To think that we don't need a London Modest Fashion week??

[Cherrysoup]

Given that we're not living in the Victorian era?

You're right. It is a translation. The original words in Arabic are even more jaw-dropping: “Candy without cover is food for flies. No one likes eating the leftovers of flies.”

Have a read of this blog:
www.freewomenwriters.org/hijab-propaganda-iran-afghanistan/

And you'll find a plethora of graphics demonstrating that the Madonna/Whore method of divide and conquer is alive and kicking in the world.

It's not that this "good girl/bad girl" way of thinking is confined to Islam. It's been going strong in Western Christian culture for millennia. It's just it's been rightfully challenged here and deconstructed by feminists. And hopefully women like the above blogger are now challenging it in the Muslim world too.

It's completely poisonous to think of women in that way.

"It's completely poisonous to think of women in that way."

It is male control of 'the female', and also of life and love. Attraction between the sexes is based on biology, a force of life. The lollipop images seek to control female sensuality, sexuality and liberty reflecting a totally fascist ideology. I reiterate however that growing up with airbrushed images of models in magazines is equally controling imo, the message being that girls are deserving of sexual attention only if their bodies correspond with the dominant beauty ideal. I have often thought that images in vogue etc are fascist.

I totally agree circles!

Circle I completely agree. That's why I said upthread that they are flip sides of the same coin.

One way tells girls to flaunt their sexuality, the other tells girls to hide it but both determine a woman's worth based on her sexuality and employ various tactics to train girls to comply from an early age.

That's the shit that we need to be free from.

I don't spend much time thinking about fashion or how I look - not for religious reasons (although you would have thought Islamic and Christian women would spend a lot less on looks and instead help others - fashion is frivolous even to me an atheist!) and I wish women instead would concentrate on more important things and get their worth not from their sexual capital/looks but their own earnings.

Who knew that the mum uniform of the UK (jeans, Breton, cardigan) required it's own fashion week.

I wish women instead would concentrate on more important things and get their worth not from their sexual capital/looks but their own earnings.

Gosh I hope I don't get my worth from my earnings as I earn next to nothing!

"As I've said before, I'm not sure what else the organisers could have called the event, to appeal to Muslims and non-Muslims."

For the eighty-seventh time, it is a section of The London Muslim Lifestyle Show
It is clearly not intended to appeal to anyone but Muslims, predominantly those who live in London!!

"conservative" could just as easily mean a twinset and pearls though.

"Wearing or not wearing a hijab is so much more pleasant when one chooses."

That is the most pertinent quote from the link Lessthan posted.

It is quite striking that all those poster quite squarely consider the male gaze as very dangerous, but the responsibility for it is with the (sometimes very young) female

I would very much welcome more Eastern/Asian/Arabic ways of dressing in mainstream stores and fashion shows, the word 'modest' still makes me deeply uneasy. Or 'bashful'

It is quite striking that all those poster quite squarely consider the male gaze as very dangerous, but the responsibility for it is with the (sometimes very young) female

Well quite. Which is why it baffles me that feminism, which tries to deconstruct this crap, is accused of hating men when the patriarchal view of men as evil predators and women as victims who must both avoid the consequences of men's bad behaviour and excuse it is so much more hateful.

EnormousTiger

Sorry to derail the thread but do you really think that women (or indeed men) should derive their self worth from how much they earn?

That's just as bonkers as deriving it from how pert their arse cheeks are, IMHO.

Aren't fashion weeks just to display the upcoming trends for the next season? Like a live catalogue.

Pigin I agree. It's buying into the so-called "masculine" moreover capitalist definition of success.

(Isn't it the biggest way men exploit women - that more men than women earn more than their spouse and so men control the women through money either directly or subsconciously? When women out earn men it tends not to happen. Money is power.

The Koran lets women keep their money whilst men must use it to keep the family but I regard that distinction althoughi t might sound protective of women as paternalistic and wrong. Instead the rules should be the same whatever the gender).

