Why in-laws don't equate as biological family for Indian women and men

When the question of, "If a set of Indian parents only have daughters and the daughters are married off, who will take care of their parents?" is asked, the answer promptly given by the Indian society is, "The sons-in-law."

Except that it's not that simple because of the nuances of the Indian son-in-law family hegemony that is ironically created by the Indian society itself.

My mother has only two daughters - my elder sister and me. My brother-in-law had never come and visit my mother and me out of his own volition, what more ask us whether we need anything or buy us anything. My sister visiting us and getting us stuff once in a while are met with an undercurrent of disapproval by her husband and mother-in-law, under the culture of, "She's married off to our family now. So, why can't she act like our family member and think of us as her family?" Mind you, my sister doesn't even come visit us every Sunday. And, you say "Son-in-law will take care." My fucking foot.

Indian families with married sons behave like they did a huge favour to the married woman and her family, that they have given life to the woman and relieved the burden of her family. Mapla veetu sammanthi always have an ascendancy and the ponnu veedu is in submission. There is no equality here.

The same mouths that say a married guy should take care of his wife's family are quiet when that doesn't happen. And, when it does happen, the guy is called 'pondati dhasan' (henpecked). If a married Indian woman continues working after marriage and motherhood, the same mouths criticise that she is selfish and detached from her pugundha veedu because she chose not to stay at home and take care of her in-laws. If she supports her parents financially or goes to her mother's house often she's chastised and gets the brand of not thinking of her husband's family as her family. If she goes separate living, I don't even need to say the caustic accost she will get encapsulated by the phrase 'family breaker.' Does any Indian guy get vilified for not taking care of his in-laws? Nil. Nada. This, "Son-in-law should take care," exists only to pacify people who question the system of daughters leaving parents after marriage - it's a namesake only. Indian guys taking care of their in-laws simply doesn't happen and when it does, the guy is seen as queen controlled and having no self respect as in mapla gethu. And, the dreaded label, 'veetoda mapla.' Who are you kidding, Indian society?

I watch Vani Rani serial on YouTube and 2 sons of the family go to separate living and the father is so emotional, that his sons had left the house, abandoned their parents, that the house is lonely and shit. The sons are having problems in their work incurred by the lady villain and comments from guys were like, "If you go with your wife leaving your parents, this is what that will befall you guys." Well, the women leaving their parents after marriage won't make their parents feel abandoned and lonely ah? Is the labour pain for sons holier than the labour pain for daughters? You can take daughters leaving after being married, the attachment loosened after the sobbing at the vidaai but when sons leave to live separately, the attachment cannot simply be let go - it needs to be mentioned endlessly - vittutu poitane, ippadi anathaiya vittutu poitane, peppered by curses for their wives for breaking a happy family. And, sons can take care of their parents even when not living under the same roof.

So, stop this bullshit of "Think of your in-laws as your family," because it's only imposed on Indian women, not on Indian men. Is there any Indian guy who visits his in-laws sweeps the house, helps in the kitchen or goes to pay the bills? No, he gets irritated because the mutton curry that had been specially cooked for him and served to him has no enough salt because he is the mapla - most Indian guys behave like the pannaiyar's son-in-law in the movie Pannaiyarum Padminiyum. The way many Indian men are raised, not told to do housework makes things worse.

Anyway, why should my husband take care of me parents in the first place? I don't need that. I need the enabling of me taking care of my parents with my salary and mobility. The emotional blackmail of, "Don't you think my family as yours?" has gone void because it's grossly one sided.

This doesn't mean she won't spend any money for the household. This is just for the husband and in-laws who think all the salary must only come to them.

Yet, my cousin sister's husband takes care of his widowed mother-in-law - he keeps her at his home along with his mother now that the latter no longer can live alone in the village, managing the house because of age. My aunt goes and lives with her married sons alternately and sometimes she comes to live with my mother and me. But, there are few Indian men like my aunt's son-in-law - he's the type who does what he thinks is right and he doesn't give a fuck about what others think. May his breed grow.