Equality Means Engagement Rings For Men

vanya
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 04:37 pm: [report]

Sure, why not?  It’s customary in Scandinavian countries for both the man & the woman to wear an e-ring.

Michael
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 04:39 pm: [report]

my ex girlfriend had promised me an engagement watch if I had popped the question.  I am hoping to convince all my future gf’s of that concept.

sunrise
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 05:25 pm: [report]

I think it’s an awesome idea… but how many man will go for it? Should the woman also wear an engagement ring at the same time? I also think they should make that ring a bit more expensive…. not to equate money with love, but marriage is a serious decision, so shouldn’t the ring be a bit more… precious?

EastCoastMale
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 06:49 pm: [report]

Michael

I totally agree, I think that a watch close in price and sentiment ie: thought put into its design would be a very refreshing option. I say if not a watch, at least some masculine looking rings that have just as much time and effort put into making them as a female’s ring would. I get the concept but $120?....seems a little paltry even if it is the idea and not the materialism.

vanya
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 07:57 pm: [report]

Men’s plain gold wedding bands are in the $100-200 range, depending on width and finger size.  It sounds like these are very similar.  The plain bands are what I’m used to seeing for men’s e-rings.

vanya
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 08:07 pm: [report]

I wish I could edit my above post, because I wanted to ask what do/would American men prefer in a men’s engagement ring?  Where I’m from (Russia and Canada), and where we live now in the U.S., few men wear a diamond band or any type of decorated band, the plain bands are the most popular still. Some have the beaded edging. 

I thought a watch (or cufflinks) was the traditional wedding gift for the bride to give the groom for their wedding.  The traditional wedding gift from the groom to the bride is a strand of pearls and matching pearl earrings.  Is that not an American custom, too?

EastCoastMale
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 08:31 pm: [report]

Vanya
I dont know if these wedding gifts are the same in type inside the US. I know there are specific types for each anniversary date but I dont believe it is the same tradition when it comes to the gifts for the actual wedding. I wonder if it is the fact that plain bands are the most popular or if it is just the fact that those are the most widely available and maybe some men fear criticism if they choose a more ornate ring. I personally am with Michael in that a nice watch of equal value and sentimentality would be a great counterpart to the female e-ring. We could receive them with lovely personal inscriptions and have them be something so nice that we would never buy it for ourselves, even maybe to be able to hint at the kind we like, as some females do with e-rings. I think it would only add to the bond shared between the two participants. Just my thoughts.

EarthGoddess
wrote on January 16 2009 @ 09:02 pm: [report]

A gift is a gift, and should be appreciated and cherished. If I had proposed instead of my husband, I would have gifted him with something to wear as a symbol of our engagement. If the man loves the woman enough to agree to be her husband, he should certainly wear something to show the world even before the wedding. I’m all for it!

sabby
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 01:44 am: [report]

When we got engaged, my fiance gave me a ring that I had inherited from my grandmother. A few months later, he mentioned that he wanted an engagement ring too, as a sign to other women and to people he meets that yes, he is getting married. At that same time, my aunt was in the process of sharing my other grandmother’s jewellery. While it is technically a woman’s ring, she had a nice, thick silver ring with a smooth piece of amber in it. It not only fits him perfectly, it suits him too. While our rings aren’t even close to matching, we love our rings.

LaGiulia
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 08:30 am: [report]

That’s a good one: pushing consumerism up instead of down. A woman does not need an engagement ring to commit. Why should a man?

Chelle
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 09:36 am: [report]

It’s a sweet notion but I think he would be confused for a married man if he had a ring. It’s definitely an attempt by the company to make more money. Also, I might sound a little old fashioned, but I don’t believe a woman should have to ask a man to marry her. To me it just seems desperate and pathetic. Like she’s begging him to marry her. I know my pride would never let me do it. I guess I’m just a traditionalist though.

