This song has always made me kind of angry. Yes, it has a funky beat that you almost have to dance to. Yes, it’s cute to watch the Chipettes from Alvin and the Chipmunks wiggle around to it and sing it in high-pitched voices. But when it comes down to it, declaring that a person needs to “put a ring on it” if they want to be with you is pretty lame—whether you’re male or female.

If the concept was only about commitment, that’s valid. I think that people deserve to have healthy, committed relationships in which they can trust their partners, raise a family, and live happy lives. But attaching a piece of jewelry into the equation randomly isn’t about love or commitment; it’s about archaic rituals, commercialism, and often death in the case of child mine workers.

Aside from these irksome standards that everyone just seems to accept as much as death and taxes, there’s another problem with the whole “ring on it” concept—one of sexism. Lindsay Beyerstein of Big Think recently wrote about a New York court ordering a woman to return her engagement ring after the two parted ways. The man who gave the ring had cheated on his fiancée, which was why the wedding had been called off.

Beyerstein has a point in saying that, “In eyes of New York State, engagement rings aren't gifts, they're deposits to reserve a wife. If the deal falls through, you get your deposit back.” Honestly, if the relationship was over and a man asked for a puppy, a piece of lingerie, or another gift back, would it go to court? In our country, the answer would always be maybe; we do take each other to court over some pretty silly things sometimes. But in this instance, I think that while Beyerstein’s point is valid, so is a lawsuit filed against someone for a $20,000 diamond ring.

I’d argue, of course, that such a purchase is ridiculous in the first place—not only because of my previous points, but also simply because it’s a waste of money. But if you had given your lover, say, a $15,000 boat as a gift, or even a $1,000 coat, and then ended the relationship, I would guess that the odds are 50-50 that you might ask for the gift back—and, if it was a shared item, you might even take it to a judge. I’ve seen my share of court shows (awful as they are) and I know people have sued one another over lesser gifts; I don’t think that just because it’s an engagement ring makes it automatically sexist. I also think that if a relationship were truly over, people wouldn’t want to keep their engagement rings—especially if it reminded you of a cheating partner.  

What do you think? Is being ordered to return an engagement ring akin to rendering a woman a piece of property—a deal gone wrong? Is ordering any gift to be returned valid, for that matter?