By Oya Darici
In human rights literature, the rights of girls are often mentioned in gender equality conversations and are included with women’s rights discourse. However, it is crucial to identify how discrimination of girls differentiates from that of women. To this end, an intersectional approach is necessary to ensure the participation and wellbeing of girls in any given society (Taefi 2009,346). This is because the gender-neural approach that the majority of child activism follows fails to shed light to both the gender and age dimensions of discrimination (Taefi 2009, 347). In this post, I argue that besides the obvious age and gender dimension, one must consider the ‘synthesis of multiple marginalisation’ which includes class, culture and race, to truly understand and resolve the human rights issues faced by girls globally. Therefore, I use an intersectional lens to analyze two crucial issues that disproportionately affect girls: access to education and child marriage. I first discuss how several conventions lacked an intersectional approach when addressing girls’ rights and highlight how gender and class disparities still exist in education, despite international efforts. I then discuss child marriage, which is one of the major factors that keeps girls from school, and reflect on the intersection of not only gender and age, but also culture, religion and socio-economic background that effect girls’ experience.
Girls’ Access to Education
International conventions, organizations and governments addressed the educational rights of the girls on several occasions, however, their attempts often lacked an intersectional approach. In 1990, the United Nations’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC) came into force (Taefi 2009, 353). Although this convention addressed issues that statistically affect younger boys , such as child military service, it failed to highlight the nuances of inequality that girls explicitly face. As a result, the CRC’s attempts to eliminate discrimination fell short. It was not until 1995 that the Beijing Platform of Action recognized that the girl child is at a high risk of lacking access to education, in addition to other areas (Taefi 2009, 355). Taefi argues that despite the mention of ‘vulnerable status’ of girls, the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action “still failed to examine the interplay of adult domination and gender-bias” (Taefi 2009, 355). For example, in 2006, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (“UNDESA’’) conducted a report on girls’ rights which encouraged all Parties to identify the shortcoming of the single-axis approach and made recommendations specifically targeted to girls’ educational rights (Taefi 2009, 354). This is a problematic approach to girl’s rights because being a child was defined by institutions dominated by men, while being a woman was defined by adult women (Taefi 2009, 354). Therefore, the institutions lack an intersectional approach that reflects girls’ unique experiences which prevent policies from being effective.
To this day, gender disparities in education continue in countries in South Asia and in the MENA region despite international efforts and economic growth within the region. This suggests that the “social welfare approach” did not improve girls’ participation in education (Goonesekere 2014, 485). This is because specific disincentives to education, such as household duties, receive “minimalistic and ad hoc responses’’ in policies and international law (Goonesekere 2014, 486). For instance, although laws have been adopted to encourage continuing education for eleven years in Ghana, girls’ unequal livelihoods (sibling childcare, household duties, child labour and domestic service to name some) limit their ability to go to school. Constant issues such as early marriage, have been addressed by law, however, de facto reality still keeps girls away from school with excuses of work or taking care of younger siblings (Goonesekere 2014, 486). Moreover, denial of access to education due to armed conflicts is also a growing phenomenon. Malala Yusufzay’s case in Pakistan and mass kidnapping of schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Nigeria are only two examples of this problem. Therefore, one can conclude that a girl’s access to education is not in jeopardy only because they are minors, but also because they are girls who come from low income families or live in war torn countries. Intergovernmental organizations and the governments must recognize the intersectional nature of this issue and implement and enforce policies accordingly. This can be done through research and collaborating with local girls who are ‘the true experts’ on their issues due to their experiences To this end, international and local actors must not only address but also enforce elements that keep girls from schools, such as early marriage.
