Home Explore The Ancient Adage: Why Do the Wealthy Avoid Having More Sons, and...

Explore

The Ancient Adage: Why Do the Wealthy Avoid Having More Sons, and the Poor, More Daughters?

10 September, 2024

In the past, a strong emphasis on inheritance and ancestral worship further contributed to the growth and prosperity of families.

Wealth Doesn’t Need More Sons, Poverty Doesn’t Need More Daughters

However, there is another popular saying among the people, “Wealth doesn’t need more sons, and poverty doesn’t need more daughters.” What does having children have to do with wealth or poverty?

What is the reasoning behind “wealth doesn’t need more sons”?

The literal meaning of the first half of this proverb is that wealthy and powerful families should have fewer sons. It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean such families can’t have any sons but rather that they should have fewer.

Some may be misled. If a wealthy family has the financial means and a stable family environment, they may believe that having more sons is advantageous. Especially in the distant past, when carrying on the family name was of utmost importance, why would there be a saying that suggests otherwise?

This perspective stems from the feudal society, where inheritance played a significant role. Royal families inherited countries, and wealthy families inherited estates.

Even in a typical family, when a son grows up and starts his own family, the original family unit disperses. This dispersal can lead to disputes, especially if there is substantial wealth involved.

As the proverb goes, “Birds die for food, and people die for money.” Greed and discord can tear even the closest of siblings apart.

With more siblings, the competition intensifies. Ultimately, a larger family size dilutes the family’s wealth, and some may act out of self-interest at the expense of their kin.

Of course, this ancient saying also carries another message: it advises wealthy families to focus on quality over quantity when it comes to children.

Raising one or two children adequately is more manageable than spreading yourself thin across many. Parents from affluent families often have less time to devote to their children’s education due to their busy work lives, complex social obligations, and other commitments.

Consequently, if the children do not receive adequate education and there are too many of them, it can lead to significant problems.

Hence, “wealth doesn’t need more sons” encourages wealthy families not to have more sons but rather to carefully nurture the ones they have and ensure they develop their full potential.

What does “poverty doesn’t need more daughters” imply?

In the past, there was a strong bias favoring sons over daughters, and daughters were often seen as “losers.”

This sentiment arose because, at that time, women could not carry on the family name like men, and once they married, they became part of their husband’s family.

Additionally, there was another crucial factor at play—the dowry system. When a daughter married, her family had to provide a dowry.

In this context, it’s easier to understand why “poverty doesn’t need more daughters.” For families struggling financially, having daughters meant having more mouths to feed, and in those days, women couldn’t contribute financially to the household.

Having more daughters was seen as an added burden, especially considering the substantial dowry that had to be provided when they married. In contrast, if the child was a son, even in a poor family, he could contribute to the family’s income as he grew up, potentially improving their financial situation.

Moreover, men were not only responsible for carrying on the family name, but they also had the potential to gain honor and glory for their families through hard work and academic achievement. Hence, the saying “poverty doesn’t need more daughters.”

However, times have changed, and so have societal attitudes. Even in rural areas, sons are not necessarily favored over daughters, and many parents are content to have daughters. Daughters tend to be more caring and attentive to their families than sons.

Unlike in the past, many modern parents don’t place as much importance on carrying on the family name. Moreover, even if they have a son, the current cost of marrying him off is high, and if he doesn’t marry, the effort put into carrying on the family name is wasted.

Frequently asked questions

The ancient adage suggests that the wealthy prioritize wealth accumulation and preservation, often opting for a single heir to carry on their legacy. This strategy ensures a concentrated pool of resources for one individual, maximizing their chances of success and maintaining the family’s social standing. In contrast, the poor may view children as a source of labor and potential caregivers, leading to larger family sizes with a higher proportion of daughters, who are often expected to provide domestic support.

Birth order can significantly influence the distribution of wealth and the shaping of family legacies. In many traditional societies, the eldest son is typically favored as the primary heir, inheriting a substantial portion of the family’s wealth and bearing the responsibility of continuing the family name and upholding its honor. Younger sons may receive smaller inheritances or be encouraged to forge their own paths, sometimes through military or religious service. Daughters, regardless of birth order, often receive dowries upon marriage, which serve as a form of financial security and social status.

These ancient practices have contributed to enduring societal norms and expectations around the world. In some cultures, a strong son preference persists, leading to gender imbalances and, in extreme cases, sex-selective abortions. The tradition of dowry practices, though intended to provide financial security for daughters, has sometimes been exploited and can contribute to financial strain on families. Additionally, the pressure on eldest sons to succeed and uphold family honor can be immense, influencing career choices and marriage decisions.

Cultural and societal expectations can significantly shape family planning decisions, often leading to unintended consequences. For example, the pressure to produce a male heir in societies with a strong son preference may result in sex-selective abortions or the neglect and abandonment of female infants. Additionally, the expectation for daughters to provide domestic support or care for aging parents can limit their educational and career opportunities, perpetuating gender inequalities. These practices can have far-reaching impacts on gender dynamics, family structures, and societal progress.

While the ancient adage and its variations hold sway in many parts of the world, there are exceptions and evolving societal dynamics worth noting. In some cultures, particularly in Western societies, the preference for smaller family sizes and equal inheritance distribution among children, regardless of gender, is becoming more prevalent. This shift reflects changing societal values, increasing gender equality, and a focus on individual achievement. Additionally, the rise of female empowerment and challenges to traditional gender roles are prompting reevaluations of inheritance practices and family structures.