You know, dowry was only abolished in Greece in the eighties by Papandreou! That's after Amin did it in Afghanistan. In fact the dowry-abolition-story must be somewhat specified and qualified: in Afghanistan the prevailing system was the mehr system, which is a brideprice (dower) rather than a dowry (as in practically all polygynous cultures) although it could be combination of the two. The sole dowry practice was actually a very recent thing, (in some rural parts of india it was only introduced the last forty years, in Bangladesh even more recently, before that, they also used the brideprice system,) and I personally doubt very much there would have been a lot of dowry-paying practiced in Afghanistan, except with the modern classes living monogamously, perhaps. In an agricultural context the mehr (brideprice) would be the traditional way to deal with daughters. In texts on Afghan history though there is usually only talk of the 'abolition of the dowry system', but I'm pretty certain the 'mehr system' or dower system would be a lot more correct; maybe since this word is unknown to the general public, the word dowry is used, but wrongly, as it is quite the opposite of mehr, which is actually a dower. So I should correct myself on this, I used it also for simplicity's sake because it indicates marriage practice and everyone knows it has to do with paying (only in the case of the dowry it is the girls family paying for the husband and in the mehr the man is paying to the girls father). The same is practiced in Pakisten: A rich dowry serves as a trousseau; the household goods, clothing, jewelry, and furniture included remain the property of the bride after she has married. Marriage also involves a dower, called haq mehr, established under Islamic law, the sharia. Although some families set a symbolic haq mehr of Rs32 (for value of the rupee--see Glossary) in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, others may demand hundreds of thousands of rupees.
Brideprice is customary in Central Asia, particularly for those living in rural areas. In Turkmenistan, the brideprice usually consists of animals, money and goods, and is delivered by the groom’s father to the bride’s father before the wedding. Turkmen marriages also require both indirect dowry paid by the women in the groom’s family to the bride and traditional dowry paid by the bride’s family to the bride (Bastug and Hortacsu). The Soviets prohibited brideprice *and* dowry, but enforcement of the prohibition was rare, and the practice remained strong. In Kazakhstan, brideprice, known as kalym, has come out into the open in the post-Soviet era. According to Kazak custom, the groom makes the bride's family a gift of livestock. Kazak women sometimes bring some of their family's livestock into the marriage. The husband and his family may not inherit this bridewealth, but only the children of the marriage (Economist 1997). In Tajikstan, the average kalym price grew by 300 percent in the 1980s (Poliakov 1992: 55). Similarly, in Turkey, the baslik (paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride) has been repeatedly declared illegal. However, the practice remains common among rural families (Vergin 2000). Depending on their looks or wealth, some girls can fetch as much as $50,000 (Zaman, 2000). Jan Matthieu ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence de Bivort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: SOME Women love the burka!) > Well said, Jan. > > Can you say a bit more about the dowry matter in Afghanistan? Did it become > a major issue for the Taliban, the way modesty and the burka did? It is > probably too early to tell, but do you have any sense of whether the removal > of the Taliban affected dowry practices. I suspect, by the way, that not > only did dowry pre-date the Taliban, but it predated Islam as well. I can't, > off-hand, think of any culture in which a dowry of some sort or another > (sometimes paid from the female to the male side, and sometimes from the > male to the female side) hasn't been customary, if only at a symbolic level. > > Best regards, > Lawry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jan matthieu > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:49 AM > > To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > > > > I wonder if not having to wear a burka can be considered a human right. > > In any case, as was repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, burka's were > > the normal attire of countryside women in large parts of Afghanistan, > > especially Pashtunistan. Women wore it before the Soviet invasion, > > during and after, but it was not legally prescribed. Taliban enforced it > > on all women, but now they have gone, this doesn't have to mean all > > women would nor should take them off, and the fact women are still > > wearing them has no connection to the possible remaining influence of > > the taliban. > > I have no doubt those people, who think they do Afghani women a favor by > > trying to 'liberate' them from the outside mean well. But some disasters > > are wrought by the well meaning. No doubt the communist regime meant to > > do well for the equality of male and female by abolishing the dowry > > practice; only it wasn't accepted by the majority of the population that > > just wasn't ready for it, it was considered an attack on their culture, > > tradition and religion and it directly led to the anti-Soviet uprising > > and the real start of the war. > > So maybe some things need time. If you want to force them, they > > boomerang back and have the opposite effect, as the taliban repression > > could never have happened without the communist meddling in the first > > place. I hope this opinion doesn't make me a bad human rights activist? > > > > Jan Matthieu > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Namens Christoph Reuss > > Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 16:14 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > > > > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a burka'ed > > > woman? This shows how little you know... > > > > Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? > > > > http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html > > > > "Afghan women > > ... > > * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside their > > families. ... > > * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a > > woman's voice.)" > > > > > > > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > > > how to do this, I would provide it. > > > > Why don't you simply provide it, instead of spouting empty polemics and > > playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Simply say > > what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. > > > > > > > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to make > > > up your mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > > > experience you seek to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be > > > even worth-while asking! It is not so much your ignorance I find > > > appalling, Chris, but your steadfast determination to learn nothing. > > > > Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my > > case, in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest > > that the 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I > > suggested was to take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into > > account when assessing their replies. > > > > Your replies to my suggestion show _your_ "determination to learn > > nothing". > > > > Worse, by choosing to remain ignorant about the backgrounds (and even > > attacking those who reveal these backgrounds), you end up being > > accomplice to the oppressors of Muslim women. > > > > Chris > > (a "white western male" who thinks that human rights should apply to > > non-white non-western females too) > > > > > > > >
