Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

PlanDeRaccordement As I've already said, the binary is put in place by MEN. Men created the idea of 'modest' clothing for women, as a way to control them, to mark them out as their territory, and to claim that any bad girls who don't adhere are fair game. The label 'modest' on clothing is playing into this idea.
in reality, it does not matter what you wear one bit whether you are attacked. Modest is no protection. Immodest is no invitation. To scream and shout that the label “modest” can have any effect on sex crimes is false.
What part of this passage I wrote don't you understand or disagree with? From what you've said, it sounds like you haven't read it, as you've chosen to ignore it and for some baffling reason are implying that I'm stating 'modest' clothing protects women from rape.
Yes, men also sexually attack women who are dressed 'modestly' (believe it or not, many of us here know that too well as it has happened to us ourselves), which shows that the whole idea of 'modest' dressing doesn't actually afford any protection from violent men at all, and in fact only reinforces the false virgin/whore narrative. In addition, what it does do is shame any women who have been attacked, because even if they were dressed modestly, there will be the accusation that they were in some other way being a slut and 'asking for it' (it's not like you can't take modest clothes off or flash some flesh through them, flirt etc FFS). Women may not wish to report sex crimes for this very reason, that they will be shamed, because the whole idea underlying dressing 'modestly' is putting the responsibility for male sex crime on the woman.
If 'modest' clothing doesn't protect women, why wear it in the first place?

Patriarchy sets up a binary 'virgin' and 'whores' scenario, but it's a lie used to control women. Women can be sexually assaulted and if she was dressed 'immodestly' has to defend herself against the usual prejudice that she was 'asking for it' due to what she was wearing and thus being a slut. Yes, men also sexually attack women who are dressed 'modestly' (believe it or not, many of us here know that too well as it has happened to us ourselves), which shows that the whole idea of 'modest' dressing doesn't actually afford any protection from violent men at all, and in fact only reinforces the false virgin/whore narrative. In addition, what it does do is shame any women who have been attacked, because even if they were dressed modestly, there will be the accusation that they were in some other way being a slut and 'asking for it' (it's not like you can't take modest clothes off or flash some flesh through them, flirt etc FFS). Women may not wish to report sex crimes for this very reason, that they will be shamed, because the whole idea underlying dressing 'modestly' is putting the responsibility for male sex crime on the woman.

This explains it really well and has clarified some of my thinking on this topic, thanks Upfield.

You're absolutely right - it's a lie that 'modest' dressing somehow protects us. If it were true it would mean women in countries where they have to cover up completely were treated better than in western countries, and we know this isn't the case.

Also, a few people have said these clothes have always existed here. I don't think that's quite true - there was a gap in the market, for Muslim women wanting western clothes that were more covered up such as with higher necklines, looser fitting trousers and tunics etc. They were struggling to find stylish westernised clothes with Eastern influences they liked that were also covered up. Hence businesses recognised this gap and created fashion to cater to it.

Plan, aren’t people using the tag modest for a variety of reasons though?

Many women using the tag ‘modest’ are presumably from religious backgrounds and while they don’t search for clothes tagged immodest, they certainly believe that immodest dressing is something that exists.

So while you may be using the tag for a specific style you just like the aesthetic of, other people do see immodesty as sinful, haram etc.

Antibles I have to agree with your point too. It's been made taboo to criticise other cultures for sexist practices (apart from the very extreme ones such as FGM). As far as identity politics goes, men are included in the category of immigrants, Muslims etc and so the rights of this class as a whole trumps that of women. Thus, we are not allowed to criticise 'modest fashion' for fear of being seen as 'Islamophobic', and so the sexism inherent in it creeps into mainstream culture under the guise of tolerance and acceptance. No culture should be free from analysis and criticism when it comes to women's rights (and before anyone starts, yes, of course including Western culture, FFS).

It’s a straw man argument.

Upfield,
I disagree. There is no binary of modest clothing versus immodest clothing. It is just modest. There is no style or fashion labelled immodest. The objection is creating a binary where there is none and using as justification the fear of men sexually assaulting women when in reality, it does not matter what you wear one bit whether you are attacked. Modest is no protection. Immodest is no invitation. To scream and shout that the label “modest” can have any effect on sex crimes is false.

Has anyone else seen the “What were you wearing” exhibit? It is a famous exhibit of what rape victims were wearing when they were raped. The exhibit proves that the idea that what you wear can affect your risk of rape is a prejudiced and sexist myth.
Erm, yes, that's kind of the point of women arguing AGAINST using the term 'modest'. Patriarchy sets up a binary 'virgin' and 'whores' scenario, but it's a lie used to control women. Women can be sexually assaulted and if she was dressed 'immodestly' has to defend herself against the usual prejudice that she was 'asking for it' due to what she was wearing and thus being a slut. Yes, men also sexually attack women who are dressed 'modestly' (believe it or not, many of us here know that too well as it has happened to us ourselves), which shows that the whole idea of 'modest' dressing doesn't actually afford any protection from violent men at all, and in fact only reinforces the false virgin/whore narrative. In addition, what it does do is shame any women who have been attacked, because even if they were dressed modestly, there will be the accusation that they were in some other way being a slut and 'asking for it' (it's not like you can't take modest clothes off or flash some flesh through them, flirt etc FFS). Women may not wish to report sex crimes for this very reason, that they will be shamed, because the whole idea underlying dressing 'modestly' is putting the responsibility for male sex crime on the woman.

women are too thick to find clothes unless they are suitably tagged with some sort of value judgement description

It’s not about intelligence, it’s about ease of finding the style you want when shopping online. Tags winnow out thousands of styles you are just not interested in. It saves time. Also “modest” has only value and judgement if you give that to it. It just means moderate and unassuming, not flashy to me.

