This is a caption.[/caption]

این یک عنوان است.

This is a caption.
Mina Jafari

In examining the subject of dowry and whether it is good or bad, the overall situation and position of the family in civil law must be taken into consideration. In Iranian civil law, the financial right of dowry, which has become increasingly difficult for Iranian women to obtain due to stricter laws, is counterbalanced by the one-sided right of divorce for men. Therefore, in considering the positive or negative effects of a woman’s financial right in married life, we must also take into account the right of divorce for men and the instability of life from a woman’s perspective.

In other words, the main reason for the significant increase in dowry rates in society is directly related to the increase in psychological and economic insecurity of women in Iranian society. According to Iranian women, this legal tool – or better to say the only legal tool for women against the multiple rights of men in married life – is the only and most accessible tool for solving the chaotic situation of Iranian women in a patriarchal society. While a high dowry does not necessarily strengthen the relationship between husband and wife in married life, it may lead to the preservation of the appearance of married life without emotional attachment between the couple, using excuses such as honor, having children together, or even a practical reason such as the lack of financial support for divorced women, both in society and in the paternal family. This is exactly why we witness physical and emotional divorces and the subsequent increase in infidelity among married men and women in Iranian society, all in order to maintain the superficial appearance of married life.

In fact, part of the government’s duty regarding the preservation of individuals’ financial security, whether through marriage or without it, is to provide social insurance for citizens. This responsibility is placed on the husband’s shoulders in the case of married women, and setting a high dowry creates a sense of security for women who are in a safer position compared to those who have been given a lower dowry. The husband can use the unilateral right of divorce and pay a small dowry to divorce his wife, whether in one payment or in installments, while a high dowry often prevents men from being able to do so, depriving them of the ability to end their marriage at any time and for any reason, even if it is unreasonable.

However, the experience of courts and dowry cases shows that, due to the dominant and unjust gaze of the male ruler over the courts and the creation of multiple obstacles for women to benefit from their only legal right in married life, considering a high dowry to prevent the collapse of married life does not seem to be a very correct and reasonable matter in the long run.

For example, after setting the illegal and unlawful limit of 110 coins for issuing a summons for a man, the focus shifted to determining multiple installments for paying the dowry and avoiding imprisonment for men due to their inability to pay, essentially leaving women as the only ones subject to ridicule and mistreatment under the law. Meanwhile, little attention was given to the issue of men’s unquestionable right to divorce and granting this right to women.

Therefore, considering the equality of rights between men and women in current laws, paying dowry unilaterally without considering the man’s unilateral divorce right and the lack of financial security for women in the patriarchal society of Iran is futile. The issue of dowry must be analyzed and examined in the cultural and historical context of Iran, and we cannot simply label it as good or bad. In fact, changing the laws related to dowry must be accompanied by changes in other family rules and laws, so that women’s rights are not further violated and families have sufficient stability.