<p>I think part of what is bothersome in the book is that her epiphany such as it is is very minor and she doesn’t appear to regret some of the mean things she did. Rejecting your 4 year old’s handmade birthday card as not good enough for your standards. What did that accomplish? Missing out on the sights of Europe because the girls had to practice every day even on vacation? There is some OCD going on there about anything less than perfect.</p>
<p>I think we already knew from the Russians (via the Olympics) that it is possible to take a somewhat random child and turn them into a protege through years and years of forcing them to work and practice at a given skill. I imagine it poses a dilemma for admissions officers to determine which of the 4.0/2400/tennis/piano/violin applicants is a parental petri dish product or a genuinely intellectually curious human being who may contribute to the world on his/her own.</p>
<p>I totally agree with Pizzagirl. She does not have some big introspective ephiphany at the end of it all. She only ends up admitting that with one of her daughters, it just isn’t working anymore, and she has to back off. So? </p>
<p>But she expresses no real regrets about what she’s done, such as the absolutely abusive and horrible things she has said to her kids, the losses they have occurred, the meanness of it all. None whatsoever. </p>
<p>I think she is really still upset that her second D is not going to play violin at Carnegie Hall and that she can’t overtly push her second D in tennis…and she’s found a way to rationalize it all a bit (to make herself feel better). All she concedes is that she lost her absolute power over her D and has sort of learned to cope with that reality…but has really learned nothing of substance. She’d do it all over again if she could. </p>
<p>I found the book to be largely about boasting about her kids, and her responsibility for getting them there. Do we really need to read her daughter’s essays and speeches? </p>
<p>As a memoir, it is written tongue-in-cheek, and I believe purposefully extreme and meant to be funny. I imagine it is not the actual reality. But as a memoir, I would have expected even something humorous to provide something with more depth, introspection, conflict, and insight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. This is exactly the feel I got from reading the book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>YES. Exactly. She never says, “I can’t believe I took my 4 yo daughter’s handmade birthday card and told her it wasn’t good enough.” She never says, “If I had to do it over again, I’d have my family enjoy the sights of Greece, take in some local cuisine and have a good time instead of renting a piano practice room because heaven-forbid they miss one day of practice.” She never says, “Carnegie Hall is all very well and good but it came with a tough price.” She never says, “Maybe I should have allowed them to play with other children or pursue hobbies of their own choosing.”</p>
<p>Bay–the Russians (and Chinese) do not take “random” children and train them, they take children who already show promise and talent in a sport or skill and train the heck out of them.</p>
<p>As a musician, I can tell you… without innate talent, all the practice in the world won’t make a person fit for Carnegie Hall. It will make an average person (i.e. not tone-deaf or rhythm-impaired) into a good player, but not world-class unless there is a special something already there.</p>
<p>Well, at least her youngest D has material for a book of her own someday! Maybe it will pay for the therapy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said “somewhat” random. Woe to the petit child who can already do a back-walkover at age 4 in Russia/China. S/he may be sentenced to a life in the gym without the chance to explore his/her own life goals and experiences.</p>
<p>Btw, one of my Ds was identified at age 4 as showing promise in gymnastics, was placed in advanced training which she pursued for about 4 years. She got sick of it and we let her quit, and her life has turned out exceedingly well without it.</p>
<p>
- From NYT “Retreat of the ‘Tiger Mother’”.</p>
<p>Shielding? Chua hurt her daughter not only once but twice. The poor girl already has too much publicity. Chua will be totally responsible if her daughter is bullied by classmates, friends and becomes self-destructive because of the book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But so what? The implication of a child showing promise and talent in a sport or skill is not, therefore, that said child’s life must be dedicated to perfecting that skill. It’s perfectly fine, IMO, if a child shows interest in a sport or skill but only chooses to pursue it as a hobby / recreational activity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think in real life she did. She makes passing reference, almost by accident, to things they did as a family, and the social activities of her kids which undermines her thesis. And she points out that her kids say the story is over the top and too extreme and therefore paints the wrong picure.</p>
<p>But for some godawful reason she chose to write this book in a very controversial, black and white sort of way, to show one extreme side of herself, and I just don’t buy it. Likewise, she laments the “western model” as essentially ‘non-parenting’, a different extreme, which is equally as silly. I don’t believe this educated woman who has spent her whole life in the US, and whose husband is Jewish, actually believes herself when she writes about “western parenting.” </p>
<p>While I believe all the horrible episodes she writes about, she seems unable (or unwilling) to convey the complexity of what was likely the reality of her children’s upbringing. Such a shame as it really reduces the book to a lot of stupid stereotypes, and leaves the book entirely superficial. A humorous essay you might read in a magazine, but not an insightful memoir (and it could be insightful even if we entirely disagree with her…but it’s not). </p>
<p>Then again being so extreme lets her ride the media-hype and sales.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The piano and tennis are not that hard to learn how to play, and there are probably millions of people in the US who have some level of innate musical and tennis talent. Does that mean they should all shoot for Juilliard and Wimbledon? Of course not. For most of them, the idea of living the life of a musician or athlete probably does not even appeal to them in the least.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When DS was very much into table tennis (ping pong) years ago, we took him to a week-long camp. One of the coaches was a Chinese gentleman who had the unusual style (from my perspective) of playing using the western (shake hands) grip versus the traditional Chinese (pen hold) grip. I later found out that he had been identified as a youngster as one with potential and had been raised along with other TT players. However, he never made the tier 1 group, so he was trained in the western style so that he would simulate the Swedish and other European players that the Tier 1 players would encounter in international competitions. Speaking to him, he sounded happy that he had this opportunity, even though he never made center stage.</p>
<p>^ You would hardly expect your child’s coach to tell you how much he hated his life in the sport though, would you? :)</p>
<p>When D1 was in the middle school, she had to do a sport and compete - a requirement of her school. She took up fencing without ever taken any private lessons, but she quickly became one of the best on her team. I think the fact she was left handed and a trained dancer gave her a lot of advantages. A coach she met through competition asked if he could train her. In looking his credentials, he was a coach for Russian Olympic team. We asked D1 (that was our mistake, should have just told her) if she wanted do fencing seriously. She said no. The reason - the outfit was ugly, and guys were making fun of her. Very superficial reason, but it made sense to her back then. I wonder if we should have “pushed”? Truth be told, I remember I had a lot of things on my plate at that time and I didn´t have the energy to try to talk her into it. Who knows if she is better off in not have pursued it. What if she really had a talent? But I guess to have the passion is also important. And where does that passion come from?</p>
<p>As a parent, you always second guess if you should have done it differently.</p>
<p>^^ My S did fencing for a few months in middle school, but left a lasting mark - he still uses “riposte” as a handle or part of a p/w</p>
<p>Oldfort, my daughter used to be a very talented and promising gymnast. She quit when she was about age 8-- why? Because they were about to put her on the competitive team, and she had been to a gymnastics meet and watched competition on t.v., and wanted no part of it. The gym did not offer any formal classes at her level other than the team practices. I was a little miffed because she made that decision about 3 weeks after insisting that I needed to buy her a pricey set of hand grips … but other than that I was very proud of her decision – she simply felt that competition took the fun out of the sport for her. She continued to go to open gym on Saturdays, to take a acrobatics at a local dance studio, and to study dance. </p>
<p>Gymnastics competition would have meant years of pressure, preparing for one meet or another. She wasn’t at the type of elite gym that produces olympic contenders, so wherever she competed, her team was likely to be bested by some other team from an elite studio with coaches who drove their gymnasts harder. It’s a dangerous sport, and sooner or later she was sure to be injured in one way or another. </p>
<p>And she was right - as long as she was doing it for herself, working on mastering each new skill, from a back bend to a back flip to an arial to a handspring over the vault – it was fun. But the minute she had to subject herself to being measured against others, to face having points deducted because of a minor misstep or wobble, to face the prospect of disappointing a coach and teammates if her better judgment won out over her competitive drive – it wouldn’t have been fun any more. Although my daughter continued with acrobatic dance until her early teens, she never sustained a single injury, simply because she never attempted stunts she wasn’t ready for.</p>
<p>A person doesn’t have to "win’ or get any recognition whatsoever to enjoy a sport. The problem with competition is that most competitors lose most of the time. </p>
<p>If you remove the competition, then there is no losing. A person can simply concentrate on building their own skill level to their personal best, without ever having to feel humiliated because they had a bad day on the field.</p>
<p>A Chinese journalist writes:</p>
<p>“Amy Chua’s parenting techniques say a lot about a Chinese culture that glorifies suffering, lacks individual rights, and tells mothers they’re only as good as their kids.”</p>
<p>more on the Daily Beast website
[Chinese</a> Mother: Amy Chua is Influenced by Ancient Chinese Customs - The Daily Beast](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-15/why-chinese-moms-act-crazy/]Chinese”>The Daily Beast: The Latest in Politics, Media & Entertainment News)</p>
<p>One thing this thread has reaffirmed is that nothing will start and maintain a vigorous and contentious thread on CC quite so effectively as a parent posting something that criticizes the parenting skill or methods of other CC members, which is what Chua’s book does.</p>
<p>Suggest to some CC parent that you disapprove of their parenting and the arguments on that thread will drag on for months.</p>
<p>
I think things have changed in Russia as funding has dried up for that – but both Soviet Russia and modern day China are societies where, generally speaking, people did whatever the Communist government determined they would do. “Free choice” of an occupation is not really part of the equation – the kid who was selected for training as a gymnast might otherwise face life as a factory worker. </p>
<p>That doesn’t make it right but in context, it’s quite an opportunity. Who wouldn’t want to be chosen if the rigorous training isn’t the child’s one ticket out of a life of drudgery? </p>
<p>But American children have, at least in theory, almost unlimited freedom to choose the direction of their lives. An Amy Chua’s children certainly were set for life, no matter what path they choose. Their parents are rich - if the “good” older daughter had chosen to play harp instead of piano, and the rebellious younger one had decided she’d rather play soccer --both kids were certain to grow up and have the opportunity to attend excellent colleges, and a financial foundation to go wherever life would take them. And given their family’s financial status, they don’t need to be their class valedictorians or score 2400 on the SATs to get into those colleges – the Ivies and other elite colleges accept plenty of rich, full-pay kids who have strong but not amazing stats. (And I’ve got a hunch that the offspring of current faculty have an edge when applying to the schools where their parent’s teach, in any event).</p>
<p>That’s what America is all about: freedom. And given a choice, I’d rather see talent wasted than freedom devalued.</p>