Why can't men simply wear blindfolds?
LUBNA Hussein is a 34-year-old Sudanese journalist, who is now famous for wearing pants. She was arrested last July along with 12 other women from a Khartoum café, charged with violation of Sudan's decency law. All of these ladies were found guilty of wearing pants.
Lubna's friends pleaded guilty and took 40 lashes each, carried out with plastic whips that leave permanent scars. But she refused to plead guilty as charged. An angry court sentenced her to flogging no mater what.
On her court day, she invited fellow journalists to watch her ordeal. Hundreds of Sudanese women wearing pants swarmed in front of the court. But the trial would be twice postponed before the sentence was commuted from flogging to incarceration. In between the court tried to realize a fine of USD300 from Lubna in lieu of one month in prison.
Defiant Lubna refused to pay the fine and went to jail. Her decision made her an instant celebrity abroad. She would be showered with effusive epithets. Some newspapers hailed her as "the trouser lady". Others called her "Rosa Parks in Khartoum".
That alone couldn't be news in a world where cruelty to women is nothing new. But if history is rewound by six centuries, then this news should get us worried. In 1431, another woman was vilified for wearing pants. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for heresy, one component of that accusation being that she wore pants like a man inside prison. During her trial, Joan tried to defend her position.
She informed the court that there was sexual assault on her inside the prison and explained that she wore two layers of pants attached securely to the doublet with twenty fastenings to safeguard her against future attempts. The court ignored her words and condemned her to death; her body burned twice more to reduce it to ashes. In 1920, Joan of Rouen would be canonized, and made a patron saint of France.
Nobody says Lubna of Khartoum is on her way to sainthood. But her persecution raises some interesting questions. Is it sheer coincidence that what happened in Rouen six centuries ago should be repeated in Khartoum? How is it possible that two women from two different centuries and two different continents should be targeted for the same silly reason?
In other words, one thing hasn't changed between the Middle Ages and the modern days. Man's inexhaustible desire to dominate others has remained the same. He wants to control his dog, if not his woman, if not his family, if not his country. He's the same control freak, the same deterministic animal. He wants others to conform to his standards, no less now than ever before.
From conquests to conferences, that's one thing, which may have become more sophisticated, but not eliminated. From the art of killing to the art of dealing, man's indomitable ambition to rule over others has been justified in many forms. From theology to ideology, means have changed but not the end.
In his bid for supremacy, man has shifted his goalpost. He has ruled in the name of religion, revolution and reason. He has ruled by the power of nature. He has ruled as God's vicar. He has ruled by people power. He has changed with challenge, and adjusted with ambition. He has done what it takes to cling to power.
Once upon a time, man believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Once upon a time man believed that outside education for women was prohibited by religion. Some people still believe that getting up on the wrong side of the bed brought bad luck. In Africa, certain tribes are afraid that each time one is photographed, it peels off a layer of one's life. These are examples of how belief of one generation runs the risk of bringing comic relief to another.
Does God bother what man wears, because he sends him naked? The Neanderthal man invented clothing, which turned out to be more than cover for naked bodies. The concept of proper attire grew out of need to dress up for different vocations and different occasions. People wanted to look good in their clothing. They introduced fashion.
Why are women restricted from wearing a certain dress? The reason is that it can't protect them from the lustful gaze of men. A woman is required to cover her head, hairs, ears, neck and chest. In fact, she has to wear the covers for the eyes of men.
What that means is a pathetic thing. Women have to bundle up so that men can stay footloose. Women have to disappear behind their clothes, but there's no dress code for the roving eyes of men. Why can't men simply wear blindfolds? The same old story. They want to rule.
Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a columnist for The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments