Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/162521-why-chinese-mothers-superior.html)

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

Quote:

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids? And what happens when they fight back?

By AMY CHUA
A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:
• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.
All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough.

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2861387)

Is it wrong for the parent to be so strict?

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2861500)

a lot of parenting is about parenting to the specific child. but the level of 'strictness' necessary must vary from one child to the next.

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2861538)

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

Say what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2861544)

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.

Quote:

my mum called me a failure all the time and it took over 10 years for me to actually get over it. i remember waking up in the morning when i was 16 hearing her yell at me dad "do you want your second daughter to be a screw up like the first...". i still have a math textbook from when i was 16 that had a REALLY LONG suicide note written in it about how i was trash and that Singapore doesn't need me because I'm not going to be successful and produce the 1.9 children that they need to keep the population going etc. it's really painful to see.

when i was 14 and i got into an academic stream that would not allow me to study medicine (yes, the fate of children in singapore are more or less sealed when they're 12-14, how well you do will depend on what tertiary courses you can choose because your middle school subjects are pre-requisites for your high school subjects which are pre-requisites for your university subjects). my mother tore up my report book and cried and cried and cried.

also, i can play the piano and violin. HAHAHAHAHA.

striking a good balance is still the key :(

Quote:

also, i'm kinda ashamed i'm saying this, but the writer grew up in america. it's fucking different when you're the only parent who demands nothing but excellence from your kids in your neighbourhood/school. where i come from it's a NATIONAL... PAST TIME.

we also use bell-curve grading for our national exams, no matter how good you are, you may actually still get a B because 3453847538 people scored 99 marks and got an A. there's this constant manic obsession to be better than other people. my middle school was extremely competitive, school notes were HIGHLY PRIVATE. no one shared them because they wanted to keep the good shit to themselves.

students get yelled at for daring to share notes with their friends in other schools. there's this ridiculous "school-loyalty" nonsense in which sharing your notes with kids from other schools is akin to "betrayal" because then those kids would probably take your notes to their school, propagate it, and their entire school will pwn yours in the national exam -_-

exerting some good old fashioned asian spirit-of-perseverence in an american setting might actually not be a bad thing. when i was in LA last summer i noticed that my friend and i (both singaporean) wished we had freedom like american kids and her boyfriend (who's american) swears that the system is not strict enough and there needs to be more control. then we kinda concluded that there'll never be a "perfect system". as you grow up, you just have to make do with what you have.

Quote:

also, none of you would want to be tied to a the potty and get beaten repeatedly by a thin bamboo cane by your parents. i know someone who went through that.

i got beaten with the big wooden spoon you use for cooking :( i had a scar that didn't go away after a couple of months and when i told my mum about it, she beat me up some more!

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2861558)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly (Post 2861495)

The author of the quoted article is fooling herself.
...
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2861545)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto (Post 2861665)

This is what the mother in the OP is espousing...

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern? (Post 2861829)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003 (Post 2861946)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2861953)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2861953)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2862145)

: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.

Quote:

Amy Chua Is a Wimp
By DAVID BROOKS

Sometime early last week, a large slice of educated America decided that Amy Chua is a menace to society. Chua, as you probably know, is the Yale professor who has written a bracing critique of what she considers the weak, cuddling American parenting style.

Chua didn’t let her own girls go out on play dates or sleepovers. She didn’t let them watch TV or play video games or take part in garbage activities like crafts. Once, one of her daughters came in second to a Korean kid in a math competition, so Chua made the girl do 2,000 math problems a night until she regained her supremacy. Once, her daughters gave her birthday cards of insufficient quality. Chua rejected them and demanded new cards. Once, she threatened to burn all of one of her daughter’s stuffed animals unless she played a piece of music perfectly.

As a result, Chua’s daughters get straight As and have won a series of musical competitions.

In her book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” Chua delivers a broadside against American parenting even as she mocks herself for her own extreme “Chinese” style. She says American parents lack authority and produce entitled children who aren’t forced to live up to their abilities.

The furious denunciations began flooding my in-box a week ago. Chua plays into America’s fear of national decline. Here’s a Chinese parent working really hard (and, by the way, there are a billion more of her) and her kids are going to crush ours. Furthermore (and this Chua doesn’t appreciate), she is not really rebelling against American-style parenting; she is the logical extension of the prevailing elite practices. She does everything over-pressuring upper-middle-class parents are doing. She’s just hard core.

Her critics echoed the familiar themes. Her kids can’t possibly be happy or truly creative. They’ll grow up skilled and compliant but without the audacity to be great. She’s destroying their love for music. There’s a reason Asian-American women between the ages of 15 and 24 have such high suicide rates.

I have the opposite problem with Chua. I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t. click to show

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.

Yet mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups. We do this because groups are much more efficient at solving problems than individuals (swimmers are often motivated to have their best times as part of relay teams, not in individual events). Moreover, the performance of a group does not correlate well with the average I.Q. of the group or even with the I.Q.’s of the smartest members.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others’ emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths.

Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.

This skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table.

Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood. Where do they learn how to manage people? Where do they learn to construct and manipulate metaphors? Where do they learn to perceive details of a scene the way a hunter reads a landscape? Where do they learn how to detect their own shortcomings? Where do they learn how to put themselves in others’ minds and anticipate others’ reactions?

These and a million other skills are imparted by the informal maturity process and are not developed if formal learning monopolizes a child’s time.

So I’m not against the way Chua pushes her daughters. And I loved her book as a courageous and thought-provoking read. It’s also more supple than her critics let on. I just wish she wasn’t so soft and indulgent. I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library. And I hope her daughters grow up to write their own books, and maybe learn the skills to better anticipate how theirs will be received.

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....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeraph (Post 2864978)

There is nothing that correlates or corroborates that at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2864984)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeraph (Post 2864989)

So you sister took a sniper rifle to class because she didn't get an A, huh?

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2861499)

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

You know it. :cool:

No, that was a very obvious reference.

ok what I meant by that is that people worry too much about letting their kids have fun and not work too hard. Hard work is what gets you what you want/need in life, and what makes you win. So, to those who say, why don't you (let them) relax and have more fun, I say, winning is fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raging moderate (Post 2867733)

ok what I meant by that is that people worry too much about letting their kids have fun and not work too hard.

Crock. Ever heard of balance?

Just because parents want their kids to experience the joy of actually being a kid doesn't suggest that hard work and discipline aren't important. Part of this childhood joy is achievement and parent pleasing.

Constantly raising the bar works for kids who have fun, too. And study, statistics or real life, I vote for real life. In my real life, the kids whose parents showered them with love, encouraged playtime and allowed them to explore on their own, providing the tools and materials the kid were drawn to, had kids who all grew into extremely successful adults.

Of those who were raised in a much stricter, more rigid environment, very few of us are what most of you would consider successful. Rebellion has it's cost.

I don't buy any of the studies. We all know they're meaningless as it's impossible to get a true sampling. Take two kids in the same environment, same genetic material, same schools ... different outcomes most likely. Which all proves absolutely nothing. Except that we're all different and based, most likely, on psychological differences, outcomes will vary.

It's a clever way to sell a book, picking a fight like this. It's seems like she might be milking the pimple of racism?

But on the topic itself - it smells morally suspicious to me, this super-strict parenting. Hopefully somebody with a stronger grounding in arts/philosophy could phrase it much better (than me). On what basis is it ok to impose restrictions like this. Before taking freedom away or impacting on others freedoms - a very strong case needs to be made.

It somehow seems ironic. Having migrated to a country with freedoms of choice, philosophy, religion and expression - this women is apparently using and advocating a totalitarian approach in the situation where she has conrol (over her children). What sort of people will those children become. Will they make good bosses or good leaders? Will they be good partners? Will they be socially popular and become valued team members?

I've got the book on my reading list, I've got a few in front of it.

I did find this today..

Quote:

Daughter of Amy Chua, who wrote 'Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,' responds to controversy - NYPOST.com
Why I love my strict Chinese mom

By SOPHIA CHUA-RUBENFELD

Last Updated: 11:36 AM, January 18, 2011

Posted: 11:29 PM, January 17, 2011

Writer Amy Chua shocked the world with her provocative essay, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,” when it appeared in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

The article, excerpted from her new book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” described “how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids.” It led with a manifesto: “Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do: attend a sleepover; have a playdate; be in a school play; complain about not being in a school play; watch TV or play computer games; choose their own extracurricular activities; get any grade less than an A; not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama; play any instrument other than the piano or violin; not play the piano or violin.”

While Chua says she has received death threats for her comments (one critic called her the “worst mother ever”), the question remains: What do her own children think? Now Chua’s eldest daughter, Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld, 18, tells her side of the story exclusively to The Post . . .

Dear Tiger Mom,

You’ve been criticized a lot since you published your memoir, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” One problem is that some people don’t get your humor. They think you’re serious about all this, and they assume Lulu and I are oppressed by our evil mother. That is so not true. Every other Thursday, you take off our chains and let us play math games in the basement.

But for real, it’s not their fault. No outsider can know what our family is really like. They don’t hear us cracking up over each other’s jokes. They don’t see us eating our hamburgers with fried rice. They don’t know how much fun we have when the six of us — dogs included — squeeze into one bed and argue about what movies to download from Netflix.

I admit it: Having you as a mother was no tea party. There were some play dates I wish I’d gone to and some piano camps I wish I’d skipped. But now that I’m 18 and about to leave the tiger den, I’m glad you and Daddy raised me the way you did. Here’s why.

A lot of people have accused you of producing robot kids who can’t think for themselves. Well, that’s funny, because I think those people are . . . oh well, it doesn’t matter. At any rate, I was thinking about this, and I came to the opposite conclusion: I think your strict parenting forced me to be more independent. Early on, I decided to be an easy child to raise. Maybe I got it from Daddy — he taught me not to care what people think and to make my own choices — but I also decided to be who I want to be. I didn’t rebel, but I didn’t suffer all the slings and arrows of a Tiger Mom, either. I pretty much do my own thing these days — like building greenhouses downtown, blasting Daft Punk in the car with Lulu and forcing my boyfriend to watch “Lord of the Rings” with me over and over — as long as I get my piano done first.

Everybody’s talking about the birthday cards we once made for you, which you rejected because they weren’t good enough. Funny how some people are convinced that Lulu and I are scarred for life. Maybe if I had poured my heart into it, I would have been upset. But let’s face it: The card was feeble, and I was busted. It took me 30 seconds; I didn’t even sharpen the pencil. That’s why, when you rejected it, I didn’t feel you were rejecting me. If I actually tried my best at something, you’d never throw it back in my face.

I remember walking on stage for a piano competition. I was so nervous, and you whispered, “Soso, you worked as hard as you could. It doesn’t matter how you do.”

Everybody seems to think art is spontaneous. But Tiger Mom, you taught me that even creativity takes effort. I guess I was a little different from other kids in grade school, but who says that’s a bad thing? Maybe I was just lucky to have nice friends. They used to put notes in my backpack that said “Good luck at the competition tomorrow! You’ll be great!” They came to my piano recitals — mostly for the dumplings you made afterward — and I started crying when I heard them yelling “bravo!” at Carnegie Hall.

When I got to high school, you realized it was time to let me grow up a little. All the girls started wearing makeup in ninth grade. I walked to CVS to buy some and taught myself how to use it. It wasn’t a big deal. You were surprised when I came down to dinner wearing eyeliner, but you didn’t mind. You let me have that rite of passage.

Another criticism I keep hearing is that you’re somehow promoting tunnel vision, but you and Daddy taught me to pursue knowledge for its own sake. In junior year, I signed myself up for a military-history elective (yes, you let me take lots of classes besides math and physics). One of our assignments was to interview someone who had experienced war. I knew I could get a good grade interviewing my grandparents, whose childhood stories about World War II I’d heard a thousand times. I mentioned it to you, and you said, “Sophia, this is an opportunity to learn something new. You’re taking the easy way out.” You were right, Tiger Mom. In the end, I interviewed a terrifying Israeli paratrooper whose story changed my outlook on life. I owe that experience to you.

