<p>
Are you suggesting that she wasn’t telling the truth in that article we linked to? I would feel differently about her if her new book was “How A Tiger Daughter Taught Me to Loosen Up.”</p>
<p>Cross-posted with PCHope. I think it’s great if she did loosen up. What she did was really awful, in my opinion. But her new book is also about superior parenting styles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Race, culture, same difference. So… What? She’s claiming only Han Chinese are superior to others, not the entirety of the Oriental Asian race? Or it’s that it’s not a matter of genetics, but a matter of a race’s (sorry, ethnic group’s) culture and anyone can embrace that culture? Okay, fine. I will watch my wording more carefully in this topic from now on and make sure I’m clearer and more specific. Regardless, the point still stands. </p>
<p>Now, I’d ask her, what precedent in Chinese culture did she use to have mixed race kids, since presumably that must be somewhere since she did it and she’s Chinese and Chinese culture is so great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I’d like to say is that she is a hypocrite and a fraud. She proclaims herself as Chinese when she’s not, and has mixed race kids in apparent violation of her thoughts that Chinese (cultural Chinese) are better parents. Unless her Jewish husband was born and raised in China or something, but I doubt it.</p>
<p>Parenting isn’t totally “subjective”. It’s true that a parent can get away with emotional abuse more easily than physical abuse, but that doesn’t make it not abuse. Unless she was totally making up her own account in the linked article, I can’t imagine how anyone can read that essay and not call it abuse.</p>
<p>But then, some people don’t think hitting is abuse either. In either case, there are lines which fall into the category of abuse. You can argue where the line is, but I think we can pretty much agree that abuse, whether emotional or physical, can cross a line where judging it is beyond subjective.</p>
<p>In thinking about this some more, I think one of the things that created such a negative reaction in my mind to her article, and the list of things her children were never allowed to do, were how many of those things involved interacting with other children–that is, non-Chinese children (defining “Chinese” in whatever way you prefer). No play dates, no sleepovers, no school play, no boyfriend in high school. I find this objectionable. It’s not about the techniques, necessarily–it’s about her disdain for other families.</p>
<p>This is NOT Chinese parenting. This is the parenting of a provocateur who claims that she is representative of the Chinese population (not to mention an embarrassment to Yale in general).</p>
<p>That was my take akula.
In my area we have a great many Asian- american families, and have close ties to China and Japan especially.
My daughters class in elementary school even took an extensive trip to our Chinese sister city. The Chinese- American families were nothing like Ms Chuas extreme authoritarian model.</p>
<p>First of all, I’ll admit I haven’t read the book or this thread (nor do I have time to) but I thought I would throw in my 2c.</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t buy the superior race nonsense but I do think what Amy Chua says has at least some truth to it (but maybe not for reasons she states). One thing to note about almost all those cultures she mentioned is that they are based in countries with little to not safety net. For example, Asian countries are notorious for having terrible welfare systems (ironic because china is “communist” lol). </p>
<p>However, this is a double edged sword because in many of these same countries ethics (beyond saving face, which usually means hiding things) aren’t emphasized nearly as much in Europe and are light-years behind the U.S. Stereotypes of greedy chinese women (i.e. the no house, no car video on youtube) are partially true but fail to explain that for most people in China, not having money can be much scarier than in the U.S. and way scarier than like Sweden. </p>
<p>Finally, on a personal note I’ve known a few parents like Amy Chua and a common theme is that even though they are strict a lot of them (particularly if the mom is working as Mrs. Chua appears to be) are results-only strict (i.e. I don’t care how you get an A just get an A). Unless Mrs. Chua can be in two places at once or is an adjunct, I highly doubt her helicopter parenting is as bad as she states it is.</p>
<p>Her blog is pretty hilarious.
In it she states she " isn’t holding herself up as a model".
She also is much easier on herself than she is on her children, citing " writers block" instead of reluctance to work.
