I’m not sure how your desire to marry a 7 year old is relevant.
I meant the mom, silly. In reference to OP saying he would’ve divorced her on the spot
Exactly what positive thing comes out of the Mom’s behavior in the passage provided in the OP? At the time when the mother started making threats, and the “warzone environment” followed, she was acting every bit the same age as her daughter. Behaviorally i don’t know how you would distinguish the two.
Her daughter was acting out- not listening and started to tear the pieces to shreds- so she did some disciplining. Then she figured out the piece and was excited about it. I don’t see the big deal. I’d say theres a bit of overanalysis if you think you can’t distinguish the two. She knows what her daughter is capable of and wasn’t taking laziness as an excuse. She may have gotten a bit overzealous- but no big deal.
My parents never made me do anything. They gave me good advice with good reasoning, and I followed much of it. They never pushed me into anything. I never recall ever being grounded or punished. That’s coming from my very religious parents.
Damn leftists.
So apparently, Chinese mothers make good drill sergeants.
I like how she has seemed to copyright “Chinese Mother”. Not all Chinese mothers are Chinese Mothers. And other countries besides China have Chinese Mothers.
Both laissez faire and authoritarian parenting… and for that matter almost murderous parenting have produced successful people. There is idealization and there is non-idealization later of all these types, too. Though, I see less or maybe no regret from laissez faire. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who had laissez faire parents who is now kicking themselves. While many people are kicking themselves that had parents that made them into late virgins or mastering some useless skill. Or got their teeth knocked out for not playing their violin scales. And certainly, if a parent puts a cigarette out on you for going on a playdate… that always leads to deep regret.
I don’t think they’re crazy. I think they’re complete assholes who will probably die alone and unloved in a nursing home like they deserve.
Nah not at all. Her daughters probably love her like crazy. I know people with much stricter parents and they wouldn’t dream of throwing them in a nursing home- they consider it their responsibility to take care of their parents. She didn’t even do anything that serious- made some empty threats(ohh nooo no christmas presents- such a slave driver) and stayed up one night yelling at her daughter to keep working hard? Lol its not like she even smacked her upside the head or anything. She’s no monster.
Yeah she mentions that herself if you read the article. “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.”
I dunno how any of her behavior leads to you picturing “Knocking out teeth and burning cigarettes on skin” type abuse Mr. Ess. Looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps there are people that value the skills you consider to be useless*(as opposed to the ever important “have sex by the time you’re a teenager goal”, which is much more valuable right)*and are glad their parents instilled a good work ethic that follows them through life.
She’s much, much too “stern” for my taste. That’s what’s what.
See above. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if her kids are happy because they made her happy. Regardless, though, I don’t think the ends justify the means here.
Define “tough”. But this is irrelevant.
Did they do anything resembling the “piano incident” that I quoted? Otherwise, what do you mean by “harsh”? You seem to be implicitly arguing from a false dilemma – that any parent who isn’t as harsh as Amy Chua must be coddling his children to the utmost and letting them get away with everything.
Do you consider waterboarding to be torture? It doesn’t always leave physical or physiological damage.
I can understand “hard work” if it helps keep food on the table and the like. Mastering the violin or the piano doesn’t seem to do that in Ms. Chua’s household.
The real issue, however, is whether one thinks parents own their children. If one does think so, then he’ll have no problem with parents ordering their children around in arbitrary ways, such as demanding them to master a particular musical instrument or prohibiting them from attending sleepovers.
So you agree with Ms. Chua’s implicit definition of “laziness” as “not working as hard as your parents want you to work, however hard that may be”?
Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome is at work in her daughters and the people you mention. Sleep deprivation is another torture tactic, isn’t it?
The false dilemma strikes again! Please explain how, if we don’t follow Ms. Chua’s model of parenting, we’re necessarily elevating “have sex by the time you’re a teenager” to be the highest goal for our children to aspire to.
Well that’s fine for you- but its generally ok for her husband and her kids so why drink all that haterade?
The means are to focus on achieving skills and spending more time with family than anyone else. Ms. Chua feels the ends justifies the means because her daughters know the value of hard work, know what they’re capable of, and still love their parents. I saw an interview with her and she says herself the book isn’t meant to be a “This is the proper way to parent” type book- but her own experience of growing as a mother, and she admits that she was a bit too harsh sometimes. Perhaps you’re taking a bit of offense because the title of that article sounds aggressive, but that’s just a way to catch attention.
Tough would be the way Amy Chua raises her daughters in that context.
I never said that any parent who isn’t as harsh as her is coddling their children- what I’m saying is that her method of parenting isn’t really that big of a deal. My parents were a lot more strict than her- that piano incident…nothing happened. Her daughter was punching and kicking and ripping up papers- she just told her daughter that there will be serious consequences for that kind of behavior(like to take away the toys that her mother gave her in the first place) and she’s not taking no for an answer. Haha I would’ve earned an asswhupping for PUNCHING AND KICKING and thrashing about. Amy Chua is not very harsh.
Yes I consider waterboarding torture- no offense but that’s a ridiculous question. Practicing a piano piece until she “got it” is nothing that can even possibly compare. Her daughter was happy about it when she realized she could pull it off and snuggled by her mom that very night. What kind of psychological damage are you inventing?
Well maybe you don’t care for skills that aren’t earning money currently- but who’s to say they won’t be part of an orchestra or something later? Who’s to say they don’t find mastering the violin or piano valuable just for its own sake? Maybe through that process they’ve learned that with hard work they can do anything they want. I feel like you don’t even try to see things through their eyes.
I haven’t read much regarding the libertarian thought about whether parents own their children- but from what you say it sounds like I should have no problem if my 7 year old child walks out the front door and I never hear from them again. Mastering a particular musical instrument is what they value- so what? Prohibiting them from attending sleepovers gets them closer to their family. Its arbitrary to you- but you’re not her daughter, you’re not her husband- so your opinion has no value when it comes to what’s best for her family.
You have to look at things case-by-case. She knew her daughter was good enough to learn that piece- her daughter was just getting frustrated and acting out. She was teaching her that she’s definitely capable of anything- and that crying like a baby isn’t going to get her what she wants.
Or perhaps you pretend to know a bit too much about people you never met(Not really your fault, what else are you going to do with the anecdotal evidence I gave you). She said they worked “into the night”- we don’t even know how late that was. Until 12:00-1:00 a.m.? That’s not sleep deprivation- there is a bit too much hyperbole here. Its not stockholm syndrome- its a close understanding of their parents even if sometimes their wants clash.
Well that’s my fault for not being that clear I was talking to John Ess when he said "While many people are kicking themselves that had parents that made them into late virgins or mastering some useless skill."
I wasn’t making any generalizations about whoever falls into that “we” category. I think every parent should have their own way of parenting- whatever they feel is best for their kids- every child is different- every environment the child grows up in is different. You don’t have to be like Amy Chua at all. My point is that there’s nothing wrong with the way she raises her kids.
I know she mentions what I said in the article, that’s why I said it.
Yes, I know people will value useless skills. I play music myself. I can tell you on the one hand that it is fun and possible without force or even mastery. It’s also fun and possible if you start later than childhood. At the same time, it doesn’t translate to anything but subjective satisfaction. Musicians are a dime a dozen. You’re better off playing the lottery. Or forcing your kids to write hundreds of lines of poetry every day so they can become the next Bill Shakespeare.
I only mean that both laissez faire and authoritarian parenting are liked and hated (by someone or other). Abusive parenting is possibly idealized as well, and sometimes not. All three can create ‘success’, given other variables in development. Many celebrities and politicians came from horrible or absent parents. Many with regrets and others with ambivalence or quiet dissociation. However, few if any laissez faire children live with regrets. While people with authoritarian and abusive parenting – no matter what they forced to do under this regime (from violon to whatever) – often live with regrets. And if it is possible for even one laissez faire parent to produce success, it seems to me that the heavier parenting styles become unnecessary. Just as fascism and communism become unnecessary if free markets are more efficient. Yes, fascism and communism can produce some results. But it seems to be despite their heavy hands that anything gets done at all. Rather than because. In North Korea, Kim Jung-Il is idealized. They know nothing else.
