Should a man or should a woman?

[Kane]

A.Should a man prove to a woman that he is capable of providing and protecting her.


B. Or should a woman prove that she is worthy of being provided for and protected.

Which comes first?

 

[queasyian]

If you don’t meet condition A, condition B doesn’t even arise from the woman’s POV.

 

[Unicorn]

It usually goes B then A because men approach and date women who they think are worthy of being provided for and protected either due to her looks,reputation,or tribe. Then he has to prove himself.(A)

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

In my simple mind, if a true man is unable to, incapable of , or unwilling to providing, protecting, and/or guaranteeing both, he should not be seeking the responsibility of marriage, therefore in computational recursive theory, at first, condition (A) must be satisfied, for (B) is a clause predicated, if contingent upon A, and A is beholden to (B).

 

[Keep it a boqol]

How about both so the power dynamic is balanced and each partner knows their worth and what they’re bringing to the table

 

[The alchemist]

A woman should pick a man who can provide and protect.

A man should pick a woman that is worth it.

The responsibility falls on the person to recognize this on the other.

...important pre-requisites are in order:

We often see greedy people who demand a lot yet are blind to their character, overestimating themselves. Feeling entitled to everything without justifying such privilege.

Don't be that.

 

[Kalsoon]

No need to prove or show that you're qualified aka worthy of getting selected. I think that leads to people faking characteristics that they don't actually have just to get someone. Those qualities should show up naturally if that's who you are as a person. One shouldn't wait for the other to prove themselves worthy. You either are or you're not possessing those qualities. Being in the presence of the right person can bring it out of you more though.

This seems like a question a certain community would be discussing. As Muslims it's pretty clear everyone has a part to play as in duties and responsibilities. Not doing that may mean you're not giving their spouse their rights.

 

[Angelina]

Wallahi, this is such a nonsense question.

The whole point of the talking stage is to see if both parties are compatible. If you feel like a woman isn’t worth providing for, then no discussion or contact should be happening. Go your separate ways. As a woman if you’ve got to know a man and have noticed he can’t provide, go your separate ways.

No woman with dignity is jumping through hoops to prove to a man she’s worth providing for. A woman can easily get herself a job. If she wants money, she can go to her local recruiter and or look online and a man isn’t going to blow his money on a woman he wouldn’t even want to spend the rest of this life with.

The whole question is bizarre and you’ve framed it wrong.

 

[Lostbox]

I don't know. Middle class men a broke from reading the news. 90% of yiu guys will end up working class anyway

You'll require her to provide her half just to make ends meet

 

[Kane]

In my simple mind, if a true man is unable to, incapable of , or unwilling to providing, protecting, and/or guaranteeing both, he should not be seeking the responsibility of marriage, therefore in computational recursive theory, at first, condition (A) must be satisfied, for (B) is a clause predicated, if contingent upon A, and A is beholden to (B).

How about both so the power dynamic is balanced and each partner knows their worth and what they’re bringing to the table

In truth he one who cares the most has to
Sell themselves to the other, there is no way around it.

No need to prove or show that you're qualified aka worthy of getting selected. I think that leads to people faking characteristics that they don't actually have just to get someone. Those qualities should show up naturally if that's who you are as a person. One shouldn't wait for the other to prove themselves worthy. You either are or you're not possessing those qualities. Being in the presence of the right person can bring it out of you more though.

But that’s exactly how society operates today, everyone shows up as their representative, In the first 2 years of any relationships.

This seems like a question a certain community would be discussing. As Muslims it's pretty clear everyone has a part to play as in duties and responsibilities. Not doing that may mean you're not giving their spouse their rights.

in the perfect world where we all follow are seen to the t yes, but in this paradigm that we find ourselves in, I would argue gaalo are more honest.

Wallahi, this is such a nonsense question.

The whole point of the talking stage is to see if both parties are compatible. If you feel like a woman isn’t worth providing for, then no discussion or contact should be happening. Go your separate ways. As a woman if you’ve got to know a man and have noticed he can’t provide, go your separate ways.

No woman with dignity is jumping through hoops to prove to a man she’s worth providing for. A woman can easily get herself a job. If she wants money, she can go to her local recruiter and or look online and a man isn’t going to blow his money on a woman he wouldn’t even want to spend the rest of this life with.

The whole question is bizarre and you’ve framed it wrong.

You know it’s a trick question about who the prize is and your ego won’t allow you to choose option b, which is the most logical.

This scenario plays out before the rapport phase, it’s what intrigues the adored party to partake in courting process, where rapport phase takes place.

Nice try Angie

 

[Angelina]

In truth he one who cares the most has to
Sell themselves to the other, there is no way around it.


But that’s exactly how society operates today, everyone shows up as their representative, In the first 2 years of any relationships.

