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 was my thought when I was faced with rack after rack of long sleeved buttoned up dresses and blouses and skirts so long I felt like I could sweep the streets

But that has always existed for those who want them- me actually but I'll be damned if I'm going to describe them as "modest"

I have never worn a long sleeved item of clothing in my adult life

Again there is nothing new about this. Absolutely nothing. Someone has already asked the question where is the pushing of the term "modest" coming from? And why?

Laura Ashley and Kath Kidston and the far more upmarket Samantha Sung have been selling this style of clothing for decades without marketing it as "modest"

Shona, you're coming across as very angry and like you're not listening to people. This is a new style of clothing, designed by Muslim designers for Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and also western women who want to try the style to cater to a gap in the market. It is not the same as the clothing that has always been around, that is why it's a new concept and that is why they have come up with the name 'Modest Fashion' - it is about dressing modestly for religious dressing.

There is a designer called Hana Tajima, if you look her up in google you can see that it is not the same type of clothing sold by Laura Ashley etc, it is a fusion of eastern and western style clothing.

I am angry that women who presumably claim to be feminists support the use of this term. The so called "modest" clothes in the article linked are simply normal, every day clothes albeit some of them had a headscarf added.

The difference between the tag 'SUV' and 'modest' is that the latter is tied up with thousands of years of oppressive social codes for female behaviour, thousands of years where women have been responsible for males raping them and attacking them and knowing they would get away with it because they can claim that the woman wasn't dressed modestly enough. Stop being so disingenuous

I agree with Upfield - particularly about the level of disingenuous comments.

None of this clothing is new- fgs hippy shops have been selling long sleeved, long dresses and skirts and fusing Eastern and western styles. What is new is marketing clothes as modest.

It is extremely disappointing to see the level of disingenuous handmaidenry going on here.

I agree with you Shona.
It is frustrating to be dismissed when discussing, or trying to discuss, Feminism 101 issues on FWR.

You can’t wake someone who’s pretending to be asleep.

'Modest' clothing gives women the false sense of security that men will respect them if they play along with their sexist rules, which are put in place to control and restrict women. It is based on a lie. A good man will respect a woman no matter what she wears, an abusive man will abuse anyway and then blame the woman for the abuse he inflicts, no matter what she is wearing - I mean, it's not like abusive men don't lie about what happened when they assault someone, and a man's word is trusted over that of a woman (especially when women play along with the sexist ideal of 'modesty' so it isn't challenged, abusive men just gain in power). When you accept the label 'modest' you are reinforcing the sexist ideals underlying it. Plus, I don't think anyone's mentioned the elephant in the room yet - the more you cover something up and make it taboo, the more appeal it has. Has nobody noticed the phenomenon of gang rapes in countries like India and Egypt? Women are afraid to even get on a bus by themselves.

ShonaAndTheWaterHorse whilst long sleeved clothing might have always existed now it is the only thing that exists.

Even in my local Primark they seem to have done away with the plain short sleeved t shirts.

You can only get long sleeved ones now.
Don’t know if this is a national thing or just our local store.

it's a new concept and that is why they have come up with the name 'Modest Fashion' - it is about dressing modestly for religious dressing

But what is there for those that don’t follow a religion that says you have to cover every inch of flesh.

It’s not a particularly new concept. Modest clothing has been a thing in the States for years- with associated articles and blogs- among fundamentalist Christians. And the emphasis there was very much on a woman’s responsibility to avoid leading men into the occasion of sin.

As I said upthread, I think there is a genuine and laudable fashion moment going on which is about not dressing for the male gaze but which is often (wilfully?) confused with the entirely unlaudable ‘modest’ dressing. I don’t find the preponderance of long-sleeved T shirts in Primark sinister - it’s winter FFS - in the way that I would find racks of headscarves.

Ah I fondly remember lots of discussion in my 'equality and diversity' classes of 'modest dress'.

Things like neither of my grandmothers ever wore trousers because it was 'imodist', that in the US some fundamentalist Christian and some Jewish groups in the UK women are expected to wear skirts that are below the knee but not too long.

Whether it includes hair covering, either sometimes or always.

And then sports and swimming.

And usually ending with the idea that 'modest' can mean anything.

I have never had the problem before finding a short sleeved t. shirt whatever time of year.

Summer or winter I never wear anything other than short sleeves.

I don’t own a coat mainly because I prefer to wear hoodies where I can shove the sleeves up above my wrists.

I cannot bear things around my neck or wrists.

Equally I have never dressed “for the male gaze”.
I think most women dress for themselves they don’t look at a dress and think about how many men they are going to pull in something with short sleeves or a neck line that doesn’t begin just below the chin.

It's a financial decision to appeal to the Muslim pound.

It's a financial decision to appeal to the Muslim pound

Why ?

Wouldn’t that mean they are ignoring 95% of the population

There are going to be an awful lot of fashion stores going to the wall in that case.

Did notice the tent dresses in Primark a month ago.

In there at the weekend and it looks like they haven’t sold one.

I come from I would say the biggest demographic with money to spend and we are not spending it because they don’t market to us.

Because there's an awful lot of rich Muslim women who love fashion, and high end fashion particularly.

And obviously non Muslims are free to buy it and do! But the original 'modest fashion' tag was designed to appeal to religious women.

Because there's an awful lot of rich Muslim women who love fashion, and high end fashion particularly

So why have Primark and Top Shop etc jumped on the band wagon

What’s the value in you and your husband dressing ‘modestly’?

We’d rather

1. not draw attention to our bodies
2. save knowing exactly each other’s body shape for each other
3. not make anyone else feel uncomfortable

It’s come out of biblical principles, although it’s not spelt out in the bible.

Because its become a fashion trend generally now.

I remember grunge fashion which, besides a few nighties worn as outerwear, was definitely not catering to the male gaze. Long dresses with DMs and layers, tartan shirts and jeans. The difference is it was assertive about not being a slave to patriarchy and was associated with feminist music movement 'Riot Grrrl' (even if a lot of girls just wore it because it was 'in'). The difference between that and this displaying your purity in your clothing movement and humbling yourself in the hope of gaining respect couldn't be more startling. I think it's a reaction to pornified culture, pressure for plastic surgery etc. and maybe some women using this label are just dressing for themselves, but the label is still regressive. I do see it (the label and it's embrace) as a woke attempt to elevate the most sexist elements of religious culture in the name of virtue signalling, by those who do identity politics by numbers and haven't done any analysis of its underlying sexism.

"We’d rather

1. not draw attention to our bodies
2. save knowing exactly each other’s body shape for each other
3. not make anyone else feel uncomfortable

It’s come out of biblical principles, although it’s not spelt out in the bible."

Adam and Eve and their fig leaves?

Why would knowing what someone else's body shape was make you uncomfortable?

Grunge gave us the kinderwh*re style (see Courtney Love). It's probably not the best example.

Whre or biblically modest seem to be the two options they are offering to women. Meanwhile men go about their day in comfortable clothing, not being judged, not having to think about it and not being self conscious* about what they are wearing.

Maybe they disguise the fact they have arms and legs, and a face.

Grunge gave us the kinderwhre style (see Courtney Love). It's probably not the best example.* Yes, I already mentioned that with the nightie example. There were sub-styles within it but it was mainly covered up. In any case, at least dressing as a 'whore' was making an attempt to challenge the patriarchal rules set up by men and throw it back in their faces. The term 'modest' positively embraces patriarchy.