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

Moreover, jewelers had to counter the idea that engagement was something that happened to women. Men had worn engagement rings in the mid to late nineteenth century, but examples of the practice were rare. (15) Engagement rings themselves were by definition feminine objects that had a distinct look. Tokens that did not follow the gender logic of the woman's engagement ring might be more acceptable to prospective grooms, and thus the industry did not adopt one particular style. Unlike women who proudly and publicly announced their upcoming marriage through this symbol, men were expected not to want to declare their engaged status with a ring. According to the trade literature advising jewelers how to promote the custom to brides, "none but the engaged couple knows it is an Engagement Ring." Those in the industry must have realized that few referents existed for the male engagement ring tradition when it was introduced in the late 1920s. Unlike the proposed male engagement ring custom, the purchase of the femal e engagement ring was a cultural event legitimized in advertisements showing the bride-to-be trying on her ring with her future husband watching (16) (figure 3). Numerous etiquette books described how women got engaged, who should pay for the ring, and whether the bride should be involved in the selection. (17) Men paid for the bride's engagement ring and wedding band, even shopping alone for the item. The purchase of the bride's ring could be a ticklish matter for prospective grooms--almost a rite of passage that had to be endured--as in the case of John O'Rourke of the Receiving Department at Strawbridge & Clothier in Philadelphia, who was spotted by fellow employees "examining plain gold rings" and then teased about the incident in the department store's company newsletter. While the engagement period itself was historically a time when the woman had more power than she would after marriage, the ring signaled male prerogative. Men proposed, women got engaged. The diamond ring, moreover, showed others a wom an was "out of circulation." (18) It was a sign of the man's ability to pay, as well as a symbol of his love. A male engagement ring did not fit this story.

Such a ring might have been a suitable symbol for what historian Margaret Marsh described as "masculine domesticity," a newly desired trait among upper-middle-class suburban men in the early twentieth century. Suburban husbands assumed an "increased responsibility for the emotional well-being of their children," and began "to spend their leisure with their wives rather than male cronies, and even to take on limited domestic duties." (19) A male symbol of commitment and fidelity might have resonated among those dedicated to the new ideal of companionate marriage. Marsh and others have argued, however, that this gender ideal had declined by the 1920s. (20) While some might have continued to uphold or believe in companionate marriage, the idea of married "togetherness" was not as widespread as it would be by the 1950s. (21)