Chuck Ross asks brides-to-be: Is it all about the ring?
I’ve never thought to defend Mark Zuckerberg. Farmville made that almost impossible. But I’ll do it this once. This has nothing to do with Facebook’s horrid IPO or its lack of a plan to gin up revenue to support its bloated market capitalization. Instead, I must defend Zuckerberg against a small but vicious pack of hyenas who are accusing him of being a cheapskate.
Intertwined with his company’s public debut, the newly minted billionaire married his longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan. Their ceremony was modest – it involved a backyard wedding at the medical graduate Chen’s home. Cheap Mexican food was served, most likely on paper plates. No honeymoon was embarked on.
But the real headline grabber, picked up by celebrity gossip site TMZ and others, was Zuckerberg’s thrift in the ring department. People who are concerned with such things estimate that the ring Zuckerberg bought for his bride cost a measly $25,000—or a micro-penny swing of Facebook’s share price.
At least one writer, the New York Post’s Rita Delfiner, complained that even Kris Humphries procured a $2 million stone for Kim Kardashian. Delfiner points out, without irony, that the former reality TV couple was only married for 72 days.
Channeling the frustration of women from Montgomery to Manhattan, Delfiner wrote “it looked as if Mrs. Mark Zuckerberg had won the lottery when she married the Facebook boss last weekend—but now she appears to be the unluckiest lucky woman alive.”
Few are crying.
I step up for Zuckerberg because I, too, plan to be up for review. My ring-purchasing prowess on display—most likely on Facebook. I’ll be engaged in the near future, and I’ll have to tackle this ring business. But I’ll admit that the thought of plunking down a large amount of money for a ring makes a part of me want to avoid the whole thing altogether.
Truth is, I’d probably already be married with kids if it weren’t for the engagement ring provision that holds so much cultural cachet in my—and many other men’s—social circle.
All of the guys I know who have gone through the rigmarole of either depleting their savings or going into hock to uphold this feisty tradition (which feminism has done little to dislodge) have told me, with faces communicating defeat, that they were powerless to withstand the pressure of the ring. Worse, the price of it has mysteriously inflated over the generations. An 88 year-old retired professor I sometimes visit with told me that the ring he bought his bride—now 65 years in—looked like something out of Cracker Jack box. But his bride didn’t complain because every other woman of the era was getting the same thing.
This ringflation comes at a time when young women are earning the lion’s share of college degrees and earning more income than men. The engagement ring tradition isn’t keeping up with the changing economic reality.
Marriage rates have declined marginally over the decades. The length of co-habitation is the highest it’s ever been—seventeen months today compared to just a handful a generation or two ago.
But there are still women (and men) who want to get married. And within that group, there is a subgroup of young women who really want to get married and who lament their boyfriends’ procrastination.
Thinking in economic terms, it makes sense that men in marginal relationships or men without great means would avoid the whole thing. I’m sure someone will come along and argue that the engagement ring is a good thing because it helps sift out the weakest relationships. But then there are the guys stuck here with me in the middle to lower-middle class who still face this pressure to perform.
And all this while student loans need paying and well-paying jobs are hard to come by. The women who truly want to get married in a timely fashion could speed up the process by relaxing this ring pressure. A simple “Hey, future husband, don’t worry about that ring. It’s not a big deal.” Women have historically been good at rallying around causes in order to enact social change. But the question is, do they want the ring or do they want the marriage?
—Photo credit: Philip Taylor PT/Flickr
About Chuck Ross
I think it’s really awful and petty and small minded what Delfiner said about Zuckerbery and his wife. Measuring how lucky his wife is because her ring isn’t in tandem with his paycheck. If Delfiner knew anything about Zuckerberg, she would know that in general, he is pretty low key and it’s probably part of the reason why him and his wife work well together. My guess is she is low key as well. He didn’t marry some Playboy Bunny with huge fake boobs and died hair looking for her next reality TV show. He married a very beautiful normal down-to-earth seeming woman. I read an article where he had purchased a house that was under a million. I know a few of the guys that started Facebook drive regular cars and have regular homes. And personally, I think that’s really awesome and a positive character trait.
