Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(106)
-
▼
April
(22)
- Prep for the AP GoPo exam with CSPAN
- Whoa!
- Senator Specter's life
- Holy cow!
- Recession lingo
- Remember the engagement ring site from before?
- Heard of the swine flu?
- Notes from Sacto
- Laws and amendments flash cards
- Firefighter promotion case from class
- Limits on warrantless car searches
- Flash cards are go!
- As we're starting the first amendment...
- Engagement rings
- Anniversary of an historic concert
- Still no Senator in Minnesota
- Aaaaand...
- Big news today
- Afghanistan
- Just how wealthy are you?
- DC in Congress
- Remember former Senator Ted Stevens?
-
▼
April
(22)
3 comments:
I thought Lee Gainer's artwork was really nice. This was the first time I had ever heard of the idea that men should spend the equivalent of two months' salary on an engagement ring. Lee Gainer uses that idea to compare what men in different jobs usually can afford. His artwork makes a statement as to what men are expected to spend compared to what they earn. An A-list actor can afford the most expensive and rare rings because they mostly earn a lot of money.
In 2006, a reporter asked several people in New York City what they thought of her 3/4 carat diamond solitaire ring. One lady said that the ring said "He tried his best..but that it wasn't good enough." Someone else said that it looked like a friendship ring. I thought these comments were rude. Maybe the people that answered the question didn't know that the ring belonged to the reporter.
I find it ridiculous that people equate a man's worth and his love for his fiance by the size of a shiny rock. I believe that much of these perceptions come from the media. Jewelers first used the guideline of two months salary as a standard for how much someone should spend on an engagement ring. It makes perfect sense why jewelers would do this. They want to make money. People should know not to listen to this idea because of who came up with it in the first place.
First off, two months seems sort of crazy for an engagement ring. Sure, if you're an A-list actor or a CEO, that's probably no problem, but compared to what average men make, that's a big difference. This blog was really interesting. The size and cut of the diamonds varied a lot between the different careers. Compared to the A-list actor, CEO, and anesthesiologist, some of the other rings seemed so much smaller. The different rings for the two months salary of a welder and truck driver were smaller, but that makes sense why it would be smaller than a CEO or A-list actor. Looking at all of the different rings was interesting. It put a different perspective on the large gap between those financially stable, and others who don't earn as much. I thought it was a cool and interesting way to view the difference in just two months salary of those careers.
Lee Gainer’s “Two Month’s Salary Rule” artwork is very interesting and proves a point, but I truly hope no groom-to-be follows it. Unfortunately, based on the “statement,” I can see that many men (or women) think that size and quality of the engagement ring they buy is of the utmost importance. Whoever came up with this idea that exactly two month’s worth of money shows love and loyalty, is crazy and full of it. There is like a wedding industrial complex, and people keep feeding into it!
I did like that artist Gainer exposes this new idea. It reminded me of “Fast Food Nation” or “Supersize Me,“ because it showed that “size matters.” Both showcased the idea that many Americans where eating Big Macs and giant slurpies too often, and even through this is different, it shows (1) a new phenomenon and (2) that size is important.”
It is true that ones job, their position, and how much money they make is very important. As much as I don’t like to admit it, how much one makes can dictate what size ring one will give to the loved one. However, even if I were a farmer, I could save up for a year to get the same ring as the movie star. I mean, it will be harder, but it can be done.
I researched this “Two Month’s Salary Rule,” and it turns out a man named DeBeerss coined the phrase in 1947. In order to increase diamond sales after WWII, he used the phrase to make it seem like having the “it” ring was a necessity and not a luxury. Booo!! I hate this DeBeers dude…but he was smart for coining the phrase and making men believe what he wanted them to.
This artwork really made me see that many times we base our ideals on money rather than on human value. If and when I am proposed to, I would like my ring to be a plus, but our love to be the most important thing. It would be amazing to get a huge ring!!! BUT…I hope people look at their man’s good qualities and not how much he’s got in his wallet.
-Aislinn Diaz
Post a Comment