<p>I like my law professors with just a soupcon of ordinary human ethics, but that could be a personal preference.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why she didn’t consider her kids right to privacy. I certainly wouldn’t want my childhood to be written about for anyone to read. I don’t want to wonder what people think about it, I don’t want to be put in a position where I’m supposed to explain it, or worse, I don’t want to be in a position where I’m expected to explain why my parents made some of their choices. I choose what to share and what not to share with people. Some events are best left with me, never shared with anyone.</p>
<p>Amy Chua took that right away from her kids. She took away their right to choose what people know about them from some very tender years. She seems to care about her kids so I guess she didn’t think about it from their point of view, which seems to be a problem she has, thinking about what something is like from her kid’s point of view. When I saw her on the Today Show what struck me was that she just talks about herself, it’s all about her.</p>
<p>I agree. Supposedly she let her kids vette every chapter. But how much say or influence did they really have (given their upbringing)? Moreover, one could not expect a young person to appreciate the implications of what was written or how it could potentially impact them in the future. Apparently she took out a lot of what was written about her husband because he kept saying “you are putting words in my mouth”…so she found it easier to take out those parts. The kids did not have the ability to be left out like that.</p>
<p>The husband sounds like a wimp in the book. Sounds like he just abdicated parenting to her and let her have her way, entirely. There is no way in hell I’d stand by if my spouse were to treat my kids the way Chua treated hers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has me rolling on the floor laughing. Ya think that such a control freak person would really even “hear” anything her kids had to say or worse, do ya think those kids would have the strength to actually say anything contradictory.</p>
<p>I come at all of this from a wildlife science viewpoint. Take dogs – your Border Collie herds instinctively – almost as easily as breathing. A Labrador retrieves. A terrier digs. You can put a creature with a trainer and get a range of outcomes. A tough trainer will get the attention of a strong willed bulldog – but be a disaster for a sensitive Weimaraner. </p>
<p>A firm and positive trainer will get great results from most dogs. The best trainers are positive and break things down into do-able micro units and never, ever expects performance beyond the years or experience of the pooch. </p>
<p>So, Chua’s approach is of the tough variety. It will work well on some personality types but not all. (It would have made my sons suicidal, I suspect). Brooks is correct that isolation from social skill building opportunities creates creatures with huge challenges in navigating social situations. </p>
<p>Best of all is to see and understand the interests, talents and strengths of the trainee and use natural drive plus socialization to get to a personable, impressive and resilient individual.</p>
<p>The bigger question is why that level of “performance” is the necessary goal in the first place. Why not just enjoyment.</p>
<p>Along the VP’s theme;
Since her kids do not qualify for FA, (probably full pay), this family would have been looking at $225,000K for the 1st and $250,000 for the second. Her book and appearances, earned her and daughters the college cost. She’s probably smart enough to receive the money in a trust or in an annuity. :)</p>
<p>I wonder if her D’s are going to have troubles in finding a BF :)</p>
<p>Sophie mentions her current boyfriend in her post for the NYPost in response to all the criticism. Carefully planted in the letter to the newspaper, of course, so we can see she’s a normal and ‘free’ teenager now :)</p>
<p>[Daughter</a> of Amy Chua, who wrote ‘Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,’ responds to controversy - NYPOST.com](<a href=“http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/why_love_my_strict_chinese_mom_uUvfmLcA5eteY0u2KXt7hM]Daughter”>Why I love my strict Chinese mom)</p>
<p>I completely agree with Pea- she has taken away her kids’ right to privacy. It doesn’t matter whether her underage children think it is okay to disclose all this in a book. They may take a different view of this when they grow up. And as a parent, personally, I would never expose my own child’s life like that. Most of us parents on C.C. are careful to protect our children’s identity and privacy.</p>
<p>OTOH, if you look around, there are lots of parents who expose their children for profit. Some parents let their children pose as models. Others welcome TV cameras into their homes to film reality shows (e.g. Jon and Kate plus 8, not to mention a certain political family). So if Amy and her husband are okay with it, I guess it just makes them like many other parents who don’t mind compromising their children’s privacy.</p>
<p>[Yong</a> Zhao Blog Archive You must be joking, Professor Chua: An open letter to the Chinese Tiger Mom](<a href=“http://zhaolearning.com/2011/01/15/you-must-be-joking-professor-chua-an-open-letter-to-the-chinese-tiger-mom/]Yong”>Education in the Age of Globalization » Blog Archive » You must be joking, Professor Chua: An open letter to the Chinese Tiger Mom)</p>
<p>Here’s another interesting rebuttal.</p>
<p>Vicarious parent: It is relevant that she teaches at a law school. Yale Law School does not teach parenting, but it does teach law. There are laws in all fifty states that prohibit child abuse and that govern the limits and liabilities of child advocates to interfere with parental rights when minors are being abused, psychologically as well as physically. Indirectly, Yale will be concerned because her thesis is that her Tiger Mothering will get kids into Yale. Yale employs the Tiger Mother which will lead some to conclude, unfairly, that it turns a blind eye to, if not condones, the presented treatment of children to achieve ivy-level success. In other words, you bet your ass they are feeling this in New Haven.</p>
<p>I’m not convinced Glido. I think you are really stretching the connections here. They really won’t care.</p>
<p>^ And they should not. </p>
<p>I have not read the book but I assume the author does not discuss Yale’s admission policies.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can separate Amy Chua from her credentials any more than you can separate this book from its marketing strategy and publicity package. Of course it must be published now, while the kids are old enough to claim success and young enough to be under control.</p>
<p>I read the editorial response by her 18 year old daughter - it reflected the independent spirit of a trained poodle jonesing for tablescraps.</p>
<p>I feel most of these comments are because many of you just haven’t read the book. Hearing the headlines of the articles you probably felt attacked, felt it was politically incorrect, put down. </p>
<p>If you read the book you realize she turns away from her parenting style because she needs to let her kids live their OWN passions. As in her daughter wants to become a professional tennis player or something, and she leaves her daughter Sophia to learn/practice piano on her own.</p>
<p>Perhaps some of the comments on this forum are an attack on Chinese people and the publicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, no. I’ve read the book. Her thesis is NOT that her Tiger Mothering will get kids into Yale. Indeed, getting into elite colleges is hardly touched on in the book at all, and Yale is only mentioned tangentially in the book insofar as it is her employer (and her husband’s employer). This is about how she is raising her children overall – not a manual on how to get your kids into elite colleges. Sorry, I have to call it like it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amy Chua: Here’s why Chinese parenting techniques are superior.
Us: Ugh! Those techniques are awful!
You: Why are you attacking Chinese people?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You should read the whole forum. I read the book, as have others. There is no way I agree with your interpretation of the end of the book. You are merely repeating the new interviews, but if you read the book you see she does not at all turn away from her parenting style. She merely gives in with Lulu, despite her strong desire to maintain control. The only reason she gave in is because Lulu was more powerful and threatening, so she felt she had no choice but to back off. But she has no regrets at all, and says she would do it all over again if she could. And she surely has no regret for the losses and trauma she has to have obviously inflicted on her offspring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the finer points of this story about parental “love and guidance” will be lost on the army of loonies who view academic success as a must-follow path to higher prestige and financial well-being. Although the pursuit of activities described by Chua has been hit by diminishing returns, many will find that her account offers the validation and rationalization of their misguided actions. </p>
<p>The saddest part is that the evidence that this type of westernization of tough parenting will cross generations, and that today’s victims will be tomorrow’s offenders. </p>
<p>You got to feel sorry for both parents and children.</p>