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???

Endofthedays
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

There are people, some of them women, who believe all sorts of stupid, illogical, bigoted and wrong things. One of these things definitely being that an article of clothing is "accurately named" as "modest" or "immodest"

I would ask, does the same word apply for men in all ways?

So to me ‘modest’ could equally apply to religious observance for men and women in not exposing the head or not wearing shorts in a holy place. Men and women cover up. Equal application.

But the word modest is usually loaded and is often a value judgement on women’s choice of clothes. Modest all too often means very definitely female stereotyped or feminine clothing (dress, skirt, embellished twiddly bits and feminine decoration) but controlling and covering any body parts that might indicate the female sex.

So eg a woman weRing sloppy sweatshirt, Adidas joggers and a Chicago bears cap would Not be described as modest, because to be modest implies to be inherently and overtly feminine but with any sexuality obviously controlled.

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.

But the whole beauty industry is directed to creating images that attract men sexually, and getting women to conform to those images. And they are good at it.

I don't see how you can get anywhere telling men that, oh, by the way, that's really not happening. Those things are not meant to present an artificially sexualised image of women to you, you aren't supposed to notice that. They know it's not true, just like we know a man dressed up in a dress is still a man, that's the level it's designed to appeal to. It's not the sort of thing you can unknow.

The only outcomes I can see from taking that approach is men who think that women are being hypocrites, or ones who come to have a very perverse relationship to their own sexuality. Both of whom are likely to produce predators or abusers of one type or another.

Shonabecause 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

The clothing industry delivers all sorts of styles of clothes. I don't believe for one minute that the average woman is too thick to be able to find a long sleeved dress or loose trousers or a mid calf length skirt unless it is helpfully tagged as "modest" or "sensible"

It's not accurately named, unless similar men's clothing is going to be labeled modest or immodest too. Why is it only women's clothes that get this treatment?

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.

Yup Victorian men used to get excited about piano legs and women's ankles, and any woman without a chaperone was fair game for rape.

Don’t know what was going on with the capitals there?!

I don’t think it is at all stupid to be aware that modesty is a concept that some people believe in following through the way they dress.

It has being going on for millennia.

Modesty is never defined for men in the same way. But some cultures consider only plain clothing to be modest, and acceptable embellishment is the same for both sexes, although the types of clothes still enforce gender roles.

I don’t think I can ever be modest.

I hate long sleeves on anything.

I hate things that are up by my neck.

The physical restraints of covering up is not for me.

Went to buy a dress for a thing I have been invited to.

I am short and fat and all I could find was short dresses in Lipsy that I loved but couldn’t wear and tents with long sleeves and high necklines that I wouldn’t wear

It did cross my mind that they were marketing to the religious women who cover up.

I didn’t realise this was the fashion and the clothes were for me.

These type of clothes are not for me.

And I am of the opinion that women’s clothes and the women’s fashion industry should deliver what women want

And that comment is just silly. I'm 60. All my life it has been possible to buy the sort of clothes now being described as "modest" without the need for that description.

Endofthedays

I don’t think it is at all stupid to be aware that modesty is a concept that some people believe in following through the way they dress
It has being going on for millennia

Perhaps a lack of critical awareness might be a better way to describe it.

I am shocked that there are posters defending the idea of "modest clothing"

No, Shona, you were just being rude and wanted to call me stupid.

I am not lacking critical awareness.

I simply understand that a whole host of sexist concepts exist and that their are many people who live their lives following sexist principles.

Pretending the concept is incomprehensible doesn’t make it go away.

I do not agree with the comments saying that having some clothing tagged “modest” in line with other search tags like “boho” or “tribal” or “evening wear” sets up the expectation that men can just attack and rape anyway not wearing clothes labelled as “modest.”

Has anyone else seen the “What were you wearing” exhibit? It is a famous exhibit of what rape victims were wearing when they were raped. The exhibit proves that the idea that what you wear can affect your risk of rape is a prejudiced and sexist myth.

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.

I have to agree with this.

There is definately room for comfortable, smart clothing. There is no room to call it modest.
I have to agree with Humberhellraiser what is the difference in a woman wearing a loose sweat top, baseball cap, trainers and joggers. I don't think people would be rushing to describe that as modest clothing but why not?
Could it be that this woman's choice of clothing is sending out the signal I'm not here for your pleasure?
I'm sick and tired of all the labels thrown into women and girls.
I buy clothes to look good in, feel comfortable in, and be fit and appropriate for purpose.
I wouldn't buy anything that was labelled 'modest' just as I wouldn't buy it for dh.

I am shocked at the number of women who seem to accept or even wish to seek clothes that are described as modest.

I agree with all those posters who are saying it is a term that shouldn’t be used.

Why so bloody rude, Shona? It’s a conversation about clothes and you’re attacking people as though it’s a matter of life and death.

‘I have to agree with Humberhellraiser what is the difference in a woman wearing a loose sweat top, baseball cap, trainers and joggers. I don't think people would be rushing to describe that as modest clothing but why not?’

Because the point of that outfit is to not restrict movement so you can freely exercise in it, and modesty is frequently associated with outfits that restrict a person’s physical ability.

You know what I quiet enjoy wearing clothes that aren’t modest. I like wearing short skirts, I like little vest tops, I like shorts, I like my dresses to be short. And shock horror I’m in my 40’s!!!!

I am angry that we are still telling girls that if you want to be taken seriously you have to cover up.

How about telling boys to not be dick heads.

Doobigetta

Why so bloody rude,Shona? It’s a conversation about clothes and you’re attacking people as though it’s a matter of life and death

Well for some women not wearing suitably "modest" clothes is.

I am shocked and disappointed that on a feminist forum there are women defending the concept of calling clothes "modest". For me any poster defending the use of "modest" to describe women's clothing deserves as much respect as posters who jump on to AIBU threads defending gollies.

Would it be too much to ask if we might analyse why this term is creeping in?

That is a very pertinent question. All my life ordinary run of the mill high street shops have been selling, and are still selling, clothes which met all the requirements of being comfortable, practical and showing as much or as little flesh as a customer wanted.

Yet now, according to some of the posters on here clothes need to be tagged as "modest" otherwise women won't be able to find them.

Being a cheerleader for "modest" clothing is like being a handmaiden for misogyny

It is indeed.

Are you saying you want to ban people from calling clothes modest?

I very specifically did not defend the use of the word or the concept, and you were equally rude to me.

Modest all too often means very definitely female stereotyped or feminine clothing (dress, skirt, embellished twiddly bits and feminine decoration) but controlling and covering any body parts that might indicate the female sex

So eg a woman weRing sloppy sweatshirt, Adidas joggers and a Chicago bears cap would Not be described as modest, because to be modest implies to be inherently and overtly feminine but with any sexuality obviously controlled

The ultimate "modest" garment is a burka.

Are you saying you want to ban people from calling clothes modest?

I would like to see that term not being used. I will certainly form my own opinion of the type of person who uses the term. I think any woman who thinks she is a feminist and thinks it is an acceptable term should give her head a wobble.

But you keep using the term.

You have literally just used it in the same post as you have said you want people to stop using it.

Doobigetta

I very specifically did not defend the use of the word or the concept, and you were equally rude to me

You are one of the posters who thinks women are too thick to find clothes unless they are suitably tagged with some sort of value judgement description. I don't think women need that.