It is not a goal called ‘have sex by the time you’re a teenager goal’. As if it is just arbitrary frat party game. But sexual repression is bad for people’s mental health. I think teenagers should know about sex, love, dating, relationships, etc. once they are past puberty. Because they are constantly thinking about it by that time. And delay leads to sexual disfunction. It is sad to see people who are absolutely acting like children in relationships even when they are in their thirties… finding it impossible to find sexual fulfillment either in real people at all (and thus look to porn heavily)… or can’t find healthy relationships. When you are a teenager, being locked inside playing scales to me is the same as being locked in playing Dungeons and Dragons. Life is not all about doing jobs or succeeding on other people’s watch. Being heavily deficient one respect is just as bad as the others.
It’s about pomp, not making a living.
Well so what if it doesn’t translate into anything but subjective satisfaction? Why does it matter to you?
You say there are few if any laissez faire children that have regrets(this definition of what laissez faire parenting means is not really clear)- but I know people that hate their parents because they gave them absolutely no boundaries or even gave a damn what their kids were up to so they ended up making stupid decisions like getting involved with gangs. Heavy style parenting may be necessary- you don’t know what that child’s behavior is like. I find this comparison of strict parenting to the authoritarianism of communism just damn silly.
To be honest I was a bit confused as to why you brought the subject up at all. She never said her kids shouldn’t know what sex, love, or any of that fun stuff was. She’s talking about when her daughters were very young(7 years old). No one said anything about locking teenagers inside the house. If you just want to start another topic about how repressing a teenager’s social skills can have repercussions I don’t think anyone is going to disagree.
Because if it is subjective satisfaction, if forced, is based on approval. Approval equals satisfaction. This doesn’t translate into adult world where people won’t be impressed by parlor tricks the way your parents do. People get satisfaction from many different things besides piano or violin; these arbitrary rules simply encourage arbitrary behavior or novelty. And wanting a pat on the back for something just because you ‘succeeded’. (as well as a Eurocentrism, which ironically is anti-Chinese). By laissez faire I mean simply encouraging and being able to support monetarily what children are naturally curious about. And also being able to give rational explanations of house rules, given the predicament of not asking to be born in the first place. I don’t mean neglect or letting them join gangs.
It is similar to government or authoritarianism. For instance, people can say a government policy separates Europe from America. But all Europe knows is Europe. There is an opportunity cost to what they’ve done; most people are conditioned to it, as as well being unable to restart time to see if the same results come from a different or no policy (which is what separates it from science). And there is an inability to disentangle every single variable in a given model to make sure it is a proper comparison. You might say that a communist country gets free health care, while our people die. Voila, the communist country is superior. Which also, of course, brings into focus – rather than the ‘effect’ – the methodology. Authoritarian parenting and communism will inevitably need coercion as well as a morality which justifies it. Not just a ‘telling’ people to do this or that or to distribute wealth. But forceful consequences as a result of refusal. This is how one is the same as the other and inevitably leads to the other. On top of this, parental and governmental comparisons mask existing errors that have nothing to do with the comparison variables. For instance, when people say the US is an absolutely free market with free reign; comparing it to a ‘sensible’ mixed market that ‘works’. Or when the Chinese Mother says that American kids get lost being able to do just whatever they want. People read into ‘Chinese parenting’, without further reading into existing American parenting for all current errors that could be improved. In so doing, import an unnecessary template and do so prematurely. It’s like trying to buy parenting as a product.
You can be sure these people restrict their kids into almost adulthood. I see this in so many cases and in many cultures. They keep the kids locked up until marriage, freak out about living arrangements, sons and daughters have to hide boyfriends or girlfriends, parents have racist or religiously bigoted standards for friends, etc.