Anecdotally my fiancé specifically did not want an expensive ring and very much did not want a diamond. We're also trying to have the most cost effective wedding we can. We'd rather spend the money on a trip or a down payment on a house than on the wedding.
(I didn't realize someone would reply. Here's my deleted post:)
Are young couples foregoing the rest of the expensive ceremony along with avoiding the ring? Could the price of wedding and engagement rings be one cause of the declining marital rate in the US?
What happened to the price of engagement rings over the past 10 years? How well does it mirror the prices of houses in the US?
I don't know about your last three questions, but my wife and I did forgo the expense. Our entire wedding and honeymoon, including reception decorations, food, flowers (lots of flowers...), photos, dress (with alterations), and rings cost around $3000.
I don't even know how some people are capable of spending as much money as I've heard of them spending $20,000+ for a wedding? What in the world are you spending it on? It would've been easy to spend a couple thousand more, but it wasn't that hard to keep costs down. You just have to realize that it is OK to comparison shop, and you don't have to go with the high-status, first-advertised options for everything; if you look at more than just billboards and TV ads, you can still put together a really nice event for far less money.
When we went ring shopping, we decided on a budget ahead of time, and it turned out that our budget wasn't even the determining factor in which vendor we ended up buying from- it was who had the rings we liked the best. Tip, though- don't tell the salesmen that you're looking for a wedding ring; if you do, they will only show you a small, high-priced fraction of their total selection. My fiancee also decided ahead of time that she didn't want a diamond (diamonds are boring, green amethyst is much prettier), so it was very amusing when we found a genuine diamond ring on sale for only $90- much less than what we ended up spending on the rings we liked!
A wedding here in Uruguay costs upwards of U$ 20.000, mostly because it's an evening party:
- At least U$ 20/person in food and drinks
- At least U$ 2000 for a suitable locale, rented months in advance
- All the decor, music, etc. (several thousand dollars)
- Wedding dress, etc.
- Expenses (both church and civil I guess)
Depending on the newlyweds' budget and notoriety, it can go anywhere from 100 to 2000 invitees.
Try sending her this article. I'd rather be single than marry someone who has so much more emotion than logic. To put it another way: If the ring is more important to the woman than I am, then she's not marrying me, she's marrying the ring. It's a huge red flag to me.
For the record, not all women insist on a diamond, except reflexively... I actually know few couples that have bought diamond rings (for many reasons - some financial planning (a young couple should be worried about a house, insurance and retirement before a shiny ring) and some ethical (if you buy a new diamond, there is absolutely metaphorical blood on it - terrible juju to kick off a lifetime commitment of love))
Self-interest/selfish alert: if you're rolling in it and get that $30k ring for your spouse-to-be, don't give it to them on their birthday, Christmas or any other gifting occasion, because they don't have to give it back if they decide to ditch you Pre-nuptuals.
In my mind if a marriage isn't a lifetime commitment, then forget any of the other traditions.
In many jurisdictions an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift (conditional upon her agreement to marry you).
This is logical. Otherwise why not string along as many man as possible to the point of proposal, then thank them for the shiny ring and wish them farewell? Take the strategy to its inevitable conclusion, and if the woman in question calls off the engagement at any point, she should return the ring.
Sometimes it's more about understanding what is real and then making a pragmatic choice due to the pain of having to explain one self constantly. A woman could fully understand that a ring is worthless but deal in circles where the public perception is such that having one anyway is beneficial.
Start early maybe? My fiancee had 2 years of knowing I wouldn't buy a diamond before I popped the question so she knew way out and it wasn't a surprise. If she was the type that would demand a diamond she would have left a long time ago.
Let me guess, all of these men who are so principled as to refuse to buy diamonds still conveniently want their fiancé to look good. To dress nicely, not be overweight, shiny hair, nice skin. This requires some money, time, and effort.
Heels will damage her feet over the long run, clothes are over priced and expensive, the makeup industry causes all sorts of evil just like diamonds. But you'll want her to look good the way your culture defines it, because it signals your value socially.
But diamonds are horrible and women are selfish and irrational for wanting them.
It's linked within the article, but it's worth pointing out that "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond"[1] is very much worth your time, and has been discussed here many times.
Not only is it linked in the article, it is very much a replay of the original Atlantic article. I didn't see a lot of added value in the article posted here, so just go read the Atlantic's.
From my perspective (as someone who spent 2 years running a startup that tried to disrupt the diamond industry), I think the most difficult thing to do is to change the entrenched consumer sentiment. Without a shift in how they view these expensive purchases, there won't be disruption. This usually means spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing the idea.
I've studied and analysed what we did wrong / why we failed to gain traction - and might try to attack the problems from a different angle if we decide to give it a second shot.
Noting that the Atlantic article is 30 years old. More recently I was able to sell a diamond for approx. what someone paid for it roughly 10 or 12 years ago. It didn't appreciate but it didn't exactly loose value over the retail purchase. ymmv for sure but this is one data point from my personal experience. (Gave the diamond ring on consignment to a jeweler and after 2 years it sold not sure what the retail buyer paid but that is what we received for the ring.)
Indeed. If you had invested $10,000 in the total US stock market 10 years ago, you'd have $20,000 now. (And that's with a major market crash in the middle!) So the diamond has actually lost 50% of its value.
I used to make posts like this. I'm starting to feel like these words will merge in the next 100 years, and either form will be correct for all usages.
This kind of errata in our language doesn't help us do anything and it just causes confusion and frustration.
I'm going to delete this post in 30 minutes, but man, I'm just screaming to say... it is so peculiar that he consistently kept making that mistake (along with a bunch of other ones). It looks like the guy is a graduate from Stanford's business school... and is the co-founder of Pricenomics. What the heck.
Edit: heh, I guess I won't delete it now (to preserve continuity of extant conversation). Sorry.
Well, I think it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that strong communication abilities correlate to business acumen. If I'm going to be reading a piece of writing that keeps on getting these basic things wrong I'm going to get distracted in a bad way.
It looks like the guy is a graduate from
Stanford's business school... and is the
co-founder of Pricenomics. What the heck.
I used to make that mistake - or what I assume was the mistake, which now seems to have been corrected.
Many guides to using apostrophes [1,2,3,4] say they can be used for contractions (the dog's outside) and to indicate possession (the dog's ball) - Why shouldn't something possessed by "it" use a possessive apostrophe?
Some people tried to correct my using of "it's" to indicate possession by explaining "Apostrophes are used for contractions like it is" which was unconvincing as obviously they can be used to indicate possession.
It wasn't until I got to college that someone gave me a satisfactory explanation: It/Its belongs to the same class of words as he/his, her/hers, your/yours, who/whose which do not follow normal apostrophe usage rules as the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive and nothing obliges the language and its users to be consistent.
I hadn't heard that grouping, which actually makes a lot of sense.
A teacher taught me a simpler rule: "It's" normally has an apostrophe, while most words don't. So instead of adding a apostrophe to show possession, we remove it.
Basically we're toggling the apostrophe state. Or..."it's" always results in a NOT output when compared to other outputs.
Agreed. English is already just a mash up, I could care less about grammar so long as what you are trying to say is getting across to me. Certain areas require a comma or period otherwise can be read wrong but I have never had a problem with their, your, its, or any other such words confusing me into not understanding what the writer is trying to say...
While I'm hardly a perfect English speaker, I have to admit those errors bother me. It's like talking to someone who is picking his nose - the content may be there, but still in a distracting and irritating form.
I don't agree. Having specific words in these cases reduces the cognitive load associated with reading - a simple find-and-retrieve in your brain for what the word means, rather than a context-sensitive compare with the last sentence or next few words to determine which form of its/it's is being used.
> I'm starting to feel like these words will merge in the next 100 years, and either form will be correct for all usages.
Interesting thought since, prior to the 19th century, "its" frequently was spelled "it's".
I have long considered it one of the abominations of the English language that a contraction ("it is" -> "it's") is given precedence over a pronoun with what is clearly a saxon genitive. Contractions should always take the lowest possible precedence in cases of collisions as far as I am concerned.
"So here is a modest proposal: Let’s agree that diamonds are bullshit and reject their role in the marriage process. Let’s admit that as a society we got tricked for about century into coveting sparkling pieces of carbon, but it’s time to end the nonsense."
Hear hear, but good luck convincing zillions of single women that they'll be the first generation in living memory to miss out on their carbon.
So this becomes a social competition to see who can waste the most resources?
It sounds like it has barbaric roots -- who can provide the most food / kill the biggest animal / lift the heaviest rock / travel the fastest / find the rarest material / pay someone else the most money to do so.
You'll never find an end to the people who are willing to provide the same product for a higher price.
De Beers enjoyed a monopoly on the market for a long time, so the prices were pretty much standardized across the entire marketplace. Yes, you could obviously find someone willing to sell you diamonds for more than what De Beers charged, but nobody would believe that you willingly paid more than "market rate". "Market rate" in this context refers to De Beers' monopolistic pricing, not actual market rate, which is actually peanuts because diamonds are in fact very common.
Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.
> Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.
This was the comment that convinced me that you are a sexist.
Considering the readership of this site will be predominantly male anyways..
(And for the love of pascal would you please stop bandying about the "sexism" label? It is literally nothing more than a personal attack that adds nothing to any conversation)
How are they reprehensible? What exactly makes them reprehensible? I don't recall him saying anything an adult internet user should find offensive.
The man is expressing his opinion and if you're bothered by that, perhaps you should consider turning off your computer and not participating in internet discussions. There are plenty of places in this world where people won't offend your delicate sensibilities.
He expressed his opinion that women are inscrutable and more susceptible to irrational impulses, but failed to provide any rational evidence of the same. This is sexist. The fact that it's "his opinion" and "his right to express it" buys him nothing in my book.
I agree with this. My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement. The expectation clearly was that it would still be expensive though!
The marketing campaigns by jewelers have first and foremost been successful at setting an expectation of big spending. The stone type itself might be somewhat negotiable.
> My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement.
I consider this an amazing social signal: She is verifying that you have a proper amount of resources to burn, but does not want her girlfriends to easily calibrate how many you have. Therefore, she leaves them a little bit in the dark about what a great catch you are (because most women can't calibrate ruby pricing by just looking.)
My compliments to you sir. Simultaneously, my condolences to your bank balance.
I'm of the opinion that it's easier to lead people toward something better, rather than away from something bad. So instead of overpriced compressed carbon, how about paying for unique designs with rationally priced materials instead?
How about rings that convey some actual benefit to their bearer, like perhaps the ability to procure books and other supplies related to a child's education at no cost? Why make it a fashion statement, when you could make it something useful?
I thought part of the point is that it is conspicuous and expensive and, yeah, kinda wasteful. What better way to prove you have lots of money than by buying something expensive that depreciates dramatically in value once you buy it?
It would look awkward tied to your finger, no? Diamonds are pretty and sparkly -- they are just radically too expensive at retail by any objective measure.
Really, I don't think diamonds would be much of a problem at all if it were possible to sell them for anywhere close to what they cost.
I'm not quite following you. A diamond ring communicates to your peers and acquaintances that you have money. A bank statement only does that if you go around showing it to people.
A big diamond ring communicates to your intelligent peers that you're stupid, shallow, insecure, and require peer approval to feel good about yourself. It says you wasted money on a worthless rock so your shallow friends will envy you; it's sad.
Technically speaking, marriage is as ridiculous as the diamond that symbolizes it. If you want to hang on to the symbol that marriage represents, why not include the symbolic diamond as part of that? Sure, it is just worthless carbon, but it doesn't need to be anything more.
I remember reading an article about a guy who stole a lot of money, then used it to buy diamonds. He got caught. The people he stole from thought "oh, not too bad then. We'll just sell the diamonds to recoup the money." But apparently no diamond vendors would buy them at anywhere near the price the thief did because diamonds are already marked up so much.
Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.
My sister is still mad as hell at her husband for not having spent enough for their wedding (he spent about $25k), and I've heard her once or twice complain about the ring.
I'll occasionally take shots at my sister for this (because, well, she's my sister and she loves taking shots at me too so it's fair). But my God I don't dare challenge the issue of spending extravagantly on rings/weddings with another woman (I once did, it didn't go very nicely for me).
But... overtime here's how I've come to rationalize it: symbolism is a strong emotional asset. If it helps make the girl happy, then it's worth it -- because mental happiness is worth it; because mental health is a component of your overall state. And hey, afterall, I did spend $700 on my chair, $300 on my kinesis keyboard, $800 on my LCD monitor, etc. etc.
> I did spend $700 on my chair, $300 on my kinesis keyboard, $800 on my LCD monitor, etc. etc.
The difference is that these are all things that increase comfort and health, not only happiness. As somebody who sits at a computer all day, this has a huge impact on your back, wrists, eyes, etc.
My mother always said 'if a big wedding guaranteed happiness everyone would have one'. Then again she came from a generation where a wedding was a church and family with a reception at someone's house - not an opportunity to feed 300 of you 'closest' friends.
We've all seen plenty of insane, $50k weddings result in 3-year marriages.
False dichotomy though, the chair is good for your health, the keyboard enhances productivity. The diamond on the other hand is just an outdated symbol of wealth that you flaunt around like it matters and brings nothing to the table but suffering and economic exploitation.
A friend-of-a-friend of mine synthesized a diamond in his lab for his wife, and etched diffraction gratings on some of the lower faces to customize the frequency of reflected light (he could do arbitrary colors this way).
Not to mention that $25k is considered a completely reasonable amount to spend on a car.
There's no doubt that the wedding industry is a racket (oh, did you want your dinner guests to have forks? That'll be $3 each. Water glasses too? ...) but also there's something to be said for not cheaping out on what's ostensibly one of the most important days of your life. FWIW, we managed to pay less than many people, while getting much better food and drinks than the average wedding and a more memorable, personalized experience by foregoing traditional wedding venues and caterers and instead simply buying out one of our favorite restaurants for the evening.
Good diamonds depreciate less than say cars or stereo equipment or computers. A Tiffany's ring with GIA certs can resell for half its original purchase price. There is an active secondary market in diamonds, so if you buy a high-quality GIA certified stone used, you should be able to sell it for a similar price to what you bought it for. Most of the depreciation on a diamond happens the moment you "drive it off the lot" so a used diamond is going to retain its value much better than a used car.
The key though is having a good quality stone from a reputable cutter with full certification. Diamonds are not fungible like say gold. A low-quality diamond purchased in an expensive mass-market ring isn't going to be worth anything on resale.
I used to share in that sentiment, but then I realized a wedding isn't about me, it is about showing the people who have been there for me over the years a great time. Marriage just becomes an excuse to bring them together. What is a few bucks to show someone close to you a fantastic night at least once in your life?
My wedding was stockily expensive by my standards (low to mid five figures), but with gifts we essentially broke even and the party was priceless. I would do it again.
A crappy chair can screw up someone's back, so logically, buying a good chair is justified and it gives mental happiness. Same for monitor (crappy monitor can screw one's eyes, give headaches etc).
So it is all logical.
what real use does a piece of rock (which is what a diamond is) have? How can it possibly give mental happiness?
I'm not sure I understand
Nobody does it "for the sake of tradition". It is a web of expectations where the cost of bucking the expectations is great enough that buckling often is the more attractive option.
It is also a well-entrenched example of costly signaling [1] in humans [2]
(For the lazy, costly signaling basically says, a costly empty gesture is a strong indicator of mate quality, because only a high-quality mate can afford to waste lots of resources on an empty gesture)
Sorry, the link to honest signaling is a bit lost on me, can you elaborate? Are you saying that people buy diamond rings because it's expected? I would hope there would be a discussion about that before going out and buying a ring. (And if not, I would consider that part of the "tradition" of: the man must propose, the man must spend a fortune on the ring, the man must surprise the woman on one knee, etc). Anyway, sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, just not 100% sure what you mean.
It never explains everything, but it provides very important context to help understand what we do. Hopefully even you would agree that we are all influenced to some degree by "bio"; thus, understanding it provides context.
It's not much of a tradition at all. De Beers started pushing the use of diamonds on engagment rings in the early 20th century as an attempt to sell more diamonds. A tradition that the average American thinks has always existed is rather new and was artificially created by one of the most despicable companies to have existed[1]. I do credit them for creating one of the most brilliant marketing schemes of the past 200 years, but personally, I find it lamentable that they did for our society's sake.
> Before the 20th century, other types of betrothal gifts were common. Near the end of the 19th century, it was typical for the bride-to-be to receive a sewing thimble rather than an engagement ring.[1] This practice was particularly common among religious groups that shunned jewelry (plain people). Engagement rings did not become standard in the West until the end of the 19th century, and diamond rings did not become common until in the 1930s in the United States, as a result of an extensive nationwide marketing campaign by the diamond industry. The phenomenon arose even later in other countries.[1] Now, 80% of American women are offered a diamond ring to signify engagement.[1]
> The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[9]
My wife and I didn't have a lot of money. She wanted an engagement ring and I wanted to get her one, but we weren't especially phased by the diamond cartel. Instead we had a ring made from a large pincushion citrine and two medium-sized peridots. The ring is huge, brightly colored, totally unique and extremely eye-catching, and cost me about $600, which was almost all for the gold setting and the labor. She gets compliments on it all the time. So I think things are loosening up, at least here in the southwest.
I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this.
Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are. They've been sold the princess wedding, the diamond ring, the brand-name clothing, etc. It's difficult to break them of this so sometimes the fight isn't worth it.
I didn't pay for my wedding so that was my in-laws problem although it wasn't grandiose (but it could've been) and I was fairly poor when we got engaged so the two-month salary guideline was a joke.
As for diamonds, my wife loves jewelery but has grown up and realized that everyone off the street can't tell the difference between CZ and a diamond. Case in point, I bought her a very nice ring from Nordstrom that looks like it's probably an $8k+ diamond ring and that everyone else thinks is a 'rock'. But it's just a big piece of CZ, surrounded by smaller pieces of CZ. Not one person has ever questioned whether it's a diamond or at least doesn't have the balls to. If asked my wife would be honest but she's never been asked (at least around me).
> Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are
To make a claim like this, I'd normally expect data, not a bunch of anecdotes. Men I know are highly swayed by marketing as well. They want expensive cars, tools, games, alcohol, and other toys. It is hard to reason about the degree to which each is influenced solely from the products that are marketed to them.
It is quite a stretch for me to believe that women are fundamentally more susceptible to marketing of frivolous luxuries than men. My guess is that you just don't think the things you want a frivolous.
Totally agree. I see so many comments on HN along the lines of "ads don't work on me". Guess what? They do. You just don't know it. That's how good they've gotten.
Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference.
It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than a purse that costs the same amount of money.
And now to the marketing for women. Victoria's Secret: you want to look as good as this. Coach: you want a purse that looks like you can afford it. Disney: every girl is a princess. DeBeers: it shows you he loves you. I can go on, but there's no practicality in any of it. It's even worse when the target of the ads are women but the stuff they are selling are for men, since women do a lot of purchasing in relationships. You see this a lot in 'high-end' stuff like watches and sunglasses.
It's not sexism if it's honest - just accept that men and women are wired differently otherwise you do a disservice to women.
Again: would you like to provide anything other than anecdotes? These are worthless to me (and demonstrate your biases fairly obviously, see next paragraph).
I'm amused at your implied claim that men aren't advertised to in fashion, since I can barely turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for Men's Wearhouse. Disney absolutely sells the prince metaphor to little boys too, and the fact that they grow into men who wants princesses is a big part of why that whole thing has stuck around so long. And if you think diamond advertisements aren't at least partially to men who don't know their wives and are at a loss for what will please them besides jewelry, then you simply aren't paying attention to the imagery in these ads or the types of shows they get placed on (e.g. the god damn Superbowl).
The Men's Warehouse commercials are as I described before, they talk about looking good for a function - work but life also. This is the pragmatic men's marketing. It's not the 'expensive so it must be good' branding that is on a lot of female products.
When was the last Disney 'prince' movie? Aladdin? Lion King? Meanwhile, Disney has now deemed Mulan and Tinker Bell as a princesses, there is now an African-American princess (Princess and the Frog), they added another pretty, white princess (Rapunzel from Tangled), a Scottish princess (Brave) and Disney is adding a hispanic princess[1] (although light on the hispanic). Girls have been sold the knight in shining armor. Boy could care less about princesses they just want be an action hero.
Diamond advertisements that talk about 'investment' are for men, but there aren't many of those. It's all about 'forever', 'love', etc, which are emotional pleas to women.
And the Superbowl has A TON of women watching[2]. It's sexist to think otherwise. The NFL is openly courting women as a way to increase viewership[3].
You are saying that a TV that probably costs to make at least a portion of that $2000 is worth less than a purse that can be knocked off to look EXACTLY THE SAME but cost 2 orders of magnitude less are the same?
I won't bother arguing the value of a TV. I think there are many that can argue the value of a designer purse.
What does the cost of manufacturing have to do with an item's utility? You can get a cheap knockoff TV that looks the same as the expensive brand too... It will look the same from a distance, anyway. Just like a cheap knockoff purse.
The purchase of the TV itself is not what's being discussed here, and frankly a bit of a strawman. As useless as it may be, a lot of households consider TV an essential item, so the question of TV marketing affecting men more has to do with _which_ television you buy, as opposed to buying a TV per se. Per Nielsen, women watch significantly more TV than men anyway[1], so talking about marketing to men in the context of _whether_ to buy a TV is pointless.
As far as the _quality_ of the TV being purchased, it seems the point that GP was making (whether I agree with his larger point or not) is that the 60" TV fills its function a lot better than the 19" one which costs a tenth of the price. By contrast, as far as I know there is no correlation to "how well a purse carries items" and its price (beyond the very very low end, of course, but far from the $2000 level). GP's point was that the price difference between a 200 and 2000 dollar purse is being spent almost entirely on brand (even the appearance is the same, when you consider off-brand purses), and the difference between a 200 and 2000 dollar TV is being spent on a VERY large difference in quality as far as functionality. This distinction between "paying for brand" and "paying for functionality" is exactly the point that GP is making about marketing.
As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if Sony started selling its current flagship $2000 TV for 20 dollars, and it was widely known and permanent. Now consider what would happen if the same happened for Louis Vuitton's flagship $2000 handbag. The perceived value of the handbag would vanish almost instantly. No one wants a status symbol that's cheap. You can't destroy _real_ consumer value (vs brand/marketing value) that easily just by dropping the price.
> Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference.
Keywords being "marketed to." Marketing is a perverse beast and should not really be taken as proof of anything. I mean, the DeBeers story which eventually lead to the article here is specifically about how you can create, from whole cloth, a societal tradition simply with quality marketing.
I think you assume masculine things are functional while feminine things are not but that's not entirely true. You're completely overlooking, say, cleaning product and vacuum cleaner ads directed straight at women, and that masculine marketing is just as vapid in as many ways (e.g. Monster Cables, energy drinks). While diamonds don't really "do things" in the way that a car or a TV does, there are incredibly rational social reasons for buying the former and incredibly irrational, marketing-driven reasons for purchasing the latter.
I also think it's incredibly silly to assume we can learn anything about how men and women are wired by looking at marketing. A century or so ago pink was a color for boys and blue was for girls, and at that time you could have made some assumptions about what each sex innately prefers and you would have been just as wrong.
What you are talking about is tangential to your point.
Purely for the sake of argument let's accept your premise for the moment that men are more concerned with pragmatism than women. It does NOT logically follow that men are less influenced by marketing than women.
You are pretty easily refuted by basically every beer commercial ever. Likewise the trucks you point to - show me a truck advertisement where an engineer comes out and explains exhaustively why this truck is better designed. That basically never happens, instead you get shots of the truck driving over mountains while "fk yea" rock music plays in the background and the truck is shown hauling giant weights around.
There certainly are differences in the way men and women think about things (in a general overall sense)...and I have no doubt that the WAYS in which things are marketed differ between men and women (in a general overall sense)...that doesn't mean women are somehow "more susceptible" though. The fact that advertising to men is just as common as advertising to women suggests they are about equally effective. If you want to suggest otherwise you need to provide actual evidence.
"Sexism" has become a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently.
There have been studies on chimpanzees showing that female chimps choose girly toys (dolls etc), and male chimps choose male toys (weapons, trucks etc) without any outside influence. Yet people act like the human species is different. They believe people only become who they are because of indoctrination into their respective gender roles.
Then when you call BS on that... you're called a sexist. Then when you say "YES I AM A SEXIST" you're called a misogynist. I don't see how treating women differently (better in many cases) leads to "hating women."
As for marketing - I think women do choose products differently than men. It's because they're wired differently. They are more likely to choose products based on sentimental or perceived social value. If you look at the majority of Meyers-Briggs personality types among women, there aren't as many INTP,INTJ or other engineering types. Even if you don't agree with Meyers-Briggs... that there exists such a strong difference between the male and female population that an INTP (my type) is 4 times as likely to be a male, it should prove there are major differences.
The end result of these differences is that you should buy the woman you want to marry a diamond. As an INTP I know it's illogical - but I can accept it since I believe women and men are wired differently. I feel sorry for the men on HN who believe otherwise and are going to argue against diamonds with their future wife. (good luck with that - unless she's an INTP)
The end result is you should talk to your partner and find out what they want and discus it.
If I had bought my wife a diamond ring it would have showed her I really didn't know her.
Pull out whatever study you want that says men are wired X and women are wired Y - that study is based on samples and statistics. You'll find plenty of girls that like trucks and boys that like dolls. Treat the people around you like individuals who can have both male and female traits and their own unique personality.
> There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently.
And nobody is disagreeing with you. It is sexist to say "women are more influenced by marketing" when they are not. If men and women are influenced the same, then making a statement about the difference between them is being sexist.
So, if someone can actually provide some data that shows whether or not women are more influenced than men, instead of everyone continuing to provide anecdotes (as you have), then we can either stop saying false things, or we can accept that different genders work differently.
I didn't make it clear in my comment - but yeah I don't think women are more susceptible to marketing than men. It's just that women value different things. The original poster values functional items such as cars, computers and cool gadgets. So he thinks that it must be marketing that tricks women into buying non-functional items.
The thing is... if you value how you are perceived by others, then fashion is an extremely important investment. It does serve a purpose to women (and some socially-conscious men).
There is some interesting data that shows women are buying more... just Google "percentage of purchasing decisions made by women." It's over 70% - so it wouldn't be surprising if most marketing is targeted towards women.
your claim implies that if a certain product (or products related in a theme such as 'pragmatism') A is marketed towards a consumer group B, then B must naturally be inclined to desire product group A.
This leads to the assumption that innate behavioral differences between genders is directly responsible for the discrepancy seen in cultural representations of gender in marketing, media, or even language.
this assumption is not only intuitively wrong, but it is directly contradicted by decades of sociological research.
Almost all of our perceived gender differences are constructed through our use of language and perpetuation of harmful, inaccurate stereotypes[0]. This means that a gender concept such as heterogeneous masculinity is self fulfilling. It simultaneously provides a standard of behavior (men should build stuff, men should be powerful, men should make lots of money, men should 'have' a woman) and is constructed by men's behavior (I made stuff, I am powerful, I make lots of money, I 'have' a woman, therefore I 'am a man').[1]
In regards to it being intuitively wrong:
You mentioned that many items that are marketed to men have a 'pragmatic' function. I'd argue that they're not always pragmatic (you mentioned sports cars), and instead, the overarching theme of most products marketed towards men(and, often by extension, most advertisements) is power.
An immediate example that comes to my mind is toy advertisements that are targeted at children. Most toys that are marketed towards boys feature an element of construction, violence, or critical thinking, while most ads targeted towards girls feature homemaking or visual arts. I don't feel the need to provide a footnote here as the google search 'gender differences in childrens' advertisements' provides a wealth of information.
These differences in advertisements are not because children who have a feminine gender identity are bad at or naturally averse to thinking critically. The disconnect between advertisements targeted at children is a clear example of marketing agencies accomplishing gender on a large scale. This is a particularly potent example because not only does it show that there _are_ differences in the way that gender is constructed, it shows that there is actually a power differential created between the two genders!
