diamonds are for never
January 20, 2003
So, we all know that diamonds are intrinsically worthless stones whose popularity and value are a recent creation, the result of a concerted marketing efffort by a monopolist cartel whose control on its market makes Microsoft look like amateurs.
And even if one doesn't disagree with the morality of a company that blithely funded the South African economy during the embargo-strained apartheid years, the fact that fifteen percent of the diamonds on the U.S. market are conflict diamonds that either helped fund, prolong, or motivate violence in Africa ought to give anyone pause when buying into the hype that's been generated over a stone that's far from the rarest gem on earth. Even diamond advocates concede that, once they've been cut, it's virtually impossible to tell stones that are from areas of conflict apart from ones that were legitimately mined, making it unlikely that stores selling cut stones can have any way of guaranteeing that their diamonds didn't originate in areas of conflict.
But you might not be convinced by all of that, so I'll give you another reason to avoid them: The people selling them are fucking pigs. They're heavily invested in selling a world where men are insensitive, thick-headed incompetents transparently trying to dupe women who are vain, superficial, materialistic fools. I typically tend to be on the "eh, it's just a joke" side of things, but the sheer repetitive insistence of the cynical stereotypes in diamond advertising is astonishing.
I took a couple of pictures around town. The taglines range from creepy to blatantly misogynist. "Reduce the entire English language to three syllables. I love you." I suppose that's trying to be romantic, but if your significant other finds that their expressions of love are only prompted by being handed a rock, it seems that one of the 4 Cs you might want to worry about is "communication".
There are some that are just pathetic. "Get ready to hear one more tearful acceptance speech." "Never have to plagiarize another poem as long as you live." Who are these guys? Who does this appeal to? What hapless, undemonstrative loser identifies with stealing poetry as a subsititute for romance? Who finds the effort of copying someone else's sentiments so strenuous that he'd rather spend ten percent of his annual income on a pair of earrings?
Any one of these ads might be amusing, even charming, on its own. But there are dozens of them, all based on these same idiotic, dysfunctional archtypes. "Carve the turkey any way you damn well please." Think about the number of assumptions there. A shrill harpie of a wife, so overbearing that she's prone to criticizing her husband's turkey carving, yet so inept that she can't carve the turkey herself because it's a man's job. A henpecked, spineless cad of a husband, so hapless that he accepts her orders to portion the poultry but then holds onto the resentment of her criticisms of his effort. A relationship so broken and twisted that his purchase of a blood-tainted rock from a monopolist cartel would appease her superficiality enough to get her to relent from her sniping at his performance of a trivial act. And this seems like a bargain because this man is so emotionally worthless that he couldn't just say, "Hey, if you want me to carve the turkey, you should probably be less critical of how I do it."
Any guys who use that line can feel free to give me ten percent of their yearly income. Hell, I'll settle for five percent, and send the rest to the Angolans to buy weapons.
I know what you're thinking. "It's not that bad." It's just a joke, and I'm taking it too seriously. But how can you look at a list on the industry's own marketing website and see "Of course there's a return on your investment. We just can't print it here." and not be aware that they're selling, along with war and market dominance, dysfunction. Want your materialistic, easily-misled wife to stop being such a frigid bitch? Buy her a diamond! Did your husband decide to increase your consumer debt in order to buy you a pair of earrings that were mined at gunpoint by children in Africa? Reward him with grudging sex and a temporary cessation of your relentless nagging!
One of the few upsides to the whole ugly business is that such transparently offensive and annoying ads lend themselves to easy parody, such as the frequently-forwarded "She'll pretty much have to..." ad that makes the rounds every few months, demonstrating a wife's implicit fellatio obligation after the presentation of a diamond. (That link, needless to say, is not work-safe.) The same joke was featured in an episode of The Family Guy, as I understand it, proving the thought isn't particularly original. But the fact that the parody is that obvious, because it lies so close to the reality, is the most damning indictment of the sheer misogyny and contempt for healthy relationships that the diamond industry has based its marketing upon.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of grief from people who've given or received diamonds, arguing that the ads are cleverly playing on classic archetypes and that I have a stick up my ass, etc. But the reality is, this is a broken industry with a product whose very existence is absurd. If we look back at the efforts of the conquistadores in the Americas, and their monomaniacal focus on the pursuit of gold, even by members of the Catholic church, I think we'll have a fairly decent idea what our culture's association of romance with diamonds is going to look like to future generations.
