Ruined engagement surprise, what can we do ??

arcon5

Pollycat wrote: »

She said 'I don't think you were supposed to tell me that'?

To me, that sounds a really strange response.
I'm sure I'd have said 'Ring? What ring?'

It sounds to me that, despite all your subterfuge, that the cat had been let out of the bag way before the jewellers phoned.

This.

That isn't a normal response, I'd also say she had an idea something was going on.

Dimey

arbroath_lass wrote: »

Lol, thanks . I get feminism but not "feminism". I've no idea what the poster meant by putting it in quotes.

Hi Arbroath Lass. I didn't mean any kind of arch feminist views. Put it in quotes because I knew it wasn't exactly the right word to explain briefly that what I mused maybe didn't go far enough to suit your taste and "more feminist - ie more equal" just seemed the nearest word to be the opposite of the old fashioned traditional view.

See what I mean, couldn't explain it well :-)

seven-day-weekend

lostinrates wrote: »

Who is mocking? I've said I don't identify ...I haven't mocked.

I absolutely agree, feminist did a lot for society for good. I also think there are times they haven't helped women who want to make traditional choices (not necessarily all choices I want to make ) and I think we need more support for both young men and young women in a world where we are increasingly equal. (And continued ticking off where it goes wrong, such as inappropriacy in work places and pay and equality. I think the impact on the change across society, including men, is vast and underrated.

I personally have not felt impacted negatively often by my sex. but rather positively more often. That's hugely in part to feminism in the past. Where I have felt negatively impacted its some times been because of current impact of feminism. That doesn't mean I don't think its valid or worthwhile or appropriate or even important.

Why personism rather than feminism might me the more interesting route of where we diverge and agree. (Maybe this should be another thread....its a long way from engagement rings....I think that might be my fault.)

Yes, this is what gets to me too. Why can't a woman wear an engagement ring, get 'given away' or promise to obey if that is her choice? The same with gay lib, why can't people remain in the closet if they wish, without fear of being 'outed'. That's just taking choice away rather than giving more.

My husband and I have been married over forty years, had a tiny civil wedding (so didn't promise to obey), he did ask for my dad's blessing, and I didn't have an engagement ring. We both had a wedding ring until my husband lost his, now he doesn't have one. All these things were our choice and we could have made different ones had we wanted.

As for the OP, it's a shame the surprise was spoilt, but I think flowers and a discount is adequate recompense.

seven-day-weekend

Person_one wrote: »

Can it not be questioned even?

Why is it the norm for a woman to give up her name, a part of her identity, and swap it for her husband's? Why is this 'tradition' still around if we're so equal these days that feminism isn't needed?

It isn't traditional in all European countries. In Spain, everybody has their fathers and and their mother's name (so double barrelled)) and keep that throughout their life. Their children have one of each of their parent's names. So, siblings have the same name but husband and wife don't.

(So if Ms Green-Brown marries Mr Black-White, they keep those names and their children have the name Green-Black).

In this country, I know several people who have not taken their husband's name. My husband and I were going to double barrel ours but it did sound awful, so I took his, which was (genuinely) nicer than mine.

Just for information

Dimey

I think people pretty much do what they want to do these days and don't read too much into literal meanings of the old traditions.

I kept my maiden name when I married 30 odd years ago. I didn't have an engagement ring but we both had a wedding ring. I didn't promise to obey.

WTFH

Equality does not mean special privileges. Men have rights too, but as soon as someone starts setting down blanket "rights" for one gender and saying the other gender is wrong, then your concept of equality is wrong. If a woman chooses to wear an engagement or wedding ring, that should be her choice, with the understanding if her partner. If a man chooses to wear a ring, that should be his choice, with the understanding if his partner. If one chooses to change, or not change, their name, it's their choice, with the understanding of their partner. A marriage is a 50/50 partnership.
It doesn't matter whether you are a "traditionalist" or not. You do not have the right to force your opinion on someone else who you don't know, but have already decided you disagree with because of what they wear on their fingers, their surname or their gender.

My partner has kept their surname, we both wear rings - it's the only piece of jewellery I own. Neither of us said "obey" - from memory we both said "respect". What's more amazing is that we were adult enough to make our own choices, and that we love each other.

arbroath_lass

I agree people should, in general, be allowed to do what they want (honestly). In the OPs case Michelle appeared not to have been given the choice of being traditional or not - her father was approached first. Perhaps they had already discussed it, I hope so.

If people want to follow traditions it's fine. What I want is for them not to follow blindly but to make an informed choice. That's all.

I don't think I'm any kind of radical. Maybe I'm wrong.

BTW OH and I both had engagement and then wedding rings. Neither of us wear them now. I did actually take his name - he couldn't spell mine, lol (his words). Had I been called Smith or similar he'd've been happy to take mine. Or we could have kept our own. I do still use my own occasionally for certain things.