engagement rings and feminism

Started by foldedintobeauty, Mar 15, 2008, 12:49 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


so do you think men should still buy an engagement ring? someone recently posted about the bloke with the ring in the balloon that sadly flew away. that was painful to even read given the ring cost $12,000. my friend who is expecting, but not married texted me last night because she found a name she liked for her girl. then this morning we got on the topic of last names because i asked her if she was gonna give the little girl her boyfriend's last name. she said yea what is your child's (some friend for not knowing lol)? i said my child got my last name. she was surprised. then she asked but kinda stated at the same time, but when you're married the child gets the father's last name. i had to let her go, but i wanted to say no you don't have to if both agree to it. however, my attorney told me my child's bio father has the legal right to ask a judge to change my child's name! thankfully he hasn't pushed it, but that makes me mad our legal system favors male lineages more than females.  i don't think i would want to change my last name because i identify myself a lot by name and it'd just be weird. ok so long story short read the article and tell me what you think. i only found this through googling when i was searching for answers for my friend. i still haven't found anything to cite, though.



A Ring By Any Other Name

September 24th, 2007 at 09:05pm Posted by ballgame | Cool Feminist Blogs, Double Standards, Feminist Issues, Relationships and Dating | 19 comments

In the comments to "Funny stories", aych pointed out how some feminists routinely start out with a premise ("women are the victims") and seem capable of using contradictory evidence to support that theory. (Groom's family gives wealth to bride's family? The bride is being treated as property! Bride's family gives wealth to groom's family? She's being exploited and demeaned!)

That reminded me this discussion a while back over at sadly-now-defunct Happy Feminist's place. Happy raised the issue of the still-prevalent practice of women taking their husbands' last names during marriage. I thought many of the points were valid; it does seem to be a distinctly inegalitarian practice, especially when one considers the options almost universally considered are 'wife takes husband's last name' or 'wife keeps own last name' and the option of 'husband takes wife's last name' is rarely part of the mix. (Of course, a husband who did take his wife's last name would likely face disrespect for doing so from at least some quarters, particularly if he's a non-patriarchal male ... but I digress.)

At any rate, that got me to thinking about another common ritual: that of the groom giving his fiancÚ an engagement ring. Though not as universal a custom as it once was, it's still pretty common, and it's generally the male who buys the ring for the female. The cost of such rings are often not trivial. And I didn't notice anyone saying, "We should keep our own damn names. And men should stop buying us those damn diamonds." Truth be told, I believe there are women who feel this way -- on her last CD Fiona Apple sings "I don't understand about diamonds/Or the men that buy them/What's so great about diamonds/Except the mining" -- but they're not typical, even in the feminist sphere. And I've never seen a woman say, "I don't want my future husband to buy me an engagement ring; I'm going to buy him one instead."

No one brought it up in the Happy Feminist thread. You might have thought someone would have, if the underlying theme was 'incorporating more egalitarianism into one's marriage rituals'. So that prompted me to wonder about -- and google -- '"engagement ring" AND feminist'.

Which brought up "The Engagement Ring: It's Time to Let Go" by feminist Liz Rizzo at Blogher from about a year ago. The piece is not Egalitarianism Perfected. There is the common feminist bias that aych referred to above -- 'I'm oppressed! I have to wear this expensive piece of jewelry that my mate bought for me while my mate doesn't have to wear the thing that I didn't buy for him!' But it was pretty sound post overall, and included this exchange:

    I couldn't understand why I would [be expected to] change my last name. Most women still do, I know, but for me, my name is a major part of my identity. Plus, I knew for a fact that changing it was a major pain, and I knew for a fact that he wasn't changing his. "Why am I changing my name and you're not changing yours?"

    "You have an engagement ring, and I don't."

    "I didn't ask for this!"

    It was pretty. It was shiny. Truth be told, I loved it. And I felt like I took my soul back when I slipped it off and returned it.

Score one for gender egalitarian feminism.

when would jesus floss?


There is a series of replies to this very topic on the MGTOW mainsite. It would probably offend the terms of use of THIS forum (SYG).

Diamonds, generally speaking, are one of the biggest legal fraudulent misrepresentations out there. If a diamond ring was as valuable as the owner of the jewllery store would have you believe...then why would he direct you to a pawn shop if you came with a diamond ring to sell to him?

This makes a pretty strong analogy to the actual value of the relative symbology of all that a diamond ring entails from the perspective of Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)


what is the mgtwo whatever website? sorry if this is a repost...
when would jesus floss?


i might want an engagement ring just to have another diamond on my finger. not because of it's symbolism necessarily
when would jesus floss?


what is the mgtwo whatever website? sorry if this is a repost...

MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. Men Not Caring What FoldedIntoBullDroppings And Her Ilk Think. Enjoy.  :toothy9:


A hundred years or so ago, there used to be a real legal cause of action if you promised to marry a woman and then didn't follow through. The idea was that the cad got her to give up the source of her power and future wealth (i.e. her sex / virginity / vagina). So he owes her.

I think those laws still exist in some states, but they went out of fashion (they are "desuetude" in legal terms). The replacement came about in the '20s or '30s with the purchase of an expensive ring as a "performance bond" for getting married. The De Beers cartel also started their conspiracy, basically, to increase the price of diamonds.

I had the same way of thinking in my 20s as a lot of men who are buying engagement rings for their one-and-only. Mainly it's because the women are young and good-looking, or at least passably so (that's going to change with the march of time). Love may simply be a sublimated sex drive.

Now, looking back at it in my 40s, I think it's silly for a young man to subordinate himself to a woman like that. Buying an engagement ring for her is simply the opening act in a lifetime of prostration and wage slavery to her. At least with some women, and that group of women coincides heavily with the group of women who want an engagement ring.

Instead of an engagement ring, the man needs to get some ability to temporarily eliminate the sex drive and sublimated sex drive to be able to reason coherently and see life for what it is and evaluate the woman for precisely what she is worth. With many women, that evaluation would fall out terribly without the goggles of sex.


I say: Young man you are worth more than that. Your self-esteem is getting a daily hit now from all the misandry, but put the sex part aside and take a real look at the woman you are thinking about. If there is a little peanut-brain, no visible moral system and a generally lazy body mounted on the vagina, realize that there are other vaginas out there.

The Gonzman

Buy an engagement ring?


Oh, that's rich.....
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.


Galt, I have to say that you have nailed it here.  Regarding the rings, it makes one suspect that the difference between many individuals and street prostitutes is the price tag.  
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
-- General Dwight D.  Eisenhower. 

"Be bold and courageous.  When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things you didn't do more than the ones you did."
-- Unknown.


What exactly makes you think we give a damn what femiskanks think about.... uhm.. anything?

Get back under the bridge with your cats...

The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.



I have seen young men, let's say a 19-year-old, get absolutely fixated on some car. He loves that restored Roadrunner / Baracuda with a 426 Hemi (as an old example). He's willing to pay whatever he can scrape up for it. He's willing to sell his soul to the Devil for it.

Then you get older. You think the car I just mentioned is basically a piece of junk. If you want some fast car, a new Porsche or high-end Mercedes would be faster and better than the aforementioned thing.

But you also get a different attitude towards life (at least a lot of men) - with regard to cars and women. A car is just a car, whether it's a Baracuda or a Porsche. A woman is a woman. Not a mythical Goddess that you put up on a pedestal and sell your soul for. For some men, it's too late, though.

And then the cycle repeats itself, just as it has always done for thousands of years. That's how a lot of women get through life and, in fact, acquire quite a bit of money.


1968 Hemi Baracuda:

22-year-old hooker:

The Biscuit Queen

That is a sweet car! :love5:
he Biscuit Queen

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.


Mar 15, 2008, 03:47 PM Last Edit: Mar 15, 2008, 03:50 PM by Galt
Yeah, the car's OK.

It was a small, light car with a huge pig of an engine (426 Hemi).

The ultimate "muscle car".

Go Up