I’ve never understood why men don’t wear an
engagement ring. Actually, scratch that: I understand why they didn’t wear them in the past, when marriage was but the economic chess move of a lady, any lady from her Father to Some Other Dude. But Things Have Changed ™ so it’s high time the lady-only engagement ring goes the way of the hetero-dodo and men announced their cordoned-off status for all to see immediately upon engagement.
Over at the Atlantic,
Samantha Zabell looks
at the history of the mangagement ring (only five percent of dudes wear them now), and proposes on bended knee that the time could be right for bringing it back. Back, you say? You mean, this isn’t new? Nosirree. In 1926, companies (such as an early
incarnation of Macy’s) actually tried to lure men off the market with an
identifiable piece of bling, but it didn’t take.
The ads, which ran in East Coast newspapers,
featured black and white photos of a man’s left hand, a cigarette resting
between the first two fingers and a large rock flashing on the fourth. The
rings even had ultra-macho names: the Pilot, the Stag, the Master. But these
campaigns were unable to overcome the ingrained femininity of the symbol, and
the movement flopped.
Bummer. But that was then, and now, a series of happenings have aligned
which make the mangagement ring more likely to catch on.
Marriages are More
Equal Than Ever
So we keep hearing. Nearly 80 percent of young women (under 30) support equal
marriage with dual earners, and shared responsibilities (and, it should always
be said, most families require two earners now anyway), notes Zabell. This is
one reason that has sparked jewelers to revisit the mangagement ring of late: If two people can wear the pants, they sure as hell can both wear the ring.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
