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.
There is a lot of societal pressure to be a tiger mom. The one who insists on piano lessons promptly at age 5, the one who drives her kids to enroll in activities, do community service, the one who ensures that her kids might have a shot at an Ivy League education. I think part of all of us would like kids who have a list of activities, interests, hobbies, skills worth bragging about to coworkers.
Why is this a bad thing? I think that parents who are tuned in to what their kids like and willing to do what it takes to support their interests are good parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredtired
But let's switch gears and discuss the Beta parents. The one who insists on instilling good values in her children. Their children are respectful, kind, and good spirited. But they are not involved in every sport, every book club. They don't take music lessons or engage in extra curricular education in elementary school. While college bound, they certainly are unlikely to attend an Ivy league school. Rather, they are likely to attend a in-state university.
Are you saying that parents who "enroll in activities, do community service" and the parent who "ensures that her kids might have a shot at an Ivy League education" don't instill good values in their kids? I don't see why you would think that. Why do activities, community services and a shot at an Ivy league school necessarily mean no values? I just don't understand. I really don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredtired
Do you think there are benefits to children who are raised by beta parents?
Nope. I don't think that teaching kids to be uninvolved in life has any benefits. I don't think that enrolling your kids in sports, or music lessons equates to being a tiger mom. I think that parents who push their kids into activities that are of no interest to the child are quite different from parents who simply support their kids' interests by allowing them to participate in them.
I do not think there is any benefit to lazy parenting. I think children who are raised by parents who are too lazy to help them participate in the world suffer. I do not see any benefit to teaching children that they should shoot for "good enough" and be satisfied with whatever comes to them.
I think you are confusing the tiger mom with the mom who supports and encourages their children to reach for the stars. There is a big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredtired
I think so. I think that one of the big benefits is they are being raised a sustainable lifestyle that they can replicate without much difficulty - while the tiger mom provides them a lifestyle that might be hard to replicate.
Or, perhaps there aren't much benefits and the beta parents kids are doomed in life?
I don't think the term "doomed in life" is really appropriate. Any children raised by loving parents will probably be ok. However, if you wonder why certain people are content to allow life to happen and others seem to fully participate in life some of if (not all) can be explained by parenting.
Thankfully, this has changed in some places, particularly schools where there are lots of Asian Americans. In the area where I'm from, Asian American students who do well in class and in the gym can be quite popular. It isn't so much an either/or situation. I do understand this is not the norm across the U.S.
The problem is all Asian cultures are different. Korean parents certainly don't look like Tiger Moms. Americans would never raise their kids like Koreans do, they'd think their kids were getting away with murder.
Korean children live with their parents up into their 30's. Their parents pay for things American parents would frown at. They totally support them with money, food, house, emotion. Most adult kids go around with their parents credit cards, even if they work, aren't free to date anyone, not independent from the family at all.
The Korean parent is expected to pay for everything, the parent works very hard for their children. I don't think American parents understand what goes with the dedication.
In RETURN your child is expected to get good grades, and be dedicated to their education. Because they are an extension of your family, they can cause embarrassment for the parent.
Before you take on an Asian method of parenting I suggest visiting the country in which you are following advice from. China, Japan, Korea, etc....You will see why it works in their culture, and doesn't work so good in American culture.
Why raise a child with Asian education values without out the perks of the culture to go with it? That would be hard on the child, I don't see how the two can be combined easily. Already my kids stick out because of the way I was raised, and they are only half Korean. The cultures don't mix well, trust me. To raise your child with American values in Korea would not do well either. Just take the best of your culture instead. IMO, of course.
There's also no one measure of success in life. I know a guy who, in spite of having all doctors in his family, had been raised as a pampered, spoiled only child; now at 30, he's still pretty much a drifter living like a 19 year old at a rave - he never went to school, he surfs, travels, parties constantly, DJs at clubs and festivals. He has paying gigs here and there but I'm assuming, knowing his parents, that they're still at least partially supporting him. But he's happy and doing what he loves, which some call a measure of success. Is he a successful person? I honestly don't know. I know it's not the life his parents would have chosen for him, yet they chose to support him throughout his decisions.
That is an excellent point, about "success" being very personal. If you look at my posting history, I often get into conflicts on the Long Island, NY board and on the Work and Employment board about this issue. So many people here on Long Island consider themselves successful, but have very long (2 hours one way) commutes into New York City, for jobs that expect very long hours, but have a relatively high base salary (but often poor benefits). They basically have a life of nothing but working, commuting, and sleeping, but they consider themselves successful. I, on the other hand, have a lower paying job on Long Island, but I have a short commute, most weeks I can work "only" 40 hours, and I get somewhat decent benefits.
I would not consider myself successful if I had a life that was nothing but working, commuting, and sleeping. To me, that lifestyle is just barely survival, and a lifestyle that I would only accept if I had absolutely no other choice. But people on the Long Island board who have that lifestyle consider themselves successful.
