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???

ShonaAndTheWaterHorse I also have no idea what Trews and Ceridwen's points are, as far as I recall they haven't interacted with me other than when they have popped up to shout at me and tell me I'm a racist, narcissist, bullying, intolerant dictator who 'overthinks' things, and has zero sense of humour.

Midgebabe I honestly don't know enough about the industry to say which factors are most impacting their bottom line.

I do think a lot of organisations and industries like to signal their progressiveness via changes that cost them nothing and don't really address any underlying issues though. I doubt the fashion industry is immune to this sort of behaviour.

You sound as cynical as me!

I don't personally feel the fashion industry activelychoosesto sexualise women's bodies, more that they just don't care what the consequences of their labels are for women

High end/ couture fashion is often far more about the structure and design of the garment- which is often approached from an almost architectural view point than sexualising women's bodies. Designers such as Issey Miyake or Dries van Noten for example make extraordinarily complex garments which, for them to work, require lots of fabric. Vivienne Westwood is the same to some extent (a sales assistant and I spent a good 15 minutes trying to get the twisting and draping on a not at all revealing Westwood dress back in the correct place)

"Modesty for women then meant full-length crinolines which sometimes caught fire and burned the wearer to death, and corsets which interfered with women's breathing and ability to move. Some women are just so clueless about female history."

Utter bullshit. As ever on Mumsnet, you're looking through an upper class Victorian lens and even then that's wrong.

So you really think no one worked or bent down just because they wore a corset? Crinoline were a very small part of 19th century fashion.

Corsets, stays, bodies and kirtles have been worn for hundred of years and they are more comfortable to wear than a bra. They only went out of fashion because elastic was invented.

Tightlacing was never really a thing. Only a few upper class women did it and even then they were taken to task for it. Only fetishists today are into tightlacing.

Women did work in corsets, but dying from their dresses catching fire was the second commonest cause of death for women up to 1800 (according to QI anyway):

Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment.

Clearly part of the problem is people confusing the corporate backlash against Feminism with Feminism itself.

Parents in the US bemoaned for years their inability to find school clothing for preteen daughters that do not have see through fabrics and/or bare midriffs. California mall rat style cheaply produced in sweat shops in the Northern Marianas was all that was on offer at affordable shops for years. The only concession to winter was the coats.

Also too and besides the Evangelical Christian extremists of the US have a very specific style of clothing they call modest that some shops and manufacturers cater to.

“ Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment.”

No it isn’t. Dressing the way you want to and not adapting your style because of the way men might react is a feminist statement. If you want to go out dressed “revealingly” you should be able to without thinking “I’d better not- it might put me at risk from men” it’s not encouraged or discouraged. It’s just an option. A choice a woman should be able to make without considering the effect it might have on men’s behaviour.

While I dislike the term 'modest' because the opposite, immodest, is judgemental, I think it's great that more women are realising they don't have to dress as sex objects to be fashionable. There's something very feminist about choosing how much of your body someone can see, or not. At a basic level as long as nobody is telling women what they should or shouldn't wear, be that a bikini or burqa or anything in between, it's all good.

I think it's great that more women are realising they don't have to dress as sex objects to be fashionable. There's something very feminist about choosing how much of your body someone can see, or not

You think this realisation is new? Because it really isn't.

Badger-
Oui, I agree entirely. More women are demanding fashionable choices that don’t make a sex object out of you.

Wild thyme good post. Historically accurate. Amazing how many corset myths there are.

Plan- you said “ Dressing revealingly for young women is advised and celebrated in Western society as a feminist statement of sexual empowerment.”. Could you say some more about this and provide some evidence? Because it certainly isn’t my experience.

Bertrand it is a myth. The same as the myth that thanks to modest fashion more women are demanding fashionable choices that don’t make a sex object out of you.

In the case of the latter myth simple Google images searches on 1980s fashion, 1990s fashion and 2000s fashion will show the huge variety of what women wore.

Searching 90s fashion for women brings up everything from skimpy bra tops to shapeless baggy dungarees.

Interestingly searching 80s fashions for women brought up ictures of both Bon Jovi and Mr T. I guess they are 'women' by current woke definitions.

Searching 90s fashion for women brings up everything from skimpy bra tops to shapeless baggy dungarees

Same here. Another search brought up Demi Moore in dungarees so baggy they could have been used as a family tent.

Molly Ringwald also featured a lot - looking fabulous in various quirky outfits all of which would meet the "modest" tick boxes.

I find the underlying narrative that women are somehow being saved from themselves by being given permission by "modest fashion" to choose what they want to wear rather offensive.

I used to wear baggy denim dungarees, hooded tops and kickers as a teen in the early 90s and in late teens early 20s wore thick black tights, kilted skirts, polonecked bodies and clumpy boots.

Being covered up wasnt at all unusual or done to be 'modest'.

Zut alors!

Is this still going?

I think one of the reasons why this is such a contentious issue is that there is a lack of general consensus in society on what it actually means to be 'inclusive', in the same way there is with Trans issues. From what I've seen all people here agree inclusivity of women from different faiths is a good thing, so far as women should be free to practice their religion, wear whatever clothes they feel is suitable for that and shouldn't be discriminated against for it. I would argue where the disagreement lies is taking inclusivity to mean that we should accept the opposite beliefs to our own as valid, even when those views attack our own rights as women. I find it hard to understand the appeals to consider the opposite view on this thread, meaning we should consider ideals that are everything that feminism stands against, namely the acceptance of the term and concept of modesty and the underlying control of women's bodies by men. I'm open to hearing otherwise, but I haven't. The accusations of 'white feminism' and 'colonialism' are clearly exploiting the notion of 'inclusivity' here, using it to try to push back women's rights (also inaccurate, surely 'colonialism' would involve advocating for laws controlling what women can do in foreign countries and demanding they adhere to Western dress, and not be merely a discussion on how the term 'modest' creeping in to describe clothes WE wear is offensive). Those who wish to keep women in their place have found a weak spot with 'inclusivity' and keep on chipping away at it. For Western women, I definitely think there's virtue signalling going on with the embrace of modest fashion. Whilst it's been pointed out that various religions include modest fashions, the biggest market at least in Western Europe seems to be for Muslims, and it's woke to show you're cool with Muslims. If this fashion was more obviously connected with American fundamentalist Christians, would it have been embraced as much at this point in time? Christians are very 2000s, as in the wearing of purity rings, which I think were slightly different in that they weren't so much about virtue signalling to a religious group, but putting a sign of 'don't touch' on oneself, in order to titillate. I remember a girl I knew who used to wear one, it would be a frequent occurrence her pointing it out and saying 'Do you know I'm a virgin?' for the hundredth time. Of course she was using it to try to lure this guy she eventually slept with. No judgement, we're all human, but I see an element of this in the modest fashion trend, it's just a lot more invasive because it's easy to avoid wearing a ring but less easy to avoid a prevailing trend in clothing where the clothes you would wear anyway (and thus you, yourself) are suddenly tagged 'modest'. I also do think a lot of women at this moment in time have gained more confidence to dress for themselves, but it feels like this 'modest' trend and label co-opts this in a retrograde, unnecessary way.

Upfield

Debate around these issues has been rumbling on in the real world for years, though mostly ignored by media and politicians alike.

I had a very long running disagreement with my local authority over the phrase 'respect others beliefs' being used in schools.

For background my children's non-denominational high school and the catholic school across the street were being replaced by a joint campus and the council were very poor at acknowledging the needs of non-religious people throughout the process.

My issue with the phrase was, and remains, the simple fact that I don't respect the beliefs. I am happy to respect others right to hold whatever beliefs they wish but in demanding I respect the beliefs themselves you deny my right to my own beliefs. That is not how a secular society works. It can't work like that.

If people aren't free to express disagreement with beliefs they aren't free at all. You can't create inclusivity by restricting basic freedoms.

Haven’t read the full thread because the first page looked like people are reading this completely different to me...

I am currently a bit heavier than I’d like so my sensory issues with clothing are worse than ever.
I am married and mid thirties so feel the comfort of having an “excuse” for not caring how I look if I felt someone was judging me.

I dress like the women in the article. I do it because it’s comfy and hides my unshaven legs. Wearing these types of clothes lets me get away with wearing a bikini instead of a real bra (which is way more comfortable and still just about holds my massive boobs in a socially acceptable place).

I wear batwing or oversized jumpers and floor length or mid calf skirts. I like bright and contrasting colours.
People have laughed at my weird dress sense before.

Would I call it modest?
I guess I’ve always described it as a mix of boho and “mumsy”
I would consider calling it modest because to me that’s just a euphemism for “hidden” or “disguised” which is exactly what my clothes are about.

It’s pretty much nothing to do with men and everything to do with judgement from other women.

I agree with what @TalkingintheDark said.

I Dress without revealing much skin; lots of heavy cotton, wear men's coats. I think I am extremely cool and couldn't give a fuck about Modesty. It's so bloody offensive. The reason I don't wear a tight low cut top is because I don't like the way it looks on me, not because I feel I should be modest.... fuck that! I want to dress the way I do because I like it. Jeeeeesus!

I think we used to talk about 'not too revealing' when I was young instead of modest. That's better because it's factual.
Also I don't actually like showing my body off, not through any weird sense of modesty, just pure vanity and aesthetic. I'll wear small clothes if it's too hot for big clothes! It's practicality mainly.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers I totally agree. What does "respect others' beliefs" actually mean in practice? Be forced to accept them as reasonable views, even if they go against everything you stand for and are deeply offensive - sexist, racist, homophobic? Even if they discriminate against you, yourself?

"Respect others' beliefs" is quite clearly nonsense. It can only mean "respect the right of others to hold beliefs you don't agree with provided their beliefs do not compel you to do or abstain from doing something which is otherwise permitted"