I just sent this to MEC, because they asked about my satisfaction.

[commodorified]

You are still falling down badly in women's sizes, especially in pants and shorts. I can rarely buy bottoms of any kind at MEC and the exceptions are usually stretchy skirts or bike shorts or, as with this order, long underwear.

I also cannot buy a buttoned shirt which fits over my chest. I am a size 16-18 in most clothing: in yours, because you size small, I am probably a 20.

My female friends, including those smaller than me, have similar problems. Your women's clothing simply does not accommodate a wide range of body shapes and sizes. You don't even bring in Prana's larger sizes in the clothes of theirs that you carry.

It is especially noticeable that you do not even accommodate muscular women's bodies - the wide-shouldered or strong-legged are as out-of-luck as the large-busted or wide-hipped.

One would expect that to be your core demographic.

Meanwhile, a vast range of men can find comfortable, functional, stylish clothng at your store. My partner is 6'6 and strongly built and buys clothes from you easily.

I know you have experimented with a (slightly) broader range of women's sizes in the past. I also know you didn't really promote it - I found a pair of size 18 shorts, in _one_ style, on your racks by pure chance.

I suspect that the comparative failure of the experiment was used to justify not repeating it, when had we known the clothing was there we would have wanted and bought it.

As a co-operative which is not reliant on shareholder demands for a profit in every quarter MEC is in a position to take some chances, to do what's right instead of what's immediately expedient, to really promote heath and fitness and outdoor enjoyment as something that everybody can enjoy.

You are in a position to counteract the endless messages young women, and all women, get about the narrow range of 'acceptable' body types.

You are in a position to make members like me feel truly welcomed instead of grudgingly tolerated - so long as we don't expect too many nice things. You'll take my money for gear, if I'm okay with being sent elsewhere for clothing to wear while I use it. You could change that. You could get more of my business, easily, simply by treating me as if I genuinely mattered.

And you could do it - you could expand your sizes and rethink your fits - honestly, fairly easily, for the price of - for example - a moderate reduction in available colours of the clothing you sell. The warehouse and rack space can be made. The money can be found. The expertise can be located.

I have been making these suggestions to MEC for roughly a decade, and the response is always that you're "working on it." Please don't reply to this the same way.

Because you're not. You're not working on it at all. You don't value, or possibly don't even SEE, your female members unless we're slim and fall into a very narrow range of body types.

You're not Lululemon, or Patagonia, with their blatant aim at the young and slim and pretty client who they think will make a good "brand ambassador."

You're MEC. You're supposed to be better than that. You're supposed to belong to all of us. Are you ever going to act like that's true?

Comments

[muccamukk]

Yeah. This is why I don't shop there anymore. I used to wear nothing else for outdoors stuff. When I was skinny and 14.

Last pair of pants I bought there was in 2007.

[commodorified]

If they get back to me, I may ask you to write a short note for forwarding. I'd like to show them that it's not just me.

[muccamukk]

Wilco.

[muccamukk]

Someone else in my circle had this exact rant about REI, and she eventually started shopping at hunting/sporting supply stores, which seem to realise that heavy ladies might like to go outside sometimes.

I haven't yet, but probably will soon. Though I really like MEC's ethical business plan and environmentalism, and would prefer to shop there.

[commodorified]

Same here. I have discovered tack stores, and Work Warehouse, and may try Cabel's. But I'd like a bicycling jersey that doesn't bunch around my hips, sometime.

[sara]

On a related note, I finally realized that LL Bean's has filed their actual outdoors clothes (as opposed to "outdoors" clothes for wearing on the bike path or whatever, which while fine is not at all my particular application) under "hunting and fishing."

I haven't ordered the heavy wool pants yet but at least they actually HAVE a pair of women's heavy wool pants. I have more trouble buying work pants.

[commodorified]

So I feel like this is an OBVIOUS RULE, like how do I even need to SAY THIS HAVE YOU MET ME EVEN but you're not allowed to mention WOMEN'S HEAVY WOOL PANTS on this blog and not link.

[sara]

Well, you know normally I would but the fucking routers borking so I'm not sure this is the right link:

And now the tablet won't let me paste things, obvs a high grade technology evening here.

FML.

Oh sure the one time I don't want to select all I can finally do it.

Good grief.

[commodorified]

I found them. 30" inseam only wtff?

*wanders off disconsolate*

[thnidu]

Sock it to 'em!

[sharpiefan]

I've never shopped there (but then, I'm UK-based) but I hear you being unable to buy sportswear for women with larger bust sizes. (My current sports bras are 34F and they're too small in the back by a good couple of inches because of the weight I've put on recently, so I'm going to have to purchase some bra extenders.)

[krait]

Arrrgh, sports bras are the WORST! I'm a mere D cup, and just try finding anything that's designed for more than "light impact" restraint - as though, being a D cup, I'm obviously never going to move above a brisk walk?

Only people with tiny breasts deserve clothing that prevents their breasts from hitting them in the chin, according to sports bra companies. Which is a lot less likely for the A-cup crowd than it is for me! D:

[chickenfeet]

My sense, as a member for 30 years, is that MEC cares less and less about most of its members; male or female. The well priced, highly functional but not fancy stuff has mostly gone to be replaced by the outdoor world's equivalent of designer labels and very high end technical gear.

[graydon]

I'd like to note they're not real good on the men's sizes, either. (I cannot buy actual pants at MEC, for example.) Better, but not good.

It is totally not just you; Zingerella has several rants on the subject.

Someone with retail experience got on the board around... 2005? Somewhere in there. And a great many things that were OK went to shit and a great many things that weren't OK to start with got worse. That's when the push for BRANDS (tm) started, and things like the old faithful Guide Pant went away.

[muccamukk]

I miss those guide pants. It used to be all I ever wore.

[graydon]

There was a year they came out in really organic Egyptian long-staple cotton that had a nap like a lint brush. You could walk within two metres of a dog and there'd be quantities of dog hair on your pants. Bright gods help you if you got anywhere near your typical mix of meadow plants.

They didn't come out the year after that because sales had been terrible and people obviously didn't want that style of pant anymore.

Brilliant use of the system on someone's part. (Evil. Dripping, corrosive evil. But brilliant.)

[wordweaverlynn]

Standing ovation.

[mmegaera]

This sort of thing is why I really, really wish Lands End had never even known the word Sears existed.

[cpolk]

Yes. I am currently wearing a pair of MEC pants in size 14. the rise is too low, the legs are too short, and if I was cycling? I would never be able to get my legs in them because when I cycle I gain MIGHTY THEWS.

Why am I wearing them anyway? Full size front pockets. Credit where credit is due.