CathInfo.com

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.