There’s one more thing: I think the desire to live a meaningful life is universal. To some people, it’s working toward a goal. To others, it’s enjoying every minute of every day. So what does it really mean to live life to the fullest? Maybe striving to win a Nobel Prize and going skydiving are just two sides of the same coin. To me, it’s not about achievement or self-gratification. It’s about knowing that you’ve pushed yourself, body and mind, to the limits of your own potential. You feel it when you’re sprinting, and when the piano piece you’ve practiced for hours finally comes to life beneath your fingertips. You feel it when you encounter a life-changing idea, and when you do something on your own that you never thought you could. If I died tomorrow, I would die feeling I’ve lived my whole life at 110 percent.

And for that, Tiger Mom, thank you.

Reported by Mandy Stadtmiller

Long-winded but delightfully proletariat dissent...

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Erich Shulte guy from the site everybody hates

It seems to be a common enough view that this race of pitiless automatons will come to dominate us all. But really, this baroque showcase is evidence of why China isn’t much of threat to become a global hegemon. Yes, the display was impressive, but that’s all it is. The Chinese probably raised everyone who participated in the opening ceremony from birth to complete a simple robot task for the purpose of impressing all of the other countries, then killed them and harvested their organs for military rations the minute the international circus left town. Why is that threatening? Why is that a model for success? It’s like a nerd trying to impress the cool girls by renting a massive limo and blowing a year’s babysitting money.

How would, say, England achieve the same effect? England is a superpower of the past, of course, but they’re still in with the cool crowd and get their fair share of the action. England is McConaughey in Dazed and Confused. And how would they wow the world if they put on such a ceremony? Not by reducing thousands of their citizens to parts in an amusing cuckoo clock that only works once. No need to try so hard. They’d trot out The Stones, Elton John, The Who (nobody would care that the good members are dead) Gary Glitter and Subhumans. And everybody would swoon. That China relies on elaborate contrivances to impress, rather than the natural byproducts of their culture, evidences the fact we don’t need to fear them. Every totalitarian society compels its people to participate in these ridiculous displays. They have no choice because they stifle the individualism and creativity that generates stuff that is actually worthwhile in itself.

Awe of China is rooted almost entirely in the fantasies of bean counters who look at the massive population and just assume that… ????= Profit!!! If China is ever even half as wealthy (per capita) as the U.S., imagine how many pairs of Dockers we would sell there! Billionaires will become multi-billionaires! China is the conduit for the continued growth of capitalism. Therefore China is, THE FUTURE!

But China’s always been enormous, repressive and had great resources and it’s never really been a first team all-pro on the world stage. And Western imperialism doesn’t explain why they’ve been eating Japanese and Korean dust for some time or why the enclaves of Chinese success in Hong Kong and Taiwan happened to occur in segregation from the mainland. Yes, the raw tools are there. But China is Shawn Kemp to Japan’s John Stockton and America’s Magic Johnson. And there’s no real reason to think that will ever change. Even if the big Western economies collapse, that will just mean the whole world turns into the D-League. A lengthy preamble, I know, but I think that is important to understand the baselessness of the robophobia it exploits, before taking a look Amy Chua’s Wall Street Journal article, “I Am A Hideous Cunt.”

I’m not going to give this the full Hackwatch treatment because Chua obviously just makes a bunch of shit up and I don’t want to spend too much time commenting on material written to draw comment. Like, in the beginning of her article, she goes through the obligatory song and dance about how moms of any nationality can be “Chinese Moms,” so that she can pretend that she isn’t race bating when she says stuff like, “if a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion.”

But let’s run through the core points, because I do think Chua believes in her underlying message and the response to the piece is embarrassing either way. She does believe that it is acceptable to replace the pleasures of privileged childhood with a program for destroying individuality. She is consumed by impressing other people (perhaps one reason she’s willing to use dishonesty to add “bestselling author” to her CV). And… she is horrible. Let’s just dive in.

Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

Is all of this true? Well, when supporting the book on “The Colbert Report,” Chua clarified. Apparently, when she said “never” she meant “between the ages of nine and thirteen.” Maybe she went back to her original story for Fox News appearances. I don’t know. But I do think that she honestly favors this kind of deprivation and it’s clear that many readers are willing to fall in line with such a program, or at least admire it from afar as an example of Chinese superiority, real or imagined (it’s imagined).

