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?

What is so difficult to understand that applying such a loaded judgemental term to a style of clothing is wrong?

Remember Lass, you are trying to reason with someone who says that conservative just makes her think of Theresa May.

I think you might be pissing into the wind. Or trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it or something.

As I have said all of this is caused by patriarchal religions deciding that women are either 'good' or 'bad' . And yes I realize that people are going to say 'men have rules too' , but frankly that cuts no ice with me. I regularly see women totally wrapped up with just small amount of face showing and their hands, but I see men walking around in western dress leering at young women and worse. We are on a slippery slope now I realize but if some women are being 'modest' and good then where does that leave those of us who wear skirts that are short, leave arms uncovered ,don't cover hair etc? The assumption is made by some that women who do this are not 'good' ,and all of this is done in the name of religion. And to say otherwise is missing the point of the 'modest' range. I have worked with Muslim women who have worm western dress and oh my word did they get grief from their community for it! In fact all of them looked fine to me, perfect dress for work but because arms below the elbow were showing, small amount chest and uncovered hir were on show they were regularly abused. Words matter, they start wars, cause hurt and change the way we think, I don't see the need to label clothing 'modest'.

If they had launched the line and called it 'Crystal' or 'Elle' or something less loaded no-one would bat an eyelid. It's the fact that it is the loaded word 'modest' that bothers me.

Women who want long sleeved tops or longer length skirts just go and choose... longer length clothing from the normal ranges on the rails. M&S do different lengths in some lines anyway.

Why does it have to be labelled? If I want a long sleeve top I can easily find that by typing in 'long sleeved top/sweater/blouse' whatever. just as if I want a one piece swimsuit I can type that into a website. the more I think about it the crosser I get.

Tolerance is not that easy a concept.

It does mean tolerating other people's viewpoints. They may not be your own, but a tolerant person listens and remains open to the possibility they have something to learn and that an alternative viewpoint may have some validity. It's about - if you like - retaining an element of modesty in regard to one's own cherished beliefs.

Although M&S is being castigated for perceived intolerance, I'd suggest that there is also a kind of intolerance being displayed towards many posters whose viewpoint diverges from 'mainstream Mumsnetry'.

There's a lot that's good about Western secular feminism. But -particularly when civility goes out of the window - it can also veer dangerously close to a kind of narrow-minded arrogance.

Is that what you see here anna? Because I see a lot of very intelligent discussion.

Anna - like when a group of fully veiled women wouldn't allow me to sit near them at 8 months pregnant on a boiling hot day?

Like when a gang of girls in headscarves in Whitechapel tried to push me into the road calling "slag" for wearing a short skirt?

Like when my flatmate in our halls at my London uni simply wouldn't socialise with us and her parents wrote to the university to ask if she could be moved to an all Asian flat with no white girls? Or the way there was a huge posse of students who were exactly the same and would only hang out together?

Like the terrorists who wanted to target "tiger tiger" and specifically said they were after "all them slags"?

That sort of tolerance?!

It is a fact that western women are viewed as indecent by a small % of some communities. That needs to be overcome with tolerance and better understanding of one another. Allowing shops to start deciding what clothing is "modest" is hardly going to help that!

It's not the range but the name. In western society it is not generally seen as sexy/suggestive or whatever to wear a knee length skirt with tights and a blouse. This range is completely covered, loose leggings under a longer dress over a high necked, long-sleeved top. This suggests their term 'modest' refers to no skin showing whatsoever. What is wrong with human skin??? What is so suggestive?

It is actually quite an insult to women of faith who choose to be completely covered. Are they not capable of finding these garments in most stores?

Anna - your last post would have a point if any one was saying women should not have the right to buy fuller coverage clothes from M&S. But no one has said that.

Lois a poster just described ordering online and having to send things back because it wasn't clear from the description they'd be see through etc.

People on this thread who feel strongly aren't doing themselves any favours by calling anyone not agreeing with them hard of thinking and ignoring posts that make sensible points in favour of easier to pounce on ones.

The argument that no other clothes are labelled with words used for morals is weak because what other morals are there that could be applied to clothing? Faithful clothing? Truthful clothing? Non murdery clothing? Non thieving clothing? That argument seems as nonsensical as saying "M&S is saying that anyone not buying from the modest range is a whore" when they patently do not want to put people off buying their other clothing. "M&S could, if someone wished to use the range for different purposes, be seen as saying other clothes are not modest, even though they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they really meant to imply that" would be realistic.

Twisting words and banning words and telling people what they can call themselves is also Orwellian. Words are powerful and the Orwell reference is being used as a blunt instrument along a #nodebate line of thinking by some here

There has to be debate about everything, and trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree by saying they are not intelligent or well read enough to understand that they are wrong is to try to shame people out of speaking, which is poisonous.

