"Tiger Mom" (Amy Chua) Has Controversial New Book

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I would say that the vitriol and hatred are deliberately being courted by the author and the publisher because controversy sells books. They could have worded those 5 sentences differently - rather than choosing 8 groups to belong to the “superior” set. Those choices were made.</p>

<p>Then they will argue that if you really read the book, you find that it really is a much more nuanced argument then the insulting title and subtitle would suggest, that of course there is variation within every group and in the world as a whole, that no, we are not ignoring the Koreans and Japanese to sell more of this book in China, that those Cubano-Americano crooked cops in Miami were - wait - we must have all conveniently forgotten about them. Oh well. And on, and on… just buy the book first and give it a chance lest you be thought narrow-minded.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>No, that is not what the authors said.<br>
They said that what is common for people who succeed in those groups is that they have a feeling of superiority.</p>

<p>They did not say that those groups are superior.</p>

<p>Do you really not see the difference?</p>

63

<p>@greenwitch</p>

<p>from the publisher:

</p>

<p>So, they said it is open to ANYONE. If you have a superiority COMPLEX…etc…they are NOT saying those cultures are superior.</p>

<p>It is a shame that people can’t be open minded when they read something like that and instead come away with “they are saying those cultures are superior!”. </p>

<p>If it were an SAT reading comprehension question (since this is CC), it would be characterized as an easy question and many people here would have gotten that question wrong.</p>

64

<p>The first paragraph from the publisher ends with this sentence:

</p>

<p>That’s all. Nothing dangerous, presumptuous, or flaming in that sentence? And please don’t assume that those are “just facts” and facts are neutral things. They have been used to justify all sorts of things. </p>

<p>I’m not feeding this ■■■■■ anymore.</p>

65

<p>What I’ve observed that unites the Indian, Chinese and Jewish families that I know are that they were highly invested in the future success of their offspring, they have high expectations when it comes to academics and are not afraid to lean on their kids, sometimes too hard, to keep them on track, are quick to get them help if a problem is perceived (Kuman, private tutors, etc). This may drive the kids into therapy later on in their lives but the high expectations may push a natural B student into A- territory through hard work and being motivated by fear of disappointing the family. The kids from these families did not all end up at ivys, or even top tier schools but they did, as a group, do quite well as a whole. Chu may make broad and provocative declarations in order to sell books, but I prefer to take even her most outrageous statements and look to see where the kernel of truth lies without getting all bent out of shape.</p>

66

<p>Is the “superiority complex” viewed as an individual characteristic, disconnected from considerations of culture or ethnicity, or is the feeling of superiority based on culture and/or ethnicity? If the latter, I think there is ample historical precedent to show that this way of thinking is dangerous to others. If the former, I’d view it as less dangerous, but why would a person want his/her child to have a superiority complex? To me, that seems morally very dubious at best.</p>

67

<p>My two cents.
I apologize for restating anything that has already been said.</p>

<p>Amy Chua is by no way the authoritative source of “Asian” (if you can even call it that) parenting. I believe that this must be the established basis of all further educated discussion on her book. Quite simply, the financial interests involved in writing this book reduce any form of already limited credibility that she may have (yes, Yale Law Professor, so what?). In essence, this is only her very one-sided opinion of “successful parenting”. </p>

<p>While it can be argued with some success that her “method”, if you will, does reflect certain aspects of Asian culture, emphasis on hardwork, good education, etc., it does not present a holistic, nor accurate, view of Asian parents. </p>

<p>First, we explore the definition of “Asian parenting”. What does this mean? What does it include? Is everyone living in East, Far-east and South-east Asia going to be thrown into this mix? If we make the flawed assumption that this is so, then what exactly makes “Asian parenting” different, or superior, to parenting around the world? Nothing. At the core of parenting is the dream of the realization of existent potential (sorry, stole from Frankl here), something that most parents wish to see actualized in their children. The means by which this is approached varies, but in the end, the goal is common. And although history has proven in the past (see China’s Imperial Examination system) that absurd amounts of emphasis may be placed on this actualization through emphasis in studies, it must be understood that the vestiges of this system are disappearing gradually, and that recent globalization and increased international competition have reduced gaps between “Asian parenting” and “Western-style parenting”. In an effort to be competitive, parents from both cultures have exchanged techniques, which in all honesty isn’t a bad thing!</p>

<p>However, what Amy Chua has done is to pick at these vestiges, emphasizing their misguided virtues and turning them into the defining characteristics, of her “cultural groups”. It is easy to do so because there is the existence of apprehension of the unknown (or the misunderstood), and thus misconceptions regarding her highlighted “cultural groups” can quickly turn into “fact”. At the same time, she is making tons of money by spawning discussion like this, and driving sane parents who fall under these groups off the wall.</p>

<p>To me, it is clear that her intentions are purely financially motivated. For a Yale Professor like herself, there is absolutely no reason to write a controversial, and misguided series of books. What she has successfully done, though, is paint a bad image of the groups she highlighted, and set everyone back on the long road to mending cultural differences and tensions, all while reinforcing existent, but untrue, stereotypes.</p>

68

<p>I think a lot of the anti-Chua hatred boils down to “hey American culture is superior, not all that foreign stuff”.</p>

69

<p>I beg to differ.</p>

70

<p>**provocateur: a person who deliberately behaves controversially in order to provoke argument or other strong reactions **</p>

<p>One might add: “in order to increase book sales, television appearances, internet mentions, etc.” Chua knows how to push buttons and is very good at doing so. As with her last foray into public awareness, I wonder why this is what she believes, and why such a successful, accomplished person considers it book-worthy … but not enough to spend money on the book or any more time thinking about it. :D</p>

71

<p>My issue with her book is not that it is offensive, or wrong, but rather that the insights she will provide are obvious and trivial. They boil down to the amazing insight that people who work really, really hard are likely to make more money than similarly situated people who don’t work as hard. So what? Of course, that wouldn’t make a very interesting book without all the ethnic stuff.</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>I think there is another factor which is that the people may be a self-selected sample (e.g. people who came to the US for the American Dream, believed that they can make it despite the hurdles, etc).</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Wut? </p>

<p>Just answer, do you now get the difference between someone who says these groups are superior (which was not said) and someone who says these groups have a superiority complex?</p>

<p>Sorry if pointing out that important difference is ■■■■■■■■ for you.</p>

<p>Besides, you admitted: “Yes I am witch hunting”</p>

74

<p>Amy Chua already wrote a whole book about how her group–at least their child-rearing approach–is superior. This one seems to make the amazing discovery that some other groups have similar approaches, and are also successful. So maybe it’s progress, at least.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>Sigh. Misinterpretation of what people say, as has been done in this thread, is far more insidious and harmful than stating facts.</p>

<p>(I don’t know if those facts stated are correct, but if someone wants to google it after the book comes out, I am sure they will and we will find out).</p>

76

<p>@hunt. I haven’t read the first book, so I shouldn’t comment. But I am curious if she stated her approach to child rearing is superior to getting their kid into an Ivy or overall superior (e.g. well adjusted, well rounded kid)?</p>

77

<p>Amy Chua took a lot of flak for the Tiger Parenting book, much of it justified (in my opinion). The new books seems likely to be saying, “Hey, look, other groups do the same thing, and it works for them too, so I was right all along.” Plus, of course she’s going to write another book, since the first one sold. The new topic is unsurprising.</p>

<p>I confess I never read the first book. I didn’t feel I needed to, since I’ve seen both the benefits and the costs of the approach she espouses among kids I know well.</p>

78

<p>I’m curious why the Japanese and S. Koreans are excluded from her superior group but like Frazzled, I’m not that interested in investing time and money on her superior philosophy. Maybe, I would if she was the brains behind SpaceX and Tesla.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>what superior group? She never stated that one group is superior to others.</p>

<p>see earlier posts…</p>

80

<p>Amy Chua wrote the following:
[Why</a> Chinese Mothers Are Superior - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754]Why”>Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior - WSJ)
It’s possible she didn’t write the title.</p>