Yet now, according to some of the posters on here clothes need to be tagged as "modest" otherwise women won't be able to find them.

I find search tags to be very useful because I am among the 45% of women who buy clothes online. I do not go to last century shopping centers. When you are searching for an outfit and the words “long sleeved shirt” results in 35,896 results it does help to find a certain style or fashion if it has a tag. I see “modest” as similar to “boho” or “vintage”. Most modest fashion is very Eastern and Southern European Renaissance inspired. The name isn’t the best, but I have no anger over it and tags are useful.

Doobigetta

I very specifically did not defend the use of the word or the concept, and you were equally rude to me

You are one of the posters who thinks women are too thick to find clothes unless they are suitably tagged with some sort of value judgement description. I don't think women need that.

But you keep using the term.

You have literally just used it in the same post as you have said you want people to stop using it.

Modest all too often means very definitely female stereotyped or feminine clothing (dress, skirt, embellished twiddly bits and feminine decoration) but controlling and covering any body parts that might indicate the female sex

So eg a woman weRing sloppy sweatshirt, Adidas joggers and a Chicago bears cap would Not be described as modest, because to be modest implies to be inherently and overtly feminine but with any sexuality obviously controlled

The ultimate "modest" garment is a burka.

Are you saying you want to ban people from calling clothes modest?

I would like to see that term not being used. I will certainly form my own opinion of the type of person who uses the term. I think any woman who thinks she is a feminist and thinks it is an acceptable term should give her head a wobble.

I very specifically did not defend the use of the word or the concept, and you were equally rude to me.

Are you saying you want to ban people from calling clothes modest?

Would it be too much to ask if we might analyse why this term is creeping in?

That is a very pertinent question. All my life ordinary run of the mill high street shops have been selling, and are still selling, clothes which met all the requirements of being comfortable, practical and showing as much or as little flesh as a customer wanted.

Yet now, according to some of the posters on here clothes need to be tagged as "modest" otherwise women won't be able to find them.

Being a cheerleader for "modest" clothing is like being a handmaiden for misogyny

It is indeed.

Doobigetta

Why so bloody rude,Shona? It’s a conversation about clothes and you’re attacking people as though it’s a matter of life and death

Well for some women not wearing suitably "modest" clothes is.

I am shocked and disappointed that on a feminist forum there are women defending the concept of calling clothes "modest". For me any poster defending the use of "modest" to describe women's clothing deserves as much respect as posters who jump on to AIBU threads defending gollies.

‘I have to agree with Humberhellraiser what is the difference in a woman wearing a loose sweat top, baseball cap, trainers and joggers. I don't think people would be rushing to describe that as modest clothing but why not?’

Because the point of that outfit is to not restrict movement so you can freely exercise in it, and modesty is frequently associated with outfits that restrict a person’s physical ability.

Why so bloody rude, Shona? It’s a conversation about clothes and you’re attacking people as though it’s a matter of life and death.

There is definately room for comfortable, smart clothing. There is no room to call it modest.
I have to agree with Humberhellraiser what is the difference in a woman wearing a loose sweat top, baseball cap, trainers and joggers. I don't think people would be rushing to describe that as modest clothing but why not?
Could it be that this woman's choice of clothing is sending out the signal I'm not here for your pleasure?
I'm sick and tired of all the labels thrown into women and girls.
I buy clothes to look good in, feel comfortable in, and be fit and appropriate for purpose.
I wouldn't buy anything that was labelled 'modest' just as I wouldn't buy it for dh.

Would it be too much to ask if we might analyse why this term is creeping in? Although it's obvious. It's the normalisation of the additional covering-up restrictions for women of particular immigrant communities in this country.

In much the same way as TRAs would strip us of all our sex-based rights, the male desire to control women seems only ever to lead one way - to insist we cover up more and more until, in the most extreme cultures, our entire body is fetishised by being totally covered and women are literally not allowed to show their faces in public. This then gives men licence to be sexually aroused by any bit of us we show and the results of that are always our fault.

Being a cheerleader for "modest" clothing is like being a handmaiden for misogyny. It's like someone unthinkingly supporting 'trans rights' because they don't realise the serious implications of letting these things creep in. Let's just be kind and tolerant comes the cry. Except it's not kind to women at all.

Modesty is a term that needs to be scrapped pronto.

I have to agree with this.

I do not agree with the comments saying that having some clothing tagged “modest” in line with other search tags like “boho” or “tribal” or “evening wear” sets up the expectation that men can just attack and rape anyway not wearing clothes labelled as “modest.”

Has anyone else seen the “What were you wearing” exhibit? It is a famous exhibit of what rape victims were wearing when they were raped. The exhibit proves that the idea that what you wear can affect your risk of rape is a prejudiced and sexist myth.

No, Shona, you were just being rude and wanted to call me stupid.

I am not lacking critical awareness.

I simply understand that a whole host of sexist concepts exist and that their are many people who live their lives following sexist principles.

Pretending the concept is incomprehensible doesn’t make it go away.

And I am of the opinion that women’s clothes and the women’s fashion industry should deliver what women want

And that comment is just silly. I'm 60. All my life it has been possible to buy the sort of clothes now being described as "modest" without the need for that description.

Endofthedays

I don’t think it is at all stupid to be aware that modesty is a concept that some people believe in following through the way they dress
It has being going on for millennia

Perhaps a lack of critical awareness might be a better way to describe it.

I am shocked that there are posters defending the idea of "modest clothing"