In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What should we do about child marriage?

Jill

A Feministe reader sends this on, and it’s definitely interesting fodder for discussion:

Recent events in the news (UNICEF photo of the year) and my experiences in the field have gotten me thinking hard about what human rights advocates should do about the problem of child marriage. As a feminist, I am appalled and horrified by the idea of a girl being withdrawn from school (if she ever went at all) married, and impregnated –all as soon as she gets her first period, sometimes, depending on what country and culture she is from, to a much older man.* Her life is thus defined for her while she is still a child. She enters the same sad cycle her mother and grandmother and every female ancestor lived; early marriage, early motherhood, a life of hard labor, and early death. Her daughters soon follow.

So, child marriage, especially child marriage that enforces a cycle of gendered poverty. It is a very bad thing. It goes against just about every principle of human rights. But what should be done about it?

If a twelve or thirteen year old girl from the suburbs of an American or Western European city is forced to marry, her parents should be held criminally accountable for what is absolutely, no question about it, child abuse.

But what if the girl in question lives in a remote part of Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, or Africa? What if she is a member of an impoverished or despised ethnic minority, or a historical underclass? What if, due to her circumstances, she will likely die at what, for those better off, would be middle age? What if she and her family live in a state experiencing violent conflict, or the depressed, uncertain aftermath of conflict? What if the state itself is in no position to enforce minimum age laws when it comes to marriage, or that most marriages are not sanctioned by the state? What if getting the authorities involved might cause the situation to worsen because the minority group the girl and her family are part of has historically been abused by the police or discriminated against by the bureaucracy?

Cultural relativist arguments such as “We’ve always done it this way, it’s a our culture” and “Our women are not like your women” are more about patriarchy than genuine desire to preserve culture, in my opinion, but the above mentioned circumstances are very real for millions of girls forced into early marriage –and also for those working to stop the practice.

So, feministers, my semi-rhetorical question to you is this: If you were already working to address the root causes (poverty, racism, social exclusion, and lack of education) –but the practice of little girls are married off and made to bear children when they themselves are still children was still one that made your feminist heart ache and rage flare– what then would you do?

_____________________
*Marriages of young girls to older men are not common where I am working. Young adolescent marriages, however, are the norm in some communities.

Thoughts?

29 thoughts on What should we do about child marriage?

  1. Cultural relativism is nice. It’s got a place and time for it, the first example coming to mind being funeral customs. Rationalizing the suffering of innocents is not kosher.

    If I were Omnipotent Feminist Girl who had already solved the aforementioned root causes? Screw it, call it imperialism if you want, but I would happily tromp on another culture’s inhumane practices like that.

  3. BFP-

    That’s a good point, and hopefully the woman who asked the question will see this post soon and give her two cents. I happen to know a bit about her, and she does not live in a “Western” country; in fact, from what I understand, she does human rights work with local activists in a transitioning country. I don’t know if she’s American or “Western” by birth. So I think you’re right that American and Western feminists do tend to make those assumptions, but reading this post and knowing a little about the questioner’s background, I’m not sure she is.

  5. In a perfect world, Omnipotent Feminist Girl (that has to be the best superhero ever) would be able to solve this with a glance and a few words, overturning millenia of cultural inbreeding and backwards thinking traditions. In a perfect world.

    We, however, do not have a superhero like OFG and have to work with what we have, which includes the cultures themselves. I honestly believe that practices like child marriage and yes, FGM, have to be addressed by those who practice and/or suffer under it and the change has to come from them. That old saw about teaching someone to fish so they will eat forever, instead of just for a day, comes to mind.

  6. I’m think this comes down to the issue of consent. Even if these young women were 20 would they really have any choice? Then there is the larger issue of the age of consent. When do children become sufficiently mature to make these decisions? For the US its approximately 18 (depending on the state), but in retrospect, I feel I was still pretty damn stupid until I was 21. Then again I’m sure the average 16 year old feels mature enough to make important decisions.

  7. Step 1 is a good legal system. In Australia, all cultural appeals to young/possessive marriages are trumped by the fact that for a marriage to be legally binding, both people entering it have to be able to sign legal contracts- which means being 18. This doesn’t stop young cultural marriages, but it does mean that they have no legal basis, which is a start.

  8. FGM and other harmful cultural traditions are being addressed by those who practise them and there are feminists working on issues such as child bribes and FGM in Africa. There’s a network organisation comprising National Committees in 28 African countries. called Inter Africa Committee against harmful tradition practices. It seems to be working through change from within. I saw it featured in a UN documentary – Razor’s Edge: The Controversy of Female Genital Mutilation which is here, if you are interested, but there are violent images in the film.

  9. Screw it, call it imperialism if you want, but I would happily tromp on another culture’s inhumane practices like that.

    Ah, that’s music to my ears. Speaking of funeral practices, you know the old story about the British and suttee, yes?

  10. I honestly believe that practices like child marriage and yes, FGM, have to be addressed by those who practice and/or suffer under it and the change has to come from them.

