Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who says that women are expected to give themselves away for nothing in return. It's not only the lack of ring though, it's also the whole playing house without marriage.

What is exactly this "playing house" I keep hearing?

Mortgage + possibly kids without marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who says that women are expected to give themselves away for nothing in return. It's not only the lack of ring though, it's also the whole playing house without marriage.

What is exactly this "playing house" I keep hearing?

Mortgage + possibly kids without marriage.

In my jurisdiction, living together creates the same effects as marriage. Even in the cases it doesn't, purchasing a home together gives both parties an equal share to that home. Child support doesn't depend on marriage but on paternity/maternity. I've seen many women left high and dry after a separation and the only pattern I've noticed is how supportive and responsible their husbands were BEFORE children and cohabitation/marriage. Women whose partners were irresponsible had messy separations. I'd even go as far as to say that those who were married and then separated were worse of than the ones who just cohabitated because of the added costs of divorce. Marriage isn't the protective force you think it is. Not marrying irresponsible men and not leaving your jobs does more to protect women than the "stop playing house" advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

If you consider yourself a feminist, how have you missed the Fourth Wave?

Feminists now recognize that it is not just women that are harmed by women's inequity. Everyone is harm even men. Gendered norms are just as much pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy as women's inequity. Expecting a man to propose and give you a ring just because he's a man and you're a woman is a gendered norm.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and asking for something. How a someone responds to a loved one's request is an indication of what kind of partner they will be. Expecting a ring and proposal from a man because you are a woman is no different than a expecting a woman to be responsible all gift giving for her DH's family simply because that's what women are supposed to do. Again, asking is perfectly fine. Expecting something because of gendered norms is not.

Your version of feminism is just that, yours. I am a feminist and defined my beliefs quite clearly for you. Isn’t that the great thing about women? We all have our opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

If you consider yourself a feminist, how have you missed the Fourth Wave?

Feminists now recognize that it is not just women that are harmed by women's inequity. Everyone is harm even men. Gendered norms are just as much pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy as women's inequity. Expecting a man to propose and give you a ring just because he's a man and you're a woman is a gendered norm.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and asking for something. How a someone responds to a loved one's request is an indication of what kind of partner they will be. Expecting a ring and proposal from a man because you are a woman is no different than a expecting a woman to be responsible all gift giving for her DH's family simply because that's what women are supposed to do. Again, asking is perfectly fine. Expecting something because of gendered norms is not.

You’re wasting your time. The olds Do. Not. Get. It.

lol I’m probably younger than you.

[Anonymous]

Most of the older people I know did not have engagement rings because they didn't have that sort of money when they became engaged at a young age. My grandparents only had wedding rings.

The whole you must have a diamond thing was marketing in the mid twentieth century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

You can identify as you wish, but it's baffling how somebody who follows a movement for gender equality expects to be given things just because of their gender. You might be a feminist, the the expectation of a ring isn't.

It’s really not baffling at all. The majority of women getting engaged are accepting rings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the older people I know did not have engagement rings because they didn't have that sort of money when they became engaged at a young age. My grandparents only had wedding rings.

The whole you must have a diamond thing was marketing in the mid twentieth century.

Which is why I think this is more about the devaluing of the diamond on the era of lab grown gems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who says that women are expected to give themselves away for nothing in return. It's not only the lack of ring though, it's also the whole playing house without marriage.

What is exactly this "playing house" I keep hearing?

Mortgage + possibly kids without marriage.

In my jurisdiction, living together creates the same effects as marriage. Even in the cases it doesn't, purchasing a home together gives both parties an equal share to that home. Child support doesn't depend on marriage but on paternity/maternity. I've seen many women left high and dry after a separation and the only pattern I've noticed is how supportive and responsible their husbands were BEFORE children and cohabitation/marriage. Women whose partners were irresponsible had messy separations. I'd even go as far as to say that those who were married and then separated were worse of than the ones who just cohabitated because of the added costs of divorce. Marriage isn't the protective force you think it is. Not marrying irresponsible men and not leaving your jobs does more to protect women than the "stop playing house" advice.

What jurisdiction is that that allows for the rights of a married couple just by living together? And for how long?

[Anonymous]

Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

I don't get get this. What is the point of an engagement anyway? Just time to plan a very expensive party? If you are so hung up on jewelry, it is the wedding ring that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

There's no such thing as an official engagement. An engagement isn't a contract. You can break it off whenever you want or to have a long term one with no wedding date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

There's no such thing as an official engagement. An engagement isn't a contract. You can break it off whenever you want or to have a long term one with no wedding date.

That ring would come in handy if he gets cold feet and you get stuck with nonrefundable deposits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

There's no such thing as an official engagement. An engagement isn't a contract. You can break it off whenever you want or to have a long term one with no wedding date.

That ring would come in handy if he gets cold feet and you get stuck with nonrefundable deposits.

Is this sarcasm? why would I get stuck with nonrefundable deposits and how does that relate to my relationship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. I don't think that an engagement without a ring/proposal is an official engagement.

That’s because you were raised to be a prostitute

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the older people I know did not have engagement rings because they didn't have that sort of money when they became engaged at a young age. My grandparents only had wedding rings.

The whole you must have a diamond thing was marketing in the mid twentieth century.

Which is why I think this is more about the devaluing of the diamond on the era of lab grown gems.

?
It's about people who don't want to spend a large chunk of a house payment on a ring. I would gladly get a fake stone to save some money, has nothing to do with the "devaluing of the diamond."