Is The Engagement Ring Old Fashioned?

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10922597.post-42343695965294669692007-06-11T12:30:00.000-04:002007-06-15T14:04:10.477-04:00Is The Engagement Ring Old Fashioned?<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2167870">Interesting article</a> about feminism and the engagement ring here in the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2167870">slate magazine</a>. <blockquote>On the face of it, the engagement ring's origins as a financial commitment should make modern brides-to-be wary. After all, virginity is no longer a prerequisite for marriage, nor do the majority of women consider marriageability their prime asset.For those who aren't bothered by the finer points of gender equity, an engagement ring clearly makes a claim about the status of a woman's sexual currency. It's a big, shiny NO TRESPASSING sign, stating that the woman wearing it has been bought and paid for, while her beau is out there sign-free and all too easily trespassable, until the wedding.</blockquote>Do Nigerian women agree with the statement above? If so much noise has been made about gender equity why isn't there a move to drop this practice? Why are some practices which are favorable to the female gender not part of the equality crusade? It makes perfect sense to me that, once women get equal wages, earn the right to propose, women should also be prepared to put a shiny engagement ring in Omodudu's fingers (no pun intended ragdoll). Last time I check the Dudumaster is very upscale the ring ought to be the size of a building brick. I dare to shout equality for women, shey? The slate article put it concisely... <blockquote>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. The diamond ring is the site of retrograde fantasies about gender roles. What makes it pernicious—as opposed to tackily fun—is its cost (these days you don't need just a diamond; you need a <a name="sb2168135"></a><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/sidebar/2168135/">good</a> diamond), its <a href="http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html" target="_blank">dubious</a> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond" target="_blank">origins</a>, and the <a href="http://www.dashes.com/anil/stuff/diamond1.jpg" target="_blank">cynical blandishments</a> of TV and print ads designed to suggest a ring's <a href="http://www.adiamondisforever.com/" target="_blank">allure</a> through the <a href="http://www.diamondvues.com/archives/3_stone_ring_she_already_kn.jpg" target="_blank">crassest</a> of <a href="http://www.adiamondisforever.com/epostcard/epostcard1.html" target="_blank">stereotypes</a>.</blockquote>If you are still not convinced, the article buttresses the point, by observing the action of single women. If a right-finger ring shows independence from the "waiting-for-a-guy-to-propose" syndrome, then the engagement ring indicates the reverse (diplomatic statement). How far are African women willing to take their fight for freedom from the male folks? Are you willing to buy us engagement rings? <blockquote>And you've probably noticed that these days diamonds really are forever: Men are informed that their beautiful wife needs a "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BxQuvT-Sg" target="_blank">Twenty-Fifth Anniversary</a>" ring (note this ad's reduction of a life to copulation and child-rearing), and single women are told not to wait around for guys but to go ahead and get themselves a "<a href="http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/news/2003/052003story.html" target="_blank">right-finger ring</a>." Live to be 100 and a woman of a certain class might find her entire hand crusted over with diamonds. A diamond company, you see, is unrelenting. In their parlance, "the desire is there; we just want to breathe more life into it."</blockquote>Is the engagement ring old fashioned? If it is, when will the edict take effect?Omodudu