Why is it that the richer the family, the more patriarchal the family without money

This problem cannot be generalized, even in ordinary families that are not at the stage of having no money or being rich, there are many patriarchal phenomena.

As for the rural areas, it also needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis: in families that still rely on farming, many people think that boys are effective laborers, and girls are the masters of the family. At least I'm not afraid of retirement.

As for the wealthy, the older generation of family businesses attach great importance to the concept of wealth and boys, after all, everyone "does not flow into the fields of outsiders".

But now many rich people have become very advanced in education and life concepts, even daughters, there are expectations to be a piece of the sky, no longer limited to the idea of male inheritance, which has also produced a lot of marriages and the like.

With the development of society, except for some families or individuals who adhere to the previous concept, most people no longer have so many thoughts of boys and girls, mainly depending on the social structure and information intake of the family members.

Those who have money hope that their sons will inherit the family business, and those who have no money pin their hopes on their sons, in the final analysis, they are poisoned by Confucianism in feudal society for 2,000 years, and there is no inevitable connection with whether they have money or not.

Because they all feel that money is more important than people, women should prepare a dowry to marry, and men can support the façade.

Families without money want more male laborers to earn more and live a better life.

Growing up under the family planning policy, we will take it for granted that the shortcut to prosperity is to have fewer children and more trees. But in fact, for rural people, the shortcut to prosperity may be to have more births, and to have them again and again.

I was born in a rural area in Northeast China, then went to Nanning, Guangxi to study at university, and am currently working in Harbin. Over the years, I have found that in the rural areas of Northeast China, the cost of having and raising children is relatively low.

In the rural areas of Northeast China, if you give birth to a child, you can not go to the hospital, just hire a midwife at home, and after the child is left, breastfeeding is fine, and there is no need to do several physical examinations during pregnancy. But if you are in Harbin, you must go to the hospital to give birth, if there are no beds in public hospitals, then go to private hospitals, after giving birth to the child, feed less breast milk, feed more imported milk powder, and do more pregnancy tests according to the doctor's instructions during pregnancy. Pregnancy and childbirth alone may be done for a few thousand yuan in the rural areas of Northeast China, but it is very likely to cost tens of thousands of yuan in Harbin.

Now in the rural areas of Northeast China, mechanization is quite developed, and the days of farming are becoming less and less, and many ordinary farmers usually plant land and raise some poultry and livestock, in this case, parents in rural areas in Northeast China can take care of their children by themselves. In Harbin, it's different, if parents also want to take care of their children, then at least one party has to work for a few years, although Harbin's salary income is not high, but if you don't work for five or six years, how can you lose two or three hundred thousand, right? If both parents have to go to work, then they have to hire a nanny to take care of the children, right?

It's about 200,000 in five or six years, right?

In addition to giving birth to and taking care of children, children growing up in rural areas generally do not go to kindergarten like in the city, and usually do not go to this interest class or that interest class like the children in the city, and do not have to go to play here and there on weekends like the children in the city, eat this, wear that, buy this toy, buy that toy, buy that toy. In this way, I saved a lot of money.

This is just counting the child to five or six years old, in fact, as the child grows up, you will find that this kind of thing of raising children in the countryside is far more economical than in the city still exists. Therefore, the amount of money spent on raising one child in the city is likely to be enough for a rural couple to raise four or five children.

Of course, some people will say that the income of rural people is lower than that of urban people, so it is not possible to make a simple conversion in terms of money, but even if the income gap is removed, the difficulty of raising one child for the urban wage earner is comparable to that of the rural poor for raising three children.

What are the benefits of having more children for a family? The benefits are many:

Giving birth to a boy gives rise to one more lucrative workforce.

Giving birth to a girl is a large amount of income when you get married.

If one of the so many children is a good person, then the whole family will follow.

This last point, in particular, is crucial for a family. For those families who only have one child, if they can't guarantee 100% success, the investment will fail, but for those families with many children and daughters, as long as there is one talent, they will earn.

So you see, having more children is the best way to fight poverty.

Because the poorer the countryside, the more backward his thinking becomes. Only after the appointment will he be patriarchal, and then as long as he is richer, then they will not be so patriarchal when they see the outside world.

Men are the pillars of the family, and then they are passed on to the next generation! The children and grandchildren of the family that have been passed down from generation to generation have to be passed on by the men who stay by their side. And a woman is married like water spilled out. Therefore, the poorer the rural family, is very patriarchal.

Because they have a short understanding and a more serious feudal mentality, they will favor sons over women.

In the past, there was a kind of inheritance, this belief was heavier, but now it is much better, thinking that the male can inherit the ancestry, and the female is the water that is married, and the future will follow the man, so they all hope to have a boy.

Because the poorer the people, the lower the quality and the lower the cognition, so the patriarchal thinking is serious.

Because the boy married a daughter-in-law and came back, many people in the family did farm work, and the girl was raised and married to me, if she married far away, she rarely came back, so there will be a preference for sons over daughters, and this phenomenon will also occur in the city, not only in the countryside.

Generally, the poorer the rural families are affected by their own economic strength and other factors, and the progress of their ideology and cognition is slow, and they are still closer to the psychological thoughts of the old society, and their thoughts are solidified, and they have less contact with contemporary values or even resist from the heart.

