Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

This is a cultural thing you've bought into, that a man must give a woman a tool to signal with. In other cultures this is not important or works the other way around.

I'm anti diamond and your pleas to come up with another useless signal fall on deaf ears - this manufactured need for the signal itself is something we should be fighting as we progress.

For a start it's pretty damned sexist and regressive

View on HN

Why do you assume I've "bought into" it? I have no intention to marry any time soon, I just think it's unhelpful to completely ignore the reason diamonds are used for engagement rings.

Bought into idealogically speaking.

I think the 'reason' is a rationalisation and not hard and fast, it's also culture-specific so hardly transcendent. That's why I take issue with the idea of replacing one signal with the other - the worth of tge signal is entirely subjective and the signal itself is rather out of place in the modern world.

Oh dear. We are constantly subjected to this sort of scolding in the name of some political ideology (in this case, 'wimmin'). Diamonds are exactly about signaling, as is an Ivy League education. Attributing useful properties to either only confuses the signal, which is purest when there is absolutely no utility. Since Ivy League schools pre-select, it is not hard to show that they add no value in and of themselves, apart from fleecing the recipients in exchange for safe spaces.

Scolding?

I'm just pointing out that the basis of this signalling behaviour (if it is as described) is somewhat sexist and regressive - it makes assumptions about the man being the provider and the woman being kept.

Diamonds are indeed all about signalling. Enjoy yourself doing that. Some of us will be laughing at you behind your back for falling for the con though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com