Affianced

I hate that word.  I hate the word fiancee too, and I refuse to use it.  Our wedding planner (yes, we have one; it's not as bad as it sounds, trust me), the first time I spoke to her on the phone, scolded me for using the word boyfriend to describe Sam.  "He's your fiancee!" she practically shouted at me.  Fiancee, schmiancee.  He's my boyfriend.  Perfectly describes his relationship to me.  Yeah, we're getting married.  But we're not fancy about it.  You can be quite certain I will never EVER call him my fiancee while speaking of him to others. 

Here's another way we're not fancy: I have no engagement ring.  Have I talked about this before?  I STRONGLY object to engagement rings as tokens of ownership.  Especially in light of the fact that in this instance, the man is clearly owning the woman.  How many men do you know that wear an engagement ring?  The world doesn't know men are off the market, but oho! the woman is taken.  You can tell by the GIANT EARTH ROCK she's wearing on her finger.  Now, I don't object to diamonds (though I probably should), or gems in general.  I happen to think they're very pretty.  But I don't think they're pretty when they're signaling to the world that some man has claimed me.

Frankly, doesn't it seem in some ways like a woman is being bought?  The bigger the ring, the better!  Because if you've got a big rock, he paid A LOT!  Which means he is AWESOME and POWERFUL and can afford to TAKE CARE OF WOMAN.  Ugh.  And this modern bride price sets up this hideous competition between women, because when you show up with that humdinger, and the person next to you has a chip, what does that say?  I'll tell you, it says that he doesn't love you enough to buy you a big ol' whopper.  Or *gasp* he might not be a good provider.  Everything about those last two sentences MAKE me want to puke. 

Please don't tell me that you understand all this and when you are proposed to, and the ring is whipped out, you are accepting it and you can shed all the implications of it.  I'm sorry.  You can't.  And even if you and he can, the rest of the world certainly cannot.  And you cannot explain to every person who looks at your ring: but wait!  not me!  I don't believe in all the things this shiny rock represents!  Not me!  I swear!  And look, I'm sure you don't care what size the ring is, because you love him no matter what, but you know what?  Other WOMEN are going to look at that ring and they are GOING TO JUDGE YOU.  And him.  And that's fucked up too.  You can't escape that.  You can put yourself above it and not care what other women think of you.  You can make a vow not to judge women based on their rings.  You can do those things, but you are STILL buying into a system that creates this dichotomy. 

Engagement rings are harmful to women.  Point blank.  You can't convince me otherwise, even if you argue that he's getting a flat-screen HDTV as an engagement present.  Unless he's going to wear that TV everywhere, and everyone in the world will know what it represents, the two things ain't the same.  All the HDTV tells me is that you have lots of money.  So buy the HDTV for him, fine.  But don't put on a ring that tells the world that a man FINALLY bought you, and that hallelujah, you are loved by a rich man.  

Again: engagement rings are harmful. to. women.

Comments

[TS]

Most days I have to wear a suit to work. My office is right on Michigan Avenue, so along with a steady stream of tourists there are also any number of people standing with clipboards, asking people to sign up for their (generally liberal) causes. Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, things of that ilk. I've noticed a curious trend with these folks: they rarely ask me to participate in their cause when I walk by. People all around me get solicited for support, but, oddly enough, the white guy in the suit doesn't seem like a fellow traveler. Of course, in reality, I'm as or more liberal than any of these people, and am naturally aligned with and supportive of their causes. But they've determined the meaning of my outfit for me, to their detriment.

My point is obvious, but it is this: you cannot determine what an engagement ring means to everyone. I agree with your reasons for not liking them, and I think the competition for most ostentatious says something bad about the wearer. However, just as you see the ring as a symbol of the shackles of the patriarchy, there's undoubtedly someone out there with a simple (or not so simple) ring who cherishes it as a symbol of love and commitment and the promise of a shared life. Sometimes, liberal white guys wear suits.

[Manogirl]

I don't think your argument works. Because suits don't universally mean the same thing to society. People wear suits for myriad reasons, and if someone from Greenpeace can't figure out that all liberals don't wear birkenstocks and ratty jeans, that's an individual failure, and it's short-sighted. I'm not sure you can make that same argument about an engagement ring. In fact, I'm sure you can't. An engagement ring. On that finger. Means one thing. Just as a band on that same finger means another. (Which is a reason no woman wears ANY ring on that finger until she is taken. Or married, if she chooses no engagement ring.) A suit? Is not the same.

I do believe rings can be exactly as you describe them: "a symbol of love and commitment and the promise of a shared life". Those are called wedding rings, and the reason it's a sign of commitment and a shared life is because BOTH persons in the marriage wear a ring. An engagement ring is useless as a token of commitment on the part of the man; the man is certainly not committed to anything in public, as long as he's not wearing a ring. Now, maybe the woman will look down at her small or large, simple or ostentatious ring and view it as that token as you describe, but it doesn't matter, because the ring represents something bigger than the couple.
My argument is that no matter how the individuals in the engagement view the ring, the ring is harmful.

[TS]

"An engagement ring. On that finger. Means one thing."

Yes, it means that the wearer is engaged to be married. You're bringing your own perspective about ownership and patriarchy to bear, and assigning that perspective to the public at large.

The problem here is with your use of "universally." Most people in 2009 do not view an engagement ring as an indicator that a woman is being kept by her male superior, whether or not that was what it meant once upon a time. And it apparently still means that to you, just as my suit, to some, means that I don't want to save the whales. You can't base an argument on the fact that it's harmful solely because of the societal implications when the societal implications have changed over time.

Meanings change as society changes. Should we not eat corn because the European settlers learned how to plant and harvest it from indigenous people who they later killed?

[Manogirl]

You are seriously not willing to concede that the dynamic of a man not wearing a ring and woman wearing one is harmful? I think you're missing the thrust of my argument completely; I'm not arguing a ring means a woman is "kept". In fact, I never used that word. Taken and kept are different things, and if you think a ring still doesn't mean that a women is taken, you're wrong. It doesn't just mean that to me. It means that universally.

Also, I have nothing to say regarding your last question, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. It's a complete non-sequitur. The meaning of corn? Meanings do change as society changes, but corn has nothing to do with that. Your suit argument didn't work, and this corn one? Yeah, not even close.

And I'd also argue that the meaning of an engagement ring hasn't changed all that much, especially as they're a very modern tradition, as far as wedding traditions go. (Incidentally, pushed hard by diamond companies, but that's another story too.) Engagement rings have always meant that a man could afford to put a big rock on your finger and tell the world that you're taken. Not "kept", mind you, but taken. Guess what? That's still what they mean. You can't win this one by arguing that they don't mean that in society anymore. They do. They absolutely do. And don't bring up the whole individuals feel differently argument again. That's beside the point, as I've said twice now.

[Manogirl]

And one more thing: I never ONCE implied that the male was her superior. In fact, I indicated originally that she might spend just as much money on him on a TV, but that the two things don't equate because of the aforementioned imbalance of public demonstration. I think YOU'VE added your own interpretations of my words to my post, and are using them to shoot my argument down. The inequality has nothing to do with him being superior to him. So sorry, again, you're misreading my argument.

[TS]

"I STRONGLY object to engagement rings as tokens of ownership."

To own, to possess, to keep....these are synonyms.

[Manogirl]

I'd argue not. In this case, "kept woman" has a very distinct connotation.

[TS]

Just so we're clear, in this debate you're going to not only claim that your personal impression of what an engagement ring means is an impression shared by the entire world, but also that I'm wrong for using the English language correctly? This is certainly an uphill battle for me.

[manogirl]

Come on. Kept and taken aren't direct synonyms, and you know it. You also know that they have completely different connotations in the context that we're using them. But you're playing dumb to make me look dumb.

I think this is over. We disagree. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Done and done.

[TS]

If you say so.