    But don’t such activists deserve the support of US feminists? I interpreted this question to mean “what can we do to support them?”

  11. I think Kristen’s onto something. I think that the first step is to make it possible for these girls – whether they’re 10, 15, or 20 – to say ‘no’. To give them the power to refuse, and not have it make their lives miserable, or rain abuse down onto them. Once a girl has the right to say NO and mean it and still live a life after that refusal, then we can talk about cultural relativism, and whether or not girls at 10 in Afghanistan are the same as girls at 10 in the US (which, of course, they’re not, but this is one of the many thorny ideas that need to be detangled). Force is always wrong. It’s one of the universal black and whites, in my mind. Take force out of the picture, then we can have a discussion about shades of grey.

  12. The first step is options. It is hard to say No when you can only see the one path. Western feminists can help with resources and funds but ultimately communities are going to listen to those who came from within, who have dealt with the same circumstances and can show how a NO at 12 can result in better outcomes at 18. Those options have to be apparent to the child, her adult family members and the proposed spouse or she will still be trapped in the cycle by cultural pressure.

  13. Supporting feminists within communities is crucial, but on a more broad standard, economic consideration regarding our treaties and trading/outsourcing practices need to be considered.

    Basic HUMAN RIGHTS being legislated and enforced MUST be part of any future trade negotiations or part of corporate investment in developing countries. (Human Rights that need to be enforced in the US as well!!!).

    Cambodia is making inroads there, so look for models. Liberia might have a shot at becoming a model for Africa, but the Liberians and their President (a woman) needs help. The personal is the political and the political is the economic.

  14. If you’re in the US, lobby the US government to recognize FGM and forced marriage as grounds for political asylum. Lobby to increase the number of asylum seekers allowed into the US. Give money to groups that support the efforts of local feminist organizations around the world. Support efforts that increase the number of choices available to disadvantaged people. Recognize that in some circumstances, marriage is the best choice available to a twelve year old girl, and that she probably realizes that.

  15. An awful lot of this is about consent, as Kristen mentioned above, or, rather, lack thereof – women who don’t have any economic power have very little choice in what they do with their lives if they don’t have any means of being independent.

    There are women’s groups on the ground. But supporting them by showing them what has been successful elsewhere isn’t imperialism: it’s shared community knowledge, and can be used to compare and contrast strategies. It’s something that I, as an English woman whose focus is reproductive health in Southern Africa, particularly worry and strive to avoid, but I honestly think there are ways of doing this as outsiders that can help.

  17. I think that’s an excellent point, Psyche. If we want to support women oversees and give them more options, we shoud at least help give them one safe way to escape forced marriage and FGM. I only hear about this every once in a while from women’s groups that make it part of a larger agenda. Anyone know of a group that’s more focused?

  18. Some years ago I went to visit/support/work for a rural West African mission that created a safe house for girls who did not want to be a part of forced marriages. The girls had started running away to the mission, so it created a program where they could stay for a few years and receive an education. This education was purposefully laden with empowering teaching meant to boost their confidence by revealing to them that they are intelligent, worthwhile individuals and not simply objects for bartering (the young women had not heard these messages before). They helped many of the girls to pass the tests required for high school, and gave everyone marketable skills to help them make a living on their own or gain enough capital to have stronger voice in their marriage options.

    It was an interesting model because, in the surrounding villages, the girls had the agency to run away- that was their choice. Largely, they would spend a few years at the mission and then go back home, where they would no longer be forced to marry. Some would stay at the mission and choose to marry men who were undergoing spiritual training.

    I’m not trying to smooth over the problematic religious aspect of this program and I know there’s a whole, huge, tangent that’s there. But I offer it as one well-meaning organization’s attempt to address the issue of forced marriage.

  19. Speaking of funeral practices, you know the old story about the British and suttee, yes?

    Not just a story. From the Wikipedia entry for Sir Charles James Napier: “”You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

    Another peach of a quote from him:

    “The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.”

  20. The personal is the political and the political is the economic.

    I want that tattooed on my forehead.
    Marrying children to adult men is a pretty rare custom in traditional socieites and yet it’s common as hell in societies where: SAPs have forced governments to stop funding education, decades of war have created an unbalanced female-to-male ratio; economic pressures has led the majority of young men in those societies to migrate for work; political engagement by rural or poor people is violently suppressed; criminal gangs control most of the economy and political system

    and um, I hope those reference to sutee are a joke right? right?
    a clever and darkly humorous reference to how “women’s rights” have been used as a cover for genocide?

  21. and um, I hope those reference to sutee are a joke right? right?
    a clever and darkly humorous reference to how “women’s rights” have been used as a cover for genocide?

    Genocide? Not to defend the actions of the British in India, but if it was genocide they were after, they sure did a shitty job at it.

    No, basically it was just a reference to the fact that the ability to squash customs that we find to be barbaric is a feature of imperialism, physical or cultural. It’s probably the only good feature.

  22. Trying to get between children and their parents is always a bad idea, in my opinion – legislating in the bedroom/home/whatever is the sort of thing that gives all oppressive governments a bad name. (The U.S. included – Lawrence v Texas, anyone?). Talking to the girls is definitely important, but children (daughters especially) are in many ways at the mercy of their parents no matter what the laws are. I think the first place to go for fact-gathering is the mothers. Why are they putting their daughters in this situation? My guess is that there is some kind of economic benefit (dowry) or safety benefit involved. Working on removing the threat that families try to avoid by marrying off their girls is the most important step toward making space for these young women to make their own decisions about marriage.

  23. Many people in the Middle East, Africa, etc are opposed to child marriage, but have no power and cannot get the laws changed. We should help them by funding organizations like RAWA, not to mention push for better enforcement of our own laws in America (Utah, anyone?) Rather than saying “they are all barbarians over there, what can you do?” And for that matter, another custom of those civilized British at the time was leagalized slavery and wife beating.

  24. My guess is that there is some kind of economic benefit (dowry)…

    Dowrys go the other way; they’re an economic cost to the parents of the bride–You’re talking about a bride price.

  25. Really, annalouise, are you seriously arguing that child marriages are mostly a modern phenomenon that have developed in response to structural adjustment programs and kleptocracy? Certainly in South Asia, where the plurality of child marriages take place now, that’s not the case – 2000 years ago, the Manu Smriti enjoined that a father who hadn’t married his daughter off by puberty had failed in his duty.

    I’m think that if you’re going to look for statistical correlates to child marriage, the practices of polygyny and payment of bride prices are probably the ones to keep an eye out for. Look at Warren Jeffs’ fundamentalist Mormons – they started practicing polygyny, and child marriages naturally developed as part of the package. I don’t think you can blame that one on economic migration or the IMF.

    I do think the references to Napier and sati are quite telling, because there is a common thread here, which is a stronger culture imposing its values on a weaker one. Even if we talk about doing it through supporting feminist organizations in “these countries”, there’s sort of a fundamental power imbalance – I don’t see RAWA or the Inter-African Committee on etc. as having the power to do much to influence the practice of marriage over here.

    Of course I do think that there is a point where we have to abandon our relativism, and marrying off ten year old girls is indeed well past it, but let’s at least not delude ourselves into thinking that we’re doing something other than using our position of superior power to impose our values on the world. At least Napier and his lot were honest enough to admit that much.

  26. Well, what we do know about suttee in India is that it was a custom restricted to a number of sub-cultures in India and the British colonisers used it to paint Indians as ‘evil and barbarous’, ‘cos they were so meeaaan to the poor widows.

    The result is, that this, non-mainstream behaviour became one that was defended as ‘Indian’ in a homogenous way. The colonised took it on as their identity.

    So, that is what happens when you demonise a culture for a mysoginistic cultural practise out of context and try to impose change from outside. It hurts the women and girls invovled, more than if you’d just let it alone and helped support those within seeking change.

    Don’t whatever you do, go citing the British in India against suttee as some sort of brilliant crusade that worked and imposed enlightenment on the benighted and oh-so women-hating Indians.

  27. The above comment was in response to this:

    “No, basically it was just a reference to the fact that the ability to squash customs that we find to be barbaric is a feature of imperialism, physical or cultural. It’s probably the only good feature.”

    Shorter version: No, it’s not a good feature.

  28. It hurts the women and girls invovled

    Does it hurt more than fire? Because I’ve heard fire hurts plenty.

    Seriously, burning people alive isn’t excusable, whether it’s mainstream behavior or not. What were the Brits supposed to do? “Sure, okay, we’ll accept a tolerable level of widow burning, as long as it’s just a sub-culture here and there. After all, it’s their culture.” Ridiculous.

    Obviously the British weren’t on a crusade, they went to India for money and influence, like any imperial power of the era. So by today’s moral calculus they obviously shouldn’t have been there in the first place. But burning widows alive is “evil and barbarous”. Period. The fact that you have brown skin and dress it up in religious terms does not make it less so. The fact that the mainstream Indian community decided to champion the cause against the British was unfortunate, but that’s a black mark against the Indians, not the British.

  29. No, burning people alive is not excuseable.

    Nor is demonising a culture for it and as a result causing it to cling on to a practice as a means of identity. This is what happens with FGM and child marriage.
    The result of the British campaign against suttee is that MORE women were burnt than if they had tried other, less draconian methods.

    Why did women throw themselves on funeral pyres of their husbands?
    It was because as a widow they had no status, no recourse and no life after their husbands’ death.
    And banning widows from killing themselves is going to magically solve all of those things?
    You think the British were interested in doing that?

    The campaign against suttee was not a success for women at all. It was a successful tool to use to subject a colony.
    There are some benefits to having being part of the British Empire; this example is not one.

    The way to help women in cultures different from your own is to support those who have come to critique their own culture and who will have a better understanding of the personal and economic pressures people face. It’s not to run as an imperial power and force change.

    ‘We’ are not white knights running in to save ‘them’.

Comments are currently closed.