Shownotes
Jump to Highlights
01:01 Introducing today’s guest 02:39 This episode demonstrates using Monica's tools for productive conversations with differing views. 03:38 The 'conversation dial, EPACT, helps assess and enhance productive discussions by considering factors like full communication, equal platform footing, focused attention, contained conversations, and timing. 08:36 The conversation between Jen and Lulu is set to begin with a commitment to trust and exploring ideas in an open environment. They set the stage by discussing their objectives. 13:51 They engage in an eight-minute back-and-forth discussion, where they reflect on what they've learned about each other's perspectives. 36:43 They delve into the complexities of their roles in addressing interconnected issues like White supremacy, ecology, and consumerism, recognizing areas of uncertainty while aiming for a deeper understanding of each other's viewpoints. 44:09 Monica praised Jen and Lulu for their open and respectful dialogue, noting their effective use of clarifying questions and their willingness to discuss sensitive issues. 46:30 Lulu and Jen expressed their appreciation for the enlightening conversation, noting the importance of respect and curiosity when discussing challenging topics. 52:42 Wrapping up the discussionTranscripts
Hi everyone. I am Denise, a longtime listener of Your Parenting Mojo. I love this podcast because it condenses all the scientific research on child development, comparisons with anthropological studies, and puts it into context of how I can apply all of this to my daily parenting. Jen has a wealth of resources here. So, if you're new to the podcast, I suggest you scroll through all her episodes. I'm sure you'll find one that will help you with whatever you're going through, or one that just piques your interest. If you'd like to get new episodes in your inbox along with a free infographic on 13 Reasons Your Child Isn't Listening To You and what to do about each one, sign up at YourParentingMojo.com/subscribe. Enjoy the show.
Jen Lumanlan:Hello and welcome to the Your Parenting Mojo podcast. I am very excited today and more than a little nervous for episode because we're going to talk about a subject that I'm really passionate about, but it doesn't always resonate with listeners. So let's start by introducing our two guests. Monica Guzman is a senior fellow for public practice at Braver Angels, which is an organization dedicated to building civic trust in the United States and bridging the wounds between left and right. She is author of the book, I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, which aims to help even more people have conversations to overcome the divide between them. She's co founder of The Evergrey daily newsletter about the city of Seattle, a former columnist at The Seattle Times, an immigrant and a dual US-Mexico citizen, the mom of two bilingual children. She's a proud Seattle liberal and her parents voted for Donald Trump. Welcome, Monica.
Monica Guzman:Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited for this.
Jen Lumanlan:Thank you. And so Monica spoke about having difficult conversations concludes with an invitation to take a step closer to someone who disagrees with us and to explore the topic. And so a few months ago, I reached out to podcast listeners to request a listener who disagrees with me on a social issue that we could discuss on this episode. And Lulu has gamely stepped up with a very enticing issue that I definitely wanted to discuss. Lulu thinks that well, it's important that we understand what White supremacy is, that my focus on White supremacy and other topics like patriarchy and capitalism, especially when discussing other issues, distracts from the core focus and potential value gained from addressing the topic at hand. Welcome, Lulu. I'm so glad you're here.
Lulu:It's great to be here.
Jen Lumanlan:All right. And so my goal with this episode is to help you see how you can use the tools that Monica is describing in her book to find common understanding with the people that you disagree with. And of course, we want to have our children growing up being surrounded by these conversations, knowing how to have these conversations, seeing you have them as well, so that they can know what it's like to understand each other's ideas, work towards bridging divides rather than reinforcing them. So we're going to have kind of a structured conversation and Monica is going to interrupt us regularly; and let us know how we're doing and perhaps offer suggestions for things that we could do more effectively. And I just want to kind of set the stage here by saying I'm not looking to win an argument or to convince Lulu that she's wrong. I'm really looking to understand her point of view in this episode. And I hope I know based on the conversation we've had beforehand that she's here to do the same. So let's just set the stage here by chatting with Monica briefly about what we're going to do here, and then we'll actually get into the conversation. So Monica, can you tell us about what you call in the book, the ‘conversation dials’ that we're going to turn in the next hour?
Monica Guzman:Yes. So the 'conversation dial' are a good handy tool for deciding if the conditions around a conversation will encourage the kind of productive bridge building that hopefully we're trying to seek. So the acronym for it is EPACT: embodiment parity (which is p-a-r-i-t-y not the comic one), and then a tension, containment, and time. So the first one embodiment is how much of the entire arsenal of human communication is being deployed into the conversation. If you are on your phone and texting people, you don't get faces, gestures, tone, voice. You don't get the little laughs that break up tension. But right now we are on a Zoom window and you can see me gesture. I love to gesture. And you can hear my little laughs, which might release tension. So then there is parity and I needed in the platform sense. To what extent are you on equal footing with whoever you are talking to? So if you are on Facebook and you're commenting on someone else's post but they wrote the post, they have power over you and that they can block or hide your comment. You're not on equal ground, right? If you're at a lecture and someone's on stage and you'll ask a question, you also have sort of less power, a good equal conversation that allows you to explore when the most calibrated way you have equal power on the platform level. Then there's a tension. And this is really important. Looking at the Zoom window, it's happened many times, to me, I don't know about you, where I'm talking with someone in a Zoom call and then I noticed that their face suddenly gets brighter. And it's because they've navigated to a different tab on their browser. So how much of someone's attention do you really have? The best way to know that you've got their full attention is to be there in person. We are busy and we are tired. And we have a lot of reason to multitask. But when we divide our attention, we can miss the signals that we're sending each other. Then there's containment, which I think is one of the most important given the technology for discourse these days. That's the degree to which our conversations are actually contained to the people actually participating in the conversations. On social media, it can feel like a panopticon. You don't know who's listening so you're on your best behavior. You imagine the worst, judgments that might be coming your way. And you want to please whoever you feel you belong with, right? So what I say is that on social media, you end up performing your perspectives instead of exploring your perspectives because the conversations are not contained. The most contained conversation is a one-to-one conversation that no one else can possibly hear. That's where candor can really come out. And people feel most secure, being themselves and being open. And lastly, time, if someone is on their way out the door. It's not a good time to bring up abortion, you know, just give these things time. And it's going to be messy at the beginning. You're going to feel your way through so make sure that you are not trying to rush or be too demanding of something that is difficult.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, thanks. That's really helpful. Lulu, would you like to say a few words about how some of those things show up for you?
Lulu:The containment and time are two that first come to mind. Containment because I have experienced those, like direct one-on-one conversations where I know it's going nowhere. And it's given me a lot of freedom to be much more candid. And I'm going to try to treat today's conversation similarly, even though we both know that's not true. And then for time, Monica, is there a point at which there's like diminishing return in the conversation? Like if you try to sit and talk about something like abortion for three hours, are you going to get that much more out of it, then if you talk for, say, an hour?
Monica Guzman:What a great question. There's no hard and fast rule. And it depends on the relationship, and the dynamic, and how well the conversation is going. Great conversations have a mix of positive and negative moments. People think that negative moments kill a conversation. That's not true that it's about whether it's a mixed bag, and you can come back somehow to laughter after going somewhere heavy. Technically, that could happen all day long but it's pretty rare. More often, we get tired, or we begin to repeat arguments, or people just need a break. And if they don't take a break, it's a bad thing. So my sort of weird shorthand is, seat in a conversation is good. It's about whether it's burning something or cooking something. It can cook up understanding, or it can start burning your sense of dignity in a really, really tough sense. Or it can burn a relationship or burn the trust you have. And you know, you want to cut it off if things just start to feel like they're not being productive anymore. They're not cooking up understanding.
Lulu:That helps. Thanks.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, and I just want to say a couple things about what resonated for me, Monica. It's funny that you mentioned laughing. In the episode that I released recently where I shared my autism self-diagnosis. Part of the way that has come up is people have gotten really offended by my laughter at apparently inappropriate times, in conversations with podcasts guests. And so, yeah, it's something that I'm very cognizant of now. And also, I have a hard time reading facial cues. And so my plan here is to say when I'm having a hard time, like if I see something change in Lulu's face, I'm going to acknowledge that I saw something and I don't necessarily know what it means. So that's my plan for how I'm going to address that. And then yeah, I just wanted to acknowledge the containment issue as well. And, you know, this is my podcast, and I'm supposed to be a good host, and also produce something of value to listeners. And so yes, this is a very kind of artificial setup. And Lulu, I appreciate your intention there. And I'm going to try and participate as if we knew each other really well. And we're exploring this in a trust-filled environment, and at the same time, hopefully, also help listeners as well.
Monica Guzman:I’ll share a bit of good news, which is that the podcasting medium is one of the most intimate and you get to hear people think out loud which is phenomenally well. It's good because it models the fact that we don't have all the answers. You read somebody's column, and in opinion section and it just sells like they just knew everything. But writing is the process. In podcasting you to see the process, which I think does a lot for people's intellectual humility as they listen and as they speak.
Jen Lumanlan:All right, shall we get the show on the road, then?
Lulu:Go.
Jen Lumanlan:So I guess our first question, we wanted to start out with something that just helps us to see each other as actually– Sorry, let me backup from there. I miss the question. What do we want to achieve here today? What would have to happen here today for each of us to leave feeling like this was a good investment of our time? And we're just going to take a minute on that topic. So Lulu, did you want to go first on that?
Lulu:Sure. This would be a good investment of my time, if I were able to walk away with a better understanding of Jen and why of all the different issues related to parenting, she has chosen to focus on White supremacy and one or two other core issues; and that to feel confident and comfortable and continuing to be able to listen to the podcast. Thank you.
Monica Guzman:How about you, Jen?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, so I think I want to understand more about how Lulu thinks. And I know there are other listeners who share her ideas. And I also want to know how I can share my ideas with people who may initially disagree with them in a way that doesn't cause them to just reject the ideas outright because of the way I'm presenting them, and to allow them to consider whether there may be some congruence between their ideas and my ideas.
Monica Guzman:Thank you for that. So what I heard from Lulu was a particular curiosity about why White supremacy in particular comes up as one of two or three core issues for Jen on this podcast. And you said, Lulu, if I heard you, right, that you hope to get closer to a sense that you can continue to be comfortable as a listener to the podcast. Did I hear that right?
Lulu:Yes, that is correct.
Monica Guzman:Okay. And then Jen, for you, the curiosity was generally around how Lulu thinks is that right?
Jen Lumanlan:How she thinks about this issue in particular.
Monica Guzman:Right. Okay. Thinks about White supremacy in particular.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah.
Monica Guzman:Is that right?
Jen Lumanlan:Yes. And how I can share my ideas in a way that helps us define congruence rather than being something that divides us.
Monica Guzman:Awesome. Okay, cool. Well, and is it all right with you, Jen, if I move us to the next question from here. Okay. So we're going to start with with some kind of easy. Can each of you take a moment to tell us what is something that your child does that makes your heart melt?
Lulu:Yeah, I'll go first.
Monica Guzman:Go for it. Lulu, I saw your smile instantly. Sounds like she's got some good.
Lulu:There's so many things, right. But I have two kids. They're very different personalities. But one thing that they both do, that always makes my heart melt is those random acts of compassion and love. Like my husband and I come home from an evening out and there's a little 'I love you' note on our bed just because, or out of the blue running over and giving me a hug and then running away with no words at all. It's just those little random acts of love. Always make my heart melt.
Monica Guzman:That's adorable. I can see that little 'i love you' note. Jen, how about you?
Jen Lumanlan:Sometimes we have little connecting moments right before bed as well. And my daughter Charisse will say something that seems to me to be very random, like, "I'm sure other children prefer their mamas. But you're the best mama for me." And I love that because she's sort of acknowledging our needs in the relationship, right? She's saying you meet my needs, other children may have different needs and their mamas may meet their needs more effectively. But you're the mama who meets my needs.
Monica Guzman:That's two very sweet moments you two. All right. Well, now we're going to move from your children. We now maybe listeners and I certainly have an image of those relationships and parenting relationships in each of your homes. So here's the question we're going to tackle. And before we answer it, I'm going to say a little more about why this question can set us off. The question is what concerns do you have about how American society tries to set up all children to succeed and flourish? This is a question of concern, rather than a what do you think about or what should we do about, because questions of concern help us get to what matters to people without a lot of invitation to judgment. It's a question that is gathering information, that we can then ask more questions about get more clear about. So that's where we are right now. We're gathering information about something that's sort of an umbrella over the things that that you all here to talk about. So let's go there. So what concerns do you have about how American society tries to set up all children to succeed and flourish? So, Jen, why don't you go first? And we're going to time bound some of these things. And Jen, I don't know what you want to say about that.
