The trouble with engagement rings looks at the history and current view of engagement rings, going a little deeper than the usual source of the diamond industry’s shrewd marketing:
But there’s a powerful case to be made that in an age of equitable marriage the engagement ring is an outmoded commodity—starting with the obvious fact that only the woman gets one.
Indeed, in an equitable relationship, wouldn’t a man get a fancy watch or ring as a sign of commitment from his fiancee? Of course, where you could really have some interesting conversations with your mate are over the ring’s history of sexuality and ownership:
To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but, Brinig points out, a large percentage of women lost their virginity while engaged. So some structure of commitment was necessary to assure betrothed women that men weren’t just trying to get them into bed. (Implicitly, it would seem, a woman’s virginity was worth the price of a ring, and varied according to the status of her groom-to-be.)
Finally, as to why the tradition persists:
Part of the reason could be that many young women, raised in a realm of relative equality, never think rigorously about the traditions handed down to them. And many are looking for men who will bear the burden of providing for them, while demanding equality in other ways.
This concept of selective equality has certainly been true in my experience, with a few exceptions. Plenty of women out there are still looking for a man to be a traditional provider while taking full advantage of modern equality and independence.
del.icio.us/mbotos
