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?

I'm pretty sure the whole modest wear thing was started by American Christians, then Muslims picked it up, then everyone else did, I've seen it online for over 10 years.
I think it's pathetic to be offended by it, it's just being used as another reason to bash religious women. I hate these threads, this ones been horrible. It's sickening to see and hear in real life and on here, over and over again that Muslim women are subjugated and brainwashed, can't think and speak for ourselves, are ruled by our men, don't even chose our own clothes and apparently judge other women who don't dress like us. No we don't, we don't give a crap what you wear, please stop trying to cover your cultural imperialism, xenophobia and oppressive, ignorant stereotyping with feminism. I've been learning about feminism over the last few months, I agree with a lot of it and it's given many women rights that Islam actually gave us over a thousand years ago. But if this it how feminists behave- belittling and insulting other women's choices- then you can keep it, it's a fucking joke, not that women who wear hijab like me would be welcomed or considered your equals anyway.

But if this it how feminists behave- belittling and insulting other women's choices- then you can keep it, it's a fucking joke, not that women who wear hijab like me would be welcomed or considered your equals anyway

No one has said that. No one has insulted your choice of clothing. No one has told you not to wear long sleeves clothing or long skirts. No one has judged you for what you wear.

Your intemperate rant is a farrago. I can't actually be bothered listing all the fabrications.

Stateless as a woman from a religious background I have felt profoundly depressed by the inaccurate stereotypes, ignorance, distortions and paranoia exhibited by some women on this thread. I have particularly valued the contributions made by those women who find their faith empowering - as well as those by secular women who show respect to those who have an alternative set of values.

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!

No, they wouldn't, and that was kind of my point really. It's disingenuous for some people to shrug and say 'Modest fashion is a genre at the moment like Boho, grunge, luxe or any other. So what? Stop seeing a problem that's not there.''

The difference is that one group of people would loosely define modest fashion by an overall look or feel, whereas the other group (religiously motivated) would define it much more rigidly and prescriptively. M&S would appear to be using the second group as their barometer for what is or isn't modest.

And yes I totally agree about the vitamin D thing. It's a massive, massive problem among fully covered women and there's a real issue with rickets in children.

Stateless - like others on this thread, your zeal to justify your religion has made you take everything as an insult to it. Throwing out accusations of xenophobia and imperialism is really missing the point.

This is not a religious country. Women don't want to be told what is suitable to wear, not by god, not by men, not by the law, not by anyone. If some women do choose to follow such rules, that's great for them, nobody will stop them - but those choices should not be made into implicit judgments by the likes of religious judgmental verbally loaded categories in mainstream shops.

M&S would doubtless say it's not intended to be religious () but it's interesting how most of the posters defending it are doing so due to their religion. If shops want to sell something that is obviously religious - e.g. when m&s sold burkinis - ok fine. But splitting its main range of ordinary clothes and designating some as "modest" and the rest not? No no no.

Unfortunately in many parts of the world, women are in a very undesirable place due to religion or rather its interpretation and enforcement by men. That's not xenophobic. It's a very sad fact. Women's rights in Britain were fought for very hard indeed. Of course we are going to object to anything that threatens to erode them.

childrenslivesmatter

you said we are not hearing it from a woman's perspective. Do all women think the same then? Am I less of a woman because of the way I dress? Now that is oppressing women. Well done

Where to start with this nonsense?!

Firstly, can you once and for all try to process the idea that It. Is. Not. About. The. Clothes. Neither I nor any of the others on this thread, as far as I can see, give a flying fuck what you wear. Please understand that.

It is about the word 'modest' and its unpleasant and potentially dangerous implications. Did you read the bit about the Egyptian lawyer?!

I said I was looking at the issue from a feminist perspective. I did not claim to speak for all women. Clearly not all women are feminists. But if you are looking at the issue from a feminist perspective, as I am, one of the first things you'd want to know is why is there no equivalent M&S modest section for men? i
It's something of a red flag.

You've constructed a bizarre little argument about me 'oppressing women' there when, in fact, all I've done is suggest that a huge corporation removes a sexist label (modest) that is used as just another stick to beat women with (again, see the Egypt case).

(TheGoldenBowl

Don't blame youLois

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

That my dear said womens not feminist.

The egyptian lawyer was in Egypt. Not here in the UK by M and S. It is about the clothes isnt it though. Because the word is to describe the clothes.

You are not happy about it. And i do understand why. I was simply giving my opinion on why m and s used it

RandomHouseRules I think you should read the thread. Much of what you say has been done to death.

Anna
You have felt 'profoundly depressed by inaccurate stereotypes...xenophobia...[other invented nonsense]' Really?? Can you point us to these parts of the thread?

The idea of modest clothing is not confined to one religion or country. It was a thriving mainstream notion in Victorian Britain, for example. It is alive and well in many cultures and, yes, in the muslim world. On the other hand, there are religious communities and individuals who reject the notion of modest dress.

There are conservative-minded members of my own family (admittedly, the older ones) who would happily promote the idea of modest clothing (just for women, you understand) - and I would roll my eyes at them too.

Categorizing any women's clothing as modest is problematic in a world in which we are supposed to see women as autonomous, equal human beings.

Some of the religious contibutors to this thread seem to be offended by something other than what is being discussed. They seem offended that we don't agree with their religious stance and are spending time calling us islamaphobic (weirdly, since islam is not the only religion implicated). No, non-muslims generally don't believe in the same things as muslims. So what? That's the beauty a free society.

The problem here is not that we don't share your beliefs. It's that a store has shown that it buys into value judgements about women's bodies - value judgements that, yes, happen to overlap with certain aspects of some religions.

But IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RELIGION. IT'S ABOUT THE WORD.

And... breathe.

I also find it interesting that some religious posters are so defensive. Heaven forbid that someone of a different background should have an outside view that they could educate and correct - or that the outside view might actually contain some valid concerns about the treatment of women.

Ok children

Yes, I used the word women's perspective there, as a follow-up to my explanation about looking at the word modest from a feminist perspective (which was the response to your claim that I was considering the word from a narrow perspective- ha!). This is because a feminist perspective starts with women. It looks at an issue first and foremost from women's experiences, which is not what the world at large does. Yes, you can be a woman and not start with a woman's perspective, because that's what the world teaches us.

Ok. Fine. I have said my piece and i think its just going round in circles now. We arent all going to agree. And thats fine. Fwiw i dont actually descrobe my cmothes as modest. I do say covered. I was just trying ti put across another opinion in why m and s used that word. But my simple explanation obviously has no ground and m and s have a darker plan and notion behind it. Amd with that i am checking out. I am also living on average of 3 hours sleep at night. So i am willing to see that my arguements may be jumbled. Off to try and have a nap now!

That was awful spelling in there. Sorry. Night

childrens

it is about the clothes though isn't it because the word is used to describe the clothes

No. NO NO NO.

You see, after all this, you genuinely don't get it. It really, really is about the word.

Wow. It really is like banging your head against a brick wall.

The clothes are fine. What could be wrong with them? They're just clothes. I regularly wear clothes with long sleeves, high necks, leggings with long tunics. All. The. Time.

The issue is with using a word that signals that there is something to be ashamed of in women's bodies.

You don't understand, clearly.

I'd be happy, if there were a demand, for M&S to have an Islamic clothing section. Islamic would be an appropriate word. Or 'strict religious dress' maybe, if they're intent on making things easier for people who, erm, can't work out which clothes will cover their limbs.

Just don't call it a word that describes a general moral attribute that has been used as a stick to beat women.

And, yes, the Egyptian case was not in Uk. But do you think that means similar attitudes can't exist in the UK?? Are Egyptians inherently different? How xenophobic of you...

Its not religious clothes though is it! They are just clothes described as modest! I am not ashamed of my body! I cover my body because i dont need or want people to look at it! Not because i am ashamed of it! Women dont wear 'modest' clothing because they are ashamed! If it is from a religious perspective it is because we see the body as amazing and special. So we are trying to protect it. And not just from men before you say why cant men not look. Its about protecting ourselves from ourselves too! Not being vain. Not worrying about how you look to others etc. So no im not ashamed. And nor are other people who choose to be covered. People who dont dress in this was think we have been shamed. But actually i think women will be shamed either way. From not covering enough to covering too much. To.not being open enough. Not trying hard enough.

