This is a few of months late but I just discovered this episode of The Agenda with Steve Paikin, from TVO in Toronto. Having aired a few months ago, this episode asked the question “Who is today’s young Muslim woman?” The panel consisted of 7 Muslim women, 4 in studio and 2 via satellite. All but one panelist would be considered young. The seventh was Dr. Katherine Bullock, author and professor in Toronto.
Paikin began the show by pointing out that one in studio panelist, a grade 12 student, looked different than the others because she did not wear the hijab. Of course, the hijab will come up when talking about Muslim women, as unfortunately this appears to be the single defining feature of Muslim women. In fact, it comes up again as a point of discussion. Varying viewpoints are presented, the majority accepting a variety of interpretations, except Bullock. She says that, although she respects others’ decisions not to wear it, she would still like to convince those women that they are wrong.
Anyhow, back to the beginning of the show. Paikin begins by asking each panelist to describe the young Muslim woman and immediately Katherine Bullock’s answer irritated me. According to Bullock, there are two or three categories of women. To categorize a large group into a few portions denies the diversity of a population. A diversity which is very real and powerful. However, the categorizing is not the best part. The categories themselves are:
1) “Those who embrace their traditional heritage”
She then presents two fellow in-studio panelists as examples because they wear the hijab. Yes, she points that out. These women are very committed to their religion. These women are also very committed to Canada and feel “very strongly Canadian” as well as “very strongly Muslim.” They are “ambitious…intelligent…and educated.”
2) Those having an “identity crisis.”
Growing up in Canada, they hear negative things about Islam and so are not sure if they want to identify with it or not. They don’t feel Canadian nor Muslim, living in a “nowhere land.”
So immediately the hijab becomes a major point, being mentioned three times within the first 8 minutes – first as a differentiator between Muslim women, then as a indicator of embracing of religion, and finally as a qualifier by one panelist when she states that her religion is first even though she doesn’t wear the hijab.
The women were then asked whether women in the Muslim community are able to hold leadership positions and whether men are comfortable with this. The majority of the women stated that yes, women can hold leadership positions and that men are comfortable with this. I had to wonder how genuine this answer was as, although women are able to take leadership positions outside the religious sphere (though still often met with opposition from some men), the realm of the mosque is still male-oriented and male-lead. Only one panelist, Saffiyah Ally, addressed this issue.
The remaining of the episode addressed issues of cultural clashes with the non-Muslim world and parents, dating and romantic relationships, and myths and realities of Muslim women. To be honest, at times the show seemed boring and redundant with points being discussed numerous times. Some of the questions being asked seemed irritating and some of the answers being given seemed insufficient. Ausma Khan, editor-in-chief of Muslim Girl magazine, presented the most coherent and inclusive message.
Both Ausma Khan and Saffiyah Ally recognized many times that varying interpretations and opinions about Islam do exist within the Muslim community and appeared to be trying to assure that they did not come across as speaking for all Muslim women. Bullock came across as judgmental though trying to recognize diversity, as skewed an attempt as it was. The others did not make as much of an impact.
However, overall, the women did represent Muslim women well and the views were varied. The diversity of Muslim women was demonstrated by the show. The women were intelligent and overall seemed educated on the issues, at times seeming understandably defensive considering recent views of Muslims, especially Muslim women. Despite the repetitiveness and redundancy of the conversation, the program did manage to portray a picture of diversity of Muslim women, something which is extremely necessary but sadly lacking in mainstream media.
Tweet
I think Professor Bullock’s categories are pure bunk. Faith and identity aren’t black-and-white; it’s not a “you either have it or you don’t” kind of deal.
Hey, you know what I watched this episode a few months ago and I loved it! “The Agenda” is a very good Canadian show and I would like to recommend going through past episodes, there very interesting.I loved it because all these Muslim women represent successful, intelligent women from different ethnic and heritage backgrounds, and some wearing the hijab and others not. With all honesty where else will you find that on television? It is very rare.By the way, I agree with you, about Dr. Katherine Bullock. But the diversity of the other women overshadowed her. So to claim that she was correct and the others were not looked badly on her part, she came off a little too snooty and self-important with her superiority in belief— to an irritating degree. It’s funny because at one point she said there are similar values of tolerance and respect in Islam and then gives off an intolerant posture. (Lol), she also said that women should come to her conclusion about the hijab but then she says the non-hijab interpretation are 20th century and are very weak. However, she did say “it’s none of my business if a women does not wear the veil, or whatever she wears is none of my business” but it felt like she wanted to scream “only my view is valid, and I should be the only view considered”, like her view should be the dominate one that should control the discourse on hijab. Did you gals and guys get that feeling? Who gave this group a monopoly, some reflect an attitude of exclusive right or exclusive control that needs to be challenged, remember competition is healthy and it keeps everybody on their toes. Besides, nobody has a monopoly on common sense and especially not spirituality. P.S. I love Gilary and Salma, they were amazing and so were the others like Abeer. Thanks for this article ladies; it’s so nice to hear your thoughts and views, keep blogging.
