This BBC opinion speculates the discrepancy between child abuse in Texas and Vermont is the level of government services. This is plausible, but there could be more than one factor explaining this phenomenon. Social safety nets can be privately-provided, not government-provided, so is there a reason for their absence or weakness in Texas? Anyone have a better explanation for the child abuse disparity?
Terrible just terrible. He fails to address any of the obvious counter-arguments, which include the very macho Texan attitude, something which no doubt results in children growing up with lots of "tough love". Religious fundamentalism surely doesn't help things either. The cultural attitude of "toughness" practically ensures some degree of abuse, which results in a under-developed empathy response, which makes abuse more likely to be inflicted on the next generation, so on and so forth. Under developed empathy response is likely the reason that Texas has a small social safety net, meaning more stress for young parents, further increasing the chance of child abuse. There are plenty of factors which result in such high child abuse in Texas. A small social safety net is only a consequence, one which has a small effect in my opinion, but not the root of the problem.
Children are getting too independent. Therefore there neeeds to be a physical aggression to keep them inline.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
is there a reason for their absence or weakness in Texas?
I'm thinking regime uncertainty has something to do with this. Same reason why not many private companies make roads - the fear that government can get funding at the snap of a finger to outcompete them.