Not attire but attitude

I am writing in reference to Zamroni Mahsun's letter (The Jakarta Post, June 1, 1995) regarding dress codes for women.

I would like to respectfully disagree with his opinion that women must be regulated to wear modest attire, to prevent sexual harassment.

There are many studies which prove empirically and conclusively that the source of the problem is not how most women dress, but men's attitudes towards women's form of dress and simply the fact that they are women. Many modestly dressed women of all ages (including grandmothers) are both harassed and/or raped each year, regardless of what culture or country they come from.

To suggest that women should be regulated as to their dress does not address the source of the problem, which, in this case, is two fold. One is some men's attitudes towards women, which encourages them to think it is all right to behave disrespectfully towards women, regardless of their dress. The other is that some men need to learn to exercise self-control and not rely on a law about women's dress code to stem their own weaknesses.

To suggest that women need to be regulated is to further restrict and punish many innocent women.

Indonesian government policy already stresses that Indonesian development should be based on a harmonious and equal partnership between women and men. The basis of this harmonious partnership must be a respectful attitude towards each other, not laws governing the way women and men dress.

As a foreigner in Indonesia, I observe the cultural dress code, which is the norm here, as a means of respecting my host country. I do not need a law to tell me what I should wear. Nor do the large majority of Indonesian women. It is a question of attitude. By the same token, Indonesian men should not need to be protected from themselves by a statute on women's dress code.

In medieval times women were forced to wear chastity belts because men did not trust other men to respect their wives and daughters. It was a very one sided solution. To deal with both sides of the problem, men also would have needed to have parts of their bodies locked up.

Pak (Mr) Zamroni only speaks about wanting a mandatory dress code for women. He makes no mention of the need of one for men. Perhaps this is because women's attitudes towards men's dress are not harmful to men. Unfortunately we cannot say the same of men's attitudes towards women. It is also important to remember here that morality is the responsibility of both men and women and that the burden of moral behavior should not be placed solely on women.

It remains a question of mutual respect and harmonious partnership. I respect both the men and women where I work and live and they respect me. It is a social contract--not something which needs to be legislated.

I agree with Pak Zamroni that change is needed, but what is needed is a change of attitude which will help women become full partners in Indonesian society, as is outlined as a priority in the 1993 GBHN (Outlines of the State Policy).

DANA PEEBLES

Jakarta