Here's Your Damn Baby, Now Where Are My #@%&ing Diamond Earrings?
| Thu Dec. 6, 2007 7:35 PM PST
Not to begrudge any woman who's toiled through nine months of pregnancy and multiple hours of labor, but there's something quite sickening about this NYT story about how new mothers are expecting their husbands and partners to pony up with some really sweet bling.
This bonus goes by various names. Some call it the "baby mama gift." Others refer to it as the "baby bauble." But it's most popularly known as the "push present." That's "push" as in, "I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward." Or "push" as in, "I've delivered something special and now I'm pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit."
"It's more and more an expectation of moms these days that they deserve something for bearing the burden for nine months, getting sick, ruining their body," said Linda Murray, executive editor of BabyCenter.com. "The guilt really gets piled on."
A recent survey of more than 30,000 respondents by BabyCenter.com found that 38 percent of new mothers received a gift from their mate in connection with their child. Among pregnant mothers, 55 percent wanted one. About 40 percent of both groups said the baby was ample reward.
You heard that right, only 2 in 5 kids can rest assure that Mom wasn't disappointed that their arrival wasn't accompanied by a tennis bracelet.
It is not the fact that Moms are getting a token of their hard work that bugs me, it is that you know that the diamond industry has their hands in this. Just as they invented a "tradition" of diamond wedding rings, the "three months salary" rule, and the "three-stone anniversary ring." Hey, you can hear DeBeers' pitchmen saying: Why not a carat for each pound of baby? Don't you care, Dad?
I'm just saying. Because no man would ever dare.
(For a timeline of diamond marketing, follow the jump. And there's more here.)
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Diamond Timeline
For more on wedding ridiculousness (and the inflation of JLo) go here.
1939: De Beers hires N.W. Ayer and Co. to make diamonds "a psychological necessity…the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love." Within three years, 80% of engagements are consecrated with a diamond ring.
1940: After a sociologist advises diamonds be presented as a symbol of a man's ability to "get into the competitive race," N.W. Ayer begins loaning gems to actresses, "who can make the grocer's wife say, 'I wish I had what she has.'"
1945: Department of Justice charges De Beers with "conspiring to restrict production, monopolize sales and arbitrarily influence prices" by cornering 95% of world market. De Beers executives fail to show up in court, pull company out of U.S. market, opting to use middlemen.
1947: "A Diamond Is Forever" slogan debuts. Jewelers instructed to tell men—who buy 90% of all diamonds—to spend at least two months' salary on ring. The not-so-subtle message: Can you afford not to?
1970s: De Beers gains control of huge Soviet cache of small stones and begins emphasizing "color, cut, and clarity."
1981:Thanks to 14-year campaign to glamorize Western wedding customs, 60% of Japanese wives sport diamond rings; their husbands spend more on them than American counterparts.
1994: DOJ again charges De Beers with price-fixing. Executives again skip court and can't visit the U.S. for fear of arrest.
1999: Advertising Age declares "A Diamond is Forever" the most effective slogan of 20th century, recognized by 90% of Americans.
2000: "Three-stone anniversary ring" campaign is an instant success.
2002: "Diamonds that make a statement"—i.e., they're bigger— campaign aimed at affluent married couples. Uses slogans like: "Thank you, Bob… Thank you, Lord."
2003: De Beers markets "right-hand ring" to "stylish" and "independent" single women. Uses slogan, "Your left hand says 'we,' your right hand says 'me.'"
2007: "Push Present" article appears in the New York Times...
Comments
Clara, I'm a gay man, never going to sire a baby, so I'll dare to agree. It's also sickening because it's one more way that the haves can pamper themselves and the have-nots cannot. This pregnant mother is from an income bracket that means she's been waited on hand and foot for nine months. She'll turn her baby over to the nanny immediately anyway so that she can recover from her vaginal cosmetic surgery [yes, as soon as possible she's going to have her labia reduced and everything all 'tightened up for daddy'- bluck!!!] Now she can call all her tennis friends to talk about her diamonds. Across town, a woman who has worked through as much of her pregancy as possible will be worrying about how soon she can get back to work because her income is as important as his to their survival. He gets her flowers, which make her smile, but when she gets back to her job, she's subtly made to feel [unless hopefully she has enough since to ignore it] that her boss outdid her husband when he gave his wife the diamonds last week. Yes, in my weepy 1940's, Stella Dallas version of this story, ironically enough the pampered mommy is the wife of the poor mommy's boss. Okay, I way disgressed, but in my career I see this sickening since of entitlement from the affluent all the time [I'm an interior designer]. Nothing ever has value in and of itself, like the prize of a sweet-smelling little baby, so the deal needs to be sweetened with blood diamonds. Having said that, I think giving a gift, a small, thoughtful, sweet gift, cannot help but be appreciated. But it doesn't need to be costly - that somehow cheapens the whole thing. It plays into that age old thing about a rich man's wife being his socially acceptable whore. Now they're getting paid for the babies. Yuck.
