For the past month, I’ve had a seasonal job selling jewelry in a large department store. Most of the merchandise is expensive and, in my opinion, ugly. But, as retail jobs go, it really hasn’t been so bad. And now that I’ve sufficiently damned it with faint praise, I’ll even go so far as to say it’s been interesting–and fun, sometimes–to help confused but well meaning men buy gifts for the various women in their lives. Mostly, though, it’s made me think about what a strange and fraught role gift-giving plays in heterosexual relationships.*
Here’s an example. One day I was helping a guy who’d bought a diamond pendant for his fiancée. Since he was also in the market for an engagement ring, I was showing him diamond solitaires and asking about his girlfriend’s tastes and what he thought she’d like. And he replied, “Oh, she never wears jewelry. She’s really outdoorsy, and she likes camping and hiking, and whenever I ask her about what ring she wants, she shows me something really simple.” He then proceeded to tell me that he only liked the bigger, more expensive settings, and that that was what he was going to buy for her.
Obviously, this guy is a clueless boyfriend and a bad gift-giver. He was very resistant to my suggestion that he look at the simpler settings we had, or that–God forbid!–he go ring shipping with his fiancée so she could give more direct input. Now, on some level, I can understand the pressure to buy a fancy engagement ring, since the whole practice is historically predicated on the man proving his worthiness as a husband/provider. But why would anyone buy a diamond pendant as a Christmas present for someone who doesn’t like jewelry and probably won’t wear it?
I think it’s because (in addition to this particular guy being thoughtless) gift giving is supposed to be one of the sacred duties men perform in romantic relationships. Sure, women are supposed to buy things for men, too–because everyone is supposed to buy everything all the time–but I think it’s fair to say that there’s much more cultural pressure for men to prove their love and commitment to women by giving them presents than the other way around. Men want to be with women because they want sex, and women will have sex as long as they get DIAMONDS, or so the narrative goes. And so jewelry and flowers and candy become shorthand for a man’s love and fidelity. That he is only obligated to buy these gifts about four times a year–Holidays, birthday, anniversary, and Valentine’s Day–heightens their symbolic importance.
Now, you’re probably thinking, “that’s just what Jared wants you to think!” And it is. But Jared and Kay and Weisfield aren’t pulling these mores out of thin air; they’re merely using them to their advantage. I also have to think that part of the appeal of the diamonds-and-flowers brand of romancing stems from the fact that heterosexual relationships are still mostly unequal. Women are expected to put up with a lot from their male partners, and they’re also conditioned to believe they’re so undesirable that few men would willingly be with them. So overt displays like diamonds become both a consolation prize and a necessary assurance that your boyfriend thinks you are, in fact, valuable. And a guy who is trying to be a good boyfriend will probably pick up on all of this and consider something like a diamond pendant the best proof of his affection.
It’s a pretty fucked up, insidious dynamic. I don’t really give a shit about marriage or diamonds or engagement rings, yet I’ve still found myself wanting similar kinds of validation. In fairness, though, I only felt that way when I wasn’t getting much respect and emotional validation to begin with. It’s much easier to feel secure in a relationship when things actually are secure. But that knowledge didn’t stop me from beating myself up for being silly enough to want to go out to dinner on Valentine’s Day.
*I have no idea whether it’s like this for gays. I can only call out the craziness I know.
UPDATE: This old post on Pandagon is very apropos.
Read Full Post »