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???

That article has no political analysis at all. The idea of "modest" fashion is absurd. The very existence of the term implies that there's an opposite kind of fashion - immodest fashion - in which women, to use the Daily Fail's preferred phrase, "flaunt their curves". (Or their bare arms, or their legs, or their necks, or whatever it is.)

But yeah - comfortable clothing or practical clothing are fine as terms. (Though I suspect that so-called "modest" clothing isn't always that comfortable, especially in hot weather.)

I'd be happy to see a 'modest' range for men. One that guarantees I won't have to see a hairy arse crack i haven't actively sought out.

Since when have floor length skirts been comfortable or practical?

Or wrist length sleeves been more practical or comfortable than elbow length ones?

There is a class element to this.

Having a lot of skin on show can be seen as a working class thing.

Why does it have to be labelled at all?

So you don't waste time wading through clothes you're not interested in?
Why have any labels for anything? To make it easier to find what you want.

dey men seem to choose clothes quite well without a modest label.

So you don't waste time wading through clothes you're not interested in? Why have any labels for anything? To make it easier to find what you want.
Modest: (of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention.
If a term is required, something that focuses on the clothes themselves eg. 'covered up', 'encompassing' or some other poncey fashion term would be less loaded with the sexist idea that women need to hide their bodies to avoid the male gaze and not be seen as a slut who's 'fair game' for harassment.

Or wrist length sleeves been more practical or comfortable than elbow length ones?

Men seem to manage to wear them most of the time, why do women have to put up with things that come half way up your arm because designers can't cut sleeves properly to cater for different sizes?

And I don't think dresses have to be floor-length, most are midi.

dey men seem to choose clothes quite well without a modest label.

I agree a better word should be used, but I do think clothes need labels to help you find what you're looking for.

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this idea that it makes life easier to choose your clothes.

Sorry posted at the same time.

Of course it helps but there needs to be no value judgement.

Personally I'd be happy with "not skimpy", I've walked into some shops and not found a single thing I would wear in there.
If the clothes were described as "skimpy" or not skimpy" it would save me a lot of wasted time.

The word 'modest' is not needer to find long sleeved tops, floor ,lenth skirts or baggy trousers though.

I typed long sleeve top women's into Amazon as an experiment and the first page has a range of tight, loose, sexy, baggy to suit any preference for example.

www.amazon.co.uk/s?ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16&crid=38Q3ANW8YCB6O&sprefix=long+sleeve+top+%2Caps%2C188&k=long+sleeve+top+womens&tag=mumsnetforu03-21

No need to mention modesty at all.

shearwater What we really need is women's clothes in general to be of better quality, less see-through cheap fabrics for work clothes, more natural fibres and clothes made for actually working in - pockets, breathable etc. This fashion movement isn't rooted in that though. As usual, it's linked to how men see us and judgements on our character based upon how we look.

Imagine if they labelled all clothes like that on judgements about women's dress and behaviour. "Modest" "Tarty" "Frumpy" "Classy" "Greedy" "Ballbreaker" "Lazy" etc.

Maybe I could mix and match and show off my Lazy Tart sense of fashion.

shearwater - I'm actually into it, it really would save a lot of time!
Dissecting the clothes in that BBC article, what I see is:

• a dress with no pockets
• a shirt that is made of such thin material the woman has to wear a polo neck underneath in order for the outfit to be 'modest'
• cropped trousers, top, shoes and socks in impractically light colours
• shoes without socks (sweaty feet) and a jacket which looks like it has fake pockets
• a tight polo neck
• another dress with no pockets
• uncomfortable looking platform boots
• no socks with loafers again (sweat, blisters)
• blouse with holey lace in around the chest area to show the bra through (unless you wear more layers)
• itchy wool dress with no pockets

To me these clothes don't look particularly comfortable. In addition, the clothes the Muslim woman is wearing would not look 'modest' on me as I have a chest (polo necks accentuate this). This feels tied into the idea that if you have a big chest, something you have no choice in, you are also automatically a slut. When you have curves, if you wear loose fitting clothing it makes you look two sizes bigger, so it's a choice between looking nice but according to these fashion rules 'immodest' or looking 'modest' but overweight. Doesn't feel very progressive to me.

I've not read all of the replies but I feel mixed about this too. On the one hand, some of that fashion is nice, and it's good to see a change from the usual pressure young women are under the dress in a hyper sexualised way.

On the other hand, I also don't like the term 'modest fashion' because it kind of implies anyone who doesn't follow it is dressing in an immodest way and should be judged for it and looked down on.

From what I understand, this fashion has it's origins in the way in which Muslim women in the west were struggling to find clothing that was deemed acceptable in their religion (and/or also because they prefer to cover up, which is a whole other topic in itself). So it's a kind of fusion of Muslim fashion and western fashion. I think Uniqlo did a collaboration with a Malaysian designer for a few pieces and it must have been popular because a lot of their clothes now fit into this category. I ordered some recently and despite being taller than average, the dresses and skirts were so long on me and just looked frumpy.

I'm all for people having a choice in what they wear, but I hope this doesn't become 'the norm' like the person in the article said because it's not to everyone's taste. I personally love style from the 1940s where I felt they had a great balance of looking elegant and stylish (and feminine, which I personally like) without looking either frumpy or too revealing. It's a shame that we have to jump from hyper sexualised to covered up, what's wrong with something in between? Like someone else said, it all feels a bit Madonna-Whore dichotomy.

I've noticed for about the past 10-15 years that skirts in the shops are either:

Mini
Midi
Maxi

And I keep thinking, what about knee length?! What's wrong with just above the knee, just on the knee or just below the knee? I've started to buy midi skirts and turn them up myself to be knee length because to me that is a happy medium and the most flattering length.

I prefer what can be called modest clothing, and not for the purpose of managing men's desires. I like to be able to move without flashing my body. I like men's clothing. If they stoop forward to pick something up they do not flash their chests at me. if they bend over to tie their shoes I don't get an eyeful of their legs. I dress similarly. I can run, bend, stretch, and even do a headstand if I wish without showing off "oops, my bra!". I'm not shy about my body, I'm very comfortable in it, and similarly I like to be comfortable in my clothes knowing they will allow me to move the way I want to. It's modest in that it ISN'T about my body. Not for any other reason.

I've just seen your comment NonnyMouse and my stomach hurts from laughing at the term 'Lazy Tart'

dudsville that's the difference though, isn't it? Men's fashion doesn't get called 'modest', because in general it doesn't cater to the female gaze, it caters to comfort, practicality and durability. I'd like a focus on this for women's fashion, rather than 'modesty'.

If it meets religious or cultural requirements, it's modest. Fair enough. I like modest clothing, and some wanton clothing, too.

“ I can run, bend, stretch, and even do a headstand if I wish without showing off "oops, my bra!".”
In a floor length skirt?

I do not mind the label “modest” I do not think that choosing a complimentary label means an insult to all other fashion. It strikes me as a BLM argument. So, if we say these clothes are modest, then that is saying all other clothes are immodest. That is no different from those who argue if we say black lives matter, then all other lives do not matter. See?
Saying certain clothes are of modest fashion is not saying all other clothes are immodest.

I’m equally happy with any other name for these mentioned like sensible (does that mean all other clothes are then not sensible?)

The reason why women’s clothes have tags is because we have the greater variety of choices in what to wear. Men are severely limited by our culture in what they can wear. Think about it. There is no need to filter out thousands of items with labels like “boho” or “work wear” or “clubbing” or “vintage” or even “petite” to get to the few dozen things you really want to browse.