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

[Anonymous]

My ring cost $500. We have been married almost 20 years. No diamond. Can afford one. No interest.

Who cares if someone doesn't have a ring? TBH my mom always said the bigger the ring, the shorter the marriage...

[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.

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.

It is baffling that many of them say they believe in equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not the person you're replying to, but in several states like Colorado, for example, and Washington DC as well, a couple acquires the same rights and obligations as a married couple if they've been acting like married. "Acting like married" includes cohabitating, sharing finances, raising kids. The amount of time it requires probably depends on the jurisdiction. Other countries might also have civil partnerships and other arrangements that have similar effects of a marriage.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know. Desperation to believe?

My spouse bought me a ring before he proposed when he was making 40k in the early 2000s.

It sounds like there might be pressure on the situation in these cases after reading the thread. Not a great way to begin a marriage imo.

[Anonymous]

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.

Huh? "Give themselves away for nothing in return"? What millennium are you living in? I'm sorry you haven't rejected your childhood conditioning that taught you relationships are transactional and your body is your currency.

[Anonymous]

Because some people don't care about material things, find the symbolism of rings unappealing, or maybe they don't wear or like jewelry. It's not really any of your concern.

[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.

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.

Hhmmm. Now you're being disingenuous. There's nothing wrong with accepting an engagement ring! Nothing at all! It is the expectation of that you should be gifted on because of YOUR gender, that you expect someone to buy you one because of HIS gender that's is anti-feminist. You know that.

A feminist cannot fight against gendered norms for women but expect them to continue for men. That's not what feminism is no matter what you like to think about yourself. Anything else is hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think they believe that until a woman receives and engagement ring she is only "engaged to be engaged". It's not 'official' until there is a ring or a wedding.

[Anonymous]

Engaged with no ring. Celebrating 20 year anniversary. No symbolism needed. Love/trust is strong.

[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.

That's what small claims court is for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once we’re married our accounts will be joint. Why do I want him spending our joint money on a piece of jewelry I wouldn’t buy with my own money? The whole thing seems ridiculous to me. It made more sense when it was a way to get money out of groom’s family and also operated as some financial protection for women in the event of abandonment by the man (during the coverture rules when the marital assets all belonged to the man and he could spend them.)

Here’s an interesting historical side note. The founder of Girl Scouts founded it in her middle age, after her husband had wasted all of their money and abandoned her and moved on with his much younger girlfriend. (And I think most of to r money he wanted was her inheritance.). She then sold the jewelry he gave her as a wedding gift to have the money to start Girl Scouts. Because she had the jewelry and it was hers. That was the original purpose of all the jewelry gifts to women — hard convertible assets not covered by the coverture laws. See also the song Diamknds are a girl’s best friend — the whole point of the song is that when he ditches you because you’re getting older, you can sell the rock to pay rent. It’s basically like an old timey prenup — this is what you’ll have in the event of divorce or abandonment. I do have a small diamond that a great aunt brought from the old country when she fled her abusive spouse. It’s probably about all she took.

It’s even more interesting. The engagement ring could be described in crude terms as virginity insurance. Prior to about mid 40s, if you were a jilted bride in US, you could sue your ex fiancé for breach of contract, and get at least something out of it for your ruined reputation (many people assumed that if you went that far, chances are you weren’t a virgin anymore). Then those laws went away. Enter the engagement ring as the proof that the guy is serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know. Desperation to believe?

My spouse bought me a ring before he proposed when he was making 40k in the early 2000s.

It sounds like there might be pressure on the situation in these cases after reading the thread. Not a great way to begin a marriage imo.

Desperation to believe what? And pressure for what?

[Anonymous]

My step dad wouldn't buy my mother an engagement ring. He was a doctor and had plenty of money. She went around telling people she didn't want one, didn't believe in wasting money on jewelry, etc. But she desperately wanted one -- she hated the fact that she didn't get a diamond ring. Felt humiliated by it, actually. She wore an ugly Black Hills Gold ring he bought her on a vacation out West with her wedding ring, telling everyone it was "special because of what the trip meant to us." They fought the whole time on that trip, lol. She just wore that thing because she was ashamed of not having an actual engagement ring and it was her only option.

He'd bought a big diamond for his first wife, and refused to do it again.

Unsurprisingly, their relationship was a sh!t show.

But times are different now, and the diamond industry has lost it's grip on us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My step dad wouldn't buy my mother an engagement ring. He was a doctor and had plenty of money. She went around telling people she didn't want one, didn't believe in wasting money on jewelry, etc. But she desperately wanted one -- she hated the fact that she didn't get a diamond ring. Felt humiliated by it, actually. She wore an ugly Black Hills Gold ring he bought her on a vacation out West with her wedding ring, telling everyone it was "special because of what the trip meant to us." They fought the whole time on that trip, lol. She just wore that thing because she was ashamed of not having an actual engagement ring and it was her only option.

He'd bought a big diamond for his first wife, and refused to do it again.

Unsurprisingly, their relationship was a sh!t show.

But times are different now, and the diamond industry has lost it's grip on us.

Do you think things would have been different if he'd purchased an engagement ring for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My step dad wouldn't buy my mother an engagement ring. He was a doctor and had plenty of money. She went around telling people she didn't want one, didn't believe in wasting money on jewelry, etc. But she desperately wanted one -- she hated the fact that she didn't get a diamond ring. Felt humiliated by it, actually. She wore an ugly Black Hills Gold ring he bought her on a vacation out West with her wedding ring, telling everyone it was "special because of what the trip meant to us." They fought the whole time on that trip, lol. She just wore that thing because she was ashamed of not having an actual engagement ring and it was her only option.

He'd bought a big diamond for his first wife, and refused to do it again.

Unsurprisingly, their relationship was a sh!t show.

But times are different now, and the diamond industry has lost it's grip on us.

Do you think things would have been different if he'd purchased an engagement ring for her?

No. He was a bad person, and so was she. But the ring thing wasn't even a lack of generosity on the part of my stepdad, it was an aggressive defense mechanism: "I'll marry you because I'm getting something out of it, but I don't love you like I did my first wife and don't you dare expect much of anything." She shouldn't have married him, obviously. But people do dumb things when they are desperate.

But after growing up with that nonsense, I made sure my DH bought me a huge diamond.