That leads me to my first Tarantino quote in about twelve years: “Are you such a loser that you can’t tell when you’ve won?” In other words, the fact that your kids can attend sleepovers and play video games as opposed to say, die of malaria or be raped by the soldiers of a local warlord, makes up a large portion of the spoils of victory. To struggle so that your children might one day be in a position to view Shrek with pure pleasure or stay up all night eating candy with their friends, only to gleefully deny them that and turn your home into a boot camp seems not only sadistic, but perhaps self-defeating. They could have practiced the violin for three hours a day if they’d been born in China.

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences.

I know Chua is basically trolling here, but I still think that this has to come from a pretty warped mind. Like, how does one dream up such a twisted notion of fun? Water slides can’t be fun unless you figure out some way of proving you are better at going down them than everybody else? What a great way to go through life.

Here’s an excerpt from her book, I’m An Even Bigger Cunt Than You Thought. It’s about rejecting her child’s birthday card because it wasn’t good enough.

I grabbed the card again and flipped it over. I pulled out a pen from my purse and scrawled ‘Happy Birthday Lulu Whoopee!’ I added a big sour face. “What if I gave you this for your birthday Lulu- would you like that? But I would never do that, Lulu. No — I get you magicians and giant slides that cost me hundreds of dollars. I get you huge ice cream cakes shaped like penguins, and I spend half my salary on stupid sticker and erase party favors that everyone just throws away. I work so hard to give you good birthdays! I deserve better than this. So I reject this.” I threw the card back.

Personally, I don’t mind rejecting the card if it really was half-assed. But the hysterical overreaction is telling. Chua simply cannot be faking the rudeness and imperiousness that drips from every word. If I woke up in Bill Gates’ body tomorrow, my first order of business would be to be to pay her daughters $1 Billion each to star in a porno. It would be called Chua Chua Train and it would be filmed in a box car with a bunch of hobos.

As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.

Confucius say, follow the path of righteousness and you too can become an obnoxious asshole who takes pride in ruining dinner parties. I’m sure the story is grossly exaggerated, but we still get a clear picture of a woman who delights in imposing herself on others and can’t wait to flaunt her misdeeds to as many as possible. “Hey, guess what, guess what, guess what… I threatened to lock my child outside in the snow once because she didn’t want to practice the piano! Can you believe it? I totally did! Does that upset you? Does it, does it, does it?”

Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)

…

Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children’s own desires and preferences. That’s why Chinese daughters can’t have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can’t go to sleepaway camp. It’s also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, “I got a part in the school play! I’m Villager Number Six. I’ll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I’ll also need a ride on weekends.” God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.

…

Western parents try to respect their children’s individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

I just want to go back to the idea that it’s OK to drain childhood of fun and crush the interests of your kids under your combat boot so that one day they reflect the blinding rays of your megalomania… um, I mean so that they can be happy one day in the future. Even if you’re not a utilitarian, some light utilitarian reasoning is a good way to identify really bad ideas. If something creates a gaping deficit in utility, it’s usually not good.

Quite a lot of people who are lucky enough to be working class or higher in the first world and unmolested would identify childhood as their happiest time. This includes many people who are considered successful adults. This is because stuff like sleepovers and getting Mike Tyson’s Punchout might be more fun than you could possibly have as an adult. I’ve been in some pretty great spots since growing up and it seems like I still have to remind myself of how much fun I should be having and not to worry about if I forgot to pay the gas bill and to enjoy the moment and it never completely works. Discovering that my collection of Star Wars toys had doubled on Christmas morning? Unadulterated joy.

So, erasing all of those experiences (to say nothing of the intentional infliction of humiliation and shame) should eventually be outweighed by future gains. Chua doesn’t even really make that argument, because she can’t. Like, suppose her kids could have their own interests, do sleepovers, watch a reasonable amount of TV and still were expected to do their homework and maintain a high GPA. Would they be much worse off in the future? Even if Chua’s sadism meant they got into Harvard instead of Virginia, and that meant they wound up making like 15% more money, it’s not clear that they would see improvements in utility later in life at all, let alone improvements so great that they would make up for a difficult childhood when they could have had a wonderful one.

Plus, you’re talking about expected (hoped for) future gains, as opposed to gains you can realize now. Maybe the inability to grasp this is related to 100% of Chinese being gambling addicts. But obviously, certain utility now is worth more than possible utility in the future because you could go to Harvard and be hit by a bus. Yeah, you could be hit by a bus at community college as well, but even if these tactics tend to make people happy in the future, you have to discount that result because it’s just a possibility. The economy could get worse and you could wind up begging to drive a bus after Harvard. You could become disfigured and never get over it. Or, you could have some windfall of cash and not need to work at a job you hate to obtain status and thus feel like you wasted your childhood preparing to do so.

I think you have to discount whatever future happiness Chua’s methods might create even more because of memories. If you have very happy, unwarped times as a child, you get to look back on them your whole life. If you postpone happiness till you are 40, you’ll be lucky to look back on happiness for half your life. And even that is offset by remembering how your mom used to call you a fat piece of garbage, or when people you know express nostalgia for “The Simpsons” and you flash back to being forced to carve perfect Bernini models out of turnips.

There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids’ true interests.

Uh…

Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear…

Well, don’t let that stop you. But for the purposes of an editorial, you probably want to avoid stances like, “nobody can really think of a good justification for my position, but it is supported by some fortune cookie garbage that you’d never accept in any other context.

…but it’s probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it’s true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

Wonderful. If you think I’m stretching the totalitarian thing a bit thin, here we have Amy choosing to say that she spies on her kids. And not only that, spying on them is a sacrifice on the part of the authority. The subjects should be grateful that Kim Mom Il is so magnanimous with her resources as to use them for spying on the subjects to facilitate their own personal betterment towards their end purpose: glorifying Kim Mom Il!

Here’s a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey” by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it’s also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.

You’ve probably read the original article already and if you haven’t you can probably guess where it is going. Chua electrocutes her daughter’s eyeballs until she can play the piece without mistakes. Then, when the daughter is asleep, Chua goes into her room and, while reading through her diary and changing any negative mentions of Tiger Mom to positive ones, gently slides the blade of a knife across the girl’s throat whispering, “you only live because I allow it,” over and over again with different intonations. Also, I was a taught when I was a kid that this use of ’schizophrenic’ should be avoided because it’s based on a misunderstanding of what schizophrenia is and therefore makes you sound ignorant.

Anyway, here is how the the readers of the Wall Street Journal responded in poll form.

I hate to make too much of an internet poll asking a loaded question, particularly as I hate internet polls and would abolish them from my own totalitarian state. But the appeal of this position to WSJ readers and other “conservatives” hints at the authoritarian heart beneath their superficial love of “liberty,” “freedom” and “individualism.” I realize that children of parents do not hold the same status of citizens of a country, but there should be some consistency between the your views on those relationships. If you really have a fondness for freedom and individualism, it doesn’t make sense that you’d favor blanket censorship, the suffocation of individuality and free will and blind allegiance to authority for children and teens. Like, if you are a Black Panther, you don’t have your kids on a strict diet of Pat Boone and until they are 18 and then suddenly introduce them to James Brown. And I’d raise the same criticism of the WSJ for running the article. It’s pretty amazing that this whole crew can so quickly embrace Chinese authoritarianism, even when represented to a cartoonish extreme. Maybe it’s nostalgia, but I can’t imagine the WSJ of the past running, “Weak American Piglets Will Be Crushed By Soviet Superiority,” by Nikolai Volkoff. Maybe they’ll be celebrating the virtues of command economies as extolled by an animated monkey by the end of the decade.

Outside of the WSJ, the article triggered great controversy and everybody weighed in. I considered doing a hackwatch during the 12 pages of discussion of the article on our forum, much of which I have plagiarized here. One reason I didn’t is that, while the article roped me in, I had some sense of that being its goal. And, sure enough in the first wave of commentary and publicity, cracks began to appear in the facade of the article, so by waiting till now to write this, I can act superior to even more people. In this article, Chua discusses how she was happy to be the bad guy while her husband took their daughters to Yankee games and such. Well wait. If it was true that her girls were not allowed any TV, how did they know what the hell was happening at the Yankee games? I mean, yes you can contrive some answer about them listening to games on the radio and reading player biographies, but that doesn’t really mesh. Then, on “The Colbert Report,” Chua claimed that her husband was as strict as she was. What? Oh, I get it. These are just lies. Sometimes I still forget that book and newspaper publishers have no responsibility publish people who put forward the truth as they see it.

For the purposes of the Colbert appearance, Chua tried to convey herself as a relaxed person with a healthy sense of humor. She was clearly lying, however, when expressing surprise that anyone would see the article or the book it was excerpted from as offering advice on raising children and she couldn’t hide her domineering nature. And that’s when it became evident that she was working from Ann Coulter’s playbook. 1) Spout a bunch of sadistic, authoritarian garbage riddled with lies and bound to create controversy. 2) Make public appearances in which you tell whichever story is convenient at the time, disregarding both actual facts and the false claims you made in your book. 3) When before the appropriate audience, shift into an affable character who enjoys a good laugh and who doesn’t understand why all the uptight fuddy duddies were upset when you did step one. And, sickeningly, it works. No matter how thoroughly you are documented as a liar (this is one article; if the book takes off,there will be many more cracks), you’ll be getting respectful treatment all over the media if you pull off the plan well. If Pinochet had been savvy enough to go on “Real Time” with a whoopi cushion, something that show would have happily accommodated, 85% of the 4% of the American population who knew who he was would have declared all forgiven.

As a woman, a mother and a model minority, Chua is even more invincible, enjoying a force field of political correctness that shields from both the left and right. The initial piece successfully trolled every blog in the world, 100% of which used some variation of, “I’m not judging Chua. Her methods worked for her and I’m sure she is a great mom who loves her kids but…” Right up to the New York Times, articles sprouted up everywhere, carefully tiptoeing around calling her out in plain terms. Even though the article made ridiculous, extremist claims, some of which Chua only dreamed up to create attention, nearly all commentators had to frame their criticisms with deference.

Here are some phrases from the various writers in the NYT discussion of “extreme parenting,” that Chua’s piece inspired.

“However, laissez-faire parenting can be too laid back and detrimental to children.” No shit? When you speak about rape, do you feel compelled to point out that extreme repression of sexual urges can be bad too? Maybe rapists have a point.

“That said, a pragmatic philosophy offers some much-needed correctives to a culture of parenting where our children’s every random scribble and shoe box diorama is lauded as pure genius, where trophies are awarded simply for showing up.” And again. It’s ironic that these people feel compelled to make such remarks. Isn’t mandatory prefacing of criticizing one extreme by saying you don’t support the other extreme either in the same vein as everyone gets a trophy day? Amy Chua is vile and it’s OK to just fucking say so. Also, I’m not sure that this super-hippie parenting is as prevalent as everyone seems to believe. I grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood over the hill from Malibu and I don’t remember seeing it much. One guy had a mom who would provide us with beer, but she was European. It seems to me that commentators dig up anecdotes of murdering hockey dads and crazy stage moms one day and of youth soccer games without score keeping the next day, depending on which one they need at the time.

“It’s true that you don’t enjoy something until you’ve mastered it and practice makes perfect.” Neither of these things are true. Look, even if you aren’t talking about water slides and mindless fun, this whole line of reasoning is loony. What percentage of people who enjoy cooking are master chefs? And if you think you’ve mastered philosophy, you are almost certainly insane. Is it impossible for women to enjoy playing team sports? You know, because they are terrible at all of them.

“Putting aside the debate about stereotypes – be they about Chinese, women, or other groups – which Amy Chua’s essay has plenty, parents everywhere are always looking for tips to help their children thrive.” The guy who wrote the subtitles for NES games in the 90’s weighs in on the matter.

And though I am basically a Chomskybot, I do have a basic respect for the WSJ. At least, I thought it was pretty good ten years ago. But it still seems odd that I am the only one disgusted to see them pass of a PR stunt for a book launch as an editorial and then for the NYT to latch on for the purposes of offering a milquetoast, counter-non-perspective. I know that the state of journalistic integrity is vaporous at best. I know the WSJ and NYT are just arms of a media profit machine. And I already hated every blog but detroitblog.org and the ones where they make fun of sports announcers. I know that it’s vastly more important to get as many heaving mongoloids as possible to follow you on twitter than to see that one of the most venerable papers in the world at least goes through the motions of attempting to present actual points of view, rather than helping to turn the crazy dreams of Eric Cartman into book sales. It still sucks.