Or is this woman dead annoying? (Dragon Mother article in Sunday Times)

[ragged]

Amy Chua article in the Sunday Times -- I can't link to the ST version, but I think this Wall St. Journal piece is good-as identical.

I'm in 3 minds about it:

1. It's just one persons's perspective
2. It's a blatent brag fest
3. It's factually wrong and perhaps even defamatory in so many ways. If 25% of humanity are ethnic "Chinese", they can't all be high achievers, can they?

Related discussion here, too.

Well you do that, but are you so arrogant to believe that the entire world should be the same as you?

And I think it is rather different than calling a child an fucking cunt in asda actually. You can't speak for everyone. The author says her father called her garbage and she does not hate him and agreed that he was right. I disagree, you disagree, but how can you say to her, no your feelings on your own life are not valid, I have decided it was a very bad thing, even if you don't.

sorry, now not not.

Calling a child 'garbage' is wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion, it bullying and emotional abuse.

Yes, I thought it was odd that she denied that she wasn't living through them even though she saw their achievements really as her achievements.

Have to admit that I was secretly relieved that it wasn't sustainable. Even though I really disagree with her, I did admire her tenacity and I felt a bit sheepish that I simply don't have the energy (plus one of mine is a boy ) to put a similar regime into place.

I am arrogant?

Ha. That really made me laugh.

Why is calling a child garbage not as bad as calling her a fucking cunt?

I am thrilled that it didn't work. I would have been willing to bet my house that it wouldn't, I thought that it had been proved that those methods don't work in training animals so they would hardly work with humans! If a child wants to stop music lessons there is no point in forcing it. They can regret it later and take it up later. It is never too late. People learn by their own mistakes.

Today's Times says it all in the article. The lady concerned calls it "The Big Retreat"

Eventualykl Chua realised she risksed losing her daughter (when she was 13 and refused to co operate last year. Chua bakced ofrf and agreed she coudl no longer micro manage her daughters' lives. Lulu promoptly gave up bniovl lessons adn took up tennins

"Things are much clarmer and everyone seems happier" Chuas says. Although to be fair she does report that the girls seem happy with how things were.

Most of us have probbaly called our children things we shouldn't over the years. I'm prerty calm but I'm sure even I have but the interesting bit is when people try to justify it as she does (and indeed the smackers do on this thread).

I could take an employer to court for bullying, name calling, a teacher couldn't do it and so it is unacceptable for a parent to do it, even worse if they have so browbeaten the poor child so much that they think it is OK!

Good to see that she has realised it does not work. Not quite sure why she has written a book advocating her methods though.

Xenia
I have on occasion lost my temper and shouted at my DC, probably told them that they were being silly/stupid or something. But I woudl not defend it and think it was ok.

I think the poor woman was misguided and has learned her lesson, the really worrying part is parents thinking that she was right. (I think they would have rebelled earlier had they not had 'daddy being the nice guy' and providing light relief. No one could cope with two parents like the mother.

I thought your fucking cunt point was very good actually, MmeLindt.

I'm just off to waterboard DS for not picking up his Misty Island Rolling Log Rumble up like I told him.

I am not arrogant buzzlightbeer and I do not believe everyone should do things and think the same as me

But we are not discussing the minutae of different parenting methods here. You know whether you should breast or bottle feed, work or not work, have a routine or go with the flow. We are discussing bullying a child.

Why does the NSPCC exist? If all abuse can be rationalised away by cultural relativism and a difference of opinion? The NSPCC exists because it dares to state that some behaviours are unacceptable towards children. Emotional abuse is one of them.

I am stating that being a loving and unabusive mother is right and calling your child garbage and screaming and ranting at her because she didn't get an A does not constitute being a loving mother.

We have all made mistakes and felt angry even hostile towards our children. But this woman really believes her actions are right which makes her a classic bully. I am not asking that every mother parents like I have buzzlightbeer (and I have made mistakes) but I do ask that bullying of children be more recognised and spoken out against

I do find the dad almost more objectionable than her. At least she was convinced she was right - he clearly wasn't but let her go ahead with methods which he must have found at the very least extremely uncomfortable. Taking them to for bike rides and to water parks doesn't really make it all ok. This is a very educated and able man who has been a high achiever despite, his wife would say, having had a very liberal upbringing.

well, if you're happy to tell a woman she was emotionally abused even when she doesn't think so, and you don't think thats arrogant, you go ahead.

well xenia it wouldn't surprise me if in another 10 years that poor daughter is in therapy

Oh and buzzlightbeer further up I wasn't stating that everyone should follow the UP method. I was stating that it is right that a mother should love her child unconditionally.

Buzzlightbeer I wouldn't have said I was emotionally abused until 2 years ago (I am 31). Why?

I was brainwashed
I still sought the conditional love of my parents
I didn't know any better
I thought I was the problem

I wouldn't have dared call it abuse because well that is the nature of bullying and abuse, the victim is scared.

It may well be that some do not feel hothoused and thrive on this. But do you really think there are no children who would suffer at the hands of this parenting? So are we taking a utilitarian approach now whereby if the majority of children thrive on this and do not feel abused it is okay that those that do suffer in silence?

For those that didn't see the bit about the 3 yr old Lulu it is shortened in today's Times

'Take the day when Chua banished her daughter Lulu, then 3, to the garden without a coat amid a temperature of -6C because the girl refused to co-operate with her first piano lesson. The punishment was not only extreme, it was also futile because a defiant Lulu had to be bribed with brownies and hot chocolate before she would come back in.

Chua says that the anecdote is supposed to be amusing, but it left me feeling profoundly uncomfortable and vaguely wondering if this was the kind of thing that social services should be investigating.'

That one incident is enough for any sane person to realise she was wrong!

The woman herself has retracted buzzlightbeer. Why? I am sure we won't get all the details

I'm with rose on this. Just because lots of parents do something doesn't make it right (or, in many cases, legal).

well of course I do. I'm apparently not explaining my point well, so I'll bugger off.

Two words BLB: Stockholm Syndrome.

Not to fuel this pointless cycle of endless disagreement (live your life the way you want to, accept people live different ways and have different standards and thoughts blah blah blah, let's all hold hands), but...the bit about remembering being hit with a ruler.

Yes, I also remember birthday parties - doesn't mean I was scarred by them!

I don't see why it's so hard for people to accept that some who were brought up in a similar fashion to the girls in the article don't have a problem with it - when they were children or even now. Telling that person that they are delusional or really should be having therapy now is utterly hubristic. WTF does anyone else know about any other poster's life?!

In sum, if, for example, I say I wasn't scarred by it, then just accept that. I don't tell you how to think...and neither should anyone, anywhere.

Just thought about this more whilst in the shower (TMI! Sorry!). Perhaps 'different strokes, different folks' or 'all children are different and will react differently' would be better?

Also, it's not like the Chinese culture of pushy mothers is akin to a Victorian workhouse. They aren't sado-masochists. It's not constant hitting. Love is shown.

Also, possibly a can of worms, but the point about intent/abuse/mother thinks it's fine, therefore it is/paedophile father thinks that behaviour is fine etc - pushing your kids isn't seen as a bad thing. It's seen as being strict so that your child has more options in the future. Not everyone chains their kids up so they get 100%. Those that are too strict exist in other cultures too.

However, this is utterly redundant, but, nobody can really say anything on the Dragon mother's ways unless they've experienced something similar, or, more accurately, if they've had her as a mother. One specific example shouldn't be taken as the general. Likewise, I can't say if the opposite to how I brought up was better/worse. I simply can never have any idea.

Re Stockholm Syndrome - Althusserian thought can be implied to western ways too. Maybe you think some of her methods are awful because your society says they are. In turn, the West would also think they things they do are acceptable i.e. I don't know, the child eating junk food, E numbers etc because that is what the West thinks.

We do live in a multi-cultural world!

Also, it's not like the Chinese culture of pushy mothers is akin to a Victorian workhouse. They aren't sado-masochists. It's not constant hitting. Love is shown."

Yes, but it also seems that in "Chinese parenting" (and by that I mean the approach rather than the ethnicity) love is also withheld when the parent feels it necessary and the child is openly manipulated. I think you can draw conclusions even if you haven't had Chua for your own mother.

Emotional abuse is emotional abuse -I can certainly draw conclusions. The proof was in the pudding-it didn't work and she had to back off, let them play tennis, go on Facebook and give up the violin. They can now be generous, because they won and she lost.