Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

I thought "modest" must have started out as a euphemism used by the fashion industry to help women from more conservative cultures filter for clothes on shopping websites

FFS how thick do you think women are? Do you really think women would not be able to find a half-length, long sleeved dress or loose fitting trousers without this?

Second FFS

Not putting temptation their way. I’ve seen it described as being “kind” to men

FannyCann I think it's fine to have reasonable clothing requirements for different workplaces, schools etc, so long as there aren't double standards for girls and boys.
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. I think it's a positive thing to be aware of how dressing affects how men (and many women) will treat you, but not necessarily to lumber women with the responsibility of dealing with other's attitudes. I'm from a working class background, when I was younger I'd wear revealing clothing for a night on the town (and sometimes in the day). I wasn't thinking about men or how they'd react, just following the fashion of the time and trying to look good (I thought). I wish I did have more understanding then of how others would view me based upon their prejudice. That's not to say I condone the prejudice, though. It would be better if people realised that women are human and may even have a brain, even if they are wearing a short skirt.

Ido not mind the label “modest” I do not think that choosing a complimentary label means an insult to all other fashion. It strikes me as a BLM argument

I don't know what a "BLM" argument is but I don't know how any women who thinks she is a feminist can be comfortable attaching the word "modest" to women's clothing.

It's not an insult to other fashion- it's an insult to women.

There used to be a joke on MN about keeping spreadsheets of posters who are annoying. I'm going to take careful note of any poster defending the use of modest in relation to describing women's clothes so I will know I can probably disregard any other opinions by them.

It is interesting whoever was taking about another meaning of modest effectively seeking not to draw attention to your achievements. It is clearly not this meaning of modest intended in this case, as fashion is all about being seen and being part of something (a trend).

As posters have said, if this had been specifically about modesty in clothing as required by a faith or culture, then that would have been a different article (to be appraised on that basis). This article is using the term as if it was agreed generally in Britain society that in order for clothes to be modest they must have full coverage and be loose.

The clothes themselves - fine. The label “modest” - absolutely fucking not fine. Vile, regressive, patriarchal, misogynist shit

Thank you. Succinctly and eloquently put.

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.

The 6th form dress code at DDs school is "the head doesn't want to see up it, down it or through it".
DD appreciated the freedom to choose her clothes and be fashionable whilst observing easy boundaries, it seemed an eminently straightforward and practical code and everyone seemed happy with it.
Is that "modest"?
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.

What 30to50feralhogs said.

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.

The opposite of modest is immodest. Even in 2019 women are still judged as asking for it if they wear clothing that shows more rather than less skin. It would be utterly naive or disingenuous of anyone to argue that the moral aspect to this terminology for women's clothing doesn't exist.

The day they display shorts and short sleeved T shirts for men and call it the 'men's immodest' section is the day this isn't about judging and controlling women.

Presumably the lacy lingerie section in a department store should be called the slut section and the confectionary section the gluttony aisle. Because they're just words, right?

This is making me think of @manwhohasitall on Twitter, who applies the mores of women's magazines and media to men. It's very funny -

twitter.com/manwhohasitall?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I'm sure he would think men should dress to feel sexy for themselves rather than to be sexy for women.

It's just so depressing that clothing for women has to be reduced to the "sexy" standar: the choice between either sexy or non-sexy (immodest). Non-sexy is just normal comfortable clothes. It doesn't need a label. This is the twitter feed of the journalist. A couple of people seem to be raising their eyebrows in the comments.

twitter.com/megan_lawton/status/1194518996491608064

It's not even the 1950s, it's going back to the 1850s. Modesty for women then meant full-length crinolines which sometimes caught fire and burned the wearer to death, and corsets which interfered with women's breathing and ability to move. Some women are just so clueless about female history.

If you take any notice of this fashion hogwash, it's all a bit stupid.
I have never ever thought that any of my clothes are unsuitable,I don't think about men when choosing,and wearing clothes. Men don't matter to me ! I might even wear my flimsy nightie when I go and have a wine at my local pub later !

Modest fashion is just selling clothes to particular religious or cultural groups (like mine) who want fuller coverage in the clothes. Doesn’t mean women are immodest who don’t dress like that. Maybe just chill.
But it's not, this is being marketed as a fashion trend for all women, as the linked article shows. Whilst I respect your choice of clothes according to your faith, I feel it valid as a member of the same sex class to criticise the underlying sexism of modest clothing, as judgements regarding a woman's modesty and thus how she deserves to be treated persist, as the previous poster who mentioned the Irish rape case shows. It's something that affects all women.

Since when have floor length skirts been comfortable or practical?

When the temperature approaches 30C I crack out my maxi dresses, as they are far more comfortable at that temperature than my usual clothes (mainly leggings and tops). I'm not going to wear short skirts and strappy tops - I'd feel hideous and uncomfortable. Fine if that is your look, and fine for my daughters - just not for me. But at 30C I'm not going to be moving fast if I can help it anyway.

Always interesting to dig about into who is making money from modest clothing, too.

I did like it when Normcore was having a moment a couple of years ago but that's another horribly problematic description, even if I did like the clothes.

I only ever talk about men in sensible shoes. Mostly in realtion to snooker player Judd Trump as it has been a running joke for years in my house that he would never win the world title until he learned to wear sensible shoes.

This year he wore sensible shoes. He is now reigning world champion.

Such is the power of the sensible shoe.

An alternative clothing range popped into my head..

Lazy Tart

Bolshy Wench

Sporty Hag

😂

While, I'm on this thread, it bothers me that women's sporting outfits are often really showing off a lot of bum cheek. I always imagine myself in that situation and thinking I'm sure I'd wish I was wearing the shorts men wear. I'd hate to wear such a close fitting, up the bum tight pant! I imagine these women do have choices but it would be a big step forward to see a range of clothing in women's sport (where the women aren't from religious countries dictating what they can wear). As a pp said aboce, surely there must be something between full body coverage and arse-out.

Some clothes are more sensible than others.

But be careful talking about 'women in sensible shoes' or everyone will think you're a dyke!

I hate the fact that it’s labelled as ‘modest’. I agree OP, the clothes aren’t the issue but the label is.

Modest fashion is just selling clothes to particular religious or cultural groups (like mine) who want fuller coverage in the clothes. Doesn’t mean women are immodest who don’t dress like that. Maybe just chill.

does that mean all other clothes are then not sensible?

This is not comparable. Some clothes are more sensible than others. A cloth that soaks up water is not sensible if you are going to be out in the rain. Dark colours are not sensible if you are cycling at night. A baggy dress like the one featured is not sensible if your job involves bending and lifting.

Saying clothes are not sensible does not have the pejorative implications of saying they are immodest. There are occasions when non sensible clothes are fine. You can wear a three foot tall hat on your wedding day. It doesn't matter on such a specific occasion but day to day no one would think it sensible.

CeridwenTheWitch An alternative clothing range popped into my head..

Lazy Tart

Bolshy Wench

Sporty Hag

Someone with good tailoring and designing skills could have a lucrative business in making women's clothing that fit properly, are comfortable and practical while still looking fashionable, especially if they don't assign loaded labels and stick to neutral descriptions - high neckline, low neckline, mid-length, fitted, loose etc.

Top tip, if you want cheap clothing that does the job of covering up, and has pockets and comfortable cuts try buying from the men's aisle

I understand your point but, why can't we just have clothes designed for our bodies, clothes for women, that are also comfortable, in good quality natural fabrics and have pockets? Men's clothes are not cut to fit the female body. It's particularly difficult to find clothes anywhere that fit average to large boobs, something I just don't understand because loads of women have big boobs.

In sewing, all the patterns assume a B cup, so if you sew your own dress up for example, you have to do this thing called a Fuller Bust Adjustment. This always strikes me as strange since most women have breasts that are larger than a B cup.

upfield, I guess so. Reading more of the thread has made me stop to think about the term.

I was sitting next to a male colleague at work recently and he twisted a certain way so that his button up shirt puckered and I saw his chest. I'd never seen that before and was surprised that it could happen with men's shirts. I've actually permanently stitched some of mine down from the 3rd button down to prevent this.

When I was young I loved mini skirts and mini dresses, midriff tops... and I must say much as the way I think now, I wasn't trying primarily to emphasise my body, it was just fun clothing. My desire to be able to run for the bus and pick up things I've dropped without showing my body off has come more with age, and the need to run and pick up the millions of things I drop nowadays.

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?

Top tip, if you want cheap clothing that does the job of covering up, and has pockets and comfortable cuts try buying from the men's aisle