In other China news…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/22/china-bans-reincarnation-_n_61444.html?ref=fb&src=sp
You sure that wasn’t the mother?
As I asked before, what exactly did the mother accomplish? All the energy and anger spent into this fiasco, what positiveness, beyond being able to play a piano lick, was accomplished?
Well that’s the angle you’re coming from that she’s just being involved in useless parlor tricks- but what she’s learning is that hard work is what guarantees success. Punching, kicking, and thrashing about just because she wasn’t able to get it done is what doesn’t translate into the adult world. Its not about wanting a pat on the back or approval why did you happen to decide that?
Who says that heavy parenting completely excludes encouraging and supporting what children are naturally curious about? You can do both. Even Amy chua does that(theres an interview out there where she talks about beginning to support her daughters useless subjective satisfaction about tennis). Parenting can be strict in one area and lax in another.
You say “these people” but that generalization is nonsense when I myself see many cases and in many cultures that restrictive parents get more lax as their child shows more maturity. Perhaps the certain bad cases that stuck out in your mind were just the most interesting.
Pretty sure about that- nothing she did was out of line. She knows her daughter well and what it takes for her to focus.
The true experience that with hard work she can accomplish the most impossible tasks. That’s a principal that works for some people especially when they know it firsthand. Look beyond your own opinion about what took place to understand where they’re coming from.
I don’t think it is okay for her husband and her kids. Excuse me while I “drink more haterade”.
I think you meant to say “The ends are…”
Oh, I’m sure she does feel that way. The point is, I think she’s a nutcase – or, at the very least, a first-class grade-A bitch – for thinking it. Plus, I don’t know whether her daughters really do know “the value of hard work”, what they’re capable of, or still love their parents (at least their mother).
“A bit too harsh”… that’s rich. I’d say she’s been more than a bit too harsh.
Perhaps you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about when it comes to me.
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for sharing. I think it is a big deal.
Her daughter fought and ripped up papers in retaliation for the coercion she was already suffering. I consider her mother to be the aggressor in that situation, not the daughter. “Giving up” on something isn’t aggression, and neither is disobeying a parent, as far as I’m concerned.
Earning an “asswhupping” for fighting back against pre-existing physical coercion is nothing short of child abuse IMHO. So I’m sorry you had abusive parents. No wonder you consider Ms. Chua to be “not very harsh”.
I’m not surprised that you missed my point – which was that there are forms of torture which don’t cause (lasting) physical injury. You seemed to be arguing that, because the daughter wasn’t physically injured, there was nothing wrong with how she was treated by her mother. By that reasoning, you should have no problem whatsoever with waterboarding.
How do you know? Besides, it was highly coerced practice.
Who says I’m necessarily inventing anything here? You? LOL, why in the world should I take your word on anything?
Irrelevant. The ends still don’t justify the means IMHO.
If they found it valuable for its own sake, they’d practice and master it without any need for coercion.
Again, I don’t think the ends justify the means. I’d bet money that what they really learned is that making their mother happy is essential to their continued well-being. The fact that their mother is happy when they work incredibly hard (under strong coercion if “necessary”) is tangential to that notion.
I think I see things through their eyes just fine – I just don’t like what I see through their eyes. Is it really so hard for you to understand that?
Nice straw man you’ve set up. I never said you should have no problem with it – only that I’d consider it morally wrong to force your child back into your home against his will.
It’s what their mother values. They probably didn’t value it to begin with – at least not as much as their mother does.
And if the daughters want(ed) to attend sleepovers? Oh right, I guess what they want doesn’t matter.
So who’s opinion does have value there? Oh right, I guess hers and her husband’s. We’re back to the notion of parents owning their children, thank you very much.
I’m sure Ms. Chua would strongly disagree with me here, just as you do. FYI, I really don’t care.
No, I don’t.
She didn’t know, she believed. Her daughter didn’t. IMO, that in no way justifies the strongly coercive behavior she performed at her daughter.
This the third time you’ve argued an implicit false dilemma. Please explain how refusing to obey one’s parents at all times, immediately and without question, is tantamount to believing that crying like a baby is going to get one what he wants.
Conjecture is hardly the same as claiming knowledge. Sounds like someone needs to brush up on basic epistemology.
Of course, that’s conjecture as well – on your part, this time.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “sleep deprivation”. What’s yours?
One could say that Stockholm Syndrom is a close understanding by the captives of their captors even if sometimes their wants clash.
On another note, of course the parents’ values must always win (according to you and Ms. Chua) whenever they clash with those of the children. And that’s because (again, according to you and Ms. Chua) children are the property of their parents.
Sorry but I’m not a moral relativist when it comes to parenting, as it appears that you are. And I already know that I don’t have to be like Amy Chua at all – and thank the mythical God for that!
I think there is. So I don’t agree with you. At all. Do you understand?
In a few years the girl will probably be the billionth faceless asian chick on youtube getting deleted every month for copyright infringement. Lol.
Why do you assume you know better than they do about whats good for them?
Why wouldn’t they figure out the value of hard work from that episode? She didn’t do anything crazy- its possible to know what it takes to accomplish something(like arguing) but not come from a place of anger. To me it looks like that’s exactly what they learned- and that they definitely love their mother.
I think you overestimate how sensitive some kids are to harsh language.
I didn’t mean it as a demand or something, my question is more of my own curiousity to what psychological damage do you think she’s inflicting on her kids? I see nothing so that’s why I ask.
I do find it relevant. They’re learning a skill which although may or may not provide monetary value- can provide other types of satisfaction for themselves- even if their mother pushed them to it.
They’re kids, maybe they find eating paint to be valuable for its own sake. Their mom knows them better- I think her daughter does enjoy it but just didn’t believe in her own capabilities. I didn’t find doing handy work like how to use a hammer to nail things valuable when I was a kid when my dad would have me do it to put things together, I would rather have done something else at the time- but I’m glad he taught me when I look back on it. Situations like that do happen you know.
Nothing is wrong with them learning that making their mother happy is something that they should strive for. But to say that’s the only goal of that exercise is really missing the lesson of what her mother was trying to teach her.
No I don’t think you’re seeing things through their eyes- that’s why I said it.
Ahh ok I see. Well I don’t see anything wrong with forcing your child back into your home against his will if he’s at an age where I don’t believe he can handle himself. So that’s where the disconnect is between our views.
So what if thats what their mother values? Let them do something that will please their mother- I don’t see anything disturbing about it.
It sure doesn’t considering their age. If they’re not old enough to be able to support themselves- they have to listen to their parents’ rules.
Absolutely her and her husbands opinions have value- that’s the only value that matters when it comes to how to raise children. Yes I believe parents own their children until the children are able to support themselves.(Because if they can, then there’s really nothing stopping them from disobeying their parents)
Ok?
Well allright
Her belief came from experience. She knows how skilled her daughter is. I don’t consider it strongly coercive behavior- perhaps she wouldn’t have been so adamant about it if her kid wasn’t acting out.
Look at the situation. She was punching and kicking and ripping up the music piece. That looks like crying like a baby to me- and her mom knows where her daughter is coming from when she acts up like that. This is the nth time you made some type of generalization instead of looking at the situation at hand and treating it uniquely.
I don’t equate the phrase “working into the night”(which is all we know) with sleep deprivation. I never heard it used in that context.
I think you just take things to heart too easy.
I don’t see anything wrong with parents values coming out on top when the child is still growing.
Yeah and I disagree with you. Cool.
In the article the mother admits to loosing control herself. Great example for her kid.
You incorrectly assume that consistent compulsion against a child, to make them do something they don’t enjoy, does not teach a work ethic. What is wrong with allowing a child find something of personal interest? And allowing them to move at a rate that is comfortable with them?
Also do not incorrectly identify the child’s happyness at the end of the day simply because the child was happy she figured out the lick. She was happy yes, but mostly because she would not longer be punished. And for pleasing her mother, a common trait many children present. All the mother is doing here is abusing her love. It will backfire as the child grows older.
Oh geez nobody’s perfect. So what if she lost control, she’s human. Doesn’t make her “insane” a “bitch” or whatever Autolykos thinks of her.She didn’t even so much as raise a hand towards her daughters. The fact that she admits to losing control shows me she’s not crazy and is able to look at her actions from a distance. Her admittance of her faults means her children definitely know their mother is honest- so that would seem to me to prevent any real animosity or grudges between them.
You also incorrectly assume that a bit of compulsion against a child doesn’t teach them work ethic. I can see it happen quite easily, especially since the results were so crystal clear. Perhaps you don’t think much of the accomplishment but I think her daughter saw and even felt lots of value from that experience since she was snuggling up with her mother afterwards. There’s nothing wrong with allowing a child to find something of personal interest and to move at their own pace. But those aren’t the only options- and they’re certainly not demented ways to go about raising children.
I think you’re incorrectly identifying the child’s happiness with no longer receiving punishment from the mother. These are just our opinions back and forth so I’m not taking anything personally, hope you guys aren’t. I don’t think the mother is abusing the daughter’s love at all- she’s showing her daughter that she loves her. I don’t see any backfiring happening- I’ve never witnessed it myself when it comes to parents similar to Ms. Chua’s.
Have I seen kids rebel against their parents as they’ve grown up? Oh yes but they’ve even been children who’ve had very very relaxed parents when it came to what rules the child needs to follow if any- but every person is different and has their own reasons as to why they do what they do.
