IDK I think this is kind of a Rorschach test. You could easily interpret people who disagree as thinking that caring for the elderly is the responsibility of society as a collective and not a responsibility of individuals - something I'd think a lot of people here would be sympathetic to.
Yeah most of the states with a low score have (or had at some point in the near past) a functioning social safety net which likely includes elderly care, or people are just generally rich enough to afford proper care in their old days.
The ones with the high score overwhelmingly are too poor to have a functional social safety net, especially for the elderly, so old people don't really have many people to rely on other than their children.
It's not and these results are aligned with the western type of lifestyle we (in the Eastern Europe) have been bombarded with constantly through media, where you get kicked out of the family house one way or the other at earliest age possible and then visit your parents once a year for some "annoying" event. Because being with parents is apparently annoying, shows you are not "independent", or successful, or whatever Angloid/western nonsense. It is absolutely not surprising they don't care about their parents that much at all.
The question doesn't ask if you care about your parents. That's what I mean about a Rorschach test - it seems like you're projecting your own thoughts onto data that could be interpreted in several ways
I mean the vibes of this obviously go another way but I'd disagree on it if it's stated this plainly.
I don't think there's an inherent responsibility to take care of your ill parents. I'd take care of mine, cause I like em but if your parents sucked ass throughout your life, fuck em. Nobody asks to be born.
if my parents are sick, I wanna be there helping them. They cared for me when I couldn't take care of myself, it is my duty to care for them when they can't. Yes, medical care and trained professionals should be present for some of this, maybe most of this if I don't have the time or money, but I should be there for at least some of it, and it's definitely where I should be and want to be. and anyone that says "I shouldn't care for my parents, that's society's job" does not care for their family and lacks key social bonding beliefs.
I hate to tell you this but liberalization was a fuck and did a number on a lot of ex-soviet states. In addition, if you're a poor country your horizon for possibility is necessarily more contracted, so you're more likely to hear the question about a child's responsibility in opposition to nobody's responsibility (or the parent's responsibly), as opposed to a community's responsibility.
Anyways I'm not suggesting anything other than the question can be interpreted in different ways.
IDK I think this is kind of a Rorschach test. You could easily interpret people who disagree as thinking that caring for the elderly is the responsibility of society as a collective and not a responsibility of individuals - something I'd think a lot of people here would be sympathetic to.
Yeah most of the states with a low score have (or had at some point in the near past) a functioning social safety net which likely includes elderly care, or people are just generally rich enough to afford proper care in their old days.
The ones with the high score overwhelmingly are too poor to have a functional social safety net, especially for the elderly, so old people don't really have many people to rely on other than their children.
I'm not saying cultural differences doesn't exist but a lot of this map can be explained with the quality and availability of elder care.
It's not and these results are aligned with the western type of lifestyle we (in the Eastern Europe) have been bombarded with constantly through media, where you get kicked out of the family house one way or the other at earliest age possible and then visit your parents once a year for some "annoying" event. Because being with parents is apparently annoying, shows you are not "independent", or successful, or whatever Angloid/western nonsense. It is absolutely not surprising they don't care about their parents that much at all.
The question doesn't ask if you care about your parents. That's what I mean about a Rorschach test - it seems like you're projecting your own thoughts onto data that could be interpreted in several ways
You are not making any sense. It literally is about care.
"Caring for" =/= "caring about"
I mean the vibes of this obviously go another way but I'd disagree on it if it's stated this plainly.
I don't think there's an inherent responsibility to take care of your ill parents. I'd take care of mine, cause I like em but if your parents sucked ass throughout your life, fuck em. Nobody asks to be born.
if my parents are sick, I wanna be there helping them. They cared for me when I couldn't take care of myself, it is my duty to care for them when they can't. Yes, medical care and trained professionals should be present for some of this, maybe most of this if I don't have the time or money, but I should be there for at least some of it, and it's definitely where I should be and want to be. and anyone that says "I shouldn't care for my parents, that's society's job" does not care for their family and lacks key social bonding beliefs.
That seems incompatible with where there is high agreement.
How? States with the strongest safety nets mostly disagree
Just think it's odd to claim there is lower social solidarity in every former european socialist state, and France than in Scandinagian countries.
I hate to tell you this but liberalization was a fuck and did a number on a lot of ex-soviet states. In addition, if you're a poor country your horizon for possibility is necessarily more contracted, so you're more likely to hear the question about a child's responsibility in opposition to nobody's responsibility (or the parent's responsibly), as opposed to a community's responsibility.
Anyways I'm not suggesting anything other than the question can be interpreted in different ways.