In the meantime, don't buy their hype. If you already have a diamond, or you must continue with the dying tradition of purchasing them, don't fall for the De Beers cartel's concerted efforts to encourage the burial of diamonds with one's loved ones in order to perpetuate the artificial scarcity of the stones. I'm hoping that we see a stigmatization of diamonds, and a decrease in popularity and sales similar to the one suffered by the fur trade when the brutality of their industry was revealed. But if the moral issues aren't compelling enough, perhaps their contempt for your emotional maturity, your partner's character, and the solidity of your relationship would be enough to dissuade you.
22 TrackBacks
anil dash - diamonds are for never Read More
Anil Dash has a great essay up on his blog about diamonds and the incredible contempt for the public that Read More
http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/004817.php#comments Read More
anil dash: diamonds are for never. no diamond here, no ring of any kind...the only thing I would've want would've Read More
In an excellent and lucid blog entry, Anil Dash takes on the diamond industry for its numerous sins. Not only Read More
Anil Dash writes a brilliantly scathing article on diamonds. I've got to admit I've had most of those same thoughts about diamonds from time to time. Maybe it's an issue of practicality, too. At my age, It would be crazy Read More
Anil Dash has a great rant about diamonds, DeBeers, and the relationship between blood and diamonds. I actually wrote something similar back in October (prompted by an article about Al-Qaeda getting into the diamond trade in Sierra Leone) about how whe... Read More
Being a list of (relatively) recently-found funny and/or weird links that are too insubstantial to write anything critical or interesting Read More
Anil Dash has quite a discussion going on at his blog about DeBeers and Diamonds.... Read More
a very interesting tirade against diamonds on anil dash's site. luckily the slf told me awhile ago that all she would want would be an antique garnet ring. bonus from that article is this great deflator for all the annoying... Read More
The end of the diamond industry as we know it, and good riddance too. Wired: The New Diamond Age. Two companies in the US have perfected techniques for creating cheap artificial diamonds, virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The story... Read More
The end of the diamond industry as we know it, and good riddance too. Wired: The New Diamond Age. Two companies in the US have perfected techniques for creating cheap artificial diamonds, virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The story... Read More
Wow. I always hated diamonds once I learned that they were nothing more than payment for a woman's virginity, but this is a whole handful of nails in the coffin of any diamond purchase I ever imagined. No really, go... Read More
We were talking today about the Wired article on synthetic diamonds. I've never been a big fan of the diamond industry's (aka the De Beers cartel) tactics. Anil Dash, back in January, does a pretty good job of explaining why... Read More
http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/004817.php... Read More
This month's Wired has a cover article on synthetic diamonds. I thought it was pretty interesting and I remembered seeing a PBS-NOVA program called The Diamond Deception a few years ago. After reading the Wired... Read More
I just got the Semtember issue of Wired in the mail a couple of days ago. She cover features a woman adorned in nothing but diamonds. The story behind this photo is called ``The New Diamond Age''. This is a... Read More
About a month or so ago, I went looking for a nice diamond ring for my girlfriend. The more I looked at rings, the more I didn't like the whole idea of buying a diamond. The idea of a diamond... Read More
Friday I went to go get my legs waxed, and I ended up with the same friendly esthetician who'd done... Read More
Today Andreas and I drove over to fetch our wedding rings David Weinstock, our jeweler and family friend. This... Read More
I read in the "news" about how Britney Spears has a five-carat diamond on the engagement ring she's sporting and... Read More
http://www.dashes.com/anil/2003/01/20/diamonds_are_fo... Read More
118 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: there's no "me" in team
- Next: VPR Matrix laptop
Well said. Even so, I just bought my wife diamond earrings for her birthday.
I'm thinking about something along the lines of a truth campaign like the one for cigarette companies. How about it?
Thanks for mentioning "Not safe for work" a few lines AFTER the link! haha..
Right on, man. As you point out, in NYC we're literally surrounded by these dowry-age relics that appeal to those cigar-smoking entry-level brokers who party at the Ginger Man in midtown. It's grotesque, and there's certainly not much of an upside to the diamond industry itself.
Thanks man, I hadn't taken a stance on this issue, now I have.
Finally something we agree upon entirely. I'll only add that CZ is fine substitute for diamonds if you like shiny things, as is manufactured tanzanite (tanzanite is also not mined in the friendliest of manners).
When my intelligent and beautiful fiancee and I decided on an engagement ring, we explicitly chose a non-diamond ring due to the conflict diamond fiasco. That and DeBeers, which are mostly one in the same.
But did you know that diamonds weren't considered "standard issue" for engaged women until the 1950s? DeBeers sent representatives, smartly, into public schools and 'educated' the idea into kids. That meant that every generation from then on would associate diamonds with love and "forever", even though there are many many stones that will outlast diamonds.
I hate their ad campaigns, too. Targeting brainless, uncreative men. Swell - there's certainly not enough targeted at that demographic.
about ten years ago there was a fascinating 6 hour frontline series on diamonds. the debeers family is pretty evil. at the time i viewed the documentary, they couldn't travel to the united states because of all of the warrants out for them.
the debeers were even trying to stop/regulate the production of synthetic diamonds!
also, remember the tennis bracelet? the debeers had just purchased a newly found source of russian diamonds. the problem was, the diamonds were too small, so they had to invent a way to market them.
diamond engagement rings were never a tradition. the debeers paid movie producers to start including scenes with a man on one knee proposing with a diamond ring. diamonds are the original product placement.
we are such pawns, heh.
i understand what you mean by "conflict free" diamonds, but if you know the history of debeers in south africa, there really aren't any conflict free diamonds unless they were never owned or distributed by that family/corporation. that pretty much leaves you with novelty american diamonds found on the ground in arkansas.
The Atlantic Monthly ran a fascinating article on the history of the diamond engagement ring. It's from 1982, so a great deal of the economic information is meaningless today (are people buying cut gemstones as an inflation hedge? Anywhere?), but it still makes for some really interesting reading.
From my (cursory) study of the DeBeers business plan during my time at business school, I would suggest that the ads are not targeted at men at all. DeBeers understands that women are the driving force behind diamond purchases and the point of the ads is to convince women that loving men buy diamonds. They know that if women believe this strongly enough, at a deeply emotional level, the men will just roll over and buy the damn ring to make her happy.
I couldn't agree more, though I haven't seen this ad campaign out here in the LA metro area. Diamonds are big here, just like everywhere else, and when you look into it, (along with all sorts of other marriage related propaganda) it's one of the most clever, understated, prevailant conjobs around.
I'm getting married this year and I don't have an engagement ring. I wish I could say this was because of the reasons mentioned above, but I can't.
I just think the diamond engagement ring is a sexist, archaic tradition. I didn't know women even had engagement rings until I was about 21. I thought it was something that happened in the movies. I just hadn't noticed.
Also, I just don't care enough about jewelry. Diamonds are just clear rocks. I don't see why they're more valuable than say...granite. But my string of glass beads that belonged to my great-grandmother? That's the most valuable piece of jewelry I'll probably ever own.
I'm not going to claim that I don't like pretty girly things. Of course, I do. But when someone makes monthly payments on a ring, that's a little creepy.
I also don't want to suggest that I think I don't attach sentimental value to big-ticket items. I know I do. When my sweetheart brought home a big, silver, shiny tv and entertainment center with picture-in-picture, a 5-disc changer, and surround sound, you know my eyes teared up as I said to myself, 'I love this man. I love this man. I love this man....' Yeah, it was just like the commercial.
I'm glad you also think that diamond commercials are outrageous. They're female-chauvinistic. I'm waiting for the ad that says, 'She'll forget she is going to live with a man for the rest of her life.'
They have that campaign out here, in the Muni/Bart stations. Every time I look at it I thank they stars they made me queer.
Of course, queers/gays aren't immune to crass, role-driven materialism and can often be the worst offenders, especially in certain communities in San Fran.
But I'm just glad I have the option of bypassing these archetypes completely.
"they stars" = "my lucky stars". Don't know where that typo came from.
Michael Doss:
There's a lot of them out here, you just have to keep an eye out since in LA it isn't so easy to get ads in front of people's faces unless they're 80 feet wide.
