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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. Unfortunately only the woman in question truly knows if that’s the case. OP certainly doesn’t.

[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.

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.

DP. Words have a meaning. Feminism means equality. Expecting someone to give you a gift on the basis of your gender is not feminist. The woman in question might be a feminist but her expectations in this regard are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think in this MBA-ized “Business Major” world we live in now, symbolism and big romantic gestures, particularly traditional ones, are eschewed in favor of hard-line $$$ calculations. Instead of a once-in-a-lifetime gathering of all your loved ones at your wedding, put that money towards a downpayment for a house, etc.

I have mixed feelings. Some of these dying traditions are just holdovers from an old bourgeois world that prided itself on how decorative/useless the women in the household could be, so I’m not against a sea change away from material representations of these old values and attitudes.

But I also appreciate the aesthetics that come out of beauty for beauty’s sake; a world of expressionless, bottom-dollar utilitarianism sounds dull, depressing, and honestly kind of communist to me.

I think as long as everyone is free to choose what works for them and makes sense for them without pressuring or being pressured by others, we’ll be okay. But our society seems to be trending away from this recently.

This made me laugh because I think the people I know most likely to buy in on the big ring/formal proposal tradition are the business major/MBA types, because they tend to be a bit more traditional personally.

I'm a hippy-dippy artist and had little interest in that stuff (especially a "traditional" ring -- I do not know what I would even do with some classic diamond solitaire), but I don't care what other people do. Privately I might think it's retrograde but people get to choose how to live their own lives. It doesn't impact me.

[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.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

[Anonymous]

I think only women that plan on being stay-at-home moms should hold out for a ring--as practice, for when the DH supports his wife financially.

We've been happily married for 20 years without a diamond ring. We discussed getting married, like two equal adults, and we got wedding rings for the ceremony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it ironic how defensive you sound and how dishonest your argument is? By your logic, it's not your father's name vs. your husbands, it's your father's vs. your father's in law. Why only women are expected to change their names but not their husbands? And some of us have our father's AND mother's name.
The US is extremely liberal when it comes to naming laws. This idea that your only options are choosing your husband's name is just proof how many women make the default choice without putting any thought in it. I'm pretty sure that your husband had too much pride and self-respect to take your father's name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well wait.

What if the man doesn't want to give a ring because he thinks the money is better spent on a down payment for a house. And he has a conversation with his girlfriend and she agrees the down payment is more important. Maybe she still wants a ring but they decide to do something much more modest than she originally had in mind because when they looked at their finances, they decided spending more than five hundred or a thousand dollars on the ring didn't make sense.

To me, that's a healthy relationship with give and take where both people's opinions are respected and there is good communication and compromise, and no ultimatums. To me that couple set themselves up to make good choices moving forward.

But I sense some on this thread would look at that and judge the woman for "giving in" to her boyfriend's "refusal" to buy her a big ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well wait.

What if the man doesn't want to give a ring because he thinks the money is better spent on a down payment for a house. And he has a conversation with his girlfriend and she agrees the down payment is more important. Maybe she still wants a ring but they decide to do something much more modest than she originally had in mind because when they looked at their finances, they decided spending more than five hundred or a thousand dollars on the ring didn't make sense.

To me, that's a healthy relationship with give and take where both people's opinions are respected and there is good communication and compromise, and no ultimatums. To me that couple set themselves up to make good choices moving forward.

But I sense some on this thread would look at that and judge the woman for "giving in" to her boyfriend's "refusal" to buy her a big ring.

PP here and I think it goes without saying that you cannot see the inner workings of the heart of a woman getting engaged, so there is no way for an outsider to know whether or not she is compromising on something she shouldn't. I personally think a down payment is a million times more important than a pretty ring so I'd do the same thing. In fact I'd probably get something that cost 100 dollars or less, or just nothing at all. But I do see men complaining about women who want fancy rings, but then are happy to go and buy themselves nice cars. Spending money on a ring or anything else a woman might want from him is somehow the only time he complains about materialism. And then his fiancé will brag about how non-materialistic she is because she is fine with a ring from a gumball machine. That's when it gets suspect.

[Anonymous]

A ring doesn't guarantee a man will be committed and generous, but it weeds out men who are blasé and stingy.

[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.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

You just described compensation "feminism": "marriage is a bad deal for women so let's make men pay for it". Women should be encouraged to to be more selective about the conditions under which they and to understand that marriage is optional, not a requirement. Using rings as a form compensation perpetratesthe system you describe and teaches men that they can get away with double standards as long as they pay the price.

[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 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.

This is currently the case for 8 states and DC. I believe the length of time is decided on a case by case basis. In many other countries it's 3 or less years or whenever the couple signs a document to declare their partnership.

If the woman is the one to buy a house or if she bought it with her partner, and if she doesn't stay home she has nothing to be protected from. The issue in the cases you describe isn't the lack of marriage, it's the woman's complete reliance on her partner which is always problematic unless you're marrying a wealthy/high earning man.
Most married housewives are only marginally better off than their unmarried counterparts.

[Anonymous]

What a stupid question.

[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.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

PP you're responding to. Feminism is not about comparative injustice. We can all acknowledge the disproporationate degree to which women have suffered, been targeted and discriminated against. That doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat men in the way that we have been treated. Wrong is wrong no matter the gender.

It seems you are agreeing with me regarding the ring. There's nothing wrong with a woman asking/wanting/accepting a ring. What's wrong is the expectation of a ring because that's what men get women they want to marry.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your last paragraph but it appears to be some sort of comparison of effort. It doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. Words have a meaning. Feminism means equality. Expecting someone to give you a gift on the basis of your gender is not feminist. The woman in question might be a feminist but her expectations in this regard are not.

Feminism is advocating for equal legal rights and opportunities. You don’t get to redefine the movement for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

PP you're responding to. Feminism is not about comparative injustice. We can all acknowledge the disproporationate degree to which women have suffered, been targeted and discriminated against. That doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat men in the way that we have been treated. Wrong is wrong no matter the gender.

It seems you are agreeing with me regarding the ring. There's nothing wrong with a woman asking/wanting/accepting a ring. What's wrong is the expectation of a ring because that's what men get women they want to marry.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your last paragraph but it appears to be some sort of comparison of effort. It doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing.