This article is based on the first Scottish study of survivor perspectives of forced marriage. In-depth interviews were conducted with eight survivors. Our thematic analysis identified five key themes: understandings of forced marriage, the “grooming” process, betrayal, legal responses, and women’s resistance. Utilizing Stark’s framework of coercive control and Kelly’s concept of conducive contexts, we illuminate hitherto under-appreciated dynamics of forced marriage: (a) the conceptualization of forced marriage as a process rather than an event, (b) the role of mothers within patriarchal contexts, and (c) betrayals of family and services as compounding long-term adverse effects of forced marriage.
AnithaS. (2011). Legislating gender inequalities: The nature and patterns of domestic violence experienced by South Asian women with insecure immigration status in the UK. Violence Against Women, 17, 1260-1285. doi:10.1177/1077801211424571
2.
AnithaS.GillA. (2009). Coercion, consent and the forced marriage debate in the UK. Feminist Legal Studies, 17, 165-184. doi:10.1007/s10691-009-9119-4
3.
AplinR. (2017). Exploring the role of mothers in “honour” based abuse perpetration and the impact on the policing response. Women’s Studies International Forum, 60, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2016.10.007
BatesL. (2017). Honour based violence in England and Wales (Masters’ thesis). University of Bristol, UK.
6.
BurmanE.ChantlerK. (2005). Domestic violence and minoritisation: Legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 59-74. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.12.004
7.
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. (1994). UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 21: Equality in marriage and family relations, 1994. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd52c0.html
8.
ChantlerK. (2012). Recognition of and intervention in forced marriage as a form of violence and abuse. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 176-183. doi:10.1177%2F1524838012448121
9.
ChantlerK. (2014). What’s love got to do with marriage?Families, Relationships and Societies, 3, 19-33(15). doi:10.1332/204674313X13794148714614
10.
ChantlerK.BakerV.MacKenzieM.McCarryM.MirzaN. (2017). Understanding forced marriage in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
11.
ChantlerK.GangoliG. (2011). Domestic violence in minority communities: Cultural norm or cultural anomaly? In ThiaraR.SchroettleM.CondonS. (Eds.), Violence against women and ethnicity: Commonalities and differences across Europe (pp. 353-366). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
12.
ChaudhuriS.MorashM.YinglingJ. (2014). Marriage migration, patriarchal bargains, and wife abuse: A study of South Asian women. Violence Against Women, 20, 141-161. doi:10.1177/1077801214521326
13.
GangoliG.ChantlerK. (2009). Protecting victims of forced marriage: Is age a protective factor?Feminist Legal Studies, 17, 267-288.
14.
GangoliG.ChantlerK.HesterM.SingletonA. (2011). Understanding forced marriage: Definitions and realities. In GillA.AnithaS. (Eds.), Forced marriage: Introducing a social justice and human rights perspective. London, England: Zed Books.
15.
GangoliG.RazakA.McCarryM. (2006). Forced marriage and domestic violence among South Asian communities in North East England. Bristol, UK: School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol and Northern Rock Foundation.
16.
GangoliG.RewM. (2011). Mothers-in-law against daughters-in-law: Domestic violence and legal discourses around mother-in-law violence against daughters-in-law in India. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34, 420-429. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.06.006
17.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
GillA.HamedT. (2016). Muslim women and forced marriages in the UK. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 36, 540-560. doi:10.1080/13602004.2016.1260324
20.
HarawayD. (2004). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 81-101). London, England: Routledge.
21.
HardingS. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
22.
HesterM. (2012). Portrayal of women as intimate partner domestic violence perpetrators. Violence Against Women, 18, 1067-1082. doi:10.1177/1077801212461428
23.
HesterM.ChantlerK.GangoliG.DevgonJ.SharmaS.SingletonA. (2007). Forced marriage: The risk factors and the effect of raising the minimum age for a sponsor, and of leave to enter the UK as a spouse or fiancé(e). Bristol, UK: School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol and School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/research/projects/completed/2007/rk6612/rk6612finalreport.pdf
24.
Hill-CollinsP. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
IdrissM. (2017). Not domestic violence or cultural tradition: Is honour-based violence distinct from domestic violence?Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 39, 3-21. doi:10.1080/09649069.2016.1272755
KellyL. (2007). “A conducive context”: Trafficking of persons in Central Asia. In LeeM. (Ed.), Human trafficking (pp. 73.91). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
ShankarI.NorthcottH. (2009). Through my son: Immigrant women bargain with patriarchy. Women’s Studies International Forum, 32, 424-434. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2009.09.004
36.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Young LaranceL.MillerS. L. (2017). In her own words: Women describe their use of force resulting in court-ordered intervention. Violence Against Women, 23, 1536-1559. doi:10.1177/1077801216662340
39.
Yuval DavisN. (1997). Gender and nation. London, England: Sage.
