I recall thinking about putting on an “I’m single and am gonna stay that way” party a few years back.  (I think there was a Doonesbury cartoon about that back in the 1970’s.) It just morphed into a generic 40th birthday party, and was more fun that way.

As for T shirt length, how about “Fuck me, I’m desperate”? 

Since we’re talking the diamond industry, they probably think they can sell bacon to vegetarians because they already have passed pork off as a fruit.  A hundred and fifty years ago, rubies were luxuries and pearls tokens of matrimony - diamonds were too common to be top shelf items.

Not mansplaining about sexism, just mentioning that those bastards have done it once already…

(And don’t get me started on Santa either…)

I don’t think it’s mansplaining to say “stupid money is just as green”.

Anyway, this won’t fly, because rings are single-guy repellent.

My married friend has told me that she gets propositioned ALL the time (mostly by married men) when she has her wedding ring on (doesn’t normally wear it).

hmm I think they are a huge deterrent for any interest, definitely something I noticed back in the dark ages when I was single.  Perhaps Laurelin’s friend is just attractive and would be propositioned in any case?

Every single rom-com feeds into this.  De Beers should own a movie studio—except they don’t need to.  There’s more than enough patriarchy reinforcement coming out in theaters/on TV to keep them and their cartel happy for decades.

No matter how pretty, smart, thin, or rich, without a man, a woman is worthless.  A few feministy types might rebel against it, so we’ll just let them buy their own rings!  The one on your left is for your true love!  The one on your right is because you love yourself and you’re worth it!

I don’t think that they are actually saying marketers are brilliant so much as that women are really, really stupid and easy to market to. Unlike the mansplainer himself. He’s not saying “Marketers can market anything to anyone,” he’s saying “Women bring this upon themselves by being attracted to shiny things, which I’m not going to say is an inherent property of women, but IT DEFINITELY IS. It is definitely not related to sexism imposed from outside. Definitely not. All I’m saying is that if women weren’t (born) so damn dumb, you wouldn’t spend so much money and be offensively marketed to.”

They sell that item/put that image in the media for one reason and one reason only.  To make money.  This isn’t sexism or the patriarchy out to get you ladies.  It’s just capitalism.

It’s like they’re locked into the Business 101 mindset where customers buy widgets simply because ... well ... customers buy widgets.

I guess this explains why Libertarians are particularly prone to mansplain away the sexist and patriarchal assumptions behind products like this: everything in their world (including sex and relationships) can be reduced to a cold economic transaction—preferably a zero-sum one (“silly girls will pay anything for shiny things that boost their self-esteem ... suckers!”).

And that’’s why I don’t think these stupid singles rings will sell.  They’re not really tapping into a deeply felt desire.

I can imagine the “brilliant” De Beers MBA who came up with this idea: “we dominate the engagement ring market, and have even captured a portion of the wedding ring market. But what about the untapped market of single women—there must be lots of insecurity for us to mine there!”

I don’t really have anything to add but I think this article might be interesting to some people http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/

I’m 90 to about 95% certain Amanda has already read it but for anyone who hasn’t its a short history of how de beers created scarcity by stockpiling diamonds and promoted their value in the culture at large in order to hock the things.

I recall thinking about putting on an “I’m single and am gonna stay that way” party a few years back.  (I think there was a Doonesbury cartoon about that back in the 1970’s.) It just morphed into a generic 40th birthday party, and was more fun that way.

I still need to do my, “I’m XX, single, and not the least bit bitter” registry. Maybe when I buy a house.

When diamonds are:

A) More ethical (fair trade)
B) Sold on a transparent market
C) Cheaper

Maybe I’ll buy them.  They’re pretty, and durable.  Those are good things in shinies.

But those rings are really, really ugly.

I totally love real stones.  I don’t like conventional settings of them - I had to take amber pieces from one setting and just make settings I liked myself, for instance.

My mother and step-father had their rings crafted from local colored gold and ethically traded stones.  And this was in 1980.

Again, I don’t see why you think this is a phenomenon unique to women.  Guys don’t exactly reveal in being single either, unless they consider themselves “players” or otherwise they believe they can get sex without commitment.

Mansplanation noted.

“They sell that item/put that image in the media for one reason and one reason only.  To make money.  This isn’t sexism or the patriarchy out to get you ladies.  It’s just capitalism.”

The thing I never get* about this sort of arguments is the unspoken assumption that money itself constitutes some sort of moral imperative which legitimizes anything done in pursuit of it.

They’re making money by being assholes! Okay… they’re still being assholes.

*which is to say, “totally get, but it’s fucking stupid and I hate it”

does anyone know if the “right hand ring” thing ever caught on? that one really bugged me. i can wear my wedding ring, because i don’t *use* my left hand for the important things. it’s the same reason almost everybody wears their watch on their non-favoured wrist; otherwise it gets in the way & it’s really annoying.

so not only was it trying to create a need that women don’t have, it was going to hobble & inconvenience women’s movements an extra step in the direction that other <strike>tools of the patriarchy</strike> neutral capitalist accouterments like tight skirts, high heels, etc., do.

