Featuring “flowing fabrics, higher necklines and lower hems,” the clothing can be seen in its own dedicated part of the website, which has been live since October.
It is thought the conservative clothing will appeal to women who wish to keep most of their body covered, be that for their faith or otherwise.
However many women have criticised the retailer largely for the name of the section, arguing it implies that women who don’t dress from the section are “immodest.”
“I wish they wouldn’t call it ‘modest’,” one woman wrote on Mumsnet. “It implies women not swathed from head to toe are immodest.”
“Am I immodest if I show my neck/wrists/ankles?” asked another. “No, I am dressing in a manner that is perfectly modest and acceptable in our society.”
Some believe that the use of the word could have worrying consequences: “This isn’t just semantics, but feeds into real-world bullying of women who don’t necessarily want to be covered chin to ankle.
“It’s really really regressive and wrong and has negative consequences for women.”
Another concurred that she had no issue with the concept, but it’s the name that’s problematic: “They should call it ‘covered’ or something, not modest. Modest implies horrible things about women who don’t dress that way.”
Read the full story @ Independent