The people on the Long Island board are constantly bashing me for my life choices. People in real life keep telling me to find a job in the city. But I am happy with the lifestyle that I have and the work-life balance, and I would not be happy at all with a life of nothing but working, commuting, and sleeping.
I always thought I would be a "Tiger Parent". But now that I have kids... I don't know. Maybe its a selfish view of things, but I have noticed those who took a more "simple" life track are the ones who live in the same town as their parents. Have cookouts and barbeques with them on the weekends, and are very involved with each other. Grandma watches the kids when help is needed. On the flip side, those who I know who were high achievers are jet setting, living all over the country. They see their parents on holidays, have their kids raised by daycare.
I know this is a vest generalization, but its something I have been thinking about. We want to set our children up for success but at what cost?
There is a lot of societal pressure to be a tiger mom. The one who insists on piano lessons promptly at age 5, the one who drives her kids to enroll in activities, do community service, the one who ensures that her kids might have a shot at an Ivy League education. I think part of all of us would like kids who have a list of activities, interests, hobbies, skills worth bragging about to coworkers.
But let's switch gears and discuss the Beta parents. The one who insists on instilling good values in her children. Their children are respectful, kind, and good spirited. But they are not involved in every sport, every book club. They don't take music lessons or engage in extra curricular education in elementary school. While college bound, they certainly are unlikely to attend an Ivy league school. Rather, they are likely to attend a in-state university.
Do you think there are benefits to children who are raised by beta parents?
I think so. I think that one of the big benefits is they are being raised a sustainable lifestyle that they can replicate without much difficulty - while the tiger mom provides them a lifestyle that might be hard to replicate.
Or, perhaps there aren't much benefits and the beta parents kids are doomed in life?
Just a question about nomenclature. Why is it "tiger mom" and not "alpha mom?" It's a cute name, but if it's "tiger mom," why wouldn't it's opposite be "coyote mom," "hyena mom," "wolf mom," or something like that? Why aren't they both named after animals? Tigers are solitary hunters, so it's opposite may be the "lion mom," or even the "liger mom?" That's cute. I like the term "liger mom." I think we should all strive to be "liger moms" in essence and possess traits of both the "tiger mom" and "lion mom." Tiger moms shouldn't be the only ones who get cool names, either!
My city isn't so much Tiger Mom but still very involved parenting with kids being extremely scheduled.
That's not Tiger Mom. Parents are involved here and most children participate in many activities, but I don't consider my area to have pressure to be a Tiger Mom. Tiger Moms expect perfection from their children and choose their activities based on the mother's goals for their future (doctor, ivy league university, etc.). Many very involved parents just want their children to be happy and give them opportunities to pursue their own passions and interests. That's a big difference from Tiger Mom parenting.
I always thought I would be a "Tiger Parent". But now that I have kids... I don't know. Maybe its a selfish view of things, but I have noticed those who took a more "simple" life track are the ones who live in the same town as their parents. Have cookouts and barbeques with them on the weekends, and are very involved with each other. Grandma watches the kids when help is needed. On the flip side, those who I know who were high achievers are jet setting, living all over the country. They see their parents on holidays, have their kids raised by daycare.
I know this is a vest generalization, but its something I have been thinking about. We want to set our children up for success but at what cost?
I guess like anything its a balance.
That is the other conflict that I always have with the others on the Long Island forum and the Work and Employment forum. I also very much value living close to family, and being able to have cookouts and barbecues with the on the weekends, and having my parents be able to watch the kids (once I have them) when needed. One person went so far as to say that my attitude (wanting to remain close to family) borders on mental illness! But again, "success" can be defined different ways, and I consider proximity and a close relationship to family to be more important than material wealth.
Asian so called "tiger" moms/families have a core belief that success is due to hardwork, this is in direct opposition to a more western belief that success is primarily due to innate talent.
The reality is that success is based mostly on luck, mostly having the right connections, and being in the right place at the right time. But obviously hard work and innate talent are both part of it.
That is the other conflict that I always have with the others on the Long Island forum and the Work and Employment forum. I also very much value living close to family, and being able to have cookouts and barbecues with the on the weekends, and having my parents be able to watch the kids (once I have them) when needed. One person went so far as to say that my attitude (wanting to remain close to family) borders on mental illness! But again, "success" can be defined different ways, and I consider proximity and a close relationship to family to be more important than material wealth.
Pay no heed to the naysayers. I think it's wonderful that you are close to your family.
The reality is that success is based mostly on luck, mostly having the right connections, and being in the right place at the right time. But obviously hard work and innate talent are both part of it.
I'd agree if you agree that one trait of successful people is the tendency to make sure they are "lucky" by taking the initiative to get to know the right people and ensure they are postitioned to be in the right places and ensuring they are well prepared to be successful once they are "lucky" enough to find themselves in the right place with the right people.
Are some people just lucky or born into very fortunate circumstances? Sure....but most people aren't.
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.
About the naming process here...
