Living Almost Large theorizes today that her friends don't mean it when they say they would accept an inexpensive engagement ring. I don't know her friends to know whether she's right or not, but her post does remind me that man, I really hate the emphasis Americans put on their engagement rings. Haaaate it. Hate the obsession with "needing" to have them at all, having them large enough, sparkly enough, expensive enough. Diamond-y enough.
But the way I feel about the institution of the engagement ring--and we'll get to my problems with them in a minute--is nothing compared to the pissed off feeling I get when some tangential acquaintance looks at me with pity when they ask about my engagement and then notice my diamond-less finger. So consider this the monologue I am too polite (or too pressed for time as we ride in the elevator between floors 22 and 26) to give in those moments.
I don't have an engagement ring. At least, I don't wear anything that "reads" socially as an engagement ring but, yes, I nevertheless am sure that he does still want to marry me. No, thank you, I do not need your hugs or a sympathetic ear. I am quite happy to not have a golf ball strapped awkwardly to my ring finger or to have "insurance" in case he backs out. And by the way, eeeew to that last part. You must be very embarassed to have said that out loud.
Not having an engagement ring has saved us at least a thousand dollars that we can invest in our life together rather than in a geologically freakish piece of carbon set in a glassy chemical configuration that has never, since I was the smallest girl, given me any amount of aesthetic joy.
Not having an engagement ring has kept me from having to spend mental and karmic real estate fretting over whether some kid in Sierra Leone is short one leg, or whether some watershed in Central America is running with diluted cyanide, so that I could have a sparkly and immediately depreciating asset on my finger.
Not having an engagement ring allows me to opt out of sexist notions of man as provider and woman as passive ornament, and the sexist custom that publicly marks a woman as having been purchased and thus "off the market" while requiring no such public statement of relational or sexual non-availability by her male partner.
Not having an engagement ring prevents Shiner from having to display his masculinity and creditworthiness for scrutiny and comment by whoever happens to sit next to me on the train.
And not having an engagement ring leaves room on my finger, as well as Shiner's, for my dead grandparents' wedding bands, which each of us are wearing during our engagement because frankly, the hope that we can sustain the kind of relationship that wore this slim band skinny over 43 years of dedicated wear is more compelling than the most well-funded DeBeers ad campaign.
So you've really got to stop feeling sorry for me. Your superficial is showing.
2.19.2008
The Dratted Engagement Ring
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
amen, and preach it! Good for you! I'm single and 36 but I've had my grandmother's engagement ring tucked away for a few years now, in case I should happen to trip over some dude and decide we should get married.
the diamond isn't big, but she wore it for nearly 60 years, and my grandfather's mother wore it before that. The stone was reset in 1968, so unfortunately I don't know what it used to look like, but it's been in the family nearly a hundred years and I'd be proud to wear some history.
As I said in the comments to your wedding finances post, my engagement ring and wedding band are the same ring: a platinum band with a few diamonds in it. It was my choice and expressed both my personal style and financial ethics. To say that I was treated with pity by both peers and wedding gown saleswomen would be an understatement. It was often contempt, and we both took some flack for it: "Oh, couldn't you do any better? I thought you/your fiance had a good job." When he explained, "No, this is what she wanted," his female relatives told him that he shouldn't have listened to me. Meanwhile, his male relatives and co-workers told him he was lucky as hell. Soon after the wedding, we were able to put 20% down on a house.
How many women would cough up the "standard" 2-month salary for a piece of jewelry for the man she loved?
I, too, get looks of pity or puzzlement because my engagement ring is also my wedding ring. It has small diamonds, nothing like the rocks you see nowadays. I also think it's ridiculous that people still make assumptions about the groom's finances based on a ring. I know many poor artists/actors who bought a big ring with a credit card. It's such a waste of money. I wish more people felt the same way I do. I don't need the pity!
i would just rather have my topaz for its beautiful gray color, and for the fact that it's inexpensive, doesn't involve exploitation, etc. it's more "me" than the so-called traditional diamond solitaire. people think that's so strange!
You are so very correct. However, I have to admit, I have a diamond engagement ring, and I still wear it along with my wedding band every day. I was nineteen when hubby and I got engaged, and although I didn't feel I needed a ring, I also didn't object to the fact that he wanted to buy me one. I didn't know the first thing about the diamond trade and the horrors involved. Now I know better, and I feel guilty every time I look at my ring. My husband has suggested selling the diamond and donating the money to a reputable international charity. However, I would feel really guilty about selling the ring he worked so hard to pay for so many years ago. It's no-win...I am just a big bundle of guilt!
i think your all looking to far into engagement rings.
Its a sign of your husbands love who has worked his arse off just to get it, so you can wear it and every time you look at it you think of him.
