If the in-laws gave both apartments to the younger brother-in-law, does the son-in-law still need to support them?

As a son-in-law, do you still need to support your parents-in-law? The parents-in-law gave both apartments to the younger brother-in-law

Summary: Around me, many parents' apartments, and my own parents are the same, the apartment just goes to the son. (We are also demolition and relocation households.) A married-out daughter simply gets nothing at all. Unless before she was married out, the demolition happened to occur and she had a person's share or her household registration was there, then she could get an apartment allocated. If there is no apartment, some parents have a lot of money, and when they distribute the money they give it to the son and not a cent to the daughter. The daughter does not complain either, because the custom is just like that.

First of all, consider that it does not matter if the son-in-law provides for the elderly. The son in your family is a son-in-law in someone else's family; if it were all reversed, it would be the same. Property would also have to be reversed, with the property coming from the daughter and son-in-law. In the future, marrying a rich man is useless; marrying a rich daughter-in-law is the right path. And from human nature, feeling that because parents gave birth to a child, the child owes the parents, giving birth and raising children is a biological instinct and trait, and love is an emotion that can be felt. Do you think a daughter can still feel love from such an unfair practice? She will probably instead think it would have been better not to give birth to me in the first place.

At the same time, do not use the tone of being kind to others. Such words may still have some effect when said to children, but once the children each establish their own families, involving daughters-in-law, sons-in-law and the families behind them, a complex web of relationships forms. If the parents cannot be relatively fair to their several children, relying on this simple ethics alone cannot hold it together. Filial piety is a basic principle we should all follow; of all virtues, filial piety comes first, but one must distinguish this from blind filial piety.

Whoever benefits, bears the burden. I really detest a certain kind of person who is always ready to morally blackmail others. They do not understand any situation and do not ask right from wrong. They just advise you to be magnanimous and generous. You should stay far away from such people, because when lightning strikes them, it will involve you too! If your own circumstances allow, it is still necessary to take on some obligations! If you do not have that financial strength and are still carrying a mortgage and raising children, then you must act according to your means! You can grit your teeth and endure it if you suffer a bit yourself! But is that fair to your own children? Especially when you see your father-in-law's grandson dressed well and eating well!

Conclusion: Finally, I want to say that a son-in-law also has parents to support, and the money he earns is all hard-earned. The parents-in-law gave not a cent, so giving a little on holidays is fine, after all they raised the wife, but when it comes to support, they should still look to their own son! Everything is mutual. Some things are not about whether it is worth doing this way, but about whether it should be done this way. Some people say, since the parents gave all their assets to the son, why should the daughter still care for them in sickness and old age? Because they are the parents, and as children there is an obligation, and legally it is the same.