Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Bring Back the Dowry
Source: UncleBob's Treehouse
URL Source: http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2013/02/bring-back-dowry.html
Published: Feb 11, 2013
Author: Bob Wallace
Post Date: 2013-02-11 14:57:06 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 2560
Comments: 73

At one time I was mystified why dowries were paid. A woman got married and her parents gave money and other material possessions to the groom? What was up with that? There had to be some sort of rational explanation for it.

One explanation is that the dowry was "seed money" for the groom. Since men have traditionally supported women (since women got pregnant and squeezed out the babies), the dowry was a leg up to get the family established. That made a great deal of sense.

Gary Becker applied economics to dowries and came up with some interesting conclusions. Where there a shortage of men, dowries are paid. Where there is a shortage of women, bride prices are paid.

These days many women are whining there is shortage of "good men." (My standard answer is they are right where you left them - back in your 20's.)

Maristella Botticini and Aloysius Siow, back in early 2002, claimed "the modern disappearance of dowries is due to a change in the environment for producing bridal wealth and not to a change in the relative values of brides versus grooms. Thus brideprices do not have to appear when dowries disappear."

In other words, when women make more money, the dowry disappears. However, these days women make as much (and sometimes more) money than men not because they qualified, but because of Affirmative Action and the fear of lawsuits.

While dowries have disappeared, bride prices have not - to women. That will change, too. And is changing, since so many men have decided it's no longer worth it to get married. They will no longer pay the bride price, which means there is no longer a shortage of women and instead there is a shortage of men. At least, a perceived shortage of certain men.

These changes, of course, have caused major changes in the marriage market, since women are complaining they are educated (actually "schooled") and make a good salary, so where are all the acceptable men? Kicked out of schools and high-paying jobs by government edict, that's where.

Women who don't believe this might want to talk to men. I have seen it happen to my friends and to many men who are just acquaintances.

In other words, there is a shortage of men acceptable to these women. These women (and this is both amusing and tragic) don't have a clue as to what the real problems are. Typically, they blame everything on men, which is one of the major flaws of women.

However, since there are more "schooled" women than men, the logical conclusion is that since there is a shortage of men, the price of men goes up, so women have to pay more to get them. Hence, bring back the dowry.

Of course, this will never happen, no matter how logical it is.

Actually, I'm not serious about this, but it is fun bringing these things up with women, some of whom get completely outraged because it intrudes into their groovy little fantasy worlds and the cognitive dissonance makes their brains blow up.

What really makes them throw seizures is when I tell them they should save up $20,000 or so and use it as a dowry to pay for a husband. I have found that is a really good one.

Instead, all those lazy slackers out there are supposed to crush themselves going to college, then graduate with even more crushing debt, somehow find a high-paying job when they are damned scarce...and when this doesn't happen, it's all their fault.

But it's not. Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our meddling government and most especially because of the inflationary policies of the completely illegal Federal Reserve Bank. So, unless a man gets a degree in STEM (science, technology, engineering, science) or else works his butt off establishing a business, he's pretty much fucked. Unlike women with worthless degrees (teaching, human resources) who get handed high-paying jobs over more-qualified and more competent men.

For that matter, if there is such a shortage of men, men should not ask women out, or pay their way, or any of the other things men traditionally do. Let women do these things.

Of course, that's not going to happen, and I'm not serious about it, anyway. But it is an amusing thought-experiment, and proves (to my satisfaction) that a fair number of women want the advantages of both men and women and none of the responsibilities.

And what are they supposed to get out of all this? Women who aren't worth it, and don't even know it. And when told about it, certainly aren't going to believe it.

What to do? Women can lower their standards (snicker), they can support men (that won't last, because no man wants that, except for the lower-class ones), or men can be paid a lot more than women (which is what again is going to happen in the long run, after everything collapses).

Feminism doesn't need to be slain. Just take away government support from it (that's how it got going in the first place). It'll die a natural death, if you can consider a vampire evaporating in the sunlight a natural death.

In the meantime, women are going to continue in the frustrations, ending up as bitter spinsters with cats or big male dogs, blaming all their problems on men, and never understanding what the problem is.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-13) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#14. To: Lysander_Spooner, Ada (#9)

The social environment these days is not conducive to a happy family situation. Family requires sacrifice that many adults aren't ready to make. The disposable age has made divorce acceptable and relatively easy even though it's expensive. The damage to a family by divorce cannot be easily accounted because sometimes it doesn't show up for many years when the children of divorce get married.

A large majority of women never learn to deal with their menstrual cycle (and neither do most men). Besides being nearly insane for 2 weeks per month the additional stress caused by the demands upon a professional woman make a happy home less likely than could be had in an economy where one person's income is sufficient to support the household. On top of that, whether right or wrong, the woman is still expected to perform the duties of a housewife which alone are a full-time profession and critical to instilling values for the future of their children.

Children need the discipline and love of a full time parent in the home, otherwise they get a good deal of their upbringing from other kids whose parents aren't at home either. It's no accident that teen-age suicide rates are higher, as are most other adolescent delinquency rates. I think parents are being taxed out of the home. One parent has a difficult time providing for the family - AFTER TAXES ARE EXTRACTED. [Lawmakers continually make or expand laws that prevent parents from properly raising their children or alter educational standards to indoctrinate immoral / depraved social behaviors].

If we're only talking about a couple without the intent of having children then none of the above really matters. But what we have today is a situation where in the majority of cases it takes two adults to support a family and people have children that do not get the necessary attention that they truly need. That's why the rates of abortions or illegitimate children amongst whites has reached the same pathetic level as was/is the rate amongst blacks that have suffered the lack of a male/father figure in their homes since LBJ and the Welfare System created by the GREAT SOCIETY removed them.

I can't help thinking that while we've made much progress technologically that should and in most cases does lighten our daily load, we've lost some of the interaction between family members that was required in the past to make things work and at the same time built the bonds that made the family and the nation strong.

I don't have anything against women in the work place, equal pay for equal production, or any of the issues related to making it fair for women to earn a living or pursue a profession. The raising of children changes everything (IMHO).

There's a war on for our children's minds and souls. Families with both parents working definitely operate at great disadvantage. Destruction of the family leads to the destruction of the nation.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-14   6:49:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: noone222 (#14)

the woman is still expected to perform the duties of a housewife which alone are a full-time profession and critical to instilling values for the future of their children

The modern husband does at least some housework these days--usually not 50% but at least some. And I know at least one househusband.

If you were to draw up a marriage contract, what would you include as grounds for divorce, if any, and the division of property?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-14   13:29:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Ada (#15)

If you were to draw up a marriage contract, what would you include as grounds for divorce, if any, and the division of property?

I wouldn't. Dissolution is far too easy and makes a mockery of the contract.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-14   13:42:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Ada, noone222, 4 (#15)

One thing that I'd do differently is to NOT have the state involved with my marriage.

To ask permission of those ass-hats is just insane, I learned too late...

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2013-02-14   14:04:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Ada (#12)

more reason to marry

There is no reason to marriage, it is an instrument of the State.

"(It) is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force" - G. Washington

I prefer freedom.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-15   10:21:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: noone222 (#14)

Destruction of the family leads to the destruction of the nation.

I'd say it is pretty much mission accomplished.

The State, has in far too many so-called families replaced Dad, and the assault continues with VAWA, so-called Family Court, welfare(something like 90% of single mothers get welfare, bye Dad), etc., etc. etc.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-15   10:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Lysander_Spooner (#18)

There is no reason to marriage, it is an instrument of the State.

There were people marrying before there were states; but, yes, the state has put its oar into what used to be a contract between two families. I might agree if you say the state is an unwanted third party to the contract.

Children must be protected somehow. We are social animals and without children society will die. In a matriarchal society, fatherhood (and therefore marriage) is unimportant because the mother's clan protects the children. The mother's clan includes males who protect and provide.

Today we have an underclass of females and children who are essentially married to the state. No males present. I suspect that you do not approve.

Question is how would you order society to suit your libertarian outlook? Abolish children?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-15   20:06:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Ada (#20)

Question is how would you order society to suit your libertarian outlook? Abolish children?

Abolishing children certainly would solve many of man kinds problems....lol.

I think the Child Catcher in the old movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" already tried that, but without much luck.

