Author: gynocentrism

The Dowry System Makes For Wedded Bliss – by Dorothy Dix (1932)

/ gynocentrism

The following article by Dorothy Dix was published in the Adelaide News, 7 Jul 1932

 

* * *

Dowry System Makes for Wedded Bliss

Wife With Income Gets More Respect
BY DOROTHY DIX

A REVIVAL of the dowry system would not only encourage marriage but would promote wedded happiness, because a wife who has her own income, however small, is accorded greater respect by her husband.

The dowry system is a plan that I have advocated for years. It is the foundation stone of marriage in many countries. Personally I can think of nothing that would speed up the matrimonial market so much as giving girls dowries, because the reason why young people do not marry is not because they do not want to, but because they have not the price of a wedding ring.

THERE are mighty few young men in their 20’s, which is the age in which they are most inclined towards marriage, who make enough money alone and unaided to afford the luxury of a wife. So they have to put off marrying until they are well in their 30’s, and by that time they have more or less outgrown the romantic urge and marriage does not look so good to them as does bachelorhood and freedom.

AFFORD TO MARRY
But if a girl had a dowry it would be different. If a bride brought along her own bread and butter, so to speak, and was able to buy her own fluffy ruffles, then boys and girls could afford to marry while they were still young and ardent. A wife would then be an asset to a man instead of a liability, and marriage would be a grand sweet song instead of a perpetual fight over bills, as it generally is when people try something beyond their means. Love’s young dream has to be financed, or else it turns into a nightmare.

Fathers who bring their daughters up with pink crepe-de-chine habits and tastes should in common honesty and justice continue to suppy the silk lingerie. Otherwise you place a great hardship on both the girl and her husband, and jeopardise their marriage, for many a marriage goes on the rocks because the young husband cannot supply the finery to which the girl has been accustomed, and she cannot adjust herself to a lower standard of living.

For a girl to be given a dowry when she marries would do much to promote her happiness. It would give her the self-respect that even partial financial independence gives, and it would make her husband respect her more. Few men ever treat a wife who has her own pocket book in the same way that they treat one who hasn’t a penny of her own. A rich man once said to me, “I have settled enough money on my daughters in a trust fund to ensure that their husbands will always treat them with politeness and consideration.”

Even when husbands are generous it is wormwood and gall in a woman’s mouth for her to have to ask him for every cent. Every time she has to do it she is humiliated and she feels that she would almost sell her soul for even the smallest income that was her own.

BETTER INVESTMENT
It is because this financial independence is so craved by women that business girls are so loath to give up their jobs after marriage.

Of course, parents will say they cannot afford to give their daughters dowries, and that after you have dressed a girl and sent her to college and given her a trip to Europe and a sports car, there is nothing left to give her when she marries.

True enough, but I believe that if fathers and mothers spent less on their daughters’ backs while they were growing up, and put more in their hope chests, it would be a far better investment in the long run and bring in a higher percentage in happiness and wellbeing to the girls.

In some countries when a baby girl is born her parents begin laying up her dowry so that she may not only be able to marry when she is grown, but have her safety assured after marriage.

Most parents spend all they can rake and scrape together in dolling up a girl, on the gamble that she will be good looking enough to catch a husband who will provide for her. But they never think unless they are rich, of safeguarding her future themselves.

 

 

Dowry System Favored As A “Good Investment” – by Dorothy Dix (1935)

/ gynocentrism

The following article by Dorothy Dix was published in the Richmond News Leader, Number 11959, 4 November 1935.

* * *

Dowry System Favored As “Good Investment”

Financing Children in Marriage Lauded
BY DOROTHY DIX

ONE OF THE acute problems of the day is that of the young people who want to marry, but cannot do so because they have not enough money with which to set up a home.

All of us know fine young boys and girls who are deperately in love with each other, who are literally lovesick for each other, and whose health, whose happiness, and whose morale are being undermined by a long engagement, to which even youthful optimism can see no end. They hope against hope that times will improve, that the young man will get a better job, that some miracle will happen that will enable them to marry, and in the meantime they eat their hearts out in bitterness and longing for the natural right to mate that is denied them.

That this condition of affairs is causing many young people, who would prefer to be openly and honorably married, to indulge in liaisons;  that it is substituting love nests for clean homes; that it is starting many a young girl on the downward path, and bringing hordes of nameless little children into the world, no one can deny. Nor can anyone deny that it is producing an undesirable crop of cynical bachelors and soured old maids.

But what to do about it, since love isn’t really enough to live upon, and, married or single, we must eat and have a roof above our heads and clothes to cover us? Doubtless, in time, the government will set up an alphabetical society that will provide trousseau, bridal trips and honeymoon flats well stocked with angel’s food for newlyweds, but until that halcyon day arrives, it seems to me that it is up to the parents to help their children to get married instead of telling them to “wait,” which seems so easy to those not in love and so tragic to those in love.

No other one thing is so illogical and incomprehensible, anyway, as the attitude of American fathers and mothers toward their children’s marriages. They believe in marriage.  They want their children to marry. They look forward to their children’s marriages. Yet not one American father and mother in a hundred make any provisions for their children’s marriages, or do anything to make it possible for them to marry under conditions that will help to make their marriages successes.

American parents are overindulgent to their children so long as they stay at home. They lavish upon them fine clothes and sport cars, but they do not put aside for a girl any dowry that will help her finance her marriage to the worthy young man she loves, who is just beginning to climb the ladder and who cannot take upon his back a wife who will be a burden to him.

Many an American girl goes to her husband without a penny in her pocket. Her who assets consist of nothing but a costly trousseau of useless finery that she would gladly trade off for a $10-a-month allowance from papa.

The argument, then, is that parents, knowing that their children will some day want to marry, should save up something to finance that, just as they put aside money to send them to college, and that after they are married, they should continue to help them if they need it, until they are on their feet.

Perhaps the reason that fathers and mothers are so unwilling to make sacrifices, why they balk at going to live in a smaller and less pretentious house, or do without a new car in order that Mary may marry that young Jones she is so crazy about, is because they have passed the sentimental age, and love’s young dream doesn’t seem as important to them as their own comfort.

They don’t regard it as vital. But in this they are wrong. It is their children’s whole life, their whole well-being that is at stake, and the most important thing in the world to them is that they should marry while they are still young and still capable of romantic and passionate love.

Furthermore, in financing their children’s marriages to the right men and women, parents are making the best investment in the world. For the poor young man who couldn’t alone support a wife when he married, often not only provides for her in after years, but takes care of her parents.

“His money is our money, my money is my money”

/ gynocentrism

The following items explore the history of material contributions to marriage from both husband and wife, and thier respective families. The traditional contribution of dowry toward a conjugal fund helped to support the married couple — this in contrast to the more recent trend of “romantic love marriages” where typically women bring no material contributions to the relationship table.

VIDEOS AND ARTICLES

– The Dowry System Makes For Wedded Bliss – by Dorothy Dix (1932)
– Dowry System Favored As A “Good Investment” – by Dorothy Dix (1935)
– Decline In Dowry Practice Linked To Rise In Romantic Love – J. Balwick (1975)
– A Discussion on Marital History with Paul Elam & Shah
– What Does She Brings to the Table? ~ Discussion with Paul Elam & Shah
– Romantic Gynocentrism vs. The Dowry ~ Stream by This Is Shah
– What Is Dowry? : Women & Rules of Modern Dating ~ by “It’s Complicated”
– Romantic Love vs. Material Interest in Nineteeth-Century Germany – by This Is Shah

Count Leo Tolstoy criticizes romantic love

/ gynocentrism
The following article transcribing the comments of Count Leo Tolstoy, published in the Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – Friday 21 December 1888.

* * *

ROMANTIC LOVE

Count Tolstoi, whose works are deserving of attention for their insight into human nature, thus discourses on the evils of Romantic love.

“I wish,” said Count Tolstoi to a correspondent “to write a novel, a romance, exposing the conventional illusion of romantic love. I have already written it, but it must be turned upside down and rewritten. It is too much of a treatise as it stands, and there is not enough of action in it.

My object is to fill the reader with horror at the result of taking romantic love au sérieux. The end to which the whole story will lead up will be the murder of a wife by her husband. It will exhibit the depravation of married life by the substitution of romantic love, a fever born of carnal passion for Christian love, which is born of identity of sentiment, similarity of ideal, of friendship of the soul. Upon that love, Christian love, the love of brother and sister, if the carnal love can be grafted it is well, but the former, not the latter, is the first condition of happy married life.

Herein the peasants teach us a lesson. They regard what we regard as romantic love as a disease, temporary and painful, and dangerous. With them no marriage is made under its influence. Anything is better than that. The Herrstatten, who marry by the drawing of lots, are wiser than we. Our system is the worst possible, and the whole of our building ceremonial, and the honeymoon, the fasting, and the incitement to carnality are directly calculated to result in the depravation of matrimony.

Not in one case out of a hundred does romantic love result in a lifelong happy union. The young people whose lives lie in different orbits are drawn together by this evanescent passion. They marry. For a month they are happy—perhaps even for a year, or two years. Then they hate each other for the rest of their lives, spending their time in paying homage to the respectabilities by concealing the truth from their neighbours. It must be so.

If Anna Karenina had married Leven she must have abandoned him likewise. Romantic love is like opium or hashish. But it passes. It is not overpowering and delightful. But it passes. It is not human nature to wish to renew the experience. For this novelty is indispensable. So the wife betrays her husband, and the husband, is false to his wife, and the world becomes one wide brothel.

I wish to open the eyes of all to the real nature and the tragic consequences of this substitution of romantic for Christian love. I see it clearly; oh! so clearly; and when you which no one else seems to see a thing which no one else forms and you see a thing which no one else forms and you feel you must gather all your forces, and devote yourself to setting forth the truth as you see it. This depravation of marriage is all because Christianity has been a word and not a thing. It will however, be a reality again soon.”

[Source: Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – Friday 21 December 1888]

J.R.R. Tolkien criticizes chivalry and courtly love

/ gynocentrism

1. On the Artificiality and False Deification of Love and the Lady:

“There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril.” (Letter #43 – The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 2000)

2. On the Unrealistic and Permanent Notion of Romantic Love:

“It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eyes off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).” (Letter #43 – The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 2000)

ANALYSIS:

In these passages, Tolkien critiques the chivalric tradition of courtly love on several grounds:

Artificial Origins: He describes courtly love as an “artificial courtly game” designed to enjoy love outside the context of marriage, which he sees as contrary to moral and spiritual ideals.

False Idolatry: Tolkien argues that the tradition elevates “Love” and “the Lady” to the status of “imaginary Deities,” displacing God as the true center of devotion. This deification of the beloved woman is “false and at best make-believe.”

Unrealistic Expectations: He criticizes the romantic notion that love is a “permanent thing” requiring no effort, which sets unrealistic expectations and contributes to marital breakdowns when challenges arise.

Distraction from Reality: Tolkien warns that idealizing women as “guiding stars” or divinities prevents men from seeing them as “fallen human-being[s]” and equal partners in life’s struggles, leading to a distorted view of relationships.

* * * *

Source:

These excerpts are drawn from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter (Houghton Mifflin, 2000, ISBN: 978-0618056996). Due to copyright, only the relevant excerpts are quoted from Letter 43 of the 2000 edition.