Show me the ring first
Is an engagement ring
sexist, since men dont wear one? Is it
just a jewlers’ scam, or a time-honored meaningful tradition? Is it a good idea to have a prolonged
engagement, or a short one, or is there really no point at all in getting
engaged in the modern era?
Up until now I looked at the engagement ring as onto something that is there to let men other than the fiancée know of the girl’s relationship status and an indication of that the pair is basically already married. The article gave me a whole new perspective – that the ring was really there as a compensation in the case that the wedding went wrong when the woman was already getting used to a life a couple. To be honest, the idea of this seems practical, yet a lot less romantic than the former purpose. The fact that men don’t wear engagement rings really is a tad bit sexist, in my opinion it suggests that the man has a more important role in the relationship in contrast to the two being equal, and that the man is, in a way, reserving the woman as his wife. Apart from all this, there is a simple reason why men don’t wear engagement rings, and that is because engagement rings have become something that is known to be worn by women and men might feel uncomfortable with wearing them.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that once upon a time giving engagement rings was just something created by greedy jewelers, it is now a sweet tradition that most cultures worldwide follow and not giving an engagement ring in many countries could be interpreted very badly as a sign of a lack of lovingness, respect or even poverty. I honestly don’t believe that something as individual as the length of an engagement period can be generalized and applied for all (or even most) couples. This is completely an issue that varies from relationship to relationship and is influenced by dozens of factors. Despite all this, I would personally prefer a shorter engagement period because should I decide to propose to a girl, I would only do so when I was 100% sure that I want to marry her and that would not be able to get influenced during an engagement period. I am of the opinion that once a couple agrees to get married, it is something binding that they cannot back down from.
What I think about today’s society is that it is based on a constantly increasing liberty factor. Every developed government and civilization attempts to pursue this goal, a goal of freedom. Having this mentioned leads me to believe that everyone has a choice in every single thing he does and this also includes the choice whether to have an engagement ring or not. Engagements are just a formality in my opinion; they do not possess any form of jurisdictional power, but on the other hand they are a tradition, a tradition which a lot of people choose to follow. I would say it’s completely socially acceptable if a couple decides to marry directly instead of being engaged.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don’t understand is why some people think it’s feminine when a man wears an engagement ring. I do agree that it is incredibly rare, but the fact is that a lot of men wear wedding rings after getting married and yet, aren’t thought of as feminine, which begs the question: why should engagement rings be any different? I’d have to admit that I, myself wouldn’t wear an engagement ring just because it isn’t a tradition and because it isn’t really “normal” for a man to have an engagement ring. The reason why a woman wears an engagement ring is tradition. This tradition evolved over time and happened to exclude the men, which explains why men don’t wear any.
Even though I'm supposed to represent the gender which may have a little biased opinion on such matter, I believe that I am still too young to think about engaging, not to mention marrying. Therefore I hope I will be able to bring to this discussion a valuable contribution, and that it will not be frowned upon simply because of my gender.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I was quite surprised to find out that what I considered to be a tradition, which was deeply rooted since long time ago, is just a clever marketing trick of jewelers of 20th century. However, it did not change my opinion about the engagement rings, as of a very beautiful way to show the seriousness behind the proposal. I am not saying that otherwise it would be just plain words, and the more "monthly wages" the ring costs, the more affection shows man to his fiancée. No. On the other hand though, we all know that a beautiful jewel always makes women smile, so why not start something as an engagement with doubled pleasure? I may be seen as a superficial person, but I find pleasure even in tangible things, and also, such ring holds even an artistic value.
Probably, I am able to say what is the feeling of ownership that should degrade the woman into a mere property. Since man does not wear one, the ring is as a kind of “mark” that this territory is already taken. Should the absence of the thing on man’s outfit suggest the opposite? I would not say so. As I see it, and there is a chance it stems from my, ehm, let’s say fairly developed sense of jealousy, there is a concept which tells us that man is the one who should do the first step, and I feel that majority of the women are fine with it. Therefore, when we say that woman are the objects of the attraction, a ring warns the possible sheik that in fact, the territory is really taken. While men, as long as they do not show interest, are almost free of any “offers” from the other gender.
On a more serious note, I do not think there is any universal length of engagement which would ensure a good marriage. I believe it is more about the people themselves, than about the length of the time they spent together living. For once, the cornerstone of a relationship, as I consider it, is an honesty of both partners. As long as the couple is having secrets, and do not share them with the partner, they may be living together forever and they will not ever be happy, because there will still be things which they will not understand about each other. On the other hand, when they are open to each other from the start, they are sure to be of more help to each other as well, and it does not necessarily need to take them years to get to know themselves. However, I am aware that there are certain things which just need time to be revealed. I may talk from experience, as I have been in a relationship for the past seventeen months with my gorgeous girlfriend, but I would lie if I said all of them were happy. My point is, that, indeed, the engagement should be taken seriously, and not just as a “must-do” before marriage, but in the end, it all depends on the couple, and how do they decided to “tackle” the marriage. As long as they are both serious and honest to each other, there is no need for engagement that lasts several years.
As for the summary, I would like to say that for a, I am definitely going to buy my fiancée an engagement ring, and I would probably get angry if she refused it, and for b, I do not plan to rush the whole thing. To take it seriously, but with an eased attitude, is probably the best, as for the couple, so for the relationship.
Doesn't the author have anything else to brag about? What is so bad about the engagement rings that they deserve such article? Who says she has to wear one? It is but a convention, nobody says it has to be followed. People for 60 years have been buying rings – oh, pardon me, my bad: MEN for 60 years have been buying things (the more expensive the better) to women they adored. I think that her fiance will like the idea of not paying for it, if she decides not to wear one. She probably knows that, so why write such thing? Is it a rallying call to unite women against the sexism and oppression? No, the article is not written in such way... About jewelers however... yeah, it's their job – and pretty damn good one. To make people buy expensive stuff they don't really want for 60 years... that's a scam of century! Good luck explaining it to women who are hungry for jewelery, though.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no need for an engagement ring, if couple can go without it – and it is perfectly possible. It just seems harder to propose to a girl without one – just imagine a man kneeling down with no ring... and if girl expected one... gosh, that would be awkward. Also, imagine GIRL kneeling down with a ring – and no, not in “the Sims” video game. I just have to laugh: a man wearing a diamond ring. Good luck explaining in pub that you are not gay, man! It is because men generally don't wear jewelery – no jeweled necklaces (crocodile teeth are completely fine, though), no jeweled earrings, no nothing (yes, there are exceptions, like modern “gangsters”, but they are not a good sample of men society). Why? Because men have no need for such things and therefore they don't want it (mostly). So don't buy one if you are a woman, and don't buy one if you are a man and you can manage without it.
About prolonged engagement – science tells us that love consists of several stages, from which the last one comes after approx. 2 years of partnership. It is the most stable one, so if couple can't manage to get into it, their marriage would be – let's say – action packed. The time of course varies, but I think any couple would need to get into this stage before thinking of marriage. It would prevent many problems, misunderstandings and probably divorces. I now think I will wait – but can I see the future? Many things may change... let's see, how will it end.
I too, as Samo, used to think of engagement rings as mainly a representation of a woman's marital status, an indication of some sort present to prevent becoming involved in rather awkward situations, such a hitting on a married woman, for instance. However, I could hardly imagine it as being the consolation prize for a failed marriage. For most people, including me, the engagement ring serves the purpose of displaying the husband-to-be's wealth and ability to take care of the future family, and, thus, many follow the seemingly flawed logic, heavily abused by jewelers, that the more expensive, the better. The most important feature of such rings is that they should be unique, yet, some people fail to realize this isn't necessarily achieved through the ring's sheer price alone. With the case of celebrities purchasing engagement rings, often these astronomical price tags are perceived in a wrong way by the mere mortal. Rather than comparing the price as it is, one should look at it as a percentage of income. Doing so will reveal that some spend a whole lot more on engagement tokens than Brad does.
ReplyDeleteI cannot judge whether the engagement ring is the spark of a sexist debate. I’ve never looked at it that way. I believe most men choose not to publicly display the engagement ring out of practical issues. Furthermore, in our society there is a general consensus discouraging men from wearing trinkets. However, other reasons why people don’t wear their engagement rings exist, too. For example, my parent don’t, simply because they do not wish to expose the rings to the elements. They would rather preserve and cherish what has bound them together.