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: 4407
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: noone222 (#16)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce. Marriage as a contract is a complete and utter farce.
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.
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.
Stopped reading right there. Ya fell off your rocker horse, man. 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.
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
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.
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.
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 :-)
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?
Again, Charity.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.
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.
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
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!
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.
Some men might be quite pleased.
Was an Anarchist. I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.
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
State sanctioned marriage is relatively recent and no reason why it cannot be abolished. Used to be marriage was enforced by families but around the 10th-11th centuries the Church decided it was in charge and started making rules.
exactly! A study group recently released its findings as to the best presidents of the United States of America. Obama has been rated as the 4th best president ever: Reagan and 9 others tied for first, 15 presidents tied for second, 18 tied for third, and Obama came in fourth. Do you support marriage at all?
An argument for marriage: Married couples are richer By Judy Martel · Bankrate.com Tuesday, February 19, 2013 Whatever your feelings are about taking a trip down the aisle, being in a long- term marriage could leave you up to four times richer than your single or divorced peers. NBC News reports that there are a variety of reasons for this. Married couples can take advantage of economies of scale, allowing them to build wealth faster. Couples can also divide and conquer when it comes to household and financial responsibilities, while sharing the expenses. For example: When one spouse helps with household duties, the other can concentrate on getting ahead in a career. Couples who stay married could end up four times richer than their single or divorced peers. Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at The Ohio State University, told NBC that his research shows people in long-term marriages each have about twice as much wealth as single people who never married. Together, a couple's wealth is four times that of a single person's. He added that the key is to stay married. In his research, those who get divorced see a dramatic decline in wealth, leaving them in worse financial straits than those who never married. Interestingly, couples in a committed relationship, but not married, don't fare as well as married couples, Zagorsky says. He believes it's because they don't fully commit to sharing their finances and expenses. Finally, there's also a demographic element behind the statistics: Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, says the people getting married are more affluent to begin with, and more educated. They are also less likely to get divorced, perhaps because they don't have the financial pressures of less educated, financially strapped couples. Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/married-couples-are- richer/#ixzz2LpDwMv7a Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
I believe marriage is a sacrament, an agreement between two people and their God. If one does not believe in God, it is simply a contract. Modern State sanctioned marriage has destroyed the sacramental nature of marriage and the contractual aspect of marriage.
"...if two people don't get married but live together and sign a pre-nup it will stand up in court?" Yes it will, it is called a "Rental Agreement". A pre-nup without the "nuptials" would not. A pre-nup with the "nuptials" will on occasion, if the woman gets her "equality", which means, the man gets the shaft. If it is actually reasonable, or the woman gets little or nothing, count on the "circular file" toss from the so-called judge.
Before the Roman Church declared that marriage was a sacrament, it existed under law. Even the Muslims had to declare, "I divorce thee" three times in order to terminate the marriage. The Hebrews had a written contract that was placed on the wall of the house; and if it was lost or misplaced, there was no marriage, particularly no sex, until it was found or replaced. Marriage is indeed a contract between two people or two families and enforced by some governing body. The civil government recently decided to be a third party to that contract but the reason for this might be obsolete. (I read somewhere that marriage licenses originated in the South to prevent mixed marriage and it wasn't until 1924 that the requirement reached all states.) Marriage can be enforced without marriage licenses by laws against bigamy, fraud, etc. You might remember that Benjamin Franklin was not officially married to his "wife" because her husand had abandoned her and they were afraid that he might come back and charge her with bigamy.
the women had been simmering for a couple years, ever since eve got those tits... oh my, she was lovely, and the guys couldnt get enough of her... ...well, yes they could, because there comes a point when your equipment fails, and that means you've had enough... but that also meant that the rest of the women in the band had to do without, and they were getting cranky... sexually deprived, etc etc etc so the women finally boiled over and invented marriage, which meant, theoretically at least, they'd get laid once in a while... this "marriage" business kinda put a kink in the women's philandering, but there were always workarounds ...and men were willing to go along with it, because they did a certain amount of philandering themselves...