Jen Lumanlan:Absolutely. So we're gonna do two minutes on the parts where we're speaking without back and forth. And I'm going to time myself. Lulu's gonna time herself. And we've agreed, you know, if you're in the middle of a point, when the timer goes off, finish making your point. You don't have to stop right then. And there is just no more new point is by that time. So. Alright, so I'm setting my timer. And okay, here we go.
Jen Lumanlan:So I guess when I read that question, my thought was that I don't think American society does try to set up all children to succeed and flourish. I think American society quite deliberately sets up conditions for rich and middle class children to do very well. And everybody else's children can kind of take a hike. And if those people's children happen to do well within that system, then it's because they figured out how to work the system. But the system is not going to change to accommodate everybody. And when we were little, we didn't know about the system. And we all use to express our needs. And we asked our parents and our caregivers to help us to meet our needs. But our parents wanted us to be successful in this White supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist system, and so they told us to stuff our needs down. And the form that that took was doing things like be perfect without making mistakes within these really prescribed gender, family structure, career financial roles, engage in either or thinking, right, you're good or you're bad, you're right, or you're wrong, you're on with me or against me, fear of open conflict. So it's not okay to acknowledge that different people have different needs. And we can try to find ways to meet both of those needs. And conflict is really repressed in that structure. And occasionally, it boils over, and we have to deal with it immediately. And then we put the lid back on and pretend it's not happening again. So this system really primarily hurts Black and Brown children, but it hurts all of us, right, because we all lose when we have to stuff our needs down because expressing our needs is too threatening to the system. And so that's why we do things like explode when our children do age appropriate things, because we were punished for advocating for our needs. And so we can't handle it when our children advocate for theirs. So I guess to summarize, I think it's the American society is really deliberately set up to help a small group of children be successful. And that success looks like having a lot of money being in charge, maybe paying lip service to the idea of helping other people without actually having to give up our ideas or give up anything that makes our lives more comfortable. And I guess I would love to add, I'm really conscious that it's hard for me to discuss these kinds of issues that I'm passionate about without the other person feeling judged. So when we get to the point where we're having back and forth, I'd invite any needed reflection on that. So thank you.
Monica Guzman:Thank you. I noticed you didn't use the word concern, but that we're supposed to kind of assume that the concern is the system, right, that you see being set up to privilege some at the huge expense of others, right?
Jen Lumanlan:Yes, that's my concern. Thank you for clarifying.
Monica Guzman:Got it. All right, Lulu, I'll repeat the question. What concerns do you have about how American society tries to set up all children to succeed and flourish?
Lulu:When I read that question, I had like a different thought, perspective, and spin on all of it. So to some degree, we may start by talking past each other, but I'm looking forward to the dialogue back and forth. So my struggle is that the American federal government is big. They have money they want to support children. When you get that big, how do you balance between economically using that money to benefit each child? And what is that sweet spot between trying to find one solution for all children, or solutions to meet needs that are tailored for each individual child? Either extreme isn't going to work for various reasons, so there needs to be kind of that sweet spot in the middle. And it seems to me, like I'm concerned that it's the effort to try to meet the needs of all children, that the people who are making those policy decisions, are just meeting the needs of the children that they see and the way that they see is fit. But that doesn't help each child. That doesn't help the more peripheral groups. But if you bring that level of support to be too small, you risk disproportionately allocating the money or people from outside groups going in and trying to help that group. So like to make that more tangible, if I were to go into an inner city school that's mostly Black and say, "I'm here to help you. I have money. I want to help you because you're not White upper middle class," well, how do I know what they need? I don't want to go in and be the solution to what I see as their problems. So, for me, it's if I proactively advocate for them, am I reinforcing my own privilege and therefore increasing those divides? So I want to have them voice their needs and to support them and work to find ways on how American society can support them, starting with them voicing their needs.
Monica Guzman:Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, I trust that you both spent the two minutes, while the other was talking, listening. And listening is, as we know, more than waiting your turn to speak. It's hopefully listening with that generous kind of openness. I appreciated Lulu that you began by saying, you know, when I read this question, I had a different perspective on all of it. And I want to point out how powerful that is that you didn't say, "I disagree. I think that's dumb. I don't see out of you." You said I see things differently, which is a very honest and wonderful way to present our perspectives and put them next to each other without unnecessary conflict. So it's also very clear that these were very thoughtful reflections in both cases. So we're gonna go into an eight minute back and forth discussion.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, I'm setting a timer.
Monica Guzman:Yes. And the prompt is, what did you learn about how the other person views what needs to change in society? And did you see anything in common? I will also say that if anything that you all said needs clarifying for you, this is a good time to ask questions of clarification--curious questions to close those gaps of where you might be uncertain what the other person meant.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah. Did you want to get a translator? Or do you like me to?
Lulu:I do have a quick clarifying question for you, just to make sure that I heard you correctly or understood. It sounded to me, like you said that it's intentional that we're not setting up all children to succeed, and that it is the White middle class children. Did I hear that correctly? You think that isn't like an intentional way our society operates?
Jen Lumanlan:That's an interesting word that you pick up on. I don't think I said the word intentional, but I do think that, by, it's almost like, by default, it's intentional, right? Like by not questioning, but by hiding and pretending that we're all doing the right things, that it becomes intentional. I guess it's how I see it. Does that make sense?
Lulu:Yeah, I think so. Okay. And there are ways I struggle with that myself. Like I've been asking myself regularly over these last few months. It is my aversion to directly and proactively addressing issues like this, being in denial about the state of things, and that I happen to be in that privileged group.
Jen Lumanlan:Could you say some more about that? What have you been thinking?
Lulu:It kind of goes back to the, like what I said a minute ago, I don't want to proactively insert myself into helping other people who I can't directly relate to. And wondering how much of that is not wanting to further the perception of I'm better than you. And how much of that is just being in denial about the fact that there really is a problem that needs addressing, and that I have the ability to address that problem.
