It is unfortunate, if you ask me.
Illogical even. In fact, so absurd this seems that it is a wonder how such an
imperfect system even managed to survive in society.
Consider a society that traces its lineage only along the male progeny, and where women are considered to be an instrument in furthering the male line forward. Now a family in such a society would theoretically do everything within its ability to take the male line further. In fact, such a family would be in dire need of women to procreate with its males to propagate the male gene through male children. So fixated on the male children such a family would be that any woman who is not able to produce them will likely be given an inferior treatment t0 the one who is. It goes without saying that in such a society, it is the woman who would have to take the family name of her husband, and would have to move from the house of her birth to the house of her husband.
At this point, many people, especially those in my home country, India, are likely to nod their heads and find similarities of such a society with the societies they live in. Let us take the example forward.
As a corollary, another family within the same society that has no young male members will have to accept the inevitability of the termination of their lineage. Not only that, the family will also stand to lose any additional income that may have come by way of its male members' earnings.
Now, here is the absurd part. If continuation of the male line is of such great importance to a family in this society, then it is the family with young male members that must pay a premium to get women to procreate with. The family with only young female members has no incentive to marry their daughters off because no matter what their lineage terminates with that generation. In fact, by delaying marriage of their daughters, they have a chance to bring additional income to the family by way of their daughters' earnings. In fact, such a family has a great incentive to invest in their daughters' education so that they earn more money for the family. However, the family with a chance to further the male line will desperately need to get women for procreation. If they don't, then there is a chance of their male line too perishing with the next generation.
This leaves us with a situation where the family with male members
needs women while the family with female members has no incentive to marry them
off, and instead has every incentive to keep them within the family.
In a typical market scenario, such a situation will lead to the former offering incentives to the latter to let their female members go. This could very well be in the form of money, property, precious metals etc.
However, in reality, it is the other way round. It is the family with female members - the one who have every incentive to keep them within the family - offering incentives to the family with male members - the one who have great disincentives to not get women - to marry the former's daughters. The incentive called Dowry. Absurd, isn't it?
While demanding dowry is illegal in India, this article is in no way in endorsement of the practice. It in fact tries to highlight the fallacy in the logic of Dowry in the hope that the society sees it and stops the practice immediately, especially in the patrilineal society that we live in.
It is also interesting to note that the concept of man offering a woman's family money and other incentives to be able to marry her is not unheard of and is practiced in several communities around the world, including a few in India. This is typically called 'bride money'.
Activists, especially those moulded in the Western philosophical framework, view this practice as a sale-purchase of 'brides'. This is highly unfortunate. If anything, it is an extremely logical system that has encouraged many patrilineal societies to maintain healthy gender ratios and fair property rights for centuries.