When I saw the rings in the photo I thought they were anti-same-sex-marriage rings.

So, apparently only straight people are single? (I guess when you sign on to the Gay Agenda they issue you a Gay Mafia-approved partner, or alternatively, an approved Pit Of Degenerate Lust.)

God, those things are fucking hideous.

Oh, now I see that they also have fucking hideous “gay single” rings.

I thought the “right hand ring” was the purity ring? Or am I wrong?

In some European countries, the wedding ring is the “right hand ring”

Not to mention, those women who are most proud and comfortable with being single are more likely to be feminists and they may not care for the ring tradition to begin with.  I despise engagement rings, why would I wear another version of that which I despise?

Mansplanation noted.

Of course. No Pandagon thread on sexism is complete without Zifnab the Dudebro coming in and cluelessly, cheerfully mansplaining that we’re just imagining sexism. All that’s missing is his usual patronizing emoticon.

Interesting point about the engagement rings. I didn’t realize how recent they are as a tradition, and of course the idea that they are a way to keep jewelry unequal, makes sense.

Just to offer myself up as a data point for marketing tapping into underlying desires: I am a feminist, and I am NOT someone who grew up dreaming of my perfect wedding day. My parents are also feminists, and they didn’t raise me to think of marriage and children as the be-all, end-all of my existence. He comes from a more traditional family and was into getting married before I was. We had a decidedly low-key wedding, and we deliberately rejected several traditions - no engagement ring, no father-giving-away-the-bride (we walked out together). BUT ... when it came time to buy a dress, I bought a white dress because I wanted it to be obvious who the bride was. Not a “wedding” dress, an off-the-rack dress, but white and formal enough that I have never worn it since. It’s embarrassing to even write that. Everyone at the wedding knew us, so I basically was advertising my status to passers-by.

So ...

I think that marketing is far from foolproof, and that good marketing taps into pre-existing human desires, prejudices, and emotions, and that it’s not “just” the magic of marketing when some consumer product takes off.

and

I bring this up, because feminist analysis of engagement rings and the entire wedding-industrial complex is often waved off as irrelevant, because the only real reason that people feel it’s necessary to spend incredible amounts of money on rings and dresses and place settings has nothing to do with patriarchy, but is just more magic-of-capitalism.

Yup.

I mean, we didn’t spend incredible amounts of money and most of it didn’t go to the wedding-industrial complex as generally understood, but if it was only capitalism and not patriarchy, why did I want it to be obvious that I was the bride, that this was my party? My husband wore a suit like most of the other men there.

Which is why these rings won’t sell. That, and they’re ugly as fuck.

this is what i was referring to (note how the slogan riffs on feminist language). this blog post has images of some of the ads, & is really creepy evidence that yes, some people completely buy into this stuff.

OK, maybe somebody can explain or mansplain or whatever to me: Isn’t the main purpose of wedding/engagement rings to say, “Don’t hit on me, I’ve got someone”? If you’re unmarried and unengaged, a bare knuckle telegraphs that status a lot more clearly than some goofy-ass singles ring. I guess I get that these rings are supposed to signal that you’re “available,” but it seems open to misinterpretation. Not to mention making the wearer look desperate.

I’m sorry, but this is the dumbest idea since a dating service that had people put bumper stickers on their cars saying “Interested? Call 1-800-...”

So here’s the other part: who the fsck is going to buy a ring that a) costs serious money b) doesn’t tell anybody anything they wouldn’t already have assumed from lack of a wedding ring and c) they’re going to have to get rid of if they ever get the relationship they supposedly want?

And I’m really with Dan: the profit motive explains being a jerkwad, but it does not excuse it. Unfortunately, perpetuating the idea that profit trumps human decency also means that the business world will be disproportionately inhabited by people who think that’s a good thing.

I don’t get how engagement rings are sexist.  I don’t really think of engagement rings as a tradition guys are attached to or invested in.  I’m sure if MRAs had their way, engagement rings would be the first thing to go.  On forums that are predominantly male, the prevailing attitude I’ve encountered is that spending money on a ring is a crock of shit, and you’re among the luckiest if you manage to get out of having to buy one.

The thing I never get* about this sort of arguments is the unspoken assumption that money itself constitutes some sort of moral imperative which legitimizes anything done in pursuit of it.

The pursuit of profit absolves responsibility, Dan.  After all, if you weren’t pushing sexism/selling poison/raping babies to make a quick buck, someone else would be doing it - so you’re not really to blame.

And don’t forget “the shareholders.” We want to do right, but we have a moral responsibility to “the shareholders” to screw over everybody and everything for that one last dollar. And the great thing is, you can never take your anger out on “the shareholders,” because there are too fucking many of them!

CORPORATION, n.: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
—-Ambrose Bierce

Wallace, I think they are sexist because they are a way of marking a woman as “belonging” to a man. Furthermore, as I assume the MRAs feel, it shows marriage as a financial investment and shows that the woman “owes” the man for the money he spent on a ring for her.

