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

[Cherrysoup]

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

I suspect that the young muslim girls who wear loads of makeup (I have seen many) while covering their hair, and their arms are the ones who have been told to cover themselves (often by the parents) rather than the ones who are trying to dress immodestly. They are just following the letter but have no real intention of dressing modestly.

immodestly modestly

In no way shape or form have I endorsed the idea that anyone else needs to conform to my idea of modesty.

Fortunately we live in a free country so yes, we get to decide our own clothes.

However, if you believe you should dress in a way you consider modest, do you also believe that if you wore a non-modest outfit you'd be doing something wrong?

If so, isn't it illogical that another woman in exactly the same "non-modest" outfit is, from your statement above, not dressed immodestly or doing anything wrong?

roomster, that's not actually correct. It's actually a very fashionable 'look' amongst young Muslim girls and one that they normally wear willingly. They're also unlikely to be from very conservative families as that way of covering up (camel hump hijabs etc) is not an acceptable one for conservative families.

Roomster I think if they had the sort of parents who were telling them to wear hijab then those parents would likely also tell them not to go out with so much make up on.Bill is right, the style of hijab often worn by young, fashionable girls- skinny jeans, turban scarves etc would not be accepted by very strict parents.

I haven't read the whole thread as it's way too long with a 5 month old baby but JoanofNark17 you are completely spot on with your observations though I would go as far as to say that this thread is not a teeny bit racist, it's actually full on racist! It has been pointed out several times that the Modest Fashion week is aimed at Muslims specifically and modesty mostly associated with them and the connotations of it are very hard to dismiss in many of the comments.

Dressing Modestly is within ALL religions and cultures, just not represented so much because it is associated with Islam mostly. This is so wrong, why are women the first to bash each other for what they choose to wear!!

If you want to walk out of the house in a bikini, do it, it's your right, maybe take a jacket along with you incase it gets cold. If you want to walk around in a burka, do so, because as a woman it is your right to CHOOSE what you want to fucking wear without being told if it's right or wrong. It doesn't matter what a women wears whether it's described as modest, skimpy, whatever because it is up to her to dress her body as she pleases!! We are constantly being told by men in almost every country, religion and culture what is ok or not ok to wear, we don't need other women bashing each other too.

Just because women choose to dress 'modestly', that does not mean that everyone else is dressing 'immodestly', there is no opposite to it, it's just a way of dressing ffs. Muslims, Orthodox jewish women, nuns, christian women, atheists, the lgbt community, buddhists, hindus, sikhs and any that I may have missed out, it does not matter what religion, culture, community they are a part of, they will dress in what they see as appropriate to their religion, lifestyle, culture and beliefs.

We just need to stop telling eachother how to dress and stop judging each other. We have a london fashion week, why shouldn't we have a london modest fashion week??? How does it possibly affect you in any way other than possibly giving you new ideas on how to dress? If only you knew how much of the fashion you wear is so influenced by these foreign cultures and designers...

YABU OP to the highest degree

And that folks is why you should always RTFT.

Do you not think that the points you are making might possibly have been discussed in depth in the many pages before you treated us to your amazing insight? RTFT.

I don't think we will ever be like France and ban the burka in the street as the British are fairly tolerant. I am lucky to be free to write that in my view this kind of modest dressing and most of the religions are very sexist and I dislike it but I would not ban it. I suspect most of us are in agreement on that.

One interesting thing I saw when working in Iran was all that make up! Wow I thought as an atheist feminist it might be so freeing to be in a religious country where looks don't matter too hoots and you can be as scruffy and unkempt as the next man and everyone in a mind of Chinese Moa identikit outfit wears the same. but no way - it seemed the worst of all worlds - women who have spend ages on their eye make up, massive bills for plastic surgery etc etc.

The point about objective and subjective views is important above by the way. If someone believes their religion is right (not an unreasonable view - that is what belief is) may well not want to impose it on others (some religions require converting others and others not) but they tend to believe their version is right. I would not ban people from taking a view and expressing that their religion is right and I think it's really good we can all come on here, atheist and religious alike and talk about these issues.