Because in rural areas, boys can help the family work, can provoke the pillars of the family, and are the pillars of the family, and girls will have to marry sooner or later, and they cannot support the responsibilities of the family, so the poorer the rural family, the more patriarchal it is

Thousands of years of feudal legacies and patriarchy are deeply rooted. Although the status of women in the family has changed dramatically, women are always less valued than men.

The poorer the place, the more patriarchal it is, and I was born into such a family.

It may be that the poorer the person, the more serious his feudal thinking is, and then the one who attaches more importance to boys, feels that boys are the only ones in the family. The pillars are the labor force.

The poorer the rural areas, the lower the degree of agricultural mechanization, and the more boys can provide labor, the more severe the preference for sons over girls.

It is a very objective fact that men are better at farm work than women, and they also come according to needs, and families with less good conditions will be more dependent on crops.

Because they are less educated, they are slow to accept new cultures.

In poor rural areas, boys can support their families, while girls are much worse, so people prefer to have boys.

Poor families may have more entrenched feudal concepts, so they will have feudal ideas.

The poor must have something to hate, so where the poor are poor, there is a problem of poverty.

Because poverty leads to backwardness, the mind cannot keep up.

Such a family is more feudal in thinking, and is unwilling to go against some "things" that have been handed down

That is, the thinking of these people is still very feudal, so they are still thinking about the idea of relying on raising children to prevent old age.

The countryside of the moon. Relatively speaking, they are relatively closed. Connect with the outside world. Old ideas. Stationed in the mind. So they are still patriarchal.

Because of poverty, I always think that the salted fish will turn over, and the boy's chance of turning over will be a little greater!

The poorer the family, the more severe the preference for sons over daughters, because they are very focused on traditional ideas and are not open-minded.

No. It depends on which one the parents prefer.

It doesn't have to depend on the overall environment around the family.

Poorer families tend to prefer sons over daughters, which does exist in some cases, but this is not a universal rule. The relationship between gender perceptions and the economic status of the family is complex and influenced by a variety of factors such as culture, religion, traditional practices and social environment.

In some societies, especially in areas where traditional attitudes are more entrenched, families may be more inclined to favor sons over daughters because of economic pressures. This may be because men are seen as the main responsible persons for carrying on the family line, supporting their parents and the family, while women are considered to join their husbands' families after marriage and are therefore not considered to bring direct financial benefits to the family of origin.

However, this perception is gradually changing in modern society. With the development of the economy, education and women's rights, more and more people are aware of the importance of gender equality. Many families no longer evaluate the value of their children based on their financial situation, but pay more attention to their children's talents and potential, and encourage them to pursue their interests and careers.

This trend of change has led to a gradual erosion of the preference for sons over children in some regions and families.

It should be emphasized that the preference for sons over women is not caused by a single factor, but is a complex social problem. It involves factors such as family, education, social culture, etc. In order to change this perception, a comprehensive social effort is needed, including education, legal protection and gender equality awareness.

It is only through the efforts of the whole society that the concept of preference for sons over daughters can be gradually eliminated and gender equality and family equality can be achieved.

Today I heard such a conversation - a statement from a relative.

Background of the dialogue characters: Auntie, a son and a daughter in the family, the daughter is married, and the son is still married. The family situation is a little cramped. For the remarks, no one refutes or supports them, so they can be regarded as melon-eating masses.

After lunch, people chatted together in twos and threes about their parents' shortcomings. The conversation will always be about things like marriage. Now marrying a relative must be more difficult for people with a thin background.

A house, a car, and a bride price are enough to crush a family.

The aunt who was worried about her daughter-in-law said: In essence, I think it is the least cost-effective to raise a daughter. You see, after working hard to support her for more than 20 years, she finally managed to get out and earn money to subsidize her family.

As a result, he got married. Hey, when you get married, you can live your own family's life, and the money you earn will buy things for your own family. Working so hard outside, now I have bought a house for my family, hey, her mother's family, hey.

Maybe just finished speaking, it's a little embarrassing, and I made up for it, but it's the same, let's marry someone else's daughter again.

But that's the problem, the son hasn't married yet, it's unbalanced.

Hearing this, I just feel that I don't dare to get married, I'm afraid that it will be unfair to my parents who gave birth to me and raised me, and I'm also afraid that I can't live wholeheartedly for my husband's family. It's unfair anyway, after all, my family is not rich.

I listened to that.

If the family is wealthy, will there be fewer such problems, the mother's family does not need you to subsidize the family, the mother's family just wants you to live your family life well, you are happy.

For poor people, "losing money" is unpleasant, but it is accurate.

The sad world, the sad idea, what is one's own, what is someone else's, what is the purpose of raising children, what is the purpose of living oneself.

This is a very normal phenomenon, the proportion of families who are not wealthy and patriarchal is relatively heavy, but it is not absolute.

In fact, the earliest preference for sons over daughters was because the development of agriculture in ancient times required manpower to cultivate the land, and the war was not for the sake of passing on the ancestry.

Therefore, patriarchal families are either relatively poor, or they have a lot of money and inheritance.

Whether it is poor or rich, the preference for sons over women is a matter of concept, and it has nothing to do with whether they are rich or not.