Cycling Stuff for Females

The sexist line you hear often in the predominantly male-run cycling industry is that if you want to market a bike thing to women just take the men's version, then "Pink it and Shrink it."
That is, make it smaller and color it with the palate from a Disney Princess movie.

Men and women both look silly on Ragbrai

Or worse, you can do what Trek did with their tire pumps a few years back and make a "WSD" version (it's pink so you know it's for women) that requires twice as many pump actions at half the effort to move as much air as the regular version. How they failed to notice the sexism of having a normal pump and a different "women's specific design" (WSD) is beyond lazy, implying an institutional bias. The out-of-touch designers were so focused on what they thought women wanted that they ignored the actual physiological issue. In my seven or so years of selling bike pumps the problem most women have isn't that they aren't strong enough to use a tire pump, it's that they can't get their weight over the handle; they can't get the leverage that a taller person can. Indeed, in my experience women who're 5'8" or more usually have no problem with pumps, but women and men who're shorter than 5'5" do. Therefore, it seems to me that the smart thing would be to make a smaller pump for smaller people -and not gender it. But, as the "WSD" label demonstrates, that is not the path Trek chose to take. The "WSD" pumps were, in fact, just a little bit taller than the regular pumps, owing to their ergonomic handle design.

The idea that brands would have a normal line and a separate women's line, indicated by an asterisk and "women's specific" is offensive because it defines women as an "other" -a minority that needs to be placated with as little effort as necessary. What's worse is that most of the time "women's specific" is a lie. the majority of bike frames out there, despite what the marketing says, are designed for men by men. All they do to make a bike a "women's design" is put on a wider saddle and narrower handlebars. Oh yeah, and paint it with birds and flowers.

There are two remedies for the gendered hardware inequalities in the cycling industry.

The first is total inclusion, like Cervelo. They don't make a women's or men's bike, they just make a bike. The problem is that the stock saddle and handlebars are male-specific, so many women have to spend a little extra $ to be comfortable - a good shop should make those changes for free though, and charge Cervelo for the effort.

The other tactic is to make a brand exclusively for women, as Giant did when creating their Liv brand. That way they can have bikes made and marketed specifically to men and bikes made and marketed to women. The bike lines share a lot of design concepts and technology, but the women's brand uses different geometries to allegedly take advantage of the lower weight distribution of women compared to men. Liv bikes are actually different than their male counterparts in more than just paint and components. Whether the subtle geometry differences between Liv and Giant actually make the bikes better for women to ride is debatable. To quote the famous bike designer, Dave Moulton: "It is a myth that all women have longer legs and shorter bodies.
Women come in all shapes and sizes the same as men, long legs short torso, short legs long torso."

 The problem, from a bike shop perspective, is now the retailer has to bring in another bike line to a showroom already cluttered with models and brands. To carry different, gendered bikes means they need to twice as much space both on the floor and in storage. (I also need to note that Giant had some disgusting women's bikes before they introduced Liv. They're as guilty as the rest)

My solution is for bike frames to be non-gendered, for companies to base their designs off of universal morphological data from both sexes and all body types. But the option of a gender specific saddle and bars should be available at no extra charge. Or, the dealer should be able to have the option to buy bikes from the distributer with gendered saddle and whatnot already installed. Either way, there needs to be male and female input at all levels of design and fabrication, and there needs to be options.

And don't get me started on people calling a "step-through frame" a "women's frame." I like the step-through, which foregoes the customary top tube and front triangle, relying on a beefed-up down tube for strength and rigidity. You don't have to raise your leg as high to get on. Women at the turn of the century preferred step-throughs because they're easier to get on while wearing a dress. It's a good design for a casual cyclist, and I'm glad Divvy uses it for their unisex bike:

Really, what I want is an end to bad paint jobs and ugly design. Here's the article that got me on this soap box, written by a man about what women can wear to be "fashionable":  http://bicycletouringpro.com/blog/12-fashionable-spd-cycling-shoes-for-women/

Also, and as usual, the Onion sums up the issue much better than I can: http://www.theonion.com/article/treasury-department-honors-women-first-female-curr-50443