Much has been said and written on the issue of the breaking and subsequent banning of the billboards with advertisements featuring women as models in Pakistan.  The staunch supporters on both sides of the argument have stated and reiterated their views through the various medium of communication. Before getting into the debate of who’s right and who’s wrong, let us first examine what it is exactly that shapes our opinions on issues such as these. Can we attribute them to our own common sense knowledge or is there something in our social structure that has a powerful effect on our opinions?

To date the most powerful medium of communication is the print and electronic media. It is in fact the media that has the power to highlight any issue, decide upon the degree of importance to be given to it, and shape the general public’s stance on the issue. In sociology, a very important concept with regard to the media is “ideology.” It is believed that the every individual has his/her own ideological framework according to which he/she analyzes an issue and charts his/her observations about the social world. The ideological framework is a powerful latent device, which determines whether we go for or against a debate. With the increasing usage of the media, it does not take long to put two and two together. It is the media, especially in our Pakistani society, which influences our ideological framework, the media that is the standard against which we gauge all other issues.

What’s important in our lives is what is defined as such in the media. And is the media neutral? Is the reporting of events impartial? Are all the values in the society equally emphasized upon? Or is it that the values of a certain social group are being emphasized upon? The answer to these questions, along with an answer in the affirmative to the latter question, makes it very clear. Our media is oriented towards a certain group in the society which is the capitalist class. We are told and retold through various means that we live in a competitive world, that materialistic tendencies are a normative way of life, that profits are the ultimate goal and the infamous: unless we advertise our products, they will not sell and hence, there will be no profit.

The ideological framework, which is shaped by the ideas that the capitalist-controlled media wishes to propagate, is thus the defining factor behind those who are criticizing the policy of breaking/banning the sign boards with women’s pictures. This ideological framework dictates the common sense through which we have heard things like “How do you expect to advertise household items if they have no woman in it?” and “How will a so-and-so product sell if it is not advertised?” Obviously advertising is important; economic theory tells us as much. However, the same theory also states that the purpose of advertising should be to emphasize the special features of the product (and not, if I may say so, the person who is modeling in the advertisement). If a product is of a high quality, it will sell well. But if a company needs a woman to sell a product, it is undermining the quality of its own products. Take the example of “Islamic Mashroob.” It is fast becoming the most popular drink and I have yet to see it advertised.

Going on to the ideological framework dictated by feminism, the arguments produced against the issue of signboards again provide a classical example. Such an ideological framework has produced arguments like women having equal rights and freedom to advertise whichever products they choose, the patriarchal policy makers exploiting their power and manipulating their high ranks to channelize women in restricted spheres of the society and confine them within the four boundaries of their home.  Feminists are quick to classify it as a degradation of women, that their intellectual capabilities are vegetated by performing the household tasks. What amazes me here is that these feminist-minded people do not consider using women to entice people into buying a product as an extreme form of degradation. The advertisers consider the role of women as simply to earn profits for the company for which they work. Isn’t this humiliation enough, to be the center of a signboard simply to allure people into purchasing the product and act as a twenty-four hour profit-making machine?

This reminds me of an analogy I read somewhere in my yesteryears. The author pointed out that in our normal routine of life, we never put out our most precious things for display in the drawing room. They are always kept hidden: our jewelry; diamond sets, crystal vases etc. The most expensive dinner set is brought out only on special occasions while the one used everyday is not that prized or expensive. Same is the case with a woman; such is her exalted status that she does not deserve to be a public showpiece (or an advertising technique). To be classified in this way is manually undermining her elevated status.

Now let’s come to the Islamic aspect. In Islam, the hijab is obligatory and there cannot be two opinions about it. It is said in Surah Ahzab Ayat 28 “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the Believers to draw their cloaks close around them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized nor annoyed. Allah is Ever Forgiving, Merciful.”

The fact that these billboards make a show of women without hijab runs directly in contradiction to the Islamic teachings, which in a Muslim nation should not be the subject of any argument. Ayat 35 of the same surah says “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.”

Of course if an advertisement has to have a woman in it, for example a dinner scene, there is no reason why she cannot do so in a total hijab. Advertisements on Lebanon TV and Saudi channel do show some of such advertisements. The problem in our society is those elements whose views are amplified in the media consistently. Such elements keep on emphasizing that a religious party in power is devoid of all political sense, that its prime concern is to unfairly keep women “imprisoned” in their homes, at the expense of the more important issues of poverty and lack of job opportunities and the like. This view has been reiterated both in the print and the electronic media so many times that there seems to run a moral panic amongst the general public who then get ignited at an issue so minor when it is initiated by a religious party.

Going on to sociology again, there is a specific model for media effects called “hypodermic syringe model.” It states that the audience is the patient, the injection is the media and the media message is the substance to be injected. Once the message is “injected” the patient is narcotized, deprived of critical thinking and totally infused with the media’s values and the arguments used to justify them. Let us not do that and start believing all that the media drills in us. There are wider and more significant issues that need dealing with where women’s issues are concerned. Let’s start raising our pens against those, rather than against something like this. All this hype about “naked vandalism” and “blatant sexism” is only going to worsen the moral panic and unnecessarily ignite the sentiments of people.

In the end, what’s my opinion? If the signboards, which make me ashamed to look at anyone else while passing them in my van or car and which reduce the status of my gender below all limits, are removed from my sight, I applaud the policy makers who initiated such a step probably knowing the havoc it would create.