Engagement rings

[PerverseConverse]

I've just read this and found it interesting. I'd never thought of engagement rings from a feminist point of view.

I'm divorced but still wear mine because it's something I wanted from the moment I went into Tiffany's in New York with my mum and said I'd buy myself one one day. It has no sentimental attachment to it from my exH but it means a lot to me. I've tried wearing it on my right hand but it doesn't fit as well and gives me an itchy rash. I think soap gets stuck under it. Maybe I should have it resized.

I've no intention of ever getting married again and don't care that people will think I'm "taken" as I wear it because I love it and I paid for it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45797780

'Feminism isn't just about having the choice between A or B, it's about breaking down the barriers that stop women from seeing all the other options from C to Z.'

Spot on

Engagement rings gross me out too, for all the reasons listed above. I find it quite depressing that they're still so popular, and that the '3 month salary' thing is still alive and well

Most men would be more then delighted if the purchasing of engagement rings fell out of favour. For all the people on here claiming they don’t care about such traditions or see them as antiquated patriarchal control you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Men are still be very much judged on the engagement ring they buy. Whenever a women at work announces her engagement it is not the men swarming over to her desk to see ‘the ring’.

I think it's hard to separate how much of the 'success' stuff is down to get a man to shell out for a ring and how much of it is the general attitude that the ultimate success for a woman is being with a man. Especially as a diamond ring can be had for a couple of hundred pounds easily enough, and most people wouldn't necessarily know the difference between that and a 3 month wage one. So I think there's an element of that with engagement rings, but I also think it would still exist pretty much the same way if the concept of engagement rings suddenly vanished overnight.

GrabEmByThePatriarchy

The genius of the engagement ring market is that it is considered poor form to buy a second hand ring. You are quite right that a ring can be bought for a few hundred quid but that’s because not many people want a second hand ring. It’s considered bad luck or just ‘tight’ to buy a used ring. Although few women would admit it engagement rings are used as status symbols as well in the ‘look at me my man just spent £££££ on this rock and it’s bigger then your ring’.

It isn't just about second hand. Depending on what we mean by a few and a couple, and not wanting to get too nit picky, even £300 would more than buy a diamond solitaire of the engagement ring type, new. I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to telling the difference between stones, but then so are a lot of the population. I wouldn't personally be able to see much difference between, say, these sub £300 rings from H Samuel:

www.hsamuel.co.uk/webstore/d/2981041/9ct+two+colour+gold+square+illusion+diamond+solitaire+ring/

www.hsamuel.co.uk/webstore/d/9578900/9ct+white+gold+diamond+solitaire+ring/

.... and these more expensive jobbies from the pricier end of the High Street.

www.beaverbrooks.co.uk/0111340/18ct-White-Gold-Diamond-Ring/p

www.beaverbrooks.co.uk/0012239/9ct-White-Gold-Diamond-Ring/p

They're all variations on probably the commonest engagement ring style of the past 10-15 years. One of them is five times the price of the cheapest, yet I would not be confident in my ability to accurately order them by price in a blind test.

I mean obviously, if there's a massive rock on there then that's probably more expensive than a smaller one, unless it's vintage then all bets are off. Though personally I dislike rings with a big diamond and would not have been pleased if my husband had got me that. And this is not an unusual view amongst women either, it certainly isn't the case that everyone wants a bigger stone than the next woman. I have heard large stones described as tacky, in fact.

Basically, even a cheap ring potentially gives a woman the status of being 'taken' because society tells us having a man is an achievement. You can get a good dollop of this with a sub £300 ring.

The three month salary thing is just an advertising gimmick that has moved into popular belief, like Santa wearing Coca Cola colours red and white

Yep. If DH had even thought about doing that, I wouldn't have been able to marry him because clearly he'd have been too daft to saddle myself with.

When we became serious we got each other rings which weren't engagement rings but I suppose 'commitment' rings. We didn't wear on the ring finger, but we each wore a ring so there was no ownership of anyone by anyone.

We decided to get married not long after my mother passed, so choosing to wear her engagement ring that she'd bequeathed to me didn't feel like a sign of ownership by my now DH, as me choosing to wear a nice piece of jewellery that reminds me of her.

We both wear wedding bands.

I don't see these as male control as a PP said.

the '3 month salary' thing is still alive and well
Is it though? I'd never even heard of it until I started using MN.
It has never ever been mentioned in any conversation I have ever had in real life. It definitely isn't a factor for anyone I know.
A few people say it and lots of people believe that it is real.
It's like the £50 minimum wedding gift requirement or having to cover the cost of your meal. It's an urban myth.

DH and I both had engagement rings, and we both wear wedding rings. I also have a ring on my other hand that I bought for myself when I was confirmed in post in the job of my dreams - so I wear my domestic commitments on one hand and my professional one on the other. We were young and poor when we got married, and I was much older and richer when I bought my work ring (so the work one is significantly more expensive than the engagement ring), but none of them cost three months' salary or anything like it!

I do think rings are a feminist issue, but we can remake the traditions in ways that suit us and reflect equal relationships. Just as marriage is originally patriarchal, and many of the trappings of a modern wedding reflect that, but both the wedding and the marriage can be remade to be an equal partnership.

It was originally a months salary. I'd never heard of 3 months until this thread.

I remember an advertising campaign by deBeers years ago where they quoted the 3 months salary thing.

It's like the £50 minimum wedding gift requirement or having to cover the cost of your meal

"Covering your plate" is an Irish custom (and possibly other places, I don't know).

@PanGalaticGargleBlaster I don't think this is true - I have an antique engagement ring (Art Deco) and it was more expensive for its size/cut/colour/clarity than many new rings because of its history and provenance.

bluecanoeforyou

Of course there are going to be exceptions, rings that were bespoke designed, famous previous owners etc. But generally speaking new rings are a bit like new cars in that they lose value the moment you walk out the shop/showroom with them.

I had a Texan colleague about 12 years ago who said that the 'norm' back home was 6 months salary on an engagement ring . Total madness