Helping our Undergrads in the U.S. Question the Notion that "Muslim Women Need Saving"

I agree with Abu-Lughod’s assertion to be weary of Westerners who claim to be saving or liberating Muslim women. Many people from the U.S. (who are not Muslim) are eager to discuss the oppression of Muslim women but have a difficult time recognizing and confronting patriarchy their own culture. I saw some of this with my students a few weeks ago after we watched a PBS documentary called Muslims. The documentary discussed the variety of Muslim experiences and cultures around the world, and explained the hesitance that some Muslims feel about the spread of dominant Western culture. During the time I watched this film with my class, we were talking about culture and the deep ways that culture impacts our views of reality. Even though the video depicted a wide variety of Muslim men (including Muslim men who clearly respect women), many of my students still wrote about how Muslims “treat women terribly.” The video explained that Muslims do not have to wear burqas/hijabs (depending on the country they live in), and that many of the women who do wear them feel proud of it. However, I still had many students write about how women are “forced to cover their faces.” There were moments after teaching that class where I felt frustrated—“were they not paying attention?” Or “It is so much more complicated than that.”

Many of my students’ embodied Abu-Lughod’s assertion that the veil or burqa is strongly connected to contemporary opinions and concerns for Muslim women. This notion of individual expression and liberation through clothing is very central to many (especially young) people in the United States. Dress is talked about as an almost sacred form of self-expression. However, it is rarely recognized the ways that U.S. culture (the fashion industry, pop culture, media, gender norms) also limits these clothing choices.

I think Abu-Lughod’s discussion of freedom was very interesting. I agree that we are all constrained by the cultural influences and resources that are around us. Therefore any discussion of freedom must be contextualized through social-historical histories. Freedom to or from what? Notions of freedom are fluid and change over time. However, I think many people from the U.S. hold assumptions that they almost own the definition of freedom, not to mention the dominant discourse that they are more civilized than other cultures. These implicit beliefs that the U.S. is “more evolved” or is “better” came through in my student’s responses to the Muslims video, even if this is not what they said outright (as seen in some of their comments above). However, I also saw some students perspectives widen through watching this video. One student noted how out of place a Victoria’s Secret billboard looked in city with many conservative Muslims, and that this visual helped her understand how people feel dominated by the spread of Western culture. Another student, who had stood up on the first day of class and identified as a “big Republican” wrote about how he was so young when 9/11 happened, that he did not know about the hate crimes that occurred against Muslim-Americans. He mentioned how sad and disheartened this made him feel. Many students were shocked to see female Muslims who were doctors, PhD students, and activists. 

I echo and appreciate Abu-Lughod’s question near the end of the article that encouraged us to ask, “how we might contribute to making the world a more just place” (p. 789). However, people will still encounter conflict and disagreement, as individuals have different understandings of what constitutes justice. Maybe Abu-Lughod’s “spirit of support” is one way to bridge these differences. I like the way that sounds—but I am interested in what it might look like. Across cultural and spatial divides, what are good ways to communicate and enact this “spirit of support?” One way I attempted to do that was through teaching and through promoting the validity of different perspectives. I am curious about how else people attempt to do this in their lives, friendships, research, or professions?

Below you can find the video we watched in my class:

A Tale of two Indias

A few days ago, I saw “The World Before Her”, a documentary that follows the lives of two young women in India. The first woman, Ruhi, is a contestant on Miss India- a national beauty pageant and describes herself as a modern woman. The second woman,Prachi, is a youth leader in a Hindu fundamentalist training camp and believes in preserving the sanctity of what she refers to as traditional India. In telling this story, the documentary depicts the complex and conflicting relationship between tradition and modernity in India.

Not unlike Ruhi and Prachi, I, having lived in urban India for most my life, have often found myself caught between these two seemingly dissimilar worlds that every Indian must navigate. However, the truth is that “traditional” and “modern” Indian women have more in common than one might imagine. With the help of our readings over the past few weeks, I want to demonstrate how capitalism and reductionism have made tradition and modernity problematic concepts that are sometimes simultaneously differing and similar.