Lots of back-pedaling.</p>
<p>Isn’t she a law professor? Why should I read anything she writes in the area of history, sociology, or anthropology? For that matter, how is she doing the exhaustive research necessary to produce a credible book on this subject while also holding down a full time job?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Easily one of the most callous and utterly stupid statement I read on the forum. But, unfortunately, hardly surprising considering the source.</p>
<p>3girls3cats: Yes, good point. My feeling about the excerpts I have seen from the book is: “This is not what the search for truth looks like.” It seems improbable to me that there is any “exhaustive research” behind the book. “Credibility” is probably in the perception of the reader. I think the book falls into the general class of punditry–although some pundits are genuinely engaged in the search for truth.</p>
<p>Incidentally, some of the reviews I have seen make me wonder about the comments about the Amish in the book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Law is a broad subject and fits in a wider context. Her academic publications on ethnicity, immigration, globalization, etc. give a plenty strong enough basis to write on those related areas.</p>
<p>[Curriculum</a> Vitae | Yale Law School](<a href=“| Yale Law School”>| Yale Law School)</p>
<p>Then what she has gleaned from her years at Yale is simply embarrassingly little. The ignorant work(s) that she has produced, if judged on an academic basis, is embarrassing, unfounded, and plain shallow. Her method of parenting is something that I could have produced in middle school if I played up “stereotypes” to an extreme. In fact, given a prestigious background and a publisher, anyone could have written the piece of nonsense that she created. Which brings me back to the point: she wants to earn money and create a sensationalism surrounding both her and her daughters.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything in this resume that qualifies a lawyer, no matter how widely traveled, to write a scholarly piece about patterns of behavior across cultural groups. She’s not writing about differences and patterns in legal systems across nations! There are academic disciplines that study this subject in depth and whose scholars would have the basis and training for creating such a work if so inclined.</p>
<p>Akula, I’m with you. This is all about self-promotion, sensationalism, and generating more money.</p>
<p>I just can’t get very excited about Amy Chua one way or the other. I didn’t buy or read her books, but I heard some of the furor (read: publicity) surrounding them. I view her as somewhat similar to Malcom Gladwell - make yourself famous and rich by publishing books that consist of a mash-up of observations, opinions, and conclusions based on poorly-researched data (or no data at all, merely personal belief). And then pass yourself off as some sort of expert, all the while ignoring the work of the true scholars and experts in the field.</p>
<p>Maybe she’s angling for a reality show - sort of the Kardashians with Ivy league educations. Like the Kardashians she could do endorsements and bring out her own line of products: The Tiger Mother’s Cookbook, Tiger Toys for Ivy-Bound Tots, Culturally-Superior “Chinese” fashions. The possibilities are endless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said she intended for it to be judged on an academic basis? I think coureur is spot-on. She’s writing a book of her thoughts, observations and opinions; buy it or don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we would need to know your academic qualifications and scholarly experience to judge whether you or she is more credible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She never did, or found the publishing of academic research harder to crack than a mainstream audience that tunes in to Oprah of DrOz. After all, the broad public does not “evaluate” books as a peer review might. The public does not care if the research is none else than a process hastily imposed on a bunch of law students by a demanding educator. Books that are short on research but long on opinions are more “entertaining” and controversial than what appears in scholarly research. Sometimes this is for the better. That is the world of Malcom Gladwell. People who tend to agree with the contents or conclusions love the books as they provide some vindication or the sources for further quoting, despite the unproven or unverifiable data. Poorly researched books that end up with faulty conclusions and create plenty of controversy can be fascinating. </p>
<p>However, as this thread shows, it is also perilous to dare to critic the controversial author on her purported contribution. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>coureur, you should run for political office, you fit the mold. Don’t have to read any legislation, just the “publicity” around it, give your opinion and vote accordingly. Someone will say you are “spot on”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cbreeze, I can’t speak for Coureur, but I <em>did</em> read the previous Amy Chua book. Cover to cover. What, I’m not allowed to have an opinion on it that differs from yours?</p>
<p>I <em>don’t</em> consider it “loving” to force your child to practice piano to the point where they are denied bathroom breaks or breaks for dinner and there are bite marks on the piano. There is NO piano piece that is that important. I <em>don’t</em> consider it loving to take your kids to Greece with their grandparents, and then have the kids sit in a hotel and practice piano instead of enjoying the sights as a family. (That’s not loving towards either the child or the grandparents.) Etc, etc. </p>
<p>Anyway, what IS your opinion of those parenting methods? Are they parenting methods you approve of / endorse / do or would do yourself, are neutral towards, are negatively opposed to? It’s a pretty easy question. I’m personally opposed to them. Does your mileage vary? If so, spell it out, instead of accusing those of us who disagree as “not having read the book.”</p>