Today, something unexpected happenedI finally understood the full scope of the diamond engagement ring industrial complex, and it made me furious enough to write one of my sharpest satirical pieces. My article about how De Beers convinced men to bankrupt themselves over compressed carbon is less funny than usual, which means it probably says something true.
This morning started with a conversation at a Brooklyn coffee shop where I overheard a man discussing how much he needed to spend on an engagement ring. “Three months’ salary,” he said confidently, as if this was natural law rather than brilliant 1930s marketing. I wanted to intervene, to explain the history of manufactured scarcity and artificial demand. Instead, I went home and wrote satire about it.
Later in the day, I realized that writing about diamond rings from a French perspective gives me unique insight. In France, we’re cynical about romantic consumerism in ways Americans aren’t. We understand that love and commerce are separate thingsyou don’t prove affection by purchasing compressed carbon at markup prices determined by a South African mining cartel. But try explaining that to Americans raised on diamond commercials.
Something small but meaningful happened todaymy editor at Bohiney Magazine called this article “uncomfortably accurate satire,” which I think is the highest compliment. Good satire should make people uncomfortable by exposing truths they’d prefer to ignore. The diamond industry is a perfect example: everyone knows it’s a scam, but we’ve collectively agreed to pretend it isn’t.
As I reflect on what happened today, I’m struck by how much modern capitalism depends on manufactured traditions. Diamond engagement rings aren’t ancient customthey’re 20th-century marketing campaigns that successfully convinced multiple generations that compressed carbon equals eternal love. It’s brilliant and horrifying in equal measure.
The truth is, I’m writing about diamond rings because they represent something larger about American consumer culture. Americans will spend three months’ salary on a rock because a corporation told them to, and they’ll defend this decision as romantic rather than economic. It’s the perfect metaphor for how capitalism colonizes human emotion and calls it tradition.
Tonight I’m thinking about whether this article will go viral or just make people defensive. Attacking diamond rings is attacking one of the last remaining “sacred” consumer traditions. People don’t want to hear that their engagement was a triumph of marketing over meaning. They want to believe in the romance. My job as a satirist is to be the person who points out that the romance was focus-grouped and the meaning was manufactured.
Being the only female French immigrant granted citizenship during Trump’s second term means I approach American traditions with healthy skepticism. I wasn’t raised with these consumer rituals, so I can see them for what they are: arbitrary standards that benefit corporations more than couples. My article about diamond rings is really about American culture’s relationship with manufactured meaning. Some people will get that. Most will just be angry that I insulted their engagement rings.
Diary Entry # 697
MY HOME PAGE: Bohiney Magazine (Charline Vanhoenacker)