FFB: Millie’s Take on Modesty

For those of you who have a pressing need to be elsewhere but like me, still compulsively click through things in their Google Reader cue and read the first line or two of things before you crash out the door: unsurprisingly, I’m not keen on it! Now go catch your bus!

For those of you lucky enough to not have to schedule your life around the vagaries of public transit, let me elaborate. This week’s Feminist Fashion Bloggers post is a free form post with no set topic, and there was some talk about modesty in the roundtable discussion this past week. Additionally, I’ve been meaning to write up a post on why I’m uncomfortable with deliberately dressing modestly, so perfect opportunity, right?

Dressing is inherently personal, and there’s as many reasons why we dress the way we do as people who are getting dressed in the morning. I’m going to be very careful to not try to denigrate anyone’s motivation for dressing as they do — this is about why I, personally, even though my typical style of dress probably falls under most people’s concept of “modest”, am uncomfortable with “dressing modestly,” not about why it’s wrong for anyone else to claim the label.

Modesty, says the OED, has three meanings:

1. the quality or state of being unassuming in the estimation of one’s abilities;
2. the quality of being relatively moderate, limited, or small in amount, rate, or level;
3. behaviour, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.

The third definition is the one most closely associated with dressing, though I’d argue the first has a role to play too. Modesty is tied very closely to decency and acceptability, and there’s an awful lot of rules and standard surrounding what is and isn’t considered appropriate dress for women (in particular — men have their own sartorial baggage, but I’m just going to focus on women’s dress here). Lots of women take this and say “I’m setting my own standard of what I’m comfortable with, and sticking within that boundary, and to me, that is being modest,” and that’s certainly their business. There’s lots of other women who dress within certain boundaries for religious reasons, and rampant atheism notwithstanding, I’m certainly not going to say they have no business doing that either. Everyone dresses within boundaries — I’m generally not keen on miniskirts, terribly high heels, or very low cut tops — and that’s not the aspect of modesty that I’m uncomfortable with. I’m uncomfortable with two things about modesty (religious or secular), principally: the external definition and judgment, and the equation of a perception with morality.

Modesty means little in a vacuum: miniskirts are, at their most basic level, pieces of fabric that have absolutely no moral value.* What gives a miniskirt moral value, or perceived moral value, is the perception of the woman wearing a miniskirt. Without the perception (positive or negative) of others around us, a miniskirt (or any other article of clothing) has little meaning. We may like it for one reason or another, and that’s fine, but I’d be hard pressed to disentangle why, exactly, I like a particular skirt from the perceptions and visual shorthand that I think the world around me associates with it. I get uncomfortable when someone else is clearly drawing the line and defining the shorthand, not me, though there’s often a lot of grey area around who’s drawing what. Everyone’s got a different line between modest and unmodest dressing: some people would say that it’s based on amount of skin showing, others by how much your shape is covered or not, others by how much your clothes stand out in a crowd on the street. There’s no one definition, and trying to conform my (very personal) considerations for getting dressed in the morning to an arbitrary and shifting rubric is not something I have any interest in doing.

Secondly, modesty is very closely tied to perceptions of morality and character. But since what constitutes modest dressing varies widely from person to person and culture to culture, who decides where the line is? Who is this moral arbiter that decrees that garment x is immodest but garment y, only slightly different is okay? And since when does a garment indicate whether or not you’re a decent human being? We don’t live in a caricature of the Victorian era.

Thirdly, I’ve heard people, both men and women, make comments about how men can’t be helped being distracted by a revealingly-clad woman, and frankly this is just nonsense. Men aren’t unreasoning brutes, and refusing to hold them accountable for treating women as objects rather than equal human beings is profoundly unfeminist and completely unhelpful (not to mention very heteronormative too). It’s not my job to suss out what combination of clothing will artfully dodge every man I pass on the street’s wandering eye and unrestrained mouth, and men have a responsibility not be sexist oglers. I’ve been leered at and harassed enough times while wearing completely bland, unrevealing clothing to know that it doesn’t, on a lot of levels, matter what I wear: the fact that I am a woman, alone, in public, is often enough to provoke men to try to cut me down to size. Modesty, to me, means fitting into that restrictive narrative (that I, as a lone woman in public, should be unobtrusive and unremarkable, though my presence alone is grounds for harassment), that is not a narrative that I will ever feel comfortable fitting into. I understand that this is not how many people approach modesty, modest dressing, or public image, and let me reiterate that this is not meant as a judgment on other points of view. Because this is so personal a topic, I am very interested on your thoughts on this: what’s your take on modesty and modest dressing?

———————–
* Setting aside all the various ethical considerations that go into manufacturing anything in an industrialized world.

** The majority of people alive in the Victorian times didn’t live in a world like the sort of thing we typically imagine now, with the primness and righteousness and all that, and I think what we associate with the Victorian era often has little to do with what actually happened then.

About these ads

27 Responses to FFB: Millie’s Take on Modesty

  1. Millie, you are on fire recently! Excellent, excellent post. You know what I think from what I have written on my blog and on FFB, so I won’t go into it more here, but I basically agree with all of this.

  2. Great Post Millie…
    I think that modesty is all relative, in Victorian days men ogled the mere flash of a stockinged ankle. Actually they probably ogled far more but the moral dictates of the day didn’t allow them freedom to express it in most social settings.
    I agree totally that men should not absolve themselves of responsibility of being “distracted by a revealingly-clad woman” with the excuse that “it’s a man thing”, men are responsible for their actions and should exercise self control.
    Sadly we live in the western world in an age where self control, and lack of modesty on any deeper levels for both sexes is sadly lacking: sexually, morally, financially, materialistically.
    It’s been all about ” I want fun and I want it now” and there is a strong sense of entitlement about it too. I even think it’s getting worse not better.
    I think that until we solve this, the wider issue, the issue of modesty in women and the way it is used/abused is an issue within a bigger and even more disturbing picture of how our society views “it’s right” to do (or not so) many things.

  3. I tend to try to fade in a little, rather than sticking out… not sure it’s because of modesty, per se, because I don’t mind showing leg or cleavage if it’s in an appropriate context. I just have to agree how frustrating it is to be ogled / catcalled / whatevered by men, even if I’m wearing jeans and a t-shirt. I think I just try to not have my outer appearance be a conversation starter of any kind, since I hate small talk from strangers. Hmmm… your post is definitely a thinker.

  4. I think I’m innately modest — I was raised in a closed bathroom door, no one sees anyone naked household, and to me that’s the norm. If I dress modestly now, it’s not because I feel that it will protect me from male aggression or that it is my responsibility to make sure men aren’t “tempted” or what have you.

    As I will probably write about for the mid-month feminism thingy (the idea is still stewing, so we’ll see) I am particularly resistant to assumptions by clothing makers, fellow humans, etc. that I should need or want to be “sexy” or that that is the purpose of my clothing. So my “modesty” is more about having zero, zilch, nada obligation to sexualize myself for other people’s viewing pleasure, than it is about covering up per se.

    • Absolutely, and if I’d left myself more time to write this up, I’d've gone into the twin pressure to be sexy. But I left it to the last minute, and was sleepy too, and so opted for relative brevity. I am very much with you on this, though.

  5. My word. Excellent post! It’s strange how a few of us seem to have to tackled the male gaze this week.

    I love the point you make that it isn’t our ‘job’ to gauge the possible reaction of men on the street – must we always watch ourselves being looked at?! I do think modesty is relative, as you say – clothing isn’t imbued with some innate morality. I personally don’t expose much skin, show much leg etc…but I should be able to without having to second-guess reactions. It’s quite hard to distinguish where personal preferences end and societal constraints begin…

  6. Ace and wonderfully personal post :) I find the notion of modesty a very confusing one as it is, for me, tied up with ‘appropriateness’, which itself is tied up with social and cultural situations. I’ve never been told to dress more modestly but I HAVE been told to dress more appropriately, which generally means more ‘normally’. Modesty has always (for me) meant some sort of restriction of expression, normally sexual or emotional, and while I agree with Cynthia about pressures of ‘sexiness’ or pressure of showing sexual desire through fashion, I dislike the idea – as you say – of a ‘code’ which is written by others to suppress part of my expressive personality.

