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?

It's definitely not about not wanting to mix with these women, it's the idea that brands are now pandering to this misogynist ideal of modest women who are property of "men".

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"

bodycon means tight - body contouring - so yes, that is some ways would be the opposite of the outfits on show. But 'revealing' might be a more honest opposite as the outfits are designed to hide as much skin as possible, even scarves to hide necks, dresses over trousers, all quite loose.

I don't want to have to hide my body.

YOU are eroding womens rights

oh dear

Oh dear? Is that all you have to say to the millions of women you have insulted and told there is no place for them in your shops?

I don't want to have to hide my body

You don't have to. Women fought long and hard so you don't have to. Why don't you give the same courtesy to those women who choose differently?

Do women who like modest clothing not have eyes?

Bizarre.

I don't wear tits out arse hugging clothing and yet I use my eyes to see the clothing I like and don't go into shops that won't accommodate my tastes.

Does M&S have a "flaunt your wares" section?

My grandmother (born 1912, Manchester, Catholic) used to work in fashion and used to sell "modesty camisoles". Prettily trimmed silky vest things designed to wear under slightly too plunging necklines, slightly see through blouses and to prevent clothes clinging to every last body bump.

She was a successful model and beauty queen, and liked to remind us that stylish dressing required "showing less meat than you'd see in a butchers shop window".

It's a bit hard to take your position seriously tiny considering your insistence that "halal" only applies to food. Maybe you're not the best spokesperson for the "millions"?

I read a very interesting book recently on veiling in three religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

It was interesting that when - I think it was in the 1970s - the Pope decided that nuns should be liberated from having to wear the veil and wear more modern clothing, many nuns were far from happy.

The veil had freed them from having to think about how they looked. Now they had to think about their hair. Was it in satisfactory condition. How should they wash and style it? When they went out would people think they looked frumpy? Or too fashionable? What was a suitable hairstyle for a nun?

I think the point is that there is no one style of clothing or physical appearance that is neutral. For one group in society - whether it's Western secular women or a church leader - to decide they know what the 'correct'/liberated look and to attempt to police matters - is to act oppressively.

Why don't you give the same courtesy to those women who choose differently?

What, like myself? I am 50+, a bit overweight and scarred. I do show my legs from the knee down, and my arms. But during the cold weather I cover myself up for warmth, as do most women. This should never be labelled with a religous value judgement. Also I am sure religious women bowing to what their men want are not so blind that they can't shop for dresses and trousers

Anna - That’s a helluva straw man you’ ve set up @ 8.41 & 9.13: ‘modest ‘ clothing as practical, all other stuff as uncomfortable and sexualised. If there was a god, I’ d be thanking Her for lycra - and as mentioned upthreas, wear it tight and often minimal for entirely practical reasons. Tell the woman I saw staggering about dressed in covering clothing, lurching from patch of shade to patch of shade in temps of barely 25C, how practical her outfit was. In the developed world we have a massive choice of clothing relative to elsewhere - to say that in the mainstream we’re generally forced into stilettos and boob-popping tops is farcical.

yes anna, this is an argument used by many muslim women, that being under oppression actually makes life so easy for them as they don't have to make their own decisions.

I don't agree.

We don't free women to make their own clothing choices on the grounds of taste, practicality, comfort or anything else by labelling any type of clothing 'modest', for the simple reason that this is the only morals-related label around, and whether you go around completely covered or completely naked is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with morality. Except in the idea of woman-haters and superstitious idiots.

I would argue that there are many kinds of liberation and many kinds of oppression. It's possible to be free in some respects and to have boundaries imposed upon us in others. My impression is that 'Muslims' are no more a homogenous group than those who were brought up in a Christian culture. And that the two groups have much in common.

Meanwhile www.wokingquakers.org/articles/the-new-plain/

All your examples are religious ones Anna.

These mean boundaries are imposed by men upon women.

I find the creeping normalisation of archaic religious moral judgements is very, very worrying.

The veil had freed them from having to think about how they looked. Now they had to think about their hair. Was it in satisfactory condition. How should they wash and style it? When they went out would people think they looked frumpy? Or too fashionable? What was a suitable hairstyle for a nun?

I wonder if monks would fret about this issue? It seems to me that women, even religious ones, are subject to peer and social pressure about their appearance in a way/to an extent that men just aren't.

" can see many advantages of Plain Dress: no worries about what you wear each day, simplified laundry, wearing it is a constant reminder of your own ethics and it is a visible sign to the world that Quakers still exist. Plain Dress can also be very feminist; simple, practice clothes are the antithesis of much of today’s overtly sexual clothing"

what, like jeans, sweatshirts and trainers? But with added religious doctrine and an undercurrent of shame.

" Now they had to think about their hair. Was it in satisfactory condition. How should they wash and style it? When they went out would people think they looked frumpy? Or too fashionable? What was a suitable hairstyle for a nun?"

fuck me. Nuns sound neurotic. I never have these thoughts unless my hair is minging.

Also Anna, in the Quaker one, they are actually condoning wearing aprons and bonnets. I think we'll be waiting some time for M and S to reintroduce those.

I don't want to have to hide my body

You don't have to. Women fought long and hard so you don't have to. Why don't you give the same courtesy to those women who choose differently?

But you are given that same courtesy. No-one forces Muslims or anyone else to show their hair, or their shoulders or their legs. You can wear what you like. Non religious women sometimes like hats and long sleeves and baggy stuff too. It just doesn't need to be given a label that tells us all how virtuous you are. Any more than a row of mini skirts need a sign above them saying 'SLUTTY ATTIRE HERE'.

They are all just clothes. I have to root around for ages to find things that suit me and my lifestyle, why shouldn't you have to do the same?

Re the pressing issue of what a woman does with her hair if she doesn’t cover it. Not for me it isn’t. For years, my default ‘style ‘ has either been a No.2 cut (done myself) or a plain ponytail (and more recently, if it gets brushed, that’s a bonus).

Buddhist nuns (and monks) simply have their hair removed.

Oh, and arf at the idea that ‘modest ‘ dress goes along with rejecting or not bothering about standards of grooming, or gender expectations. Some of the most OTT grooming I’ve ever seen (sexualised makeup) and designer label obsession, has been in religiously covered women.

I wonder if monks would fret about this issue? It seems to me that women, even religious ones, are subject to peer and social pressure about their appearance in a way/to an extent that men just aren't.

There are also rules for monks re hair.

I imagine that a monk who left the orders, or in an order where the rules were relaxed, might also be bewildered by the choices available.
Though I'd say, it tend to be younger men who are more affected by pressures to be groomed and stylish. However at various historical eras, elaborate hair styling for men has been important. (Wigs.)

I have to root around for ages to find things that suit me and my lifestyle, why shouldn't you have to do the same
Seriously? WTF?

All this bullshit about some clothes being grouped together! It clearly isn't really about that, because no-one could possibly care that M&S put some of their ugly-ass clothes together under a new sign. So what is it really about?
the people, not the clothes. You don't like the people who wear them.

This should never be labelled with a religous value judgement

You are the ones saying that "modest clothing" is a religious value judgement. You're the ones doing the value judgements here.