As much as I love big, flashy jewels, I'm strongly with you with the "reverse dowry" aka bride price feeling. Partly because the dowry custom is still alive and well in my home culture, and partly because in the US it does work like a refundable reservation fee -- a woman I know was court-ordered to return her engagement ring to a man she decided not to marry!

There's also the thing with how the engagement ring works among women, where an engagement isn't assumed to be legit 'til you've got a rock. Not because women are gold diggers, but because there's still an assumption in the post-dowry parts of the world that women have monetary value and are fools if we don't capitalize on it.

You know what's really sad? There really are plenty of women who would be satisfied with exactly what you described. I've known my share who are willing to put up with anything from a man as long as they don't have to get a job and get to live in Upscale Gated community where they can feel like they've won the lottoery by fitting in with all the other stepford bitches. Some people are totally fine with all those things as long as things 'look' right to the outside world.

lol, didn't he know this about you?
I agree with you about the changing name thing. Why modern women participate in these archaic hold-overs, I don't know. The fact that some men get "insulted" if a woman doesn't want to absorb his surname is alarming.
As for the ring, I always thought of that more as a consumerist thing, at least in these times. It's roots were what you said, but nowadays the jewelry companies clung onto it and morphed it into just "something you do" when you get engaged (spend money!), just like the holidays (spend more money!!) or weddings (take out a 2nd mortgage!!). I don't know if many people really think of it, let alone the sexist implications of the ring-giving (unless it's a bitter anti-feminist complaining that women have all this privelege because we get shinies.)
Of course, if your partner wanted to give you a big ring out of the goodness of his heart for purely non-gendered reasons, nothing is stopping you from getting him a huge, bejewelled godfather-ring. :)

"Yes, I would drop all of my values, hopes, and dreams if a man just came along and shoved a piece of jewelry in my face. Yes, all women need is a nice piece of jewelry and a big strong man to protect her and pay her bills."

Well, without being there, I doubt he meant that you would take a ring from ANY guy and then expect never to work again. The assumption was probably that you would take a ring from HIM because you are already together. That aside, I still think it was a kind of rude thing to say. Even if you would accept a ring, that's a very presumptuous and strange way to say it. It makes it sound like his priorities are all wrong.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having an engagement ring, but I'm very strongly against it being an expensive one. My logic goes like this-- my ipod touch cost about $300 dollars and it does amazing things-- it plays music and video and goes on the internet and I have all my course notes on there and lecture recordings and spreadsheets and photos and email and I basically use it all day all the time, and its very important to me as a PDA. Totally super useful. A ring, on the other hand, does nothing but sit there and look shiny. I think it would be fundamentally wrong to pay more for something that's supposed to be shiny than for something that has a bunch of amazing functions. So I would pick a ring that was just expensive enough not to give me a rash (like a lot of people I'm allergic to nickle, that they put in a lot of cheap jewelry), but it shouldn't cost more than maybe $200. I also don't want it to be a really big deal if I happen to lose it.

If we were very well off I might raise the cash threshold a little, but the principle is still the same-- I don't want to spend more on jewelry than I spend on ordinary things that I use.

It wouldn't bother me not to have a ring at all, either. But I think it might be kinda nice as a symbol, and I know my grandparents would want to see one. But its really not a big deal to me one way or the other.

So as far as I'm concerned, its about the symbolism, if you're into that. Its not about the monetary value.

I hear you. When my fiance told his coworkers and family we were engaged, the first question was about the ring. After he explained that I wasn't really into that stuff (b/c it's a very retrograde way of "paying" for your fiancee and demonstrating "ownership" and of demonstrating that you can support and provide for her, not to mention I think it's stupid for my fiance to spend a lot of money on a sparkly rock), everyone's proclamation was that, well, we weren't "really" engaged until he got me the ring. His brother-in-law even said, that while I might say now that I don't want a ring, I'd still expect one by the time we got married and that he needed to "seal the deal" by buying me a ring! I was offended by the assumption that I was lying, and was so materialistic that I expected him to buy me an expensive piece of jewelry or else, what, I'd refuse to marry him?

If you want a ring, fine, but I despise the assumption that women are really all materialists who need to be almost bribed into marriage - "oh, look how much he loves me, he's willing to buy me expensive shit". Aren't marriages supposed to be about partnership, and loving and supporting EACHOTHER? I guess not.

Yeah the ring thing always bugged me. When I was dating my SO, I mentioned that I didn't want an engagement ring as I feel that generally it's a waste of money.

And after witnessing more than one friend actually return the ring their partner got them for a different (bigger) ring, and other needless ring drama, I just got really turned off to the whole thing.

My SO did actually give me an engagement ring against my wishes but it was a family ring passed from his grandma to his mom and then to him. That actually was really sweet because his mother hadn't even met me yet (I was in another country) but she recognized that her son seemed really happy...

He told me though that all kinds of people warned him that he should have a rock (the materialistic American reputation preceded me), despite what I said, or that I might change my mind---so I guess I stressed him out a little. But his mom came through and saved the day with the family ring, which really was a lovely gesture.

Hm. Does this ring vibrate?

An acquaintance of mine is engaged and both he and his fiancée have engagement rings. I think it's a good compromise since the ring also symbolizes "off limits" in a monogamous relationship which most relationships are.

As for the topic at hand, some women do, some don't. It's up to the partners to discuss what they want and how they're going to navigate those spaces. Maybe he mentioned the ring thing because it's the "right thing to do" through training and tradition.

To a certain extent, I think he may be been combating the idea that you'd reject him if he did that, not that you reject the history associated with engagement rings. He just said it really oafishly.

"come on, if I offered you a big shiny ring you wouldn't want it?"

...what does he think we are, *magpies*?!

*Sigh* My partner said something similar to me when I said I didn't want a surprise proposal or ring, but a conversation so we could enter a union together as equal partners not burdened by gender roles and the bridal industry. "But a ring would be nice, right?" I just looked at him blankly and said "no." Are you fucking serious? That defeats the whole purpose!! He also seemed a bit disapointed when I said I didn't want to change my name. "I would be honored if my wife took my name." Yes yes, the patriarchy is romantic and convenient for you. I get it.

btw. read this article: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2004/03/are_you_married_if_not_why_not

I agree with you, the idea that you would throw away your morals for shinies is insulting. "Would you club baby seals if you got a cool jacket?" springs to mind. I hear the "but if it was presented to you, you'd cast aside any moral/ethical qualms and love it!" in relation to fur, actually - "I don't agree with the symbolism behind it"::"but you'd love it if someone offered it to you!" Uhm, no? I'd be annoyed someone couldn't find something that I didn't oppose ethically and yet was a thoughtful gift. It also carries a hint of implying that your objections are just sour grapes, that you are only opposed because you haven't had the opportunity, and your objections would fall if it were offered.

I'm kind of ambivalent on the names thing. I don't really want to give up my name, I don't become a different person or literally part of him when I get married, so why should I take his name? I don't know if I like the hyphening, either. I start to think of if I had children, too, whose name would they have?

well, obviously! who would abandon all values and morals for shiny things?

btw...you should bring up that originally only women wore wedding rings and they're on the ring finger because in ancient rome that ring symbolized slavery. thats right, you heard me, left hand 3rd finger ring was for slaves...fabulous