Nuclear Family System — A Cure To End The Root Cause Of Gender And Generational Trauma.
When a parent wishes to have sons instead of daughters, they are looked down upon by the liberals. It’s sad indeed to prioritize one gender over another, but ever wondered why does it happen?
WHAT’S THE CAUSE?
Ask benighted parents why they didn’t spend on their daughter’s education, or discriminated between their son and daughter, or why did they prioritize the well-being of their son over their daughter, the reason is either that she won’t earn for them or that she is someone else’s future possession.
Naturally, an orthodox parent would prefer having sons to daughters for more convenience and togetherness.
Money and proximity make a son desired more than a daughter.
In Asian countries, sons are colloquially called the “support for old age.”
When there’s more demand for a male child, it’s only because he is supposed to support them in ways the other gender cannot.
Because practically, daughters have generally been a liability, and sons an asset.
Generations after generations, it's been supposed of one gender (son) to provide support, and the other one (daughter) to prioritize advancing someone else's family legacy.
It surely takes guts and selflessness to nurture with love only to give her away, as society demands. It requires the parents to be saintly fair, learned, and brave to equally raise kids of both genders for the children's sole sake.
So in a sense, sons are more desired because they're supposed to stay with their parents and always ‘be there’ for them.
If there was no compulsion for sons to stay with their parents, there wouldn’t be a preference for them more than the other gender.
The more people are educated, the more they reduce gender-based discrimination. But in the slow evolving society, the females are mostly at a disadvantage (throughout the life) for the unofficial law for her to switch her house.
WHAT’S THE CURE?
Since the very beginning, females haven't been earning. Only their male counterparts have been doing it. So it made sense for her to leave her home, while getting married, to get settled where money is being made— the husband's place. The husband might not be earning enough to maintain her, and his own parents, siblings, etc. separately. So they live in one shelter. Understandable.
But wait, the brides have always been marrying with a hell lot of dowry to set up a new home! Now with modernization, that both genders are willing to earn, it has become even easier to avoid illegal dowry. If both sides invest, they can surely afford a new set-up to live in (whether bought or rented).
But culture, favoring the money-making or the male's side, doesn't easily allow that.
They made it a norm for only the girl to leave her home when ideally, it should be both the persons forming a new couple that should leave their previous homes to establish a new one.
IF BOTH SIDES LEAVE, WHAT ABOUT THE AGEING PARENTS?
Having a separate space from parents doesn't equal neglecting them. And if YOU still think it is true, since males can spend time with them better than daughters, YOU are the reason why people dislike raising a daughter. Because it has been made so normal for a daughter to neglect her parents in abidance of the husband's family.
Men argue that they have financial responsibility towards their parents that women don't have.
Ideally, parents should not depend on their kids to grow up and support them, but they do hope it because humans always desire upward social mobility. And if their children (both males and females) are capable enough, they are liable to maintain their parents since it is their money and will to spend on their loved ones.
But responsibility is more than monetary, they sometimes have to be looked after, and need to be helped with major and minor issues. This is so leniently carried on by sons (and his wife) but made difficult for daughters to do so.
When having a male child grants unfair privilege to the parents, they feel unlucky being blessed with a female child.
To be truthful, as the parents age, they need help from their kids who become adults.
And while getting them married,
Why shall it be a disadvantage for the female’s parents and a double advantage for the male’s parents?
What have a son’s parents done to get the extra privileges that a daughter’s parents have not?
Do not both sets of parents deserve to be equally cared for?
One can have a proper distribution of responsibilities. He could act like to son to her parents, and she could be a daughter to his parents. One can surely be kind enough to care for the spouse’s ageing parents and even stay with them if the situation demands. The couple can always have a discussion and make alterations on valid exceptions.
THE KHANDAANI NIZAM— CHAIN OF GENERATION.
Carrying the family name by its series of sons is another BS. This is not the era of Royal Rulers. We are not the 'Mughals' or the 'Mauryas' that need a male heir to keep alive the name of the royal family. Despite that, sons are expected to never leave their habitation, because their wives would move in with them, leaving hers, to continue his family’s legacy.
But we've moved on from that, and submitting to a generational family hierarchy by being a secondary member causes inconveniences.
It's not the family tradition that matters, but the individuals’ needs and harmony.
This is not to talk about how emotionally taxing it might be for a female to blend into someone else’s family system, but to talk about the necessity of leaving home for a man, for a positive development.
WHY IS NUCLEAR FAMILY BETTER THAN THE OTHERWISE FOR ALL:
- Anything a daughter-in-law does for her husband’s family is counted as a charitable act, a voluntary act of kindness in Islam. But in culture, it is her duty, a responsibility to please, obey, adjust and ‘fit in’ with the members of his family, even if it takes a toll on her health, privacy, peace of mind.
Whereas nuclear family system allows controlled interaction which lets both the spouses to build healthy connections with both sets of parents.
- In most non-nuclear (joint) families, the compatibility of the mother and wife of the man is given a priority for they have to spend most time together; the husband’s emotional involvement is regulated accordingly. For this reason, the basic right to have a spouse of one’s choice is disregarded. Most families arrange not the best wife for the son, but a meek, best adjusting daughter-in-law for their house.
While on the other hand, moving out with husband means they establish their new home and have only each other to cling on to, which bestows more potential to develop their emotional intimacy.
Another advantage of moving out into a house of one’s own (even in rental) and not someone’s parents, is that both parties have their share of autonomy and accountability. There is no hierarchy inside the family system, nor any unwanted interference or influence. It is easier for the couple to keep up with each other’s rights and responsibilities. Plus, they can equally be there for their own and the spouse’s parents.
Despite all, if a man might not choose (or is not in the state) to cooperate, please, at least, look into the ethics of joint-family-system-in-islam.
It's important to filter the good and bad aspects of a culture by logically and empathically analyzing what suits its people. Cultures do change with the changing times. It doesn't have to be the same.
WHY SHOULD MORE MEN ADVOCATE FOR NUCLEAR FAMILY SYSTEM:
Men are the maintainers and providers of women, in Islam. This extends to him maintaining her peace by providing her with the privacy that God grants her.
Even if a wife does not earn, she dedicates herself to managing home, she is rightful of having a private space that's not inhibited by the husband's other family members.
Men must stop rooting for patriarchal traditions that blindly favours one at the cost of another’s fulfillment.
Because if a husband isn't empathetic towards her wife, how would he expect or teach other young men to be empathetic towards his own daughter? If he neglects his wife's parents’ rights upon her, he too might be neglected by his daughter. And this fear again contributes to desiring male child over only female children— a major cause of gender based injustices since girlhood.
The age of illiteracy and ill-treatment is not valid anymore. Now that females inherit their share of property, earn their own money, there's no reason for her to marry to get financial stability. Marry for love, for procreation, for the sake of God.
It depends on men as much as on women to bring about a change that is fruitful for themselves and the upcoming generation.
And lastly, WHAT MADE ME WRITE THIS:
This isn't the type of thoughts that one sits down to reflect upon at leisure. Like a lot many micro- incidents, a major one that struck me deep are the words of a close relative, when she tried convincing my parents to adopt a son. She showed that she's concerned for the future of my parents that needs to be secured, as a son is supposed to stay with them, not I. I don't hold a personal grudge against her but I can't help questioning the society and its mindset that made people believe that having only a daughter(s) is never enough for parents.
Though we (I and my parents) laughed off her suggestion and her vain efforts, this thought definitely doesn't leave my mind. One can't love and live in such a society that follows unjust ways.
A way that's equitably in favour of all is to let the sons move out instead of wanting the daughters move in.
There is no reason for males to find it offensive to leave his parents' house when starting a new phase. Leaving the nest you grew up in is a phase of adulting. The fact is, females are expected solely to be doing what should also be done by males.
A peaceful way is to shun the presumed obligation of living with in-laws, and making it a matter of discussion before getting married. A woman doesn’t have to be sorry for wanting this (or the man), and a man doesn’t have to feel remorseful for advocating for the betterment of all.
I’ve been very gender neutral throughout this piece, and would like you to understand from an unbiased point of view as well.
Do let me know if any sentence sounds unfair or biased towards any gender.
