Is Modesty a Feminine Trait? Khemir's story is useful in dispelling another misconception about modesty—that it is, as Ellis claims, a "peculiarly feminine" trait (Vol. 1, Pt. 1, Section 1, 1). Modesty seems to be far less about femininity or masculinity and much more about propriety and power. Many have associated modesty with femininity because the notion of modesty, I would argue, has been used to contain women whom society, at one time or another, has deemed too radical or disruptive. Because women, in a certain sense, control reproduction (that is, the maternal genes of a fetus that grows in a mother's belly are never in dispute, unless the mother is a surrogate), their potential for manipulation of this power is seen by some as dangerous. To contain this power then, and to preserve what is "proper" and "appropriate" behavior in society, are rules. These rules have taken many interesting forms. We see in Victorian New Zealand, for example, literature admonishing women who ride bicycles and wear pants (Simpson 2001), and in 17th century Switzerland, laws that bar women from sleigh-riding (Hunt 1999, 1). And in the 21st century we see laws that prohibit both men and women from so-called "indecent public exposure," that is, streaking. Immodest behavior becomes illegal behavior. Naked versus Nude And here is where we can get a little closer to the real meaning of modesty. A man who streaks naked down the street in the United States is being immodest not so much because he is naked but because he is flouting social mores. In the United States, unless one is in a socially sanctioned space where nudity is deemed "acceptable" (for example, a nude beach, a spa or bath, a doctor's office, etc.)—and note here that the concept has transformed from "naked" into "nude," the word "nudity" implying a degree of social acceptance—one is just naked and immodest. Time and space—context—determine what is appropriate, not clothing. In most Western societies,‡ swimming trunks are appropriate on the beach, but not, in church. While on the beach, exposing one's chest is perfectly acceptable, in church it would be considered by many to be not only immodest but also disrespectful. Disrespectful of what? Social rules. And rules are the glue of society. Privacy and Distance Modesty is also about privacy. One form of dress that serves both is the veil. Although Fadwa El Guindi, author of Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance, notes that the reasons why people veil are myriad—class, ethnicity, gender being only a few—another reason is privacy. She states,
Privacy is a form of protection. One fairly common explanation for the European tradition of the bridal veil is that it was used to disguise the bride from evil spirits or jealous stares on her wedding day. Thus a veil not only afforded privacy but also protection. One of the few cultures in which men (rather than women) wear veils is the Tuareg culture of North Africa. Veils in this culture convey a variety of messages (class and gender being two), but they also afford a certain degree of privacy and distance. Among Tuareg men, a long bolt of blue cloth is wrapped around and on top of the head, turban-style, and then the remaining fabric is pulled across the face to cover the nose and mouth. Depending on the social situation, some or all of the nose may be exposed, but the mouth usually remains covered (only "lower" classes expose the mouth). This poses an interesting problem at meal-time, but those with skill can maneuver food underneath the veil without exposing the mouth. As Robert Murphy notes, a concealed mouth among the Tuareg has the same effect as wearing reflective sunglasses: it denies the other person entry:
|
