NEWS

NEWSFLASHES

Sweet Home Australia

Alongside being confined to four walls, the pandemic also forced people to become trapped in the country they were visiting when the virus hit. Of the 38,200 Australians who have registered their presence overseas, 29,100 have expressed their interest to come back home to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

On October 15th, the ABC reported that the Howard Springs Facility, 25 kilometres south of Darwin, will process about 1,000 international returnees a month on a fortnightly rotation of 500, beginning within a few weeks.

There will be a mix of commercial and charter flights available which will be available to fly direct to the RAAF Base Darwin, with passengers taken to Howard Springs for 14 days’ mandatory quarantine on immediate arrival. Prime Minister Scott Morrison was scheduled to make the announcement on October 16th after the National Cabinet meeting, but his arrival in Sydney had been delayed due to ‘technical problems’ with his plane in Cairns.

It is expected that those who are returning will be paying for their stay at Howard Springs, and those who are unable to afford it will be provided HECSstyle loans. Under the current arrangements for quarantining at Darwin, individuals are expected to pay $2,500, and families of two or more are expected to pay $5,000.

PM Morrison says that he expects more Australians to be brought home within weeks.

“There have been extensive preparations undertaken on that matter and we’re in final stages of concluding those arrangements,” he said. “We’ve been working now for some months as we’ve been getting more and more Australians home.”

As Australians find a way to come back home to the luxury of the summer sun and barbecues in their backyards, a dilemma still surrounds non-citizens residing in Australia who have the opportunity to go back home, but the uncertainty of not being able to come back. This includes thousands of international students who have to make the most difficult choice between visiting their family or being unable to continue their education as they might not be able to enter the country again if they leave. Watch Me Roar From Above

Helen Reddy, the legendary Australian 1970s pop star passed away on the 29th of September. The beautiful woman made it to the age of 78 before leaving this earthly realm and is survived by her two children, Traci and Jordan and her grandchildren. Helen Reddy was diagnosed with dementia in 2015 and her condition had gotten progressively worse.

However, do not fret – before she left us, Helen imparted these beautiful words: ‘‘I see dying as going home... where we came from, where we all go back to. That is where we are loved beyond anything we can imagine here.” Helen Reddy was full of so many of these profound and intelligent sentiments that made her character so magnetic.

The star’s iconic song ‘I am Woman’ was championed as a women’s anthem during the second wave of feminism in the 70s. The song affirms the strength, wisdom and power of womanhood. The need to rise above and persevere; to roar above the noise. Her voice is so beautiful and inspiring. I highly recommend you not only listen to it but sing it along as loudly as you can. I promise your spirit will lift as you sing and affirm ‘I am strong, I am invincible…. I am womannnnnnnn.’

The recently released Australia biopic ‘I am Woman’ depicts the challenges faced by Helen Reddy all the way from distasteful husbands to misogynistic music executives. It is a definite watch as actress Tilda Cobham-Hervey elegantly represents Helen Reddy’s experience of the 1970s feminist movement and musical adventures in the United States. The success and triumph of Helen Reddy broke ground for women in the pop industry while her spirit inspired hundreds of thousands.

Rest in peace Helen Reddy, you will be missed.

by Rayna Bland

THE NOTORIOUS RBG

“My mother told me to be a lady. And for her, that meant be your own person, be independent.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Notorious RBG. Even if you’re not that interested in American politics it is more than likely you have seen her name and face at some point in pop culture. From RBG inspired graffiti to in-depth biopics and feature films, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s image evolved to become one of the most important and identifiable cultural and feminist icons of our generation.

News of her death on September 18th not only spurred global mourning and grief for the loss of one of America’s most influential politicians, but also intensified an already uncomfortable political climate. With under seven weeks left before election day, her death has instigated a political fight over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Aged 87, Ginsburg passed due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. According to her daughter, just days before her passing, Ginsburg stated, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Trump commented on her death saying “She led an amazing life. What else can you say?”, a slightly different tone compared to his 2016 tweet calling for her retirement, tweeting “her mind is shot”. Trump has also promptly begun endorsing the appointment of conservative judge Amy Coney Barret as the next Supreme Court nomination. Not only has this shifted the public narrative, minimising a heroic and historical lifetime of anti-discrimination advocacy whilst instead focusing on another Trump headline, but has once again highlighted the disparity of Trump’s political regime.

Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has made it clear that he will attempt to support and push through Trump’s conservative endorsement, even if he is to lose the upcoming election. This is a stark contrast to his actions in 2016, when he refused to consider then-president Barack Obama’s own Supreme Court nominee, delaying the decision for almost a year and using the upcoming presidential election

as a strategic excuse. A key reason for this opposing reaction is the current balance of the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death provides Republican conservatives a 6-3 majority.

Whilst Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death will play a crucial role in the future of American Politics, her passing has highlighted how influential she was across the world. Ginsburg incited a revolution, not only changing the world for American women but changing the face of gender equality. Throughout her legal crusade Ginsburg strategically picked male plaintiffs to illustrate how discrimination effects both men and women and of the six cases she brought before the Supreme Court throughout the 1970s, she won five.

Throughout her career, Ginsburg defied stereotypes whilst working her way up to a position within the Supreme Court. Ginsburg became the first female tenured professor at Columbia Law School, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and spent 27 years on the Supreme Court bench.

Ginsburg’s progressive opinions were not only centred around sex-based discrimination, with much of her career dedicated to fighting for the rights of the LGBT community, undocumented people, and disabled people whilst also expanding voting rights.

Ginsburg was the first justice to officiate a same-sex marriage in 2013, was one of only

four female justices in history, and the first female Jewish Supreme Court Justice. She not only shaped American history, but influenced numerous generations, becoming a defining role model for female empowerment, justice, and perseverance.

“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time,” she was quoted.

Ginsburg’s legacy in pop culture was cemented by New York University Law student, Shana Knizhnik, who created a Tumblr dedicated to “The Notorious RBG.” This not only aided in Ginsburg’s transcendence from the legal sphere to mainstream pop culture, but shaped Ginsburg’s identifiable image as a fashion icon. Ginsburg utilised fashion to communicate her political opinions, incorporating a wide range of collars with her legal robes. In an interview with Katie Couric, Ginsburg revealed she had both a dissenting collar and a majority opinion collar, stating “this is my dissenting collar…it looks fitting for dissents.”

This indisputable legacy of Ginsburg must not be forgotten amidst the current political climate. Whilst the upcoming election is undoubtedly important, Ginsburg’s death shouldn’t be overshadowed by the future state of the Supreme Court. Her influence and accomplishments in the face of gender equality under the law deserve to be celebrated, not overshadowed by a man she once called a “faker.”

by Madi Scott

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

As people confined themselves inside their homes for protection against the deadly virus on the loose, what happened to those that lived with their scariest monsters?

Almost one in 10 Australian women in a relationship have experienced domestic violence during the coronavirus crisis, with two-thirds saying the attacks started or became worse during the pandemic. A survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology also reveals more than half of women who had experienced physical or sexual violence before the pandemic said the violence had become more frequent or severe since the start of COVID-19.

The research also showed that 4.6 percent of all women, and 8.8 percent of women in relationships, experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or former cohabitating partner between February and May. For 33 percent of these women, it was the first time they had experienced physical or sexual violence in their relationship.

Additionally, it was also reported that one in three women who experienced domestic violence or coercive control said that, on at least on occasion, they wanted to seek advice or support but could not because of safety reasons. Alongside the fear of physical and psychological health risks, the virus brought multiple new stresses, including isolation, loneliness, the closure of many businesses, economic vulnerability, and job losses. The End Violence Against Children campaign reported that through all of these stressors, children and their mothers would be particularly vulnerable to domestic violence.

In a journal published in April, researchers Caroline Bradbury-Jones and Louise Isham state that domestic violence refers to a range of violations that happen within a domestic space. It is a broad term that encompasses intimate partner violence, which is a form of abuse that is perpetrated by a current or ex-partner.

Quite early in the beginning of the pandemic, The Guardian reported the surge of domestic violence globally, and highlighted alarming figures, such as the rise of domestic abuse in Brazil by 50 percent. The government of Spain also claimed that in a particular region calls to a domestic abuse helpline service had increased by 20 percent in the first few days of lockdown, and there was a similar rise of calls to a hotline service in Cyprus.

Home is not necessarily a safe place for everyone, especially for adults and children living in situations of domestic and familial violence, as this is where most physical, psychological, and sexual abuse occurs. Bradbury-Jones and Isham believe this is because home can be a place where dynamics of power can be distorted and subverted by those who abuse, often without

scrutiny from anyone external to the couple, or the family.

Amidst the pandemic, the exhortation to ‘stay at home’ has major implications for adults and children already living with someone who is abusive or controlling. For victims, the lockdown shut down avenues of escape and ways of coping or seeking help. The restrictive measures are also more likely to play into the hands of people who abuse through tactics of control, surveillance, and coercion. This is partly because what goes on within people’s homes, and critically within their family and intimate relationships, take place ‘behind closed doors’ and out of the view, in a literal sense, of other people.

Unintentionally, lockdown measures may therefore grant people who abuse greater freedom to act without scrutiny or consequence.

For someone who has not faced any form of abuse, the thought might occur as to why the victim cannot simply get up and leave the abusive relationship. Jeanette Raymond, a licensed clinical psychologist, and relationship therapist, says there is an important psychological element keeping victims attached to their partners.

Raymond also explains, “[Abusive relationships] involve the person [in] power offering the possibility of the longed-for desire to be the one and only, to be the one to light up the other, the one who is indispensable and therefore depended on.”

The cycle is quite often broken down into three phases: “honeymoon,” tension or manipulation, and violence.

In the first phase or “honeymoon” phase, the victim and abuser work well together and do not act violently or forcefully towards each other. This is the point at which the abused feels loved, and the abuser feels a sense of control or power over them. This can be either when the relationship has just begun, or the couple have gotten back together after the abuser has apologised for a past act of violence. Abusers can draw their partners deeper into unhealthy relationships during this phase by appealing to their senses of sympathy, love, or hope and by promising to reform.

With time, the couple enters the tension phase, and the victims feel as if they are walking on eggshells to avoid enraging their partner again. Prior to using physical abuse, the abuser can build up this tension using emotional or verbal abuse, intimidation, violent behaviour towards pets or children, economic control, or forced isolation.

Psychologically, these tactics contribute to the victim’s loss of power and control. They begin to worry they are not doing enough to earn their partner’s affection or that they should be punished.

The final phase is the actual violent episode, the crime of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse towards the abused partner. The abuser will move back into the honeymoon phase from here, often apologizing quickly afterwards. This is what traps the victim in another heart-wrenching cycle of false hope, betrayal, fear, and pain.

“The abused has an incentive to allow the abuse, because the abuser then fears the loss of the abused, atones, wipes away the tears, and promises eternal worship,” Raymond also explains. “The abused gets the reward of having an apology, of promises of never being hurt again, and [of] being the apple of the abuser’s eyes.”

The scars of domestic violence and abuse can have a lasting impact. The trauma of what victims have been through can stay long after they escaped from an abusive situation. They may be struggling with upsetting emotions, frightening memories, or a sense of constant danger that cannot just be brushed off.

In July, the Morrison government pledged $3 million to provide more counselling and support services for women and their children who have experienced family violence during this global pandemic.

If you or someone you know is trying to decide whether to stay or leave, feelings of confusion, uncertainty, or fear might be present. Maybe you or they are hoping the situation will change or there is fear of how your or their partner will react if they discover that you or they are trying to leave. Sometimes there can also be thoughts that the abuse is justifiable. Do not let yourself or others be trapped by confusion, guilt, or self-blame. The only thing that matters is your and your loved one’s safety.

For confidential counselling and support services, please contact the national sexual assault and domestic family violence counselling service at 1800 737 732.

For on-campus counselling services, contact Student Wellbeing at 02 9850 7497 or email wellbeing@mq.edu.au

For more information on how to cope with domestic abuse or get help, visit www.lifeline.org.au

Always remember, you are stronger than your biggest fears.

by Saliha Rehanaz

TO BE NASTY

Trump, the war on women, and being nasty in 2020

*Trigger Warning: mention of sexual assault*

“Such a nasty woman.” On 19 October 2016 Donald Trump used this insult against Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate. In response, women around the world rose up and reclaimed ‘nasty’ as their own, using it as a symbol of female power and resistance. We believed that no man with such blatantly misogynistic attitudes and accusations of sexual misconduct could be elected to the highest office in one of the United States. We were wrong. As the 2020 election looms, the question remains, will it happen again? And what will it mean for women?

