[rayiner]

Only in societies, like certain parts of America, beset with pathological levels of individualism. In healthy societies, that obligation generally doesn’t lead to resentment because (1) it’s a mutual and reciprocal obligation; and (2) people understand that they have roles and obligations that arise by virtue of their very existence as a human being.

To be clear, in this particular example the parents are breaching their side of the obligation by burdening their kid while they’re still healthy and able to work.

[dlisboa]

I'd advise against judging health of personal interaction in a society based on interactions between parents and children. Calling one healthy over the other has many issues.

Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society?

If societal pressure is the only reason why people take care of their families, what's the point? So I don't find it individualistic if someone does not feel obliged to help, it's much more complex than that. There should be more between a parent and child than obligation and well-defined roles. I help my family because I love them, because they raised me to love them, not solely because they're my ancestors.

[rayiner]

> Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society?

Yes. If an Indian village raises their kids the way Americans do everyone would die of starvation.

[sneak]

Sounds like a tidy solution to the human rights violation that is arranged marriage, and the closely associated tradition of honor killings, the murder of a woman by her immediate family for refusing to submit herself sexually to those chosen by her family for her.

The idea that someone could hold such cultures up as an ideal is literally insane to me.

It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept that women and children are the personal inanimate property of their family unit, to be disposed of however the family wishes, like a used car or a plot of land. The idea that this is healthy or normal appears to be a rationalization and not rooted in any basis besides tradition.

[yutijke]

For a lot of Indians Arranged Marriage tends to more like introductions from friends except you replace friends with your family.

No one forced my Mother to marry my Father. There was a period where they just talked and got to know each other. She could have said no. Nor did she have to compromise on her career. It was not a business transaction where my Father went to a supermarket to get one wife to cook and bear sons.

It looks like you've read about an Arranged marriage that went bad in a news article and seem to have decided that you know all that's there to it.

[rayiner]

> It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept that women and children

It's more about having a narrower sense of the scope of the individual relative to the collective and the relevance of individual choice. Both facilitated marriages and parents' involvement in career choices arise from the quite sound premises that (1) young people are bad at making decisions and can benefit from the acquired and collective wisdom of the family; and (2) that people have a moral obligation to perpetuate society and support families, and fulfilling those obligations isn't about individual choice. (Note that both principles apply equally to men and women.)

[sneak]

No. The reciprocal obligation that people have, having been taken care of as children, is that they take care of their own children in turn.

Parents are adults who can and should care for themselves. You aren't born into debt.

To expect both your parents, as well as your children, to be responsible to you at both ends of your life is selfish and entitled.