Domestic Violence (DV) in Peru continues to be a major issue, especially in the rural districts. Though laws passed in the last couple decades have helped, the women of this beautiful country still contend with its ramifications today.
In Peru, one of the main factors that leads to DV is economic dependence from one spouse or partner to another despite existing laws allowing both spouses the right to work. In a report made by the non-profit organization working for women’s rights in the country El Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristan stated that Article 293 of the Civil Code required that one spouse had implicit consent from the other to work outside the house, which initially applied only to women. This law was extended to both spouses making it “gender neutral” (Equality Now, 1). Thus, this law indicates that Peruvian men are not to prevent their partners or wives from working. Nonetheless, it remains unsuccessful due to the Machismo mentality that exists in the country, especially in rural parts. Now, when talking about Machismo in Latin-America, it refers to the sense of superiority of men over women. In other words, men believe that they only may work while the women take charge of domestic issues (which are considered chores to be executed by them only). Since this way of life has long been ingrained as a tradition, it conflicts with newly established laws.
Because these traditional social structures are held in higher regard than national laws, tradition consistently trumps newly established laws. Women who wish to become secondary contributors of the household are unable to exercise their right to work; which by the way, is also protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, “everyone has the right to work and to free choice of employment” (Equality Now, 1). Furthermore, women who lack financial power are also restricted from resources, especially women living in rural and/or impoverished areas of Peru. Consequently, when women do not have the opportunity to work, they do not develop the necessary skills that will allow them to survive having to leave their husbands due to physical or sexual abuse.
DV cases in Peru increase exponentially if living in rural areas where the communal laws trump national regulations. For example, Susana Montesinos, a Psychology student who did an internship in a medical clinic in Cuzco Peru tells her experience with a DV case of a patient named Maria.
“Maria, 29, from a local farming community, who spoke both Quechua and Spanish, had recently experienced spousal abuse and death threats from her alcoholic husband. Maria explained that each farming community outside of Cusco creates their own laws. One of the laws in Maria’s communidad states that under no circumstances may a husband and wife separate or divorce. If this separation occurs, the one who initiates the separation is required to leave their home, family, community, and inherited land. Maria had unsuccessfully appealed to the community leaders and her family, who encouraged her to stay married. Maria had risked a great deal by filing for legal separation and asking for help. When we finished the intake, Maria declined emergency shelter and returned to her communidad. She had simply wanted to make a statement to her loved ones by seeking help and standing up for herself, but wouldn’t leave home” (Susana Montesinos).
The story of Maria is just one more example of how traditional and communal laws take president over state laws in Peru. It demonstrates the ingrained beliefs that a unified family is what matters most and a respectful and healthy relationship between husband and wife is merely consequence. Although the communal law intends fairness, it mostly affects women or Maria, in this case because she has everything to lose if she decides to leave her husband. She would have no financial or emotional support since she is willingly separating. Additionally, Maria’s separation could easily result in depression and, in a sense, a loss of dignity (originated by comments of those in her community) for having left her husband. Hence, since she knows this, she prefers to stay and put up with the physical abuse.
Likewise, another contributor to DV in Latin-America, which inevitably applies to Peru, is Consensual Unions between men and women and their association with extreme poverty (Cleary, 22). The explanation of this in relation to DV could be that if a man is unemployed, he might take his stress on his spouse by violently attacking her. This act might be because he feels the pressure from his Machista community where he is constantly reminded that he needs to be able to support his family. In the same way, if the woman “provokes” an increase of stress in him by asking for money or things that need to be bought for the home, he might respond violently because in his mind, she does not have the right to ask for or complain about anything as she is “not” a contributor of the household. In this case, since they are not legally married, she cannot present legal claims against him.
