By David Outten
In a liberal culture like the one promoted by a few of the Entertainment Industry folks in Hollywood
you’re considered a prude to use common sense in examining and explaining social problems like poverty.
In 1926 Emma O. Lundberg, working for the U.S. Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau published a report entitled “Children of Illegitimate Birth and Measures for Their Protection.” She probably wouldn’t be allowed to even visit the Department of Labor today. Her comments included:
“‘The fundamental rights of childhood,’ in the words of a resolution adopted by the child-welfare conferences held under the auspices of the United States Children’s Bureau, ‘are normal home life, opportunities for education, recreation, vocational preparation for life, and moral, religious, and physical development in harmony with American ideals.’ For centuries the child born out of wedlock has been deprived of these rights, and particularly of that most basic of all rights, a normal home life, with all that home implies of parental care and affection. Though guiltless themselves, such children have been made to suffer for the sins of their parents and for those social conditions which foster misconduct.”
Imagine a government representative today willing to mention the “sins” of parents or to include “religion” as an important part of normal home life. Of course, her deep concerns were for the 2.3% of children born out of wedlock in the United States in 1923. Today, we can no longer discuses “sin” in government documents and the rate of out of wedlock births is closer to 40%. Some in the Entertainment Industry work overtime promoting the idea that the activity resulting in unwed births is no longer “misconduct.” Even at an illegitimacy rate of 2.3% Lundberg saw the impact on government.
“An important part of the problem of child dependency is concerned with children born out of wedlock. These children are usually, by the circumstances of their birth, denied normal home life and parental care. Illegitimacy contributes largely to the burden the public must bear for the care and support of its weaker members. Factors such poor health, low mentality, immorality, and low economic status of the mother, the father, or the grandparents often make it impossible for the child to be provided for without the assistance of social agencies. The fact that in a large proportion of cases the father contributes either nothing at all or inadequate amounts results in placing upon the mother a double burden of care and support.”
“Immorality” is a word too many people in the mass media of entertainment have helped train Americans not to use in public (unless describing a “homophobe”). However, if we are ever to reduce poverty, crime and the high cost of government the immorality that leads to unwed births needs to be addressed. Lundberg was bold in analyzing the cause.
In considering illegitimate parenthood from the point of view of reduction of the problem it is necessary to analyze the factors that lead to the condition. Girls and women who become mothers out of wedlock may be divided into the following types:
(a) The mentally subnormal girl who lacks controlling inhibitory instincts and is an easy victim because of helplessness.
(b ) the young, susceptible girl, unprotected from dangers, who gets into trouble because of lack of understanding or through force.
(c) the more mature young woman of good character who is led by false promises or who weakly or rashly follows an instinct that under other conditions would have been normal and social;
(d) the really delinquent girl or woman who knowing chooses antisocial conduct, her illegitimate maternity being only an incidental evidence of repeated immorality. The last type undoubtedly recruited to a considerable extent from the previous ones.
By Lundberg’s analysis it’s dangerous to undermine “controlling inhibitory instincts.” In her words, to do so leaves “girls susceptible and unprotected.” Quite frankly, some people in the Entertainment Industry are recruiting girls into what Lundberg would call “delinquency and repeated immorality.”
We live in a debased culture where the common sense expressed in 1923 by Emma Lundberg would be called “insensitive.” For even mentioning “sin” and “immorality” she’d be accused of being a right wing bigot – opposed to the separation of church and state.
This perverse thinking only increases the unwed birth rate (as well as poverty and crime). It greatly increases the cost and power of government.
The few Entertainment Industry folks who promote such a perspective are not elected at the ballot box. They’re elected at the box office, the video store and the remote control. If you’re tired of seeing Hollywood promote the kind of thinking that leads to more and more illegitimacy, vote against it. Go to www.movieguide.org, to see which movies have solid moral values and which don’t, and then support those that will make America the kind of country where you want to reside.Do you enjoy articles like this? Click here to become a monthly partner and receive 15 movies for free!