[watwut]

It used to be that YOU help elderly parents. And they they are the patriarch ruling familly and his wife at that time. When the grandma did that help with children, it was at her terms - she was the decision maker to large extend.

That arrangement is not working from both sides. Younger generation wants autonomy and expects parents to not try to run things, not to demand more contact then they want etc.

Which makes sense. But you cant have it both ways - both autonomy/independence and service.

Younger generstion has their period of low responsibilities - before they create familly. It is shifted to later years tgen it used to ... but it is weird to then get jealous over their parents having some free time after work.

[antonymoose]

It used to be a two way street, actually. The broader family was just that, a unit.

Now it’s little independent atomic cells doing whatever with little to no regard for the bigger picture.

Ultimatel, it’s the Boomer me generation that broke this tradition. It’s not weird for a millennial to look back and say “How nice of them to have their cake and eat it too” as I raise children alone and deal with the dilemma of how to treat their greed and selfishness as they age and demand of us while contributing little.

[wisty]

Millenials are the "stereotypical manchild who hates his parents because he's too much like them" generation. (I'm a millenial too)

[graemep]

A large part of both is the professionalisation/outsourcing of child care which weakens family ties.

[watwut]

I really think you did not bothered to check how families historically functioned.

[carlosjobim]

That's not how it was. When the patriarch became too old, he'd give the farm and the "crown" to the eldest son - who would have more physical and mental strength than him.

Thirty or forty year olds in the past wouldn't take any orders from their fathers or mothers. Of course they would help them, as they are family. But the elderly would absolutely have to step aside, and those who were in their prime would call the shots.

[watwut]

> When the patriarch became too old, he'd give the farm and the "crown" to the eldest son - who would have more physical and mental strength than him.

That would mean very old. They kept main decision power as long as they could. By the time they gave it away, they were not helping with childcare much. Instead, they were cared for. And even with that arrangement, you are ignoring younger sons, daughters and wife's. Because childcare part is not something that concerned men - it was women's area.

> Thirty or forty year olds in the past wouldn't take any orders from their fathers

Yes they did. The dad was 50, that is not nearly old enough to give up power even in your arrangement. And yes, they were frequently pissed about it.

> or mothers.

They were taking orders from mother in law. And if you look at less individualistic societies now, that is the source of large friction - mother in law vs sons wife. Where mother in law expect her to be, basically, a maid and she does not like that at all. A woman marrying into the husbands multigenerational family is the lowest person in the hierarchy of adults, basically.

[lotsofpulp]

Daughter in laws butting heads with mother in laws (and father in laws) is a story portrayed in many cultures’ popular tv shows/movies. As are parents who own everything on paper, making them the ones with actual power, butting heads with their children.

It is only in the previous 100 years where young people all over the world have the power to support themselves without anyone else’s help, which is why the preference for independence was revealed.

[carlosjobim]

Young people have always had the power to support themselves without anybody's help. That's how life has worked for billions of years now.

It is only very recently that the industrialized world became completely financialized, so that the cost of life has become artificially increased for the youth. Young people have always moved away from their families for marriage, or for becoming sailors, soldiers, miners, hunters, lumber jacks, etc. It was only the oldest son who would inherit anything, so the rest of them wanted to scram as soon as they hit puberty.

Inheritance-baiting your children is the oldest scam in the book, but people weren't complete fools in the past, and wouldn't stick around if the old folks went too far. A lot of head-butting between generations and in-family as you mention.

[watwut]

> Young people have always had the power to support themselves without anybody's help.

You do not know much about history, do you?

> Young people have always moved away from their families for marriage, or for becoming sailors, soldiers, miners, hunters, lumber jacks, etc.

Eh, for a bulk of history, people stayed in village where they were born. Women moved to husbands house, rarely other way round, but that is basically it. Miners and hungers and lumber jacks did not moved away from village.

And soldiers and sailors were tiny minority.

[carlosjobim]

If you take care to learn about history you will be surprised as to how wrong you are. You are mostly believing in simplified myths.

Of course young adults have always been able to support themselves. If people in their prime can't support themselves, then nobody can. Young adults have always supported themselves + other people.

Take any time period of history and any place, and there is a mobility which will surprise you. Evidence for this is for example the colonization of the New World.

And as I have mentioned: Only the oldest son would inherit the village farm, so the other sons and daughters were often anxious to get moving.

[lotsofpulp]

>Of course young adults have always been able to support themselves. If people in their prime can't support themselves, then nobody can. Young adults have always supported themselves + other people.

Maybe pre-property rights when an individual's ability to inflict violence was more correlated with their status, but not post-property rights when first mover's had an advantage in gaining ownership to be able to collect rent and have a group of able bodied young to enforce it (e.g. police). Once that dynamic is established, the game favors those who can benefit from previous generations.

After that, the option for a young person to support themselves is mostly based on expanding to unclaimed or lower priced land, which is a big gamble because it is usually unclaimed or lower priced for a reason (hard to reach, no infrastructure, enemies, climate, clean water, etc).

>Take any time period of history and any place, and there is a mobility which will surprise you. Evidence for this is for example the colonization of the New World.

The internet might have been the most recent world that was available to be colonized, but it is not clear to me that these worlds will always be available.

[mitkebes]

People also used to marry younger and have children sooner. When people were getting married and starting to have kids in their teenage years, it meant that new grandparents would only be in their mid-30s or so. That put them in a much better spot to assist with the grandchildren.

Now many people I know are waiting until their 30s to have children, meaning that the grandparents are already 50-60s.

[graemep]

When was that? The average age of marriage in medieval England was early 20s as far as I can find out.

There are cultures where it is usual for grandparents to help where people are having kids in their mid twenties or later.

I know and have known lots of people who are perfectly capable of looking after kids (maybe not full time permanently), but for holidays or during the day, in their 70s or 80s.

In fact standard retirement age (insofar as it still exists) here in the UK is 67 so most people will still be working in their 50s and most of their 60s. It really is not that old.