Would you marry someone who proposed with no ring?

[Batya33]

Exactly, but there would eventually be a ring.

 

How about wording it like "Would you be happy to get engaged and remain engaged without a ring?" Because I think saying yes to a proposal that had no ring, but then going out and buying one together...really is getting a proposal with a ring.

 

I don't think I would have wanted to marry someone who was adamantly opposed to my having an engagement ring from him (whether we bought it together, whether it was a family ring, etc) - my sense is that that would not have been an isolated issue on which we disagreed.

[rocio]

I think a woman would be lucky to find a man who was opposed to buying his fiance an engagement ring, given that he was opposed to any kind of gender inequality within a relationship. Of course, he can't pick and choose. He can't skip out on the ring because he's too cheap or selfish, but then expect the woman to change more diapers than him when the baby comes, or to take more time off work to be a parent. There probably are some guys out there who are completely opposed to any kind of gender inequality in dating and marriage, and I think he would be worth his weight in gold. Any woman who would pass that up would have to be crazy.

[Batya33]

I think a woman would be lucky to find a man who was opposed to buying his fiance an engagement ring, given that he was opposed to any kind of gender inequality within a relationship. Of course, he can't pick and choose. He can't skip out on the ring because he's too cheap or selfish, but then expect the woman to change more diapers than him when the baby comes, or to take more time off work to be a parent. There probably are some guys out there who are completely opposed to any kind of gender inequality in dating and marriage, and I think he would be worth his weight in gold. Any woman who would pass that up would have to be crazy.

 

I don't think my wanting an engagement ring has anything to do with gender equality. As I posted above I believe in engagement gifts for the man too and don't believe the man has to pay entirely for the ring (or pay anything at all if there is family ring). I don't know that I'd presume it was cheap or selfish - actually I wouldn't - but if he was opposed on principle or because he eschewed that type of tradition I have a feeling we wouldn't have enough in common.

 

I expected my husband to help with the baby because I knew how badly he wanted to be a parent and he understood and understands that being a parent includes fun and work. Since I am a full-time mom my expectation is that I do the lion's share of all child-related work and housework but since I know what an awesome parent he is (and knew he would be) I know he wouldn't feel right just doing the fun stuff and never helping me. Nothing to do with gender. I don't think someone should be a parent -male or female -if they don't expect to take at least some extra time off from working outside the home in order to be a parent -whether that means using vacation time to be at home instead of traveling with friends, or some other arrangement. Nothing to do with gender.

[Firiel]

In the end, I would definitely want a ring, even if it was just a simple gold wedding band because I really like the symbolism wedding bands have.

 

I don't see the point in fussing about money (as long as it's not crazy or anything) when finances are/will be joined anyway. I mean, it's OUR money and OUR financial sacrifice, right? Plus, my ring was $750, and he's got about $10,000 more in school loans than I have. Does that mean he owes me a nice car on top of it? I dunno... yeah, my gift to him was less expensive, but I wasn't going to go into debt to get him something and certainly didn't expect him to go into debt to get me something...

 

I usually let him pay for dates when we were dating as well because I knew it was important to him to do so, and I didn't feel it was my place to reject an offer made with genuine kindness.

 

Maybe I'm just a gold-digger.

[Seraphim]

Exactly, but there would eventually be a ring.

 

How about wording it like "Would you be happy to get engaged and remain engaged without a ring?" Because I think saying yes to a proposal that had no ring, but then going out and buying one together...really is getting a proposal with a ring.

 

I guess I worded it the way I wanted to because I was thinking of the moment in time of the proposal. That one moment in time, not the 8 months that followed after it. I got the ring 8 months later. Now obviously I was still engaged for the 8 months without the ring, so would I have stayed engaged and got married anyway had no ring appeared? It would appear so as I went about for months in that very state. Although I do not think getting an engagement ring some 8 months after the proposal is the same as getting a proposal with a ring.

[Seraphim]

I like the symbol as well.

[rocio]

I expected my husband to help with the baby because I knew how badly he wanted to be a parent and he understood and understands that being a parent includes fun and work. Since I am a full-time mom my expectation is that I do the lion's share of all child-related work and housework but since I know what an awesome parent he is (and knew he would be) I know he wouldn't feel right just doing the fun stuff and never helping me. Nothing to do with gender. I don't think someone should be a parent -male or female -if they don't expect to take at least some extra time off from working outside the home in order to be a parent -whether that means using vacation time to be at home instead of traveling with friends, or some other arrangement. Nothing to do with gender.

 

It has everything to do with gender. Unfortunately, what I think we've done is we've cast away all gender inequalities that favor women but still hold on to many important inequalities that favor men.

 

Batya, you have taken several years away from your career to stay home and raise your child. Meanwhile, you are still contributing financially through your savings. I'm not saying that what you and your husband have worked out isn't an effective or fair solution for you. But it's certainly not equal, that much cannot be argued.

 

If a woman wants a $5000 ring, for goodness sake, let her have it. She's sure as heck going to earn it over the years.

 

Look at Victoria, living on base to be close to her husband while he pursues his career and she dedicates her life to caring for their son.

 

Look at Mousty, who is an engineer, a manager, has two kids, and has to spend all her spare time cleaning while her husband plays video games.

 

Is this gender equality?

 

I'm sure there are men out there who take an equal amount of time away from their careers for child rearing, who do an equal share of housework, who take equal responsibility for the family chores and responsibilities while supporting his wife in her career to the same degree that she supports him. I just have yet to meet one.

[DN]

Well if you want to look at gender equalities consider these:

 

Would you be OK if the tradition changed and women were also expected to spend three months salary on a ring. Men and women both wear wedding rings these days, why not engagement rings?

 

Would you be OK with men have an equal opportunity to staying home with the children? To say that it is not equality for Batya to take time out of her career to stay home and look after the children actually highlights an inequality in the other direction - why is it that, usually, it is only women who get to make that choice if it is financially viable? The fact that many women choose to stay home when they are no long required to seems to suggest this is their preference and therefore an advantage for them rather than a disadvantage. If both the mother and the father wanted to stay home with the children and wanted their partner to be the only women to work outside the home - which of the two is more likely to do it? Which of the two will be looked at askance by others if they do?

 

It seems a little ironic to try to make a sacrifice out of doing something that most stay at home mothers choose to do because they really want to, that they don't have to do if they prefer to work outside the home, and that many mothers would love to do but cannot because of financial considerations.

 

But staying at home to look after children, or going out to work are choices. It seems for many women that they really don't want to give a man the choice as to whether to buy an engagement ring or not. They have an expectation, even a demand, that he will. I suspect the reaction of those same women would not be positive if their husbands expected or demanded that they stay at home to look after the children whether they wanted to or not.

[rocio]

Yes, my husband and I are considering splitting the 1-year of mat leave equally. He does consider this a sacrifice, but one that he would be willing to make in order for me to further my career. We are both career oriented people so we do see it as a sacrifice to take time away from the career to care of children, although of course a sacrifice that is well worth it because of our love for our children.

 

Additionally, if anything were to happen to our marriage, he would take 50/50 custody (assuming, of course, that was in the childrens' best interests, given the specifics of the immediate situation). I've always viewed him as an equal parent and have always been conscious not to give the impression that I have some sort of advantage. I was careful not to "instruct him" on how to care for our child, and I ended up learning as much from him as he did from me.

 

I think that most women who choose to be full-time mothers do so because they feel strongly that it is in the best interests of the family, especially the children, and not because it puts them at a personal advantage.

 

But then, I've always been very career oriented so I cannot speak for those women who would choose to stay home instead of pursuing a career for purely selfish reasons. Having been raised by a single, widowed mother, I have always been very concerned for women who choose a path where they would have a very difficult time providing for their children should anything happen to the father. I can't relate with a woman who is so short sighted that she chooses to put herself in that kind of vulnerable situation simply because she prefers spending time with her children instead of working. (Of course, if she's doing it because she feels it's in the children's best interests, then absolutely I can understand and respect that.)

[DN]

These day I think both partners put themselves at risk if either one gives up a career in the event of a divorce. Perhaps these are things that need to be discussed before a ring is given - it seems the ring may be symbolic in more ways than one.

[OptomisticGirl]

 

If a woman wants a $5000 ring, for goodness sake, let her have it. She's sure as heck going to earn it over the years.

 

.

 

That's a dangerous statement to make though because a man can easily step in and go and what exactly is that women who wants that $5,000 ring going to get her husband because he's going to earn it as well over the years.

 

He may not carry a child, he may not give birth to the child, nurse the child, or even be the 80% watcher of the child but in other ways he's going to earn his place - he will work to support the family, to protect the family, do male things around the house...

[Seraphim]

Both people get something out of marriage, I do not think men are being hugely maligned when they buy a ring. If they do not want to buy a ring, don't, but be sure the girl is of the same mind as you. My husband got an engagement gift worth far more than the ring he bought me, so I do not think he suffered in the deal. But if people want everything to be even steven and men should have all the same advantages women have and vice versa, then men better start getting some organ transplants to have some babies.

 

Even steven does not exist, and exact same advantages does not exist, co operation does though.

[FathomFear]

Just like with most traditions, people tend to obsess over them without looking at how they historically got off the ground.

 

Personally I've always found the tradition of rings to be kind of creepy for this very reason. It primarily started as a means of men giving them to women as a token of possession. You wore it to demonstrate that you were going to be faithful to the man who gave it to you. If I recall, Roman women were not permitted to take it off as they had to wear it to represent that they were already someone's property.

[DN]

I don't think people who do exactly what they want to do should make out it is some sort of sacrifice, whether that is giving up paid employment to look after children or being the one goes out to work to make the income. It is only when people genuinely give something up they would prefer to keep that it can properly be described as a sacrifice. And if they fight like tigers to be the one who makes that sacrifice despite their partner being willing to do it - then I suggest it isn't much of a sacrifice. Similarly when people make demands about rings or gifts and are not willing to reciprocate it seems less than convincing.

[OptomisticGirl]

Both people get something out of marriage, I do not think men are being hugely maligned when they buy a ring. If they do not want to buy a ring, don't, but be sure the girl is of the same mind as you. My husband got an engagement gift worth far more than the ring he bought me, so I do not think he suffered in the deal. But if people want everything to be even steven and men should have all the same advantages women have and vice versa, then men better start getting some organ transplants to have some babies.

 

Even steven does not exist, and exact same advantages does not exist, co operation does though.

 

Of course everything can't be even stevens - for example who gives birth - but there are many, many other areas that can and the ring or engagment gift is one of them. To me - and my relationship at least - the only 'advantage' I have over L is the fact that I am a woman and I can carry a baby and give birth to it - everything else I do he can do just as easily and vice versa. I wouldn't ever hold this over him and say 'I deserve this and that because I'm going to earn it just by pushing a kid out and raising said child while you go back to work full time.'

[Seraphim]

Just like with most traditions, people tend to obsess over them without looking at how they historically got off the ground.

 

Personally I've always found the tradition of rings to be kind of creepy for this very reason. It primarily started as a means of men giving them to women as a token of possession. You wore it to demonstrate that you were going to be faithful to the man who gave it to you. If I recall, Roman women were not permitted to take it off as they had to wear it to represent that they were already someone's property.

 

The thing is I am not insulted by that. I WANT to be part of someone who would love me more than anything. I WANT to "belong" to someone who would love me that much. Not as a piece of furniture, but as a loving part of them and they a loving part of me. Not all women take this as a great insult of being a "possession". Some do I guess, but I do not take it as an insult but rather an honour and I do not think I am niave or misguided at all.

[Seraphim]

Of course everything can't be even stevens - for example who gives birth - but there are many, many other areas that can and the ring or engagment gift is one of them. To me - and my relationship at least - the only 'advantage' I have over L is the fact that I am a woman and I can carry a baby and give birth to it - everything else I do he can do just as easily and vice versa. I wouldn't ever hold this over him and say 'I deserve this and that because I'm going to earn it just by pushing a kid out and raising said child while you go back to work full time.'

 

That is not what I am saying. People are implying that EVERYTHING can and should be made even. The thought of everything being equal is ridiculous because nothing ever can be. However people can work TOGETHER for the sake of what is best for their family. And if one person gets more at one time in the stage of the game the other will get more later. But if people want to go around keeping score on who got more we might as all go back to JK and sit in our respective corners till we learn that is not how to win and make friends.

[DN]

The thing is I am not insulted by that. I WANT to be part of someone who would love me more than anything. I WANT to "belong" to someone who would love me that much. Not as a piece of furniture, but as a loving part of them and they a loving part of me. Not all women take this as a great insult of being a "possession". Some do I guess, but I do not take it as an insult but rather an honour and I do not think I am niave or misguided at all.

I think the word possession is capable of different interpretations. I will say "my wife" and that can sound possessive but it means we belong together in an equal partnership. If someone says "my wife" but acts as if they mean "my slave" or "my servant" or "my employee" then that is an entirely different construct.

[OptomisticGirl]

The thing is I am not insulted by that. I WANT to be part of someone who would love me more than anything. I WANT to "belong" to someone who would love me that much. Not as a piece of furniture, but as a loving part of them and they a loving part of me. Not all women take this as a great insult of being a "possession". Some do I guess, but I do not take it as an insult but rather an honour and I do not think I am niave or misguided at all.

 

I agree with Victoria - while I (nor he) view me as his property simply because I an a ring on my finger, to me it does say I am his. I have free will and he doesn't control what I do but I'm his fiance, I'm his future wife. It's the same as when you are in HS and your boyfriend gives you his class ring - he doesn't own you but it's a way of telling everyone else you are his girl.

[Seraphim]

I think the word possession is capable of different interpretations. I will say "my wife" and that can sound possessive but it means we belong together in an equal partnership. If someone says "my wife" but acts as if they mean "my slave" or "my servant" or "my employee" then that is an entirely different construct.

 

Of course, and people can choose to see this as a negative or a positive.

 

I just like "belonging" as I am a social creature who enjoys relationships and what they have to bring.

[Batya33]

Of course I couldn't disagree more.

LOL -I know what my husband and I have worked out is more than fair for both of us - we don't care about technical "equality" -if we did we would have known one thing -that marriage was not right for us or any romantic relationship. IMO once you start keeping score as far as "equality" as you define it there's not much of a healthy relationship. It reminds me of the couple in the movie The Joy Luck Club where he wanted everything equal down to not paying for the premium ice cream she enjoyed (but he could take or leave). They divorced.

It would never occur to us to waste our precious time or energy valuing what I do in this partnership and family v. what he does. Because our goal is a healthy, loving relationship and marriage and to do that would be harmful to those goals.

[tattoobunnie]

You know, I've totally been thinking about this...it wouldn't be a yes or no, it'd be a definitely yes...yet I have been thinking about the ring situation. My mom flies to the Virgin Islands and China, just to buy jewelry for gifts, herself, and as investments...and my boyfriend is no where near that kind a situation. (Yes, I'm spoiled with bling by her!). But I would love to get his mom's emerald ring or my mom's engagement ring. Both are really beautiful.

 

It's not so much the ring though...it's that a man really took the time to think it through on wanting to marry me, to plan and taking steps towards a future together...and at times, it materializes as a giving a ring as a gesture of him not only mentally wanting to marry me, but physically and tangibly as well. And in getting my mom's ring, I think at least making the effort to really having him become family, or his mom's ring, that she sees me as family. To me, a ring isn't just something sparkly...it's something unspontaneous and well thought out, and planned. That he's coming into the situation full-on, an investment into me, and our future.

 

Funny story, when my dad proposed, my mom went home to tell her folks. Her folks didn't like my dad much, and ridiculed the ring was too small. So my dad bought her a two carat one. And she still has it, along with this awesome baguette band that goes all around it.

 

Though, I come from a different upbringing...having money does affect my thinking what should be expected or accepted. I think if I grew up poor, and my guy was poor, anything goes. Ultimately, all couples, women and men are different...it's what makes them happy really counts.

[Alezia]

Our mat leave was paid at 93%. I offered to my husband to stay with the kids as long as he liked. We could split it and spend it together at home, or take the entire year. He refused to take any time during the mat leave because it was 'too difficult' on him. He would rather go to work and do nothing over there.

You're right, I did not have to stay with my kids. I could have just returned back to work full-time, but I would consider it just plainly stupid to have children to go back to work when it's uneeded.

[Batya33]

"Would you be OK with men have an equal opportunity to staying home with the children? To say that it is not equality for Batya to take time out of her career to stay home and look after the children actually highlights an inequality in the other direction - why is it that, usually, it is only women who get to make that choice if it is financially viable? The fact that many women choose to stay home when they are no long required to seems to suggest this is their preference and therefore an advantage for them rather than a disadvantage. If both the mother and the father wanted to stay home with the children and wanted their partner to be the only women to work outside the home - which of the two is more likely to do it? Which of the two will be looked at askance by others if they do?"

 

I personally would welcome it and cannot stand that there is a stigma. For us, he wanted to be a parent with all his heart and knew that being a full time dad would not be the right choice for him. We also knew going in that his career gives him more flexibility than other careers as far as being able to work from home, take time off as needed so that was a big plus in him having time to be with the family. Obviously that could all change - life happens -but that was our mindset and perspective at the time. I think it's really important to discuss this in advance as much as possible.

[tattoobunnie]

Oooh...I'm Chinese too...it's also a culture thing...Being very family oriented (meaning, we are very much still under our parents thumb at any age), not being given a ring (dowry - mindset) is saying you won't be able to take care of our daughter.

 

This doesn't mean that guys who propose without a ring are in the wrong...totally not! But to us, it just means they may not be the right guy for us (cultural-wise). The right guy for us takes into consideration our ethnicity, cultural values, upbringing, and family opinion in high regards.

 

I mean, god, I would totally say yes to my guy, whom I love greatly and think he's awesome, but the moment I came home and told my folks and that I didn't get a ring, he'd be looked at like total poor-folk inconsiderate scum. And that would eat at me. It's happened before too.