I know one girl who after she became a teenager she overcame depression and would say what sounds to me like irrational things such as “My parents give me everything I want I hate it”. As crazy as that sounds- reality always seems stranger than fiction. So things of that nature have me relax my judgement about what I believe should be done when it comes to raising children. People are complex so I don’t see it possible to make judgments like “Parental compulsion = rebellious children”- its not that simple.
If that’s indeed the Chinese parent standard, we have a Third Reich coming, that much is certain. Let’s give nukes to Hong Kong at least, so they will stand.
Great Awesome article. I especially like this part:
OH SHI-
Please, be honest. You’re asking why I assume that I know better than Ms. Chua about what’s good for her daughters. Well, I think the absence of aggression against people is always better for them than the presence thereof. After all, I’m a libertarian.
I also don’t think parents own their children. So no, I don’t think it’s good for children to be raised by parents who think they own them.
I think she did do plenty of crazy things. What do you say to that? Your repeated assertions to the contrary will not convince me one bit. Understand?
Now as far as I’m concerned, the value of hard work comes from accomplishing something that you want to accomplish. That means it’s okay if you change your mind later on. No one is obligated to stay on the same path they started on.
So we have different conjectures here. That’s nice. And?
Oh, am I supposed to be shamed into submission or silence because you’re now accusing me of “overestimating”? Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. I’m still here.
No, your question implied that she is not and cannot be inflicting any psychological damage on her kids whatsoever. Otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me why I’m inventing some psychological damage.
What interests me is why you’d bother to ask a question where, based on its wording, a certain conclusion is already implied. This is known as a loaded question. So did you mean it as a rhetorical device? Another attempt to shut me up? It won’t work, as I mentioned already.
That, for me, is the operative phrase, and it’s why I consider the ends to not justify the means here. Of course you get that, which is why you’re trying to step around it. But I will hold onto it.
This is the crux of your viewpoint, I think. Human beings are mindless animals until they reach a certain age (I’m betting you think it’s 18), where they magically turn into adults.
Even if she does enjoy it, that doesn’t mean it’s justified for her to be forced into it more than she wants. And how does one know what his own capabilities are, let alone someone else’s?
I don’t think it’s useful to argue from hindsight here. That’s like saying a paraplegic should be thankful he got paralyzed from a car accident because he went on to win gold medals in the Special Olympics.
Well, I think there can be something wrong with it. Now what?
Where did I say that was the lesson that Ms. Chua was trying to teach her daughter? I’m sure she had other lessons in mind. But that doesn’t mean her daughter learned those lessons.
Wow, I’ve been waiting my whole life to find someone who knows me better than I know myself. I’m so glad I finally found him. 
Yes, and it’s a fundamental disconnect. Maybe you’d like to explain what you mean by “ability to handle oneself”.
You wouldn’t, because you think parents own their children.
What do you mean by “support themselves”? I imagine you mean holding jobs that pay well enough for them to afford places of their own, etc. Well, it’s funny – the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that people shouldn’t work until the age of 16, if not older. Along with child-labor laws, there are also laws for mandatory school attendance up until – surprise, surprise! – the minimum working age. So maybe they could support themselves if it weren’t for the government.
By that reasoning, you’d have no problem with me raising my children to become serial killers. After all, it’s what I think is best for them, and they’re my children, so I own them, right?
That’s right. I don’t care.
That’s right, so there’s no point in you telling me that I have to look at things case-by-case. I’m not going to and you can’t make me do otherwise.
No one knows how skilled they themselves are, let alone how skilled anyone else is. Of course, you don’t consider it strongly coercive behavior, since you think parents own their children. Therefore I consider you crazy as well.
Furthermore, saying “perhaps she wouldn’t have been so adamant about it if her kid wasn’t acting out” is a nice “heads, I win; tails, you lose” kind of argument. If her daughter doesn’t act out, Ms. Chua gets her way; if her daughter does “act out” (i.e. resist), Ms. Chua still gets her way (via coercively overcoming her daughter’s resistance).
If you read the exerpt more carefully, you’ll see that the daughter was punching and kicking while her mother was trying to physically force her back to the piano. Why shouldn’t her daughter have resisted physically to (attempted) physical coercion? Oh, that’s right – because her mother owns her.
Now why should I treat the situation uniquely, hmm? Aside from the red herring that this might be (distracting people from the fact that you’ve argued three false dilemmas), I can see no basis for your argument here. Please explain yourself.
This response doesn’t answer my question. I still don’t know what your definition of “sleep deprivation” is. Can you please tell me?
Now what in the world is this supposed to mean?
I know you don’t, because you think children are the property of their parents. Telling me repeatedly that you don’t see anything wrong there is never going to make me agree.
Yep, and therefore I think you’re about as crazy as Ms. Chua is.