"daughters who had received large dowries consistently showed up in later censuses with more slaves than their brothers"

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

You gotta marvel at how clueless the "women were brutally oppressed in the past" believers, whether tradcucks or feminists, are when it comes to what the past was actually like. "Women had no rights at all! Not only could they not own property, they were just property stored at home to be used however their owner wanted! Marriage was just two men, her father and husband, trading property between them, they could be beaten and used sexually by their husbands at any time."

I've been searching for some studies on how the wealth and social status of brothers compared to their sisters in the past, since if there was any of that supposed "oppreshun" that's where we'd see it. Brothers and sisters start at the same level in this area, but if women were oppressed and had any unique obstacles to building wealth or important economic activity in general, they would probably end up much poorer than their brothers at the end. By that, I mean I was looking for any studies that would show something like the average woman's wealth at the end of her life being something about 10-20% that of her brother, with her also having several times greater chance of falling into poverty (And even that's generous when talking about actual oppression, the net worth of the average slave, regardless of society, whether it was Rome, one of the Islamic Caliphates or European colonial empires, was probably less than 1% of his owner's.)

Well, instead of that, I've found this nice nugget:

Moreover, evidence shows that dowries were usually higher than the legitime of their brothers, thus the socioeconomic opportunities for remaining in the same social class instead of facing downward mobility was easier for sisters(Goody, 1998; Mikes & de Montagut, 2018).

The increasing influence of siblings in social mobility. A long-term historical view (Barcelona area, 16th-19th centuries)

Which is already pretty funny by itself. Even leaving aside that this fact utterly invalidates any claim of cultures with male-preference for inheritance inevitably being oppressive to women since the parents can just give their daughters wealth and property in other ways, such as in those cases dowries when they get married, I just love the casual admittance that women had an easier way of staying in their social class than men (which they still do, income elasticities are still higher for men than for women in most modern countries.) Which only further shows how delusional the arguments that women as a whole were at a risk of falling into poverty and servility, which I've seen somebody reposting here a Reddit post with some feminist saying that, are.

Anyway, this got me interested, so I googled that exact quote, and found this beauty from the title:

daughters who had received large dowries consistently showed up in later censuses with more slaves than their brothers

Most other parents also went out of their way to endow their daughters, so that many dowries consisted of much more property than what sons later inherited. For example, when Maria Gonçalves married in 1623, her father gave her, among other things, at least 16 Indians.26 When her father died 18 years later, her brother inherited only 5 Indians.27 The livestock in Maria’s dowry also compares favorably with his inheritance, for she received ten head of cattle and a horse and saddle, whereas he inherited only three pigs (see Table I).

Parents and Daughters: Change in the Practice of Dowry in São Paulo (1600-1770)

Jfl, just look at this.

It really shows that this thing was written in 1990, because if it were written today you just know that some feminist would be working on this and still trying to make it out to actually have been oppressive against women and that the women whose dowries were consistently bigger than their brothers' inheritances were in some way still the oppressed victims.

Meanwhile, this study clearly spells it out that sisters had an advantage over their brothers, and while for a while it was possible for men to balance this out by marrying women with dowries as large as their sisters' were, eventually that became impossible, because hypergamy is undefeated, and women gained a permanent advantage.

Even if daughters were favored, their brothers could make up their disadvantage by marrying women with equivalent dowries. In the eighteenth century, this was no longer the case, for though many dowries were sizable and daughters still tended to be favored over sons, parents now expected a son-in-law to contribute more to the marriage than their daughter contributed. This meant that parents’ initial favoring of daughters resulted in permanent advantage for them, since sons encountered similar expectations which prevented them from marrying women with dowries as large as their sisters’. The situation brought about an imbalance between siblings that probably contributed to the increased litigation visible in eighteenth-century inventários.

"But that's just because women were a resource meant to be married off to the highest bidder, so they had to be made to look as appealing to marry as possible!" some might say, but that would forget that sons were just as much a resource meant to bring a good marriage alliance to their family as the daughters, and those large dowries were meant to control the sons' marriage choices as much as their sisters'.

When parents gave dowries to their daughters, but not equivalent gifts to their sons (which might make them independent to marry the woman of their choice), they were both retaining control of whom their daughters married and ensuring that their sons married women of their class, the only women who could provide dowries such as those their sisters received.

Precisely because a bride’s dowry in seventeenth-century São Paulo was usually larger than the property the groom took to marriage, the marriage bargain was weighted in favor of the wife and her family, giving the latter leverage in choosing a husband for their daughter, in determining where the couple would live, and in overseeing how the property was administered. Even though brides thus married down economically, the bargain was likely to be evened out through the grooms’ white blood, membership in an important clan, claim to nobility, technological expertise, or just hard work. The fact that a daughter’s marriage thus expanded the family’s alliances, while incorporating another male into its military, political, or economic projects, was sufficient reason for her dowry to take precedence among the family’s expenditures.

Jfl, this sounds like a Hentai plot.