Why would someone be in a two year relationship? People should be married by then? What are you insinuating here? That a wife needs to prove to her husband to look after her?

in the perfect world where we all follow are seen to the t yes, but in this paradigm that we find ourselves in, I would argue gaalo are more honest.


You know it’s a trick question about who the prize is and your ego won’t allow you to choose option b, which is the most logical.

No, it isn’t since a man has every right to walk away and not only not provide but never speak to her again. This wasn’t a ‘trick question’ it was a question you were gearing up to in which you want wives to ‘prove’ that they’re worth providing for when Islamically the marriage contract is based on provision. What’s next? A wife has to wait a year for her Mehr? This is what happens when even redpill become your God and you forget that you’re a Muslim.

This scenario plays out before the rapport phase, it’s what intrigues the adored party to partake in courting process, where rapport phase takes place.

Nice try Angie

Option B simply isn’t logical since in order for a man to marry he needs to be able to provide. The whole marriage contract is based on provision and if a man doesn’t see a woman as worthy, he won’t even propose, so no it’s a dumb question.

It’s a modern and dumb question that has come about via redpill.

It isn’t even an ego thing but you’ve mistaken the way the world works. We live in a world in which in the UK officially young women in their 20s out earn men in their 20s, more than ever we have more men out of work than women, so no, a woman doesn’t need to jump through hoops to be provided for when she’s either earning the same or more. Even in the past when women did need men’s provision, women didn’t have to prove anything. A man either proposes if he likes her and hears good things or he leaves her alone. Do you honestly think your grandmother did anything to ‘prove’. Men and women didn’t mix like that Authobillah. The man went to the house, saw her a few times and then spoke to her father and paid not only Mehr but at times 100 camels. This is your heritage and now you want to talk about ‘proving’.

To add to your nonsense point. Why would a man provide during the courting stage? He is meant to get to know her and if he doesn’t see her as worthy he needs to fear Allah and not waste her time and cease any contact since talking for no reason is haram.

 

[Kane]

Why would someone be in a two year relationship? People should be married by then? What are you insinuating here? That a wife needs to prove to her husband to look after her?

(Any relationship)

No, it isn’t since a man has every right to walk away and not only not provide but never speak to her again. This wasn’t a ‘trick question’ it was a question you were gearing up to in which you want wives to ‘prove’ that they’re worth providing for when Islamically the marriage contract is based on provision. What’s next? A wife has to wait a year for her Mehr? This is what happens when even redpill become your God and you forget that you’re a Muslim.

This is the intrigue stage, not marriage.
Women ask men what they do for a living, if they have finished their education etc…

Option B simply isn’t logical since in order for a man to marry he needs to be able to provide. The whole marriage contract is based on provision and if a man doesn’t see a woman as worthy, he won’t even propose, so no it’s a dumb question.

It is logical if the goal is the woman getting the man she wants, instead of settling down. Again this is before marriage!

It’s a modern and dumb question that has come about via redpill.

It isn’t even an ego thing but you’ve mistaken the way the world works. We live in a world in which in the UK officially young women in their 20s out earn men in their 20s, more than ever we have more men out of work than women, so no, a woman doesn’t need to jump through hoops to be provided for when she’s either earning the same or more. Even in the past when women did need men’s provision, women didn’t have to prove anything. A man either proposes if he likes her and hears good things or he leaves her alone. Do you honestly think your grandmother did anything to ‘prove’. Men and women didn’t mix like that Authobillah. The man went to the house, saw her a few times and then spoke to her father and paid not only Mehr but at times 100 camels. This is your heritage and now you want to talk about ‘proving’.

You sound bipolar, on one hand you say women out earn men which justifies 50/50 on the other you believe men should provide for women.

Get back to me when you have come to agreement with yourself.

To add to your nonsense point. Why would a man provide during the courting stage? He is meant to get to know her and if he doesn’t see her as worthy he needs to fear Allah and not waste her time and cease any contact since talking for no reason is haram.

He wouldn’t provide he would just prove that he could by for example take his date to a expensive restaurants, maybe even buy her luxury gifts. Which happens all the time, your just talking a wrong position to appose me per usual.

 

[bluebird]

Wallahi, this is such a nonsense question.

The whole point of the talking stage is to see if both parties are compatible. If you feel like a woman isn’t worth providing for, then no discussion or contact should be happening. Go your separate ways. As a woman if you’ve got to know a man and have noticed he can’t provide, go your separate ways.

No woman with dignity is jumping through hoops to prove to a man she’s worth providing for. A woman can easily get herself a job. If she wants money, she can go to her local recruiter and or look online and a man isn’t going to blow his money on a woman he wouldn’t even want to spend the rest of this life with.

The whole question is bizarre and you’ve framed it wrong.

lol, this question could be avoided if the man doesn't bother entertaining women he doesn't like.