BigBang, criticising the concept of 'modest dress' is not racist. Criticising aspects of Islam is not racist.

Maybe RTFT next time, as other posters have suggested,

Is there any reason why this type of clothes cannot be called "full or fuller coverage clothing?

Neutral and accurate unlike "modest". Modest has antonyms - you cannot just pretend they don't exist.

However, if you believe you should dress in a way you consider modest, do you also believe that if you wore a non-modest outfit you'd be doing something wrong?

If so, isn't it illogical that another woman in exactly the same "non-modest" outfit is, from your statement above, not dressed immodestly or doing anything wrong?

Good question.

Fuller coverage or even coverage+ is a much better name.

Modesty is a value that applies to a person.

Whether a piece of clothing can define the moral values of the person wearing it or not says more about those judging.

Roomster I think if they had the sort of parents who were telling them to wear hijab then those parents would likely also tell them not to go out with so much make up on.Bill is right, the style of hijab often worn by young, fashionable girls- skinny jeans, turban scarves etc would not be accepted by very strict parents.

I wasn't suggesting that they had particularly strict parents just mothers who cover their hair and expect their daughters to as well. It just seems that, rather than trying to dress modestly, they are adhering to a certain rules/conformity for the sake of it because it is expected by parents/peers etc.

Had BigBang read the thread she might have realised respect for cultural traditions and beliefs is a 2 way process.

The vast majority of women in the UK do not follow a religion which requires them to wear fuller coverage clothing or to fully cover arms and legs. Even the vanishingly small number of Catholic nuns do not have to cover up to this level.

If BigBang had read the thread properly she would have discovered a large number of posters find the term "modest clothing" offensive and judgemental. Here is a succinct explanation why from Prawn

Yes, the existence of modest clothing presupposes the existence of immodest clothes. The idea that clothing can be immodest leads us straight to the victim-blaming of "what did she expect, dressed like that?"

Modesty is a good thing when used in the sense of humble, self-effacing. When referring to personal appearance, the concept of modesty/immodesty is loaded and offensive

No one suggested fuller coverage clothing should not be available for anyone who wants it.

Those who do want to wear fuller coverage or coverage + clothing could choose to refer to it by that description ; or they could choose to ignore the offence they cause to other women by using the term "modest clothing".

The wearing of hijab is far more popular among young British Muslim women than their mothers, and this is political.

The face veil is, to my mind, more of an issue. I was in a lift once with a woman completely veiled. However she had very heavy eye makeup, teetering heels (with opaque black tights) and tight fitting black gloves that covered her forearms. Not an inch of her apart from her eyes was visible. She left an overpowering cloud of perfume in her wake. To my mind that's not modesty. It's more like an erotic game of hide and seek. Very odd.

I remain of the opinion that calling this show "Modest Fashion" is offensive for the grounds offered previously. Calling it Muslim fashion would be more accurate, given that the organizers are explicitly trying to appeal to this demographic. There is already a certain amount of friction in some parts of the UK caused by religious dress codes. There are activists who consider non Muslim women intrinsically immodest and it seems unhelpful to reinforce this prejudice.

I agree that "fuller coverage clothing" would be fine as a description.

To my mind that's not modesty. It's more like an erotic game of hide and seek. Very odd.

I have observed the same discrepancy (v plain clothes i.e. scrubs + face mask combined with very heavy eye make-up) in some theatre nurses
Totally a game of erotic attention seeking and out with any kind of religious context.

PacificDogwod that is hilarious!

Really interesting thread.

Everyone should be free to wear what they want - women, men, girls & boys. I'd like to think that all adult women have this choice - although I know that due to various cultural pressures, they don't.

I really despair when I see little girls unable to join in with sports/dance/playing due to them being swathed in robes and scarves, while their brothers have no such restrictions. A whole generation of girls are being denied huge opportunities, and that's wrong. Equal rights for all - until the religion/race card is played.