Posted below are reader responses to "Why Martha McSally Is Wrong," the Soapbox from 23 April 2001. Obviously, I disagree with much of what is posted below and disavow any factual, grammatical, or logical errors (or, for that matter, any credit for factual, grammatical, or logical insights). Names have been withheld unless the author has given express permission for their use.

LtCol McSally has won an apparent victory over the policy of U.S. servicewomen having to don Muslim abayas. Though the case has not, as yet, even been heard, the Dept. of Defense has offered some leeway on the issue.

I've long thought it a case of disparity of treatment that female and male members have differing standards of grooming (i.e.- length of hair and wearing of earrings) and, it seems, even when a female member is in violation of said double-standard, it behooves a male to caution if intending to counsel her on it.

The double-standard is so prevalent that some young servicewomen will blatantly defy the uniform standards by piling their hair so high upon their heads that they must, needs be, wear a ridiculously larger hat to fit. In the meanwhile, male servicemembers have been banned from wearing earrings, on posts, even when off-duty and out of uniform.

The stated reasons for men, historically, to wear short hair have been: uniformity, hygiene and safety. Are female members exempt from these issues?

I think not.

If not, then, is it not disparity of treatment for male members to be restricted from the same privileges or freedoms of choice enjoyed by female members? Or, conversely, shouldn't female members be held to the same standards as men?

Perhaps I should sue the Dept. of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld in order to end this obvious sexual discrimination.

21 February 2002

I just had the opportunity to read your piece on LtC. Martha McSally. I would like to congratulate you for writing such a well thought out and informative article.

You make many valid points, and it is my opinion that the real "blame" lies with the US Military and not with the Saudi government.

I find it increasingly disconcerting that so many people are so quick to respond negatively through an apparent, yet seemingly misguided, sense of patriotism. This was evident by the tone of some of the comments you received.

With that in mind, I just wanted to pass on a positive comment.

5 February 2002

*******

I read the article that was published in April of last year about (the now) LTC McSally. I am a female in the military and I applaud her efforts to abolish the policy concerning the dress of female soldiers in middle eastern countries. I think that the author of this article was very misguided. Yes, Americans are guests in Saudi Arabia and should, in every way, RESPECT their "traditions." In no way should Americans change our "traditions." In America we believe that everyone is created equally and a female soldier is treated and respected in the same manner a male soldier. This policy prohibits a male soldier from wearing any type of Saudi dress. Males must dress as American men do. Forcing female soldiers (who are doing the same thing the males are doing) to cover themselves and sit in the backseat of vehicles while off base is ridiculous. It is not for their protection. Do you think that any Saudi person is fooled by a female dressed in the traditional Islamic dress walking with American male soldiers? Would the combat boots give it a way? LTC McSally is a brave woman who might of ruined her career standing up for the thousands of military women. Inequality is never justifiable and equality will never be achieved while Americans are bowing down to a backwards society.

23 January 2002

*******

1. I do not have a lot of time to respond to your comments concerning LT COL Martha McSally so I'll be brief. "Your an egotistical IDIOT"

2. In your extensive "I love me" resume I didn't see anything about serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.

3. LT COL Martha McSally is a great American who serves her country proudly. The U.S. policy concerning the dress of female service members in Saudi Arabia was wrong and I'm glad to see that her persistence paid off in the recent policy change.

4. Feel free to respond, loser.

23 January 2002

You stated that the policy requiring service women to wear the Abaya off base in Saudi Arabia is required in order not to offend the Saudi government or it’s people. Yet the Saudi government (royal family) doesn’t request this of NON-Muslims it’s self, neither does the U.S. State Department. Not only that but from what I have read while the Gulf war was in progress our service women freely drove around off base wearing modest attire (which is all the Saudi government asks of non Muslim persons both male and female), not Abayas. In addition, male service personnel are prohibited from wearing traditional Muslim clothing while off base.

It is in my view not only McSally right but it is her responsibility to challenge these separate standards. Very really do policies or laws change unless individuals are will to sacrifice of themselves; in this case it may well be McSally’s military career. Perhaps McSally realizes that she has had the opportunity to be a combat fighter pilot because others before her have challenged previously held standards. Yes, Saudi Arabia is different but if that government does not require non-Muslims to wear the Abaya why does the U.S. military.

I have read that Klee, (a spokesman for the Defense Department's Central Command) states that the purpose of the Abaya for U.S. military personnel is to help make military women less of a target. Being that they are required to be escorted by a male personnel who in or out of uniform is easily identifiable as Americans, as military men are prohibited from dressing in traditional Muslim fashion does not seem likely to actually work. If the goal is truly to make military personnel less of a target should not that objective be one we hold for all of our military personnel, regardless of gender. Hence, the military should either require that all personnel dress in local clothing when off base in an attempt to not stand out as targets, (though I don’t hold much hope of your average American ever blending in regardless of clothing selection). Or, the military should drop this double standard that is not required by the host nation, as it is ridiculous and not likely to fool anyone bent on inflicting harm to our service personnel. Should Saudi Arabia or any government it the future require separate treatment of segments of our military our military’s response should be to require all personnel to remain on base. Our military is continuously represented to the American people as a cohesive military unit and anything that threatens that cohesiveness needs to be examined carefully. It is far better for the military to have one set of rules for all personnel than it is necessary for personnel to venture off base.