EnormousTiger you haven't really answered my question.

Having power over ones partner is not the same as having self worth (thankfully).

No choice is made in a vacuum, including the choices to cover most of one's body, or to uncover most of it.

I'm a white, secular woman who dresses 'modestly' (long skirts, long-sleeved tops, high necklines) for aesthetic reasons (I like swishy skirts!), to cover scars, and because as a feminist I'm not interested in catering to the male gaze. I have bought clothing primarily marketed at Muslim women before, because I liked it.

I also recognise the right for other women to cover as much or as little of their bodies as they want. Their choices have nothing to do with me and I don't go around judging how covered (or not) other women are. I do think there is a slight value-judgement embedded in the word 'modest' but it's the most convenient shorthand I have to describe the way I dress. 'Conservative' to me has the connotation of traditional/old-fashioned rather than more covering. In practice, the topic rarely comes up - I think the most recent time was when I was discussing swimwear, where 'modest' can mean anything from a regular swimsuit with a little skirt attached, to a burkini.

I like the idea of this fashion week. I have zero interest in mainstream fashion, but would be interested in taking a look at this. Lots of people won't be interest, but no event is designed to cater to everyone!

(I have read a selection of the 13 pages, but not them all.)

I totally support the right of women whoever they are to have fashion shows of whatever clothes they love, of whatever style. I'm totally on-board with fashion weeks based on the cultural norms of any groups, including religious groups, or any other designation people fancy.

I am not on board with calling any clothes, of any description, worn by anybody, "modest". To describe one set of clothes as "modest", as others have pointed out, means that by definition, other sets of clothes are defined as "immodest". Which is bullshit, and leads to women who dress in the "wrong" way (and almost any mode of clothing can be defined as "wrong" for women) being punished. "She was asking for it, wearing that short skirt!" "She was asking for it, going out around hear flaunting a hijab!" Etc, etc. Women are punished for what they wear whether it's very revealing or totally covered-up.

There should be no "modest" or "immodest", just clothes.

A lot of women's status is determined by the status of their husband and their ability to keep him depends on things like their sexual services to him at night in bed, whether they stay thin, if they are nice to him etc etc. If instead you eaern the same or more than your man then everything changes and is better. If instead you provide those domestic services in return for being kept you are basically owned by a man surely?

It's really not a "slight" value judgement.

EnormousTiger

A) I don't understand what any of the above has to do with self worth. Status (whether derived from one's husband or not) is not the same as self worth.

B) What the actual fuck? What about just having an equal, respectful relationship, whoever earns the bread/does the washing? Do you really think that sahps or others that don't earn money for whatever reason are "owned" by their partners?

fashion is frivolous even to me an atheist!) and I wish women instead would concentrate on more important things and get their worth not from their sexual capital/looks but their own earnings

I don't swear on MN but I'm very tempted to say just f* off to whoever posted this.

I cannot stand the holier than thou attitude some MNetters have to clothes, fashion , design and style. It reminds me of that Monty Python competitive Yorkshiremen we had it bad oop north sketch. ( " a set of overalls from the Army surplus once a year is good enough for me ; once a year? Once a decade for me..")

Oh and by the way, all of you banging on about how good it is that there are "modest" clothes that are more than just wisps of material are just showing you know bugger all about LWF or design.

There should be no "modest" or "immodest", just clothes

ArcheryAnnie nails it.

Lass I agree. One shouldn't feel that one's self worth is derived from one's looks but at the same time fashion is often looked down on as frivolous in a way that football isn't.

I suspect that this is because it is associated with what women do though. And buying into the idea that what women have traditionally done (e.g. housework and childcare) has less value than the market based and renumerated work that men do is to buy into the patriarchal ideal completely.

Lessthanaballpark what makes you say that fashion is seen as more frivolous than football? I don't see that myself but willing to have my mind changed. (Nb I have little interest in either tbh).