Submitted by the sobsister (not verified) on Fri Dec. 7, 2007 6:26 AM PST.
the sense of entitlement that emerges from the women interviewed for this article is repellent and, at the same time, wholly unsurprising.
one woman had the brass to lobby her husband for pricey rocks with the line "I've been a good soldier." nice. the newborn not the blessed product of a loving union but an onerous burden whose delivery demands compensation. her child(ren) must feel so special.
Submitted by Helen T (not verified) on Fri Dec. 7, 2007 12:49 PM PST.
Unfortunately just another sign of our materialistic society. Whilst it might sound contradictory, as I run a website that is all about finding great gifts for every occasion, I am thrilled that this Christmas, charity giving has been the most popular thing, and jewellery is a long way down the list. Maybe, there is hope after all.
...and then there is the global sociological issue of supporting dictatorships that enslave political opponents or "undesirable" tribes and make them work unto their death in the "blood diamond" mines....is that what we want to wear? is that what we want to support? I think not!!!
Now now, Paul - look at it this way: When he dumps her for his youthful secretary and manages to hide most of his assets when they're doing the settlement, she needs to have those diamonds to hock when she and the kids move to the two bedroom apartment and attempt to live on oh, say 1,600 a month. I worked in divorce for some years and saw this scenario often, so I say yes, here's the brat, now give me the **&&^% diamonds! :)
The NYT is infamous for women-bashing articles full of sweeping generalizations based on a handful of anecdotes from atypical rich people. I swear the reporters must be so desperate, they've been reduced to grubbing for story ideas at their weekend cocktail parties. All it takes is for two people to say something -- then it can be dubbed a "trend," hedged around with plenty of weasel words like "no one knows the size of the trend, but ..."
Not falling for it any more, NYT.
Aw, why stop at the diamond? Why not make it extra special by, say, setting it in the dried, chopped off ear or hand of a child laborer/soldier involved in the blood diamond trade? Work a little gold or platinum filigree in around the edges and Hey Presto! A really individual piece to celebrate one's own kid!
Now now, Paul - look at it this way: When he dumps her for his youthful secretary and manages to hide most of his assets when they're doing the settlement, she needs to have those diamonds to hock when she and the kids move into the two bedroom apartment and attempt to live on oh, say 1,600 a month. I worked in divorce for some years and saw this scenario often, so I say yes, here's the brat, now give me the **&&^% diamonds! :)
So because it's his kid, too, it's a 'brat', Xtina? I like where you went with it, though. Sounds like the ending to my Stella Dallas-inspired Warner Bros. pic, only this is the end they tacked on so working class people would feel sorry for the diamond push wife, maybe played by a wet-blanket diva like Miriam Hopkins or Gene Tierney. Bluck!
In any event, a marriage that relies on crap like push diamonds probably would end in divorce. I mean, you can pay to have the 'old girl' made over with a new set of headlights, even reshape and tighten up the old hood these days, but she knows you inside and out, what a prick you are, knows how embarrassing you are when you're loaded, that underneath your career successes you have the self-confidence you did when you were twelve....
The article helps to explain how our country has become one of corporate fascism, and greedy CEO's where life and blood are merely a price that we have to pay to have the "comforts" that any bauble loving, spoiled ego, thinks it deserves!
Linden - I think you hit it perfectly. This is not a trend, it's a bizarre article made up by bored reporters in New York. Bah!
That said - I have no problem spending money on a woman, however I will NEVER BUY A DIAMOND. They are evil things. I consider it a litmus test, quite frankly. If a woman expects a diamond, she's long gone in my book. Real women don't need that crap.
Completely bereft of common sense. I have never worn jewellery nor have I ever purchased jewellery for the mother of my two children. Ever. Watch BLOOD DIAMOND and see where your money goes. Consumerist swine will ensure that another generation of poor, dark skinned and savagely conditioned third world children will have to toil for our benefit. I urge all to consider the ramifications of such a profligate society lavishing gifts to women who do the natural thing, bearing children. If you want to care for your partner and make her feel special, wash the laundry, feed and care for the baby and save your money for the child's future needs. Or, give her some paid time off after having the child in order to recover. Try making dinner or doing the shopping. Buying a bauble or two should be seen for what it really is...a cheap cop out. Let me take a wild guess...this idea came from the same place which gave us a fake Santa and a fake Easter bunny and a fake war to feel good about. New York, anyone?
