Where does tolerance fit in to RU?

[Debbie Penley]

As I'm starting to grasp more and more what the RU lifestyle entails (the details - the overall gist I had, but it's the every day practical JUST DO IT! stuff that I'm workin' on!), I'm wondering, as I have with other AP practices, where does tolerance fit in with Radical Unschooling?

When making my parenting choices, I have read, questioned, looked inside myself (this one the most often), and reflected on my faith. In the end, after looking at the end result in children from other families practicing the style I wanted to try, and knowing that it was the only decision that would bring me peace, I went ahead and naturally parented my children, from birth on.

But I struggle with not judging other people. I have tried to grasp in the last year the fact that what is best for ME and MY FAMILY is not always what is best for OTHER PEOPLE and THEIR FAMILIES. And yet, I don't always believe that statement...because I think that some of the things I do ARE best for everyone (unless there are concrete reason why they can't be done - ie. nursing an adopted baby, though possible, can't always be done...staying home with your children as a single mom, etc.)

I'm wondering if there's a better way to picture this in my head? Although it seems unschooling has certain attributes that everyone agrees on, it's more that it LACKS attributes that traditional parenting claims (bed times, meal times, punishments). Unschooling is a way of living, more so than a set of "do's" and "don'ts" (which would be easier for me to follow - I was great at school!)

Do RUers view their way of life as the ultimate natural way of living, that all people, if they allowed themselves, COULD do and be happier for it, or do they think of it as "this is best for me, but it's not for everyone..."

And I know this may differ for each RUer. I struggle with thinking the former, but know that I should be thinking the latter.

And yet, sometimes there ARE certain truths that pertain to everyone, correct? (I'm actually asking this, it's not rhetorical!) One example might be: "Children are more emotionally stable in homes where both the father and mother reside in mutual harmony, than if there are two homes with the father at one and the mother the other and discord inbetween."

How do we differentiate between truths that are for a few, and truths that are for all. if that makes sense?

In other words, I'd like to say that Breastfeeding is best for all babies. And I'd be right in a certain sense, I think (again...uncertain here! Too many variables) but there will always be mothers who for one reason or another chose not to breastfeed or tried and couldn't, and will feel defensive and hurt from that statement. Can that statement ever be true? Or only partially true? Or does that not even make sense?

How tolerant IS unschooling of all the other ways of raising a family?

Deb

[Bonnie]

""Children are more emotionally stable in homes where both the father and mother reside in mutual harmony, than if there are two homes with the father at one and the mother the other and discord inbetween.""

Those aren't the only two options, though. There are couples where the choices are for the parents to reside together in discord, or to separate and be peaceful. There are families where the father was basically a sperm donor. There are families that are separated without any real discord between the two homes (though that's probably not so common). And of course there are families with two moms or two dads, or a mom and a grandma, or just grandparents, or whatever other situation. Sometimes kids are better off living with a stable, commited grandparent than an unstable, undevoted mother. My parents couldn't have stayed together because my dad was cheating on my mom and didn't really want to be a dad all that much anyway. I wouldn't have been better off if he had stayed grudgingly around, but I would have been better off if he didn't half-pretend to care about me when he really didn't. I was better off being raised by my mom and her mom.

"In other words, I'd like to say that Breastfeeding is best for all babies. And I'd be right in a certain sense, I think (again...uncertain here! Too many variables) but there will always be mothers who for one reason or another chose not to breastfeed or tried and couldn't"

Strictly speaking, breastfeeding would be best for all babies, if it were equally possible for all mothers. But, as just one example, my mother couldn't breastfeed me because she was taking strong medication, and a skin condition she was worried about passing on. It was infinitely better for me to be drinking formula than to be drinking medication that would have been toxic to my little infant body. Maybe it would be more flexible to think "breastfeeding, when possible, is best." That feels and sounds better because it sticks to your basic principle (that breastfeeding has tons of advantages over bottle-feeding) while still acknowledging that some people couldn't breastfeed if they wanted to.

"Do RUers view their way of life as the ultimate natural way of living, that all people, if they allowed themselves, COULD do and be happier for it, or do they think of it as "this is best for me, but it's not for everyone...""

It's not true that all people could do it, no matter how much they wanted to. People who live in Germany or other places where homeschooling is illegal couldn't. People involved in messy divorces where the other parent doesn't want it to happen often can't. Single parents with young children and no one cooperative to watch them can't, unless they can work from home. People who are clinging to authoritarian belief systems can't unless they're willing to change those beliefs, and many aren't. That's not to say that those people wouldn't be happier, if they unschooled, but it's still not "right" for everyone if not everyone can do it.