When I get married, I don’t want a big wedding. Just something very small and personal. I would like a ring because I like what it traditionally symbolizes but I don’t expect something big and expensive. Just something that is representative of us. I do like jewelry in general and I think diamonds are beautiful. Some might think that makes me shallow or greedy but I don’t think I am. I don’t expect to be showered with diamonds. I don’t think there is anything wrong with wanting a ring or liking diamonds or jewelry. I hope the man I choose to marry feels the same way about the meaning of a ring between a man and woman and isn’t only giving me a ring to appease me while holding all kinds of negative perceptions of buying a ring to begin with. That wouldn’t be a good start for us or much fun for either of us. I simply wouldn’t be compatible with someone that only saw bad things in the tradition of marriage and a ring.
I think women can take these things too far and get wrapped up in the fantasy of the wedding and the fun new toys. The dress, the food, the venue, the ring…It gets really silly and ridiculous. But I’ve also seen this happen with men in their own different ways. And usually when both genders are more invested in their fantasies and are encouraging to their other partner to fulfill more of their fantasies, it’s not a good or respectful place to be with your partner either way. Men and women both sometimes over fantasize and place unnecessary pressure on their partner due to only looking with blinders at their own wishes and desires. And certainly women can get wrapped up in that regarding rings and weddings. Both genders need to be more mindful of the expectations they place on one another and how far they expect their partners to take their fantasies.
“I think it’s really awful and petty and small minded what Delfiner said about Zuckerbery and his wife. Measuring how lucky his wife is because her ring isn’t in tandem with his paycheck.”
He seems to be commending him for not buying into materialism. I personally agree. Not being materialistic is admirable, not small-minded, IMO
“When I get married, I don’t want a big wedding. Just something very small and personal. I would like a ring because I like what it traditionally symbolizes but I don’t expect something big and expensive.”
Would you be willing to help pay for it? For instance, would it be fine with you if he bought it using a credit card but planned to make the payments using money from your joint account, which you both contribute equally to?
Do you plan to buy him something of equal monetary value that he might want (i.e. ~ equal cost) as a similar gesture? If not, why not?
“I hope the man I choose to marry feels the same way about the meaning of a ring between a man and woman and isn’t only giving me a ring to appease me while holding all kinds of negative perceptions of buying a ring to begin with. That wouldn’t be a good start for us or much fun for either of us. I simply wouldn’t be compatible with someone that only saw bad things in the tradition of marriage and a ring.”
That sounds as if you consider marriage and a diamond ring to be synonymous, as if you couldn’t have one without the other. If the marriage is truly the important thing, not sure why having or not having a diamond ring would be a show-stopper.
What if he was okay with the tradition of marriage itself and everything else is great, but he is interested only in gender equality, and therefore rejects any unequal traditions, such as the man being expected to asking the father’s permission to propose, the woman having to take the man’s last name, the woman being expected to be walked down the aisle/given away by her father, the man being expected to get down on his knee(s) to propose, the man being expected to unilaterally spend thousands on a precious stone ring (with no equivalent reciprocation), etc.?
Eric said: “He seems to be commending him for not buying into materialism. I personally agree. Not being materialistic is admirable, not small-minded, IMO”
Woops, it looks like I read it wrong. I thought he was getting lamblasted there. Clearly, from the rest of my comments, you can see that I don’t think he deserves to be lamblasted and that I clearly stated that the lack of materalism was nice and the small mindedness was directed to people that judged the luck of his wife by the amount of money he spent on a ring.
Eric: “Would you be willing to help pay for it? For instance, would it be fine with you if he bought it using a credit card but planned to make the payments using money from your joint account, which you both contribute equally to?”
I would hope that the ring would be a gift he would want to give me. Not something he was looking to make a equality war out of. If he wanted to use money that was mine to pay for it, then I’m not sure that’s a gift. I’ve never been in the type of situation to have a joint account. My parents where married for a very long time and all their money was “theirs” together. So whatever presents they bought one another was from “their” money. If he had an account, and I had an account and then we had a joint account and he used the money out of our joint account to pay for it, I wouldn’t really feel like it was a gift he wanted to give me of his own accord. If all our money was pulled together in the same account, then yes, this would be fine. However, each couple would need to define for themselves what is appropiate regarding money matters. Not everyone handles their finances the same.
Eric said: “Do you plan to buy him something of equal monetary value that he might want (i.e. ~ equal cost) as a similar gesture? If not, why not?”
I will answer this question Eric but I’m sorry, I find your questions already judgmental. I would have no immediate plans to just buy him something of the same monetary value just because he bought me something. However, I have no issue spending money on my man and buying him lavish gifts he enjoys. And when I decide to give him such a gift, I will not be looking for him to recipocate with the same monetary value just because I did. I don’t think relationships are about tit for tat equality.Respect and mindfullness is always a must but in relationships, not everything is always going to equal 50/50 every single moment. Sometimes you are going to give a little more and sometimes your partner will give a little more. If you can’t give your partner something without saying, “what’s in this for me”, then you aren’t really giving them something from your heart. Your gift is only conditional on what you get out of the deal.
Eric: “That sounds as if you consider marriage and a diamond ring to be synonymous, as if you couldn’t have one without the other. If the marriage is truly the important thing, not sure why having or not having a diamond ring would be a show-stopper.”
Excuse me but where did I say that having a diamond ring was the show-stopper or that I was looking for a diamond ring to be the show-stopper?
You are boarderline insulting Eric. How about you ask me what I think of marriage and the ring instead of telling me what it sounds like you think I think. And a more honest and true conclusion about my thoughts on this is just this: I consider the diamond ring a traditional symbol of love between a couple that wants to get married/is married. I am not going to apologize because I like the tradition of a diamond ring. I am and like being a traditional woman in some regards. I’m not sure it’s fair to shame me for my enjoyment of some tradtional practices anymore then it would be fair to shame other people for their dislike of traditional practices. I certainly am not saying that I can’t be married without a ring. If my partner couldn’t afford a ring, and I was in love, then of course i wouldn’t matter. I would still get married regardless. A diamond ring is not a necessity and I never claimed it was. I was pretty clear that I understand it’s a traditional symbol. There are LOTS of things men enjoy within relationships that are not necessities but they still enjoy them and are happy when their partners freely give them. And sometimes these things are things men consider acts that show him she loves him. They might not be things she things shows she loves him but he does and she gives them to him for that reason.
Eric said: What if he was okay with the tradition of marriage itself and everything else is great, but he is interested only in gender equality, and therefore rejects any unequal traditions, such as the man being expected to asking the father’s permission to propose, the woman having to take the man’s last name, the woman being expected to be walked down the aisle/given away by her father, the man being expected to get down on his knee(s) to propose, the man being expected to unilaterally spend thousands on a precious stone ring (with no equivalent reciprocation), etc.?”
Then he isn’t the right man for me. I am looking for a man that holds some of the same ideas I do on certain subjects. It would be no different then being with a man that wanted 5 kids if I wanted no kids. We simply wouldn’t be a good match. If a man is not interested in traditional things and I am, then we aren’t a good match. If a man has a different belief system regarding his relationships then I do, then we aren’t a good match. You’re belief system is different from mine. I am of the belief that love and relationshpis are about give and take and that not everything always matches up 100% the same way. I am looking for someone that may have strengths where I have weaknesses and vice versa so we both bring our own unique things to the relationship. Since I am looking for that, not everything is always going to equal out the same way. But as long as both of us feel respected and loved in the relationship, that’s what counts. I think I would drive myself crazy in a relationship if everytime my partner did something for me, I felt like I better do somethign of equal means right away for it to be balanced. Or everytime I did something for him, he felt he had to do the same in turn. There should be an ebb and flow in a relationship based on my own belief system. We simply have different ideas about relationships Eric. Mine isn’t wrong neither is yours. We just need different things.
If something is expected, obligatory, and required, it’s not really a gift, IMO. But, not everyone agrees.
“Excuse me but where did I say that having a diamond ring was the show-stopper or that I was looking for a diamond ring to be the show-stopper?”
You said: “I simply wouldn’t be compatible with someone that only saw bad things in the tradition of marriage and a ring.”
“I am and like being a traditional woman in some regards. I’m not sure it’s fair to shame me for my enjoyment of some tradtional practices anymore then it would be fair to shame other people for their dislike of traditional practices.”
I wasn’t “shaming” you for anything. I primarily asked questions. Further, if you prefer a traditional relationship, that’s your right. Most women do actually. I personally have no problem with that, and tend to be traditional myself. However, I find it curious when some reject certain traditions and anti-gender equality but insist/expect others that are just as anti-equality. It invalidates their claim of being motivated by equality.
“I certainly am not saying that I can’t be married without a ring. If my partner couldn’t afford a ring, and I was in love, then of course i wouldn’t matter. I would still get married regardless.”
Noted.
Again, I ask, where did I say having a diamond ring was a show-stopper or that I was looking for a diamond ring to be a show-stopper? There is an entire grey area between wanting to uphold the tradition of having a ring to wear when one is married vs saying I need a “show-stopper”.
Further, me saying that I am not compatible with someone that does not agree with my ideas on marriage and tradition is not a slight on people who differ from me. As you can see for this article and the responses, there are a lot of women that don’t care about the ring at all. But just because I do consider the ring part of a tradition I am in favor of, doesn’t mean I am more greedy, or insert whatever adjective you’d like to attach to me, then the other women that don’t care at all about it. It just means we have different views. And yes, you were “shaming” me Eric. You weren’t simply asking out of an innocent curiosity. You were interested only because you wanted to make sure my responses showcased the kind of equality *you* were looking for. It comes through in your language. Well sorry but I still want to be treated like a woman, how I define it for myself and I am more then happy to treat a man like a man. I love cooking for my guy or doing his laundry or doing the kind of household chores ususally attributed to women. I could mow the lawn but I like when he does that for me. Should I feel bad about that? Should I feel bad that I want to be treated liek a woman in my romantic relationships even if i want the same oppurtunitites men get in the work place? I don’t think so. I don’t think that means I am being “unfair”. I don’t treat men the same at work as I treat my boyfriends when I have a boyfriend. And I would hope they weren’t looking to treat me exactly the same either.
Eric: ” I personally have no problem with that, and tend to be traditional myself. However, I find it curious when some reject certain traditions and anti-gender equality but insist/expect others that are just as anti-equality. It invalidates their claim of being motivated by equality.”
So you are tradtional yourself but I’m not allowed to want a ring without it meaning I am A) engaging in gender inequality. B) wanting a show-stopper. C) Selfish. That seems to be your overall tone Eric.
I don’t find it “curious” at all when people reject certain traditions but adopt others. Times evolve and adapt all the time. Women use to have to be virgins to get married. How many people today get married and believe in the institution of marriage even if they are no longer virgins when they first get married? How far do you want to take this tradition discussion? We could find tons of traditions that are no longer practiced that you wouldn’t bat an eye at because they don’t fit into your “gender equality” rules. Just look at the changing role of men. In my father’s generation it was rare to see Father’s with their kids, driving them to games, taking them for playdates. My Mom is always impressed when she sees Dad’s out with kids because she came from a very different generation. Traditions change. Should Mom’s say, “tut tut, don’t change and evolve Men. Don’t change and evolve so that your changing needs are met.” Both genders are always changing and generations are always going to have differences. I think it’s wrong to say that just because a woman like the traditional aspects of marriage or dating or whatever, it must mean she’s just looking for a way to screw the pooch …so to speak. It is a fastly much more complex issue then what you are reducing it to. Which to me, it seems like you are reducing it to something that everything needs to be met tit for tat. And to me, that isn’t the right way to go about relationships or relationships between men and women.