Cover that meat, babe.

The practice of hijab, or the wearing of a veil, is based on the Qu’ranic instruction for women to “draw their veils over their bosoms” which was interpreted as an injunction to for women to cover their hair and face. On one hand, the veil can be seen as a physical representation of oppression and domination, however feminist reinterpretations of the Qu’ran have unveiled another perspective in which hijab is not an organic outgrowth of Islam, rather a consequence of a male-dominated culture which denies rights to women which conflict with the interests of the patriarchal elite (Mernissi, 1991, p. ix). It is possible for hijab to be an act of beauty and an assertion of religious and cultural identity when a woman chooses to wear the veil. In cases where choice is removed and women are compelled by laws to cover themselves, the religious significance is eliminated and it becomes an act of meaningless onus. As the Qur’an states so simply and so beautifully, “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Surah 2, 256) Women in every culture should be free to live life unveiled because of their intrinsic value as human beings. To force women to completely cover their bodies is to rob them of many of the physical representations of human identity, which is central to a full existence.

The Qur’an, like many sacred texts, has the subject of considerable debate and subjective interpretation over the nearly fifteen hundred years since its initial publication. Muslims generally hold that the Qur’an is a book of divine guidance, a book of wisdom and direction for the lives of mankind. Qur’an means “recital” in Arabic, which is fitting because Muslims believe that Allah recited these words to his chosen prophet, Muhammed. (Wikipedia, 24) The faithful also practice recitation of the Qur’an daily, making it an oral tradition as well as a textual one. This tradition of recitation creates a great body of knowledge among the followers of Islam. However, memorization and recitation of a text does not intrinsically create understanding. Interpretation of such a great work as the Qur’an is a daunting task with a history nearly as old as the great book itself. Ultimately, it is the interpretation of the text that creates polarizing viewpoints on the tradition of hijab within Islamic communities.  

One of the most radical interpretations of hijab comes from a “mufti”, a legal authority and leader in Australia’s Muslim community named Sheik Hilali. During a religious address during Ramadan last year, Hilali sought to defend the honor of the Muslim leader of the infamous “Sydney Gang Rapes” by referring to the 2000+ female victims as “uncovered meat”. Addressing 500 Muslim worshippers during the month-long festival, Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”  He concluded his address by saying that women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men. (Kerbaj, 1-9)  Many Muslim leaders were outraged by Hilali’s comments. A prominent female Muslim advisor responded to Hilali in an interview with The Australian. “Iktimal Hage-Ali – who does not wear a hijab – said the Islamic headdress was not a ‘tool’ worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. ‘It’s a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don’t wear the headscarf doesn’t mean that you’re considered fresh meat for sale,’ the former member of John Howard’s Muslim advisory board told The Australian. ‘The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves.’” (Kerbaj, 11-20) Hage-Ali’s views are a strong recommendation against forced hijab, which promotes the view that women are responsible for carrying out drastic measures to protect themselves from the animal tendencies that men are naturally subject to. This is an inaccurate and dangerous view of both genders which cannot contribute to healthy interaction within a culture. 

In Eastern Islamic states such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, the question of hijab has been answered by law. In these three Islamic states women are forced, in varying degrees, to don a burqa or other covering garment that fits detailed legal requirements even to tend her front garden. In some cases, vigilante groups roam the streets looking to violently enforce the law of hijab, armed with measuring equipment to verify that each garment is the legal length. Some women who live under the restrictive laws of an Islamic state exist their entire lives without their hair or face being seen by a man other than a relative, sweltering under thick black outer garments in the heat of the desert summers. Many are even attacked or arrested for misunderstanding the often confusing and convoluted legal code that surrounds their dress. As recently as April of 2007, young women were victims of targeted attacks by the Tehran police, a manifestation of power that was encouraged by the hard-line Islamic leaders. (Sanati, 2)  An Iranian news agency quoted Brig. Gen. Ahmad Rouzbehani, director general of the law enforcement centre for combating social corruption as saying, “Everybody knows what improper dressing is and how one should appear in the public. Anybody who is improperly dressed must therefore expect to face a legal encounter by the police” (Sanati, 8). This use of violence takes the subject of force to an entirely different level that goes far beyond religious observance. This kind of force perpetuates the perspective that women belong in the home, covered, the possession of her husband, father, and children.

Perhaps some of the most interesting perspectives come from Islamic women who have elected to wear hijab for personal reasons, even though they live in Western cultures which do not mandate hijab. Some women find comfort in donning a piece of clothing that identifies them as a Muslim. Shaista Aziz gives an account of her choice to wear the veil to the BBC News. “When I see another Muslim woman on the street we always smile, sometime we nod at each other and other times we exchange greetings: Asalaam e-lekum Walikum Asalaam.” (Aziz, 15) Aziz finds that most non-Islamic Londoners are accepting of her choice, and she disregards the opinions of those who would criticize her. She isn’t compelled by laws, nor is she forced into hijab by male family members. For Aziz, the veil is a choice that affirms her freedom and womanhood. “Through Islam I feel empowered and have been moved by the beauty and simplicity of wearing the hijab and the direction that it has given me in my life.” (Aziz, 28)

Samah Gamar, a Canadian Muslim woman, views hijab as a brave declaration of will against the commodification of women in western culture who have been made into “tools to sell beer and boost sales for the next football season” (Gamar, 7). Gamar explains that “Islam tells us that every woman is a jewel” (Gamar, 12), and then posits that showing off a thing a value immediately diminishes its worth, but is the same true for intelligence? Should people who possess intelligence be encouraged to keep it under wraps? Gamar has a point when she singles out physical beauty as something that women should not measure their worth by. However she disregards all the courageous women who eschew the glamorized vision of beauty that Kate Moss once represented for the much more potent and lasting charms of people like Rosie O’Donnell and Beth Ditto, who embrace their individual appearances in a very public way without degrading themselves as sex objects simply by being unveiled. Although I agree that Gamar and other women who choose hijab are brave for asserting their rebellion against objectification, I believe that they are going about it all wrong.

The issue of hijab comes down to two issues; choice and identity. As women, as people, we ultimately choose to express our religion and our ideals as we see fit. Some women choose hijab as an expression of identity, and I believe that they should have the freedom to do so. But I hope that in doing so they do not forget the identity that comes from the expressions of their face, the determination of their walk, and the unabashed celebration of their bodies that speak, write, and act on behalf their most priceless jewel of all: their mind. By unveiling, these strong women might command even more attention than they expected; not as sexual objects, but as free human beings with something valuable to offer the world around them.

Nikki Keddie & Jasmine Rostam-Kolayi, editors, “Women and Twentieth-Century Religious Politics,” Journal of Women’s History, Winter, 1999.

 Mernissi, Fatima (1991). The Veil and the Male Elite, A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam. Wikipedia.com. 25 Jun. 2007. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur’an>.  

MSA-USC Compendium of Muslim Texts. University of Southern California. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html>.  

Kerbaj, Richard. “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks.” The Australian. 26 Oct. 2006. The Australian Newspaper Online. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html>.

Sanati, Kimia. “IRAN: Dress Code Row – Another Ahmadinejad Failure.” IPSnews.net. 30 Apr. 2007. Inter Press Service News Agency. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37543>.           

Aziz, Shaista. “Viewpoint: Why I decided to wear the veil.” Bbc.co.uk. 17 Sep. 2003. British Broadcasting Corporation. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3110368.stm>. 

Gamar, Samah “Veiled Threats.” Peak.sfu.ca. 9 Nov. 1998. peak publications society. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue10/veiled.html>.

