Reuters reports on the trial of a woman who had the temerity to wear 'trousers' in public at a restaurant bar in Khartoum in Sudan:
Woman in court in trouser "test case"
KHARTOUM (Reuters) – A Sudanese woman facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public made her first appearance in a court packed with supporters Wednesday, in what her lawyer described as a test case in Sudan's decency laws. She attended the hearing wearing the same green slacks that got her arrested for immodest dress.
Indecency cases are not uncommon in Sudan. But Hussein has attracted attention by publicising her case, inviting journalists to hearings and using it to campaign against dress codes sporadically imposed in the capital.
The article continues to explain that Ms. Hussein is insisting on this case being adjudicated in court--even if she must resign her United Nations job--to focus an international spotlight on the form of punishment: 40 lashes plus a fine. The fine is not the objectionable point. She contends that lashing a woman 40 times for wearing slacks instead of traditional dress will be viewed as a human rights violation. She hopes to end this punishment, at least for the crime of 'immodest dress' in Sudan.
Good for her! But here is my question: In what way are trousers more immodest than a skirt?
Traditional dress in Sudan is influenced by Islamic definitions. Basically modest dress would consist of clothing that covered a woman's body from the neck to the feet, and the lower portion would be a long dress or skirt. A skirt is open from a waist band to the ground, a fabric tube that encases the legs, but has no closure between the legs to cover genitalia. Sounds pretty immodest to me!
Trousers are open at the waist, then narrow to two fabric tubes, one covering each leg--and they are closed between the legs to completely cover the genitalia. Sounds pretty modest to me!
I have worn slacks, jeans, trousers most of my adult life. When I wear a skirt I feel slightly exposed even with appropriate underwear.
When I wear pants I feel dressed, quite modestly dressed.
I ponder why society has put men in trousers and women in skirts. In patriarchal societies it seems a distinct access advantage for men. Just pull up that skirt and have at it. Anthropologist Margaret Mead would have a field day with this observation, if she didn't already.
My salacious observations are tangential to Ms. Hussein's legal test case. I will be watching with interest as this story unfolds.
The link to Reuters' story is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/od_nm/us_trousers_odd_1
August 1 Update: Here is an interview of Mrs. Lubna Hussein in the London Telegraph.
No comments:
Post a Comment