At this point I want to introduce the concept of reductionism that Naila Kabeer discusses in her book Reversed Realities. Kabeer explains the reductive approach to the production of knowledge- breaking down complexities of nature and society into their constituent components and studying these separate parts in isolation from each other. She goes on to argue how this is problematic in that it “neglects complex interaction between units”. “Concepts and units of analysis are reified, frozen into universal and unchanging categories, robbed of the historical and analytical contexts from which they arose (Kabeer, 1994, p. 73).” This tendency to refer to concepts as unchanging and absolute explains the relatively flawed understanding of both modernity and tradition that are commonplace in India.

For starters, that modernity is a product of a capitalistic system of development is something most of us self-proclaimed modern women (and everybody else on the gender spectrum for that matter) do not question. This I believe, is a result of reductionism that has over time resulted in an uncontested acceptance of development as economic growth. Consequently, we fail to acknowledge that the divisions of labor that we are resisting as modern women, have been institutionalized by the system of development aka modernization that we subscribe to.

Furthermore, modern India, for the most part seems to have a fairly skewed definition of what it means to be modern. Our perception of what it means to be liberated women is not without its problems. In the documentary, Miss India pageant “etiquette” trainer, Sabira Merchant, refers to the beauty pageant’s training regime as a factory that polishes young women like diamonds. Not unlike many others, Merchant fails to recognize the oppressive disciplining of women’s bodies by the beauty industry through its unrealistic beauty expectations and its frequent objectification of women. At one point during the pageant, the young contestants are asked to cover their heads and faces so that the judges can objectively decide which of them has the best legs. The irony that these objectified woman, who are inadvertently submitting to the perversions of the beauty industry, are who we identify as free, liberated women seems to be lost on Merchant and many others.

It is this objectification that the conservative society of India rejects and uses in its battle against modernity. The documentary shows Hindu fundamentalists organizing protests and demanding a ban on beauty pageant’s like Miss India for objectifying women and going against Indian/Hindu culture and tradition. Their intentions though are far from altruistic. For one they inaccurately define tradition as a static way of life. Second, the Hindu fundamentalists in particular, reduce Indian culture to Hindu culture which is highly problematic and ahistoric given the country’s long history of civilizations and the prevalence of multiple religions. Third, it is these so called Hindu traditions that continue to perpetuate problematic practices like dowry where a woman is married to a suitable match on the condition that her family sends money and property to her husband’s family. It these practices and beliefs that lead to girls being treated as objects of burden throughout their lives.

This incongruity is exemplified in the documentary through Prachi’s life. Through her work as a youth leader in the Hindu fundamentalist camp she strives to save traditional Hindu India. At the same time, she envisions a life for herself that does not include marriage and children. Here, she finds herself at loggerheads with her father who refuses to budge on his life plans for his daughter. It becomes clear that Prachi is trapped by the very traditions that she wants to protect. Interestingly enough, the irony is not lost on her.

So long as we continue to have narrow definitions of tradition and modernity, so long as we unquestionably submit to one or the other, this never ending battle between the two Indias will persist. Developing a more nuanced understanding of what we mean by progressive modern India through continually questioning and challenging oppressive structures, might get us a step closer to where we want to be. Easier said than done.

Sexuality as Natural and a Fundamental Right

Correa and Jolly's article discussing sexuality in the frame of development spoke more to me than any article we have read for class thus far. This is probably because sexuality is very closely tied to my studies of the transgender community. An important distinction to be made for those unaware is that being transgender involves gender identity, whereas identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (among others) deals directly with a person's sexual/romantic preferences for a partner. A break down:

• Transgender: gender identity; SELF

• Lesbian, gay, or bisexual; sexuality; OTHERS

With those distinctions made, we can move forward into the discussion of moving away from the boxes that sex, gender, and sexuality have put us in for too long. Correa and Jolly discussed sexual rights as a potential framework for action. As I read I understood this as less involvement with identities and more description of preferences or desires.

A direct experience that I have of this implementation is with my most recent gynecology appointment. My doctor is aware of my sexuality, but as a physician, she must ask the appropriate questions to gather all of the useful knowledge to provide me with the best care possible. A simple change of language can help us see how this framework can be used. Instead of asking, "Do you have sex with men?" my doctor asked, "Do you have sex with sperm producing people?" This is the most inclusive language I have ever heard when it comes to health care and sexual rights. In terms of healthcare, practitioners need to know the biological impacts of the sexual acts of their patient. By focusing on the biology (e.g., sperm producing persons), it takes out the sexuality and gender identity parts of communication.

My best friend works for Planned Parenthood (PP) here in Athens and I have learned/heard a lot about the organization given the recent controversies in Ohio. This knowledge, paired with the readings, led me to think about how sexual rights are treated internationally. Thus, a simple search led me to the International Planned Parenthood Foundation's (IPPF) website. This is an incredible organization that is doing wonderful things for women internationally. But not just women--IPPF advocates for men and young people as well. Their aim is to reach people around the world, but particularly poor and vulnerable people. It also promotes the enjoyment of sex, which is something Correa and Jolly also mention.

"We need to remember that sex can be a good thing, a source of well-being and joy, not just of violence, disease, discrimination and poverty" (p. 40). It is interesting to think about the shift of sexuality and sexual rights. It used to be that women were perceived as the promiscuous sex (between men and women), but now if a woman discusses her sex life or how active it is, there is stigma and shame attached. I saw a video (below) that made me start to think the shift is happening again. Although I do take issue with parts of the video, I found it to be a decent representative example of sexuality and sexual rights for women as discussed in the readings.

 
 

The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill and Development

When I was reading Sonia Correa and Susie Jolly’s “Development’s encounter with sexuality: essentialism and beyond”, I couldn’t help but think of Uganda’s push to criminalize and punish homosexuality with death. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014, which is popularly known as the “Kill the Gays bill”, passed the Uganda Parliament late 2013. The bill not only broadened and escalated the criminalisation of same-sex relations domestically but also included the criminalisation of homosexual Ugandans outside of Uganda and required the extradition of them for punishment. While the bill states that only those who engage in “aggravated homosexuality” and are HIV-positive will be prosecuted, it also requires citizens to report anyone suspected of same-sex relations within 24 hours or else they would be prosecuted as well. Fortunately, in August of 2014, the bill was repealed after pressures from the international community. However, social pressures against non-heterosexuality are still very present within the country.

While the moral implications of this are obvious, it’s important to also look at the criminalisation of homosexuality through a development lens. Making homosexuality, and HIV positive status, illegal is a sure-fire way to create an epidemic within an area. During the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, the gay community led the education effort and informed themselves and others about the disease and how to prevent it from spreading, to great success. In particular, early detection of the virus is critical. In a country such as Uganda during the time of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, being tested for HIV was a dangerous act. If a person was found to be HIV-positive, and suspected of having contracted it through same-sex relations, they were required to be reported to the government and subsequently arrested. Without early detection, HIV is more likely to spread. Without medical help, people will get sicker and are less likely to help contribute to the economy or social system.

There has been an incredible documentary produced about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill called “Call Me Kuchu”. The documentary follows an organization that fought the bill and eloquently demonstrates their many, many challenges. I strongly suggest watching it whenever you get a chance.

The dominant discourse in gender campaigns

Development has always produced a bitter sweet and contradictory feeling in me. I always wanted to work in the field because I felt that if I had to choose something to do with my life I would rather choose something that would contribute to social change or the improvement of people’s life. I finally happened to start working with United Nations at the age of 23. Apart from the obvious links between development and colonial and postcolonial tradition, I had never thought about the different discourses of development. But there was a turn around when I first got in contact with the theory.

Once I learnt about the modernization, the dependency theory and most recently “participatory” and “empowering” approaches to development, I started to see development programming and practice with critical lenses. I started to link that many development policies towards the Global South were biased and constructed according to some principles that sometimes were not necessarily inclined to contribute to social change or transformation. I also came to know that the majority of the constructions of the Global South had been done by people coming from the North, and that the development “apparatus” had contributed to create knowledge to some extent to exercise power over the “Third World” countries (Escobar, 1995). Through my experiences in Latin America, I experienced first hand how the Global South has been fighting (most of the times throughout bottom-up development initiatives and grassroots movements) against these established constructions. Collectives and communities started (de) constructing and (un) learning many of these notions of themselves that were generated in the first place in the Global North. They were claiming to build their own idea of development.

Now that I have been engaging with and learning more about gender practice and academia, it has been fascinating to see how the different gender theories are linked and overlapping with the development ones. But why am I talking about my personal experience and development discourse? What does all of this have to do with gender and discourse? I wanted to connect my ideas about development, gender discourse and my personal experience to deconstruct a gender campaign. During this week I decided to put my critical lenses on and I’ve done formative research. I’ve tried to analyze the GAD approach put in practice in the UN “HeForShe” campaign and see which gender discourse is associated with it.

The campaign “HeForShe” was launched in September of 2014 and was lead by the UN-Women agency. This viral campaign aimed to mobilize men and boys as principal advocates of change in the fight for gender inequality. This campaign was especially in the spotlight because of Hollywood actress Emma Watson, whose speech extended a “formal invitation” to men to participate in the campaign. The leitmotiv of this campaign

was to “bring together one half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity,” a statement through which the UN campaign left the genderqueer community out of the humanity equation. I believe this campaign illustrates how in the name of gender equity, development agencies, international organizations and in general (often gendered) institutions and structures tend to further ossify a binary notion of gender that not only excludes the diverse range of non-binary identities but also, in doing so, occludes the possibility of their recognition.

I could recognize many characteristics of the GAD approach in this campaign: holistic approach, the rights-based approach and the “explicit integration of man and masculinities” (McIlwaine & Datta, 2003), as my friend Mila already mentioned in her post.

Without undermining the potential of the campaign neither the positive effects that these kinds of campaigns have had in different parts of the world, my point here is about discourse. About who is left out. In this regard, it is very important to re-think heteronormativity (embedded in most development practices, discourse and narratives) and to evaluate the heavy influence that heteronormativity has in most of the feminist approaches that are used in the development field. Many sexual subjectivities are left out within development discourse (and consequently in the development policy framework). There is also an urge to delink heterosexuality from Western traditional gender norms that privilege the globalization of family values vs. other types of social organization (considered as non-normative). In these realm GAD scholars, feminists and development practitioners have a huge task in delinking notions of gender, sex and sexuality in feminist analyses of development.

Just to finish I also found this UN campaign very illustrating of what I just mentioned.

  

Hidden face of Globalization

Although McIlwaine and Datta, 2003 did not write much about the issue of globalization, my attention was drawn to it and the controversy on whether it helps in development or rather causing income inequality in developing countries, with much inverse impact on women especially. They stated that when borders of capital, trade and investment are opened coupled with the rich being increasingly mobility and the poor and vulnerable enclosed, negative gendered consequences occur.
Globalization is a term variously employed by economists, political theorists, historians, sociologists and anthropologists with various debates not only on its definition but its impacts on our future. This term therefore describes diverse phenomena including cultural globalization, trade liberalization, increased immigration flows, outsourcing, capital control removal as well as a faster transmission of international shocks and trend leading to increasing levels of integration characterizing economic activities. This means that a downturn in a developed economy has a greater impact not on the economy alone but others in trade with them.

