Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Duh... I thought that pretty much everyone would understand that we are all working from stereotypes here. Whether the stereotypes are more correct or incorrect is the key here. Chinese people acting like oppressed robots with no shred of creativity is really a bad, unfair, and incorrect stereotype. Laissez-faire is not a bad stereotype. It is mostly true because it implies that Western parents allow their kids to find their own talents through a variety of activities and play of their own child's preference. It does not mean that they do no parenting. It means they don't micromanage. But maybe they do micromanage because a stereotype of the american dad is pushing their son into sports and other manly activities to prove their manhood.
You don't understand the concept of "chasing perfection". This perfection could be easily attained. Getting 100% on a test is very easy if you understand what is being taught. Asian parents and children realize this. Most of the time, 90% is just dandy as long as your GPA goes unscathed so you won't jeopardize chances of college. The mom isn't asking the child to be a popular quarterback or prom queen. That kind of perfection is much harder to obtain.
The problem with perfection is that it is not possible to obtain.
She's actually comparing permissive with AUTHORITARIAN. There is a big difference between authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting. I've read a few article over the past decade discussing how an authoritative parenting style tend to yield the best developmental results. It is the happy middle ground between the two polar extremes.
In the article that was posted in the OP, there are many examples of authoritarian parenting so I do agree that that model is represented. However, in the radio interview that I posted, she revealed more. It may not clearly seem to be authoritative but several ideas seem to point in that direction. For example, she mentioned having evolved as a parent, such as "allowing" her daughter to give up music because as the daughter put it, "It is all about you." She mentioned making threats but not actually doing them, e.g. donating a doll house piece by piece to Salvation Army unless her daughter played a piano piece. Her daughter even asked her why she had not yet left to do so. She also points to love and respect being the foundation of their relationship which is why she believed her parenting did not damage her daughter's self-esteem.
When I think of the Chinese model of parenting, the first thought that comes to mind is conditional love which I also believe is strongly tied to authoritarian parenting. In the article, the author may seem to express this type of love but the radio interview does not seem to support this fully. To an outsider, conditional love may seem to work, but unless you live with a family, you never really know the family dynamics.
When I ask parents in real life, what they do about such and such problem, usually they give me a dramatic solution, a tough love attitude. But upon further questioning or observing, they tend to depart toward different models of parenting. I believe this is where the big difference lies between the models that articles or books on authoritative parenting cannot fully explain. The main reason for this, IMO, is love and the fact that it cannot be directly explained but only experienced. Also, those who write such books make an assumption that the reader knows love the way the author does.
The sense I got is that this article was in some ways part of her initial view and that reality eventually made her realize she'd have to adjust it.
I mean I'm a socially conservative type who thinks many parents are too permissive, too willing to praise, and too willing to ignore their child's faults. However the article was pretty extreme to me. Plus on a success-perspective I think it's even a bit problematic as it's so narrow in defining what success is or how you can get it. I think this is the part where she maybe most realized she was perhaps mistaken. If your kids great at guitar, flute, tennis, badminton, public speaking, or painting that is something. The world really doesn't have to revolve around piano, violin, math, and science to the exclusion of everything. Hence one of her own daughter's ended up switching to tennis after getting fed up with violin. Also getting your kids to successfully repeat a piece is possibly just a way to make them successful in a rather robotic and uncreative way. Could the daughter who stuck with piano compose anything? Would she even consider it?
That said some of what people were upset about I'm not sure how I feel. The calling the kid "garbage" sounds extreme when just stated bluntly, but I could see maybe a context could make it different than it sounds. Particularly as she kind of implies her and her father both knew it was just a way to fire her up. My Mom would occasionally call me a quitter or express disappointment, but in a way it was fun the way she did it. It was like pillow fighting insult because she was more playfully jibing than anything. Dad sometimes did it in a way that was more directly mean, as in bringing me to tears, but he mellowed over time. (All that said my parents didn't push at all for academic success and were more "be happy, do the best you can." When Dad got insulting it was more about not behaving in the way he deemed respectable or orderly and my Dad is quite far from being Chinese even if he did work at a Chinese restaurant once)
Not sure why I'm here though as I'm not a parent. I just find Chinese culture interesting. Although in the article's case it seems like she focused on just one element of Chinese culture. China also gave the world Taoism and a value in stillness or non-action. Even in Confucianism they sometimes spoke of the value of just sitting around listening to music and talking to friends. Not that life is a constant struggle for perfection without any respite whatsoever.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 01-13-2011 at 07:33 AM..
I didn't read through this whole thread, but I thought it was an entertaining article. An asian friend sent it to me a couple days ago, I actually couldn't tell if the article was a tongue-in-cheek joke or not. I guess not. I doesn't surprise me too much, as it seems lots of Asian kids come from homes where they are intensely pushed towards academic perfection. I think the difference between the cultures is where the emphasis is placed in childhood, happiness or academic success. It seems most American parents look for a nice balance between the two, whereas Asian parents strive for their child's academic success at all costs(calling them 'garbage'??). I like the American style. There is much more to life than getting the highest paying job.
Now people, understand that article is mostly stereotype. Many Asian parents do not do that but are able to balance the happiness and laissez-faire of western ways with the high-expectation Eastern ways. You get some insufferable parents every now and then, but you pretty much get them in every culture. Better to have a parent drive you crazying doing homework than drive you crazy by being an alcoholic or getting divorced.
Article says no -- obviously you haven't read it. Maybe China doesn't want the kids treating their parents like they do here by stuffing them in old people's homes."No one is reluctant to return home to visit parents," the Web user said, according to the Global Times. "But I often have to work at weekends, even during the official holidays."
