Any woman who has to "strong-arm" her man to get him to buy her an engagement ring already has enough relationship problems without Amy Sohn giving these men carte blanche to cheat and philander...jeez.

Wow, that first "anti-ad" was charming!

yeah, lovely wasn't it? just goes to show you what so many men think of women's intentions in terms of love and marriage.

Hmmmm...never heard the theory of "conspicious consumption", has she? You know, the one where a woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth? A fancy engagement ring is pretty much a way for a man to mark his territory and show off his wealth--it's no coincidence that the popularity of them rose once men started to wear wedding rings. Now that wedding rings symbolize commitment instead of ownership, the engagement ring fills in the old function--a way to mark a woman as property.

The question is: "should women know better than to be convinced to put a price on themselves and their relationships?" A better question would be "should MEN know better than be convinced to put a price on their partner and their relationship?"

I expect to receive an engagement ring from my partner sometime in the near future - and I have agonized over what I can give him that will similarly symbolize my commitment to him. But I'm really bothered by the fact that he sees the engagement ring as not just a symbol of his commitment, but as a symbol of *his* worthiness to marry me. I'm not pressuring him for a fancy ring. He's feeling pressure from outside our relationship to produce one.

Instead of bashing our sisters who wear engagement rings, I think the attention should be on why men feel so much pressure over this issue that they are driven to produce horrible sexist ad parodies and agonize over what should be a private symbol of commitment.

How can we, as feminists, lessen the pressure on the men in our lives? Not just boyfriends and husbands, but brothers, friends, and sons? I'm very interested to see if any of you have any ideas.

To Sara: I've always given my boyfriend positive feedback for doing the little things that don't cost a lot (like today, where he picked me up after class for no reason at all and took me to lunch). I try to show him that I don't give a crap how much money something is worth. As a feminist, I try to a) communicate with him about things other than the stereotypical 'girly' concerns, and b) constantly demonstrate that I'm not an object or a weak little flower.

I'll tell you where the pressure comes from: familial expectations. My family alone, well- I have an aunt and uncle who check my hand for a ring every time they see me, whether or not I have a significant other. They have made it VERY VERY CLEAR that someday I'd better show up with a BIG BIG DIAMOND on that finger, or else my man is not worthy. Period. Nevermind that I don't like diamonds, if I don't show up with a big rock and a man, they will treat the guy like shit.

This is craziness, mind you, but that's what they're like. And it doesn't help either that whenever someone announces an engagement, question #1 is often, "Where's the ring?" and then it's immediately judged by all and sundry. It's a litmus test of how rich the guy is and how valued the girl is by the rich guy. Gag me.

This is getting all too muddled.
I feel that the idea of an engagement ring is disgusting when it goes beyond a gift of love. But I also believe this decision is a personal choice. However I would like to reiterate that word "choice," and reject the entry's classification of the wedding industry being "impossible to escape." Granted, societal pressures are tremendous, and societal conditioning is often subconscious, but women are not powerless. I cite this blog as a perfect example. People have the capacity to take in, analyze, consider, confirm, and reject eveything around them, including the conditioning they've been exposed too. Therefore absolving someone responsibility for demanding to be bought purely because of society is insulting to their intelligence. One is responsible for all of the ramifications and implications of their actions, even if they decide to reject them (which he/she is completely entitled to do). On the same token, this woman is ridiculous to imply that an equal party in the engagement (the man) is entitled to the obstruction of the union.

Maybe you all from the North East see it differently than I do here in the MidWest, because all of the women my age that I know (early 20's) that are engaged have very modest rings. Being college students for starters, and smack dab middle class most guys don't have a hell of a lot of cash to spend and I'm pretty sure the women feel that's ok. If they were trying to be bought off or felt that the fat rock was a status symbol they all fell pretty short of those goals.

Among my friends in the Midwest, antique marriage rings are the newest trend for engagenment rings. They have history and don't cost nearly as much as a new one. Further, I have a problem wearing diamonds and have never owned one. I don't want to support the diamond trade with my greed.

My parents have never worn their wedding rings, partially because they got them for ten bucks apiece at a department store in the 60s. And my very feminist sister never more an engagement rings, though her and her husband have matching jewels - not diamonds - on their wedding rings.

There is a choice in all of this, and keeping with parts of the tradition, it is possible to veer off and make your own new ones.

How can we, as feminists, lessen the pressure on the men in our lives?

Pick men who are capable of resisting peer pressure? My goodness, if your fiancé can't bear to listen to YOUR wishes about a ring YOU would be putting on your finger, what makes you think he's going to deal with other gender-linked expectations positively?

I don't know that Amy Sohn *isn't* fucking around. You have to wonder about anyone who encourages married men to "cheat viciously."

wow

I have to whole heartedly agree with Amy Sohn, except her last line quoted there about cheating. Just because a guy marries a gal who's a hypocrit doesn't give him license to cheat. He took a vow etc. etc..

I have a hard time with folks who think diamond's are the bee's knees when if you do any small amount of research, you can find its all a sham by Debeers etc. to sell an overvalued product (often aquired by shady if not heinous means). As for saying folks should be given a pass because of peer pressure (to get rings, fancy weddings etc.)..puhlease. That didn't work as an excuse when I got caught for smoking in jr. high, it shouldn't work now.

"Hmmmm...never heard the theory of "conspicious consumption", has she?"

In other words: When a woman gets free jewlery, she's a victim.

That's quite a stretch.

"In other words: When a woman gets free jewlery, she's a victim."

I think you're distorting what she meant.

But on the other hand, if the custom were reversed and women were expected to buy diamond rings for men, then maybe Amanda would complain that the practice placed an unfair financial burden on women and that men were exploiting women for free jewlery.

Since you think the situation will reverse itself so quickly, then let's just see what I think, then.

Vox, I wouldn't strut around cracking jokes about stuff I don't understand. Perhaps you might be more open to understanding the theory of conspicious consumption if you knew that it was created by a man named Thorstein Veblen. It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory.

And Fred, do you really think people would wear diamonds if there was no one else to see them?

Maybe, in a sense, I'm old-fashioned. I didn't want an engagement ring or wedding ring. I'm married, but I wear neither.

These rings are a symbol of ownership and that's why a lot of men don't wear them. It isn't just about the potential cheating.

A symbol of ownership? A woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth?

I'll make sure to reserve sympathy for Ivana Trump and Marla Maples. Those poor victims. I guess the price of being a man's wealth demonstrator is paid for with a nice, hefty divorce settlement and a free ring to pawn.

Just because something doesn't cost money does *not* mean that it's free.

James and Voxper, you don't even know how stupid you sound, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut.

A symbol of ownership? A woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth?

Well, yes. And as Ivana and Marla got older or near the point in the marriage where the prenup would have kicked in, he dumped them for a younger model. The more money a man has, the hotter the women he can attract -- and he's certainly not going to be content with his arm candy/trophy wife shopping at Marshall's.

And remember, they had to sleep with THAT HAIR. I think that's worth a couple of mil.

You know, for all that these men's rights activists contend that women are all whores who ask for too much money, I have yet to see one offer to perform these sexual and cleaning services to his brothers at what he considers a reasonable rate.

Always the victims, eh ladies? Even when your choices net your more than you would ever make in your entire life on your own, you're still a victim? Mmmmmkay.

Marla got 10 million dollars. I'd say that's a nice sum for a few years of hard work flying around the world and being Don's sex toy.

As for calling me stupid, that's a nice cop-out from having to actually make the effort to debate a point.

From the way some of you are talking, you seem to think that sex from a woman has a price?

You still haven't explained how much you would charge to suck Donald's dick, James. Since $10 mil was too high, I'm guessing you'd do it for a lower amount?

BTW, you're the one who posited that Marla's $10 million was "earned" for sexual favors. Not us. Men and women do marry for this weird thing called "love" that is outside the range of sexist thought, since it means that women get respect, too.

Amanda, you have been my fucking hero all day long.

I thought that women wanted to wear wedding rings to either demonstrate their value and status to other women (when they show it around), or to simply show that they're taken so men will stop hitting on them.
I don't know one person that sees a woman with a wedding ring on and thinks about what a jerk a man was for making her wear that gaudy thing to demonstrate his value or ownership. Considering that she wears the spoils, and keeps the spoils, it is quite a stretch to try and spin the situation to paint her as a victim. Also considering that she will be the one to get more out of a divorce than he, I'd say ownership belongs to her.
Much more often, people see the size of the ring and think about how "valuable" the woman is to the man. And considering the women make the CHOICE to be with him, I have a hard time seeing them as victims of anything... except perhaps their own choices. So why is it that the man are criticized for the choices that a woman makes?

I do applaud many of you who eschew the old tradition of wedding rings. It's as old and unnecessary as chivalry. I guess if the woman is willing to give a man something of equal value to the ring, then it would be a nice egalitarian exchange, but giving her something so expensive for nothing does make it seem like he's "buying" her.

Nice chip on that shoulder Amanda.

Diamond wedding rings became popular because DeBeers used Hollywood and a nice ad campaign (A diamond is forever) to entice women to demand them. Before the 1940's, diamonds were not the primary wedding ring jewel. Women have control in the sexual marketplace, not men. The demand for wedding rings has been dictated by their demands, not men's. And, by the way, who is it that cares more about what Hollywood stars are wearing? I know that it's obvious that it's women who care, but I feel the need to state it for you Amanda, since facts and logic aren't your forte.

Of course Marla married for love, that's why she had that 10 million dollar "out clause" put into the pre-nuptual agreement. Thank you for helping to prove the point that love does have a cost. I mean if it were all about love, she wouldn't be looking for a payoff, right? She obviously thought that her time and presence had value, and certainly wasn't banking on forever. She's the one that put a price on herself, direct your anger at her.

Anyway, 10 mil to suck Donald off? Yeah, I might do it as long as I didn't have to marry him.

You go into full-on whine mode when a woman cracks a joke and I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder?

Well, at least it's a full carat chip, I suppose.

For all your bitching about reasoned argument, you sure do think that one relationship between exceedingly shallow people somehow works as an argument against all women. Though not all men, for some reason, even though Trump is clearly more shallow than the women he marries.

"...the theory of conspicious consumption ... was created by a man named Thorstein Veblen. It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory."

I don't care whether the theorist was a man or a woman or a dog. Your belief is: the woman gets a ring, she's a subordinate. I find that to be uncompelling because: you'll use ANY excuse to claim that she's a subordinate.

Why do I think this? Because you also think a ring is like a 'dowry'. But a dowry is property given BY a bride TO her husband at marriage, an engagement ring requires the opposite pattern of giving and getting. But that doesn't matter, you'll insist that the woman loses either way.

She GETS gold, she loses. She GIVES gold, she loses. That's the overriding mentality here: pick any situation and portray the woman as the loser and the man as the exploiter no matter who gets what.
In science, starting with a conclusion and twisting your data to support it would get you kicked-out of the academy. But here, it's routine.

Amanda there you go again saying that the men are whining.

Marriage is but a contract, an unjust one at that.

All the wedding stuff is paraded by women, and a majority of women constantly talk about it.

A majority of you that is, I didn't say all. (Put in just so Amandas small mind can comprehend that I was not generalising).

Sex is a two-way street both receive pleasure. Payment is equal :)

logical, oh please, quit the "small mind" comments. That is just such an undignified way of debating. the reason this debate has gone so wrong is that james never really seriously adresses or acknowledges the premise or starting points of the amanda's arguments. Then why be here, if not out of curiosity? What is the fucking point then, of debating?

Please, tell me what the point is of Amanda's argument in the first place? She's all over the road. All I see mostly are personal attacks, (which seem to play well for the sycophants) yet highly lacking in anything substantive.

Anyone with first grade reading comprehension skills can see that I addressed what was somewhat valid, the rest was just too irrational to care about.

As for the rest:

Amanda: "You go into full-on whine mode when a woman cracks a joke and I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder? "

I addressed your joke with a joke, but I guess that went over your head as well.

Amanda: "Well, at least it's a full carat chip, I suppose.
For all your bitching about reasoned argument, you sure do think that one relationship between exceedingly shallow people somehow works as an argument against all women. Though not all men, for some reason, even though Trump is clearly more shallow than the women he marries."

I didn't say that it was all women (you did by using the typical deflective tactic of putting words in my mouth), I just used the Trump wives as an example and YOU were the one who ran with that idea. I just expounded upon your answer and now you want to act like a victim when you're the one backtracking on your point when called on it?

Trump's more shallow than the women he married? Always have to paint the men as worse than the women in any situation, eh? I'm not certain any party in those marriages could be painted as less-shallow. The wives were parasites and Trump was the ugly, awful-haired host. That hair just gives him negative points.

And I like how you gloss over all of the other points I made and dwell on something so insignificant.

Again, in no other venue, other than this board, have I ever seen people comment on a woman's wedding ring and mention the fact that she's demonstrating that she's property, or the awful man is using her as a vehicle for demonstrating his wealth. You know, just as I typed that last sentence, I had to laugh at the ridiculousness of such an idea. No matter what choice a woman makes, she's the victim of male oppression?

Again, I will put it in very simple terms - if most women stopped demanding diamond rings, would the demand for diamonds go down? I mean, if as some here are saying that men use the wedding ring as a signal of ownership (I'm a man and I find that notion ridiculous, I operate on the old male notion of making my woman happy by getting her what she wanted, within reason). So if the majority of women stopped demanding wedding rings, don't you think that maybe, the demand for them would go down? Or does your *snicker* theory of conspicuous consumption take over, whereby men will still get these things despite female disapproval in order to mark their territory... okay, I'm still containing my laughter...

I can't help it anymore. Marriage in America, especially for a guy that can afford a nice diamond, has zero benefit for men. He's taking incredible risks and getting no rewards and has no guarantee that his wife will perform once he signs the dotted line. So again, even if a man benefits from the stupid notion posited earlier that he gets to *oooh* mark his territory, what other benefits, IF ANY, does he gain from putting an expensive ring on that woman's finger...
Okay, since I'm chomping at the bit to give away the answer, and since I have little faith you'll give the right answer, I'll just go ahead and say it:

NONE! NO BENEFIT! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!

I await something cogent, logical, rational, unemotional and reasonable. *tapping fingers*

As far as I can tell, the only benefit he gets, from showing a bunch of folks who haven't had a reality check in a while, is that he's got some woman to show off as property.
For the other, somewhat more down-to-earth 95% of society, a woman gets to show off a fancy ring to her co-workers (a ring she can later pawn off if the relationship fails) to try to make them jealous, and the man gets a nice, hefty finance bill at the end of month which he'll be paying off for some time.

But oh, he gets that incredible benefit of showing his power (over that woman who can, by the way, screw him in a divorce) that she's his property.

You go guy! Uh-huh! Strut yo' stuff man! You on fire boy! You da' man! I'm scared o' you!

Vox, I wouldn't strut around cracking jokes about stuff I don't understand. Perhaps you might be more open to understanding the theory of Jewish hegemony if you knew that it was created by a man named Adolf Hitler.
It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory.

Eva, he's going to accuse me of being illogical even if I whip out entire historical tomes and create flow-charts and whatnot. I'm a female, and therefore I'm hysterical and cannot think. None of these supposedly brillant debaters can even shake out the differences between the theories that conspicious consumption is working here, as is systematic oppression. Or they pretend that if one is true, then the other can't be. Like saying that if a woman is compelled towards the ring because it gives her status among other women (conspicious consumption), that automatically means that it's not oppressive, even though she is only gaining status amongst second-class people (systematic oppression). It's the house negro argument I'm making here.

James, because your loathing of women outstrips your desire for the benefits of marriage doesn't mean that other men don't want those benefits. Marriage brings stability, health, cleanliness, more regular sex, love, affection, and children. And for some men who adhere to "traditional" marriage, it brings adoration from a subservient wife. There's benefits for women, too. But you treat marriage like a zero-sum game. Or an exchange. It is far more complicated than you'd like to imagine.

When I gave my fiancee a diamond ring, she said: "I can't accept this. It's far too big and fancy."

And I screamed: "Quiet, slave! You'll wear it and show the world that you're my property! You're but a tool for me to advertise my wealth and power! MUHUWAHAHA!"

Am I not deliciously wicked and eeeeeevil??

Marriage in America, especially for a guy that can afford a nice diamond, has zero benefit for men.

If you don't wish to be married, don't be; but you should know that all the evidence is that men, even in America where the fembitches secretly control every aspect of men's lives from their evil headquarters, do (as a group) benefit from marriage.

Unless by 'benefit' you mean 'getting laid,' in which case I agree--for the price of a big engagement ring you can go to Nevada and visit a lot of cathouses.

For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why these men who claim to hate engagement rings and just general female dependence are flooding a blog where the majority of the women are against female dependence and engagement rings. Go pester the women on the TLC boards. If these guys really want women to be less dependent and starry-eyed by romance, they'd be cooperating with feminists.

Amanda: "If these guys really want women to be less dependent and starry-eyed by romance, they'd be cooperating with feminists."

Cooperate with feminists? You evidently don't even understand the tenets of your own group. Feminism is not about equality. It may have been about equality at some point in the past but now it isn't. It's about domination. It is about women blaming the nearest man for her troubles. It is about women financially crippling men for life. It is about the castration of masculinity. The leaders of feminism cry out daily for the extermination of half the species. This is the organization you have pledged your allegiance. You think that any *person* worth his/her salt would join such group?

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in 'The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.'

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

Wow. I'm not even going to touch that one. You better watch out boys, I may try to financially cripple or exterminate you! Hide your sons!

Ryan--I don't mean to be rude, but you are delusional. Feminism, of which, by the way, there are numerous strains, is in no way about "domination", "blaming the nearest man for [our] troubles," "the castration of masculinity", "the extermination of half the species" or any of the other bullshit you just listed. Feminism, at least my brand of feminism, centers on deconstructing gender roles and examining structures that perpetrate inequities between the sexes in order to benefit both men and women. I don't see individual men as oppressors, but I do think the system as it exists can be oppressive to both sexes.

And by the way, if you equate lesbianism with man-hating, you are extremely misguided. I haven't read Atkinson's writing, but I think her statement can be interpreted to mean that feminism is about loving other women, not despising men.

Yep! Pretty much the same ol' same ol'. Exactly what I expected.

I guess that's how you try to win arguments? You deflect, avoid, put words in my mouth, act as if you won, make erroneous assumptions like "marriage provides regular sex" (I'm still laughing at that one), and keep bringing up unproven, rhetorical assertions disguised as facts.
Oh, and marriage provides stability? To whom exactly? The 50% who get divorces, or the 50% who are a signature away from one? ...The men who can be put in jail once wifey decides that she's "bored" with the marriage, (no-fault) divorces him, gets the children and makes him a ward of the state who's one missed child support check away from jail?
You're a hoot! Too cute. I want to live in your deluded fantasy world. It sounds a lot nicer than reality.

As far as women being equated to "house negroes", yeah, I'd like to see an historical example that equates to hundreds of white males voluntarily sinking to their deaths in the freezing North Atlantic in order that a bunch of negroes may get on the lifeboats to live.
Yeah, my great-grandfather used to put me on his knee and relate all the stories about how his grandfather's massa used to jump in front of bullets, fight wars, work his butt off at a thankless job and defend the honor of his negroes.

Negroes around the country are happy to know that feminists would have the incredible audacity to compare women's "struggles" to their own. I could use your debate tactic of incorrectly labeling me as a misogynist by labeling you as a racist, but I just couldn't be that immaturely ignorant.

*still tapping fingers*