« Palladium Jewelry Starting To Surge | Main | How Custom Engagement Rings & Custom Jewelry Is Created! {Pictures} »
The Disingenuous Attack Against Diamond Engagement Rings
These articles are a bit like the herpes virus; every so often they crop up again and die down, but not before they nag the reader with a "a sour grape" and dour attitude regarding the accepted practice of giving a woman a diamond engagement ring as a symbolic token of love and one's hand in marriage.
A recent write up by Meghan O'Rourke in Slate, re-hashes the argument that giving an engagement ring is somehow sexist, patronizing and downright stupid.
"Why should an engagement ring be symbolic of a union/marriage any more than a bouquet of flowers, or something far less expensive?"
"Why should some poor guy subsiding on a "hand to mouth" salary, have to dole out 3 months of his paycheck for a diamond engagement ring as a prerequisite for his girlfriends hand in marriage??"
What does the poor shlub (the guy) get, anyway??
Why shouldn't the same "fallacy" of the engagement ring apply to him as well...and why is he left holding the proverbial bag, with 3k (or more) out of his pocket??
The real gutsy bloggers and writers who (invariably) put these disingenuous postings up for some targeted spider-food for the major search engines, will push the envelope a step further.
They will rally against the purchase of a diamond engagement ring by claiming that diamonds are "all from conflict sources" (see conflict diamonds) and that "little kids in Africa are getting their limbs cut off" so that women could enjoy the shiny diamonds they wear on their fingers.
In these predictable scenarios, polished loose diamonds, diamond engagement rings and the people who have the nerve to sell them, are all made out to be reincarnations of the devil himself.................and to what end?
Usually, to promote an entirely different agenda; not the least of which in many instances revolves around the promotion of their own blogs or website on the search engines.
Now to be completely transparent here, (just in case this wasn't already obvious to all of you readers) I also have a vested interest on this subject, being that our company is engaged in the retail sale of our loose diamonds and engagement rings.
Still, I'd like to go on record as saying that this whole approach and entire argument against buying diamond engagement rings, is of itself a crock of nonsense and one of the biggest scams going.
I will preface by saying that nobody should feel obligated to purchase a diamond engagement ring if they cannot afford one. Additionally, I think it is self understood that nobody is implying that one needs to purchase a diamond ring in order to get engaged...
First off; the argument that kids in Africa are being mutilated for these diamonds, by today's standards is a bunch of hooey. Yes, there were real problems with conflict diamonds until very recently. However, these issues have been brought to the forefront of the diamond industry by both tradespeople and consumers alike. Initiatives like the Kimberly Process and others, have ensured that diamonds are mined with the highest standards and can be guaranteed to be free from illegitimate sources and dubious origins.
Indeed, most companies selling diamonds and jewelry today, will have a clearly stated policy regarding their position on Conflict Diamonds and will usually have the ability to guarantee their diamonds against illegitimate procurement.
An excellent video tutorial on Conflict Diamonds (and what initiatives are being taken to deal with these issues) was created by Brian Gavin of Whiteflash and 'A Cut Above Diamonds'. Watch this informative video here.
The issue of Conflict diamonds has thankfully become the exception to the rule in today's marketplace.
Therefore, the scare tactics perpetrated by some of these writers, is unfortunate, misguided and incorrect.
Let's address the other angle used by some of these writers; namely, the idea that De Beers actually created a romance surrounding the gift of diamond engagement rings, which until that point had no greater social, emotional, or intrinsic value over any other functional or practical gift.
They will use this argument to support the idea that the gift of a diamond engagement ring is a market that has been "created and promoted" with all of the people who buy into it, nothing more than blind sheep drinking from the "cool aid".
This entire argument is not only an insult to the millions of consumers who have purchased diamond engagement rings as a token of their love all throughout the centuries, it is also patently untrue.
Certainly, De Beers may have had a hand in "building the engagement ring brand," so to speak. It is probably also true, that they have helped support, shape, and increase a consumer awareness in the magic and romance of proposing with a diamond engagement ring.
However, De Beers most certainly did not "create" the concept of a diamond engagement ring as the ultimate token of love and for the marriage proposal.
This "trend" if you will, predates De Beers by many centuries.
A recent blog entry on this topic by Issac at Janus thinking makes a few excellent and cogent points.
Issac says:
"The question is not whether or not whether De Beers created this market, but whether it is a ‘good’ market for those that choose to participate......
"Whether diamond engagement rings fulfill a human need - to commit, and to feel a moment of transcendence beyond our own lives…....
In short. It is. And they do.
But the luxury in these cases is not the ‘What’ of the diamond, but in the ‘Why’ of engagement. The gift is a symbol is in choosing make a personally costly commitment by giving something eternal, pure, and natural and individual…
If you can find a better symbol which is more ‘Why-level’ luxurious’ for the giver and receiver alike, then go ahead exchange it."
These are great points, in a concise and straightforward manner by an authority on "luxury products" in general and diamonds and jewelry in particular.
In the final analysis, here is what I would like to say to all the detractors of diamond engagement rings. Click on my video.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogadmin.mysecureweb.net/mt-track-back.cgi/7828
Comments
Why, Indeed?
I can have sex without the flowers and dinner.
I can get on the internet without DSL.
I can drive a car without air-conditioning.
I can get engaged without a ring.
There are many things we can do in life and many things we can do without. But the engagement ring,like the flowers and the air-conditioning just make life a little nicer.
Don't think of the ring as just a token of love. The guy and girl know they love each other. What that ring gives them is a giant billboard. A billboard for them to tell the world, WE'RE IN LOVE!
Posted by: Larry Horowit on June 25, 2007 7:08 PM
Larry,
Great points!!
Regards,
Posted by: Judah Gutwein on June 26, 2007 9:54 AM
I used to make this same argument to the nonbelievers (who happened to be male!). An engagement ring is also a physical reminder of your commitment and love. That's important.
When you're sad, you look at the ring and know that you're loved and you feel better.
When you're happy, you look at the ring and know that you're loved and you feel even better.
You can't really go wrong.
Posted by: Tamar Weinberg on June 26, 2007 12:28 PM
Why do you need a ring to remind you that you're loved?
Posted by: Kristine on September 30, 2008 11:41 AM
And if a woman is getting the benefits (of looking at the ring and being reminded that you're loved) why shouldn't a man receive an engagement ring as well?
Posted by: Kristine on September 30, 2008 11:42 AM
love isn't a luxury like air conditioning or DSL. you can't and shouldn't put a price tag (or diamond) on love.
Posted by: serenity on July 17, 2009 3:07 AM