by Geraden
Over on the Delphi Forum, Legwear as Unisex Fashion, there was a long and fascinating debate a month or so back, on the subject If You Want To Mainstream Men's Hosiery. It has since been pulled by the forum moderators. They did not explain the reasons for this action, but I believe that it was because of the offensive nature of some of the posts.
Having read most of that topic before it was deleted, this is the first of my thoughts on the subject.
If I can simplify and put it in a nutshell, this is all about personal choices for a male hosiery wearer either to buy, or not to buy, hosiery marketed for women. What the LAUF debate amounted to is a conflict between two points of view, which I have called (a) and (b). These two positions can come out at several levels; and I hope I have summarised them fairly.
First there is the choice at the point of sale: in each purchase of tights a buyer must basically choose an item that is marketed wholly or partly for men, or an item that is marketed wholly for women. So it is possible to summarise the two positions like this:
a. I am buying hosiery that is marketed for men.
b. I am buying the hosiery that I find most comfortable or suitable for my needs, irrespective of the marketing angle.
Secondly, beneath that choice there may well be an ideological position, such as:
a. By buying only hosiery that is marketed for men, we support those companies that recognise the existence of the male hosiery market, and we withdraw support from those companies that do not.
b. By design and definition, tights are already a basically unisex item. It does not matter whether there is a picture of a man or a woman on the packet that we buy.
Thirdly there may also be a strategic viewpoint, for example:
a. It is mainly by the visibility of men's products on the shelves that men's hosiery will be accepted along with women's hosiery as a mainstream item of clothing.
b. It is mainly by men wearing hosiery openly and confidently that hosiery for men will be accepted as a mainstream fashion choice.
Notice that at this level, if we omit the word 'mainly' we would probably find broad agreement on both of the reasons.
This is a fairly basic summary and it leaves out some of the variations. For example I have not mentioned unisex legwear, such as Levee's WoMan range. You can make the necessary mental adjustments if you wish. I have also so far ignored that possibility that someone might reject 'male' hosiery for no other reason than that is 'male' hosiery.
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next
If you would like to comment on this entry, please click on the 'Comments' link below.
Tights for men!
Get a life you freak! Let me guess - you're happily
married or have a girlfriend? No! What a surprise saddo.
Sharnie
Thank you for your comment. It was a pity that you did not
bother to read more of my blog, or you would know that I am indeed happily
married, as indeed are many men who wear tights for whatever reason.
I
guess from your name that you are female. I do hope that you never indulge
in the sad, freakish behaviour of wearing trousers, or I might have to
advise you to get a life of your own.
You don't think there is any
comparison? Let me tell you there is: where men are with wearing tights
today is where women were with wearing trousers 40 to 50 years ago.
(a)
It attracted adverse comment from both sexes, and
(b) the garment in
question was just starting to be manufactured specifically for the
'opposite' sex.
Fashion does not stand still, you know. If you thank
your sisters of a previous generation that they pioneered the wearing of
trousers for you, maybe you should also think differently of those who in
this generation pioneer alternative fahions for men.
G
Over a year after it was written, I have found this ten-part article, which
follows much of my own thinking about wearing men's legwear.
Comment transferred to Mainstreaming Men's
Hosiery - VIII by Geraden
My comment is the first that I have made anywhere on this subject (I do not
contribute to LAUF, but I do read it occasionally). I have no objection to
your promoting my comment, if you so desire. I also did not intend to
suggest that Comfilon would look masculine on a woman. My only concern here
is what hosiery would look masculine on a man.
i have just seen the comment on page 1. some confused man found it ok to
say that men that wear hose are all sado's. surely he would have to bee
looking for this kind of site to voice his opinion? so perhaps in the back
of his mind he to wants to wear hose? my point is he was looking for this
site, perhaps he is curious.
Great blog . Geraden . Long overdue congratulations. Excellent list of
blogs and in particular :The fashion legwear blog , though unfortunately ,
not reference to wearing men .
Hello, Geraden like yourself I wear tights for many good reasons and have
done so on and off for years (more so recently). It was good to find this
blog, which I now view about once a day. As most others, I am happily
married, mid 40's, with 2 late teenage children. I would like to see them
mainstreamed and as part of everday male clothing. I am interested to see
how Gerbe launch and market their 70 denier footed and footless tights
early in the New Year. To this end, I've e mailed Elanore of Gerbe
recently. Below is a copy of my e mail, her reply, and my response:
Dear sir/madam,
Thanks for that Geraden,
I don't know if anyone else has noticed yet but Gerbe have now taken one
step closer to launching their men's range by including a section on their
website. Looks good, lets keep hoping.......
wearing mens tights?? that almost doesn't sound right.. I think I'd try
them, but as with most clothing, and for that matter, the over all
feeling that wearing pantyhose or tights gives me is a rush of wearing what
WOMEN wear, not men.. the same goes for shoes, if they ever make highheels
for men I don't know if I'd wear them... that may seem odd to say but there
really is something to be said for going into the womens section and
looking and.. well the over all experience would be altered..