Child Marriage in Zimbabwe: We need to talk about “respectable” womanhood

We need more than legal reform to end child marriage. We require a complete societal overhaul such that we come to recognise the agency of women and girls. Child marriage persists because of patriarchal hegemony and the misogyny that colours the way we interact with girls and their aspirations. It’s all well and good for Africa to put its foot down and say that we’ll no longer put up with it, but if we pretend that misogyny does not underpin this issue, we will whitewash the problem, not fix it. Frankly, we cannot get society to respect girlhood when womanhood continues to be a highly contested, often dehumanised, site. Girls then, operate under the double burden of being young and female. Further, we must accept that child marriage is not uncommon. BI am currently fascinated with the way in which our society’s construction of respectable womanhood feeds into the pervasiveness of the practice.

Legal reform is a start but will never be enough.

If ending child marriage were a matter of passing the right laws, Zimbabwe would be done. Our constitution says that you must be 18 to get married. Previously, girls could get married at 16 and 12 (civil marriage and customary marriage respectively). As soon as the Marriage Act and Customary Marriages Act are amended the issue has been dealt with, as far as the law is concerned.

However, Zimbabwe will struggle with enforcement. On one hand, marriage certificates are required in order to have a legally valid customary or civil law union, so we’d hope that the Registrar-General’s office has already been clamping down on who they issue certificates to. But on the other hand we know full well that a large proportion of Zimbabweans are in unregistered customary law unions. Many people go through the roora process, throw a party and call it a day, waiting to chata eventually, if ever. The roora process is decentralised; there is no way for the State to know when these marriages are taking place let alone actually stop them.

Further, we lack criminal sanctions for those who marry off their daughters or for those who marry children. Even if there were there, getting people to report the marriages in situations that don’t involve young girls, but say – teenage girls who have fallen pregnant, could be tricky.

The scenario we don’t like to think of as child marriage…but is

Many of us would like to say that we’ve never, seen/heard of/participated in an instance of child marriage. We’d like to distance ourselves, and attribute it to the hardships of rural society or the irrational decisions of fringe religious groups. But that’s not quite true is it? Child marriage happens frequently in our urban settings as an anecdote to teen pregnancy. We find out our daughter is pregnant, are aghast that she is “loose” and we encourage her into a hasty union that was negotiated on the premise that “if you break it you buy it”. Yes, we think of pregnant teens as damaged goods. This is a by-product of a lingering puritanical viewpoint that somehow equates a woman’s moral character with her sexual activity. Good womanhood in our society is premised, amongst other things, on sexual “purity” – the good old Jezebel-Madonna binary.

The role of “respectability” in perpetuating child marriage

In Zimbabwean society, marriage remains the gateway to respectability as a woman. We are constantly promised that respectability is a gateway to legitimacy: the full attainment of personhood and rights. I have written elsewhere on the problems with respectability politics. Women are constantly embroiled in respectability in order to “prove” that they deserve to be treated like grownups with legitimate ideas. Respectability comes with many ideas about propriety, often disguised behind classist notions of “ladylike” behaviour. Respectability is admittedly a useful currency when it comes to attempting to survive a system designed to devalue and harm you. This is why there are women patriarchs; they ride the wave of the benefits they get from being complicit in the oppression and policing of other women’s bodies.

Child marriage is a women’s rights issue. This is because girls face the same oppressions that solidify when you enter adulthood, but without the protections of an adult voice. See, patriarchs don’t just wake up one day and say that they’d like to perpetuate oppressive yardsticks. Nope, that’s the product of social conditioning that starts from girlhood. We teach everyone that for girls the key indicator of success is getting married, like a good respectable woman. The point here is not to suggest that marriage is inherently evil or oppressive, but rather to point out that in our society marriage is regarded as an objective good. It is never a bad idea.

Growing up, we teach everyone that women’s bodies are inherently shameful. We’re taught to have a disdain of those who explore their sexualities and treat their bodies as their own, as opposed to a precious commodity to hold onto (virginity intact) until it can be handed off to some man. Our puritanical perceptions of girls’/women’s bodies as inherently sinful and harmful mean that in the event of being caught in a situation where you are made “impure” there are attempts to regularise this through the respectability of marriage. Marriage is seen as a purifier.

Coming back to the teen pregnancy scenario, whilst the marriage might be a little hasty it is seen as killing two birds with one stone: 1. The shame is lifted because a marriage to regularise sexual activity has taken place 2. You have a husband, which you were going to need anyway in order to be recognised as a respectable woman.

Conclusion

Until we create a society that is willing to recognise the personhood and agency of women without the respectability marriage lends, we’re going to have a hard time rooting out the commodification of girls. As a society we need to ask ourselves some searching questions so as to weed out misogyny in all its manifestations.

Why the Constitutional Court ruling on soliciting is both shocking and necessary

Today Zimbabweans all over the country woke up to headlines in national newspapers along the lines of “Concourt outlaws prostitute arrests” – courtesy of the Herald. We’ve been making a hullaballoo about this story because of the way in which we like to sensationalise stories to do with sex, and the way that we like to stigmatise sex workers – a situation compounded by the continued criminalisation of sex work. As I am not a sex worker, I cannot speak to the lived experiences of women who are, but I can speak to the legal implications of this particular case. We’ve tried to blow it out of proportion and make it seem as though the constitutional court is entering uncharted waters but really all that the ruling said is that: before you arrest someone without a warrant you must have proof or at least a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Further, if you are arrested you are deemed innocent until you have been proven guilty. This ruling was an assertion of some of the basic principles of Zimbabwe’s legal system. It’s shocking that this required re-stating.

The National prosecuting service, consented to the ruling because they knew that they were wrong on the law. Which leads me to wonder why they had chosen to prosecute in the first place? Is it standard practice to attempt to gloss over the shortcomings of the police in creating a docket, then proceed to hold people unlawfully in the hopes that they will not have access to good legal representation? I’m aghast at the shortcuts that those working in our legal system appear to take as a matter of course. How is it that you get into court, and start prosecuting someone before confirming that you are approaching the courts with clean hands? Yes, this case has turned into a fuzzy one where our constitutional right to liberty as Zimbabweans has been guaranteed, but at the cost of a year’s worth of legal work and court fees. Additionally, we forget how precious few people even have access to the courts in the first place.

What this case also reminds me of is the way that women are continuously penalised for existing in public spaces. The idea of respectability comes in to haunt us all because of the constraints that are put on our bodily autonomy and the idea that what you wear or what work you do is somehow tied to your morality. How many women have been harassed or detained by police or peace officers simply for existing? How many have then been faced with criminal charges for crimes that there’s no proof they’ve committed and then slipped through the cracks because they don’t have access to the services of lawyers who will ensure that their rights are respected? Further – why do Zimbabweans seem to be okay with this?

Yes, I’m glad the constitutional court upheld our constitutional rights, but it should never have gotten that far. The police and the prosecuting authority also need to have due deference to the principles of criminal procedure and to the values in our constitution. This is getting ridiculous.

Dear Zim Women’s Rights Organisations in Zim: Talk to us!

HAPPY FEBRUARY EVERYONE!

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know that I spent January getting the revolutionary praxis of self love on. There’ll be more on that as we move past Valentine’s Day and talk about ways to love ourselves as we continue to work against oppressive narratives.

Today I’d like to make a public appeal to Zimbabwe women’s rights organisations centring around connecting more with the average person. I would love to see the start of a broad women’s rights and especially – feminist, movement that involves interested lay people who are not professional activists – people like me. In as much as the work you do is very important, many amongst us (again – me) aren’t really aware of what you get up to or how to get involved. In some circumstances we are also made to feel very unwelcome. Below are three things that I think will help turn this around, quick:

1. Tell us what you’re up to

Please tell us what you’re organising so we can show up and lend our support. I was very excited when information on the #miniskirtmarch came through because it meant that my sister and I could show our solidarity and lend our voices to a very important issue. Communication is key in building a movement up to the task of smashing the kyriarchy. We need participation of women from all walks of life and if there’s no chatting going on then this isn’t much of a possibility. Also consciousness raising and discussion is supposed to be a key part of any movement that claims to be attempting to work with a segment of society to end oppression. Basics.

Protestors gather around Talent of Katswe Sisterhood at the start of the #miniskirtmarch. Photo credit: Anthea Taderera

2. Invest in inter-generational organising

I’m a young woman and in going around trying to find out how to volunteer with different organisations there was a lot of talking down going on. I was less than amused at best, and entirely horrified at worst. It’s important to incorporate young women and our experiences of patriarchy as it is being applied in our various contexts, in any organising that takes place. This is certainly not to say that there isn’t much that young feminists can learn from those who have been at it for a while. In as much as patriarchal reasoning and values are passed on from generation to generation we need the practice of revolution and resistance to be passed on as a matter of course.

In general, change management has not been a forte in women’s rights movements the world over. In the same way our movement should not centre around women of a certain age, who are respectable and thus apparently worthy of being listened to. I have previously talked about how the movement is full of respectability politics which is highly problematic.

We need to have a situation of give and take where young women’s concerns are considered sufficiently valid to be deemed women’s concerns. On this point I have to say that the initial response in terms of solidarity with the minor who was stripped by touts (which triggered the #miniskirtmarch) was uniquely appalling. Safety in public spaces in relation to sexual harassment and freedom from sexual violence may be something that disproportionately affects young women, but everyone should have been there. It is a bread and butter issue for us. Frankly, all of the prioritised issues won’t matter if I’m raped and killed because someone hates the way I dress.

3. Be open to working with lay(ish) women

I really think that the goal needs to be to include the greater public in the smashing of patriarchy. Yes, not everyone is interested in getting involved with some of the day to day work but many people are. Perhaps it would be useful if when people showed up to your organisation, or gave you a call and asked if they could volunteer or intern you did not look upon them with suspicion. Yes, I am speaking from personal experience. One organisation takes the prize for least charming, for giving me an interrogation, asking who I am…really, and why I’d possibly want to do something like that. Erm – how about freedom and happiness for all? Seriously though, the chatting needs to extend beyond the NGO clique of those in the know. Yes, I said it. I feel much better now.

I’m not going to lie to you, I have been really uninspired with some of the antics I have witnessed in trying to find out how women’s organising in Zimbabwe has been getting on and there’s no reason for it. Organisations need to open themselves us to wider participation from the very people they claim to be trying to serve. Talk to us. Involve us. Care about the issues that affect our daily lives (no you will never be forgiven for dragging feet re harassment on public transportation).

It’s 2015. New Year new you, right?!

When organising is…unorganised

I contemplated calling this article the road to hell is paved with good intentions but then I thought I’d tone down the dramatic tone just a bit. I’ve been trying to figure out how to write this article for the past two weeks, since the fateful day I attended the 263chat “tweetathon”/meeting/networking/what-even-is-this event that was on child “marriage”. (I put the marriage in quotes as a point was legitimately made that we are glorifying these abusive unions by associating them with unions that are considered to be happy things.) This was a very topical, erm, topic, given that the AU had decided to launch its campaign on the end of the practice. How wonderful that our nations are finally getting their act together, but I digress.

I did not enjoy the event. That is not to say that interesting or insightful things weren’t occasionally said. They were. Rather my problem was that the event was disorganised. Now, there weren’t any logistical issues (that I am aware of), it was fairly well attended and other people seemed to have a ball just tweeting away. I disliked many things about the event but today I will focus on one: the event lacked a clear direction or agenda. Why were we gathered there?

When I got my Eventbrite ticket with “#263chat tweetathon on Child Marriage” little did I expect that that was apparently as far as the topic had been narrowed down. What about child marriage were we supposed to discuss? Furthermore there seemed to be a lot of indecision as to whom the event was really pitched. Was this supposed to be a discussion for the average Zimbabwean about a practice that we very often hear about, tisk at, and do nothing about? Or was it supposed to be a strategising event, where Civil Society Organisations, Government Ministries, Academics, Legal Practitioners were to come together, exchange knowledge and come up with best practices to be implemented in their work be it lobbying, reform or daily legal practice? Who knows? The purpose was entirely unclear, instead the learned panel made rudimentary statements on an area they are very familiar with, giving the impression that they too had been inadequately briefed on the nature of the gathering. Some tweets were then read, which were generally along that lines of – “child marriage is bad”. Questions/comments from the floor were then asked for, these – when coherent were also generally along the lines of “child marriage is bad” with a side serving of “we/you/someone needs to do something about it.”

This event was like the poster child for ineffective engagement. It was on par with attending a business meeting, where nothing is decided but many people speak a lot – what’s the point? It is not enough to have events/meetings so you can feel as though you’re doing something. It’s an utter waste of time and energy. Because there are so many stakeholders at work in the area of child marriage, and because society at large has a vested interest in the practice’s eradication, we (the vested) need to be organised in tackling the issue. Properly organised. We really need to be aware of who we’re trying to reach, and when, and pitch the topic accordingly. It is important to be aware of our audience and ensure that the human capitol in play is properly engaged. There needs to be a clear agenda. We need to know what we need/want to say. What are we hoping to get out of this gathering of people? What are our objectives? This is not to discredit free flow conversations rather it is an assertion that we need to ensure that we are having constructive conversations. These conversations must be purposeful, not merely commiseration parties. Furthermore we must find a way to inform our actions by the lived experiences of children married off at a young age, and the communities that seem to condone such actions. We the privileged must not attempt to act alone. We will get it wrong. We must not be lulled into thinking that media platforms, social or otherwise are the only ways to engage this issue. That in and of itself would be deeply exclusionary.

The event was a hot mess, organised with good intentions. Perhaps, all my complaints do is to further emphasise my gaucheness. It is possible that I haven’t quite gotten the hang of these events. Maybe rudimentary statements being made on complex issues, followed by a comment/ question segment full of tautologies is all that activists, and concerned citizens really have to look forward to when it comes to discussions on social ills. Perhaps no one else felt as much at a loss. The foreign dignitaries in attendance got to go home with the knowledge that they’d discharged their duties. The NGO representatives were already aware of the work that they were or were not doing as regards child marriage. The Honourable Minister – who frankly, was very very nice about having her extremely valuable time be so unceremoniously wasted, also knows how her ministry is tackling the issue. So they all felt comfortable being good sports and sitting around for hours, occasionally saying tweetable things before returning to their very important work. They were then also able to ignore and or forgive a moderator insufficiently familiar with the topic on hand to be effective in his role.

I on the other hand – face-palmed.