firstly, i just wish irshad manji would just shut the hell up. i dunno if that contravenes guidline number 5, but i just had to say it. more thoughts on the actual conversation later inshaAllah
Yeah the binary she drew between embracing your heritage/traditions and being Canadian really did not sit right with me at all. It’s kind of reinforcing the idea that Islam is a foreign entity, and cannot be integral to Canadian (or really any Western) society, or as if being an athiest in say Syria or Pakistan is foreign as well. And then her pointing to the two hijabi girls across from her as part of the first group that were embracing their traditions as opposed to Salma was kind of wtf for me. AFAI could tell she didn’t know anything about these girls other than how they were dressed-it looked like it was the top of the show in that clip.Also I am generally not a fan of TVO.
Were any of the rest of you ready to strangle the interviewer? I didn’t even get past the first segment, because I started squirming every time he spoke.Like when he was speaking to Safiyyah at the beginning and she said that she thinks of herself as a human being first, and isn’t always thinking of her identity as a *Muslim woman*, and he was so shocked! His response to that was something like “well, don’t you realise that when you go out, everyone sees you as a Muslim woman first?” As if to say “who are you to think you can come up with your own conception of your identity, when the rest of us can’t see past what’s on your head?” With such a patronising tone, like “uh, that’s nice, but that’s not how WE see you.”Imagine the possibilities if he had instead said “really? Maybe I need to think past the judgements that I make when I see people on the street.” Or “oh yeah, I guess it does make more sense to see Muslim women as humans first.”
Krista:I think the interviewer was trying to lay out what many Canadians would be thinking. He is actually a really well informed interviewer but often takes on the role of a kinder devil’s advocate so as to get as much information from his interviewees. But you are right, at times his questions were quite irritating. Though perhaps from someone who is not informed about Muslim women they may seem fine. I need my sisters…:I totally agree with you on Bullock.
I don’t understand how Bullock can sit there and make a declaration about who is a real Muslim and who is afraid.I understand everyone has their own views on things, but when you’re on national television and have other Muslim girls on the program who DON’T wear hijaab, why in the world would you say something so judgmental and opinionated??Do these people WANT to shove out Muslims from our community?Who would Muhammad (peace be upon him) exclude? Not to make that sound like the cliche “What would Jesus do” or anything, but seriously! Who would he exclude from our Ummah? If these people are so absorbed in Islam, why don’t they ask themselves these kind of questions?
Thanks Duniya for that explanation. That’s interesting about the interviewer – it certainly wasn’t my impression of him, but maybe I need to watch the rest of the show.To me, he didn’t come across as saying “this is how some people/many Canadians might view you” – I felt like his words (as well as his tone) really undermined some of the guests, by implying that the way they understand their identity isn’t as important as the way that mainstream/non-Muslim society views them. I also wasn’t impressed by him singling out the girls not wearing hijab (as if that’s the biggest difference among any of them), or sounding so incredulous at the idea of female leadership existing within Islam.But if the rest of you were able to get past him, maybe I need to watch the rest of it and give him another try…
Krista:I know what you are saying. The things you pointed out as irritating were indeed irritating. I agree with you on that. I guess, what I kept telling myself, to hide my annoyance, was that maybe this is the what those non-Muslims watching want to know. But you’re right. As much as I usually like Paikin, those points were very irritating.
I think that all of the women come off as quite smart –as complicated individuals who identify in interesting ways.Bullock’s initial response to me seems to come from her training. She is a social scientist and probably adept at giving responses that are shaped to the media form in which she is speaking. Thus we have a need to produced simple categories which don’t give justice to the shades of gray. I can’t bash her to much because I actually think her book is good and her critiques are rather nuanced. But the most annoying is freaking Irshad Manji introducing the segment with her tired old rhetoric “All Muslims are robots programmed in the same way. Always” Interestingly her comments had no relevance to the interview.
feb 2009.
Just came across this discussion about the steve paikin show!
ouch!
what should I have said in answer to Steve’s question about identity?
when you only have about 1 minute to speak?
Bullock