Here’s Your Damn Baby, Now Where Are My #@%&ing Diamond Earrings?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Not to begrudge any woman who’s toiled through nine months of pregnancy and multiple hours of labor, but there’s something quite sickening about this NYT story about how new mothers are expecting their husbands and partners to pony up with some really sweet bling.

This bonus goes by various names. Some call it the “baby mama gift.” Others refer to it as the “baby bauble.” But it’s most popularly known as the “push present.” That’s “push” as in, “I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward.” Or “push” as in, “I’ve delivered something special and now I’m pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit.”

“It’s more and more an expectation of moms these days that they deserve something for bearing the burden for nine months, getting sick, ruining their body,” said Linda Murray, executive editor of “The guilt really gets piled on.”

A recent survey of more than 30,000 respondents by found that 38 percent of new mothers received a gift from their mate in connection with their child. Among pregnant mothers, 55 percent wanted one. About 40 percent of both groups said the baby was ample reward.

You heard that right, only 2 in 5 kids can rest assure that Mom wasn’t disappointed that their arrival wasn’t accompanied by a tennis bracelet.

It is not the fact that Moms are getting a token of their hard work that bugs me, it is that you know that the diamond industry has their hands in this. Just as they invented a “tradition” of diamond wedding rings, the “three months salary” rule, and the “three-stone anniversary ring.” Hey, you can hear DeBeers’ pitchmen saying: Why not a carat for each pound of baby? Don’t you care, Dad?

I’m just saying. Because no man would ever dare.

(For a timeline of diamond marketing, follow the jump. And there’s more here.)

Diamond Timeline
For more on wedding ridiculousness (and the inflation of JLo) go here.

1939: De Beers hires N.W. Ayer and Co. to make diamonds “a psychological necessity…the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love.” Within three years, 80% of engagements are consecrated with a diamond ring.

1940: After a sociologist advises diamonds be presented as a symbol of a man’s ability to “get into the competitive race,” N.W. Ayer begins loaning gems to actresses, “who can make the grocer’s wife say, ‘I wish I had what she has.'”

1945: Department of Justice charges De Beers with “conspiring to restrict production, monopolize sales and arbitrarily influence prices” by cornering 95% of world market. De Beers executives fail to show up in court, pull company out of U.S. market, opting to use middlemen.

1947: “A Diamond Is Forever” slogan debuts. Jewelers instructed to tell men—who buy 90% of all diamonds—to spend at least two months’ salary on ring. The not-so-subtle message: Can you afford not to?

1970s: De Beers gains control of huge Soviet cache of small stones and begins emphasizing “color, cut, and clarity.”

1981:Thanks to 14-year campaign to glamorize Western wedding customs, 60% of Japanese wives sport diamond rings; their husbands spend more on them than American counterparts.

1994: DOJ again charges De Beers with price-fixing. Executives again skip court and can’t visit the U.S. for fear of arrest.

1999: Advertising Age declares “A Diamond is Forever” the most effective slogan of 20th century, recognized by 90% of Americans.

2000: “Three-stone anniversary ring” campaign is an instant success.

2002: “Diamonds that make a statement”—i.e., they’re bigger— campaign aimed at affluent married couples. Uses slogans like: “Thank you, Bob… Thank you, Lord.”

2003: De Beers markets “right-hand ring” to “stylish” and “independent” single women. Uses slogan, “Your left hand says ‘we,’ your right hand says ‘me.'”

2007: “Push Present” article appears in the New York Times


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend