Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

I find the reaction to the word modest in a GC forum... interesting

This isn’t a GC forum. It’s a feminist chat board

If you mean you find it interesting in those with radical feminist views then you have seriously misunderstood the radical feminist position

"Modest" fashion is to differentiate from the vast bulk of fashion which is revealing and "sexy" isn't it?
It's tiresome for those of us who don't like exposing skin (or can't for religious reasons) to wade through all the pages or shops of clothes that we would never wear, so the "modest" tag enables filtering that out.
This isn't relevant to me personally, I don't wear fashion clothes.

What Talking said (again )

it seems to be precisely in line with the sex positive view which says that sexualisation of the feminine sex is just great, choice feminism, sex work is great, etc

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

It is been bugging me ever since DH and I got married and any wedding dress with a damn sleeve was automatically considered "modest" - I wanted sleeves and I am probably the last person people think of when they hear "modest"!

I have noticed it swapping over to main steam fashion as hijabistas etc. have become more well-known. And there are some amazing jewish and muslim labels out there, which I love buying from (and almost always have the neckline altered...) - I am glad they get a little more attention.

I honestly just don't see the need to seperate women's fashion into "modest" and "not modest". And as others have pointed out, men's clothes are hardly ever going to be divided that way.

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. But I wish they'd chosen "sensible" instead, less loaded for those of us who like warm comfy clothes but think everyone has the right to dress as they like!

Yes - I agree it sounds like a search term to help eg Muslim women find clothes that would be suitable. I’m not religious but generally don't wear revealing clothes because I’m old and fat, so would automatically choose clothes that cover me, but not to be ‘modest’, just to be warm and comfortable and not to scare the children.

Too much women's fashion is designed for the male gaze. This pushes back

This. I don't like the word "modest" to be used in this way, it is as much a judgement on how a woman dresses as "tarty" is, though I like the actual clothing.

In winter it means things like long dresses with high necks and long sleeves are actually available, so I can look smart and be warm at the same time. Men aren't expected to wear skimpy and revealing clothing at work so I don't see why I should have to.

The label 'modest' is hideous with its implication that women who don't follow this fashion are 'immodest'.

I still don't see what's supposed to be modest about them anyway. Most people wear clothes that cover them up most of the time. It smacks of finding a word that will appeal to a particular market for £££.

And those short, wide leg trouser and baggy dresses look bloody freezing to me. The wind would get right up them.

I find the reaction to the word modest in a GC forum... interesting. Mainly because it seems to be precisely in line with the sex positive view which says that sexualisation of the feminine sex is just great, choice feminism, sex work is great, etc.

Modesty as a virtue in traditional language is rooted in the idea of respect for persons and physical bodies. It's not at heart about how much is covered which has a strong cultural element, it's about presenting people as sexual objects, which can be done within pretty much any clothing convention.

I think the left has really been foolish to give up language that describes the moral/ethical element in how cultural practices dehumanise or pidgenhole people. It leaves them, and I'd say feminism as well, without language that clearly expresses what the problem is.

Given that feminism has historically been keen to point out problems of sexualisation of women in the media and fashion, I think it's a little odd that people are hesitant or embarrassed or ? to point out that a) fashion is constantly trying to push sexualisation of women's clothing and this affects our perceptions and sense of ourselves as persons b)that this affects women's clothing in a way that it doesn't affect mens c) that it affects how men and maybe particularly young men think about women and this is bad.

And finally d) that given all this, women who are aware of all this might be very interested in clothing and fashion that is intended to avoid sexualisation of women, that is to say, is modest.

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. But I wish they'd chosen "sensible" instead, less loaded for those of us who like warm comfy clothes but think everyone has the right to dress as they like!

It’s shite because it’s about controlling women’s sexuality, as per usual.

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

We’re not going to see a “modest” fashion trend for men, are we?

Because the male body is not the one permanently objectified by the gaze of the sex that is considerably more powerful; the male body is not the one that is vastly more prone to sexual violence and sexual control from those of the opposite sex.

2019 and women are still Madonna or whore while men still get the exclusive right to be full human beings.

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks to it all.

“ Modest fashion isn’t necessarily sexist or oppressive.”

The fashion isn’t. The terminology is.

Modest fashion has been around for years, Shammie tells Newsbeat.
"If we go back to Britain in about the 1950s ‎modest fashion was the norm. Everyone had longer hem lines and long sleeves."
Shammie could do with a history lesson on why the New Look was invented. Nothing to do with modesty.

I popped out to my local Tesco earlier. I didn't see anyone who wasn't dressed 'modestly' by these standards.

These aren't anything other than normal, every day clothes.

That’s interesting FriedasCarLoad

What’s the value in you and your husband dressing ‘modestly’?

I try to dress “modestly”. By that, I mean no low cut tops or short skirts or deliberately sexy clothes.

My husband also tries to dress “modestly”. He wouldn’t wear tight trousers that show the shape of his crotch or go shirtless on the beach.

Neither of us has such an amazing body that we think we’re likely to cause great temptation to anybody!

Neither of us judges others who dress differently. I suppose I feel mildly uncomfortable if someone’s outfit is extremely revealing, but I hope I don’t show it - and it’s my problem not theirs, anyway.

Modest fashion isn’t necessarily sexist or oppressive.

“Modest” is problematic because it places the onus on the wearer of the clothing to control the reactions of the viewer. It also can become a constraint on the wearer. There is nothing wrong with choosing to wear a long skirt because it is comfortable, but If the next week the woman wants to go out in a miniskirt, that should be her prerogative.

There are also geographic areas where woman face harassment for not conforming to modest clothing.

I might be missing the point here but aren't these just bog standard clothes? What is supposed to be 'modest' about them exactly?

“ Fuck so as I sit here in my skinnies I’m being unkind to men.”

Yep. And why would you want to do that to a friend or family member? I’m sure I saved the advertisement- I’ll have a look.

It bothered me too. A lot.

If it has been about how some women who have (culturally/religiously or otherwise imposed) restrictions on what they wear seek to adapt mainstream styles to conform with their beliefs, then fine. If it had been about recognising women dressing for themselves (and a lot of high fashion is that) and these being the new in favour styles, then that would also be fine. If it had been about reasons why women are moving away from tight fitting/revealing clothes, then that would also have been fine (and potentially interesting). But it wasn’t, as people above have rightly said, it was about separating the modest from the immodest, which is horrible.

A shame, as the trend is very much up my street.

It's not something I could get worked up over. Some women want to wear clothes that cover more skin than what is the norm in fashion. Sometimes those clothes/styles can be hard to find and modest fashion is just a category that allows those women to find what they want more easily.

You could try and find a different word for them to use instead, but in general people don't like imposed language changes so I wouldn't bother.

Modest is low key, not drawing attention to yourself.
The tight trousers and a top that fits but doesn't show flesh, I think of as stylish smart and snappy.
We were explaining to a friend and showed them how you can cover everything, but hint at curves and look amazing .

Yes, I like the look generally too picklemepopcorn, I just object to the reason a woman who describes the look as ‘modest’ has for dressing that way

It’s not about being warm / practical / liking the way you look, it’s still about the male gaze