China has less drug addiction than here for sure. High lead levels and pollution in a rising industrial nation is probably govt exploitation of people in order to serve the american need for products. It has nothing to do with parenting skills! And finally the robotic/conformist Chinese person is just such a racist sterotype. Every person from China I've met is very politically sharp and opinionated. They just conform to high work ethics and dont' care too much about deviating from common fashions - which gives them the impression of being robots. But really, it's preferable to have somebody with those traits than the typical american conformist who tries to be cool with their wacked out fashions, weekend party lifestyle, and crappy work ethics.
Again, total sterotype. Chinese kids have time to do all that stuff. Strict as my parents were at times we had tons of time to play in the yard and to appreciate nature. And plenty of creativity came forth from my pen as I obtained awards in creative writing in high school. Yea, my mom said to "practice practice" and I rebelled at times, but it isn't as if I was brainwashed. I doubt American kids can have an easier time writing a Tom Sawyer book either, seeing how the illiteracy rate is high despite having graduated from high school. Success at math/music does not equate to lack of creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu
Duh... I thought that pretty much everyone would understand that we are all working from stereotypes here. Whether the stereotypes are more correct or incorrect is the key here. Chinese people acting like oppressed robots with no shred of creativity is really a bad, unfair, and incorrect stereotype. Laissez-faire is not a bad stereotype. It is mostly true because it implies that Western parents allow their kids to find their own talents through a variety of activities and play of their own child's preference. It does not mean that they do no parenting. It means they don't micromanage. But maybe they do micromanage because a stereotype of the american dad is pushing their son into sports and other manly activities to prove their manhood.
You contradict yourself. YOU are the one "working from stereotypes" on one hand and discrediting them on the other, depending on which suits your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu
You don't understand the concept of "chasing perfection". This perfection could be easily attained. Getting 100% on a test is very easy if you understand what is being taught. Asian parents and children realize this. Most of the time, 90% is just dandy as long as your GPA goes unscathed so you won't jeopardize chances of college. The mom isn't asking the child to be a popular quarterback or prom queen. That kind of perfection is much harder to obtain.
I do understand the concept. I just don't agree with it. I'll never ask my child to be "popular quarterback or prom queen". So poof - there goes another stereotype.
And while we're here, laissez faire means "leave alone" or "let it go", to "not interfere in the affairs of others" - in this context, our children. I highly doubt that many western parents actually practice a laissez fair approach to parenting. It would, by definition, mean that they do "no parenting". If you hang around here long enough, you'll find plenty of people lamenting the over-parenting of today's children, and plenty of people who don't think kids are parented enough.
One more thing, didn't your mother teach you that it's very rude to say "duh"?
One more thought I had while reading the many blogs deliberating Tiger mamma's parenting style was that I have made some bad parenting decisions, I have said things I shouldn't to my children. I know they were wrong, and they are indefensible. I remember calling my son "freaking stupid" when he had been irresponsible and put himself in harms way, but I would never justify doing that. It was freaking stupid, and ultimately hurtful to my son. I review how I parent all the time, I apologize to my kids when I loose my cool, etc. What strikes me about Chau is that she does not appear to review her parenting choices, and doesn't question her choices at all. I find that very contrary to what I believe.
In the article that was posted in the OP, there are many examples of authoritarian parenting so I do agree that that model is represented. However, in the radio interview that I posted, she revealed more. It may not clearly seem to be authoritative but several ideas seem to point in that direction. For example, she mentioned having evolved as a parent, such as "allowing" her daughter to give up music because as the daughter put it, "It is all about you." She mentioned making threats but not actually doing them, e.g. donating a doll house piece by piece to Salvation Army unless her daughter played a piano piece. Her daughter even asked her why she had not yet left to do so. She also points to love and respect being the foundation of their relationship which is why she believed her parenting did not damage her daughter's self-esteem.
When I think of the Chinese model of parenting, the first thought that comes to mind is conditional love which I also believe is strongly tied to authoritarian parenting. In the article, the author may seem to express this type of love but the radio interview does not seem to support this fully. To an outsider, conditional love may seem to work, but unless you live with a family, you never really know the family dynamics.
When I ask parents in real life, what they do about such and such problem, usually they give me a dramatic solution, a tough love attitude. But upon further questioning or observing, they tend to depart toward different models of parenting. I believe this is where the big difference lies between the models that articles or books on authoritative parenting cannot fully explain. The main reason for this, IMO, is love and the fact that it cannot be directly explained but only experienced. Also, those who write such books make an assumption that the reader knows love the way the author does.
I'm strictly referencing the article in the WSJ and what she writes is absolutely a form of authoritarian parenting.
Developmental psychologists define authoritative parenting as
[SIZE=2]"both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" [/SIZE]
This clearly does not describe the parenting style that Chua promotes in the WSJ article.
Authoritarian parenting [SIZE=2]is described as "highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.[/SIZE]"
This is PRECISELY the type of parenting described in the WSJ article.
What strikes me about Chau is that she does not appear to review her parenting choices, and doesn't question her choices at all. I find that very contrary to what I believe.
Yes she has. She admits to changing her thinking on some issues such as her younger daughter's desire to play tennis instead of practicing violin for hours a day.
She has stated that the book was meant more as her seeing how sometimes, no matter how hard of stance one takes on raising kids, when you love them, you make considerations.
Yes she has. She admits to changing her thinking on some issues such as her younger daughter's desire to play tennis instead of practicing violin for hours a day.
I would hardly consider that a critical parenting choice. I was thinking more about the "Garbage" incident, and such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
