Skip to content

Wedding Rings And The Feminist Movement

Abstract: This paper traces some of the major changes in the social significance of wedding rings in human societies, as well as the largely indirect impact of the feminist movement in shaping perceptions vis-à-vis the wearing of wedding rings in our era. Prior to the successful advocacy efforts of the Feminist movement from the 20th century, wedding rings were one of the symbols by which men institutionalized their domination of women. It is the author’s view that the current practice whereby most married, urbanised, males and their spouses voluntarily wear wedding rings is one of the less well documented gains of the Feminist movement, a by-product of significant progress made to minimise spousal inequality. However, the gender equality in the wearing of wedding rings has been paralleled by contemporary changes in their social significance, with wedding rings now generally regarded as romantic love symbols, rather than symbols of domination.

The significance of wedding rings in the pre-feminism era

This article is a product of a heuristic research (Moustakas, 1990) that initially centred on the variable connotations of wedding rings at different periods in human history, and in different societies in our era. Heuristic methodology transverses the subjectivity-objectivity oppositions, which underpin most empiricist social sciences, at both conceptual and methodological levels. Etymologically, heuristic derives from the Greek word heuriskein, meaning “to find”. Although my initial engagement with this topic centred on the variable connotations of wedding rings, I discovered, in the later stages of my inquiry that the observed variable connotations were underpinned by the gains secured by the Feminist movement with regards to minimising spousal inequality.

Prior to the 20th century, wedding rings were used in a variety of contexts: as adornments, to signify the capture of a bride, to denote a promise of fidelity, to signify classification of women as men’s property, as signposts for discouraging potential mating partners of a married woman, and as cultural icons. As a form of decorative art, the significance of wedding rings may be traced from the centre of the earliest known civilisation, Mesopotamia (Iraq), to its universality in modern times. Between 1922 and 1934, the oldest and most spectacular examples of this use for jewellery was discovered in Iraq, where, on the site of the Biblical city of Ur, the Royal tombs (especially the tomb of Queen Pu-abi) have yielded fantastic profusion of gold jewellery dating from about 2500 BC, when Ur was the most powerful city-state in the Mesopotamia. Ten gold wedding rings were worn in the hands of Queen Pu-abi (Tait, 1986).

One of primitive man’s customary means of acquiring a wife was through capture – forcible abduction in which neither the “bride” nor her parents were consenting parties. To secure his precious booty, and prevent her from escaping while carrying her home, he encircled both her wrists and ankles with fetters. Barbaric and primitive though the practice of capture marriage was, it was of universal occurrence. For example, among the Dravidian tribes of north-eastern India, the earlier existence of this marriage strategy may be inferred from historical records as well as how the violence of capture has yielded to symbolic acts, such as the insistence that (rural) married Dravidian women wear iron bracelets on their wrists. As society became more civilised, this practices were discarded and the “large circle”, as it were, contracted to the modern finger ring (Nair, 1978).

The Catholic Church played a significant, though not entirely altruistic, role in promoting the use of wedding rings as a sign of fidelity. It is noteworthy that Christianity initially rejected and condemned the wedding ring – as a pagan accessory – for many centuries. The first efforts made by the Catholic Church to impart a religious character to the contract of marriage coincided with some of the reforms to integrity of the Church, following widespread publicity of the sexual peccadilloes of Pope Alexander IV (1492-1503), better known by his birth name of Rodrigo Borgia. From the early 15th century, the Church stipulated that the bride and bridegroom present each other mutually with rings during the marriage ritual (Brasch, 1996). The bride and groom were expected to present their wedding rings to the Church for blessing at least one week prior to the wedding. Fidelity was the symbolic meaning attached, as indicated in the standard Catholic Church form for the blessing of the rings. In the Anglican Church, following the presentation of the rings during the wedding ritual, the priest is expected to state; “…Send thy blessing upon thy servants, this Man and this Woman, whom we bless in thy name … so that these persons may perform and keep the vow and covenant between them made (whereof this Ring given and received is a token and pledge)…” (Book of Common Prayer, 1662).