Advertainment and a Definition of Gender

The USA Network’s new television production, “The Starter Wife” blurs the increasingly faint line between entertainment and advertising by bringing the advertisers into the creative process at the beginning and writing the script to function primarily as an advertising vehicle for Pond’s facial care products. This dubious infiltration of the public consciousness is aimed primarily at women, using a script focused on issues important to women to suggest that Pond’s products could somehow play a crucial role in lives have been ravaged by divorce, helping women to “start over”. “The Starter Wife”, taken as a cultural text, accomplishes what it sets out to do; it redefines entertainment in order to reach into women’s homes and tap into their hopes and fears, while strategically placing their product into the storyline as a solution to life’s woes.  

A longstanding assumption in our culture is that “Entertainment is just for fun.” (Latterell 361) People have long been gathering in front of the television for that very purpose. Since its introduction to the American family home in the 1950’s, television has played a fundamental role in the cultural landscape. Every few years, the entire terrain of television changes as an innovative idea takes hold; in the 1970’s it was the game show that captivated the public consciousness, while 2000 saw the rise of reality television. Advertisers, always on the lookout for the most pervasive method to introduce their products, have tended to latch on to the latest trends as a forum for publicity. In the past, this has usually meant booking time during scheduled breaks in the entertainment in which to air commercials; however, as we can see with the introduction of “The Starter Wife” and its subtle message, this process may be changing. As advertising slyly escapes the bounds of the traditional commercial break, our assumptions about “entertainment” might need to be adjusted as well.

 “The Starter Wife” is not the first advertainment production. As Seth Stevenson reports in Slate Magazine, the movie “Gracie”, a TimeWarner film, was financed in large part by Gatorade, infusing the script with brand identity and product placement. (Stevenson) Furthermore, even the first Miss America pageant in 1921 was a promotional event held by hotel owners in Atlantic City, New Jersey as an attempt to draw tourism and show off their city. (Latterell 362) Entertainment has long been sponsored by profit-seeking entities looking to market their product or service to the spectators. The evolution towards advertainment is recent, and quite significant. It forces us to define entertainment. In order for a production to be “entertainment,” must it be a purely creative project without any mercenary purpose? Certainly there is gray area in such a widely applicable term, but many of us can agree that a production that is created for the sole reason of showcasing a product is missing the point of entertainment. As advertisers insert themselves into the creative process, we run the risk of gutting creativity and turning television programs into thinly veiled infomercials without anything resembling artistic merit.

Although the script of “The Starter Wife” is admittedly engaging in places, the pretense of art collapses in upon itself every time the heroine reaches for a tube of Pond’s. In actuality, the better the acting, production value, and dialogue, the more blurred the line between entertainment and advertising becomes. Even a normally critical viewer with the judgment to separate advertising from art might find themselves lulled into not noticing the product placement. The overall result is more seductive, which is why the medium is so effective.  A much more sinister consideration is the active targeting of women that “The Starter Wife” illustrates. Advertisers approach women by identifying their deepest fears and insecurities, and then offering an instant fix in the form of a product. In “The Starter Wife,” Pond’s advertisers created situations in the script that touched the raw nerve of self-esteem issues; namely fear of aging, sexuality, appearance, and relationship viability. (Taflinger) In each plot crisis, the heroine, played by a beautiful 40+ Debra Messing, reaches for a Pond’s product in order to arm herself and assuage her fears. During a dream sequence, a team of detectives interrogate the main character with a flashlight and call attention to “those bags” under her eyes. Immediately the scene cuts to Messing, awake and looking in the mirror, and vigorously applying a Pond’s product to her under-eye area. (Stevenson) Advertisers are altering the cultural landscape as they promulgate the idea that women have a societal mandate to be attractive, even in the midst of a divorce. Will the viewer look a little more closely at her under-eye area in the mirror long after the television is switched off? The advertisers are banking on it. 

