The old man gave all his family property to his son, and when he was old, he wanted to be the same a

Acceptable. Because there are many such things around him, he can't change anything by himself, the old man only gave the family property to his son, and the others treated his daughter very well, and he didn't say that he was patriarchal, she just gave the family property to his son, a big reason was influenced by traditional thinking.

If the old man has no property and is destitute, and she is old, her children will support her in the same way. It's just that now there is an additional condition, that is, she has property, and it is all given to her son, which is where we are unbalanced.

What's unacceptable about this? What else do you care about with your parents?

Not to mention the rest, just because your parents gave birth to you and raised you, you should be unconditionally filial to your parents.

First of all, it is the responsibility of children to honor their parents, and it is the obligation of children to support their parents. Whether the parents are millionaires or poor people, children have an obligation to support their parents.

If parents expect their children to support them when they are old, how can their children find all kinds of reasons and excuses to refuse to support them? It is the legal obligation of the child to support his or her parents, and it should also be taken as a conscious action of the child.

Secondly, it is the right of parents to give property to their sons or to others before their deaths, and they have the right to dispose of all their property. To whom do the parents give their property? It is more likely that the parents have their own considerations, even if there is a side that favors the son, which is the will of the parents.

As children, they should respect their parents' wishes, respect their parents' choices, be considerate of their parents' painstaking efforts, and do not worry about their parents, so as to avoid hurting family and feelings.

In the end, money is something outside of the body. The property of his parents, he can give it to whoever he wants. As a daughter, you should also want to open a little, earn wealth through your own efforts, and it is a shame to live on your parents.

And it is impossible to rely on your parents for a lifetime, and you can't make a fortune by worrying about your mother's family's property.

Therefore, don't care about your parents' assets, keep your mentality balanced, and fulfill your children's obligations.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, and when he was old, he wanted to have children like him, and it was acceptable to be a daughter. Because it is a legal obligation to support the elderly, it is the obligation of children. When supporting the elderly, the son has to bear more, and as a daughter, he can bear less, and he should be filial to them and let them spend their old age happily.

Let's put it this way, it must be the obligation of the children to provide for the elderly, if the old man gives all the property to the son and not to the daughter, then the daughter also has to provide for the elderly, but then again, people are mutual, you are good to me, I am good to you, as a parent, I think the children are their own, will not leave them this kind of problem, let which child complain about me, so I will be fair and reasonable to my children.

The old man's words can give the family property to the son, so when the pension must be called the son to provide for the elderly, although the daughter's words have opinions, but this opinion can only be said, and can not not be left behind, because people are old, children support the elderly, this is their obligation, so when the old man gives the family property to the son, the daughter will have to talk to the old lady at that time to provide for the elderly.

When the old man gave all the family property to his son to support the elderly, he wanted the same children, but as a daughter, he definitely couldn't accept it. This practice is obviously patriarchal, in fact, as parents should be treated equally, regardless of son or daughter, property should be divided in half, there will be no deviation in the pension issue, and there will be no contradictions. Nowadays there are many such cases where the partiality of the parents leads to the end in the children.

When supporting the elderly, there are many contradictions, and even if the property is given to the son, the son cannot wholeheartedly support the elderly.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, and he wanted the same children when he was old, I think he should not be able to accept this result as a daughter, after all, he did not have his own share when he divided the family property, but he needed to contribute his own property when he was old, which was a very unfair practice for his daughter. This kind of eccentric behavior of the old man will lead to family disharmony and cause his daughter to become separated from him.

Acceptable, the elderly have the right to dispose of the property, but the obligations of the children are the same. This is the law, but in addition to the law there are human feelings, I hope that the old people will be happy and have a peaceful old age, this has nothing to do with property and property.

Of course, it is unacceptable to be a daughter, and they are also children, but the old man gave the family property to his son. However, when providing for the elderly, it is required that children are the same, who gets more benefits, who should give more. As a daughter, you should be filial to the elderly, but the old man's approach is too hurtful.

The daughter's pension is based on the principle of voluntarily giving more and less, and cannot be forced to be the same as the son.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, and when he was old, he had to give her the same pension as his children, and it was definitely unacceptable for her to be a daughter. Because the daughter must be thinking in her heart, since you have given all your property to your son, you must be sure that your son should take care of you and raise you until you are old.

If I were this daughter, I wouldn't be able to accept it.

Responsibilities and rights are equal, and if I am not treated as a child with equal inheritance rights, I have no responsibility and obligation to support the elderly.

It sounds a little impersonal, but it's my true feelings and thoughts.

Of course it's acceptable, no matter what, how much loss can the parents who raise themselves suffer, right? It's not your parents who are benefiting from this, are they? Don't think like that, don't be so jealous.

The old man gave all his family property to his son, and when he was old, he wanted to be the same as his children, can you accept being a daughter? Actually, I think. Although the old man left all the family property to his son, but the daughter should still support her parents, after all, the parents worked hard to pull us up, and the parents may feel that the conditions of their sons are worse, and their thinking is too conservative to feel that their property should be left to their sons.

Although it is wrong for the elderly to do this, for children, it is a matter of course to honor their parents.

This seems to have become some kind of unwritten rule in China, in fact, when it comes to this issue, another problem will come to mind, that is, the bride price problem in China, marrying a wife to ask for a bride price, I have never heard of marrying a girl to ask for a bride price, this seems to be unreasonable, but there is no way, thousands of years of bad habits have been handed down like this, including the title of the family property to the son, it is also a bad habit of feudal society, but it is this unwritten rule, it has been circulated for so many years.

To be honest, I can't accept it, they all say that children are the same. However, the elderly treat their children differently, so why should they ask their children to be the same when they are old-aged. If the family property is given to the son, the son should bear most of the responsibility for the elderly, of course, the daughter also has the responsibility of providing for the elderly, and can only bear a part of it, not the same as the son.

This situation is unacceptable. Legally speaking, sons and daughters have the same obligation to support the elderly, and they all have the same rights in property. The old man can't give the property only to the son and not to the daughter, the children are equal, the old man is not doing the right thing in this regard, if he has to do this, the cost of the pension can not be treated equally.

The old man gave the family property to his son, and Mr. Yang may be a little unbalanced in his heart if he wants to be a daughter like his children, so he can properly consider giving his daughter a part, so that his daughter will be more active when she is old-aged.

According to the old tradition in the past, the property of the old man's family is inherited by the son, and the son is also responsible for the old man's pension. Now pay more attention to the equality of men and women, that is, the division of family property and children have a share, and the same support for the elderly is also borne by the children If the old man is too partial, all the family property is given to the son, and when the old man is old, he is required to provide for the same as the children, this as a daughter will definitely have an opinion. If the conditions allow, I will try my best to fulfill the responsibilities of my daughter, and if I am limited by the conditions, I will also say it to my face, to what extent can I bear it.

Instead of blindly emphasizing that he did not get the property of the elderly, he is not responsible for providing for the elderly.

It's acceptable, let's talk about it when we retire. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. Not capable. It doesn't matter if it's male or female.

It should be accepted. Parents have the right to dispose of their own property. In the presence of the parents, the children do not have the right to dispose of the parents' property.

It is the obligation of children to provide for their old age. That's because parents have fulfilled their parenting obligations in return. It is not the same thing as the distribution of property.

There is only one aspect that can be considered, and that is that the property of the parents is the same as the debt, and it is not right to ask the daughter to bear the debt again if the property is not obtained.

Old-age care is a legal obligation, and it belongs to the obligation of children. The old man gave all the family property to his son, not to his daughter, and in terms of providing for the elderly, the son can bear more, and the daughter can bear less.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, and when he was old, he wanted to be the same as his children, and it was acceptable to be a daughter, but not completely. It is recommended that a very small part of the burden of negotiation is also the intention of filial piety as a daughter, but it should mainly be borne by the son. After all, if you give all the family property to your son, it doesn't make sense to want your daughter to bear the same burden.

If all the property is given to the son, it is inevitable that the daughter will have thoughts in her heart. So don't expect your daughter to be the same in terms of pension in the future. After all, I didn't make a bowl of water even. So don't think the same. Unless this daughter is rich herself.

The old man gave all his family property to his son, and the teacher wanted the same children. As a daughter, I can accept it. Because after all, parents have the grace of nurturing themselves. Anytime. Go unconditionally. Supporting their parents.

Even if the daughter marries, from a legal point of view, the daughter still has the obligation to take care of and provide for her parents.

Acceptable. It's a little uncomfortable to feel a little uncomfortable, but as a child to support the elderly, this is also the way it should be, so I can't say I don't accept it.

As a daughter, you should communicate with the old man about some things, the daughter supports a part, the son supports a part, and the daughter can't support all of them.

As a daughter, if she feels very sorry for her old man, then she should give it to her old age, and if she is not distressed, she will throw it to her son, in fact, it depends on her own personal quality, and others can't stand it.

At this time, you can defend your rights through legal means, because the children are originally the legal heirs, and it also shows that the old man's behavior is very unfair.

As a daughter, she should support the elderly reasonably, but she still has to discuss some things with the old man's son, and the two parties can support them together, and you can't wrap all the responsibilities on yourself.

In fact, most of the elderly in rural areas will not ask for that. Even if the son is really difficult, he will only ask his daughter to help, and will not "force the head of the cow without drinking water". Individual phenomena do exist, but there are few who insist on paying regardless of their daughter's life or death.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, but asked his daughter to pay alimony.

Do you think it's reasonable?

Advice for friends who are parents:In terms of property, it should be divided equally among the children, or it should not be left to any child, but it should be divided equally, otherwise the children will have opinions in their hearts.

At the same time, when your children do not support you, you should first educate your children ideologically, so that they know how to repay their gratitude and fulfill their filial piety. After passing the ideological education, the children still do not support us, and we will go through the legal process.

Advice for friends who are children:As a child, you must understand Entu.

Don't be stingy with your parents, because without them giving us life and raising us, we wouldn't even have the qualifications to live, let alone wealth.

The old man gave all the family property to his son, but asked his daughter to pay alimony.

At the same time, in any case, it is necessary not to support elderly parents, because those who do not obey their parents will be disliked. Others will think that this kind of person does not know how to repay the favor, is cold-blooded, and even abandons the person who gave him life and raised himself. Moreover, the law stipulates that parents have an obligation to support their children, and children must have an obligation to support their parents.

Since we have obligations, we should fulfill them, and we should not wait until the court to understand embarrassment and shame.

Do you think it's reasonable?

The law stipulates that children have the obligation to support and support their parents, and the obligation to support and the inheritance of property are not corresponding to the relationship of obligations and rights. A child's support for his or her parents is a reward for his or her kindness, and whether or not the child has acquired the property of his or her parents, he or she must fulfill the obligation of financial support, daily care, and spiritual comfort. But the Law of Inheritance.

It also stipulates that in the distribution of the estate, the heirs who have not fulfilled their maintenance obligations may receive a small share or no share; Heirs who have fulfilled their primary maintenance obligations may receive more shares. By extension, should children who have acquired most or all of their property also have more maintenance obligations?

This practice is very unreasonable, the son and daughter are the children of the old man, the old man is very unreasonable to do this, and the old man will also make the relationship between the son and the daughter very bad.

I think this practice is very unreasonable, the old man did not treat his children fairly at all, and left his property to his son, so he let his daughter pay alimony.