It depends on the time period and the size of the dowry. The system was undoubtedly oppressive, but it was rooted in the idea that the husband and wife were becoming a joint economic unit and had to set up shop together, so to speak. A poorer woman's dowry would likely be used to purchase farm animals or household goods - or in some cases contribute to her husband's mastership in a trade, which would support them both.
The husband expected to continue making money after marriage, while the woman did not; her husband was supposed to support her financially, and male wages reflected this. Women's wages did not, and all work available to her paid extremely poorly. So, the woman's economic contribution came mostly at the beginning of the marriage, even if she continued to make some side money.
Poorer women might save 12-15 years to buy some pots and pans and a bed. Which is horrifying. They were so poorly paid - they basically exploited them as much as possible without the system completely breaking down.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-26 03:01 pm (UTC)The husband expected to continue making money after marriage, while the woman did not; her husband was supposed to support her financially, and male wages reflected this. Women's wages did not, and all work available to her paid extremely poorly. So, the woman's economic contribution came mostly at the beginning of the marriage, even if she continued to make some side money.
Poorer women might save 12-15 years to buy some pots and pans and a bed. Which is horrifying. They were so poorly paid - they basically exploited them as much as possible without the system completely breaking down.