Many developing countries especially those who export textiles and clothing to big companies in the developed countries, use many women and girls in their industries, pay them very little with no proper working conditions. Bacchus (2005) wrote about women and globalization and asserted that many Corporations desire female labor especially for the assembling of products. This is because women are most likely to work at lower wages than men. These Corporations are therefore reinforcing the subordinate economic position of women in society by offering them inferior employment positions and little wages that can sustain those positions.
https://youtu.be/8Bhodyt4fmU This is a link to a 9:49 minutes video entitled, Hidden face of globalization. (Actually the first part of four parts). It shows the working conditions of many women in Bangladesh who work in clothing factories. These products are being made and exported to US for big companies like Walmart, Disney and others. 83% of these workers are females between 14 to 30 years. They work for 11 or more hours a day and at periods where the factory is behind target, they have at most 3 hours of sleep for the whole day (including night). This poses much problems for their health as well as their children.

Although in recent years some women are able to take part in UN conferences, others forming transnational feminists and solidarity movements, all due to globalization as stated by McIlwaine and Datta, 2003, there are much more women still experiencing violence, inequality and poverty.
If GAD has transformed from a need-based to right-based perspective and also acknowledge women’s right and violence against women, then much should be done about issues that need the practicality of the GAD framework.

Is Education always the key?

I have been reading Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas  Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn (2009) as an audiobook. I have not yet seen the PBS series tie-in for the book, but I hope to one day. The book provides vivid accounts of women who experience gender-based violence and systematic disenfranchisement. They also show how efforts to challenge these patterns have worked while other efforts have fallen short of its goal. I am half-way through the book and wanted to reflect on a question that I had in response to what I was learning in class and in the book. For many women in the book the authors claim that education is the key to empowering women. They support this assertion with observations about how beatings and pregnancy are less likely to happen to women and girls who are attending school. One of the readings noted how often for NGOs and Government agencies the paradigms are invisible because they are so ingrained. This is not the first I have wondered if education is lauded too easily.

Everyday we hear about the benefits of higher education and rarely get opportunities to reflect on the way the people we often trust to study and report on the value of an education may not be as unbiased as we hope. One day I stumbled across one professor's rant on the state of higher education in the United States. While I can agree with many of his observations his action of defiance reveals they unquestioned aquiessence of the university as a self-interested institution.
 
I am not dismissing the value of all education nor am I dismissing it as a universal ameliorating force. It has fundamental value to society and it does bring about transformations in individual agency and identity. A focus too narrowly on education is very similar to the focus on technological solutions that Correa and Jolly admonish when discussing research on population that fail to acknowledge sex and sexuality as relevant facets (24). They also discuss it when describing how a desexualized response to the HIV/AIDS crisis "focuses on technological fixes rather than social change" (27). They go on to explain how sexuality is tied to a number of development goals and failures. I wonder if any GAD writers have argued that when the focus is on education, like a focus on inequality, then simply vanishes from the agenda. While there are a number of ways to address this bias towards interventions that require large capital investments and infrastructure changes like schools the job of scholars is to provide the theoretical groundwork.

The Practice of GAD. IMHO.

Let me introduce you to two women: Manal al-Sharif and Elizabeth Nyamayaro. They have a few things in common: they come from the countries that could be identified as Third World, they are both in the avant-garde of feminist action, and they are TED speakers. The major difference between these two women is that they struggle for gender equality from different sides: Manal al-Sharif is a grassroots activist in the heart of @Women2Drive movement in Saudi Arabia and Elizabeth Nyamayaro is a UN Women’s HeForShe initiative.

How do these two women and their ideas fit into existing development framework? Here’s Manal al-Sharif’s talk on TED. If you don’t have time to watch it (while I strongly recommend to do that) here’s the synopsis. She describes how she got involved in the struggle for women’s right to drive in Saudi Arabia, the last country in the world where women aren’t allowed to drive. Well, Manal admits herself they are not forbidden as there’s no law officially prohibiting female driving. But the image of woman behind the wheel is strongly condemned by Saudi society, which is governed at large by Muslim conservatism (hope I sound politically correct enough – I don’t mean to offend anyone with this statement).  Here’s the video of her driving that she posted on YouTube and got in jail for.

