The values of American culture & the Constitution force the U.S. government to implement any program of questionable ethics in appealing camouflage to disguise the true intent of the program.
For example, in the 1920s, the U.S. government sided with a method of child psychology that opposed normal parental affection and the natural maternal response.
(You can read more about that here: The Past 200 Years of Chinuch I: The Non-Jewish World.)
Most oddly & disturbingly, the U.S. government distributed Infant Care pamphlets to doctors, which warned against “excessive” parental affection, advising parents to kiss their child only on the forehead and to limit hugs.
A lot of this was somehow meant to prevent disease and weakness.
An entire generation of young new mothers received these pamphlets with the stern warnings of how going against these stipulations would ruin their children, both in character and in body.
Though high school graduates of the 1920s were better educated than the average college graduate of today, these young mothers revered the education & authority of the doctors handing them these government-approved Infant Care pamphlets, feeling that both the government authorities & their doctors knew so much more than they did.
These pamphlets inculcated mothers with the belief that children (including infants) were manipulative and that tending to one's child in the natural, traditional way women always did would ruin one's child.
As stated (and explained) in the post linked above, I believe that a lot of the Sixties revolution was the result of this "children-as-manipulative-demons" approach to parenting.
When I described this government initiative to re-program young mothers against their natural instincts (and against generations of maternal experience & wisdom) to a chassidish friend from England, she grew thoughtful for several moments, then said, "I wonder what the American government's interest was in pushing this approach to child-rearing?"
The question of why never occurred to me. I knew it was all wrong, but why indeed did the U.S. government jump onto that particular bandwagon AND promote it so intensely?
My friend continued, "I mean, why would the government care so much about whether mothers rocked their babies or kissed them or played with them? Why was that so important to the government?"
I didn't have an answer and I still don't—though I suspect it connects to several nefarious programs activated around that time.
For example, in the 1920s, the U.S. government sided with a method of child psychology that opposed normal parental affection and the natural maternal response.
(You can read more about that here: The Past 200 Years of Chinuch I: The Non-Jewish World.)
Most oddly & disturbingly, the U.S. government distributed Infant Care pamphlets to doctors, which warned against “excessive” parental affection, advising parents to kiss their child only on the forehead and to limit hugs.
A lot of this was somehow meant to prevent disease and weakness.
An entire generation of young new mothers received these pamphlets with the stern warnings of how going against these stipulations would ruin their children, both in character and in body.
Though high school graduates of the 1920s were better educated than the average college graduate of today, these young mothers revered the education & authority of the doctors handing them these government-approved Infant Care pamphlets, feeling that both the government authorities & their doctors knew so much more than they did.
These pamphlets inculcated mothers with the belief that children (including infants) were manipulative and that tending to one's child in the natural, traditional way women always did would ruin one's child.
As stated (and explained) in the post linked above, I believe that a lot of the Sixties revolution was the result of this "children-as-manipulative-demons" approach to parenting.
When I described this government initiative to re-program young mothers against their natural instincts (and against generations of maternal experience & wisdom) to a chassidish friend from England, she grew thoughtful for several moments, then said, "I wonder what the American government's interest was in pushing this approach to child-rearing?"
The question of why never occurred to me. I knew it was all wrong, but why indeed did the U.S. government jump onto that particular bandwagon AND promote it so intensely?
My friend continued, "I mean, why would the government care so much about whether mothers rocked their babies or kissed them or played with them? Why was that so important to the government?"
I didn't have an answer and I still don't—though I suspect it connects to several nefarious programs activated around that time.
"Hi, We're the Government—and We're Here to Help!"
Woodrow Wilson, a dubious character, served as President of the United States from 1913-1921.
Initially, he focused on nature conservation (always sounds nice, but tends to lead to particularly fierce wildfires & the elimination of species) and set up a central bank: the U.S. Federal Reserve—which seems to be the reason why Americans ended up unable save for retirement on their own (inflation); once upon a time, you could save up.
In general, Wilson sought to involve the Federal government (as opposed to local government by state) in all aspects of American life: banking, agriculture, railroad & roads, work hours, and more.
As lovely & caring as it all sounds, these policies and they way they were implemented are similar to what Hitler yemach shemo did at the beginning of his reign.
Initially, he focused on nature conservation (always sounds nice, but tends to lead to particularly fierce wildfires & the elimination of species) and set up a central bank: the U.S. Federal Reserve—which seems to be the reason why Americans ended up unable save for retirement on their own (inflation); once upon a time, you could save up.
In general, Wilson sought to involve the Federal government (as opposed to local government by state) in all aspects of American life: banking, agriculture, railroad & roads, work hours, and more.
As lovely & caring as it all sounds, these policies and they way they were implemented are similar to what Hitler yemach shemo did at the beginning of his reign.
The Typhoid Mary of Foreign Policy
Wilson also started intervening in the politics of other countries, sending American troops to Central & South America.
While this was always done in the name of peace-making for the good of those countries, a deeper look into it indicates Wilson's desire to dominate.
For example, during this time, Wilson managed to create the Panama Canal, which enabled new economic opportunities for the U.S.A. and also made it easier for the U.S. Navy to navigate between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.
So that's at least partly why Wilson insisted on intervening so much in that region.
(Ever notice how extremely manipulative people always coo that everything they're doing to benefit themselves is actually all "for yooooooou"?)
He initially responded to World War I via neutrality & diplomacy, but when Wilson decided to enter the war, he set up an all-encompassing conscription bill to force young American men into the draft, with local boards set up to determine who should be forced into the military.
During that time, the federal budget soared from $1 billion dollars to $19 billion dollars within a 3-year period.
Wilson also increased taxes with the top tax rate reaching 77% and taxes increased on both businesses & individuals.
Wilson's Treasury Secretary came up with the idea to issue low-interest war bonds, but this backfired by causing a leap in inflation.
In 1917, Wilson created the first propaganda organization called "the United States Committee on Public Information."
To control free speech, Wilson pushed through 2 more Acts to prevent people from speaking against Britain or the War, or in favor of Germany.
(Even if you agree with those opinions, why enact them as official government policy? What if any of them were wrong? Why can't there be open discussion & debate?)
At the end of the war in 1918, Wilson called to establish the League of Nations to help govern the world.
Also, the post-war Wilson traveled to Europe and spent 6 months there, working out a peace treaty.
That would be inconceivable behavior for a President nowadays, but is even more appalling in that time of poor communication technology.
How can a President run a country while absent—especially in those days?
Six months! (With only a 2-week visit during that entire period.)
In Europe, Wilson either participated in or orchestrated policies with negative far-reaching effects, such as forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, increased colonization in various countries by foreign authorities, and the creation of new states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).
(These effects were often only felt years later, and, for example, many claim the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with the rise of the Nazi party later.)
Not to mention that all his investment in "peace" policies did nothing to prevent World War II.
On the contrary, as in the case of Germany, his policies may even have contributed to World War II.
While this was always done in the name of peace-making for the good of those countries, a deeper look into it indicates Wilson's desire to dominate.
For example, during this time, Wilson managed to create the Panama Canal, which enabled new economic opportunities for the U.S.A. and also made it easier for the U.S. Navy to navigate between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.
So that's at least partly why Wilson insisted on intervening so much in that region.
(Ever notice how extremely manipulative people always coo that everything they're doing to benefit themselves is actually all "for yooooooou"?)
He initially responded to World War I via neutrality & diplomacy, but when Wilson decided to enter the war, he set up an all-encompassing conscription bill to force young American men into the draft, with local boards set up to determine who should be forced into the military.
During that time, the federal budget soared from $1 billion dollars to $19 billion dollars within a 3-year period.
Wilson also increased taxes with the top tax rate reaching 77% and taxes increased on both businesses & individuals.
Wilson's Treasury Secretary came up with the idea to issue low-interest war bonds, but this backfired by causing a leap in inflation.
In 1917, Wilson created the first propaganda organization called "the United States Committee on Public Information."
To control free speech, Wilson pushed through 2 more Acts to prevent people from speaking against Britain or the War, or in favor of Germany.
(Even if you agree with those opinions, why enact them as official government policy? What if any of them were wrong? Why can't there be open discussion & debate?)
At the end of the war in 1918, Wilson called to establish the League of Nations to help govern the world.
Also, the post-war Wilson traveled to Europe and spent 6 months there, working out a peace treaty.
That would be inconceivable behavior for a President nowadays, but is even more appalling in that time of poor communication technology.
How can a President run a country while absent—especially in those days?
Six months! (With only a 2-week visit during that entire period.)
In Europe, Wilson either participated in or orchestrated policies with negative far-reaching effects, such as forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, increased colonization in various countries by foreign authorities, and the creation of new states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).
(These effects were often only felt years later, and, for example, many claim the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with the rise of the Nazi party later.)
Not to mention that all his investment in "peace" policies did nothing to prevent World War II.
On the contrary, as in the case of Germany, his policies may even have contributed to World War II.
American Regression under Wilson
With Wilson's focus on everything except his own country, things started to implode domestically.
Demobilization of American troops occurred with poor planning; troops returned in chaos with little money or benefits.
Strikes in a variety of sectors occurred, some turning violent.
Race riots, in which whites attacked blacks, broke out.
Race riots weren't surprising seeing as Wilson was an unabashed white supremacist who promoted the Ku Klux Klan and supervised the racial segregation of the federal workforce.
In fact, Wilson's Presidency not only halted black advancement, but even eliminated previous strides made.
Wilson also hosted the showing of the pro-KKK movie, Birth of a Nation (originally titled The Clansmen) at the White House in 1915.
Another disturbing aspect of Wilson's Presidency is that when he became bed-ridden from illness, his wife took over.
Throughout the autumn of 1919, she decided which government officials deserved direct contact with Wilson and all information & documents & proposals & bills went through her veto first.
Furthermore, Wilson's condition (about which a neurosurgeon later said consisted of "disorders of emotion, impaired impulse control, and defective judgment" after examining Wilson's medical records) was hidden from the American public, who had no idea that their leader was incapacitated and that the country was being ruled by his wife.
(This situation caused many to later say that Edith Wilson was America's first female President.)
Wilson wished to run for a third term (at that time, no term limits existed for the President), but by 1920, the American public discovered his incapacitating illness and wisely rejected him.
The end of the Wilson Presidency saw race riots, a setback in the previous advancement for all non-whites, vastly increased American global interventionism, new & invasive government laws & policies that could not be retracted as easily as they were passed, inflation, unemployment, higher & expanded taxes, the encroachment of Communism on within America, and general civil unrest.
Most notably, the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 raced out of control during Wilson's administration.
Demobilization of American troops occurred with poor planning; troops returned in chaos with little money or benefits.
Strikes in a variety of sectors occurred, some turning violent.
Race riots, in which whites attacked blacks, broke out.
Race riots weren't surprising seeing as Wilson was an unabashed white supremacist who promoted the Ku Klux Klan and supervised the racial segregation of the federal workforce.
In fact, Wilson's Presidency not only halted black advancement, but even eliminated previous strides made.
Wilson also hosted the showing of the pro-KKK movie, Birth of a Nation (originally titled The Clansmen) at the White House in 1915.
Another disturbing aspect of Wilson's Presidency is that when he became bed-ridden from illness, his wife took over.
Throughout the autumn of 1919, she decided which government officials deserved direct contact with Wilson and all information & documents & proposals & bills went through her veto first.
Furthermore, Wilson's condition (about which a neurosurgeon later said consisted of "disorders of emotion, impaired impulse control, and defective judgment" after examining Wilson's medical records) was hidden from the American public, who had no idea that their leader was incapacitated and that the country was being ruled by his wife.
(This situation caused many to later say that Edith Wilson was America's first female President.)
Wilson wished to run for a third term (at that time, no term limits existed for the President), but by 1920, the American public discovered his incapacitating illness and wisely rejected him.
