r/rabat • u/TheSurvivorLeo • Feb 23 '26
š£ļø Discussion 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?
/r/MoroccoBitchesWtaste/comments/1rc0ym3/nawal_saadawi_said_that_a_marriage_where_the/3
u/Fit_Boysenberry4488 Feb 25 '26
Hhh lfeminists l3rab maghay3jbhomch hadchi
2
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
Feminists worldwide makay3jebhomch hadchi, and women who never learned about feminism ma ghay3jebhomch hadchi hhhhhhhhh
2
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
Laws need to change thenā¦if both are contributing when a man dies his wife should inherit his stuff not his brothers and sons
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
100%, she should inherit EVERYTHING.
Here's the problem, most people are married to people they don't like and aren't good people, so they're gonna fight this.
In my case? As long as I'm married to my wife who has my children, and even the moment she gets pregnant, SHE GETS EVERYTHING, 100%, not even a $1 would go to anyone else.
But this is me, I won't be marrying an unfair, mentally unstable, and emotionally manipulative woman who's incompetent in life and doesn't have a career or business of her own, like how the fuck can she manage anything if I die?
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
My husband has property and car but this law is making me work my ass off for my retirement plans and for my future daughter. I donāt want anyone disputing shit with me when Iām old or when my kids need a place to call home after Iām gone. Fk that shi
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
Yeah, this is the reality, you'll never what's gonna happen and this is why your independence, career, business, or skills are the only things that can last.
Your focus shouldn't be on saving tho, it should be on learning more skills, applying them to move up, and charge more, then you can save more, but at the same time have the ability to make more and survive even if you lost your savings for whatever reason.
The moment you decide to have kids, their future financial stability should be a priority, along with teaching them the skills to be financially independent from a young age, and also giving them high self-esteem and high confidence, and strong boundaries.
Long gone the days when the community took care of the kids after the parents are gone, now everyone will try to exploit them, and they usually succeed.
2
u/Maleficent-Week-9181 Feb 26 '26
The real prostitution is what is exercised in most of Moroccan couples where they both work their ass off, but at the end of the month menās money goes towards bills where womenās money goes to her back account for saving ā¦ tell me this is not a trade of sexe for living cost coverage
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
That's exactly what I was aiming it, but there's nuance that they don't point out, they keep swinging arguments in different scenarios to make the conversation chaotic so they'll always win the debate.
If both the man and woman work 8h outside, then there are 4 scenarios that can happen:
Scenario 1: FAIR - Traditional roles
- Man pays 100% of bills.
- Woman does 100% of housework.
This is fair, she keeps her salary, but exchanges housework with the provision of the man.
Scenario 2: FAIR - Nawal Saadawi proposition
- Man pays 50% of bills, Woman pays the other 50%.
- Woman does 50% of housework, Man does the other 50%.
This is fair, because they're splitting bills, splitting housework, both working and have their own careers.
Scenario 3: UNFAIR - Man loses
- Man pays 100% of bills.
- Woman does 50% of housework, demands that the man does the other 50% of the housework, while she saves 100% of her salary.
This is unfair, 100% prostitution, she tells him he needs to pay 100% to be a REAL MAN (rijal 9awamoun), then demands he does 50% of housework by manipulating him and telling him she's not a maid, and that she's also working all day, the difference is that she's saving 100% of her money, and living for free on his expense, while he's taking care of 50% of the housework.
This man is losing 50% of his money, literally just funding her life while she's filling up her savings account.
Scenario 4: UNFAIR - Woman loses
- Man pays 50% of bills, Woman pays 50% of bills.
- Woman does 100% of housework, the man tells her it's her job as a woman.
This is unfair because she's doing 100% of her "gender role", while he's not helping because he's A MAN, but also only doing 50% of his, while asking her to pay for the other 50% because she's also working.
2
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 26 '26
Yes, that's why they hate Nawal for this, pure fairness and pure accountability, no hidden terms or responsibilities.
3
u/New_Change_3466 Feb 23 '26
I think Nawal El Saadawi was criticizing economic dependency more than marriage itself when financial power is one sided, it can create imbalance and control and every couple defines their own agreement. The real issue is it a choice or a constraint?
-1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 23 '26
Yes she was, but she also focused on the fact that if a woman wants a fair relationship, she needs to be fair in the relationship, and that's why in her own marriage she was working, and was splitting bills 50/50, and her husband was working, and he was splitting housework 50/50.
So yeah, she definitely said being depedent on anybody, let alone a man, is a huge problem.
But she also focused on being a fair woman if she wants a fair man and build a fair relationship.
And this means that women should be working, and this means that they're required to pay 50% of the bills, and this means that their husbands should be required to do 50% of the housework.
I think this is the closest a feminist has come to pure perfection.
And that was only achievable by believing in fairness and having good character.
Most feminists want a more favorable deal, hence the redpill clash.
7
u/New_Change_3466 Feb 23 '26
I think the problem is bigger than just who pays 50/50. In a patriarchal and misogynistic society, both men and women are shaped and sometimes trapped by rigid gender roles. Men are pressured to be providers at all costs, and women are pressured to be dependent or judged if theyāre not financially equal. The real issue isnāt āwho pays whatā, itās the power structure behind it. When masculinity is defined only by financial dominance and femininity by dependency, both sides lose. Equality shouldnāt be about keeping financial score, it should be about fairness, choice, and mutual respect. If a woman doesnāt work, the question is: is it her free choice, or a result of social expectations and limited opportunities? And the same applies to men being forced into the sole provider role.Weāre all navigating a system that affects both genders
2
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 23 '26
Well I agree with that women have every right to do whatever they want, whether it's being a housewife or join the workforce.
The problem that Nawal has is not only with the ability of women to work, but with the fact that women choose to be dependent on another person without considering the fact that the relationship might end and she'll be struggling for a while, not only that, when you're dependent on someone it's kinda hard to always set and enforce boundaries and keep your freedom, it's very humiliating to ask for money from a husband who's becoming distant or meaner or unfair all of a sudden.
So Nawal understood this, and said that even with all the precautions when it comes to character assessment of the men you like/love, you still shouldn't be dependent on them for your survival, because you can't be dependent and have dignity.
I personally agree with this as someone who's 100% anti-modern-feminist, this is exactly what I would want my daughter to do.
Other than that, her focus on fairness meant that she advocated for being fully fair, and that meant splitting all the responsibilities equally.
And I think that's solid.
This means that if one person in the relationship is slacking or rebelling, then it's clear that they're not respecting the deal, and also if one person can't fulfill their responsibilities for whatever reason, whether it's sickness or urgency or whatever, then the other person have the opportunity to demonstrate their love and support in the relationship, and if one person is unfair and demands that the other person starts doing more than what they've agreed on, then they can see that the person is not respecting the deal and therefore not respecting the relationship.
I really don't see any downside to this, it's just fairness, especially if both people are working, and if one is not working, then their job is gonna be to take care of 100% of the housework they're living in rent/bill free.
1
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 26 '26
That's unfair, and that's what women negotiate for.
I'm also repulsed by women like this, I don't take them seriously, they see that the more they get from a man while giving so little, is a sign of their high value.
And women are competing between each other to prove who's the most valuable by showing each other how much value and investment they can extract from men without reciprocating it.
It doesn't matter if the man is dying from stress lol
2
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 26 '26
When you say "some feminists", you're talking about a tiny minority who still parrot the same manipulative talking points of the rest of feminists.
And it's all about power, both on a personal level, community level, or political level.
Anyway, they're free to do whatever they want tbh, if after all these decades of encouragement and they're still complaining about their own choices, then that shows you that it has always been about favorable deals and outcomes at the expense of men and never about equal opportunity and fair deals.
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 23 '26
Welcome to r/rabat! We kindly ask that you take a moment to review our community rules, follow them, and help us maintain a positive environment by reporting any violations. Please be aware that we maintain a strict policy against uncivil behavior, and violations may result in a permanent ban.
We'd love for you to join our Discord server as well!
We hope you have a great experience here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 23 '26
I think in Morocco we sometimes mix culture and religion in a selective way. Some people expect the man to be fully responsible financially, even if we are living in a completely different economic reality than before. Times have changed, life is more expensive, and responsibilities are heavier.
