‘Early Marriage’ for Us, ‘Atrocities’ for Her

I’m usually perplexed about the concept of ‘early marriage’ (‘yale edime gabicha’ ) which I have been hearing and using for years. I learned from a young age that this has been categorized as a harmful practice that should be eradicated. And this phrase that we use strike me so much that it doesn’t reveal what happens to that female child. Scholars and legal analysts for long have argued on the use of 'early' and 'child' marriage for long. One point of view is to use the term 'child marriage' as the threshold for adulthood is 18 years (with few exceptions). I personally think we should use the term 'child' instead of 'early' in all circumstances as the word shows that the rights of these children and the obligation of the state and other actors should be based primarily based on child rights instruments/laws. Moreover, the use of 'child marriage' by itself does not show who the main victims are 'the female children'.

However, the issue with such phrasing does not stop there. The word marriage does not depict what happens in such arrangements. For the female children, the space 'female child marriage' is where series of atrocities are committed against them. To mention a few , these female children are victims of criminal/otherwise acts such as  repeated sexual assaults/slavery, child labor, emotional and physical torture, isolation and abandonment, early pregnancy and related health risks. These acts are seen as a great harm as individual acts, but not when they are committed as series of actions within the feel safe word 'marriage' that we have chosen to call it. Let's call it what it is, not what makes us feel better.