I think replacing Dad with The State has really worked out smashingly well for all those empowered, awesome, independent and full of potential women and children ;)

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-18   14:24:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Lysander_Spooner (#21)

I think replacing Dad with The State has really worked out smashingly well for all those empowered, awesome, independent and full of potential women and children ;)

How about orphanages? Might be neater than foster parents. Of course, its still the State raising the children and you can't depend on it to inculcate libertarian virtues.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-18   19:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Ada (#20)

In a matriarchal society

Never existed and never will.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-18   21:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Turtle (#23)

Never existed and never will.

I disagree unless you are defining matriarchal as the direct opposite of patriarchal. Matriarchal is where property is descended through the female line. These societies (like the Iroquois)develop where the males are primarily engaged in warfare and the women have to keep society together.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   14:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: noone222 (#16)

I wouldn't. Dissolution is far too easy and makes a mockery of the contract.

Contracts are dissolved all the time but that doesn't make them invalid. Marriage contracts, now very popular for second marriages and some first, are difficult to challenge and generally ironclad unless signed under duress.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   14:32:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Ada (#25)

unless signed under duress.

That's the only way I'd ever sign one.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-19   14:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Lysander_Spooner (#18)

I prefer freedom.

We all love freedom. Every knucklehead, in fact, loves freedom.

No one particularly loves duty. I believe that our forebears on this continent has as high a regard for the latter as they did the former.

That may not be quite as true of the general run of Americans as it once was.

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2013-02-19   15:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: noone222 (#26)

That's the only way I'd ever sign one.

Its usually women who sign a marriage contract under duress. The rich would-be groom arrives in the church vestibule with his lawyers and tells the would-be bride that the ceremony is off unless she signs. So she does but it won't hold up in court.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   21:08:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: randge (#27)

Marriage is just another form of slavery today and I'll have nothing to do with it.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

Marriage secrets

THE PAIR-BOND IS NOT MALE MONOPOLY BUT A ‘GUARDING’ SERVICE TO THE FEMALE, AND A SHACKLE NOT ON THE WOMAN BUT ON THE MAN. It’s always been assumed that marriage – the cultural ‘encoding’ of an underlying evolved universal facility to pair-bond that underpins any form of non-casual sexual partnership (and not just in humans but generically across nature) – is all about the male securing control over a female’s reproduction; her fertility. Supposedly, the woman is shackled from having sex with other men, providing the husband with a reasonable guarantee than any children are his.

So much for assumption: it’s false. ‘Marriage’ is now being revealed actually to be much more in line with how men have suspected it really works all along.

There would seem to be two complementary aspects underpinning the human pair- bond. First, there is male mate-guarding (to use the biological term). Male mate-guarding is not to keep the female on a tight leash; at least not for the male’s benefit. If functions instead as a service to the female: to keep away ‘losers’. It hardly can be as usually conceived, given that a female has little problem having sex outside the partnership with a male of her choosing when she really wants to.

To read the rest:

www.avoiceformen.com/women/hypergamy/marriage-secrets/

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Ada (#25)

Marriage contracts, now very popular for second marriages and some first, are difficult to challenge and generally ironclad unless signed under duress.

You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce.

Marriage as a contract is a complete and utter farce.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:40:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Ada (#22)

Not sure if you knew I was being completely sarcastic with that post.

The State should not raise children in my view, it shouldn't raise anything, not even a flag.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:43:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Lysander_Spooner (#30)

You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce.

I was thinking of a pre-nup which sets out what happens in case of divorce. It primarily protects property but can also affect custody of children. Sometimes protects the potential inheritance of adult children from a first marriage.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-20   18:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Turtle (#0)

However, these days women make as much (and sometimes more) money than men not because they qualified, but because of Affirmative Action and the fear of lawsuits.

Stopped reading right there.

Ya fell off your rocker horse, man.

"Satan / Cheney in "08" Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

tom007  posted on  2013-02-20   18:32:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Lysander_Spooner (#31)

The State should not raise children in my view, it shouldn't raise anything, not even a flag.

I would agree but somebody or something will have to do it.

Difficult to pin down libertarians regarding children. I had one tell me that children could be independent at the age of 5. Currently with our high illegitimacy rate many children are raised by single mothers and not all of them are on welfare.

Maybe the Spartan way is the way of the future.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-20   18:33:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: tom007 (#33) (Edited)

Ya fell off your rocker horse, man.

Start applying for jobs and see what happens.

HR is a worthless degree. And see how many times you are interviewed by clueless women and not men.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-20   19:44:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Ada (#32)

pre-nup

OK, sorry about the delusional comment.

