Obsidian Potency 3.0
How Engagement Rings Disempower Women.
posted Thursday, 14 June 2007
Recently, Slate decided to continue what Obsidian Potency started back in May 2005: exposing the public's fascination with diamonds for the superficial horseshit it really is.
Slate takes a different tack, though: instead of attacking consumption of diamonds in general, the writer specifically targets diamond engagement rings. And instead of calling into question the circumstances under which that diamond is manufactured and produced, their focus is on deconstructing the symbolism of the diamond ring.
From the article: "But there's a powerful case to be made that in an age of equitable marriage the engagement ring is an outmoded commodity—starting with the obvious fact that only the woman gets one. The diamond ring is the site of retrograde fantasies about gender roles."
"...But the desire wasn't always there. In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think...Even then, the real blingfest didn't get going until the 1930s, when—dim the lights, strike up the violins, and cue entrance—the De Beers diamond company decided it was time to take action against the American public..."
"Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiance could sue for financial compensation for "damage" to her reputation under what was known as the "Breach of Promise to Marry" action. As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom, argues the legal scholar Margaret Brinig—noting, crucially, that ring sales began to rise a few years before the De Beers campaign. To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but, Brinig points out, a large percentage of women lost their virginity while engaged. So some structure of commitment was necessary to assure betrothed women that men weren't just trying to get them into bed. The "Breach of Promise" action had helped prevent what society feared would be rampant seduce-and-abandon scenarios; in its lieu, the pricey engagement ring would do the same. (Implicitly, it would seem, a woman's virginity was worth the price of a ring, and varied according to the status of her groom-to-be.)..."
"...On the face of it, the engagement ring's origins as a financial commitment should make modern brides-to-be wary. After all, virginity is no longer a prerequisite for marriage, nor do the majority of women consider marriageability their prime asset. Many women hope for a marriage in which housework, child-rearing, and breadwinning are equitably divided. The engagement ring doesn't fit into this intellectual framework. Rather, its presence on a woman's finger suggests that she needs to trap a man into "commitment" or be damaged if he leaves."
Isn't there something inherently degrading and absurd about all of this? Why do otherwise progressive, egalitarian men and women submit ourselves to such a socially-humilating exercise rife with old-fashioned gender roles and misogyny? Should we have moved beyind the point where the size of a worthless bauble on a woman's finger declares her worth, sexual availability, desirability, social status...and (most horribly) her Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price to the man that has apprently bought her with a ring?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wearing a symbol to denote commitment to a spouse for yourself and others. But it is interesting that in some places abroad, BOTH sexes wear engagement rings. And nobody gives or receives diamond during the courtship process.
Now that is equality.
Slate takes a different tack, though: instead of attacking consumption of diamonds in general, the writer specifically targets diamond engagement rings. And instead of calling into question the circumstances under which that diamond is manufactured and produced, their focus is on deconstructing the symbolism of the diamond ring.
From the article: "But there's a powerful case to be made that in an age of equitable marriage the engagement ring is an outmoded commodity—starting with the obvious fact that only the woman gets one. The diamond ring is the site of retrograde fantasies about gender roles."
"...But the desire wasn't always there. In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think...Even then, the real blingfest didn't get going until the 1930s, when—dim the lights, strike up the violins, and cue entrance—the De Beers diamond company decided it was time to take action against the American public..."
"Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiance could sue for financial compensation for "damage" to her reputation under what was known as the "Breach of Promise to Marry" action. As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom, argues the legal scholar Margaret Brinig—noting, crucially, that ring sales began to rise a few years before the De Beers campaign. To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but, Brinig points out, a large percentage of women lost their virginity while engaged. So some structure of commitment was necessary to assure betrothed women that men weren't just trying to get them into bed. The "Breach of Promise" action had helped prevent what society feared would be rampant seduce-and-abandon scenarios; in its lieu, the pricey engagement ring would do the same. (Implicitly, it would seem, a woman's virginity was worth the price of a ring, and varied according to the status of her groom-to-be.)..."
"...On the face of it, the engagement ring's origins as a financial commitment should make modern brides-to-be wary. After all, virginity is no longer a prerequisite for marriage, nor do the majority of women consider marriageability their prime asset. Many women hope for a marriage in which housework, child-rearing, and breadwinning are equitably divided. The engagement ring doesn't fit into this intellectual framework. Rather, its presence on a woman's finger suggests that she needs to trap a man into "commitment" or be damaged if he leaves."
Isn't there something inherently degrading and absurd about all of this? Why do otherwise progressive, egalitarian men and women submit ourselves to such a socially-humilating exercise rife with old-fashioned gender roles and misogyny? Should we have moved beyind the point where the size of a worthless bauble on a woman's finger declares her worth, sexual availability, desirability, social status...and (most horribly) her Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price to the man that has apprently bought her with a ring?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wearing a symbol to denote commitment to a spouse for yourself and others. But it is interesting that in some places abroad, BOTH sexes wear engagement rings. And nobody gives or receives diamond during the courtship process.
Now that is equality.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 301,041
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004