I think there are cases where things ARE best for everyone, though. Hugs and reassurance and love are best for everyone. Compassion and patience are best for everyone. Having someone listen to you and take you seriously is best for everyone. I don't think it's necessary to be tolerant of people's decisions to withhold those things from their children.

[Julie B]

I've been finding that as I develop more openness and flexibility around Dmitri's preferences, the same happens for my perspective on other people and their parenting styles.

That's not to say that I don't feel snarky and judgmental at times and that I don't actually enjoy privately judging them (and myself as superior, of course) at others. I find that a large part of my tolerance has to be for my own evolution as I move past these insecurities--tolerating my own intolerance, knowing that I have the desire to release judgment and also knowing that it will happen in its own way and time.

-=-How tolerant IS unschooling of all the other ways of raising a family?-=-

My perspective on this is that unschoolers learn that pushing and shoving is not productive. We don't rush our kids, and we learn not to rush our friends and neighbors. Add to this my personal philosophy that anything at all (including my own precious thoughts) can be a load of crap, and I become a bit more accepting of and able to deal effectively with people and situations that don't match up to my ideals of the moment.

My role as an unschooling parent is not to pass on Truths, not to kill little, dynamic, evolving truths by placing them in boxes and thrusting them at Dmitri. I think it's the same with other people, too. Truth should be wild and free, I think. I'd rather watch it move around than try to capture it. Oh, except in my most satisfying judgmental moments. Then I lean heavily on TRUTH (of my being right) to prop me up. Sometimes that's still so fun for me. And that's okay.

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-And yet, sometimes there ARE certain truths that pertain to everyone, correct? (I'm actually asking this, it's not rhetorical!) One example might be: "Children are more emotionally stable in homes where both the father and mother reside in mutual harmony, than if there are two homes with the father at one and the mother the other and discord inbetween."
-=-

In this statement, those were the two choices. Harmony between parents is something MANY unschoolers have discovered as a side benefit of really looking at how to nurture a great relationship with a child.

-=- Maybe it would be more flexible to think "breastfeeding, when possible, is best." That feels and sounds better because it sticks to your basic principle (that breastfeeding has tons of advantages over bottle-feeding) while still acknowledging that some people couldn't breastfeed if they wanted to.-=-

Good suggestion. If you rephrase your "truths" in tolerant and compassionate ways, maybe you can have them without feeling like you've ended up cutting off half the world (probably more) as damage-doing bad guys.

It might also help to think of what you mean by "tolerance." "To tolerate" isn't very warm. It also implies the person being tolerant has power to stop the other person. I might tolerate someone farting on purpose in my living room, but I don't have to tolerate it. I could tell them to get out of my house.

If my neighbors are fartin' up a storm in their own living room "tolerance" isn't a factor at all. It's none of my business. (Unless I went over the visit and they started lettin' loose to amuse me. I might be amused, or I might decide I'm not going to tolerate it, and I'll go back to my house.)

What other parents are doing in other houses in other towns with their kids isn't for me to tolerate or to accept or anything else. I have no say, no power. I could condemn them behind their backs, and build up a bunch of energy telling my kids how awful all those other parents are, but then I've brought them into my house and let their practices (mostly my festering attitude about their practices) harm my kids.

My priority is creating a peaceful home for my kids, so I keep my thoughts as peaceful as I can, too.

[Trisha Cronin]

I believe that everyone has their own journey, and where they are now is the only place they can realistically be. They are doing their best, and if they are doing things which harm their children, they're harming themselves as well. So I try to have compassion for them, and also do any little thing I can to help them, even if its only giving them an encouraging smile in the supermarket.

This is my personal opinion, but I've never really liked the word tolerate, because it implies that I have some power over another person. I believe that the only persons behavior I can control is my own (although sometimes I definitely TRY to control other people). So if I don't like something they are doing I can, like Sandra said, leave the room. But I can't change their behavior. We're all muddling along on this journey together. Maybe some of us see differently, and more accurately, than others, but seeing ourselves as superior doesn't help. Having compassion does.

[Debbie Penley]

>So I accept him as he is and feel compassion for him but call the police because I can not tolerate him hurting someone else.br />
I like this - that makes a lot of sense.

[Debbie Penley]

I never really knew that tolerant carried with it the idea of power. It's been such a "buzz" word in the past few years (people accused of being intolerant as synonymous with being non-judgmental) that NOT being tolerant has become almost taboo...