Perhaps the most objectionable message “The Starter Wife is sending to women is that men and our relationships with them are the focus of our existence. Even our strong and lovely heroine, newly liberated from an inauthentic relationship, is repeatedly “rescued” by men throughout the pilot episode. In one scene, Molly is passed over for a table at an exclusive beachside restaurant until her husband’s rich and powerful male colleague takes her under his wing. Molly, grateful and worshipful, throws her head back and laughs at his command in order to impress the ladies who scorned and insulted her when she was denied a table. In another scene, Molly acts on her brave declaration to “try something new every day” and rows out into the waves. A large swell knocks her boat over and she slips under the water. Apparently she can’t swim, and it takes a handsome stranger to pull her to safety. 

One of the most telling segments is paraphrased as follows: 

Housekeeper: “Oh, Mrs. Kagan…” (hugs her tightly) “Will you be needing a housekeeper?” 

Molly: “I don’t know what I can afford until I know what the settlement will be.” 

Housekeeper: “Mrs. ____ got the household staff in her settlement!” 

Molly: “Mrs. ____ was sleeping with her lawyer.” 

Housekeeper: (Shrugs, as if to suggest that might be a viable option.) 

Molly: (frowning) “My lawyer is a woman.” Housekeeper and Molly grimace knowingly.           

Even at the start of the program, an animation rolls across the screen with three diamond engagement rings; small, medium, and large. A voiceover narrates in a whimsical tone, “A screenwriter’s wife (small), a director’s wife (medium), an executive producer’s wife (large).  Is this what Pond’s thinks of women? In 2007 a program is being produced that portrays women as wives of men, to be discarded, cheated on, or loved at the whim of the rich and benevolent husband? “The Starter Wife” is chock full of messages about womanhood that should concern a critical viewer; truly too many to mention. 

Advertising is a powerful medium that affects thousands of people daily. Advertisers, as much as any other group of people, have a responsibility to maintain a code of ethics. Numerous organizations exist as consumer watchdog agencies, government regulatory entities, as well as industry self-regulating bodies. But new forms of advertising require a fresh look at the codes that guide advertisers. Advertainment is a genre that allows products to be snuck into emotional segments of a plot that viewers might be too invested in to censor mentally. We cannot fully predict the consequences of such an understated medium on a culture already inundated with a constant barrage of ads. While many believe that we have learned to tune out these pleas for our time and money, the response to the latest form of guerilla advertising seems to suggest otherwise. Critics and viewers alike have bestowed upon “The Starter Wife” rave reviews. According to Multichannel News, 5.4 million viewers invited the program into their homes on May 31, an auspicious beginning for any television debut. (Reynolds) 

Whether the public will respond to this trend with their buying power is yet to be determined. If they can attract viewers and move product, advertisers will become still bolder in their approach. The quality of entertainment will suffer if we allow the creative process to be hijacked by corporations with an ulterior motive. When advertisers hold the creative power behind the programs we watch, they must portray us as weak, flawed, and missing something: their product. In this way, the values that define womanhood can be eroded by widespread messages such as the one that Pond’s has sent with “The Starter Wife”. Each of us, as consumers, has an incredible amount of power. We can vote with our remotes, and we can speak out against unethical advertising with our wallets. We have the power and the responsibility to insist upon quality entertainment and demand respect from the programming we allow into out lives. Ultimately, we dictate the cultural landscape we inhabit with the choices we make, and we owe it to our children to do so responsibly. 

Latterell, Catherine. Remix: Reading and Composing Culture. New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2004.  

Stevenson, Seth. “How Pond’s infiltrated The Starter Wife writers’ room.” Slate May 2007: 11 Jun. 2007 < http://www.slate.com/id/2167188/>.  

Taflinger, Richard. “Me, Myself and I: Self-Esteem and Advertising.” Washington State University: Media and Communications Studies May 1996: 11 Jun. 2007 <http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/esteem2.html>.  

Reynolds, Mike. “Good Ratings Start for USA’s The Starter Wife.” Multichannel News Jun 2007: 11 Jun. 2007 <http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6448814.html>.