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

[Cherrysoup]

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

Newsflash- Fashion does tend to change somewhat over 20 years

Newsflash depends on the clothing. I still have 2 tailored jackets I bought when I went back to work after maternity leave 27 years ago. I have a black cashmere coat from the 60s. The vast majority of my dresses would sit happily in the 1950s or 49s. A couple of them are from the 40s and 50s.

If you Google Chanel jacket it is impossible by looking at the pictures to know which decade they were made in.

I do like a lot of Muslim fashions. Not because they are "modest" but because they are stylish and flowy.

But I guess Fashion is like Religion and can't be separated from the culture that creates them. It would be nice to think people could wear whatever they wanted regardless of culture or fashion.

This is very like Jean-Paul Gualtier outfit Trudi Styler used to wear

This looks a bit Vivienne Westwood wedding dress

This look has been done on mainstream catwalk

*modest" ?

I peruse "modest" fashion mainly because I quite like to look ladylike without my overly ample bits spilling out.

High Street stores appear incapable of making dresses any longer than mid-thigh (which I lack the legs for unfortunately) or with necklines decent enough for work and young men standing over my desk.

Absolutely not related to any religious custom in my case. Just trying to dress to suit my figure.

*Indeed. Women wouldn't be arguing amongst themselves over dress and the connotations of it if there weren't men beating women up and putting it in their minds that their bodies are to be hidden. Or if there weren't men propping up an industry that is based on women dressing a certain way to indicate her sexual availability.

Both sides of the same coin.*

No, that's a totally false comparison. Women aren't beaten in the West for not wearing bikinis. Women aren't shunned for not wearing clothes that indicate their availibility (or even celebrate their own sexuality).

Western women do face pressures to look a certain way but those of us who don't conform to that expected standard, are still allowed to work outside the home, leave the house to go shopping and don't regularly have things thrown at us in the street.

You're comparing two very different things that aren't equal.

High Street stores appear incapable of making dresses any longer than mid-thigh (which I lack the legs for unfortunately) or with necklines decent enough for work and young men standing over my desk

Goodness knows what high street you are on. That is a ridiculous statement.

Will the models be allowed to eat? Will it be the same sulky faces and staggering silly walk as the main fashion shows?

And yes, I also like the idea of usable clothes week. Bras with no lace and that fit, shoes you can walk in, clothes with pockets to avoid the clutter of a stupid handbag, stuff like that.

Sorry lass, I should have included in my newsflash that I was talking about people who follow fashion. Personally, very few of my clothes have changed (jeans, docs, band tshirts) since the 80s

I don't know Chippednailvarnish. As pps have pointed out, they used to wear clothes, which showed a lot more skin. That doesn't mean such clothes are "tarty" or inappropriate. It simply means that these days in my 40's, I prefer the more ladylike look. These clothes are lot more wearable for a woman of my age. A lot of the stuff on the catwalk is ridiculous. I'm not going to go round wearing no underwear and not so discreetly covering my bits with long dresses with slits half way up to my armpits as recently seen on the red carpet.

At 20 I either wore a one piece Lycra rowing suit that was effectively a swimsuit with longer shorts, plus a cagoule; or a one piece Lycra catsuit for parties; or flared jeans and a hooded jumper.

Why? At that time, due to youth and rowing, I had a body that attracted positive male and female attention. I remember being thrilled at hearing a random man say 'nice legs, shame about the face' - it was the most complimentary thing I'd ever heard about my body and my self esteem depended on conforming to that physical ideal.

Modest clothing might have forced me to confront the context of my choices a bit more. It might have made me try harder to win academic respect rather than evidence of attractiveness. However I don't believe modestly dressed women are exempt from being judged sexually. I don't know what the rape rate is in Saudi Arabia but I doubt it's significantly different from other places. Rules on modest clothing don't mean fewer laws of other types restricting women's lives.

Feminism to me is not about choices exactly. Feminist theory, at least, should give a perspective on how those choices come to exist, why they are made, and what happens to men and women who choose differently from others.

