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???

The point of the LV logo is to make everyone seeing the item know instantly that it is LV and that it cost a small fortune. Wearing LV is the exact opposite of "modest".

Eye catching ostentatious display of wealth is an accurate description of anything made by LV.

I think she looks banging.

She looks very fashionable and stylish, but plastering yourself with the logos of designers known to sell expensive clothing out of the financial reach of the average person is the very antithesis of modest, however much or little skin or hair one is showing in the process.

I don't know what "banging" means.

She looks rich. I expect buying and wearing her LV goods gives her pleasure and that's fine- no problem there. Calling what she is wearing "modest" - not fine.

I think she looks banging.
How she looks is not the issue, the comment was on how it's the antithesis of 'modest' to make such an obvious display of wealth, and that applies to anyone from any culture.

It might be a knock-off (that means fake, shona, before you ask). Plenty of teens have fake LV these days.

It doesn't matter if it's a knock-off or not, the intention is to display wealth.

I have no objections to what what women decide to wear.

I object to their clothing being labelled and so used for point scoring of any kind.

I'm not comfortable with ostentatious displays of wealth. They bring out the dour Presbyterian in me (despite being a born and raised atheist). I cannot reconcile extravagant designer clothes with the word 'modest' unless the word is simply and only about being covered up.

If covering up is the soul criteria by which women should be judged than women living in tropical climates will forever be judged 'immoral' and those in cold climates 'virtuous' when both are simply dressing appropriately for their climates. There is no way I can go along with that.

She looks rich. I expect buying and wearing her LV goods gives her pleasure and that's fine- no problem there. Calling what she is wearing "modest" - not fine.

I see your point. Why is something that's designed to signify wealth "modest"?

I think Shona’s point is that the Vuitton hijab demonstrates very clearly how the term modest when applied to clothing loses its broader associations with lack of ostentation and becomes instead focused solely on female sexuality and the extent to which the beholder believes it to be on display. The wearer may or may not look ‘banging’ but she certainly isn’t trying to fade into the background.

It doesn’t matter whether clothing is expensive or free. If it is labelled “modest”, it is contributing to the oppression of women.

Whether it's real or fake is irrelevant. Wearing anything so highly monogrammed is intended to be looked at. I don't have any problem with that- far from it actually. I'm not keen on logos but I love stylish, over the top "look at me clothes" - both to wear myself and to see other people wearing them.

I think Shona’s point is that the Vuitton hijab demonstrates very clearly how the term modest when applied to clothing loses its broader associations with lack of ostentation and becomes instead focused solely on female sexuality

Exactly.

It doesn’t matter whether clothing is expensive or free. If it is labelled “modest”, it is contributing to the oppression of women.

Of course it is, but it also baffling how something that screams "look at me, I', so rich" can, in any way, be described as modest, modest meaning "unassuming".

It just adds another layer of nonsense and untruth.

Or what Shona said.

I also have no problem with Muslim women wearing this clothing and understand its appeal. I think people have far too much of a hair-trigger response to discussing topics like this and so go along with the official 'religious' line that it's just about Muslim women and their religious devotion, so we shouldn't discuss it if we're non-Muslim because that means we're nasty Islamophobic bigots. In reality, it's partly about religious faith, but it's also about men controlling what women wear, it's about consumerism, it's about cultural issues such as the display of wealth, it's about rape apologism, it's about vanity and Instagram culture, it's about Western women's reaction against porn culture and wanting somewhere to hide, and probably a lot of other issues as well. Appealing to feminine socialisation and saying be nice and don't question is playing into a patriarchal code of conduct for women. I haven't seen anything here directing hate at Muslim women and wouldn't want to, I just don't think this 'modest' fashion and the sexist ideology underlying it should be untouchable and not up for discussion simply because it's based in religious ideals.

Further to Upfield's post it is worth remembering that in terms of religion this 'movement' does not derive souly from conservative Islam. As has been pointed out several times there is pressure from conservative Christianity in the US at play too.

The wearer may or may not look ‘banging’ but she certainly isn’t trying to fade into the background

Absolutely. It's pretty much designed to say 'LOOK AT ME'.

It's almost a subversive act though. Kind of like 'I'm following your rules by covering up'

It's almost a subversive act though. Kind of like 'I'm following your rules by covering up'
I agree, I think that's what a lot of modest fashion is about: trying to get away with being as sexy as possible whilst still following the patriarchal rules of dress of the religion. The hypocrisy of calling a style which does this 'modest' is apparent. I don't blame the women who wear attention-grabbing 'modest' fashion at all, they can wear what they like, but it seems to be simply driven by a desire to have more consumer choice and to be allowed access to the same self-indulgent, vain exercises of posting themselves across social media and displaying wealth as Western women do (in fact in my humble opinion, Middle Eastern cultures are far more obsessed with displaying wealth as a status symbol). Very 'Lib Fem' really, all about feminism equating to being allowed to choose consumer products, rather than tackling the underlying sexism of 'modesty' as a notion itself.

This is from a Christian blog. There are loads of similar ones- I picked this at random. “In order to assess whether a particular outfit is modest, here are some questions I may want to prayerfully ask myself:

What are my motives when I wear this outfit?
Will this outfit draw the eye of my brothers in Christ to my body or to the Lord?
Does this clothing cover all of the important areas well?
Even if I bend over, lean down, or reach up?
If I have to sit in a chair, will someone be able to see up my skirt/shorts?
Will I be doing activities that will cause private areas to be visible in this outfit?
If there are buttons, does the material gape between the buttons?
Am I likely to have a wardrobe malfunction in this clothing?
Am I purposely or inadvertently encouraging men to focus on my body or on lusting after me because this outfit reveals too much skin or exposes the exact shape of my body?
Is the neckline too low?
Is my midriff exposed?
Is the clothing too tight?
Does this outfit draw the eye to my breasts, hips, or crotch?
Is this clothing see-through in the right light?
Are my undergarments showing?
Is the hemline too short?
What would my husband or dad (or another godly man I greatly respect) think about this outfit?”

The split infinitive pales into insignificance beside the chilling handmaidenry of the above.

I’d quite like the supporters of the term “modest dress” to comment on my last post.

...furthermore, I think it allows women who wear 'modest' fashion to flamboyantly display wealth, push the boundaries of looking sexy within the codes of the religion, and indulge in vanity to post endless photos modelling said outfits on social media, all the while hiding behind an inherently sexist and smug label of 'modest' that a woman who did the exactly same without wearing 'modest' labelled fashion would not be afforded, and might even be called 'full of herself' or a 'slut'. That's probably part of its appeal with non-religious women too. It's a trade off, 'If I promise to abide by male rules of what women are allowed to wear in order to not be called a slut, then I can indulge myself in spending lots of money on outfits and posting pictures of them all over the internet'. Again, not saying that's the women's fault, but it relies on and thus reinforces the sexist ideology underneath.

Here are some 'modest' fashion bloggers, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and Mormon. I'm not posting to be unpleasant to them, but to indicate that there doesn't seem to be much to this 'modest blogging' trend apart from showing off outfits in exotic locations (wealth), much the same as other Instagram fashion influencers.
www.instagram.com/heba_jay/
www.instagram.com/adiheyman/
www.instagram.com/runstylerun/

The word modest implies (a) a value judgement, (b) dressing for the male gaze - whether to attract it or to repel it is immaterial and (c) that what women wear is anyone else's business.

The clothes themselves and the concept of NOT feeling pressured to dress in anticipation of men's reactions I completely endorse.

.......and there's nothing new in baggy jeans or maxi dresses. These styles have all had a few turns around the block in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Upfield,
I will answer by flipping the question
‘Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment. But I have also said that the way a woman dresses is irrelevant, any woman can be raped no matter what she wears. Why then, should Western women be made to wear revealing clothing, if they do not wish to do so? Why is it that before the modest clothing trend, less revealing clothes were only designed for and marketed to over 40yr old women?

The ideology that all young women only dress modestly because they “are made to” by men is false. Yes, some are, but equally as many are forced to wear revealing or no clothing by men. Namely the millions of sex workers worldwide. Choice is the issue, and no one type or style of clothing in the western world is representative of patriarchy.