New Testingstan

I was talking to some people about this dowry business recently, and I was wondering how people accepted such a backwards idea, especially among the Sikh community here, which prides itself on equality between men and women and all that jazz.

This is how it was explained to me:

Dowry, as it is generally understood today: Man and woman marry. For this to happen, woman's family gives man's family land/cows/capital to cover the cost of the extra mouth to feed. Woman is treated as liability, if you'll forgive me for being an accounting student.

Dowry, as initially intended: Man and woman marry. Inheritance typically goes through sons, since they're the only ones around when ma and pa kick the bucket, daughters long ago married off into other families. For this to be fair, daughters given their equal share at time of marriage, kinda like a big firm selling a division with it's share of big firm's assets to another big firm. Woman enters new family with her own assets, making it a more equal merger between man and woman.

I can see how this wouldn't have worked very well in a strongly patriarchical family a few hundred years ago, where the man's family would just take control of the woman's assets, under the pretense of covering their costs, but today, with separate bank accounts being more common and even things like land being more easily transferred into cash and other liquid assets, I think it works (or could work) fairly well, no?

Tell me what you think.

PS I am tempted to start a similar thread on SDN and see what kind of reaxion I get.

The whole dowry concept kind of becomes obsolete once women can work and support themselves. Also child mortality rates.

Zod wrote:The whole dowry concept kind of becomes obsolete once women can work and support themselves. Also child mortality rates.

True, but look at it from the perspective of a culture where inter-generational wealth transfer is very important.

Can you expand on your second point?

well they were really concerned about making sure they actually had heirs, right?

so the women spent so much time having and looking after babies they didn't really have the luxury of contributing financially since infant mortality was so high

I'm with zod, that said, if people want to keep doing it, why should I care.

uh

for what purpose is it supposed to work?

if it's supposed to patch a problem caused by unequal inheritance due to women being considered some kind of property to be given away to produce babies

thereby perpetuating the idea that women are a burden and worth less

maybe there are more effective measures

There's a difference between a compulsion that affects decision making and just regular helping couples out

Dooey: dd you even read my post?

might have been reading dutch poetry

but you said it was supposed to be compensation for lost inheritance, to which the obvious solution is to not lose the inheritance in the first place

it can't even be fair for that purpose because while any dead person can divide their assets between their two kids, they can't usually just give away 50% of everything they own while still alive

consider if the idea even makes sense for non-heterosexual relationships, to get some other perspectives on the equality of the situation

how do you not lose the inheritance in the first place? recall that back in the day, you probably didn't see your birth family very often after you got married, if you were a woman; travel wasn't common

also inheritance was divided between many children, historically

one common practice i've seen today is for kids to be given gifts, usually of clothes, when visiting their mother's family (since travel is more common today); this tradition is supposed to have the intent of giving the kids part of their mother's fair share

i think the thinking is, their mother's wealth partly clothed them, not just their father's wealth/income

considering most nuclear family units (whether alone or part of an extended family) were single-income, it makes some degree of sense

i'd like to remind you that this discussion centres around immigrant communities, particularly from india, and not general western or westernized communities

PS i am enjoying this discussion with you people

i love you guys

PPS do you think I should start a similar thread on SDN? how many posts before someone makes me facepalm?

Phantasee wrote:how do you not lose the inheritance in the first place? recall that back in the day, you probably didn't see your birth family very often after you got married, if you were a woman; travel wasn't common

well yes, but i was assuming that we were not back in the day due to the mention of modern banking etc.

so i think sorting out an inheritance ought not to be very difficult for similar reasons

Five posts before someone, probably AD accuses you of being a woman hater and a religious apologist.

as soon as purple or simon jester find the thread

The culture thing is interesting to me right

Cause the ideas of obligation and responsibility are the sort of thing that form over really long time usually due to abuses or problems so it doesn't really have to make sense anymore; but people just change it to fit the current situation

It is funny that knee jerk stuff is basically useless and makes it impossible to understand that sort of thing

Going to see sherry's family in Taiwan is going to be full of shit like this

marriage itself is a pretty obsolete institution, and especially so if you look at the historical reasons for its existence

as everyone probably knows marriage used to be for all kinds of economic, political and other reasons

whereas now it is usually supposed to be purely for emotional reasons

but large parts of the archaic laws concerning it still remain, so possibly without realising it couples are basically saying "we love each other so much we're gonna instate economic incentives not to leave each other ever"

sounds a bit insecure to me

actually i remember someone saying this is why marriage is awesome; it shows you're SERIOUS about love

yeah, serious enough to bet your future economic welfare on that your feelings will never go away and create reasons to stay in an awful relationship if they do

i can confidently say that in FUTURESOCIETY marriage will be a purely personal matter between persons who want to say that they belong together

But thats a good example
Popular or cultural perception of the thing has changed faster than official or overall perception of the thing

It's changed so much in even 80 years people are horrified by how it "used to be" as archaic and bizarre

Turns out changing cultural rules officially is heaps slower than how they change in culture itself

yes

actually that guy is an interesting example of rationalising historical laws into a modern context

thereby preventing those laws from being updated to reflect the current general understanding of the concept

My favourite example is countries that have 'official' policies and attitudes towards marriage but allow people to opt out or in of various features

And everyone just opts out, choosing 'regular modern relationship' over I OWN YOUR LIFE AND RIGHTS

But actually changing that official stance would kick up a giant shit from pretty much everyone over 40 or who remember what a church looks like so they don't bother

I think it's just a tax thing here anyways. And you get the same tax rights, I guess I'll call them, if your living together for a set amount of time.

Marriage was just a way to shut up certain family members. For us anyways.

Exactly

But the actual ritual is about all this other shit

But I hear Christ invented marriage do what do I know

I remember being at my in laws house when my future sister in laws boyfriend called to ask permission to marry her.

I still find that confusing.

for some reason people find it important to honour a tradition stemming from the idea that women are not capable of making own decisions and/or must belong as property to a man

but hey i recently saw an orthodox church in which they were selling easter eggs with easter bunnies inside and that's pretty funny to me. don't think they have managed to work the easter bunnies into a christian framework yet

on that note, the connection that some make between christmas presents and the gifts of the three wise men is also pretty funny

but yes adaptation of old traditions into new contexts

cool stuff

the best part is that that sort of thing is considered 'polite' or laudable because it honours some old tradition

everyone just doublethinks around what that tradition actually means/meant

when i started seeing my current girlfriend, i asked her brothers if they were cool with it, but that was more to make sure they weren't going to be a problem, and because they're both my friends

"we still cool if i'm seeing your sister?"
"yeah sure, don't fuck it up"
"okay"

i'll have to talk to her parents eventually too, but that is just because she needs her parents to... not approve in "give permission" sense, but approve in the "validate that you made a good choice" sense

same with my folks, although i'm not really in need of them to approve in any sense, just accept my choice

if they have a problem i'd like to sort it out of course

i guess it's not really the 'traditional' thing where parents rule your life but if we want our parents to have a role in our lives it's kinda important to discuss important things with them?