Gentlemen, stop pondering women’s clothing choices

It was 1750 B.C. when the function of the dress code in Babylon was to expose prostitutes.

Women have worn the veil since the most ancient times of the Sumerians; during the Assyrian times, this tradition transformed into a strict law that turned the veil into a “privilege” for the upper classes.

The veil was banned for prostitutes and slaves.  

If women who were not prostitutes and slaves went around town without a veil, it constituted a crime. A respectable wife who did not wear a headscarf was considered to be implying she was available and that her husband had lost control of her. Thus, she was subject to severe punishments.

If prostitutes were caught wearing a veil, which symbolized chastity, hot tar was poured over them and they were beaten with 50 strikes. (From Sex and Punishment)    
Almost 3,000 years have gone by… There is no point in rejoicing about the fact that there are no longer such punishments… There are no such bans either…

But the desire in men to determine women’s clothing has not yet ended…

This is not unique to Turkey. The issue reaches everywhere from east to west, from north to south…

Everywhere and all throughout history, men have not given up on discussing women’s clothes. Just remember how painful the process of women being able to wear pants was….

Because the West has allowed freedom of clothing, they do not live with the out-datedness we have now. Don’t they have men like we do here? Of course they do. For example, I came across a posting of a priest on a website named, “Christianpost.” One of the female students asked him, “Why are men naked on top, while we swim with t-shirts? Do you think there is no such problem as women looking at men?” The priest worked on this theme in his piece. In other words, in religious circles in the West, such debates are ongoing, but they are not on everyone’s agenda as they are here. They do not take up everybody’s time and create discomfort, because nobody regards the debate as a threat to their own lifestyles.

What happens here?

The religiously-oriented conservative perspective determines the rules of all society.

The slit in the clothing of the civil servant, the lipstick of the stewardess, the armless blouse of the presenter, the headscarf of the child, the mini skirt of the student, the transparent outfit of the artist, the legging of the other, the shorts of this one…

Men cannot give up engaging with them, placing themselves in the position to make decisions about and “tame” women.

The State Opera and Ballet banned staff from wearing leggings, sleeveless blouses, shorts, etc. The Ballet’s notification also added that “the ban does not cover the artists, but other staff working in the institution.”

I don’t even think for a moment that any civil servant would go to work in shorts; besides, there are such shorts now that can be part of a slick two-piece suit. They should have given the centimeter requirement. 

Evening dresses were banned, and so were stilettos. What is meant by “evening dress?” Can’t a female worker wear a silk blouse to the office? What about the ban on stilettos? Is there a risk of them being used as weapons within the institution?

Or is the problem that they make women sexier? Is it that whoever is heading the institution cannot include them in his own moral sentiments?

Who can impose the morals he holds about women’s clothes on the staff of the institution he is heading, and on what grounds?

That is enough, gentlemen! Leave women alone.

What freedom of thought and freedom of expression mean for a democratic society, freedom of clothing mean, too.

Anyone can wear whatever he or she wants. And what is up to you is to shut up.