(For a highly researched, well written, interesting, and comprehensive article about the issues touched on in the video, read Diamonds Are Bullshit by Rohin Dhar.) I have heard these explanations before. In fact, Teri and Greg have detailed most of this for me; they even go further into the issues of diamond mining itself - something a lot of people are taking to heart. With the concept of a 'blood diamond' in mind, Dave was sure to get a Canadian diamond for Steph, and the two diamonds in Teri's ring are conflict free as well.
But it isn't the diamond aspect that bothers me, it is the engagement ring itself. I have very vain and personal reasons why I don't want one, which I don't have time to detail in this post. However, one of my main concerns has always been what it symbolizes. A point that this articles handles better than any I have ever read before. I find it hard to communicate my position or find others who have done it nicely for me - but this is close.
By Meghan O'Rourke
It is a short article, and it does cover a lot of the De Beers stuff mentioned in the video and discussed at length in the other article that I mentioned. It does also talk about "what the ring might actually signify" and "what it means." Why would this matter? I agree with O'Rouke when she explains, "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." But something with that much cost and that much fuss made over it, I want to really want, need, and believe in it.
I want to pause and make a differentiation between wedding bands and engagement rings - my thoughts on wedding bands are also for another post. I have always been bothered by the fact that only the women get an engagement ring, I like the idea of an engagement watch because it seems to even things out a bit. I am not a big fan of traditional gender roles and I try to challenge them in my own life as best I can.
Further explanation from O'Rourke, "Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiance could sue for financial compensation... 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... To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but... 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... (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... Nor is it exactly 'equitable' to demand that a partner shell out a sixth of a year's salary, demonstrating that he can 'provide' for you and a future family, before you agree to marry him. For those who aren't bothered by the finer points of gender equity, an engagement ring clearly makes a claim about the status of a woman's sexual currency. It's a big, shiny NO TRESPASSING sign, stating that the woman wearing it has been bought and paid for, while her beau is out there sign-free and all too easily trespassable, until the wedding."
I agree she gets a bit harsh and heavy handed. (More than a bit actually.) Though the symbolic root of it is there, I would never think of a woman wearing an engagement ring as being 'bought and paid for' - that is horrible! Not true at all in my experience. For me it still goes back the basic equality of image. In my case, I always think, "You wear that around for a year or two before your wedding, silently announcing to everyone that you are engaged; but what does your fiance have? How come they don't have any symbol of engagement? How come they choose when and where to discuss that aspect of their life but you are displaying it to all?" If he doesn't need it - than I don't need it.
No comments:
Post a Comment