Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

posted at 2:31 pm on July 19, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Thinking about getting engaged, guys? Best hold off on shopping for some big, gaudy rock to give your special lady. It’s not because the diamond industry is an incredibly rigged racket which keeps prices inflated many orders of magnitude above their actual worth. (Which is true.) And it’s not because you’re supporting bloody oppression of miners. (Probably some truth there as well.) No, it’s because giving a woman a diamond ring is just a reminder that she’s little more than chattel to be traded among powerful men. Seriously… I read it in Salon so it must be true.

The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry…

Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

A broken engagement was like a business deal gone bad: there were economic consequences and the injured party (the woman, who was acknowledged to be more vulnerable) was entitled to compensation.

So are we here today to debate the merits of glittery engagement jewelry? Hardly. It’s a silly question. But it does bring to light the story of how a couple of scamps set up a parody Twitter account called @salondotcom. The account was tweeting all sorts fake headlines which were right in line with the over the top, liberal linkbait which Salon regularly serves up. Of course, you’ll note that I’m referring to the account in the past tense.

At approximately 5:50 P.M. EST, it became known that Twitter had shut down @Salondotcom, a hilarious parody of Salon run by The Daily Caller’s opinion editor, Jordan Bloom, and his roommate, Rob Mariani. @Salondotcom constantly tweeted fake headlines that perfectly aped Salon’s everyone-is-racist-and-Republicans-are-worse-than-Hitler shtick.

That’s a pity, because the material was pretty good. To give you a sense of it, here’s a quick quiz for you. (No peeking!) See if you can guess which of these headlines were from the parody account and which were actually from Salon.

How Melissa McCarthy sold out overweight women

From wet T-shirts to oral sex contests: A brief history of sexploitative party games

I was poor, but a GOP die-hard: I hated government—even as it was the only thing trying to save me. Here’s how, one day, I finally saw the light

Okay, I apologize. That was a trick question. Those were all actual Salon headlines. (Just follow the link if you doubt it.) But the parody account was doing their best to keep up with them.

Nanoaggressions: Science reveals structural oppression too small for human eyes

Should GMOs come with trigger warnings?

Ten signs your cat might be racist

Plenty of folks have been getting in on the action using the hashtag #FreeSalondotcom. Feel free to jump in yourself or just add your own in the comments. Here’s one of my own humble entries.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

101 ? … Bmore ? … Schadenfreude ? … Ratso ?

listens2glenn on July 20, 2014 at 3:14 AM

So Salon and basically all feminists attack this but completely give islam a pass which actually DOES officially and in all actions consider women to be chattel…and not even very valuable chattel at that !!!!

Caseoftheblues on July 20, 2014 at 6:30 AM

A ring says: you are mine and will do as I say!

(ducks and runs away)

trs on July 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM

What happened to the Salon writer that she boils a positive gesture (one my wife surely appreciated) into a negative?
Most of us know that the Dutch were pretty vicious and oppressive “masters” in Africa.
We know that the diamond markets are a monopoly, albeit a great marketing strategy.
Some of us have probably seen the movie blood diamonds, read an unsavory article, or, seen documentaries on the crap that goes on in the diamond trade.
However, the way that most men in the East treat women is “barbaric”.
Their women might wear a T-shirt that reads, “Forced Marriage at Nine”,or, “All I got for my wedding was a clitoral mutilation and a goat.”
I’m pretty sure that diamonds are a better custom.

kregg on July 20, 2014 at 7:21 AM

The engagement ring dates back to the late middle ages. The giving of the ring was a deed undertaken by a man to secure his contract of marriage with a woman. Once the ring was given, the woman had security against the man’s breaking of the contract. Once betrothed, the couple would often in engage in regular intercourse to assure their fertility. It also warned off competitive suitors to assure paternity. The rise of effective birth control seems to have warped our thinking and understanding about the sexual relationship between men and women in earlier times.

Esaus Message on July 20, 2014 at 8:17 AM

It sounds as if the writer of the Salon piece doesn’t have and may never get the question and the ring.

Kissmygrits on July 20, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Feminists need a special ring to signify that they’re angry and they hate everyone. Preferably something that sends out a signal the rest of us can track on our phones, so we can avoid them like the plague they are.

Kohath on July 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Why do they need a special ring to do that? It’s not like there’s any difficulty in detecting them-their big ugly mouths, and scowls give them away from a long distance. =)

non-nonpartisan on July 20, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Ownership? Yes, but in a different light per my experiences.

Marry a woman and she instantly owns 50% of your assets and still retains 100% ownership of the recreation area. Chuckle!!

Hey….old joke that is almost as old as me.

HonestLib on July 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

HonestLib on July 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Haven’t seen you around lately! Where you been? Thought maybe the Old Lady caught on to some of your comments about marriage and put you in the, err….Witness Protection Program!

Maddie on July 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM

In a custom that requires men to spend up to a quarter of their yearly income on an engagement ring lest they be tarnished as a deadbeat scumbag, somehow the woman is the victim.

Mitochondrion on July 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM

The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less.

Ahh. Found the problem.

Let’s see. Women are listed in deeds in Anglo-Saxon England around 1000 AD. Proverbs 31 references a virtuous woman who would consider and buy property independently, and her husband trusted her to do it without any supervision.

Not bad for chattel “who could not own property.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 20, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Q: If you are a progressive Democrat (read Stalinist) and want to destroy a democracy how do you go about doing it?
A: Have the central government destroy or weaken competing power bases such as:

a. The states (check)
b. Religions (check)
c. The family (check)

And, taking the family as an example, how do you destroy it? Provide government funding to unmarried women and their children (thereby rewarding and thus increasing such behavior). Financially punish unmarried women with children who have a man living in the house (thus discouraging the possibility that a family might incrementally be formed). Convince women that, evidence to the contrary, marriage in not in their best interest through mockery and outrageous rhetoric about domestic exploitation.

Or, in other words,just adopt the progessive Democratic platform and, presto, within a few generation you’ll have dependent sheep instead of self-supporting and independent citizens.

So how is it going so far? Well, with the overwhelming support of media press-titutes, this mission is almost accomplished. (Or, to paraphrase George Bush: “Pinkie, you’re doing a heckuva job!”)

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Exhibit “A” in my previous post. If I were you, I would avoid casting aspersions on other people when a woman I wanted to marry preferred to be with a man who kicked the snot out of her rather than me.

Maddie on July 20, 2014 at 1:13 AM

Uh, or the gal was just that crazy for the dude who beat her up. Some people are just that wacky. Seen it before, will see it again. Women tend to have the market cornered on it in my experience but men have been known to blindly follow that “stripper with a heart of gold” down the primrose path.

DangerHighVoltage on July 19, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Danger, I admire your dedication to the school of NAWALT. Keep it up you crazy snowflake who doesn’t stereotype.

oryguncon on July 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM

astonerii on July 19, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Because this topic is so very stupid, I’ll respond to the blinker issue. I always use mine.

When in heavy traffic, it gives the kind person (there’s usually 1 in 4 of those) a chance to let me in without having to do it another way.

In moderate traffic, I use it once I’ve begun to accelerate before actually moving over (never change lanes using your brakes), to let the person in the next lane deal with my presence. They won’t have a chance to block me, I’m already going faster. They will have a chance to decide if they need to adjust, or change lanes themselves. If they still try to block me (which won’t have worked), as soon as I’m in front of them I’ll downshift (no brake lights) until they get the message.

In light traffic, I always use it as intended, letting those around know where I’m headed. If someone decides to play games with that, in spite of plenty of open space, they become my object of amusement for a few miles.

Freelancer on July 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2