The Line Between Discipline and Child Abuse

There's been many times where I've been in one of these conversations:

"If I ever dared to talk back to my daddy, he would whoop my ass with a belt!"

There just must be something reviving in telling a story about childhood beatings that really sends a glistening glimmer in someone's eyes. It's almost as if to imply that "Those were the good ole days!" and parents today are just "too soft" or "afraid of their own children."

Around 1870 in the USA, beating your wife was officially made illegal. But what if instead... wife beating was legal, but you just couldn't leave a mark? What if we used child disciplinary laws as every day rules for daily interactions? And what exactly does it mean to draw the line between discipline and child abuse at leaving a mark? Why is leaving that mark so much worse than not leaving it? Is it because other people who see your child shouldn't be aware of the violence?

Hitting your child, in my opinion, doesn't look like a behavior problem for the child, it looks like a behavior problem of the parent. It looks to me as if the parent has lost control of their situation and decided to resort to violence. And this goes for spanking too. Which is another thing to wonder. Why is the butt the least tabboo place to hit a child? Seems to me that this is just a cultural norm that we use to feel better about hitting our children and to justify these actions.

Besides for the physical suffering of children who receive corporal punishment, studies also indicate that spanking lowers a child's IQ (http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/09/27/spanked-children-have-lower-iq/8620.html). Knowing this, I can't imagine why parents would want to risk their child's mental development all because they feel the need to project their aggression onto their kids through violence.

The fact of the matter is, children are people too. They're growing, naive, short little people with (hopefully) a long life ahead of them. In our society, witnessing violence first-hand is inevitable but there really is no need to introduce your kid to it right off the bat and pass on traditions of abuse. There should however be drawn a line. That line should separate a non-violent parent-to-child relationship to a violent one. No more "let's hide the abuse by not leaving a mark" or "just hit your child on the butt" or any other poor excuse to rid yourself of any guilt you may find yourself with after hurting your kid.

Is this taking a "too soft" approach to parenting? Is this just "telling you how to raise your kids"? Well, what some would consider "too soft," I would consider "social evolution" in progress. And I couldn't stop you from hitting your child just like I couldn't stop you from beating your spouse, but if advocating a violent-free relationship with your loved ones seems overly intrusive... then I can only apologize for suggesting a more loving relationship.

Lastly, there are alternatives to violence! For instance, using humor is a great way to discipline your child without expressing pain, revenge and agony. This is a great article that gives more detail: http://children.webmd.com/features/child-discipline

Urban Farming As A Means To A Better Society

(I've written about this before, but I thought I'd throw the concept onto this blog as well.)

If you look at a map with all of the various political beliefs in specific regions, usually what you'll find is that the big cities are more progressive while rural places tend to stay more conservative. Long story short... individual isolation stunts human progress. This is why, to me, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to suggest that the bulk of society should work towards condensing itself into certain areas.

Now let's say one were to buy into this pretense but then asks, "How do we cram society together to promote social progress?" That is precisely where urban farming comes into play. Furthermore, it's also a call to eliminate rural farming all together.

Reasons to eliminate rural farming:

1) Inefficient.
2) Weather dependent.
3) Stunts social progress.
4) Waste of land space.

Urban farming would serve as a better alternative because instead of depending on the weather to dictate the seasons in which we expect our foods, we could focus on building artificial climates to provide the ability to grow any food, any where and at any time of the year. Also, if we instead crammed these "urban farms" into buildings, we wouldn't rely on vast lands to produce our food.

If we could control the environment we would eliminate the need for pesticides. Healthier fruits, healthier people! And on that note with the environment, if society was condensed into smaller regions because of urban farming, that would be a great incentive for alternative energies to keep these small places nice and clean. Think also about all of the extra land this would free up. This could potentially be used as a way to also promote nature conservancy in certain places.

Suddenly, everyone lives in closer quarters with each other, society becomes more aware of itself and others, progress thrives, unity and community are strengthened and everyone has easier access to locally grown veggies.

How do we get this started? With today's economic powers waving over the heads of all the citizens, I really am not sure how to implement this strategy. I personally tend to live in a dream world where I can fathom communities self-organizing to better themselves and their own standards. It's hard to really say where capitalism will take us from our current point in time. Even to those who would argue that the state also plays too big of a role in our market... either way, the status-quo (however one would interpret it to be) doesn't really seem to be open to this idea at the moment. But maybe one day...