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?

IF you're going to claim that the hijab isn't worn because women are required to do so, and therefore that it is offensive to suggest it's because of any pressure, then why is it ignorant to ask why it hasn't taken off as a fashion item all over the world?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just goady? OBVIOUSLY there are women forced to dress in certain ways. You assuming that ALL women only dress in certain ways because they are forced to is offensive. It's patronising and its racist.

If some women, for religious reasons, are required to wear 'modest clothing' so as not to draw attention to themselves or to attract men, then it stands to reason that they have an idea of what clothes do not fit the descriptor of 'modest', wouldn't you agree? Would a Muslim (for example) woman who wished to follow the teachings of the Koran be happy to wear a knee length skirt with bare legs in the summer without a hijab? I think probably not and why not? Because that is immodest, ie drawing attention to yourself and garnering sexual attention from men

I remember reading an article about one of the men from the Rochdale grooming gang who said that the teenage non muslim girls dressed "like slags" which I presumed to mean they weren't covered up.

These words matter.

Tiny. Religious garments rarely come with a free choice, even if that person decides to wear it their intention is to please God.

Sigh. Why are you so angry? You're like a bitter little firework.

YOU said that "gobshites" tried to "force women out of the hijab".

NOBODY said that all women are "forced to dress in a certain way".

The question put to you was this - if SOME women wear the hijab purely out of free choice, and not to do with any religious or social reasons, as YOUR POST indicates, why don't other women do the same?

If that's not what you were saying, then what were you saying, because your post was, in that case, very unclear.

Do Muslims/Jews/Quakers etc use the term 'modest' to talk about how women dress or should dress, or do they not?

Rhiannon Quakers used to have a thing about "plain dress", eg not letting buttons show on clothing because buttons were frivolous. Quakers have moved on a bit since then.

I will put money on some Quakers dressing plainly because of the "simplicity" testimony of Quakerism, other Quakers dressing plainly because they can't be arsed not to, and yet other Quakers loving fashion and dressing accordingly. Same with Muslim women and Jewish women.

I don't care if any woman wants to cover up or strip off. I cover up, but not because of my faith. I cover up because I have bingo wings and cankles and do not wish to show them off to the populace. I do have friends and relative who cover up because of their faith, but that level of covering-up varies very, very widely. I also have friends and relatives of faith who get really, really pissed off with other people of faith being the ones to determine what is "modest" and what is not.

I've already talked about seeing a mum in the playground being bullied by other mums for her "immodesty" in showing her upper arms. I also have a much younger female relative who has a faith, and who considers herself perfectly modest, and yet who has had to stop shopping in her favourite shopping area when she's alone because she gets hassled by young men for her "immodesty" in not dressing like they think all women should dress.

And here we have a major high-street retailer, with a very particular view of what counts as "modest", pushing that view out as something mainstream and respectable. Their actions in selling these clothes is great - all women should be able to buy the clothes they want easily. Their actions in labelling these clothes as "modest" will contribute greatly to women - including women of faith - getting bullied. it's a disgrace.

Are you a first year yourself tiny?

tiny as far as I can see this thread has been a pretty balanced discussion of a sensitive subject which remained civil until you came along.

Words do matter. However I do doubt that the young men hassling the young woman for her clothes (which is shocking - is this in a western country?) were using the word modest. Or were they?

I accept the playground mother's may have been, but in most communities in the UK, as you say, the words would be slag or slut not "immodest". Immodest is a very prim word which hasn't been in common use as an insult or criticism for decades.

I'm really on the fence about modest because I think it's a word that has become a fashion term - words are used in many ways and meanings evolve.

You only have to look at the word special and phrases including it, to see the pitfalls of enforcing the use of more palatable labels; clinical words for specific special needs became horrible disablist insults, but every time a new more acceptable term is found it ends up being corrupted into an insulat and people understandably start objecting to the word being used at all.

There is also of course the reclaiming of words...

why don't more non-Muslim women wear the hijab?

A lot of women will cover their heads in certain contexts as a matter of social/cultural convention.

Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs or cover their heads in other ways - eg wearing a beret or scraf

Bridal veiling is a survival of Christian beliefs about headcovering.
Women from some Christian churches will still cover their heads.

For both sexes going bareheaded outdoors is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the first part of the twentieth century women and men would wear hats.

In my own childhood women would routinely wear headscarves out of doors. (This might be partly to do with protecting set hair.

As to why women who aren't Muslim don't wear hijabs specifically it may partly be that there's a particular set of custom about how you tie and fasten the scarves. It has to be taught. There'll be YouTube videos I'm sure. But I imagine it tends to be a skill that's passed on rather like some women will be taught to tightly braid/cornrow hair.

I think part of the Islamophobia is that we've been conditioned to see other coverings as just hats or scarves or berets and don't notice them. Whereas women who wear the hijab are routinely 'othered.'