In pre-modern Catholic marriage rites, thirteen silver pieces (or its equivalent in gold) and a weeding ring were to be presented to the bride by the groom. In formally presenting the gift, the groom is expected to state: “With this ring, I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give, with my body I thee worship, and with my worldly goods I thee endow”. The officiating Minister is then expected to say, at the end of the formal ceremony, “Then let the woman be given away by her father or by her friends”. Undoubtedly, this is a trace of primitive sale by which the bridegroom paid a sum of money for the transference to him of the wife (Thurston, 1999).

The wedding ring also served to reflect aspects of the culture of different societies. For instance, a variety of traditions account for the hand and specific finger for wearing the wedding ring. The reason so frequently assigned to the choice of the fourth (or “ring”) finger of the left hand {i.e. that a vein (or nerve) runs directly from the finger to the heart} was documented in the work of early writers like Pliny (a remarkable Roman poet born in Como, northern Italy, in the winter of 61-62 AD (Robinson, 1939)). A practical reason might however be that, anatomically, the ring finger is the only finger that cannot be fully extended on its own, thus ensuring that the finger bearing this precious metal is always aided when women have to work with a relatively less used hand (Brasch, 1996). Three examples of such cultural adaptation of wedding rings are given below.

First, the Claddagh ring (named for Claddagh, an Irish fishing village on Galway Bay) is shaped in the form of two hands holding a heart, which is surmounted by a crown. The heart stood for love, whilst the crown expressed unswerving loyalty. These rings served not only as wedding rings, but also as friendship and engagement rings. Whichever of the three purposes it was chosen for was cleverly indicated by the way in which it was worn. Placed on the right hand with the crown nearest to the wrist, it signified that one’s heart was still to be “conquered”. When married, one wore the ring on the left hand, with the heart made to point away from the fingertip (Brasch, 1996).

Second, the Turkish puzzle ring, which is not one solid band, but made from at least three bands, which are cleverly interlocked. Any attempt to put them together once they re separated presents an exacting and formidable puzzle. Traditionally, this ring was a gift from a mistrustful husband to his wife! If he was about to go to war or take an extended trip, and was afraid that during his absence she might get bored and be tempted to yield to other men’s advances, the husband placed an assembled puzzle ring on her finger, and she was to keep it there till his return. If she removed it to hide her married status, she would have great difficulty rejoining them, thus revealing her unfaithfulness (Brasch, 1996).

Third, the fede, or hand-in-hand rings appeared in Roman times, when the two clasped hands (dextrarum ivnctio) represented a contract. Byzantine marriage rings of the 6th and 7th centuries were often elaborately engraved, and may depict the bride and bridegroom blessed by the figures of Christ and the Virgin Mary. In accordance with old Roman custom, a distinction was drawn between the preliminaries of marriage (sponsalia), and the actual marriage itself. The sponsalia usually consisted of a promise ratified by the giving of a ring, by the groom to the bride, as a pledge of his commitment to the proposed marriage (Tait, 1986).

As may be inferred from the above, the functions served by wedding rings in the pre-feminist era (i.e. adornment, capture, fidelity, property, signposts to discourage adulterous men, and cultural icons) were primarily designed to satisfy men’s needs. Wedding rings represented one of the ideas, symbols and metaphors by which men institutionalised their domination over women, following the creation of patriarchy as the dominant form of societal order from about 6 BC (Lerner, 1986). Although the feminist movement did not specifically address issues related to the wearing of wedding rings highlighted above, the changes in the male adoption, and significance, of wedding rings may be linked to the gains made by the feminist movement in minimising spousal inequality.

Feminism, and the minimisation of spousal inequality

In the narrow sense of the term, feminism is a movement striving for equal political and social rights for women. Lerner (1993) defined “feminist consciousness” as “the awareness of women that they belong to a subordinate group; that they have suffered wrongs as a group; that their condition of subordination is not natural, but is societally determined; that they must join with other women to remedy these wrongs; and finally that they must and can provide an alternative vision of societal organization in which women as well as men will enjoy autonomy and self-determination”. The movement formally developed around the question of women suffrage but took in also many other issues, such as equal protection of the law, equal rights to property, equal opportunity for education, equitable marriage relationships, and the right to engage in professions. In its broader sense, feminism, as a concept, is used to describe more than mere political and social equality with men. It aims to further the potentialities of womanhood to their highest point (Daymond, 1996).

