Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

[OhDear2200]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50067975

There is something that bugs me about this and I need the MN feminists to help me out (be gentle it’s my first post in this area though a regular reader).

Sooo what is it that bugs me?

Why do we need commentary on women (yep no mention of men) and what we wear? Or am I over reacting is it just a conversation about fashion?

But if a man wore baggy trousers it’s not called modest is it??! It’s called wearing baggy trousers. Why is a woman modest or not modest.

Help me either get a grip or understand this better???

Ceridwen- what is different about the cut of that shirt? I’m sure I’ve made very similar ones over the years. Incidentally, for modest dress I would expect it to be longer.

It's the neckline combined with the way the rest of the blouse hides the body. Most necklines for women's blouses are round necked or V necked. That neckline is cut in a way so that the neck and any chest area is covered. It's designed to be worn with a headscarf, and layered with other clothes that Muslim women normally wear.

I know it's subtle, but the difference is there. There were more examples on that website but they've sold out now. I find it interesting looking at the cut because I like to design clothes for myself. I notice how the cuts change each year and how each year it can be almost impossible to buy clothes that are in a cut that is currently considered 'unfashionable.' That's why I started learning to sew.

That is the origin of this fashion. Fashion bloggers and designers started designing clothes that were westernised but in cuts that they could wear in terms of their religion. The differences in the cut are subtle but they are present. It is usually things like a slightly higher neckline (that isn;'t a polo neck), skirts that would normally be knee length being made midi length, trousers cut looser etc. It is like combining salwar kameez, saris and abayas with western styles in western colours and fabrics. Also, layering is key, they wouldn't just wear that blouse on it's own because it would still reveal too much.

Blooming Marvellous, for example, opened in the early 1980s, I think

That is the brand I was thinking of. They had beautiful clothes.

I also dislike the implication that showing a part of a woman’s body means she or her clothing is labelled ‘sexy’. Are wrists and ankles sexy? Is my clavicle sexy? Or is it sexy to wear a belt around my waist? Am I more ‘modest’ because I’m wearing a sack? This is about men putting labels on our bodies. It’s about control and teaching women to conduct themselves from a male perspective. They can sod off.

I should add, I grew up in a culture where ‘modest’ dress was a cultural requirement. Showing shoulders, legs or upper arms would invite harassment. Needless to say I experienced daily harrassment from men anyway and the women were all treated as sexual pieces of meat. When I moved to a western country I was thrilled to be able to wear shorts, vest tops and short skirts. No one batted an eye lid as women’s bodies were normal and not as sexualised as in the modest culture. ‘Modesty’ can sod off to its patriarchal cave.

The picture you linked of the blouse did not show it layered with other clothes, just paired with short cut trousers.

It reminded me more of traditional far eastern styles of dress.

Also, layering is key, they wouldn't just wear that blouse on it's own because it would still reveal too much. This bothered me about the BBC article too, the blouse on there is too thin to be 'modest'. It seems to be a way of cashing in by making women buy twice as many clothes, why can't women's clothes in general simply be made to a higher quality. I've noticed even in cheapo shops like Primark, the men's section has better quality clothes, natural fabrics, socks that don't get holes in them the first time you wear them etc. Even with 'modest' fashion, women are given impractical, substandard garments.

The picture you linked of the blouse did not show it layered with other clothes, just paired with short cut trousers.

It reminded me more of traditional far eastern styles of dress.

Fair enough, it could have been a better example. She had a big collection with more examples but it's all sold out now.

It seems to be a way of cashing in by making women buy twice as many clothes, why can't women's clothes in general simply be made to a higher quality. I've noticed even in cheapo shops like Primark, the men's section has better quality clothes, natural fabrics, socks that don't get holes in them the first time you wear them etc. Even with 'modest' fashion, women are given impractical, substandard garments.

Yes, agreed. I would love to see lots more natural fabrics, in flattering good quality cuts that are neither 'modest' nor 'tarty' (for want of better terms!!!). Also pockets, women need pockets too.

I started learning to sew for this very reason, I couldn't find clothes that were in between. I like neither mini nor midi skirts, I like skirts that fall just above, below or on the knee but I've struggled to find anything like that for years. Granted, I'm on a tight budget so have to shop in cheaper shops that are aimed at younger women, maybe it's easier to get knee length skirts in more expensive shops.

Somewhat behindhand with this but I’d like to second that whole post by Antibles at 20.10 yesterday.

So many handmaidens for misogyny. I really think we have to start trying to encompass the extent of internalised misogyny among women, including among self-defined feminists.

Again going back a bit, I’m not sure exactly what Goosefoot was saying but as far as I can tell, there seemed to a major missing of the point.

This clothing isn't “clothing that is deliberately being made or worn or bought to avoid sexualisation of the body and women”, [my italics], it’s being made to ever further entrench and perpetuate the sexualisation of women’s bodies.

That’s why as feminists we have a problem with it.

The point is it’s still sexualising and fetishising the female body -probably even more so - to insist that if it is not covered up, it’s automatically sexual and immodest.

It’s not a solution to the issue of women whose self esteem (or lack thereof) is tied up in trying to make themselves as sexually attractive as possible to men; it’s the other side of the self same coin.

It perpetuates the idea of women as defined by the male gaze, the male response to women’s bodies, women’s sexed bodies. Whether women are covering up from the male gaze or exposing for the male gaze, it’s still about living in a state of reaction to that male gaze rather than simply living as autonomous human beings independent of specifically male judgement, approval, disapproval - ultimately, male control.

There is a lot of “soft” anti feminism going on at the moment.

There is indeed, Bertrand, I am in full accord with you on this. Very concerning.

So what would be a better label? I am happy for the label to be changed it does not bother me what it is called.

For me modest sounds like the French word modiste which gives connotation of modern, fashionable, bespoke clothing. So it is no problem in France to have a fashion trend called “modest”.

Whatever name you think of, think also of cultural differences because it was originally made for rich Middle Eastern women living in US and mainland Europe. They are not going to like names like “Islamic” or anything that others those who wish to dress in that style.

How about calling it ‘fetishwear’?

So it is no problem in France to have a fashion trend called “modest”.
Feminists exist in France too, I'm sure you'll find opposition to the term there as well.
So what would be a better label? I think 'modest' describes what we're dealing with perfectly. It's come from sexist, Islamic social control of women. You can call it whatever new terms you like, the underlying history and intention to make women responsible for male sexual violence remains the same.

Flora. 😂
But seriously, the label fetishwear is already taken.

How about calling it ‘fetishwear’?
Spot on! Nothing more fetishistic that covering every inch of skin because flesh is 'sinful', rather than treating the female body as a vehicle for carrying out the whole range of non-sexual activities that her daily life involves.

UPfield, I am asking everyone,, including you, who object to the label of modest, what should we call this style of clothes?

Or do you object to the clothes themselves and if so why?

I object to the ideology behind 'modest' clothing. If the origin is sexist and you change the name, that doesn't stop the concept being sexist. Maybe 'rape apologist wear'?

Maybe, I dunno, just call them 'clothes' - like women's long sleeved tops and trousers and long line skirts have always been called.

Nothing more fetishistic that covering every inch of skin because flesh is 'sinful', rather than treating the female body as a vehicle for carrying out the whole range of non-sexual activities that her daily life involves.

But that is not why the modest fashion trend is popular globally. It is not saying flesh is sinful. That is old fashioned British Victorian thinking. The modest fashion trend is about supporting women doing non sexual activities but doing so in lovely feminine and practical clothing. What else do you call salwar and kameez or khaftan or chinese tunic and trousers type dress?

Interesting answers. Thank you for thinking about what should we call this trend since modest deeply insults many of you.

It is not saying flesh is sinful. That's exactly what it's saying, that's why some Muslim men don't shake hands with women outside of the family, it's about keeping women the property of the family and thus unnecessarily sexualizing any other interaction between men and women.
The modest fashion trend is about supporting women doing non sexual activities but doing so in lovely feminine and practical clothing.
'Modest' fashion is about modesty and nothing to do with practicality. Floor length skirts are not practical. Headscarves are not practical. A lot of modest fashion in sweltering weather is certainly not practical. As I said way back, many of the items in the BBC article are not particularly practical or comfortable. Also, you're on a feminist page, I'm not against feminine clothing, but I certainly don't see it as a virtue.

I was thinking “modiste” would be good. It sounds like modest but it has completely different meaning for clothing and fashion. It means modern, as in a la mode, it means made just for you as a modiste is the name for a personal dressmaker that rich women would use to make one of a kind outfits, it means fashionable because the modiste would invent new styles.

But, of course, the world uses English more than French. So do not expect my label to be welcomed at all. ;)

For me modest sounds like the French word modiste which gives connotation of modern, fashionable, bespoke clothing. So it is no problem in France to have a fashion trend called “modest”.
That is utterly bizarre. No problem because the English word “modest” sounds a bit like a French word meaning something completely different.,....?

@Florabritannica - love it!!

@TalkingintheDark, @UpfieldHatesWomen, you are my comrades in this fight ladies. I am so fed up if women being shamed for what they wear, as if we have to be responsible for men's sexual urges and violence towards women.

My DD was telling me that he friend attended a rape trial yesterday and she was shocked that the defence barrister shouted angrily at the rape victim on the stand and accused her of lying. Again, women are blamed for men's violence to women and other women stand by and cheer them on.

Sorry for the rant, but oh God, I am heartily sick of men right now. And women apologising for them. And modest dressing - for >>>> sake.

I was thinking “modiste” would be good. It sounds like modest

Why is any reference to ‘modest’ a good thing?

I second ‘clothes’.

No value judgement, works for me

Ah, modest fashion does have a lot to do with practical. Long skirts are more practical in hot climates than short skirts or shorts. Why do you think Arab men and women wear long robes? The long skirt or robe creates an air buffer of cooler air between you and the heat. It also slows down sweating and dehydration.
Also, modest fashion has a lot of salwar kameez, tunic and trousers, and khaftan styles which were work wear for generations of peasants in these cultures.
Modest fashion was too about filling gaps in professional office wear for women that did not revolve around tight fitting blouses, short skirts and high heels. Their solutions are more practical as well as being elegant.
Modest fashion too has created lines of sports wear from ballerina outfits to swimming to running wear that both support, cover and are practical. Again many women are adopting these because of sun damage and skin cancer, not because flesh is sinful.
May I suggest you look more at modest fashion as a whole and not make assumptions based on the label?