I don't get the desire to get engaged.

[Brightyellowspyrograph]

Maybe I am just cranky and old, but in this day and age with women having careers, being independent, raising children single-handedly, having equal rights ( almost ) in employment yada yada yada why do women go all gushy over an engagement ring?
We don't have to be passed on from fathers to our husbands like chattels as we once did. We mostly live with our partners before we get married and already have a partnership so why do we react like this man is going to carry us off into the sunset and save us from the shame of spinsterhood?
It's anachronistic for independent women earning their own living, with important job roles and responsibilities; to be desperately yearning for some man to put a ring on them to show possession.
I don't get it.
And yes I have been "engaged" (x3) and it is pretty meaningless. Being married wasn't all that either.
A good strong relationship is a fantastic thing. The support and love of another person that lasts is truly wonderful, don't get me wrong. But do we need this old fashioned rubbish?

Just to add, getting married and keeping your career are not mutually exclusive. I would quite like to get engaged for all the reasons mentioned on the thread (nice piece of jewellery, committing to a partner, etc).

I got engaged and we shopped together for a ring. It isn’t ’sticky outy’ it’s a platinum band with tiny diamonds set within it.
Our reason for getting engaged was because we were getting married! The ring was just a symbol of that commitment.
He wore a wedding ring which he didn’t with his first marriage. Our rings were a symbol of our love and commitment. It had nothing to do with possession. And go ahead and get on your high horse but I also gave up work and became a SAHP!!
And he passed away when our kids were small, and thank goodness we were married as I inherited the house and all his actual possessions without inheritance tax.

@Ratisshortforratthew you do you, but a legal agreement that makes you a unit for the sake of shared finances and for many people childrearing is not betraying anyone's feminism.

@Crushed23 woman are still poorer than men especially as single parent households, the takeup of SPL is woeful and men are stigmatised by their employers for taking it, women still do far more unpaid labour in the home than men. All facts.

If you live in the south, it's kinda essential for inheritance. Dh's grandpa was a black cab driver, owned a 3 bed semi in an undesirable part of London..he passed on last year, total asset value was 1 million quid (700k was the house). It passed onto his 3 kids, 2 of whom also own houses which are 400k and upwards (conservatively and they aren't even in London)..

This is way above the inheritance threshold of 500k as a single. However as his kids are married and so was he, he is paying far less in tax.

He does. But less. Obviously, because I’ve arranged my life around my kids - intentionally. I’m not leaving myself vulnerable at all. I’ve considered all the outcomes and am content that I’ve protected myself.

If you "don't get it", why did you do it three times?

Honesty if it works for you, that’s great. But it shouldn’t be the general advice to young women, as in almost all cases, pulling back from your career makes you financially vulnerable / worse off longterm.

Engagement is meaningless. Marriage is a legal contract equivalent to setting up a business together. It should be an agreement to share the risks or both success and failures. This is especially important for anyone planning to have children, but even more so for women.

Pregnancy is inherently risky on its own. Children sometimes are born with special needs and the burden of care almost always falls to the mother. Statistically, even high earning women tend to lose earning potential when having children. Men have the opposite result.

In 1956 my Dad proposed to my Mum. They both wore a ring.

Dad’s was a signet ring with a small diamond in the centre. He used this ring as his wedding ring when they got married in 1960.

The legal meaning of engagement went out with the ark. It’s nice to wear a sparkly ring. My eldest dd and her partner will get engaged once they have their own house. She is looking at lab grown diamond. She wants a big rock and I don’t blame her. Mine is a natural diamond and would top £2k if bought new today but it’s not big. It’s what Joan Rivers would have called a shitty little ring that first wives get 😂

I married early 30 yrs ago. Didn't get engaged. I don't understand it either. It was a case of, shall we get married, yes. So we did. Within a few weeks. We wanted to commit to each other so just did it. I have never understood engagement. I think it's just a reason for a ring, gifts and party. All of which I didn't want anyway.

That’s my point - it’s on an individual basis. My DH for example has his own company, I’m listed as a director - I pay disproportionately into my pension to counteract the discrepancy there. I think women should have financial advise as part of antenatal!

I think you’re overthinking it. I was happy to be engaged because it meant my now husband wanted to be with me for life and meant to do so in a legally enfranchised way that meant he was my next of kin etc. Nothing to do with my dad or going gushy, it was just an expression of commitment to me.

If you have your own independent income, you will be significantly better off unmarried in case of a split.

Besides, the protection offered by marriage is negligible. Go over to the relationship board and see what women are left with when their husbands leave, or refuse to pay child maintenance.

There's no way round it: women need their own independent income, and it needs to be enough to sustain them and their children. Get married if that's what you want, but don't live under the illusion that it offers significant protection, because it doesn't.

Your own experiences have made you feel this way. Personally, I loved getting engaged - only did it the once and still married to DH.

You don’t have a hope in hell of getting any of his assets if you aren’t married, or a pension attachment order etc, it’s not just income but capital.

I will add if neither of you have a pot to piss in or live a life of credit and debt, clearly it makes no difference

I think the problem is that it's not a lifelong commitment, as divorce is possible. Maybe if you truly had to stay together till death do you part, it wouldn't be as popular.

I'm just speculating but I've heard a couple of people mention this as a reason why marriage means nothing.

Also the amount of married guys that are total sleezebags with other women is worrying. They just don't seem to care about their vows.

Wow, I can’t believe you said engaged women ‘behave like a pet chosen by its owner’ 🤨

That’s a really shitty thing to say, especially given you’ve now been that ‘pet’ on multiple occasions but have now decided (through sheer boredom with it I’d assume) that’s it’s beneath you.

For a start, I don't think that people are desperate to get engaged. I think a lot of people DO want to be married. And at some point, a decision has to be taken that you will, as a couple, get married and the term we use for that is "engaged"

Of course, for some, it's a huge thing and the ring and all the rest of it. And for others it's a quiet agreement, and a quick trip down to the registry office.

I dn't really care which version people want to do. That's on them.

I think the ring thing IS old fashioned. I also think it's totally fine. And I love that there are lots of different versions these days from thetypes of rings (or jewellery) to who gives what to whom.

Also, this is a bit cynical perhaps., but I might be a die hard feminist to my core, but I am also sadly aware that too man ywomen have found themselves with men who are unreliable and selfish and unkind and I hate to say it but it seems to me that quite often the very act of actually going out there and buying a ring and spending ACTUAL money, even in this day and age, really is a sign of commitment. That's not tsay it's a magic bullet because clearly it's not, but the number of couples I've met where the men have complained about the cost of a ring or siliness or whatever, often seem to be couples where he's a stingy selfish twat and where the relationship doesn't end well anyway.

In life you can choose to find joy or misery in things. You're choosing misery with an extra added sprinkle of hypocrisy.

This is what I think when people are dismissing birthdays, Valentine's Day etc as 'commercial rubbish' or 'not for adults' to celebrate. What fun is there in having 365 days of the year exactly the same. Why not celebrate / mark any occasion you can to lift a day out of the ordinary. We've been known to celebrate National Fish & Chip day, National Cocktail Day etc etc and, still, in our 50s, buy each other Easter eggs - why not 😊

It's worse - inheritance tax of a single person's estate is 375k threshold. or is it 325?

the 500k that you're thinking of is a married person's estate that includes property going to direct descendants. (Married people get 500k each - and on death they get each other's 500k =1mil)

Of course not, which is exactly why you need your own income. But even if you're married you are unlikely not to need your own income because very few men have enough assets to set you up for a lifetime in case of a divorce!

It means your family don’t pay inheritance tax on the amount over the threshold twice? The threshold is 325k so for a couple £650k and you can inherit any unused nil rate band from your spouse.

You do not get a larger nil rate band through marriage. Not sure where you have got the £500k figure from?