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???

This is making me think of @manwhohasitall on Twitter, who applies the mores of women's magazines and media to men. It's very funny -

twitter.com/manwhohasitall?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I'm sure he would think men should dress to feel sexy for themselves rather than to be sexy for women.

It's just so depressing that clothing for women has to be reduced to the "sexy" standar: the choice between either sexy or non-sexy (immodest). Non-sexy is just normal comfortable clothes. It doesn't need a label. This is the twitter feed of the journalist. A couple of people seem to be raising their eyebrows in the comments.

twitter.com/megan_lawton/status/1194518996491608064

It's not even the 1950s, it's going back to the 1850s. 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.

What 30to50feralhogs said.

It's an unwelcome, value-laden term based on sexism and I'm extremely unhappy to see it emerge as a marketing strategy in this country.

The opposite of modest is immodest. Even in 2019 women are still judged as asking for it if they wear clothing that shows more rather than less skin. It would be utterly naive or disingenuous of anyone to argue that the moral aspect to this terminology for women's clothing doesn't exist.

The day they display shorts and short sleeved T shirts for men and call it the 'men's immodest' section is the day this isn't about judging and controlling women.

Presumably the lacy lingerie section in a department store should be called the slut section and the confectionary section the gluttony aisle. Because they're just words, right?

The 6th form dress code at DDs school is "the head doesn't want to see up it, down it or through it".
DD appreciated the freedom to choose her clothes and be fashionable whilst observing easy boundaries, it seemed an eminently straightforward and practical code and everyone seemed happy with it.
Is that "modest"?
I have advised both DDs that if they want men to be interested in their brains it helps if their (men's) eyes aren't focussed on a cleavage or other areas of exposed flesh. It's a shame that girls have to be taught to avoid the male gaze but I think it makes for an easier life.

We could always stop men gazing at women. Or is that completely unthinkable?

Every time women are told to cover up, men hear the message that it's fine for them to ogle.

The clothes themselves - fine. The label “modest” - absolutely fucking not fine. Vile, regressive, patriarchal, misogynist shit

Thank you. Succinctly and eloquently put.

It is interesting whoever was taking about another meaning of modest effectively seeking not to draw attention to your achievements. It is clearly not this meaning of modest intended in this case, as fashion is all about being seen and being part of something (a trend).

As posters have said, if this had been specifically about modesty in clothing as required by a faith or culture, then that would have been a different article (to be appraised on that basis). This article is using the term as if it was agreed generally in Britain society that in order for clothes to be modest they must have full coverage and be loose.

Ido 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

I don't know what a "BLM" argument is but I don't know how any women who thinks she is a feminist can be comfortable attaching the word "modest" to women's clothing.

It's not an insult to other fashion- it's an insult to women.

There used to be a joke on MN about keeping spreadsheets of posters who are annoying. I'm going to take careful note of any poster defending the use of modest in relation to describing women's clothes so I will know I can probably disregard any other opinions by them.

FannyCann I think it's fine to have reasonable clothing requirements for different workplaces, schools etc, so long as there aren't double standards for girls and boys.
I have advised both DDs that if they want men to be interested in their brains it helps if their (men's) eyes aren't focussed on a cleavage or other areas of exposed flesh. It's a shame that girls have to be taught to avoid the male gaze but I think it makes for an easier life. I think it's a positive thing to be aware of how dressing affects how men (and many women) will treat you, but not necessarily to lumber women with the responsibility of dealing with other's attitudes. I'm from a working class background, when I was younger I'd wear revealing clothing for a night on the town (and sometimes in the day). I wasn't thinking about men or how they'd react, just following the fashion of the time and trying to look good (I thought). I wish I did have more understanding then of how others would view me based upon their prejudice. That's not to say I condone the prejudice, though. It would be better if people realised that women are human and may even have a brain, even if they are wearing a short skirt.

I thought "modest" must have started out as a euphemism used by the fashion industry to help women from more conservative cultures filter for clothes on shopping websites

FFS how thick do you think women are? Do you really think women would not be able to find a half-length, long sleeved dress or loose fitting trousers without this?

Second FFS

Not putting temptation their way. I’ve seen it described as being “kind” to men

It's an unwelcome, value-laden term based on sexism and I'm extremely unhappy to see it emerge as a marketing strategy in this country

Indeed - and for women to defend its use is appalling.

So, what is a good term for women's clothing that isn't intending to emphasise our bodies and covers them in the way men's fashion does?

Maybe I'm being thick but why is there a need for such a term ?

Actually I'm not being thick. I risk a deletion here but anyone who thinks there is a need for such a term should have a think about their lack of critical faculties.

