Thursday, January 20, 2011

Defending - "Amy Chua - Tiger Mom" - Everybody CHILL OUT!

Amy chua
written by: Jimmy

Amy Chua, a professor at Yale Law School, wrote a book called "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother".


In it she talks about her experiences raising her two daughters and how her own upbringing informed her parenting style.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal took an excerpt from the book and posted it online:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

It's blown up. But not in a good way.



People call her a monster, some accuse her of child abuse, and she's even received some death threats.

Amy chua
Don't worry Amy, I will protect your daughters! I will take Sophia out for a
nice dinner, hold hands, then return her safe and sound, and that is all.
But it makes sense right?

Her kids weren't allowed to get anything below an A, or choose what their hobbies were, and once, when her daughter Lulu refused to practice piano, she threatened to sell her toys to the Salvation Army.

Too bad this wasn't the point of the book. At all.

Later on in the book, Lulu rebels. Amy is forced to choose between compromising her expectations of her daughter and actually losing her daughter. Amy chooses to pull back and let Lulu pursue tennis (Lulu's choice) instead of Music (Amy's choice).

So in effect Amy is saying that it's NOT ok to disrespect your kids' wishes. That while you should still push them towards their full potential, that you should do it gracefully and acknowledge their personal goals and desires.

But if she's not fully advocating her original strict approach, why write so much about how it improved the lives of her kids?

Because she realizes the best way to make a point is to start with the opposite argument and point out all the flaws.

Here's what I mean:

Remember American History X?

In the beginning Edward Norton is a Neo-Nazi who hates Black people. It wasn't until he was in prison and was forced to hang out with Black people that he realized all his White Supremacist rhetoric was bullshit.



Ed Norton is jacked

Now compare that to this sketch by the Flight of the Conchords:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jVAHAuiS4
 
Which approach seemed more effective? Who seems more racist? The dragon that wouldn't sit next to an Albanian boy, or the guy that curb-stomped someone's face?

The same can be said of Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, or the reporter in District 9, and practically everyone in Crash.

But that's easy. Everyone agrees that racism is stupid. How about parenting?

In Finding Nemo, Marlin has his wife and all but one of his kids eaten by a jackass barricuda. Because of that he's terrified of the open ocean and way too overprotective of his son, Nemo. Feeling stifled, Nemo ventures out, only to be captured by fishermen. It takes a journey across the ocean for Marlin to realize that in order for Nemo to have a full life, he's got to let go a little.


Don't even try it dude, she's a lesbian.

Now imagine starting American History X after Edward Norton stops acting like a Nazi. You'd be watching a White guy folding clothes with a Black guy. Who cares?

And what if Marlin just gave up the search for his son because he's too scared. We'd all think he was a pussy.

You have to see the before and after pictures of these people in order to learn anything. And that's what Amy is showing us in this excerpt. Just the before picture.

It's a shame that everyone reporting on this book neglected to mention the after. It paints her as a tyrant and manipulates the discussion. Instead of what can we learn about parenting from a Yale Law Professor, it becomes: who are better moms, Western or Chinese? Which is a stupid, pointless argument.

But why would the journalists do this? We have two possibile explanations:

They are LAZY and didn't read the book, instead writing from the limited information presented in the Wall Street Journal excerpt.

Or

They read the entire book but chose only to to report on the portion that would paint Chinese Parenting in the most unflattering light. Now why would they do that?

Hmmm...


Amy Chua


It's a good thing no respectable news channels take this viewpoint. It's not like this was covered by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/01/13/chinese.mom.superior/index.html

Shit.

Let's hope the tabloids don't give a balanced portrait, lending credence to the idea that Amy is cruel.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/why_love_my_strict_chinese_mom_uUvfmLcA5eteY0u2KXt7hM

Son of a bitch.

Lucky for us, we know that this is just the Before picture. We know we can infiltrate our biased news media corporations. Once we're inside, we can promote the unbiased truth in lieu of the stereotypical caricatures we're accustomed to. It should be a walk in the park. After all, we've been raised by Chinese Mothers.

My friends tell me horror stories of what their parents used to subject them to. Some of them no longer speak to their parents. Which is a tragedy.

But to say this is the approach that Amy Chua is advocating, that's a fucking joke.

2 comments:

  1. Great point! I have to admit, that I and it seems many other bloggers, gave into the knee-jerk reaction. Blame our hyper sensationalized leanings when it comes to media consumption, and Twitter's promotion of byte-sized news. I still don't think she should've let WSJ portray her like that if that wasn't actually her intention; she seems like a tough lady who wouldn't let something go down against her will.

    ReplyDelete