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?

midnight I'm pretty sure you'd have to go back well before the advent of off the peg high street clothing stores to find a time when clothes were just clothes - they've been value laden since people started wearing them.

target consumers of modest clothing in the same way they have a section for plus sized or maternity clothing

If you wear a larger size, you wear a larger size. If you are pregnant, you are pregnant. Those are objective terms. An equivalent to modest would be calling non-plus sized clothes the 'non-greedy' section or non-maternity clothes the 'chaste' section.

It needs a different name. A lot of the clothes are nice and it does make sense to group them as there is a need. But 'modest' is just offensive.

they've been value laden since people started wearing them

No, they've never been named in this way as far as I can remember. The only word I can think of which has been used in mainstream retail to describe clothes which has some sort of value judgement is "casual" (what is someones idea of casual?) or "sexy" (a matter of opinion). "plus size" is not a matter of opinion, you are either a size 10 or a size 22. "maternity" is not a matter of opinion. Modest is a value judgement.

I see now that is it as term that is being used by the fashion industry. Its a horrible term.

I totally agree with PPs above who point out that just because something is not one adjective (e.g. modest) does not logically entail that it is the opposite (i.e. immodest). I'm not shy, but I'm very much not loud or outgoing.
If 'modest' has been used for some time by certain sections of people, then I don't see a problem with Marks using it.
Actually, a few years ago I gave up trying to buy a new swimming costume, as all of them (including in Marks) stopped below the bust and had two inadequate triangle boob covers. Must have been the style then. Add to that the high-cut fanjo-flashing crotches and I was angry at how at how women are expected to show off most of their breasts/fanjos when they swim and have thin clingy material on the covered parts. I bought some board shorts like my DH's! I'd have loved a 'modest' section then to have shopped from.

It's a well known phrase for this type of clothing. It would be odd if M&S didn't use this phrase - visibility on google would be decreased.

It isn't a section as such - all these clothes are available all over the website within the individual categories. M&S has merely 'curated' (yes I know) specific outfits, presumably based on a search term people have used.

Everything that doesn't fit into that term is trying to attract sexually attention

... in the view of people who would be searching under that tag - so what? M&S not explicitly catering to them isn't going to change their view.

On occasion I’v cycled round central London in nothing more than a bikini bottom (sometimes not even that) and pair of sandals, and would consider that I was “modest “ in the context I was in. Even people who seem to subscribe to —ostentatious— modesty have, let us say, an idiosyncratic take on it: eg headscarf + long skirt which is split to the thigh - somehow ‘worse’ than an honest knee-length skirt; or whole-body covering + bright red lipstick - do they not know the meaning of flushed-looking lips on a woman?

So yeah, add me to the list of people who dislikes this use of the word. Monkeynutts had some good suggestions for less loaded-sounding alternatives.

Took a look, less frumpy than I expected. I am not comfortable with the 'modest' tag, but don't know what I'd use instead, clunky 'more fabric'?

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

I'm not sure anyone on here can; that's not the point.

'a larger size' is NOT an objective term. Larger than what or whom? Who decides where 'larger' starts?

And by the way, 'chaste' doesn't exclusively mean 'not having sex', so that example isn't very meaningful.

The problem is, really, that 'modest' is the last fucking thing anyone, particularly anyone female, should aspire to. Modest means self-hating, self-effacing, pretending you're stupid and inferior to feed the ego of another. Women and girls should be taught to celebrate and take pride in themselves.

And it's toxic when applied to clothing because it's loaded with implications that the female body is shameful and should be concealed. There are quite a few items of clothing on that link that are, well, fair enough ordinary clothes (not quite my thing and I wouldn't pay M&S prices for clothes anyway) - and plenty of women want high-neck jumpers when it's cold. But the idea that women should cover up is one to be resisted - because it makes it far too easy to victim-blame. If it hasn't already started, there will be a rush of blogs and articles promoting baggy, frumpy clothing as a way to stop sexual abuse from men, just to be sure we all remember that women only have themselves to blame if they look like 'sluts'...

Scabbersly I was responding to the comment "gone are the days when clothes were just that. Clothes". That time was never. There might not have been a section labelled "modest" but it's hardly controversial to point out that women have been judged in multiple ways for and by their clothes for ever. Men too to a lesser extent.

There's an entire marketing industry that exists to come up with names for concepts, so I'm not persuaded by the "what else can we call it?" argument. There will be non-moralistic ways to describe this useful clothing category. Someone mentioned "covered up" above, that's a good starting point, does what it says on the tin, let a team of brand consultants work on that. There is continuing discussion around what to call larger sizes, and I think that's quite right, and as a result new options have arisen there over the years.

I don't blame M&S for this as such, they haven't invented the term, but someone with clout needs to take on the challenge of finding some alternatives.

There's an entire marketing industry that exists to come up with names for concepts, so I'm not persuaded by the "what else can we call it?" argument. There will be non-moralistic ways to describe this useful clothing category.

Quite.

I still like 'Longer Lines' and am sure most people wouldn't be so easily confused as to think it referred to a choice of trouser lengths...

Has anyone actually looked through to the link? It shows a few collections of clothes under the label modest. Doesn’t look like a section for modesty (and certainly not modest enough for full religious modesty). Tbh it looks like the collection is called modest as a brand. The clothes are quite simple but I wouldn’t go as far to say they were covering up completely. Honestly I think you are getting worked up over nothing. It’s a good idea to showcase collections of clothing like that and if a woman would like to choose clothing in that style that’s up to her.

In the old days this would have been called "winter wardrobe"

Tbh it looks like the collection is called modest as a brand

tjat would be a terrible name for a brand. Unless they meant it "Mode-st" as in the most fashionalbe

Total value judgement, I hate the word - definite implications that by default other clothing is immodest. I used to rock a polo neck jumper pre hot-flush days - never had a problem finding one without having to rely on sexist terms. Men may be required to be modest according to religious texts but men's clothes are never described as 'modest', only women's. Not ok at all.

it shows a few collections of clothes under the label modest. Doesn’t look like a section for modesty

What the...?

If it shows clothes under the label modest, how is it not about modesty?

And it being called modest as a brand is kind of exactly what people are concerned about.

If M&S just wanted to make sure searches for 'modest clothing' directed to their page, they could have stuck the word in an SEO text that no-one ever bothers to read at the bottom of the page, like just about everyone else. Hell, they could add in 'unlike all those scantily-clad harlots' and it'd be at least a year before anyone stumbled across it.

It's no worse than "basics" if it's actually supposed to mean free from ostentation.

In fact it could be clever marketing in terms of maximising exposure if it alludes to multiple meanings of the same word (what's the name for what website marketers do by embedding key search terms to ensure their site is top of the list when people do an internet search?). Trying to be all things to all people usually misses the mark, but if it's actually a "basics" label maybe it's a double your hit rate ploy!

"plus size" is not a matter of opinion, you are either a size 10 or a size 22.
Are you blind and a hermit or what?

Ah that's a good explanation Dixie

Did anyone read or watch Handmaid's Tale?

Its where the Nuns shop