The most obvious advantage to parents of giving large dowries to daughters and little to sons was the leverage they obtained in the arrangement of marriages. This is quite clearly suggested by the case of Raphael de Oliveira, who had his stepdaughter, the daughter of his second wife by her first husband, marry his son by his first wife. He gave his stepdaughter a dowry that included her maternal inheritance, yet, when he died 20 years later, he had still not paid his son, her husband, his maternal inheritance.50 Certainly, if Raphael de Oliveira’s son had received his maternal inheritance and thereby become independent from his father, he might not have married the girl his father wanted him to marry. Indeed, he might not have married at all, contenting himself with an Indian concubine instead.

Ngl, "I Have To Marry My Stepsister Else I Won't Inherit" is something I can 100% imagine being a Light Novel title.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Bump because why not.

Spoiler

@based_meme @DarkStar @Regenerator @Mecoja @Incline @Stupid Clown @Sewer Sloth @Sergeant Kelly @Flagellum_Dei @To koniec @reveries @VideoGameCoper @veryrare @LeFrenchCel @PersonalityChad @OutcompetedByRoomba

 

[Stupid Clown]

Not surprising. In two hundred years femoids will talk about how women had no rights in the west during the 2000s.

Very good read.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

"But that's just because women were a resource meant to be married off to the highest bidder, so they had to be made to look as appealing to marry as possible!" some might say, but that would forget that sons were just as much a resource meant to bring a good marriage alliance to their family as the daughters, and those large dowries were meant to control the sons' marriage choices as much as their sisters'.

being considered a resource as a woman = degrading, dehumanizing, unacceptable
being considered a resource as a man = flattering, sign of respect, empowering

 

[reveries]

The desire to protect and worship females, as well as put down other males, sits too deep in male psyche. It's not modern. No matter whether it's le patriarchy or matriarchy women are always the benefiters at the end of the day, their lives will always be cherished and protected.

I wish people were as eager to talk about men dying at wars throughout the whole history as much as they are about women "oppression" but eh, whatever

 

[justuseless]

They were having gangbangs with those slaves

 

[VideoGameCoper]

Very interesting statistics ngl, seems like they are raised to be greedy and turn more selfish because of it

 

[PersonalityChad]

No matter whether it's le patriarchy or matriarchy women are always the benefiters at the end of the day, their lives will always be cherished and protected.

This, you literally cannot lose as a woman, especially as an attractive one.

They were having gangbangs with those slaves

Just be slave theory is law

being considered a resource as a woman = degrading, dehumanizing, unacceptable
being considered a resource as a man = flattering, sign of respect, empowering

True

 

[based_meme]

The "women were oppressed in the past" narrative has completely broken down. Nobody believes that horseshit anymore. Thank goodness.

 

[Mecoja]

Yeah, liberals and feminists are rewriting the history and reality, mentally ill people live in their own universe.

Marriage was just two men, her father and husband

First time hearing this, hilarious. I doubt that it was much different from now, only slightly less hypergamous because of lack of globalization, less sexual degeneracy because of slutshaming and catladywhore shaming.

Previous generations Serbia, in poor families brothers would usually get the house and sister would get the money, so they could both get married easier. Sister would live with her husband who would inherit the house from his own parent. People were less selfish back then.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Not surprising. In two hundred years femoids will talk about how women had no rights in the west during the 2000s.

They absolutely will, absolutely.
We still have people who believe that in the Roman Empire for example, women had "minimal rights" and were just barely above slaves or whatever, when that was a society that didn't prevent women from owning businesses at all, and even kinda rewarded it

Laws during the Imperial period aimed at punishing women for adultery exempted those "who have charge of any business or shop" from prosecution.

Women in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and, and had a gender-equal inheritance system where, by law, unless a Will stated otherwise, when a man died, all of his children were entitled to an equal share of his property, regardless of gender and birth order.

In the case of intestacy, Roman inheritance law had no concept of primogeniture and treated male and female children equally.

Inheritance law in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And even from the Wills we have, while a good number of them do privilege the eldest son, a similar amount of them simply follow the "everyone equal regardless of gender or order of birth" rule.

Two common patterns of bequest are attested from Roman Egypt. In one, the children, irrespective of sex, receive equal shares; in the other, some preference is shown to the oldest son.

Inheritance and Bequest |

lawexplores.com

 

[Sergeant Kelly]

daughters who had received large dowries consistently showed up in later censuses with more slaves than their brothers

That especially cracked me up, it's like a Monthy Python bit "Sir, you must have misheard me, I meant "they owned more slaves" not "women were slaves"
Reminds me of the time when there was some womens march in poland and the woman with speaker made a slip of the tongue and said "stop womens dictatorship!" and rest of the crowd started chanting it.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

That especially cracked me up, it's like a Monthy Python bit "Sir, you must have misheard me, I meant "they owned more slaves" not "women were slaves"
Reminds me of the time when there was some womens march in poland and the woman with speaker made a slip of the tongue and said "stop womens dictatorship!" and rest of the crowd started chanting it.