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?

It seeks to remove the words for women (rarely men) from all things female.

What's inherently female about tights then?

So why make references to either sex on the marketing? It just takes up space when they could actually use the extra words to market the product. I’ve not seen a bed sheet/towel/tablecloth marketed that has to say ‘tablecloths - for women and men’!

@Qwill the end of your post has been chopped off, for me at least.

It's not about the packaging. The request was to stop mentioning or using the word "women" when talking about their products in order to be more "inclusive". When you could actually be inclusive by including men rather than removing all mention of women. Who after all are their majority customers.

Time for a revival of that useful term from my 70s childhood "unisex"?

go look on instagram at the request. It was to remove it from the packaging and outer labels.

I think on balance I would prefer a man wanting tights ti be unisex over him feeling he needed to actually be a woman to wear the tights!

Anything size inclusive for women will appeal to men who want to wear them. I worked in a department store shoe department and we would occasionally send men to a store that catered to larger women's feet. I don't think a company is going to not accept a sale because you think male bodies shouldn't wear women's apparel.

Anyway, for a long time tights/stockings/hose was for everyone. There just returning to historical roots. 😉

I bloody love snag tights! They're ridiculously comfortable and fit my curves wonderfully. Due to them being to stretchy the same tights that fit me would also fit a man's physique well too. So what? Who cares if they remove the word women from their branding... they're brilliant tights that are comfortable for men and women.

This is actually a great illustration of why it’s so hard in our current society for men to just wear what they want.

Women asking for clothing that fits either sex to be neutrally labelled - totally cool, celebrate, more power to us, great step towards sex equality…

Men asking for clothing that fits either sex to be neutrally labelled - kink, fetish, erasure of women, demanding, appeasement, grow up…

Snag tights are brilliant.

They fit me nicely (tallish female, moderate arse) and actually stay up, unlike any other pair I’ve ever owned in decades.

Very happy with them. And it’s fabby that they arrive packaged in a striped paper bag rather than overblown environment-heavy printed card or plastic.

Can tights designed to fit perfectly for a biological woman's body fit perfectly to a biological man's body? Where do the penises go? And if tights are designed to fit a penis, what do I do with the extra room? It may be handy for an extra pocket but hardly fits well.

Not every item has to be unisex. Stop trying to shovel every single body into one item in order to appeal to everyone. It doesn't work.

@ThorsBedazzler I assume you've never had a pair of snag tights, they fit every shape due to being so fantastically stretchy, hence the fit any shape... including mens.

Yes I think it's a bit if a stretch to suggest that something as stretchy as tights (especially a brand marketed as being extra stretchy) can accommodate the varied bulges of larger women but not a penis.

I suppose there is no real reason that tights must be marketed to women - if men want to wear them, then fine. However, it does seem like very one-way traffic with the demands to remove 'women's' from marketing. Women: 'Please put pockets in women's clothes'. 'Please make more clothes for girls that don't have sexist slogans on them' etc. Men: 'Stop marketing clothes at women, it's not inclusive'. My (very woke, pretty gender-non-conforming) dd often buys clothes in the men's section. She doesn't have a tantrum about the fact that they are in the men's section.

Googled a similar brand called Better, and their blurb goes so far to be inclusive and kind it reads as if they are actually going out of their way to avoid mentioning the word women at all. It was so impersonal as to be a bit creepy, and it really put me off.

When you Google Snag, 'tights for women' is the first thing you see.

While I don't care who wants to buy and wear tights, it seems very silly to try and deny the fact that it will always, always be mostly women who will be doing so. Hope Snag were just paying this performative overthinker lip service here.

I’m just getting tired of anything that has the word ‘woman’ attached being approached by fools whinging that ‘you can’t say woman’ and folding.

The word Man/men (referring to a ‘man’ product or issue) can merrily be used with no issue. Women did cheekily suggest that a health campaign for prostate cancer replace the word ‘man’ with ‘people’ (as has been done in cervical cancer charity literature) and nothing changed.

it’s so one sided.

Mumsnet posters: Let Clothes be Clothes

Also mumsnet posters: but not tights! Omg fetish kink erasing women!

I sometimes wonder about people's reading comprehension abilities, or perhaps it's just that people have their topic and want to comment regardless of what other posters are actually saying....

No one is objecting to men wearing tights. No one is objecting to men being targeted by advertising for tights.

What posters are objecting to is the demand for the removal of any mention of women in relation to a product which is nearly entirely bought by women, and the way that demand was met with total acquiescence and abject apology for daring to refer to "women".

Again, what is inherently female about tights? They're just clothes.

Ok... so where in my last post did I say or imply that tights are inherently female?

But what’s the point in specifically saying women and men? Wouldn’t saying everyone, or not specifying have the exact same effect?

Why does it need to say women when the tights are not just for women? Personally I think “tights for everyone” or simply just “tights” sounds a lot better and snappier than “tights for women and men”

Definitely! It reminds me of that hilarious advert from Robert Dyas when they went round the store and the workers were explaining how the appliance were suitable for straights, gays, and bisexuals!

This, this, 1000 times this.
If a chap wants to wear tights, knock himself out, but it’s ALWAYS about removing women.

No no no, it wouldn't be ok to say tights for everyone, because it doesn't specifically say women! It must say women! (Even though anyone can wear tights)

"Wearing tights doesn't make you a woman!" we say.

"Ok" says man "I am a man who wears these very stretchy items that fit all sorts of bodies- could we relabel them as not just for women, please, as I like wearing tights."

"Tights are only for women!"

"So... if I wear tights... I am a woman?"

"NO. Not like that. Anyone can wear what they like, wearing tights doesn't make you a woman!"

"Ok. So, I can be a man who wears tights, then? Can I have tights that don't say woman on the packet, because it feels weird and kinky?"

"NO. Because you WANT it to be kinky!"

"I just want to wear to tights..."

FFS you lot. I've learned a lot here, but for all the fact many claim to be 'gender critical', and anyone can wear what they like, people doing just that, and not actually claiming to change sex, and then assumed to be kinky. Let clothes be clothes, let tights be tights. Don't we have actual single sex spaces to protect? Let snag sell their tights to whoever wants to buy them, it's legwear, not a rape crisis centre.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Makes the whole movement look utterly ridiculous. No wonder people scoff at Mumsnet.