Advice & Reviews
 |
Diamonds Haven’t Always Been Forever | |
| How the jewelry industry convinced us true love costs $4,000 | ||
 by Izzy Grinspan, May 21, 2007
|
||
TAGS:
Marriage is about money, as anyone who’s ever taken a college seminar on Jane Austen knows. On the wedding night, the bride’s assets slip into a lace teddy, the groom’s assets put on their silk pajamas, and the two become joined forever in a perfect union. Theoretically, this tender commingling of bank accounts could cost the couple no more than $55 for the marriage license. But these days, before the marriage transforms the couple’s finances, the wedding often threatens to destroy them.
Look, for example, at the changing customs around ring shopping. As soon as we started thinking about getting married, my boyfriend and I found ourselves presented with these old-fashioned roles to play: He’s the stoic breadwinner hunting down the diamond for his bride, and I’m the demure dependent breathlessly accepting the gift presented at my feet. These roles have almost nothing to do with our actual day-to-day lives, of course, but rebelling against them takes a lot of work. Rather than trying to subvert the dominant paradigm and plan the wedding at the same time, most people simply pay extra to make the cognitive dissonance go away. This is terrific for Tiffany’s, but kind of a scam for the rest of us, which is why I’m proud to say that I’m a diamond-free bride.
The groom as tool: De Beers helpfully explains gender rolesHistorically, buying the ring is the groom’s job, and his ability to save two month’s salary—a standard invented in the first half of the twentieth century by the jewelry industry—signifies his prowess as a provider. Since most brides have their own incomes these days, this tradition doesn’t make much sense, but we haven’t scrapped it. Instead, more and more brides simply contribute their own salaries towards the ring. In 2007, 39% of women said they’d help pay for the ring (up 11% over the past two years.) It’s a good thing, because ring prices have skyrocketed: In 2006, the average couple spent $4,470 on an engagement ring, or 25% more than they did back in the simpler days of 2002.
Sharing the cost hasn’t helped alleviate our anxiety about the size and shape of our rings, though. One in four women admit the engagement ring they received was too small or not what they had envisioned, which sounds horribly materialistic until you remember what else the ring is supposed to demonstrate. Cartier might sum it up perfectly in their ad campaign: Under three big rocks, the caption reads “This is what extraordinary love looks like.” It’s impossible to miss their point. A big ring means big love; a little one suggests simply lukewarm affection.
My own engagement ring has no diamond, but it does have a huge replica of a rock. The designer, Alissia Melka-Teichroew, traced the silhouette of a diamond ring onto a piece of silver and then cut it out. It’s a comment on ringness, a meta-ring. It’s conceptual. It cost $99. I love it.
A ring about ring-ness: Mine's the one on the far leftYou’ll forgive me if I sound a little snotty, a little triumphant, a little too cool for school. The truth, of which I am exceedingly proud, is that no one in my life has given me a hard time about my lack of diamond. I’ve gotten a couple semi-skeptical comments — one “So when are you going to get the real ring?” and one “You know, you have a very different attitude about this than most women.” But nobody’s told me that my fiancé priced me out at less than a hundred dollars, and for that I’m very grateful.
Why the anti-ring? Well, there’s the crass financial reason; neither of us saw the point of spending so much money on a piece of jewelry, especially when the meta-ring was so perfectly suited to both of our tastes. There are also a host of ethical reasons, given the well-documented corruption of the diamond industry. "If you really want a typical engagement ring," said my fiancé, "I could always go to Sierra Leone and dismember some small children."
Not long after we got engaged, I found a picture of my ring on Offbeatbride, the website accompanying Ariel Meadow Stalling’s excellent eponymous how-to book about non-traditional weddings. She described it as “the ultimate ‘fuck you’ to anyone who asks about your diamond ring.” In the comments section, someone called her out, wondering why anyone would want to be so rude to people who just want to appreciate your good fortune. I saw her point, but it seemed obvious that the real source of hostility here wasn't the occasional friendly ring-gawper. Every time you open a magazine Cartier’s there to tell you that your man doesn’t love you—and “fuck you” is the wrong reaction?
Good enough for Grandma?: Mead's bookAs Rebecca Mead points out in One Perfect Day, her meticulously-researched book about the wedding industry, ads like Cartier’s are effective. In fact, diamond rings only became widely associated with engagement after the diamond company De Beers began advertising in the 1930s. It took them years to invent the tradition: Even as late as 1939, one-third of brides went ringless. It wasn’t until 1947, when a never-married copywriter coined the phrase “A diamond is forever,” that diamonds become a crucial part of betrothal. It’s a hard slogan to argue against. If a diamond is forever, and you’re dismissive of diamonds, doesn’t that suggest you’re saying fuck you to forever?
Jodi Kantor seems to think so. In her New York Times review of One Perfect Day, Kantor appeared to take Mead’s criticisms of the industry personally, arguing that her own wedding was tasteful and referring to the book as “dour” (which is up there with “shrill” and “hairy” on the Top Ten List of Ad Hominem Responses to Feminist Arguments.) Kantnor hastily pointed out that she didn’t disagree with the book’s general thesis; she just believes our current wedding excess can’t be too bad, because it makes people happy. “Do grandmothers cry just as hard when a bride is married, as Mead was, at a courthouse while wearing office clothes?” she asks. Read that again: The New York Times’ reviewer just accused a journalist of making her grandma sad by not spending enough money on her wedding. It’s a perfect example of the way the industry has coached us to conflate what we buy with how we feel.
The industry is only so powerful, though, as the story of the male engagement ring demonstrates. In 1926, with revenues threatened by the rise of department stores, jewelers began marketing rings for men—“mangagement rings,” as my fiancé wistfully calls them. They positioned these rings as historically macho, advertising them with pictures of be-ringed Conan the Barbarian types charging into battle and naming them things like “the Pilot,” “the Executive,” and my favorite, “the Stag.” But there was an essential problem with the male ring: it didn’t fit with traditional engagement gender roles. Men were supposed to be bestowing the rings, not wearing them, and all the ringed barbarians in the world couldn’t convince the public otherwise.
Bling it on: Does wearing jewelry make this guy less of a man?This problem played out logistically. Since it was taboo for women to propose marriage, brides couldn’t figure out when to buy their fiancé’s rings. Were they supposed to secretly return to the jewelry store after the proposal? Not only was the process clunky, but grooms tended to stand in the way. As one trade magazine pointed out, if a man discovered that his bride planned to spend $30 to $50 on a ring for him, he’d probably talk her out of it. For the mangagement ring to succeed, then, women would have to deceive their fiancés in order to buy them gifts that they didn’t really want.
Deep-seated gender roles are much harder to escape than a sixty-year-old custom. I should know: Our engagement ring might be postmodern, but my fiancé’s proposal was entirely old-fashioned. Andy bought the ring without me—without my knowledge. (If I may be sentimental for a moment, the vision of him engagement-ring-shopping at the MoMA store totally kills me; it’s like some weird pre-sexual fantasy I would have had as a pretentious eight-year-old.) And he proposed on one knee, just like Mr. Darcy.
I’m rare among my engaged and married friends; most had long, heartfelt discussions about commitment and readiness before anyone thought about buying a ring. Sixty-four percent of women help pick out the ring, which means they’ve discussed getting married before the actual engagement. But only 5% of women propose. Had we stuck with our happy living-in-sin arrangement for another few years, I like to think I would have suggested we get married—but I would have felt ridiculous getting down on one knee. Even the phrase “Will you marry me?” seems to belong to men; speaking it, I think I’d feel like I was play-acting, and I suspect my fiancé would feel the same way. We’re independent-minded enough to buck a tradition created by the jewelry industry, but neither of us can fully escape the idea that some roles are for men and some are for women.
Next: Is it ethical of us to get married when so many of our friends can’t?
*** Also: Five ways to keep the wedding-industrial complex off your ring finger
A trialogue on gender, race, age, and presidential politics
Graduation tips from the outgoing producer of the Daily Show and...
A gay rights advocate finds inspiration in a Berlin synagogue
We've got a few questions for Noah Feldman, modern Orthodox ou...
A high-tech inventor and Holocaust survivor explains how paranoia...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
François Blumen...
I'm starting to like the Midwest!
Marriage licenses are only $30 here!
amber
garnets are for long enough
my fiance and i had to go to a couple of stores before we found one that could share our vision of a diamond-free engagement ring.
Faith
$70 and a silver band
My husband and I went for a $70 ceremony at the Clark County clerks office in Vegas. I have a simple silver band we bought on the beach in Puerto Vallarta. We've been married 8 years and show no signs of letting up.
