Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

I just wish someone could come up with an actual argument that one could engage with instead of repeating the same points that were answered pages ago.

plan, don't bother. This thread is almost parody now.
Care to elaborate on that little dig? Or do you have nothing of worth to add and just want to take sides because you're feeling offended?

plan, don't bother. This thread is almost parody now.

Plan It's interesting that you can't seem to get away from this idea that because we're critiquing modest fashion, that means we advocate wearing revealing clothing as a feminist way to dress. Nobody here has said that. You seem to be stuck in the virgin/whore binary, when what I would have thought is abundantly clear (since it's been spelt out so many times), is that what's being argued for is the right to not to be cast into either of those roles at all, especially by not labelling clothes (and thus the women wearing them) as 'modest'.

Plan - do you think “immodest” should be a clothing category? If not, why not?

Upfield,
I will answer by flipping the question
Actually, you've evaded the question.

Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment.
Socially perhaps, but not via religion, the opposite is the case.

Why then, should Western women be made to wear revealing clothing, if they do not wish to do so?
They shouldn't, they're not, and I haven't argued they should anywhere, so what's your point?

Why is it that before the modest clothing trend, less revealing clothes were only designed for and marketed to over 40yr old women?
As others have said, the same clothes were always available, but fashion goes through cycles. Sometimes longer dresses and more covered up styles are 'in', but they don't usually have a sinister, sexist label which casts aspersions as to a woman's virtue attached to them. I'd say in general that high fashion is designed to be as outrageous as possible, to grab attention on the catwalks, and then these styles then filter down to the High Street. Part of this is sexually provocative outfits. High fashion is about sex and the display of wealth, trends are dreamt up to make money. Retailers have obviously seen the earning potential in churning out 'modest' fashion and selling this to all women as the latest thing.

The ideology that all young women only dress modestly because they “are made to” by men is false.
Yes, I've also acknowledged women wear it for all sorts of different reasons.

Yes, some are, but equally as many are forced to wear revealing or no clothing by men. Namely the millions of sex workers worldwide.
Why are you mentioning this? Are you implying from what I've said that I in some way approve of women being forced to wear revealing outfits in the sex trade? Where on Earth do you get this idea from?

no one type or style of clothing in the western world is representative of patriarchy.
I agree, why do you have the impression that I don't?

It's you who seems to see this as an 'us and them' scenario and are pitting women against each other, then projecting this onto me. The opposition I have is against oppressive, patriarchal codes for women's dress which, as I've mentioned numerous times exist in all cultures. It's not about being anti-Muslim or telling women what to wear, but analysing specifically 'modest' fashion as a recent phenomenon, because that's the theme of the thread.

So, back to my original question, that you haven't answered but instead have laid out yet another bunch of straw men arguments. If dressing modestly, as you admit, does not protect women from unwanted male sexual violence, then why do religions advise it? Why should women wear it? Don't you think there might be some sort of underlying agenda there in terms of controlling women as the possessions of men?

Oh Plan.

1. I don’t think any of us are saying that co—opting the kind of clothing that ‘modest’ dressing excludes is a feminist statement per se.
2. I am puzzled by your assertion that the fact that some women are compelled to wear a particular type of clothing by men (which is undoubtedly true) means that women who wear ‘modest’ clothing are therefore acting entirely from choice and not under any male compulsion. Can you see that the one does not follow from the other?

Is “immodest” a clothing category?

Upfield,
I will answer by flipping the question
‘Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment. But I have also said that the way a woman dresses is irrelevant, any woman can be raped no matter what she wears. Why then, should Western women be made to wear revealing clothing, if they do not wish to do so? Why is it that before the modest clothing trend, less revealing clothes were only designed for and marketed to over 40yr old women?

The ideology that all young women only dress modestly because they “are made to” by men is false. Yes, some are, but equally as many are forced to wear revealing or no clothing by men. Namely the millions of sex workers worldwide. Choice is the issue, and no one type or style of clothing in the western world is representative of patriarchy.

The word modest implies (a) a value judgement, (b) dressing for the male gaze - whether to attract it or to repel it is immaterial and (c) that what women wear is anyone else's business.

The clothes themselves and the concept of NOT feeling pressured to dress in anticipation of men's reactions I completely endorse.

.......and there's nothing new in baggy jeans or maxi dresses. These styles have all had a few turns around the block in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

...furthermore, I think it allows women who wear 'modest' fashion to flamboyantly display wealth, push the boundaries of looking sexy within the codes of the religion, and indulge in vanity to post endless photos modelling said outfits on social media, all the while hiding behind an inherently sexist and smug label of 'modest' that a woman who did the exactly same without wearing 'modest' labelled fashion would not be afforded, and might even be called 'full of herself' or a 'slut'. That's probably part of its appeal with non-religious women too. It's a trade off, 'If I promise to abide by male rules of what women are allowed to wear in order to not be called a slut, then I can indulge myself in spending lots of money on outfits and posting pictures of them all over the internet'. Again, not saying that's the women's fault, but it relies on and thus reinforces the sexist ideology underneath.

Here are some 'modest' fashion bloggers, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and Mormon. I'm not posting to be unpleasant to them, but to indicate that there doesn't seem to be much to this 'modest blogging' trend apart from showing off outfits in exotic locations (wealth), much the same as other Instagram fashion influencers.
www.instagram.com/heba_jay/
www.instagram.com/adiheyman/
www.instagram.com/runstylerun/

I’d quite like the supporters of the term “modest dress” to comment on my last post.

The split infinitive pales into insignificance beside the chilling handmaidenry of the above.

This is from a Christian blog. There are loads of similar ones- I picked this at random. “In order to assess whether a particular outfit is modest, here are some questions I may want to prayerfully ask myself:

What are my motives when I wear this outfit?
Will this outfit draw the eye of my brothers in Christ to my body or to the Lord?
Does this clothing cover all of the important areas well?
Even if I bend over, lean down, or reach up?
If I have to sit in a chair, will someone be able to see up my skirt/shorts?
Will I be doing activities that will cause private areas to be visible in this outfit?
If there are buttons, does the material gape between the buttons?
Am I likely to have a wardrobe malfunction in this clothing?
Am I purposely or inadvertently encouraging men to focus on my body or on lusting after me because this outfit reveals too much skin or exposes the exact shape of my body?
Is the neckline too low?
Is my midriff exposed?
Is the clothing too tight?
Does this outfit draw the eye to my breasts, hips, or crotch?
Is this clothing see-through in the right light?
Are my undergarments showing?
Is the hemline too short?
What would my husband or dad (or another godly man I greatly respect) think about this outfit?”

It's almost a subversive act though. Kind of like 'I'm following your rules by covering up'
I agree, I think that's what a lot of modest fashion is about: trying to get away with being as sexy as possible whilst still following the patriarchal rules of dress of the religion. The hypocrisy of calling a style which does this 'modest' is apparent. I don't blame the women who wear attention-grabbing 'modest' fashion at all, they can wear what they like, but it seems to be simply driven by a desire to have more consumer choice and to be allowed access to the same self-indulgent, vain exercises of posting themselves across social media and displaying wealth as Western women do (in fact in my humble opinion, Middle Eastern cultures are far more obsessed with displaying wealth as a status symbol). Very 'Lib Fem' really, all about feminism equating to being allowed to choose consumer products, rather than tackling the underlying sexism of 'modesty' as a notion itself.

The wearer may or may not look ‘banging’ but she certainly isn’t trying to fade into the background

Absolutely. It's pretty much designed to say 'LOOK AT ME'.

It's almost a subversive act though. Kind of like 'I'm following your rules by covering up'

Further to Upfield's post it is worth remembering that in terms of religion this 'movement' does not derive souly from conservative Islam. As has been pointed out several times there is pressure from conservative Christianity in the US at play too.

I also have no problem with Muslim women wearing this clothing and understand its appeal. I think people have far too much of a hair-trigger response to discussing topics like this and so go along with the official 'religious' line that it's just about Muslim women and their religious devotion, so we shouldn't discuss it if we're non-Muslim because that means we're nasty Islamophobic bigots. In reality, it's partly about religious faith, but it's also about men controlling what women wear, it's about consumerism, it's about cultural issues such as the display of wealth, it's about rape apologism, it's about vanity and Instagram culture, it's about Western women's reaction against porn culture and wanting somewhere to hide, and probably a lot of other issues as well. Appealing to feminine socialisation and saying be nice and don't question is playing into a patriarchal code of conduct for women. I haven't seen anything here directing hate at Muslim women and wouldn't want to, I just don't think this 'modest' fashion and the sexist ideology underlying it should be untouchable and not up for discussion simply because it's based in religious ideals.

Or what Shona said.

It doesn’t matter whether clothing is expensive or free. If it is labelled “modest”, it is contributing to the oppression of women.

Of course it is, but it also baffling how something that screams "look at me, I', so rich" can, in any way, be described as modest, modest meaning "unassuming".

It just adds another layer of nonsense and untruth.

Whether it's real or fake is irrelevant. Wearing anything so highly monogrammed is intended to be looked at. I don't have any problem with that- far from it actually. I'm not keen on logos but I love stylish, over the top "look at me clothes" - both to wear myself and to see other people wearing them.

I think Shona’s point is that the Vuitton hijab demonstrates very clearly how the term modest when applied to clothing loses its broader associations with lack of ostentation and becomes instead focused solely on female sexuality

Exactly.

It doesn’t matter whether clothing is expensive or free. If it is labelled “modest”, it is contributing to the oppression of women.

I think Shona’s point is that the Vuitton hijab demonstrates very clearly how the term modest when applied to clothing loses its broader associations with lack of ostentation and becomes instead focused solely on female sexuality and the extent to which the beholder believes it to be on display. The wearer may or may not look ‘banging’ but she certainly isn’t trying to fade into the background.

She looks rich. I expect buying and wearing her LV goods gives her pleasure and that's fine- no problem there. Calling what she is wearing "modest" - not fine.

I see your point. Why is something that's designed to signify wealth "modest"?