To be surprised that M&S has a section on their website for Modest Clothing?

[Scabbersley]

here

What's that all about then? Why does it warrant its own category?

Their 'modest' range is clearly targeted to the muslim community because there is a market for it .

So what? No need to feel threatened by that is there?

*Can't they call it 'religious wear'

Mayim bialik sliced bits off all her babies*

I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds quite distasteful.

I don't really understand the squeamishness either chardonnay. The market potential is well known;

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/9763b2c8-8692-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7 (Only readable in google view or with FT subscription)

www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/major_retailers_overlook_uk_muslim_market/39224

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/07/muslim-lifestyle-expo-london-global-brands-spending-power

www.jwtintelligence.com/2017/04/new-muslim-consumer-landscape/

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046ny89

Yes. There is a market for it. No problem. I have no problem with it being sold I don't give a shit what anyone else wears or why. Just not under that name.

Names are loaded. This name implies women who do not wear it are 'immodest' and therefore inviting sexual assault and rape.

I don't see why M & S wouldn't cheerfully give it an Islamic flavoured branding of some sort.

I don't know Khadijah, Leila, Farrah. Or something more intangible, but something oblique.

It's all a bit Ronseal ATM, and unnecessarily controversial, and excluding.

AFAICS, Muslim women are there main target market, but so in smaller numbers are other religious groups, skin cancer survivors, Jane Doe coverage lover etc.

So brand. Which gives you an inclusive edge, recognises the main target customer and doesn't alienate anyone either. It seems obvious to me.

Their^ main target...

odd name but I cant think of a better one
I do like higher necklines though...
just to keep the sun off the upper chest and stave off the crepey look

There must be some alternative to "modest". Why are they not making it a sub brand and really embracing that market segment?

Ultra conservative would do it.

Ultra:

adjective
1.
going beyond what is usual or ordinary; excessive; extreme.

conservative:

conservative
kənˈsəːvətɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
"they were very conservative in their outlook"
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, stable, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, unchanging, hidebound; More
2.

In the context of the UK and British women as a whole, (and we are in the UK, so I think that's relevant) these clothing requirements and restrictions can certainly be described as 'going beyond what is usual or ordinary, and in many cases are considered excessive or extreme.

And averse to change, hidebound, orthodox, traditionalist, unchanging? Yes to all of that. The fashions might change a little, but only within strict parameters that never change. That's the difference between so-called modest fashion and all other fashion.

So 'ultra conservative' does it for me. Or even just conservative, if the 'ultra' bit offends thee.

Not so nice when the negative value judgement is on the other foot though, is it?

I think "normal" would do it for me or "warm". It's winter- surely long sleeves, long dresses and high necks should be widely available. Often shops seem to think we want to wear skimpy clothing all the year around.

I don't see why M & S wouldn't cheerfully give it an Islamic flavoured branding of some sort.

Yes! Although might alienate the Jewish customer. And it's not actually a brand, just a collection cashing on in a trend. I am going to write to them today to complain.

Maybe it is actually aimed at Mormons.

I've just contacted them to ask why their women's menu has a 'modest outfits' item while their men's menu doesn't.

It's put me off m&s. To mainstream the concept of women's physical 'modesty'? To tell women what is modest - so a woman can't make the call by herself?

I've been thinking about this thread a lot. I suppose as a feminist I do think that a significant part of the fashion industry is about marketing highly sexualised/gendered versions of the female body. In the same way that we may 'love' men who are part and parcel of patriarchal society, some of us may also 'love' wearing clothes that display our cleavage, skirts that are cut so we can't stride out, with hemlines that mean we have to be careful how we sit and stand up, shoes that deform our feet and which adversely affect our balance. We'll freely choose them in the same way we freely choose jobs that are valued and paid less than jobs done by men. (I'm not saying that in some circumstances wearing shorts and a vest isn't sensible.) However the freedom of wearing short skirts and sleeveless tops also means being 'free' to do extensive depilation because showing body hair is also being 'immodest'.....

This is an interesting discussion. And one that's remained pretty intelligent; something that's becoming less common on MN

I'm not sure that, in the context of fashion and search terms, "immodest" is the opposite of "modest". The opposite would be "bodycon", which isn't quite the same as "sexy".

"Immodest" gives me the creeps.

At the moment, we are seeing a massive pushback against women's rights. An endorsement of women covering themselves, couched in judgemental language, is part of a bigger problem. As is this idea that religion should be 'respected' when religion is the single most poisonous invention human beings ever managed. The purpose of religion is social control on the basis of the imaginary friend who somehow, magically, makes reproduction something that is owned and controlled by men, so that men are, according to the imaginary friend, entitled to own and control women.

I suppose also the freedom to display our cleavage is also about the freedom to wear a piece of engineering that is tight against our rib cage and shoves our mammary glands up and together.

If loose clothing is an oppression, does corsetry liberate?

(Also I am not entirely sure that religion can be reduced to a malevolent sky pixie. It's something that human beings have shaped and takes various forms in various societies. Secular societies in which religious belief has been outlawed have not necessarily been free ones. There is this thing called liberation theology....)

To mainstream the concept of women's physical 'modesty'

This is the real issue. Millions of women dress in a way they describe as modest clothing. You don't want them to be accepted as mainstream, even though they exist in large numbers. You want them to be other, to not be accepted as like you. They should have their own shops and their own clothes, you don't want them to be in your shops, in M&S.

You don't want to be associated with those women. It's not the clothes you don't like, its the women who wear them and their religions and their colour, often.

Lets be honest here.

Brilliant post tiny/

You don't want to be associated with those women. It's not the clothes you don't like, its the women who wear them and their religions and their colour, often.

Lets be honest here

You start then. With the honesty.

Can you really not see that this is a case of two sets of heartfelt values in genuine collision with each other? Western progressive feminism v a Religious piety resurgence.

I'm not sure why you'd make a cheap shot by suggesting, apparently perversely, that the issue must be racism. Why inflict that interpretation on other people's beliefs, without evidence? Why not believe what you hear?

It has been an intelligent discussion (as pp said),
are you trying to derail that?

Where is the men's 'modest' clothing? It's not thinly veiled Islamophobia to be against the name, it's thinly veiled bodyshaming and trying to make women who dress in other clothing feel they are doing something wrong/not being as 'virtuous' as women who are all covered up. Isn't the fashion industry secular? Why are they making a new category for something that must have always existed (or what did covered women wear before?)? It seems like an agenda is being pushed for some reason and bandwagon jumping leads to peer pressure leads to removal of choice.

This has been a very intelligent and interesting discussion. I was expecting the race issue to be introduced much earlier. I think you sound terribly naive tiny but if you are young I forgive you.

Sadly your attitude is why women's rights get slowly picked at and eroded.

It's put me off m&s. To mainstream the concept of women's physical 'modesty'? To tell women what is modest - so a woman can't make the call by herself?

I can't interpret it as M&S handing down diktats on women's clothing, knowing they'll have consulted and taken detailed advice on what's acceptable to target groups.

It's M&S as reflector of demand, interpreter of specific requirements. Not M&S as fashion despot, surely?

No, yours is. You are only for the rights you agree with. You aren't standing up for womens rights to wear what they choose, and to have those clothes be mainstream like yours are.
You are insulting huge numbers of women, othering them and judging them.

YOU are eroding womens rights.