Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

I don’t think I can ever be modest.

I hate long sleeves on anything.

I hate things that are up by my neck.

The physical restraints of covering up is not for me.

Went to buy a dress for a thing I have been invited to.

I am short and fat and all I could find was short dresses in Lipsy that I loved but couldn’t wear and tents with long sleeves and high necklines that I wouldn’t wear

It did cross my mind that they were marketing to the religious women who cover up.

I didn’t realise this was the fashion and the clothes were for me.

These type of clothes are not for me.

Modesty is never defined for men in the same way. But some cultures consider only plain clothing to be modest, and acceptable embellishment is the same for both sexes, although the types of clothes still enforce gender roles.

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.

Don’t know what was going on with the capitals there?!

It's not accurately named, unless similar men's clothing is going to be labeled modest or immodest too. Why is it only women's clothes that get this treatment?

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.

Yup Victorian men used to get excited about piano legs and women's ankles, and any woman without a chaperone was fair game for rape.

Shonabecause lots of women on this thread have said they find the basic idea of what theses clothes do in practice useful, but the name for them offensive. And I am of the opinion that women’s clothes and the women’s fashion industry should deliver what women want

The clothing industry delivers all sorts of styles of clothes. I don't believe for one minute that the average woman is too thick to be able to find a long sleeved dress or loose trousers or a mid calf length skirt unless it is helpfully tagged as "modest" or "sensible"

We could always stop men gazing at women. Or is that completely unthinkable? Every time women are told to cover up, men hear the message that it's fine for them to ogle.

But the whole beauty industry is directed to creating images that attract men sexually, and getting women to conform to those images. And they are good at it.

I don't see how you can get anywhere telling men that, oh, by the way, that's really not happening. Those things are not meant to present an artificially sexualised image of women to you, you aren't supposed to notice that. They know it's not true, just like we know a man dressed up in a dress is still a man, that's the level it's designed to appeal to. It's not the sort of thing you can unknow.

The only outcomes I can see from taking that approach is men who think that women are being hypocrites, or ones who come to have a very perverse relationship to their own sexuality. Both of whom are likely to produce predators or abusers of one type or another.

I would ask, does the same word apply for men in all ways?

So to me ‘modest’ could equally apply to religious observance for men and women in not exposing the head or not wearing shorts in a holy place. Men and women cover up. Equal application.

But the word modest is usually loaded and is often a value judgement on women’s choice of clothes. 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.

Endofthedays
There’s no point in renaming it; it is accurately named. There are women who believe in modest and immodest forms of dress and want to wear and post pictures about what they consider to be the former

There are people, some of them women, who believe all sorts of stupid, illogical, bigoted and wrong things. One of these things definitely being that an article of clothing is "accurately named" as "modest" or "immodest"

Shona because lots of women on this thread have said they find the basic idea of what theses clothes do in practice useful, but the name for them offensive. And I am of the opinion that women’s clothes and the women’s fashion industry should deliver what women want.

I certainly don’t think sex work is great etc! What on earth has that to do with this?!

They are all examples of people making arguments on choice or individualistic types of feminism, without undertaking a systemic analysis or consider the implications of the results of that analysis. Women should be able to choose x, y or z, without considering either the systemic or institutional pressures that contribute to making that choice, or the implications of that choice on the larger culture or other people.

In this case there is a ton of analysis that has gone on in feminism around the fashion and beauty industry and the kinds of pressures they put on women in particular for monetary gain. There is also a lot on the effects of the sexualisation of women that happens through those industries, how it affects how girls and women think of themselves and men think of them, even if none of those people intend to be affected, they are.

But in this case with clothing and how we can talk about describing clothing that is deliberately being made or worn or bought to avoid sexualisation of the body and women, you have an instance where all of a sudden the analysis stops, is cut right off. Where if really pressed, people deliberately talk around it using words like "sensible" as if the issue was just being able to be comfortable and has nothing to do with the sexualisation of women's bodies.

The reason this usually happens in these kinds of scenarios is because people don't want to put the responsibility for action on the individual level on real people. Though I don't find that's a particularly common response on this forum, with other similar issues - people are generally ready to say that particular individual choices contribute to negative views and pressures on women and should be avoided. This one is different I think because people are very uncomfortable with this idea of "judging" women's clothing, but the analysis logically should really follow the same pattern. Avoiding it will have other very negative outcomes, anyway.

There’s no point in renaming it; it is accurately named. There are women who believe in modest and immodest forms of dress and want to wear and post pictures about what they consider to be the former.

It should be renamed to “practical” fashion

Why? I'm really not buying this "oh it's only a useful tag" argument.

Unless a woman has never walked down a UK high street, never seen a women's magazine, never seen television adverts - in fact been living under a rock, I find it very difficult to believe she couldn't find what she is looking for.

And after reading the thread (sorry, bad form and bad habit,) yes talking has it again!

It's a Patriarchal term, pigeon holing women into virtuous marriage (housewife/ slave) material and 'tarts' who can be shagged and murdered. And so how they're treated.

‘I have advised both DDs that if they want men to be interested in their brains it helps if their (men's) eyes aren't focussed on a cleavage or other areas of exposed flesh. It's a shame that girls have to be taught to avoid the male gaze but I think it makes for an easier life.’

If a man can’t focus because he can see a bit of skin, why on earth would you want him to be interested in your daughters anyway?

I like the clothes but really hadn't thought of it as 'modest.' More smart and business like or coco chanel esque.

It's actually rather victim blamey by proxy. Ie, if you don't wear modest clothes, you're asking for trouble.

It's like the word 'frumpy' - I don't think there's a male equivalent (comfortable?). Why is that?

Judged if we do, judged if we don't.

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.

It should be renamed to “practical” fashion. This would encompass:

Not showing your underwear when bending over
Not leaving stupid gaps of flesh that make you cold when you move
Not leaving you unable to stand or walk
No huge flappy swathes of fabric round your ankles tripping you up
No stupid discrepancies in warmth levels that mean it is never going to be the right temperature to wear it- like thick poloneck jumpers with no sleeves

I’m sure there are other things but those are what springs to mind.

Surely ‘modest fashion’ is simply a marketing term for clothing targeted at Muslim women, or other women who wang to cover up for religious or cultural reasons?

So, what is a good term for women's clothing that isn't intending to emphasise our bodies and covers them in the way men's fashion does?

Maybe I'm being thick but why is there a need for such a term ?

Actually I'm not being thick. I risk a deletion here but anyone who thinks there is a need for such a term should have a think about their lack of critical faculties.

It's an unwelcome, value-laden term based on sexism and I'm extremely unhappy to see it emerge as a marketing strategy in this country

Indeed - and for women to defend its use is appalling.