Page 31 - S. Ličen, I. Karnjuš, & M. Prosen (Eds.). (2019). Women, migrations and health: Ensuring transcultural healthcare. Koper, University of Primorska Press.
P. 31
Sexual and Reproductive Health as an Indicator of Social Integration
cant traditional practice that structures the features of communities around
‘the sense of belonging,’ perpetuates the sense of attachment to one’s com-
munity, and more importantly maintains a social order established by men.
Forced marriage, in particular, perfectly meets all the criteria for the mainte-
nance of male power, the supervision of female sexuality, and the limitation
of solidarity and cohesion among women in the light of lineage: ‘Women
transfer reproductive power which men have nothing to do with [. . .]. Such
reproductive power not based on lineage leads to the solidarity with another
species, almost of a mystical order, different from that determined by fam-
ily relationships which are equivalent to a socially organized world of males.
Nevertheless, given the ideology of patrilineal descent, women are termino-
logically included in the agnatic relationship, the guidelines, in which they
participate and which are based on nature, disrupt the pre-established so-
cial order and continue to call it into question’ (Héritier, 2004, p. 62).
The concept of forced marriage (FM) includes a series of actions aimed at
the coercion of an individual (mostly women) and at binding him or her in a
legal relationship without consent: ‘a wedding in which one or both of the
spouses does not consent (in particular, disabled adults cannot give their
consensus) to the wedding and in which constraint is exercised. Constraint
may include physical, psychological, financial, sexual or emotional pressure’
(Serughetti, Ruggerini, Lotti, Misiti, & Virgilio, 2014, p. 5).
The institution of marriage includes certain types of contract featuring the
‘ownership of a person;’ in societies based on the patriarchal model, women
become the subject of economic exchange given their reproductive quali-
ties. The concept of ownership of a person is thus the means by which rela-
tionships of subordination and devaluation of women and of their social role
continue to replicate (Hamel, 2011).
Let us consider FM the series of limits imposed upon freedom in a mari-
tal relationship, for example arranged weddings, child marriage, marriage of
convenience or based on interest, but also the inability to interrupt a marital
relationship due to social, cultural and family pressure, and lastly the impos-
sibility of interrupting the marital relationship (Danna, 2013).
Forced Marriage is a global issue present in large areas of the world and
which takes place in migratory contexts in both traditional and new forms
for the purpose of isolation from the host society. Any sort of violation of the
freedom of marital choice is the violation of a fundamental human right, as
established by Art. 16 of the Universal Declaration of the UN: ‘Wedlock is only
possible with the free and full consent of the future spouses.’ Furthermore,
FM is a form of violence with a clear gender profile as it mostly affects women
and girls and affects their sexual freedom.
29
cant traditional practice that structures the features of communities around
‘the sense of belonging,’ perpetuates the sense of attachment to one’s com-
munity, and more importantly maintains a social order established by men.
Forced marriage, in particular, perfectly meets all the criteria for the mainte-
nance of male power, the supervision of female sexuality, and the limitation
of solidarity and cohesion among women in the light of lineage: ‘Women
transfer reproductive power which men have nothing to do with [. . .]. Such
reproductive power not based on lineage leads to the solidarity with another
species, almost of a mystical order, different from that determined by fam-
ily relationships which are equivalent to a socially organized world of males.
Nevertheless, given the ideology of patrilineal descent, women are termino-
logically included in the agnatic relationship, the guidelines, in which they
participate and which are based on nature, disrupt the pre-established so-
cial order and continue to call it into question’ (Héritier, 2004, p. 62).
The concept of forced marriage (FM) includes a series of actions aimed at
the coercion of an individual (mostly women) and at binding him or her in a
legal relationship without consent: ‘a wedding in which one or both of the
spouses does not consent (in particular, disabled adults cannot give their
consensus) to the wedding and in which constraint is exercised. Constraint
may include physical, psychological, financial, sexual or emotional pressure’
(Serughetti, Ruggerini, Lotti, Misiti, & Virgilio, 2014, p. 5).
The institution of marriage includes certain types of contract featuring the
‘ownership of a person;’ in societies based on the patriarchal model, women
become the subject of economic exchange given their reproductive quali-
ties. The concept of ownership of a person is thus the means by which rela-
tionships of subordination and devaluation of women and of their social role
continue to replicate (Hamel, 2011).
Let us consider FM the series of limits imposed upon freedom in a mari-
tal relationship, for example arranged weddings, child marriage, marriage of
convenience or based on interest, but also the inability to interrupt a marital
relationship due to social, cultural and family pressure, and lastly the impos-
sibility of interrupting the marital relationship (Danna, 2013).
Forced Marriage is a global issue present in large areas of the world and
which takes place in migratory contexts in both traditional and new forms
for the purpose of isolation from the host society. Any sort of violation of the
freedom of marital choice is the violation of a fundamental human right, as
established by Art. 16 of the Universal Declaration of the UN: ‘Wedlock is only
possible with the free and full consent of the future spouses.’ Furthermore,
FM is a form of violence with a clear gender profile as it mostly affects women
and girls and affects their sexual freedom.
29