There's one on the corner of Bundy and Venice that says, "Add King Daddy Stud-Muffin To Your List of Pet Names".
I believe that was the most even-handed writing I've seen on the issue for some time. I really don't have any personal antecdotes or experiences to share. I just thought I'd thank Anil for the best thing I've read in the last few weeks.
Anil,
Just read your piece on why buying a diamond is not a good idea. I�ll be the first to agree with you that DeBeers doesn�t have the best of records and
that diamonds in West Africa have fueled more than a little horror. But I do believe you oversimplify the situation.
I am over 20 years in the gem business, so let�s get that out of the way right off the bat. I�ve authored a piece on blood diamonds and you can see it at:
http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/dd_blood_diamonds.htm
Here's another piece you might enjoy, speaking about gems from Burma:
http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/burmese_politics.htm
From your name, it sounds like you are of Indian extraction. If so, you probably know that the diamond industry is one of India's biggest. That
boycott you are calling for will impact far more than the 15% of conflict diamonds (in truth, it's probably more like 5%).
I'll bet you drive a car. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I'd wager a lot more than 15% of your gas comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Iran, Kuwait and other countries where the human rights records are atrocious.
As I said, things are not so simple. I appreciate your sentiments. No one wants to support human-rights abusers. Wish I had the answer, but I don't.
You see, it's the politics, not the product, that deserve boycott.
Warmest regards,
Richard Hughes
Richard had emailed me his response earlier, and I told him that his was a point of view that's been underrepresented, so I asked him to repost his thoughts here. Thanks for taking the time, Richard.
I just wanted to add that although I agree with the text and abhorr DeBeers, that there is an alternative in both source and marketing for those set on purchasing a diamond.
Canadian Diamonds mined in the Northern Territory. There is one mine operating there and soon will be a second. Check out Sirius Diamonds for details.
This reminds me of the speech I made in speech class at college. It was on the idiocy (I know I didn't use that word then) of selling beer in gas stations.
Obviously there wasn't politics involved, just common sense. If people want beer they can buy it at the grocery store. Who would need it at gas stations except if they're going to drink it in or around their driving time.
I worked at a gas station and observed many young men come in nly for beer and gas (the two top selling items at a gas station by units sold, along with cigarettes). This was nine years ago, so I think I'm missing some logical link points here)
Anyway, a good post you had. I think buying a diamond is just a part of the mix that should exist in romancing your "girl."
You do what makes her happy. A diamond may indeed be a rip-off but few women are going to appreciate a treatise on world politics when you tell them why you didn't want to get a diamond.
As to motives: My girlfriend likes Blue Topaz and I like seeing her face and delight when she opens up the jewelry box. Do I expect anything in return? Well, seeing her happy, I already got it. But sure, if it rests in the back of her mind that stores the "he's such a great guy" memories than that can only help the relationship and the sex.
Women and men enjoy sex more with someone they know values them - in the many ways that is expressed.
I've always thought the same thing about the ad taglines btw though hadn't seem some of the sicker ones you found. I also hadn't seen the X-rated Debeers ad. For anyone interested I've seen the original picture and the woman behind the shadow is Jenna Jameson.
When I saw those ads in the Bay Area I was gong to go all Billboard Liberation Front on them, things like "Just add 'Genocial Colonialist Oppressor' to your current pet name", "Reduce the Entire English language to three syllables: 'What a Dupe'", that sort of thing. Then I saw their "Whack! Pow! Woosh! Kablam! In a tender loving sort of way" ad and I realized that any commentary I could add would go completely over the heads of their target audience.
Irony isn't dead because there's a lack of supply.
A-FUCKING-MEN, anil. Everytime a friend or relative gets engaged I start my broken record about how horrible the diamond industry is, and no one ever seems to give a shit.
Testify, brother!
Hey Anil. Remember that time years and years ago when we went out to dinner and you were vehement about being for engagement rings and against pre-nuptial agreements? Glad to see you've changed your mind.
On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there's also the whole: "Look! I'm chattel!" issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring.
Blue Collar Comedy tour joke: "You know what they mean when they say 'Diamonds -- render her speechless!', they really mean 'Diamonds -- that'll shut her up!'"
Which is funny in a sad-omg-please-let-there-be-more-C-for-communication way.
you were vehement about being for engagement rings and against pre-nuptial agreements
Now waaait a minute! I was, and still am, against pre-nups, but I don't recall any such thing about rings. I've pretty much always been against them, as I recall.
It's quite possible I was arguing for the sake of arguing, though. I'm a bit prone to such things.
On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there's also the whole: "Look! I'm chattel!" issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring.
Come on, that's taking things too far. The woman is as proud of wearing the ring and letting others know of impending couplehood. If the woman in question does not want a ring, she should, and I'm sure does, let her boyfriend know howe she feels about engagement rings.
"A diamond may indeed be a rip-off but few women are going to appreciate a treatise on world politics when you tell them why you didn't want to get a diamond."
Why would you want to marry a woman who wouldn't take seriously your well-founded concerns regarding the diamond industry? If a person has serious ethical issues with a product and his/her partner can't be understanding enough to at least respect that, I don't think the relationship/marriage has much of a chance.
"On a side note, apart from the whole diamond issue, there's also the whole: 'Look! I'm chattel!' issue that surrounds wearing an engagement ring."
I have to agree with temple that this comment is a bit much. Do you also feel that way about wedding rings? Am I chattel because my fiance gave me an engagement ring? Is that mitigated by the fact that I gave him an engagement watch? An engagement ring, just like a wedding ring, is a symbol. It happens to be one I'm rather attached to. It wasn't a conflict diamond given to me by some mindless man on one knee. It's a decision made by my fiance and me together, and I don't think that makes me "chattel."
And you wonder why you're single anil?
And kfan, I'm sure all those couples love how you rain on their parade. The concept that what is right for you may not be right for them is not a difficult one.
I have to agree with temple that this comment is a bit much. Do you also feel that way about wedding rings? Am I chattel because my fiance gave me an engagement ring? Is that mitigated by the fact that I gave him an engagement watch? An engagement ring, just like a wedding ring, is a symbol.
Buying into the tradition of the engagement ring (much like many people buy into the tradition of the diamond engagement ring) doesn't mean that the engagement ring does not symbolize that you are asking people to define you as being attached to a man who gave you a very expensive ring. Which is no problem, as far as I am concerned. People should define themselves however they want.
But please note. An engagement ring generally does not symbolize that you are involved with someone who respects your individuality-- pretty much everyone who gets engaged gets one. It does not symbolize that you are in a relationship of mutual trust and affection, unless he's also wearing a ring which announces to the world that he's also taken. (Yes, if a man wears an engagement ring or some other token clearly showing that he's involved, then the chattel effect is somewhat mitigated.) But, historically, women (and only women) wore engagement rings so that men would know to stay away from taken women and also to reflect glory upon the man who could afford such a pricy token. The giving of the engagement ring also symbolized that the man was serious about the engagement because he spent so much money on it (again, chattel). How many women have you heard say, "I'm not engaged until there's a ring on my finger"? Isn't someone engaged when both partners agree that they're going to get married? Or does the man have all the say in that decision?
Wedding rings symbolize a commitment on both sides because both partners wear them. Gifts which aren't diamond rings can symbolize an individualized expression of love. But when only one partner wears a ring which the world traditionally reads as "taken" or "owned", then sorry, but yes, the word chattel does spring to mind.
And you wonder why you're single anil?
I do? I am?
Righteous.
Right on. What's with women and diamonds anyway? It's a rock. A shiny chunk or hardened carbon. That's it. No big mystery, no magic. It's all marketing and hype brought to you by DeBeers. And for the amount of money they charge for that chunck of carbon, aren't there better ways to express lasting love? It's two months salary - not income - SALARY. Pre Tax. For a tiny, shiny rock. How about an engagement Lexus? Or an engagement trip to Tahiti? Or an engagement cabin in the woods? Or an engagement downpayment on a house?
This of course may just be another reason why I am still single.
When we got engaged in 2000, we were determined not to 1)risk getting a conflict diamond, or 2) support the black-hearted monopoloy of deBeers. The blood diamond issue was just heating up, in fact, and deBeers was starting a phony campaign to mitigate its criticism on the issue. Also, it was shifting its marketing strategy, teaming up with (equally manipulative fashion megalith) LVMH to market diamonds under the deBeers brand.
