It's the only state where an engagement ring is an unconditional gift, for example. Every other state the giver can sue the receiver to recover the ring if the engagement is broken off.
Another example is that Montana is one of a few (the only?) state that doesn't have at-will employment. After a probationary period, if you fire someone it needs to be for cause.
Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring:
> In the United States, until the Great Depression, a man who broke off a marriage engagement could be sued for breach of promise. Monetary damages included actual expenses incurred in preparing for the wedding, plus damages for emotional distress and loss of other marriage prospects. Damages were greatly increased if the woman had engaged in sexual intercourse with her fiancé.[32] Beginning in 1935, these laws were repealed or limited. However, the social and financial cost of a broken engagement was no less: marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects for a suitable future marriage were greatly decreased. The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman.
Which is ironic, given the low resale value of diamonds.
> In fact many jewelers won't buy a diamond back unless you've previously purchased that same diamond from them and have the documentation to prove it. Even then they'll typically only do a trade in, whereby you buy another higher priced diamond and trade your old diamond in. [0]
[0] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-d...
Your comment is making me feel vastly better about never having had an engagement ring, though I got married at age 19 and spent about 2 decades as a homemaker in a 1950s style marriage.
(Edit: I'm a woman, in case that actually needs to be said.)
I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had.
I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless.
So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own.
But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession.
I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons.
The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken.
Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were.
The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.
Isn't that the whole idea behind alimony? Assuming the marriage ends prematurely (i.e. not "till death do us part") and speaking of the husband's responsibility in the matter.
As to society's responsibility in this matter, women have 100% the same rights as men in this day and age (well, other than the "right" to be conscripted) so at some point people just need to accept that choices they make in life will have certain drawbacks and/or advantages which may or may not affect their future in positive and/or negative ways. I'm also roughly the same age as you so I know there really weren't "manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken" in our lifetime and in fact the plight of women has arguably been the best it has ever been in all of human history. I'd even go as far as say it's The Golden Age of Womendom. Though, admittedly, things were a bit different pre-90's with regards to single mothers and, umm, "non-traditional" gender roles, probably more so if you didn't have the "luck" of growing up a major metropolitan area I'd imagine.
Please don't take what I'm saying as a personal attack but merely as an opposing viewpoint because I know these subjects get kind of touchy these days.
I'm not interested in fighting with you, but when you outright dismiss my assertion that women remain oppressed, it's really not fertile ground for having a good discussion on the topic. I'm not having a good day to begin with and your comment just reminds me of comments on HN where people try to dismiss the idea that my gender is a serious barrier to financial connections on HN and my rebuttal to that is that I appear to be the only woman to have ever been on the leaderboard and then that gets attacked as irrelevant and it's a really crazy making thing for me.
A lot of men on the leaderboard are quite well heeled. Some of that money clearly comes from their connections here on HN. These conversations make fire coming shooting out my ears and that's not a good place from which to try to engage in civil discourse in accordance with HN guidelines.
No, they don't. For one example, there are several hoops that women have to jump through when getting some medical procedures. Men do not have to jump through those same hoops.
> marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects
Ah, that.
Am I required to provide notice to quit, or otherwise risk some type of penalty or is this strictly in the employee's favor?
ADDED: Not sure why I would see that as a problem anyway. If you can't be walked out the door without another dime, why wouldn't you be fine with giving notice in the vast majority of cases?
I live in Austria, arguably the most backward-looking rich Western country, and my agreement requires me to give a four-week notice. While my employer is such that this will never become an issue, I believe that the "at-will employment" is one of the many manifestations of the "American freedom" that also give the US its competitive edge.
And as some one living in Austria I thought you would have been acutely aware of the social status symbol of working in a professional role that has a long 3 - 6 month notice period.
Two itty bitty letters difference, thousands of miles apart.
For example, if you earn 10,000 PLN gross (7,000 PLN net) and quit without observing a 3-month notice period, you will have to pay your employer 30,000 PLN, i.e. over four times the monthly net salary.
Of course, if the employer believes they incurred a loss due to the employee leaving without notice, they can sue for additional damages of any amount.
[1] Polish "Employment code" (Kodeks pracy), article 61, https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
Having worked at a firm with largely big-C Conservative, Christian, male heads of department and up, I've seen how my more "out-there" co-workers were treated[0]. Folks who were open about their "pagan" religions, or polyamorous ways, or even women of the same social standings who dared have a job, get pregnant and raise children were treated terribly. If it weren't for the fact that good coders and managers are hard to find, I'm sure it would have been even worse, and them having some protection would make resting easier.
Still, that lack of protection meant they could find greener pastures and leave sooner. Personally, I've had a few jobs wherein I was lied to about the position, duties and responsibilities, etc. and after finding out it was a "Take it or leave it" situation, I left.
I really wish we had a bit more leeway in terms of negotiating employment agreements, so folks could find the right balance for them. Sadly, the business world is full of cargo-cult behavior so we get bog standard take it or leave it deals.
[0] - I'm not saying this an indictment of any group, just illustrating the conflict.
Granted, at least for your average low-to-mid level worker, you don't have as much negotiating power. Luckily, however, there are legal protections for regular sick time (get the flu, stay home 3 days, and you are safe to do this a few times a year) and parents have more time, since they are responsible for other little humans who get sick. (I don't have children, but fully agree with this). And there is either 4 or 5 week of vacation each year for everyone. These protections make it easier to find something that works with life.
i.e. companies are allowed to have layoffs with certain notification requirements.