8 ms·

> No longer purchasing women from fathers That is not how dowry worked. The bride brought the dowry, not the groom. So basically the father/family would pay th

> No longer purchasing women from fathers That is not how dowry worked. The bride brought the dowry, not the groom. So basically the father/family would pay the husband to be to take the daughter off their hands.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
As you can see, dowry is a misogynistic practice because women are worthless, whereas bride price is a misogynistic practice because women are valuable.
- mariuolo 3y ago
  > dowry is a misogynistic practice because women are worthless In the past, a woman had little chance of making a living of her own. That was the purpose of a dowry.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    > a woman had little chance of making a living of her own A state of affairs created and maintained by exactly the same people transacting in women… How odd A solo man couldn’t create a self-sustaining life either. Ultimately women got transacted around to solve this problem rather than men because men tend to be physically stronger than women, and that’s it. No matter how you dress it up.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Yes it’s bad to transact other human beings regardless of how the buyer and seller view the economics of the situation.
  - gruez 3y ago
    I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad, he's arguing that labeling the transaction as "misogynistic" regardless of which side receives the value doesn't make sense. It'd be like arguing that consumers paying for a widget is "anti-consumer" (seems reasonable enough) but at the same time consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?) and finally if there's no value exchanged then it's magically hunky dory.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      1) I didn't say it was misogynistic. 2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being held and transacted as property between men. The point is that women (and people in general) are not widgets, no matter how you wish to transact them. There's nothing mysterious going on here: it looks like property changing hands because it's property changing hands, and those people were property for the exclusive reason that they were born as women. In your widget analogy: the widget is absolutely a secondary player in the exchange and is treated as property as compared to both other parties regardless of which way the money flows. Any such transaction would correctly be called "widget-ist" if you wish.
      - gruez 3y ago
        > 1) I didn't say it was misogynistic. Right, the person you responded to was talking about misogyny but you subtly changed it to "it’s bad to transact other human beings". >2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being transacted as property between men. that's basically what I was arguing in the previous comment? >I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad
        ethanbond 3y ago
        The person I responded to brought up a "gotcha" about both directions being misogynistic as some sort of contradiction, which it's not.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      > consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?) Ironic thing to say post Snowden, Cambridge Analytica and on HN! Button sorry for the diversion. Back to diamonds…
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- roughly 3y ago
  I mean, both of them are misogynistic because they’re financial transactions in which one is exchanging ownership of a woman.
  - gruez 3y ago
    By that framing the issue seems to be the "exchanging ownership of a woman" part than the "financial" part.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      The issue is "ownership of a woman" or generally "ownership of a person." What on earth is hard to understand here?
      - gruez 3y ago
        That's literally what I said in the comment you replied to? >the issue seems to be the "exchanging ownership of a woman" part
    - roughly 3y ago
      You’re right, I shouldn’t have specified “financial.”
ethanbond 3y ago
Ah yes you’re right. That’s a much better practice /s
Turing_Machine 3y ago
That depends entirely on the culture. Some expect the bride's family to pay the groom (dowry) while others expect the groom to pay the bride's family (bride price). Others are mixed (e.g. in the most common American culture, the groom is expected to pay for an expensive ring, while the bride's parents are expected to pay for an expensive wedding). Generally, it boils down to economics. If the wife is not expected to be a direct source of family income (as in most of Western society until fairly recently -- it was considered vaguely shameful if the wife had to work outside the home), dowry is more common. If the wife does provide income (as in many African cultures, where the wife or wives do the majority of food production), bride price is more common. Humans are seemingly infinitely variable in the ways in which they've invented workable cultures (not necessarily what one would call equitable, but workable).
- flavius29663 3y ago
  Sure, but the OP was confusing dowry, which is common in western world, Europe, with bride price. People today are too squeamish about this, but in the past, the women were just not setup to be good main providers: it was hard physical labor working the fields, or in the forest, mines, construction etc. just meant the man was the provider, so the women had to be worked into this "workable culture"

thaumasiotes 3y ago

As you can see, dowry is a misogynistic practice because women are worthless, whereas bride price is a misogynistic practice because women are valuable.

mariuolo 3y ago
> dowry is a misogynistic practice because women are worthless In the past, a woman had little chance of making a living of her own. That was the purpose of a dowry.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > a woman had little chance of making a living of her own A state of affairs created and maintained by exactly the same people transacting in women… How odd A solo man couldn’t create a self-sustaining life either. Ultimately women got transacted around to solve this problem rather than men because men tend to be physically stronger than women, and that’s it. No matter how you dress it up.
ethanbond 3y ago
Yes it’s bad to transact other human beings regardless of how the buyer and seller view the economics of the situation.
- gruez 3y ago
  I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad, he's arguing that labeling the transaction as "misogynistic" regardless of which side receives the value doesn't make sense. It'd be like arguing that consumers paying for a widget is "anti-consumer" (seems reasonable enough) but at the same time consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?) and finally if there's no value exchanged then it's magically hunky dory.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    1) I didn't say it was misogynistic. 2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being held and transacted as property between men. The point is that women (and people in general) are not widgets, no matter how you wish to transact them. There's nothing mysterious going on here: it looks like property changing hands because it's property changing hands, and those people were property for the exclusive reason that they were born as women. In your widget analogy: the widget is absolutely a secondary player in the exchange and is treated as property as compared to both other parties regardless of which way the money flows. Any such transaction would correctly be called "widget-ist" if you wish.
    - gruez 3y ago
      > 1) I didn't say it was misogynistic. Right, the person you responded to was talking about misogyny but you subtly changed it to "it’s bad to transact other human beings". >2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being transacted as property between men. that's basically what I was arguing in the previous comment? >I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        The person I responded to brought up a "gotcha" about both directions being misogynistic as some sort of contradiction, which it's not.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    > consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?) Ironic thing to say post Snowden, Cambridge Analytica and on HN! Button sorry for the diversion. Back to diamonds…
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
roughly 3y ago
I mean, both of them are misogynistic because they’re financial transactions in which one is exchanging ownership of a woman.
- gruez 3y ago
  By that framing the issue seems to be the "exchanging ownership of a woman" part than the "financial" part.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    The issue is "ownership of a woman" or generally "ownership of a person." What on earth is hard to understand here?
    - gruez 3y ago
      That's literally what I said in the comment you replied to? >the issue seems to be the "exchanging ownership of a woman" part
  - roughly 3y ago
    You’re right, I shouldn’t have specified “financial.”

ethanbond 3y ago

Ah yes you’re right. That’s a much better practice /s

Turing_Machine 3y ago

That depends entirely on the culture. Some expect the bride's family to pay the groom (dowry) while others expect the groom to pay the bride's family (bride price). Others are mixed (e.g. in the most common American culture, the groom is expected to pay for an expensive ring, while the bride's parents are expected to pay for an expensive wedding). Generally, it boils down to economics. If the wife is not expected to be a direct source of family income (as in most of Western society until fairly recently -- it was considered vaguely shameful if the wife had to work outside the home), dowry is more common. If the wife does provide income (as in many African cultures, where the wife or wives do the majority of food production), bride price is more common. Humans are seemingly infinitely variable in the ways in which they've invented workable cultures (not necessarily what one would call equitable, but workable).

flavius29663 3y ago
Sure, but the OP was confusing dowry, which is common in western world, Europe, with bride price. People today are too squeamish about this, but in the past, the women were just not setup to be good main providers: it was hard physical labor working the fields, or in the forest, mines, construction etc. just meant the man was the provider, so the women had to be worked into this "workable culture"