5 ms·

This is a pretty sexist way to look at it...

• slothtrop 8y ago
  I don't think it's far from the truth however. Consider the contrived societal expectation, devised by De Beers, to spend 1 month's salary on a ring. You can get an elegant diamond ring for far less, but we make a virtue out of spending in excess here and that extends to the wedding. It's not that men aren't complicit in this, but the more socially desirable the bride, and you know what that means, the more pressure there is to spend.
  • diminoten 8y ago
    That's just... completely untrue, and is definitely sexist. By the way, that De Beers campaign was marketed at the men, not the women, so it's men that are falling for that rule just as much, if not more, than women are demanding it. Putting the cost of weddings at the feet of the brides is ridiculous. For reference, I'm getting married in April, and it's been my wonderful bride who has kept costs way down, compared to my wild spending ideas.
    • monocasa 8y ago
      It was marketed towards both. Men to go out and buy the rings, women not to accept rings 'beneath them'. Advertising is absolutely just straight up sexist in a lot of cases, and people (speaking in the broad strokes that you have to when talking about complete populations) eat that up. I definitely know someone who got turned down because the ring he bought her wasn't expensive enough. Personally I think he dodged a bullet, but that's neither here nor there there. Advertisers use sexist advertising because it works. https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4 https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4
• everdrive 8y ago
  I don't know that it's sexist. I'm not claiming that women are inferior to men. I am claiming that as far as I can tell, there is a difference between how men and women view the importance of a costly wedding. It's possible that you think this is a sexist idea. I don't, and I think it's just a value judgement. (ie, a preference)