Wait a minute, did you really just say ‘narrow minded arrogance’ about the people arguing here that M&S should not be colluding with those who place value judgements on different types of clothing and the women who choose them?

Oh the fucking irony.

It's not an insult to make things quick and easy to find. That's the entire reason for search bars, drop down menus and other clickable links.

Otherwise were being insulted by any categories at all, why not just look at everything one by one - it's an insult to think women can't find the suit trousers unless they're labelled "workwear" and "smart" (despite the fact lots of us wear jeans to work)

"Smart" is a value judgement and most certainly a searchable term.

The argument that no other clothes are labelled with words used for morals is weak because what other morals are there that could be applied to clothing

The entire point is that only women's clothes are labelled as "modest". You have put forward your own nonsensical argument.

Oh for goodness sake, we have all bought stuff online that wasn't as described , and if you are buying from M&S there are enough stores to be able to wander round and see if you like it. I object to it being called 'modest' .The word implies that other clothes;shorter , showing cleavage,; bare arms etc are not modest. I can't believe that in the 21st century women are being pointed to modest clothing as if we were in the Middle Ages. What next? trials for witchcraft? If women want to dress like that fine, but as you will see from my other posts I believe it to be men telling women what to do and treating them as if they are possessions under the guise of religion. The end result is women being traded in marriage so they are kept 'pure' and don't bring 'shame' on the family. I suppose now I've opened another can of worms.

Smart may be a value judgement but it’s not a morally or religiously loaded value judgement. That’s the difference.

The opposite of smart clothing is casual clothing. The opposite of modest clothing is?

The opposite of modest clothing could be whatever you want, as you seem to be making up the rules, but it could easily be "modern" or "liberated" or anything else positive. Marketing terms are always positive obviously, so clearly there is never going to be a marketing category which the retailer believes is negative!

Ask people what the opposite of smart is and they are likely to say "scruffy". Casual cannot be the opposite, otherwise "smart-casual" could not be such a common dress code. Nobody will seek out clothes sold as scruffy, so obviously nothing is marketed as scruffy.

Nobody will seek out clothes sold as scruffy, so obviously nothing is marketed as scruffy

Er yes, correct. The subject is marketing terms for clothes. Nothing you have said is any justification for using the loaded and judgemental term "modest" which only applies to women's clothes.

Smart, casual, daywear, evening wear, sportswear, relaxed fit, longer length, shorter length etc etc - factual statements with no value judgements. And then there is "modest"

Tell me all you defenders of the term "modest" what is wrong with calling this style "fuller coverage" or "conservative"?

Is that what you see here anna? Because I see a lot of very intelligent discussion.

There is some intelligent discussion. But there's also misinformation and/or lack of knowledge and/or implying that anything a person hasn't encountered is simpily untrue.

For example there seems to be no evidence to support the assertion above that Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland while under the influence on drugs.

Or it was suggested that a point I made about library classification - to illustrate a point about gendered marketing - is untrue.

Sometimes on the internet, there is more heat than light. There is also taunting of posters who decide to step back from a debate in which they've been treated with a lack of courtesy that is designed to drive them away. 'Well X doesn't seem to have come back. I don't think we'll be seeing more of them'. It's a bit like doing your best to silence somebody, and then blaming them for not speaking up. (One might call it the Weinstein approach.)

Lass the main thing I object to on this thread is the assertion that anyone not in absolute agreement with the op's premis is too stupid to be allowed a voice. The OP herself and various others have come out and said so and it's absolutely repugnant, as well as being hypocritical.

I couldn't care less about the word modest but I do care about the "oh my goodness" ing and the "only unintelligent women are not of one mind with me and should shut up" attitude.

As you say we are talking about marketing and words are loaded. Split second first impressions are also what matters to marketers when trying to grab maximum clicks, views, interest and sales.

Given that retailers are not exclusively marketing to people the op deems worthy of a voice it does matter that there are potential customers (many I suspect) who don't distinguish between Conservative and conservative, and who associate the word "fuller" with "fuller figure" plus size clothing, which is where that word is usually found in fashion marketing.

Re previous posts; I am now popping to the shops, I am going to look for 'whore' clothing. I think it might surprise my OH. What is 'whore' clothing?

Lois its next to the straw men.

Thank you!

Given that retailers are not exclusively marketing to people the op deems worthy of a voice that is not what the OP said

it does matter that there are potential customers (many I suspect) who don't distinguish between Conservative and conservative, and who associate the word "fuller" with "fuller figure" plus size clothing, which is where that word is usually found in fashion marketing

Fashion marketing invents terms for example "street wear" "urban wear" - "sports casual". In these internet everywhere days it really would not be difficult to use an accurate non judgemental term. "Modest" as a marketing tool is pretty new anyway.