Instead, we searched for an estate diamond ring, which we eventually found and bought at auction, at a price that reflected the elimination of several layers of cartels. In addition to telegraphing socioeconomic class status at a distance as effectively as a new one (a survival skill here on the Upper East Side of Manhattan), up close it says "inherited money," (aka "I didn't have to buy a blood diamond; my grandfather did it for us.")
Net net: We got a beautiful ring (created for a princess, Eugenie, a niece of King Leopold of Belgium) from a very elegant (recently investigated and indicted, colluding duopolist) joint. We couldn't feel more self-satisfied.
Oh, and while I'm typing this on a wintel machine, I DON'T have an SUV.
I came here through Ariel's site, and all I can say is: Totally. This whole hype surrounding The Ring (no, not the movie) that has infected our society is making me ill. A coworker of mine recently got engaged and I have been avoiding her ever since because I just don't feel like having the "Let's see the ring" talk and doing the obligatory Oooh's and Aaah's. This may sound mean but I just don't feel like perpetuating this nonsense. I congratulated her on getting engaged but I don't give a crap about her ring.
I was just dropping in to ask if I was still going to hell for wearing my diamond engagement ring even if it were an estate diamond. But I see that Mr. Greg.org beat me to it.
Vera: no one's going to force you to look at your co-worker's ring. What a shitty reason to avoid someone.
How fortuitous that I should stumble onto this tract, since I'm going ring shopping this very week!
My fiancee wants one, but I think the reason she wants one is that her family, being rather traditional, is going to raise a 50 Megaton Stink if a rock is not delivered. We're de-facto engaged already, but her parents won't tell anyone because there isn't a ring yet.
While I abhor being played the fool by anyone, I can mitigate it somewhat by going to a trusted broker instead of a mega-retail scammer like Harry Winston or Blue Nile.
Ultimately, however, when it comes to the woman of my dreams, I'm willing to dance with the devil. I just hope I don't let him take me home.
Right on. By the time I got married, we had been living together for years and our finances were combined. If I wanted a diamond I would have bought my own. For the price of a diamond you can go to Europe, people. Europe or the rock? It's a no-brainer.
Amen. What's worse are the women who get picky about where the diamond is from. So trashy.
Thanks, Anil, for the piece. Glad to see there's someone out there using his head (and his heart, for that matter).
Scott G: buy a cubic-zirconia, if you have to fold. You can cut glass with it--in fact, you can cut glass with glass, and her folks'll never know the difference.
When we got engaged, I gave my wife an orange plastic spider ring I found at a local dime store for about a quarter. It turned out to be more memorable than a diamond ring, as well as cheaper, and we're still married, more than 15 years later.
One thing I got to ask, (more to the commentators): would you so strongly anti diamonds if the DeBeers family were US citizens?
Interesting (unconfirmed) fact - if you work for DeBeers, you can't even set foot in the States. Why? Not for any moral reason but because the States is afraid that if DeBeers are given a chance, all US diamonds will also belong to them.
Much as I'm not defending DeBeers there's a certain "holier than thou" factor here which is unpleasant.
In terms of "evil corporate conspiracies", the diamond industry is hardly destroying the planet - these days governments start wars to defend our right to burn oil.
Much as the points in the essay are valid, I don't hear anyone saying "And I won't be buying my fiance a Ford either"
Flash: Blogger discovers people put greed above altruism, think money is good, more money better.
Next: The Rose Cartel -- How The Floral Monopoly's Stranglehold Robs Your Pocketbook
I wrote about this issue back in 2000 before hubby and I got engaged (http://www.uncorked.org/alltoocozy/archives/2000/000127.html). I was a bit milder than I might have been, given that several of my friends were getting engaged at the time, but I think 'engagement ring for the girl' is a wholly manufactured and subrational process whose symbolism borders on mysogynistic.
Screw the ring, get her a dog.
Nothing says "commitment" like adopting a four legged friend. (That's assuming, of course, that she wants the dog.)
That's what we did, and we get more love and delight from that fuzzy little menace than jewelry would ever provide.
i'm with anil on this one. "if you love somebody, get them a chunk of carbon and fuse it to their finger!" a stupid and meaningless tradition for all us sheepish drones. it's just a stone, people, it's JUST a stone. and yeah, those de beers commercials are pretty fucking rad (dun dun dun dun DUN DUN DUN DUN!!), but if that's all it takes for you to drop thousands of dollars just like that for a chunk of rock, then you have no hope in this world. and that's not even getting into conflict diamonds, blood diamonds, the diamond monopoly, and our good friend and imperialist par excellence, cecil rhodes. whoa, nelly. leave me out, thanks very much.
Elisabeth -- I have the feeling we have very similar views on this, but just have made different decisions. I'm well aware of the history of male oppression and the history of the engagement ring. Just because something has a bad history I don't believe that means the tradition is completely invalid. If that was the case, I wouldn't be getting married at all, given the misogynistic history of the institution of marriage.
My main point is this (just as someone else said) -- what's right for you may not be right for someone else. I am a feminist and did not come to the decision to wear an engagement ring lightly. However, I must admit that at least part of it is the whole "I like shiny things" thing. But from what you've written, it seems it would be okay for me to wear an engagement ring only if my fiance is. He didn't want to wear one (for various valid reasons) and instead preferred a watch. Why is this any less valid? I still do my feminist duty of explaining that I got him an engagement watch anytime someone admires my ring. I know that most people, including me, have a tendency to judge those who do something they don't agree with. But I believe the point of feminism and the reason to fight against misogynistic culture is so that women and men are free to make the decisions that are best for them.
If I love someone who really appreciates a tiny finely-cut stone that costs me four paychecks, then I'll probably buy diamonds to please her. But four paychecks can buy a lot of other things that can be appreciated, and strike me as even more romantic, like vacations and spa visits, dinners and portraits, sleigh rides, concerts and road trips. Things that forge experience, and create stories that forge bonds.
There are plenty of great ethical, legal, and economical reasons not to support the diamond industry, just as there are plenty of great reasons not to support the evils of the auto industry, big oil companies, Microsoft, and Yum! fast-food companies. There's nothing outstandingly different about the ills of DeBeers, in this respect.
For me, the diamond industry offends because it is actively working to narrow our sense of romance and powers of imagination, and all over the world, women and men are buying into it. Diamons make up for lost time. Diamonds apologize for our misgivings, our embarassing idiosyncracies. Diamonds say what we have all become to lazy, busy, or unimaginative to say ourselves, with language and love. We work harder and longer away from our families to buy products that are supposed to express what we no longer have the time or understanding to express ourselves.
"Right on. By the time I got married, we had been living together for years and our finances were combined."
Of course buying a diamond would be stupid. Even getting married was a waste for you. If you were living together, what's the point? You should be consistent. If you throw one outdated tradition away, don't bother with the other.
Miguel. Nice story. However, I doubt the fact that you gave your wife a spider instead of a diamond ring has anything to do with your length of marriage. Nice try though.
What is amazing about every self righteous person here is that you fail to understand that different people hold different values and opinions.
If a diamond is a hunk of coal to you, great! Then it's meaningless. Don't buy one. But for someone else it might mean something very different. Even *gasp* special. It doesn't matter what YOU think it means. We all give value to different things in the world and it is amazingly self centered for most of you here to think that because you don't give any special value to a diamond than it must be the same for others.
Someone mentioned a trip to europe. News Flash. Some people hate traveling! A dvd player? Some people aren't into movies.
Quit pushing your value system on others, or the terrorists will win.
Scott G, I'm in the same boat. My entire family has completely and utterly bought into the diamond promotion. They could write their own poster slogans, such as "You're Not Engaged Without A Big Diamond!" and "If Your Fiance Didn't Get You A Diamond He's A Big Loser!" They also don't consider us engaged- "that's a promise ring you're wearing, Jennifer"- and have made no secret of how they don't approve of the engagement because there isn't a ring and I "deserve a diamond." I could just vomit.
No, he can't afford a diamond, but that's okay BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ONE, DAMMIT! I don't like them! They're white! They're boring! They're overhyped and overpriced! Should we have to give into the stupid stereotype of "diamond=love" just to get some freaking respect for the decision here? Apparently so. We're thinking about picking up a fake 7$ ring at Wal-Mart.
Thanks for the diatribe, Anil, I appreciated it muchly.
Actually, they're not white at all. That's what you get for looking at walmart though.