To have not been effusive when colleague was waving her engagement ring around

[Thelaughingtonepoliceman]

Just been taken to task by a colleague for failing to be sufficiently excited when another colleague told us she had just got engaged and was waving a medium-sized rock around the office.

The colleague who has just got engaged has been with her partner for about seven years and on two separate occasions has been in tears at work parties because of his behaviour (on one of these he accused her of going out because she was trying to sleep with other men). She has previously said they usually sleep in separate bedrooms, she has thought of leaving him and he refuses on principle to do anything social with her at all and has no interest in doing anything other than watching rugby. In short, he sounds like a world-class arse and she could certainly do better.

She was showing people the ring and everyone was gushing over it and saying how happy she must be etc. A couple of the other girls made comments along the lines of "wait until I go home and show Bob/John the pictures".

Full disclosure I find the whole business of engagement and engagement rings pointless and utterly embarrassing at the best of times. If you want to get married, get married but this ridiculous charade of having to be asked by the man and having to have an expensive ring to wave around as a badge of honour is just cringe. In the best of situations I find the business naff but I'm very happy to overlook it if the people getting married are happy.

But I know for a fact that this is not a happy relationship and simpering over this was more than I could bear. So I gave a peremptory nod, said "congratulations, very exciting" and wandered off, leaving the rest of them talking about the ring for a further 20 minutes. Much later on someone took me aside and said it had been noted that I was lacking in enthusiasm around the engagement and why had I felt it necessary to be this unpleasant?

I honestly don't understand why it should be mandatory to be interested in the engagements of people you don't know all that well in the first place but particularly when everyone knows they aren't well matched. I won't be rude and I wasn't rude, but why should I pretend to be overjoyed?

Really? People cry all the time over relationships as people possess these things called emotions, it shows they have compassion too. Something that some seem to lack on here.

Whether it is or isn’t a contract in your mind, it absolutely legally is one! Romance has nothing to do with it. A marriage is a legally binding agreement.
‘Your posts suggest otherwise- the OP is showing upset over this woman not conforming to what she thinks is an acceptable way to think and behave as a woman and you agree with her’ It’s funny you see it like that. What I see is the OP being singled out in her office for not conforming to the expectation she should be super excited by a colleague’s engagement and indeed has been called bitter, jealous, etc. by more women on here for not conforming to that either 🤷‍♀️ The OP has congratulated the woman and that’s STILL not enough to conform. The OP described her views and the context as background and has been castigated for them as the conformist view is that she should be excited and more than that even if she isn’t she should fake it to socially conform.
Its interesting how many people seem personally affronted by a woman saying I think engagement rings and proposals are a load of nonsense.

I mean we'll have to agree to disagree (if this was directed at me). I possess emotions as well but for me if you're routinely in tears in the office or in a work setting about the state of your relationship that's not normal. I've never done that ever. There's absolutely no way I would let work colleagues know about the state of my relationship. It must be pretty bad for her to have been reduced to tears like that.

And to tell colleagues (as opposed to friends) that your OH has accused you of being unfaithful because you've gone to a near-mandatory work dinner, I really struggle to see how anyone could think was normal or healthy? And to then go on and announce your engagement, all smiles, and expect people to airbrush this incident out. I have every compassion for this woman and quite prepared to not embarrass her by raising it in public but let's not pretend this is a great example of a romantic relationship.

You are completely correct. You can’t expect people to forget everything you said prior to the engagement.

A marriage is not a contract in my mind, you old romantic you!

I mean, a whale is not a mammal... in my mind. France is not a country... in my mind. Water is not a liquid at room temperature... in my mind. It's not March... in my mind.

Unfortunately (or probably fortunately), that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Any more than your bizarre conceit that 'marriage is not a contract'.

Ha. I’m re-watching Mad Men and have just had the scene when the secretaries are all squealing in one office when two of the men walk past and say ‘sounds like a visit from the stork or De Beers’ before Joan walks out flashing her engagement ring. Plus ça change, etc.

Even if you think Marriage is wholly a contract, it doesn't follow that a 'contract' just exists in the institution of marriage, my response was about other ways to do things as fundamentally a feminist marriage is an oxymoron. I don't have any qualms about marriage in that sense so I don't care as my motivation for getting married was romance. This word appears an affront to most on here as it doesn't fit in to the universal woman mould where the personal has to be the political. I'm not sure where you got the impression the op's views are in the minority, a majority on here are supporting her need to almost be repelled by this woman. No one has answered why it is ok for women to expect others to behave and think like you. Whether this woman is heading for a doomed relationship is irrelevant, it is the the principle of women having the right to choose their own life path that is what is being discussed. Nobody should tell the OP off but equally why act superior, why do you feel you are better than her.

Because to ooh and ah over an engagement ring perpetuates the sexist idea that bagging a chap is the highest pinnacle of female achievement, highlighted in this specific case by the chap in question clearly being a dreadful piece of work, as demonstrated by his long history of making his now-fiancée miserable and accusing her of attending work events only to sleep with other men?

The OP is, in this situation, demonstrably superior because she’s not sleepwalking into a dire marriage despite seven years of obvious unhappiness, nor is she colluding in the simpering collective amnesia which appears to think Bad Guy + Diamond = Prince Charming. It’s that kind of nonsense that causes women like that to think that marriage is an achievement, regardless of whom you marry.

I don’t think it, that’s what marriage is, a legal binding agreement. I can’t understand how you are married and didn’t know this. The point about it being legally binding is what gives the parties defined protections under law. It legalises the relationship.
‘it doesn't follow that a 'contract' just exists in the institution of marriage’ yeah you can have a civil partnership, another legally binding agreement between partners regulating their relationship. You cannot expect to have legal protection in a relationship when you have not subjected the relationship to the rule of law.
‘This word appears an affront to most on here as it doesn't fit in to the universal woman mould where the personal has to be the political’ Sorry but this is nonsense. Just because I know the legal implications of marriage it doesn’t mean that I reject romance and love. Love is inherent in the concept of marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive.
‘I'm not sure where you got the impression the op's views are in the minority’ I didn’t say her views are in a minority. I said she has been pressured in person and online to conform to the prevailing view.
‘it is the the principle of women having the right to choose their own life path’ yes and the OP congratulated her on her decision and continued with her day. She is allowed to think flip me that’s a bad decision. She didn’t vocalise it, she didn’t criticise the woman. She gave a totally appropriate response and then was criticised for not being overly effusive. The issue here is the criticism, the expectation that she must jump for joy and when she doesn’t, as a woman, other women think they have the right to condemn her for it.

Still find the tone and language of some of OPs posts a bit dismissive and "I'm not like other girls".

This is not the case at all. At least not unless women are viewed as some sort of homogenous monolith, without separate minds and beliefs, who believe in a sisterhood and a nebulous thing called the 'girl code'. Just like men, we don't all adhere to the same tastes, ideologies and personal beliefs.

Culturally, the assumption that an important decision like our whole legal future with our intimate partner needs to rest on the shoulders of only one party - and a clear cultural expectation in some quarters that this is how 'tradition' decrees it - is potentially damaging. But if people want to have this discussion, and then go the whole hog with a demonstrative proposal, knock yourself out. Just because it's not for me doesn't invalidate others' pleasure in it. But what does need reappraising, IMO, is the notion of 'waiting for a ring' from someone who holds the sole power in that decision. Equally so is the silly, erroneous assumption that it must be what all women must want; that we've 'dreamed about our wedding day' since we were small children. We don't. And we haven't.

I was never interested in marriage at all - we're both economically independent - until my mother died young and I realized how difficult it could be to order our affairs in the event of the illness and incapacity of one of us. This was our single most important reason for marriage: very cold, hard and practical, albeit we did have the romantic overseas wedding (eloped) if not The 'Traditional' Proposal. If he'd got down on one knee I'd have laughed; if he'd asked my dad for permission as though trading ownership of a sheep or cow, I'd have been furious. Marriage is an equal agreement and a serious legal covenant.

At least this thread is a cautionary tale that people need to consider very seriously the practicality of their choices. There's also the option of civil partnership, albeit it's no different on paper to marriage. To those who never intend to marry, the least you need is a watertight Will and arrangements to be made relating to enduring power of attorney. To people who marry with all the whistles, bells and traditions, have fun and be happy. Just don't cede over all the power as to this decision, along with legal rights that might have serious implications especially should you fall ill, to another person.

Viewed like this, the 'I'm not like other girls' protestation is really pretty meaningless.

YANBU

whoever took you aside needs to wind their neck in.

Let us all rejoice that the op holds no power because if she did think what a tyrant she would be. Op, have you stopped to notice that nobody cares what you think when it comes to making others bend to your will? You’re not the boss of her. You sound like a stalker and a psycho. Again, you are not the boss of her. The whole reason for equality is so women can make their own decisions and not be oppressed by ANYONE. Including other women. You have an enormous chip on your shoulder acting self righteous, and truly you sound jealous as can be. Look at what you’re saying. Textbook jealousy.

Well this is what the world of an autism looks like - being constantly berated for not being two faced. I'm absolutely not suggesting you are of course, its just that I have two autistic boys and stuff like this happens all the time. Personally I think you have a point and perhaps you are the only genuine one - all those gushing are probably now bitching about when she's going to get divorced. But I still feel that if anyone has set you aside you may possibly need to brush up on our acting skills - sometimes it makes our lives easier.

Those in support of the OP are the posters who are unsettled by the colleague not conforming to the idea of the universal woman - the OP by her own admission states she is probably nasty and judgemental. This judgement is of the colleague seemingly basking in the attention from the shiny rock and the proposal! Implicit in the judgemental descriptions is that the colleague is actually a bit thick (despite stating she isn't later on in the thread) for falling for this shoddy representation of 'romance'. The romance undermined by the reality, where the colleague has not once but twice, been in tears over this man! It is a shock to the OP as this woman is rejecting the forced relatability where women have the same political motivations, the same ideas about marriage, children, men, if you are not with us, you're against us mentality and if you are making poor choices like this colleague, you are letting your fellow sex down. If you are doing this you will be judged as you really need to tow the line.

There are fundamentals that most Women agree on like Rape is bad, domestic violence and sexual harassment are bad but areas of personal preference like being proposed to is a choice, as is enjoying being romanced or liking engagement rings, I like jewellery and my own is not a traditional diamond ring, it is a precious stone with a poignant tale from DH's family history associated with it. Women are entitled to make shit choices as well as ones we deem to be good and align with our own moral code. The OP has a choice not to be effusive but she should also realise that the colleague has a choice to make 'bad decisions' or ones that don't align with her political outlook.

I’m with you, OP.

I don't know what thread you've been reading but OP - to me - is more along the lines of 'I really don't care what you do but I don't want to be made to pretend that I care either'.

Why have you posted in such an antagonistic and frankly spiteful way?

Those in support of the OP are the posters who are unsettled by the colleague not conforming to the idea of the universal woman

You've mentioned this trumped-up universal woman about 9 million times @Goldenbear but you're the sole poster talking about it - it seems to be a fixation. It's also got jack-all to do with OP not being thrilled her colleague is marrying an abusive man.

Some of the responses on this thread are truly demented...

I am with you on this one OP because:

• half of the people who have been fawning over this woman all day will probably be gossiping behind her back tomorrow about how silly she is to marry this man...at least you had the conviction not to be an hypocrite
• some people really need to get over themselves and realise their private life is not always going to be of interest to other people. This is a colleague, not a friend or a relative, so it is perfectly normal not to feel a high level of involvement/interest in their life
• this is a workplace. You are there to do a job, not to spend your time chit-chatting with colleagues.

Also: ''Just been taken to task by a colleague for failing to be sufficiently excited when another colleague...''

Who the fuck does that colleague think he/she is?

I would have nipped this in the bud immediately by saying that your reactions are not their concern and you expect them in the future to be professional and stick to work-related discussions.

or I would probably have turned the table around by asking them with a straight face whether it is usual for them to spend that amount of time looking at you and scrutinising your reactions to that extent. I would make myself look suitably concerned as I am asking them the question, as if you were concerned that this person was turning into your personal stalker...

Because their comment was entirely inappropriate and unwelcome.

LOL.

I'm a "stalker" and a "psycho" because I fail to feign sufficient interest in someone's engagement ring?
You make me sound like Joseph Stalin. 😂

Some of the comments on this thread are a timely reminder that women are often the most enthusiastic enforcers of the way women are socialised. The ire aimed at you over this is shocking.

You obsessing over it is very disturbing, look at your own thread here. It’s none of your business. Yes you sound like a stalker and psycho. A woman got engaged at work. Get over yourself.

@MysteryBelle

You obsessing over it is very disturbing, look at your own thread here. It’s none of your business. Yes you sound like a stalker and psycho. A woman got engaged at work. Get over yourself.

This is Mumsnet gold. I'm quite flattered to be being compared to deranged stalkers and so forth. Thanks for the giggle.

I also can't help noticing how often this poster has mentioned the "universal woman". What is this universal woman? Have you patented it for a book?

You don’t get to decide how other women live their own lives. You are not her boss. Sounds like the entire office of women sees through your facade and the colleague let you know that and that’s why you’re here trying to recruit sympathy from strangers for your unkind behavior.

I'm unable to follow this post for the most part. The earlier stages are also very black-and-white and don't reflect the actual content of the thread.

There is not one set of posters with one mind who are supporting the OP. People have given a variety of perspectives.

As to the statement 'the OP by her own admission states she is probably nasty and judgemental'. She's admitted nothing of the sort. She said 'congratulations, how exciting'. What more was she expected to say?

The colleague who took her to task for not expressing these sentiments in what she believed to be the 'right way' is certainly very judgemental. Taking it upon oneself to dictate to others how they are expected to react to any given situation is quite the liberty, in anyone's book.

The rest of this message is so garbled and tangential that I can't make any sense of it. This isn't a wilful misunderstanding: its content and meaning are so confused that I can't draw out the key points it's trying to make.