women in executive positions in the ski industry making key decisions.
I'm sure there's more but this is just what's off the top of my head.
1) There are far more professional male skiers than women (when I say professional I mean both at the competitive level but also as guides, coaches, instructors, etc.)
2) Female professionals are paid less than men.
3) Because female pro skiers in particular aren't compensated as much as men, they don't have the ability to be featured in films or compete (their sponsoring companies won't pay for it). Why does this matter? Because it reduces the number of role models for younger women and it alters our perception of what women in the sport.
4) Female pro skiers have a long history of being featured in bikinis rather than skiing sick lines (Lynsey Dyer wrote an open letter to Freeskier about this a year or so ago).
5) Companies make strategic decisions about how much money and other resources are invested into R&D for women's skis (tends to be far less than what they dedicate to men's skis).
6) Women aren't consulted on ski design. Women like you and me, and pros. There are a number of female pros who have told me their frustration around giving feedback to their sponsors and the companies not implementing their ideas for ski design. They don't like what they are skiing on and they say it affects their performance.
7) The result of 5 & 6 is the "shrink it and pink it" paradigm that I've spoken about which does nothing to amplify the strengths of women.
8) There are very few women in executive positions in the ski industry making key decisions.
I'm sure there's more but this is just what's off the top of my head.
- Status
