Men: would you be willing to purchase an engagement ring for a woman?

[Anonymous]

OP, if you were an ardent feminist, there would be no ring. You would view it as an inappropriate sign of possession, barter, and subjugation and neither of you would want to have one.

But that's not the point you made. So since you have no qualms about the ring itself, man up and buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds very very cheap. This is just a way of making excuses to not buy something expensive. Being cheap is really a red flag for other issues. If I was the girlfriend, I would not marry someone with this line of thinking. It's a preview of bigger issues to come.

Women can say that being cheap is a red flag for other issues, but really it's not. If you want another person to give you stuff, own it. If it were truly "a red flag for other issues," you'd see the concern about cheapness running both ways between the sexes in approximately equal measure. But you don't. Men don't expect much in the way of material things from women, and when women don't provide those material things, it's not "a red flag for other issues."

[Anonymous]

Women here. There seem to be a lot of women on this thread who are pseudo-feminists. They are all for equality unless it effects their ability to secure a big rock from a man as a sign of his devotion. Personally, I think the whole engagement ring/symbol is for a time that has come and gone.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the whole expecting a guy to buy a flashy ring for you is ridiculous and archaic. Anyway, if you are to be married, it all draws upon what will be your combined finances. Discuss it together, if it's something you really want. I personally wanted to save *our* money for a house downpayment, particularly around here.

[Anonymous]

Let me know how you feel about getting children without giving birth, and not using one of your mantits for breastfeeding. Unfair!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good grief dude. White Men invented 99.9 percent of every modern day necessity, system and luxury. Embrace the grace and glory that is man and buy her a ring.

Actually white men stole credit for many inventions by white women and people of color.

Like? What a stupid assertion.

Ada Lovelace was the first known computer programmer. Many men have attempted the cover that over, calling her crazy and bipolar. Martha Coston invented the signal flare, but credit was given to her long dead husband. And so on.
If you think about history and how women were pushed back by societies, it's heartbreaking. All the women who were swamped in children , with no birth control or power over their destinies, so many were wasted creative forces. Only the ones that bucked convention made a name for themselves, and many of those saw their ideas stolen, or even worse were killed. White men certainly did invent many things, because they had the privilege to. That wasn't enough, as they also took credit for women and POC many times.
I currently have two books on my coffee table that were by women. Both had to take male names to even get read by editors and published. There is a history of stunning woman painters, buried by white males who had the luxury of schooling and abandoning family for art.

Back to the ring discussion.

[Anonymous]

When DH and I got engaged, we were both in grad school, and I was very opposed to debt for a ring. I got a classic $300 Pearl ring. That was what was in our budget (note the our budget-- because if you are going to get married, it should be a you plural budget). He said at the time that he wanted me to have a diamond someday, and about 7 years later, when we were a lot more financially secure, he bought me an anniversary band with a solitaire, which was a huge surprise. This ring means a lot to me-- because DH had kept a promise he made and had slowly saved for it for years in a separate account (and there was no discussion about this, hints by me, resentment, etc in the intervening years-- I loved my original engagement ring), and because we really could afford it.

The point is, an engagement ring is a symbol. What you spend should matter a lot less than what it means to both of you. but it is a gift. And, as when you are married, one you should buy with an eye toward your future wife's jewelry preferences and you shared long term financial goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, try this.

An engagement ring is meant to be the physical symbol of your promise to marry someone that you love, with all the attendant devotion and affection and respect that entails - for this feminist woman, anyway. There are certainly people who see it as a mark of possession or a tradition of the patriarchy used to prove that women can be bought.

If your intended wife is a woman who expects a flashy ring, but that is not something that matches your values, then don't propose to her. If you find yourself chaffing at the idea of spending gobs of money on a piece of jewelry with a dodgy ethical past, possibly constructed from materials produced exploitatively, then don't propose to her with a ring.

Stop making this about feminism and defining that as sharing things 50/50. There are lots of things that are not going to be shared 50/50. I will always be the one who gives more than my 50% share of my body to my marriage because I am the only one who can physically bear children. My husband will always contribute more than his 50% share of our income, because he will always make more money than me.

That you feel PITY for your friends who are getting engaged is pretty sad.

+1. A really great response.

[Anonymous]

Since I as a woman do now and always have brought in 2/3 of our household income, I don't feel too badly about my now husband having shelled out a significant amount if his savings back then for my engagement ring. I have paid for most of everything since then because I am the one who pushes frugality and financial planning.

Your premise in your original post almost discounts that the woman brings quite a lot to the relationship. In some cases quite a bit of the financial contributions.