Since the Middle Ages, the major advocates of the feminist consciousness were largely white, upper class, educated, and economically privileged women. Working class women have had to sustain themselves for ages, even in situations in which they were aware of their gender-related disadvantages. For example, in the 1850s, a lower class woman named Sarah Grimke (1792-1873) was enthusiastic to pursue a career in law, but the study of law was still closed to women in the United States during her time. During the 19th century in the United States, and until the mid-20th century in most parts of the world, women were almost universally educationally disadvantaged in comparison with their brothers, and formal education was, for those few women able to obtain it, distinctly a class privilege (Lerner, 1993).

Until the rise of feminism in Victorian England, marriage laws and common law in most parts of the world were based on the premise that a wife was primarily a property of her husband – when a woman married, her personality was subsumed in that of her husband. From this legal “unity”of the husband and wife, it followed that a wife could not sign a contract unless her husband joined her, and that a woman’s property prior to marriage automatically passed on to the husband (Shanley, 1982).

Early feminists in 19th England tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to transform the marriage laws from one of “tyrant and victim” to one where the husband and wife would walk “hand in hand, eye to eye, heart in heart”. The feminists of the era actively campaigned to rid British law of the myriad injustices of the common law doctrine of coverture. However, in their struggle, they did not appear to have adequate understanding of the complexity of the educational, social, economic, and political forces obstructing the realisation of spousal equality (Shanley, 1982). For example, with the establishment of Universities in Europe from the 14th century, education for the nobility and wealthier urban middle class became institutionalised. The elites in this era needed to assure their position in power by means of training a group to serve and perpetuate their interests. Generally, males were preferentially educated, but daughters of the elites, such as princesses and noble women, who might have to serve as stand-ins for sons or husbands, were carefully tutored and trained as their brothers. It was not surprising therefore to find that almost all the known educated women from antiquity to the 16th century were members of the nobility (Lucas, 1983). The above issues were several of the many formidable obstacles that the feminist movement had to address in order to minimise spousal inequality.

The influence of the Christian religion on minimising spousal inequality was mixed. The insistence, from the 15th century, that the bride and groom must present each other with a wedding ring during marriage rituals has already been highlighted. Fundamentally, the post-14th century Catholic Church aimed to establish Christian monogamy for life; and as generations passed, the lay aristocracies of Western Europe, and even their monarchs, came to see great advantages to them in monogamy. This coincidence of interests made it feasible for marriage to become established as one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. Subsequently, the Church attempted to spiritualise the institution of marriage (Brooke, 1989).

This aspect of marriage reform was apparently considered necessary because of the primary rationale for marriage during the medieval period was the protection, expansion, and preservation of material assets. For instance, in early (French) Genoese aristocracy, fear of dividing up inheritance reinforced obstacles to the marriage of all but the first son, and made 12th century northern France the age of juvenes, unmarried knights. The practice of marrying of all daughters, and ensuring that all sons except the eldest remained unmarried threatened medieval society’s social fabric, and deeply concerned the Church (Duby, 1994). The eldest son’s marriage was usually a very lavish ceremony, in which the bride’s family was typically provided fabulous gifts. In an attempt spiritualise marriage, and liberate the institution from material considerations, the Church banned the giving, by grooms, of silver pieces (or its equivalent) to brides, decreed that consensus between the bride and groom triumph over the ploys of families, and stipulated that a wedding ring, mutually exchanged, should suffice to indicate love and affection between the bride and groom.

These reforms apparently encouraged a changed perception of wedding rings, to be viewed more as symbols of mutual, romantic love. The love that the Catholic Church apparently sought to promote was one based on choice, which claimed to unite first and foremost two beings rather than two families, or two networks of interest. However, the author was unable to access any literature that verified whether the Church’s stipulation led to married Christian men voluntarily wearing wedding rings from the Medieval period to the end of the 19th century.

This pro-feminist policy of the Catholic Church was, however, more than counterbalanced by pro-patriarchal Biblical doctrines, such as Ephesians 5:23 – “The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.”; and the misogynist tradition in 1 Timothy 2:11 , that women “must learn in silence and with all submissiveness. I permit no women to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent”.

The period of Reformation laid the basis for a measure of individualism vis-à-vis religion. The extreme Protestant sects, such as the Quakers, who had decided that God resided in the bosom of each person, could not deny that a woman too was a person and that God equally resided in her. So, among the Quakers, women were allowed to have equal rights with men in being the embodiment of the holiness of God, and having the power to preach. Probably as a response to the reality that married women were coerced into wearing wedding rings while their husbands were not, the Quakers made the wearing of wedding rings by married women and men optional. The Quakers were destined to play leading roles in the Liberal Feminist Movement that sprung up later. However, even among the Quakers in the United States, it was not until 1878 that they voted full equality to their women with regards to property rights (Escher, 1962).

In the United States, circumstances converged to precipitate earlier than elsewhere a definitely organised movement of feminism. The Women’s Rights Movement started out as a branch of the Abolitionists. This connection was significant because it was from the creation of Patriarchy in about 5 BC that other forms of domination, such as slavery, developed (Lerner, 1993). The freeing of slaves went hand in hand with a general democratic tendency to consider every being, including women, as worthy of equal treatment. As a platform for contributing to the anti-slavery movement, the National Society of Anti-slavery Women was formed in 1839, and the first National Convention of the Women Rights Movement was held in New York in 1848. These activists showed in words and deeds that they deserved equal status to men. For instance, during the First World War, the Red Cross Women’s Bureau mobilised the women effectively to produce surgical materials and hospital linen. In social services attached to the Army, women were extremely valuable. Under such conditions, it was impossible any longer to preclude women from political participation. Immediately after the war, women’s suffrage was enacted. This political emancipation was the beginning of a slippery slope of agitation for equality that eventually extended to the marriage ritual (Sorin, 1971).

Relationships between minimisation of spousal inequality and changes in the significance of wedding rings in 2002

The relations between Feminists’ efforts to minimise spousal inequality on one hand, and the changes in the use and significance of wedding rings on the other, are not well defined by writers on these subjects. Based on the fragmentary pieces of evidence available to me, this connection may be summarised thus: feminism facilitated the minimisation spousal equality, at least in most democratic societies. Improved levels of spousal equality in turn indirectly facilitated the voluntary use of wedding rings by men, as well as entrenched romantic love as a primary reason for the use of wedding rings in our era. I will explicate.

The groundwork laid by successive groups of feminists in previous decades made it possible for the socio-economic and political emancipation of women to become evident especially from the 1960s. For example, the dual-career couple remains, in most Western countries, the new ideal middle class marital relationship. Money has clearly enhanced the material well-being of these couples. It is less often realised, however, how a woman’s enhanced earning capacity apparently contributed to changing relations of dominance that characterised most marriages in the pre-feminist era, when cloistering women in the home made it more of a prison than a shelter, and supported the unjust domination of husbands over wives (Hertz, 1986). Lake (1999) provided a detailed account of how feminism improved socio-economic and educational opportunities for Australian women since the 19th century, making Australian women pacesetters in political, educational and socio-economic emancipation of women. In her view, the fruits of feminism may be observed in rising female enrolments in tertiary institutions, the significant increase in female breadwinners in Australian households (currently 20%), and the “equality in the eyes of the law” principle in Australian Family Courts.

As the earlier significance of wedding rings were largely designed to massage the male ego in patriarchal societies, it was only a matter of time that the significance, and use, of wedding rings would change as gender relations became less unequal. One aspect of the use wedding rings that has become very fashionable in our era is the mutual exchange of wedding rings during marriage, and the wearing of such rings by both brides and grooms long after they are formally wedded. In Australia for example, an overwhelming majority of married men and women wear wedding rings. Since most husbands and wives currently wear wedding rings, whatever unflattering connotations were previously attached to women wearing them would now apply equally to men. Interestingly, only a handful of the scores married individuals I held discussions with while working on this article were aware of the misogynist significance of wedding rings discussed earlier.

Wedding rings continue to be used by women for adornments, but not primarily to please men. Most women are socialised to value precious metals, and they either buy the most desirable rings for themselves, or insist that their spouses buy such rings. A cynical married colleague insinuated that such adornments, because of their prohibitive cost, currently tended to displease bridegrooms! In modern society, nubile, educated women are increasingly playing active roles in choosing their marriage partners; thus the significance of wedding rings as a symbol of capture is currently irrelevant.

Currently, wedding rings continue to serve as a promise of mutual, not exclusive female, fidelity. Although the wedding ring is today romanticised as a circle of love, it still closely linked to the fact of jealousy in human sexual relations. As shown by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson in fairly controversial studies (1988, 1990), sexual jealousy is as fundamental to the human condition as eating, sleeping and sexual desire. The married psychologists/sociologists, who were based at McMaster University, Canada, asserted that although it may have unpleasant consequences, sexual jealousy is designed to prevent humans from being cheated or betrayed by the individuals in whom we need to place our greatest trust: the long-term sexual partners with whom we create and rear our children.

From this perspective, a man generally views the costs of a wife’s sexual errantry as including a waste of time and resources in bringing up another man’s child in the mistaken belief that it was theirs. He would have wasted time and resources that had gone into acquiring his wife, and be unable to use her as a vehicle for passing on his own genes during such pregnancy. Bearing in mind these heavy costs, evolution (and sometimes the penal code) was likely to favour sexually jealous men. Daly and Wilson (1988) suggest that at least 20% of all male/male homicides may have sexual jealousy as their root cause, while up to 50% of women at shelter for battered women were targets of their husbands’ sexual jealousy.

As late as 1974, section 1225 of the Texas (United States) penal code allowed that any man who found his wife in flagrante delicto with another man could kill him and be guilty of nothing more than justifiable homicide, which wouldn’t even result in a crime, much less in a punishment. While on a day-to-day basis these tendencies might only surface to a minor level, they would blow up to epic proportions in response to real and concrete signs of infidelity or abandonment. The wedding ring is, in fact, one of the modern signposts for discouraging the rival for his partner’s affections. Currently in the Christian West, for example, the engagement ring, and the retention of the centuries-old nine-month engagement period (during which signs of an unwelcome pregnancy could be spotted and investigated) are generally regarded as a hallmark of romance. In fact these rituals underlie the extent of male sexual jealousy (Andrea, 1998).

Based on discussions with married women as part of my research into this topic, it appears that women are usually aroused to greater sexual jealousy by the sort of emotional withdrawal that might signal impending desertion by their spouses. From experience, they were aware that the wedding ring would discourage their potential rivals, who, as women, were very cognisant with its implications. Hence wives not uncommonly pressured their husbands to wear their wedding rings always (Buss, 1996). Thus, wedding rings currently appear to serve a largely understated purpose – a constant reminder of an individual’s marital status, while at the same time discouraging spouses’ potential rivals.

The socio-political emancipation of women, and the reform of marriage laws (at least in Western countries) in order to make men and women equal in the eyes of the law (Lake, 1999), have made the use of wedding rings in classifying women as men’s property largely irrelevant. In fact, as women became economically emancipated, wedding ceremonies, as well as financial arrangements following marriage increasingly became joint responsibility. In fact, as part of feminists’ drive to erase the notion of marriage as a commercial transaction in which the bride was the product, many contemporary books on wedding etiquette suggest that brides’ families be the main bearers of the financial burden of weddings (Abeyfus, 1981). Although the groom is still expected to purchase wedding rings in our era, the transaction is usually with the brides’ involvement.

