By Jeffrey Chandler
In Muslim countries women have been wearing traditional dresses called abayas for a very long time now, a practice some feel is being unfairly applied by the American military in requiring enlisted females to conform to these dress standards off base and in public.
“It greatly undercuts the military”s professed commitment to gender equity,” said Steven H. Aden, chief litigation counsel for the Rutherford Institute, an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization located in Charlottesville, Virginia, committed to defending constitutional and human rights. Aden said he is considering suing the Defense Department.
The abaya is a black head-to-toe garment with a head covering worn in certain Muslim cultures and, according to the Rutherford Institute, is perceived as a religious and cultural sign of subordination to men.
The abaya began to be worn 1400 years ago during the religious wars as a way to protect the captured from being identified, said Abdullah Al-Howish, a Saudi who works for Arab-Heritage.com, based in Falls Church, Virginia.
Despite the Rutherford Institute”s insistence that the policy is unnecessary, the Defense Department maintained its desire to protect servicewomen from unnecessary conflict.
“There have been cases where female officers were confronted by religious police,” said Lt. Col. Dave Lapan, Pentagon spokesman.
In addition, local muslim clerics have stopped the women on the streets about their dress style.
The policy requiring the wearing of the abaya, ordered by the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia commander for Joint-Operations Southwest of the U.S. Air Force, only applies to female military personnel serving in Saudi Arabia, Aden said.
Any skin below the neck that is not covered is considered “pornography” by the Saudis, Aden said. Rutherford spokespeople said the standard uniform, “camis,” with long sleeve shirt, pants, and hat, provide adequate covering for the female officers.
Due to the pressure being applied to the Secretary of Defense by the Rutherford Institute, the policy is under review by the Secretary and the Joint-Chiefs-of -Staff, Aden said.
The Defense Dept. would confirm that the policy is under review by Air Force Brig. Gen. Dylewski, who is the new commander for Joint-Operations Southwest.
Aden said the Saudis do not have a problem with the women wearing conservative dress, instead of the abaya.
“It”s common to walk down the street (in Saudi Arabia) and see women from India in their native dress, women from different African countries, or Asian countries in their native dress, as well as Americans and Europeans dressed in their normal attire,” said Tarik Allagany, information supervisor for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington D.C.
In a letter sent to President Bush and other high-ranking officials in the U.S. military, Rutherford Institute President John W. Whitehead said Saudis do not require non-Muslim women to wear traditional local attire for any reason, although foreigners are expected to dress conservatively. In addition, male service persons in Saudi Arabia not only are required not to wear traditional dress, but are also forbidden from doing so, according to the letter.
Part of the military policy is aimed toward protecting the female officers from a “possible terrorist attack,” Aden said.
Yet, in Saudi Arabia it is against the law for local women to associate themselves with an American service male, and so, if Saudis see a woman with American service males they know she is an American, he added.
The military claim that the abaya is “forced protection” against a terrorist attack is “absurd” and “ridiculous,” Aden said. In fact, the Institute believes that “fair-skinned” and “obviously not Muslim women” wearing an abaya may offend Saudis because of the religious nature of the garment, and that its insistence is “superfluous,” Aden said.
The Institute considers this policy to be unfair, and unequal treatment for female officers. In some cases, having to wear religious clothing that is subordinate to men forces the female officers to be subjected to a lower profile, even in the presence of male officers of equal or lesser rank, according to the letter.
The letter also said that while the military may feel some deference toward wanting to respect local customs, this does not apply to the culture in Saudi Arabia, and furthermore, is not necessary to the military”s strategic mission there that female officers wear the abaya.
“It should not come at the price of reinforcing gender stereotypes that American law and culture long ago rejected,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, in the letter.
“By putting them in a Muslim outfit and requiring them to sit in the back of the jeep, as they do, they are signaling, to not only the Saudi hosts, but more importantly to American male service members, that this kind of second-class treatment is okay,” Aden said.
“There is no requirement that female officers sit in the back seat,” Lapan said.
He added that it is a local custom and the servicewomen voluntarily follow it to adhere to local customs and avoid unnecessary confrontation.
The muslims, because of their semetic heritage, believe that women should not have their heads unadorned, and that they should wear their heads covered as a sign of submission to God and to males, Aden said.
“To put that outfit on an American servicewoman who may be of another faith, such as Christian, as some of them are, is a little like putting a yarmulke on a service person because they happen to be stationed in Jerusalem,” Aden said.
Lawyers from the Rutherford Institute have been in contact with servicewomen, and the organization is contemplating suit if the policy, which is under review by the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff and the Secretary of Defense, is not rescinded, Aden said.