Thanks for that sell-a-diamond link, I’d read it before but lost the bookmark.

does anyone know if the “right hand ring” thing ever caught on? that one really bugged me.

I work with a lot of Europeans, who do the wedding ring on the right hand, and of course they’re scientists so they’re not the most feminist crowd.  I can put any ring, from a cheap copper band to a giant ammonite fossil to a fucking mood ring with dolphins, on either ring finger and get shit for it.  Apparently guys are paying attention, but my particular crowd of guys are smart enough to get PhDs but too stupid to distinguish between magnetic hematite novelty rings and wedding bands.  A right hand ring would cause their brains to explode.

A friend of mine at work just showed up with a new engagement ring, and it’s a doozy.  There are people in orbit right now who can see she’s getting married.  But she’s from Eastern Europe, and is (or at least is pretending to be) a bit naive about the whole thing.  I referred her to Kamy Wicoff’s book for a fairly decent discussion about what reactions a diamond that size might get her, but I’m not sure she’ll read it.  I kind of felt bad for bringing it up, but I know that someone’s gonna say something about it to hurt or confuse her, and I just want her to be prepared.

Wallace,

I don’t get how engagement rings are sexist.  I don’t really think of engagement rings as a tradition guys are attached to or invested in.

Not everything that’s sexist is something that men do to women. When feminists talk about patriarchy, they’re talking about systems and social structures, not things bad, evil men do to pure, innocent women. (This is something that anti-feminists often misunderstand.)

Engagement rings are sexist because it’s only considered important to advertise the pending nuptials on your person if you’re a woman and because they announce the woman as “taken,” as if she were a piece of property. That the importance of an engagement ring has been internalized by women doesn’t make it not sexist. I’m also ... not entirely sure that if women en masse gave them up that some men wouldn’t be put out. Certainly many men would be very put out if women didn’t wear wedding rings, yet many married men don’t wear wedding rings.

“Certainly many men would be very put out if women didn’t wear wedding rings, yet many married men don’t wear wedding rings.”

Oy.  My husband only started actually ‘remembering’ to wear his with any regularity after I said “Fuck this, if you’re not going to bother with it 90% of the time, mine can stay in the jewelry box.”  Suddenly, wedding rings went from being this completely irrelevant thing that would get forgotten on the vanity or in the gym bag or where the fuck ever in spite of me nagging him about not wearing his to this Very Important Thing that had to be worn by both of us whenever we were out in public.

I’m sure if MRAs had their way, engagement rings would be the first thing to go.  On forums that are predominantly male, the prevailing attitude I’ve encountered is that spending money on a ring is a crock of shit, and you’re among the luckiest if you manage to get out of having to buy one.

MRAs are about hating women, not helping men.  So the last thing they would do is remove a system which can create resentment on both sides.  Men who want to help other men do not create forums or organizations based around women.  They create forums and organizations based around men.  So a guy who starts a boxing club to build character?  He’s helping men.*  A guy who starts a forum to talk about how awful women are?  He’s hurting women. 

The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.(tm)

*Of course, institutions that help men develop and grow can also provide resources that help women develop and grow, but there are some men who need a safe space to express emotions which they have been taught to suppress, rather than accept and understand.

I don’t get how engagement rings are sexist.  I don’t really think of engagement rings as a tradition guys are attached to or invested in. 

The notion that sexism is simply something that men just want is the sort of simplistic reading that assumes a) that the genders are completely different in their desires and always at odds and b) that there isn’t a patriarchy that ensnares men as well as women.  It’s the kind of thinking that causes conservatives to accuse women of being suckers for having sex. 

Engagement rings are sexist whether individual men like them or not—-and believe me, many do—-because they reinforce the notion that marriage is a promotion for women and that men are the boss and the ultimate authority.  Whether or not men like this idea on an individual level doesn’t change that.  Whether women push for it doesn’t change it—-women are pushing because they’re socially devalued as people and the engagement ring is a quick way to be valued.

I wear a lot of cheap gaudy rings, as is the fashion, and I wear them on my right hand because the left hand is something I’m used to thinking of as the wedding ring hand.  Which, now that I think about it, is stupid.  No one is going to mix up a gaudy Pulp Fiction ring with a wedding ring if I wear it on my left hand.

Well put, Punditus.  There is a lot of pro-feminist men’s organizing out there, and by and large, it’s about promoting the idea that men should have close friendships, and that they don’t need to hurt women to create bonds between men.

I haven’t seen a t-shirt on a person, but I have seen the one for dogs that reads “Mommy’s Single.” Not on an actual dog, just in the store.

Eew, why do they have those man/woman symbols on them?  Is it trying to say “I like straight sex?”?  I don’t get it.  I’m single and very happy that way, but I wouldn’t touch one of these rings with a 1000 foot pole. 
Anyway, everyone knows that going on and on about how happy you are being single is guaranteed to read as “I’m completely miserable being single”.  It’s the same with married people who go on and on about how happy they are being married - chances are they’re not.

