Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

There is a lot of “soft” anti feminism going on at the moment.

There is indeed, Bertrand, I am in full accord with you on this. Very concerning.

Somewhat behindhand with this but I’d like to second that whole post by Antibles at 20.10 yesterday.

So many handmaidens for misogyny. I really think we have to start trying to encompass the extent of internalised misogyny among women, including among self-defined feminists.

Again going back a bit, I’m not sure exactly what Goosefoot was saying but as far as I can tell, there seemed to a major missing of the point.

This clothing isn't “clothing that is deliberately being made or worn or bought to avoid sexualisation of the body and women”, [my italics], it’s being made to ever further entrench and perpetuate the sexualisation of women’s bodies.

That’s why as feminists we have a problem with it.

The point is it’s still sexualising and fetishising the female body -probably even more so - to insist that if it is not covered up, it’s automatically sexual and immodest.

It’s not a solution to the issue of women whose self esteem (or lack thereof) is tied up in trying to make themselves as sexually attractive as possible to men; it’s the other side of the self same coin.

It perpetuates the idea of women as defined by the male gaze, the male response to women’s bodies, women’s sexed bodies. Whether women are covering up from the male gaze or exposing for the male gaze, it’s still about living in a state of reaction to that male gaze rather than simply living as autonomous human beings independent of specifically male judgement, approval, disapproval - ultimately, male control.

It seems to be a way of cashing in by making women buy twice as many clothes, why can't women's clothes in general simply be made to a higher quality. I've noticed even in cheapo shops like Primark, the men's section has better quality clothes, natural fabrics, socks that don't get holes in them the first time you wear them etc. Even with 'modest' fashion, women are given impractical, substandard garments.

Yes, agreed. I would love to see lots more natural fabrics, in flattering good quality cuts that are neither 'modest' nor 'tarty' (for want of better terms!!!). Also pockets, women need pockets too.

I started learning to sew for this very reason, I couldn't find clothes that were in between. I like neither mini nor midi skirts, I like skirts that fall just above, below or on the knee but I've struggled to find anything like that for years. Granted, I'm on a tight budget so have to shop in cheaper shops that are aimed at younger women, maybe it's easier to get knee length skirts in more expensive shops.

The picture you linked of the blouse did not show it layered with other clothes, just paired with short cut trousers.

It reminded me more of traditional far eastern styles of dress.

Fair enough, it could have been a better example. She had a big collection with more examples but it's all sold out now.

Also, layering is key, they wouldn't just wear that blouse on it's own because it would still reveal too much. This bothered me about the BBC article too, the blouse on there is too thin to be 'modest'. It seems to be a way of cashing in by making women buy twice as many clothes, why can't women's clothes in general simply be made to a higher quality. I've noticed even in cheapo shops like Primark, the men's section has better quality clothes, natural fabrics, socks that don't get holes in them the first time you wear them etc. Even with 'modest' fashion, women are given impractical, substandard garments.

The picture you linked of the blouse did not show it layered with other clothes, just paired with short cut trousers.

It reminded me more of traditional far eastern styles of dress.

I also dislike the implication that showing a part of a woman’s body means she or her clothing is labelled ‘sexy’. Are wrists and ankles sexy? Is my clavicle sexy? Or is it sexy to wear a belt around my waist? Am I more ‘modest’ because I’m wearing a sack? This is about men putting labels on our bodies. It’s about control and teaching women to conduct themselves from a male perspective. They can sod off.

I should add, I grew up in a culture where ‘modest’ dress was a cultural requirement. Showing shoulders, legs or upper arms would invite harassment. Needless to say I experienced daily harrassment from men anyway and the women were all treated as sexual pieces of meat. When I moved to a western country I was thrilled to be able to wear shorts, vest tops and short skirts. No one batted an eye lid as women’s bodies were normal and not as sexualised as in the modest culture. ‘Modesty’ can sod off to its patriarchal cave.

Blooming Marvellous, for example, opened in the early 1980s, I think

That is the brand I was thinking of. They had beautiful clothes.

Ceridwen- what is different about the cut of that shirt? I’m sure I’ve made very similar ones over the years. Incidentally, for modest dress I would expect it to be longer.

It's the neckline combined with the way the rest of the blouse hides the body. Most necklines for women's blouses are round necked or V necked. That neckline is cut in a way so that the neck and any chest area is covered. It's designed to be worn with a headscarf, and layered with other clothes that Muslim women normally wear.

I know it's subtle, but the difference is there. There were more examples on that website but they've sold out now. I find it interesting looking at the cut because I like to design clothes for myself. I notice how the cuts change each year and how each year it can be almost impossible to buy clothes that are in a cut that is currently considered 'unfashionable.' That's why I started learning to sew.

That is the origin of this fashion. Fashion bloggers and designers started designing clothes that were westernised but in cuts that they could wear in terms of their religion. The differences in the cut are subtle but they are present. It is usually things like a slightly higher neckline (that isn;'t a polo neck), skirts that would normally be knee length being made midi length, trousers cut looser etc. It is like combining salwar kameez, saris and abayas with western styles in western colours and fabrics. Also, layering is key, they wouldn't just wear that blouse on it's own because it would still reveal too much.

This is your belief, it is not fact. The cuts ARE different, because they are specifically being designed by and for Muslim women. If you can't see that, that's not my problem, but stop telling people they are wrong because you are unable to see something.

No it is not my belief. It is a fact. That blouse may well have been designed by a Muslim woman with a target Muslim audience but it is simply not true to say the neckline is much higher than would be a standard western cut. I own blouses like that. It's a standard style. I've owned many blouses or tops in a similar style and a similar neckline because I don't like low cut tops. It has never been a problem buying tops which aren't low cut.

Well I had my eldest in 95 so I'd say mid 90s onwards at the very least Trewser.

OP I read the same article when it was published and it really annoyed me. Referring to ‘modest’ fashion implies that other clothing is immodest or somehow less virtuous. Yet no one would describe a man wearing trousers as modest and a man in shorts as immodest. There is no value judgement placed on a man wearing shorts. I find it offensive and increasingly I feel like the BBC is holding back women’s rights.

Maternity wear has been around a while. Blooming Marvellous, for example, opened in the early 1980s, I think.

Ceridwen- what is different about the cut of that shirt? I’m sure I’ve made very similar ones over the years. Incidentally, for modest dress I would expect it to be longer.

In the late 90s, yes they were!

I think 'talking nonsense' or 'rubbish' are pretty mild phrases.

It's not like anyone has been told to 'fuck off' or 'stop spounting shite' or 'go fuck themselves'.

The only questionable comment I recall was one comparing Kate Middleton to a bicycle which I'm not sure what to make of. Otherwise its been perfectly civil.

And I wore maternity jeans in the 90s so they were definitely available then.

Trewser I wasn't directing my comment at you.

The claim by Ceridwen that that blouse she linked is some sort of unique new style is simply not true. It's a perfectly ordinary blouse- there's nothing new or novel about it and the neckline is definitely not much higher than would be a standard western cut

This is your belief, it is not fact. The cuts ARE different, because they are specifically being designed by and for Muslim women. If you can't see that, that's not my problem, but stop telling people they are wrong because you are unable to see something.

I'm not being in the slightest bit defensive. I'm just explaining how it happened.

As a matter of fact, I started a similar thread months ago complaining about M and S having a 'Modest clothing' section on their website.

Iirc noone agreed and I think the consensus was that I was being ridiculous and slightly racist.

Shona, the maternity wear in 1990 was minging and there were certainly no jeans. I know that because I worked for the company who invented them!

I don't wear jean but your description of maternity wear in 1990 bears no resemblance to what I wore. I can't remember the specific brand but it involved longline cotton jersey/ linen cardigans and tunics and longish cotton or cotton jersey skirts which were smart enough for office wear.

The claim by Ceridwen that that blouse she linked is some sort of unique new style is simply not true. It's a perfectly ordinary blouse- there's nothing new or novel about it and the neckline is definitely not much higher than would be a standard western cut

Why not call it “Modern Islamic dress”? That just about covers it. Or Clothing of the Book” I rather like that- and it’s satisfactorily multi faith.

Totally agree with BertrandRussell and ArnoldWhatshisknickers. Fashion and the way it is marketed is aspirational. If these clothes were solely being marketed to Muslim women, I may still critique it but wouldn't feel so strongly about it as it's their business. The phenomenon of 'modest' fashion appears to be more complicated than that. It's the creep in of 'modesty' as an aspirational value in fashion for all women under the guise of wokeness that is so disturbing. I haven't meant to offend anyone, but it IS tedious when someone continually, intentionally doesn't engage with the points you're making and keeps coming up with defensive comments that are based on a willful misreading of what you've said. That's the danger of arguing on the topic of religion, people who are heavily invested find it difficult to be objective and not take it personally.

I guess it depends where you draw the line at strong opinion and aggression. I don't think it helps in a discussion to tell other people they are 'wrong' and that their opinions are 'absolute nonsense' and 'rubbish' for example. I think most people would walk away when people start talking like that. It's not a male/female thing, it's just about being respectful of other people and their views.

To be honest I'm flabbergasted at the aggression on this thread by a few posters.

What aggression? Disagreement does not equal aggression, nor does stating an opinion assertively.

This smacks of being told off for not being "ladylike".

Basically, women are not behaving modestly.

There’s a name for an argument being an example of what the argument is about, if you see what I mean. That’s what’s happening here.......