<p>Is there any family jewelry that would make an appropriate engagement ring? My husband’s grandmother didn’t believe in banks (having lived through 1929) and would save her cash and buy gemstones, set into various pieces of jewelry. My ring is a diamond that was given to my MIL as part of a pair in a pearl clip for a first anniversary gift, and reset for me. It’s not the cut or quality that one would expect in a solitaire ring (better color, worse clarity) but I love it more because of the family history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Where did this come from? </p>
<p>Certainly not the expectation in my family. Certainly not the expectation with my partner. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t noticed this as a pejorative. I use queen as a strength adjective. </p>
<p>Maybe it’s a different generation/geography thing? </p>
<p>Thinking of “family jewelry” brings up do many emotions. My depression era grandmothers raised their families in poverty. I don’t even recall whether they owned wedding bands. Plus, each had so many kids that who knows who would have received said jewelry had it existed. My mother has her original diamond, reset some years back. Tiny but she loves it and would never part from it in this life. </p>
<p>On the topic of expensive jewelry, my first H bought me an 18k gold watch (band and all.). My mother was very angry with him, assuming I would not want jewelry so expensive. I have to admit that I love it. I would have never ever ever considered buying or asking for such a thing but I do love it. </p>
<p>The article I linked to in #394 is about female and male Harvard Business School graduates and what happened in spite of the stated intentions of the women. That was pretty fascinating to me. How does it link back to diamonds? Because the diamond is a symbol. This whole thread is how we interpret diamonds. Wanting an expensive diamond has been seen by some as a negative comment on the individual, especially if a woman makes that diamond a prerequisite to the marriage. I thought a young woman recognizing her requirements for happiness and satisfaction (in terms of the engagement ring) and letting her potential partner know her expectations is likely also to be very clear about what is going to be necessary for her in terms of self-fulfillment in terms of her professional goals, or lack thereof. In my opinion, if I woman wants to be a full time parent, she should also make that clear. I admire women who are very clear about what they want, even if their wants aren’t my wants. I think in some cases, settling for a “lesser” ring is the beginning of settling in many areas of life. It isn’t really about the ring. imho</p>
<p>I don’t like diamonds at all. I support your right to have a big ass one. I’ll question whether it can be best.</p>
<p>I’ve read the whole thread. Princess has repeatedly been a pejorative here, in my opinion. However, it isn’t unusual I’m reading a different thread than almost everyone else. I certainly recognize that. Usually I’m just writing for my own amusement.</p>
<p>adding:
I don’t like <strong><em>. I support your right to </em></strong><strong><em>. I’ll question whether any </em></strong>_ is best.</p>
<p>Until we get into moral issues. I don’t see diamonds as a moral issue.</p>
<p>adding: I forgot the point of the thread was the morality of some sorts of diamonds. sorry, missypie.</p>
<p>“I thought a young woman recognizing her requirements for happiness and satisfaction (in terms of the engagement ring) and letting her potential partner know her expectations is likely also to be very clear about what is going to be necessary for her in terms of self-fulfillment in terms of her professional goals, or lack thereof.”</p>
<p>I don’t see any correlation. I know lots of women who got big rocks and the men decided they’d done their part at that point. The men I know who drop all the family responsibility on their wives aren’t doing that because the wives failed to speak up about they wanted. They do it because those are their values, or lack thereof. Lots of retrograde jerks are willing to buy the big diamond and not willing to stay home with a sick child.</p>
<p>I consider “princess” a negative term because princesses inherit or marry their positions and don’t work for a living or even raise their own children. An adult woman who demands that someone else take care of her doesn’t get any brownie points from me just because she’s vocal about her wants.</p>
<p>I do feel that if a woman (or a man) feels that expensive THINGS are “requirements for happiness” then they are not looking through the right lens at marriage. Diamonds are a symbol of marriage because we’ve been led to believe that by some very slick marketing. I would be very wary of someone who said that the would be “unhappy” without someone spending gobs of money on a THING.</p>
<p>When I met my now H (not my first marriage), my requirement were someone who was mature, who could accept my children, for whom family was important, for whom a true partnership was important, someone who did not expect me to be perfect. I would been happy with no ring at all, because he met all of those and more. I was quite sure of myself. A princess would have demanded a big rock and the style above substance. THAT is why it’s an insult. </p>
<p>My first marriage did not include children, but maybe if I’d been more concerned with maturity, family closeness, realizing that my ex expected perfection and less dazzled by someone who could if he wanted to, buy a big rock, it would have been a better marriage.The strongest marriage I know-I couldn’t tell you what kind of rock the wife has. But they’ve been through it all-and at 30 years are going strong. The “symbol” of their marriage is not a material thing.</p>
<p>Are men who can provide big rocks and men of substance necessarily different groups? Is it impossible for a woman to have both? Is there something wrong with wanting both? Or with not wanting both? Why exactly do we care so much?</p>
<p>mommy wars/ diamond wars = same difference and a distraction. imho</p>
<p>alh, you are consistently ignoring the distinction between “wanting” and “demanding.” It is an important one. </p>
<p>Exactly, Consolation. Everyone WANTS various things. DEMANDING a big rock or the wedding won’t happen is just foolish, imo. There are far, far more important things to consider when pondering a lifetime commitment. I’ve been in a marriage where the money was good, and in one where we spent a few years scraping by. Believe me, the one without the abundance of THINGS has been the better one from the beginning. </p>
<p>Maybe “demanding” is the wrong word, but rather, it’s “expecting.” Why shouldn’t a woman expect her fiancee to give her a generous ring if it’s within his means to do so, and if it matters to her? The problem arises when the man can afford it, but choses not to buy it because it’s not important enough to him. I’d say that bodes poorly for the marriage.</p>
<p>I am really enthusiastic at this point in my life about the idea of demanding women. It is a good word in my opinion. I am promising right now not to go off on a tangent about what words we use to describe women. But just so you know, I am thinking it. All the rest of the day. :)</p>
<p>Maybe instead of the word “demands” the word “desires” is better?</p>
<p>“The problem arises when the man can afford it, but choses not to buy it because it’s not important enough to him. I’d say that bodes poorly for the marriage.”</p>
<p>I’ve never met these men. Every banker, real estate mogul, law firm partner, etc. in my world is happy to display a fancy ring on his wife if she wants one. I agree that it’s a bad sign when the prospective partners aren’t on the same page, but this just isn’t a pattern I see.</p>
<p>I know couples where neither party cares about rings, too.</p>
<p>“Why exactly do we care so much?”</p>
<p>I don’t have much in common with the Rick Santorums of the world, but I agree with him that marriage is important to society. I don’t like to see our culture moving further in a direction where the decorations get in the way of the substance. If pressures for rituals and symbols grow to the point where they obscure the underlying value, I think that’s a problem. Those pressures are leading many young people to take on debt they can’t afford or delay marriage until they can do it “right.”</p>
<p>Hanna, I agree with much of what you have written. I don’t think taking on debt for rings and weddings is sensible. Of course, I don’t like rings or weddings so that is easy for me to say.</p>
<p>I personally agree that taking on debt for rings and weddings is generally not the most financially sound choice for most couples, especially if they have other debt and few resources. I still think marriage is a wonderful institution, especially with a great spouse. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is the story of my life. Am married to one of those men. Not that it involves purchases of nice jewelry, but more along the lines of priorities and issues that are important to me (and things that would enable me to preserve my energy for same), but are not important to him, and so they are discounted/pooh-poohed. </p>
<p>I am all for tradition… especially the tradition that says the parents of the bride pay for the wedding (says the parent of 2 sons 
)</p>
<p>It’s really important to try to discover how closely aligned values are and how differences will be resolved before committing to a long term relationship, to maximize the happiness of both parties, IMHO. When one person frequently belittles the priorities of the partner, it can create strife, resentment and more. </p>
<p>When we participated in engaged encounter several decades ago, it was reassuring to us that H and I agreed about most priorities but we were concerned for many of the young other couples present who seemed far apart and not to have considered and discussed their priorities and how to work through differences. </p>
<p>My future partner and I just sat down with our financial advisor, and he’s almost as much of a miser as I am. Very encouraging. We’re a little different on wedding ideas, though: I’d be happy with a pretty dress and cake in my judge’s chambers, and he wants a reasonable party for family. We probably don’t need to work out that compromise until we actually get engaged. 
</p>