All of the food this week was organic and it was all consumed whole (no juicing, no blending, as usual):
1/30 – tomatoes, 2 pomegranates, 6 bananas.
1/31 – tomatoes, 1 pineapple, 2 pomegranates, 10 bananas.
2/1 – tomatoes, 1 pineapple, 2 pomegranates, 11 bananas.
2/2 – tomatoes, 4 pomegranates, 10 bananas.
2/3 – tomatoes, 4 pomegranates, 10 bananas.
2/4 – 4 pomegranates, 10 bananas.
2/5 – 4 pomegranates, 10 bananas.
So I ate bananas every day this week. This is the first bananas I’ve eaten since last May, I believe (I’d have to go back and look at all these past posts to double check my lack of banana consumption, but I’m pretty sure this is right.). I’ve been eating the organic Cavendish bananas from the local wholesaler. After a week of eating ~10 per day, I’m already tiring of them. I have trouble using Cavendish bananas as a staple for long periods of time. I just don’t enjoy them that much.
As I often do, now I’ll write about something completely different. I have strongly felt for many years that fathers who leave their partners and aren’t involved in their children’s lives are doing a terrible thing to their children in particular and society in general. My younger sister lives in Ohio. We don’t see eye to eye on many things, and aren’t very close. But a few months ago I heard from my parents that her husband wants a divorce. The worst part is that they have a one-year-old son. And apparently since their split he hasn’t spent any time with his son. (If you ask me, there were some warning signs even when they were dating that this guy might do something like this, and my sister chose to ignore them…but this is beside the point.)
So, this recent example in my own family has caused me to think a little bit more about this: exactly why is it so bad when fathers aren’t involved in the lives of their children? This is what I’ve been able to come up with (I’ve read some psychology over the past couple years, and I think I may have read this somewhere before, but I’m not sure when or where or even if, and it reoccurred to me the other day and makes good sense to me):
Obviously when a child is born, they have no idea what type of society they’ve been born into. Some societies are peaceful, and others are quite violent. Certainly different skill sets are more helpful for survival in different sorts of societies. A child which is able to deduce the type of society it lives in at an earlier age will be at an advantage when compared with other children because then it will be better able to hone the skills more likely to be beneficial for survival.
Mothers in all types of societies will be there to raise their children, except in very rare instances. However, whether or not the dad is around to help with the child-raising is an indication of the type of society the child has been born into. Basically the idea is that, when the dad is there for the child it indicates a peaceful society, whereas it is an indication of a violent society when the dad isn’t there to help raise the children. For this reason, boys raised without their fathers will tend to be more violent, and girls raised without their fathers will tend to be more attracted to violent sorts of guys (and the girls might be more violent too). I think there are some statistics for child behavior in different household environments to support this conjecture. And the implication is that one way to help the world become a more peaceful place is for fathers to stay involved with their children. What do you think?