#26—that blog post was frightening. Everyone needs to go and see that. This is what we are up against.

Marketing takes advantage of existing cultural pathways, much like diseases taking advantage of vectors of infection. They do no create the roads; they merely drive down them.

Wow. Those rings are insanely ugly. Obvs. I just got married. Ultra simple ceremony at the WI state capitol. Took all of five minutes. Our very closest family members, 8 people, attended. Blitzgal, I highly recommend it. The silly bullshit that has surrounded ordering and sending out approx. 60 simple wedding announcements has made my husband and me very glad we had a micro wedding. I would recommend the announcements anyway. Good way to a) update all contact info. w/ friends and family and b) make it unmistakably clear to all that I am not changing my name. So yeah. Keep it simple. Very good choice. I’m using my dead grandmother’s wedding rings. We bought a nice, but very reasonably-priced ring, at a jewlery store that my husband liked. Easy. No engagement rings. I think that tradition is gross and we’ve lived together for five years. We’re more into vacations and downpayments on a house. If I want an expensive piece of jewelry, I’ll splash out in ten years when we have more money.

Just so people stop doing it, the words “DeBeers” and “Diamond market/industry” are not synonymous and interchangeable terms and haven’t been for years, starting when the Australians started getting into the market and ending with the opening of the Canadian mines, where DeBeers is merely one player among others (Ekati is majority owned by BHP Billiton, Diavik by Rio Tinto: DeBeers has been late in the game with Snap Lake).  The short-lived Jericho mine sold their product directly to Tiffanys, and a large chunk of the Ekati and Diavik production is cut in Canada and sold directly to retailers.

praying mantis, your husband sounds like a douche.

PIATOR,

Well, 150 years ago would be just before the start of major diamond finds in South Africa but after the development of brilliant cutting, so diamonds were actually comparatively pricy, in fact they would have been out of the reach of much of the population.  On the other hand, you’re right about the pearls, when cultured pearls hit the market in a big way in the teens and twenties of last century, the value of pearls plummeted.  There are cases of pearl necklaces being bought for hundreds of thousands of US dollars at the peak of the late nineteenth century prices, then being valued for something like a tenth of their purchase price twenty odd years later when the offspring of the original buyer sold them.

I do find it interesting that the modern brilliant cut, which wastes about half the raw material of the stone, only became widespread after the opening of the South African mines.  I suppose it’s another way to raise the apparent value of the stone.  But then, I’m not so keen on the modern cuts that over-emphasise ‘brilliance’ (light reflection) at the expense of ‘fire’ (light refraction/prismatic effects).  Rose and cushion cut diamonds tend to display more rainbow effects and have more subtlety than the modern cuts that are designed to just reflect back as much white light as possible.

Theadosia, you’ve surpassed the level of my knowledge, which is rather easy.  A mile wide and an inch deep is the librarian’s standard, covered by the ability to quickly dredge up more facts.

Here’s the capitalist take on your observation, Bitter Scribe:

MANGAN. People think I have. People think I’m an industrial Napoleon.
That’s why Miss Ellie wants to marry me. But I tell you I have nothing.

ELLIE. Do you mean that the factories are like Marcus’s tigers? That they don’t exist?

MANGAN. They exist all right enough. But they’re not mine. They belong to syndicates and shareholders and all sorts of lazy good-for-nothing capitalists. I get money from such people to start the factories. I find people like Miss Dunn’s father to work them, and keep a tight hand so as to make them pay. Of course I make them keep me going pretty well; but it’s a dog’s life; and I don’t own anything

Bernard Shaw,  Heartbreak House

I’ve been to a couple of gay weddings and they were rather low key events. Almost as though the theme was: We’re just glad to even be able to do this. I keep hearing about huge lavish affairs but apart of a few very wealthy gays, I’m inclined to dismiss it as urban homo legend.

If you’re unmarried and unengaged, a bare knuckle telegraphs that status a lot more clearly than some goofy-ass singles ring.

Heh, I thought the same thing myself.

Wallace, I think they [engagement rings] are sexist because they are a way of marking a woman as “belonging” to a man.

I always thought of them as a signal that someone was involved and not interested.  But now that I think about it, men don’t wear engagement rings do they?

Apparently guys are paying attention, but my particular crowd of guys are smart enough to get PhDs but too stupid to distinguish between magnetic hematite novelty rings and wedding bands.  A right hand ring would cause their brains to explode.

They must not get around very much as I’ve seen an upsurge in the popularity of novelty rings and sterling silver rings, especially among undergrads and 20-30somethings.  In fact, I know plenty of single men who wear rings….including some on the “wedding finger” without having any intention to pretend they are married….they just did it because it happened to be the most comfortable finger for that ring. 

Only possibility of my brain exploding when it comes to your rings is if they happen to be magnetic and your hand is around my hard disk-based media player, portable hard drives, or my laptops….don’t want to risk potential data corruption or worse…data loss.  :p

I always thought of them as a signal that someone was involved and not interested.  But now that I think about it, men don’t wear engagement rings do they?