EarthGoddess
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 09:52 am: [report]

@Chelle: I’m a traditional woman, too, so I don’t think I could have asked my husband either. However, I don’t see the harm in him being “confused for a married man” since engagement technically takes him off the market totally anyway, IMHO. I also see your point about it being “desperate and pathetic” but I guess some women get tired of waiting for him to ask, so it’s basically the equivalent of him giving her a shut-up ring in terms of sentiment. I’m also a big fan of presents (giving and receiving), so the more tokens of affection the merrier to me!

Chelle
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]

@Earth Goddess (I have no idea how to make those squares, sorry)-Oh yeah, there’s no harm in that. The poor guy would just be bombarded with “Dude! When did you get married? Why wasn’t I invited?” and blah blah blah. He might get a little irritated *lol*.

EarthGoddess
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 10:36 am: [report]

@Chelle: I know what you mean, but I think women are more inclined to notice a ring on a man’s finger than his guy buddies would be. Usually men aren’t even observant enough to realize I have a ring on MY finger. LOL

EastCoastMale
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 11:43 am: [report]

I ahve to say in reading these most recent post, the line about a woman asking a man to marry her being desperate and pathetic really does not give me, as a man, the warm and fuzzies. So its not desperate and pathetic when a man asks simply because it is tradition? I have to say I totally disagree. You think men like going out on a limb all the time and be the only ones risking rejection or heartbreak when it comes to this specific act of proposal? I guess I would think of another term too if it meant I could just wait and then decide without having to be the one taking the action. I think if both people love each other, who cares if the woman asks, just because it is not done often and breaks with tradition does not make it desperate in my opinion.

prettydarnkim
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]

It does make the standard look double. Equality: should women empty their bank accounts for a small rock for their men? I agree with LaGiulia. Why the heck do we think we need rings at all?

vanya
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 05:50 pm: [report]

“Equality: should women empty their bank accounts for a small rock for their men?”

Maybe when women are paid the same as men

EastCoastMale
wrote on January 17 2009 @ 09:47 pm: [report]

prettydarnkim
I agree, I am all for just “kissing on it” and not having rings at all, I just thought it especially ridiculous when the person said a woman proposing to a man makes her look patheic and desperate. Gimme a break is what I say to that.

Chelle
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 09:28 am: [report]

@EastCoastMale-There is nothing ridiculous about my comment. That is my opinion because that is the first impression I get. I did say “seems” not “is”. I may be a little influence by the women I know that have done this. They were, in fact, desperate and pathetic. Not to say that all women who do this automatically are. That would be a broad generalization. I don’t necessarily beleive that men should have to “go out on a limb” all of the time. I was the one to first express how I felt to my boyfriend (we were friends at the time). I also think that if a couple is in tune with each other enough to get married, the man shouldn’t be scared that he’ll be rejected. In my relationship, if he doesn’t have the balls to ask me, it’s not happening. That’s just how I feel. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion though and I respect that.

femmefox67
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 02:23 pm: [report]

ladies, i dont know about an engagement ring for men, when we are always the once waiting for OUR ring. i just read that new book “Why Hasn’t He Proposed?” that says we shouldn’t be waiting so long to get an engagement ring and that weddings in general stress men out, so why would they want an engagement ring too? wont that freak them out even more???

EastCoastMale
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 03:22 pm: [report]

@chelle
“I just thought it especially ridiculous when…”, I was just expressing my opinion on what you said. I didnt say it is ridiculous because I recognize that it is your opinion.

@femme
I think weddings stress everyone out, I wouldnt be so stressed if I had a nice ring that was several thousand dollars and all sparkly just like the one I gave away lol, kidding because I know marriage is not about materialism. I do however think a nice mens watch of similar value, maybe inscribed….or a tastefully designed mens ring on the same par as womens would be great. Not the $100 dollar ones that you put a quarter in a machine and pop open a plastic egg to get. Gee honesy, so much thought, thanks.

par3
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]

the wedding band is a symbol of marriage/union which is usually downplayed, a simple gold band with no exaggerated status-identifying diamonds. i’m so baffled by ‘feminists’ who get all giddy about engagement rings.

i personally don’t identify with any labels (saying im feminist) but at the same time i still see an engagement ring as a dowry-type symbol similar like a contract or collateral. a man preparing to ask a woman to marry him has to drop 30Gs+ on a ring, as an investment for their relationship? does the weight of the rock determine his faithfulness and dedication to the relationship? or is it more of a financial tag slipped on your finger used to ensure you won’t jump into bed with someone else before the vows?

when a man has to make that kind of financial decision- should he also be shunned for making more than a woman at his profession/work place? while some will say ‘the woman’s parents pay for the wedding’ ... i doubt the man’s parents bought her that rock so it doesn’t really equal out to me.

but then this brings me back to my point…shouldn’t the WEDDING ring be more emphasized if it symbolizes the couples UNION rather than the engagement ring that is only given to the female (in more cases) as a pre-marriage ‘symbol’.

vanya
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 04:26 pm: [report]

“Not the $100 dollar ones that you put a quarter in a machine and pop open a plastic egg to get. Gee honesy, so much thought, thanks.”

There is nothing wrong with a $100 ring if that’s what you can afford to spend.  Likewise, there isn’t anything wrong with a $100 ring if you choose not to spend more. 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who don’t put themselves into signifcant debt for a ring.  It’s rather sad when the payment plan for the engagement ring has outlasted the couple’s marriage. 

It’s more thoughtful, in my opinion, to be financially responsible and not live outside of one’s means, than it is to purchase a 3 carat diamond as “proof” of one’s “love” or “worth”. (and, sadly, there are women who judge the size of their fiancé‘s love and their own worth by the size of the diamond they receive.)

“when a man has to make that kind of financial decision- should he also be shunned for making more than a woman at his profession/work place?”

For the same job/position, education, and experience? Yes, I believe men and women should be paid equally.  Regardless of whom is expected to propose.  There is nothing, other than jewelry industry and the bridal industry, that says a man must spend $30,000 or more, on an engagement ring.

par3
wrote on January 18 2009 @ 05:10 pm: [report]

The traditional expectation for men to handle finances and shell out money for dinners, engagement rings, apartments, cars and have well paying jobs to be ‘ideal’ or a ‘catch’ is common and the pressure is tremendous. We are to play the ‘damsels in distress’ waiting to be swept off our feet- or in previous times we’re to be ‘taken off the backs of our father’ which in return is replaced with a dowry (sometimes given to the brides parents as a ‘replacement’ and in other cultures given to the groom as a ‘thanks for taking her off our hands’ kind of deal).
t

The actually MEANING of these rings and their roles in the actual marriage (which to me is absolutely no kind of role at all- just a frivolous expenditure that i think makes men dread the thought and idea of engagement all together these days) has changed but the fundamental historical meaning is still there.

so much time, money and energy is put into purchasing the ring that it totally takes away from the whole proposed (ha) definition of engagement. engagement is the time you spend as a pre-married couple, planning your wedding .......................... which of course is later another 30K+ investment to celebrate the declaration of your union. depending on the situation the brides parents are usually supposed to foot- which to me is another dowry-like translation…bringing us back to my point.

LittleLady
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 01:30 am: [report]

I’m an independent girl, and I’m all for women being equal. In a relationship, though, I think compromise is more important than equality. Everyone is different, and every relationship is different, but worrying about inequalities - who spends more, who makes more, whether something might symbolize something negative, etc. - might take the focus off why you’re together. If you don’t want an engagement ring, don’t get one.

For my fiance, the time, money and energy he put into buying an engagement ring was important. After we decided we wanted to get married, he took 10 months to propose because he was looking for The Perfect Ring. He wanted to shop for it and choose it all by himself. The search frustrated me because I hadn’t asked for that, but the ring is all the more special because he chose to make such an effort.

Diamonds are expensive, yes, but they’re the stone of choice for a reason. They’re rare, and they’re very resiliant. A jeweler told me they’re the most difficult stone to break. It’s a little cliche, but you want your relationship to mirror the diamond - not something you find easily, resiliant, lasting.