This is not to say that the marketing agencies are evil in any way - they are simply playing into a market separation that already exists because of our current construction of gender roles. However, by 'doing gender' and continuing to perpetuate our harmful stereotypes, they are in fact doing society a great disservice.
[0] West & Zimmerman, 1987, 'Doing gender'
[1] Mumby, 1998, 'Organizing Men: Power, Discourse, and the Social Construction of Masculinity(s) in the Workplace'
> women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are
Either you provide a scientific cite for that claim or that is a straight up sexist statement. In case you haven't heard there's a lot of stupid irrational purchasing behavior by guys too.
Yeah I think this would be a hard conclusion to jump to. There have been numerous papers on the benefits of market segmentation by gender to improve marketing effectiveness due to differences between genders.. But I don't know if any studies that can show with any confidence that one gender is more susceptible overall. It is always broken down by marketing approach (approach x effectiveness by gender). So, it is fair to call the spade a spade.
I'm not even sure how you would show this. Would you look at total spending by a gender? But that could reflect income-earning differences. Would you look at percentage spent on advertising by a industry targeting a particular gender? But advertising is an arms race which one must engage in as long as the marginal return is >0, and there are all sorts of things affecting this unrelated to gullibility. Would you look at marginal return on advertising dollar split by gender? But this ought to be ~0 for both genders regardless of effectiveness, per previous.
I thought it was an interesting statement so I looked into it a little. I personally was less curious if there was a difference in the way men and women react to a constant advertisement, but I wanted to know the % of marketing dollars spent marketing towards women vs men. I did not find those exact numbers, but stumbled onto :http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
There are a ton of crazy figures to digest on that page, again none addresses which sex is "swayed" more by a given advertisement. For example, "Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care"; "Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth"; and "Wealthy boomer women...make 95 percent of the purchase decisions for their households".
Assuming it is true, women making 85% of consumer purchases is kind of mind blowing. This does not necessarily mean women are swayed more by marketing, but I think it is safe to say women as a whole are targeted by marketing campaigns more than men - at least after reading these numbers that is how I would market a consumer product.
85% dollar-wise, or 85% of items purchased? Because I would argue that men tend to make fewer, but more expensive purchases, eg big tv, high end stereo, etc. I would still believe that things are skewed a bit since married women tend to make more of the purchasing decisions than their husbands (from what i understand), but 85% seems awfully high to me.
Check the link, it is extremely fascinating, but this is the relevant section:
>Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:
91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC Pharmaceuticals
American women spend about $5 trillion annually…
Over half the U.S. GDP
The list must be referencing "items purchased" rather than "dollar-wise". It is by no means definitive of the answer who makes more expensive purchases, but if women are buying 9 out of every 10 new houses, 65% of new cars, and 80% of healthcare plans what big ticket items are left for men to buy to outspend women?
Now the part at the end about $5 trillion being 1/2 the US GDP, might not be an error but be more telling of when these statistics are from (US GDP currently closer to $15T). Nevertheless like in my OP, the numbers are mind blowing, consider the following:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
Or
1/2 GDP = women spending = (private consumption - women spending) + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
You would think so, but that's not the case. Advertising to men is more expensive than advertising to women, because more marketers are competing for those slots. I can't find any broad stats on this right now, but to use a random example, Cosmo and Maxim are both major magazines catering to otherwise similar demographics (age/income). Maxim claims 9mil readers while Cosmo claims 18mil. The cost for a four-color, full-page spread is ~230k for Maxim and ~289k for Cosmo. That's 62 readers for a dollar for Cosmo, or just 39 readers for a dollar for Maxim. [maximmediakit.com, cosmomediakit.com]
If you reread the page you posted, you can see the hints of that. People talking about how older women make up a demo that "no advertiser can afford to ignore" -- that's not something an advertiser would say unprompted about 18-35 year old males, for example, because the idea of advertisers ignoring 18-35 year old males would be absurd.
> women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are
Citation needed. Plenty of men are swayed by marketing -- for instance, you'll note that the marketing ploy in TFA is directed at men.
It's also worth noting that the commentary here is lopsided. There are comments from men saying they don't care about diamonds but their fiancee did, but you don't see a whole lot of the inverse (women saying "I don't care about diamonds") . One could easily assume that's because "women...are swayed more by marketing then men are". In reality, it's more likely due to HN's readership being predominantly male.
I short circuited this and married a geologist. She picked out a cheap diamond ring because diamonds are still "what goes on your wedding ring" but we only spent about $200 on it.
Now, the misstep in marrying a geologist is that she owns many other rocks worth much more.
and her reasoning, "Actually gains value, good ones are not common (like diamonds are), awesome variety of colors"
Also said she likes aquamarine for actual gemstones (it's beryl, same thing as emeralds), but it's not as hard as diamond and wouldn't stand up to the daily abuse as well.
She also said she'd enjoy an uncut diamond mounted in a ring, but that's probably purely the geologist in her speaking.
It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention.
My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman:
1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide;
2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and
3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing.
An important thing to remember is that women take on a huge opportunity cost in getting married and having kids. My wife and I just had our first baby. Pregnancy and childbirth is a barbaric process and a woman will never be quite the same after. Taking care of an infant is tiring, stressful, boring, and thankless--and no matter how enlightened the husband is and how willing he is to help out, because of the baby's hard-wired inclinations the buck will always stop with the wife. Finally, if the woman is educated and has a career, that career will be permanently compromised by virtue of getting married and having kids. With all this in the background, it is evident that the social convention of the ring conveys valuable information to a woman considering getting married and bearing these costs. Re: 1, all else being equal a man that can provide more is more valuable than a man that can provide less. Re: 2, all else being equal a man that is willing to forgo things for himself is better than a man who is not; Re: 3, all else being equal a woman's social life will be positively affected in a tangible way by marring a man of higher social standing than of a lower one. It is totally rational for a woman to ask: "I'm willing to give up all this, what are you willing to do?" The ring is just a way to demonstrate this commitment in a way that is universally understood and spares everyone the awkward conversation of laying all the chips on the table.
Now, these elements are less important in 2013 than they were in say 1813. But at the same time to an extent they are not diminished in importance, but rather culture has shifted to downplay the uncomfortable truths at the root of these elements. For example, we like to downplay how much women really give up by being the child-bearers. But for an educated woman, if having kids cuts the probability of attaining a high position on her career by half,[1] the choice to have kids could mean millions of dollars in lost income over a lifetime. It's totally rational for a woman thinking of making such a compromise to demand from her potential husband a gesture showing that he is willing and able to take the other half of the bargain. But all this is something that we don't say in polite company, because we have fully bought into the mythologies about marriage that are in vogue at the moment: that it's just about "love" and all that matters is a mate that makes you "happy" and that it's an arrangement that is costless to enter into and exit out of.
There is, of course, nothing inherent about diamonds that makes them the only option for this kind of signaling. Indeed, in other cultures a cash gift is the norm instead. But the value of a signal is in its standardization, so to speak, and it just so happens that the diamond is the standard signal in western culture.
[1] Less than 20% of women never have kids, but about half of very high achieving women (executives, etc) never have kids.
1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide useless expensive things rather than their willingness to prepare for tough financial times (which are more common at this early stage in family life).
2) See: 1)
3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers that she is shallow enough to respect social standing over more admirable (and important) qualities, unless they're just as shallow.
1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It
demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other
things he could buy with the money for a gift for her
that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3)
It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's
social standing.
To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of those 3 conditions. The pertinent question is: why spend a large amount on a rock with possible associations of slave labor that is of absolutely zero functional value when you can ... well, spend the amount on anything else of value, and indeed still meet those 3 qualifications.
It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one.
I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them. Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no (although I don't have any illusions about how much of it is up to me!)
It might as _well_ be fake, just like the value of the diamond she procures.
After all, it's just a matter of her social standing, not the importance of the relationship and a marriage between two human people. I hesitate to use the word soul, but maybe here it applies.
Diamonds are _so dehumanizing_ and this thread would have me thoroughly depressed if so many people weren't arguing against DeBeers.
Maybe the Red Cross can start making some sort of low-cost jewelry (perhaps similar to those yellow rubber wristbands?) that, while cheap in material cost, signify that the wearer donated a very large sum of money to the organization (or someone did so in their name).
> I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring
That seems like a really shallow and material evaluator of the character of a human being.
> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them
Well thank God that Jackie Robinson, Marie Curie, or Barack Obama didn't believe this. Sometimes being different from the rest of the crowd and following your passions is more worthwhile rather than striving to "fit in" by purchasing status-enhancers.
Right, so that's a conveniently pragmatic approach to the issue.
Most of us nerds are fighting the idea of diamonds signifying social standing. The practice, and culture of giving expensive rings is objectively wacky. You're right that in your social circle taking an odd position will cost you your reputation, but consider that in the past many morally reprehensible practices were the norm and being an odd one out would cost you your reputation. If you operate on a framework so rigidly tied to social standing you might make pretty wacky decisions down the line. Ultimately, decisions made on this framework may not always be the wisest decisions.
You're preaching exactly the nonsense DeBeer's wants you to preach; they've got you hook, line, and sinker. None of those things require wasting money on a stupid worthless rock. You've shut down thinking.
> It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him.
A sensible man only cares what other people think about him when it is to his benefit to do so. A foolish man cares what other people think about him all of the time.
> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them.
In my experience, people who believe in marking the checkboxes of life have an awfully hard time discerning the difference between falling off the beaten path, and taking a shortcut.
> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no
It seems exceptionally foolish for you to rely on abstractions and proxy signaling (eg, buying a diamond) to discern the attributes of the person your daughter would be considering marrying. One would hope that the evidence for those attributes ought to be entirely apparent to her before that point.
Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go. - Charlie Hoehn
Yes. It's really important to be selective in what you choose to oppose, but just because you're opposing certain social norms doesn't automatically mean you're invalid. They deserve objective analysis.
My wife and I have been married 4 years now and gone primarily without rings. No negative consequences so far, and I'm definitely glad I didn't dedicate 20%+ of my income to a valueless trinket. We have objects that signify our relationship, but they're cheap or free, and imbued primarily with sentimental value only. This is, in my estimation, much better than propping up the diamond myth and cartel.
Exactly. It's like Valentines day. I ignore it, my girlfriend ignores it. Why should I need some marketing guy to tell me when to tell my girlfriend I love her, that should be happening anyway. To me conforming just tells me you're just a sucker in these kinds of instances.
Your logic is technically sound, and I'm not faulting you for thinking that way, but for me personally that's an unfortunately regressive way of looking at the world. I'm unsure where the idea that being principled requires being foolish comes from, but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband (and incidentally, the assumed father of my grandchildren). I'm not even sure what one would be trying to optimize for with this line of thinking. Couldn't this same concept lead to: "I'd prefer a man who knows exactly how much to cheat and steal and hurt others, as long as he makes sure the direct cost to him is less than his benefit"?* Is that really a man you'd like to see raising your grandkids?
*Just to clarify, to avoid making this seem like a strawman: I'm creating a deliberately extreme example that to me seems like the logical extension of optimizing for "success" (or minimizing headwinds) at the expense of character (personified in your example by someone who's principled as opposed to a follow-the-herd type person). The purpose of this is to highlight the fact that this is someone you're accepting into your family, and the importance of that becomes particularly clear when you consider that the man he is will in large part shape the men and women you're grandchildren are.
"but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband "
Parent commenter is interested in someone who thinks the way he does. There is nothing wrong with that and there are probably more parents from my experience who wants someone who hold their views then are willing to accept someone with different views.
I'm laughing because we were arguing back and forth in this thread, and your description of the type of man you want you daughter never to marry matches me exactly.
I hope you get your wish! Children often find a way to push our buttons, however.
That is so fucking sad. Aren't there literally hundreds of traits more important in a husband than buying a ring?
Tell me this statement is satire: "Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no"
"It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him."
Agree with you (and my daughter is much much older).
I would be totally wary of a man that decided in lieu of buying a ring for my daughter to make a donation to a charity. The ring is a gift for the woman. In the event of a divorce the woman typically gets to keep the ring it's an asset and does have value despite all the drivel of the OP and everyone else here is saying. Owning 100% of something that is only worth 50% of what someone else paid for it is still more than 0 (what you get with a charity donation at least monetarily).
I would say it's the mark of a sensible man who understands how to be aware, influence, and the effect of what other people think of him, but does not actually care.
Someone who actually cares what someone thinks of him based on whether he bought an overpriced hunk of carbon is what sensible call a "deuschebag."
> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them.
That's a pretty loaded way of putting it. It comes across as saying that the only two options are being an incredibly successful trendsetter or making things difficult for themselves and dependents. Yes, you could argue that technically it's not saying these are the only options, but it sure strongly suggests they are.
I think that dichotomy is ridiculous - as if the two ends of the spectrum are the only two possible outcomes. If you put it that way of course it seems like a bad thing to buck social conventions.
> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform?
I don't think your comment gives an argument for why those principles are supposedly foolish.
.
You are of course free to say and do as you please. Such freedom of views also applies to others, and IMO the attitude expressed in your comment is a small-minded one.
If suitability of the partner is determined by the giving or not giving a ring (instead of knowing the partner) it is better so stay away from the marriage altogather.
So you want a mindless drone for your daughter. What a shame. I'll bet you also want them to do exactly as government says and "conform" as they walk him, her and their kids into more senseless wars.
Blind conformity is one of the most dangerous behaviors a society could exhibit.
Caring about what other people think of you leads to things like joining the KKK, stockpiling guns and killing six million Jews. It's religious think.
See, me, for my daughter, I'd be proud if she married someone who suggested they take the $30,000 he would have spent on a dumb diamond ring and try their hand at starting a business. Even from failure they would grow and learn.
There is no learning from in buying a diamond ring. It does not prepare you for life in any imaginable way. It does not prepare you for economic difficulties, medical problems or to develop a good sense on financial matters. It's just plain dumb.
"that is of absolutely zero functional value when you can"
So what's the functional value of entertainment then? It makes you feel good. A diamond makes a woman feel good. It's that simple. Doesn't matter why. It's for her. Not up to a man to judge the value anymore then you want a woman deciding the value of why you might spend you money on whatever makes you feel good.
It doesn't matter why, even if the "why" has been specifically conditioned into the both of you just so that the person selling the diamond makes a profit? That seems a bit... I don't know... tragic.
(To be clear, though, I'm a nerdy gay like the parent commenter, and I can't fathom a situation where either my boyfriend or I would ever want the other one to buy a diamond for any reason, so there's probably some component of the dynamics here that I don't fully grasp.)
That may sound like a nice idea, but it's a expression about your principles where she has deal with all of the consequences. The ring is for her, she will be the one who has to explain this decision to everyone who asks about the ring (read: absolutely everyone in her life). Many of these people will have diamond wedding rings, so now she has to explain this decision in a way to doesn't offend them. No offense, but she may prefer to spend that time gushing about how excited she is about her upcoming marriage and how awesome her fiancé is.
The ring does have functional value, but for her and not for you. Part of the point is that is doesn't directly benefit you at all.
Sure, but there are different ways of signaling such things. If someone is so tradition-bound they themselves don't value the relationship itself higher than some specific traditional signaling method then that's typically a strong indicator of their lack of commitment to the relationship.
tl;dr if a woman will only love you / stay with you when you buy them expensive things they don't actually love you.
It's easy to say that but that's not how human nature works.
When you buy things for other people, it is generally a positive for your relationship with them. In general, they are happier and think better of you. Getting upset about it and saying they don't 'really love you' is not true and not super helpful.
Human nature is very hard to change, no matter how intelligent / introspective we become. Do you never buy your significant other dinner, a night out, or gifts of any kind?
Human nature only talks about the average, I know a few people that dislike expencive gifts as it makes them feel obligations that they dislike. Gift giving is a vary cultural activity which makes it seem a lot more innate than it is because most people you interact with share the same bias.
Absolutely. I'm not saying it applies to everyone, in fact I'm completely on your side - disagreeing with (and demonizing) giving a diamond because it's not how you operate is silly.
Infidelity is also human nature. Is that also just to be expected in a relationship?
If someone isn't willing to compromise in the face of reason (e.g. "we can't afford an expensive wedding or a ring", or "I'm concerned about supporting conflict in Africa and supporting the diamond cartel") then I'd say the relationship is probably not strong enough to last.
But it's not as clear cut that this is a 'negative' aspect of human nature, and I would strongly argue that infidelity is NOT necessarily human nature, at least not as fundamentally as gift giving / signaling.
And you're moving the argument here - previously we were talking about buying an expensive ring, not supporting armed conflict or purchasing something you can't afford.
Given the state of the economy and the average savings rate in the US the "typical" diamond engagement ring is simply not affordable for many people. More so, the idea that acquiring a diamond through the De Beers cartel does not at worst indirectly support conflict in sub-saharan Africa and at best help prop up brutal dictatorships is just extraordinarily naive.
Wouldn't it make more sense for her husband to take that money, and purchase a bond (or security, or something else that's guaranteed to raise in value) and put it in her name, and her name only?
1,2, & 3 can be accomplished by lots of gifts that aren't diamond rings. Why waste the "gesture" on a diamond ring, that if the husband leaves (divorce, death, whatever), isn't worth even close to what was paid for it.
Eh, it's not that unusual. It is rational and well-accepted that men also pick suitable women for mates by whether or not they have child-bearing hips and are good cooks.
Excusing childish behavior by calling it rational doesn't make it less childish. Relationships or hook-ups might _start_ on factors like that, but they don't survive if that's what constitutes the substance of it.
And if the _symbol_ of your supposedly permanent commitment is a diamond, that says something very cynical about that marriage.
I'm sure there are good marriages with diamond rings involved. I'm pretty sure those marriages aren't successful because of that, but rather in spite of it.
Honestly, I find the notion of "man as provider" to be perverse, but if I buy into your worldview for a moment...
1) Your wife can measure how much you can provide just as well by having you actually provide valuable things. Like a house.
2) Your wife can measure your unselfishness by having you buy something that is actually valuable to her but useless to you. Like daycations with her friends. There's no sense in buying something which is valuable to neither party.
3) The need to demonstrate your social standing to other people is the result of low self-esteem. Maybe your wife needs therapy, not a diamond.
A diamond ring is a signal that is _always_ showing, unlike something like a house. It's a signal to the world that displays someone's wealth, commitment, etc.
This doesn't make it right, but there are numerous human psychology reasons why this tradition endures and so many people take part in it. Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly.
Absolute nonsense. Therapy is very useful to many people who are not mentally ill. I would venture to say that most people who see therapists are not mentally ill. If you think "mental illness" when somebody says "therapist", you probably need to do some reevaluation.
Out of genuine interest (it's hard to convey tone via comments sometimes), can you expand on this comment a bit?
What do you consider mental illness to be? And what is therapy in your view?
The term 'mentally ill' in my view has been stigmatized quite a bit, and being 'unwell' mentally does not mean you are crazy, but that you have issues you feel you need to deal with. Isn't that the point of seeing a therapist?
Reasons that you could see a thearapist, that would not traditionally be considered mental illness in casual conversation, can include: coping with occupational stress, coping with grief, preparing for anticipated grief, coming to terms with mortality, (often for children) learning what mortality is, coping with changes in lifestyle (including divorce, marriage, birth of a child, birth of a special needs child, inability to have a child, moves to unfamiliar locations, moves to unfamiliar cultures, loss of religion, loss of a job, release from prison, release from the service), (as mentioned by erikpukinskis) feelings of inadequacy or low self-esteem, ...
Just about anything people may have talked to priests about in the past they can now talk to therapists about.
Now, if you want to define mental illness such that it covers all of these things, and all the other reasons to see a therapist, that is fine. Words are just what you make of them; you can, of course, define them as you see fit.
However, if you redefine mental illness in such a way then I can see really no justification for using the negative connotations that mental illness normally holds to facilitate mock outrage ("Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly.") Instead of criticizing erikpukinskis for "writing off those people as mentally ill", perhaps you should instead explain why you do not agree with his suggestion that low self-esteem could be a factor.
Man this thread is killing me. Apparently I need to start wearing my salary and Mint.com balance on a name-sticker on my shirt to attract more mates. And then when I get one, make them wear a sticker indicating that they are mine, because without that, surely they would just be scooped up by the next person looking to own another person.
Welcome to the "brutal truth" of applying economic theory and armchair psychology to human interaction. I sometimes hypothesise that the people peddling these notions do it because they really do see life as an economic system and consequently, no arguing with them would change their opinion, because they're obviously right. Meaning, I wonder if this is a simple case of "I expect others to experience things the same way I experience them". However, I can't imagine someone really thinking that way. But that's maybe because I don't.
> Honestly, I find the notion of "man as provider" to be perverse, but if I buy into your worldview for a moment...
Why? It is, to this day, even in the U.S., the dominant arrangement between men and women, especially in the context of relationships that result in children.
> The need to demonstrate your social standing to other people is the result of low self-esteem.
That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing. It minimizes the cultural friction between yourself and the people who can help you get ahead, who are overwhelmingly people of high social standing themselves.
Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender. Monolithic roles like "provider" (and the concomitant role of "consumer/sex object") of are inherently coercive. Because they're monolithic and tied to gender. I think that kind of coercion is perverse.
> That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing
I don't think those signals are meaningfully connected to anything real, they're just signals of standing. They are power begetting power, and I think willfully engaging that system is perverse.
> Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender.
Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
> Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest?
Adoption.
> How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
There are some limits to what can be shared. I advocate going right up to that line. A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life. There is a qualitative difference between the handful of hard limits imposed by biology, and the many limits imposed by compulsory monolithic gender roles.
The IQ of children is highly correlated with the IQ of parents. Adoption is not, for educated couples, an alternative to having their own children.
> A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life.
You can make things as equal as possible, but no more. My wife and I have almost identical educational backgrounds. We accepted very similar jobs out of school (she will technically be making more money than me considering benefits). We had our baby her last year of school so she wouldn't have to take maternity leave, with the negative stigma associated with that. I'm taking a couple of years off from working at a large law firm so I can work a 9-5 with a judge and take more baby responsibilities and allow her to focus on her career. We're trying extremely hard to make things as equitable as possible between the two of us.
But at the end of the day if my wife had suffered a complication in child birth (it is still the most dangerous thing most people do), it would have fallen to me to provide for her and the child. I was not the one who had to take that bodily risk, therefore I assumed by default the "provider" role, or at least had to be fully prepared to assume that role. Therefore, it was totally rational for her to have been concerned, pre-marriage, about my ability to do so.
Ignoring whether that's true or relevant to family planning, I never said you can divide up roles randomly without ever making tradeoffs. Just that it's coercive to adhere slavishly to distributions of labor which are 1) monolithic and 2) bound to gender.
So childbirth is extremely dangerous but adopting a kid already out there looking for a home isn't an option for an educated couple...you'd rather your wife risk her health.
Adoption is a great option for many couples, educated or not. I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that it's not a fully equivalent to having your own kids. Not worse, but not equivalent. If you're educated, high-IQ tiger parents and want to raise highly successful children, statistically you're better off having your own kids than adopting. This is not to say that adopted kids can't be successful or anything like that. But IQ is heritable, and the simple fact is that there aren't a lot of high IQ couples giving their kids up for adoption.
>If you're educated, high-IQ tiger parents and want to raise highly successful children, statistically you're better off having your own kids than adopting
This is the most depressing thing I read in this whole thread. The idea that one should view raising "highly successful" children as some kind of outcome they can control or influence through "high IQ tigerness" and cold economic analysis is humorous and sad all at once. Coupled with encouragement to not buck a pointless social tradition because it may make (shallow, deplorable) people judge you as less worthy and thus may negatively impact your future prospects of becoming more like them seems like a rather sad way to live life, but I guess we all have our own goals. The fact that after thousands of years our species is still mesmerized by shiny rocks we dug out of the ground is also odd to me, but apparently not others.
It's always amusing to see the two parallel readerships of HN collide. I love a good fireworks display.
Like BBC radio 4 has a leftie, public-services-union-member audience and a rightwing traditionalist audience who are largely unaware of each other, HN has an ivy league educated randian-hero readership and a more old-school, "just give me an ounce of weed and a hex editor and I'm happy forever" readership, and both is convinced the other is intruding on their community.
> The IQ of children is highly correlated with the IQ of parents
There is plenty of research to suggest that socio-economic (SES) status is the driving factor behind IQ, not genetics. An adopted child's IQ will tend to be higher if adopting parents have high SES
> That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing. It minimizes the cultural friction between yourself and the people who can help you get ahead, who are overwhelmingly people of high social standing themselves.
Translation: I have shitty friends and assume everyone else does too.
For a rational person there's a giant leap from the premises of "someone willing to give up money for someone else -> better" and "it follows that we should purchase diamonds from DeBeers" that you might want to call her on.
How ever did women vet men to their social circle before DeBeers came along and saved the day 80 years ago??!
"We" spend on average three months worth of salary. Around £5k I guess. Certainly not enough for a house, but a good amount of money to put towards your first family home when you get married. Houses need furniture and all that fancy stuff. :)
Not necessarily a tenth, but most people here don't buy houses outright. It would be a significant investment towards a down payment or month' of mortgage payments.
The silly/sad/stupid thing is when you put it in context of a ring+marriage ceremony. The same way many college students are starting out life with debt, they often go and add 25-30K of extra debt between an expensive, value-less ring and a wedding ceremony.
This is a "longstanding tradition" that was invented out of whole cloth in the 1930's and 1940's, by a series of De Beers advertising campaigns involving product placement with the Kardashian analogues of that era, culminating in the "A Diamond Is Forever" radio ads. Shaming America's male and female populace into buying into their cartel, the 'customary price' they recommended for diamond rings to demonstrate love rose continuously, not only in absolute terms, but as a share of personal income. It's an arms race with both zero objective value to anyone, and significant negative externalities.
We're a society of monkeys that use social convention as a fluid device for mediating social interaction. We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender. We are a species that derives deep satisfaction from reproducing (from hard-wired hormonal responses), and have structured our society so that it would collapse without the assurance of continued generations of future humans. These things are true whether or not you would prefer an alternative world in which they weren't. Relevant to HN: at the end of the day Facebook stock is worth a lot less, and VC funding dries up if it becomes apparent that the 16-25 demographic is one of monotonically decreasing size...
We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of
motherhood are associated with a single gender
I agree with you here. I don't know why the HN crowd is refusing to see this point... an infant in its early months really needs the mother.
But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a male I can say that I would be happy to be a stay-at-home-dad after the infant is of a certain age -- and I have met many women who're okay with this idea (of the man staying at home while the woman makes money).
> But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come.
As a practical matter, the latter follows the former, almost inexorably. Between the negative stigma of being pregnant at work to the negative stigma of taking maternity leave, to the negative stigma of having to be there for your young child when it is still in the "I need my mommy" stage (which lasts into the first couple of years), by the time the father can assume a fully co-equal role in parenting the woman has already substantially compromised her career and it becomes rational, in a perverse way, for her to be the one to undertake further compromises.
However I wonder if many of the stigmas you mention are ingrained into society only by the persisting culture, and so one should not fear challenging them? There are many single-dads that do a wonderful job of raising kids alone as a single parent (admittedly I don't know any who started taking care of the kids below the age of 2 -- and I do accept that even 2 years is a hell of a long time).
I think there is a lot culture can do to help make the distribution of child-rearing responsibilities more equitable. But who wants to risk their career progression to challenge the culture?
Rayiner some of your other posts are showing up as dead. I suspect this may have something to do with your other posts receiving negative points (HN algo tripped up by that probably).
I'd recommend dropping a small note to info@ycombinator.com telling them to do something about this.
Just because you can provide some flimsy after-the-fact-rationalizations* doesn't mean that it's reasonable.
That's ok though, desires/hobbies/cultural practices/etc are generally not based in reason.
/* For example, it's very doubtful that today you would gain any real insight into a persons ability to "provide" from them giving you a diamond...in fact it's more likely to deceive you (they could purchase on credit, buy a stolen/fake one, etc). You'd learn much more about that from simply dating/courting them - knowing about their spending/saving habits, profession, etc.
I'm sorry but those reasons are absurd. That is actually more abhorrent than anything I was imagining. I need to prove my ownership of my woman and have to buy her expensive things to prove my worth? shudder. I feel gross.
Have you ever been pregnant or had a child? It's 9 months of misery punctuated by 12 hours of stress and agony, relieved only by the epidural. That's followed by weeks of pain and bleeding, and major bodily changes of various degrees of permanence (stretched out abdominal muscles, stretched out hips). Oh, and post-partum depression. And that's if you're lucky. Childbirth can last way longer than 12 hours, it can involve vaginal tearing that requires reconstructive surgery (not uncommon), and is ultimately the most life-threatening and risky thing your average person will ever do.
Yeah, it's "magical" and whatnot, but my wife would rather be water-boarded than be pregnant again.
My wife really enjoyed the experience. We had a home birth. No epidural. Two kids.
It is a life changing experience for both wife and husband. It's part of life. Life isn't a video game. It's not a synthetic experience. Some people may prefer to be a brain in a jar hooked to some wires but then where would they put the diamond ring? :-)
My wife is a zealot in the anti home birth holy war so I'm going to just express my happiness that yours found it enjoyable and slowly walk away from the keyboard.
yeah, usually there are provoking stories on both side. I work in a radiology department that has a strong obstetric focus, and obviously that leads to a particular view. I hope her reasons don't have too much trauma behind them, but suspect they do.
This is a poor statement I feel. How is it more dangerous? You drive once, and have a baby once, one for once the giving birth is vastly more dangerous.
Historical average death rate for the mother alone would approach 10%, and in 3rd world countries, it is still over 1%. For driving the death rate is something like 20 per 100,000, or as a better measure, something number of tens or hundreds of millions of KM of driving per death.
But all this is something that we don't say in polite company, because we have fully bought into the mythologies about marriage that are in vogue at the moment: that it's just about "love" and all that matters is a mate that makes you "happy" and that it's an arrangement that is costless to enter into and exit out of.
What you so casually disregard as "mythologies of marriage" is the result of striving for equality. A hundred years ago, marriage was indeed just another economic transaction. The suitor paid the father of the girl, who was happy to have her off his hands, being of no use in succeeding him to lead the family business.
We have not yet reached equality, so alimony is still law and being pregnant a career ender. Hence we still need the economic signaling provided by diamonds.
Indeed, it is arguably more of a concern for women who are more educated and thus more "equal" in relationships with men. A worry among my ambitious female friends is getting stuck in a relationship where they are both the primary caregiver children and the primary breadwinner. And it's not an idle concern. Society pushes the role of primary caregiver on women. I'm father of the year when people find out I take the night feedings, but my wife gets nothing but criticism for not breast feeding, for the kid not being sufficiently bundled up, for the kids bottle not being capped while in the stroller cup holder (this happened today).
Damn people. Our one was off warm milk very early, weened herself at 3 months old, and hates hats. Try telling old biddies that she isn't cold, hates hates and prefers cold milk. Keep on keeping on.
Edit: And that reads like I'm competing with you. I'm not, because that just as bad. Remembering the loud comments and idiocy of strangers makes me a touch wild.
"1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide;"
I can do that by buying houses. Diamonds are only a good indicator of frivolity with cash.
"2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way;"
It demonstrates a lack of sense on the part of both parties.
"3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing."
Not if you start to look at it as a huge waste of cash it doesn't.
--edit-- to expand on that last point; if diamonds started to be viewed as a pointless and vulgar excess, like shiny rims or a full set of gold teeth, then it could demonstrate a lack of social standing. They only currently demonstrate a positive social message because of convention. Why not change convention?
I wanted to bring up rims and teeth to head off the obvious criticism that something expensive (the diamond) is worn to demonstrate exactly that you don't have to think about money - many other things purchased for this reason are sneered at by most people.
This is bullshit. There was never any bargain. Women have kids because women want to have kids. It's not because men are pressuring them into having kids and giving everything else up against their will. Women will split up with men who don't want to have kids. I've seen it happen. Women will get baby hunger around age 35 and jump on the nearest guy, to marry him in order to use him a sperm receptacle to get pregnant with. Again, I've seen it happen.
The husband doesn't owe the wife anything just because she wanted kids or because pregnancy is painful. If she wants kids, she has to be ready to pay the price without whinging about it. If you had said the husband owes it to the wife to put aside thousands of dollars for the child's education, that might have made sense, but implying that he owes her a stupid gem because she can't be giving birth and at work in the office at the same time is just wrong.
What do gay people do (in general) for things like this? The most I've seen (with male-male couples) is gold wedding rings; I'm not sure about female couples.
I don't really know. Something symbolic would be nice, but in my mind it would be like a tungsten carbide ring with my partner's name in binary or something. Economical, long-lasting... but I'm not sure. That's a bridge quite a ways away for me.
The lack of social traditions and traditional obligations seems daunting at first but it's kind of fun to be unencumbered (especially when I read reynir's replies and go white-faced from the ridiculous sexist pressure put on men and women to be macho and feminine still today).
Well they might opt for something simple and classy, or perhaps something a little more ostentatious depending on their personality. But one thing is for sure, gay people getting married have much bigger balls than all these heteroconformist "men" that would buy an expensive rock they don't even want for a woman they clearly pedestal.
If you want to buy some sparkly jewelry to signify engagement I highly recommend moissanite. It looks better than Diamond because it is double refractive. Also, no one will be able to tell a difference. 3 times I've taken my wife's rings to jewelery stores to have it cleaned or have a small stone replaced and every time I have to tell the Jeweler that it is moissanite. If you do tell people it is moissanite be prepared to hear "Didn't you want a 'real' stone?' or " It looks dirty " especially from Jewelers.
Hey swang - this is the first time I've heard of this issue. Are you getting an error code from the blog? Let me know here or email me, omar@priceonomics.com.
There is no reason to be ethnocentric here. There are plenty of world cultures in which a woman wears a simple gold ring after marriage. On the other hand, if you want to get into a serious discussion with your significant other, try violating cultural assumptions about who should pay for the wedding--it isn't necessarily the father of the bride, as it historically was in Anglo-American culture. Sometimes what the groom saves in buying jewelry for the bride is spent on the groom hosting a wedding banquet for all of the bride's relatives and friends.
So true. I spent more money on my marriage than on my masters degree. Fuc.
My wife has more gold and diamonds than money my family ever owned otherwise. All that stuff doesn't suite her, is locked up in locker rooms of some bank 364 days a year. (And yeah I pay for that fucking locker as well).
Any discussion of selling it would lead to a WWII like situation in the home. The cost of Gold might be skyrocketing but when you actually try to sell gold ornaments or diamonds it is a different game altogether because when I walk to sell the gold not one wants to buy it unless they know me or I pester them. So this is what happens when I met a jeweler to sell a gold chain my mother had made for me when I was 2 years old. Gold typically 15 times most costlier than that time. so I was expecting at least 1000% ROI.
1. I need to first determine if this is real Gold and how pure it is. For that you will have to pay me X.
2. This chain is old and I cant sell it the way it is, it needs to be melted and converted into something else so I will lose Y value in the process.
3. Making a new ornament out of this will lead to more loss of metal during melting and hence I will lose Z.
Then later he tells me that the gold is not "as pure" as I thought it to be. So eventually I make only 200% profit over period of around 12 years. (not to mention the feeling of getting cheated).
Scenario of diamond seems to be lot more similar to that of Gold.
This article is interesting. I remember in Geology class when our teacher explained that you could make synthetic diamonds for a fraction of the price of a real diamond. He then asked all the women if they would rather have a natural diamond or a synthetic diamond, and almost all of them raised their hands. He then went on to explain that it was like the difference between natural ice and ice made in a freezer. He asked the question again and almost all the women still voted for natural.
That day I realized the power of the diamond marketing engine.
But your geology teacher wasn't even correct. You can't make synthetic diamonds with similar color characteristics to natural diamonds at a fraction of the price. In fact, colorless synthetic diamonds are more expensive.
Not really true - it's relatively easy to make the diamonds colorless. Biggest difference is that the diamonds tend to have crystal structures that are a little rare in natural diamonds, since they grow very quickly compared to natural diamonds.
The price gap in natural vs cultured diamonds in the colorless range is far too narrow to make it a viable business model. So the effort, and profit, is made in the color end of the spectrum. Yellow and blue are the most popular, and the price gap is significant.
I did a fair amount of research on this when shopping for my wife, and couldn't find any decent sized (say, larger than ~1/2 carat) clear synthetic diamonds. There were some options in yellow or pink, but I didn't find a thriving manufactured diamond industry I thought I would find.
Regardless, even if I had, manufacturers of gem grade diamonds wouldn't need to undercut the price of natural diamonds by much. The cartel has done all the hard work raising the price for them already. Market them at 90% of natural diamonds and reap the rewards.
Your teacher was asking the wrong question. Ask these same women if they'd rather have a larger diamond at what would be twice the cost were it not for technology, and they'd probably agree.
If we want to help fix this diamond bullshit, we've got to reframe the discussion. It's not about natural vs synthetic, it's about cultured diamonds vs blood diamonds.
Sure, and we all know it. But from her perspective, you probably waste all kinds of time and money on other inane bullshit for yourself. So if you actually cared, you wouldn't mind spending a bit so she gets a shiny rock to wear around. Why shouldn't she get this one thing?
Also, how is this any different from fashion? Both are nearly useless raw materials that have been transformed and shaped into something people will pay money to own and wear (signaling). For diamonds, you get conflict in Africa. For fashion, you get sweatshops in Asia.
If she wants it so badly, why doesn't she buy herself one?
If she doesn't have enough money, then she should work until she does. Or she should provide something of equivalent value, at which point this becomes a business negotiation.
This is very similar to fashion in the amount of sense it makes as a consumer. The reason this is more interesting is because of how striking it is as what essentially amounts to a conman's (DeBeers et al) success story, on a gargantuan scale. On top of that, people who buy into fashion are pretty much aware of what's going on, but I'd be willing to bet that a LARGE amount of people (myself included, until ~my late teens) are unaware that so many of the "hallowed traditions" surrounding diamond rings are marketing nonsense dreamed up a few decades ago.
It doesn't just pertain to diamonds. It's the same thing with expensive clothes, bags, shoes, wines, cars, gadgets, etc. It's just a way to flaunt one's wealth. It's unfortunately a side effect of our consumption-oriented society.
I used Blue Nile to buy my wife's engagement ring and was very happy with the service/quality. The online customer care agents actively pushed me to buy the lowest quality diamond that would appear 'best', as there are many levels of quality that can only be seen under a loupe by a jeweler. All of these grades will appear to be equivalent to the untrained/unaided eye.
She needed to get the ring resized later and it was very easy. Returned via FedEx and had it back a week later.
I don't know about their margins but I found an attractive ring for 1 week's salary (vs. the crazy idea we should spend 2 months). Even if they make a nice margin you have sufficient selection and control over the 4 C's that you can save money that way. I decided to get the a very good cut and best color possible since those are visible to the naked eye. Clarity (at least at the levels offered on blue nile) is only noticeable under 10x magnification. So it make no sense to me but skimp on clarity. Then I chose between shape, and carats. The marquise shape can also save you money because it looks larger with less carats. Also say what you want about the stupidity of engagement rings, but if you're going to get one, choosing a very small diamond just looks unbalanced to me on a finger.
Please don't remind me about this. I'm pretty sure every guy knows all this already and unless you have a super hippy / progressive girlfriend (and even then..) you will ultimately find out that even the most rational women could give a crap about the economic / social realities of the diamond market and still "need" a diamond of X carat in order to impress their family and friends.
DeBeer's wins. Either you get over it, or you end up heartbroken or with a very grumpy fiance.
The funny thing is it's not just the guys who realize this. It's the women too. One day there will be a preference cascade and everyone will look at each other and ask "Why are we spending so much money on semi-precious stones?" But until that day...
There is some really bizarre complex psychology / sociology behind the whole thing that really needs to be untangled. The De Beers marketers were mad geniuses that made the world bend to their will in a way that can't be undone
> I'm pretty sure every guy knows all this already
No! I really don't! I kind of imagine that as a middle-class British guy I'm not too far from modal HN culture, but this sounds totally bizarre and alien to me.
Briefly, no. You can read more about on our site (it's mentioned at the end of the article), but: we (try to) survey a representative sample of people in the US, and external validations have found we do a pretty good job of it (comparable to a more reputable polling organization).
Indeed, they are a scam. A trend I've observed is to create an item or have an item created with immense personal value (though not necessarily much "material value"). The most common examples of this I see are custom and hand made rings of various cheap materials with interesting and personal designs.
What are some cool alternatives to a diamond ring? I want to get a ring with a carbon nanotube "gem", but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to acquire that.
You can get rings cut from meteors (even two from the same meteor). There's a variety of looks depending on the type of meteor, they're rare, and they're "natural".
773 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 354 ms ] threadAre young couples foregoing the rest of the expensive ceremony along with avoiding the ring? Could the price of wedding and engagement rings be one cause of the declining marital rate in the US? What happened to the price of engagement rings over the past 10 years? How well does it mirror the prices of houses in the US?
I don't even know how some people are capable of spending as much money as I've heard of them spending $20,000+ for a wedding? What in the world are you spending it on? It would've been easy to spend a couple thousand more, but it wasn't that hard to keep costs down. You just have to realize that it is OK to comparison shop, and you don't have to go with the high-status, first-advertised options for everything; if you look at more than just billboards and TV ads, you can still put together a really nice event for far less money.
When we went ring shopping, we decided on a budget ahead of time, and it turned out that our budget wasn't even the determining factor in which vendor we ended up buying from- it was who had the rings we liked the best. Tip, though- don't tell the salesmen that you're looking for a wedding ring; if you do, they will only show you a small, high-priced fraction of their total selection. My fiancee also decided ahead of time that she didn't want a diamond (diamonds are boring, green amethyst is much prettier), so it was very amusing when we found a genuine diamond ring on sale for only $90- much less than what we ended up spending on the rings we liked!
