A "real man's ring": gender and the invention of tradition - American double ring ceremony, 1920s male engagement ring

Journal of Social History, Summer, 2003 by Vicki Howard

As the two gold bands were slipped on, Jimmy began to feel the pressure of his marital chains, the ring Doris put on his finger was just a little too small. Jimmy claims he hasn't yet been able to take it off. He says he tried to convince Doris of the danger of a mechanic wearing a ring while working at machines, but Doris refused to be convinced. (62)

The reporters here were drawing on the stereotype of the wife as ball and chain for humorous effect. Farrell's concerns, however, were legitimate. For industrial workers, a wedding band could be dangerous, sparking or catching in machinery. Practical concerns aside, perhaps such golden bands ill fit working-class notions of masculinity. A groom's ring signaled an identity rooted in marriage, in personal concerns, rather than one centered on breadwinning or class consciousness. (63) Working-class masculinity was rooted in the more homosocial worlds of the trade union, the lodge, and other male-dominated urban spaces. To the working-class groom, perhaps his ring symbolized marital bonds, a loss of freedom, a new responsibility.

Working-class women, however, did not see the double ring service the same way. Maidenform employee James Farrell's wearing of the ring was of utmost importance to Doris Ryan, likely because those bonds were a gain for her in terms of social status and economic standing. The groom's ring stood as a symbol of her success, as well as the man's willingness to participate in his new role. The bride's ring signaled her new role as wife, but did not symbolize companionate marriage, unless the groom also agreed to wear a wedding band. In a time when there was a perceived "man shortage," and when being married was extremely important to women, so much so that those women who were not married by twenty one were considered old maids, a groom's ring signified a bride's claim to her husband. (64) Perhaps fears about the scarcity of men furthered women's support of the new ring custom.

Not all men and women about to marry planned to have a double ring ceremony or carried it out in a fashion that would make the jewelry industry happy. Both black and white men adopted the band, but as one late twentieth-century African American wedding consultant wrote, a bride could not assume her groom would wear a ring. (65) Some religious groups like the Amish refrained from using rings at all. Moreover, brides might subvert the double ring ceremony, taking it out of its commercial context. The jewelry industry certainly intended couples to buy their matching wedding bands. Generally, Bride's Magazine aided the industry in this through editorials promoting the custom, but it also related versions of the practice that were counter to the interests of jewelers. One innovative bride, according to a 1943 issue of Bride's magazine, used an heirloom gold band and had it enlarged for her groom. (66)

While some ambiguity remained over this invented tradition, the practice was becoming mainstream by the early 1950s. The double ring ceremony, however, did not simply become popular when the requisite object appeared on the market in the late 1920s or because jewelers ran national promotions. Marketing on its own could not change dominant notions of gender, as demonstrated by the failure of the male engagement ring tradition. The practice only became the thing to do when cultural producers and consumers conspired in the act of cultural production, forging new meanings around the ritual of ring exchange.