CathInfo.com

Is it for us to question the principle behind a standard that has been decided for us by the Church? Being former seminarians does not give men the right to act like approved theologians (no accusations, only food for thought, and my previous comment was not an accusation either, again only food for thought). Or is it rather we who are obliged to obey despite not understanding completely?

"In practice, persons who introduce a new fashion somewhere and who excite astonishment by its audacity are guilty of mortal sin. By the way, let decent young girls learn this, unless they already know it: by earnest and diligent investigation, Professor Liepman has proved that the fashion for flesh-coloured silk stockings and short skirts was created by the girls of bad life in certain districts of Paris." — Cf. Poulin and Laramée: Une école de formation, p. 197.

From the clergy of Quebec after having received the above letter:

“Also immodest are the flesh-colored stockings that give the impression that the legs are not covered. A garment that does not satisfy the conditions we have just described can never be tolerated outside without disobedience to the Church and without sin, and not even inside the home, between brothers and sisters, because it is there, we repeat, that the education of modesty and decency must be given." — Pastoral Letter of 1931, Letters of Monsignor Brunault, vol. 4, p. 435.

 “But what is infinitely more serious are the too short dresses, the complete bare arms and legs, in the costume children. These poor eight-year-old girls often scandalize their little brothers without knowing it. If they see some cassock in the street, a sign of someone who speaks against fashion, these angelic heads feel ill at ease, they hasten to arrange what is left of their clothes to cover themselves.

“Where are the real culprits? Is it not, among others, these reckless or stubborn mothers who violate their serious duties as educators? They make themselves partly responsible for the consequences which will result, sometimes cruel and dishonorable, from this cowardly and unprincipled education. "Principiis obsta", said the ancients, that is to say "fight against evil from its beginnings". It is at an early age that children must be accustomed to self-respect, to horror of what makes one think of evil, to a severe modesty. All this promotes virtue, the sole source of true happiness in life.
 
“Often good ladies ask us for precise rules on the modesty of clothing. Now, among several which have been given by high ecclesiastical authorities, I choose the following which I transmit to you, in the name of Christian morality, as the expression of the directions of the Pope himself:

“We recall, wrote the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome on September 24, 1928, that one cannot consider as decent a garment whose neckline exceeds the width of two fingers below the birth of the neck; a garment whose sleeves do not go down at least to the elbows and which goes down barely below the knees. Also indecent are the clothes of transparent fabric and the flesh-colored stockings, which give the illusion that the legs are not covered."

To bring these rules gradually into practice, especially inside and around the house, we need the help of all people of good will. Let the wise fathers of families—they are still legion—gently and firmly use their domestic authority. Let nuns, let all women of Catholic action, let people of piety preach the true Christian doctrine on modesty, and let them each exercise their apostolate within the sphere of their influence. And you, Gentlemen Priests, who often enter homes for the purpose of visiting or ministering, reprove, I beseech you, in all charity the mothers of families who are insufficiently scrupulous for themselves and for their children; on the other hand, congratulate those who fulfill their duty. —Excerpts from Circ. No. 67, Sept. 15, 1933, Mgr Decelles, Bishop of St-Hyacinthe

What about Franciscans who wear sandals? Are they immodest if parts of the feet are seen?  
I’m all for modesty, in both sexes, especially, though, for women. 
This can also be taken too far, for example, if Catholics adopted full Muslim dress for women and men, the matter would be solved, right? 
Or if all Catholics moved above the Arctic or below the Antarctic circles and lived in igloos, we’d be covered head to toe at all times. 
One does need to look at docuмents such as the Marylike standards in the context they were given, originally a letter to religious sisters who were allowing the girls and young women in their schools and organizations to become lax in modesty. It was not a papal encyclical binding on the entire Church.  In 1928, the year of its origin, floor or street length dresses, full, opaque stockings, sleeves covering the elbows and tops that showed no neck were not the norm among decent society. Remember what came before 1928, Flapper girls and their Sheiks. Those styles were and are still are grossly immodest! The men may have been covered, but the suits were so extreme as to make the ladies look. Actually, they looked ridiculous if not immodest. Trying to be singular by one’s dress, even if it is modest, is a form of immodesty itself. Pride says, “Hey, everyone, look at me! Admire my great modesty!” 

What I’m saying is that Catholics should take the Mary-like Standards as guidelines rather than specific clothing rules to be followed to the letter. They were not written as such. They were addressing immodesty issues of that time and place, and speaking specifically to certain problems. 
If written today by a true Pope, there would be many more prohibitions and would have to include men and boys, not just females. It’s 2026, so we can no longer follow Bp. Williamson’s instructions to dress and do as grandma.  Lots of today’s grandmas were letting it all hang out at Woodstock, wore bikinis and hot pants. We have to go back to great grandparents, and how many young people knew them much less how they dressed and what they did?  
Being older, I still can recall my grandparents. All four of them were born in the period between 1897 and 1906. There are lots of old photos, even a few from their childhoods. All four were considered well-dressed although neither grandmother wore floor length skirts. Young girls did not wear floor length dresses in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s, although women did up until WWI. Both grandma’s fashions kind of stopped changing so far as modesty in about 1950. One grandfather, I don’t know as he abandoned ship. The other always wore pants, and a golf shirt for casual wear. I never saw him in shorts. As a young married man, he wore knickers with argyle socks for casual wear! My Dad wore knickers until he was about 10 when he got his first big boy pants. There’s a picture of Dad’s First Communion in which all the boys are wearing white suits and ties, but with middle of the knee-length loose-fitting shorts. Yes, there’s bare leg showing. 😮 The girls are all also dressed alike in very fancy white dresses that hung a little above the ankle. They have on white stockings and white ghilly laced shoes, and of course, long veils with a satin band with flowers at the edges. The photo was taken in May of 1929. The priests were in black cassocks and nuns in full habits. It’s kind of hard to tell, but I believe they were Dominicans.