What did Adam Smith think of the effect of wealth on women and family? This is an interesting question as many American guys complain that American society has become so wealthy that it has corrupted women’s ability to provide a happy family life.  They feel American women are spoiled and do not make good mother’s and wives.  I am staying out of this one, as I do not know anything about it. It is just what my American friends complain about.   I am  American and Polish and my wife Polish.  I am  very happy with my marriage and family life.  Most if not all the guys I know here in Poland are very happy with their marriage and the super low divorce rate I think confirms this.

What was  Adam Smith’s take on Women and wealth? Lets take a look.

Poverty… seems even to be favourable to generation (having children). A half-starved
Highland (Scottish) woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a
pampered fine lady (a women who has wealth) is often incapable of bearing  (having) any, and is generally
exhausted by two or three.

Therefore, Adam Smith says basically if a woman has too much money and wealth then the population of this society declines or at least stays even.  This can be seen in developed counties in the world like Sweden. However in poorer countries women have more children. Its not the Scottish Highlands, today but maybe a country like India.  Adam Smith seems to put the onus on women.  Simply that women become too obsessed with the pursuit of pleasure to have children. Further, and easy life weakens basic primal strengths.

Think how many movie stars wait until they are 40 years old until they have a child.  Would you not rather marry a healthy Eastern European countryside girl with an education than some 90210 girl? I would I did.

Adam Smith on Women with wealth

I like to go back to the primary source, that is the Wealth of Nations:

Barrenness (women not having children), so frequent among women of
fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station (the poor or working class). Luxury, in the
fair sex, while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment (women going shopping and having a nice life in the suburbs), seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of
generation (having a family).

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this. I am just saying that Adam Smith believed excess wealth corrupts a woman’s ability to have a family.  I am also saying I married a brainy educated girls from Eastern Europe and I am very happy, while many of my American friends are not happy in their family life or they themselves come from broken homes. Wealth’s affect on nations is not always obvious to the people living in the society, so that is why I thought I would quote Adam Smith for a more objective view.

I think wealth has an effect on women, who are the guardians of the family. The people who live in the society do not see as they are too close to the issue. However, if you read Adam Smith on Women you can see it with more objetivity. Agree or disagree, let me think what you thoughts are?

Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent,
marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved
Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a
pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally
exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of
fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury, in the
fair sex, while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment, seems
always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of
generation.