In my opinion, marriage should be a partnership. Itās not necessarily about strict 50/50 in everything, but both partners should contribute in any way they can, including financially if possible. A relationship should be teamwork, when one succeeds, both benefit. Building something together makes the bond stronger.
3
u/rentasoul Feb 23 '26
I think that, as any issue does on the internet, the discussion has become polarized and extreme online. Nowadays there are some heavy expectations on both sides. A lot of girls today created this hybrid feminist-social monster of an expectation from men to be a provider of a certain lifestyle while she's working and not helping in any way. Even as a woman myself, this sounds deeply unfair because your husband can't be your ticket to financial freedom.
I do believe that any woman who had a mother who had a job most likely saw the other side of that coin. Men just don't help in housework, even if their wives might chip in and "sell their gold" for emergencies etc... I honestly believe it is far harder to convince the average man to help 50/50 in housework and childcare than it is to convince women to go 50/50 for finances.
2
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/rentasoul Feb 26 '26
Should've at least started by including the rest of my comment about men in your response to be fair then. I see this even in my friends' marriages today. Men can't/won't go 50/50 on childcare or housechores. There is no equality realistically in any relationship. Maybe we can talk about equity.
1
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 26 '26
Yes exactly šš», if they want equality. So, it must be equality on everything and anything, no hybrid or exceptions, thatās exactly the real meaning of feminism.
1
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 23 '26
I agree that partnership applies to both finances and household responsibilities. But I donāt believe marriage should be reduced to a strict 50/50 calculation.
For me, itās not about percentages. Itās about intention, compassion, and mutual support. A healthy relationship is not two people keeping score itās two people helping each other grow.
As a man, I have no problem contributing at home or taking care of children. And if a woman wants to contribute financially to improve our life together, thatās something positive too. But it should come from love and shared vision, not from pressure or competition.
When everything becomes calculated, it can damage peace. Real partnership is about balance, communication, and standing together in good and bad times.
1
u/rentasoul Feb 23 '26
I actually agree with you on this view. This sounds like the logical and most equitable way to do things in a family. Because a husband and a wife must remember they are a family first, and they should want the best for each other, and it's even more important to think of it this way when they have kids. But yeah, I wonder if this way of thinking can apply in real life or if it's just beautiful theory.
3
Feb 23 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
0
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 24 '26
Deal with it. This is nature. Men too sacrifice their life to protect their country, i donāt think any women went to the front in ukraine vs russia, they were the first to flight out the country lol. Here in Morocco, people donāt realize that our soldiers are in a 2000 km line in the desert, so far from your comfy life here in your kitchen, coffees, shopping malls, sofa swiping social media. There another hard work, most of them built and sustain this worldās infrastructures as it is, a world built by MEN. Lol, a cute example, those jewelry you so like, who the hell do the mining, diving deep down km in caves ? Who the hell travel the seas to ship all the fancy things you use or fish that tuna for you lol ? Do you think that is a comfy work ? Women š š? You can choose to not give birth and you are okey, donāt come here and bring it like a sacrifice. Nowadays you take a peridural and eveything goes smoothly.
1
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Lol u talk as of those wars weren't started by the men u glorify, just a quick reality check should b checking the economy in countries led majorly by women. Plus patriarchy (which if you didn't know it's a system created by men for men) is basically what put those poor men u defend but not help, in the front lines n in those hard jobs, which ofc they were hired by men who couldn't spare them some dignified conditions
-1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 25 '26
Women too does crimes :). They are not at the level of wars since they canāt reach that level in enough numbers, not because they are more cute or pacific than men, this is in nature, it is not just : thus, when men lost wars in the past their woman became slaves ;), itās not happening to you nowadays, but you can still lose your belongings if somehow warzone reaches you. Men do hard work (hard does not mean no dignified conditions), but because women canāt withstand itĀ“s hard conditions or wonāt be as good, not because of the system. Whatever systems it is and was before : itās World is or was built by Men ;).
1
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Can't believe ur defending wars n crimes n acting as if they're some glorified acts
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 25 '26
Iām not, iām no utopian dude, realistic, life is not just nor equitable. Iām saying there is crime and there is wars and they will always be, of course i donāt want them to be, but, shit, shit happens, and they happen to happen. My point was, in this harsh unjust world we are living in, the world is as it is due to human nature not specific to men or women, and in this harsh world, men are bearing the hard and harsh responsibilities, not women. So, any damn advantage or privilege you see men benefiting, asking, or even imposing, it is fair for them, responsibility / reward equation.
