This is how quickly Snag Tights are rolling over to males with kinks

[HardRockOwl]

Just had the misfortune to stumble across their social media. I work in the same field and was researching something and came across this little exchange .... I know MN are having paragraph issues so apologies if this is one long block of text!

Instagram user (male) .... could you remove the word 'women's' when referring to your tights? If we are wanting to be more inclusive, we could start there.'

Snag ... yes we absolutely agree! We will get this feedback sent over to the team. Thanks for the amazing feedback, we want everyone to feel included.'

They then go on to reassure another commenter called 'pretty fat boy' that they'll look into change all their packaging asap.

The world has gone quite mad hasn't it? And yes, I know men can wear tights. That's not my issue. My issue is these blokes with obvious kinks and fetishes requesting the word 'women' be erased to keep them happy.

Thoughts?

There are other companies who sell tights specifically designed to fit men. They have an extra front seam to allow more roomin front.

That doesn't appeal to certain demographics though........

So, no answering of questions then?!

OK!

@fakegermanheiress I don't know anything about you, what with this being an anonymous chat forum. If you object to the description of someone scolding people as scolding then I will use policing instead if that helps.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist
Is that to me? I literally answered you question- Yes. Yes, I have asked a company to change its marketing and packaging. I would argue not to suit my 'preferences', but to avoid sex discrimination when it was not proportionate, or legitimate. (like in this circumstance.)

Making things that can be unisex be unisex makes complete sense, and what I thought was one of radical feminism's goals. But this thread proves me wrong, radical feminism would rather call me 'scolding' for pointing this out, and obsess over whether or not tights are kinky.

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon

There are other tights that market exclusively to women. Snag's USP is that they fit, genuinely fit, all sorts of bodies, and come in a variety of designs.

@RoseslnTheHospital

At least I'm not policing who can wear different types of legwear without being called a pervert.

So many asking for changes. Fucking brillinat.

And yet... I still have an issue with the removal of 'women' from many things.

I don't really care who wears what. I don't really care about much, expcet when a service, goods etc, have women removed from them.

And if you think that my referring to the woman who stood up to speak about FGM and got shouted down because she did not use inclusive language is crass - what do you think about he pople who tried to silence her? Or is that not the point because summink summink ?

For you I am devaluing her words - those she was allowed to say.

For me this is all part of the same issue. Women being silenced. Women not being allowed to stand up and speak about anything for women. Providers of goods and services being pressured, or only to happy, to become inclusive by removing words for women.

It is not the act of wearing the fucking tights. It is the assumption that everything has to be inclusive and that achieving inclusivity means removing 'women', never 'men'!

@fakegermanheiress

"At least I'm not policing who can wear different types of legwear without being called a pervert." Excellent. Neither have I.

And if you think that my referring to the woman who stood up to speak about FGM and got shouted down because she did not use inclusive language is crass - what do you think about he pople who tried to silence her? Or is that not the point because summink summink ?

WTAF? Why are we on this 'whataboutery'? Ok, I have tried to inject some sanity here. I am realise this isn't the thread for someone pragmatic and actually gender critical like me. I'm going to enjoy wearing my unisex tights, and distance myself from the rather bizarre ethos espoused here.

If you're upset about snag tights being inclusive, then I gently suggest that maybe they're not for you. They are just tights.

Again... tights themselves not the problem. Bigger issue, wider problem. Not a narrow focus...

Go on, then. How are tights and FGM related?

Do you also think that mansize tissues shouldn't be renamed just 'large' tissues? Isn't that erasing men?

Go on then, read the post upthread where I explained what I meant.

Or maybe not. But it would help if you did as, whilst I agree that one pair of tights isn't worth the hassle, the wider implications of companies, organisations, governments being so keen to comply with such calls for 'inclusivity' are most certainly worth challenging.

Your hatred of inclusivity, and inability to see that inclusivity isn't a bad word, makes you sound pretty bigoted.

It's about balance. What do women lose by allowing tights to be inclusive- zero, zilch, nothing. What do women lose by allowing rape crisis shelters to be inclusive- they lose those centres. Your argument here is just like the 'well your bathroom at home is unisex!' argument- it's a total strawman.

Clothes being unisex is not a thin end of the wedge of everything else. Gendering clothes is a weapon of the patriarchy.

Not everyone is out to get you. Some companies just want to sell their products, as widely as possible.

It's threads like this that undermine the cause. Sigh. It makes us look silly.

I shall stop now. I can see that we agree on a lot but that I have more of a bee in my bonnet (to coin yet another patriarchal phrase) about how language is used, nothing to do with hatred of anything.

