Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

I don't see aggression on this thread.

Strong opinions yes, sarcasm too, but not aggression.

Women with strong opinions are often labelled aggressive in a way men expressing themselves similarly are not in my experience.

I don’t think I’ve been aggressive. But I do feel very strongly indeed about this. The rolling back of hard won rights is a real danger at the moment. And the language we use is important. If “modest” becomes a desirable quality for women’s dress, it’s only a short step to “modest” becoming a desirable quality for women’s behaviour. And, as is always the case, the word is defined by men.

Yes it's very odd.

To be honest I'm flabbergasted at the aggression on this thread by a few posters. It was an interesting, calm discussion at first and now it has become very hostile with people getting very angry for some reason. When people get like that, it just shuts the discussion down. Hostility is uncalled for. It's possible for people to disagree without telling others that their views are 'nonsense' and 'absolute rubbish' as some posters have done here.

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!

Also, the cut of the clothes is absolutely key to this whole discussion. The cut is the very reason they are called 'modest.'

Then 'modest' is definitely being used in the sense of 'holier than thou' which is the whole issue.

The top you link is not especially unrevealing. Personally I wouldn't wear it as I favour tops with loner sleeves and bodies to keep my hands and bum warm and loose polo necks that I can tuck my chin and nose into. My choice is less revealing but does not signal 'modesty'. Or perhaps it is my failure to post selfies of myself on Instagram that is 'immodest'.

I realise you dislike the word too, but am flabbergasted at some of the efforts to defend it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree Shona. You are not seeing what I am seeing when I look at the designs, cuts, tailoring and layering of these clothes and no amount of me explaining it seems to help so I wish you all the best.

Brilliant post Arnold

If 'modest' means 'humble, not drawing attention to oneself' then furiously signally how 'modest' one is is not the least bit modest

This aspect always gets overlooked.

As for maternity wear, I don't know where you live Ceridwen but what you are saying didn't apply in 1989 when I was pregnant or breastfeeding in 1990.

A good example is this blouse. The neckline is much higher than would be a standard western cut

That simply is not true. It's actually a style of blouse I would buy and have bought long before this idea of "modest" clothes came. That blouse is no different from what shops like Hobbs or Cos sell.

Also, the cut of the clothes is absolutely key to this whole discussion. The cut is the very reason they are called 'modest.'

There is nothing wrong with having a season where the fashion is for long-sleeved, high necked tops and dresses. As it happens I like some of this style of clothing and I'm enjoying having some choice, because there have been plenty of seasons where I've struggled to find anything with sleeves or longer than above the knee because the fashion has been for short / tight / bodycon / strapless or whatever. Fashion is cyclical and the current trend is a somewhat cynical grab for the money of women of other faiths.

The problem, as plenty of other PPs have said, is badging it as 'modest' fashion. As soon as you apply that word to women and their accoutrements, you load it with value judgements that just don't apply on the rare occasions it's used about men. And claiming "but it's just a useful label so Muslim and Jewish women can find suitable clothing easier" is utterly disingenuous because it completely overlooks the patriarchal and misogynistic elements of those religions which require 'good' deity-fearing women to distinguish themselves from the immodest heathens or face disapprobation.

The discussion is not about the cut of clothes but the application of the word 'modest' to them.

It's about both - modest fashion as a trend, and the use of the word 'modest' to describe it.

I don't like the use of the word 'modest' either, because it implies anyone not wearing it is immodest, as I have said pages back in the thread.

And, yeah, blokes' clothing never gets the 'n' word used about it.

I don't know why people bring this up. Feminism tells us over and over how beauty and the fashion industry treat women differently from men, and that men's clothing doesn't try and turn them into sexual objects. There is a reason we don't hear much about the female gaze.

So why would we expect that we'd hear much about men's fashion trying to get away from the female gaze and overy sexualisation of men?

In religious contexts, there are standards for modesty in mens clothing as well as womens', but we don't hear about them much because in secular western culture it's women who are targeted for this objectification.

CeridwenTheWitch

The discussion is not about the cut of clothes but the application of the word 'modest' to them.

If 'modest' means 'not revealing' then not revealing clothes have always been freely available and western women, including muslim women, have always worn them.

If 'modest' means 'humble, not drawing attention to oneself' then furiously signally how 'modest' one is is not the least bit modest.

The only context of 'modest' that makes sense in this case is 'modest' in the sense of 'signalling how virtuous one is in comparison to those other, awful, not modest women over there'.

I'm all for Muslim women having more clothing options. What I'm against is using sexist religious ideals from the dark ages to market clothes to all women, as though adhering to patriarchal ideals somehow makes you a superior, virtuous, unrapeable kind of woman. The embrace of the term 'modest' by non-religious women is born from virtue-signalling how cool they are with Islam, and cultural relativism, which is bad for women, as it prohibits criticism of the sexist elements of different cultures. Of course, there's a lot of willful ignorance on this thread. Combining criticism of religious practices and what women wear hits a raw nerve and some are so heavily invested they refuse to engage with the points being made and simply say 'I disagree, you're telling women what to wear (we're not) etc', dodging any real analysis of what's going on because it will unearth too many uncomfortable truths.

I agree with this. On Gender Critical, Muslim women turn up regularly saying they are relieved to be there because they are not allowed to point out their struggles with their religion in liberal feminist spaces. It seems to be one of the key differences between liberal and radical feminism.

It’s similar to maternity wear. While it was never impossible to find maternity clothes, there were decades where the choice was limited to hideous bulky shifts with bows and teddy bear prints. There were no maternity jeans. No shirts to show off your belly. No professional work wear. There were no nursing bras or clothing to help breastfeed in public without undressing to be half naked.

Exactly. I'm not sure why people are struggling to grasp this concept.

I haven't been at all insistent that you couldn't buy clothes that covered you up before. I have tried to explain that even though you may have appreciated the merits of a Next trouser suit, it was not in the slightest bit fashionable or particularly desirable. Now, although a next trouser suit is still fairly naff, there are more fashionable options out there.

I doubt I'd be at any social gathering where you were shona, as my RL friends have a sense of humour.

Long-sleeved tops, long skirts and tunics have always existed. However, this fashion trend is a development from that. It is the specific designing, cutting and tailoring of westernised clothes to appeal to religious women. People saying 'long sleeve tops have always existed' are not looking carefully at the cuts of these clothes.

I like fashion, textiles and sewing and noticed that the cuts of these clothes were different to what I'd seen before, before I had heard that this was a new trend/style. In the past, religious women used to wear very specifically eastern clothing such as saris, salwar kameez or abayas depending on their culture and religion. Or, they had to wear western bulky jumpers, polo necks and hunt around in unfashionable shops for longer skirts.

This new trend is about taking what is fashionable in the west and combining with what is fashionable in the east in a covered up way so that they can conform to what is required of them in their religion. This includes designs in the types of fabrics and colours that are currently in fashion such as flowing jersey fabrics in neutral colours.

A good example is this blouse. The neckline is much higher than would be a standard western cut:

www.uniqlo.com/uk/en/product/women-hana-tajima-dobby-v-neck-long-sleeved-blouse-420411.html?dwvar_420411_color=COL55&dwvar_420411_size=SMA002&cgid=ID-outerwear16400

To understand this trend you really need to look closely at the cuts of the clothing rather than insisting 'we've always had these clothes.' If that were true, Uniqlo and others wouldn't be paying Muslim designers to design collections for them. There is a big market for this type of clothing and these collections have been extremely popular.

Upfield, I am referring to your statement
Modest' fashion doesn't even attempt to criticise patriarchal hypocrisy, if it did there would be some similar form of satirical or ironic wearing of 'modest' garments involved.

Which implies to be feminist, a fashion must criticise patriarchy through satirical or ironic wearing. Care to explain now how a clubbing outfit is satirical or ironic criticism of the patriarchy but a modest outfit is not?
Please do a course in logic 101 or something, it's utterly tedious to point out to you every time how everything you are saying makes little to no sense and isn't a logical follow-up to anything anyone has said. Please note the use of 'some similar form' in my original statement. In other words, it means 'not exactly the same as satire or irony, but something similar that involves a critical engagement' As you still seem to be confused, I'll reiterate what I just said AGAIN.
Satire or irony is not required to be a feminist, a critique of patriarchal structures IS. That's what 'modest' fashion is missing. I've no idea why you're bringing clubbing outfits into it, I haven't mentioned them anywhere.

The oddest remark I've seen on here is your Kate Middleton remark. I find that really creepy to the point if I were in a social gathering with me and you said it I'd move away from you.

So far as your "in fashion" your point is largely irrelevant. Most people in their ordinary day to day lives don't select clothes because they are "in fashion". They buy what they like, what fits and what suits them and what is available in the shops.

I don't know why you and Place are so insistent that it was impossible to buy clothes which could be described as "modest" until recently. That is blatantly untrue.

shona you are being very odd about this. Are you like this with most things that you don't fully understand?

Well, it wasn't invented for you, as i have said a few times now, it was created to tap into the rich Middle Eastern market which it did very well. So that they could buy couture that they felt happy wearing. Like all mainstream fashion, its filtered down to the mainstream, keeping the name but diluting the meaning.

Trewser
I know exactly what kate Middleton would look like nakeda bicycle

What a creepy thing to say.

The word 'modest' in this context is an insult to UK and millions of other western women whose clothing choices are in no way shape or form 'immodest' to start with. And frankly the idea that comfortable clothing that isn't particularly revealing has ever been more difficult to come by in the US or Germany is laughable

Agreed. I am very offended by the insults to women and women's intelligence by posters defending the use of "modest"

Arnold- UK is only 15% of the market for modest fashion

The BBC British Broadcasting Corporation is a UK broadcaster reporting uncritically on 'modest' fashions to a UK audience. You are discussing this on a UK based website where most posters are from the UK.

Please try respecting that and not telling us we should be subservient to the cultural mores of other nations.

The word 'modest' in this context is an insult to UK and millions of other western women whose clothing choices are in no way shape or form 'immodest' to start with. And frankly the idea that comfortable clothing that isn't particularly revealing has ever been more difficult to come by in the US or Germany is laughable.

Yes Cis is Imposed language on us.
As is...
Cervix havers
Non men
Chest feeders

The list of recent new words is not evolving, it is being imposed.

But don't mind what we think.