Besides the Article 293 Civil Code which states that both spouses may work outside of the house, there is a law protecting women against DV that was passed in 1993 which, just as the first one is rarely enforced. The 1993 DV law establishes, “…a state policy for the eradication of violence, creates mechanisms for the protection of victims, considers the necessity to come up with a complaints procedure, and defines the role that social organizations should play in the defense of women and children” (Equality Now, 3). However, Flora Tristan shows two examples of the many issues regarding this law. To illustrate, “the law does not set up a clear procedure to follow in order to obtain protection for the victims of domestic violence, and the agencies designated to implement the law (the police, the judiciary, and public prosecutors) have so far shown little inclination to carry it out” (Equality Now, 3). The first quote clearly shows the initiative to provide protection against DV; nevertheless, the examples set by Flora Tristan show the lack of desire to exercise it as it appears only on the books. In addition to the insufficient training for law enforcement in the issue, what is more terrifying is that some police and prosecutors themselves commit DV abuses in their own homes. Hence, it is easier for them to disregard DV cases as they might view them as private issues instead of public ones.
Furthermore, “although [the 1993 DV law was] strengthened in 1997, Peru's Law for Protection from Family Violence still contains flaws. It does not protect women from marital rape or stalking, nor does it apply to women who are harassed or beaten by intimate partners if they are not living together” (BBC World Service). For instance, the image below shows Peruvian women marching in downtown Lima on November 25, 2008 for the International Day of No Violence against Women (25 de Noviembre-Dia Internacional de la No Violencia contra la Mujer, in Spanish). Their slogan was “Mujer, el Estado no te protege de la violencia”, (woman, the State does not protect you from violence), which clearly indicates the irresponsibility of the Peruvian government over the matter (Vicuña Yacarine).
The women marching on the streets in Lima are aware of the repercussions if laws protecting women against DV are not enforced. They risk losing their mothers, sisters, friends, cousins, neighbors, and perhaps themselves. DV in Peru is such a grave issue that the Ministerio de la Mujer y Desarrollo Social (MIMDES) stated that DV and sexual abuse are responsible for the deaths of 12 women every month. Also, a research study conducted by El Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristan from the year 2004 to year 2008 found that there already were 547 victims of femicide (Flora Tristan). Similarly, in 2009, 139 women were murdered while in 2010 there was decrease of only 29 murdered (MIMDES). As alarming as these numbers are, it is important to note that there are Peruvian women marching and fighting for those who died in hands of abusers. Now, the hope is that the government will listen to their requests and keep their word.
In short, the image, class reading, and the story of Maria presented in this blog, have very strong connections with one another. The image of the women carrying the sign that says “Dia Internacional de la No Violencia contra la Mujer” is the representation of the existing problem of DV in Peru and around the world. It is an issue that does not discriminate against religion, social class, civil status, or race if you will. Said this, the class reading of “Women and Rights in Latin-America” that explains the consensual unions between men and women living in rural and/or impoverished areas relates to this because many of these women become easy target for abuse. This could be due to both the prominent machista mentality and/or the lack of financial independence, which ultimately prevents them from escaping such a violent environment. Last, the story of Maria is a real life testimony which reminds the reader of the gravity of the situation and the many limitations that women from rural areas might incur when wanting to leave their abuser.
Work Cited
Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristan. Primer Trimestre 2009 FEMINICIDIO – ASESINATO DE MUJERES. Rep. 2009. Web. 17 July 2010.
Cleary, Edward L. Mobilizing for Human Rights in Latin America. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian, 2007. Print.
Equality Now Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee. Rep. July 1996. Web. 17 July 2010.
Montesinos, Susana. "Lessons I Learned about Domestic Violence Counseling in Cusco, Peru." Living in Peru : Your Everyday Companion. 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 19 July 2010.
Photograph. 28 Nov. 2008. Web. 17 July 2010.
"PROGRAMA NACIONAL CONTRA LA VIOLENCIA FAMILIAR Y SEXUAL DEL MIMDES PARTICIPA EN FÓRUM SOBRE LEY PENAL Y FEMINICIDIO." MIMDES. 6 July 2010. Web. 19 July 2010.
Vicuña Yacarine, Julia. "Día Internacional De La No Violencia Contra La Mujer Falta De Presupuesto E Impunidad Agravan Violencia Hacia La Mujer." UITA - Secretaría Regional Latinoamericana. 28 Nov. 2008. Web. 19 July 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment