Feminist Diamonds
I was sitting outside the courtroom with one of the lawyers I work for yesterday, waiting for something to happen with a case. She's about 30, sucsessful professional, etc. I've always assumed she is married, because she has a hypenated last name. But as we were sitting there, I saw she had no wedding ring. She did have a ring on her right ring finger, and I recognized the design from somewhere. It was a spiraly white gold thing with 5 diamonds sprinkled around. It's one of the ones you see in a lot of these new ads for "right hand rings" for women.
In most diamond ring ads, men are present. Most of the time just a silhouette of their shoulders and outstretched hands, but in general men in these ads are presenting women with engagement rings or anniversary presents. I haven't seen a lot of ads for lesbian engagement or partnership rings, but I imagine they are similar: one woman giving another a ring. These "right hand ring" ads though, are different. The over-all look and feel of the ads is just like other big-ticket-item jewelry ads, but the imagery and tone is different. They feature one woman, age 25-35, sitting center-stage in opulent surroundings, looking directly at the camera. Clearly the message is no man has bought her this ring, she bought it herself. Fine. But all of these ads have cutesy ad copy at the bottom of them that evetunally began to bother me. The Diamond people are pushing some very odd mixed messages.
Why the need to market the ring this way, specifically as something for a woman to buy herself? I'm sure most everyone (men, women, other) would agree that women have little trouble buying themselves jewelry. I think the problem is that since more women have become working professionals, they are getting married later in life. This isn't always by choice - careers often keep women (and men) too busy to date. These ads seem to be saying - it's alright, we the Diamond Industry understand that you're a busy and sucessful person, why not treat yourself to a nice diamond ring as a reward? I have no problem with this. It's the subtexts that are the problem.
First, why the emphasis on the right hand? The obvious answer is because engagement and wedding rings go on the left hand. Several of the ads also have copy about the right hand being the non-romantic, practical, business-oriented hand. All this gives off the message - "look, we all know you've decided to pick having a career instead of getting married, but you can still have a nice ring!" Second, the designs of the ring flirt with being wedding or engagement like without ever looking like a wedding or engagement ring. None of the "right hand rings" feature single bands or solitary diamonds. They are all more whimsical, twisty creations studded with several smaller stones. This reinforces the message - "well, you can still have a nice ring, but we wouldn't want anyone to confuse it for a real engagement ring, now would we?"
The Diamond Industry is trying to partially un-do the most successful advertising campaign in history - "A Diamond is Forever". The idea that a man must buy a woman a gold and diamond engagement ring (and more recently anniversary jewelry) has been engrained in American culture for decades. But now careers are getting in the way of early marriage more often. That's several years of anniversary presents made of gold and diamons that aren't being sold, several years of putting off buying that one special engagement ring. So the Diamond Industry wants modern women to know that times have changed. After indoctrinating them for years to desire an engagement ring when their white knight appears to carry them off like little princesses, the rules have finally changed. And the Diamond Industry has acknowleged this with thier new ads. Women are now free to buy themselves a diamond ring, as long as they put it on a different hand and it doesn't look like an engagement ring.
Ah, progress.
In most diamond ring ads, men are present. Most of the time just a silhouette of their shoulders and outstretched hands, but in general men in these ads are presenting women with engagement rings or anniversary presents. I haven't seen a lot of ads for lesbian engagement or partnership rings, but I imagine they are similar: one woman giving another a ring. These "right hand ring" ads though, are different. The over-all look and feel of the ads is just like other big-ticket-item jewelry ads, but the imagery and tone is different. They feature one woman, age 25-35, sitting center-stage in opulent surroundings, looking directly at the camera. Clearly the message is no man has bought her this ring, she bought it herself. Fine. But all of these ads have cutesy ad copy at the bottom of them that evetunally began to bother me. The Diamond people are pushing some very odd mixed messages.
Why the need to market the ring this way, specifically as something for a woman to buy herself? I'm sure most everyone (men, women, other) would agree that women have little trouble buying themselves jewelry. I think the problem is that since more women have become working professionals, they are getting married later in life. This isn't always by choice - careers often keep women (and men) too busy to date. These ads seem to be saying - it's alright, we the Diamond Industry understand that you're a busy and sucessful person, why not treat yourself to a nice diamond ring as a reward? I have no problem with this. It's the subtexts that are the problem.
First, why the emphasis on the right hand? The obvious answer is because engagement and wedding rings go on the left hand. Several of the ads also have copy about the right hand being the non-romantic, practical, business-oriented hand. All this gives off the message - "look, we all know you've decided to pick having a career instead of getting married, but you can still have a nice ring!" Second, the designs of the ring flirt with being wedding or engagement like without ever looking like a wedding or engagement ring. None of the "right hand rings" feature single bands or solitary diamonds. They are all more whimsical, twisty creations studded with several smaller stones. This reinforces the message - "well, you can still have a nice ring, but we wouldn't want anyone to confuse it for a real engagement ring, now would we?"
The Diamond Industry is trying to partially un-do the most successful advertising campaign in history - "A Diamond is Forever". The idea that a man must buy a woman a gold and diamond engagement ring (and more recently anniversary jewelry) has been engrained in American culture for decades. But now careers are getting in the way of early marriage more often. That's several years of anniversary presents made of gold and diamons that aren't being sold, several years of putting off buying that one special engagement ring. So the Diamond Industry wants modern women to know that times have changed. After indoctrinating them for years to desire an engagement ring when their white knight appears to carry them off like little princesses, the rules have finally changed. And the Diamond Industry has acknowleged this with thier new ads. Women are now free to buy themselves a diamond ring, as long as they put it on a different hand and it doesn't look like an engagement ring.
Ah, progress.