I doubt M&S really thought this through to be honest. I imagine they've seen all the hype about Modest Fashion Week, looked at the stats for growing numbers of women in the UK who cover, seen a gap in the market and decided to jump on the bandwagon. They probably think that by using the word modest they are just 'reaching out' to a new audience by blurting buzz words.

Fair enough, but once enough people have pointed out to them why terming those clothes as modest is offensive to those of us who are not ashamed or afraid to show our forearms and lower legs and collar bones and necks, hopefully they will dispense with the modest tag and just get on with quietly selling all sorts of clothes for all sorts of women, without the value judgements.

I think part of the Islamophobia is that we've been conditioned to see other coverings as just hats or scarves or berets and don't notice them. Whereas women who wear the hijab are routinely 'othered.'

interesting anna and you know your clothes history! Arent Jewish orthodox head coverings worn by men and women, ditto Christianity?

Well I think the difference there is that there is absolutely no societal expectation or pressure on anyone to wear a scarf or a hat and it's mostly determined by the weather. Most people will occasionally wear a hat or a scarf but mostly not wear them.

Except the women who cover consistently when out in public or in the presence of unrelated men, for religious reasons, regardless of the weather or the occasion. It's comparing apples and oranges really.

And some Muslim men (depending on where they are from) wear some form of head covering most of the time, the difference is they are free to wear it, or not wear it without any judgement from their community, whereas most women who cover are not afforded the same freedom to to dip in and out at will, when out in public. Many in the UK will be of course, but by no means all.

And the same applies to Orthodox Jews of course.

It doesn't look as if tiny is coming back to explain herself, in which case the question about why other women don't adopt it from a genuinely free choice is moot - I think everyone else is saying the same thing.

not dressing like they think all women should dress.

That for me is the big issue. I can accept that someone may dress a particular way because for their own personal body they want to do something (though am sad if they would put a completely different expectation if they were a different gender). What gets me is the universal applicability, ie as a woman one should dress a certain way - and particularly when it’s extended to women who aren’t even of that belief system (as happens to any woman visiting parts of Africa and Asia).

Yeah it would be less loaded if they called it 'full coverage' means the same but not judgy of women wearing 'immodest' clothes. Or just had a search function for long sleeves and full length trousers. Lots of women would like that for non religious reasons anyway.

I find that an interesting dilemma, sprogle. On the one hand I believe strongly that you should respect local cultures and people's rights to do as they want.

But when that means treating women in a very different way to men, the two things become hard to reconcile!

Yeah it would be less loaded if they called it 'full coverage' means the same but not judgy of women wearing 'immodest' clothes.

"Swathed"?

This naming things malarkey is harder than it looks.

Rebecca - I agree with not behaving in a way that upsets the locals, but also have no interest in subjecting myself to vast sexism. After all, no-one would have said back in the ‘80s, “Meh, Lenny Henry should just go to South Africa and enjoy their cultural way of doing things.”

While I’m still a bit wistful about some of the amazing things (often predaring by millenia the current ‘conservative ‘ culture) to see in many countries elsewhere, I’m generally happy to holiday in Europe. We have amazing and diverse landscapes and history aplenty. And I can walk/cycle about by myself, wearing my scanty lycra#, with very few people being askance let alone attacking me (verbally or physically) for it.

#I did actually once find myself overdressed in crop top and cycling shorts. It was Slovenia, the Great Heatwave of 2003, and every other woman out &about seemed to be in a bikini...

Arent Jewish orthodox head coverings worn by men and women, ditto Christianity?

I think that for Orthodox Jewish men the kippah has a similar meaning to the hijab. In terms of the scriptures it's not prescribed, but it has come to have devotional significance and is also seen as a way of marking you out as observant.

It's also occurred to me that the turban - mandatory for Sikh men - also causes debate/provoked hostility at times.

'swathed' makes me think of those M&S type porno food ads, you know, where something is 'swathed in glorious, velvety rich chocolate...'.

I still like 'Longer Lines', suggested by Suki upthread.

Women should be free and empowered to choose not to wear certain type of clothing, they must also be free and empowered to wear it, if that's what they want.

All 'swathed' women I know do so voluntarily, even if it's to please God , it's completely that individuals choice. ( see there is a choice)
Millions of women all over the world dress swathed/modest, doesn't mean, they are backwards, wrong or invalid. They are raised and educated, given all the opportunities just like you and me and very capable of making their own choices about what they wear. Also if they choose to cover as well as in the summer they are very capable of using appropriate materials to keep them cool , just like you know how to choose it.
Also they feel plenty of summer breeze in their hair and arms just like you and me.

Do not mix culture and religion, two entirely different concepts. Blame the certain cultures, countries how they adopt the religion, Do not blame the religion itself.

What you are wearing is irrelevant for predators, next time you see covered women ask her if she has been sexually assaulted, the answer will be yes.

I guess it's a line if you want to cover a part of your body for any reason - maybe a scar or terrible varicose veins. 'Confidence' wear?

So people are objecting to the term 'swathed' because it's negative but can't see why other women are bothered by the implication their clothes are immodest? Sheesh.