Pashtun system of marriage has benefits...

[یاسمینه]

Let me quote something about brideprice payments. I wonder if the described tradition is still alive:

"The brideprice is divided into three parts:
(a) An endowment in jewellery given by the husband's family to the bride (mahr). Though this becomes her property, it is not lost to the husband, since the wife makes him a gift of it after the consummation of the marriage. If as sometimes happens, the jewellery has been borrowed for the occasion, he promptly returns it to the rightful owners. Otherwise, the mahr becomes the property of the joint household.
[...]"

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Your observation is also not backed by any scientific or anthropological data. Just mentioning science does not make something scientific.

.

sure it is check in any research about Indo-Aryan cultures, it describes the rigid gender structures; this is widely known.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Let me quote something about brideprice payments. I wonder if the described tradition is still alive:

"The brideprice is divided into three parts:
(a) An endowment in jewellery given by the husband's family to the bride (mahr). Though this becomes her property, it is not lost to the husband, since the wife makes him a gift of it after the consummation of the marriage. If as sometimes happens, the jewellery has been borrowed for the occasion, he promptly returns it to the rightful owners. Otherwise, the mahr becomes the property of the joint household.
[...]"

oh yes that's another issue with Walwar, in Islamic Shari'ah Mahr goes to the wise, but Walwar goes to the bride's father in Pashtunwali.

[khushal]

oh yes that's another issue with Walwar, in Islamic Shari'ah Mahr goes to the wise, but Walwar goes to the bride's father in Pashtunwali.

Walwar goes to the brides family for the intent to be spent on the bride.

[khushal]

Let me quote something about brideprice payments. I wonder if the described tradition is still alive:

"The brideprice is divided into three parts:
(a) An endowment in jewellery given by the husband's family to the bride (mahr). Though this becomes her property, it is not lost to the husband, since the wife makes him a gift of it after the consummation of the marriage. If as sometimes happens, the jewellery has been borrowed for the occasion, he promptly returns it to the rightful owners. Otherwise, the mahr becomes the property of the joint household.
[...]"

The jewelry actually belongs to the bride and only to her. In reality she can do whatever she wants with it, she could keep it, gift it to anyone she wants. In the area I am from, if the father does not buy his daughter jewelry, he is considered a Baighyrat.

[khushal]

Obviously she isn't being literal; Karzai was born and raised in Karez in Kandahar, the HEARTland of Pashtun society (supposedly) He's a product of the society.

I know what she is saying, He is a product of tht society for sure, but at the same time the society did not choose him to run the country.

[یاسمینه]

Let me quote something about brideprice payments. I wonder if the described tradition is still alive:

"The brideprice is divided into three parts:
(a) An endowment in jewellery given by the husband's family to the bride (mahr). Though this becomes her property, it is not lost to the husband, since the wife makes him a gift of it after the consummation of the marriage. If as sometimes happens, the jewellery has been borrowed for the occasion, he promptly returns it to the rightful owners. Otherwise, the mahr becomes the property of the joint household.
[...]"

I better finish this quotation:

(b) Expenses for the wedding and equipment if the new home (waade depara); mainly foodstuf, with bedding and kitchen equipment.

(c) Outright payment for the girl (de njeley de sar rupey - money for the girl's head)."

[khushal]

While some of your point has some merits, that self-immolation isn't the product of simply bad marriages; one cannot undermine that there are intrinsically enshrined disparities of gender relations which are disproportionately against the welfare of women and regardless of these economic issues and this very nebulous attempt at scapegoating social problems and blaming outsiders. The problem is the culture itself. The culture does not abscond abusers, the culture in fact extols abuse as a form of pious justice. Such abuses are not just committed by the poor and disadvanteged but by well off people. If anything the correlation of the act of self immolation in Afghanistan SPECIFICALLY isn't so much a economic reaction against the disparities of invasion (those disparities always existed) but in Afghanistan's case at least ...it's a product of desperate women ...who discovered a new way of expressing their distress through the influx of media into Afghanistan giving them ideas of new options of self destruction they didn't consider.

The lack of faith argument is a scapegoat too; I'm pretty sure most women in distressed abusive situations who come from a zealous country where religion is used as a central gravitating point pray abundantly in hopes of finding salvation ...the only problem is, the Merciful God doesn't seem to respond. .... and thus other avenues become viable.

Its a reaction to lack of justice and the leaders are responsible for that. Self immolation is more of a protest than actually escaping from the misery that they are in. There are much easier and less painful ways one can kill oneself but self immolation since its horrific draws attention from the community and the leaders resposible for it are ignoring the issue. While financially sound people may have committed such acts the vast majority are done by people in dire economic situations.