Every so often an rich, famous male with a trophy wife gets caught with a mistress. Generally, the mistress is not half as attractive as the wife (think Prince Charles) The tabloid readers cannot understand it.
paternity was not much of an issue for a long time... people did not have many inheritable possessions because they didnt need them... there wasnt much question about who your mother was, of course, but there was always some wondering about your father, but it didnt matter. sooner or later, though, property became an issue, and that was the beginning of all kinds of shit... people noticed that the richest men got the best looking girls, and so on, so men started competing for property --egged on by their wives, who were always looking ahead at potential breeding opportunities for their children... the richest children would attract the most most attractive and/or most prosperous mates, and so on. but, given that the paternity of a child was always so iffy --given the porousness of the marriage enforcement procedures-- it was obvious that the culture would have to be matrilineal and matriarchal... that didnt work so good, because the men, already insecure about the paternity of their children, over compensated by going off to bomb iran or invade afghanistan and whatnot .
wars were ritualized into stuff like american football, hockey, soccer, stick fighting, whatever, but that wasnt enough... so the women set up faux patrilineal societies, and assigned maleness to their gods in an attempt to reassure males... well, that didnt work either, because technology arrived that gave powerful psychopaths of both sexes a disproportionate amount of power... so the wars continued, and although the wars provided many an opportunity for satisfying amounts of wailing, tooth gnashing, hand wringing and whatnot, and great opportunities for the advancement of cheerleaders and rally girls, war was destroying too much wealth... even though the psychopaths, drama queens and mamas' boys got rich from the wars. . *shrug*
Comments (66 - 73) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI wouldn't. Dissolution is far too easy and makes a mockery of the contract.
#26. To: Ada (#25)
unless signed under duress.
#27. To: Lysander_Spooner (#18)
I prefer freedom.
#28. To: noone222 (#26)
That's the only way I'd ever sign one.
#29. To: randge (#27)
#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.
#31. To: Ada (#22)
#32. To: Lysander_Spooner (#30)
You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce.
#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.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#34. To: Lysander_Spooner (#31)
The State should not raise children in my view, it shouldn't raise anything, not even a flag.
#35. To: tom007 (#33)
(Edited)
Ya fell off your rocker horse, man.
#36. To: Ada (#32)
pre-nup
#37. To: Ada (#34)
Spartan way
#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.
#39. To: Lysander_Spooner (#37)
I would say, my answer to orphans, would be Charity, and to disengage the State.
#40. To: Ada (#39)
So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?
#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
#42. To: Ada (#39)
libertarian
#43. To: Ada (#39)
So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?
#44. To: Lysander_Spooner (#42)
You know, I am not so sure about that label.
#45. To: Turtle (#43)
Murray Rothbard said fetuses were parasites and could be aborted because of that fact.
#46. To: Turtle (#43)
As for children, sell 'em if you don't want 'em.
#47. To: Lysander_Spooner (#41)
#48. To: Ada (#46)
That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.
#49. To: Turtle (#0)
#50. To: Turtle (#48)
#51. To: titorite (#49)
MY wifes Dowry was every single episode of the sci fi show "Babylon Five".
#52. To: Ada (#44)
Lysander_Spooner
#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
#54. To: Lysander_Spooner (#53)
I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.
#55. To: Lysander_Spooner (#52)
I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.
#56. To: Ada (#44)
Some libertarians oppose abortion because its aggression.
#57. To: Lysander_Spooner (#52)
I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.
#58. To: Lysander_Spooner (#53)
I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.
#59. To: Ada (#57)
Do you support marriage at all?
#60. To: Turtle (#54)
#61. To: Lysander_Spooner (#59)
Modern State sanctioned marriage has destroyed the sacramental nature of marriage and the contractual aspect of marriage.
#62. To: Ada (#61)
(Edited)
#63. To: lead.and.lag (#62)
#64. To: Ada (#63)
(Edited)
#65. To: All (#64)
(Edited)
.
.
.
