Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Double Standard for Wedding Rings?

Popular media highlights the absence of a wedding ring on a married female as a sign of separation, impending divorce, and marital distress.

Woman scorned. Elin Woods is snapped without her wedding ring as she is seen…for the first time yesterday since husband Tiger admitted his infidelities. 

Actions speak louder than words and it looks like Brooke Mueller and Charlie Sheen are done…[as the] star's wife showed up…without her wedding ring.

…the first photo of Sandra Bullock without her wedding ring since her husband Jesse James' affair scandal broke.

Men on the other hand, do not receive the same scrutiny when a ring is absent.  Many married men do not own and/or do not wear wedding rings.

Does a double standard exist?  Is it customary that women wear rings and not men?  If so, are we reverting back to the historical notion that only women wear rings in order to signal that they are "taken"?

1 comment:

  1. Seems a littel suspect. If my husband was not wearing his ring than I would definately have a problem; even if there were probles in the marriage. You take the vows, before God and a bunch of other folks, til death do you part. The ring is a symbol of those vows. So, not if you are mad at your spose, female or male, that does not give you the right to stop wearing your ring. If you can let an arguement sway affect your ability to uphold your commitments, than I would be reluctant to trust you with other commitments.