tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post7818579362807942874..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Deakin's courtshipUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47181098131793847492018-04-30T21:33:08.051+10:002018-04-30T21:33:08.051+10:00"The father in law witheld a financial transf..."The father in law witheld a financial transfer that would ordinarily have been forthcoming" <br /><br />Precisely. You confirm my point that dowries were paid in normal circumstances but in this case no dowry was paid because Deaken failed the initial process of due diligence, evidenced by the comments alluding to the inferior social status of his family of origin which is the key factor in the arrangement of marriages. Hence the bride's family would not consider a marriage with Deakin and no further negotiations proceeded between the family of the bride and the family of Deakin.<br /><br />The bride evidently arranged her own marriage against parental wishes and her family, being liberals, permitted her to do that putting personal freedom above tradition in true liberal fashion. The bride, evidently a feminist valued her own desires and freedom over the authority of her father and the respect she owed him.<br /><br />It is very surprising that as a blogger who incessantly criticises feminism, that you have no comment on this striking undermining of male authority which is the principal goal of feminism.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4527265632862602112018-04-25T22:13:53.362+10:002018-04-25T22:13:53.362+10:00If you don't want to call it a dowry fine. But...If you don't want to call it a dowry fine. But the marriage was not arranged, and the father-in-law withheld a financial transfer that would ordinarily have been forthcoming. I am not endorsing this nor criticising it, but describing what happened and comparing it to current practices.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64404484667071680142018-04-19T03:24:33.016+10:002018-04-19T03:24:33.016+10:00" Marriages were not arranged" and &quo..." Marriages were not arranged" and "they could refuse a dowry if they opposed a marriage" are contradictions, the implication being that a dowry was paid if the parents approved the marriage. The payment of a dowry does not occur in informal marriages, dowries being exclusive to arranged marriages due to the contractual basis of the exchange of the dowry which requires several distinct and sequential processes: due diligence, an offer, negotiation of terms, an acceptance and a transfer of assets.<br /><br />A dowry is not the simple handing over of cash to a nice chap whom the parents like. It is a negotiation of a contract which can be very detailed in terms of value, type of assets (cash, gold, stocks, bonds, property), timing of payments (lump sum or installments), restrictions of uses of the assets and the jurisdiction in which they can be held or used, penalties for misuse etc. The parents of the groom have to be worth more than the dowry and it is usually the parents of the groom who receive the dowry. Therefore to say that "marriages were not arranged" is quite simply false. If there is a dowry then it is arranged. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33156119140777245742018-04-12T12:04:37.881+10:002018-04-12T12:04:37.881+10:00Indeed. Give yourself a slap on the wrist for such...Indeed. Give yourself a slap on the wrist for such crimethink.JAMESnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-49752510118044469882018-04-12T10:20:19.679+10:002018-04-12T10:20:19.679+10:00why couldn't they all accept each other as the...<i>why couldn't they all accept each other as they were?</i><br /><br />James, it must have slipped my mind how wonderfully successful the relationship free for all has proved to be in more modern and enlightened times!Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-79474307333420613892018-04-12T08:56:35.397+10:002018-04-12T08:56:35.397+10:00Nah Mark you don't get it. All parties involve...Nah Mark you don't get it. All parties involved clearly had standards they expected each other to live up to.<br /><br />A more blatant example of oppression is more difficult to find, why couldn't they all accept each other as they were?<br /><br />After all I'm sure I remember a university lecturer telling me socially enforrced standards of behavior are the first step towards Fascism... or something.JAMESnoreply@blogger.com