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

[Anonymous]

If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound really stupid.
DeBeers' historic ad campaign, crafted by the real-life mad men at N.W. Ayers, convinced generations of lovers that diamond bands were synonymous with eternal devotion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-strange-and-formerly-sexist-economics-of-engagement-rings/255434/

The symbolism behind the ring?

https://archive.attn.com/stories/3845/disturbing-history-of-engagement-rings


It's meaningless and it just shows that Americans were the target of the campaing by DeBeers to sell their diamonds. And dingbats like you think it's important today.

Yep, and they came up.with an arbitrary notion that it should cost two months of a man's salary. I remember my mom, who was a Depression era person, being disgusted with that idea. It is not an old idea, it's fake and takes advantage of people.

[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.

Yep, get your ring, your greenhouse, your house downpayment, but get SOMETHING!

Greenhouse poster, clarifying something. I didn't demand a greenhouse from him, or ask for anything. I'm not into jewelry, I don't even wear a wedding band, so that was already off the table. We had talked about it and agreed to be married before. We had purchased a house together and did the renovations, Most of his free time was spent in reno, as I was busy with school and work.
One of DH's love languages is gifts, and he wanted to do something to mark the occasion so he built the greenhouse as a surprise. In return, I made his favorite dinner and dessert which we ate in the greenhouse, and talked about what we should try to grow and if we should spring for a DJ at the wedding, which was held in our backyard.

I'm very much in the camp that each couple should do what's right for them and not judge other couple's for what they choose todo. I also believe the engagement starts the moment you both agree to be married, and your commitment to each other should start before that

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is so sweet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

Women think this is acceptable because they have low self-worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

Most families have some family jewelry, often engagement or wedding rings to pass on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

Women think this is acceptable because they have low self-worth.

Anyone attaching self-worth to a piece of jewelry is very shallow.

[Anonymous]

OP, I actually often ponder:
Why do women think the tradition of an engagement ring is acceptabe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

This is what bothers me about engagement rings. A lot of people are very explicit about this aspect of the ring, too. I don't think buying a piece of jewelry to mark your decision to get married is a bad one (I love the idea of wedding rings, for instance, as a daily reminder of your commitment, worn by both partners). And if someone wanted a ring to make their engagement, I see nothing inconsistent about feminism with that.

But the way engagement rings are often spoken of and shown off, it's very clear that it's about signaling status. And not just economic status (although definitely that) but also a very specific kind of relationship status. Some women make a big deal about their rings because they think having a very showy engagement ring is evidence that they have been "chosen" by a man. It's about signaling to other women that they have been validated as people because A MAN has picked her as his own. Again, sometimes the language people use is explicit about this. I find it very disturbing. Women do not need to be chosen or marked by men in order to have worth. They do not need to have their value validated by the purchase of an expensive piece of jewelry.

I don't care whether anyone gets an engagement ring or not, but I would love if we could stop with certain gross behaviors, specifically the way large diamond engagement rings get displayed on social media, how celebrity rings get talked about and reported on, the way people equate the size of a ring with level of love or interest, and the way some women sometimes compete over the size or appearance of their rings. This stuff really is anti-feminist and toxic, and it's women's behavior, not men. It's a good example of how women sometimes are our own worst enemies when it comes to propping up patriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

Most families have some family jewelry, often engagement or wedding rings to pass on.

DP. Your privilege is showing. While most families where I'm from have some jewelry, very few have engagement rings to pass one. Most people I know and those that were in my family were buried in their wedding rings which were plain bands.

My paternal grandmother never had an engagement ring. My maternal grandmother didn't have an engagement ring either for her 1st marriage which lasted 25 years until her DH (my maternal grandfather) died. When she was married a 2nd time at age 60, she and her 2nd DH went together to pick an engagement ring. She died at 104. My uncle inherited her ring which he gave to his DW of 40 years who also didn't have an engagement ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

This is what bothers me about engagement rings. A lot of people are very explicit about this aspect of the ring, too. I don't think buying a piece of jewelry to mark your decision to get married is a bad one (I love the idea of wedding rings, for instance, as a daily reminder of your commitment, worn by both partners). And if someone wanted a ring to make their engagement, I see nothing inconsistent about feminism with that.

But the way engagement rings are often spoken of and shown off, it's very clear that it's about signaling status. And not just economic status (although definitely that) but also a very specific kind of relationship status. Some women make a big deal about their rings because they think having a very showy engagement ring is evidence that they have been "chosen" by a man. It's about signaling to other women that they have been validated as people because A MAN has picked her as his own. Again, sometimes the language people use is explicit about this. I find it very disturbing. Women do not need to be chosen or marked by men in order to have worth. They do not need to have their value validated by the purchase of an expensive piece of jewelry.

I don't care whether anyone gets an engagement ring or not, but I would love if we could stop with certain gross behaviors, specifically the way large diamond engagement rings get displayed on social media, how celebrity rings get talked about and reported on, the way people equate the size of a ring with level of love or interest, and the way some women sometimes compete over the size or appearance of their rings. This stuff really is anti-feminist and toxic, and it's women's behavior, not men. It's a good example of how women sometimes are our own worst enemies when it comes to propping up patriarchy.

I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound really stupid.
DeBeers' historic ad campaign, crafted by the real-life mad men at N.W. Ayers, convinced generations of lovers that diamond bands were synonymous with eternal devotion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-strange-and-formerly-sexist-economics-of-engagement-rings/255434/

The symbolism behind the ring?

https://archive.attn.com/stories/3845/disturbing-history-of-engagement-rings


It's meaningless and it just shows that Americans were the target of the campaing by DeBeers to sell their diamonds. And dingbats like you think it's important today.

Yep, and they came up.with an arbitrary notion that it should cost two months of a man's salary. I remember my mom, who was a Depression era person, being disgusted with that idea. It is not an old idea, it's fake and takes advantage of people.

Yes! DeBeers did a great job creating a market and expectations. It's so ridiculous. Here are some threads I quickly found showing just how pervasive that drivel is.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/976899.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1054943.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1045560.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/500706.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1152730.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1041775.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want people to marry young, there is not usually much money for an engagement ring. It was fairly common at one time not to have an engagement ring at all, or to have a small one. Has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with signaling status.

Most families have some family jewelry, often engagement or wedding rings to pass on.

In your bubble...most families do not have this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It really does.

No, it does not. I had a nice engagement ring. Not one gift after. Not one. No generosity in any way at all. It was a status symbol to him. Just like the marriage. I am divorced. It was a bad marriage from day 1. An engagement ring had nothing to do with commitment or generosity. It has to deal with performance/status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just like there's nothing wrong to expect your wife and daughter to be housewives because that's what women do.

If my daughter wants to be a housewife, she has my blessing. That’s the beauty of real feminism - choice.

Wanting to be a housewife is basically saying "i don't want to work, i just want to be financially supported by a man i'm in a romantic relatiinship with". That sort of relationship is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work. I'd be really disapointed if any of my children went that route, and no, I'm not a feminist.

PP here. You have described my thoughts on this exactly. I completely agree that a housewife is "is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work." I am a mid 40s woman. I always thought that arrangement seemed kind of sick. Even as a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just like there's nothing wrong to expect your wife and daughter to be housewives because that's what women do.

If my daughter wants to be a housewife, she has my blessing. That’s the beauty of real feminism - choice.

Wanting to be a housewife is basically saying "i don't want to work, i just want to be financially supported by a man i'm in a romantic relatiinship with". That sort of relationship is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work. I'd be really disapointed if any of my children went that route, and no, I'm not a feminist.

Prostitutes exchange sexual services for money. Housewives make home and raise children. Women who aspire to be housewives just want the best for their families.