In HenryP's defense (and the society's, yikes) I don't think either said it was a good practice. But the truth remains that it is a cultural reality for a LARGE part of the world.
Many western countries (though not so much today) give a dowry. Even in the US, it was tradition for ages for the parents of the bride to pay for the wedding. Could that be a substitution for or modernization of a dowry? How many here had a wedding where the bride's parents payed for much/all of the expenses?
Since the practice is still very much alive today, it is rather ethno-centric, I think, to ask the society to pretend it doesnt exist in a magazine that is ostensibly printed for the entire world.
The article was about bride price, a practice that has more of a connotation of "exchange", as in "if you're going to take my precious daughter from me, you must compensate me for my loss. Yes, I understand that in the anglo-saxon traditions that birthed(?) the bride price, women were still treated as property, and marriages were often set up, but it happened to the boys exactly as often as it happened to the girls.
The only quote from the article is concerning bride price, but this topic quickly changed gears to the opposite--and much more negatively connotated--dowry. Dowry carries with it the thought "if I'm going to take this girl off your hands, you must compensate me." India today still has an active (and embarrassing) dowry tradition, which stems from its caste system.
I think both of these traditions are archaic and barbaric. But to be fair, the society was not championing them, merely acknowledging their existence, and even calling for moderation in them. To connect the JW chauvinism with bride price and come up with the society endorsing slavery seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.
Hmmm