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?

Earthy, first thing I thought of when I saw this thread.

Fucking scary times.

I'm Mormon and I usually struggle to find nice stuff which is modest. I'll have to have a look!

""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?"

Neither. I don't particularly like the label 'plus size' but measurements are measurements. If you measure a certain way you are a size 10, if another way you are a size 22. Its not a matter of opinion.

I can’t see a reason to get wound up about something like this.

some religions call for modest clothing, lots of my Muslim friends have said they wish more high street stores would cater modest clothing so I’m happy a highstreet is listening to what the public want.

It’s not calling other clothes ‘immodest’ people are far too easily offended.

If you measure a certain way you are a size 10, if another way you are a size 22. Its not a matter of opinion.

Sizes are not a matter of opinion, no, and I don't think anyone on here is saying they are.

The question is, at what point do measurements become a 'plus' size? Who gets to decide that? That is the issue.

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

Well, quite. The term modest is applied by many Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women to themselves, the obvious subtext being that the rest of us are immodest.

If they want to think of themselves as modest and all other women as immodest then let them. We are not the thought police.

But the likes of M&S publicly pandering to such a notion and promoting the concept of female 'modesty' as covering all skin but your face and hands, and eschewing anything remotely figure hugging is incredibly insulting to the rest of us.

I have looked up the word modest. It comes from the Latin 'modestus' - which can be defined as 'Orderly, within bounds, moderate, restrained.;

It doesn't necessarily have a sexual connotation.

Conversely to be immodest would be (for example) to be brash and boastful, lacking in humility.

As a slightly older woman who has never liked wearing short skirts and feels very chilly wearing low-necked stuff, being able to access a range of garments that will make me feel adequately dressed is a real plus.

Thanks Mumsnet for flagging this one up!

It's not only the sexual connotation that's problematic, though. 'Orderly, within bounds, moderate, restrained' are ALL value judgements. Are you happy to think of all these being applied to women –more to the point, of people (well, men) drawing up boundaries of 'orderly', 'moderate' and 'restrained' behaviour or appearance and deciding at what point a woman's dress or behaviour oversteps these?

annamagdalene the oxford dictionary definition is as follows:
"of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention.
‘the modest women wear long-sleeved dresses and all but cover their faces’"

Do you work for M and S or their marketing company??

Modest' clothing is a thing for people from some religions (e.g. Mormons)

Yes of course, also Plymouth Brethren and other similar sects.

But I don't think it's them in their tiny tiny numbers in the UK who are currently causing M&S to devote a whole section to the idea of 'modesty' in women.

As a slightly older woman who has never liked wearing short skirts and feels very chilly wearing low-necked stuff, being able to access a range of garments that will make me feel adequately dressed is a real plus.

Fucking hell. What did you do before today? You must have struggled. Funnily enough, I'm 50+ and have always managed to adequately dress myself

I think it's not just about words though.

If I put on a short skimpy tight garment it - and the people who designed it - are judging me. The garment and those who designed it are saying 'Your breasts are too big and in the wrong place. Your waist is too narrow and look at those bulges around your stomach. You might be fifty but you should look like an eleven year old in early puberty.

You only have to read dieting and health and relationships threads on Mumsnet, to realise how desperately unhappy fashion makes people.

I honestly believe that clothing which is less immoderate would make many of us a little happier. We shouldn't be threatened by the fact that major retailers are making such ranges more widely available.

Incidentally the answer to @Scabbersley@ is that high street fashion shopping is difficult in the UK.

I have noticed when on holiday in France and Switzerland that the clothing available for women is less skimpy and better quality fabric and cut means that it isn't unpleasantly clingy.

I wear a lot of jeans, T shirts and sweatshirts - and get quite a lot of men's knitwear. (As with Clarks shoes the fabric and quality is often better in menswear)

Scabbersly that's one of multiple meanings though. It may be the one M&S mean, but pretending it's the only definition doesn't help your argument.

A modest meal / modest inheritance / modest alcohol intake/ living modestly (in terms of not over indulging in consumer goods) are all still in current usage, as is modesty in the form of not showing off (he or she is modest about his or her success).

None of that has anything to do with modesty, annamagdalene

Cut and fit are another issue. I would imagine, knowing M and S these days, that the cut and fit of 80% of the garments on the Modesty page are terrible.

I've shopped in TopShop for half my life and I have never had a problem with my tits or arse hanging out. I tend to live in jeans and sweats and knits and trainers - not sexy but if anyone had insinuated I was trying to dress 'modestly' I'd be pissed off. For work I often wear dresses that cover my knees (because of scarring) again, I am not being modest.

The items in the modest range are just items from their usual range. They have just put them together to make covering outfits.

Eg the red funnel neck top - they put it with a very long skirt
It could be put with a black mini skirt.

It's not a special range
It's a style section

I suppose if M&S had other pages advertising their ' 'Goer' and/or 'Nymphomania' ranges, the complainants might have a point...

I honestly believe that clothing which is less immoderate would make many of us a little happier. We shouldn't be threatened by the fact that major retailers are making such ranges more widely available.

Apart from taking exception to the judgemental word 'immoderate', I don't disagree. Personally I have no religious/moral/cultural reason to wear long, loose clothing but I like to, partly for the aforementioned reason that I find it more practical and comfortable in hot weather. So I'm happy with any new range of long loose clothes.

But it IS a great deal about words. Words are hugely important. And I don't know about not being 'threatened'; anything that attaches moral judgement to a woman's clothing, appearance or behaviour IS a threat and I will always speak up against it.

It may be the one M&S mean, but pretending it's the only definition doesn't help your argument.

Erm. It clearly is the one that M and S mean. Or have they made up a new definition. I doubt very much they've called it that because
a) not showing off
b) not spending much money

As the fuschia pink coat at £250 wouldn't fit into either of those categories. It will hide your fanny and tits though.

Having looked in M&S a number of times I would tend to call it all modest (and dull)

Without being particularly religious or having a lot of body shame, I do have quite a strong feeling that my body belongs to me and there are limits to how much I want to show in my everyday working or social life.

On a night out or on the beach or in the garden in the summer I might have a different set of requirements - but that isn't how I spend most of my time.

A range like the M&S one will also be useful to many women in their working life. Men are not expected to wear unbuttoned shirts or shorts at work, and women are also expected to look professional.

yep that's some sexist bullshit right there.

Modest is only a sexist label if it isn't applied equally to male clothing as female...of course it isn't - so its sexist.

Same goes for sexy. If there is a sexy underwear section for men as well as women then no worries. If only women then sexist.

M&S are really shit at labelling kids clothes too. A pink baby grow labelled girls isn't sexist on its own as long as their is a pink baby grow labelled boys somewhere nearby...but of course there isn't. For colours the search engine argument doesn't wash. Its perfectly simple to search for pink clothes...we don't need M&S to also claim these are only for girls....because that's sexist.

YADNBU. M&S are probably just trying to capitalise on a word that's already trending among religious women. BUT in doing so they are IMO supporting the idea that some women dress "modestly" and are therefore good women who don't deserve to be assaulted, whereas other women dress "immodestly", i.e. by wearing clothes that aren't from the modest section, and these are "loose" women with low morals who should expect to get assaulted due to the clothing choices they make.

I think they should have a modest range for men, instead of banning it for women. Also sexy underwear for men. It would cost very little simply to make those things searchable on the website ... No unnecessary penis cleavage or slogans or budgie smugglers or bling... Should be easy.

The question is, at what point do measurements become a 'plus' size? Who gets to decide that? That is the issue

It will be done on the average size of their customer base as determined by market research.