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

It doesn't though really. Just because something is not one adjective, it doesn't mean that thing is the opposite. For example someone who is not skinny is not automatically obese. It's just a thing to call it, I think, like 'plus size' clothes. Whether or not you think people should feel they need to dress 'modestly' is a whole separate issue, but for M&S it's just a way of making it easier for their customers to find the clothes they want to buy.

I think 'plus size' is an unacceptable value judgement too and have always had a problem with the term. Plus what? Who gets to decide when a size becomes 'plus' ie 'not normal'?

It's the same as this: who decides what is 'modest'? When does clothing become 'not modest'? And, again, by whose lights?

I think it's a slippery slope.

The term 'modest' is nothing to do with how women choose to dress. The poster above who assumes I find it devisive because I 'can't bear the thought' of someone dressing differently is deluded. I am 53. I have not worn anything above the elbow for about 20 years. Never worn anything about the knee EVER because it's my choice not because of modesty.

Religious dress codes aside, as I am not religious, I am probably their target market if it wasn't so dull. Today, for the most part I am COVERED UP as it is currently -16. But if I was swanning around in a sequin bikini, wellies and a red feather hat that would be ok - not immodest. I'm not saying get rid of the section, I am saying get rid of the word to describe the section.

@RhiannonOHara
Well when your weight is above what is a healthy weight for a person, you're above the norm. So Plus size. What would you prefer it be called? It cant be called Curvy, because you can be big but just blocky, just like you can be skinny and have curves. So Plus size is probably the nicest way they can phrase it

I'm not saying get rid of the section, I am saying get rid of the word to describe the section.

This, exactly this.

Ugh! M&S have sunk to a new low.

Does John Lewis use a similar label? Hmm?
It is a new level of stupid.

munky, genuine question, do plus sizes tend to correspond to weight/measurements above what is a healthy weight for a person? Even if they do, surely there will be some people who technically fit the 'plus sizes' but who are actually within the healthy range?

I don't think there should be names for sets of different sizes at all. Clothes should just come in a range of sizes.

@RhiannonOHara
Honestly I have no idea.

I do think in the UK the vision of what constitutes a healthy weight is pretty skewed though.

I really hate the use of the word modest in this context but to answer your question they have a separate category for it to target consumers of modest clothing in the same way they have a section for plus sized or maternity clothing.

I'm not saying get rid of the section, I am saying get rid of the word to describe the section.

And call it what? "High necks, loose cuts, sleeves, longer-length-but-not-Tall Be Here"?

"Practical clothes"?

But then that implies that every other item in the shop are impractical, by this logic.

munky, it's an interesting point, I think; who decided who is 'plus' and who is 'normal'?

It's just as troubling as what is and isn't 'modest', IMO.

You're being ridiculous, get over it. Stop getting offended for the sake of being offended! It's pathetic 👎🏻

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 have a large scar on my chest, just above my cleavage. I am 51 and have had the scar for 25 years. I have never, ever had a problem finding clothes to cover it if I feel the need to.

Thanks for that contribution, Butter.

Its a money making section to appeal to religious groups that require this kind of clothing. I get that. I think its an awful name, regressive and to me, offensive.

Honestly it looks like fairly normal autumn/winter clothing to me (some items are a bit ugly, but that's M&S for you). It's not burkhas and face veils. 'Modest' does seem a slightly odd choice of words, but presumably it makes sense for them from a marketing perspective.

presumably it makes sense for them from a marketing perspective

that's ok then! Better not question their judgement! the fact that the majority of the outfits are hideous is neither here nor there

I didn't even think of burkas and face veils. If it was burkas and face veils I would understand it. Its the fact that it is completely hideous normal clothes now labelled with a regressive, unpleasant moral judgement

It is only jeans and jumpers and the odd long skirt, so yes, it does invite the label "immodest" for anyone wearing a lower neckline etc.
Totally unacceptable. Toast could label their entire website as "modest" on this basis but wouldn't dare to do so as there would be an immense back lash.

I think the reason they have it is because that's what people who are looking for those kinds of clothes would call it, so they are drawing on the same strategies to attract a particular market. I don't have a problem with 'modest' or with 'plus size' or with 'maternity' as it helps me find what I'm looking for quickly and easily. There are lots of reasons why people do cover up that have nothing to do with their own religious beliefs. It can involve travel to regions where particular dress codes are the norm for both men and women, finding something to wear to midnight mass on Christmas Eve, attending a wedding at a particular venue, to cover up surgical scars or skin in someone who is prone to skin cacner, or just because you aren't 20 anymore and don't want to wear a mini skirt to work (actually, now that I know there is a 'modest' section, I'd be inclined to shop in it because as someone in my mid-30s, I find it really hard to find professional clothes in the 'workwear' sections of shops, all the dresses are sleeveless and backless and about 5 inches above the knee, I don't dress like that to go to work frankly!). I don't have a problem with all other clothes being something other than 'modest.' Modest means you're going to extra lengths to cover up. Well, I don't have a problem with saying my clothes are just normal clothes and not 'modest.' I don't think the only other thing is 'immodest.' But if I did need to find something that fit a particular cultural norm of modesty (and I have because I've lived and worked in a lot of developing country settings were that is the norm of dress), then I'd be grateful to know where to look. But I'm also no so uncomfortable with myself that I take it too personally that others want to dress more modestly than me and I don't see a problem with the language, unless there is a better term that equally captures the market (and I don't think there is).

I happen to disagree with any religion that requires women to be 'modest' because that's just sheer misogyny, but that doesn't mean I want to take choices away from religious women. me too Madeleine

Gone are the days wehre clothes were just that. Clothes. Now we label everything. SIlly really.

I agree that 'modest' is a troubling word to describe clothes. But then I would also say that 'sexy' is too. The problem is that there is a person or organisation deciding what fits into the 'qualifier' of modest. The same goes for workwear - that category makes assumptions about what women do and need to wear for work (there is no men's 'workwear' section that I can see, only business and work suits).

M&S might be deciding what 'modest' means based on some very specific religious rules (I have no idea) but they ought to signpost that or choose a different term. Modest has too many meanings. Here's one from an online dictionary:

"(of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention."

So, yep, everything that doesn't fit into that category is trying to attract sexual attention...

I agree the name isn't great but I can't see the harm in having the section.