Thursday, February 28, 2008

One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...


One of the hottest statements my girlfriend has ever made was, "I don't want a[n engagement] ring... I want a around-the-world plane tickets." Ladies and Gentlemen, that's the definition of a keeper. I think this perspective is much more practical and romantic (yes, you can mix the two!). However, I have met many women who still need/desire a rock on their finger--and anything less would be grounds for dismissal.

My father never gave my mom an engagement ring; they were poor, recently immigrated grad school students. Besides, I'm not even sure the tradition of engagement rings even exists in Chinese culture. Flash forward thirty-odd years and my sister's fiance is taking out a loan so he can adhere to the 2-3 month's salary rule. Excuse me?! Some of us can buy a decent used car with that kind of money. Nevertheless, the poor sap is binding him (and his future spouse) into a loan because he doesn't have a lot of disposable income as an LD teacher. Meanwhile, my sister makes almost twice as much as he does. In fairness, she's about to undergo a significant pay cut during a career change and is also paying for a significant portion of the wedding. But my skepticism still stands: in a more equality driven society, does the traditional engagement ring have a place?

In some African cultures, gold jewelry was given to the woman upon marriage. The idea, some scholars assert, was that upon divorce or separation, the woman would have something of value. As someone trained to work with victims of domestic violence, this idea cannot be under-emphasized. Lack of economic means the top reason that abused women don't leave their husbands--they can't. In a traditional man-as-breadwinner marriage, I can see the necessity of an engagement ring.

Unfortunately, Western history isn't so generous; it seems our tradition is just another delusional game of "let's play rich" (ask me about my opinions of Vegas if you want to hear another example). Wikipedia, for what it's worth, claims in an un-cited statement that the standard of diamond engagement rings were spawn of De Beers' massive advertisement campaign. This article seems to agree.

It's easy for me, a skeptical capitalist and more importantly the cost-bearer of the ring, to dismiss diamond engagement rings. Even so, it's hard for me to accept that troves of enlightened and empowered women yearning for a rock. Seriously, it's just a fucking rock. The only thing that makes it any more valuable than that shit your kid buys for $5 a bag at the science store is because someone else says it is. In this age where both spouses working and splitting major costs like weddings, honeymoons and houses, why not demand something you can enjoy together is the norm, why not demand something both parties can enjoy together? And if it has to be material, why not get something that isn't going to be thrown into a safe deposit box after 3 months.

Furthermore, I'll only take the "it's a symbol" point of view so far. Flowers, yes. Small jewelry, sure. $5000+? No. That's corporate America telling you to go fuck yourself. Why not just ask your man for cash? Chances are, your husband-to-be has given NO thought to the ring beyond that you want it and if he can afford it. Your girlfriend/sister/mom is at the mall without you for a reason...

Furthermore, what is it a symbol of? Personally, I think it's an artifact of a dirty dish called bride price. Maybe it's not paid to the parents, but how many women do you know would consider marrying a man if he didn't offer a ring? I find this disturbing because it implicitly places a price on a woman (or for other symbologists, on love). Why not invest in something that will bring memories and lasting enjoyment--something you can't put a price on, something unstereotypically romantic? Like a around-the-world tickets. Or a garden in that new house. Why a shiny rock, that if De Beers ever loses its majority control on the diamond supply, will be worth less than the band on which it's mounted?

I don't think that all men (or women!) should pop the question empty-handed, though I don't think a "gift" is necessary. Nor do I believe that we should have a new symbol that replaces the diamond engagement ring in all but form. Instead, I see marriage as a symbol radically different life spent together, so why not celebrate that shit...together!

In closing, I understand that for many females the diamond-desire is self-admittedly irrational, and despite all the practicalities and rationalities, they still want one. That's fine. Just don't get pissed when your husband comes home with a Ferrari in 20 years.

No comments: