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?

Sorry but I object to the idea that to be 'modest' women have to cover their bodies apart from (usually) hands and face. I consider all religious beliefs to be part of a patriarchal society which seeks to control a woman's sexuality and divide women into harlots or Madonnas ,or the equivalent. If we look at history there have been huge periods of time where women have been told that uncovering some part of them will damn them to hell. Religion seeks to control humans in general but women have always been treated much more harshly in this regard. It seems that men go mad and can't control themselves if they catch a glimpse of a woman's hair , if that is the case then the men are really pathetic. I'm sure I will get negative comments , I am not responsible for men's appalling behaviour towards women;men are.

But Sanjee - the premise of the thread is not that people shouldn't wear what they choose, just the use of a word that implies a moral judgement. Also, whether I am wearing a bikini or long jeans and a long sleeve top, I am not showing off flesh - I'm just wearing clothes. It's important that people stop applying their moral codes to what we wear.

I'm sorry you have been abused, no-one should have to go through that.

YANBU modest as a word has various connotations for instance in terms of personality the opposite would be a show off. People would rather perhaps be seen as a modest person than the opposite. To apply it to clothes brings in all sorts of judgement to dress and is very backwards.
Something like 'full coverage clothing' would work better. Or just let people search up what clothes they want as they always have done previously.

desert nomads of both sexes cover entirely for practical reasons!

Kalahari Bushmen? Australian aborigines?

The move to voluminous clothing in hot dry climates is actually a very recent one in human terms (and only really works if you are walking quite gently at most - not running after your dinner routinely or walking miles every day carrying a toddler and 10kg of food).

It's a new fashion trend referred to as dressing modestly not directed at any religious following. Demure dressing may be a better description for those offended by "modest". I think the modest look is Great, clothes will be easier to wear and perhaps outfits will be cheaper. A modest hemline won't require leggings/trousers underneath to "protect" modesty. Dresses with high necks, sleeves won't need a top underneath either.

clothes will be easier to wear and perhaps outfits will be cheaper

Something like 'full coverage clothing' would work better. Or just let people search up what clothes they want as they always have done previously

If there really are people who find it too difficult to navigate M&S website to find clothes they like then "full coverage" is nice, accurate, non- judgemental description.

Am sure this has already been said but I had a look at the curated outfits and they look nice to me. Good for cold weather. I'm not sure what I thought a 'modest' look would be but these look like normal outfits for the weather! My one observation would be the high necklines I suppose. Also the 'modest' look is in fashion currently. Band and wagon?

Horrendous!

I suspect this is mainly aimed at Orthodox Jewish woman.
Modest dress means: Covered below the collar bone, covered above the elbow, covered above the knee when sitting down=mid calf level.
Also if you are married, widowed or divorced you cover your hair with a wig, a scarf or a hat.
Men are also expected to dress modestly, but men's hair is not expected to drive women to think lascivious thoughts (!), so they don't need to cover their hair, BUT they do need to cover their hair to respect God, so Orthodox Jewish wear a scull cap (kippa or yamulke) or an ordinary hat.

It's a bit of a narcissistic leap to look at a clothes range called "modest" and think "OMG ARE THEY SAYING I'M A SLAG THEN?"

Yes the opposite of modest is immodest and yes, by religious terms, stuff that shows skin is immodest. So what? Why do you care? You can't change the meaning of the word.

Even if M&S get rid of this range, doesn't change the fact that a mini skirt will still be defined as "immodest" by the religious definition of modesty.

The range caters to a certain population - why do you care about being labelled the opposite of a word that has no significance in your life?

I'm getting a bit bored with the posters coming here to say 'why do you care' etc.

It doesn't look religious based to me. More about clothing that covers you a bit more. I've worked in various schools and many are strict about showing any cleavage so having a range of modest stuff takes the thinking out of it!

The word modest will still retain the same meaning to the people who buy from this "modest" range, even if M&S stopped selling it. Do you want to write it out of the English language? Or in your opinion should these women not call their clothing "modest"? Why are you so bothered about what other people call their own clothes?

Should I not call my coloured coats "nice" because it implies that khaki ones are fugly?

I work in a couture made to measure fashion house and have many women requesting dresses that have high necklines and long sleeves. Some are covering for religious reasons, some out of choice. They all say the same thing, it's so hard to find clothes like this. I think M&S have been clever and found a gap in the market and will sell this collection. Let's be honest, M&S trying to sell young and trendy clothes isn't working and they should stop trying as that part of the industry is saturated and others do it better.

I want long sleeves and high necklines. At the start of the thread, "modest" didn't really strike me as a problem - but having read the thread, I can see the point now.

just look like winter clothes to me. don't like the term 'modest' though as it implies, as others have said, a moral judgement on what women choose to wear.

Yolo you read any of the opposite views. It has nothing to do with individual women. The point is the validation being given by one the best known retailers in the UK that it is acceptable to put public moral judgements on whether or not women are dressed "modestly"

Your comment about your coat is utterly irrelevant.

acceptable to put public moral judgements on whether or not women are dressed "modestly"

But it's not a judgement, that word is in the dictionary and has a certain meaning with respect to clothes.

It is the same as the coat comment. "They're saying these clothes are MODEST which means they are calling me IMMODEST and because I don't like the definition of the word immodest, they're OFFENDING me".

It's akin not liking petite ranges because it implies you're large.

The fact that large groups of women want to be able to find "modest" or "small" or whatever clothing isn't going to change, and also M&S is a retailer that are going to cater to what the majority of people want.

There are more women that will buy this 'modest' clothing than women who are offended by it.

Also, M&S won't care about the moral implications of their clothes ranges unless it loses them money - so everyone that's actually offended by this range should boycott them.

I can see why there is a problem with the word 'modest' veing used for clothing- linguistically it has its opposite immodest, so its easily comparable. However, if one has to search for less-covered clothes, one doesn't search for immodest clothes, one searches forshort-length/miniskirt/cocktail/off shoulder etc etc. When it comes to clothing, the definition of an actual clothing will ve different to an individual's perception of what it should be defined as.

Yolo - petite is not a value judgement, modest most definitely is.

Offended is the wrong term, I'm not offended by it but I think sexism should be called out.

It's akin not liking petite ranges because it implies you're large

No it isn't. The "petite" range is the opposite of tall or larger range. It is a statement of fact. There is no moral judgements being applied to either.

And as Luna says it has nothing to do with being "offended".

Maybe only intelligent women understand why this is a worrying trend

Oh come on, thats uncalled for.

Come up with a new name for it or end the thread.