Once again the topic of a woman’s dresscode and it’s ‘evil ways’ was raised in the August House during the ministerial reply session by Khairy Jamaluddin, Minister of Youth and Sports. This time the issue was that of sexy sports attire and its tempting ways that lead to promiscuity among athletes with 3 MPs lamenting that the dresscode for women athletes were “too sexy” and led to adultery and if the Ministry of Youth and Sports will take on a challenge to come up with syariah-compliant dresscodes.
Time and time again lawmakers and legislators, through narrow, bigoted, sexist lenses place the blame-game and the shame-game on women and their dresscodes leading to promiscuity and adultery.
The act of indiscriminate mingling and casual-sex behaviour paired with objectionable extramarital sex, both of which deals with control and urge, have been conveniently overlooked and the focus is violently steered back to what a women wears and whether she is promiscuos or not.
Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin was right when he said that athletes are allowed to decide on their sporting attire as long as it does not break the rules and regulations imposed by the governing bodies of their respective sports.
His statement ought be emulated by all MPs, including those who are quick to play the blame game on women and their attire.
Earlier in February this year, a USM criminologist, Associate Professor Dr. P. Sundramoorthy really hit the nail on the head that how an individual dresses, regardless of age, is not a contributing factor for the potential perpetrator. His claim is one that is backed up by reviewing crime statistics and analysing them to understand trends and patterns for sexual offenders.
There is no equation between the dress code and sexual crimes and in high profile cases in 2000 where an engineer who was in a long skirt and a tudung was raped and killed. He used her tudung to strangle her.
One high-profile case in 2000 involved 24-year-old engineer Noor Suzaily Mukhtar. She was raped and killed by the driver of the bus she was on. She was wearing a long skirt and a ‘tudung’ (headscarf), which the rapist used to strangle her.
Malaysia suffers another recent blow when a 17 year old girl from Balik Pulau was raped by her supposed boyfriend and had her throat slit. She died a week before her SPM exams. News reports depicted a picture of the victim as a cheerful young woman who donned a ‘tudung’.
How then did her dress code provoke her assailant to rape her and slit her throat?
It is primeval to say that sexy clothing that could cause stimulation and that it could lead to adultery and the Parliament is no place for lawmakers to have a place in. What proof is there that the attire worn by national athletes in sports has led to adultery?
When MPs stop judging and blaming women on their attire, only then will women be taken seriously as innocent victims of immoral, indecent and obscene advances by people who look through judgmental, sexist lenses.
It is the moral reponsibility of legislators and lawmakers to stop blaming women and stop victimising women into thinking it is the fault of the woman when it is they who become victims of rape and sexual violence.
Islamic values dont revolve around misogyny and bigotry but on equality, freedom and most importantly treating each other with civility and respect.
MPs must cast aside misogyny and bigotry and rise above taking on the role as moral police by judging and demonizing women based on their dresscodes.
If at all, MPs have a moral obligation to wage war on patriachy, bigotry, misogyny and sexism instead of waging war and being defenders of the dress code.