Engagement Rings are a hoax
June 13th 2007 03:17
We've been duped into thinking that it's one of our most respected traditions - the gift of a diamond from a man to a woman. And we've gone along with it, the size and price of diamonds increasing over the years.
Of course, we're all familiar with the blood diamond, diamonds mined in Africa to help purchase arms for conflicts.
And by now, the whole De Beers cartel thing is old news. Yeah, they artificially raise the price of diamonds by not selling many of them, and it's been good for De Beers. Bad for people, though, who are brought up thinking that diamonds are so rare that they're worth the money.
In reality, though, we should be walking around, diamond-encrusted. I should be wearing so much ice that you want to dunk me in a vat of Kool Aid.
An article from Slate points out that engagement rings aren't that old a tradition, and, in fact, are a result of clever marketing from De Beers in the 1930s:
"In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think...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."
The idea of the diamond ring, then, is anachronistic. Get rid of it! Instead, opt for a plain ring, and one that is given by both man and woman.
"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."
Of course, we're all familiar with the blood diamond, diamonds mined in Africa to help purchase arms for conflicts.
And by now, the whole De Beers cartel thing is old news. Yeah, they artificially raise the price of diamonds by not selling many of them, and it's been good for De Beers. Bad for people, though, who are brought up thinking that diamonds are so rare that they're worth the money.
In reality, though, we should be walking around, diamond-encrusted. I should be wearing so much ice that you want to dunk me in a vat of Kool Aid.
An article from Slate points out that engagement rings aren't that old a tradition, and, in fact, are a result of clever marketing from De Beers in the 1930s:
"In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think...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."
The idea of the diamond ring, then, is anachronistic. Get rid of it! Instead, opt for a plain ring, and one that is given by both man and woman.
"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."
| 110 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by David
No. Keep the enagement ring. It gives men time to realise buying the next one is a sillier idea than buying the first one.
David ...
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
And it's all for show.
The only time I like to hear 'engage' is in Rugby.
I understand and appreciate the exchange of rings as part of the wedding tradition.
I wear mine with a lot of love and pride...pride not because I'm married (now that kind of pride is archaic) but because of who and what the ring represents to me.
The Man I married.
The marriage I have...
...plus I like the romantic notion of gold encircling the meridian artery that travels from the left index finger to the heart....which is why the marital jewelry is worn there.
As for diamonds?
They may be forever....but they're not for me.
I find them boring and unimaginative and common.
Excellent piece Cibby.
I nominate it for Post of the Day.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
'Diamonds are a Man's Best Friend'
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
bwa ha ha!
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
I hate mean men.
katyzzz
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
I really enjoyed this post...the irony?
Diamond rings are paying for this post...*chuckle* just noticed the ad there...
/seriously/ I don't like the idea and my engagement present was a great electric guitar and amp.
I had a nice diamond ring made later form a pair of old earings... but that was a present to myself...probably for being silly enough to get married in the first place...*lol*
I hate the way consumerism has made monkeys out of humans... and again loved this post.
Lilla ...
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Still, when my now-wife and I were discussing getting engaged, and I sort of suggested a gemstone that was ACTUALLY rare, the idea didn't fly. And I understand why. It's not the diamond women care about, it's having an easily recognized symbol that says "I'm engaged". I suppose they could just wear a sign around their necks, but I imagine that would lack some of the subtlety of a ring.
So, yes, DeBeers screwed us. It's even worse knowing about diamonds, because now we KNOW that we're getting screwed, but go through with it anyway. Until someone comes up with a new (and hopefully drastically cheaper) symbol, I suppose we're stuck with it.
Comment by Ash
Australian Traveller
Flashes of memories
Great post!
I have always been intrigued by the idea of giving the expensive ring as the engagement ring (although, as you point out, is it really expensive?).
It is as if the man is saying 'Let`s lure them in with the bling!' and then you say your vows and you get the plain gold band - ridiculous! That`s all the bloke gets anyways so really why bother with the bribery?
ash
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
winston, you're totally right. We know we're getting screwed and De Beers is laughing all the way to the huge pile of diamonds. I think the key would be to marry someone that doesn't expect a diamond as an engagement present.
Ash, yeah, bribery. You see in the movies that a woman gets stunned sometimes by the appearance of the diamond ring, and says yes even though they don't really want to get married.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Sounds to me like someone is making his case so that don't the track you can tell the woman you want to marry why you're not buying an engagement ring
I'm not really a diamond kind of girl. I like the idea of an engagement ring, but mine would never be diamonds.
Though if it's a choice between diamonds and a thimble..........yeah, well hand over the diamonds.
Kylie
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
Hell yeah!
Now that's a rock!!!
Cibby...dayum man...you're such a cynic hon!
The silly girls say "yes" because they don't want to hurt the silly boy's feelings.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
You're pretty quotable...!