The end of the Wilson Presidency saw race riots, a setback in the previous advancement for all non-whites, vastly increased American global interventionism, new & invasive government laws & policies that could not be retracted as easily as they were passed, inflation, unemployment, higher & expanded taxes, the encroachment of Communism on within America, and general civil unrest.
Most notably, the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 raced out of control during Wilson's administration.
Limiting All American Freedoms—Except the Freedom to Get Drunk as a Skunk
Intriguingly, it seems that the only far-reaching Federal bill that Wilson didn't want to sign was the Prohibition Act.
Prohibition banned the sale, transportation, import, and production of alcoholic beverages. (It exempted wine used for religious purposes, like kiddush, or alcohol for medical purposes, etc.)
Nationally, private ownership & consumption were okay, although some local governments forbade that too.
Despite the over-reaching invasive aspects that Wilson seemed to favor in every other facet of American life, Wilson not only opposed Prohibition, but sought to create a bill to prevent the enforcement of Prohibition.
Throughout my life, teachers & adult family members presented Prohibition as a silly act that everyone ignored and which only worsened things in America.
After all, my grandparents' first date together was in a speakeasy (underground illegal pub) in New York, something they mentioned with chuckles of pride.
(I also thought this was really cool when I was a secular teenager.)
In addition, I only heard about how Prohibition actually increased crime (at least, organized crime) and caused a black market industry to pop up.
Also, the production & consumption of alcohol (banned in some states) is understandably difficult to govern because it can be hidden so easily. (Unlike drugs, alcohol can easily be made at home using normal ingredients, like some kind of food & sugar.)
Economically, Prohibition caused the shut-down of many businesses associated with alcohol production, like liquor stores, refineries, vineyards, saloons, etc., (although Coors successfully transitioned into producing malted milk & porcelain, and grape growers transitioned into making grape concentrate).
It seems like violent crime rose during Prohibition, with some studies showing that violent crime, theft, homicide, and drug addiction rose during that time.
However, other historians attribute that to urbanization, which was also on the increase during that time.
It could also be that violent crime increased among criminals, but not in the general public.
Also, organized crime continued to thrive long after the Prohibition, as we see today, so it's not clear that Prohibition in itself caused organized crime.
While most historians agree that the beginning of Prohibition saw a decrease in all the negative aspects related to alcohol, the black market industry and its accompanying crime seemed to rise in conjunction with the Volstead Act in 1919, which sought to both enforce & intensify Prohibition, but ultimately didn't succeed so well. (Wilson also opposed this enforcement.)
Wilson's entire response to Prohibition is out of character because while he set up loan banks & government assistance for farmers (which ended up controlling farmers), he did not do so for the now-defunct alcohol industry, nor did he fund any programs for those seeking treatment for alcohol addiction.
Overall crime decreased 1849-1951, so some historians say this means that Prohibition didn't really raise crime rates. After all, the overall crime rate was on the decrease and continued to decrease.
Furthermore, some very real benefits occurred.
Some alcohol-related industries successfully transitioned into producing other products (like Coors). Grape-growers benefited from Prohibition, though not always for the right reason: Consumers bought the grape concentrate to make illegal alcohol.
Other industries also flourished, like the producers of fruit juices & soft drinks, who filled the gap left by the elimination of alcoholic beverages.
And the following decreased dramatically:
These stats are not surprising considering how often you see today disorderly conduct & vagrancy & hospital admissions in which at least one person is clearly intoxicated.
With a father at home rather than at the bar, controlling wayward sons no longer fell so solely on the financially struggling overwhelmed mother (who also not struggling financially as much as before because now she had a sober husband who earned regular wages—wages which were now available to spend on necessities rather than beer & whiskey).
So that's another reason why lack of drinking decreases delinquency.
Furthermore, with more men working stably (rather than missing work due to drinking or hangovers or alcohol-induced illness) and NOT spending wages on alcohol, people had more money to spend, which boosted the economy.
And it's heartbreaking to read that infant mortality was so affected by Prohibition. The implication is that drunk adults kill babies, and it's awful to realize that caretakers would endanger babies in such a way.
