In the last post, I talked about blood diamonds and the fact that we can't be certain that so-called conflict free diamonds are truly conflict free. Many people have pointed out that synthetic diamonds may be a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Not so fast there, people. Diamonds are problematic not only for human rights reasons, but also for feminist reasons too.
Diamonds symbolize love and commitment to many people, but to me, they are patriarchal. Diamonds symbolize ownership and male dominance. Engagement rings show the world that a woman is "taken," spoken for, betrothed. They show that a woman belongs to someone else. Engagement rings, and diamonds in particular, are a way for men to symbolize their possession of a woman.
Diamond engagement rings may not have this meaning today, but the practice originated in patriarchal traditions (as did marriage, of course, but that's another blog post). And the vestiges of ownership and dominance remain: ever notice how men rarely wear engagement rings? I know many married men, and only one wore an engagement ring (soon to be two). Arguably, diamond rings are so expensive (2 months salary, right?) that it's probable that there isn't much money left to purchase an engagement ring for a man.
Diamonds are also a proxy for wealth, and the size of the rock is associated with the man's capacity to provide for his future wife. Women's bodies have been used to symbolize men's wealth and value, and diamonds are one way of doing so.
People may no longer associate diamonds with ownership, wealth, or male dominance, but I supposed that tradition dictates that we continue sealing the deal with diamond engagement rings. I only wish that more people would understand the ramifications of their actions and reject the lure of pretty shiny baubles, both for human rights reasons and because it is demeaning towards women.
Diamonds symbolize love and commitment to many people, but to me, they are patriarchal. Diamonds symbolize ownership and male dominance. Engagement rings show the world that a woman is "taken," spoken for, betrothed. They show that a woman belongs to someone else. Engagement rings, and diamonds in particular, are a way for men to symbolize their possession of a woman.
Diamond engagement rings may not have this meaning today, but the practice originated in patriarchal traditions (as did marriage, of course, but that's another blog post). And the vestiges of ownership and dominance remain: ever notice how men rarely wear engagement rings? I know many married men, and only one wore an engagement ring (soon to be two). Arguably, diamond rings are so expensive (2 months salary, right?) that it's probable that there isn't much money left to purchase an engagement ring for a man.
Diamonds are also a proxy for wealth, and the size of the rock is associated with the man's capacity to provide for his future wife. Women's bodies have been used to symbolize men's wealth and value, and diamonds are one way of doing so.
People may no longer associate diamonds with ownership, wealth, or male dominance, but I supposed that tradition dictates that we continue sealing the deal with diamond engagement rings. I only wish that more people would understand the ramifications of their actions and reject the lure of pretty shiny baubles, both for human rights reasons and because it is demeaning towards women.
No comments:
Post a Comment