"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant... and a tartine from SnAKS to fuel my shopping spree, a dress that's the height of chic from Elie Tahari and some flat boots from Jimmy Choo to keep me grounded, anything Marni and something Versace and divine peau de soie pumps from Roger Vivier that I can't get anywhere else."That might seem laughably over-the-top, but it's beautifully written to reach out and grab a woman's deep longing. It's a nice touch that the ad-character has a husband, but he's such a nonentity -- an accountant! -- that women with no men (to buy them presents) can fully identify.
And have you heard of the Right-Hand Ring campaign?
The marketing campaign has successfully appealed to women with female-empowerment pitches like: "Your left hand says you're taken. Your right hand says you can take over."Buy yourself a diamond ring. (I Freudian-slip-typed "diamond wring.") How do you palm that off as not pathetic? Well, have you seen the ads? They're mesmerizing.
পোস্টগুলি
৩৬টি মন্তব্য:
"Women of the world are celebrating the Diamond Right Hand Ring!"
Yes, especially in Germany, Norway, Chile and Eastern Europe.
And what is up with the glowing ring on that Diamond is Forever site? Is that what unnaturally lengthened her forearm and turned it purple? Is a glowing ring really worth radioactive skin burn damage and osteoarthritis?
I can see this pitch working with a lot of women. But for me, it seems supremely self-centered.
But this seems little different from the idea that some women (in particular) need to go out and pamper themselves. That has always seemed so self-indulgent. And what is it in a woman's life that makes her so much more deserving of that?
I am somewhat struck by the image of the accountant going away every day to an extremely dull job to support his family, while the woman is sitting at home indulging herself for having married someone so dull, when it is precisely his dedication to his family and his job that allows her to do that in the first place.
About 12 years ago at Christmas, we were opening presents when my brother-in-law came to a package for him "from the one who loves you most." He opened it up to reveal a very expensive and handsome sweater. However, neither his wife nor anyone else in the family would admit to having given it. My brother-in-law then proudly announced he had given it to himself.
It's now a family joke: "From the one who loves you most."
And then there's the ad: "Your left hand says We. Your right hand says Me."
Feminism. Narcissism.
Meade: It's just stupid advertiser's feminism, like "You've come a long way, baby" for cigarettes. It has little to do with real feminists. Frankly, if you're out in the world doing things for yourself, you don't want a ring on your right hand, if you're right-handed. The whole point of wearing a ring on your left hand is that you're not using that hand as much. It's backwards for the independent woman to want a ring on her right hand. (Unless she's left-handed.)
No. Although if I did it might well be a Lynyrd Skynyrd boxed set, since "Sweet Home Alabama" is one of the greatest songs (super-popular category) ever.
Hmm, being a sort-of engineer, I'm left wondering how a right hand ring differs physically from a left hand ring.
I mean, is this really a new product?? Nope, just another cynical play by the diamond consortium to push more useless rocks to gullible or emotionally insecure customers.
Ok, ok. I'll say it and save you the effort: Bah humbug.
Just what America needs more "looking in the mirror" and self-aggrandizement. Too bad the present for "self" is not a bag of toys for Toys for Tots.
The whole idea of marrying yourself, and of pampering yourself, appeals to women as a fantasy antidote to their traditional service, put-others-first role. Granted that excessive feminism and narcissism are a yucky swing to the other extreme -- still, all you guys sound like scolds trying to put a woman back in her virtuous self-effacing place, the extreme of which can still be seen in traditional cultures where women do not even eat until the men and male children have had their fill and the dishes are washed.
Sure, our consumer culture has overvalued self-indulgence and we need to revalue the sense of service and dedication to others inherent in both traditional roles (as you good providers also stress). But pampering yourself is a forlron Oprah antidote to the sometimes unrelieved servanthood of housewifery; and marrying yourself can seem like a prudent move when you may get dumped at menopause.
That's "forlorn."
Feminism, or the desperate attempt by the diamond monopoly to expand their market?
My wife's wedding set is diamonds - but those are probably the last diamonds I'll ever buy. I prefer colorful stones myself.
Where I'm coming from: my disabled husband has an enormous sense of entitlement to my time, attention, and care. I'm glad he does, because it would be much harder to take care of someone who was compulsively independent and in a rage at being helpless (which is how I would, or will, be). But in this I also see that he has regressed to the time when he was a small child from a wealthy family and had his own personal, female servant whose job it was to take care of him. (After that, he was arrested by the Red Army and thrown into a Soviet slave labor camp. His entire life and character has been composed of such extremes.) I often feel like a servant, and I recognize that this is a central part of the timeless female experience. It's one of the reasons why the women in traditional cultures go to church so much more than the men do -- Christianity, at least, consoles by ennobling service as a spiritual path.
I honestly don't. I'd rather buy stuff for my kids. Even if I had the bucks for an Xbox 360 I don't think I'd buy it except for them, then mooch off it when they're asleep.
Pre-kids? Darn right I would.
I wanted to buy an Xbox 360 for my 86 year old mother-in-law. She always re-gifts back to us anyway, so....
Of course, my nefarious scheme was derailed by the evil Bill Gates, who apparently only made 50 of the darn things.
More or less back on topic, I recently offered my wife an upgrade to the relatively small engagement ring I was able to afford way back when. She was having none of it. Her reason: the one she has reminds her of the early days of our relationship when we had to watch every penny. The ring's worth to her isn't the size of the rock, it's the sacrifice that went into buying it.
Well, maybe that's not back on topic after all. Never mind.
If I had the money to do so, hell yes, I'd buy myself a diamond ring. I'm not waiting around for some guy to shower me with gifts.
I don't celebrate Christmas, though, so maybe that's different.
Yeah I buy myself Xmas gifts all the time. In fact, most of the gifts I give are stuff I like - am not that vested in whether the recipient likes it- though that is a byproduct sometimes.
Re the diamond- it was fun to shop for my first wife.
Do I buy myself presents? Hell, yeah! If I didn't, who would? :-)
I'm getting a new PC for Christmas, but only because I know the laptop is dying...
Orthodox Christians wear their wedding rings on their right hands already. Blatant Western-Euro centrism, this.
but slocum is onto something, at least in the circles i'm in. the ring IS a sign of all that, and then some.
i'm sure love isn't excluded, but the bling-bling veblen-esque "look at what my man can buy!" aspect is impossible to deny.
WorldVision
Eh. What's elegant and understated to some is dreadfully boring to me. I prefer ostentatious and vulgar Indian jewelry to the yawn-inducing and overpriced stuff from Tiffany's.
It's all subjective, after all. Including the snobbery.
I think a lot of people buy as many gifts for themselves as they do others when they go Christmas shopping. All those runs on discounted plasma-screen tvs at Wal-Mart? People are buying that stuff for themselves.
The right-hand ring campaign is kinda gross, but it was a brilliant idea, and I bet they've sold a ton of em. I don't really think there's anything wrong with a woman buying jewelry for herself.... If she can afford it, more power to her!
(Tiffany actually has some really cool stuff, not that *I* could ever afford it...)
Some great comments here, especially david bennett's:
I think it a bit questionable to assume the accountant is financing the woman's splurge money.
Questionable indeed. Some would even, perhaps impolitely, describe the attitude behind that assumption as "sexist."
I would.
tefta's Freudian spelling slip gets to the heart of the issue:
I mean "buy" herself... [but] the poor thing is also "by" herself.
Helen Gurley Brown, recently mused and waxed nostalgic over her magazine, Cosmopolitan: "The message was: So you're single. You can still have sex. You can have a great life. And if you marry, don't just sponge off a man or be the gold-medal-winning mother. Don't use men to get what you want in life - - get it for yourself."
But in 2005, it's the CosmoGirl School of Feminism conundrum: Yes, woman, you can have an exciting career, money, power, exciting travel experiences and multiple orgasms. You can even look good doing these things. After all, you have the means to receive diamond rings from the person who loves you the most - yourself (thanks, Pastor Jeff). But can you truly, after all, "have it all?"
Turns out none of us, neither men nor women, can have it all. I doubt either of Dick's parents had it all. Apparently, though, they had something many of the rest of us wish for and it's nothing any stupid advertisers can sell us.
Ok, maybe my comments did sound a little sexist. I went and reread the article and it doesn't sound any better. The pertinent quote is:
"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant," one newspaper ad proclaims, adding, "and a tartine from SnAKS to fuel my shopping spree, a dress that's the height of chic from Elie Tahari and some flat boots from Jimmy Choo to keep me grounded, anything Marni and something Versace and divine peau de soie pumps from Roger Vivier that I can't get anywhere else."
There was no indication there that the woman earned the money herself, and making her husband forget that he is an accountant could be read as her trying to make his life better - which is maybe where I got the idea that she thought that accounting is boring (I should add that I am probably reading my own experiences into it too - I had enough accounting to sit for the CPA exam, but changed directions because I found the field extremely boring).
My big problem with the whole thing though is the idea that since she has been a good girl, she should reward herself with a bunch of Christmas presents.
But, to me, that negates the whole idea of Christmas giving. The idea for me is the giving, and not the receiving. Here, the emphasis is on the receiving, and if no one is going to give her what she thinks she deserves, she is going to give it to herself.
But that is just the opposite of the idea, at least in my view, of Christmas giving. And, maybe that is my problem, and not hers. But back in my childhood, I routinely would get upset because I didn't get what I wanted for Christmas (my mother would instead give us what she thought we needed). And then one year, some 30 years ago, I woke up and realized that it was much better to give than to receive. And so, since then, I have gained a lot more joy from the appreciation of those to whom I have given, than what is given me.
Bruce Hayden --
"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant . . . "
That wasn't a real woman talking. It was written by an ad copywriter! Have you ever seen a character in an ad who was anything like anyone you'd ever met walking around?
I have, amba. I think you and I are both old enough to remember, "Mother... PLEASE! I'd rather do it mySELF!"
Do you buy Christmas presents for yourself?
Yes. But I don't wrap them!
One is sad. The other, pathetic.
Cheers,
Victoria
Why? What's so special about shiny yellow metal?
It stands for something. It's symbolic of something of deeper meaning and import.
You know -- like a kiss.
Cheers,
Victoria
But, to me, that negates the whole idea of Christmas giving. The idea for me is the giving, and not the receiving. Here, the emphasis is on the receiving, and if no one is going to give her what she thinks she deserves, she is going to give it to herself.
Nice exposition, Bruce.
For a moment, I thought you were a sexist jerk. Now, I see Kerry-like nuances to what you meant.
Cheers,
Victoria
And what is up with the glowing ring on that Diamond is Forever site?
This is all very well, Pastor_Jeff. But I can outdo everyone in the pathetic Christmas stakes.
Does anyone else have the "Diamond's are Forever" De Beers theme by Karl Jenkins on mp3...like I do?
I thought not. *scurries away*
Cheers,
Victoria
dang was there something about the Iraq in this post because there are some ANGRY comments
Knoxgirl: I have to agree with you here. Maybe this is why Virgina Postrel mentioned at a talk on Substance of Style once that it's not good policy to judge others' choices based on our own sets of (aesthetic) values.
That said, the magpie in me loves bright and shiny things(particularly that bright yellow gold from Southeast Asia). Have bought myself jewelry for major milestones (graduating college, 30th birthday). However - don't see myself falling for that deBeers line and would never expect my boyfriend to buy me a rock as proof of his love.
Should mention that I really like cottages on the water, too. The 'camp' I visit every year's a built-by-hand one with no plumbing or electricity. Contrasts pretty starkly with the MacCottages that have cropped up in the neighborhood. The fear is that we'll not be able to afford the taxes on it anymore, what with the way property values have been skyrocketing.
Well, er, um, the reason to go with diamond instead of white sapphire is . . . . diamonds are fractionally harder, a Mohs 10 instead of a 9? I mean, as a practical matter, there is no difference in wear resistance, but it is a slight advantage to diamond.
Certainly, as a symbol of eternity, the thermodynamically stable crystals of aluminum oxide are a better choice than metastable tetrahedral carbon, which will eventually decay into graphite. But as a practical matter, diamond won't significantly decay on human timescales.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন