tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post6650340131372765464..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: Fauxbivalence for job-huntersPhoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-40334888000355808812011-08-24T08:18:45.163-04:002011-08-24T08:18:45.163-04:00Britta,
Yes, like I also say in the post, a whole...Britta,<br /><br />Yes, like I also say in the post, a whole bunch is conflated. It's not all one issue. If we're going to attempt to find coherence, maybe it's in pointing out that the feminist/concerned-about-Africa objections to diamond engagement rings are not exactly representative of the situations in which a woman is judged negatively at an interview for having a ring. <br /><br />In terms of men and Rolexes, men and wedding bands... I don't think this is as relevant as it seems on paper. Just given the nature of how men vs. women dress, there are so many more ways a woman, dressed at any level of formality, from jeans to suit to gown, is likely to signal wealth. Handbags, shoes, etc. It's not that there's no such thing as an expensive men's suit or watch, but that there are so, so many more variables, in women's dress.<br /><br />And with men, they're generally if anything favored for wearing a wedding band, because it signals commitment, maturity, and (no doubt still) heterosexuality. No one sees a wedding band on a man and thinks, yikes, this guy's about to quit his job so he can raise babies. Rather, if anything, it'll seem like he may be supporting his family and thus will take work seriously. Meanwhile, a man <i>without</i> a ring may lack those particular benefits, but isn't necessarily thought <i>not</i> to have good qualities. This is my longwinded way of saying there's no equivalent here for men. Women are more likely to be discriminated against socially for a lack of rings, professionally for having them.<br /><br />"Since I know of no religion which requires the constant wearing of giant diamonds"<br /><br />I think the veil analogy isn't actually that far off. It's not a religion that requires it, so much as certain cultural interpretations of certain religions. If your culture tells you that a woman who's engaged or married wears her rings, not as part of some outfits but not others, but in order to be fully dressed to leave the house, then taking off one or both is a whole lot to ask. And much of American culture requires it - enough so that even many of my grad-student cohort wear engagement rings if engaged, engagement and wedding rings if married.<br /><br />Meanwhile, if the engagement ring is the Hope diamond, that <i>is</i> the ring, that's also the very same one as has that symbolic importance, so there isn't some option that allows for going to interviews with the tasteful hand-crafted wooden variety that some potential employers might prefer you had. It's not that a giant diamond is required, but if that's what the particular ring is (which, like I say, could be the case for any number of reasons), then yes, a giant diamond is required. <br /><br />Basically, I think it's important to distinguish between a designer-logo handbag, or expensive earrings, etc., from a marriage-related ring, even a gaudy one. It's also something that, because it's not a mere part of the outfit, but for every day, women probably aren't even thinking about at a certain point, and are probably used to wearing on all occasions (short of serious labor with the hands), even if the situation/outfit doesn't match.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-57781385190090823582011-08-24T02:21:09.473-04:002011-08-24T02:21:09.473-04:00Aren't there several issues conflated? One is:...Aren't there several issues conflated? One is: it's stupid for any reason to wear a giant blood diamond to an interview for a non-profit fighting the blood diamond trade, as you point out. Two: it's stupid to discriminate against a woman for signs of obvious wealth, but it doesn't seem to be specifically marriage (or necessarily gender) related. That same woman might not be hired for wearing a diamond necklace or earrings, which say nothing about marriage, or perhaps a man with a Rolex watch. In other words, if you go to a job interview looking like you have a trust fund, depending on the ressentiment of the interviewer you might not get hired. Since I know of no religion which requires the constant wearing of giant diamonds, I don't think it's unreasonable to recommend wearing low key jewelry for an interview, and then busting out the Hope diamond once you've settled in to your job a bit. Third would be not hiring someone because of the presence of a ring period, which would be straight up gender discrimination (unless the person also didn't hire men with rings, which would make it not sexist but still a problem).Brittahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02224221011978374915noreply@blogger.com