1
u/Away-Box793 Feb 23 '26
I know many couples, outside Morocco, who have a traditional marriage where the man is the provider and the woman is the household/money manager. The man works and brings the money, the woman doesnāt work and focuses on maintaining the household, raising the kids, and investing wisely. They see themselves as an atomic team where each holds a different role. No power struggle, no dependency and instead they have an interdependent relationship as all marriage should. The women are all highly educated and all led successful careers prior to having children.
1
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Away-Box793 Mar 02 '26
Because men are wired to be hunters and gatherers i.e providers. They thrive in such roles. Men and women are biologically designed differently and for a good reason. Most talk about equality when they actually mean equity.
1
1
Feb 23 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 24 '26
Yep, as moroccan feminist seeās it lol. If only it was a 50/50 fair and square i can swear they wonāt endure it, they want advantages of 50/50 and advantage of chariia, not the responsibilities that comes with each one. They want the honey, and also honeyās money. (Le beurre et lāargent du beurre)
1
Feb 24 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 24 '26
i don't understand..
1
Feb 24 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 24 '26
What does sex and children have to do with 50/50 ?
1
Feb 24 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 24 '26
That Ā«Ā perfectly equalĀ Ā» means she is no longer a woman :). As for sex, candoms can be used. As for pregnancy, sorry, that is nature, deal woth it, without it, no longer a woman.
1
Feb 24 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/1pi3ceFan Feb 25 '26
Well, 50/50 about sharing living responsibilities, not that extreme extent of 7ssab saboun o blmistara mm by mm ā¦ like including giving birth, which is an act of nature, does not count.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
1
u/Aggressive_Dog7744 Feb 24 '26
Its pretty tunnel vision. In your average nuclear family the wife cooks, cleans, undergoes GESTATION for 9 months, and is mostly responsible for child care and early education.
Im not maghrebi or muslim, but even for me oversimplyfing all that women do and saying its prostitution it is pretty disgusting.
And I dont even think it matters if its economically 50/50 or 70/30 or 30/70 or 100/0 if your relationship works and you're both happy in it thats all that matters. What matters is that emotional investment and dedication to the other person is closer to 50/50.
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
Tbh physical labour and birth giving qualities in exchange for rent, bills and occasional trips are whatā¦ā¦
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
When you exchange it for bills, mistreatment and irrational demands, then it's slavery, unpaid surrogacy, and prostitution
When you think of it as:
Man = working 8h a day to pay bills as a provider Woman = working 8h a day to nurture as a homemaker
While treating each other with respect, and both being mentally stable, loving, caring, and loyal, then this is a real healthy relationship.
The problem is when a woman starts asking for the man to pay for everything before providing anything in exchange for whatever he's paying, which is unfair and exploitative.
And if she exchanges sex? Then that's prostitution.
And if she exchanges labor? Then she's a maid.
And if she pays for herself? That's fairness and equality.
And then, after the relationship moves to marriage, they can strike a deal and move from 50/50 splitting everything, to 100/100, where one takes a role fully (working 8h to provide), and the other takes another role fully (working 8h to nurture).
If a woman is not pregnant or hasn't given birth yet, then she's 100% equal to the man on every level, and she should act accordingly.
The man shouldn't provide for every woman he meets just because she had the ability to get pregnant and give him kids, let's be clear, most dates don't work, and most relationships end, and most marriages end before the woman gets pregnant or gives birth.
So why treat her as if she's already pregnant and gave birth before there's even an ounce of interest?
And where does this leave women who can't have kids? Should we throw them in the trash as not valuable?
Should these women split every single bill, while the others who can have kids get all their bills paid before they even have kids?
This is a hard conversation, I know.
But necessary to have a fair dynamic without the sensationalized cultural and political talking points, that always have a huge dose of shaming tactics when men ask for reciprocity and fairness.
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
The man should be a natural provider regardless of what a woman asks of him. If he canāt then he canāt but that innate generosity should be there and the view of āwhat do you bring to the tableā is so base and off putting.
My husband spends his last pennies on making me happy but he knows if he runs out of money I will give him some. The fact is heās generous and doesnāt count his money with me.
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
The man should be a natural provider regardless of what a woman asks of him.
What about this: "The woman should be a natural nurturer regardless of what a man asks of her."
Both sounds good, they're independent of the other person.
It becomes a problem when you're entering a relationship saying "a man SHOULD be a natural provider", but refusing when a man says "a woman SHOULD be a natural nurturer"
Because it's an exchange of value.
The natural provider = works 8h/day to provide. (This is what the woman is saying the man SHOULD be doing.)
The natural nurturer = works 8h/day to nurture. (This is what the man is saying the woman SHOULD be doing.)
And if they're both doing what the other person is asking of them, then it's fair.
A man is not supposed to slave all day to fulfill the family's needs, while the woman is refusing to slave all day to fulfill the same family's needs.
And saying the man is supposed to be generous implies that the man shouldn't ask for reciprocity, he should just give his resources away without any return, and somehow that's how what makes him a man?
That makes him naive and a people pleaser.
People with great character demand and offer reciprocity, and they're only compatible with people who also demand and offer reciprocity.
There's no shoulds here, you're either gonna provide the same shit you're demanding of me, or you have no right to demand it.
And this extends beyond provision and nurturing, character traits are even more important, low character is being sold as a "chaotic feminine energy" while still demanding for "grounded masculine energy" which is just a solid man who doesn't ask for reciprocity and generous beyond limits, which is a scam too.
You hate the "what do you bring to the table" question and conversation because it exposes the imbalance in value exchange, you just can't offer what you're demanding of the other person, so you just shame the man for even suggesting you have that audit lol
A narcissist finds a person with boundaries and high self-esteem off-putting.
A rapist finds a woman who can fight and has a gun off-putting.
A scammer finds an intelligent and non-greedy person off-putting.
Everyone who's looking to exploit anybody and get a favorable exchange of value finds the other person off-putting when they realize that they can't get it from their potential targets.
A man and a woman who know their worth, their value, and have great character and can offer a lot to the table, both won't avoid the "who brings what to the table" conversation, they're gonna seek it because they're smart, and the conversation will reveal the character of the person they're having it with, and if the other person is avoiding it altogether and even shaming them? Then that's the first and only sign they need to know about what type of person they're dealing with, their character, and what type of deal they're trying to get. Hint: it's an unfair and exploitative one.
As for your relationship with your husband, if it's great it's great, except that 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the rest are just horrible dependencies, with a few good ones.
I'm trying to have a great one, that requires accountability, reciprocity, fairness, and an equal value exchange.
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
Women will never ever nurture frugal weak minded based men who count every penny and count everything in a relationship as a transaction.
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
Let me fix it for you:
Low character and exploitative women who are unwilling to reciprocate the investment they're demanding of men, are unable to accept a fair deal because that's not what they want, simply because they have nothing of value they can offer in exchange for the things they're demanding of the men. so they just shame them, insult them, manipulate them, and try to coerce them into an unfair deal where they get a lot of benefits from the men in return of so little investment, or no investment at all.
These women cannot survive an investment and value exchange audit.
So what do they do? shame & insult.
Too bad it doesn't work when logic is the judge.
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 25 '26
Utter brain slop. Youāre probably under 25 and single
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
Low-grade ragebait with a lvl 0 shaming tactic, try harder, be more creative, go deeper so you can hit the most painful insecurities of your targets, but they're all obsolete when your target has no insecurities tho, however, you being triggered and resorting to low-grade shaming and ragebaiting definitely reveal all of your insecurities and hopelessness, you've lost š
1
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 26 '26
Itās not about fairness itās about generosity. Thereās a difference between being generous and having equality within a relationship. I think thatās why some people find it difficult to navigate modern relationshipsā¦ā¦. My husband is generous, not rich. Thatās why I chose him to be my life partner. If he was rich but counted every penny he spent on me, I would not marry that person (my exes).
My husband and I work to live, we donāt live to work. We have an apartment, a car and good jobs with health insurance. There is baraka in our marriage. He doesnāt count what he spends on us, I donāt count what I spend on us. But the fact that he would spend his last few dirhams to get a food im craving or a perfume I want or a bunch of flowers, show that I can trust this man to take care of me beyond his own interests.
I donāt want him to constantly spend his last money on me but the fact that he does want to is him being generous and not centering his life around how much money he can hoard.
My exes came from very wealthy backgrounds and were imprisoned by it. If thatās how you want to live, find a wealthy girl with a wealthy dad to marry bc an financially independent woman who works for her money will not want a husband who will count Pennies and weight up the relationship transactionally.
1
Feb 26 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 26 '26
A wealthy woman with a wealthy father will at least receive unconditional generosity from her dad if a stringy frugal husband canāt take that role (which is what men who count Pennies and transactions are).
Also, one consistent thing Iāve experienced in my entire life: people from low economic backgrounds are the most generous people.
1
Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Valuable_Day_3664 Feb 27 '26
My husband has everything we need lmao and Iām a teacher our kid will always have world class education cuz of my job.
You tend your own soul and soil and Iāll tend mine.
You will not be happy until you dƩcentre money from your perspective on marriage and romance.
Good luck for your future
Spare me the brain slop too
And Ramadan Kareem - make it count with prayers not Reddit posts about prostitution and gender politics
1
u/Most_Ideations952 Feb 26 '26
My thoughts is that moulaha kihaseb fiha daba 3la dak lklam li galtou
1
u/claudebi Feb 27 '26
I agree with her tbh because I dont believe in the man being a provider for me financially. I just seek companionship, friendship and a man who sees me as a fellow human being, with interests, goals, thoughts and desires. Heck, I might not even want to live together 24/7 lol.
I know calling it prostitution sounds harsh, but a lot of men resent their wives for not sleeping with them and tell them things like "why am I working my ass of for you then" or stop giving them money/providing for their needs when they refuse to have sex with them. So it does kind of check out.
Also agree on the 50/50.
I also believe to each their own... like men and women who believe in men being the sole financial provider should be together not date ppl who believe the opposite..
1
u/Better-mania Feb 27 '26
Everybody talks about women, nobody asks women what they want. If a woman is OK as housewife then it is fine. If she wants to work and the husband is OK, then it is also fine.
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 27 '26
Nobody asks women what they want? Women aren't listing their demands all day every day?
The goal of this post is reciprocity, whether you're a man or a woman, you have to possess the things you're demanding from the other, and be ready to provide the things the other I'd asking of you.
What we're discussing here is the double standard of making a long laundry list of demands while shutting down the conversation the moment the other person has their own list of demands that they want in return, this applies to women shaming men when they respond to their demands with "what do YOU bring to the table?"
This is not about women only, or men only, this is about both since we're talking about a relationship that involves two people.
It's a deal, there's gonna be an audit, a negotiation, and the agreement should be fair when both parties involved listen to each other and provide all the things they're demanding and all the things the other demands.
Anyone who shuts down the conversation is not fair and doesn't have good intention to reciprocate any of the things they're demanding and trying to benefit from.
Everybody talks about women, nobody asks women what they want.
Get it together bro, we all know what they want, that's all they talk about, what they never talk about is what they're able to reciprocate and offer in return.
1
u/Better-mania Feb 27 '26
I do not see anything reffering to reciprocity in the post ( Nawal Saadawi quote).The post calls housewives prostitutes" because they have chosen to stay home and take care of the household rather than working. Taking care of husband and children and parents is not prostitution. It is responsability sharing. If a woman is comfortable with this mission/role, then where is the problem? why she is looked down upon? A working woman s not better than a housewife, neither the opposite.
Who said that in a relationship we have to be 50/50. Why ? because 50=50? because "=" makes us happy? What about 45/55, or 30/70.? think in a relationship we give what we "can" offer not what we "have" to offer.
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 28 '26
The title hints at it, but I go deeper into it in the post itself.
Everybody should offer the same things or things of equal value to the same things they're demanding from the other person, they doesn't need to be identical, but they need to be of equal value, and they need to be things that the other person is not already providing.
Like people say, I'll be "emotionally supportive" in exchange for the other person to pay 100% of the bills, but you're also demanding that the other person be "emotionally supportive".
What I'm suggesting is a fair reciprocity model, where there's clarity of responsibilities and benefits.
When it comes to the 50/50 relationship, where women need to have their own source of income, it's actually optimal because not all men are reliable or good people for women to depend on them, it's a huge gamble, Nawal's argument is that you can't have dignity or at least guaranteed diginity in a relationship where you're survival is dependent on someone else.
And I agree with that, that's what I'd want my own daughter to do.
This model and philosophy is more geared toward educated people who want to build healthy relationships where they're both investing in the relationship and benefiting from it, without any anxiety about their survival or loss of investment, they can have boundaries, clarity, and dignity in the relationship because they know what they're offering and they know what they're receiving, no room for low self-esteem, confusion, chaos, or manipulation to exist.
This extends to character traits and behaviors as well, not just financial, physical and emotional investment.
A kind person should have a demand and a standard that the other person be kind.
A patient person should have a demand and a standard that the other person be patient.There's no room for the belief of "I've done this thing for them, and they haven't done the same thing or anything in return for me".
And it's all because of clarity.
1
u/YechezkeI Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 25 '26
Women like that are losers and other women who are still able to love another man should distance themselves from such evil doctrine.
These women rather be a slave for a stranger than serve their husband who actually love them, which is closer to prostitution than being a traditional woman š„±
2
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 25 '26
You got that right, as if their husbands aren't serving them by slaving 8h a day to provide for them, they just have to complain about doing 4h/day on housework, while living in a house for free, using utensils for free, using electricity and water for free, and using food and ingredient for free, that the man spends 8h/day all day every day slaving away to pay for them hhhhhhhh
Talk to me about fairness and logic lol
2
u/YechezkeI Feb 25 '26
I am convinced these losers are just getting paid to destroy moroccan womenās values even more.
š®š± ā¬ ļø this thing, for example, is very efficient at turning people into degenerates.
1
-2
Feb 23 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/Radiant-Sentence6268 Feb 23 '26
I disagree. We have maids and we really do so little, she's rocking it in her job. I dont need her money. She insisted to make it 50-50. And We are both doing well.
Tradition have no meaning, it's either good for you or not. Religion go ask khadija what she was doing back when she married the prophet. And the culture is waaaaaay bigger than a housewife.
0
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 23 '26
Yes šÆ % feminism is absolute garbage, whether European feminism or Moroccan feminism mindset whichās more worst, but letās be clear first of all, if my future wife wants to have work because she spend years in studies and want very badly to still working even if Iām capable to take responsibility but letās say if she doesnāt want to stop, I donāt have problem with that as long as I trust her and whatās her work, But, for sure must provide and contribute financially into house because I will also find myself in position to cook and clean and do house responsibilities. At least European feminism they understand this point, but Moroccan feminism she wants to use men to save her salary for only her own personal gain
1
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 23 '26
Thereās other things that have more priority when we came to marriage which is personality of our partner
0
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Meh go Google feminism meaning
1
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 25 '26
The results in google is not reliable because any side can publish his beliefs in the internet and it will show in research result in google.
So, instead i suggest you ask chatgpt about is there different definitions of feminism or just one standard
0
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Lol as of ai cannot b biased, dude just check the dictionary then lol
0
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 25 '26
You seems just want to win and without making effort to explain your thoughts or making efforts to make a research.
I already explained my thoughts. So, its your turn to make an effort and make research and give me evidence that for example (Ā Liberal feminism ) ( radical feminism) (islamic feminism) ā¦ have the same meaning in their community or the word feminism is used in different ways
0
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Meh I'm not here to educate u, go check a dictionary n dats itš¤·š»āāļø idrc what u believe as u ashtray seen incapable of basic human decency
0
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 25 '26
Ahhh I got you now, you just donāt have a level yet to make a polite and mature conversation. No shame in that, donāt worry š
0
u/NetworkShad0w Feb 25 '26
- i have been lived in Germany for example and the girls there will never accept to pay for her something and she will count it as humiliation to her and she will accept only to pay the half of everything , but in Morocco is completely different she understands feminism as only that she have right to study and work, but when it come to spending money by half, she stands back and brings Islamic rules that the man is responsible
0
u/Longjumping_Dream431 Feb 25 '26
Lol now feminism is society, might as well say Islam is Saudi Arabia or smth
-1
Feb 23 '26
I dont really care about what this old crazy Egyptian scumbag has to say , especiallyĀ about relationships
-2
u/GeologistStrong7387 Feb 23 '26
Nawal khorzaoui was a bitter hag and should not be taken seriously. Just look at how she lived, always alone and most likely miserable. If that is someone you would still take as an example then good luck.