Not often, but there are a minute few who do.  On the other hand, I have heard that some single men do wear wedding rings in order to pretend they are married for mid-high level corporate/legal type job interviews or because they have the idea that pretending to be “married” makes them seem more attractive to women they are hoping to pick up. 

Don’t know anyone who actually did the latter, though.

Nothing to add except I think Amanda has written an instant classic that ought to go up on those Feminism 101 sites.  “You ladies who point out sexism in popular culture are so stupid!  It’s not sexism, it’s the profit motive.  Nobody cares about oppressing women.  We’re all just making money.  If we could make the same money by oppressing men we would.  Jeez, you gals are dumb dumb dumb.”

no, men don’t wear engagement rings. historically, it’s the woman who is the chattal of the man, not vice versa, hence the ring signifying the transfer of “ownership”, from father to husband-to-be.

it took a moment to figure out wtf this whole ring thing was all about. unless there’s a model for single guys, i’d have to agree it’s pathetically sexist. the worst part is that some dumb-ass MBA got a huge bonus for thinking of it.

to be blunt, with the historic level of destruction, wrought by BP, this just strikes me as total drivel.

I had assumed that “singles rings” were rings men and women wore when they didn’t want people hitting on them.

I have a friend that noticed that fewer guys bothered her when she wore her class ring on her left hand.

“there must be lots of insecurity for us to mine there!”

I see what you did there! HA ha ha…aah, exploitation. Good times. *wipes tear*

FWIW (strictly as anecdata), in my country of origin there’s no such thing as a separate engagement ring. Instead, the custom is for both parties to start wearing wedding bands when they get engaged. Usually, the name of your partner and the date of the engagement are engraved inside the ring.

The running joke when I was growing up was that my dad was too scatterbrained to notice he was wearing my mom’s ring by mistake until he took it off (because it felt tight) and noticed his own name engraved on its interior face. This happened more than once.

I always considered my less developed (and nominally Catholic) country to be far behind the US in terms of gender equality, so it was a bit of a surprise when I moved stateside and noticed women getting ‘branded’ by engagement rings while men remained ‘available’ (from a visual perspective) between the time of engagement and the marriage ceremony. Incidentally, I also remain puzzled by the number of American women who go through the hassle of changing their last names when they marry, which is far less common in my (comparatively backwards) country.

I’m reluctant to automatically assume that no engagement ring = enlightment & less sexism. It may have more to do with the fact that few (if any) people in a country with a much lower GPD per capita are willing and able to buy a separate ring to signify engagement.

No one is going to mix up a gaudy Pulp Fiction ring with a wedding ring if I wear it on my left hand.

Sure they will.  Especially b/c you think you’re so ‘independent’ and think you don’t need a guy.  Then lookee!  You made Mark buy you the biggest, gaudiest ring around!  Because now you’re finally a real woman b/c you admit he owns you.

It’s a double-edged nastiness—the ring is a bride price.  The richer the groom, the bigger the ring—hence the nonstop “two month’s salary” pitch from the end of the 20th century.  If the groom doesn’t pony up for a big ring, then he’s cheap and you deserve better.  If he does pony up, then he feels like he doesn’t ever need to buy anything for you again b/c he owns you.

Since women aren’t people until they’re owned, the longer you live before you can trick some guy into spending two month’s salary on a ring (b/c girly parts are gross and no man would want to touch a woman unless he was tricked into it) the worse your self esteem will be.  You haven’t been picked yet! 

But you still have shelf life!  Just buy the right hand ring!  Then…catch this!  HE’S GOT TO BUY A BIGGER, FLASHIER ONE.

So buy the biggest one you can!

Ugh.

I actually like sparkly jewelry.  I have a right hand ring, but it’s made from the diamonds of my parents and grandparents and they gave it to me when I graduated from college.  It’s special b/c my grandfather loved to see me wear it, and now that he’s gone, it reminds me of his happiness.  Much better than if they had given me the diamond after he died so it could remind me he was dead.

Those rings up there?  God awful ugly.  I also thought they were going to be “anti gay marriage” rings, and thought how offensive.  I mean, really, why would you pick jewelry that’s supposed to symbolize your love and use it to voice your hatred?

There’s a big difference between being unmarried and being available.  Unless I know someone well enough to be reasonably confident that they’re at least unmatched, or (possibly, though I’ve never done it) the context strongly implies (like a singles bar or something) I’m not going to hit on anyone, wedding ring or no.  Advertising that you’re available, rather than just unmarried, seems like it could be wise.

Except, of course, the obvious. Women who’re advertising they’re single are probably going to be viewed (generally) as cold, hauty and stuck-up, and men who’re advertising they’re single are going to be viewed as (generally) lonely, desperate and pathetic.  This doesn’t seem to navigate the cultural pathways very well at all.