At first glance this movement fits into WID approach that strives for equity between two genders. But it has nothing to do with providing economic opportunities for women – let’s face it, Manal is probably from one of the great many of well-to-do families in Saudi Arabia.  @Women2Drive is about empowering women, making them equal members of society, ensuring their “greater self-reliance” as Caroline Moser would put it. This movement tackles at core the relations between women and men in an extremely patriarchal society, it is a part of complex development process that enhances women’s emancipation process, and obviously women are the active agents of this development process – these are characteristics of GAD approach according to Kate Young. Moreover, this is a clear shift from a needs to a rights based approach that McIlwaine & Datta are talking about.

Elizabeth Nyamayaro’s talk is describing HeForShe initiative and its achievements after 7 months past it launch. The stories she shares show that HeForShe reached the minds of men from small villages to big successful governments – exactly the way GAD see the way to resolving gender issues (see Kate Young). The way Elizabeth Nyamayaro’s describes the initiative and how exactly it was put into practice, makes HeForShe a holistic implementation of GAD as a theory. It suggests revisiting gender relations, it covers WID’s economic equity as well as looks into political, social, and cultural aspects of development, seeks support from state and non-state actors, relies on local communities... See Kate Young for more. The idea of involving women as agents of development is not new (see Moser, equity aka WID approach). HeForShe goes beyond GAD ideas by putting emphasis on all men’s role in promoting gender equality, which seems kind of obvious but appears to be new. This is according to McIlwaine & Datta is a sign of reconceptualization of GAD.

These two talks for me are very representation of what GAD/empowerment approach stands for. They depict the "shift towards empowerment and participation approach"  (McIlwaine & Datta).

The extra month a year

I am thankful Dr. Whitson prefaced last week about how development view gender: man and woman. this knowledge made it much easier for me to read through and understand the readings for this week. As a novice scholar who studies transgender and queer bodies and spaces, I find it difficult to revert back to the binary. However, for the purposes of development in Third Worlds, it is understood. My experience comes solely from the United States and after Title IX.* Given my awareness, I understand that the United States is far past other countries in terms of gender equality. Granted, the United States is not necessarily close to full equality, and maybe it never will be, but other countries have progress to make in order to meet the United States where they are.

Thankfully, we have development to thank for aiding in the achievement of gender (or sex) equality. I found Moser's (1993) overview of the five approaches most helpful in understanding how far development has come. It seems as though the progression through the approaches is evidence of the discovery that gender inequality is a much larger issue than first expected. For instance, by offering employment and a place in development (Efficiency Approach), it is expected that equity will follow. However, it is not just these two gains that interest women. As the Empowerment Approach points out, “Changes in law, civil codes, systems of property rights, control over women’s bodies, labor codes, and the social and legal institutions that underwrite male control and privilege are essential if women are to attain justice in society” (Moser, 1993, p. 76). I find this approach to make the most sense, but I wonder: why is the Empowerment Approach not actively recognized as a feasible approach to development in the Third World?

There seems to be a looming idea of the "second shift" and how it impacts women and their work. Beneria and Sen (1997) refer to this same concept as a "double day" (p. 49). In the past thirty years, U.S. films have taken a genderist approach to switching the "second shift" from women to men. For instance, Mr. Mom (1983) depicts a father taking care of his three children while his wife, the mother, goes after a huge opportunity in her career. The film shows the father taking on the "typical female roles" as he stays at home with the kids. His failure to keep the kids and the house clean only perpetuate the gender binary. So, according to this film, allowing the father to handle the domestic and childcare responsibilities is not a wise idea as they are not as capable as women.