I offered to help pay at one point, because it is a huge expenditure, but we both cared about the tradition and the symbolism. He was offended and reminded me that it’s a gift.

If it’s just a diamond for a diamond’s sake and a wedding for a wedding’s sake, I agree that’s absolutely ridiculous and pathetic. But a gift with as much thought, time and energy put into it as mine had is something we both treasure. We plan to pass it on to our grandchildren.

LittleLady
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 01:46 am: [report]

Also - I have no idea how much he spent. If it were $100, I wouldn’t care. He doesn’t want me to know because I probably would ask him to take it back and buy something more sensible. I hope that at some point, I can put as much thought into a gift for him as he did for me.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a woman proposing. I would have, but I knew he wanted to.

Also - traditionally, a dowry was a gift the father gave the groom. The groom didn’t really give the father anything except status. The girl’s dowry was important because her family wanted her to “marry well.” It WAS a “please take her off my hands” deal because at the time, women didn’t work outside the home, and it was one more mouth to feed. Since women are no longer considered property, there’s no need to “pay” for them. And let’s be honest, in most cases, if the father of the bride pays for the wedding, it’s no gift to the groom.

par3
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 04:31 am: [report]

Actually, the dowry went both ways. it depended on your status. When a man was marrying a woman he was taking a worker away from the family. when you say that women were a mouth to feed and didn’t work outside of the house, you’re describing every woman in their society. typically, these women don’t leave the home but it shows how little you understand about the work they do IN THE HOME and just how much it means to the family. are you saying that picking corn, cooking, raising the children cooking, mending the animals and fields wasn’t work? There is a caste system that is set by the matriarch of the family. usually a family is compromised of many children, each woman had their own specific job that made the village run smoothly. they married outside of their village always, since incest isn’t their thing, and the removal of one ‘worker’ from the family was then compensated with a financial gift of some sort- in most cases- a cow.

obviously we’re no longer ‘property’ which is exactly my point- there is no sound tradition behind the engagement ring. It’s a ‘traditional’ thing that a lot of people don’t really think about but do it just because it’s been around forever. i find it contradictory that feminists speak one way about equality yet when it comes to diamond rings all of a sudden we’re not to be so equal anymore.

par3
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 04:45 am: [report]

+ just one more thing… usually when the father pays for the wedding it’s the celebration of ‘giving his daughter away’, just as it’s said when he walks her down the aisle, which is another ‘tradition’ that in today’s feminist terms ‘reduces women to property’. (we don’t ALL have fathers today, and it’s not uncommon for the groom to also foot the bill of the ceremony)

i’m not arguing here so don’t get me wrong. i’m offering evidence to challenge feminist ideals and towards those women who represent themselves as feminists but have contradictory views on engagements, weddings and these traditional practices.

just a good ol fashion discussion that’s all!

Michael
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 07:20 am: [report]

@par3 - I believe the “tradition” is really only around 100 years old.  It was really pushed hard by DeBeers giving diamond engagement rings to the early movie stars to give to their fiances as a marketing ploy (same with the whole two months’ salary thing.)  Also if I remember this correctly, the ring and dollar value was a financial commitment from the man to the woman because at the time it was extremely rare for a woman to be able to live independently and to be a woman that had been engaged but “dumped” was socially damning.

vanya
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 09:23 am: [report]

“but worrying about inequalities - who spends more, who makes more, whether something might symbolize something negative, etc. - might take the focus off why you’re together”

I wasn’t referring to individual relationships, but rather that in the U.S. most women still do not make the same amount of money as men - for the same job/position, same education, and same amount of experience.  I don’t accept that the pay disparity exists because men are expected to use the difference in pay to buy a diamond ring or an apartment.

I am not from the U.S. originally, and honestly find salary inequity here puzzling.