What was so striking about Trump using the word ‘nasty’, was the intensely personal nature of the insult. It did not go to Clinton’s leadership skills, policy initiatives or ability to be president. Instead it went to Clinton’s likeability. It preyed upon the internal misogyny rife within both men and women, that judges women based upon their likability as Clinton by suggesting that she was a bad person because she opposed Trump and dared to voice that opposition.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, the use of ‘nasty’ as an insult against women has become a mainstay feature. Trump has waged a war on women that extends from his rhetoric, to his repeated attempts to limit abortion rights, including appointing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. But it’s Trump’s rhetoric where we most clearly see his consistent vitriol towards women who oppose him.

In 2017, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz publicly criticized Trump for his administration’s inadequate response to Hurricane Maria and the devastation it wrought in Puerto Rico. Trump responded in a tweet, declaring the mayor’s behaviour ‘nasty.’ In an interview, Trump called Meghan Markle, ‘nasty’ after being told she once criticized him for being opposed to their skills. And it sought to undermine

divisive. Trump said the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen’s comments were ‘nasty’ after she declined to engage in talks about the sale of Greenland to America. During an interview, Trump called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “nasty, vindictive, horrible person” after she spoke critically of him in a closed-door meeting.

The democratic candidate for Vice-President, Kamala Harris, has similarly been the target of Trump’s labelling as ‘nasty’. After Joe Biden announced Harris would be his running mate, Trump wasted no time using his favourite insult against her, an echo of the fate of the last woman to run against him on a Democratic ticket. Trump said, “She was extraordinarily nasty to Brett Kavanaugh — Judge

Kavanaugh then, now Justice Kavanaugh.” He used the word ‘nasty’ or some version of the word no fewer than four times as he referred to Senate confirmation hearings held in 2018.

Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List (which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women across the country) stated that, “Calling a woman “nasty” “tries to put her in a place that is unacceptable to society”. She told the Washington Post that, “Our society allows for poor behaviour by men but has little acceptance for anything but perfection by women, and so a term like ‘nasty’ really is just coded language, at least for a certain piece of the population.”

Trump has often defended his troubling history with women by pointing to the senior women he has surrounded himself with in his administration. However, this only proves that he is not sexist (a low bar for the President of the United States). He his however, a misogynist.

Cornell University philosophy professor Kate Manne explains in her 2018 book, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, that “sexism taken alone involves believing in men’s superiority to women in masculine-coded, high-prestige domains (such as intellectual endeavours, sports, business, and politics), and the naturalness or even inevitability of men’s dominance therein.” But misogyny, is another story. Manne argues that misogyny involves punishing women who don’t act the way men want them to. This is precisely what Trump does to every woman who publicly opposes him. Clinton, Pelosi, Harris: all ‘nasty’. All punished with this insult for speaking against Trump.

The most egregious facet of Trump’s war on women however, is the 25 sexual misconduct allegations against him, ranging from inappropriate touching to rape. These allegations are highly credible, fact checked and supported by a wealth of evidence. Yet, Trump remains in office and is up for re-election. The most recent allegation came in September of this year, when former model Amy Dorris alleged Trump forcibly kissed and groped her at the U.S. Open in New York on in September 1997. Dorris stated that, “He just shoved his tongue down my throat and I was pushing him off. And then that’s when his grip became tighter and his hands were very gropey and all over my butt, my breasts, my back, everything.” Trump denied the accusation via his lawyers in a statement to The Guardian. This has only been the most recent in a long line of accusations, including one from his former wife.

Yet, as quickly as they hit the news cycle, they fade into the background. There is no sustained outcry, no evidence of widespread public dissent. This most recent accusation has been swamped by those that came before it, overwhelmed and lost. The sheer number of accusations has exhausted the public and instead of being increasing evidence as to Trump being unfit for office, have instead become white noise in the background.

A man with 25 sexual assault and misconduct allegations against him may be re-elected as president. There will be people who vote to re-elect him and who believe that those women’s stories do not matter. That the violence perpetrated against them did not happen and the allegations mean nothing. And the message that those votes send to all other women is that they do not matter. That a man can perpetrate violence against over 20 women and still be elected to the highest leadership position in the world’s leading superpower. That no matter the violence, the disrespect, the vitriol, women’s voices will never truly be heard, nor will their safety or dignity matter.

In 2016, in response to Trump’s labelling of Clinton as ‘nasty’, then Senator Elizabeth Warren said, “On November 8th, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes, to get you out of our lives forever.” She was wrong then, but we can only hope that her words ring true now.

Despite Trump’s potent racism and sexism, 267 women of colour are running for Congress in 2020, an all-time high. Nastiness is not dead. Women are still resisting, still fighting back. And the only way that we really truly lose, is by letting ‘nasty’ become the insult it was meant to be and not the badge of honour we made it into. We need to show that our voices, our stories, our bodies, matter. That they cannot be dismissed by a single word and that men who perpetrate violence against us will be held to account.

Now more than ever, it’s important to be nasty. And whether Trump is elected or not, we need to take on the legacy of the women who survived this insult and persisted anyway. Who came forward with sexual misconduct allegations, knowing the odds and their country were against them. The only way to shift the tide and the repercussions of Trump’s war on women is to show that our nastiness will outlast his. To show that he and all men like him, should be afraid of ‘nasty’ women.

by Katelyn Free

HUMANS FOR SALE

Under the false hope of better opportunities, millions of vulnerable people leave their homes to never return. Rebecca Barlow discusses the prevalence of human trafficking in Cambodia and AusCam’s Freedom Project to prevent girls from falling into the hands of exploitation.

The year is 2015. Bopha* lives in a rented singleroom house in Phnom Penh. She shares the space with eight of her family members. The owner could force her family to leave at any time. Her father and three older brothers work in poor conditions at a nearby sewage construction site. None of her brothers have ever gone to school. Despite their hard work and multiple sources of incomes, Bopha’s family can barely cover expenses for basic living necessities, such as food or clothing.

Bopha’s father wants a better future for his daughters than for them to end up like his sons- working hard for very little money. He took out a $2,000 loan from the local bank so that he could send Bopha and her sister to school. Already struggling, and now burdened with the commitment to pay back a high interest loan, Bopha was on the verge of dropping out of school to find work. And finding work would likely mean exploitative work or even worse, falling prey to trafficking.

Her school director heard about her plans to drop out, so he advised her to contact AusCam Freedom Project. Since then, Bopha has been enrolled with AusCam Freedom Project and received psychosocial support, educational support, school materials, and rice support for the whole family. Her barriers to education have successfully been removed so she can realise her full potential. Bopha is now pursuing a Marketing Degree at the Cambodia National Institute of Business. When she graduates, Bopha will be the first university graduate in her family, realising both her father’s and her own dreams of being educated and having professional opportunities.

In 2019, Sydney-based organisation AusCam Freedom Project conducted an independent investigation into the factors that rendered girls most vulnerable to human trafficking. School dropout was identified as the leading indicator of a girl’s risk of trafficking. AusCam also found that access to educational support and legitimate job opportunities are key to mitigating a girl’s risk of trafficking.

For vulnerable girls in Cambodia, the promise of an adequate job with good pay is as glorious a prospect as the promise of eternal youth is to the world’s wealthy. Sadly, many girls who attend what they believe will be a job interview never return home, and those who survive human trafficking face a lifetime of being haunted by their traumatic experiences.

Human trafficking is not confined to the borders of Cambodia. It is a practice that affects approximately 40 million men, women, and children, who, according to the Walk Free Foundation, are forced

into hard labour, sexually exploited, or coerced into marriage. In 2016, The Global Slavery Index found that an estimated 25 million human trafficking victims are from the Asia Pacific region.

In 2019, the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons placed countries in different tiers according to the prevalence of human trafficking in each country, with Tier 1 having the least occurrences of trafficking and Tier 3 having the most occurrences. Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam all fell within the Tier 2 watchlist, while China and North Korea were classified as being Tier 3 countries. The main destination for trafficking victims from Southeast Asia was found to be Thailand, which is only classified as a Tier 2 country surprisingly.

Despite recent economic growth, Cambodia remains one of the poorest countries on Earth, suffering from endemic corruption both in the government and in the education system. Corruption permeates every level of Cambodia’s education system, and the result is a high percentage of students, particularly girls, failing their exams and dropping out of school.

According to the ASEAN Post, Cambodian teachers are required to pay facilitation fees to schools in order to receive their salaries. Furthermore, low teaching salaries motivate Cambodian teachers to charge students additional money for classes which are essential for passing their exams. This unofficial system of corruption discriminates against students from families with a low socio-economic status. For financial reasons, these students are barred from accessing the classes in which their peers are taught content which is crucial to prepare for the exams.

In late January this year, a Cambodian student posted a video on Facebook in which he claimed that senior officials in the Ministry of Justice had accepted bribes of up to US $150,000 from students who were desperate to pass their exams. The consequences of such corruption have a greater impact on girls than on boys.

This is because Cambodian social norms place a higher value on the education of boys, and so boys are more likely to remain in school regardless of their academic performance. Comparatively, girls and women are expected to complete household chores and financially support their families. A woman’s role in Cambodian society is largely defined by the Chbab Srey; a code of conduct for women. The Chbab Srey upholds problematic gender roles and was formally taught in schools until 2007. Girls in Cambodia face a multitude of barriers to receiving an education and the outbreak of COVID-19 made a bad situation worse. In an interview with the Development Director of AusCam Freedom Project, Jessie Teerman, COVID-19 was described as the ‘greatest challenge’ AusCam has ever faced in its eight years of operation. The organisation previously operated through partnerships with government schools, but when COVID-19 reared its ugly head, schools across Cambodia closed overnight.

Ms. Teerman believes AusCam’s greatest achievement was a direct result of the crisis, stating ‘achievements are measured against the greatness of the challenge’ and AusCam ‘decided not to give up’, instead launching the country’s first antitrafficking hotline for adolescent girls called the ‘Freedom Line’, which is now a permanent feature of AusCam’s operational strategy.

Human trafficking in Cambodia is preventable.

According to Ms Teerman, the majority of trafficking networks in Southeast Asia prey on girls ‘without resources, opportunities, or a support network’ and that is why AusCam’s approach is all about girls having agency and choice.

Asking Ms Teerman how, if they chose to, Macquarie University students could support the anti-trafficking work of AusCam. She replied: ‘ if they have time, we will be hosting a one-hour virtual tea on the 25th of October where they can learn more about the organisation and the launch of our new Shine Centre. If they have money, they can join a committed group of monthly partners through our website. If they have a birthday (which most of us do), they can pledge their special day to support anti-trafficking efforts and ultimately change a girl’s life forever.’

Please visit auscamfreedomproject.org to learn more about AusCam’s vision to sustainably prevent human trafficking in Cambodia.

*Names have been changed for protection and privacy reasons.

by Rebecca Barlow

TURNING YOUNG GIRLS INTO BRIDES

Handing young children the reigns of marriage instead of toys, Shomapty Khandaker explains the impact and trauma of child marriage and why it still continues to exist in our society today.

The semblance of who we are as individuals is closely stated to who we were and how we were treated as children. It is true to an extent that we spend our childhood in haste and when we look back one day, it is nothing but a string of blurred memories. Yet these often forgotten moments in time are what we spend the rest of our lives reacting to, either subconsciously or deliberately.

However, what happens when the earliest of memories are the most terrifying aspect of your human existence?

Suborna is a young girl living in the Muksudpur district of greater Khulna in Bangladesh. She studies in Year 10 and that itself is considered a miracle in her family. When she was only eight years old, her father was determined to look for a groom for her. World Vision, an organisation that works to provide child protection, education, and many other resources, had reached out to her family and made them aware of the law and legislations against child marriage. They were convinced and allowed her to go to school for a few more years until she was in Year 6. Soon enough, her family again became fixated on the idea of setting up an arranged marriage for her. Eventually, she had to elope from her parent’s home and her village to her uncle’s house further away to remain unmarried. Child marriage is a custom performed that arranges the marrige of two children below the age of eighteen. Girls, as young as seven and eight are also the victims of this traumatic experience. It also ensures a repetition of indigence and gender inequality to the next generation.

According to UNICEF, the areas where child marriage is the most concentrated are Sub-saharan Africa and South Asia, where 35% and around 30% of girls are betrothed before reaching the age of 18. 24% of child marriages are also found in Latin America and the Carribean, 17% in the Middle East and North America and 12% in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Poverty and economic conditions play a major role in marrying off a daughter, as she is considered a ‘burden’ since she cannot contribute to the household expenditure of the family in comparison to sons. Marriage of young girls is also justified with the idealised notion that families are saving their daughters from a life of hardship and poverty by marrying them off to more financially stable men. Additionally, child marriage also helps families from having to pay a larger sum of dowry during the wedding, as older and educated girls are less desirable in certain societies.

In other cases, it is simply carried out as this has been going on for generations and generations and continuing the cycle is imperative to preserve the tradition. Subsequently, after girls start menstruating, they are often considered women and are then sent to the next phase in their lives as ‘wife’ and ‘mother’. Often to form economic or social alliances between families or to pay off debts, young girls and boys are also married off as well.

As reported by the International Women’s Health Coalition, the impact and consequences of this custom are myriad. At the point of marriage, childhood ends for both the bride and groom. When the girl has household responsibilities, it reduces her chances of education and elevates the risk of domestic violence in her life along with recurring pregnancies at a premature age, which endangers her life. Furthermore, child brides are more vulnerable to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases due to the lack of understanding about sexual protection.

The problems do not only impact the young girl but any children she gives birth to; the babies of child brides are 60% more likely to perish in the first year they are born in contrast to babies born to women who are above 19 years of age. The child bride’s family is also likely to be sickly, feeble, and impoverished.

UNICEF and UNFPA united in 2016 in the form of ‘a Global Programme to Accelerate Action to End Child Marriage in 12 countries with the highest rates of child brides.’ This programme has been executed in South Asia in Bangladesh, Nepal, and India. It hopes to bring together sectors which include health, education, and protection of children along with clean water and hygiene which would work to achieve their objectives. Another organisation working tirelessly towards the prevention of this custom is Girls Not Brides, which is a global partnership that has over 1300 organisations in more than 100 countries to end child marriages and let young girls have the chance to live up to their potential.

According to UNICEF, more than 115 million boys are married globally before they reach 18 and even though the types of consequences adhered by girls and boys due to child marriage are not the same due to biological and social differences, they still violate human rights. Child grooms are also coerced into taking adult responsibilities with the sacrifice of their childhood. The marriage may result in having offspring and the young boy being pressured with having to deal with its economic repercussions and that of being a parent which can also affect the development of education and career. The countries that are abundantly high in child marriage for boys vary from those that have a high density of child marriage for girls.

Being a child one day and ending up married the next, a concept which may even be lost on the child, it is crucial to understand what the child must feel to live a life that was decided by others at the time when school and playing with toys is all that mattered. The parents of these children often tend to believe they are doing what is best for their offspring and their families.

The traumatic experiences that these young girls and boys face will be forevermore; the consequences of which they will deal with always- be it lack of education, poverty, health, or raising children while they themselves are growing up.

Suborna is now fifteen years old and is a child forum member of Muksudpur Area Development Programme (ADP) of the organisation in Bangladesh that saved her future and possibly her life, World Vision Bangladesh. She continues to learn about the impact of child marriage with her friends and envisons a world where it will not destroy any more lives.

She has prevented the marriages of many young girls along with her ‘Bandhan’ child forum members and has encouraged them to go back to school. She aspires to be a teacher in her village one day.

“World Vision has made my parents be proud of me. I finally made my father understand that his daughters could be his support in old age. And I succeeded. My youngest two sisters are now also going to school,” Suborna has animatedly reported back about her life.

From running around on the grass one day to raising their own children the next, will young girls finally have a chance to seek a better life where they are not considered a ‘burden’ based on their gender?

by Shomapty Khandaker