Moving Right Along

I've been feeling a lot of anxiety lately. Oh, there are the obvious things - the looming deadline, the endless winter, the kids being sick, work, all the other commitments. But there's been something else, something that's really been weighing on my spirit. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

On Saturday, I went to a writer's workshop where we were asked to list, for ten minutes, any and all questions that popped into our heads. We then wrote on one of our questions for ten minutes.

My question, of course, was "Why am I feeling so anxious?" And I think I got my answer.

I've been spending the better part of my life engrossed in intellectual pursuits. I like to read, to write, to ponder. That was how I always defined myself, how I evaluated my worth - by the thinking I did. As I entered parenthood, I thought things could continue that way. If I read all the right books, had the right ideas, I would be a good parent.

What I found, though, was that I was spending a lot of time asking my kids to wait while I was thinking, reading, and researching about parenting. How the irony escaped me I don't know, but there it was - I was spending so much time thinking about parenting that I wasn't actually doing as much parenting as I would like.

I've decided to get out of my head and into my life - or to take a step towards that goal, at least. I'll be leaving this blog behind and moving on to a new one, more in line with my new goals for myself and my vision for my family. Ahimsa Mama will be more about what the day-to-day of Humane Parenting looks like, and less about lofty philosophizing about it. Sometimes there will be big issues to discuss, but mostly I am going to set the goal of sharing how I am trying to do it instead of how I think about it.

Check it out, please.

Busy, busy...

Just wanted to let you know that I will be taking a couple weeks off from blogging. Well, actually from almost everything that does not directly relate to family chores and schoolwork. I have a big deadline coming up for my thesis and need to focus on that instead of this....so I'll be back around the end of March. Enjoy the coming of spring!

Living My Eulogy?

Zoe Weil, co-founder and President of the Institute for Humane Education, recently came out with her new book, Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life. I've been following her posts on her blog and hope to get her out to my neck of the woods for a lecture during her East Coast tour. I haven't read the book yet, but the idea is that she outlines seven principles that help us to lead a more compassionate life. The first one is Live Your Epitaph.

I've been thinking about that one from the perspective of a parent. Of course, I hope that my legacy will be as a person who made a difference, who was compassionate and respectful of other humans, other species, and the planet. But as much as that, or maybe more so, I have high hopes for what my kids will say about me when they're all grown up. I realize that kids have their own ideas, their own baggage, that colors their perceptions of their parents and how well we did our jobs. There is good and bad to everything - for example, I want to be home with my kids and have made professional sacrifices to do so because I think that having a stable, loving and devoted caregiver is important for young children. But in doing so have I sent my daughter the message that a woman's place is at home? Have I sent my son the message that men work and women keep house?

So, what is my goal after all? What do I want my kids to say about me when I'm gone? I don't know, but I think it's something like this:

"She was an active, motivated and intelligent women who had many interests and tirelessly worked to make the world a better place. But even when she was busy doing all these things, we always knew we were the most important things in her life, and her true motivation for everything she did. No matter how busy she was, she always had time to kiss our boo-boos, talk to us about our feelings, and sit with us to watch the sun rise."

More About TV?

Okay, give me a break - I've been stuck in the house with two sick kids for the better part of two weeks. TWO WEEKS! There isn't much else to do besides watch TV.

Last week, when I was suffering the throes of the nasty virus that is working it's way around our family, I couldn't sleep. There wasn't much on so I flipped to the Current network (co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore) to see the Target Women Super Special with Sarah Haskins.

Now THIS is television!

The premise of the show (or the segment she does on infoMania, of which this particular show was a compilation) is that she spoofs advertising aimed at women a-la AdBusters. Segments include Target Women: Chocolate, Online Dating, Diets, Jewelry, Cars, Disney, and more. You can watch them on their website - it is laugh out loud funny. Check it out.

Okay, so now that the TV thing is out there....

One of my favorite children's television shows is Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child, on HBO Family. I LOVE the "Rip Van Winkle" episode (a shout out to my Fairy God Mentor, Valerie!). It's a show about modern/multicultural spins on classic fairy tales, narrated by Robert Guillome.

The other morning, I saw that they were going to be airing the "Three Little Pigs" episode, which was supposed to be a feminist twist on the well-known story. I was looking forward to it.

Egad, was I ever surprised! The premise of the story is that three pigs were sent to Camp Piggywood to get fat and dirty, because that's how pigs are supposed to be, after all.

Okay. I get that it was supposed to be a spoof on camps where women go to get thin and massaged. Women don't need to be a size 2 or wear expensive perfume to be attractive and worthwhile, and they don't need beautiful jewels, and they don't need to eat to feel good about themselves.

I don't know, but something about the idea of comparing weight-conscious women to pigs seemed distasteful, to both the pigs and the women. First of all, pigs aren't filthy and they're not really fat. On the other hand, the irony of comparing women to pigs is likely to be well over the heads of most children, given the common pejorative use of the term in the vernacular.

I am sure the Women as Meat subtext was either explicitly intended or at least considered. The image-obsessed, gullible pig-women in the story who were waiting to be devoured by the slick and wily Wolf(gang).....part of me sees some animal rights subtext there, and part of me has this visceral reaction to the idea that even if this were the case, that there was a pro-pig message somewhere, few people watching were likely to catch it. I found myself thinking about a talk I saw some years ago by Carol Adams (author of The Sexual Politics of Meat) and wondering what her reaction would have been if she had been sitting in my living room.

Maybe I'm overthinking the whole thing, but really, that's what I like about this show. It gives me the chance to think about children's television. I think that's kind of the point. In the end, I'm not really sure why I had such a negative reaction to this particular plot line, and I will concede that I didn't even watch the resolution because I found it so bothersome.

Confessions of a TV-Addicted Mom

Okay, I'm not exactly TV-addicted. I am not like my friends who post on Facebook about their plans to watch Lost or 24 or Grey's Anatomy or whatever. Truth is, I used to be, but these days I can't recall the last time I watched something that wasn't the Weather Channel. I am rarely awake much past 8 pm anyway, and if I am up that late I am most certainly not sacrificing precious seconds of sleep to watch some sitcom.

Here's what I am addicted to: my daughter being addicted to TV. She doesn't go to school, and my husband and I both work from home during the day. In addition to work, I also write, blog, lead/co-lead two parent support groups, and am working on my M.Ed. We do have an amazing babysitter, but she only comes a few hours a week. That leaves the rest of the time where we need to squeeze in a lot of work in small pockets of time, which are often procured by flipping on the tube to keep Bess quiet for a little while.

Most days, I do a good job of just using to fill a couple of hours - an hour in the morning so I can get up and showered and dressed, get breakfast made and check my email, and an hour at night so I can get dinner made and get my people washed and put away for the night. Some days, the hour in the morning morphs into two (or three...) as I get involved in something and lose track of the time. On rare occasions, like this week when she was nursing a nasty cold, I let her veg in front of the TV all day, if she wants.

I justify this to myself by saying that it could be worse - at least I try to keep it to PBS and Noggin (and an occasional DVD), and at least she is home with me doing somewhat stimulating things most of the time. That, and she rarely sits in front of the TV staring blankly - she usually uses stories and characters as jump-off points for pretend play, and is constantly coming in and asking me to help her put on a cape/dress/crown/hat/whatever so she can act out whatever plot she's interested in at the moment.

I realize, however, that there are many downsides to this nasty habit. I recognize how she often seems overstimulated and unable to concentrate (more so than normal) after too much TV. I also am aware that actual pretend play would be preferable to pretend play that is actually an imitation of something she saw on-screen. I don't like the attachment she has formed to some licensed characters (though the ones she likes aren't the worst ones around - there I go, justifying myself again!). I am acutely aware that no matter how carefully I screen the shows she watches, they are likely to contain lessons that I would prefer she not learn. Last - and FAR from least - it is nearly impossible to allow Bess to watch TV while keeping her nine-month-old brother away from it.

So, what's a mother to do? The research I've been doing on the topic for my thesis (ILP) is only serving to increase my neuroticism and indecision. I know plenty of people who are happily TV-free and others who use TV in moderation, though not too many who have the 24/7 TV that I recall from my own youth. I guess there are pros and cons on either side. In the end, I have an "All Things in Moderation" attitude about it. I try to watch with her sometimes and talk about what's going on, and I hope that I am giving her some media literacy tools that the ZTV (that's Zero TV) crowd may lack. I do not underestimate the value of my own sanity, which is maintained in part due to her viewing hours. And maybe one day I'll be watching a Bess-made documentary at Sundance.

All Kinds of Families

When Bess was very young, I used to take her to Mother Goose story time at the local public library. It was fun, and a good chance to get out of the house and socialize (commiserate?) a bit with other moms.

But there was one thing that irked me. Whenever we would read stories about families, which was often, the families we read about were traditional - Mom, Dad, Baby, and maybe another child or two. I am confident that most of the children there had families that looked like that, but maybe some did not. Were their families broken - somehow less than a "real" family? And even if their own families looked like that, was it appropriate to give them the impression that all families do, or should, look like theirs? What about single-parent families, families with two moms or two dads, or with just a grandparent or aunt, or an older sibling, or multiracial through a birth or adoption....the possibilities are endless, but the portrayals were narrow.

This is why I really like The Family book by Todd Parr. He writes about all different kinds of families - those that are the same color or different colors, those that include stepparents or step siblings, those that are built through adoption, those that include two moms or dads or only one parent. This book is a great addition to any story time about families, and to the personal library of anyone with young children.

What to say?

I have a problem.

I am an extraordinarily non-confrontational person. I cringe in the face of conflict. I just plain do not like it. However, I realize there are times when it is advisable, even necessary, to speak up - for myself, my children, or, in this case, against racism.

We were at a party the other night, and of course the conversation meandered to the President, as it often does these days.

As an aside, I find it odd that people who thought Barack Obama was "too black" to vote for him now consider him "too white" to rightfully identify himself as African-American.

Anywayyyy....the other guests were discussing the press coverage of the inauguration, and the fact that there were few white people shown on most of the network news shows.

"Were there any white people there at all?"

"Yes - they were called Security."

Now, I also noticed that there weren't too many white people showing up on TV. I knew they were there - a number of my (white) friends and family attended, and I'm sure they weren't the only ones. But I also recognize that this was a historic moment for African-Americans, many of whom lived in a time when they couldn't go to certain schools, drink from certain fountains, or sit in certain seats on a bus. They still suffer a great deal of discrimination, though it may not (or it may) be as blatant. They were, understandably, celebrating the ascent of a black man to the most powerful office in the world. People were emotional. It was newsworthy.

I hate that my kids saw me sit in a room where I heard someone said something like that and I did not respond. But honestly, I didn't know what to say. I've come to a place in my life where I recognize that most people who think that way often don't see anything wrong with it, as if it never even occurred to them that other people might have a different way of seeing it. Once I was in a cab and the driver told me that "the black people whose families were brought over as slaves were lucky - otherwise they'd still be over there living in huts and starving." If you are willing to put that out there to a complete stranger, and one who you hope will be giving you a tip in the near future, then you must think this is obvious and indisputable, like saying "we're taking the back way to the airport today".

So if I do say something, it is purely for my own and my children's benefit. Or maybe not....the more I make other people uncomfortable about saying things like that, then the more they may not say them. The less they get said, the less accepted they'll be. Maybe instead of coming at the words through changing people's thoughts, I can start to change their thoughts by forcing them to change their words. Maybe...at any rate, I'll have to figure out a comeback, because I'm sure I haven't heard the last of this.

Personally, I like Barack Obama for a lot of reasons. I recognize the historic significance of a man of his background being elected, but that's not why I like him. I think he is a peacemaker, and will make every effort to bring people together to make real change. This is a good problem to have, I think.

Reverence-Building in a Busy World

The other morning, my family was getting ready to check out a potential preschool for Bess for next year. I am ambivalent about the idea of sending her to school - on the one hand, I think that there are a lot of positives to be gained (not the least of which would be a little quiet time for Mommy), but on the other hand, I love the idea of keeping her home and offering her a varied, individualized learning experience.

We were getting ready in the morning, having breakfast, getting dressed, brushing hair and teeth. Bess sat on the couch, looked out the window, and called me over. "Look at the sunset, Mommy!" she said. It was an amazing scene, with the orange of the rising sun reflecting off the icy driveway and the leaf-less trees. "Let's sit and watch it together!"

As much as I wanted to, I couldn't. We had things to do, appointments to keep. I weighed the cost of letting the moment slip away against the obligation to honor other people's time once I've made an appointment to be somewhere. My ambivalence about school deepened.

How, I wondered, in a world where we are so burdened with obligations and time constraints, can we possibly cultivate reverence in our children? When all our days are filled with scheduled events and "have to be's", where do we fit in the moments to sit on the couch and watch the sun rise? Almost by definition, these reverence-building moments cannot be scheduled. They are simply moments of bliss and discovery, when we are struck by a beautiful sight, an interesting object, a fragrant flower or a captivating bird song and take the time to focus our full attention on the experience of the now. But the opportunities for this are rare when we are always focused on the later, as in where we have to go and do next.

I still don't have the answer. Mostly I lean towards home schooling, though this weekend when Bess seemed to have taken a solemn vow of non-cooperation all thoughts of keeping her home day in and day out were far from my mind. But either way, I still wonder how to find - well, MAKE, really - the moments we need to develop love.

Breathingearth.net

This morning I found a new website, http://www.breathingearth.net/. I'm not sure how I stumbled across it, I pushed something on my toolbar and it just popped up. I'm glad it did.

The website is simply a map showing births, deaths and CO2 emissions for every country on the planet. It's fascinating to watch; I've had it on all morning. Since I started watching, 30,871 people have been born, 12,654 people have died, and 6,302,000 tons of CO2 have been emitted. As of this moment, the population of the planet is 6,745,575,768 people.

While I watch the stars representing births, and the black dots representing deaths, I feel torn. The mother in me sees, in each one of those stars, a woman in a home, a tent, a field, a hospital, engaging in the beauty of bringing forth new life. I see the ultimate act of nurturing, of sacrifice, of love. I get goosebumps.

The humane educator in me wonders what the impact of these births will be on our environment, on the human condition, and on non-humans. Obviously, given that I have two biological children, I am not opposed to procreation. I am grateful for my children and (perhaps selfishly) I enjoyed the act of gestating and birthing them. I always wanted a large family, but we will probably adopt any future children. I gave long, serious thought to the issue of population growth before I decided, very consciously, to create two new human beings.

I think that this is an issue where some humane parents get lost in the shuffle, at least those who choose to have biological child(ren). There are many people out there, particularly in the animal rights and environmentalism communities, who believe that overpopulation is the single biggest problem facing our planet, and the biggest threat to the sustainability of our way of life. Each human, no matter where he is born and how she is raised, will use resources - resources that we may ill be able to spare. That said - one could argue that the urge to have children is something that is biologically built in to our species, and aside from the rare (statistically speaking) person who chooses to forgo this experience for personal reasons, most people still do choose to have offspring. This is not likely to stop. To blame parents for overburdening the Earth is to potentially alienate them, at a time when we most need to give them the tools they will need to their responsibility to their children and grandchildren to ensure that there will be a planet where they can live.

Several weeks ago, No Impact Man posted on his blog about population growth - and man, were there a lot of comments! 83, to be exact - it got to the point where I couldn't read them all. It's worth a look - it's an important and controversial topic, one that deserves serious thought.

Nothing Like the Real Thing

I am currently reading Into the Minds of Babes: How Screen Time Affects Children From Birth to Age Five by Lisa Guernsey. It is an interesting, thought-provoking book that examines the research that is available regarding television viewing and young children - which isn't much, I can tell you that!

One area of research that she examines is about representational thought in very young children. As it turns out, evidence shows that toddlers may not understand that there is any relationship between the cuddly grey critter with the floppy ears and the big trunk in the board book and the big grey animal they see roaming the African plains on television. What's more, they also may not understand that there is any relationship between the elephant on television and the one they see in the zoo (or out on safari, I guess, if they were to find themselves on a safari for some reason). They simply may not be able to understand that the photograph or drawing is a representation of something they might see in real life.

This got me thinking about the implications of this research for Humane Parents who are looking to instill reverence and respect in their little ones. Before I had children, and even when Bess was very young, I vowed that she would never visit a zoo because I did not want to imply in any way that it was okay with me that these animals were taken from their natural, preferred habitat and were living their lives in captivity. Now....I'm not so sure. Is it possible that children are better off seeing the animals, live and in the flesh - even if it under less-than-ideal circumstances? Are they able to truly develop reverence for these magnificent creatures by simply seeing them in a book or in an episode of Planet Earth?

What's more, does this call into question the utility of using books for educational purposes for young children altogether? Don't get me wrong - I love books. I mean, I LOVE them. I built a library in my house to safely store the hundreds, maybe thousands, of volumes I own. I probably have a couple of hundred children's books as well. I love reading to my kids, and I think that it is important - vitally so - to help our children build an appreciation of the written and spoken word. However, I am wondering if my little kids are learning anything about the real world from reading books about animals, the environment, and other cultures. Should we just stick to beautifully-illustrated, lyrically-written, Waldorf-y books while they're young?

What do you think?

Homeland Security

As more time goes on and I become more interested in what it means to parent in a humane, sustainable way, the more I find myself turning inward towards my family, my community, my home and myself. This is not to say that I no longer am interested in global issues - indeed, the opposite is the case. But whereas I used to feel like one had to do something BIG to be doing anything worthwhile, I am starting to see more and more how personal action is the true road, at least for most people, toward real and lasting sustainability. There are some people, to be sure, who have a larger role to play. For me, though, I am energized by finding ways to affect the world from my one little corner of it.

A recent post on the No Impact Man blog echoes my recent thoughts on the subject.

The problem is, that when the economic tide goes out, the corporations
shrink and--by a variety of mechanisms including layoffs and plunging stock
prices--so do the benefits our relationships with them offer. Because the
relationship between the corporation and the individual is entirely fiduciary,
loyalty and longstanding relationships don't really factor. A decision at
far-away head office suddenly decimates an entire community.

Meanwhile, because we have invested so much in the relationships
with corporations, the other relationships [with family, friends,
religion, the needy or government] are weakened, which means that they
can't provide sustenance when the corporate bond breaks. Why would neighbors
help neighbors when they barely even know each other?

So what if, instead of investing government money only in corporations
to bolster that bond, President Obama also invested in strengthening local
community and familial relationships? Suppose he invested in local farming and
local business and general strengthening of bonds between people at the
proximate level?

If he did that, when the crises came, and the corporations shrunk,
wouldn't that mean that we might have the relationship with family, friends and
local business that allowed us to rely on each other? Wouldn't that mean, too,
that even if the boom money went away, we would still have the enduring
satisfaction and support of a strong community?

I often think that the key to the sustainability of the planet as well as each person and family is learning to live close to home in all facets of our lives. I am gratified to think about the ways in which I have become, and continue to become, more self-sufficient. I also am grateful for the community that I have been able to build with family and friends, and I know that in tough times we will continue to support each other, share our resources, and make things work. I'm not sure if this is anti-globalism, or anti-capitalism, but it is definitely pro-family, pro-community, and pro-love!

Ahimsa Mama

I am feeling really drawn to the idea of "ahimsa", as described by Gandhi:

"Without a direct active expression of it, non-violence to my mind is
meaningless. It is the greatest and the activist force in the
world."

So it is not just love, but the active, deliberate expression of love. It is not only acting lovingly, but choosing not to support acts of non-love and violence.

Isn't this at the heart of what Humane Parenting is all about, really? We are talking about being consciously, purposefully loving to our children and families, to our friends and community members. But we are also talking about being consciously, purposefully loving on a global scale by withdrawing our support from things that are not in accord with this ideal. We are talking about withdrawing our support (dollars) from exploitative food production, from sweatshop labor, from earth-destroying enterprises, from greedy businesses, from consumption-driven media. We are talking about speaking against these things, and helping others to learn about them so that they, too, can withdraw their support.

For Gandhi, this meant different things than it does for us, today. He may have chosen to disobey unjust laws, to make his own salt. For us, in a culture that revolves around the almighty dollar, one of the most powerful ways we can make change is by changing the way we use our Currency. We can choose to eat differently, buy differently, live differently, parent differently. We can buy local food instead of food grown by multinational conglomerates. We can go outside and hike instead of watching hundreds of commercials for plastic toys filled with PBAs and produced in sweatshops before being shipped thousands of miles to our local box store that pays its employees sub-living wages and does not offer benefits.

And when someone asks us why we do what we do (or don't do), we can refrain from judging what they do and how they live, and simply explain that we are trying to be loving towards animals/the Earth/poor laborers in third-world countries/unskilled workers in our communities.

Speechless

What is there to say? Yesterday, I sat in my living room with my kids and watched the inauguration of the nation's first African-American president, who vows to build bridges and forge peace. Since words are failing me, here are some of his:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a
weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus --
and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from
every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil
war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more
united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that
the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our
common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in
ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual
interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to
sow conflict, or blame their societies ills on the West -- know that your people
will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the
silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that
we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make
your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and
feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative
plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our
borders; nor can we consume the worlds resources without regard to effect.
For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

It was a good day. Good luck, Mr. President.

Non-Violent Parenting

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I've been thinking about this idea of non-violent parenting a lot lately. What exactly does it mean to be non-violent, as a parent or even as a person? Obviously, spanking is out. But where is the line? If we define violence as causing someone else pain, then what does that mean for us? How do we prevent ourselves from causing pain to our children or other family members; to other humans in our communities, or those without any ties to us; to non-human animals in our environments or across the globe from us; to the Earth herself?

And if we consider it violence to cause pain to any being - human or not - then what does that mean for our everyday lives? I guess what I'm really wondering is this: if we set ourselves the goal of causing no pain to anyone, anywhere, are we setting ourselves up for another kind of violence, namely violence towards ourselves? When I facilitate workshops and give talks to parents, usually moms, one thing always strikes me - how much pressure we put on ourselves to be perfect. When we talk about ways to be compassionate parents, or to lighten our load on the planet, the conversation gradually - inevitably - veers towards a kind of "True Confessions", where people feel compelled to share the ways in which they fail to achieve their ideals.

My goal is never to encourage people to beat themselves up for situations in which their behavior was not exactly what they would have liked it to be. We've all been there; no one is perfect. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20, but in the heat of a moment we do not always react well. What I always say is that even noticing that our reaction wasn't perfect after the fact is progress, and the more we notice that, the "better" we will do next time. If we continue to question ourselves, to try to live more in accordance with our most deeply held ideals, one day we'll find that we're reacting with more patience, or more kindness, or more compassion. It's a process.

That isn't a free pass for bad behavior, but it is permission to be as patient, kind and compassionate with ourselves as we'd like to be with everyone else. For true non-violence isn't just how we treat others, but also trying to minimize the "internal violence of spirit".

Here's another good one...

In case you've noticed a trend in recent posts, I've found myself noticing a lot of hidden biases and incomplete information in children's media. I suppose one could argue that there is only so much information you can give to children, but I think it's more than that.

Here's a new one I noticed the other day - apparently Disney Consumer Products has teamed up with Stremick's Heritage Foods to create a new milk beverage line featuring the Little Einsteins on the packaging. Therefore, the Disney Channel is featuring "commercials" during their preschooler time block (which isn't supposed to contain commercials) promoting the products. The one I saw was disguised as an informational segment - "Playhouse Disney 1-2-3" - about where milk comes from. First, it showed happy cows munching on hay and contentedly chewing their cud on rolling green pastures. The farmer apparently milks his herds by hand, and then ships the milk in huge trucks to special factories where it is packaged and sent to stores where we can buy it to drink.

Okay....where to start? The cows producing milk for this mass-marketed product line are probably not living in clean, beautiful green pastures, and they're almost definitely not being milked by hand. And where are the calves who are supposed to be drinking the milk? Where are the vets who come in to prescribe antibiotics to the cows to prevent mastitis in animals who are producing several times more milk than is healthy for them (though the farmer on the segment claims that his cows produce about 8 gallons of milk a day, industry reports indicate that it might be as much as 7 times that amount on average in the US)? What happens to the cows when their milk production decreases?

Perhaps this idyllic picture of dairy farms in America is true in some places, some of the time - though even then, this account is incomplete. It is certainly not true in most places, most of the time. Parents, be aware - misinformation is everywhere!