Ayesha Curry has been in the news lately because of some comments on her social media about the way women dress. Not knowing the woman personally, I can admit that I’ve been a fan of her relationship and have enjoyed the images she and her husband post of themselves enjoying life and being in love. Those images are positive, powerful and have gained Curry a huge following from women who likely want to soak up some of the tactics she used to land herself a successful husband and maintain her relationship. I get it. Then I read her comments about modesty — mainly that she makes a conscious effort to “keep it classy and covered” — and the immediate responses bashing her attack of scantily-clad women from feminists and pseudo-feminists that quickly followed, and it left me feeling undecided about which side I agree with. In truth, I still don’t feel strongly aligned with either side but found that I do fully understand both, and here’s why.
Although modesty can both be learned and come from a women’s personal preferences with little to do with outside factors, condemnation is most certainly a learned behavior. There are many women who wrap themselves from head to toe each day for a myriad of reasons but are indifferent to women whose skirts could double as table napkins. This is because they cover themselves for reasons that have nothing to do with those other women. Curry got slammed with tweets from people who pointed out that women having agency over their personal appearance, no matter what they choose to wear, is a factor of self-ownership that should be acknowledged as a feminist act. But Curry also received praise from women who feel that women who wear less have less self-respect and that should never become the societal norm. So who’s right in the matter? Those who can abstain from the clothing blame game.
If a woman feels that dressing modestly is the most correct and appropriate decision for women to make, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if a woman feels like strutting her goods because it’s her prerogative, that’s also OK. It’s the reasoning behind each and the decision to condemn or ridicule other women’s choice of attire either way that can be problematic. If a woman who dresses in risqué clothing decides that a woman’s mode of dress is the best way for women to throw off the shackles of male censorship and oppression, she should let that opinion govern her choice without referring to women who dress modestly as oppressed. Inversely, Curry and those who agree with her should try to understand that some women find her declaration of modesty, which is likely based on her personal preference but buttressed by what she assumes her role is within her marriage, as problematic rhetoric absorbed from a patriarchal concept of marriage. Even if the latter isn’t true, her condemnation of women who don’t dress in a way she deems appropriate makes it seem that way because mounting a staunch defense of modesty with your marriage at its foundation reeks of patriarchy.
In all, what inclusion in feminism boils down to is one’s choice to celebrate both ideas on women’s dress as two sides of the same coin. There are women in booty shorts and women in burkas who are equally oppressed because their choice of dress is based solely on a man’s opinion of them. And there are feminists in booty shorts and feminists in burkas. The only difference between the first and the latter two is their declaration that the choice to dress however they please is ultimately their own. Simple as that.