It must be noted that the credit for the increased socialization of men to wear wedding rings is also shared by national and multinational jewellery companies, such as Cartier and De Beers, whose marketing ploys helped to further the romantic and class appeal of wedding rings. Especially since the beginning of the 21st century, these companies aggressively promoted wedding rings (for the bride and the groom) as a matter of course in a formal wedding. For instance, the Cartier jewellery company designed unique, very expensive, Russian wedding rings for the Tsars for decades, until the overthrow of the Russian monarchy in 1917 (Brasch, 1996). Such rings are framed primarily as symbols of love, fashion, and class. This marketing strategy apparently contributed to socializing men to believe that the quality of the wedding ring they give to their brides is a visible measure of their affection for her. Consequently, rings currently constitute an important and expensive item of wedding budgets.

Conclusion

As the changed significance of wedding rings over the centuries indicate, feminism’s largely understated victory with regards to socialising both brides and grooms to wear wedding rings has not necessarily secured for women the same symbols of domination which men gained over women in earlier eras. However, in the context of the equality principle, it has minimised the disadvantages suffered by women with regards to the ring’s symbol in several respects. For example, because a substantial proportion of married men (whether wearing a wedding ring or not) commit adultery at least once in their married life, the wearing of the ring by men has exposed the hypocrisy of punishing or isolating the woman for a “sin” that is just as likely to be committed by her equal partner.

In the pre-feminism era, adultery (by the wife and her male liaison, of course!) incurred penalties from a simple fine to the ultimate punishment – execution. For most of history, adultery has been a sex-specific offence, committed only by married women and their lovers. Married men who had sex with girls or widows were simply not classed as adulterers. Currently, penalties for adultery apply equally, legally, to husbands and wife. Changing community attitudes also ensure that, in most parts of the world, cheating wives and their lovers are no longer subject to the fearful penalties for adultery that characterised the pre-feminism era. Although adultery currently remains a capital offence in northern Nigeria and six countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan), when such sentences were implemented, they elicited widespread condemnation from most of the world’s nations. For instance, worldwide condemnation of the death sentence handed down to a married woman in northern Nigeria accused of adultery in 2001 (she claimed that she was raped) contributed to the woman’s acquittal earlier this year.

Furthermore, while a husband’s penchant for committing adultery indiscriminately in the pre-feminist era was condoned, the revision of marriage laws in favour of women has apparently forced some adulterous men to condone extramarital relationships by their wives. The increasing popularity, at least in Australia, of “Swingers Clubs” – where husbands and wives swap partners with each other’s full knowledge and permission – has provided some women the sort of carnal pleasures that, for example, Geisha girls of Japan, made available exclusively to married men in the pre-feminist era. It is interesting to note that while the wearing of wedding rings is largely inconsequential for married coupled who attend such clubs together, anecdotal evidence indicates that married individuals who visit such clubs without their spouses’ knowledge tend to either conceal their marital status or lessen guilt feelings by removing their wedding rings.

Wedding rings are currently marketed as romantic symbols of love. The circular shape is supposed to represent endless affection flowing from one partner to another. Jewellers suggest that buying these ornaments in pairs facilitates the flow of eternal romance between partners. Currently, Gold, one of the world’s most precious and most durable metals, is the outstanding choice for producing wedding rings. Books on wedding rings etiquette have devised various rules for the purchase of wedding rings, such as the advice not to buy the engagement ring and wedding ring at the same time, as it may signify “bad luck” during marriage (Abeyfus, 1981).

Interestingly, Love is one of the most difficult concepts to define. Fromm (1995), asserted that a major reason for the disintegration of love in modern society is that most people see the problem of love as that of being loved, rather than that of loving. He further stated that love is best defined as what it is not, and emphasised that sexual jealousy does not equate to love. Yet, a significant proportion of brides regard the giving of an expensive wedding ring, by a groom, as a sign of being loved, while one of the understated functions of wedding rings is to discourage potential mating partners. This suggests a dissonance between what jewellers market wedding rings to be and what it actually functions as in practice.

The future of the wedding ring in marriage rituals is difficult to predict. The multibillion-dollar jewellery industry would undoubtedly innovate and market new precious metals (such as platinum), and new meanings for wedding rings in marriage. Already, such marketing has made wedding rings an integral aspect of Muslim weddings, leading to an increased customer base of about 250 million adult Muslims. An evolving use of wedding rings is as part of a goal celebration ritual during soccer matches. During the first round matches of the 2002 Soccer World Cup, top strikers such as Spain’s Raul kissed their wedding rings immediately after scoring a goal. The association of the world’s most popular games with wedding rings is sure to increase its global popularity. Also, the changing nature of work implies that with trade occupations and some nursing specialities, married individuals may be prohibited, for safety reasons, from wearing wedding rings even if they normally wished to do so. The increasing emphasis on security, especially following the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, would make wedding rings unsuitable for workers in occupations that require constant passage through metal detector machines. Furthermore, as wedding ring design become more and more intricate, some would become too cumbersome to wear routinely. For instance, the Jewish wedding ring may be ornamented with the model of a house, or a Jerusalem temple, all shown with intricate detail. Such designs would make intricately designed rings too cumbersome to be worn constantly.

Thanks to feminism, the wedding ring appears to be undergoing a silent revolution in our era. We can only hope that new meanings that may be attached to this typically circular object in future would not lead to a rediscovery of the wheel!

Works Cited

Abeyfus D. The Brides’ Book, London, Penguin Books, 1981.

Andrea S. Anatomy of Desire: the science and psychology of sex, love and marriage, London, Little, Brown and Company, 1998.

Bass D, Malamuth M. N. Sex, Power, conflict: evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York, Oxford University Press, 1996.

Book of Common Prayer (Church of England and the Anglican Communion). Wedding ceremony, 1662. Internet communication, http://www.dfwx.com/medieval.html

Brasch R. Circles of love, Sydney, HarperCollins Publishers, 1996.

Brooke C. N. L. The Medieval idea of Marriage. New York, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Daly M., Wilson M. Homicide, 1988, New York, Aldine, 1988.

Daly M., Wilson M. Killing the competition: female/female and male/male homicide, Human Nature 1: 81-107; 1990.

Daymond M. J. South African Feminisms, New York, Garland publishing, 1996.

Duby G. Love and marriage in the Middle Ages. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1994.

Escher F. A brief history of the United States, New York, United States, 1962.

Fromm E. The art of loving. London, Thorsons, 1995.

Hertz R. More equal than others: women and men in dual career marriages. London, University of California Press, 1986.

Lake M. Getting equal – the history of Australian feminism. Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1999.

Lerner G. The creation of patriarchy. New York, Oxford University Press, 1986

Lerner G. The creation of Feminist Consciousness: from the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy. New York, Oxford University Press.

Lucas A. M. Women in the Middle Ages: Religion, Marriage and Letters. Brighton, Harvester Press, 1983.

Moustakas C. Heuristic Research. Newbury Park, Sage publications, 1990.

Nair P. T. Marriage and dowry in India, Calcutta, Minerva Publications, 1978.

Robinson C. E. Pliny, Selections From the Letters. London, Martin and Hopkinson, 1939.

Shanley M. L. Feminism, Marriage and the law in Victorian England, 1850-1895, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1982.

Sorin G. The New York Abolitionists: a case study of political radicalism, Westport, Greenwood Publishing Company, 1971,

Tait H. Seven thousand years of jewellery, London, British Museum Publications, 1986.

Thurston H. The Ritual of Marriage, the Catholic Encyclopedia (Online edition). Internet communication, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/o9703b.htm

Author: Niyi Awofeso is a physician, public health researcher, and a professional manager. He recently submitted his doctoral thesis in Health Administration to the University of New South Wales. His informal speciality is “Origins” – of the most diverse kind. With about a tenth of the planet’s human population currently wearing wedding rings, this mundane behaviour is, in his opinion, collectively one of the most valuable items of movable personal property in the world.

Published inIssue 3.2Issues
© 2000, Journal of Mundane Behavior. Permission to link to this site is granted. All copyright permission and reproduction requests beyond "fair use" must be approved jointly by Journal of Mundane Behavior and the individual author, and should be directed to the managing editor.