Dowry Is His Right, Alimony Is Her Greed: The Hypocrisy of Male Entitlement

"When a man demands dowry, he’s upholding tradition. When a woman asks for alimony, she’s a gold digger. Funny how the rules change when the money flows in the opposite direction."

In a society deeply rooted in patriarchal entitlement, the concept of dowry remains disturbingly normal — even though it has been illegal for decades. A woman’s family is expected to “gift” wealth to the groom and his family in the name of tradition, respect, and social status. The larger the dowry, the greater the honor attached to the family. But when a woman asks for alimony — a legal right meant to provide financial stability after a marriage ends — she is suddenly labeled greedy, opportunistic, and immoral. The hypocrisy is glaring: dowry reinforces male dominance, while alimony challenges it — and that’s why the male ego can’t handle it.

Men who proudly accept dowry as part of their birthright are quick to turn the tables when asked to provide financial support to the wife they promised to care for. The real issue lies in the fact that dowry is seen as an extension of male privilege, while alimony is viewed as a threat to it. Society conveniently masks dowry as a “tradition,” but alimony as a “scam” — revealing how patriarchy thrives on double standards.
Dowry is framed as a "necessary gift" to secure a woman's place in marriage. Families proudly give away gold, cash, and even property as a way of ensuring that their daughter is "accepted" by her husband’s family. It’s less about tradition and more about reinforcing male dominance — because the groom’s family gains wealth, status, and power.

On the other hand, alimony is about accountability. It forces men to confront the fact that their wife’s contribution — whether financial or emotional — had real value. Alimony challenges the idea that men are the sole providers and exposes the reality that many women sacrifice their careers and ambitions to support their husbands. Dowry inflates a man’s worth; alimony levels the playing field — which is exactly why men are uncomfortable with it.
Society celebrates dowry with pride. Lavish weddings, gold sets, and expensive cars gifted to the groom’s family are flaunted as a mark of status. No one questions how much was “given” — instead, it’s seen as a reflection of how well the bride’s family respects the groom’s family.

But when a woman asks for alimony after a divorce, suddenly the narrative changes. "Why does she need money when the marriage is over?" Society shames women for seeking financial security, even if they’ve sacrificed their careers and supported their husbands emotionally and financially. The message is clear: a man receiving wealth is acceptable; a woman seeking compensation is greedy.
Dowry reinforces the idea that the groom's family holds the power. By accepting dowry, the groom’s family positions themselves as superior — the bride’s family is essentially "paying" for the marriage. This dynamic creates an immediate imbalance where the man is positioned as the provider and decision-maker.

Alimony, however, reverses that power dynamic. It forces men to acknowledge that their wife’s unpaid labor — managing the household, raising children, and supporting his career — deserves recognition. It challenges the patriarchal notion that men are owed financial control, which is why society is so quick to label women seeking alimony as "opportunistic."
From a young age, women are taught that marriage means sacrifice. Give up your career, take care of the household, raise the children — that’s the "role" society assigns to women. And when they fulfill this role, it’s called "duty" — not work.

But when the marriage ends, the sacrifices remain invisible. Society expects women to walk away with nothing because "she didn’t earn it." But why is raising children, managing a home, and supporting a husband’s career not considered work? Alimony is not charity — it’s compensation for years of unpaid labor that directly contributed to the husband’s success.

Families often go into debt to meet dowry demands. Borrowing money, selling land, and emptying savings accounts for a daughter’s wedding is seen as a “necessary” expense. Even when dowry leads to financial strain, society still frames it as a duty.

But when a man is asked to pay alimony — even if it’s legally justified — it’s suddenly labeled unfair. "Why should he keep supporting her?" The truth is, many women sacrifice their financial independence for the sake of marriage. If the husband benefited from that arrangement, why shouldn’t he compensate her when it ends?

Cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, emotional support — women do it all without pay or recognition. A man’s career success is often built on the emotional and domestic labor his wife provides. But since society doesn’t view this as “work,” it’s expected to come for free.

Alimony challenges this notion. It assigns monetary value to the emotional and domestic labor that women provide — and that’s why society resists it. A man who built his career with his wife’s support doesn’t want to admit that her contribution was essential. Alimony forces him to confront that uncomfortable truth.

Society conditions women to be dependent on men. "Find a husband who will take care of you" is still common advice. Women are encouraged to prioritize marriage and family over their careers. They are told to “adjust” and “support their husbands.”

But when the marriage ends and a woman seeks financial support through alimony, she’s labeled as weak or greedy. The same society that discouraged women from building their own financial independence now shames them for needing support. The hypocrisy is staggering — and deeply rooted in patriarchal control.

Parents are taught that giving dowry is part of securing a daughter’s future. It’s framed as a necessary sacrifice, not a transaction. Even when dowry demands are unreasonable or exploitative, families comply to avoid social shame. A large dowry elevates the groom’s family status, and the bride’s family is respected for their generosity.

Alimony, on the other hand, is treated as a personal failure. "Why can’t she stand on her own feet?" Even if the woman supported the household for years, her financial dependency is viewed as weakness. Society accepts that men are entitled to financial gain from marriage — but women asking for financial security post-divorce is condemned.
The double standard is impossible to ignore. When dowry is involved, the groom’s family demands it with the confidence of royalty. When alimony is involved, the husband suddenly becomes the victim of a corrupt system. Men justify dowry under the pretext of "tradition" but refuse to accept alimony as a legal obligation. The reason is simple: dowry strengthens male dominance, while alimony challenges it.

Society celebrates a large dowry as a sign of honor and status. But when a woman demands alimony — even though it’s a legal right — she’s accused of being greedy. The hypocrisy exposes the fragile foundation of male privilege: men are comfortable benefitting from patriarchal systems but resist legal accountability when those systems fail.
If society can justify taking dowry as a gift, why can’t it accept alimony as justice? Why is a woman expected to sacrifice her career and independence for marriage — and then walk away with nothing when it ends? The real question is not why alimony exists — the question is why men are so uncomfortable with women finally asking for what they’re owed.