Monica Guzman:So I want to jump in and point out so the prompt is, what did you learn about how the other person views what needs to change in society? And so Lulu, by your question, you clarified, you know what Jen meant about that intentionality. And then you shared sort of a vulnerable reflection of your own. And that is a sort of answer to the prompt of what was learned. It's an invitation to reflect. So Jen, what comes up for you as something you learned by listening to Lulu?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, I think there were two main points. One was a surprising thing and the other was an area of congruence. The area of congruence really, was this, the idea that I can't assume what other people need. And yes, I agree. I am actively trying not to assume what anybody else needs. I think what I'm trying to do is to raise the possibility that the things that we might be advocating for might potentially hurt somebody else if we don't consider it properly. Like and just as, I guess, a random example, if we're advocating for the idea of rich or growth mindset to be taught in schools, you know, the way that shows up in poor inner city schools is, well, if you were just greedy enough, if you had growth mindset, you could get yourself out of this terrible situation you're in and this is your thing to fix, when actually it's a systemic issue. So the point of congruence, I heard there was yes, we do not want to be assuming that we know what other people's needs. And as an extension of that, I don't think that we should, that the when we advocate for our children, we need to think about how that shows up for children who may be in very different circumstances than our children are in. So you opened by talking about how the government wants to support children and that was not what I was expecting at all. I was coming at this from a very different perspective of, these are decisions that we are making in our lives–you, Lulu, Monica as well, and me–the choices that we're making and how we live our daily lives, what we advocate for our children's schools, the kinds of things we choose to talk to their children about, are the kinds of levers I'm looking to pull. And so I was really surprised to hear you open, talking about government. Can you say a bit more about how much of this you see being your role? And how much is this the government's thing to figure out?
Lulu:Yeah, sure. And part of that does go back to I think the way I interpreted the question the way it was phrased as American society being kind of big government, but I think it goes back to, at what level can you affect change? And how much can I do as a person individually? indirectly? And how much do I rely on people who are practiced and trained, and have funding, and have resources that I don't necessarily have to go affect that kind of change? And I think for me, part of it is that, like Jen, I want to set up my children to succeed. I ideally want that to not be at the expense of other children. And I think this kind of overlaps with the next question. But how much do I advocate for my children versus all children in general? How much is enough for me? At what point can I say that I've done enough? And at what point do I let others who are passionate, like you, take the lead on these things? And related to that is that setting up children to succeed and flourish can be across a wide variety of topics: I mean, you mentioned teaching grit in the school system; it could be ecology; it could be LGBTQ rights; it could be religious freedom. And there's that balance between exposure, like exposing our kids to these things as issues and that they're not Black and White, and helping them understand that; and being an advocate, like an activist on any one of our all of those issues. And I see as many different issues that require that conscious thought and exploration and conversation. So I think part of what I've struggled with the last few months or a year, it's been, why narrow the focus and these conversations on just one or two core issues instead of the gamut?
Monica Guzman:So is this is this close to the end of the eight minutes?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, we've got like 25 seconds. So Monica, if you wanted to pull out in any of that feel free?
Monica Guzman:Yeah, totally. So first off, I mean, great, great exchange. So far, I'm learning a lot just listening to both of you. That was really, really cool. I noticed when you mentioned that point of congruence, I think you call it common ground, Jen, that area of congruence that you can't assume what people need. And you heard that from Lulu, and you said, "Yes." So I wanted to speak to that, that anytime in a conversation like this where you can acknowledge points of agreement, or even just things that make sense to you even if you may not agree, you can say, "Well, that makes sense. That's a fair point." It doesn't mean that I accept that point. But that's fair. What you do is you end up building a base camp, up a tall mountain, where if you tried to climb up too fast, you run out of oxygen, right, fall off, or die. Let's not carry the analogy too far. But if you build a base camp by saying, "I see you. I see what you're saying." You're also communicating to the other person that I'm really listening. And then I'm here to try to capture your meaning. So I think that that was a great moment. The other thing was that I didn't heard Lulu, I heard you, almost come to questions that seem to sort of bridge your concerns–questions like, at what level can you affect change? And how much should I rely on people who have more resources than maybe I do to affect that change? That, to what extent should I allow you know, people who are passionate like you to take the lead, which goes right to the main concern about the podcast? And then you said why narrow the concern to these core issues if we've got so much, you know, going on. So I'm seeing kind of new questions arise that can be kind of creatively answered and that continue to bring new concerns in. Does any of that makes sense?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah.
Monica Guzman:So that is neat. And then what is also cool is that you organically move to the next topic that we were going to the next prompt. So I think we can choose to start at this prompt, you know, and kind of continue almost where we left off. But again, I think that you brought up questions that get to some of the heart of the overriding issue, and you can choose to continue to explore in that direction. So the next question is, what is my responsibility in acting for the good of my child versus acting for the good of all children? So yeah, and I would say, if you've learned already from this exchange, then wrap that in your answer if you'd like. So two minutes each and no interruptions. Lulu you start this time.
Lulu:Yes. And I already touched on that. So this will be a good continuation. So the way I think about this is like in the airplane safety training. If there's a loss of cabin pressure, put on your oxygen mask first, then help others around you, right? And then only if you're in a designated role or properly trained do you take actions to save the whole plane. As a parent, I try to take care of my basic needs first, and then that puts me in a place to be a good parent to my children, and that includes the not only their basic needs for survival, but preparing them to be respectful adults with good morals, values, and who can contribute to society. Anything broader than that, like for the good of all children, that comes back to me for a question of where do I have the background skills, position, and resources to help that broader society, the children that extend beyond my family, my neighborhood, my town. And so going back to kind of that airplane scenario, am I in the right position and trained to provide that broader support? And where I am, I do try to be more proactive and take that larger role in society. But for me, that's a different answer than it is for someone else who's in a different position and has a different background and experience. And I already mentioned some of them, but it could be a wide variety of topics, you know, from consumerism, and just like our debt-driven society, and what that means for us, and our culture long term, patriarchy and gender equality, ecology, White supremacy, LGBTQ+ rights, religious freedom, like each of those is important, and addressing no one alone will solve all problems for children. But working continuously across the gamut and each of us working on the ones where we can have the most effect is where I see that balance.
Monica Guzman:Thank you. Okay, let's move right to Jen. Ready and I'll repeat the prompt, what is my responsibility, enacting for the good of my child versus acting for the good of all children? And just a reminder on the listening, listen, for points of agreement, you know, listen for questions of clarification and other things to move you down. Good.
Jen Lumanlan:So I guess, I wanted to open by saying that I don't see myself as some sort of visionary who sees some things that nobody else see because, like, people have been talking about this for a long time. But I do think that I have a set of skills that allows me to get into the weeds on academic research in a lot of fields and translate that into non-academic language, and then to connect topics across things like discipline, and how we discipline our children, how they're going to show up in the world as adults, and how those two things are connected. And so yeah, so my responsibility in terms of acting for the good of all children, I do see as as happening primarily through the podcast. And so I address White supremacy across a variety of topics, because in my mind, it isn't a discrete topic. And so if I was to do just one episode on it and say, "You know, this is what White supremacy is. This is what you should do about it." Then to me, that would mean I'm not addressing the topic properly. Because to see it as a separate topic, and picking up on some of loose ideas, you know, the experts should work on these things--that a person with qualifications should work on these things. It is to ignore the way that it has its tentacles in all of our lives. It's already affecting us. And so we have a responsibility to do something about that. And so I would be acting for the good of only my child, if I want to know how the research on grit, for example, stick with that example, can help my child because if I'm helping my child, I'm almost inherently trying to help them do well in school, do want them to go to a 'good' college, get a good job. And it's almost like I'm trying to privilege my child at the expense of somebody else's child. And the thing that I want myself to see and listeners to see is that the systems aren't a result of a government of somebody overarching authority making decisions. It's the decisions that we make every single day in our lives, all of us here on the call today, and those who are listening, that perpetuate these systems or work to break them down.
Monica Guzman:Okay, thank you. I noticed how you both took the prompt, but are also using it again to explore that key question that is, I think, adding some heat to this and hopefully in a good way, you know, that cooks up understanding. So I'll remind you both about your goals, you know, in the beginning one being, yeah, Lulu, like why is White supremacy a core issue for Jen? And also, can I be comfortable listening to the podcast? And Jen, understanding more about how Lulu thinks about this issue? And how can I share ideas on the podcast around this so that they can be heard and received well? All right, so here is the open discussion on these pieces. I will encourage you both to, if you catch yourself making judgments or assumptions, see if you can turn those into questions–questions that you can then use to learn more, and to begin to kind of compare and contrast to how issues sit in your head. You've already brought up so many interesting fault lines around qualification. You know, Lulu, you've brought up that concern about how am I qualified to do this anyway? You know, and, Jen, you've brought up concerns about well, I don't know that White supremacy is a discrete issue. It feels like its tentacles are everywhere. And so that I wouldn't, I would be ignoring what I feel as a responsibility to all children, for example, right. But there's just two that I found and you really each launched like 20. So I'm going to turn it back over to you and go forth.
Jen Lumanlan:Eight minute timer starting. Lulu, did you want to go first? I have a–
Lulu:I went first. I think I spoke more last time. So.
Jen Lumanlan:Okay, and just want to point out that's sort of our status equalizer, right, and making sure that we get that and the–
Monica Guzman:One other thing is the prompt is still if we can find points of agreement, or say what you learned, that's great.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah. Okay, super. All right. So I think the key thing that stuck out to me from what you said Lulu was you use the words, practice, training, funding, resources, background, skills, positions. To me, what I'm hearing there is uncertainty, right? Like, am I the one who can work on this stuff? Did I encapsulate that right by saying uncertainty? Or is there a different word that better describes how you feel about this?
Lulu:I didn't think of it as uncertainty. I could see why you would see it that way, though. I think for me, it's that knowing that there are so many different things that I want to improve in the world. I want to focus my unique self on the issues where I think I can have the biggest impact. And that might not necessarily be White supremacy where I understand it plays a role in a lot of different things. But I think just given my specific background, and values, and passions, that there are other ways that I could help our society and the children in our society more.
Jen Lumanlan:Okay, may I ask what some of those ways might be?
Lulu:Consumerism and ecology are a big part of that for me. And the one thing that I'm gonna go off on a tangent now, because one thing that struck me when you were talking, Jen, was that you feel like White supremacy's tentacles are everywhere. So when I talk about those other types of issues, do you see them as all related to White supremacy?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, I mean, just taking ecology as an example, you know, we came in to the US. We kicked Native Americans off their lands which I mean, I don't want to romanticize it but they had been managing very successfully for centuries before that. We put fences around the land. We farmed it so that it decreased in productivity over time because we didn't replenish what we what we took out. We created national parks that Native Americans aren't allowed to live in, fenced them out and said, "This is what a pristine landscape looks like." And we have absolutely pillaged the earth. And then we have the gall to turn around and say, and to indigenous people everywhere and people around the world, "This is how you should be managing your resources. You need to not cut your forest down because we already cut ours down to get ourselves ahead to get through the Industrial Revolution and so on." So yes, that is, you are exactly at the point where I am, which is that White supremacy is intimately linked with ecology and we can have a similar conversation about consumerism, too. What does that raise for you and I say that?
Lulu:Some like strong internal reactions and–
Jen Lumanlan:Can you please tell me more?
Lulu:I'm noticing in myself like that initial reaction, I think you've talked about this in other podcasts as well, "Oh, that wasn't me. I didn't do any of that." But then the other part of it is like, okay, the history of how we got to where we are, I agree completely. Yeah, the what we do about it, I'm struggling to link that finding the solution to like finding the ideal solution to White supremacy because I would hope that the better planet for everyone is a better planet for everyone regardless of where you live, and the color of your skin, and I was gonna say how much money you have--but if you have more money, you could probably do more. But regardless of those other things that you would still do your best to take care of this one planet that we have locally as much as possible. And maybe it's because the way I'm thinking about it, I've already moved past what you see as White supremacy so I'm seeing them like that ideal solution is two different things. Like the history I agree completely, it's more the how do you solve it.
Jen Lumanlan:Understanding that part, when you see it as two different things, the solving the environmental challenges and the addressing White supremacy, you're seeing those different things?
Lulu:Yes. And the role that White supremacy plays in the way to ideally solve those environmental challenges. Maybe I'm not saying it clearly.
Jen Lumanlan:I understand the discrepancy or the difference between the things that happened in the past and what we're trying to deal with today. And I guess the way I'm going to try and bridge the gap is to go back to what you said earlier, which is that you can't assume what other people need. And to think about what indigenous people are telling us about what their needs are, right, like protesting the pipelines, that kind of thing. Are we doing work to support those activities? And I'm not saying that I'm the perfect person, and I did everything I should have done there and on all the other environmental issues as well. But are we doing something that somebody is telling us we need this? We need help with this? And if we're not, then maybe we are kind of in denial--use the word, you know, am I in denial earlier? Yeah.
Monica Guzman:I want to just jump in to say, first of all, it's remarkable how you are really tuned in to the goal of understanding each other. So many times you've said things like, you know, this is what I heard, is that what you meant? And you're okay, that's the point where I've gotten to which is this? I love Lulu your question, "Do you see all of this related to White supremacy? Is that why?" You know, it's like you asked it from a place of oh, maybe maybe this is helping me understand what Jen is coming from. And then she affirmed that point.
Jen Lumanlan:If I could just say something about that. That felt getting to explain in response to that question felt really good. It felt like we were really coming together. So yeah–
Monica Guzman:It literally feels like you're approaching each other almost physically and there's more proximity. I loved--I forget what have you said, I can see why you'd see it that way, though. Lulu said it. Because Jen, you were asking a question of clarification. You know, is it uncertainty? Is that the word? And you know, but I can see why you'd say so as soon as you said, "I can see why you'd see it that way," that's an incentive for Jen to be like, okay, yeah, let me hear what she really meant, right? And again, you could have chosen a different option, "No, you fool." Like I'm exaggerating, "I thought you listening to me; you never listen to me," you know, and all this crap that tends to knock us off? But yeah, it really, really, really extraordinary movement on complicated issues so far. So did you already have another direction? You wanted to go there?
Jen Lumanlan:Oh, there was our eight minutes. So I think we at this point in the agenda, I sort of left us with a little bit of flex time. We are getting fairly close to time. So Monica, I wonder if there's something you want to ask or if we want to move towards our conclusion. Either way, would be fine; or say if not–
Monica Guzman:Yeah, no, let me see what comes up. I also want to commend you point out some other things that you did that were really good. There were points where you were getting to things that were more tender and maybe a little more risky. And I could sense the heat coming up. And then Jen, you said, you know, “I'm not sure,” or you both started saying, “I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well.” Or you know, you invited the other person to say, “Yeah, this isn't adding up.” And Jen I saw you kind of stop and think like, am I getting this distinction between the history and then the solution like I've been getting it and speaking out loud about it very transparently? But a really cool part was when you turned to Lulu and said, “What's coming up for you?” which is a wonderful question. What's coming up for you as you hear that? And Lulu, you said some strong internal reactions. Then you actually named those reactions. So what can often happen in conversations is we don't name those reactions so they come out. They come out of us in the form of hostility and aggression, right? And you just named that, you know, you said well, that wasn't me who did that stuff and other things like that. And so just giving those things voice puts them into the pool of shared meaning you're building between them. Well, you can continue to explore. So, yeah, I wanted to point that out, because that was really good. Really, really fun to listen to.
Jen Lumanlan:Awesome, thank you. So maybe in the interest of time, then we should move towards our conclusion.
Monica Guzman:Okay, so yes, to wrap up. And you know, we did move sort of fast through this and spin up a lot of things. So I want you all to lean on your intuitions for this, you know, without thinking too hard, just see what pops up already as your your minds process what you're hearing from each other. What's something you heard from the other person here that interested, informed, or surprised you? And there's a second part that I'll put sort of underneath this one. If you plan to do something differently, which will be remarkable because we've only just started, if you were to do something differently as a result of our conversation, would you be willing to mention it now? So if there's any sort of movement, you can tell yourself, you can sense maybe you want to move somewhere, just not now? Maybe signal that right, but with no commitments. This is not about commitments. So again, what's something you heard from the other person here that interested, informed, or surprised you?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah. Okay. And I'll set the timer for six minutes, and back and forth conversation.
Monica Guzman:Lulu, this is back and forth. Okay.
Lulu:As we were getting to the end, Jen, especially kind of that aha moment of like, I see a lot of discrete issues. And you see them all as linked together that, what surprised me about that moment, was it brought me back to the beginning of our conversation when you said that you have that strength of being able to dive into research, translate that into common speech to share with other people, and to see what seems to be a lot of different issues and linking them together. And that this is just one very key strong and controversial, in some ways, example of that. And that when I've listened to some podcasts and hear like White supremacy come up on a topic that seems either completely unrelated, or the White supremacy aspect of it to me is much broader than, “Hey, I just want to be a better parent, man.” That is one way of you doing what you do really well of trying different things to gather and trying to keep it one continuous thread. And so that was a very interesting and like, enlightening moment for me.
Jen Lumanlan:Thank you for acknowledging that as a strength. I appreciate it.
Lulu:Yeah. And I think, even though we could spend probably more hours talking about all of this, that was a very good insight that I think I will take forward with me. So Monica, to get to that second question that I'll bring forward and when continuing to listen to Jen's podcasts have much more of that awareness of what Jen is trying to achieve, and a bigger picture of tying different things together across all the different topics.
Jen:Thank you.
Monica Guzman:
We didn't fully address the word uncertainty, right? You said not really uncertainty, but I can see how you would think it was that and then I'm not sure we got to a word that accurately summarizes how you feel. So I'm still feeling uncertain that I fully understand how you feel about your role in these systems. And I would like to understand that more. And I guess what I would be interested in exploring, if you are willing in some format, which probably wouldn't be recorded for everybody to hear. And maybe an email or, you know, some fairly efficient format, would you be willing to help me understand more about what is there with that sort of, you know, bookmark placeholder uncertainty, and the ways that I could potentially be involved in helping you feel less uncertain, or whatever that word is, about your role in these systems and addressing the challenges that we have working within these systems?
Lulu:Yes, yeah, definitely. And if I can go on one part of that uncertainty in general, it's not just my role but also when you put yourself out there in these podcasts and try to string things together and bring up repeated issues repeatedly. It's that uncertainty of, well as Jen asking me to do something or just trying to raise awareness, like, what is her goal and bringing up what seems like a tangential issue as part of this topic.
Jen Lumanlan:I thank you for that. Firstly, thank you for agreeing to continue the conversation. That's going to be a real gift to me. And thank you for articulating that because I think you're right that I'm not always clear. And maybe I'm not even clear in my own mind about what my goal is, and that I'm kind of going for awareness, because it's easier. And maybe I don't know what is the thing to do. And I'm hoping you're gonna find the thing to do that's relevant in your community. But I could be more clear in articulating that. And perhaps that would help people like you to see, you know, what am I supposed to do with this information. So, yeah, I appreciate that.
Lulu:Thanks for acknowledging that felt very validating.
Jen Lumanlan:Let's see, is there anything else you'd like to say in our last minute or so in this conclusion?
Lulu:Well, I think I'm good.
Jen Lumanlan:Okay, yeah, gosh, I came into this conversation so nervous. I do these interviews all the time but never quite in this way. And I think I understand your perspective a little more, Lulu. And I just can't say how grateful I am that you would be willing to put yourself out there on an issue that is potentially divisive, and be willing to have this conversation with me about it. So really, hats off to you. Thank you so much. Thank you,
Lulu:Thank you. I got so much out of this conversation more than I thought I could in an hour.
Monica Guzman:That's remarkable. That's remarkable. And I will also say that something came up in this conversation that I've observed in many such conversations, which is that you think you're going to talk about White supremacy. And you end up talking about a lot of other things that influence the enemy, whatever role White supremacy occupies in your own mind, but it's the learning what role that plays in your mind that ends up being more valuable than any kind of gnarly debate about the issue itself. Does that make sense? That's what I saw you both do were afraid to touch such a tender issue, but you really ended up talking about other things that are more human to you in the moment. You know what I mean?
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah, it seems like it comes back to what's really important to me, and what's really important to you, right?
Monica Guzman:Yeah, you think you're gonna have a really nasty debate like on Fox News about some horrible thing? You know, and that's not– And that doesn't end up being what these conversations are usually like.
Lulu:Yeah. And the approaching it with the combination of respect and curiosity seems to really help.
Jen Lumanlan:Yeah.
Monica Guzman:I barely ever said timeout. I was like, there’s nothing to correct here. So that speaks volumes to you both.
Jen Lumanlan:Then in conclusion, is there anything you'd like to leave us with, Monica? Anything we could have done better? Any idea that you want to convey to folks who are listening to this as they start to think about buying your book?
Monica Guzman:Yeah, I think the thing I will underline that hasn't already been pointed out, I suppose is, Jen said at the end, “I was so nervous about this conversation.” And Lulu said, “I got so much more out of it in an hour than I thought I would.” There's research that shows that people tend to underestimate how much they will value and appreciate a conversation. And so it's one of the reasons we're avoiding them. And so I hope this serves as an example for reasons not to avoid these kinds of engagements. That if you approach them with curiosity, and by the way, before this conversation the both of you agreed to some goals and how important that is. So our listeners didn't see that but that's a key part of it. So if you want to have a conversation with someone and it's tough, you know, you can ask for the buy-in first. You know, I know it's been tough in the past, here's what I'm going to change: if there's been baggage about how we tend to engage, do you have some time? I'd really like to learn more and understand more from you about what you think about this issue, and then have that other person give you their sense of what conditions would be good for them to meet, right. And so once you have that, man, a lot becomes possible. So I'll leave you all with that.
Jen Lumanlan:We recorded this episode several weeks ago, and I've had a chance to reflect on it quite a bit since then. And I wanted to share a few ideas. I should note that I have had a very sore throat for the last few days and am barely been able to speak. So if my voice sounds tight, that's why we're coming up on the editing deadline pretty quickly. Firstly, a point about how I express my ideas in a way that could have been disconnecting. Secondly, about how to have these conversations with people in our regular lives when we don't have a moderator telling us what we're doing well and what we aren't doing well. I also wanted to let you know about the extended conversation I've been having with Lulu about the topics that we discussed in this episode. I thought quite a lot about the period in the middle of the conversation when I shared how White supremacy has intersected with capitalism and our environment for a long time. I wasn't prepared for this precise line of questioning if I had been or if we'd had more time to tease it out. I would have made it clear that a White supremacist way of viewing capital as an unquestionably positive thing and seeing the environment as existing only to provide resources that we can turn into capital is still creating massively negative impact on the environment today, from mining conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo to put into our phones, to the air pollution we create around freeways and ports that primarily affects the people of color who live close to them. I could give 100 more examples of this. But giving all of those examples probably would have only served to create disconnection between Lulu and me, which wouldn't have helped either of us to understand each other better. It didn't feel good to at least get some of those ideas out. But I think we can very quickly get to a point where piling on too much creates disconnection and disrupts the conversation and the relationship. So there's definitely a balance to find there. Another thing I reflected on was Lulu’s response to what I said about ecological issues, when she said a lot is coming up. For me, I was surprised because she hadn't indicated that as far as I could tell in her face. So I was surprised by her surprise, which maybe means I need to pause and check in more often to see how the other person is doing since clearly, I can't read that myself. This came into play in another conversation I had recently. And I'm going to be deliberately vague on the details, because it happened in a group environment where we have are committed to confidentiality in the content of what we discussed. So I can only share my experience. I was co-leading the call. And I had agreed with my co-leader in advance that I was going to talk about a specific idea and a book that we're all reading together. And my point was that the science really isn't fully baked on the topic you've discussed in the book. And I talked about that for three or four minutes. And the co-leader and another person on the call indicated that that didn't matter as much to them as the idea of fit with their experiences and their ways of knowing the world. After that part of the conversation, it kind of proceeded and there wasn't really space for me to be able to respond, even though I had tried to create a space. And I had this matter level awareness where I was watching myself know that I was unable to respond appropriately. And yet, not knowing what else to do. I didn't want to negate these people's experiences. But I did think there was more to it than they were acknowledging. And I knew that I didn't have the skills to be able to say what I thought without appearing either defensive or offensive. So I just didn't say anything. And I left the call feeling quite disconnected from the group and disappointed in myself for not having handled the situation more effectively. And I spent quite a bit of time thinking about that, along with a question I had been thinking that I would ask Monica, and eventually I realized they were related. I saw that when we were on the call with Monica, I should have asked her to what extent we can use the tools in the book when we aren't having a formal conversation with a moderator. And I realized that one tool I could have used in my group was to say something like, “Hey, it's looks like a few of us have strong feelings about this. Would we be willing to go around and hear everyone's thoughts on it until we don't have more thoughts to share, and maybe set a timer so everyone gets an equal amount of time to speak?” And could we commit to listening within an attempt to understand rather than listening to form a counterpoint. And if that sounds weird to you, I might encourage you to try it anyway. My husband and I have long struggled when we're having disagreements because invariably he interrupts me at some point, which longtime listeners will know is a major trigger of mine. And then when I don't interrupt him to talk, he just keeps talking. And so sometimes he feels angry and expresses that. And eventually he talks himself down and tells me how much he loves me. And the whole thing just reeks of the way my dad used to lecture me when I was a teenager. So of course, I just mentally and emotionally shut down. So when we're having a disagreement, we've started putting a two minute timer on his phone when he's talking. And he stopped talking when the timer goes off. I don't have a timer, because I almost never talked for two minutes. And it has really helped both of us. And in some ways, it's ridiculous that it's taken 15 years to figure it out. When we didn't use a timer, he would occasionally stop in the middle of his long stream, and ask me what I thought. And my response would be, “You want to know what I think about what aspect of what has been spewing out of your mouth for the last 10 minutes? I couldn't even remember it all. Nevermind figure out how to respond to it.” But with a timer, the chunks are small enough that I can really listen without being overwhelmed, and then respond to just that last chunk of information. So we can actually have a productive conversation. So yes, it is weird to ask for a timer in these kinds of discussions. But then, if you're having a conversation with someone and it feels so weird, you can't even ask for a timer. Are you likely to be able to have a conversation where each of you truly listens to the other and understand each other better? My hypothesis would be probably not. So I'm not saying timers are the one tool that you need to use to make this kind of conversation happen. But if you realize you're not in a conversation where you're each truly listening and you want to be in that kind of conversation, then you'll need to change something about how the conversation is happening to be able to do that. I'm meeting with the group with whom I had the difficult interaction tomorrow night and I plan to ask them to use a timer as we discussed the issue and to listen with the intent to understand each other, and I hope that this will help us to come toward each other a bit more. Finally, I wanted to let you know how my conversations have been going with Lulu, and I did send this conclusion to her in advance of recording it, and she sent a short response for me to share with you.
