Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT A RING MEANS.
As Dana points out, the engagement ring doesn't quite mean what it used to -- a downpayment on a woman's virginity. But I would argue that in many cases, an expensive diamond ring does still function as a signal to other men that a woman is "taken" by someone who has paid a lot of money to tell the world that she's his. The bigger the rock, the stronger the "off limits" signal.
Though the meaning of an engagement ring has evolved somewhat, I still see it as an incredibly sexist tradition. No matter how much it costs. Or, as Michael A. Shea writes in comments to Dana's post,
If you are concerned with the price of the traditional engagement ring, and take action in your own relationships, you won't have a feminist marriage. You would have a common sense marriage.The problem with the tradition engagement ring - at any price, at any salary - from a feminist perspective should be the implied gender roles, the implied differences in attitudes about sex and income.
Exactly.
--Ann Friedman
COMMENTS (10)
Though the meaning of an engagement ring has evolved somewhat, I still see it as an incredibly sexist tradition.
It doesn't have to be. My partner and I are engaged. We picked out our rings together - I think they cost $30 each. I wear it because it reminds me of her and makes me smile. Also, whenever one of us takes our ring off to do work around the house - we get the pleasure of asking the other to marry us all over again.
Posted by: Allie | April 7, 2009 3:54 PM
I should have specified that I have a problem with engagement rings inasmuch as they are worn by only one person (usually a woman in a heterosexual couple) in the relationship. If both people in a couple choose to wear engagement rings, I think that takes the sexist sheen off.
Posted by: Ann | April 7, 2009 4:00 PM
One other problem with rings is that they symbolize a kind of property right in the spouse, which denies the spouse her (or his) own personal autonomy. It's almost saying "I own this person, you keep your hands off". And of course, that's even worse when it's only the woman wearing it. But I would say that's a 19th Century view of marriage even if both partners are wearing it.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | April 7, 2009 4:37 PM
"I own this person, you keep your hands off".
Well, yes. That's what monogamy means. Most people who get married do expect that their spouses will be faithful to them. Fidelity in marriage is not a nineteenth century thing.
Posted by: Bloix | April 7, 2009 6:50 PM
Yes. Fight against jewelry. This is what feminists need to dedicate themselves to opposing. If they want to be completely irrelevant, that is.
Posted by: Vidor | April 8, 2009 12:04 AM
*pats the nice concern troll on the head*
Posted by: Marijane | April 8, 2009 12:56 AM
Wedding bands, yes, as a symbol of love for one another. Engagement rings, with the symbolism of property, no. And especially diamond rings, from exploited labor, no.
Posted by: anonymice | April 8, 2009 12:59 PM
Since women themselves seem more concerned with the price of rings than their fiances, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Millions of women make their fiance pony up a lot of cash he'd probably want to spend elsewhere to mark the engagement. That's a mark of power, not subjugation.
Posted by: Royce | April 8, 2009 1:20 PM
It's not feminist concern with engagement rings that's silly. It's (as Royce points out) the belief that it's men who really give a crap about such things that's silly.
Mike
Posted by: MBunge | April 8, 2009 2:45 PM
Well, yes. That's what monogamy means. Most people who get married do expect that their spouses will be faithful to them. Fidelity in marriage is not a nineteenth century thing.
No, monogamy does not mean you own your spouse, or own your spouse's genitals. It's an agreement, not a property right. A wedding ring is the equivalent of a cattle brand.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | April 8, 2009 7:54 PM