“Freeing yourself was one thing, claiming ownership of that freed self was another.”
We live in a time where women have been more liberated than ever, but have we truly claimed ownership of that freed self? Are we truly free or are we just benefitting from the freedom which our mothers gave us? Whilst our sisters stood with us in solidarity, are we now watching our daughters get tied down in shackles, as they enter marriages when their bodies can barely take the burden of bearing children? Why are we standing back and allowing an issue like child and forced marriage to exist worldwide? It appears that historically we have witnessed slow progress in mobilizing legislation that would better protect women. “Bold doctrinal law reform even in an area like rape, one of the earliest sites of feminist intervention, has however become enmeshed in the intractable stickiness of patriarchal social norms, which are hard to displace.” It seems that it has been an ongoing challenge to get legislators to pass laws or put measures into to place which would better protect women, are we now facing the same issues when it comes to protecting our girls?
“The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)…contains a provision calling for the abolishment of traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. Furthermore this treaty recognizes a minor to be any child below the age of 18 and it prohibits State parties from permitting or giving validity to a marriage between persons who have not attained their majority. UNICEF goes on to state that child marriage “is a reality for both boys and girls, although girls are disproportionately the most affected. Child marriage is widespread and can lead to a lifetime of disadvantage and deprivation.” It is reported by Girls not Bride that “each year, 12 million girls are married before the age of 18.”
This is a practice which is globally condemned and certainly frowned upon by the United States of America (USA). In concerted efforts to curtail the practice, the USA is active in delivering education programs in the developing world, and it even prides itself on being one of the champions in delivering financial aid abroad. Ironically, however, it allows the problem to subsist within many of its own states.
Child and forced marriage in the USA is being explored as an issue as statistics suggest that 200,000 children under the age of 18 were married between the years 2000 and 2015 in America. It seems that this region maybe a blind spot in the global discussion. The legal framework in the USA is a messy quagmire, which not only does not protect girls, but has the potential to make them further vulnerable to child and forced marriage.
This begs two questions: why is the issue not being taken seriously enough at home, and why is the USA not taking adequate steps to protect young girls within its own country?
Media perception would push us all to conjure up the image of a small girl, head covered, with brown skin as the face of a victim of child and forced marriage. With that image centralized in our minds, this then may make us wonder whether one explanation for the inadequate government response on a domestic level is because child and forced marriage in the USA is associated with certain cultural or religious groups which do not fit the foregoing stereotype. Therefore instead of placing the safety of the child at the fore and treating the issue as one of child protection, the response has been to try and ban or criminalize the practice and label it as human trafficking or prostitution. However, it is suggested that a far more adequate response would be a more measured one and one which takes into account the needs of the victims; focuses on preventing the harmful practice and protecting those who have already been subjected to a child and forced marriage.
Although there is no data available to demonstrate a statistical correlation between race, religion and child and forced marriage. It is difficult to deny that there is at least a perception that child marriage is a foreign problem; this was highlighted by Palmer in 1938, when she pointed to the fact that child marriage should not be an issue in the USA but a problem in a less educated country like India. Notably India does in fact have stricter laws then the USA when it comes to the issue of child marriage.
These stereotypes also seem to be fueled by the media, which was seen when a google search was conducted in April 2018 of ‘child marriage in the USA’, the results displayed images of brown skinned children or children who appeared to be Muslim, in child marriage related stories, even if the story itself was about America. But a media perception shift appeared following Coby Persin’s social experiment which was uploaded on YouTube in 2016, this contained a young white girl and an older white man. Although the initial images were of Muslim/Hindu looking brown skinned girls, the subsequent images were still images of this video. Although there is no overt evidence of a shift of perception, the fact that this video had over 2 million views, suggests that it had a wide reach and that a single video is able to potentially influence the perceptions of at least 2 million viewers.
The other factor which must also be considered is that of religion and whether the practice of child and forced marriage would be deemed as a religious right to the Muslim, Christian or Jewish community. If it is the case that Islam, Judaism or Christianity facilitate the practice of child and forced marriage, then this does mean that there is a potential argument that child and forced marriages are a religious right in the relevant communities. Thereby suggesting that to tamper with the issue when it involves a member of any of those religions could mean invoking the First Amendment, which protects the right to freedom of religion. Therefore this does require a closer look to see whether any of these faiths do actually facilitate the practice of child marriage and if so, whether there is any religious infringement on any of these groups which would prevent raising the age of marriage to 18 in the USA.
It appears that Islam and Christianity share puberty as the baseline for the age of marriage for girls and Judaism indicates the age of 12, and the position remains unchanged in the respective religious books of the three faiths.
In should be noted however that in countries where there are Muslim, Christian or Jewish majority the states are willing to engage in discussions about the age of marriage. Therefore the wider global context should be considered if religion is used as a reason in the US to facilitate the practice of child marriage, arguably the position should not be treated as a rigid one which is perceived as an absolute religious right. Thereby it is suggested that professionals in the US should not hesitate to intervene to protect young girls, as child marriage should not be silenced as a religious issue, but professionals should be willing to have some form of dialogue or discussion, if the issue arises and they are required to protect young girls.
In conclusion race and religion do have a huge space in the discussion on child and forced marriage in America. But it is difficult to conclude that race or religions are the motivating factors behind the inadequate legal measures which exist to protect victims of child and forced marriage. It is argued that the issue should be treated like any other child protection issue and therefore the focus should be on the efficiency of the current legislative framework and the response should be focused on the protection of the victim and prevention of child and forced marriage.