# Female Servicewomen in Muslim Countries: dress codes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2001, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019 "2001-12-05T13:49:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/1 "2001-12-05T13:49:23Z")
[Woman Pilot Sues U.S. Over Islamic Dress Code](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011205/od/dress_dc_1.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first woman to ever fly a U.S. combat mission sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to challenge a policy that mandates Islamic dress and customs for U.S. military women based in Saudi Arabia when they travel off-base. > > According to the lawsuit filed by Lt. Col. Martha McSally on Monday, women can be court-martialed if they leave Prince Sultan Air Base without a male chaperone, are not covered from head-to-toe with a dark ``abayah’’ robe, or sit in the front seat of a vehicle. > [@](#): > > In the lawsuit McSally said the Pentagon regulations, which are imposed only in Saudi Arabia, violate her First Amendment constitutional right to practice her Christian faith freely and to not have a religion imposed on her. > > The only requirement the Saudi government imposes is that non-Muslim women visitors dress conservatively. > [@](#): > > Military officials have asserted that the policy, rather than discriminating against military women, is intended to protect them from harassment by Saudi religious police. > > One of McSally’s attorneys sees it differently. > > `I think it must be the State Department trying to suck up to the Saudis,'' Neuberger told Reuters. `I believe this is a political decision that has been made … (in a) misguided attempt to seek favor with the Saudi government.’’ Difficult to figure. Suppose it _is_ the State Department trying to suck up to the Saudi Government (or perhaps, to head off local opposition). Is it unjustified? Is the US to be hamstrung in foreign affairs by an inability to conform to local mores when they do not jibe with American principles? (Perhaps, yes). OTOH, if it is to protect women from harassment, shouldn’t they decide for themselves if they wish to risk it. Strangely, I find myself more sympathetic to McSally’s case under the government’s claim than under her own. But I’m unsure how I would handle it if I were in control. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/2 "2001-12-05T15:28:18Z")
What’s legalese for “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”? I would think that the State Department’s need to not piss off a potential key ally would outweigh any seeming need to educate the backward Saudis on 21st century women’s rights, as it seems to me the whole point of the lawsuit is, if it’s not just so that Lt. Col. McSally can have her 15 minutes of CNN fame. I’m such a cynic. It evidently hasn’t occured to Lt. Col. McSally that her American Constitutional rights are only applicable in America, not in other countries. What’s next, suing the government of France because the entrance to the Eiffel Tower isn’t handicapped accessible or something, and violates the Disabilities Act? There’s a difference between “sucking up to” and “not wanting to piss off”. I can watch my step with my boss, and “not want to piss him off”, without “sucking up” to him. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/3 "2001-12-05T16:10:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > It evidently hasn’t occured to Lt. Col. McSally that her American Constitutional rights are only applicable in America, not in other countries. What’s next, suing the government of France because the entrance to the Eiffel Tower isn’t handicapped accessible or something, and violates the Disabilities Act? Yer a little off in this case, **DDG**. Since it was the _American_ military that imposed these limitations on McSally, constitutional rights to apply here. 'Course, overall you are right, **Madam Duck**. Said rights are limited in many key ways when one voluntarily joins the military. I think McSally doesn’t have a leg to stand on, on two alternative grounds: 1. While its been a while since I left the church, I recall nothing in Christian doctrine that requires a woman to travel without a male chaperone or in the front seat of a car, or forbids a woman from being covered head-to-toe by clothing. So, her right to practice her Christianity is _not_ being abridged by these rules; 2. Even if McSally’s right to practice Christianity were somehow implicated, she will still lose. In [_Goldman v. Weinberger,_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/475/503.html) the Supreme Court held that the Air Force could forbid an Orthodox Jewish officer (and rabbi) from wearing a yarmulke while on duty. There, the Supreme Court found that the Air Force’s interest in the military’s “perceived need for uniformity” trumped the officer’s religious requirements. If the need for uniformity beats the religious rights of military officers, the need to keep the host nation happy and protect its officers certainly will. Sua ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/4 "2001-12-05T16:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > What’s legalese for “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”? I would think that the State Department’s need to not piss off a potential key ally would outweigh any seeming need to educate the backward Saudis on 21st century women’s rights, as it seems to me the whole point of the lawsuit is, if it’s not just so that Lt. Col. McSally can have her 15 minutes of CNN fame. I have sympathy for this position, but don’t think it is so simple. Suppose the US sent soldiers to support a country that found it offensive if black people were treated the same as white people. Would the US military “do as the Romans do”? In this case, the position of McSally would be that the expectation of such behavior by women in Saudi society is discriminatory. > [@](#): > > It evidently hasn’t occurred to Lt. Col. McSally that her American Constitutional rights are only applicable in America, not in other countries. What’s next, suing the government of France because the entrance to the Eiffel Tower isn’t handicapped accessible or something, and violates the Disabilities Act? Is this true? Is the US Armed Forces allowed to take action contrary to people’s Constitutional rights because they don’t happen to be located in the US? (It’s not analogous to suing the French government - she’s suing the US military for US military actions). ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/5 "2001-12-05T16:21:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*According to the lawsuit filed by Lt. Col. Martha McSally on Monday, women can be court-martialed if they leave Prince Sultan Air Base without a male chaperone, are not covered from head-to-toe with a dark ``abayah’’ robe, or sit in the front seat of a vehicle. > [@](#): > > The only requirement the Saudi government imposes is that non-Muslim women visitors dress conservatively. \*\* [/QUOTE] Here’s the sticking point: The U.S. military is requiring the women to do far more than the Saudi government does. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/6 "2001-12-05T16:30:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Green Bean \* > Here’s the sticking point: The U.S. military is requiring the women to do far more than the Saudi government does. Not going to make a difference, **Green Bean**. The review standard for military regulations that conflict with constitutional rights is "a military regulation must be examined to determine whether ‘legitimate military ends are sought to be achieved,’ and whether it is ‘designed to accommodate the individual right to an appropriate degree.’ _Goldman v. Weinberger_, 475 U.S. 503, 506 (1986). Further, in determining whether the military end is legitimate, “courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.” _Id._ at 507. For McSally’s sake, I hope her attorney is representing her for free or is on a contingency. Otherwise, she will pay a lot in legal fees to no effect. Sua ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/7 "2001-12-05T16:34:12Z")
Hmm, I see that I had focused on the “second class citizen” discrimination angle, while the suit focused on religious freedom, as Sua noted. But why is that? What’s with my analogy to Blacks? As for the religious issue, Sua’s first point is well taken, but I wonder about the second. In the case of the yarmulke the policy was not specifically directed at the religious practice - it was a general rule outlawing all headgear. Goldman tried to trump this rule because of the incidental impact that it had on his religious practice, and lost. In the case at hand, the “religious practice” is itself the subject of the ruling. This may be different. Suppose the army would impose a policy that all members must practice Christianity in order to ensure uniformity and camaraderie etc. I doubt if they would get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/8 "2001-12-05T17:00:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **It evidently hasn’t occured to Lt. Col. McSally that her American Constitutional rights are only applicable in America, not in other countries.** The regulation in question is being imposed upon her by the United States Armed Forces, not by a foreign power, and as such constitutes “government action” subject to the restrictions of the Constitution. It’s not Saudi Arabia that’s telling American servicewomen in that country that they have to shroud themselves, it’s a group of American men back in Washington D.C. Saudi Arabia law would not be offended by her appearance in public in her standard issue uniform. **Sua** is probably right on the likelihood of success on her legal challenge; the courts are very reluctant to override military judgment. It’s a shame that the White House doesn’t seem to think that woeful state of women’s rights in Arab countries is a real issue. Perhaps they’re afraid of being seen agreeing with Hillary Clinton on anything whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/9 "2001-12-05T17:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > As for the religious issue, Sua’s first point is well taken, but I wonder about the second. In the case of the yarmulke the policy was not specifically directed at the religious practice - it was a general rule outlawing all headgear. Goldman tried to trump this rule because of the incidental impact that it had on his religious practice, and lost. In the case at hand, the “religious practice” is itself the subject of the ruling. I disagree that it is. One may practice one Christian faith fully and completely while dressed in an abayah, sitting the back of a car driven by a male chaperone. That, right there, means McSally loses. > [@](#): > > This may be different. Suppose the army would impose a policy that all members must practice Christianity in order to ensure uniformity and camaraderie etc. I doubt if they would get away with it. They certainly couldn’t. Judicial deferment to the professional judgment of military officers would stop well short of the point. But even if the judiciary deferred, the military wouldn’t be able to make the argument that a legitimate military need was being served - history would defeat them. The US military has always had people of different religions in it, and that seems not have affected discipline and good order. So, no legitimate military need would be served. Sua ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/10 "2001-12-05T17:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > One may practice one Christian faith fully and completely while dressed in an abayah, sitting the back of a car driven by a male chaperone. Well, yeah. What he said. On what basis does she claim abridgement of her right to practice Christianity? Anyone know ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/11 "2001-12-05T17:17:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > I disagree that it is. One may practice one Christian faith fully and completely while dressed in an abayah, sitting the back of a car driven by a male chaperone. That, right there, means McSally loses. This is the first point you made earlier, which I agreed with. I was treating your second point as an independent one. > [@](#): > > They certainly couldn’t. Judicial deferment to the professional judgment of military officers would stop well short of the point. But even if the judiciary deferred, the military wouldn’t be able to make the argument that a legitimate military need was being served - history would defeat them. The US military has always had people of different religions in it, and that seems not have affected discipline and good order. So, no legitimate military need would be served. Perhaps that was an extreme example. My point was whether a distinction could be drawn between a regulation that was directly aimed a religion, as compared to a regulation that only incidentally affected it. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/12 "2001-12-05T17:27:03Z")
