Parenting: The Retirement Plan Called "Beta"

Disclaimer: The incidents and examples mentioned in this blog are shared to reflect certain patterns and should not be seen as a universal truth.

Many Indian, mostly the older generation (1945-1980), believe one thing very strongly

Parenting is not a skill.
It just happens automatically.

Everything comes “naturally.”

But deep inside, without even realising,
we carry one more thing along with it

A full version of patriarchy.

Not loud. Not always visible.
But always running in the background

like an app you never close.

And we don’t question it.

Because for us, if something is old,
it must be right.

In India, when a child is born, we celebrate like a new startup has been launched.

Relatives arrive. Sweets are distributed. Blessings are given.

 

And somewhere in the background, a silent calculation begins.

 

“Boy or girl?”

"Fair or dark skin"

 

Because let’s be honest, this isn’t just childbirth.

This is portfolio allocation.

 

A son, in many households, is not just a child.
He is a long-term investment instrument.

 

No formal documentation, of course. Just emotional paperwork.

Terms and conditions (unspoken but binding):

·       Invest heavily in education 

·       Build his career aggressively 

·       Expect steady returns post-retirement 

 

The pitch sounds simple:

“Beta will take care of us.”

 

Almost like a government backed scheme. 

Low risk. Guaranteed returns.

 

And if you question it, people get offended.

 

“What do you mean expectation? This is love!”

Right, with maturity benefits.

 

 

 

The Daughters are treated like a transferable asset

Loved? Yes.
Cherished? Of course.
Invested in equally?

Let’s not rush.

 

Because somewhere, the default assumption still whispers:

 

“She will go to another house.”

 

Translation:
“Why upgrade an asset that will be transferred?”

 

So the logic becomes beautifully efficient:

·       Emotional investment: Very High 

·       Financial investment: Controlled 

·       Long-term return: Not applicable 

 

Even in educated homes, this thinking doesn’t disappear

They just have gets better vocabulary.

 

“We treat both equally, but practically, you know how things are.”

Yes. We know exactly how things are.

 

 

 

Family Without Daughter

 

There’s also a special category of households, those that never had a daughter.

 

At first glance, it looks like a clean balance sheet.
No “emotional liabilities.” No “wedding expenditures.” No “transferable assets.”

 

Just sons. Pure investments.

Perfect, right?

Well, not exactly.

 

Because perspective here is missing too.

 

When a family has never raised a daughter, they often don’t quite understand what it means to be one.

So, when a daughter-in-law enters the house, she isn’t seen as someone who has left her entire world behind.

 

She is seen as a multi-purpose upgrade.

 

Expected features include:

•        Emotional adjustment without complaints

•        Full participation in household responsibilities

•        Seamless integration into existing family dynamics

•        And, if possible, a parallel professional career

 

Basically, a premium model that runs both office and home, without ever hanging or asking for system updates.

 

Because in theory:
“She is like our daughter.”

In practice:
“Our daughter with responsibilities.”

 

The irony is subtle but sharp.

 

The same family that never experienced raising a daughter now expects their daughter-in-law to carry the emotional weight of being one.

While functioning like support staff.

 

And if she struggles?

Well, clearly:
“She is not adjusting.”

 

Because, obviously, leaving your parents, your space, your identity and starting from zero in a new household.

is just a small lifestyle change.

Nothing major.

 

Family with Multiple Sons

 

Now, if a family has more than one son, things get interesting.

It’s a portfolio diversification strategy

 

Because even investments need ranking.

One becomes:
“The responsible one”

 

Another:
“Thoda careless hai”

Translation:
One is blue-chip.
Other is experimental.

 

Love remains equal, obviously.
Just returns are tracked differently.

 

Everything still works fine, until the son gets married.

 

Suddenly:

·       He has opinions 

·       He has boundaries

 

Unacceptable volatility.

Immediately, analysts (also known as relatives) step in:

 

“He has changed”
“He listens to his wife now”
“She is controlling him”

 

Because clearly, a grown adult adjusting priorities is not maturity.

It’s a system failure.

 

Enter: grandchildren.

 

At this point, you’d expect love to finally become unconditional.
Fresh start. Clean slate. No expectations.

 

But no.

 

The same old lens is carefully preserved and passed down, just like passing family jewelry.

 

Grandparents don’t just see grandchildren as children.
They see them as outcomes.

 

And naturally, the quality check begins.

 

If the child behaves well:
“Good upbringing. Our values are visible.”

 

If the child doesn’t:
“Clearly the mother hasn’t trained them properly.”

 

Because of course, parenting is a one-person department.
And we all know who the default employee is.

The daughter-in-law.

She is also the official manufacturer of the next generation.

Any defect?

Please contact her directly.

And the children?

They quietly inherit the same environment. Evaluated love & conditional affection

So before they even understand family, they understand judgment.

Ideal Son (Investment)

As years pass, the real KPI emerges:

How much is he providing?

 

Emotional connection is good.
Respect is nice.

 

But the main dashboard shows:

·       Income 

·       Contribution 

·       Support 

 

If numbers are strong, you are an “Ideal son”
If numbers drop you had a “Disappointing performance”

Welcome to quarterly parenting reviews.

 

In reality, find a bug in the system 

Now here’s where things get inconvenient.

Real life doesn’t follow the model.

 

Some daughters:

·       Stay connected 

·       Support parents 

·       Show up when needed 

 

Some sons:

·       Don’t 

So the “son = security” theory starts behaving like a bad investment tip.

 

But instead of questioning the model, we blame the market:

“Times have changed.”
“Kids today are selfish.”

 

Yes. The problem is always external.

Never the assumption.

 

The best part? This entire system is inherited.

No one designed it consciously.

 

People just saw it, accepted it, and repeated it.

Like forwarding a WhatsApp message without checking if it’s true.

 

And Then Comes the Twist

Here’s the part no one likes to talk about, let me be the voice of voiceless and vulnerables.

 

Parents who:

·       Invested more in sons 

·       Expected more from sons 

·       Built their future around sons 

 

Sometimes end up disappointed.

Not always. But often enough to notice.

 

And when that happens, the explanation is ready:

“He doesn’t care anymore”
“His wife changed him”
“This generation has no values”

 

All valid excuses.

But incomplete ones.

 

The Uncomfortable Truth

If a child is raised like an asset,
measured by utility,
and conditioned with expectations

then the relationship was never unconditional.

It was structured.

And when structures fail, it feels like betrayal.

But maybe it’s just the system showing its cracks.

 

The irony is almost poetic.

A system built on unequal love,
unequal investment,
and unequal expectations

ends up producing unequal outcomes.

 

And sometimes, what parents experience in old age isn’t sudden neglect.

It’s delayed feedback.

That doesn’t justify mistreatment.

But it does raise a harder question:

If love was conditional from the beginning,
why expect it to become unconditional later?

 

Because in the end, families don’t collapse in one moment.

They slowly reveal what they were built on.

And sometimes, it wasn’t love.

It was expectation, wearing a very convincing disguise.