[یاسمینه]

Since you write contradictions, I think that these traditions may vary depending on the regions.
The quotation refered to Swat Yousufzai Pashtuns from 50 years ago or so.

[khushal]

(c) Outright payment for the girl (de njeley de sar rupey - money for the girl's head)."

This payment is completely haram. Speaking in regards to the evolution of culture, I think the original intention of this was either financial compensation to raise the girl or the first stage of some sort of caste system that never played out to have noble/rich families marry within their own financial status and exclude peasant/poor from marrying within the higher status.

[یاسمینه]

This payment is completely haram. Speaking in regards to the evolution of culture, I think the original intention of this was either financial compensation to raise the girl or the first stage of some sort of caste system that never played out to have noble/rich families marry within their own financial status and exclude peasant/poor from marrying within the higher status.

I know it is haram, but I think it still exists.

[DaZahroJaam.]

what the hell is a woman who is not deemed entitled to basic human rights or that of education supposed to do with her walwar EVEN IF it gets to her hands??? Why does it always come down to money when we speak about women's rights??
When a man's basic rights are exchanged for a sum of money, it's called slavery.
Afghan women need equal rights as men not clarification as to where her walwar should go. You guys have been ranting about that for the last three decades and have managed to go nowhere with it.

[khushal]

except the key factors here are WEALTH because wealth provides resources and security, and the implicit gradient here is CHOICE, in most cultures which has developed a conscientious understanding of human behavio, these women had every opportunity of informed consent before agreeing to marry.

What happens in Pashtun culture doesn't happen "everywhere" Because women generally are not allowed to give informed consent, the men they marry are old but seldom wealthy; in fact most of these men just save up enough money to buy a wife and once married live in squalor. However even if we take wealthy older men, the young teen girl is usually coerced into the marriage; often at an age where she is not even developmentally ready for sex. Even during puberty a woman's body is physiologically unprepared since she is JUSt starting to acquire these faculties and mature, not having become matured yet. They are thus thrust into these situations AGAINST their will, their well being and welfare where they are compelled to engage in acts and behaviors they are unprepared for in the first place both mentally and physically. This is nothing short but culturally sanctioned and institutionalized rape. Furthermore it is somewhat bordering an abberation from the Natural Mating habits of Primates of which Humans are a subclass. In Nature mates are chosen based on relative developmental compatibility; humans generally define it by age. Of course let's stress here that developmental compatibility is a continuum and not merely a sharply rigidly defined Digit of when is or when it isn't appropriate to marry; but it's clear a 60 year old and 14 year old female does not match up. A 60 year old is starting to decay; his testosterone production has declined considerably. A 14 year old is "budding" ; her body is becoming increasingly more fertile (though not necessarily capable of healthy pregnancy) and producing more estrogen and progesterone. Sure we can argue that. They can still "mate" in theory but according to the patterns of Nature and how they interact in humans, Their union is probably one of the least advantageous and least preferred settings for coupling to be imagined. He is fast becoming an increasingly inviable asset as a partner for a woman and more a liability to his welfare and survival of both themselves and their spouses. The distance in age here becomes proportional to survival viability, this is not favored in nature, despite being allotted some marginal degree of continuity; it's nature's last step not it's first march. Yet this last step is made enshrined as an ideal dictum for Pashtuns; Pashtuns as a result fail to be a culture that is compatible with nature.

why else do you think U.S. Military were able to bribe elderly tribesmen with Viagra who just happened to have young brides? They're no longer capable of fulfilling the necessary marital output and they needed an artificial alternative to compensate for what nature no longer afforded them. These are just examples but they hint to greater dilemmas in the anthropology of Pashthns and their social constructs and behaviors.

Your statement is a red herring. Your comparing animals with humans. In human society, the most viable one is not the one who is physically strong, it is the one who controls the most resources. Wheather we are talking about western or eastern societies, the one with the most resources can attract the most viable mates, wheather he is physically handicapped or infertile, females will flock to him in droves. Not only females but other males will attach themeslves to him like leeches or parasites feeding off of him. Their survivability increases if they do so.

We live in a society where people will almost do anything for money. Animals dont behave in such way.

[khushal]

I know it is haram, but I think it still exists.

your right, this does exist. I have talked most of my family members that live back home out of it. The funny thing is that the girls in those families curse me because they say they are being given up for free. They say that it means that their families love them less if they are given up for free.

[faye]

khushal, re"animals vs human behaviour....sure they do. being the most financially secure, in a world where money equals power, is the equivalent of being the strongest and the best provider.