Meghan O'Rourke argues against the crass commercialism and paternalism of the diamond engagement ring.
It may seem curious that feminism has made inroads on many retrograde customs—name-changing, for example—but not on the practice of giving engagement rings. Part of the reason the ring has persisted and thrived is clearly its role in what Thorstein Vebelen called the economy of "conspicuous consumption." Part of the reason could be that many young women, raised in a realm of relative equality, never think rigorously about the traditions handed down to them. So it's easy to simply regard a ring as a beautiful piece of jewelry and accept it in kind (I'm guilty myself). But it's also the case that a murkier truth lies within its brilliance: Women still measure their worth in relationship to marriage in ways that men don't. And many are looking for men who will bear the burden of providing for them, while demanding equality in other ways.
I agree that engagement and marriage mean something to women that it doesn't mean to men. It's fairly obvious when you read the rants of Amanda Marcotte about the irrelevance of marriage, as well as in the discussions by Maggie Gallagher about the importance of marriage.
Boiling it down, for women, the engagement ring is the sign that they are wanted, and wanted badly enough to be paid for. This comes perilously close to prostitution, except that the man makes a one-time purchase and gets the hooker forever (a little like one of those cards one can get from a store where you get a stamp for each $20 spent, then get a freebie after the card is full).
I know, that was mean. But I feel I can be a bit mean about it, since I've been married twice and sometimes feel like an expert on the subject. My first husband bought me a little diamond engagement ring (it was so small it was measured in "points" as opposed to carats). It was nice as far as little rings go and I was proud and happy to have it.
The second time through, still suffering the nearly universal condemnation of my family for getting divorced, I wanted to keep things as low-keyed as possible.
My husband (the lovely guy I've been married to for nearly 12 years) is about as egalitarian a person as you'll ever meet. He even suggested we combine our names and create a new one so we would both be changing our names. So, when we were looking at rings and I decided to eschew the engagement ring for a different sort of wedding ring, he was fine with it.
So, let's face it. It's not the men who are hellbent on spending $12k on an engagement ring. It's the women. They want the biggest diamond they can make their man afford as a way of showing how much they are worth.
There's a reality show on the Style Network called I Propose, which shows a man setting up the proposal to his girlfriend, then performing it in front of a camera. There are elements of the show that are interesting. For instance, who the guy calls in for support and help and how he envisions the proposal going.
But what bothers me is the time and investment young women seem to put into the single event known as the proposal and put such a dollar investment in the ring. It has to be two carats? That's approximately $12,000. A person would rather have a ring than the down payment on a house? Is a person who would rather be in debt for a piece of jewelry and dreaming of a particular proposal situation ready to be adult enough to live with the day-to-day problems of married life? It seems to me that the insistence on bigger and better engagement rings means that there are some vestiges of the patriarchy that need to be wiped out.
|