Siti Maryam Mahmood, 14, (right) and Abdul Manan 23, (left), whose marriage has triggered a call for fresh debate on child marriage. (Source: www.straitstimes.com)
Siti Maryam Mahmood, 14, (right) and Abdul Manan 23, (left), whose marriage has triggered a call for fresh debate on child marriage. (Source: www.straitstimes.com)
Siti Maryam Mahmood 14 (right) and Abdul Manan 23 (left), whose marriage has triggered a call for fresh debate on child marriage. (Source: www.straitstimes.com)

Underage marriages are not simply perversions of marital norms but an index of our unequal society.

The news concerning the marriage of a 14-year old girl and 23-year old man reveals a thing or two about what can be expected of young women and of our society as a whole. While it is chilling enough to witness the unflinching approval from the state honcho of Islamic affairs regarding this matter, it also raises the question about the power of parental consent that made the union happen.

The notoriously unchallengeable maxim that “parents know best” seems eerily at work here, in that the teenage girl’s marriage becomes apparently acceptable because her parents have expressed their consent. But is that tantamount to the girl expressing consent as well? The young bride appears to exert little to no voice or agency because being a child, she is deemed to know no better both legally and in lore. But then, she would be expected to shoulder wifely duties pertaining to marriage, children, and the household that even most fully-grown women struggle with, all while still on the cusp of adolescence.

If anyone is wondering why there is such an outrage over what seems on the surface a marriage between two willing individuals who smile for the press, then they have little concern over the future of the child bride, and of future child brides who will take the cue from this precedent that has come with an official stamp of approval. If there was a more depressing portrait of unequal power relations in a marriage, it would be between a girl and an adult man. She would be beholden to a man who will have more leverage in deciding if she finishes school, enters university, and gains work experience.

If there was an unmistakable example of property in human form being exchanged between two parties who have power, it would be between the parents of the girl and her “lawful” husband. From this transaction, not only will the man have purchased her chastity, but also the opportunity to police her transformation from girl to woman, her budding sexual awareness, and quite probably, her reproductive choices as well – all done under the guise of her pseudo-protection from other men and ironically, “illicit” sexual relations.

If this piece sounds disrespectful towards a couple who may really be in love and to what may potentially be a happy marriage free from the abuse of male power and privilege, then I will contend it is. However, we must remember that the men representing the voice of State morality and the whole shebang who see nothing wrong in this are actually hard at work to ensure we perform our circumscribed gender roles. Their approval are in tacit complicity with the inter-connected oppressions that can affect all women and girls. It sends out a message that not every girl’s potential and future of self-determination should be valued.

That child marriages happen at all in Malaysia with the express permission of the State and family remain one of the many, if more extreme symptoms of an unequal society. They are not social anomalies. In a society that privileges the heterosexual man in every respect and routinely corners women into limited career prospects and the imagined threat of spinsterhood, it comes to little surprise that for women, marriage is an attractive escape route out of desperation. This is where parents sometimes step in: to “protect” the child from the perils of single womanhood, parents would resort marrying her off. In the end, the ever-narrowing space for agency that is left to the teenage bride is used to make the best out of her situation.

It is little wonder why the popular saying, “silence denotes consent” that serves less as an illusion of feminine modesty than the blotting out of female agency has such enduring power in our culture. Silence is a powerful tool to keep both women and children (girls, in particular) in their place. While not every woman and child are subject to silence by authority, the threat of being reduced as property and voiceless objects is only rarely very far.

Alicia is a feminist scholar with a passion for DIY, karipap and now, of course, LoyarBurok. Her life revolves around writing, analysis, 20th century philosophy and bitching with a warm smile. She blogs here.

Alicia spends far too much time in front of the computer writing her next 1000-word masterpiece. When she's not writing she is seen slaving away over a steaming pot of tasty gruel.

61 replies on “Maryam & Manan: What Underage Marriages Say About Our Society”

  1. well,dari beranak anak haram n buang baby merata2 tempat,aku rase baik kawenkan aje.. do we want to build our future with bastardos? do we want our leaders in the future to be bastards? bila ada orang mau kawen kamu halang2,bila banyak anak haram dijalanan salahkan kerajaan.kadang2 aku nda paham juga apa kamu semua mau.

  2. Sam,

    "Alicia, you seem to write with a chip on your shoulder viz-a-viz your repeated references to feminism, career deprivation etc.Hmmm, I wonder why……."

    Hmmm, I too wonder why…… Perhaps it's something to do with having feminist principles and battling systemic disadvantages in society? You'll make an amazing detective. Such power of deduction!

    Agree to Disagree,

    "Alicia wrote in disregard of all the rules in the book regards respect of the sanctity of ‘the other’s’ opinion. Don’t obfuscate, encourage or justify her bad writing form."

    I totally need to read this rule book now. Sounds amazing.

    I like the way you're now pontificating about the level of sincerity in my warm and decorous bitching. Classic!

  3. ".justify her bad writing form..”? and i thought Alicia was only bitching with a warm smile :)"

    Writing form is rather bad because it's unconscionably demagogic, biased. We'd all like to think we have the best smiles so moot question. Warmth in a smile is in the eye of the beholder. Sincerity is more important than warmth, even with a frown. That, and an ability to endorse term limits and declare assets, differentiates between political animal and statesman, neutral citizen from shady criminal.

  4. huh ATD? "…how we write…"? "….justify her bad writing form.."? and i thought Alicia was only bitching with a warm smile :)

    i hope you have a warm smile ATD ^_^

  5. A troll saying I'm harsh reminds me of Palin saying the criticism against her regarding the Arizona shooting is "blood libel". Boo effing hoo.

    Shut the hell up already, troll.

  6. Good comment Sam, except for the part about each one of us commentators, (being accidents of random evolution). Manifest destiny will be the province of those who do not presume to diminish the divinity of man, nothing is by accident.

    @siewchinteo

    "Writing about our own morals does not necessarily mean we are ‘imposing’ it on others."

    It depends on HOW we write about our own morals. Alicia wrote in disregard of all the rules in the book regards respect of the sanctity of 'the other's' opinion. Don't obfuscate, encourage or justify her bad writing form.

  7. Sam – writing about our own morals does not necessarily mean we are 'imposing' it on others.

    and it has been said, in most cases, moral indignation is "2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."

    me – i have my morals back when the sun comes up.

  8. There certainly seems to be more than 2 sides to this coin.

    Alicia, you seem to write with a chip on your shoulder viz-a-viz your repeated references to feminism, career deprivation etc.Hmmm, I wonder why…….

    Most of the comments seem to question the couple's right and mental capacity to make life's decisions. But few seem to see the reality of the situation. The couple's decisions are well within the legal requirements as sanctioned by the Federal Constitution of 1Malaysia. Time for a reality check folks. Let me be blunt: Islamic legislation, as provided for under the Federal Constitution, DOES sanction this marriage. So, debating the "properness" of this marriage, is tantamount to challenging the "soundness" of Islamic jurisprudence. Last time I checked, that's a no-no for Muslims and nons alike. So why keep gnawing at this? That is why I suggested earlier that we steer this exchange towards focusing on how each one of us commentators, (being accidents of random evolution) arrive at the core moral values that we live by and which we yearn to "impose" on others. Any takers?

Comments are closed.