> This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
This is, sadly, so very very true.
When I was proposing I wanted to get an alternative precious stone that would be actually rate - or, at least, a man-made diamond. I told my SO everything about how they're not rare, the price-fixing, the conflict diamonds - but she barely budged because of what her friends would think of it. I managed to sell the idea of a man-made diamond, but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa because of just how rare they are and how difficult it was to ship them to my country.
> but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa
Because Africa is all one big war zone. Because any money sent to Africa funds violence.
Seriously? Why is it so much better to buy from Russia than South Africa or Botswana? (the money's all going to De Beers -- which was originally a South African company -- or a similar multinational anyway).
The top four diamond-producing countries in Africa (the top two are actually not African: Russia and Canada) are Botswana, Angola, South Africa and Namibia. All of these countries are poor, sure. They all have some political problems, sure. But they are all democracies with somewhat functional governments; none of them are at war (the Angolan civil war ended in 2002).
Multinational mineral companies aren't always the best thing for locals, but the idea that the only money sent to Africa should arrive on a UN food truck is far worse.
The problem with buying diamonds from anywhere is that you're giving conflict diamonds added value through the simple fact of your demand for them. They're a fungible commodity. Essentially there is no diamond that is not a blood diamond.
Hmm, actually, they aren't perfectly fungible. 100 one-carat diamonds aren't worth the same as one 100-carat diamond, and even diamonds of the same weight aren't substitutable. But with respect to country of origin, yeah.
No, but it's impossible for me to know where in Africa the diamond is coming from, which means it's impossible to know whether or not it's a conflict diamond. I know that diamond miners in Russia or India have decent working conditions and that there's no chance of the proceeds going to fund a bloody civil war; I have no such confidence when the most specific answer the jeweler can give me regarding the stone's origins is "Africa."
Is it really true (I'm not doubtful, just shocked) that the jeweller can tell you what country the diamond came from unless that country is in a particular continent?
Because of the 'blood diamond' controversy, the diamonds get mixed up together, sold around, exported, smuggled, etc. There's no way to track them.
Canadian ice diamonds, on the other hand, are all laser-engraved with a serial number, making it possible to verify each diamond's authenticity and source. According to the jeweller I spoke to, the only guarantee she could make is 'Canadian' or 'not Canadian'; she couldn't even guarantee me African, Russian, etc.
She did, of course, offer to sell me a ring with 'who knows' diamonds and then remove them and put Canadian diamonds in, but at that point I'm paying for 'who knows' and Canadian diamonds, which seemed a little idiotic.
I think what's sad here is not the desire for the respect of one's peers, but the means chosen to attain it; or rather, the arbitrarily-established mechanisms for doing so.
Why do you care what the respect is based on? What differentiates "superficial" respect from genuine respect? I guarantee you the criteria you use to judge people look equally ridiculous to other people too.
What's your point, exactly? Slaveholders and abolitionists certainly chose to respect different people in the 19th century. That doesn't change the fact that slaveholders who judged people based on how large their plantation was were horrible people not worthy of our respect.
And to drive the point home: those diamonds you see in rings have a non-negligible chance of coming from child slaves, who have been torn from their families in civil war and will probably be setting off land mines once the diamond mines run out. I actively disrespect the choice to purchase them.
The point is not about who you should or should not respect. The point is that other people are going to respect certain aspects in people that you don't agree with, and it's silly to say that respect is not real just because you don't agree with its motivations. It's the same reason we don't like c# developers who say that python devs aren't real programmers.
Do you honestly believe that you are so obviously correct, anyone who disagrees with you must only be doing it because they are financially invested in presenting that way?
I found it quite hard to extract anything from those articles. I think what it's trying to say is that if the ring becomes an issue then the relationship may be far from perfect anyway.
The main thing I took away was in this passage:
"you prove to me I'm worth it. ...make me know how valuable I am. Because I don't have any idea..."
But then, I don't see how she'll be satisfied with any ring. Surely if a guy could sacrifice this much he could sacrifice just a bit more - so she may not be that valuable to him. I don't even want to start thinking about a guy who can afford a bigger rock suddenly showing up :D
Basically, the moral of the story, for me, was: 1) Avoid women who don't know their worth and require external confirmations; 2) Develop your own sense of self-worth by doing something worthwhile, then finding a like-minded woman would be easier.
That's not the point though. If anything is worth the respect of your peers there it's what you do to earn the money, not shiny rocks that you spend the cash on.
It's important to think about how this is a product of the people with whom one surround oneself.
I think my SO would be happy with an alternative stone (or perhaps no stone at all!) and that's because her and my friends largely aren't the type to ogle a ring, a watch, or a car. Friends that do fancy material things are able to recognize it and laugh at their own materialistic tendencies because they are the outliers in our circles. Watches are cool but experiences are cooler (plus my g-shock from '98 happily survives the abuse travel and hobbies give it).
Now, we aren't a couple that will settle for tying human hair around our fingers and calling it a wedding band, but I sure as hell won't be spending 20 grand on a rock. And my friends will happily accept the free rounds that savings can cover over the next xx years.
Exactly. If you aren't into those sorts of symbols, odds are the friends you select aren't, either. None of my friends had diamonds - including me - and none of the rest of us cared, one way or the other.
This is, sadly, so very very true.
When I was proposing I wanted to get an alternative precious stone that would be actually rate - or, at least, a man-made diamond. I told my SO everything about how they're not rare, the price-fixing, the conflict diamonds - but she barely budged because of what her friends would think of it. I managed to sell the idea of a man-made diamond, but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa because of just how rare they are and how difficult it was to ship them to my country.