By Taiwo Abiodun-Oni
The age-old tradition of paying a bride price, a practice deeply rooted in various cultures, has long been seen as a gesture of honor, respect, and love for the bride and her family. It’s a symbolic exchange, a marker of goodwill and the binding of families through marriage. However, like many traditions carried into the modern era, it’s worth asking: does the practice still hold the same meaning today, or has it become a transactional relic that undermines the equality we aspire to in relationships?
To understand the complexity of bride price, we must first look at its origins. Historically, bride price functioned as a form of security for the bride and her family, a way of ensuring that she would be well cared for in her new home. It also acknowledged the contributions of the bride’s family in raising her and preparing her for marriage. In some cultures, the amount of bride price would even reflect the woman’s education, upbringing, and family’s social status. But beneath this veneer of respect lies an unsettling implication: the exchange of a bride price can resemble a purchase, a commodification of the woman herself.
In its most literal sense, the exchange of goods, money, or livestock for a bride can look uncomfortably like a financial transaction, a purchase of rights and access to the woman’s body and labor. The metaphor is stark: a groom provides payment in exchange for a wife. This transactional approach clashes with the modern ideals of equality, where partnerships are built on mutual respect and shared aspirations. In this sense, bride price might be viewed as perpetuating the idea that women are objects to be bought, rather than individuals with agency and autonomy.
Let’s consider the implications further. In many cultures, once a bride price is paid, there are expectations placed upon the woman that align with traditional gender roles. She may be expected to fulfill certain duties, whether as a homemaker, a caretaker, or even as someone who bears children for her husband’s family. The bride price, then, can be seen as not just a token of affection but a subtle form of ownership—a transfer of responsibilities from one household to another, with the woman as the medium through which these expectations are realized.
Defenders of the bride price tradition might argue that it’s not about ownership, but about respect—about formalizing the seriousness of marriage and the value of the bride’s family. They may point out that the money or gifts given as bride price are often returned in kind, either as part of a dowry or through the reciprocal exchange of goods and services between families. In some cases, the bride’s family may even return the entire bride price, symbolizing that the union is based on mutual respect and not on financial gain.
But even in these instances, the question remains: does the practice truly reflect modern values? In an era where women are increasingly independent, educated, and economically self-sufficient, does the concept of a bride price still serve the same purpose? Or does it risk reinforcing outdated gender norms, where a woman’s worth is tied to her marriageability and her family’s ability to “sell” her to the highest bidder?
One of the most glaring issues with the bride price tradition is that it only applies to one side of the union. The groom does not pay a price for a husband, nor is his family expected to offer compensation for his upbringing. This asymmetry highlights the unequal distribution of power in marriage, where men are positioned as providers, while women are positioned as the ones being provided for. In cultures that embrace gender equality, this imbalance seems particularly anachronistic.
Moreover, the bride price can place undue pressure on both parties involved. The groom and his family may struggle to meet the financial demands of the bride’s family, leading to stress, debt, or even the postponement of marriage until the bride price can be paid. On the bride’s side, the practice can lead to feelings of being commodified or undervalued, especially if the amount is seen as insufficient or if the transaction is framed in purely material terms.
Marriage is, or at least should be, a partnership between equals—a union of two people who come together to build a life based on love, mutual respect, and shared goals. In this context, the bride price feels out of place, a vestige of a time when marriage was more about family alliances and economic security than about emotional bonds and personal fulfillment.
Imagine a world where, instead of exchanging goods or money, couples exchange vows of equality and partnership. Where the focus is not on what the groom can provide materially, but on what both partners bring to the relationship in terms of love, support, and commitment. In this vision, marriage is not a transaction, but a collaboration—a partnership where both individuals stand on equal footing, unburdened by the weight of outdated customs.
To be clear, this is not to say that all traditions must be discarded. Culture and tradition provide a sense of identity and continuity, grounding us in the stories of those who came before us. But traditions must evolve, just as society evolves. We must be willing to question whether certain practices still serve their original purpose, and whether they align with the values we hold today.
The bride price, for all its historical significance, may no longer be necessary in modern relationships. Instead, couples should be encouraged to build their unions on the foundation of equality, respect, and mutual support. As we move into an era where gender roles are increasingly fluid, and where partnerships are based on shared goals rather than economic transactions, it’s time to rethink the customs that govern marriage—and to ask ourselves whether the bride price still has a place in a world that values equality over tradition.