And I help run a rape crisis centre, I look for funding streams to keep the doors open, women and children in a home, with safe spaces to access counselling and legal support. Maybe having fought against mainstream funding providers for the last 4 years has coloured my take on the word 'inclusivity' - being single sex has meant we have lost 40% of our mainstream funding because we will not include men in our employees, counsellors or clients.

To me 'inclusivity' as it is used, wielded today, is a hate filled word, used by those who deliberately or unthinkingly devalue women in their rush to be nice!

"Your hatred of inclusivity, and inability to see that inclusivity isn't a bad word, makes you sound pretty bigoted."

Having read what @SamphirethePogoingStickerist and others have said, do you really think that the issue is a hatred of inclusivity?? It's not. It's the approach of publicly claiming to be "inclusive" by removing references to women, rather than actually being inclusive and adding references to men. And then actually making changes for people who are genuinely excluded from their products and services. Plus the attitude that using the word "women" is something to apologise for.

I'm missing all those "mansize and womansize tissues"- why is that better than just 'large tissues'?

Tights for everyone isn't an assault on women. It just isn't. It's more sexist to market something that can be used by anyone to only one sex.

I don't think 'the issue' here is hatred of inclusivity. I think it's women so entrenched in the culture war, they can't see the wood for the trees, and it undermines perfectly valid arguments in the debate by making feminists look foolish.

For me this is all part of the same issue. Women being silenced. Women not being allowed to stand up and speak about anything for women. Providers of goods and services being pressured, or only to happy, to become inclusive by removing words for women

Tights are not just for women. Anyone can wear tights. None of you have yet answered what makes tights "for women". Unless you actually believe that certain clothes should only be for men and certain clothes should only be for women - which serves to reinforce stereotypes. How is that a feminist position?

A private company marketing their tights to everyone is not silencing women. Can you really not see how ridiculous your argument is?

What I have gathered from this thread is that the issue for some posters has nothing at all to do with tights. The tights are just incidental to the general issue of the word Women exists in a space, and there was a suggestion to remove the word Women from said space, and that is considered erasure of women. The space the word is being removed from is completely immaterial. It is the act of removing the word Women from a space, any space where it currently exists is the issue.

The user who asked for the word womens to be removed was famale -Emma

A man did then agree with her but he was not the original requestor

As for men not wearing tights i will be sure to write to all those pesky male ballet dancers at once to tell them they are doing it wrong

"Tights are not just for women. Anyone can wear tights. None of you have yet answered what makes tights "for women"."

I'll repeat it for the nth time. No one here thinks tights are just for women. Nor have they implied that. Not a single one. In fact many have explicitly stated the opposite, many times. It's a curious and persistent misunderstanding of what people are trying to discuss here.

I just can't see "erasure" of women/men from something as minor and genuinely as potentially unisex as tights to be on the same scale as the removal of the word "women/female" from issues like FGM, medical care, maternity support, etc. And I don't see it as thin end of the wedge, either.

For an article of clothing to be marketed as unisex just isn't in the same category to me and does not seem like a threat. I find Snag annoying for other reasons and think their SM marketing campaigns these days often have an unpleasant vibe, so I prefer to buy from Better Tights. But if they want to label their items as unisex, go ahead, tights are stretchy and people of both sexes have legs/hips/arses of varying sizes that need to be accommodated.

Of course at some point the company will figure out that they could run separate men's and women's ranges (possibly with no difference besides labelling and the way sizes are named) and charge more for the women's product 🙄

What the sex of the person asking is immaterial. As is the fact that Snag don't put any words on their packaging other than Snag.

So a pointless request from both as
a) Snag tights are for every size and shape female body
b) Men already buy them. They can increase those sales if they want to

I'd still be annoyed that my once apparently womanly body is now, by their advertising lights, just another big body. But hey ho!

The issues, as averyone who actually reads responses is asking for 'women' the word to be removed ever! Why? Why is it more inclusive? Why does anyone ever fucking bother? And why do so many companies leap back on SM with a gushing response to such requests.

I know, that won;t make a blind bit of difference and someone will ask me why men can't wear tights, or point out that a woman asked etc etc etc. I don't care. Small instance of a much larger problem - and that I do care about!

I was responding to the ops comments about snag gushing over mens requests when it was in fact a woman, so in that context it is material

I had in fact read the responses, it is still possible to reply to the ops posts having done so

As for why is removing the word women from something both men and women buy more inclusive, if you cant understand that then I cant explain it to you.

I wouldn't buy a brand associated with fetishists. How long would a business survive if everyone did the same?

the only way for men to feel included is to remove all references to women, and to obsequiously apologise to them.

Exactly. And remember,you’re not allowed to mind this.