If we are disdained anywhere, it is not because we as a people are rude or inconsiderate of others or their cultures. It is because they fear McDonalds and Levi jeans. Many countries shadow economies (especially in the third world) are larger than their legitimate (government sanctioned) economies, as the commoner is finding ways around the old elite cast held systems. They are using cell phones to sell their products on the world market directly allowing them to profit for the first time. These people are young; they use cell phones, wear Levis and eat at McDonalds to the old elite they appear to want to be Westerners, which ultimately means American. What they are striving to become though unrecognized by the legitimate (where starting a business or purchasing land can take years and even decades in many parts of the world) economy is middle class (not at the level of Western standards) but one that allows them to eat out occasionally…at McDonald’s (as it’s affordable). To say we are rude or attempting to force our culture (or perceived to be) down the rest of the worlds throat is to over simplify the matter. A better reason for why we are hated is POWER and who will hold it in the future. I will not go any further on this side topic as it could become it’s own little essay but if you would like another well written examination of this topic you should check out the article ‘Why they Hate Us’ at www.policyreview.com.

In addition, I was hoping you could shed some light on past military responses to local costumes. Though I was born while apartheid was still lawful in South Africa it ended before I left elementary school. I was, thus, hoping you could fill me in on some information: did we have any military presence there during that time and if so what were the rules governing U.S. military personnel of color when off base. Did the South African government hold foreigner to the same standards as local in contrast to the Saudi government?

22 January 2002

*********

I can't say whether McSally is right or wrong because it is her opinion. Opinions are neither right or wrong. There is no proof to substantiate an opinion it is merely a belief that a person holds with much confidence. From everything I know about the case it is not the law for women that are not from Saudi Arabia to wear the Abaya, they are merely asked to dress conservatively. I really don't believe the issue is with dressing conservatively, I believe the issue is with the inequality part. There is not a nation on this earth that gives us equality we are born with it, again my opinion. As far as the "blending in" idea of wearing the Abaya I don't think even American men wearing collared shirts and pants will blend in so I don't agree with that theory. I try to keep an open mind but we all have our beliefs. I realize the Abaya does not stand for a particular religion itself, but for an American woman it is the icon of inequality. I believe this is the true issue and with that in mind I stand with McSally.

21 January 2002

*********

I believe that you are wrong regarding Maj McSally. She is an American patriot serving her country at great risk to her own personal safety. She should not be treated like a sub-human just because she's in Saudia Arabia, and the religious kooks want her to wear a bag over her body. The Saudis "kings" are jerks anyway. Who cares what they or the Islamic religious nuts insist upon. Major McSally is a true-blue American woman, a skilled military pilot, and a patriot, and the Saudis don't add up to a pile of pig refuse. I'm glad that she's stirred up a storm with her lawsuit, and I hope that she forces some changes from those Saudi leaches.

20 January 2002

*********

I think your article on Major McSally is wrong, very wrong. The inherent wrongness lies in the fact that the rule applies only to women. The American male soldiers are told not to dress like the Saudi men. If the women are forced to wear the garb because they are a guest, why are the men not forced to do the same? Also, as McSally stated, the government implied that the abaya was not for political relations; they felt it best for her to wear the abaya for protective reasons. Because an act or a custom is deemed "religious" or tradition does not mean it is correct. Many years ago, African American people were treated as inferior. That discriminatory tradition must end, and the discriminatory nature of American female soldiers being forced to wear the abaya must also end.

Allison Aronsky

20 January 2002

***********

I just finished reading your web site (http://www.oocities.org/wshingleton/soapbox23april2001.html) after watching Ms. McSally on 60 Minutes. I'm curious why US Embassy personnel aren't required to wear an abaya when they leave the Embassy? I'm also curious why Madeline Albright didn't wear one when meeting the Saudi Monarch? Are tourists required to wear an abaya? I also don't think current Saudi policy requires women to wear abaya. Is that correct?

I'm trying to find answers to those questions. I thought since you had written something on it you might know the answers.

20 January 2002

********

While it might be trite to say rules are made to be broken, the harsh, unfair, and actually unIslamic, and illegal, enforcement of dress codes on other nationals who are guests in such countries as Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan, is inexcusable, atavistic and selfish. It is a question of applying force in religious beliefs, which is a horrible form of intolerance.

I spent 19 years in Saudi Arabia, all in the Eastern Province, and my wife never used the abaya. Only during our last few years were we harassed by you know who, and I reported the incidents, hating every one of them. No one on the face of this earth has the moral, ethical, or any other right to enforce dress codes for religious purposes. The Air Force woman who stands up for freedom is pursuing an American tradition, and while it may seem unkind to some, the honor behind the principle far outshines the intolerant physical enforcement of harsh and discriminatory dress codes imposed on individuals who do not wish to adhere to Islamic values. To be fair, even in strict Islamic nations, the Islamic community should also be given a choice to choose. It does not have such a choice. Why be sympathetic to such a system so oppressive?

8 June 2001

********

I disagree on (at least) one point of your essay "Why Major Martha McSally is Wrong." you stated that "More to the point, Major McSally, like all of the 5,000 Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, is there as the guest of the Saudis." Actually, our troops are there to protect their asses from Saddam Hussein, since they apparently could not do it themselves

29 May 2001