Again men. Not really.

That may be what the married family members are thinking, but it's still ridiculous too.

Using my aunt for an example again. Her not marrying meant that she was the one who stayed and took care of their parents. But Papa lived to be 93. Grandma lives to be in her 80s. So here you see that now that people are living longer, unless a younger family member dedicated themselves to you, even if you had children, if they all have children too, they won't be able to care for you in your old age guaranteed. They'll have moved off a lot of times to raise that family.

My great GF died relatively young, and my great GM was looked after collectively but she stayed vibrant and able to care for herself until she died in her mid 80s.

I've got another great aunt who took care of her parents and her live in aunt in their old age, then finished raising the children of her brother when he and his wife died in a car crash, they and her youngest sister took care of her in her old age.

Another great aunt was cares for by her nephew after he got divorced.

There's been a fair amount of single women in my family over the last 100 years. They all carrs for family, either parents or children in large families and we're cared for in return. That's how it works. Reciprocity.

I've only got one great aunt who also married very late in life for a short time u til he died and then lived alone and went I to care in old age finally. She wanted to; she was a curmudgeon and she had the money to live in a ritzy assisted living for nearly twenty years before she had to go to the nursing home for the last 6 months or so.

The point being, we all have more family beyond the children we have. If you invest in your family, at large, they'll invest in you.

It's typically men who find themselves alone with no one to look after them because they don't look after family when they're young because they'd rather play Lord of the manor instead of being a part of a family that is mutual and supportive.