Hacker News Reader

Comment by clicks | Hacker News Reader

    1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It 
    demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other 
    things he could buy with the money for a gift for her 
    that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) 
    It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's
    social standing.

To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of those 3 conditions. The pertinent question is: why spend a large amount on a rock with possible associations of slave labor that is of absolutely zero functional value when you can ... well, spend the amount on anything else of value, and indeed still meet those 3 qualifications.

View on HN

It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one.

I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them. Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no (although I don't have any illusions about how much of it is up to me!)

how about a '$3k donation to redcross' and buying a fake diamond so that all her friends will think you are still part of the herd?

It might as _well_ be fake, just like the value of the diamond she procures.

After all, it's just a matter of her social standing, not the importance of the relationship and a marriage between two human people. I hesitate to use the word soul, but maybe here it applies.

Diamonds are _so dehumanizing_ and this thread would have me thoroughly depressed if so many people weren't arguing against DeBeers.

Maybe the Red Cross can start making some sort of low-cost jewelry (perhaps similar to those yellow rubber wristbands?) that, while cheap in material cost, signify that the wearer donated a very large sum of money to the organization (or someone did so in their name).

Are you aware of the historical precedent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Iron_Jewellery

I was not aware of that. Very cool, thanks for the link!

> I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring

That seems like a really shallow and material evaluator of the character of a human being.

> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them

Well thank God that Jackie Robinson, Marie Curie, or Barack Obama didn't believe this. Sometimes being different from the rest of the crowd and following your passions is more worthwhile rather than striving to "fit in" by purchasing status-enhancers.

>That seems like a really shallow and material evaluator of the character of a human being.

You've completely missed his point. It's about knowing when it's not worth the effort to buck society's dictates.

>Well thank God that Jackie Robinson, Marie Curie, or Barack Obama didn't believe this.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rollingout.com/wp...

He's obviously talking about these people challenging social norms careerwise.

Right, so that's a conveniently pragmatic approach to the issue.

Most of us nerds are fighting the idea of diamonds signifying social standing. The practice, and culture of giving expensive rings is objectively wacky. You're right that in your social circle taking an odd position will cost you your reputation, but consider that in the past many morally reprehensible practices were the norm and being an odd one out would cost you your reputation. If you operate on a framework so rigidly tied to social standing you might make pretty wacky decisions down the line. Ultimately, decisions made on this framework may not always be the wisest decisions.

I'm really sorry to tell you this, but you are deluded, no question. Spend more time thinking about "real" things, you'll be happier for it I promise.

> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform?

On the one hand, I admire you saying that outright.

On the other hand, isn't it somewhat true that the vast majority of backwardness and oppression in the world stems from that same doctrine?

The desire for a short timescale pragmatic conformism seems to be a partial cause of much of the world's problems throughout history.

You're preaching exactly the nonsense DeBeer's wants you to preach; they've got you hook, line, and sinker. None of those things require wasting money on a stupid worthless rock. You've shut down thinking.

> It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him.

A sensible man only cares what other people think about him when it is to his benefit to do so. A foolish man cares what other people think about him all of the time.

> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them.

In my experience, people who believe in marking the checkboxes of life have an awfully hard time discerning the difference between falling off the beaten path, and taking a shortcut.

> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no

It seems exceptionally foolish for you to rely on abstractions and proxy signaling (eg, buying a diamond) to discern the attributes of the person your daughter would be considering marrying. One would hope that the evidence for those attributes ought to be entirely apparent to her before that point.

Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go. - Charlie Hoehn

Yes. It's really important to be selective in what you choose to oppose, but just because you're opposing certain social norms doesn't automatically mean you're invalid. They deserve objective analysis.

My wife and I have been married 4 years now and gone primarily without rings. No negative consequences so far, and I'm definitely glad I didn't dedicate 20%+ of my income to a valueless trinket. We have objects that signify our relationship, but they're cheap or free, and imbued primarily with sentimental value only. This is, in my estimation, much better than propping up the diamond myth and cartel.

Exactly. It's like Valentines day. I ignore it, my girlfriend ignores it. Why should I need some marketing guy to tell me when to tell my girlfriend I love her, that should be happening anyway. To me conforming just tells me you're just a sucker in these kinds of instances.

Your logic is technically sound, and I'm not faulting you for thinking that way, but for me personally that's an unfortunately regressive way of looking at the world. I'm unsure where the idea that being principled requires being foolish comes from, but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband (and incidentally, the assumed father of my grandchildren). I'm not even sure what one would be trying to optimize for with this line of thinking. Couldn't this same concept lead to: "I'd prefer a man who knows exactly how much to cheat and steal and hurt others, as long as he makes sure the direct cost to him is less than his benefit"?* Is that really a man you'd like to see raising your grandkids?

*Just to clarify, to avoid making this seem like a strawman: I'm creating a deliberately extreme example that to me seems like the logical extension of optimizing for "success" (or minimizing headwinds) at the expense of character (personified in your example by someone who's principled as opposed to a follow-the-herd type person). The purpose of this is to highlight the fact that this is someone you're accepting into your family, and the importance of that becomes particularly clear when you consider that the man he is will in large part shape the men and women you're grandchildren are.

"but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband "

Parent commenter is interested in someone who thinks the way he does. There is nothing wrong with that and there are probably more parents from my experience who wants someone who hold their views then are willing to accept someone with different views.

I'm laughing because we were arguing back and forth in this thread, and your description of the type of man you want you daughter never to marry matches me exactly.

I hope you get your wish! Children often find a way to push our buttons, however.

That is so fucking sad. Aren't there literally hundreds of traits more important in a husband than buying a ring?

Tell me this statement is satire: "Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no"

Would it not be consistent with this argument to say that you wish for your daughter to marry a conformist, cowardly man?

"It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him."

Agree with you (and my daughter is much much older).

I would be totally wary of a man that decided in lieu of buying a ring for my daughter to make a donation to a charity. The ring is a gift for the woman. In the event of a divorce the woman typically gets to keep the ring it's an asset and does have value despite all the drivel of the OP and everyone else here is saying. Owning 100% of something that is only worth 50% of what someone else paid for it is still more than 0 (what you get with a charity donation at least monetarily).

Would it not be more accurate to say that "he cares what you (being the father of the bride) think about him" ?

I would say it's the mark of a sensible man who understands how to be aware, influence, and the effect of what other people think of him, but does not actually care.

Someone who actually cares what someone thinks of him based on whether he bought an overpriced hunk of carbon is what sensible call a "deuschebag."

> It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him

This is a really disgusting line of thinking

> People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on themselves and the people that depend on them.

That's a pretty loaded way of putting it. It comes across as saying that the only two options are being an incredibly successful trendsetter or making things difficult for themselves and dependents. Yes, you could argue that technically it's not saying these are the only options, but it sure strongly suggests they are.

I think that dichotomy is ridiculous - as if the two ends of the spectrum are the only two possible outcomes. If you put it that way of course it seems like a bad thing to buck social conventions.

> Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform?

I don't think your comment gives an argument for why those principles are supposedly foolish.

You are of course free to say and do as you please. Such freedom of views also applies to others, and IMO the attitude expressed in your comment is a small-minded one.

If suitability of the partner is determined by the giving or not giving a ring (instead of knowing the partner) it is better so stay away from the marriage altogather.

So you want a mindless drone for your daughter. What a shame. I'll bet you also want them to do exactly as government says and "conform" as they walk him, her and their kids into more senseless wars.

Blind conformity is one of the most dangerous behaviors a society could exhibit.

Caring about what other people think of you leads to things like joining the KKK, stockpiling guns and killing six million Jews. It's religious think.

See, me, for my daughter, I'd be proud if she married someone who suggested they take the $30,000 he would have spent on a dumb diamond ring and try their hand at starting a business. Even from failure they would grow and learn.

There is no learning from in buying a diamond ring. It does not prepare you for life in any imaginable way. It does not prepare you for economic difficulties, medical problems or to develop a good sense on financial matters. It's just plain dumb.

That may sound like a nice idea, but it's a expression about your principles where she has deal with all of the consequences. The ring is for her, she will be the one who has to explain this decision to everyone who asks about the ring (read: absolutely everyone in her life). Many of these people will have diamond wedding rings, so now she has to explain this decision in a way to doesn't offend them. No offense, but she may prefer to spend that time gushing about how excited she is about her upcoming marriage and how awesome her fiancé is.

The ring does have functional value, but for her and not for you. Part of the point is that is doesn't directly benefit you at all.

"that is of absolutely zero functional value when you can"

So what's the functional value of entertainment then? It makes you feel good. A diamond makes a woman feel good. It's that simple. Doesn't matter why. It's for her. Not up to a man to judge the value anymore then you want a woman deciding the value of why you might spend you money on whatever makes you feel good.

It doesn't matter why, even if the "why" has been specifically conditioned into the both of you just so that the person selling the diamond makes a profit? That seems a bit... I don't know... tragic.

(To be clear, though, I'm a nerdy gay like the parent commenter, and I can't fathom a situation where either my boyfriend or I would ever want the other one to buy a diamond for any reason, so there's probably some component of the dynamics here that I don't fully grasp.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com