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?

Heaven forfend they should also consider non binary people

Again with the reading comprehension....

The initial request on social media was to remove any and all mentions of women from their marketing in order to be "inclusive". There was a subsequent request (from a man) to remove the mention of women from their packaging. This is a red herring though as there is no mention of women (or men, or people, or any writing) on the packaging.

The issue is not with men wearing tights. Nor does anyone believe that tights are just for women or are somehow "inherently female". It's with the idea that the mention of women in relation to a product almost entirely bought by women from a company started by a woman for other women is somehow repellent and needs to be apologised for. That the only way for men to feel included is to remove all references to women, and to obsequiously apologise to them.

Further, it is entirely possible for women to chat about minor issues on one discussion thread whilst simultaneously caring about other more major issues. If you are prepared to scold women here for discussing minor things, where are your posts or threads on the issues you'd rather be discussing?? Or are you expecting other people to chat about what you want without any input from you?

So...only women are allowed to ask for things to be inclusive?

If men ask, it makes it erasure?

Yes, frankly. Because we are the vulnerable/disadvantaged party in almost everything. They don’t need the ‘inclusion’.

I mean I disagree with you anyway but that’s not relevant in this case as it was initially a woman asking for the word women to be removed. So all well and good in this case.

So a women also asked and so that makes it ok.

So this whole thread is because ONE man in a post 6 weeks ago on instagram, for a brand hardly anyone on here uses, asked for the tights not to be gendered.

Ok, cool.

I like snag tights. I don't care if men wear them. I don't care if they do a line for dogs. They fit me, they come in colours I like. If people look at the marketing and think 'not for me!' then I'm sure they'll be just fine. Lots of marketing isn't for me. Everyone's different. They're just legwear.

Lots of marketing isn't for me.

Have you ever aksed a compnay to change it's marketing or it's packaging to suit your preferences?

No?

Me either. But when it comes to being 'inclusive' many men and women find it is perfectly acceptable (or in some instances fabulous and amazing) to remove the word women from all sorts of things. It is never about adding, aways about removing.

Why is that, I wonder?

You mean make things unisex? Because it sounds silly to say 'for women AND men.' So...everyone?

Yes, I quite often ask companies to change their marketing, as part of the 'let clothes be clothes' type campaign.

It's just tights. I don't mind conceding tights. I can share tights.

There's lots of things I don't want to share with gender neutral language. But tights isn't it. And making out that tights are part of some slippery slope (to what?! Tights are not a single sex space.) undermines the campaigning for actual single sex needs.

Many of the people here saying they want to keep snag tights for WOMEN ONLY are also saying they don't even wear snag tights. Well, I do. And I don't give a fuck about sharing tights with everyone (not my personal tights. But I don't have an issue with unisex tights.) If snag lose the custom of people who don't buy from them anyway, that's no loss. Many women (and men) who do buy from them won't care if they say 'yes, our stuff is unisex!'

Thank you @fakegermanheiress ! Perfectly summarised! There are so many threads on MN who don't seem to understand that they are doing more harm than good to the real issues. Who cares if tights are marketed unisex, concentrate on issues like rape crisis centres and single sex hospital wards. By being so OTT about non issues it just makes the important arguments weaker.

You're speaking absolute sense. But they don't want to hear it because then they'd have to openly say that they just don't like men who present as anything other than a man, however they identify.

Like the comparison upthread to FGM.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist "Have you ever aksed a compnay to change it's marketing or it's packaging to suit your preferences?

No?

Me either."

Why are you answering your own question on behalf of everyone? Actually yes I have emailed companies to change their marketing re boys and girls clothes as kids clothes are generally unisex. My Neice loves dinosaurs but didn't want to get clothes from the 'boy' section.

On a tangent I got my nephew a fabulous Spider-Man t-shirt that was those reversible sequins from H&M ... he loves it!

I find some of their overtly explicit imagery unwanted viewing, despite them having a really good product. It was because of my tall tween daughter struggling to keep tights up that I suggested she look on their site for something she liked and she came back to me showing all manners of customers in provocative poses inappropriate for a tween clutches pearls

I guess if you’re going for the kink market why not but it kind of puts me off them. Tights are just tights and don’t need to be sold with flaps out.

Nor do women need to be removed from packaging. Just add men too ffs.

What is it about having "women" on the packaging that excludes tights from being worn by men?

I am currently wearing socks found in the men's section and a hoody found in the men's section. I didn't feel the need to contact the marketing team to ask them to rebrand as unisex.

If TWAW then the label of woman won't be an issue.

Nobody goes out wearing the packaging of clothes. So what does it matter?

And FWIW my male friends (with penises) who have worn tights have complained about the discomfort because their knackers were crushed due to gusset design being different. Eg the difference between pants to accommodate male genitals and pants to accommodate female genitals. (They wore them variously for Halloween costumes, warmth on DoE expeditions and I think because they thought it might be comfy but were woefully disappointed)

Surely if there's big enough demand, snag can design tights for penises to be accommodated. Labels aren't the issue, the design is.

Unless the point isn't about tights being unisex by including everyone (eg "please change your marketing to include all genders and both sexes") but instead to exclude (eg "please remove woman from your packaging")

Nobody goes out wearing the packaging of clothes. So what does it matter

Quite right.. So why does anyone care if the packaging doesn't say woman on it then?

Accusing another woman of "scolding" you because she disagrees is pretty misogynistic in itself

Mumsnet posters: Let Clothes be Clothes

I've never seen that demand on MN though. Most women recognise that women and men are a different shape. Less of an issue with super-stretchy tights, but definitely an issue with most other clothes. That's why women often express a wish that there were clothes with some of the attributes of men's clothes but made for women. That's not at all the same as saying 'Hey- stop marketing men's clothes as men's clothes!'.

Oh actually I have heard 'let clothes be clothes' for kids - because little boys and little girls generally are the same shape!

Have you ever aksed a compnay to change it's marketing or it's packaging to suit your preferences?

Yes… lots and lots of times.

I’ve been part of campaigns to have less gendered marketing… like Let Toys be Toys, Let Clothes be Clothes, and others.

I’ve crossed out the “for boys” “for girls” “for men” and “for women” in lots of places, and asked for it to be removed in others, all at times where the clothing or other item can be operated or worn regardless of whether you have a willy or a fanny.

It’s really common, and easy to do, and has had massive impact over time on stores and services being more inclusive and less gendered. Most feminists consider this a substantial win.

So for the love of Goddess, stop painting this as some injury to women. You’re really not helping anyone.

And tights stretch. They're one of the few undergarments that really don't need to be gendered, even post puberty, they just need to be sized. Which snag do well.

It's like "man sized" tissues, pink bic for women etc- why would they halve their market when they can say "sure, men can wear our tights, everyone can!"

So for the love of Goddess, stop painting this as some injury to women. You’re really not helping anyone.- I agree. Except making me wonder if I need to buy more tights...

@FiveNineFive I was accusing another poster (sex unknown!) of scolding users, because they were. Quite clearly and unabashedly scolding women for daring to chat on a chat thread about a topic they didn't like. It's not misogynistic to point that out and it's most certainly nothing to do with them disagreeing with me.

Surely if there's big enough demand, snag can design tights for penises to be accommodated. Labels aren't the issue, the design is.

They are already designed to accommodate all sorts of lumps and bumps. They're an inclusive brand. Inclusive isn't a dirty word.

Someone is just asking for the label to reflect that it's not just 'for women', same as many of us feminists do when things are unnecessarily gendered.

@RoseslnTheHospital

@FiveNineFive is right. Using the term 'scolding' is misogynist. You know I'm female, you're being disingenuous.