My family comes from one of those countries that does the right-hand-ring thing. Those immigrants with certain middle class, assimilationist aspirations in the early and middle of the last century adopted the western custom of left hand wedding rings. The subsequent generations which wanted to reassert their religious and ethnic identity started going back to the right hand ring. But here’s the thing—men are more likely to stick to (or re-adopt) the right hand wedding ring convention. For women, the social cost/benefit analysis (aka, the Patriarchy) comes down on the side of sticking to prevailing American norms.

“praying mantis, your husband sounds like a douche.”

If you know of any completely douchitude- and dude-privilege-free dudes, good for you.  In my experience, even most liberal guys* who talk the anti-sexist talk smack painfully into some cultural artifact that is Terribly Important to Them for reasons that are Totally Not Sexist, just please give them a few days to figure out what those Totally Not Sexist reasons are.  So yes, it is an instance of douche behavior, but the man himself is quite generally not a douche.

*Given the prevalence of internalized misogyny, I’m more than willing to extend this out to liberal women as well.

Only possibility of my brain exploding when it comes to your rings is if they happen to be magnetic and your hand is around my hard disk-based media player, portable hard drives, or my laptops….don’t want to risk potential data corruption or worse…data loss.

It’s not that strong a ring, don’t worry.  I can gesture with abandon around your storage media.  They also break super-easy.

They must not get around very much as I’ve seen an upsurge in the popularity of novelty rings and sterling silver rings, especially among undergrads and 20-30somethings.

That’s probably about right.  We don’t have a teaching requirement or an undergraduate department, so their contact with the kids is very limited.

I also remain puzzled by the number of American women who go through the hassle of changing their last names when they marry, which is far less common in my (comparatively backwards) country.

Comment #59: Dan2108

Probably because it’s ridiculously easy, almost like the system was set up for it!  My husband *was* going to take my last name as a middle name when we married, but we couldn’t afford it.  Me changing my name?  Quick trip to the DMV and the Social Security office with my marriage certificate.  I think it was $10 at each place.  Nothing like the $2000+ it would cost my husband to change his name.

I do wear a big sparkly diamond.  However, it’s mine, a gift from my mother (it’s her engagement ring) and it was a gift to her from her grandmother.  I’ve also always worn a “right hand ring” by which I mean the beautiful gold tree of life ring that I’ve been wearing since I was about 10 years old.  I’m even wearing it in my wedding photos!  My husband had an engagement ring before I had one, though, it was just a sliver ring that I gave him when we started talking about getting married, and he wore it on his left ring finger until the wedding and now wears it on his right ring finger, because, you know, it’s pretty and he likes it.

to be blunt, with the historic level of destruction, wrought by BP, this just strikes me as total drivel.
Comment #56: cpinva on 05/28 at 12:50 AM

Concern troll is concerned.

I believe the right-hand-ring “this hand is for me” deal is based on a marketing idea that there are women out there who have the disposable income in their household to buy more jewelry, but their husbands aren’t all on fire to go out and buy them the wedding ring upgrade or eternity band go-with. 

It’s basically just a permission slip to buy it yourself and not bother the grumpy man-bear with hinting and pointing to all that girl stuff he won’t get right anyway.

My beau likes rings. He bought the rings that he currently wears while he and I were shopping in Berkeley just before we started [officially] dating. They are women’s rings, actually, but they look very good on him, and he has such nice, slender fingers that he can easily wear rings. I have been blessed with giant sausage fingers, and rings just enhance that, so I never bother with that type of jewelery.

I also have a policy of not spending more than double digits on any jewelery - I think that the most expensive thing I have was like $25 or something, so in practice, it is a lot lower. It’s just not practical to me. I’ll put down $120 on a professional jacket, but that is because I work in an office with a bunch of corporate executives.

When I was a wee child (5 or 6), my mom still wore her wedding ring, but she stopped before I got too old. My father never wore rings because he was a farmer and almost lost his finger when he was younger by getting his high school ring caught on a cow stanchion. They have a picture of their hands with the rings in their wedding album and he probably took it off not too long after the wedding. Having spent my a lot of time in my childhood poking through my mom’s jewelery box, I am confident that my dad never gave her an engagement ring. And given that my mom was the one that brought up marriage and made the money, it makes sense.

My parents had a nice wedding in the church where my dad and my sister and I grew up going to. They walked down the aisle together and their wedding announcements say that they gave themselves to each other.  My dad wore a tan corduroy suit (it was the ‘70s) and my mom had a knee-length greenish brown dress. The whole wedding was brown, actually, brown brown brown. It is pretty remarkable.

Heh, brown was big in the 70s, no?  My mom’s bridesmaids dresses were dark brown with round white collars and worn with white sun-hats and white sandals.  My cousin who was the flower girl later wore her dress to be a pilgrim in a school play.

Probably because it’s ridiculously easy, almost like the system was set up for it!

No, no it’s not.

Me changing my name?  Quick trip to the DMV and the Social Security office with my marriage certificate.  I think it was $10 at each place.

In comparison to what your husband would have had to go through, yeah, that’s easy. In comparison to doing nothing at all, which is what I did? Jesus Christ no. You had to go through *two* different annoying bureaucracies? And then tell everyone you knew? And how long before you got your new credit cards in the mail? And didn’t you have to tell them too? And did the company you work for have to change your name in the mail system? And for how long did your magazines still come addressed to the old name?

Taking a man’s name is not “easy” when compared with “not taking a man’s name.” It is only easy when compared with “man taking woman’s name.” I didn’t change my name, and it was spectacularly easy! All I had to do was… nothing. That’s right, you can *not* change your name with zero effort whatsoever in the US.

I’m not going to get into why women change their names at marriage, because we had a whole thread about that, but I do get tired of women claiming that it’s because it’s “easy”. Doing nothing would have been easy. The physical path of least resistance, the path that involves filling out the fewest forms and standing on the fewest lines, is keeping your name. (The emotional/social path may be a different story.) Taking a husband’s name requires effort—not as much as a man taking his wife’s name, in many states, but it is an effort, and when trying to explain why women do X instead of Y, it’s not useful to point out that it is easier for women to do X than for men to do X, because the question was why don’t women do Y.

Don’t get me wrong, Alara, I’m not sure it’s a choice I would make again, but I certainly didn’t have to tell everyone I knew, they were all, like, at the wedding and stuff, and since the default is to assume changing, there was hardly a discussion there.  And my credit cards & etc. don’t give a shit and I haven’t bothered even telling them.  Most of my ID still has my “maiden” name on it, and since I didn’t drop it and just added, I have had literally no problems with it.

Hell, I found Pandagon because I was having some serious issues with getting married and how it made me feel (thank you internet!) and there are some choices I made that I don’t think I would make the same way today.  I’m just going to go out on a limb and blame the patriarchy.

I would never wear any of those rings. Not only do they broadcast your desperateness like Amanda said, but they’re really ugly.

The idiocy of the mansplaining is right there in “Create a need”. No, dumbass, you don’t “create a need” - what you do is play on people’s existing fears, needs, beliefs and emotions and show how your product will satisfy those. This can be negative (if you don’t buy our product people will laugh at you; you have a social problem that makes you a pariah, but our product can help) or positive (if you buy our product your friends will envy you and random supermodels will want to have sex with you), but it’s not creating new feelings. It’s just inserting the product into a slot that’s already there.

So the idiots who bleat about how it’s just capitalism ignore the fact that the “need” for the ring is sexist: women aren’t supposed to be single, men should buy you jewelry if you’re attractive, you don’t want anyone to think you’re a lonely spinster. If these concepts did not exist, there would be way to market this stupid jewelry.

In Central Europe, in my experience, the wedding ring moves from the left hand (engagement) to the right hand (marriage) on the wedding day. It is the same unjeweled band in either case.

I remember the fun legal fact that the old breach-of-promise suit evolved into the “who gets the engagement ring” suit if the engaged couple splits up.

I recall being puzzled that the whole panoply of weddings as heavily advertised in the old bridal magazines was flagged as the work of the patriarchy, when tiered wedding cakes and thousand-dollar dresses hardly seemed like “guy” things. Shouldn’t the patriarchy stick to advocating power tools and bass boats, I thought.  (Nowadays, add the “man cave.”) But then I realized, that the patriarchy is just a useful name for a system that keeps women down—despite one momentary flurry of exaltation of their assumed sexual purity.

I think I’m going to hate the term “mansplaining” more and more as time goes on…because like a lot of terms that are cute in the beginning, they get all twisted and turn into put-downs and negativity.  I don’t like the way you said something?  You’re mansplaining!  Just like when it appears that something is not well understood and so you try to explain it, you’re not trying to educate, you’re “being condescending!”  It’s just a cheap way to declare victory and not address the issue while at the same time putting down your antagonist.

Create a need = play on people’s existing fears, needs, beliefs and emotions and show how your product will satisfy those.  That’s exactly what is meant.  Yet use the term “create a need” in the context of putting down these rings as a cynical exercise in exploitative marketing and suddenly it’s “mansplaining.”  Is the underpants gnome formulation also mansplaining?  Just what is and is not mansplaining?  It started out being the Cliff Clavin “world’s foremost authority” type of thing, then it morphed into explaining to experts things related to their own field, and now it’s turning into arguing while male.

So the idiots who bleat about how it’s just capitalism ignore the fact that the “need” for the ring is sexist: women aren’t supposed to be single, men should buy you jewelry if you’re attractive, you don’t want anyone to think you’re a lonely spinster. If these concepts did not exist, there would [not] be way to market this stupid jewelry.

The rings can’t be both an example of cynical capitalist greed and sexism too?  And what about the gay rings, are those sexist?

I think without the patriarchy, and particularly the pressure on women to prove that they’re full human beings because someone wants to marry them, the wedding industry wouldn’t make shit.

There wouldn’t be big fancy weddings under feminism?  (Or under matriarchy?)  Significantly fewer people would marry each other?