Lulu:Hi, Jen, it's Lulu. Hey, thanks again for the great conversation when we recorded that podcast. Having that type of conversation with Monica there to help reinforce the value of approaching those conversations and topics where you have different opinions with someone with that open mind and the goal to connect instead of winning an argument and how much that really helps both sides. And for the topic of White supremacy itself, the conversation and our continued interactions have really helped me identify that, in addition to a lot of what I've been feeling was shame, overwhelmed, and not wanting to leave the comfort of what I know. So in some ways, fear. I appreciate and think it will help for you to continue to give us resources to better understand White supremacy, and also to start to break your general conversations in your podcasts into bite sized actions to help each of us continue this journey. Thanks for everything.
Jen Lumanlan:I'm still so grateful to Lulu for coming on to discuss a potentially volatile topic with maybe half of my listeners taking her side and wondering why the heck I talk about ideas like White supremacy so much, and wishing I would stop doing it. And the other half thinking she needs to figure it out quickly because White people who don't understand this are a huge part of the problem. We've been sending voicemails back and forth. And I've committed to doing two things. Firstly, when I call out issues related to White supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism on the show, I'm going to try to offer something that parents and especially White parents might do about them. I may not get it right all the time. Sometimes I may not even know what actions to take, in which case, I'll try to say that. But I'll try to offer some practices and perhaps different practices for folks who are at different stages on their journey. I also need to articulate my view on these issues more fully to you, which will actually be a good episode to introduce my book, which is coming out on August 1. The entire thesis of the book is that our parents shaped us to fit in with a White supremacist, patriarchal capitalist culture, and that this profoundly hurt us. Even if they had the very best intentions, this hurt that we still carry around with us shapes the way we interact with our own children. And unless we make a conscious decision to do something differently, we will most likely perpetuate the cycle with our children. So the opening of the book is about that. And the bulk of it is about, okay, so then what do we actually do differently? It's not a book about talking with children about race, because lots of Black authors have written books on that topic. And I think we need to take the lead from them. We absolutely do need to talk with our children about race. But we also know that children do what we do, and not what we say. If we're talking about treating other people well, and then forcing our child to brush their teeth. The lesson they're actually taking away from the whole thing is that bigger, more powerful people can make less powerful people do what they want. And that is the lesson they're going to take out into the world. So if we want to raise children who will see other people's needs as just as important as their own, then we need to see their needs as just as important as our own–not more and not less. Where we can do that we will be able to be in a relationship with them that is mutually fulfilling now, where we aren't getting walked all over. We also aren't requiring them to change who they are to get our approval. We're all just people in a relationship together, getting our needs met, which feels amazing. One final idea I want to leave you with is that Lulu and I came to this conversation with pretty different perspectives. I'm not going to shy away from saying that I thought she was just plain wrong. And her not wanting to hear about White supremacy is a symptom and a big part of the problems that we face in our society. We didn't really talk for very long, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we both feel invested in the other person in a way that we didn't before. She has asked me what she thinks is one or a first step that she is a White, heterosexual, middle class American citizen who listens to an awesome podcast on parenting can do as a parent to better understand White supremacy and the role that she plays in it. And she actually did say that nice part about the awesome podcast on parenting. I would not have thought of going into the conversation she would have come out asking me that question. Going into the conversation. I was very much invested in learning more about her perspective, but I wasn't sure I could fully understand it because I thought she was wrong. It would have been very easy for me to write her I often say, Well, of course she's wrong. And people who think I'm right, well listen to the podcast, so I don't need to pay attention to what she thinks. I'm really glad I did listen to her because ultimately, I will be more successful in my own goal of creating a world where everyone feels like they belong. When I can understand and talk with Lulu, and people who share her perspective. I see now that the feelings that have led her to not want to engage with this topic, things like fear and shame, and by far, the easiest thing to do is to keep doing the things she's always done, which will keep perpetuating these systems that hurt people so much. I've definitely felt those things as well as I've been on my own journey on these topics, perhaps to a lesser extent, because my autism seems to prevent me from getting as emotionally invested in my reactions to learning about issues related to race, which leaves me better able to see the actions that I want to take and take them. One useful idea I learned recently from author shares, as you mean, is that when two people are having a disagreement, each one of them is at least 10% right? So when I disagree with people moving forward, my plan is to step back and look for that 10% where they're right and use that as a path to common ground. So I hope this episode has helped you to see how you can have more of these kinds of conversations in your own lives. You can find a link to Monica’s book at YourParentingMojo.com/INeverThoughtofItThatWay.
Denise:I'm a Your Parenting Mojo fan, and I hope you enjoy the show as much as I do. If you found this episode, especially enlightening or useful, you can donate to help them produce more content like this. Just go to the episode page that Jen mentioned. Thanks for listening.