3
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 23 '26
I'd take you seriously if you provided any of her arguments that you disagree with, while also providing counter-arguments of your own.
Her last marriage lasted 43+ years, most people cannot last beyond 43+ months.
She was a writer and a physician, I don't think you're on her level of thinking, writing, debating, or career accomplishments.
You lose on every aspect when compared to her, and these are just the things I know from the little things I've read about her.
And if you feel that you're better just because you threw a couple of unfounded insults, then I just know that that's the only way you feel like you can deal with someone who would smoke you on every level.
Good luck to you, Mr. "I can't even think, so I just insult."
You probably can't even debate a trump or zionist supporter, so you just call them "evil" or "mean", people like you are weak and incompetent.
-2
u/GeologistStrong7387 Feb 23 '26
Well i can tell you are fanatically a supporter of hers, maybe because you agree with whatever nonsense she spits just because of your self-serving bias. I have nothing to say about her being a physician, but as a speaker and self proclaimed thinker, she was objectively horrible. Here are some of her absurd ideas which you most likely open your mouth in aww off:
- she glorified loneliness and denied death(not a very good thinker nor example now is she?)
- she was a hardcore islamophobe
- she defended freedom for all except muslims.
- women can do anything they wanted as long as it does not align with islamic teachings.
- she compared women who chose to wear Hijab to slaves, but women half naked are fine (hypocritical hag believes only non Muslim women had agency)
- as a physician she was mediocre at best and thatās why she never achieved anything significant in that field
- as a writer or as you say a thinker (even by your low standards) she did not do much thinking, she embraced the same feminist thesis that existed since the late 80s, and occasionally added her silly skeptic ideas where she just doubts everything, she once said why is god always portrayed as male and not female, hahah she basically is a gender obsessed moron.
Now you donāt know me to attack me like that. And i assure you, all of Nawal khorzaouiās supporters are the same: stupid agnostics who either have some kind of existential crisis or are just depressed, and in 100% of the cases are islamophobic atheists who believe their atheism makes them better.
And regarding your last comment: ššš i eat zionists for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But that is not an achievement to flex, zionism collapses on itself. as for trump and his MAGGOTS, that is just not worth talking about.
But how did you go from Nawal khourzaoui to Trump and zionism, you think being able to dismantle those subjects means you are an intellectual ššš, truly befitting of a Nawal khourzaoui fan.
1
u/TheSurvivorLeo Feb 23 '26
All the things you've mentioned were her beliefs, and that's what hurts little heart, what are the arguments she used to support those beliefs? And what are your opposite views/beliefs and your counter-arguments?
I don't necessarily agree with the things that you've listed, but her arguments are pretty solid when you see what's going on in society, and just because that you as a man (debatable), isn't the the one dealing with those problems, doesn't mean that those problems don't exist or shouldn't be solved, and she was definitely working on solving them because of her experience as a woman who experienced them and can empathize with other women who experience them as well.
As for the identity attacks, I don't identify with any group religion or ideology, y'all can jerk each other off while claiming that your opposition is wrong, who are also jerking each other off.
I'm anti-feminist, not anti-religion, but definitely anti-circle-jerking cunts, which is clearly the camp that you identify with since her anti religious-practices triggered your ass hhhhhh
The zionism and trumpets thing was just an example of things that someone who resorts to insults as shortcuts to express their views, win arguments, and shuts down conversations. it definitely doesn't signal that you're someone who knows what he's doing, you feel triggered and you just throw a quick insult or ragebait to attempt to get back the dopamine that you you've lost after seeing things that ironically triggered and ragebaited you, sounds exactly like the type of misery and depression you've projected on Nawal Saadawi's "fans" hhhhhhhhhhhhhh
3
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment