Late-1940s, Middle-class men start to wear wedding rings

         Before the 1940s, in most married couples, only wives wore a wedding band. This was because strong ‘masculinity’ was expected of men throughout the early 20th century while wearing a ring was mainly associated with ‘femininity’ during the period.[3] Traits associated with masculinity in the early 20th century included aggression, competition, stoicism, toughness, and independence.[4] However, the skyrocketing marriage rates after the end of the Great Depression opened up a new opportunity to increase profits for the jewelry industry, to newly establish a market for a groom’s wedding ring. While marriage rates suffered during the Great Depression, as the economy recovered, the marriage rate greatly increased by almost 25 percent from 1942 to 1946. In this period, the U.S. had nearly the highest marriage rate in the industrial world at 16.4 per 1,000 population.[5] This huge market potential drove the Jewelry Industry Publicity Board to widely promote the double ring service by using radio, trade publications, movies, and newsreels. Hollywood celebrities like Humphrey Bogart and Shirley Temple had a double ring ceremony creating awareness that men could also wear wedding bands.[6] 

In the early 1940s, before the war ended, many people still focused on “tough” characteristics of masculinity, and the ring was still viewed as a feminine object, the main goal of the male wedding band campaign was to present the wedding band as a ‘manly object.’ Fighting in World War II was viewed as truly masculine and an indicator of manhood.[7] Thus, jewelry companies used the image of war to promote male wedding bands. This can be seen in the image from a cover of Click Magazine that was reprinted as an advertisement in a 1944 issue of the Jeweler’s trade journal. [Figure 2]

As can be seen in the images below, jewelry manufacturers also made special designs specifically catered toward men. Compared to women’s wedding rings, they were “wider, heavier, and mannish in appearance” or “plain and decidedly masculine.”[8] This distinction shows that men needed to be persuaded that their wedding ring was ‘more masculine’ than their spouse’s ring to decide to purchase the ring. [Figure 3]

One might argue that this adaptation of men’s wedding rings was solely due to vigorous promotions by the jewelry industry, however, these efforts by jewelers were actually not sufficient to convince many men in the early 1940s to wear rings. The noticeable shift happened after World War II, in the late 1940s.[9] After World War II, wearing wedding rings became more accepted by middle-class men with the change in concepts of masculinity and marriage; Rings acted as a physical indicator of men’s newly desired traits and responsibilities. In the prosperous post-war period, much more people expected a “companionate marriage,” a concept born in the 19th century, “characterized by romance, companionship, sexual fulfillment, mutual respect, and emotional satisfaction.”[10] As marriage became more romanticized, men wearing wedding rings were viewed positively as a romantic act. During the World War, rings began to be viewed by both men and women as tokens of love and commitment, relief of the pain of separation by couples, when men were leaving for war.[11] This romantic meaning of wearing a ring was able to fit growing expectations of ‘romance’ and emotional intimacy in marriage.   

Along with the rise in “companionate marriage,” new concepts of “masculine domesticity,” which emerged as a newly desired trait among upper-middle-class suburban men in the early 20C became more ideal after World War II. This was because the end of the war catalyzed the shift of focus from the tough characteristics of masculinity to one focused more on family, peace, and stability.[12] Suburban husbands were expected to have “increased responsibility for the emotional well-being of their children,” and began “to spend their leisure with their wives rather than male cronies, and even to take on limited domestic duties.”[13] Although much domestic work was still done by wives, women’s magazines and other popular sources wrote about husbands who shared childcare and chores with their wives which presented an alternate masculine ideal, more accepting of the form of domesticity.[14] Examples of this include men helping out with cooking as seen in [Figure 4].

The groom’s wedding band fit well with this emphasis on this more family-focused version of masculinity. The presence of a wedding ring on the male’s hand signified his ability to support a wife and a family, as a true adult.[15] Many middle-class men started to engage in double-ring ceremonies. According to a 1947 Fortune magazine article titled “Ring Twice,” from the end of the Depression to the late 1940s, the percentage of double rings, as opposed to single-ring marriages, increased from 15 to approximately 80 percent.[16]

However, this adaptation in the late 1940s was mostly limited to middle-class men. The working class did not embrace the wedding ring custom as it did not fit working-class notions of masculinity. Although working-class women wanted their husbands to wear the ring as it signified the bride’s claim to her husband as well as the man’s willingness to participate in his new role, working-class men did not accept this rising new custom as “Working class masculinity was rooted in the more homosocial world such as the trade union, the lodge, and other male-dominated urban spaces.”[17] The wearing of wedding rings, for them, put more burden of domestic responsibilities on top of their exhausting labor.

Mid-20th Century ~ Late 20th Century, the wide adaptation of men’s wedding rings

As the economy boomed after the war, more men were able to claim middle-class identity. Many working-class men owned their homes and moved to suburban areas by the mid-1950s.[18] As more men became middle-class and economically stable, they became more accepting of the concept of “companionate marriage.” This led to the widespread adaptation of men’s wedding rings. By the 1960s, it had become common for men of all classes to wear wedding bands as a symbol of their commitment to their spouses and families.[19]

The Women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the repeal of the “head and masters law” also influenced the adaption of a dual wedding ring ceremony. One of the functions served by wives’ wedding rings prior to the 20th century was signifying the property right of the husband.[20] This was consistent with the existing sentiment of society, that women are a part of men’s property. Actually, there was even a law called “head and masters law,” which permitted men to have the final say in every decision of the household. Women without men could not enter contracts and men were held accountable for everything that their wives did.[21] This law was simply recognizing women as subordinate to men. Women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s addressed this spousal inequality pushing toward a more egalitarian form of marriage. In the 1970s, all the U.S. states repealed the head and master laws and the concept of “egalitarian marriage” led many people to expect the same amount of commitment between wife and husband, which could be displayed in the form of both wearing wedding rings Although the issue of only women wearing wedding rings was not addressed by the feminists, their efforts toward egalitarian forms of marriage induced the adaptation of men’s wedding rings.

21st century, Celebrating the uniqueness of each relationship

Another noticeable change in men’s wedding rings in the 21st century is the popularity of personalization. This trend is not limited to men’s wedding rings but also affects women’s wedding rings. Previously, gold was a dominant choice of material for wedding rings.  However, couples in the 21st century prefer more variety of materials like stainless steel, titanium, and tungsten carbide not limited to precious metals like gold, silver, and platinum.[22] Even for the design, couples want the rings to reflect their particular story. As a result, brands are taking an all-about-you brand approach.[23] 

Conclusion

Men wearing wedding rings is not a custom that has been the norm throughout history nor could it be simplified as a simple act induced by a certain industry. Rather, the adaptation of wedding rings by males is strongly related to the change in how Americans viewed marriage and masculinity at that time. After World War II, new concepts of “masculine domesticity” and “companionate marriage” influence middle-class men to adopt wedding rings, while working-class men do not, due to clashes in their version of masculinity. The adoption of male wedding rings gradually spreads out to other classes throughout the late 20th century with economic stability and the women’s movement pushing toward “egalitarian marriage.” In the 21st century, an unique romantic ‘relationship’ between the couple is emphasized in marriage, leading to a rising preference for personification in the design of wedding rings. Change in people’s view of men’s wedding rings are not merely incidental, it is a signifier of how American viewed men’s desired traits and marital relationship in general throughout the period. This leaves us to wonder how will we view marriage in the future and how it will portray in the wedding ring custom.

End Notes

[1] Leany, Brooke. "Something Borrowed: The Origins of Christian Wedding Rituals." Studia Antiqua 21, no. 1 (2022): 72-83.

[2] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+. 845

[3] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+. 840

[4] Pitt, Jorden. “American Masculinity after World War II: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, 23 July 2021, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-masculinity-after-world-war-ii#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201940s%2C%20American,that%20they%20were%20truly%20masculine.

[5] Bailey, Beth L. From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

[6] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+. 845

[7]  Pitt, Jorden. “American Masculinity after World War II: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, 23 July 2021, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-masculinity-after-world-war-ii#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201940s%2C%20American,that%20they%20were%20truly%20masculine.

[8] Criterion, Rohde-Spencer, 1942, 24-5, trade catalog, Hagley Museum and Library

[9] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+. 845

[10] Roer Griswold, Fatherhood in America, 89

[11] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+. 847

[12] Pitt, Jorden. “American Masculinity after World War II: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, 23 July 2021, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-masculinity-after-world-war-

[13] Marsh, Suburban Lives, xiv

[14] Walker, Nancy A. Women's Magazines, 1940-1960: Gender Roles and the Popular Press. Boston: Bedfords/St. Martin's, 1998.

[15] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+.

[16] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+.

[17] Griswold, Robert L. Fatherhood in America: A History. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993.

[18] Hurley, Andrew. Diners, Bowling Alleys, and Trailer Parks: Chasing the American Dream in the Postwar Consumer Culture. New York: BasicBooks, 2002.

[19] Howard, Vicki. "A 'real man's ring': gender and the invention of tradition." Journal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 837+.

[20]Blower, Brooke. "Tying the Knot." Lecture, Boston University, March 23, 2023.

[21]Blower, Brooke. "Tying the Knot." Lecture, Boston University, March 23, 2023.

[22] “U.S. Men's Metal Wedding Bands Market Size [2023 Report].” U.S. Men's Metal Wedding Bands Market Size [2023

Report]. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-mens-metal-wedding-bands-market-report#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20men's%20metal%20wedding,4.1%25%20from%202023%20to%202030.

[23] Olson, Elizabeth. “For Millennials, It's More about Personal Style than Luxury.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 2, 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/media/03adco.html.

[24] Blower, Brooke. “Being Single.” Lecture, Boston University, March 21, 2023

[25] Olson, Elizabeth. “For Millennials, It's More about Personal Style than Luxury.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 2, 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/media/03adco.html.

About the Author