Why is there "son preference" in all households?

I've always believed that son preference is something that every family has, and the difference is only in the weight.

Do you think that a large dowry for your parents to buy you a car and a house is not patriarchal? Whether parents prefer sons to daughters is not based on whether they love you or not, and how much they give you, but what proportion you get compared to their sons.

If your parents have 100 million, give you 40 million and give your son 60 million, you are still son-preference.

Many people think that son preference is more serious in the countryside, and you are wrong.

In any family, when it comes to the distribution of benefits, it is always the priority of the son, always, without exception!

Don't you believe that if you look at the rich people in the city who do business, they will train their daughters to be the heirs of the family business? Will they be willing to give their family property to their daughter's husband's family? For sure, no.

And what about families who have no succession to the throne and no family property? They will not divide all their property equally among their sons and daughters, and their connections will not be introduced to their sons and daughters at the same time, and they can only choose one of them.

The so-called "my family does not prefer sons to daughters", but it seems that the preference is not so obvious, because there is a hidden "son preference" that is more obscure and more humiliating.

My girlfriend's family is a hidden "son preference", from a young age, the family has pursued the principle of "girls pampering boys", spoiling girlfriends into princesses, and being much more serious about their sons. But when her girlfriend grew up and got married, her parents gave her a house and a car, and the rest was left to her son, including the family's five houses and the ownership of three shops.

You may say that your son will retire in the future, of course, he should give a little more, and it is good to give a house and a car to his daughter. But what you don't know is that a daughter can also adopt her parents and inherit the family business.

But will they give their daughters the right to choose? Because they have long ago made a decision to choose their sons as the object of inheritance of the family business, as the object of pension.

In their traditional concept, there are no examples of daughters inheriting the family business and passing on the generations, especially there is no precedent of "having a son in the family but choosing a daughter as the heir", which is not in line with the rules. It's not that girls are no better than boys, it's just that parents didn't give their daughters the right to choose in the first place.

So those who do not necessarily have sons, and there is only one daughter in the family, or only two daughters, are not patriarchal.

For this situation, I can only say that I can't be sure, because they don't have sons in the family, so they only have daughters. They don't have a chance to choose between sons and daughters, and if they have the opportunity to have both sons and daughters, then I can guarantee that they will definitely be more son-in-law.

Do not doubt human nature, even parents, can not escape the human nature of seeking profit and avoiding harm, so if they have the opportunity to have both children and daughters, there is no doubt that they will be more willing to choose their sons as heirs and inherit the family business, because daughters have not been given the function of "passing on the generations" since ancient times, and the sons who have been passed down from generation to generation are the sons.

I also have only one family with only daughters, and there are families with only two girls, who have told me that if their parents have a son, they will choose a son as the heir, but the reality is that they have not given birth to a son, so there is no way.

Therefore, I have never felt that the preference for sons over daughters is a family problem, but a social problem, a historical problem, as long as men and women are not equal, the preference for sons and daughters will always exist, deep-rooted, and the difference is only light and heavy.

Since I understood these truths, I began to resent my parents less because they had their own ideological limitations and the influence of society and the environment around them. Relatively speaking, they belong to the "implicit" preference for sons. They have two million in savings and will give me $200,000, as well as a car. But they will buy a house for my brother to buy a car, and they will also give my daughter-in-law 300,000 as a bride price, compared with my brother, what they give me can be said to be a dime.

But compared to the girls in the village, I was already lucky. They will not be given a dowry at home when they get married, and the man's dowry will be appropriated by his parents. My parents often told me that the girls in the village were not as lucky as I was, and that I had gained a lot to be satisfied with. What can I say about that?

In fact, I resent my parents for preferring sons to daughters, not because they care about their distribution of property, but because of their double-standard behavior and differential treatment. As long as my brother said it, they all felt right, what my brother did wrong, they never dared to say, my brother never had to do housework. But I was at home, from a young age to ask to do housework, and do a little slower, do not do well, will be scolded and accused, I have been indignant in my heart, feel very depressed.

When I grew up, I saw that they still had a bit of a conscience, and they were willing to give me a part of the property, and they were kind and righteous. In return, I'll be a little better for them than my brother, be more generous when spending money, and care more about them in my daily life.

I actually know very well that no matter how good I am to them, they still love their sons the most, and the love that is given to me is only a little bit, and I can't change this, because I can't change the whole social phenomenon, I can only change myself.

Moreover, if I break off relations with them, I am equivalent to an orphan, and I get married in the future, if there is a quarrel in the in-laws' house, no one will support me, because I have no mother's family, and I am in a dilemma. In order to avoid the in-laws bullying you without a mother-in-law, even if the parents prefer sons to daughters, you can only continue to maintain a relationship.

I think this is the most embarrassing position as a girl, in the in-laws they are guests, in the mother-in-law's home they are also outsiders, can't help but sigh, it is really difficult to be a woman.

Because of the shadow of son preference, if I have children in the future, I do not want her to be a girl, girls are too difficult in this society, whether it is physical or psychological, generally worse than boys, not only the original family is hurt by the idea of son preference, out of society is also gender discrimination.

Perhaps only when men and women are truly equal, and men and women are equal, will the preference for sons and daughters disappear.