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 tell my 3 daughters that they can wear what they like.
If they wanted to wear modest clothing they would expect the internet to help them find it.
They have no religion.

HotelEuphoria - now that's a category I wouldn't be surprised to find on the M&S website "frumpy shite".

Awesome. Thanks for highlighting. I love to cover up as I don’t have a very nice body.

Archery that argument is of only the vaguest theoretical, hypothetical interest given it is in this case a marketing term. If people are using the search word modest already, they will increase sales by offering a collection - they will not increase sales by perversely labelling a collection with a word that makes it sound difficult to wear and physically uncomfortable.

You could equally pointlessly suggest sexy underwear be re-labelled with a negative term "impractical underwear" "probably not very comfortable underwear" "underwear that takes longer than average to put on" ...

Well I don't like the name. It implies anything other than this is "immodest"

I disagree. It doesn't imply that at all.

I can't see any issue in this at all. It just a helpful way to group some clothes that some women might find helpful. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Evelyn-surely there is something wrong when the term is being subverted to an extreme view of how women should dress.

In my view we should not accept this redefining of the word modest.

I get M&S is a business under constant pressure to forge new markets but the term 'modest' is jarring and divisive. It's not a new fashion or labelling term as some have suggested - it's more than that. Come M&S sort it out.

I am aware it's a fashion term.

However, I'm going to make a prediction.

This particular "fashion term", probably invented/co-opted by someone in the fashion industry who didn't think they were doing any harm, WILL stick and enter mainstream discourse over the next few years and become a moral stick to beat women with, in a way that "cruise wear" or "cocktail wear" never did or could (because cruise and cocktail are not moral qualities).

And it will then be too late for everybody here who is casually defending it and accusing the detractors of semantic uptightness to do anything about it. We'll be stuck with it. Women's rights are teetering on the edge. Be very, very careful what positions you defend, even if you would have defended them unthinkingly and with no consequences 10-15 years ago. There MAY be consequences now, because these are darker times.

May I be wrong.

Or “Longer Lines” or something else, for sure.

I must be a floozy...I wouldn’t be seen in any of it!

It's only divisive if you can't bear the thought that some people's idea of what it is to be modestly dressed differs from your own.

Some people have always worn this style. M&S isn't known for revealing clothing. It's a match made in heaven

You could equally pointlessly suggest sexy underwear be re-labelled with a negative term "impractical underwear" "probably not very comfortable underwear" "underwear that takes longer than average to put on" ...

You've made my point for me, Evelyn. "Modest" is a value term. It's not a neutral term, despite some of the comments on this thread. Value terms which imply that one type of clothing is more moral than another have no place in the high street.

Wow, love this section, I didn't know it was there, and am busily ordering as I type!

I have no religious objection to clothing offering less coverage on me, or anyone else, but hate being on display, much prefer high neck lower hem.

Body confidence issues maybe, or just able to assess what is in the mirror is better covered, body realism perhaps.

These are fab for breast cancer survivors too, necklines that don't gape and display scars, or a breastless chest are really hard to find, this collection is awesome!

I wish they wouldn't call it 'modest'. It implies women not swathed from head to toe are immodest.

Yes. This is my only problem with it.

Well, that and the dangling modifier on the webpage. [pedant]

I think 'Longer Lines', as per Suki, would be a great name for it and not carry an implied comparison/value judgement.

There are some nice clothes on there!

Are the prices 'modest,' or just typical stupidly expensive M & S prices?!

Sherbert stable door and horse spring to mind "Evelyn-surely there is something wrong when the term is being subverted to an extreme view of how women should dress."

Archery it's a value term yes, like sexy or edgy or smart or casual. Perhaps you're right... I do agree there is a threat to women's rights atm but I don't think it's coming from traditional sources for the most part... Although I guess extremes often go full circle and meet up...

Calling clothing modest is certainly not worse than calling it sexy - if you campaign against one you have to campaign against both equally, along with any other value judgement used to label clothing or anything else appearance related IMO. It's unlikely to be successful purely for profit related reasons.

Are only polar opposites allowed? Language is a whole lot richer and you know it. Its sad that some people will take the opportunity for an easy brainless insult, but hopefully most of us are brighter and more self (and other) respecting than that.

Its a living language and the word modest has had this meaning for decades (maybe centuries in a less (western) public way).

It seems to be more about the people using it to judge than the term itself, and judgy bossy gossipy people are going to judge people and tell them what to do, and gossip about them. That's who they are.

Linguistics is interesting, narrow minded people are uninteresting. I am generally disinterested in religion(s) but bossy judgy gossips are fekking boring.

I like the idea and often find it hard to buy appropriate 'covered' work clothes. I work in a people facing job that requires me to be covered (no bare upper arms or low cut tops etc.)

I don't like the implications modest has though but I appreciate that it's a fashion term.

If you can call a clothing line 'sexy' then you can call another as 'modest'. It doesn't imply other clothes are immodest or not sexy.
It's aimed at Muslim women, I don't see a problem, it's a good alternative to their long black traditional dress, which is not practical for cold, windy wet weather.
Modest wear is long, loose clothing and yes it's a religious thing. Women can wear whatever they like, and name it however they like it.

I agree. I don't like the term. Because it suggests that clothing from other departments is immodest. They should find a different word IMHO.

steal, you're making sweeping statements. It's not exclusively Muslim women who require long loose clothing. It's not exclusively a religious thing either, as evidenced by people on this thread, not least the post directly above yours. I personally like to wear long loose clothing if I'm on holiday somewhere hot; it's more practical and comfortable, and I burn easily and don't like using sunscreen.

The term 'modest' in this context does unfortunately imply other clothes are immodest. I agree with Lila that this is an insidious thing and may well have harder and darker consequences than we can imagine at the moment. Language is highly important.

Thanks though - just found a lovely silk shirt on there!

I think 'Longer Lines', as per Suki, would be a great name for it and not carry an implied comparison/value judgement.

M&S already use "long" as a leg length so I'd assume at first glance those were clothes for taller people.

I think a whole range called Longer Lines is sufficiently different from the concept of having different-length trousers not to confuse most people. Anyway, it is only one suggestion. The point is, they could have taken more care not to make the range sound like a value judgement.

Longer lines would be a good idea, but I've searched online for longer line tops before (wanting tunic type tops, which turned out to be a more useful search term) and it appears long line is a bra style, because that's a lot of what the search produced.

It's also not the only thing people are considering if they want to be covered up - I like longer tops but don't mind sleeveless and sometimes lower neck lines. I've got lots of long line tops without sleeves and with "immodest" necklines.

Sure, if you actually click through it'd be obvious what the range carries, but as someone whose last purchase from M&S was officially labelled "extra short" I'd glance at the category name and ignore it.