  7. You and I have spoken about this at length, so you know how I feel about this topic, but I did want to add just a little:

    For quite a while now, I’ve subscribed to ideas of modesty that I feel are largely disassociated with the external judgment and morality you mention (I say “largely” because I would be foolish to claim decisions free of external influence). I believe very strongly in, for lack of a better term, the private sphere of modesty. That private sphere is a personal one, ultimately determined by each individual. I will not be so silly as to deny that the public sphere doesn’t influence this process, but the key to the private determination of modesty is something innately personal. It’s choosing to wear or not wear a certain article not because of how others will react, but because of how you react. When you put on that dress/shirt/skirt/shoes, how do you feel? Comfortable? Exposed? Awkward? Empowered? I really believe that all people have an internal, individual “modesty gauge” that lets us know how we feel about our choices. While others have found liberation in defying public mandates of modesty, I’ve found liberation in embracing private convictions of the same.

    You also mention that, “It’s not my job to suss out what combination of clothing will artfully dodge every man I pass on the street’s wandering eye and unrestrained mouth, and men have a responsibility not be sexist oglers.” And I agree. However, it is the very knowledge that I cannot ever fully control the thoughts and subsequent actions of others that does make me conscious about the sartorial choices I make. I can’t force a stranger to behave politely to me, but I can chose the clothes I wear. Putting a modesty piece under my v-neck sweater won’t stop everyone from bothering me, but it might stop some. And so my own choices in modesty are an extra layer of armor – a “can’t hurt, might help” approach to a world full of people that I can’t control. I also believe in showing others how I expect to be treated, and that is done within the expectations of shared public understanding. If I want you to treat me like a lady, one of the (many) things I’m going to do is dress like one. And none of this is meant to devolve into a “people who dress a certain way deserve the treatment they get” argument, because in the end the contract of society holds each person accountable for their own actions. I just don’t always trust the ability of others to chose the right actions, so I’m going to do everything I can to control my environment.

    • You hit on a point that I’ve been sort of turning over in my head lately with this phrase: “If I want you to treat me like a lady …” Ultimately, I don’t think I want to be treated as a lady, or as a woman — I want to be treated as a human being. I don’t want my gender to be the principle thing that shapes how I move through the world. I get itchy at the notion of being a lady first and foremost, not because there’s anything amiss with being a lady, but it just… doesn’t cover everything? doesn’t fit? I’m not sure. Obviously this isn’t going to happen any time soon, and while I don’t dress in an especially ladylike manner, my clothing is still very gendered, and it’s not like my clothes communicate all the subtle nuances of my personal gender.

      • Being “treated like a lady” is an uncomfortable idea for me. Growing up Mormon, I felt treated very politely and what would PASS for “respectfully”, but never regarded as an equal human. I prefer equality to fake deference.

        I DO support the “internal modesty gauge” idea, but it can be hard for us to accept another person’s wildly different idea of what constitutes modesty. We may seem immodest to each other while living comfortably within our own standards.

        • The standard of “lady-dom” I was raised with was based on respect and equality, so my experience was that to be considered and treated as a lady was done with the highest regard. There was nothing of fake deference from the people who set my example for me, and I’m sorry that not everyone could have had the same experience.

      • I suspect I’ve always had a slightly different definition of “lady” and “gentleman” than other people. Not in a “a lady doesn’t raise her voice,” or “a lady doesn’t wear such a short skirt” sort of way, but rather the idea that a lady or a gentleman is the best version of a person that they can be. Kind, generous, thoughtful, respectful, respected, etc. It feels much more in line with your desire to be treated as a human being, but it’s just been given gendered terms.

        And, if I’m honest, I don’t mind gendered terms, because we’re a multi-gendered species. And there’s something else that’s hard for me to articulate, but because we are a sexually dimorphic species with physical differences between the sexes, I want those differences acknowledged and respected. I want a man who is larger and stronger than me to treat me like lady because that means that he acknowledges the potential physical power he has over me, but refuses to act on it. And while those ideas should be innate within the idea of treating humans well in general, I’m also aware that as a society we function within those sex and gender distinctions. So I’m okay with someone wanting to treat me like a lady, if that keeps me feeling safe and comfortable in a given environment or situation.

  8. Hi fellow FFB-er! Loved this post, and I actually tackled “provocative” clothing today in my post too. I agree with everything you say here, especially the idea that clothing is just clothing, but “what gives a miniskirt moral value, or perceived moral value, is the perception of the woman wearing a miniskirt. ”

    I used to dress super modestly to keep things on a professional and non-harassable level in my previous male-dominated working environments. I’ve since learned that basically harassment can happen for many reasons other than sartorial choice.

    This all kind of reminds of how certain things generations ago were considered vulgar and provocative in clothing: bare ankles, bare legs, women wearing pants, etc. It makes me wonder if certain clothing of today will ever be disassociated with the qualms of morality …

  9. Pingback: Qiu Jin: Modern China’s First Feminist « jeanofalltrades

  10. This is a great topic! Forced modesty seems wrong to me. It’s another way of dressing for someone else and puting blame on ourselves. That said, I don’t try to dress provocatively either (but as you mention, that’s in the eye of the beholder too).

    I think I have a wide range of aehat I deem “acceptable.” My grandmother was very stylish and wore things like fishnets and animal prints, . My mother was a teenager in the 60s and grew up with mini-skirts and bare mid-rifs. To me, that was about fashion, not about sex.

    Only once did a have a BF who recommended on a regular basis that I dress modestly “to make the less pretty girls more comfortable.” To me, that seemed controlling and manipulative. Like he didn’t want me to be noticed.

    Mostly, I get accused of dressing weird, not provocative ;) So I’m not too concerned with modesty. I am conscious about not showing too much skin in a business environment. In that case, fitting in might be wise, but mainly because it’s about the work at hand, not about how I dress.

  11. This was an excellent post, Millie. Thanks for writing it!

    I have been fuming since yesterday afternoon about a NYT article about a gang rape in East Texas and the only person that the reporter scrounged up to quote was a woman who passed judgment on the 11 year old victim for dressing too old for her age. It’s been all over Jezebel and elsewhere, but my anger with the article resonates with the tone of your post.

  12. Pingback: Feminist fashion posts roundup « The House in the Clouds

  13. Pingback: My Illustrative Life

  14. I’m someone who claims the label of “modest dresser,” but I do so with lots of reservation, and you have SO perfectly explained why here. Kudos. I hate-hate-hate the moral judgments that people attach to modest/immodest dressing (i.e. “She’s dressed like a slut” … she’s dressed like someone who has casual sex with lots of people? Seriously? There’s not a uniform for that). I hate-hate-hate the idea of a single standard for what is and isn’t modest for EVERYONE, regardless of culture or individual preference (that’s what I wrote my FFB post about this week, actually). I especially hate the “dress modestly so you don’t make men think impure thoughts” bit, which I was force-fed a lot growing up. Yuck yuck yuck to all of it.

    For whatever it’s worth, though, I do still claim modesty personally. I’m not sure what to make of that. What matters to me, ultimately, is that I take control of my body and its presentation in this world, that I define the appropriateness of my dress on my own terms. I couldn’t give a rip about anyone else’s adherence to my own views of modesty, or even their adherence to their own views, and I think of it as a matter of bodily autonomy in a very real way.

  15. Pingback: FFB posts for 9 March roundup | Feminist Fashion Bloggers

  16. Amen! I have said much about this elsewhere – I do think that, if being considerate of others’ comfort zones plays into one’s style, it’s not inherently a bad thing (but it should hold for men and women, then) – but I have exactly the same problems with the label “modest” and its focus on women’s clothing that you describe!

  17. Bravo! Congratulations on a wonderfully-written and thought-provoking post. This isn’t a topic I see covered often, but it’s certainly one that ought to be focused on. Modesty is such a broad term and it does mean many things to many people. I think people would classify me as a modest dresser in terms of the amount of skin I keep covered up, but that happens most often out of personal insecurities rather than the moral “reasoning” that women have to stay all covered up because men can’t be expected to control their reactions. That’s quite archaic to me, although I won’t be the one to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t think, of course. It’s much in the same way that people think “sexy” means lots of leg, lots of cleavage and all that. I’ve been told by gal pals that I look sexy when I’m completely covered up! The words just can’t be confined to singular meanings, I suppose.

    Anyway, thanks for a wonderful read! This was quite fascinating. (:

  18. Pingback: Cervixosaurus › Woollen amoeba and necklace bells

  19. Pingback: In Bad Company: Girl Tribes.