[Anonymous]

Lol feminism goes right out the window if the feminist thinks it means she won't be getting free jewelry any longer. A true feminist woman would insist on buying her own engagement ring And one for her man.

We all know that will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When DH and I got engaged, we were both in grad school, and I was very opposed to debt for a ring. I got a classic $300 Pearl ring. That was what was in our budget (note the our budget-- because if you are going to get married, it should be a you plural budget). He said at the time that he wanted me to have a diamond someday, and about 7 years later, when we were a lot more financially secure, he bought me an anniversary band with a solitaire, which was a huge surprise. This ring means a lot to me-- because DH had kept a promise he made and had slowly saved for it for years in a separate account (and there was no discussion about this, hints by me, resentment, etc in the intervening years-- I loved my original engagement ring), and because we really could afford it.

The point is, an engagement ring is a symbol. What you spend should matter a lot less than what it means to both of you. but it is a gift. And, as when you are married, one you should buy with an eye toward your future wife's jewelry preferences and you shared long term financial goals.

Why didn't you buy him one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When DH and I got engaged, we were both in grad school, and I was very opposed to debt for a ring. I got a classic $300 Pearl ring. That was what was in our budget (note the our budget-- because if you are going to get married, it should be a you plural budget). He said at the time that he wanted me to have a diamond someday, and about 7 years later, when we were a lot more financially secure, he bought me an anniversary band with a solitaire, which was a huge surprise. This ring means a lot to me-- because DH had kept a promise he made and had slowly saved for it for years in a separate account (and there was no discussion about this, hints by me, resentment, etc in the intervening years-- I loved my original engagement ring), and because we really could afford it.

The point is, an engagement ring is a symbol. What you spend should matter a lot less than what it means to both of you. but it is a gift. And, as when you are married, one you should buy with an eye toward your future wife's jewelry preferences and you shared long term financial goals.

Why didn't you buy him one?

He doesn't wear jewelry. When we got married, I got him an 18 Karet instead of a 14 Karet wedding band. It was a little bit of a financial stretch at the time, but it's the only jewelry he has ever worn, and he said it felt much more comfortable.

You sound like quite a catch by the way. Marriage is about finding a way to accommodate both partner's priorities and needs. I suppose having an engagement ring was important to me for symbolic reasons that had nothing to do with the actual cost or showing off how rich he was (he wasn't at the time). He would have never worn one. But there have certainly been times in our marriage when we have spent money or more money because something was important to him. Little things like more expensive shirts-- again because of the texture (he seems to have mild sensory issues, like our kids). And big things like spending more to get the house with an unfinished workshop for him. You are never going to get anywhere if you focus on everything being split equally, rather than placing equal importance on your individual priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol feminism goes right out the window if the feminist thinks it means she won't be getting free jewelry any longer. A true feminist woman would insist on buying her own engagement ring And one for her man.

We all know that will never happen.

Do not understand this point of view. If this is a major purchase, than you as a family unit will not have that money to spend somewhere else. If you are going to get married, it shouldn't matter where the money technically comes from. It is all going to end up in one pot anyway, and then either be available or not to buy a car or use as a down payment or put in savings, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds very very cheap. This is just a way of making excuses to not buy something expensive. Being cheap is really a red flag for other issues. If I was the girlfriend, I would not marry someone with this line of thinking. It's a preview of bigger issues to come.

Women can say that being cheap is a red flag for other issues, but really it's not. If you want another person to give you stuff, own it. If it were truly "a red flag for other issues," you'd see the concern about cheapness running both ways between the sexes in approximately equal measure. But you don't. Men don't expect much in the way of material things from women, and when women don't provide those material things, it's not "a red flag for other issues."

I am presuming that OP's girlfriend would really like a ring bought for her without having to go dutch on it. More than just the cost of the ring, is the thought/sentiment/love that goes into purchasing such an important gift for a partner. I can see splitting the cost of the wedding, the house, the car but an engagement ring? That is so cheap. It's a red flag because it shows I can't even buy this one very important thing for you flat out to symbolize how much I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you without asking for you to go to dutch on it. Red flag!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a feminist guy, this is a deal-breaker for me and I feel pity and mystification for my guy friends when I hear about them doing it -- some of them are shelling out literally thousands of dollars for a ring that their partner isn't paying for half of. For these guys it's like the sexual revolution never happened.

If your answer is 'yes, I totally would', is it because you don't consider yourself a feminist, or what?

Marraige is a sexist institution so any engagement ring, regardless of who pays, is sexist.