Engagement rings are then something you admire, and they gain sentimental vaule, you pass them down to your children, and there children and then like the other lady said it becomes a bit of 'history'.
People work hard to produce diamonds, so why not enjoy them, wear them, and pass them onto you love ones later on.
Whilst you may think there superficial, and a waste of money other ppl such as my self see the absolute joy in them!
Great post! I'm glad I came across it, very well written. Your partner is a very lucky guy :)
i do not have a diamond ring either. my husband's father offered us $2000 so i could get one when we were engaged, but the counter-arguments were too compelling...we turned him right down. i am so glad i did because now i am not burdened by guilt at participating in such an archaic tradition that puts blood on the hands of women who don't (but should) know better. the diamond trade is monstrous and anyone who says you are "looking too far into engagement rings" must be one of those who should investigate just whose hard work exactly produces those ridiculously (and artificially) overpriced shinies. perhaps she might start by looking here:
http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html
I see lots of good points in this post. I think that the consumerism present in the wedding industry in general is pretty off-putting.
While I have a diamond engagement ring myself, I found it rather disconcerting how thrilled most people were about the ring itself, as opposed to the engagement. And now that I'm starting to learn more about conflict diamonds and all the terrible things surrounding them... well, yikes.
That being said, I know I won't be giving up my ring any time soon. Sorry folks. I'm just not. It was a gift that was given to me by my then-fiance (now husband) as a loving gesture, not as a mark of ownership. Now, I understand that just because -I- like something, doesn't mean the cultural baggage goes away. However, unlike one of the previous posters, I won't be looking down at my ring feeling guilty about it, either.
I know I am posting really late. I am new here from feministing and so far, I love your blog~
Just wanted to say that both my husband and I wore (and still wear) wedding bands throughout our engagement. A tiffany cut diamond just wasn't for me. This is a sore spot for me because so many people ran for my left finger (including my mother in law) and cringed in horror when all that was there is a plain band.
I wanted a ring I could replace with a partial paycheck if stolen and/or lost without having to have an insurance policy for it. Plus, it just doesn't suit my personality to wear something that sparkles on a daily basis.
I think it is fine if people want that....but really want it. Don't just go through the motions because everyone else has one.
I knew before we became engaged that there was no way a traditional diamond would work. Between our knowledge of the mining and exploitation, our budget, and our practicality about things... well, it wasn't us. I got my girlfriend a fleur de lis diamond (not conflict) ring; fleur de lis represented our love for New Orleans, where we both found freedom to be ourselves and to explore our loves -- art, theatre, music, water, etc. along with each other. She hates large jewelry, so the 1/6 carat worked out well. I'm a flashy girl with a love for amethysts, so she helped me pick out a ring at our favorite jewelry store -- it's a large amethyst solitare, which I reset with two passed-down family diamonds on the side. It's gorgeous and about 1/3 of the cost of a traditional ring.
Another thing I love about having nontraditional rings is that i don't feel like i have to explain my relationship to everyone. People don't see my hands and assume, so there's no need to launch into a discussion of why I don't believe in state-sponsored marriage (just personal relationships) or a society that values married couples above singles, polyamorous couples, multi-generational households, etc.
They just see a pretty ring... and I see a reflection of who we are and the funny little things we use to remind us of our love.
Amen, and thank you. I guess I'm so automatically confrontational about this, no one has ever seemed to feel sorry for me about my lack of an engagement rock.
My guy and me consulted each other on simple bands, and mine is a little more decorative than his. We split the cost of each ring, and we'll be happy to wear them as symbols of committment, as opposed to me wearing one as a symbol of being bought and paid-for. And with insurance against my guy, all the nauseatingly better.
I was takling with my office mate the other week about engagement rings and how some people at our office are obsessed with them when someone gets engaged (3 here in the past couple months). I was telling him how it makes me uncomfortable that all the attention is on the woman in the relationship and that so many people talk behind the engagees back about the size of the diamond. He is is from Brazil and told me about a tradition there where each partner wears a wedding band on their right hand. Once they get married, they switch bands (resizing them of course) and include an inscription of their partner's name in their original ring. I thought it was fantastic.
this post says it perfectly, thanks you...
I sincerely appreciate the idea that engagement rings are not necessary in a meaningful relationship (and that conflict diamonds are socially toxic). However, I think there should be nonjudgmental space for tradition for those of us who choose to maintain socially responsible traditions. Feminism, after all, was not about forcing women to act a certain way but giving them the same choices traditionally afforded to men. My mother gave my (now) husband her late mother's diamond to reset for me before we were engaged. When he asked me to marry me, he gave me the ring as a symbol of his love. I am happy to carry that symbol with me every day just as he wears his wedding band as a symbol of my love. Any other tags, such as "ownership" or "insurance" only have meaning if you allow them to.
Post a Comment