3 ms·

In many societies, women's labour was significantly undervalued compared to men's, so the more women, relative to men there are in your household, the more stre

by vkou 3y ago

In many societies, women's labour was significantly undervalued compared to men's, so the more women, relative to men there are in your household, the more stress it puts on your resources. Also, if women in a society inherit nothing (Because it all goes to sons), whomever they marry is going to expect a dowry, instead. Which puts further financial stress on the family, to save up for said dowry. Which is made more difficult by point #1. Also, women often married at a younger age than men, which again, would make the dowry issue financially ruinous for a family. The longer you scrimp and save, the harder it will be for your daughter to get a good match... ---- Here's another fun bit (from ancient Greece, but plenty of other parts of the world shared the same fucked-up dynamic.) Women weren't allowed to own property. What happens when a woman is the only child, and her dad dies? She'd be forced to marry one of her close male relatives - usually an uncle, to 'keep the inheritance in the family'. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epikleros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epikleros

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Is that not the case in a lot of non-western societies? I'm also wondering if beauty plays a role in dowries. If a woman is beautiful does that mean she might have a lower dowry, or they don't care about beauty at all?
- dotnet00 3y ago
  The issue is that, as is also sometimes a common mistake in the West, homemaking was seen as a part of being a woman and not as valuable labor. Yes, it's hypocritical, but most of these practices are. Yes, beauty and other circumstances would offset dowries, since of course if the husband was eager to marry her, he'd try to incentivize it.
- vkou 3y ago
  > This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Homemaker labour didn't pay well. It still doesn't, and it didn't back then. It's vital to the operation of a household, but it doesn't put food on the table, or earn money, which allow you to buy any of the things the household needs, but can't make for itself. ---- Note: Spinning was a large component of household work - which did allow women to earn money, by selling any surplus textiles they produced. There's a reason that 'spinster' became a synonym for 'old, unmarried woman'. Unfortunately, keeping your family clothed was a full-time spinning job to begin with - thousands of hours of work a year. And if you were to sell the products you produced outside the household, you wouldn't earn much with them - as a 'profession', spinning did not pay well at all.
- roncesvalles 3y ago
  >If a woman is beautiful does that mean she might have a lower dowry Yes in practice this is what happens. There was a nasty rumor going around in my family that one of my distant uncles (a generally dapper guy) married the "ugly" daughter of a rich businessman because the dowry offered was high enough to set him up for life.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Inheritance rights play into this a lot. A flip side of Greece I think is Spain where a married women can inherit property in her own name. And dispose of it in her will. In those societies perhaps a dowry is really more the daughters share of the families wealth.

by vkou 3y ago

ZephyrBlu 3y ago

This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Is that not the case in a lot of non-western societies? I'm also wondering if beauty plays a role in dowries. If a woman is beautiful does that mean she might have a lower dowry, or they don't care about beauty at all?

dotnet00 3y ago
The issue is that, as is also sometimes a common mistake in the West, homemaking was seen as a part of being a woman and not as valuable labor. Yes, it's hypocritical, but most of these practices are. Yes, beauty and other circumstances would offset dowries, since of course if the husband was eager to marry her, he'd try to incentivize it.
vkou 3y ago
> This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Homemaker labour didn't pay well. It still doesn't, and it didn't back then. It's vital to the operation of a household, but it doesn't put food on the table, or earn money, which allow you to buy any of the things the household needs, but can't make for itself. ---- Note: Spinning was a large component of household work - which did allow women to earn money, by selling any surplus textiles they produced. There's a reason that 'spinster' became a synonym for 'old, unmarried woman'. Unfortunately, keeping your family clothed was a full-time spinning job to begin with - thousands of hours of work a year. And if you were to sell the products you produced outside the household, you wouldn't earn much with them - as a 'profession', spinning did not pay well at all.
roncesvalles 3y ago
>If a woman is beautiful does that mean she might have a lower dowry Yes in practice this is what happens. There was a nasty rumor going around in my family that one of my distant uncles (a generally dapper guy) married the "ugly" daughter of a rich businessman because the dowry offered was high enough to set him up for life.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Inheritance rights play into this a lot. A flip side of Greece I think is Spain where a married women can inherit property in her own name. And dispose of it in her will. In those societies perhaps a dowry is really more the daughters share of the families wealth.