.... or a fanny pelmet and a g string.

'Ladylike', 'get away with'. I'm not being disingenuous, I know what these things mean. They're not very far from 'modest' and 'Immodest' though.

Well put silently

When I think of "ladylike", I think of the glamorous 1950's women in their dresses cinched in at the waist. Not at all about "modest". I do agree "modest" isn't the best term to describe these clothes because of the opposite of immodest.

When I think of "ladylike", I think of the glamorous 1950's women in their dresses cinched in at the waist. Not at all about "modest".

Me too. Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Catherine Deneuve- Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour.

Sensible fashion should include trousers with waists that are nicely expandable so you can stuff yourself at dinner.

Apologies for my phone making Catherine Deneuve's name a clickable link to the Amazon page for Belle de Jour- no idea how that happened.

comfy-warm-fashion-with-decent-pockets week?

Yes, please! And sweatshirts whose pockets retain phone/keys etc even you are bending over and contorting yourself to poultice a horse's foot.

Stopfucking Are you actually on glue?

Definition from Oxford dictionaries includes; (of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention. ‘the modest women wear long-sleeved dresses and all but cover their faces’ So actually modest means exactly what I think it means.

My thoughts when posting. Nothing to do with a certain religion, although having read some posts which say religious teachings direct women to cover certain areas, why do we not adhere to all religious directives eg no plaiting of hair, no wearing of mixed materials and many other such ludicrous directives.

I would hope that in this century women can wear exactly what they like without being told by men or other women or fashionistas of any sort what they should wear. I agree that some of the fashions shown on the catwalk of the main show are ridiculous.

Looking up Haute Elan, who are the company running 'modest' fashion week, they are explicitly targeting the Muslim market and describe it elsewhere as 'Muslimah Fashion'. IMO that would be a much better name, Muslimah Fashion Week. Much less loaded.

'Modest' does imply that other fashion is immodest. And the opposite of that is immodest. And the definition of immodest and some of it's synonyms:

lacking humility or decorousness.
"his immodest personality"
synonyms: indecorous, improper, indecent, indelicate, indiscreet, immoral; forward, bold, brazen, impudent, unblushing, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, loose, wanton; informalfresh, cheeky, naughty, saucy
"her clothes and manner were most immodest"

Which of course gets us into the full implications of 'modest' and 'immodest' dress which implies that women who dress 'immodestly' are signalling immorality and unchasteness which then gets us into old fashioned arguments about women being dressed a certain way 'asking for it'. Which funnily enough do tend to be rather prevalent in the countries where this is the predominant mode of dress.

Joan you are being massively hypocritical objecting to supposed implications posters are making on this thread while at the same refusing to accept that 'modest' dress makes all sorts of implications about the 'immodest' dress of others.

It's a matter of mutual respect. Women are free to dress in either fashion and people are free to exhibit or sell either. There is only a problem when people start implying either preference has any kind of superiority over the other. And the 'modest' description certainly does that.

That's just you taking the choices and terminology of a minority and making it all about you, the majority.
It's not about you. It's not called the Modest (opposite of immodest which is what we're saying the rest of you are) Fashion Week.

Have you not considered that as an international and cross cultural label, perhaps your Oxford dictionary definition might not be entirely accurate?

It's not called the Modest (opposite of immodest which is what we're saying the rest of you are) Fashion Week.

That's what it means essentially though, cultural relativism aside. There's no getting away from it.

Anandale, you've nailed exactly the problem with modern "liberal feminism" - or not-feminism as I think of it, where everything is a choice. From prostitution to wearing a niqab, it's all "choice" and "empowering" and any critique or analysis of the power structures or cultural background can be dismissed as something-phobic. Not on this thread I'm glad to see.

Muslimah Fashion is an interesting term given that orthodox Jews and more traditional Christians can also follow broadly similar rules.

That's just you taking the choices and terminology of a minority and making it all about you, the majority

You have absolutely no idea whether I am a member of a majority or minority. So that along with all of your other ridiculous reasoning falls flat.

Monotheistic Abrahamic-origin fashion?