I've seen middle class families in India spend 20K USD on weddings (all of their savings). So 20K in the U.S should be nothing?
- At least U$ 20/person in food and drinks - At least U$ 2000 for a suitable locale, rented months in advance - All the decor, music, etc. (several thousand dollars) - Wedding dress, etc. - Expenses (both church and civil I guess)
Depending on the newlyweds' budget and notoriety, it can go anywhere from 100 to 2000 invitees.
(Just playing devil's advocate. With the argument I got.)
It's kind of a two-way street - which of you is more willing to make a sacrifice for this relationship? Perhaps a compromise can be reached...
-d, husband for 18.5yrs and counting
I wouldn't want a woman so ignorant.
For the record, not all women insist on a diamond, except reflexively... I actually know few couples that have bought diamond rings (for many reasons - some financial planning (a young couple should be worried about a house, insurance and retirement before a shiny ring) and some ethical (if you buy a new diamond, there is absolutely metaphorical blood on it - terrible juju to kick off a lifetime commitment of love))
Self-interest/selfish alert: if you're rolling in it and get that $30k ring for your spouse-to-be, don't give it to them on their birthday, Christmas or any other gifting occasion, because they don't have to give it back if they decide to ditch you Pre-nuptuals.
In my mind if a marriage isn't a lifetime commitment, then forget any of the other traditions.
This is logical. Otherwise why not string along as many man as possible to the point of proposal, then thank them for the shiny ring and wish them farewell? Take the strategy to its inevitable conclusion, and if the woman in question calls off the engagement at any point, she should return the ring.
They're not marrying the ring, they're marrying you, but the ring is a signal about your relationship.
Yes, how else would you start reversing it?
Heels will damage her feet over the long run, clothes are over priced and expensive, the makeup industry causes all sorts of evil just like diamonds. But you'll want her to look good the way your culture defines it, because it signals your value socially.
But diamonds are horrible and women are selfish and irrational for wanting them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283
1: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
I'm not much of a fan of simply rewriting content for one's blog.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4522922
It's funny to see how that article recirculates. One of my first comments on HN was a link to the same The Atlantic article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523063)
I've studied and analysed what we did wrong / why we failed to gain traction - and might try to attack the problems from a different angle if we decide to give it a second shot.
http://www.its-not-its.info/
This kind of errata in our language doesn't help us do anything and it just causes confusion and frustration.
Edit: heh, I guess I won't delete it now (to preserve continuity of extant conversation). Sorry.
Edit: sorry Clicks it was too tempting :)
Many guides to using apostrophes [1,2,3,4] say they can be used for contractions (the dog's outside) and to indicate possession (the dog's ball) - Why shouldn't something possessed by "it" use a possessive apostrophe?
Some people tried to correct my using of "it's" to indicate possession by explaining "Apostrophes are used for contractions like it is" which was unconvincing as obviously they can be used to indicate possession.
It wasn't until I got to college that someone gave me a satisfactory explanation: It/Its belongs to the same class of words as he/his, her/hers, your/yours, who/whose which do not follow normal apostrophe usage rules as the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive and nothing obliges the language and its users to be consistent.
[1] http://www.economist.com/style-guide/apostrophes [2] http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif [3] http://lilt.ilstu.edu/golson/punctuation/apostrophe.html [4] http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
A teacher taught me a simpler rule: "It's" normally has an apostrophe, while most words don't. So instead of adding a apostrophe to show possession, we remove it.
Basically we're toggling the apostrophe state. Or..."it's" always results in a NOT output when compared to other outputs.
Reminds me of growing up "Ain't ain't a word!"
Fixed: "'Ain't' ain't no word!"
Interesting thought since, prior to the 19th century, "its" frequently was spelled "it's".
I have long considered it one of the abominations of the English language that a contraction ("it is" -> "it's") is given precedence over a pronoun with what is clearly a saxon genitive. Contractions should always take the lowest possible precedence in cases of collisions as far as I am concerned.
Hear hear, but good luck convincing zillions of single women that they'll be the first generation in living memory to miss out on their carbon.
It's social signaling. Or to put it another way: How many $$ can your man throw away without incurring pauperhood?
It sounds like it has barbaric roots -- who can provide the most food / kill the biggest animal / lift the heaviest rock / travel the fastest / find the rarest material / pay someone else the most money to do so.
You'll never find an end to the people who are willing to provide the same product for a higher price.
Slightly more subtle than that: Waste the resources without incurring financial hardship. That last part is important.
> It sounds like it has barbaric roots
Not unlike the mating ritual itself.
> You'll never find an end to the people who are willing to provide the same product for a higher price.
Again, it's more subtle: The social signal includes being able to discern and choose well among the competing alternatives.
"Let's admit that women buying sports cars for their fiancé-to-be is bullshit."
Hmmmm... Now I want a Z4 Zagato.
But in all seriousness this would have ended in the 70s when feminist protests started.
I started dating in the 70s: I thought it was a period of bizarre contrasts.
But then as time went by, I realized dating has been bizarre since the time we were all living in caves.
This was the comment that convinced me that you are a sexist.
Considering the readership of this site will be predominantly male anyways..
(And for the love of pascal would you please stop bandying about the "sexism" label? It is literally nothing more than a personal attack that adds nothing to any conversation)
The man is expressing his opinion and if you're bothered by that, perhaps you should consider turning off your computer and not participating in internet discussions. There are plenty of places in this world where people won't offend your delicate sensibilities.
He expressed his opinion that women are inscrutable and more susceptible to irrational impulses, but failed to provide any rational evidence of the same. This is sexist. The fact that it's "his opinion" and "his right to express it" buys him nothing in my book.
> consider turning off your computer
I'm fine where I am, thanks.
I can honestly say that you are being over-sensitive here. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. You should remove the stick.
The marketing campaigns by jewelers have first and foremost been successful at setting an expectation of big spending. The stone type itself might be somewhat negotiable.
I consider this an amazing social signal: She is verifying that you have a proper amount of resources to burn, but does not want her girlfriends to easily calibrate how many you have. Therefore, she leaves them a little bit in the dark about what a great catch you are (because most women can't calibrate ruby pricing by just looking.)
My compliments to you sir. Simultaneously, my condolences to your bank balance.
Which tells me the woman is stupid, and not a keeper.
A balance statement would be a much better way.
Really, I don't think diamonds would be much of a problem at all if it were possible to sell them for anywhere close to what they cost.
That's also shiny and should keep its value much better (since gold requires nuclear reaction to make).
Depending on how expensive the jewelry would be, it might be cheaper to buy your own lumps of gold and have someone craft them into jewelry.
I'll occasionally take shots at my sister for this (because, well, she's my sister and she loves taking shots at me too so it's fair). But my God I don't dare challenge the issue of spending extravagantly on rings/weddings with another woman (I once did, it didn't go very nicely for me).
But... overtime here's how I've come to rationalize it: symbolism is a strong emotional asset. If it helps make the girl happy, then it's worth it -- because mental happiness is worth it; because mental health is a component of your overall state. And hey, afterall, I did spend $700 on my chair, $300 on my kinesis keyboard, $800 on my LCD monitor, etc. etc.
Emotion is all in your head after all. :-)
The difference is that these are all things that increase comfort and health, not only happiness. As somebody who sits at a computer all day, this has a huge impact on your back, wrists, eyes, etc.
We've all seen plenty of insane, $50k weddings result in 3-year marriages.
There's no doubt that the wedding industry is a racket (oh, did you want your dinner guests to have forks? That'll be $3 each. Water glasses too? ...) but also there's something to be said for not cheaping out on what's ostensibly one of the most important days of your life. FWIW, we managed to pay less than many people, while getting much better food and drinks than the average wedding and a more memorable, personalized experience by foregoing traditional wedding venues and caterers and instead simply buying out one of our favorite restaurants for the evening.
The key though is having a good quality stone from a reputable cutter with full certification. Diamonds are not fungible like say gold. A low-quality diamond purchased in an expensive mass-market ring isn't going to be worth anything on resale.
My wedding was stockily expensive by my standards (low to mid five figures), but with gifts we essentially broke even and the party was priceless. I would do it again.
what real use does a piece of rock (which is what a diamond is) have? How can it possibly give mental happiness? I'm not sure I understand
It is also a well-entrenched example of costly signaling [1] in humans [2]
(For the lazy, costly signaling basically says, a costly empty gesture is a strong indicator of mate quality, because only a high-quality mate can afford to waste lots of resources on an empty gesture)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signal...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Human_honest_...
Good, at least you understand it is only an illusion ;)
When was the last time your murdered someone with your bare hands at the supermarket?
toh-may-toh/toh-mah-toh
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring
> Before the 20th century, other types of betrothal gifts were common. Near the end of the 19th century, it was typical for the bride-to-be to receive a sewing thimble rather than an engagement ring.[1] This practice was particularly common among religious groups that shunned jewelry (plain people). Engagement rings did not become standard in the West until the end of the 19th century, and diamond rings did not become common until in the 1930s in the United States, as a result of an extensive nationwide marketing campaign by the diamond industry. The phenomenon arose even later in other countries.[1] Now, 80% of American women are offered a diamond ring to signify engagement.[1]
> The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[9]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Controversies
Having an understanding with my partner that we're willing to indulge each others irrational, socialized preferences does have its upsides.
Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are. They've been sold the princess wedding, the diamond ring, the brand-name clothing, etc. It's difficult to break them of this so sometimes the fight isn't worth it.
I didn't pay for my wedding so that was my in-laws problem although it wasn't grandiose (but it could've been) and I was fairly poor when we got engaged so the two-month salary guideline was a joke.
As for diamonds, my wife loves jewelery but has grown up and realized that everyone off the street can't tell the difference between CZ and a diamond. Case in point, I bought her a very nice ring from Nordstrom that looks like it's probably an $8k+ diamond ring and that everyone else thinks is a 'rock'. But it's just a big piece of CZ, surrounded by smaller pieces of CZ. Not one person has ever questioned whether it's a diamond or at least doesn't have the balls to. If asked my wife would be honest but she's never been asked (at least around me).
To make a claim like this, I'd normally expect data, not a bunch of anecdotes. Men I know are highly swayed by marketing as well. They want expensive cars, tools, games, alcohol, and other toys. It is hard to reason about the degree to which each is influenced solely from the products that are marketed to them.
It is quite a stretch for me to believe that women are fundamentally more susceptible to marketing of frivolous luxuries than men. My guess is that you just don't think the things you want a frivolous.
It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than a purse that costs the same amount of money.
And now to the marketing for women. Victoria's Secret: you want to look as good as this. Coach: you want a purse that looks like you can afford it. Disney: every girl is a princess. DeBeers: it shows you he loves you. I can go on, but there's no practicality in any of it. It's even worse when the target of the ads are women but the stuff they are selling are for men, since women do a lot of purchasing in relationships. You see this a lot in 'high-end' stuff like watches and sunglasses.
It's not sexism if it's honest - just accept that men and women are wired differently otherwise you do a disservice to women.
I'm amused at your implied claim that men aren't advertised to in fashion, since I can barely turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for Men's Wearhouse. Disney absolutely sells the prince metaphor to little boys too, and the fact that they grow into men who wants princesses is a big part of why that whole thing has stuck around so long. And if you think diamond advertisements aren't at least partially to men who don't know their wives and are at a loss for what will please them besides jewelry, then you simply aren't paying attention to the imagery in these ads or the types of shows they get placed on (e.g. the god damn Superbowl).
The Men's Warehouse commercials are as I described before, they talk about looking good for a function - work but life also. This is the pragmatic men's marketing. It's not the 'expensive so it must be good' branding that is on a lot of female products.
When was the last Disney 'prince' movie? Aladdin? Lion King? Meanwhile, Disney has now deemed Mulan and Tinker Bell as a princesses, there is now an African-American princess (Princess and the Frog), they added another pretty, white princess (Rapunzel from Tangled), a Scottish princess (Brave) and Disney is adding a hispanic princess[1] (although light on the hispanic). Girls have been sold the knight in shining armor. Boy could care less about princesses they just want be an action hero.
Diamond advertisements that talk about 'investment' are for men, but there aren't many of those. It's all about 'forever', 'love', etc, which are emotional pleas to women.
And the Superbowl has A TON of women watching[2]. It's sexist to think otherwise. The NFL is openly courting women as a way to increase viewership[3].
[1] http://www.examiner.com/article/disney-s-princess-sofia-the-...
[2] http://jamiedunham.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/marketing-to-wom...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sports/football/nfl-hones-...
Are you serious? Is this a joke?
A purse actually serves a useful function. It doesn't serve $2000 of function, but it's useful in that it lets you carry around important items.
A TV serves no useful purpose whatsoever. None. Zero. There is nothing useful in your life that the TV lets you do.
I think your bias might be showing here just a little bit.
I won't bother arguing the value of a TV. I think there are many that can argue the value of a designer purse.
As far as the _quality_ of the TV being purchased, it seems the point that GP was making (whether I agree with his larger point or not) is that the 60" TV fills its function a lot better than the 19" one which costs a tenth of the price. By contrast, as far as I know there is no correlation to "how well a purse carries items" and its price (beyond the very very low end, of course, but far from the $2000 level). GP's point was that the price difference between a 200 and 2000 dollar purse is being spent almost entirely on brand (even the appearance is the same, when you consider off-brand purses), and the difference between a 200 and 2000 dollar TV is being spent on a VERY large difference in quality as far as functionality. This distinction between "paying for brand" and "paying for functionality" is exactly the point that GP is making about marketing.
As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if Sony started selling its current flagship $2000 TV for 20 dollars, and it was widely known and permanent. Now consider what would happen if the same happened for Louis Vuitton's flagship $2000 handbag. The perceived value of the handbag would vanish almost instantly. No one wants a status symbol that's cheap. You can't destroy _real_ consumer value (vs brand/marketing value) that easily just by dropping the price.
[1]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/05/nielsen-gaming-tv-console/
Keywords being "marketed to." Marketing is a perverse beast and should not really be taken as proof of anything. I mean, the DeBeers story which eventually lead to the article here is specifically about how you can create, from whole cloth, a societal tradition simply with quality marketing.
I think you assume masculine things are functional while feminine things are not but that's not entirely true. You're completely overlooking, say, cleaning product and vacuum cleaner ads directed straight at women, and that masculine marketing is just as vapid in as many ways (e.g. Monster Cables, energy drinks). While diamonds don't really "do things" in the way that a car or a TV does, there are incredibly rational social reasons for buying the former and incredibly irrational, marketing-driven reasons for purchasing the latter.
I also think it's incredibly silly to assume we can learn anything about how men and women are wired by looking at marketing. A century or so ago pink was a color for boys and blue was for girls, and at that time you could have made some assumptions about what each sex innately prefers and you would have been just as wrong.
Purely for the sake of argument let's accept your premise for the moment that men are more concerned with pragmatism than women. It does NOT logically follow that men are less influenced by marketing than women.
You are pretty easily refuted by basically every beer commercial ever. Likewise the trucks you point to - show me a truck advertisement where an engineer comes out and explains exhaustively why this truck is better designed. That basically never happens, instead you get shots of the truck driving over mountains while "fk yea" rock music plays in the background and the truck is shown hauling giant weights around.
There certainly are differences in the way men and women think about things (in a general overall sense)...and I have no doubt that the WAYS in which things are marketed differ between men and women (in a general overall sense)...that doesn't mean women are somehow "more susceptible" though. The fact that advertising to men is just as common as advertising to women suggests they are about equally effective. If you want to suggest otherwise you need to provide actual evidence.
There have been studies on chimpanzees showing that female chimps choose girly toys (dolls etc), and male chimps choose male toys (weapons, trucks etc) without any outside influence. Yet people act like the human species is different. They believe people only become who they are because of indoctrination into their respective gender roles.
Then when you call BS on that... you're called a sexist. Then when you say "YES I AM A SEXIST" you're called a misogynist. I don't see how treating women differently (better in many cases) leads to "hating women."
As for marketing - I think women do choose products differently than men. It's because they're wired differently. They are more likely to choose products based on sentimental or perceived social value. If you look at the majority of Meyers-Briggs personality types among women, there aren't as many INTP,INTJ or other engineering types. Even if you don't agree with Meyers-Briggs... that there exists such a strong difference between the male and female population that an INTP (my type) is 4 times as likely to be a male, it should prove there are major differences.
The end result of these differences is that you should buy the woman you want to marry a diamond. As an INTP I know it's illogical - but I can accept it since I believe women and men are wired differently. I feel sorry for the men on HN who believe otherwise and are going to argue against diamonds with their future wife. (good luck with that - unless she's an INTP)
If I had bought my wife a diamond ring it would have showed her I really didn't know her.
Pull out whatever study you want that says men are wired X and women are wired Y - that study is based on samples and statistics. You'll find plenty of girls that like trucks and boys that like dolls. Treat the people around you like individuals who can have both male and female traits and their own unique personality.
And nobody is disagreeing with you. It is sexist to say "women are more influenced by marketing" when they are not. If men and women are influenced the same, then making a statement about the difference between them is being sexist.
So, if someone can actually provide some data that shows whether or not women are more influenced than men, instead of everyone continuing to provide anecdotes (as you have), then we can either stop saying false things, or we can accept that different genders work differently.
The thing is... if you value how you are perceived by others, then fashion is an extremely important investment. It does serve a purpose to women (and some socially-conscious men).
There is some interesting data that shows women are buying more... just Google "percentage of purchasing decisions made by women." It's over 70% - so it wouldn't be surprising if most marketing is targeted towards women.
This leads to the assumption that innate behavioral differences between genders is directly responsible for the discrepancy seen in cultural representations of gender in marketing, media, or even language.
this assumption is not only intuitively wrong, but it is directly contradicted by decades of sociological research.
Almost all of our perceived gender differences are constructed through our use of language and perpetuation of harmful, inaccurate stereotypes[0]. This means that a gender concept such as heterogeneous masculinity is self fulfilling. It simultaneously provides a standard of behavior (men should build stuff, men should be powerful, men should make lots of money, men should 'have' a woman) and is constructed by men's behavior (I made stuff, I am powerful, I make lots of money, I 'have' a woman, therefore I 'am a man').[1]
In regards to it being intuitively wrong:
You mentioned that many items that are marketed to men have a 'pragmatic' function. I'd argue that they're not always pragmatic (you mentioned sports cars), and instead, the overarching theme of most products marketed towards men(and, often by extension, most advertisements) is power.
An immediate example that comes to my mind is toy advertisements that are targeted at children. Most toys that are marketed towards boys feature an element of construction, violence, or critical thinking, while most ads targeted towards girls feature homemaking or visual arts. I don't feel the need to provide a footnote here as the google search 'gender differences in childrens' advertisements' provides a wealth of information.
These differences in advertisements are not because children who have a feminine gender identity are bad at or naturally averse to thinking critically. The disconnect between advertisements targeted at children is a clear example of marketing agencies accomplishing gender on a large scale. This is a particularly potent example because not only does it show that there _are_ differences in the way that gender is constructed, it shows that there is actually a power differential created between the two genders!
This is not to say that the marketing agencies are evil in any way - they are simply playing into a market separation that already exists because of our current construction of gender roles. However, by 'doing gender' and continuing to perpetuate our harmful stereotypes, they are in fact doing society a great disservice.
[0] West & Zimmerman, 1987, 'Doing gender'
[1] Mumby, 1998, 'Organizing Men: Power, Discourse, and the Social Construction of Masculinity(s) in the Workplace'
Either you provide a scientific cite for that claim or that is a straight up sexist statement. In case you haven't heard there's a lot of stupid irrational purchasing behavior by guys too.
There are a ton of crazy figures to digest on that page, again none addresses which sex is "swayed" more by a given advertisement. For example, "Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care"; "Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth"; and "Wealthy boomer women...make 95 percent of the purchase decisions for their households".
Assuming it is true, women making 85% of consumer purchases is kind of mind blowing. This does not necessarily mean women are swayed more by marketing, but I think it is safe to say women as a whole are targeted by marketing campaigns more than men - at least after reading these numbers that is how I would market a consumer product.
>Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care: 91% of New Homes 66% PCs 92% Vacations 80% Healthcare 65% New Cars 89% Bank Accounts 93% Food 93 % OTC Pharmaceuticals American women spend about $5 trillion annually… Over half the U.S. GDP
The list must be referencing "items purchased" rather than "dollar-wise". It is by no means definitive of the answer who makes more expensive purchases, but if women are buying 9 out of every 10 new houses, 65% of new cars, and 80% of healthcare plans what big ticket items are left for men to buy to outspend women?
Now the part at the end about $5 trillion being 1/2 the US GDP, might not be an error but be more telling of when these statistics are from (US GDP currently closer to $15T). Nevertheless like in my OP, the numbers are mind blowing, consider the following:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
Or
1/2 GDP = women spending = (private consumption - women spending) + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
If you reread the page you posted, you can see the hints of that. People talking about how older women make up a demo that "no advertiser can afford to ignore" -- that's not something an advertiser would say unprompted about 18-35 year old males, for example, because the idea of advertisers ignoring 18-35 year old males would be absurd.
Citation needed. Plenty of men are swayed by marketing -- for instance, you'll note that the marketing ploy in TFA is directed at men.
It's also worth noting that the commentary here is lopsided. There are comments from men saying they don't care about diamonds but their fiancee did, but you don't see a whole lot of the inverse (women saying "I don't care about diamonds") . One could easily assume that's because "women...are swayed more by marketing then men are". In reality, it's more likely due to HN's readership being predominantly male.
Now, the misstep in marrying a geologist is that she owns many other rocks worth much more.
For an actual rock (which are classified differently than gemstones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourmaline
and her reasoning, "Actually gains value, good ones are not common (like diamonds are), awesome variety of colors"
Also said she likes aquamarine for actual gemstones (it's beryl, same thing as emeralds), but it's not as hard as diamond and wouldn't stand up to the daily abuse as well.
She also said she'd enjoy an uncut diamond mounted in a ring, but that's probably purely the geologist in her speaking.
She's also a fan of monzinite and clear topaz.
My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman:
1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing.
An important thing to remember is that women take on a huge opportunity cost in getting married and having kids. My wife and I just had our first baby. Pregnancy and childbirth is a barbaric process and a woman will never be quite the same after. Taking care of an infant is tiring, stressful, boring, and thankless--and no matter how enlightened the husband is and how willing he is to help out, because of the baby's hard-wired inclinations the buck will always stop with the wife. Finally, if the woman is educated and has a career, that career will be permanently compromised by virtue of getting married and having kids. With all this in the background, it is evident that the social convention of the ring conveys valuable information to a woman considering getting married and bearing these costs. Re: 1, all else being equal a man that can provide more is more valuable than a man that can provide less. Re: 2, all else being equal a man that is willing to forgo things for himself is better than a man who is not; Re: 3, all else being equal a woman's social life will be positively affected in a tangible way by marring a man of higher social standing than of a lower one. It is totally rational for a woman to ask: "I'm willing to give up all this, what are you willing to do?" The ring is just a way to demonstrate this commitment in a way that is universally understood and spares everyone the awkward conversation of laying all the chips on the table.
Now, these elements are less important in 2013 than they were in say 1813. But at the same time to an extent they are not diminished in importance, but rather culture has shifted to downplay the uncomfortable truths at the root of these elements. For example, we like to downplay how much women really give up by being the child-bearers. But for an educated woman, if having kids cuts the probability of attaining a high position on her career by half,[1] the choice to have kids could mean millions of dollars in lost income over a lifetime. It's totally rational for a woman thinking of making such a compromise to demand from her potential husband a gesture showing that he is willing and able to take the other half of the bargain. But all this is something that we don't say in polite company, because we have fully bought into the mythologies about marriage that are in vogue at the moment: that it's just about "love" and all that matters is a mate that makes you "happy" and that it's an arrangement that is costless to enter into and exit out of.
There is, of course, nothing inherent about diamonds that makes them the only option for this kind of signaling. Indeed, in other cultures a cash gift is the norm instead. But the value of a signal is in its standardization, so to speak, and it just so happens that the diamond is the standard signal in western culture.
[1] Less than 20% of women never have kids, but about half of very high achieving women (executives, etc) never have kids.
2) See: 1)
3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers that she is shallow enough to respect social standing over more admirable (and important) qualities, unless they're just as shallow.
I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them. Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no (although I don't have any illusions about how much of it is up to me!)
After all, it's just a matter of her social standing, not the importance of the relationship and a marriage between two human people. I hesitate to use the word soul, but maybe here it applies.
Diamonds are _so dehumanizing_ and this thread would have me thoroughly depressed if so many people weren't arguing against DeBeers.
That seems like a really shallow and material evaluator of the character of a human being.
> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them
Well thank God that Jackie Robinson, Marie Curie, or Barack Obama didn't believe this. Sometimes being different from the rest of the crowd and following your passions is more worthwhile rather than striving to "fit in" by purchasing status-enhancers.
You've completely missed his point. It's about knowing when it's not worth the effort to buck society's dictates.
>Well thank God that Jackie Robinson, Marie Curie, or Barack Obama didn't believe this.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rollingout.com/wp...
Most of us nerds are fighting the idea of diamonds signifying social standing. The practice, and culture of giving expensive rings is objectively wacky. You're right that in your social circle taking an odd position will cost you your reputation, but consider that in the past many morally reprehensible practices were the norm and being an odd one out would cost you your reputation. If you operate on a framework so rigidly tied to social standing you might make pretty wacky decisions down the line. Ultimately, decisions made on this framework may not always be the wisest decisions.
On the one hand, I admire you saying that outright.
On the other hand, isn't it somewhat true that the vast majority of backwardness and oppression in the world stems from that same doctrine?
The desire for a short timescale pragmatic conformism seems to be a partial cause of much of the world's problems throughout history.
A sensible man only cares what other people think about him when it is to his benefit to do so. A foolish man cares what other people think about him all of the time.
> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them.
In my experience, people who believe in marking the checkboxes of life have an awfully hard time discerning the difference between falling off the beaten path, and taking a shortcut.
> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no
It seems exceptionally foolish for you to rely on abstractions and proxy signaling (eg, buying a diamond) to discern the attributes of the person your daughter would be considering marrying. One would hope that the evidence for those attributes ought to be entirely apparent to her before that point.
My wife and I have been married 4 years now and gone primarily without rings. No negative consequences so far, and I'm definitely glad I didn't dedicate 20%+ of my income to a valueless trinket. We have objects that signify our relationship, but they're cheap or free, and imbued primarily with sentimental value only. This is, in my estimation, much better than propping up the diamond myth and cartel.
*Just to clarify, to avoid making this seem like a strawman: I'm creating a deliberately extreme example that to me seems like the logical extension of optimizing for "success" (or minimizing headwinds) at the expense of character (personified in your example by someone who's principled as opposed to a follow-the-herd type person). The purpose of this is to highlight the fact that this is someone you're accepting into your family, and the importance of that becomes particularly clear when you consider that the man he is will in large part shape the men and women you're grandchildren are.
Parent commenter is interested in someone who thinks the way he does. There is nothing wrong with that and there are probably more parents from my experience who wants someone who hold their views then are willing to accept someone with different views.
I hope you get your wish! Children often find a way to push our buttons, however.
Tell me this statement is satire: "Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no"
Agree with you (and my daughter is much much older).
I would be totally wary of a man that decided in lieu of buying a ring for my daughter to make a donation to a charity. The ring is a gift for the woman. In the event of a divorce the woman typically gets to keep the ring it's an asset and does have value despite all the drivel of the OP and everyone else here is saying. Owning 100% of something that is only worth 50% of what someone else paid for it is still more than 0 (what you get with a charity donation at least monetarily).
Someone who actually cares what someone thinks of him based on whether he bought an overpriced hunk of carbon is what sensible call a "deuschebag."
This is a really disgusting line of thinking
That's a pretty loaded way of putting it. It comes across as saying that the only two options are being an incredibly successful trendsetter or making things difficult for themselves and dependents. Yes, you could argue that technically it's not saying these are the only options, but it sure strongly suggests they are.
I think that dichotomy is ridiculous - as if the two ends of the spectrum are the only two possible outcomes. If you put it that way of course it seems like a bad thing to buck social conventions.
> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform?
I don't think your comment gives an argument for why those principles are supposedly foolish.
.
You are of course free to say and do as you please. Such freedom of views also applies to others, and IMO the attitude expressed in your comment is a small-minded one.
Blind conformity is one of the most dangerous behaviors a society could exhibit.
Caring about what other people think of you leads to things like joining the KKK, stockpiling guns and killing six million Jews. It's religious think.
See, me, for my daughter, I'd be proud if she married someone who suggested they take the $30,000 he would have spent on a dumb diamond ring and try their hand at starting a business. Even from failure they would grow and learn.
There is no learning from in buying a diamond ring. It does not prepare you for life in any imaginable way. It does not prepare you for economic difficulties, medical problems or to develop a good sense on financial matters. It's just plain dumb.
So what's the functional value of entertainment then? It makes you feel good. A diamond makes a woman feel good. It's that simple. Doesn't matter why. It's for her. Not up to a man to judge the value anymore then you want a woman deciding the value of why you might spend you money on whatever makes you feel good.
(To be clear, though, I'm a nerdy gay like the parent commenter, and I can't fathom a situation where either my boyfriend or I would ever want the other one to buy a diamond for any reason, so there's probably some component of the dynamics here that I don't fully grasp.)
The ring does have functional value, but for her and not for you. Part of the point is that is doesn't directly benefit you at all.
tl;dr if a woman will only love you / stay with you when you buy them expensive things they don't actually love you.
When you buy things for other people, it is generally a positive for your relationship with them. In general, they are happier and think better of you. Getting upset about it and saying they don't 'really love you' is not true and not super helpful.
Human nature is very hard to change, no matter how intelligent / introspective we become. Do you never buy your significant other dinner, a night out, or gifts of any kind?
If someone isn't willing to compromise in the face of reason (e.g. "we can't afford an expensive wedding or a ring", or "I'm concerned about supporting conflict in Africa and supporting the diamond cartel") then I'd say the relationship is probably not strong enough to last.
And you're moving the argument here - previously we were talking about buying an expensive ring, not supporting armed conflict or purchasing something you can't afford.
And if the _symbol_ of your supposedly permanent commitment is a diamond, that says something very cynical about that marriage.
I'm sure there are good marriages with diamond rings involved. I'm pretty sure those marriages aren't successful because of that, but rather in spite of it.
1) Your wife can measure how much you can provide just as well by having you actually provide valuable things. Like a house.
2) Your wife can measure your unselfishness by having you buy something that is actually valuable to her but useless to you. Like daycations with her friends. There's no sense in buying something which is valuable to neither party.
3) The need to demonstrate your social standing to other people is the result of low self-esteem. Maybe your wife needs therapy, not a diamond.
This doesn't make it right, but there are numerous human psychology reasons why this tradition endures and so many people take part in it. Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly.
What do you consider mental illness to be? And what is therapy in your view?
The term 'mentally ill' in my view has been stigmatized quite a bit, and being 'unwell' mentally does not mean you are crazy, but that you have issues you feel you need to deal with. Isn't that the point of seeing a therapist?
An interesting blog on this topic here:
http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/blogs/all-m...
Just about anything people may have talked to priests about in the past they can now talk to therapists about.
Now, if you want to define mental illness such that it covers all of these things, and all the other reasons to see a therapist, that is fine. Words are just what you make of them; you can, of course, define them as you see fit.
However, if you redefine mental illness in such a way then I can see really no justification for using the negative connotations that mental illness normally holds to facilitate mock outrage ("Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly.") Instead of criticizing erikpukinskis for "writing off those people as mentally ill", perhaps you should instead explain why you do not agree with his suggestion that low self-esteem could be a factor.
Enjoy your stay. Good luck and have fun!
No, wasting money on a valueless shiny rock is silly. But let's just keep advocating people 'keep up the tradition' instead.
Why? It is, to this day, even in the U.S., the dominant arrangement between men and women, especially in the context of relationships that result in children.
> The need to demonstrate your social standing to other people is the result of low self-esteem.
That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing. It minimizes the cultural friction between yourself and the people who can help you get ahead, who are overwhelmingly people of high social standing themselves.
Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender. Monolithic roles like "provider" (and the concomitant role of "consumer/sex object") of are inherently coercive. Because they're monolithic and tied to gender. I think that kind of coercion is perverse.
> That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing
I don't think those signals are meaningfully connected to anything real, they're just signals of standing. They are power begetting power, and I think willfully engaging that system is perverse.
Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
Adoption.
> How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
There are some limits to what can be shared. I advocate going right up to that line. A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life. There is a qualitative difference between the handful of hard limits imposed by biology, and the many limits imposed by compulsory monolithic gender roles.
The IQ of children is highly correlated with the IQ of parents. Adoption is not, for educated couples, an alternative to having their own children.
> A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life.
You can make things as equal as possible, but no more. My wife and I have almost identical educational backgrounds. We accepted very similar jobs out of school (she will technically be making more money than me considering benefits). We had our baby her last year of school so she wouldn't have to take maternity leave, with the negative stigma associated with that. I'm taking a couple of years off from working at a large law firm so I can work a 9-5 with a judge and take more baby responsibilities and allow her to focus on her career. We're trying extremely hard to make things as equitable as possible between the two of us.
But at the end of the day if my wife had suffered a complication in child birth (it is still the most dangerous thing most people do), it would have fallen to me to provide for her and the child. I was not the one who had to take that bodily risk, therefore I assumed by default the "provider" role, or at least had to be fully prepared to assume that role. Therefore, it was totally rational for her to have been concerned, pre-marriage, about my ability to do so.
Hahahaha look at this guy. Okay I think he tricked us and is just a troll.
That's some useful education.
This is the most depressing thing I read in this whole thread. The idea that one should view raising "highly successful" children as some kind of outcome they can control or influence through "high IQ tigerness" and cold economic analysis is humorous and sad all at once. Coupled with encouragement to not buck a pointless social tradition because it may make (shallow, deplorable) people judge you as less worthy and thus may negatively impact your future prospects of becoming more like them seems like a rather sad way to live life, but I guess we all have our own goals. The fact that after thousands of years our species is still mesmerized by shiny rocks we dug out of the ground is also odd to me, but apparently not others.
Like BBC radio 4 has a leftie, public-services-union-member audience and a rightwing traditionalist audience who are largely unaware of each other, HN has an ivy league educated randian-hero readership and a more old-school, "just give me an ounce of weed and a hex editor and I'm happy forever" readership, and both is convinced the other is intruding on their community.
There is plenty of research to suggest that socio-economic (SES) status is the driving factor behind IQ, not genetics. An adopted child's IQ will tend to be higher if adopting parents have high SES
Translation: I have shitty friends and assume everyone else does too.
How ever did women vet men to their social circle before DeBeers came along and saved the day 80 years ago??!
"We" spend on average three months worth of salary. Around £5k I guess. Certainly not enough for a house, but a good amount of money to put towards your first family home when you get married. Houses need furniture and all that fancy stuff. :)
I'm British and I've never heard this three month thing outside of the US. Surely this isn't a UK cultural thing too?
Never been married either, mind, or in a position to propose, so it hasn't exactly come up.
The silly/sad/stupid thing is when you put it in context of a ring+marriage ceremony. The same way many college students are starting out life with debt, they often go and add 25-30K of extra debt between an expensive, value-less ring and a wedding ceremony.
A mortgage is usually on three times annual salary, so 312x = 36x. A ring is 'worth' 3x, so not far off a tenth.
1. Adherence to social convention for its own sake
2. Submission to a multinational construed as something positive
3. Imbalanced monogamous relationships based on opportunity cost and trading status for reproductive capacity
4. Spending money and life on creating more humans
Probably a few more but I don't really want to dig through it any more.
But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a male I can say that I would be happy to be a stay-at-home-dad after the infant is of a certain age -- and I have met many women who're okay with this idea (of the man staying at home while the woman makes money).
As a practical matter, the latter follows the former, almost inexorably. Between the negative stigma of being pregnant at work to the negative stigma of taking maternity leave, to the negative stigma of having to be there for your young child when it is still in the "I need my mommy" stage (which lasts into the first couple of years), by the time the father can assume a fully co-equal role in parenting the woman has already substantially compromised her career and it becomes rational, in a perverse way, for her to be the one to undertake further compromises.
However I wonder if many of the stigmas you mention are ingrained into society only by the persisting culture, and so one should not fear challenging them? There are many single-dads that do a wonderful job of raising kids alone as a single parent (admittedly I don't know any who started taking care of the kids below the age of 2 -- and I do accept that even 2 years is a hell of a long time).
I'd recommend dropping a small note to info@ycombinator.com telling them to do something about this.
edit: I just did, let's see what they do about it. (and it was this post that is showing up as dead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947)
Forunately none of these things prescribe (or justify) human behavior.
It's not an "alternate" world when many of us are already living here and welcoming others.
No, an end to population growth isn't good for economic growth, luckily that's not what life's about.
That's ok though, desires/hobbies/cultural practices/etc are generally not based in reason.
/* For example, it's very doubtful that today you would gain any real insight into a persons ability to "provide" from them giving you a diamond...in fact it's more likely to deceive you (they could purchase on credit, buy a stolen/fake one, etc). You'd learn much more about that from simply dating/courting them - knowing about their spending/saving habits, profession, etc.
Seriously?
I guess this just shows one aspect of how screwed up our modern society is.
Yeah, it's "magical" and whatnot, but my wife would rather be water-boarded than be pregnant again.
It is a life changing experience for both wife and husband. It's part of life. Life isn't a video game. It's not a synthetic experience. Some people may prefer to be a brain in a jar hooked to some wires but then where would they put the diamond ring? :-)
But, yes, giving birth can involve complications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
What you so casually disregard as "mythologies of marriage" is the result of striving for equality. A hundred years ago, marriage was indeed just another economic transaction. The suitor paid the father of the girl, who was happy to have her off his hands, being of no use in succeeding him to lead the family business.
We have not yet reached equality, so alimony is still law and being pregnant a career ender. Hence we still need the economic signaling provided by diamonds.
Edit: And that reads like I'm competing with you. I'm not, because that just as bad. Remembering the loud comments and idiocy of strangers makes me a touch wild.
I can do that by buying houses. Diamonds are only a good indicator of frivolity with cash.
"2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way;"
It demonstrates a lack of sense on the part of both parties.
"3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing."
Not if you start to look at it as a huge waste of cash it doesn't.
--edit-- to expand on that last point; if diamonds started to be viewed as a pointless and vulgar excess, like shiny rims or a full set of gold teeth, then it could demonstrate a lack of social standing. They only currently demonstrate a positive social message because of convention. Why not change convention?
I wanted to bring up rims and teeth to head off the obvious criticism that something expensive (the diamond) is worn to demonstrate exactly that you don't have to think about money - many other things purchased for this reason are sneered at by most people.
Giving up sex with other women.
The lack of social traditions and traditional obligations seems daunting at first but it's kind of fun to be unencumbered (especially when I read reynir's replies and go white-faced from the ridiculous sexist pressure put on men and women to be macho and feminine still today).
My wife has more gold and diamonds than money my family ever owned otherwise. All that stuff doesn't suite her, is locked up in locker rooms of some bank 364 days a year. (And yeah I pay for that fucking locker as well).
Any discussion of selling it would lead to a WWII like situation in the home. The cost of Gold might be skyrocketing but when you actually try to sell gold ornaments or diamonds it is a different game altogether because when I walk to sell the gold not one wants to buy it unless they know me or I pester them. So this is what happens when I met a jeweler to sell a gold chain my mother had made for me when I was 2 years old. Gold typically 15 times most costlier than that time. so I was expecting at least 1000% ROI.
1. I need to first determine if this is real Gold and how pure it is. For that you will have to pay me X. 2. This chain is old and I cant sell it the way it is, it needs to be melted and converted into something else so I will lose Y value in the process. 3. Making a new ornament out of this will lead to more loss of metal during melting and hence I will lose Z.
Then later he tells me that the gold is not "as pure" as I thought it to be. So eventually I make only 200% profit over period of around 12 years. (not to mention the feeling of getting cheated).
Scenario of diamond seems to be lot more similar to that of Gold.
Only if women had little brains.
That day I realized the power of the diamond marketing engine.
Regardless, even if I had, manufacturers of gem grade diamonds wouldn't need to undercut the price of natural diamonds by much. The cartel has done all the hard work raising the price for them already. Market them at 90% of natural diamonds and reap the rewards.
If we want to help fix this diamond bullshit, we've got to reframe the discussion. It's not about natural vs synthetic, it's about cultured diamonds vs blood diamonds.
Also, how is this any different from fashion? Both are nearly useless raw materials that have been transformed and shaped into something people will pay money to own and wear (signaling). For diamonds, you get conflict in Africa. For fashion, you get sweatshops in Asia.
If she doesn't have enough money, then she should work until she does. Or she should provide something of equivalent value, at which point this becomes a business negotiation.
She needed to get the ring resized later and it was very easy. Returned via FedEx and had it back a week later.
DeBeer's wins. Either you get over it, or you end up heartbroken or with a very grumpy fiance.
No! I really don't! I kind of imagine that as a middle-class British guy I'm not too far from modal HN culture, but this sounds totally bizarre and alien to me.
There are plenty of diamond exchanges online. You buy the diamond and the setting separately, and then bring them to any jeweler to set it.
Also, you can buy moissanite instead - it's cheaper and hard to tell apart. Much better quality than cubic zirconia.
Because of a stupid patent you can't buy pre-made moissanite jewelery, instead you buy the stone and the setting separately.
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/02/04/walmart-surv...
(Disclaimer: I work on the tool they used to conduct the survey, which is why I know about it.)
That's the kind of thing I think is a good idea.
All of these are rarer than diamonds and most cost less.