Enough im switching off.

You're right - these aren't religious clothes. I included that suggestion to illustrate that I do not in the least object to people who are religious having their needs catered for. And we've had pages of people saying "that's just what religious people call it; it's not about you and itsnot a judgement on you.' If that's the case - call it what it is.

However, we can all see that they're just clothes. Perfectly normal clothes that happen to be long-sleeved etc. Fine. So why, in the name of sanity, have they been prefixed with this 'modesty' nonsense??

We're going round in circles here.

Childrens you said ‘Am I less of a woman because of the way I dress? Well done, that’s oppression.’

Oh dear. Once again I find myself feeling exasperated at the unintended irony coming through on this thread.

In answer to your question, we are all shouting NO! YOU ARE NOT LESS OF A WOMAN! at the tops of our voices and have been for the last 30 odd pages. The fact that a woman should not be oppressed or judged as better or worse, more or less, good or bad based on whether she shows any skin in the way that her husband, her father, her son or her brother would not be, has been the ENTIRE and ONLY point of the thread.

This seems to have been completely lost on you, which would be funny if it were not so infuriating.

If you and others like you wish to judge your own worth by that criterion then please go ahead, but don’t expect the rest of us to allow that judgement to creep into the mainstream where it will insidiously affect us all if it’s allowed to go on unchallenged.

Children why have you suddenly started banging on about how you are not ashamed of your body? Where on earth has anyone tried to suggest that Muslim or other religious women cover because they are ashamed of their bodies? I think once again you are reading one thing and interpreting it as something else altogether. Youve gone straight into a hand-wringing defensive state of automatic pilot with your brain going Klaxon! Under attack! Must defend Islam! Must defend Islam! Without actually stopping to see that no one is having a go at you for being a Muslim or for dressing as you see fit.

The issue is with using a word that signals that there is something to be ashamed of in women's bodies.

I dont think it signals this. So.i am saying i am not ashamed! I havent even mentioned islam so no i am not doing that.

Ok lets back track.

M and s said modest. You dont like it because you think that they are saying that everything else is immodest. And it is not feminist

I am saying it is just a word used to market to another group of people.

I have then responded to your comments and you dont like it

I am going to say this again; I object to the term 'modest'. I object to it because throughout history men have sought to control women and what they do/wear/ can be etc. I have not specifically mentioned Islam except for the news article re Egypt. I used this to show that words matter. I firmly believe that me in general have greater latitude in what they can do/wear/think/be. Women are more strictly controlled in matters of religion, no matter what that religion might be. I will state now I was sent to a church school, I have read the bible from Genesis to the Revelation of St John the Divine . I find it to be patriarchal and misogynistic . I base my findings on my experience of religion and my readings/study while at university and after. I have rejected all religion. You are free to believe in what you want, but I object to a chain store calling some clothes modest because words matter and saying these are 'modest' has connotations. And the connotations from the BBC news item are that 'if you don't dress a certain way you can expect this treatment.' This is a continuation of the whole debate that women who wear short skirts or show 'too much' cleavage are 'asking for it'. We are not asking for it. I am not responsible for men who can't control themselves, men are the problem not women. And calling clothes 'modest' does not help.

Sorry 'me =men', having problems with laptop today!

Does it help at all that this is a section of the website, rather than the shop

children

Perhaps the issue is that you don't know/choose to ignore the history of the term modest and that whole world of moralising over women's bodies. It is linked to judgement/victim-blaming/shame. It just is. Perhaps you should do some research.

Oh and it's difficult to know whether to bother responding to you because you keep doing this semi-flounce

Bloody phone - pressed post before I meant to...

But I mean it's just a search term - made to facilitate what customers might be searching for. M&S don't have a special modest collection alongside Autograph and Per Una, they have just flagged up items throughout their collections which might appeal to someone who wants clothing to cover them up.