In Sokoto State, Nigeria, a woman’s marriage ended surprisingly not due to infidelity or abuse, but because she refused to wake up at 5 a.m. daily to prepare fresh meals for her husband.
“I told him there was food in the fridge,” she recalled. “A real Hausa woman wakes up before her husband to cook, no matter what!” He retorted. She countered by asking if his mother had done the same for his father. He said “Yes.” She then asked the question: “Did your father provide for your mother as Islam commands?” He was left… speechless.
Islam is explicit on this matter: a woman is not obligated to cook, clean, or even breastfeed her own child. If she chooses to do so, it is an act of love, not a duty. If she refuses, it is not a sin. Furthermore, if she demands compensation for breastfeeding, she is well within her rights. These are not opinions; these are facts. However, facts often become inconvenient when they challenge the deeply ingrained beliefs and societal norms.
Just yesterday, a father’s wedding speech went viral on Twitter. During the ceremony in Kano, surrounded by family and friends, the father turned to his soon-to-be son-in-law and made a surprising declaration: “It’s not a must that your wife cooks for you.”
The internet rapidly turned the father’s statement into a battlefield, with opinions sharply divided. Some men expressed strong dissatisfaction, lamenting the “decay of tradition“. Others took a more aggressive tone, declaring, “This is why modern women are impossible!“. Meanwhile, women’s reactions were more nuanced: while some felt seen and validated, others were left feeling exhausted, weary of constantly justifying their existence beyond their domestic roles and tired of reliving the same conversations and arguments.
One of the men, furious, took to twitter and declared, “I swear to God, I’d divorce her right there in front of him. If she doesn’t cook, what exactly is she doing in my house?“
Poor comprehension is a disease.
There it was, the entitlement. The quiet, unspoken belief that a woman’s place in a marriage is defined by her duties, not by her presence. That her value is measured in meals prepared, floors swept, and clothes ironed, rather than in companionship, kindness, or ambition.
The same individuals who assert that Islam does not oppress women are the first to reject its teachings when they do not align with their preferences. Because what they desire is not Islam. They desire culture, tradition, and personal convenience, neatly packaged as religious obligation.
And here lies the irony: In words, and rarely in action, many men acknowledge that providing for a woman is their duty, proudly taking on the financial responsibilities of paying for the house, food, and bills. They speak of this responsibility with pride, convinced it’s an integral part of their role.
But the moment the conversation shifts, suggesting that a woman has the right to opt out of unpaid domestic labor, everything suddenly becomes unacceptable.
Why?
Because fairness is only appealing when it benefits them.
“A Woman Can Marry for Money, But a Man Cannot”
In Kaduna, a woman marries a wealthy businessman.
“She was wise,” people say. “She secured her future. She will never suffer.”
But when a man from Kano marries a successful, career-driven woman, the reaction differs.
“Ah, he’s weak,” they say. “A real man does not rely on his wife.”
The same men who demand that women contribute financially, insisting that times have changed, that a two-income household is necessary, will turn around and mock a man who does the same.
“What kind of man relies on his wife?” they sneer.
The expectation is clear: A man must provide, no matter what.
So, which is it?
Are women meant to contribute, or are they meant to depend on men?
Are men providers, or should they also expect financial security from women?
The contradictions are endless.
In Abuja, a woman shared the story of her cousin’s broken engagement.
“I will provide everything,” the man had promised. “You will never lack. But you must cook every single meal with your own hands.” When she asked if he would ever lend a hand in the kitchen, he callously laughed and replied, “That’s not a man’s job.”
Perhaps the real question is this: What is marriage for?
Is it a checklist of duties? A transactional arrangement where one person pays and the other serves? Or is it about companionship, love, and shared responsibility?
And so, the cycle goes on: when a woman asks for help in the kitchen, she’s labeled lazy; when a man asks for financial support, he’s deemed weak. In this rigged game, nobody wins. Still, we persist, stuck in this familiar yet toxic cycle. Because change is uncomfortable, and the status quo, no matter how flawed, feels safer.
If we are honest, our argument is not that a woman shouldn’t cook. The problem is that too many men do not view marriage as a partnership.
It all boils down to entitlement; the quiet, unspoken belief that a woman’s worth is measured by her labor, not her inherent value as a person. This toxic mindset further promotes the belief that a woman’s worth is defined by her duties, not her being. The underlying message is “I provide, you serve.”
Ultimately, the real issue is about the convenient twisting of religion to suit male comfort. But most profoundly, it is about fear; the deep-seated fear of a woman who is aware of her agency, a woman who knows she has a choice
