of Lloyd de Mause, “the history of childhood is a nightmarernfrom which we have onK- recently begun to awaken.” It is arncatchy phrase, but its author is little better than a propagandistrnwho pretended to survey the evidence of classical antiquityrnwithout knowing either L.atin or Greek and without possessingrnany of the equipment that might have justified him in makingrnsuch a generalization. I dwell on this point, because this sentencernis so often introduced into debate as if it were the lastrnword of scholarship instead of the slogan of a pamphleteer, andrnbecause one could fill up pages by giving references to soundrnscholarship that gi’es a different picture.rnThe real problem, as it turns out, is not therndegeneracy of natural parents but brokenrnfamilies and illegitimacy, which exposernchildren to the dangers of sexual molestation.rnOne American historian who has looked into the historyrnof children is John Demos, anything but a conservative, and hernhas concluded that widespread abuse of children is a recentrnphenomenon and the result of social dissolution, not patriarchalrnpower. This generalization accords both with legalrnrecords and with oral traditions within families.rnThe question of incest can be used to illustrate the entirernquestion. There are societies, Ptolemaic Egypt for example, inrnwhich incest between siblings, or half-siblings, was encouragedrnamong members of the political class, but sexual relationsrnbetween parents and children are so infrequent as to be statisticallyrninsignificant. This is what we .should expect, since sexrnwithin the family is not only psychologically and sociallv dysfunctional;rnit even violates the basic purpose of sexuality—rngenetic diversity, hicest is unnatural, and even premoral lowerrnprimates have social mechanisms for aoiding it.rnIf you read the popular press, however, it is hard not tornconclude that the old Playboy joke about “the game the wholernfamily can play” has come true. In fact, while it may be safe tornassume that instances of all pathological behavior are increasingrnin a wodd that Hesiod could not have imagined evenrnfor this age of plastic and aluminum, the scare-story figures arernthe invention of a social-work establishment with a vested interestrnin discovering vice. Figures for father-daughter incestrnroutinely include stepfathers, fiances, and mother’s casualrnlovers in the category of “father.” The real problem, as itrnturns out, is not the degeneracy of natural parents but brokenrnfamilies and illegitimacy, which expose children to the dangersrnof sexual molestation. The authors of one study (Lighteap,rnKunland, and Burgess in Ethology of Sociobiology) concludedrnthat such children were 40 times as likely to be molested asrnchildren in the normal family situation derided by the Democratsrnwho prate of their devotion to the family.rnWhy should ordinary families worry about cooked data andrnprograms aimed at “dysfunctional” families? After all, thernproblems we hear so often about are associated with minoritiesrn—blacks and recent immigrants. Unfortunately, laws designedrnto correct the perceived vices of powerless minoritiesrnwill inevitably be applied to everyone outside the politicalrnclass that knows how to use the engines of state power for itsrnown purpose.rnUntil the Civil War, American households were still, byrnand large, fortresses that could shut out the world. The enteringrnwedge of the state came with concern over lower-classrnchildren, particularly those of immigrant families. The goodrnYankees were terrified by Irish Catholics, whose children neededrnto be Americanized, i.e.. Protestantized and indoctrinatedrninto habits of thrift, diligence, punctuality, and, above all, sobriety.rnThese fears and aspirations were translated into legislation:rncompulsory school attendance laws and agencies designedrnto “save” potentially delinquent children by removingrnthem from unsuitable homes.rnBut the sauce that bastes the Irish Catholic goose is inevitablyrnslapped upon the WASP gander, and the averagernAmerican family finds itself paying for incompetent and abusivernpublic schools that have little time for reading, math, andrnforeign languages but all the time in the world for sex education,rnsensiti’ity training, and “moral reasoning,” which is reallyrna program for indoctrinating children with contempt for theirrnparents’ principles.rnThe general argument is always couched in the same terms.rnThe family is in crisis, because of poverty, modernization,rnrampant capitalism, rapid industrialization, massive immigration,rnor systemic alcoholism or drug abuse. It is up to therngood and wise—charitable ladies, repentant robber barons,rnfederal agencies—to nurture and support families both byrnproviding positive assistance in the form of social insurancernand welfare programs and by making strategic intrusions intorndeviant households.rnThe language and tactics of child protection have alwaysrnechoed those of the women’s movement. The first stage is therndemand for protection from negligent or abusive husbandsrnand parents, and once these negative liberties have been securedrn(freedom from murder and abuse), the next step is therndemand for positive liberties (the freedom to be or to dornwhatever you can).rnAs Allan Carlson points out, one key to the process of children’srnliberation is the concept at parens patriae, which can bernused to justify state intervention not just in cases of real abusernbut even when the choice is only between good aird betterrnenvironments for a child. Although the soft-on-crimernSupreme Court justice Abe Fortas dealt a blow to the doctrinernin his In re Gault decision, judges, legislators, and journalistsrnstill operate on the assumption that neither mother nor fatherrnrealH’ knows what is best for the child. In Illinois andrnCalifornia, for example, parents can be sent to jail if theirrnchildren plav hookev too often, and I lawaii has a program ofrnhome visits by social workers who suspect abuse. Iowa is, apparently,rnabout to follow suit. The most sinister developmentrnis Missouri’s Parents as Teachers Program, chronicled bv L.aurarnRogers in these pages.rnIf the state is assuming the powers of parenthood, we have arnright to inquire how successful its experiments have been.rnIn the 1850’s one Presbyterian divine concluded that orphanagesrnand foster homes could be worse remedies than therndiseases they were intended to cure: “Even when human lawsrnhave undertaken to remed> some of the lesser evils flowingrnfrom badly governed households, they have, but too often,rnoccasioned greater than they relieved.”rnIn every generation, new remedies are proposed to protectrn18/CHRONICLESrnrnrn