As I apparently need to just chill I'm of to slip onto mynoni "lazy tart" pyjamas.

Into my

Surely ‘modest fashion’ is simply a marketing term for clothing targeted at Muslim women, or other women who wang to cover up for religious or cultural reasons?

Oh I don't know Shona I can't tell you the number of times I've thought that I was buying a fleece jumper and it turned out to be a tasseled tittie bra.

It should be renamed to “practical” fashion. This would encompass:

Not showing your underwear when bending over
Not leaving stupid gaps of flesh that make you cold when you move
Not leaving you unable to stand or walk
No huge flappy swathes of fabric round your ankles tripping you up
No stupid discrepancies in warmth levels that mean it is never going to be the right temperature to wear it- like thick poloneck jumpers with no sleeves

I’m sure there are other things but those are what springs to mind.

Would it be too much to ask if we might analyse why this term is creeping in? Although it's obvious. It's the normalisation of the additional covering-up restrictions for women of particular immigrant communities in this country.

In much the same way as TRAs would strip us of all our sex-based rights, the male desire to control women seems only ever to lead one way - to insist we cover up more and more until, in the most extreme cultures, our entire body is fetishised by being totally covered and women are literally not allowed to show their faces in public. This then gives men licence to be sexually aroused by any bit of us we show and the results of that are always our fault.

Being a cheerleader for "modest" clothing is like being a handmaiden for misogyny. It's like someone unthinkingly supporting 'trans rights' because they don't realise the serious implications of letting these things creep in. Let's just be kind and tolerant comes the cry. Except it's not kind to women at all.

Modesty is a term that needs to be scrapped pronto.

It's like the word 'frumpy' - I don't think there's a male equivalent (comfortable?). Why is that?

Judged if we do, judged if we don't.

I like the clothes but really hadn't thought of it as 'modest.' More smart and business like or coco chanel esque.

It's actually rather victim blamey by proxy. Ie, if you don't wear modest clothes, you're asking for trouble.

‘I have advised both DDs that if they want men to be interested in their brains it helps if their (men's) eyes aren't focussed on a cleavage or other areas of exposed flesh. It's a shame that girls have to be taught to avoid the male gaze but I think it makes for an easier life.’

If a man can’t focus because he can see a bit of skin, why on earth would you want him to be interested in your daughters anyway?

And after reading the thread (sorry, bad form and bad habit,) yes talking has it again!

It's a Patriarchal term, pigeon holing women into virtuous marriage (housewife/ slave) material and 'tarts' who can be shagged and murdered. And so how they're treated.

It should be renamed to “practical” fashion

Why? I'm really not buying this "oh it's only a useful tag" argument.

Unless a woman has never walked down a UK high street, never seen a women's magazine, never seen television adverts - in fact been living under a rock, I find it very difficult to believe she couldn't find what she is looking for.

There’s no point in renaming it; it is accurately named. There are women who believe in modest and immodest forms of dress and want to wear and post pictures about what they consider to be the former.

I certainly don’t think sex work is great etc! What on earth has that to do with this?!

They are all examples of people making arguments on choice or individualistic types of feminism, without undertaking a systemic analysis or consider the implications of the results of that analysis. Women should be able to choose x, y or z, without considering either the systemic or institutional pressures that contribute to making that choice, or the implications of that choice on the larger culture or other people.

In this case there is a ton of analysis that has gone on in feminism around the fashion and beauty industry and the kinds of pressures they put on women in particular for monetary gain. There is also a lot on the effects of the sexualisation of women that happens through those industries, how it affects how girls and women think of themselves and men think of them, even if none of those people intend to be affected, they are.

But in this case with clothing and how we can talk about describing clothing that is deliberately being made or worn or bought to avoid sexualisation of the body and women, you have an instance where all of a sudden the analysis stops, is cut right off. Where if really pressed, people deliberately talk around it using words like "sensible" as if the issue was just being able to be comfortable and has nothing to do with the sexualisation of women's bodies.

The reason this usually happens in these kinds of scenarios is because people don't want to put the responsibility for action on the individual level on real people. Though I don't find that's a particularly common response on this forum, with other similar issues - people are generally ready to say that particular individual choices contribute to negative views and pressures on women and should be avoided. This one is different I think because people are very uncomfortable with this idea of "judging" women's clothing, but the analysis logically should really follow the same pattern. Avoiding it will have other very negative outcomes, anyway.

Shona because lots of women on this thread have said they find the basic idea of what theses clothes do in practice useful, but the name for them offensive. And I am of the opinion that women’s clothes and the women’s fashion industry should deliver what women want.