> It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition.
Diamond wedding rings have only been en vogue since De Beers' 1946 marketing campaign. It's a garish facet of soulless modernity masquerading as classical. Even the notion of pampering one's wife is a way of maintaining the patriarchal division of labor by keeping women in a dependent role.
In a world where money talks, insisting that men afford diamonds while women only receive them is tantamount to disenfranchisement and an abridgement of women's free expression. Are we equal partners, or is she your domestic servant? Are you the gatekeeper of her wealth and, therefore, speech and agency?
What a man buying a diamond ring "represents" is his agreement to financially provide, while the woman’s acceptance of the ring "represents" her agreement not to pursue financial independence.
It doesn't represent either of those things to us, and to many.
Ultimately it's about tradition. I wear the ring my father (a master jeweler) made for my grandfather who wore it as his favorite ring for most of his life before passing it on to me when he passed. My wife's ring was hand made by my father, with a diamond which sat in his safe for years prior waiting for me.
It's not about the things. It's about the people.
In your rush to make these little trinkets spin a whole tale about broader humanity, you're missing the humanity right in front of you.
I will admit that, as I was writing my little tirade, I was thinking "damn, though, if that ring is passed down even one generation, it gathers enough meaning to invalidate my claim."
I won't begrudge anyone their personal family heirlooms. I completely understand your perspective, because it's a nice story.
That being said, you've shifted the goalposts with your anecdata. Familial inheritance is an exception which preuves the rule. And, furthermore, jewelry being your family business, I suspect you've a misunderstanding essential to your paycheck. My words are pearls before oysters.
You may yet understand the harm of patriarchal heteronormativity (heck, The Feminine Mystique came out in 1963, and the Cult of Domesticity is far from abolished) but probably the subject of engagement rings is not the radicalizing grain of sand for you.
Well, first of all, whether you read this or not (let alone agree, or concede even an iota) thanks for the opportunity to articulate my thoughts.
I don't currently have a partner, no, but I inherited these views from many years of lovers, partners, and friends. As a straight, white man raised in a Christian nation, I held the familiar, patriarchal views on marriage and gender roles without question until I started dating queer women in college (and almost exclusively thereafter).
I think that "how they feel about it" is they would prefer to live in a world with men who are familiar with—and reluctant to participate in—patriarchal dynamics. These women have been hurt by men who mistake domination for romance, and furthermore believe this mistake to be commonplace. I can't say what they "feel" about my precise thoughts here, because I'm extrapolating from a lot of data over many years: conversations, books, research, statistics, workplace and social experiences, etc.
I think it's safe to say, though, that I cultivated a feminist viewpoint in part because the women in my milieu wouldn't have otherwise felt safe around me. This is a perspective that I took in an attempt to empathize with women who explicitly told me they were both weary and wary of men who don't take this perspective.
So unless I've made a terrific mistake and fundamentally misunderstood dozens upon dozens of women and feminists, I think they feel safe, relieved, and reassured. That's all I'm trying to be, by the way: safe, and not harmful in the ways I've seen people hurt.
...and I think engagement rings cement relationships that facilitate abuse. I doubt you spend much time interrogating the sources and prevalence of abuse, but little matters more to me.
Diamond wedding rings have only been en vogue since De Beers' 1946 marketing campaign. It's a garish facet of soulless modernity masquerading as classical. Even the notion of pampering one's wife is a way of maintaining the patriarchal division of labor by keeping women in a dependent role.
In a world where money talks, insisting that men afford diamonds while women only receive them is tantamount to disenfranchisement and an abridgement of women's free expression. Are we equal partners, or is she your domestic servant? Are you the gatekeeper of her wealth and, therefore, speech and agency?
What a man buying a diamond ring "represents" is his agreement to financially provide, while the woman’s acceptance of the ring "represents" her agreement not to pursue financial independence.