Until the 1930s, writes Meghan O'Rourke in Slate.com, a woman jilted by her husband could sue for financial compensation for the damage to her reputation caused by a canceled wedding. These cases were known as "Breach of Promise to Marry" actions. During the 1930s these laws began to be overturned.
As these laws faded away and judges awarded women fewer damages, the diamond ring became a symbol of a man's commitment (financial and otherwise) to marry his fiance. Back then, a woman technically had to be a virgin if she wanted to marry. Many women, however, lost their virginity during their engagement so a financial obligation was important. The "Breach of Promise" actions were a way to prevent what people feared would be a promise-seduce-and-abandon scenario.
Now, however, most women do not consider marriageability (or their virginity) their major asset. Further, most women imagine a marriage where housework, child rearing, and working are equally divided responsibilities. Thus, argues O'Rourke, the ring is really a throw back to antiquated gender roles and an "outmoded commodity." In addition, men do not have to wear a similar sign of commitment before the wedding day. It is telling that in many Scandinavian countries, where gender attitudes are much more egalitarian, that both men and women wear an engagement ring.
Comments