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce.

If you want to protect your children's inheritance, put it in a will, and don't get married.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-21   14:33:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Ada (#34)

Spartan way

At age 7, give the child to the State, not the answer.

Today, most give their children at age 5, kindergarten, the results have been dismal.

I would say, my answer to orphans, would be Charity, and to disengage the State.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-21   14:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Lysander_Spooner (#36)

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce.

Not any more. These days properly drawn prenups are rarely thrown out by the judges. (See http://www.carolannwilson.com/articles/divorce.prenuptial.html)

Ask Donald Trump :-)

Ada  posted on  2013-02-21   17:34:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Lysander_Spooner (#37)

I would say, my answer to orphans, would be Charity, and to disengage the State.

Those Spartan children were not orphans. Mom was there (her husband might be away with the military for 20 years so she availed herself of a helot) but was not into child rearing.

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-21   17:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Ada (#39)

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Again, Charity.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Ada (#38)

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce. Not any more. These days properly drawn prenups are rarely thrown out by the judges. (See http://www.carolannwilson.com/articles/divorce.prenuptial.html

Well, I'm not Donald Trump.

In my personal experience, for example a friend of mine, same profession, had a pre-nup, cost him $4000, wifey finds a lawyer, isn't haaaaappy, sues for divorce, she is not supposed to get anything from him, no alimony, no kids-no child support, married 2 years, the judge tosses the pre-nup, he is ordered to pay her $40,000 and alimony for 1 year.

Quite frankly, marriage is dead, and The Statists and the Feminists, or do I repeat meyself, killed it.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:35:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Ada (#39)

libertarian

You know, I am not so sure about that label.

I vehemently disagree with gay marriage, and with abortion, and this open immigration thing isn't looking so hot either, so not sure I qualify for the title.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Ada (#39)

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Murray Rothbard said fetuses were parasites and could be aborted because of that fact. As for children, sell 'em if you don't want 'em.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   10:43:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Lysander_Spooner (#42)

You know, I am not so sure about that label.

Your handle is that of the US most prominant libertarian. Some libertarians oppose abortion because its aggression. If you oppose marriage, then should should also oppose gay marriage.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:05:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Turtle (#43)

Murray Rothbard said fetuses were parasites and could be aborted because of that fact.

Old people might be parasites too. Live children are parasites until they can earn their own living, and child labor laws ensure that doesn't happen until they are well into their teens.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:08:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Turtle (#43)

As for children, sell 'em if you don't want 'em.

That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:11:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Lysander_Spooner (#41)

In my personal experience, for example a friend of mine, same profession, had a pre-nup, cost him $4000, wifey finds a lawyer, isn't haaaaappy, sues for divorce, she is not supposed to get anything from him, no alimony, no kids-no child support, married 2 years, the judge tosses the pre-nup, he is ordered to pay her $40,000 and alimony for 1 year.

The lawyer seems to have written the prenup to please the client with no regard to its legality. From the terms it might be that the wife did not have her own lawyer review and approve it. If so, not surprised at the judge's decision. Your friend should have sued the lawyer for damages.

Few years back judges were more apt to toss out prenups because they thought they violated the sanctity of marriage. Not so anymore.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Ada (#46)

That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.

You should be able to part them out like cars and sell their organs. Anyway, when I read that Rothbard said fetuses were parasites that's when I decided to take everything he wrote with a boulder of salt.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   11:18:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Turtle (#0)

MY wifes Dowry was every single episode of the sci fi show "Babylon Five".

__ Their are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!

titorite  posted on  2013-02-22   11:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Turtle (#48)

Rothbard's was just following most abortion law re fetuses. Legally a woman can abort up until the time the child can live independently, i.e., can breathe on its own.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: titorite (#49)

MY wifes Dowry was every single episode of the sci fi show "Babylon Five".

Some men might be quite pleased.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Ada (#44)

Lysander_Spooner

Was an Anarchist.

I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   12:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Ada (#47)

Few years back judges were more apt to toss out prenups because they thought they violated the sanctity of marriage. Not so

I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   12:26:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Lysander_Spooner (#53)

I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.

Does this mean if two people don't get married but live together and sign a pre-nup it will stand up in court?

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   19:21:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (55 - 73) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest