Beautiful Friendships

Moving Right Along

2009-03-09T18:33:00.003-04:00

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...

2009-03-02T12:47:00.002-05:00

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?

2009-02-25T07:57:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-02-18T17:22:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-02-17T12:20:00.002-05:00

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

2009-02-13T16:45:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-08T09:53:00.003-05:00

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?

2009-02-03T21:05:00.006-05:00

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

2009-02-02T14:06:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-28T12:32:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-27T15:44:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-26T18:44:00.005-05:00

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

2009-01-24T10:29:00.004-05:00

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

2009-01-21T09:45:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-12T14:49:00.004-05:00

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...

2009-01-01T11:09:00.004-05:00

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!

Nickelodeon's Big Green Help

2008-12-24T09:10:00.002-05:00

Nickelodeon is currently in the midst of a public service campaign called The Big Green Help. The purpose of this series of PSAs is to encourage young people to act responsibly by recycling and precycling and minimizing their energy and resource use:

"at home, at school, at the mall".

(Sound of brakes screeching in the background) Huh? At home - good. At school - great. At the MALL?

I am unclear as to how young people are supposed to exhibit their growing sense of environmental stewardship at a location that is expressly purposed to get them to buy stuff they probably don't need. By eating at the food court, dining on feedlot-bred hamburgers that were raised on denuded rain forest and shipped halfway across the globe, served on single-use plates/cups/forks/napkins? By purchasing clothing made of chemical-laden fabrics, likely sewn by underpaid young women, perhaps working in a sweatshop, that was again shipped halfway across the globe, each garment in it's own individual plastic wrapping? By asking their parents to drive them to the mall to "hang out" with their friends - because for all the talk about biking or walking instead of driving, I live in New Jersey, the mall capital of the world, and I have yet to see a mall that is within walking distance of a residential area, never mind in a location that is safe to walk to (though public transportation is sometimes an option)?

I realize that the idea of minimizing consumption in the current economic climate is controversial. For everyone who buys less, someone who works in manufacturing, retail, transportation, or related industries is at risk of losing her job. However, I refuse to accept that we are unable to come up with a new, sustainable paradigm that does not rely on stripping resources and filling our planet with trash in order to put food on tables and roofs over heads. Especially when we are talking to the young, who are the future and who are creative and intelligent, we should be encouraging them to find a new way rather than expecting them to continue in the old.

Spaceship Earth?

2008-12-23T07:50:00.003-05:00

Here's another one from our recent trip to Disney:

The Spaceship Earth ride at EPCOT was recently re-done, and my daughter really enjoyed riding it because of the surprise at the end (I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't done it yet, but it's pretty cool). They also changed much of the narration and some of the exhibits, though most of the beginning of the ride remained unchanged in terms of the animatronics. The ride tells the story of the development of human culture, language and communication, from cave paintings in prehistoric times to the development of the Phoenician alphabet, to papyrus and the Roman empire. Then it goes on to talk about the Dark Ages, when Rome was invaded and many libraries, schools, and other cultural centers were burned and fell to ruin.

History isn't really my thing, but so far I can buy most of that.

Then the narrator says something to the effect (I don't remember the exact words) that we thought all was lost, but lo and behold, Jewish and Muslim scholars in the Middle East also had knowledge, and libraries, and schools where ideas were being explored and recorded! Boy, were we in luck!

My question would be, who are WE?

This seems to be an extraordinarily Eurocentric interpretation of history. In fact, that one scene was the last mention of the development of communication and ideas outside of Europe, and then we went back to European monks toiling away copying texts in their dimly-lit monasteries, the Gutenberg printing press, the Renaissance, and so forth. Yet, even from my high school and college knowledge (biased and superficial as it may be), I know that we owe much of our current knowledge about many things, including astrology, mathematics and medicine, not to mention philosophy, to Middle Eastern and Asian scholars. To assume that the listener is of European descent, while barely even acknowledging non-European contributions to culture and knowledge - to blatantly claim that Europe is THE center of culture and knowledge - seems....well, racist, maybe?

I like to think that the old narrative wasn't as bad, but more likely, it took me years of visiting Disney and riding Spaceship Earth to even notice the bias. It made me think of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and his definition of culture as the story we tell ourselves about the way things are, and how we barely even notice the story.

A Small World After All

2008-12-10T11:49:00.004-05:00

We recently returned from our annual visit to Walt Disney World in Florida. Yes, the universal capital of consumerism and marketing to youth is where my family goes to relax. No flaming necessary - I am well aware of the irony. Some things are just too hard to give up, I guess. For now, anyway.

The more I examine the ideas of Humane Parenting, though, the more I notice things I never noticed before. Take the ride It's a Small World, for example. Nothing could be more innocent, right? You would think so. You enter and take a slow-moving boat ride, and look at adorable singing dolls. First you go through Europe, with all the Dutch girls and their geese, the lilting Leprechauns, the Buckingham guards, the can-can dancers and the gondola drivers. Then come the sari draped women in front of the Taj Mahal, traditional Thai dancers and Chinese kite fliers. Then, Africa. A couple of men wielding spears and wearing loin cloths, a nod to Cleopatra sailing the Nile, and lots and lots of safari animals.

Wait a minute. Africa is the most populous continent on this planet. At least a thousand languages are spoken there, according to the most conservative estimates. Who knows how many distinct cultures and tribes can be found there. The oldest human fossils are found there. Human civilization was born there, for crying out loud. And the most they could come up with was a few smiling elephants, a couple of lions and zebra, and a gaggle of spear-chuckers?

Holy racist, Batman!

Disney isn't as much fun as it used to be.

The Way to Start a Day

2008-11-29T07:19:00.003-05:00

Yesterday we read The Way to Start a Day by Byrd Baylor, illustrated by Peter Parnall during our morning time. (BTW, we love all their books and highly recommend them!) So this morning, as luck would have it, the wee ones and I were up bright and early, well in advance of sunrise on this late November morning. As per the book, Bess made up a song to sing to the sun as it rose this morning, a stunning shade of orange:

Time to come up sun,
Time to come up sun,
Without you the plants can't grow.
Without you we have no light.
Without you we are cold.

Aaaah...it almost makes it worth getting up that early!

Keeping it Close to Home

2008-11-10T10:38:00.003-05:00

This weekend, my sister and I brought Bess and Harry to Washington, DC for the Green Festival. While we were there, we planned to visit the National Zoo.

As a humane educator, I am ambivalent about zoos in general. I think that by bringing our children to visit animals in captivity, we are implicitly giving them the message that we approve of the practice of catching animals and putting them in enclosures for people's viewing pleasure. However, my sister, a zoologist and educator who has worked at one of the most well-known and well-respected zoos in the world, argues that without zoos, some animals would likely become extinct. Furthermore, she argues, giving people the chance to see these animals live increases the likelihood that they will make efforts to save them. I'm still not sure what I think about that, so my compromise has been to carefully select the zoos that we do visit, and to be sure to talk to my daughter about where these animals actually belong and how they might feel about being away from their homes.

Now, back to the story. The National Zoo has an impressive array of animals on display. We didn't get to see much because by the time we got there, Bess was quite overstimulated and exhausted. We did get to see their famous panda, and we walked through the bird house that contained some really interesting specimens including kookaburras, birds of paradise, and kiwi. But all Bess wanted to see were the mallard ducks in the pond outside and the squirrels playing in the trees.

In fact, that whole day, while we walked through the city, Bess was fascinated not by the new sights and sounds around her, but by the flowers in front of the buildings and the house sparrows and starlings sitting on the statues. She wanted to pick dandelions and look at the leaves, and feel the textures of the different types of pavement while we walked. She was duly unimpressed by the sightseeing, preferring to focus on the things that were no different from that which she sees every day at home.

I think that if we are going to effectively teach our children to be responsible citizens and stewards, we need to always make the effort to meet them where they are instead of trying to advance our own ideas of what they "should" be exposed to or care about. Bess is three - too young to be able to appreciate the panda we saw, and the struggles of wild pandas trying to survive in a faraway land. She is focused on her immediate environment, and attached to the familiar. As humane parents, we are best off trying to cultivate the attachment that already exists rather than trying to expand their horizons before they're ready.

In the end, the whole DC trip was probably a bad idea. It was too much, too far, too different for anyone to be able to enjoy it. It will probably, unfortunately, be a few years before I'm able to attend another Green Festival. But I'll have to take a page from Bess, and instead focus on examining and enjoying the things I have in my own backyard.

What is "Non Violence"?

2008-11-03T09:14:00.010-05:00

I participate in a Nonviolent Communication study group once a month (based on the work of Marshall Rosenberg), and our November meeting was this past Saturday. There was a woman there who was joining our group for the first time, and one of her first questions was how exactly, in the context of NVC, do we define "violence"?

Good question.

Dr. Rosenberg says this on the subject, on pages 2 - 3 of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life:

...the term nonviolence [is used] as Gandhi used it - to refer to our natural state of compassion when violence has subsided from the heart. While we may not consider the way we talk to be "violent," words often lead to hurt or pain, whether for others or for ourselves.

The definition of the word "violence" is as follows: swift and intense force; rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment; an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws; rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language; damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration.

That's some pretty heavy stuff - there's probably a whole month's worth of blogging in there! For today, I'm going to think about the last one, which is "damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration."

In NVC, at least to my mind, it's all about communicating with other people in an empathetic, non-judgemental way. Judgement can be violence. Clearly, we all make judgements about good and bad - that's how we decide what we do and do not want to do in every facet of our lives. To judge is human. What I'm talking about is when our judgements limit our willingness to meet others where they are, when it causes us to formulate ideas about them based on minimal information. In other words, when our judgements distort our ability to be compassionate, that is violence.

My grandmother used to tell me that "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." As an adult, I see how that simply is not true. Not only can words hurt my feelings, labels - names - that people give me can hurt my ability to form relationships, to be treated fairly, even to make a living. Yet, even (or maybe especially) among the most loving, conscious people I know, violence in the form of judgement runs rampant. Those who have committed themselves to living compassionately still have a difficult time with the idea of interacting with individuals whose actions they disapprove of - maybe even despise - with an open and loving heart.

This whole idea has me thinking a lot about Alice Miller's classic book, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, which I read many years ago. Yet even after all these years, one idea in particular from her work sticks out in my mind:

I have no doubt that behind every crime a personal tragedy lies hidden
(177).

Every "crime" - against fellow human or against humanity, against the Earth or any of her inhabitants whether animal, vegetable or mineral - has a personal tragedy behind it. A perpetrator who was treated with violence in any number of ways cannot be judged guilty for her disconnection with the Other. And, as Miller so eloquently and thoroughly points out, almost all of us in Western, industrialized cultures have been treated violently throughout our upbringings. All we can do now is try to solve the problem by breaking the cycle of violence, and empowering our children to find the connection and compassion which is their birthright.

Skin Deep?

2008-10-31T12:49:00.003-04:00

The Anti-Racist Parent again - ah, I love that blog!

The latest post (with content, there's a super cute photo there too!) is about non-white Barbies and whether they actually help or hurt the anti-racist parent cause. The author looks at how many of these dolls are either Caucasian Barbies made dark-skinned, with the same featues as the Barbie feminists love to hate, or if they are perpetuating racial stereotypes in an almost cartoonish fashion.

I find it difficult to comment on these types of things, because I really have no understanding or experience of what it is like to be discriminated against because of my race or ethnicity. I have some experience with sexism, but I really don't think that's comparable. My husband and I have nothing but Caucasian blood on either side of our family tree as far as the eye can see - we're about as un-diverse as you can get. We have the look of the perfect postcard family, especially my kids who fit right in with the cultural idea of what is attractive. My daughter is three years old, tall and thin, with olive skin, big hazel eyes and perfectly chiseled features. My son is six months, and is often described as a "Gerber baby" - chubby cheeks, big blue eyes, long eyelashes, platinum blond hair, and a smiley disposition.

As I read the article and comments that were discussing the experience of constantly being told that we aren't "pretty" because of dark skin, curly hair, a non-Barbie-ish figure or whatever, I kept finding myself thinking about the children on the other side of the coin. When someone comments to me about how pretty or cute my kids are I find myself a little put off. Of course, I'm only human and love that my kids are getting positive attention, but I also find the implications of these comments to be more than a little distasteful.

When I was a kid, I was definitely not pretty or cute. I had dark stringy hair that was usually in knots, freckles, and buck teeth. I was into everything and was usually dressed in utilitarian, rather than attractive, clothing. I was very serious and didn't have much in common with other kids, but adults usually didn't know quite what to make of me either so I was usually pretty lonely. My sister, on the other hand, had huge blue eyes, blond ringlets, and a sparkling personality. She loved to dance around and wear twirly pink dresses. People were constantly commenting how pretty and adorable she was - while they totally ignored me. They never said anything negative to or about me, but the rejection was stinging.

So when people who don't know my kids at all comment positively on their appearance, I am brought back to that moment. Sure, they're easy on the eyes, but I don't want people to notice them only for that reason. Likewise, I feel for the kids who, for whatever reason, don't draw the same attention and whose inner gifts go unnoticed because of that. The implication that is made when people notice my children's appearance is that there are other kids who aren't beautiful, which simply is not true. All kids are amazing, beautiful miracles and should be acknowledged as such. I don't want other kids to ever feel that they are less important because they don't fit the description of beauty that is commonly accepted in the time or place they inhabit, but neither do I want my own children to feel more important because they do.

Of course, we could get into the argument against praise of any kind here, but I won't. I just hope that if you ever run into us on the street, you'll notice some other things about my kids - my daughter is sensitive, enthusiastic (maddeningly so!), and notices detail to the degree that some might call her anal, and my son is easygoing, observant and really attached to routine. And they're really cute - but I can say that, I'm their mother!

How old is old enough?

2008-10-26T09:57:00.004-04:00

I follow only a select few blogs on a daily basis. One of them is the Anti-Racist Parent, where bloggers examine race and ethnicity issues and how to deal with them as a parent. This is something that is interesting to me - when I was pregnant with my daughter and we decided to move to northwestern New Jersey from a suburb of Newark and New York City, the thing that most concerned me was that we were leaving an incredibly rich and diverse community to live in an incredibly homogeneous and conservative one. We decided that the slower pace, the quieter surroundings, the friendlier neighbors and the ongoing contact with the natural world was worth the sacrifice. Recently, when we were at a local farm and my three-year-old daughter said "Mom, look at all the little black kids!" when she noticed a group of inner-city youth who were visiting as a field trip....well, suffice it to say, I wasn't so sure we had made the right decision.

Clearly, I need to try harder when it comes to exposing my kids to diversity of all kinds. The question becomes, how do we do this? The Anti-Racist Parent has some great ideas, such as binging our children to professionals (doctors, for example) who aren't all white and male, and bringing dolls and books into the home that portray diversity in terms of color, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and family structure. But the question remains, how do we bring real-life diversity into our lives if it isn't a part of our communities? I don't want to feel like I'm taking my kids on a "Diversity Field Trip" - and I doubt other people would appreciate being "Asian/Black/Latino/Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Person With a Handicap Exhibit A".

A recent post on ARP got me thinking about this whole thing again. The writer was talking about some images her five-year-old daughter had seen on the the television coverage of the RNC - video of Muslim men with machine guns. The girl asked her mom (the author) why people who looked like her Muslim friend wanted to "kill America". The writer examined, in depth, what an appropriate response to that question would be - in the end, the answer is simply "I don't know". But one commenter seemed to feel that she should have delved more deeply into the issues, saying that she would have taken her three-year-old further, perhaps discussinfg the function of armies and war.

Let me just say this: YIKES!

On a couple of levels, five (never mind three!!!) is not the appropriate age to introduce these issues to children, at least in my humble opinion. Firstly, children are very egocentric until they reach the age of six (give or take). American Muslims versus Muslims in the Middle East doesn't mean anything to them. All they have to go on is what they, themselves, know from personal experience - a Muslim friend or the guys who attend the mosque two blocks away. A child's only concern in that moment is whether or not her friend's dad is going to show up at her house tomorrow toting an Uzi - so I think the author's response was perfectly appropriate. Assure the child that the Muslims they personally know do not want to kill America, and then wait to see where the child takes the conversation. If she's satisfied with the answer, then stop. There will be plenty of time for a more in-depth discussion later.

But, more importantly, by introducing these issues too early we may be actually doing harm. As David Sobel says in his book Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education:

If we prematurely ask children to deal with problems beyond their understanding and control, prematurely recruit them to solve the mammoth problems of an adult world, then I think we cut them off from the possible sources of their strength.

And later:

Tragedies are big, complex problems beyond the geographical and conceptual scope
of young children.

By exposing our youngsters to issues that are too big too early, we run the risk of having them become apathetic, which is definitely not what we want. Remember how hopeless we, as adults, often feel when faced with the issues of environmental degradation, human rights violations, unhealthy cultural messages and mores, or cruelty to non-humans. Then imagine how much more hopeless our children might feel when introduced to these very same issues! One of the main elements of Humane Education and Humane Parenting is to provide positive choices. But for young children, positive choices are extremely limited, if not non-existent. Therefore, I believe it is best to hold off until children are older and more well-equipped, both intellectually and emotionally, to comprehend these issues in a meaningful way.

This is an issue I have seen discussed quite a lot recently. Articles in both Mothering magazine and Brain, Child magazine have addressed them in recent months. Obviously different children are different, and reach maturity at different ages. Certainly, there are perspectives on this topic that are different from mine, and I encourage parents to think long and hard about them before your child asks you The Question, whatever that question might be for him or her, and for you. But, when you're thinking about Your Answer, I hope that you'll consider your child's needs and readiness in addition to your own agenda with respect to the issue at hand. I don't use agenda in the pejorative sense here - we all have them, and we should have them - but we need to be aware of what they are and who they serve in the moment.

I'm back!

2008-10-25T10:38:00.000-04:00

I've been absent from this blog for awhile because I was busy welcoming this little person into the world. My son, Harrison Herbert Francis DiNorcia ("Harry") was born on Saturday May 10, 2008 at 9:10 pm. However, just because I haven't been blogging doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about Humane Parenting - quite the contrary! I look forward to sharing more thoughts, insights and issues to ponder soon!

The Season of Giving

2007-12-31T08:22:00.001-05:00

A few months ago my husband, daughter and I went to Florida (okay, okay, Disney World) for vacation. In the rush to get out the door and to the airport, we forgot to bring my daughter's baby doll. Halfway to the airport, she noticed Baby's absence and began to cry, asking if we could go home and get her - which, of course, we couldn't.

(At this point, the feminist in me always feels compelled to comment on the baby doll, so please excuse the diversion. When my daughter was born, I vowed that she would never play with dolls - as they say, never say never. She had trucks and trains and blocks, but no dolls, because I did not want to force her into any sort of gender-stereotyped play. When she was just over a year old, we were at a friend's birthday party, and when Bess found her stash of dolls - well, the girl was in heaven. She wanted to hold them, feed them - with a bottle, which I thought was odd because she never had a bottle and no one we know uses bottles - diaper them, rock them, put them to sleep, wake them up, carry them around, put them in a stroller and go for a walk, put them in the pool....you get the idea. What could I do? We got her a baby doll, and then another arrived at our house, and then another, and they are by far her favorite toys.

Since then, I have discussed this with some other feminist friends who have different but comforting perspectives on the issue. One told me that all young children play with dolls because they imitate what they see around them - namely, us taking care of them. It isn't that girls are encouraged to play with dolls, it's that boys are encouraged not to play with dolls. My wisest friend and role model, Valerie, had a more thought-provoking and challenging perspective: as parents, it is not our job to make our kids what we think they should be, but to help them become the best them that they can be. So if my daughter chooses, with no pressure from me, to be a pink-wearing twirly girl, then it is my job - distasteful as I may sometimes find it - to encourage her to be the best, most confident, powerful pink wearing twirly-girl she can be. What a lovely thought, no? After all, there are worse things that she could be than a kind, considerate, and nurturing person. Right?

Okay, thanks for the indulgence, now back to the story.....)

So, where were we? Oh, that's right, forgot the baby doll, weeping child...so, of course my first instinct was to say, "That's okay Bess, don't worry. As soon as we get to the airport we will find you a brand new baby doll that you can bring on vacation." Luckily, something stopped me from saying that, for which I am eternally grateful, because it gave me the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson. What I said instead was, "I'm sorry that we forgot your baby doll at home, but she'll be waiting there for us when we get home. I'm sure you'll be looking forward to seeing her." Though she cried for awhile, by the time we took off she had made her sippy cup into a baby, wrapped it up in a tissue blanket, laid it on a pillow for a nap, and was happily anticipating a trip to see Mickey. (My Disney guilt will have to be a topic for a later post, but in my defense, let me say that it is all my husband's idea and he plans our vacations.)

In the most recent issue of my most favorite magazine, Brain, Child, they published a debate titled "Is there such a thing as too many toys?" A timely topic at this time of year, to be sure. The woman arguing the "No" position said that kids need as many toys as possible so they have as many props as possible to help them construct complex fantasies and storylines in their play. The woman arguing the "Yes" position said that fewer toys force children to use their imaginations more, and that she has concerns about the global, environmental impact of all that stuff.

I remember coming away from this debate feeling oddly ambivalent, as if neither one of these writers had really captured my feelings on the subject. On the one hand, I could see the point that more toys could, theoretically, offer more opportunities for different types of play, for creativity. But I think my sympathy with this point of view went much deeper than a simply being persuaded by the strength of her argument. I grew up pretty poor. We always had food on the table, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our heads, but we didn't have much else. I rarely had the latest and greatest toys (with the exception of a Cabbage Patch Kid - remember those? - that my mom saved up for months to buy), and it always made me feel different, left out, deprived if you will. Even though I am committed to minimizing our family's consumption, I could not help but look under the tree this year and feel that there wasn't enough. But that was my own stuff bubbling to the surface, and had nothing to do with Bess - she got the two or three toys she wanted, and was happy. It is not until we meet up with the larger culture that we start to have a sense of quantity with respect to toys.

However, even though I really believe - when I look past my unhealed childhood wounds - that the answer to the question, "Can we have too many toys?" is a resounding "YES!", I still felt that the argument on that side of the issue was lacking something. I think that children get distracted by too many toys and don't really know what to play with, what to do, where to go when they're surrounded by too much stuff. I'd rather see my daughter figure out a hundred ways to use a play scarf than for her to have a separate apparatus for each possible function. I believe that it is better to spend our money on a few, versatile and high-quality toys than a ton of plastic crap that is going to break soon anyway. I believe that children need to develop an aesthetic sense and should be surrounded by beautiful things, not garishly bright mono-textured plastic toys of every imaginable shape, size and sound. And, of course, I am not in any way naive to the environmental and human rights impact of these abundant toys, including the pollution generated to make them, the toxins they contain, the fact that they will be here taking up landfill space (or floating in the ocean?) until the end of time, the amount of energy needed to manufacture and ship them from China, and the fact that the people who make them are likely not treated particularly well.

But there's something else, something that I couldn't quite put my finger on....and then I remembered the sippy cup doll. I think what sticks in my craw is that we are so quick to allow our children to become attached to STUFF. I realize that children are inclined to attach to a comfort item (a blankie, a baby doll, in my sister's case a slipper) to help them get through difficult transitions (going away from home, starting school, the arrival of a new sibling). However, wouldn't it be so much better if they could become attached to PEOPLE who help them through these transitions instead of a piece of plastic manufactured halfway around the world? Sure, my daughter would have liked to have the comfort of her baby doll as she dealt with the stress of going away from home, getting on an airplane, living in a new room for a week, not having any of her familiar sights and sounds to count on (contrary to my husband's opinion, I firmly believe that vacation is stressful for young children, not relaxing). But she didn't need that thing, because she had us to count on to help her through.

How odd that my first inclination was to meet her attachment to stuff with a promise to buy her more stuff! It is so much easier, as parents, when our kids find their comfort in things, not people. It frees us from the obligation to actually be there and sit with their difficult, powerful, ugly and uncontrolled feelings as they work them through. It is so much easier, or at least less unpleasant, if our children curl up with their blankie and the TV when they're feeling sad, or play smash-em-up cars when they're angry, instead of coming to us and expecting us to sit calmly with them while they cry, scream, rage, yell, or say hurtful things. But the truth is, that's what they really need.

Perhaps, in this season of giving, the whole focus on stuff - more stuff, less stuff, who has stuff, who doesn't have stuff - what we should really be focusing on is giving our selves to our children, our spouses, our friends, our communities, and...well, ourselves. It's been quite some time since I've been to church, but I seem to recall from those days of Sunday School so long ago that the story of Christmas is one of personal sacrifice. I'm not sure I believe that Jesus is the one true God, but for sure he is a great prophet and a shining example of what it means to love and to give. According to the story the Bible tells, a lot of people had to find ways to work through a lot of complicated issues - unwed motherhood, ostracism, friendship and betrayal, death by crucifixion - in order to fulfill their commitment to save humankind from damnation. Okay, so none of us has anything nearly that heavy resting on our shoulders, but certainly one of the messages this story has to teach us is that we need to work through our own baggage so that we can be free to act with courage and love towards others.

Somewhere along the line, we began to associate Christmas with giving stuff. Even when people talk about "putting Christ back in Christmas" and "remembering the reason for the season", they are often referring to charitable giving in lieu of gift giving. Obviously, I am all for philanthropy, but maybe we should also take some time to consider the notion that we need to focus on giving ourselves as well, or instead. Rather than thinking so much about what our kids do and do not have, we should examine this preoccupation with stuff in and of itself. My New Year's Resolution is to think less in terms of stuff - namely, why isn't it ever where it belongs in my house? - and worry more about time. The mess (unfortunately) isn't going anywhere, but my daughter sure is. She's older and more grown up every day, so I've decided that my commitment to her needs to be that I will stop sweating the small stuff and work through my own control issues so that I can give her what she really needs - my time, attention, and support in becoming a pink-wearing twirly girl who loves her baby dolls.

The Universe Story

2007-11-17T08:59:00.000-05:00

Last weekend, I went to Genesis Farm in Blairstown, New Jersey to see a talk given by Jennifer Morgan, author of the Universe Story trilogy for children. She was discussing the mythological implications of the story of our cosmos, and how this can and should inform our parenting. One of the central ideas of her work is that within crisis is the force of creativity, and (much like in our personal lives) it pften takes a huge disruption in the status quo to set the stage for the next big step forward. Morgan discussed the oxygen crisis of 2,500 MYA and how it led to the evolution of oxygen-breathing organisms, and how the extinction of the dinosaurs was necessary for mammals to emerge. Now, she claims, we are in the midst of another such earth-rocking crisis.

Unfortunately, we cannot know ahead of time what the next phase of life on this planet will be. We cannot know if human life will continue, and if it does, what it will look like. Many of the participants in the seminar asked questions that revealed their discomfort with the idea that we cannot know if, or how, the story of human life on Earth will end. They wanted to know what people think our future holds on this planet, and what we can do to ensure our survival. To be sure, it is terrifying to imagine the pain and suffering that could occur if civilization as we know it were to come to an end.

However, there is also something liberating about the idea that we are constantly evolving, and that each planetary upheaval leaves the door open for the emergence of something new and previously unimagimable. I've often wondered about the movement towards sustainable, mindful living, thinking that it might represent a huge evolutionary step for humans, along the lines of walking upright and developing agriculture. It seems that I am not alone in this thinking. Perhaps the technological leaps that have been taken in recent centuries, and that have drained the resources of our Earth, were necessary to give highly-evolved, simply-living and ecologically-conscious humans the tools we will need to take this next step.

As I considered the implications of Morgan's talk, I began to see the "Save the Planet" movement as the ultimate in human hubris. The planet does not need saving - it will continue if and after we are gone, no matter what we do. It will surely not take the same form as it does today because of human activity, and it may already be too late to undo most of the problems and destruction that we have wrought. However, though our species may have a catastrophic impact on this planet, in the framework of geologic time this crisis will be short-lived and, even if it spells the end of human life as we know it, the planet will rebound and fill the void with new life. Many people view humans as the crowning achievement of evolution, but in fact, we are just one species among many who have inhabited the planet during its long and ongoing history. While there is no question that we have done a great deal to reduce biological diversity on this planet, there is not one person among us who knows what this really means. Humans or no humans, the bioshpere will change, and continue to change, forever. That is what Earth does. Polar bears or tigers may not be around forever, but there will always be life.

So, then what does this mean for us as parents and as human beings? Does it mean we should simply throw in the towel, and surrender our fate to the Universe? Should we just live it up today, and who cares what happens tomorrow? I don't think so. However, I think it does mean that we need to give up our attachment to our ideas about how things should turn out. Obviously all of us, especially as parents, want to see human life continue with a minimum of war, poverty and pain. But none of us know what will happen, and we can waste an awful lot of emotional energy worrying about things that may or may not come to pass. This energy would be better spent working towards the future that we would like to see.

Accepting that we just do not have a crystal ball that will show us the future does not mean that we should stop working to ensure that humans will have a long, prosperous and peaceful stay on this planet. In fact, I would say that surrendering to the unkown is very freeing for the socially conscious among us. We no longer have to end our days wondering, "Have I done enough to save our biosphere from human destructiveness?" since that responsibility is off our plates. Who can live with that kind of pressure for very long, anyway? Instead, we can simply look at each day and ask ourselves, "What have I done to make my lifestyle more sustainable today?" That is a much more productive way of thinking, since every day we can easily do something that will help us move towards that goal.

For some of us, a contribution to the sustainability of human life on Earth will be local and personal, such as getting a hybrid automobile, installing solar panels on our homes, eating local foods, and minimizing our consumption. Others of us will take a more active role, enlarging our circles to become educators or activists. Some among us will be drawn to a hands-on approach, helping to educate children or build a well (or wind turbines?) in poor communities around the globe. All these contributions are important as our species necessarily moves towards a more cooperative, rather than a domineering, way of living on this planet. Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach that can be a big turn-off to people who are not ready to take a big leap, seeing each small step as a contribution that moves the curve towards the sustainable end of the spectrum allows everyone to take a part in the movement to end the suffering that is being caused by humans on this planet.

Big Vision Living

2007-11-09T19:22:00.000-05:00

I was recently driving past a church in my neighborhood - you know, the kind that always has one of those snappy sayings on the bulletin board in the front. This week, it simply had the title of the weekend's sermon: "Big Vision Living". I'm not sure what that means in a Biblical context, but I thought that would be a great topic for a Humane Parenting talk. I wonder if it would be plagarism to use it?

When we talk about parents who are aiming to raise a humane child, we are talking about taking both the long view and the wide view of life. We are asking parents to consider things that may not affect the planet in our lifetimes, or in those of our children or even our grandchildren, such as global warming. We are also asking them to consider things that are happening outside the realm of their immediate experience - water shortages in Uzbekistan, child labor in Pakistan, enslaved prostitutes in Thiland, even factory farming on distant stretches of pasture land in Kansas. This is a tall order, to say the least.

It is difficult for parents, who are often wrapped up in the day-to-day goings on of our family lives, to practice Big Vision Living. It can seem impossible to keep tabs on all the issues that may be important to us, never mind researching all the options regarding such things as food and personal care products, clothing purchases, how our homes and transportation are powered, or the entertainment we choose for ourselves and our children. For those of us who are committed to living a humane lifestyle, it can often become frustrating and demoralizing as our friends, families, and perfect strangers feel obligated, or at least entitled, to criticize the alternative choices we make on behalf of our families.

At least in my experience as a childless person making choices outside the mainstream, I was often teased for the "strange" things I did, and though I may have been seen as an oddity, I was rarely met with open hostility (unless I chose to put myself in the line of fire). Once a child became involved, however, people began pulling no punches as they explained to us how our choices, which they once regarded as unusual and perhaps inconvenient, are now selfish, irresponsible and downright damaging to our children.

So, what is a conscientious parent to do? Most important is finding a group of like-minded people, parents if possible, who will understand, respect and support you in your right to make the choices that are right for you. For our family, joining our local chapter of the Holistic Moms Network has made the path much easier as we are surrounded by others who make non-traditional lifestyle choices that are perhaps different from ours, but who understand our desire to live an authentic life.

Secondly, you need not share your opinions and choices with everyone who asks. While it is important to be an ambassador for Big Vision Living, to live your values and be an example to the world of humane living, it is also important that we save our sanity. This sometimes requires us to take a break from constantly seeing ourselves as educators to the world and minding our own business and allowing others to mind theirs.

It is also helpful to try to see where our critics are coming from and to try to approach their position with compassion. People get very emotional when it comes to children. Sometimes when we look behind angry or critical words, what we find is a scared or regretful person who is really upset with themselves more than us.

Lastly, we need to stand our ground. Our decisions are ours alone to make, and we alone must live with the consequences of what we do or do not do. In the end, if me make a particular choice not in an effort to live our values, but only to avoid the criticism or arguments that will result from that choice, we lose some of ourselves in the process. We have to always remember that we are setting an example for our children: of courage, of integrity, of vision. That is more important than what other people think of the lives we live.

Big Vision Living means something different to everyone. People have different priorities and different perspectives. People who agree on what the issues are can also disagree on how exactly to recognize and act on those issues in an effort to live a humane life. All we can do is identify our values, examine the things that are important to us and how our behavior speaks to those things, and do the best we can for ourselves and our families.

One Mountain

2007-11-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

I belong to quite a few online chat groups, many of which discuss homeschooling. There is one I particularly enjoy, which is run by a woman who writes nature-based curriculum for young children. I find her ideas to be inspiring, and I have incorporated many of them into my own life.

Recently, she posted that she and her daughters had gone out and collected thousands of acorns from their yards, and offered to mail some of them to people who did not have any acorns around their homes. While this is a seemingly innocent, even generous, offer, the more I thought about it the more it started to bother me.

First of all, if acorns are not something that is native to your area, why would you ever want someone to mail you some? What were people going to do with them? What would be wrong with going outside with children and looking at the things that are native to their area, whether that be cactus and Joshua trees or lichen and towering pines?

Richard Louv, in his book Last Child in the Woods, quotes an old Native American saying that goes something like this: "It is better to know one mountain well than to visit many mountains." (I've loaned out my copy so I can't look up the exact wording, but you get the idea.) If we are trying to build reverence for nature among our chilren, in the hopes that this will make them physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually healthier - in addition to making them more compassionate and responsible residents of our planet - it is probably more effective, and certainly more efficient, to help them fall in love with their immediate surroundings.

In trying to teach them about some Hallmark card-esque version of "Autumn", for example, instead of going outside and exploring what autumn really looks like in our own neighborhoods, whether we live in the deserts of Arizona, the tundra of Alaska, or foliage-dense New Hampshire, we turn what could be a reverence-building activity into an intellectual exercise. Instead of teaching our children to tune into the beauty that surrounds them wherever they are, we teach them about an abstraction that is some other place, a place they cannot touch or experience, at least in the moment.

But more than that, I think that this activity shows a very subtle lack of respect for nature. It implies that the acorns belong to us and are ours for the taking, instead of recognizing the reality that they have a purpose, right where they are. Recently we were in Florida on vacation, and the acorns there look very different from the acorns we see in New Jersey. Jersey acorns are short, fat and brown, while Florida acorns are long, thin and green. My daughter was intrigued by the difference, and wanted to collect dozens of them to bring home to compare to our native species. While I did allow her to take a handful of them home (which amounted to about five), I then explained to her that they rest of them needed to stay where they were. The squirrels needed them for food, and the ones they did not eat they would bury and either dig up to eat later, or they would grow into new trees.

It is vital that we be very aware of the underlying messages that are inherent in what we do, if we are trying to raise our children to be humane. Many of the problems that we face in our world are borne of the attitude that humans, whites, men, Protestants, heteresexuals, able-bodied people, or ________________ (fill in the dominant group of your choice) are entitled to take what they wish from other people, other species, or the environment, and everyone else would have to get by on whatever is left. Therefore, it is so important that those of us who are trying to raise compassionate children give serious thought to everything we do, examining our actions to be sure they do not perpetuate this mind-set. If we wish for our children to be critical thinkers, then we need to model this for them by critically evaluating our own choices and decoding the messages that we send.

The Eternal Yin

2007-09-14T18:10:00.000-04:00

Recently my mom's group had a discussion regarding the ways we, as educated and intelligent women, find fulfillment - or don't find it - as stay-at-home moms. Most of us agree that there is no place we'd rather be than home with our children, yet we also miss the intellectual and professional pursuits of our pre-parenthood days and wonder what we are going to do with our time when our children have moved on and we are left searching for ways to fill the hours that used to be spent bathing, dressing, feeding, diapering, and otherwise cleaning up after our young ones. One of the moms suggested that perhaps our dissatisfaction with the mundane nature of our lives as homemakers stems from the fact that we have schooling that our fore-mothers did not have, which has prepared us for, and allowed us to expect to have, careers that we have now chosen to leave behind, at least temporarily.

I wonder: Is it that education has somehow opened up the options for us, so that we can no longer happily settle for lives at home? Or have feminists, who have struggled to achieve equality between the sexes - clearly a worthwhile goal - somehow thrown out the baby with the bathwater? Perhaps in the glorification of the "yang" - activity, achievement, attainment, aggressiveness - we have lost sight of the value of "yin" - the feminine, the nurturing, the softness. Perhaps it is not so much that women used to have no options, but that they recognized that the work of nurturing a family and ensouling a home was just as important, if not more important, than the work their husbands did outside the home in order to bring home a wage.

Qualities that are often associated with femininity are those of being passive, receptive, and yielding. These are not qualities that are valued in American culture. Even those of us who embrace the role of mother and choose to make it our vocation, at least for a little while, struggle to come to terms with that choice in a society that rejects all things feminine. We struggle to reconcile our own training, which has taught us to reject these qualities as well, with the primal and very fundamental urge to honor and continue the time-honored work of women. It would do us well to consider another quality that is traditionally associated with "yin": that of the eternal.

I will concede that most of the tasks involved in parenting young children are far from intellectually fulfilling. The physical demands of mothering often leave us with little time and energy for the academic pursuits which used to be so important to us. However, there are few careers that offer us better opportunities for personal growth, emotional fulfillment, and the chance to really touch the future. Aside from education and non-profit work, careers that may be intellectually stimulating are rarely meaningful in the long-term. Every time a woman chooses to use her time and abilities to build a home that is compassionate, peaceful, respectful, tolerant and loving, she revitalizes the feminine, caretaking energy that has become so lacking in our society. There is little that is more important that that.

This is not to say that I believe that a woman's place is in the home - far from it. I work, though I chose to leave a career whose demands would leave little time for the type of parenting I wanted to do when I had a family, and chose a job where I have the time and flexibility to be with my daughter. There are women who want to work, and women who have to work, and I believe every woman should have the freedom to make that choice for herself. However, I do believe that the way our society devalues caretaking on the one hand, telling "liberated" women that it is beneath us, while still expecting us to bear the bulk of the caretaking work on the other, leave us feeling either guilty for working, or unfulfilled at home. This schizophrenic attitude towards the work of homemaking cheats us of much of the joy of motherhood.

Many hunter-gatherer cultures are matriarchal. Before people had an understanding of the biology of reproduction, women were honored for the life-bearing and life-sustaining role that they played. It was recognized that we, like the Earth herself, are the givers and supporters of life. Now, we do understand the science behind procreation, but that does not make it any less magical or miraculous. Instead of mourning the life that we, as women, do not have - the freedom from the physical and emotional demands of motherhood that we sometimes envy our partners - we should rejoice in and respect the power that we have. We can break the cycle of violence, aggression and control that has taken over our society, and begin to cultivate the eternal yin that will sustain our species and our planet.

My Child is My Message

2007-08-24T12:10:00.000-04:00

Several years ago at an animal rights conference, I was baffled by the near-complete absence of children, despite the fact that it was heavily attended by young couples. When I asked a friend who has been active in the animal rights community for many years about this, she shared her theory that people who become heavily involved with animal issues tend to be misogynistic – they turn to animals because they just plain don’t like people.

At the time of this conference, I was a young and childless newlywed. Since then, I have come to develop my own theory about why many activists, in many different fields, choose not to have children. After bearing witness day after day to the worst that humanity has to offer, these committed people often become bitter. Louise Hart said, “Bringing a child into the world is the greatest act of hoping there is.” People who are hopeless often choose to remain childless as well.

When we became pregnant with our daughter, I knew my priorities would soon change as my time became scarce and my energy drained. I worried that I would have to – or worse, I would want to – give up my studies and the activism that was so fulfilling to me. However, something else began to stir within me. Slowly, the issues I was examining took on a more personal cast. I began to imagine how it must really feel to be a mother in sub-Saharan Africa, going hungry so that I could put an inadequate meal on the table for my starving children. I felt the agony of the mother dying of AIDS, knowing that her young children would soon be orphans in a place that already had more orphans than healthy adults to care for them. I wondered about all the women who were also expecting a child, not because they chose the role of mother but because it was forced upon them by an abusive husband or anonymous attacker. I even feel more of a connection with the mama deer that shares the woods with us. I watch her fawns start at some imaginary predator and tear through the bushes after each other, leaping over fallen trees and rocks, and though she barely pauses from her browsing I can almost hear her thoughts: “Go ahead, run all you want. Maybe then you’ll sleep tonight!”

Sure, my priorities were going to change. I would have less time and energy for the type of activism I had been doing before as I became absorbed in my baby and nurturing my new family. I was grateful to have that luxury, unlike so many other women who had to work exhausting and dangerous jobs just to survive. However, I was also on the threshold of a very powerful chapter of my life, where my understanding of the issues I had been grappling with would become more concrete, more urgent, and more real.

It has been argued that instead of refraining from having children, people who have a deep awareness of the issues of human rights, environmental stewardship, animal welfare and the like should have children who will carry on a legacy of activism. This is certainly not a stance I would personally advocate – I am humbled by people who choose to fully dedicate themselves to a cause they believe in, and grateful for their devotion. That said, it is crucial to imbue the coming generation with the consciousness, creativity, critical thinking skills, and motivation to change the world for the better, and we as parents are uniquely positioned to do just that.

I recently read that the most rapidly growing market for organic food is among new mothers. These women presumably already knew something about the dangers of the various fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides that are applied to most of the fruit and vegetables grown in the United States, and of the various antibiotics, growth hormones, and other drugs routinely administered to livestock. What changed, I think, is that while the risk to themselves was one they were willing to take, they were unwilling to risk their children’s health and future for the sake of convenience or saving a few food dollars. I believe that many women experience this type of altered perspective upon entering into motherhood. Consider global warming, which suddenly seems much more imminent when we begin to consider it with respect not just to our own lives but to the lifespans of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Through our children, we become personally invested in the future of this planet and all those who inhabit it. Parent have “skin in the game”, so to speak.

When a reporter asked Mahatma Gandhi what his message was to the world, his reply was “My life is my message.” For me, I would answer that my child is my message. The choice to bring her into the world was my statement that I believe sustainability and peace will win out over destructiveness and greed. I have made a promise, by having my daughter, that I will do everything in my power to create the just, beautiful, and sustainable world that I for her. Having a child requires great courage and commitment. I have come to see the act of consciously becoming a parent, and of consciously parenting, as an act of rebellion against the forces that are destroying our planet. Choosing to bring something beautiful into the world diminishes the ugliness. My parenting has become my new form of activism.

I may lack the time these days to do all the research and volunteer work that I used to do. What I lack in time, however, I believe I make up for in motivation – the motivation to build a community of supportive, loving and humane people to surround my family, to be aware of the example I am setting for my daughter, and to do the inner work required to become the kind of mother, wife, and human being I want to be.