But the truth is that infant mortality went down during Prohibition, then rose again after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
In addition, Prohibition wiped out the entire saloon culture. It created a new form of socializing in which drinking played no part, and this norm continues among many Americans today.
Case in point: Until the 1970s, American drinking levels did not return to the high levels recorded in 1900-15.
And while the American public later wanted Prohibition repealed (initially, voters were so happy with it, they voted in the Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928 based on his pro-Prohibition stance), a wide swathe of Americans had expressed concern for over a century about the effects of drinking.
From at least the 1800s, American women made a strong stand in this area.
After all, women especially suffered the effects of drunkenness: noise & violence of local saloons (which were also more prone to fires, which endangered the mostly wooden structures nearby), domestic violence, poverty as the man of the house drank away his wages, and caring for a husband in poor physical health who died prematurely due to drinking—not to mention dealing with sons doing the same.
Alcohol always did & still does play a part in social dysfunction: accidents, poverty, abuse, deaths, violence, and crime—so much is alcohol-related.
It's odd that Wilson, who intervened so aggressively in foreign affairs & invasive rights-violating government programs, showed such apathy in the fight against alcohol abuse.
With his love of government over-reach, he could easily have fought the organized crime & black-market industry, yet Wilson not only refused to get involved, but even tried to oppose the Prohibition and its enforcement.
(Note: A lot of well-researched information on Prohibition can be found here.)
Prohibition banned the sale, transportation, import, and production of alcoholic beverages. (It exempted wine used for religious purposes, like kiddush, or alcohol for medical purposes, etc.)
Nationally, private ownership & consumption were okay, although some local governments forbade that too.
Despite the over-reaching invasive aspects that Wilson seemed to favor in every other facet of American life, Wilson not only opposed Prohibition, but sought to create a bill to prevent the enforcement of Prohibition.
Throughout my life, teachers & adult family members presented Prohibition as a silly act that everyone ignored and which only worsened things in America.
After all, my grandparents' first date together was in a speakeasy (underground illegal pub) in New York, something they mentioned with chuckles of pride.
(I also thought this was really cool when I was a secular teenager.)
In addition, I only heard about how Prohibition actually increased crime (at least, organized crime) and caused a black market industry to pop up.
Also, the production & consumption of alcohol (banned in some states) is understandably difficult to govern because it can be hidden so easily. (Unlike drugs, alcohol can easily be made at home using normal ingredients, like some kind of food & sugar.)
Economically, Prohibition caused the shut-down of many businesses associated with alcohol production, like liquor stores, refineries, vineyards, saloons, etc., (although Coors successfully transitioned into producing malted milk & porcelain, and grape growers transitioned into making grape concentrate).
It seems like violent crime rose during Prohibition, with some studies showing that violent crime, theft, homicide, and drug addiction rose during that time.
However, other historians attribute that to urbanization, which was also on the increase during that time.
It could also be that violent crime increased among criminals, but not in the general public.
Also, organized crime continued to thrive long after the Prohibition, as we see today, so it's not clear that Prohibition in itself caused organized crime.
While most historians agree that the beginning of Prohibition saw a decrease in all the negative aspects related to alcohol, the black market industry and its accompanying crime seemed to rise in conjunction with the Volstead Act in 1919, which sought to both enforce & intensify Prohibition, but ultimately didn't succeed so well. (Wilson also opposed this enforcement.)
Wilson's entire response to Prohibition is out of character because while he set up loan banks & government assistance for farmers (which ended up controlling farmers), he did not do so for the now-defunct alcohol industry, nor did he fund any programs for those seeking treatment for alcohol addiction.
Overall crime decreased 1849-1951, so some historians say this means that Prohibition didn't really raise crime rates. After all, the overall crime rate was on the decrease and continued to decrease.
Furthermore, some very real benefits occurred.
Some alcohol-related industries successfully transitioned into producing other products (like Coors). Grape-growers benefited from Prohibition, though not always for the right reason: Consumers bought the grape concentrate to make illegal alcohol.
Other industries also flourished, like the producers of fruit juices & soft drinks, who filled the gap left by the elimination of alcoholic beverages.
And the following decreased dramatically:
- arrests for drunkenness declined by 50%
- domestic violence
- cirrhosis of the liver
- infant mortality
- death from alcoholism
- hospital admissions for alcohol-induced psychosis
- vagrancy
- disorderly conduct
- absenteeism (people not showing up for work)
- the number of prison inmates
- juvenile delinquency
- general alcohol consumption declined by 30-50%
These stats are not surprising considering how often you see today disorderly conduct & vagrancy & hospital admissions in which at least one person is clearly intoxicated.
With a father at home rather than at the bar, controlling wayward sons no longer fell so solely on the financially struggling overwhelmed mother (who also not struggling financially as much as before because now she had a sober husband who earned regular wages—wages which were now available to spend on necessities rather than beer & whiskey).
So that's another reason why lack of drinking decreases delinquency.
Furthermore, with more men working stably (rather than missing work due to drinking or hangovers or alcohol-induced illness) and NOT spending wages on alcohol, people had more money to spend, which boosted the economy.
And it's heartbreaking to read that infant mortality was so affected by Prohibition. The implication is that drunk adults kill babies, and it's awful to realize that caretakers would endanger babies in such a way.
But the truth is that infant mortality went down during Prohibition, then rose again after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
In addition, Prohibition wiped out the entire saloon culture. It created a new form of socializing in which drinking played no part, and this norm continues among many Americans today.
Case in point: Until the 1970s, American drinking levels did not return to the high levels recorded in 1900-15.
And while the American public later wanted Prohibition repealed (initially, voters were so happy with it, they voted in the Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928 based on his pro-Prohibition stance), a wide swathe of Americans had expressed concern for over a century about the effects of drinking.
From at least the 1800s, American women made a strong stand in this area.
After all, women especially suffered the effects of drunkenness: noise & violence of local saloons (which were also more prone to fires, which endangered the mostly wooden structures nearby), domestic violence, poverty as the man of the house drank away his wages, and caring for a husband in poor physical health who died prematurely due to drinking—not to mention dealing with sons doing the same.
Alcohol always did & still does play a part in social dysfunction: accidents, poverty, abuse, deaths, violence, and crime—so much is alcohol-related.
It's odd that Wilson, who intervened so aggressively in foreign affairs & invasive rights-violating government programs, showed such apathy in the fight against alcohol abuse.
With his love of government over-reach, he could easily have fought the organized crime & black-market industry, yet Wilson not only refused to get involved, but even tried to oppose the Prohibition and its enforcement.
(Note: A lot of well-researched information on Prohibition can be found here.)
The Liberal Lie: "I'm Only Doing This Because I Care Soooo Much..."
Wilson granted women the right to vote, but with his whole "I'm doing all this for yoooooou" mask on all his policies, it's logical to assume that he merely saw women as potential voters for his third term (or for the Democrat party in general), rather than cared about the rights of women.
(Or maybe his wife strong-armed him into it.)
Anyway, the final comment on Wilson is that he was a Democrat.
With the attitude of an autocrat, Wilson consistently ostracized Republican senators in every area, leaving them with little voice or sway during Wilson's administration.
This doesn't matter so much, seeing as Republican Presidents also instituted harmful policies in America.
However, the pro-Democrat media today, along with the pro-Democrat educational system (including the universities), insist that you revere Democrats as the great lovers and saviors of society.
And Democrat leaders like Wilson prove that it just ain't so.
(Or maybe his wife strong-armed him into it.)
Anyway, the final comment on Wilson is that he was a Democrat.
With the attitude of an autocrat, Wilson consistently ostracized Republican senators in every area, leaving them with little voice or sway during Wilson's administration.
This doesn't matter so much, seeing as Republican Presidents also instituted harmful policies in America.
However, the pro-Democrat media today, along with the pro-Democrat educational system (including the universities), insist that you revere Democrats as the great lovers and saviors of society.
And Democrat leaders like Wilson prove that it just ain't so.
Still No Answers
I didn't even mean to write a whole post on Wilson.
