Son punches father 170 times

[VanceChilukuri]

Brahmam garu cheppindi ivala aksharala nijamaindi

[SRK_SRK]

1 hour ago, Aamphat said:

yeah. If they want to distribute equally they should also expect to take care of them equally. or else bill manaki thrill vallaki

old school argument.

90% of sons take care of parents if they have money otherwise you know what happens.

Actually son-in-law tho less problems than daughter-in-law.

[CanadianMalodu]

2 hours ago, mettastar said:

Enduku 

Simple a female progeny with X amount of assets is always married into a different family with Y amount of wealth wherein Y>X. The new family will have higher starting base which is X+Y. This is 9/10 cases unless it's love marriage or there is a compromise based on skills, looks, earnings, physically handicapped etc.

The male progeny will be married to a woman in 9/10 cases with a wealth of Z , where X>Z. The new family will be having a net wealth of X+Z and lesser base than that of female progeny X+Y

X+Y > X+Z. 

This is at the expense of male progeny.

A male progeny is always the torch bearer of your genetics as a man. That's how patriarchal societies have always been. Men and women are simply not equal. This doesn't mean they are inferior. Genders are meant to complement each other. Almost all societies have evolutionary origins with men being providers, protectors even to date. You can't expect to win a war with all women army or have a productive workforce with 100% women. The enforced equality always results in unfavourable outcome for a male progeny. 

[SRK_SRK]

5 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Simple a female progeny with X amount of assets is always married into a different family with Y amount of wealth wherein Y>X. The new family will have higher starting base which is X+Y. This is 9/10 cases unless it's love marriage or there is a compromise based on skills, looks, earnings, physical handicapped etc.

The male progeny will be married to a woman in 9/10 cases with a wealth of Z , where X>Z. The new family will be having a net wealth of X+Z and lesser base than that of female progeny X+Y

X+Y > X+Z. 

This is at the expense of male progeny.

A male progeny is always the torch bearer of your genetics as a man. That's how patriarchal societies have always been. Men and women are simply not equal. This doesn't mean they are inferior. Genders are meant to complement each other. Almost all societies have revolutionary origins with men being providers, protectors even to date. You can't expect to win a war with all women army or have a productive workforce with 100% women. The enforced equality is always unfavourable outcome for a male progeny. 

all your X Y Z etc becomes equal if all are distributed equally on both ends.

[CanadianMalodu]

4 minutes ago, SRK_SRK said:

all your X Y Z etc becomes equal if all are distributed equally on both ends.

Nope. Even then it doesn't work that way. Any given time Z<Y, making it a disadvantage to your male progeny. Women always seek to step up in a marriage ladder by default. Which is why women seek men that earn more than them, that look better than them (if they have a choice) that are more powerful and wealthier than them. 

That comes from subconscious wiring of society from a evolutionary stand point. Gender equality is always a myth, that educated are indoctrinated with. 

 

[mettastar]

7 minutes ago, CanadianMalodu said:

Simple a female progeny with X amount of assets is always married into a different family with Y amount of wealth wherein Y>X. The new family will have higher starting base which is X+Y. This is 9/10 cases unless it's love marriage or there is a compromise based on skills, looks, earnings, physical handicapped etc.

The male progeny will be married to a woman in 9/10 cases with a wealth of Z , where X>Z. The new family will be having a net wealth of X+Z and lesser base than that of female progeny X+Y

X+Y > X+Z. 

This is at the expense of male progeny.

A male progeny is always the torch bearer of your genetics as a man. That's how patriarchal societies have always been. Men and women are simply not equal. This doesn't mean they are inferior. Genders are meant to complement each other. Almost all societies have revolutionary origins with men being providers, protectors even to date. You can't expect to win a war with all women army or have a productive workforce with 100% women. The enforced equality is always unfavourable outcome for a male progeny. 

X+z ekkuva aina it wont be exponentially greater than x+y 

Over the time evari aasthulu entha avuthayo evariki teledu.. unnadhi equal ga divide chesthe ey penta undadhu.

[CanadianMalodu]

9 minutes ago, mettastar said:

X+z ekkuva aina it wont be exponentially greater than x+y 

Over the time evari aasthulu entha avuthayo evariki teledu.. unnadhi equal ga divide chesthe ey penta undadhu.

Enough to make a difference in a society where demand for women outstrips demand for men or successful men. 

Over time is a different story. But the starting base is what's important. All this equality indoctrination affects only middle class disproportionately. Political and Social elites are clear in their approach of retaining their wealth and male progeny always takes the lead as a successor.