Here's an interesting discussion of a fun cultural issue -- do diamond engagement rings really serve a legitimate purpose in our day and age?

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. What makes it pernicious—as opposed to tackily fun—is its cost (these days you don't need just a diamond; you need a good diamond), its dubious origins, and the cynical blandishments of TV and print ads designed to suggest a ring's allure through the crassest of stereotypes. Case in point: An American couple stands in a plaza in Europe. The man shouts, "I love this woman!" The woman appears mortified. He then pulls out a diamond ring and offers it to her. She says, in heartfelt tones, "I love this man." And you've probably noticed that these days diamonds really are forever: Men are informed that their beautiful wife needs a "Twenty-Fifth Anniversary" ring (note this ad's reduction of a life to copulation and child-rearing), and single women are told not to wait around for guys but to go ahead and get themselves a "right-finger ring." Live to be 100 and a woman of a certain class might find her entire hand crusted over with diamonds. A diamond company, you see, is unrelenting. In their parlance, "the desire is there; we just want to breathe more life into it."

But the desire wasn't always there. In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think. Betrothal rings, a custom inherited from the Romans, became an increasingly common part of the Christian tradition in the 13th century. The first known diamond engagement ring was commissioned for Mary of Burgundy by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in 1477. The Victorians exchanged "regards" rings set with birthstones. But it wasn't until the late 19th century, after the discovery of mines in South Africa drove the price of diamonds down, that Americans regularly began to give (or receive) diamond engagement rings. (Before that, some betrothed women got thimbles instead of rings.) 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.

I got off easy on this one.

My darling wife and I, early in our dating, had seen an amethyst ring while out shopping, and she mentioned how she loved amethyst more than any other stone because purple is her favorite color. The ring itself had beautiful stained-glass window cut-outs on the side that were backed with more amethyst -- and since we were both seminary students that had a special meaning to us both. Lastly, the amethyst is my birthstone, which added to the significance.

When, some months later, we began talking about marriage, there was never any doubt in my mind about what ring I would get her -- and the fact that she mentioned the ring in another context around the same time served as confirmation that my decision was the right one. It came as something of a surprise to her when I slipped it on her finger -- and she assured me that no other ring would have moved her more. To this day, her friends still say that they envy her for having an engagement ring that MEANS something rather than simply fulfills the social expectation of a diamond solitaire.

But Meghan O'Rourke does raise a really interesting question as well -- in a day and age when women usually work and we are confronted with insistence upon gender equality and equity, does I make sense for a man to go into hock to buy several thousand dollars worth of diamond while the woman in return gives him . . . nothing? Are we really dealing with a relic of a sexist, patriarchal view of the world that needs to be abolished? Come on, feminists -- speak up!

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

1 This feminist says yes, perhaps, but it's also about the way we (Americans? humans?) allow corporations to control our desires.

I doubt many women would look deep inside and decide that owning a sparkly little rock is more important to them than the lives/limbs of African children (or even just being debt-free). You hit the nail on the head as far as where that pressure comes from -- DeBeers. Advertising. Being told constantly that if she is a worthwhile woman, she must be given diamonds (post hoc ergo propter hoc, if she doesn't have diamonds, she's not worthwhile.) And you men have your own advertising mine-field to navigate, mostly full of cars as far as I can tell.

I wish we would all take time to evaluate our desires before indulging them... we have come to resemble a nation of infants, in many respects. Would truly mature people put themselves deeply into debt for something useless but shiny?

Posted by: Elizabeth at Tue Jun 12 11:06:31 2007 (TsRMu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment