We Rise - Rossignol Women's call to action

[AmyPJ]

Yes! 100%. This is exactly what I see as the point in these types of initiatives and campaigns. It's simple capitalism, you need to expand the demand before you can expand your supply. The more women that are getting out there, the more role models there are for the younger generation, and as a result more women will ski and get into the outdoor industry. With more women skiing and crushing it, there will be a larger demand for women's gear. More women out there, leads to more competition, more competition will grow the sport and push it to higher levels. It's not all in the number of women out there, it's also about pushing women's sports to a higher level.

One of the best compliments I've gotten (which was not even meant as a compliment), was a friend of mine that told me that she enjoys riding (mtb) with me because I push her to do things that otherwise she wouldn't have tried. She said if she sees me ride something, she's like "if she can do it, I can too". Whereas riding with her husband, the drive to ride the same things he does isn't there.

The bonus for the expansion of sales is that there are even more people out there living healthier lifestyles, which benefits the greater good overall. I'm happy that I dragged my daughter to ski lessons starting at age 3 and that she continues to love the sport at age 12

I have the same experience on bikes. I sometimes get discouraged or down on myself when I ride with men, who lack the fear factor (some women do, too) and who can use brute strength to get through some stuff. When I go with my girlfriends, most of whom are strong riders in their own rights, it reminds me that I, too, am a strong rider, and I'm not the only one who values my flesh and bones over bravado at times.

I've participated in a couple of women's series of ski clinics over the past few years. I am fine in a clinic with men or women, I don't care, but I believe I am in the minority in that regard. The women really appreciate the support they get from other women in these clinics. I will say there is a level of fun that can't be matched when you are with a group of women who perhaps share some of your fears, and who feel empowered by the cheering from their counterparts, out there whooping and hollering for each other on a legit powder day. In fact, I took first tracks on a line that tends to pucker my butt but I felt so empowered and so much like I could inspire some of the gals (which I did!) that I just went for it!

THAT is why Rossi is doing this. That is why there are women's clinics.

 

[Ski&ride]

- Try to use more universally appealing language in job descriptions. The same way women walk into ski shop and undersell their ability, women will read a job listing with language like "we need superstars who check all these boxes!!!" and not apply. There's a lot of research that shows that men apply to jobs when they meet 60% of the stated requirements, whereas women don't apply unless they're pretty close to 100%. Just writing things in a way that frames things as less absolute goes a long way.

(Sigh...)

RachelV, you’re in the computer software industry, right? Who would ever apply for jobs doing what they’ve been doing? Why bother? Not to mention most software jobs have requirements list as long the phonebook. Who would meet all of them? Or even close?

In this fast changing environment we’re in, the very notion women have, that they must meet ALL the requisite qualifications in a job listing, is about as harmful as outright gender discrimination!

Discrimination, BY women, to themselves?

I’ve had some kick ass women colleagues. Just as aggressive as the guys. But not enough of them.

(Sigh...)

 

[RachelV]

I am in the software industry, but those stats are not industry specific. I in no way have the energy to engage the rest of your points. You'll take that to mean that you are right. I don't care.

If you want to have a sigh-off, I promise you that all the women that have been given the feedback that they're "too aggressive" or "too confrontational" as barriers to promotion would win.

 

[LiquidFeet]

 

[LiquidFeet]

One more, then I must be off to get my list of things-to-do done.
This infographic from Sketchnotes draws on the classic HBR article of the same name.

 

[Scruffy]

One of the best compliments I've gotten (which was not even meant as a compliment), was a friend of mine that told me that she enjoys riding (mtb) with me because I push her to do things that otherwise she wouldn't have tried. She said if she sees me ride something, she's like "if she can do it, I can too". Whereas riding with her husband, the drive to ride the same things he does isn't there.

This ^. Could also be a metaphor for all endeavors of life. IMHO, the sooner we have strong females leading, encouraging other females, and participating equally, and yet perhaps differently, with men in every aspect of life, the better we'll all be.

As far as it being "just a marketing campaign to sell more product", so what; we need multi pronged approaches. Sometimes the ends justify the means. If the goal is to get more females participating in sports and all the social upsides to that, then we can put up with a little marketing help along the way. We all, men and women, need to be wise to when/what we are being marketed to, and make our own intelligent decisions.

 

[QueueCT]

I'm in the business of hiring, including technology staff and senior executives. In marketing, it's well established that different messages and approaches need to be used to attract different audiences/demographics to a product. They respond to different things. Why is it so surprising that the same thing is true for attracting exceptional employees who are female, or hispanic, or veterans? It's common sense since, ultimately, recruiting is a marketing and sales activity.

The evaluation and selection of candidates needs consistency but that's a different matter.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Maybe he sells more skis because that many more males ski than females

I suppose this might be true overall but it certainly isn’t the case among good skiers in Park City. Given that I have access to the statistics, I can tell you that 65% of the participants in our season long masters training and race program are women. Oddly enough they all seem to have no trouble finding and buying appropriate skis and boots, not to mention gloves, helmets and ski clothing. Moreover the decent boot fitters around here (say Brent, Ernie and Matt for starters) would condescend to these women at their great peril and I’ve never heard any report that any ever has. Of course YMMV but, if it does, it’s worth at least considering that one’s own attitude also has an influence on how one is treated.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....it’s worth at least considering that one’s own attitude also has an influence on how one is treated.

So in general you think it's a woman's fault when she is not served appropriately in ski shops?

 

[HardDaysNight]

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. As an example, if someone came into a shop that I ran with the attitude displayed by the woman who took @Tricia to task in the woman specific ski thread I’d tell her to go...Well, let’s just say she’d get very short shrift.

Do you dispute my contention that one’s own attitude might influence the reaction of someone exposed to it - for better or worse?

To add to this a bit, I think that ski shops in many parts of the country tend also to have seasonal sales employees with modest qualifications - many of whom are rude and offhand to men and women alike, especially those who don’t know much about the sport. It’s harder to get away with this in a place like Park City. There are a lot of places here that employ the same people season to season and the crap gets weeded out. The downside here is that there is a good percentage of highly self-entitled tourons who challenge the patience of even the best. Now that I’ve offended everyone I’ll leave!

 

[LiquidFeet]

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. As an example, if someone came into a shop that I ran with the attitude displayed by the woman who took @Tricia to task in the woman specific ski thread I’d tell her to go...Well, let’s just say she’d get very short shrift.

Do you dispute my contention that one’s own attitude might influence the reaction of someone exposed to it - for better or worse?

Of course employees read the customer's attitude and respond. But some employees read wrong as they watch the person walk up to them. I've certainly had it happen to me, and no explaining on my part could dislodge the prejudgement from that shop employee's mind. Such treatment can be infuriating. It reads as disrespect. I will not back down from that.

But in this thread, with its content already well-developed, you just put forward the proposal that women in general might have an attitude problem and it's to blame for their bad treatment in stores, and that we (those posting in this thread) should think about this. Meaning, what we are thinking in this thread is not sufficient. We need to think about the women, large enough in number to be paid attention to in this thread, who bring the bad treatment on themselves because of their attitude.

My point is that if you were thinking of Tricia's customer, you jumped to "women" fast from that single instance. Are you sure doing that jump to generalization is a useful contribution to this discussion?

Another way to figure out if what you are saying is what you really want to be saying is to substitute "African-American" for the generalized category of person you are talking about. I've learned this trick from my daughter, who is very sensitive to prejudicial attitudes towards anyone. If this thread were focused on discussing prejudice against African-Americans, and you (or anyone else) posted on page 4 that it's sometimes the fault of African-Americans' attitudes that causes mistreatment in stores, well... would you (or anyone else) choose to say that in the first place?

If not, perhaps people posting here don't want to do that type of generalizing when discussing women as a group and how they are treated in the industry.

 

[AmyPJ]

This ^. Could also be a metaphor for all endeavors of life. IMHO, the sooner we have strong females leading, encouraging other females, and participating equally, and yet perhaps differently, with men in every aspect of life, the better we'll all be.

As far as it being "just a marketing campaign to sell more product", so what; we need multi pronged approaches. Sometimes the ends justify the means. If the goal is to get more females participating in sports and all the social upsides to that, then we can put up with a little marketing help along the way. We all, men and women, need to be wise to when/what we are being marketed to, and make our own intelligent decisions.

Oh, “marketing campaign” or not, I think it’s great! I see it as a multi-proned, multi-beneficial approach.

Again, since they are hosting one of their camps at Snowbasin, I'm hoping to be able to report back on it. IF I can afford the camp.

 

[Yo Momma]

The LF post! Wow ^^^^ I need more popcorn!!!!

 

[KingGrump]

I am not sure what is worse. Discrimination and degradation with intent or without.
I've seen more than my share in my life. In my experience, I can usually deal with the one with ill intention with a big enough stick.
The ones perpetuate ills without intent and realization will usually required more drastic measures since the bias is actually much more ingrained.

 

[LiquidFeet]

^^ That.

 

[Tricia]

Folks, We've been getting PM's about the direction of this thread, and quite frankly, I think its sad that a company like Rossignol does something, however minimal that is meant to encourage and it turns into a politically charged hot mess that has nothing to do with skiing.

We will be doing some clean up here to eliminate stuff that leans toward gender bias, discrimination and in general P&HT, in the hopes that we can get it on track toward Rossignol and We-Rise.

Meanwhile, I'm locking it.
Sad