But looking at it now, it ties into the reality of a history of government policies presented as for our own good, but serve a more nefarious purpose.
Migdal Bavel (the Tower of Babel) resulted from government policy.
(A deeper discussion of that can be found here: The Kli Yakar in English - Parshat Noach.)
But today, we all see covid-19 policies instituted for our own good, but a deeper look shows the policies as either ineffective or davka infectious (as is the case in Israel, which necessitates that people infected with covid-19 use public transportation to go get tested in a public area; both actions spread infection rather than reduce it).
In fact, my children's school recently installed a large digital thermometer at its entrance (probably government-mandated)...which does not work unless you TOUCH it.
With around 1000 students, plus parents & faculty, how is that remotely hygienic?
Doesn't such a thing spread disease rather than prevent it?
Getting back to the original question, I still don't have a good answer as to why the American government decided to interfere so invasively in the relationship of mothers & children.
It upturned American parenting, creating a new kind of mother who now possessed a narrow, negative, & uncompromising view of babies & children & unnatural, non-nurturing mothering--all based on the theories of psychologically unhealthy professionals.
Even eugenics doesn't explain (at least to my understanding) why the government wanted the average American mother to behave toward her child in such a manner.
Though presented as for the good of the child, it clearly wasn't.
In fact, the husband-wife team Dr. C Anderson Aldrich & Mary M. Aldrich published Babies are Human Beings in 1938. This popular childcare manual brought the Aldrichs' experience as both parents & professionals. (C. Anderson was a doctor & Mary was a nurse, in addition to being parents.)
It shows good sense & humanity by professionals experienced in both parenting & medical care—and it sold well—but could not overcome the government's Infant Care programming.
That programming continued until the Sixties, which instituted a whole other attitude toward child-rearing, which sounded better, but reaped a lot of problems as we see now.
It seems like the government's Infant Care program is an outgrowth of Wilsonian policies meant to invade & control people at every level, mostly for financial gain.
But why did the government want mothers to be this particular way?
I have no idea.
But looking at it now, it ties into the reality of a history of government policies presented as for our own good, but serve a more nefarious purpose.
Migdal Bavel (the Tower of Babel) resulted from government policy.
(A deeper discussion of that can be found here: The Kli Yakar in English - Parshat Noach.)
But today, we all see covid-19 policies instituted for our own good, but a deeper look shows the policies as either ineffective or davka infectious (as is the case in Israel, which necessitates that people infected with covid-19 use public transportation to go get tested in a public area; both actions spread infection rather than reduce it).
In fact, my children's school recently installed a large digital thermometer at its entrance (probably government-mandated)...which does not work unless you TOUCH it.
With around 1000 students, plus parents & faculty, how is that remotely hygienic?
Doesn't such a thing spread disease rather than prevent it?
Getting back to the original question, I still don't have a good answer as to why the American government decided to interfere so invasively in the relationship of mothers & children.
It upturned American parenting, creating a new kind of mother who now possessed a narrow, negative, & uncompromising view of babies & children & unnatural, non-nurturing mothering--all based on the theories of psychologically unhealthy professionals.
Even eugenics doesn't explain (at least to my understanding) why the government wanted the average American mother to behave toward her child in such a manner.
Though presented as for the good of the child, it clearly wasn't.
In fact, the husband-wife team Dr. C Anderson Aldrich & Mary M. Aldrich published Babies are Human Beings in 1938. This popular childcare manual brought the Aldrichs' experience as both parents & professionals. (C. Anderson was a doctor & Mary was a nurse, in addition to being parents.)
It shows good sense & humanity by professionals experienced in both parenting & medical care—and it sold well—but could not overcome the government's Infant Care programming.
That programming continued until the Sixties, which instituted a whole other attitude toward child-rearing, which sounded better, but reaped a lot of problems as we see now.
It seems like the government's Infant Care program is an outgrowth of Wilsonian policies meant to invade & control people at every level, mostly for financial gain.
But why did the government want mothers to be this particular way?
I have no idea.
RSS Feed