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

[Anonymous]

I did not want an engagement ring. I was and am vehemently against it for feminist reasons. We had plenty of money to afford whatever ring I wanted. I did not want one, did not get one, and years later I still do not want one. We both wear a wedding ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

This reminds me of name changes. Women who changed their surname will go to great extents to justify their decision but the fact remains that only women are expected to do it. Even when women are no longer considered their husbands property, they're still socially in their shadow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not want a ring, we did decide to get married together (no proposal) and then we did. I did not want a wedding ring, I have never worn jewelry. My mom bought us rings, they cost less than $100. I lost mine on the honeymoon, he lost his a few months later.

We also had a small, inexpensive wedding. For both of us it was not about rings and it was not about the wedding, it was about the marriage.

We stayed married for 25 years.

OP sounds like she'll be a bridezilla. Take note of this advice - if you obsess about your wedding (or your ring), you're focusing on the wrong thing.

I'm married and my wedding when smoothly because my husband delivered, unlike yours!

Oooh! Are you a psychic or was it your magic 8 ball that gave you insight into the PP's life?

[Anonymous]

OP's jewelry business isn't doing well, even her own sister isn't giving her a chance to earn commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister and another friend got "engaged" recently. None of them had rings and in the case of my sister, there was not even a proposal, just her and the guy agreeing on a date to get married later this year. I feel like it sets the bar very low for their partners and it's not something women should be ok with. My husband too popped the question without one and it felt incredibly informal, as if he wasn't serious about getting married. I told him that a ring was important to me and he popped the question again a week later with a ring.

A ring doesn't even need to be expensive, there are many cute rings for less than $500. It's the symbolism behind it that's important. It doesn't seem that my friend and sister are being taken seriously by their men, but they look like they're ok with it which is baffling. Women should stop pretending to be cool girls and set higher standards for their partners.

I think your sister and her friend did it just to piss you off!

[Anonymous]

Family tradition. My mom (married to my dad for 53 years) has never has one either. It boded well, so I went with it. Correctly!

OP, don’t waste your concern trolling on us. If something is making you sad, see a therapist and find out what it really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

You’re entitled to your opinion about gender norms. I have a problem with women suggesting that other women aren’t feminist because they don’t believe the same way you do. Women should do what they want about engagement rings, but wanting one doesn’t make a person NOT a feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

This reminds me of name changes. Women who changed their surname will go to great extents to justify their decision but the fact remains that only women are expected to do it. Even when women are no longer considered their husbands property, they're still socially in their shadow.

Justify their decision?! I dont have to justify my decision to anyone. What a weird way to describe a different opinion. Keeping your name just means you are your father’s property instead of your dad’s. In our society, both surnames come from the male line.

[Anonymous]

Typo - Instead of your husband’s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They get the ring soon after. Proposed right then and there. Lightly planned. Can go pick out the ring together and size them right.

That's what I assumed so I asked them. They said they had no plans to get a ring.

Ok, so they don't want one, who cares? Maybe they have other plans for the money.

What money plans could they possibly have other than the ring? /s

Seriously? Wedding, house, loan repayments, I could think of a million things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not want a ring, we did decide to get married together (no proposal) and then we did. I did not want a wedding ring, I have never worn jewelry. My mom bought us rings, they cost less than $100. I lost mine on the honeymoon, he lost his a few months later.

We also had a small, inexpensive wedding. For both of us it was not about rings and it was not about the wedding, it was about the marriage.

We stayed married for 25 years.

OP sounds like she'll be a bridezilla. Take note of this advice - if you obsess about your wedding (or your ring), you're focusing on the wrong thing.

I'm married and my wedding when smoothly because my husband delivered, unlike yours!

I'm PP. My husband delivered with a very large ring so I have no chip on my shoulder there. But neither the ring nor the wedding were the most important things. Our marriage was and is. Glad you had a good wedding. Hope you have a good marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this is my issue with no rings. If a woman really and truly doesn't want a ring, that's 100% fine and I think that all the commenters on this thread who don't have rings are like that. But if the man doesn't want to give a ring and the woman just goes along with that, then you have a problem.

[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 is your jurisdiction? I highly doubt this to be true, not unless you've been married for a long time. And yes, purchasing a home together gives both parties an equal share, but in many cases of "playing house" the woman moves in and there is no change on the title. And yet a lot of women will still share household expenses equally, or quit their jobs to take care of kids. Marriage is absolutely a protective force in these circumstances. No it isn't perfect but if you take two woman in the exact same position except one is married and the other is not, 99% of the time the woman who is married will have better financial protections. If you don't know anybody like this that just means your experience is limited.

And generally speaking, a man who is willing to put a ring on it more responsible than a man who refuses to do so.

[Anonymous]

Gen Z doesn't care about diamonds anymore

haven't you seen all the ads for lab diamonds and moissanite