Perhaps if she's going to wear a ring for the rest of her life, she wants it to be a nice ring that is color neutral. Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.
Cubic zirconia or other gems might be cosmetically identical to a diamond. Wanting a $30K ring for its "color neutral" characteristics smacks of astroturfing.
And to be clear, it's not exactly as if women are the only ones who have this vice. Women are just the ones likely to receive engagement rings.
It's because social status by definition is a zero-sum game. For status symbols, the absolute value is irrelevant; but what matters is the value relative to your peers.
So CZ then? That saves money for the point below.
> Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.
You mean like having kids?
i.e. she cares more about symbols than about the real thing.
My only point is that not ALL women are about making other women feel inadequate. Or showing off their diamonds. Many are actually just as disgusted as men are about it. And they prefer men who have that conscious, and will put some thought into an alternative.
However... Your last suggestion, I grant you, has merit.
How is that any different?
Or, maybe they actually care ..
My wife and I eschewed engagement rings or expensive wedding rings (her's was a little pricey, but from an artisan jeweler, but not a lot of bling), instead we opted for spending the money on property (not our main residence). At the least, despite ups and downs here in the states, it has held it's value.
Charities or other personal investments really are a better option than the bling. That said, some people like the material status comparison.
How do you put charities on the same level as personal investments?
If you make an investment you have something that theoretically might increase in value (as your example "spending money on property"). If you give it to charity you feel good but that's not something that's not something you can retire on or insure the financial well being of your family (or pay for your children's college).
Yes, one is giving to others, one is giving to the couple. My point was, don't throw the money away on baubles.
This is actually a very interesting idea. It has I guess a few complications--are we comfortable with making generosity a commodity? I'm not at all, actually--but at the very least it would be preferable to diamond rings.
As much as I think it'd be a great alternative to diamonds, my feelings on the matter have quickly been drawn to the same cynicism about diamonds.
It's a problem that we want to flaunt our wealth, _however_ we do it. It's the root problem.
The diamond industry is flawed because it's acting exactly as desired: to fulfill our need for vacuous display.
And flaunting your moral superiority? Well, that's not as bad as flaunting your wealth, but only because it's less practical. People notice and _hate_ when you're morally superior.
Isn't that a sad commentary? That when bragging about morals is more easily attacked than bragging about wealth?
There's something interesting in how when the social drive to appear wealthy approaches appearing moral, it is diluted and weakened. Just mere contact with the idea of morality is enough to lose our respect for the egregious use of wealth.
The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if women.
I realize how chauvinistic this rant sounds, but truly, I would rather give equivalent money to my fiancee's charity of choice than to these diamond shilling scumbags.
Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations, charge $5000 for them, and at least give men an option in the matter.