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???

someone might look for a modest dress to wear to a wedding but you would not expect anything suitable for a wedding to come up in a search for "sensible clothing for women"
what word(s) would you actually use to describe clothing that is fashionable but covers most of your body and is not skin tight and doesn't have a different set of negative things associated with it?

I would search for “maxi dress long sleeve” or “high necked blouse” etc rather than apply a value judgment to the type of person who buys the clothes.

Similarly if I wanted something skimpy for the beach I wouldn’t search for “immodest clothing” or “slaggy dress” I’d search for “beach shorts” or “crop top” etc

Plan PS , you didn't answer my question. Dressing modestly is advised in Islam to protect a woman from sexual attention. But you have also said that the way a woman dresses is irrelevant, any woman can be raped no matter what she wears. Why then, should Muslim women be made to wear modest clothing, if modest clothing doesn't protect them?

erm no I love wearing my hijab as did many at my top 2 uni. Isn't it funny how many think a piece of cloth on your head wipes away your brain cells

I’m not sure why your uni is relevant here and nobody is saying you don’t have brain cells. The question is around value judgments placed on those who choose to wear modest or (presumably the opposite is immodest) clothing. By choosing to wear a hijab to cover your hair you are buying into the idea that to show your hair in public is somehow wrong/immodest/unacceptable and similarly those who choose to wear loose clothing, long sleeves, high necks etc BECAUSE THEY ARE ‘MODEST‘ rather than to keep warm, comfortable, they just like them etc are not doing so in a social vacuum.

If you are at home and away from the male gaze do you still wear your hijab?

If you are in a room full of only women and your scarf slips do you panic and rearrange it quickly before anyone sees anything they ‘shouldn’t’?

Would you behave differently in front of a man or in a public space?

The girls I know who wear a head scarf take it off around their friends (and said friends are always very complimentary about the gorgeous hair that is usually hidden!). That it is acceptable for female friends to see their hair, but not boys and men or anyone in public, surely makes that a decision borne out of a sense of modesty, not a fashion choice? I’m not saying that anyone should be forced not to wear it, or that they are wrong for doing so. But it’s clear that a value judgment has been made about those who wear it and those who don’t.

But it seems you and others still object to women dressing in the style itself

Women in Iran deserve nice clothes too. Stopping all modest fashion production and sales gives them less choice, not more

Why is Plan continuing with this outrageous straw man argument ? Nobody has objected to the clothes themselves or suggested they should not be made. Nobody has said this. She has been called out on time and again yet Plan goes on and on with this fantastic straw man.

The only fashion at work here is renaming normal clothing that women always choose and wear and have easy access to, as "modest" which drags women who would have nothing to do with it otherwise, into the values of woman-hating patriarchal religion

That is a very succinct summing up of what is happening.

On the Feminist board we try to apply Feminist analysis.

Yep, I think all of us are aware of that.

This is difficult when people waste our time with these personal attacks claiming we are intolerant of women.

The only people who have been launching personal attacks on this thread are those who are calling women 'handmaidens' and 'misogynists' for disagreeing with them.

If you cannot separate the analysis of the effects of social customs and mores from criticism of women who comply with social customs and mores you are well and truly conditioned.

How incredibly patronising.

How incredibly patronising.
You're welcome.

"How incredibly patronising."

You're welcome.

Suddenly all your posts make sense. At least you're admitting to it!

What are you accusing me of? Being old and experienced in Feminist advocacy? Guilty as charged. Way off topic though.

It's great that you're experienced in Feminist advocacy, and with age comes experience wisdom. I have no problem with that, in fact they are both positive things.

However, in this thread it has come across in a 'I know best, you're all wrong' kind of way which is, well, patronising. Isn't it possible to have an interesting discussion without telling others their views are wrong and that they are doing feminism wrong? Just because you are (in your words) 'old' doesn't mean that you know everything, or are always right. This thread went off the rails because a few people couldn't accept that other people had a different view. I understand you're coming from a radical feminist perspective, and I respect that, but I think sometimes radical feminism has these blind spots and this is one of them.

It's honestly surprised me the level of indignance in this thread. I guess Islam+Fashion+Radical Feminism was always going to be a bit of an explosive topic.

I guess Islam+Fashion+Radical Feminism was always going to be a bit of an explosive topic

You are creating a variation of Plan's straw man. The objection being taken is to the description of clothes as "modest" and , as another poster said, renaming normal clothing that women always choose and wear and have easy access to, as "modest" which drags women who would have nothing to do with it otherwise, into the values of woman-hating patriarchal religion

No one has objected to women choosing to wear whatever they like (as long as that is a free choice)

You talk about looking at it from both sides but you and Plan simply refuse to accept that the term "modest clothing" carries any value judgement.

CeridwenTheWitch, you are projecting.
I understand you're coming from a radical feminist perspective, and I respect that, but I think sometimes radical feminism has these blind spots and this is one of them.

Value judgments based on clothing is not a Radical Feminist blind spot nor an observation exclusive to Radical Feminism.
Perhaps you may have heard of sumptuary laws? If not you may wish to expand your mind with a bit of research.

I find the term 'modest fashion' as offensive as I would find New Look labelling its more revealing dresses 'tarty fashion' or 'slaggy fashion'. It sexualises women's clothes and by association their bodies in a sexist and judgemental way.

But that is what happens, fashion already sexualises women's bodies. Which is to say it sexualises them for men.

The whole concept of modesty is to remove that kind of sexualisation from the picture.

It makes no sense on the one hand to say, it is so terrible that fashion tries to make women into objects for men, which is a standard argument in feminism, and then complain that an approach to fashion that explicitly tries to avoid that is judgemental.

It's like people think that by pretending that the fashion industry doesn't design clothes in this way, it will make it so.

You talk about looking at it from both sides but you and Plan simply refuse to accept that the term "modest clothing" carries any value judgement.

Lol. I have literally said about 5 times on this thread, that I don't like the term 'modest,' because it implies that women not wearing this clothing are 'immodest.'

So, you've decided I've said something I've never said. Insanity. You did the same thing to Trewser and Plan. I'm not sure if you have reading comprehension difficulties or whether you are putting words into people's mouths deliberately but, well trolled.

If not you may wish to expand your mind with a bit of research.

See, this is the kind of attitude that I think really doesn't help. It just alienates people from the discussion, and from radical feminism itself, because it comes across as haughty and arrogant.

Tone policing noted, thanks.

Yes, all women are. I'm pretty sure most women on this thread give a feminist critique to Western culture and styles of dress too.

They aren't really. They refuse to explore what choosing clothing that avoided the oppression inherent in that style would involved, or what kind of thought process is involved in that, or that it would be a thought process at all. I've seen really only one acknowledgement that more extreme forms of covering women like the burka are in fact the flip side of the western approach. No realisation that avoiding both would require some principle for individuals to work on when making concrete choices, and that you could indeed give that a name, and that it would therefor exist in some sort of opposition to both of the others. And no real engagement by 99% of posters with the more significant questions being brought up, in fact pretty much ignoring them and mainly just making disparaging comments about individuals.

Perhaps because these value judgments are dictated by men in both Western and Eastern cultures while Feminists are more focused on the sweat shop aspect of the fashion industry.

I too hate the use of the word modest in this way and suggest the word religious would be more suitable

Having looked at the photos I don't think "modest fashion" is totally removing the sexual aspect from clothing. It's still clearly female clothing fitted to a female form in a way intended to be Beautiful and attractive as a priority over practical. The models still have boobs and bums, and I suspect that the fabrics of the looser items drape and move in an interesting way

I say again, the myth that dressing a certain way can reduce risk or avoid rape is dead and gone.

I worked in the UK criminal justice system until quite recently and have friends who still do and I can absolutely guarantee you that it is (more’s the pity) alive and kicking.

I am wearing "immodest" socks this morning. They are clingy and show off the shape of my shapely foot. I will be wearing immodest shoes later on. I hope no man sees me and has to wrestle with the overwhelming passion my shoes inspire when I'm out and about minding my own business.

Goosefoot we are not focussing on Western fashion here, because the topic of the thread is 'modest' fashion. To launch into an analysis of Western fashion would be somewhat of a derail. Are you seriously suggesting that you've never seen mention of Western items such as high heels, lip fillers etc on FWR? Give over. You're saying that we're failing to suggest a feminist alternative way to dress, so essentially expecting us to solve the problem of international female oppression with some suggested items of clothing. It doesn't work like that. If you live in a sexist culture, the fashion industry being a part of that, there isn't really a feminist solution. I have actually made the best suggestion I can pages back, having clothing for women that is comfortable, practical, of a better quality and durability than the tat we're usually sold would be a start. I don't know if there is such a thing as feminist fashion designers, but that would be wonderful. Not to say there shouldn't be choices for more flamboyant, impractical clothing for special occasions, but clothes that are designed to be easy to care for and wear on a day to day basis. Better quality would help move away from fast fashion and it's destruction of the planet too. Sorry if that doesn't solve world patriarchy for you, I wasn't aware that was a task that was being demanded of me. I note that you haven't similarly admonished those who have failed to give any kind of justification for why they think women should wear modest fashion, or demonstrate how this solves patriarchy, other than the reason 'they're beautiful feminine clothes'. I actually think you're being quite patronising to those who support modest fashion, by holding feminists to a higher standard than them in terms of the argument you expect them to produce.

Returning to this thread after an absence of several pages, I’m astonished that it’s still running. There is a real failure on the part of certain posters to engage with the issues at stake - I sense fingers being stuck in ears and a lot of La La La.
Do people not understand that to say something is ‘not x’ means that everything else is ‘x’? That to claim long sleeves as ‘modest’ is to make short sleeves ‘immodest’? That to say that a certain style of clothing desexualises the female body is to say that all other styles present it as a sex object?
Radical feminists are demanding the right to dress without judgement from a male gaze. We are refusing to buy into this modest/immodest, whore/Madonna binary that has policed women’s self-presentation for millennia. We argue that women who choose to adopt these clothing labels are buying into this dialectic.
Please tell me what I’m not getting.

PS and indeed that to argue that the female body needs desexualising in the first place is to view that body with the eyes of the patriarchy?