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?

Don't blame you Lois

The effort it takes sometimes to get some women to see things from, umm, a women's perspective ...

Not read whole thread but saw this:

"Clever M&S modest clothing is HUGE and not just in Islam. As others have already mentioned also some forms of Judaism and Christianity. Men have to ascribe to modest dress too."

So I had a quick check and the "modest" is a subsection of women's, when you put modest in there isn't a men's section or equivalent.

Which is unsurprising but revealing (pun not intended).

I accept that there is a current zeitgeist for 'modest' fashion at the moment that isn't driven at all by religion or culture at all but by that sort of folksy hipster thing, all beards and lumberjack shirts and Icelandic fisherman jumpers for men and demure/naive pinafores, baggy smocks, plaited hair and frumpy brogues for the women.

But that is a fad and it will pass. I think its a coincidence that it is happening in parallel with the rise in (largely Muslim driven) so-called modest fashion. I doubt its inspired by it or because of it.

I seriously doubt that any of those earnest, vegan fashionista types in big nerdy glasses are buying much from M&S, modest or otherwise.

I don't see how anyone could not be concerned by the fact that there is no equivalent section for men. I just don't get that!

I'm not going Lala at all. I'm just pointing out that tolerance is a balance, people have different perspectives and women have the right to dress as they choose

Has. Anyone. Said. That. Women. Should. Not. Have. The. Right. To. Dress. As. They. Choose? No. They have not - so why are you constantly repeating this vacuous argument?

I pointed that out Rebecca pages back but was told mens' clothes are modest anyway.

Maybe because a majority of men's clothes fits the religious definition of modest, but only a small minority of women's? I have read the full thread, I do understand why other people have a problem with the word, but I just can't convince myself to be bothered about it.
And fwiw even if the opposite of modest was immodest (and I would probably judge it to be sexy or revealing anyway) there is a whole sliding scale of neutral items between strictly religiously modest clothing and skimpy club wear.

^But its not really going to hurt any one is it.%

@Childrenslivesmatter it's already hurting people - the women who are bullied for being "immodest" by eg, showing their upper arms. It already happens, and this will make it worse.

Maybe because a majority of men's clothes fits the religious definition of modest, but only a small minority of women's? But men can wear short sleeves, swimming shorts, summer shorts? Am I right? But women can't if they are adhering to modest dress rules?

and demure/naive pinafores, baggy smocks, plaited hair and frumpy brogues for the women

This sort of stuff. It is not marketed as " modest". They sell it on the basis of comfort, quality and an being ethical company.

Gudrun Sjoden

www.gudrunsjoden.com/uk/clothes/products

Haha Lass you need to step away and get some gin for your nerves.

It's incredibly frustrating when people insist on seeing something that isn't being said, and refuse to hear something that's being shouted loud and clear from the roof tops.

Would the naive smock be accompanied by loose leggings and a polo neck? I doubt it. I understand not wearing skin tight, short dresses that don't leave a lot to the imagination but what is wrong with a leg or an arm ??? We should feel proud of our bodies not shamefully hiding them from view, not to mention making ourselves Vit D deficient!

I know Astrid. I'm off to do just that.

if the opposite of modest was immodest (and I would probably judge it to be sexy or revealing anyway) there is a whole sliding scale of neutral items between strictly religiously modest clothing and skimpy club wear.

Well yes, you would hope so, wouldn't you?

Except that apparently there isn't. There is only stuff that covers you neck to toe that's modest, then there's everything else, that isn't.

Comments like the ones on this article are why it worries me. There are judgments being made - and I think that something like this is the start of a slippery slope that will make those judgments more open and commonly held:

www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/626355/jewish/Why-is-it-important-to-dress-modestly.htm

Words all come from somewhere. This word, insofar as it relates to clothes, comes directly from patriarchal religion. Those religious people should be totally free to believe what they like and dress how they like. But the whole point is we don't have to agree. Pushing the term into commercial, secular life is not on
TheGoldenBowl, this is exactly why I am so uncomfortable with the term "modest" being used by a mainstream store like M&S when the word (regarding attire) has links to misogynistic religions. We are a secular and (hopefully) equal society, so any hint that patriarchal religions, which consider women second class citizens, are becoming mainstream concerns me.

no-one cares about this. People have bigger issues to worry about
In that case no-one should give a shit about anything other than "bigger" issues such as the threat of nuclear war. Where's the cut off for issues to worry about versus issues not to worry about? Your kid is being bullied at school...who gives a shit, it's not as bad as cancer! Daft isn't it.

From the BBC news website;

An Egyptian lawyer has been sentenced to three years in prison for saying that women who wear ripped jeans should be raped in punishment.

I suppose we should be grateful he got 3 years. Perhaps this is why words are important?

I believe he actually said that men have a duty to rape and sexually harass women who dress immodestly

In the light of the case above, I'd love to hear from some of the posters who were adamant that describing women's clothes as modest does no harm. I suspect they're all busy now though...

I find it very depressing; women being abused or threatened with abuse because they are wearing ripped jeans . And words don't matter to some; I rest my case.

But that's not in Britain.

No. Which is precisely why we mustn't allow this sort of judgment to creep in here.

Golden... you said we are not hearing it from a womans perspective... do all women think thre same then....am i less of a woman as you because of the way i dress and my oponion of the word modest in clothing shops..... now that is opressing women. Well done. Thats the exact thing you are accusing men in religions doing....

And anie who is bullying women who dont cover their arms....? I get bullied for covering them. I think it happens either way. I think we just need to stop worrying about peoples clothing choices and how they want to describe them.

I think its about time that we agree that we disagree. It has been a good discussion though

I don't think you should be surprised and I certainly don't see any reason for this to bother you.

It doesn't in any way mean all other clothes are 'immodest'. In the same way that 'petite' doesn't mean that all other clothes are 'ginormous', or 'fuller bust' doesn't mean all other clothes are for 'ironing board chested' women. The world isn't black and white and there are loads of reasons people might want to wear 'modest' clothing.

As someone else has pointed out, they have given this page a 'home' because people type this sort of thing into a search engine, and M&S have something practical, rationale, legal and also lovely to offer.