“Diamonds are expensive, yes, but they’re the stone of choice for a reason. They’re rare”

Actually, they’re not rare.  100 million carats of diamonds are mined *annually*, of which 80% are used for industrial purposes.  Cartels like DeBeers stockpile jewelry-quality diamonds and sell them in small amounts to retailers to create false scarcity, and to keep diamond prices high.

Michael
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]

there was a study done a year or two ago that showed men negotiate salaries at a much higher rate than women and the numbers were directly correlated to the salary discrepancy.  I’ll try to find the link later today.

vanya
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 11:00 am: [report]

Thank you, Michael.  Do you recall if it gives any reasoning why women negotiate lower salaries for themselves versus their equally qualified male colleagues?

Michael
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 11:07 am: [report]

from what I recall off the top of my head - women had a tendency to not negotiate at all, just took what was offered whereas men would often try to get more.  Can’t get more if you don’t ask.

LittleLady
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 07:37 pm: [report]

par3 - I never called myself a feminist. In fact, I said compromise was more important in a relationship. I would say that I’m against traditional gender roles (like housework is 50/50 and I’m putting him through school), but I do like tradition. That might contradict itself sometimes, but that’s where the compromise comes in. And we both compromise. You personally don’t like the tradition and don’t see the point in it, and that’s fine.

It’s not about the ring or the diamond - The symbol of commitment would be just as special if it were a picture he’d drawn on a napkin of what he wanted our lives to be and put as much thought into it as he did the ring.

Also, I do know what women did in the homes. Many still do it today and don’t even get the credit of a cow. When I told people my mom stayed home with us, they would respond, “Oh, so she doesn’t have a job,” which, as you know, is not the case. So “how little I know” really was just something I didn’t say because I thought it was obvious at this point in time.

Vanya - I didn’t mean to sound like I was singling you out. I was referring to the discussion on what couples spent on rings/watches for each other. As far as equal pay, I’m all for it, but I’ve never run into a problem getting it.

As far as rarity, diamonds were rarer than other stones when DeBeers started the whole campaign. (I wasn’t insinuating that tradition is as old as the dowry.) I’m sure your statistics are correct, but that doesn’t make them easy to find. It doesn’t mean there are more diamonds in the world; it just means that since they’re more valuable, there’s more concentration on finding them.

Michael - I think I read that study too.

par3
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 07:44 pm: [report]

i didn’t mean to say you ‘knew little’ i just reread that and it came off terribly. i’m saying it’s not something that was commonly discussed and/or honored during those times, and now… so we all ‘knew little’ about the roles of women because they were so ‘dispensible’... nothing personal sorry.

Michael
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 08:21 pm: [report]

with the divorce rate what it is in this country and one of the leading causes being financial differences I really struggle to see the reasoning behind spending two months’ salary on a ring and however much on a wedding.  Wouldn’t it be a greater sign of a lifetime commitment to have a small ceremony and maybe skip the ring and put the money saved into savings, or a house?

LittleLady
wrote on January 19 2009 @ 11:11 pm: [report]

Absolutely. Like I said, I don’t know how much he spent, and I’m pretty sure it’s more than I would want him to. But he doesn’t want me to know because it’s a gift. It’s an extravagant gift, but it was important to him that he choose it and propose.

I’m not saying everyone should do it. Traditional rings, the man proposing, traditional weddings - not for everyone. That’s kind of where we started with the male engagement rings. We won’t get divorced. We’ve talked about that, and it’s a lifelong deal. But that’s us.

My whole point is that the thought behind his gesture is the most important part. It really would have hurt him if I’d told him I didn’t want the gift.

Just a different perspective.

Par3 - don’t worry. I didn’t sound very nice. Sorry about that. Reading is a lot different from hearing.

Houdini
wrote on January 20 2009 @ 06:58 am: [report]

The jewelry store wants to sell more rings. Nothing personal, it’s just business, where have we heard that before. Anyway, give us a better question. If a man wants an engagement ring, go for it. If she wants him to wear her ring, that’s their problem.

The sex and friendship better be great.