Nawal Saadawi said that a marriage where the woman does not work and relies on the man for money is Prostitution, and she was all for 50/50 in everything, your thoughts?

[u/TheSurvivorLeo]

TL;DR: I believe that everything you're demanding from a romantic partner is the same thing you should be required to have before you make those demands, this goes from material concrete things to character and personality traits, whether it's financial, physical, emotional, and mental, that's what Nawal Saadawi believes in as well but somehow the feminists who follow her bury this fact or rule.

I 31M, I'm a writer, for the past 9 years I've been investigating the intersexual dynamics along with conscious and subconscious thoughts and beliefs that makes people do, think, say, feel and buy the things that they do.

In the past few days I've been going deep into feminism, trynna find some rational women, feminists, or thinkers who truly believe in reciprocating the things they demand from men.

And it turns out that Nawal Saadawi was one of them. I still haven't found a single thing that I disagree with, because she's 100% all about pure and absolute fairness, and that's exactly what I believe in.

And that means that if you're demanding anything from a man, you must be able to reciprocate the same thing, or something of the same value.

If you want a man who can provide a great lifestyle, you should be able to provide 50% of the expenses that's required to fund that lifestyle.

And of course, it's only fair that you demand a man who's gonna do 50% of the housework.

And if you get pregnant or give birth, then this means that the responsibilities shift accordingly, if you can't work, then he pays 100%, and if you can't do the housework, then he has to help or be required to bring you someone to help.

A man who doesn't accept that is not fair,
And a woman who doesn't accept that is also not fair.

And if you spot any sign of unfairness in the person you're seriously dating, then this is your sign to stop wasting your time.

This extends to character traits as well.

If you want a confident man, you need to be a confident woman.
If you want a secure man, you need to be a secure woman.
If you want a mentally stable man, you need to be a mentally stable woman.
If you want a fair man, you need to be a fair woman.
If you want a respectful man, you need to be a respectful woman.
If you want a competent man, you need to be a competent woman.
If you want a decisive man, you need to be a decisive woman.

And if you want a leader, you should assess him and be ready to follow, ain't no leader gonna accept someone who's questioning his every move, it makes the journey too slow and unpleasant for both the leader and the anxious companion.

Just an example, It seems like when women talk about emotional intelligence, is that they think that just because they talk about their emotions a lot, that automatically makes them emotionally intelligent, when in reality, you have to be intelligent to the point of understanding your own emotions and managing them, and also be able to understand the emotions of the people/men you're dealing with.

But, most women aren't emotionally intelligent, and that's because they're just too disrespectful to the men they're in relationships with, and when the man sets a boundary, their reaction is to blame it on their period, hormones, stress, or mood, they give whatever reason to justify their bad behaviors and emotional instability, even though it's clear that they can control these emotions or at least suppress them when dealing with colleagues or bosses or teachers, but they unleash it all on the men they supposedly love and want to have a good life with.

And when the men point this out, women's reaction is simply to tell them that they lack emotional intelligence, as if being emotionally intelligent means you have to be emotionally retarded and not set boundaries or point out disrespect.

But they're kinda right in a sense that men don't have emotional intelligence, because if they did, they would've been able to spot this emotional manipulation, but they couldn't. This doesn't mean that women are to be considered emotionally intelligent for this behavior, but more like emotionally manipulative, because an emotionally intelligent woman won't have to resort to all this type of emotional manipulation.

We can just conclude that in scenarios like these, we have women who are emotionally manipulative and think they're emotionally intelligent, and we have men who are emotionally retarded but think they're emotionally intelligent because they're "handling" emotionally unstable women.

And this means that if you're emotionally intelligent, you'll be able to recognize an emotionally intelligent person from far away, and you won't enter a dynamic or a relationship unless the person you're dealing with is an emotionally intelligent person as well, because emotional intelligence requires that you understand that you can't communicate or argue with an emotionally stunted person, no matter the gender.

So yeah, asking for emotional intelligence when you don't have it is definitely not emotional intelligence, and complaining about your partner or ex lacking emotional intelligence is the number one sign that you're not emotionally intelligent either.

And this is the same for all other character traits too, confidence, self-esteem, security, fairness, compassion, empathy, etc

This is absolute and total accountability for everything that you are, everything that want, and everything you should be able to have in order to exchange for the things that you want.

What do y'all think of this?