My bad, \*_IzzyR_. OK, I think you’re point is valid. For example, the military could not pass a regulation requiring soldiers to attend a Xian chapel on Sundays, or even one that requires soldiers to go to some religious service during the week. Nor could the military bar a particular religious group from serving (caveat - I really don’t know about groups that preach that military service is improper and that God’s laws, not man’s, must be obeyed, etc. Would be an interesting question.) So, in general, I think a rule that affects religious practice would have to be uniform application. N.B. This doesn’t help McSally, even though the regulation only exists for troops in Saudi. It applies to all female troops in Saudi, regardless of religious belief. Sua ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/13 "2001-12-05T17:32:31Z")
On what basis are we presuming that McSally is Christian? I get the impression that she is objecting to being ordered to practice Islam by wearing an Islamic-mandated dress, not that the dress code is interfering with her practice of her own religion, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/14 "2001-12-05T17:36:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\*On what basis are we presuming that McSally is Christian? \*\* It’s in the article (and in **IzzyR’s** quotes from the article in the OP). Sua ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/15 "2001-12-05T17:36:48Z")
> [@](#): > > In the lawsuit McSally said the Pentagon regulations, which are imposed only in Saudi Arabia, violate her First Amendment constitutional right to practice her Christian faith freely and to not have a religion imposed on her. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/16 "2001-12-05T17:38:04Z")
I think the important point here is that this all takes place **off-base**. A fellow student in college spent every summer on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia with her father, and she (an American _civilian,_ mind you) had to cover up when she left base. While on the base, though, she could wear whatever the hell she wanted to. Now, while it may not be against Saudi law to wear less than full cover-up, drive her own jeep, etc., the military is being hosted by a foreign country, and we don’t want to piss them off. They’re erring on the side of caution. It’s not against the law to enter a person’s home in Japan and keep your shoes on, but you may greatly offend your hosts if you don’t change into slippers. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/17 "2001-12-05T18:14:28Z")
**Sua** : I guess I didn’t make myself clear. What I was trying to say is: 1. Whether the military should require soldiers to dress according to local regulations is an interesting question, but not relevant because: 2. In this case, the military is requiring the soldiers to wear _additional_ things that are _not necessary_ according to local regulations. Therefore, the military is clearly in the wrong. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/18 "2001-12-05T18:29:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > the military could not pass a regulation requiring soldiers to attend a Xian chapel on Sundays, or even one that requires soldiers to go to some religious service during the week. > Nor could the military bar a particular religious group from serving (caveat - I really don’t know about groups that preach that military service is improper and that God’s laws, not man’s, must be obeyed, etc. Would be an interesting question.) > So, in general, I think a rule that affects religious practice would have to be uniform application. N.B. This doesn’t help McSally, even though the regulation only exists for troops in Saudi. It applies to all female troops in Saudi, regardless of religious belief. A rule that requires all “soldiers to attend a Xian chapel on Sundays” would also be applicable to all soldiers regardless of religious belief. Of course, it would only _impact_ those who wouldn’t otherwise attend. So too, this rule imposing “Muslim religion” (again, if one were to consider it that) is only impacting non-followers of that religion, though it applies to all. (Beyond this, I’m unsure if uniformity is the issue when it comes to religious freedom). If I might ask again: what about the gender discrimination issue - is no one going to take this up? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/19 "2001-12-05T18:42:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*If I might ask again: what about the gender discrimination issue - is no one going to take this up? \*\* You get a better constitutional case with religious discrimination than you do with gender discrimination. Also, the present administration is a whole hell of a lot more likely to defend a Christian than a woman. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019/20 "2001-12-05T18:56:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, the present administration is a whole hell of a lot more likely to defend a Christian than a woman. Good to see you’re keeping partisanship out of it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-servicewomen-in-muslim-countries-dress-codes/97019.md?page=2)