[Trisha Cronin]

Maybe it only has that idea of power for me. I just feel that if I say I tolerate something, then it implies the opposite-- that I have a choice, or a right, to NOT tolerate it. I don't feel that I have that right. I can not like a behavior, but that doesn't give me power to do anything to that person. I guess what it come down to is that, to me, saying I tolerate someone sounds very condescending. And also not very honest -- maybe because of that taboo. There are quite a few things I don't like. I don't like it when I hear a mom snapping at her child that it doesn't matter if she doesn't like the food they're buying because "that's just what we're getting." But I try to feel compassion for her, and for her child. I believe that it matters what we think, and what energy we send out into the world. It I'm angry with her, then I'm adding to the anger in the world, and that can't be good!

[Katherine]

----Do RUers view their way of life as the ultimate natural way of living, that all people, if they allowed themselves, COULD do and be happier for it, or do they think of it as "this is best for me, but it's not for everyone..."----

The reason it's not for everyone is because not every parent is willing and/or able to do it. Because of circumstances or being unwilling or mentally unstable or abusing substances or a myriad of things.

Can unschooling accommodate people's problems and still be done? Is that what you're asking? I think the answer would depend on the level of interference a problem puts in the way of unschooling (or attachment parenting or breastfeeding or just plain simple parenting). It's not what unschooling tolerates but what level and whether the problems a parent has can tolerate unschooling.

Unschooling is a philosophy, a kind of a constant in a way. The people involved in trying on unschooling for themselves, like you say, are very different from family to family and from parent to parent.

____

[Katherine]

I agree. Many times we don't know why people behave in certain ways and not some other way. It's fine to wonder without attaching much more beyond that.

If I see someone behaving in a way I can't tolerate to others, I can act without knowing why they're doing it. I want to be careful about when I act and when I refrain from action though. That is often more complicated than it looks at first blush, and if something is already complicated enough, and sometimes unless I'm in for the long haul, I feel it's not necessarily a good idea to complicate matters more, if that's what my actions would do.

So as to what to do when something is intolerable to me... that's often not so simple a decision to make.
____

[Debbie Penley]

>Can unschooling accommodate people's problems and still be done? Is that what you're asking?br />
Not really :)

It's more of the idea that some people when they think of AP style of parenting, or RU style of living, the word "militant" comes to mind. And when I'm defending my way of thinking or living to someone else, I probably DO seem militant.

But when I believe in something so strongly, whatever it may be, I can't help but to think that if everyone saw what I see, they'd believe in it, too. It's the idea that if I found the world's most delicious tasting chocolate, and I mean THE ABSOLUTE BEST!, I would want to share it with everyone I know who loves chocolate! I'd want them to experience the same joy I do. But then I run into someone who believes THEY'VE found the world's best chocolate...and neither of us can be swayed...

And I understand that each of us may be right - for our own personal tastes, and that even if we tried each other's chocolate, we might still prefer our own.

I guess I sometimes mistake confidence as cockiness, perhaps. One can be confident, and SHOULD be confident, but has no reason to be cocky or have a "better than thou" attitude. When I feel confident myself, sometimes I also tend to feel a bit better than other people, when the only person I need to compare myself to is ME.

I love how I'M the one learning in this unschooling journey...and I wonder, did most of you have your extensive vocabulary before you began RUing? Or have you aquired it by wanting to be more exact in your own dialogs? I feel behind linguistically!

Deb

[Katherine]

Well I do think that unschooling is a constant, in that it's a way to think about parenting and education and relationships in general. It encompasses several thoughts (or, in the case of chocolate, several ingredients). They're broadly defined thoughts that have specific application.

Children want a wide world (not a small one)
Children want to explore that world
Children want to be safe, happy and well
Primarily children's "work" is play and exploration
Primarily it's the parents whose "work" is to provide safe ways to explore, to suggest healthy alternatives for consideration, and to facilitate the children's "work"
Learning happens automatically while exploring and is a by-product of living
Facilitation of exploration (and learning) is enhanced tremendously by strewing (as opposed to pressing onto children) other possible related/connected avenues to explore

So look at that list. It's a lot to ask of ourselves. A fantastic lovely challenge to ourselves! It's a great thing to do! Wow.

But asking it of others is a whole 'nother ball o' wax!
_______

[Katherine]

I was going to post a long thing by Schuyler which I thought was very well written and nicely to the point. If you're a member of Unschooling Basics, go here and if not I can email you offlist with what she wrote. It's really worth seeing.
_____