I leave you with this interesting article (5 pages) from 1989 that is a study of American family homes and how the work/life balance is handled between the men and the women. The author describes women as "the 'villians' in a process which they are also the primary victims" when describing the "extra month a year." I found it to be an interesting supplement, despite being in the United States. How, if at all, has this view of the work/life balance changed since this article was published?

*Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. Title IX was passed in 1972 (www.justice.gov).

The Double Oppression of Women in South Sudan

Every single day that goes by, I am left baffled by the disturbing and horrifying documentaries on girls's and women's fate around the globe. South Sudan, the world's youngest nation became independent from the Arab's political rule on July 9th, 2011 yet, nothing has changed. During the civil war that lasted for more than two decades, women and girls were beaten, rapped and even burned to death. When the comprehensive peace agreement was signed by the warring parties in 2005, there was hope in the faces of it's citizens. It was more like starting from the basics but to date, the situation is even worse. Backed by the heavy presence and pressure from the international women's human rights conventions, the destiny of women appeared to be at center of the country's development plans,however, the deeply rooted cultural values continue to shutter the dreams of many.

In South Sudan, there is conflict everywhere. At home, in the community and at the political level. Women and girls have no place and they have no voice. The illiteracy level of women is almost eighty two percent compared to other countries. Women are not valued per se. They are not allowed to own any property and they do not participate in decision making. Narrating my own experience as a child back then in the refugee camp in Congo, so many unspoken and demeaning things happened to my mother. The emotional and physical tortures that she went through and how powerless she felt in responding the my father's ill treatments. I watched her prayed helplessly and  silently at night as tears rolled down her beautiful face. I never really understood anything much then but I hated my father for causing her so much heartaches. Today when I think of all those terrible things that she went through, I ask the  question of what next? Change has come but the status of women remains the same over time.

With the birth of the Republic of South Sudan, a lot of challenges continue to surface and one of them is child marriage. While many countries in the world today advocate for girl-child education, watching this youtube video on Child Marriage: South Sudan leaves me in dismay, trying to coincide with the  plights and traumas that these girls are exposed to at a very tender age. Many would  disagree  but the  true of the matter is that child marriage is practiced almost everywhere around the world.  Be it in Yemen,  Bangladesh, Tanzania, Malawi etc yet, very little effort is being made to put an end to it. South Sudan is counted to be one of the countries where the rate of child marriage is very high. This is evident with the number of girls, between the age of 15-19 years old,  are being married off in exchange for cows or other monetary values based on different values and customs within the country.

As I watched this documentary throughout to the end, the question that ponders on my mind is that "how can they then trust the very people they call their parents"? These young girls fear and cry at the very hands of the people who are supposed to protect their innocence. Teach them good morals and prepare them to face the world without fear. Unfortunately, these girls are threaten to death by the  same so called parents and uncles who insist that the girl must soothe or otherwise be subjected to severe beatings. Let's face it  from a gendered perspective view. We need to ask ourselves and come up with a ideas to help  advocate against this improbable behavior facing girls.

In 2010, a bill was passed to help fight against child marriage. My argument is that child marriage should be considered a human rights atrocity that steals the future, health and lives  of  girls and boys in many developing countries. We cannot talk about development while ignoring to pin point some of the critical issues that are detrimental to a country's progress. I strongly use South Sudan as a good  example here because girls are treated like chunks of commodities and sold for a very little amount of money to an older men. Speaking from a person point of view, I call on all the women's international  organizations and committees at large, to help fight against this illicit practices. As they say the truth is best told by the very people, one of the reasons why I want to focus more on gender and women's studies is to be the voice that will one day  bring change to the lives of the minority women around the world, and in South Sudan in particular. The girls and women are helpless and in desperate need. Therefore, I would  arrest my case by arguing that,  there is a  strong need to raise awareness, create laws that ban child marriage and punish culprits of domestic violence. South Sudanese women have been exposed to both sides life and to similar  problems facing women in the world today, and they continue to struggle until a solution is reached.