I think that’s a stretch.  I don’t think feminism is going to eradicate human desires, including “the desire to impress others, to signal that you’ve been validated by love, and…to signal that you’ve taken [someone] off the market.”  Do you?

Most of the things that are essential to a wedding-as-a-celebration rather than a wedding-as-a-patriarchal-institution are done for other celebrations, though.  And if you’re coming at it as a celebration rather than an institution, there’s probably going to be way less pressure to suck it up and spend money you don’t want to spend on a band rather than a DJ lest the big day be completely! ruined! forever!.  So DJs and caterers and reception halls and florists and so forth would probably still keep rolling merrily along in a feminist world, but the wedding industry as a thing unto itself would most likely be shit out of luck.

I think that what gets dismissed a lot in this thread, and discussions like it, is the natural, human need for *some* type of ritual or practice.

When big, Story-of-Life continuity-affecting stuff happens—births, marriages, deaths, we feel the need to mark it by ceremony or ritual of *some* kind. This is where organized churches/temples have cornered the market. They have ready-made rituals for all these occasions, and offer what is essentially the path of least resistance.

When we were married, we had to contend with the logistical reality of two families with preconceived notions of what a marriage ceremony looks and sounds like. Most people just sort of default and assume that it has to have a religious figure, but the true lowest common denominator is that it has to have some kind of signifier of authority that can command the crowd. Literally, an MC.

We were adamant as a couple to have no church-person, synagogue-person, or any lip service to something we didn’t believe in, but were aware that we needed to replace it with something. We didn’t believe in god, but did believe in both Love and ceremony… So we interviewed Justices of the Peace until we found one with an imposing enough sense of gravitas, and she wore a Judge’s robe for the ceremony we wrote. We made sure it had good production values; a string trio with classical, but non-cliche music choices for different parts; beautiful—but not biblical—readings from works about love, and meaningful vows, that we memorized and delivered.

And as it turned out, even the most churchy old relatives on my wife’s side, and the most annoyingly super-jewy old uncles on my side, were taken with how nice and unexpectedly interesting and compelling the whole affair was. What they actually were responding to was the need for ritual; as it turns out. It was instructive.

Now, that was also a lot of preparatory work and relied on our ability to write and perform. It was a one-off; a designer ceremony. For a lot of people, even those disinclined to want a church involved, there is an intimidation factor at all of those steps, especially if they are not their strength. Public speaking, writing, etc. should not be necessary prerequisites for getting married to the person you love. So these religions, with a product to sell, fill that gap. And bring their attendant baggage, which perpetuates all of the institutionalized sexism, intolerance, or just self-important-church-insertion into the day, where it becomes more about Christ or god or the continuing of rituals from the Torah or whatever, than it is about these two people committing themselves to one another.

I think the same thing is present with the engagement ritual, which was wholly created, diamond-wise, in recent history by an organized cartel.  (Check out http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/ for some mind blowing research on the “tradition” of diamonds-as-engagement tokens.) DeBeers set about to market a new ritual.

This one seems more hamfisted, but the same idea is present.

Even the taking of a name, in some direction, speaks to that; the desire for a tangible, “magical” transformative change, because of a change in status. That it becomes wrapped up in a patriarchal power play or just a series of logistical issues (everybody needs a name, and the system is set up already, so there is a path of least resistance) and any kids from a marriage then need names of some kind, etc.

Most people don’t want to cause a fuss; they want the initial *thing* (to be engaged, married, announce a birth, commemorate a death) the specifics of the rituals and practices are things which they just don’t want to mess with.

It was even harder when my dad died last year, not using any kind of “pre-packaged” death ritual. We ended up renting out a beautiful restaurant and sound and video projecting equipment, and had a kind of “roast/testimonial” ceremony that took the place of a funeral. That is when you are even harder pressed, since you are laid so low with grief and pain, the easier path is just that much easier.

That is, quite simply, how they get you.

Engagement rings have other advantages. When I was a kid, my mother had a great ring that I knew had been an engagement ring from some guy she was going to marry but who had called off the wedding. In the 19th century there would have been a big stink, a breach of promise suit and more than a ring demanded in damages. The 1940s and 1950s were more enlightened than the previous century, but there were still monetary issues in canceling a wedding: the bride’s family pays for the wedding, and my mother’s family had put money down towards the wedding reception. The value of the ring covered of the lost deposit, and, as I noted, it was a pretty nice ring, so she kept it. (My sister has it now.) Needless to say, I was pretty glad my mother hadn’t married that jerk instead of my father.

As for this not-engagement ring, it reminds me of the 1980s when the big thing for single women who were never going to get a sugar daddy, but who were making decent money, was one’s own fur coat. Yes, I know, fur has lost a lot of its cachet, to put it mildly. But, for a long time, having a fur coat was for a woman as driving a Cadillac or Lincoln was for a man, and the fur coat salesmen figured that direct sales to women was the wave of the future.

My guess is we’ll be seeing more fur coats sold than these rings.