It's not how much you paid. It is all about how much you respect one another. We spent the $30+ thousand dollars that might have been spent on a wedding to satisfy our grandparents, parents and friends of my mother on a house in the suburbs with peach and pomegranate trees. 100% worth it.
JewcyCraig
Is Garnet any better?
I get that diamonds have the stigma of resulting in the deaths of countless little children in Africa, but don't children get maimed and killed in the garnet industry, too? And rubies, sapphires, emeralds, topaz, and all the other precious stones? It seems to me like just an inverse "Diamond is Forever" campaign.
But I could be wrong? Maybe the conditions surrounding other gems are less inhumane? I don't know. I don't buy Nike because of those reasons, but I know that all other shoe and clothing manufacturers are victims of the same crimes. Just, Nike's special.
Elisa
essay
faith, your essay about getting married in "young wives' tales" is really wonderful.
(and by the way, it's a great anthology for anyone looking for thoughtful, interesting marriage narratives...)
Louisa
Weird Looks
My marriage license was $2.
And I'm proud to be in the 5% of women that proposed, even when people give me those weird looks. They don't know how good it feels to cast off those traditional gender roles!
Bridget
What a fantatsic column.
What a fantatsic column.
JooJ
Great
This was great. My mom (who's sitting on the couch next to me) says that you write well and now she's going to look for more of what you've written!
Sheva
Diamonds are forever!
I have one of those Diamonds are forever rings. The ring is forever my marriage was not!
amber
garnet mining
my $30 garnet was mined in the United States. Unless there's a serious problem somewhere no children were harmed in the mining. Of course there are garnets mined elsewhere in the world, but from what I've seen the majority for sale around here are local.
JewcyCraig
Cool, Amber
Good to know, thanks. Where was your name mined?
Rebecca M.
Something for the thinking bride!
Thanks Izzy, this is a great article. When David and I got engaged, we designed the ring with diamonds that were already in his family. It's a little more morally ambiguous than buying a new diamond (and actually affordable)- I liken it to a vintage fur. Otherwise, I think we'd have gone stone-less too.
I'm looking forward to your article on the morality of getting hitched when so many Americans can't. It's a very sticky issue...
Ernest
Damn Woman!
Why couldn't you have written this here essay a year earlier? Now how to get my wife to read this before JUNE 4....
Hey IZZY- i've noticed jewelers reffering to the first anniversary as the 'Big Number One' could this be because they realize many of their potential customers don't make it to the big number two?
Buddykat
American Diamonds
I admit to liking diamonds - so my boyfriend told me that if I (eventually) want a diamond, I can mine one myself at the Arkansas Diamond Mine (http://www.craterofdiamondsstatepark.com). I like that idea a heck of a lot better then spending a ton of money on a random diamond at a jewelry store.
Anonymous
Jewcy's Censorship
HEY! What happened to those posts that had all of the links that laid out the extremely prominent role of Jews in the worldwide diamond trade?
You ultra-liberal and progressive Jews on this site wouldn't be CENSORING INFORMATION would you?
David Strauss
Re: Censorship
1. Censorship is a government action. A private entity (like Jewcy) is not required to print or host your views. Likewise, you are not required to read or accept what a private entity publishes.
2. This site is about Jewish culture and faith, not the crimes or offenses of people who happen to be Jewish. It's tiresome to read comments on every post about how someone who happened to be Jewish (in any sense) did something unfavorable in some related way to the post. Every sizable community contains criminals, pariahs, and malcontents, but that doesn't make them inherently relevant to discussion about the community.
Esse
No BIG diamonds
I'm so glad that there are sensible yet modern people in the world that refuse to buy into the materialistic rat-race of American society. My boyfriend and I have only been "dating" a month but have known each other for 3 years. We have talked quite a bit about marriage and yes, even a ring. My ring will be custom made (with my help) with beautiful amber in the center (a true timeless stone). Izzy, although your particular wedding ring is not my personal taste, I think your idea is fantastic and I admire anyone who is confidant enough to forego a big smashing diamond for something more personal and unique. Besides saving a heck of a lot of money, it proves the couple is secure in their relationship and refuses to be like everyone else. I love that.
Ariella
Your ring is a better reflection of who you are
than the usual engagement ring that attempts to quantify love in terms of facets and carats. I never really cared for an engagement. I did accept one which was not seen by my husband or myself until it was purchased (it was picked out and paid for by my husband's parents). So I found it rather meaningless -- just keeping to a matter of form.
Jon
tradition
I realy enjoyed your post, but I wonder if you lose something in ditching traditions.
I still recall fondly going with my father 20 years ago to pick out my engagement ring. We went to the same jewelry store where my father had purchased my mother's ring. I was 23 years old and din't know anything about diamonds or jewelry. It was a real moment. Of course, my spouse to be had given us directions on the size and shape of the ring, but I still managed to surpise her with style of the ring and the timing.
I hear what you're saying on the financial end, although in my case it's been a good investment for at leats 20 years (ken ein hara).
On the ethical issue, I get it, but where do you draw the line. So much of what we buy raises ethical issues (from human rights to global warming, etc).
Ariela M
my diamond
I have a nice, big, gauche-even diamond engagement ring. I didn't buy it, and neither did my husband. My father-in-law bought it for my mother-in-law. When they got divorced, her friends told her to sell it and buy a TV. Instead, she tossed it in a safe deposit box, where it collected dust until almost ten years ago. At that point, she gave it to us because, hey, diamonds are forever.
I share this story because I feel like the article verges on assuming that people who wear diamond rings are somehow morally inferior to those who wear hip rings from the MOMA. People, can we stop assuming that we can gauge anything meaningful about others' moral worth by looking at what they're wearing? Righteousness in purchase decisions is great; self-righteousness and judging others isn't. I extend this principle to fur coats. I don't look harshly on the (mostly elderly) women in my neighborhood who wear coats (and there are many! it's the bronx baby), especially since I started listening to them on the bus and realizing that many come from the former Soviet Union and may be struggling in this country, with the unhip fur coat being the warmest thing they've got. Let us dismount from our high horses please!
Anonymous
Lab Created Stone
My husband and I choose a lab-created sapphire. Absolutely gorgeous, no one in the third world gets hurt and a lot less pricey than the natural stones.
Barbara Reader
But then, Diamonds can be good for a get.
The article contains statements which are discordant with my personal knowledge. While most people married without a diamond engagement ring before WWII, (I am 52, so for me that's my parent's generation, not my grandparent's generation), in every case I know of, the reason was poverty. Most of these people also married in a Rabbi's study, and the wedding feast was just a Thanksgiving or Passover type meal. Prior to WWII, there was the Great Depression, and before that, during the first phase of the industrial revolution, a very large part of the population was very poor.
In contrast, when I married over 30 years ago, I married into a family that had been well-to-do for many generations. I received a ring my husband had not bought, nor had I... his great-great grandfather had bought it for his engagement to his great-great grandmother in the 1800s from the very first Jeweler in the state their families had settled in around 1840... Kentucky. The great-great grandmother had given it to his grandmother, who passed it to me. So, this diamond idea, is not as new an idea as the article implies. At least, not for those who could afford it.
This is sort of like divorce. Of course it's more common now. Human life changed. There was a time people didn't live long enough and couldn't afford divorce. Also, it was easier for a man to flee, change his name, and just claim to be somebody else in a different state, and avoid those side effects of divorce... child support and alimony. My father's father did that before Social Security meant we could all be tracked down. More desertions, fewer divorces.
The family heirloom diamond ring proved far more valuable than you might imagine. I supported my ex-husband through three graduate programs. Throughout, he told me his parents would have supported him had we not married, so he owed me nothing. He decided to celebrate his first paycheck by divorcing me, and claiming his parents had supported him, not me. He wouldn't give me a get. He demanded thousand of dollars which he knew I didn't have. In the end, his grandmother wanted the ring back, and I exchanged the ring for the get. As it turned out, I never needed the get, but I was glad I had it.
I hope the writer has a pre-nup specifying that, in the event of a civil divorce, she can get a religious one. Without that, her non-diamond ring may prove to be more forever than a diamond might have been.
Finally, you can purchase artificially made diamonds produced in Russia for a fraction of the cost of natural diamonds. They are beautiful, of high quality, but are known to glow blue in the dark due to the precision of their carbon lattice structures. Such artificially made diamonds do not do anything to Africans and do not benefit DeBeers.
Post new comment