Lien Mendez is no longer allowed to work as a train assistant because she wears an abaya. This was the news from last Tuesday One today. An abaya is a wide dress where the breasts, waist, hips, buttocks, legs and arms are not visible. In short, all feminine forms have been hidden away, because a man could be seduced by them.
The abaya is a garment from the Arab world, although it is now also on the rise in a country like Turkey. France sees the abaya as a religious statement and has therefore banned its wearing in public schools. In the Netherlands, the debate has been raging for years whether the police should allow religious clothing.
Recently, MP Fonda Sahla (D66) wore an abaya during Budget Day, in his own words to “make a statement and express my support for the freedoms of women worldwide, including young women who want to receive education but are limited by dress codes.”
Being visibly Muslim by wearing orthodox clothing is of course allowed. At Albert Heijn in a big city, cashiers wearing headscarves are indispensable, just as they are in many open-plan offices. There is little against that. Just as there should be nothing against employees in neutral professions, such as a shopkeeper or a truck driver, wearing shorts with slippers underneath, wearing deep décolletés, pinning on a PvdA button, not shaving their armpit hair or having their arms full. tattoo.
The fact that Lien Mendez was not allowed to be a train assistant had nothing to do with discrimination. A long robe like the abaya does not meet the safety requirements for train crews. NS is looking for another suitable position for her internally.
What I have difficulty with is that conservative clothing for Muslim women is increasingly presented as an important part of emancipation, diversity and inclusion. Anyone who believes that such clothing does not suit organizations that must radiate neutrality, such as the police, is increasingly seen as anti-feminist or even anti-diversity or racist. I do not believe that the black stockings from Staphorst or the Sunday hats on the Veluwe have ever functioned as symbols of emancipation.
And rightly so: because such clothing underlines the inequality of men and women (women must primarily radiate modesty) and does indeed have a mandatory character within religious communities, even though the women in Staphorst will also assure that it is their own choice. There is nothing wrong with people wearing such clothes in their spare time or in non-neutral professions, we live in a free country. But elevating religious, covering-up clothing for women to the pinnacle of emancipation is a strange paradox at best, but actually a fool’s errand.
In my youth, many girls around me had to lead a double life in South Rotterdam. My neighbor Nermin had to wear a headscarf overnight. She told me that every day she was overjoyed that she could take off her headscarf on the bus just before school. Lipstick on. Headscarf in the bag and go. There were many girls in my hometown for whom this was true. From the moment they menstruated, fathers, brothers or men from the social environment started determining what the girls could and should not wear. And this is happening more massively these days.
If there is one type of clothing that is full of symbolism, it is clothing that conceals femininity, such as headscarf and abaya. Symbols of emancipation for some, symbols of women’s oppression for others. It is therefore very sensible that organizations that have to radiate neutrality, such as the police, opt for an equal – and meaningless – uniform for everyone. That is inclusion, not exclusion.
Aylin Bilic is a headhunter and publicist.
A version of this article also appeared in the September 28, 2023 newspaper.