Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
 

I am a firm believer that strict parents will raise better more productive children. This isn't much different with the Westerners that arrived in the 1800s from Europe and felt very strongly about their children doing well in school.

I have many Asian family friends and I see a very marked difference for those that had strict upbringings to those that had relaxed ones. While I don't think that Westerner parenting does not raise any successful children, I think that it overall produces less of them.

When the competition is fierce, as exampled by Chinese and Indian populations, you can see that many of them do whatever it takes to rise to the top.

What do you think of this essay? Is it wrong for the parent to be so strict?

It depends on the context--Asian parents in general tend to fall into a category that those in parenting research call "traditional" parenting.

You can read about Baumrind's original four parenting styles here: Parenting styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Traditional parenting is not included here because Baumrind was originally focusing only on parents in the West.

Traditional parenting is highly demanding, strict, but responsive. A traditional parent cares deeply about their child. There is a greater emphasis on the family unit, and the role each person plays within the family unit.

I'll write more when I have time, but I have to leave for work.

No.

In middle school, I scored a 54/50 on a test where most everyone else received a 30. I brought this to the attention of my parents, who said, "that's the way it should be."

While it sucks, I'm currently in a position where I could, if I wanted to, come out of school and earn a fat pay check doing nothing but typing all day.

==================

I think it really depends on what you value. My parents place great emphasis on earning a nice income, whereas I've seen other friends who emphasize happiness. I don't think any one model is incorrect, but they do take your children in different directions.

IMHO/YMMV and all that. I'm not a parent. Just the product of typical 'asian parents.'

Oh and it was my father, not my mother who demanded nothing but the best out of me.

I'm a product of lax parents—and it can be argued that the situation overall was neglectful—and in my case you have a chronic and indifferent underachiever.

However, I'd like to see more balance than the OP list allows. Why only the piano or violin? What's wrong with sports and drama?

Sometimes I wish my mother were Chinese.


I will now return to ruminating over my wasted potential.

I am English, and was brought up in that strict way, except that Drama and Sports were given the same serious weight as the other subjects. My school was in alignment with that kind of parenting, in fact it insisted on it and parents who did not pull their weight came under censure. It generated within me a mixture of strengths and hang ups, each of which tended to mitigate the effects of the other.


You're familiar with the concept 'The only game in town,' yes?

Well, I was an only child and the shape and size of 'town' was determined by my parents and the school. The invisible wall was created by the message 'There is nothing beyond these walls, and if there seems to be, then they are illusions - without value, and those who say otherwise are deluded' The 'games' which were presented were the 'only games', and eating and sleeping were in the service of those alone.

Enjoyment and pleasure were institutionalised as accolades for success within the games. Sadness was recognized only if it applied to ones own feelings of self-worth when having not won. Happiness and sadness for things outside that were considered to be a waste of time.

My going to university at 18 and the unexpected death of my father at 21 combined to break my 'knowledge that that was the only reality'. I had entered university carrying what I thought to be the One True Treasure chest, left realising it was a well-built box of maps, compasses and tools to make and maintain means of transport, and have spent the time since then connecting with or developing a 'self' which, in childhood, would have been burnt as a heretic.


I believe the 'Strict Parenting' method works if two main conditions are included:
1: The containing culture become strong and coherent enough to respond resourcefully to all outputs/concerns of the pupil/child. Cultures which have well organized extended family-structure, or which can clone its best functions are, in my opinion the best ones to learn how to support such 'hothouseing' of skills in the 21st century.
2: The child be given special training in the art of 'off-road navigation' ... ie the child's education pays special attention to giving it the resources to orient itself to new environments, and to give the child awareness that a powerful message such as 'This is the only game in town, and this is the only town' is a fantastic FICTON for generating excellence, but needs to be considered to be a 'conceptual tool' rather than a 'truth about reality.'

I believe our accelerating multi-culture and 'carrying technology' presents increasingly loud and insistent 'News of Difference' - compelling arguments for theReality of Existence of Other Games, and Other Towns.

Here are core questions for different kinds of games:
How well do we 'do'?
How well do we 'win' [over others]?
How well do we get along together whatever we're doing?
How happy can we be given some, all or none of the above?
?
?
... n

I value strictness/hothouseing as long as it includes these other games, and a look-ahead function to cry 'AHOY THARRR!!!!' for Games as yet Undiscovered.

The author of the quoted article is fooling herself.

Parenting styles are not always dependent on social context. Every family is a different little culture in itself, no matter the socioeconomic status, religion, or nationality. Families that look highly similar from the outside can be run in entirely different fashions.

A child's success is can be encouraged by nuturing parents. A child will succeed when their parents take sincere interest in their success. I'm not even going to go into the vastly different definitions of success that the "Chinese mothers" and "Western mothers" as defined in this article espouse...

I don't honestly see how yelling at or belittling a kid can be beneficial in any way. It will not help their overall personal development. They will get enough of these things from the outside world, there is no reason for them to get it at home as well. Yes, encouraging them to keep working until they get it right is a worthwhile endeavor, and parents who want their children to succeed will ensure that the child does just that. But harsh words are no way to achieve this goal.

I would call my upbringing strict, borderline verbally abusive, but my parents were only driven by what they thought would be best for us. There was a definite drive for success. Everything I did was never perfect, there was always room for improvement. Even a report card with straight A+ grades left my parents with comments like, "you can do better." I responded relatively well to the yelling and focused all of my energy on school. My siblings? Rebelled.

No idea what parenting style I would espouse, but I definitely cringe when I see my sister raise her voice to her children. In her home, everything will be perfect, all homework must be completed ahead of schedule, and friends come second to family time and character-building extracurricular essentials such as piano, karate, and ballet. The stress is high in their home: my niece literally pulls out her hair and my nephew has panic attacks. My sister sees these as little road blocks on a much bigger picture of success. Her kids are top of the class, confident, social, and most likely have the skills necessary to well in life.

When it comes down to it, who really knows what is best when it comes to parenting? It is the subject of study after study, there are hundreds of theories, many unproven. I don't pretend to know what is best, but I definitely don't agree with the parenting methods outlined by the article in the OP.

Smells like more "Good Old Days" syndrome at work.

Lemme guess... Asians are better ninjas, too.

My parents started out strict, but as I got older, became less and less so, but they were never unloving. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I was young I craved structure. I wasn't just more productive when given specific tasks and schedules, but was happier and more content. As I got older and started individuating, I pushed against these boundaries and structure because developmentally it was time for me to learn how to create my own. All in all, this seems to have worked. Despite having a minor eating disorder which I've successfully kept in check for some time now and issues with depression, I'm successful by most metrics now.

Based on what I can remember from child development classes in school, while there are general rules of raising children, a lot of parenting is about parenting to the specific child. Obviously you don't beat your child or withhold physical contact with infants, as general rules, but the level of 'strictness' necessary must vary from one child to the next.

I look forward to Snowy's additional input on this.

Earning shitloads of money, fixing machines, running the government, styling hair, birthing babies and curing cancer ... they would all be considered productive, ya? In the spirit of the competitive world out there, I suppose that priming your kid to surpass others can be a good thing, but contentment surely has to count for something.

When kids are young, parental approval is crucial. If they grow up so blindsided, wouldn't you think they'd get lost in what the parents want to see and perhaps later find themselves confused as to what they actually want? Can they be driven too hard?

I realize that many geniuses may not have become so, but can't help but think about the untold story behind Dark Matter and similar stories we've heard.

Is it all about the Benjamins? Does success=productivity?

Platform stated, I'm a strict parent on some issues, not-so-much on others. I think routine is important for growing kids, but occasional flexibility is good. The lessons I taught were based on principles I felt would translate to reality in adult life. Whereas some parents would pull their kid out of a class because a teacher was tough on them, I'd empathize with mine, hug them but let them know they won't always be coddled by loved ones throughout life.

I read with them when they were young and they had reading time every night, were gently pushed to join clubs and become active, but their activities were ultimately their choice. If they chose to play a sport because friends played and later try to back out, they would have to tough it out until the final game.

These are the types of things I felt were most important to teach my kids. They're very intelligent girls with good but not top grades, but each has a different creative talent, scoring high on aptitude tests. (Just thought I'd mention that the middle child has a love for politics and debating. Had to get that in. :p ) There are other relatives that are trying to push them into competitive careers, but the girls become resentful towards the prodders. Maybe I was pushed too much in my youth and have gone to the other extreme, but it just feels right to teach them to do what feels right for them. It'd be scary to think about putting that kind of pressure on them so young. There may be some kids who will handle it well, but I have to wonder about those who won't. Let them all grow into their lives.

I honestly think parenting ought to be more strict with their kids. Too often, I see parents not being consistent with the rules they set for their children. When a kid knows their parents will sway on issues, they're more likely to act out.

Maybe it's culture, I don't know. Just, consistency!

I will say that I mostly disagree with the OP, I mostly agree with 'Willravel', but I want to focus on this point. Simply stated 'One size does NOT fit all'. Each child is an individual and needs to be treated as such. I was a child with an older brother, I raised 3 children, I have 7 grandchildren, 3 of whom I am directly involved in parenting. I also taught in the public schools for 7 years which gives a unique perspective on parenting and children. Each of my children were different and I treated each differently as necessary. Each child had different needs so each received different care. One thing was the same, I encouraged each to pursue their own interests as much as possable, and those interests were quite varried. They have all matured nicely in spite of my screw-ups along the way. I have heard parents of adult children patting themselves on the back saying 'Our children turned out good and happy, we must have been good parents' unfortunatly most children who do well, do so in spite of their parents. The simple fact is children must be allowed to be children and grow up in their own time. Children are NOT just small adults to be treated as such and given responsabilities beyond their capabilities, without consequences later in life.

Meh. For a law school professor, her ability to reason seems a bit suspect. Her article seemed like a combination of vague summaries of studies she once read (uncited, of course) and anecdotes. It would be interesting to see a study comparing child rearing strategies by child achievement among native Chinese. I suspect that among "Chinese Mothers" there is more variation than she's letting on even without the aspersions about westerners.

What she's really talking about seems to be the difference in parenting strategies between native westerners and recently immigrated foreign professionals.

As for parenting in general, I think that it is important to be strict about certain things, but not others.

You had me until...

Say what?

You know, strict about, say, not eating ice cream at every meal but permissive about bed time enforcement when said kid is sneaking in some quality reading time after lights out.

Part of being a good parent is about knowing when to bend and when to remain rigid.

my friend has this to say, I originally saw this on FB, apparently it struck a nerve with her. She lives in singapore.


makes me wince a bit. That's just straight up abuse in some cases, but I agree, a balance needs to be struck.

"Strict" is pretty wide brush that doesn't really describe any parenting technique in any helpful way. Do you use corporal punishment? How much? For what infractions? When is it appropriate to show compassion? How many activities per week?

I don't have answers for these questions but I do know that successful parenting takes consistency and inherent personal decency. The kind of parenting she's extolling takes incredible resolve and discipline: a true sense of fairness. Without these qualities, a "strict" parent can easily become an abuser.

So when I hear another parent brag about how strict they are, I don't automatically assume they're a great parent. It's something to aim for to be sure but the proof is in the pudding.

There is a lot of pressure on kids in Singapore. I can attest to this first hand.

As for the Asian parenting... it reminds me of Gladwell's book Outliers where he draws some conclusions that suggest there might be something social and genetic in the work ethic of rice growers vs. grain growers (I am simplifying).

It was bad in the 80s when LKY was still running things. I can't imagine it today with the global economy. I only hear about it from my Singaporean friends which are not many.

I have that on my list to read, well all of Gladwell's books.

This is what the mother in the OP is espousing. Methods may be marginally different, the motive is the same. But there was something else in the article as well. If kids are left on their own, they will seek out the easy/fun stuff. Nobody naturally wants to do the work. As parents, we have a small window of opportunity to ensure that the work & habits are achieved at this formative age. While I think the methods are a bit extreme (and I have a Chinese mother for a wife so I get a lot of the collateral) this mother is speaking pragmatically.

I don't play good cop to my wife's bad cop, I am totally on board with the parenting. What I do bring to the mix is support and while we don't spend the same kind of hours working on each detail as Ms Chua , we do have 3 sons who are well turned out, in university or university bound and eager to achieve. The also want to spend time at home with us, which I think validates the effort that we have gone through.

The trick with parenting is that you're not dealing with entirely predictable automatons. Each child is different, even from birth. My mom has told me time and again that even at age 1 my sister and I were different; things that made me laugh made my sister cry, and vice versa.

This parenting style works for some individuals and not for some others. For all of the good things this article claims results from it, just as many kids off themselves or turn to drugs or run away because of it. You just don't hear about it, because who brags about that?

My parents approximated this style. It worked just well enough to make me achieve a 5.0 (AP/IB) through high school and go to a state school, where I immediately because a concerted underachiever because I wasn't under their roof anymore. If you're used to having people control you that much, set that any rules, in a vacuum of rules and control you can easily make terrible decisions. And for my sister? Even worse. She ran away at 16 to live with a boyfriend because she couldn't handle how strict my parents were. I think she's happier than I am now, but the drive to success can have side effects if you're dealing with children who have personalities that don't fit the parenting style.

I'm sorry, I was being facetious. I should have dropped the "No shit, Sherlock" line instead. The kind painfully obvious and incredibly broad "parenting advice" in here is hurting even my tiny brain. Is anybody else here flabbergasted by the idea that life is an exercise in compromise and doing cost/benefit analysis to make smart choices? This advice applies to dealing with in-laws, asking for a threesome and how you haggled to buy your new minivan.

...

Catering to other Asian stereotypes:

I wonder if all this Asian-demand-for-excellence (society->work->school->parents->kids) has anything to do with why super-productive Japan's suicide rate is twice that of the United States'. You'd think that the nearly universal access to guns/booze/drugs/suicide-by-cop that the US would be closer, but we're just plain mediocre... even when we kill ourselves. Once again, Those Industrious Asians (TM) best us in all aspects of life (and apparently death).

But, as Jinn pointed out, who brags about that?

Plan9 - those stats on suicide are unexpected... what's so bad about Finland, anyway? The suicide rates are far higher than men throughout most of the world, it makes me wonder if women's suicides simply aren't being reported or if they truly are less frequent. But that's fodder for another thread.

I know that's what they were going for. My statement was an attempt to tactfully point out that these parenting methods often backfire and makes for unhealthy children.

As y'all know, I bristle at divisive stereotyping. Striking me as particularly cogent in this thread I probably shouldn't have read was fresnelly's "the proof is in the pudding." Quite aside from some of the connotations of that phrase, I don't think our pudding's done yet. I think competition is a lot less useful to the species than cooperation, & that as long as we draw lines & play games that don't acknowledge that winners need losers as much as vice versa that nobody will prosper as much as they could.

...sorry for being so one-noted. It IS NOT how my parents attempted to raise me.

So what you're saying is that you think Chinese MILFs are superior and that the proof is in the pudding?


I don't quite know what to say.

I'm only saying that adding things up to make us seem more different than we are amounts to tragically counter-productive...I haven't found the right elevator yet.

It is fine being strict if you have that .000001% kid that wins the spelling bee or is valedictorian. Teaching kids that even if they didn't come in first they are still good people is probably the better model. I wonder how many of these kids commit suicide rather than face serve punishment or disappointment from their parents? Or how many finally snap and just can't do it anymore?

And what is the goal of life? To make money, to be the best factory worker, to make great discoveries in science, to help others, to not dishonor the family?

I think the focus on the goal, and living without distractions is what helps them succeed. Yet, they will suffer by lacking in socialization skills and knowledge of how the real world works.

being #10 valedictorian? At least that's what I've ready about these days since everyone is special and gets the top, can't let anyone feel bad or make them strive or achieve for better.

I'm sorry I don't buy that. When everyone is special no one is special.

I don't know how these folks are lacking the socialization skills, they may not socialize with white folks, but it's not like they sit in a dark room by themselves.

Absolutely.

So one of the reasons why high schools now have multiple valedictorians is just sheer size: larger high schools do tend to have multiple students who ranked no. 1. Add in the possibility that the school adjusts the student's GPA for IB/AP classes, and most of those valedictorians probably have a 5.0 GPA, or even a 5.25 GPA, if the school gives A+ grades.

What metric should we use other than straight As and class rank to dictate who gets to be the valedictorian? As it stands, that's what we're using, and it does stand to reason that if multiple people achieve that, they should be acknowledged for it.

I've always thought that there should only be one valedictorian. In cases where multiple students have the same (highest) GPA, they should have to debate a contemporary issue (Lincoln-Douglas style) in front of the student body. I'm all for academic excellence, but not rote memorization. If you deserve that GPA, then you ought to be able to defend any position honorably and intelligently.

To be the valedictorian requires more than just being the top academically. To me it's sort of like the MVP and the person who gets that award is not necessarily the highest scorer or greatest rebounder, it's an overall rating. Whether just the administration chooses or also involves the kids in school, take your pick and go with it.

I don't recall anyone above already mentioning this point, but when I first read the topic of this thread, one extreme "somewhat related" point that came to my mind is the "legend" of Chinese parents in China throwing baby girls off the mountain because they could only accept a baby boy.

My mother and father embody some of the best traits of superior parents, though obviously no one is perfect. They are from a Hungarian heritage, born and raised there and came to the U.S. in the very early 1950's literally with nothing. They were strict, but caring and fair and consistent. Overly strict, at least what to me is too strict, is counterproductive toward developing a child into a well rounded adult.

If the purpose of valedictorian is to recognize acheivement, why shouldn't multiples be given out? Fears of diluting "specialness" are silly; I would suspect that even in instances of multiple valedictorians, there is a sufficient number of nonvaledictorians to meet the nebulous quota of nonspecial students you seem to have.

Everyone *is* unique, the uniformity if this uniqueness in no way diminishes individual uniqueness.

:thumbsup:TOTAL AGREEMENT!!! If everyone is special, everyone is special.

Apparently, there is more to the story. The excerpt from above is comprised of many of the more incendiary parts of the book stitched together. It appears that the book is actually a slight repudiation of the type of parenting outlined in the OP.

Mother, superior?

Chua claims that the book is supposed to be self-mocking. However, she sounds like one of those people in the political sphere claiming that one of their incendiary remarks was meant to be a joke. Further, you can see the subtitling of her book in this image here:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...7L._SS500_.jpg
Chua has said that her younger daughter, Lulu, refused to be parented the way she parented her older daughter. In fact, this piece from the NYTimes concludes by stating that Chua and her husband are taking Lulu and friends to NYC for Lulu's 15th birthday sleepover.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/fa...6Cultural.html

David Brooks had this op-ed piece in the NYTimes in which he responds to Chua, and I liked it. Brooks responds to Chua's idea that things like sleepovers are unnecessary to cognitive development.

After watching 'Wife Swap' on ABC a few times, I know that there are lots of different child development theories out there. And after working with some people who went to old-school catholic school, or Marine training, I know that discipline in the childhood years can impact them throughout their lives.

There isn't one right answer, but what will lead to happiness could be determined by the rules, structure, expectations, and goals you have for your kids when they are growing up.

Yeah, and super strict parents are also more likely to create a child that has trouble dealing with stress. And more likely to create a kid that snaps one day and brings a sniper rifle to school because he didn't get an A....

There is nothing that correlates or corroborates that at all.

I'm not aware of any studies off hand, but that's what my personal experience has told me. For any type of child for that matter.

My sister was brought up that way for instance. If she couldn't do a homework project on her own or if she didn't get an A she cried and was basically depressed all day/night. She even had to skip some school.

That and my upper level child psychology class I took in college.

My wife just ordered Amy's new book. I will probably give it a read as well. I am a believer in strict parenting. I do not think children should like their parents. A respectful fear is best, imo.

Some of the most successful people I know had very strict parents. And I believe my own experience sets up an interesting correlation. My father was a very strict parent. We were not even allowed to look at him funny without getting slapped. I however missed out on the majority of this because he left when I was 5. My brother however was 10 when my dad left and thus had a lot more time under his regime. My mother remarried a very laid back man(one of the best men I know... his father was very strict), and I had a the majority of my impressionable years under him. There are many other factors in my life that I will not lay out here, but in the end my brother came out ahead of me. My brother is a very successful and disciplined man. I am not a success. I do okay, but I have always struggled with self-discipline.