A business could be argued to unethically be using a customer base, ie women and girls, to attract their new customers, males. Women supporting a business previously portraying themselves as ‘ethical’ or ‘just for women and girls by women’ (ie female centred and owned) would have justification to be upset that the business has used them to attract these male customers.
Those are appeals to emotion and brands do this to build stronger consumer involvement in their brand to maintain loyalty. It is very successful. Consumers then start to believe in the brands messaging and they will recommend them to others using that message. And over time consumers feel they are heavily invested in the brand and its success.
If this business was always clearly targeting male people, then no, women don’t have justification to complain.
If this business has used all that previously built up brand loyalty and personal consumer emotional investment to attract male people, then yes. The women complaining are well justified. While it is not their business, the business grew because of women’s recommendations and loyalty.
Would those male people would be even interested in the brand if the brand had always been marketing underwear designed just for them and never for women and girls.
Or is the attraction to the brand that it became so popular with women and girls, that the desire to be part of that group is the driving motivation for purchase? Hence the business has seen an opportunity to leverage their built up assets to expand.
The assets in this case is the highly involved female purchasers who have justification at being upset to be used as a resource by the business in a way that they did not expect. Had those female customers known from the start that their purchase history would be used in this specific way, would they have made that purchase, made that recommendation? Maybe not if they believed they were supporting a female centred brand. Feminists support female centred brands, this of course means that if feminists supported the brand believing it was female centred, they are justified for being upset at a change in direction if it has occurred.
Hence the question, was this brand marketed as being always female centred or not?
Of course, all businesses have the right to change direction and make money. That is business after all. The question was asked why was this a feminist issue and it revolves around how the brand has utilised the female target market. The easy answer is that those unhappy with the change is that they can stop supporting the business.