By In the past two weeks, we have seen two prominent Muslim women influencers featured in two very well known brands. Amena, known on social media as Amenakin, was just recently part of L’Oreal’s latest campaign for its True Match foundation.
Noor Tagouri, a multimedia journalist with a huge social media presence, was interviewed in Playboy magazine. Both women wear headscarves and were either applauded or vilified for being the “first hijabi woman” to be featured in these brands.
There is an issue with both of these features, which has nothing to do with these women specifically, but rather the exploitation of Muslim women by capitalist-driven brands.
First, I take issue with the phrase “first hijabi woman.” This notion reduces Muslim women and their accomplishments to a piece of fabric.
Of course, hijab is so much more than that, as many Muslim women in the Western world know. It has been a target of Islamophobia, an object of fetishization by Western patriarchal society, and a hindrance to exercising freedom.
So it’s not surprising audiences would want to focus on hijab when viewing a Muslim woman’s success in the Western world. This last summer, most coverage of Ibtihaj Muhammad was centered on her being a headscarf-clad Olympian.
This representation becomes exploitation when brands use veiled women to promote diversity in the name of capitalism.
Women who wear hijab should be applauded when they reach new audiences in their professions. Growing up in the West while wearing hijab is tough, and succeeding despite that is commendable.
However, by constantly pointing out that a woman was the first “hijabi” to do this or that, we are playing into the Western view of Muslim women that hijab is the be-all-end-all of their existence.
It diminishes the hard work and perseverance it took for them to get to those places, and redirects the spotlight on what they are wearing on their heads. It also tokenizes them by making them one out of millions of women.
This is more palatable for Western media and brands, which are comfortable with shining light on one single “hijabi,” while not really having to worry about representation Muslim women as a whole. Muslim women become a monolith, and one woman equals the whole.
This representation becomes exploitation when brands use veiled women to promote diversity in the name of capitalism. In an article from Fortune last year, it was revealed that the Muslim fashion was a multi-billion-dollar industry. It stated that “Muslims spent $266 billion on clothing and footwear in 2013…that figure is expected to balloon to $484 billion by 2019.” This is a market that brands now want to tap into because they realize how profitable it is.
Just last month, the Dolce & Gabbana abaya collection, first introduced in January, went on sale. The line features abayas and hijabs geared to Muslim women (primarily in the Gulf region). The models used for the show were white-passing women, not exactly an apt representation of the large and diverse Muslim world.
It’s hard to ignore the trend of brands using Muslim women to fill their quota of diversity in the name of capitalism. A huge brand like L’Oreal is not oblivious to the profitability of the Muslim market.
An article from The Atlantic wrote about this strive for diversity from the designer brand, noting that by adding “capitalism to the mix, inclusiveness can risk looking like crass exploitation.”
The line itself is called “The Abaya Collection: The Allure of the Middle East,” which just screams orientalism. Dolce and Gabbana wasn’t interested in inclusivity, but rather tapping into the exotic world of abayas and veils, and marketing it to rich women in the Middle East who would buy their line.
In the case of L’Oreal, they don’t come off as rampantly fetishizing because they used an actual Muslim woman of color in their campaign, rather than a bunch of white models.
Beauty blogger Amenakin, who has almost half a million followers on Instagram, is prime real estate for L’Oreal’s diversity-driven campaign. A Muslim blogger with a huge, largely Muslim, following is exactly the person to open up that market for L’Oreal.
The issue here is twofold — one, it’s hard to ignore the trend of brands using Muslim women to fill their quota of diversity in the name of capitalism. A huge brand like L’Oreal is not oblivious to the profitability of the Muslim market. Essentially, they knew exactly what they were doing.
The second issue is more political — L’Oreal is on the BDS list for doing business in Israel and operating a factory on an Israeli settlement that was taken by ethnically cleansing Palestinians off that land.
This is a win-win for them, because they look progressive for including diverse faces in their campaign, while still profiting off of that supposed diversity at the cost of Palestinian lives.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign was started in 2005 to push back against Israeli occupation of Palestinian people by boycotting brands that do business with and fund Israeli apartheid.
L’Oreal is one of many companies that the BDS committee urges to boycott because of their continued normalization of the Israeli occupation.
Muslims should boycott Israel, not just because many victims of Israeli occupation are Muslims, but also because the continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are severe violations of human rights.
As Muslims, we should do everything do stand against injustice, that includes boycotting the industries that continue to fund and normalize apartheid.
So why does it matter that L’Oreal used a famous Muslim blogger in their latest campaign? Because Amenakin’s prominence in the Muslim fashion world means she has followers, followers who will likely buy brands she endorses. L’Oreal is exploiting her to get the Muslim consumers who may have otherwise boycotted the brand for their involvement in Israel.
The Western world is still keen on not representing Muslim women by their terms — by fetishizing them, by exploiting them for capitalistic gains, and by reinforcing the divide between Muslim women and the West.
This is a win-win for them, because they look progressive for including diverse faces in their campaign, while still profiting off of that supposed diversity at the cost of Palestinian lives.
In the case of Playboy Magazine, their objective is to rebrand and diverge from their reputation as a pornographic magazine. Using Noor Tagouri, a veiled, modestly dressed, feminist journalist, is the extreme opposite of the women they got famous for featuring (or rather, objectifying) in the first place.
They are using her to make a really bold statement that they have changed as a magazine.
Playboy has a reputation of being grossly sexist, objectifying women, and being anti-feminist. In an essay by Hafsa Aden, she mentions how “the veil, a symbol of reverence and devoutness, has been commercialized.”
We are seeing this very commercialization by Playboy using hijab to sell their new message. They want to rebrand as a magazine that applauds “renegades” like Noor Tagouri and other journalists and figures. And once again, it’s not surprising that they would seek out a veiled woman to be featured — as they, too, must be aware of the marketability of hijab.
What we are seeing here are patriarchal systems at play that are designed to fetishize Muslim women. Women like Amena and Noor have amassed large followings by being unapologetic Muslim women who are representing themselves on their own terms.
They challenge stereotypes, they challenge the notion of Muslim women as a collective, they challenge the idea of modesty as an objective thing.
However, it seems when it comes to carrying that representation over into mainstream media, the Western world is still keen on not representing Muslim women by their terms — by fetishizing them, by exploiting them for capitalistic gains, and by reinforcing the divide between Muslim women and the West.
I’ve been noticing this as well, especially with the case of Amena, who has rebranded her entire youtube channel around makeup endorsements. It’s sad when we fall into their traps and let them exploit us. Thank you for writing this article!
http://sakeenahbegum.com
Why do you consider her business strategy as exploiting you?
I meant they are exploiting her (us meaning us muslims including amena)
http://sakeenahbegum.com
This article does a really good job of ripping both of these women of their autonomy. I’ve noticed that any time women like Noor Tagouri are brought up we make it sound like they’re not implicit in doing these things. Neither Loreal nor Playboy forced them to do this, they chose it.
Amenakin is a beauty blogger. Many bloggers don’t just do it as a hobby, it’s a source of income. Although it’s wrong that she’s promoting products for a company that supports Israel, I don’t think any of us can hate on her for trying to run a business (so the whole “being used as a pawn by corporations” doesn’t work, if anything it’s the other way around).
In the case of Noor, honestly I fail to see how Playboy is sexist and objectifies women (women cannot objectify themselves and the women in that magazine choose to pose). But sure, even if it is, shouldn’t we be happy that a different type of audience is getting to know an intelligent muslimah instead of the same old oppressed cliche?
What is your understanding by hijab and exploitation?
While I agree that Playboy is a trashy publication, I honestly don’t understand where corporate exploitation comes in. As Fatima pointed out—women who pose for that magazine choose to do so. Is it wrong for a woman to “exploit” her own physical attractiveness for profit? Well, arguably. But if she’s getting paid to do it and does it of her own free will, I don’t see how you can lay all the blame on Hugh Heffner’s doorstep.
I think a proper response as someone who has learned about the controversy is to assume the best ( that they did not realize the implications) and to take what this article analyzed and share with your community ( without bashing on Amena and Noor) so that we are more mindful next time.
Fair enough, but how could someone NOT know the implications of posing for Playboy magazine? I mean it’s only been America’s chief source of non-internet smut since the 1960s. Even the definition of the word “playboy” is “a wealthy man who spends his time enjoying himself, especially one who behaves irresponsibly or is sexually promiscuous.” The magazine is renown as a publication that caters to horny males who want to look at pictures of beautiful women.
I gues one needs to have a comprehensive understanding of the porn industry to say this: but within porn, Playboy IS one of the classier publications. They actually have intellectual articles and not just pictures of girls engaging in graphic sex acts. Not saying porn is okay, just saying Playboy is a lot more dignified than what else is out there.
Playboy no longer publishes nudes so it’s miles away from what it was years ago. I understand its lurid history but since Noor’s interview was published in the recently, we should be looking at this through the lens of the New Playboy, not the old. As for whether the old Playboy mags objectified women, I guess that goes to a bigger discussion of whether porn objectifies women or whether by being in porn a woman is objectifying herself. And I don’t think objectification is what is happening in either of those instances.
I agree in the most part about what you’re saying! I won’t hate on Amenakin for trying to run her business, but she should be making conscious choices about who she is seen to support. I for one love L’oreal products and I have been a faithful user of them for primarily my eye make up, but from now on I will not be buying their products because of the conscious choice I make as a consumer. The apartheid in South Africa was only affected after protesters hit them where it hurt: their pockets. After people started pulling out of Barclays Bank, for example, they pulled out of the South African economy – not because of pickets or protests, but because they were losing money! It is wrong that she is openly supporting L’oreal, and I’m sure she would gain a lot more publicity if she openly stated that she was approached by them for XYZ, but she refused because of their support of the Israeli economy. If anything, if I saw that I would be very pleased and would definitely follow her blogs. After this, I just see someone who is either very careless, or someone who doesn’t really care. Either way, it isn’t a good way to be received.
On the issue of how woman can’t exploit themselves, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I’m afraid! Women, in todays western society are conditioned to exploit themselves: to wear heels to slim down and elongate our legs, to wear make up to accentuate our features, and most importantly to hide our ‘flaws’. We are constantly bombarded with advertising, pressuring us into being ‘beach body ready’. These things are pushed into our faces from a very young age (there have been sociological studies to show how women are taught to be seen and no heard from an early age). Yes, women choose to pose for these shoots, and yes Playboy seem to be trying to change their brand, and I have heard about how Playboy, along with their crass pictures of women had very tasteful journalism alongside – but I think we all know why they actually bought. Look at porn for example: women choose to do porn for whatever reason, but many of them do it because it’s an easy way to make money because they have been let down in other areas of their lives. Is that not exploitation? Women who have not had the best of lives (talking about America, many women have done it in order to pay for their education because they have no other way to do so!) are being led into being filmed and paid for sex (and paid to pose naked for the camera) because they want money, and they see that the only way to make their lives better is to, basically, sell themselves.
To bring both points together, by posing it can be argued that the women are trying to support themselves and further their career, but at what cost? I am very happy that an intelligent woman has posed for the magazine, and that Playboy have evidently seen a new market to push towards (socially aware millennials etc), but the fact that there’s a huge song and dance about it all is just a way to further the capitalist agenda: ‘buy our things because they’re tailored to YOU!’
As I said in my post, I completely agree with the sentiment that she shouldn’t have done ads for a company that supports Israel. I’m just saying that we don’t know her motives: maybe she thought that working for a prominent brand like l’oreal would open the door to more opportunities, maybe she just really needed the money, idk. I just feel like using her as a sort of brand ambassador for The Muslim Faith is unfair just cuz she’s a hijabi/visible Muslim woman especially since we never put that kind of pressure on Muslim men.
The whole thing about whether porn (or sex work in general) objectifies women is a much much bigger discussion. Everything you’ve stated is one way of looking at it but for each of those is a counterpoint that can turn this comments section into a novel.
All I’m saying about both of these cases is that the markets that are targeted by both of these brands (old dudes and the fashion/beauty industry) kind of have a reputation of thinking that Muslim women are oppressed and have no voice and these two ladies are proving that that’s not true which I’d say is a positive.
When the brands use sex and nakedness to sell their product, we hate it… when they use modesty, we hate that too!
Directed at the article/author:
I don’t know a nicer way to say this but.. Get off your high horse.
Being the first hijabi to do anything in the western world, especially the unexpected like a photo shoot, is pretty awesome and should be noted as exactly that. Yes these lovely ladies’ individual accomplishments should be applauded, which they are. As you said yourself they have a vast media presence and following.
They’re doing something that western society (and unfortunately many in the Islamic society as well) assume that this “piece of fabric” limits them from doing. The fact that they’re doing it WHILE being a hijabi is a special kind of accomplishment, one that should be celebrated. The struggle for hijabis’ acceptance is all too real.
To put it in perspective, Barak Obama is constantly referred to and will forever be remembered in history as the first black POTUS. Does this limit his accomplishments to the sheer happenstance that he was born black? I definitely don’t think so! Should it be noted that he is though? Absofuckinglutely! Why? Because the journey for black people to be seen as worthy and that they’re just like everybody else is and has been a struggle.
Hijabi women who’ve been told they can’t and secretly dream to need living examples that show them they can. They can be professional athletes, they can be models, they can be business women, they can be beauty icons. Westerners who think that they can’t need those examples even more.
On the topic of it being corporate exploitation.. woah, calm down! People want to see people “like them” and I think it’s pretty awesome that brands are seeing a demand and hence providing a supply for it. Using hijabi women as “the face of the company” in the area is Jude’s common sense. Would you rather they employed a man? Or maybe a woman who doesn’t wear the hijab? Should hijabi women, or those that wear the full abaya, be limited in where they purchase their clothing? I’m confused as to what exactly you have issue with here? Is it somehow “not ok” to notice that women in the Middle East for example, either like to or are required by law to wear an abaya, and that perhaps some of them would enjoy that that abaya be Prada? Exploitation? Of course they’re doing it for the money! Nobody is under the illusion that Dove makes woman’s deodorant to make the world a nicer smelling place. There’s a need and a demand and profit in it.
I agree with you on one thing, knowing where your money is going and what is being done with it. That’s personal responsibility. Everything else in your article, just replace the term “hijabi” with Black and maybe you’ll see everything that’s wrong with your train of thought. Personally I’d like to see Muslim families, and hijabi women in commercials, ads, and hey western tv shows too.
Of course accomplishments with hijab are commendable, because of how difficult this society makes wearing hijab, given the rise of Islamophobic attacks.
My issue with corporate recognition is that I feel it further divides the “Western” civilization from Muslims, when in reality, there are millions of American Muslims. It’s in the way they choose “modern” acceptable Muslim women to promote (I love Noor Tagouri and Amena, they are the living examples for me when I secretly dream) but it’s the look you have to have to even get approached by these brands. Think of the burkini ban in European countries, it’s too different from the rest of society so it’s deemed unacceptable. In America, it’s not as blunt, but there’s still an otherizing of the Muslim community. And now when you throw corporate greed in to the mix, we suddenly become in demand, as long as we still fit into their standards.
I can tell when I get opportunities that come from a desire to have that “token hijabi,” because I look “modern.” I don’t think I’d get that same treatment if I wore a black abaya in NYC (with mainstream companies, at least.) Yet, the muslim market is so large, and so very diverse. Rarely will corporate brands promote a diverse range of women (I mean, look at the modeling world or even Hollywood)
It was never an attack on either woman nor the choices they made–but rather an examination of how brands operate around the Muslim community. On one hand, these promotions do show great progress, but it also proves there is still a lot of work to do.
You mentioned the Black community, Hattie McDaniel was the first black actress to win an Oscar in 1939, and Lupita Nyong’o was only the 7th black actress to win in 2014–75 years later. Being the first is great for its own reasons, but it rarely means change. The “first hijabi” of something becomes a problem when the focus is on the hijab only because no progress will be made when society doesn’t truly absorb the density of her talents and hard work and allow that talent to drive society forward.
its funny how you bemoan the hijab and burkhas unacceptability in the west ,when the entire point of wearing these items are to differentiate yourselves from non muslims. muslims generally believe that to be uncovered is to be a loose woman ,why then do u crave acceptance from people you all deem loose and unacceptable? are you mental?
respectfully, the entire point of wearing hijab is not to differentiate from non-muslims and it never has been.
I think you need to relax, there are much bigger problems than what you think this is. 🙂
I agree with your point about how women shouldn’t just be defined by their hijab – they are so much more than that. However, with all due respect I do find it ridiculous how you claim that women who choose to collaborate with brands and publications to promote diversity, like Noor and Amena, are being ‘exploited’. Shouldn’t we be happy that Muslim women are finally being represented? We love to complain about the lack of diversity yet when a company makes an effort suddenly it’s not ok. Obviously the ultimate aim of commercial brands to ‘use’ diversity is to gain profit – that’s what business is all about – but nonetheless as long as they are not painting Muslims in a bad light or shaming Amena or Noor, where is the issue?
This isn’t the first time Muslim women have been featured in commercial brands/publications: Mariah Idrissi in H&M’s campaign, and other Muslim women featured in Teen Vogue and Marie Claire have been iconic moments. Isn’t D&G’s decision to introduce a modest line a good thing for Muslims who may feel excluded from the designer industry due to the lack of modest fashion? I think we should stop picking at things like this and be glad that we are finally getting the representation that we deserve alhamdoulillah – this is just the beginning, and more power to these women.
the author seems to be speaking with both sides of her mouth. when hijabis are not used in media muslims complain ,now they are been used you are still complaining. are you on a grievance diet
It’s funny how out of women like these a whole new stereotype is being born. They have scraped the hijab down to something fairly acceptable to Western eyes- and in doing so they have formed a whole new stereotype of a nice modern-minded millennial Muslim woman. Does anyone else think so?
Salam aleykoum i’d love to translate ur article to publish it in my blog. It’s dedicated to Muslim female entrepreneurs. How can I contact you?
Thanks
reading through the comments. From my perspective the author was highlighting a side of the topic we may have overlooked in applauding the features.
Did we benefit from the representation? yes. Did these women overcome certain obstacles to get there? of course. thats not being denied by prompting further thought