Culture, Religion and Early Child Marriage
Another layer of dicrimination girls’ face is in the form of cultural and religious practices and one of the most prominent examples being the practice of early and forced marriage. Despite the fact that over 150 countries banned marriage before 18, de facto reality often does not match what is codified, de jure. Over 15 million girls under the age of 18 are forced into marriages worldwide, and in the developing world, one in nine girls are married before their 15th birthday (Raday 2016, 22). These girls are robbed of their childhood and their right to education as their older husbands demand girls to do housework and does not let girls go to school. Furthermore, the victims of child marriages are at high risk of domestic violence, marital rape and life-threanteing early pregnancies (Raday 2016, 22; Manjoo 2012, 10). They are also more likely to be trafficked for labour or sexual exploitation (Manjoo 2012, 15). The experts in UN Women, on DAW of the Human Rights Council, and other civil society organizations have been calling for elimination of all cultural practises that discriminate against girls, regardless of the religious belief (Raday 2016, 22). In 2013, the UN’s landmark resolution on Child, Early and Forced Marriage finally called for a ban on child marriage. This, later combined with the CEDAW Committee on the Rights of the Child, is a great step towards setting global international norms. This is because they recognized all girls below the age of 18 as ‘minors’ regardless of their status in their home countries (CEDAW Article 6.2, 2014; Raday 2016, 22). Furthermore, the UN is partnering with community and religious leaders as well as civil society “to let girls be girls, not brides’’ (unlink). This way, local leaders can adopt policies that are tailored to end child marriage in their cultural or religious communities which can be done through education and collaboration with local partners. Child marriage is a deeply rooted and complex issue due to traditional, religious and cultural norms; therefore, success is only possible through precise and specific policies. For instance, parents can be educated on how early and forced marriages often lead to abuse and maternal mortality. To this end, acknowledging intersecting variables that marganize girls even further is crucial. For instance, in rural and impoverished areas child marriage is more common (United Nations 2013). This is because poor families marry off their daughters to reduce household costs. In some cultures, families marry their young daughters for dowry that is paid by their husbands ( Feliciati 2006, 21). Social pressures also contribute to a family’s decision to wed girls. For example, some cultures believe that marrying their girls before puberty is a blessing while some societies believe early marriage will protect their daughters from rape and ‘dishonour’ that comes with it. Therefore, considering how class, culture, society and religion play a role in girls’ experience with early marriage is important. Furthermore, Raday argues that “to avoid a dichotomous approach that sets gender equality against monolithic ‘religions’ and to recognize some very positive pro-women and pro-poor positions, in the religions” (Raday 2016, 26). Therefore, policy-makers must collaborate with community and religious leaders for tailor-made policies for every region. This is because failure to acknowledge all the contributing factors to girls’ experiences and using a bureaucratic universalist approach in the policy-making stage will lead to inadequate policies. To this end, Taefi argues that girls’ participation in human rights discourse to ensure their inclusion is a must.
Girls’ Participation in Human Rights Discourse
As mentioned many times throughout this paper, girls’ inclusion in the decision making process is crucial since they are the ‘true experts’ on the girls’ rights issues. As Taefi and Grillo argue, feminism is not speaking for marginalized groups, but rather creating a safe space for them to speak up for themselves (Taefi 2009, 265; Grillo 1995, 28). Therefore, in order to move away from adult dominance of the human rights movement, it is mandatory to acknowledge that girls are rational and capable of initiating change. The CRC to this respect, does not specify at which age a child is capable of forming their opinions. However, independent scholarship argued that even babies can communicate their wants and needs (Taefi 2009, 264). Therefore, “respectful listening and taking children’s perspectives” into account when making policy decisions is crucial (Taefi 2009, 264). Correspondingly, the Declaration of the UN International Year of the Youth (2010–2011) promoted youth participation in human rights discourse and social development (Goonesekere 2014, 488). For instance, initiatives such as the “UN Adolescent Girls task Force” in 2007 build bridges between girls and policy-makers by establishing youth parliaments and councils (Goonesekere 2014, 488). Furthermore, the recent UN Women campaign launched in 2020, “Generation Equality,” with the slogan “Be the first, the youngest, the best,” UN Women aims to include younger voices in activism, forums and conventions (UN Women 2020). For instance, UN Women includes activists such as Thandiwe Abdullah, Greta Thunberg and Malala Yusufzay to be the ‘face and the voice’ of their campaign (UN Women 2020). This is a great step towards encouraging girls to be involved in decision-making processes that affect them directly. This way, the “invisibility of girl-child” can be eliminated and first-hand knowledge from girls’ experiences can shed light to girls’ needs, demands and international response.
Conclusion
Regarding issues of human rights of the girl child, an intersectional approach and tailor made policies are necessary. International organizations and policy makers should recognize all the layers of discrimination which uniquely shape girls’ experiences. The obvious elements are gender and age: an age perspective in women’s right discourse and gender perspective in child’s right discourse that recognizes girls’ experience is a must. Other elements of a girl’s identity, such as class, culture and religion also play a great role in their life. Therefore, these elements also should not be ignored. To explore this topic, this paper focused on girls’ access to education and early and forced marriages and concluded that minimalistic, ad hoc and one-size-fits-all responses are not permanent solutions for girls. Thus, international organizations and governments must collaborate with local community figures and local girls to produce tailor-made policies that are targeted to all the layers of discriminations girls face.