<p>Not examining, eh? Did I or did I not force you to recall certain posts you may or may not have made criticizing Rubenfeld’s “enabling” of the “abuse”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My first post on this thread was addressed to xiggi, reminding him that his prior record on similar predictions was not good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you enjoy playing ball if your team never wins or less extremely, if you lose more than you win?</p>
<p>How can you enjoy singing if you’re always the first one to “die” when you and your friends play Rock Band?</p>
<p>You enjoy things more when you’re good at them. I don’t think that’s controversial.</p>
Well, think what you like. I don’t think I would approve of these parenting methods if they were ascribed to the culture of Scotland, Assyria, or the Planet Neptune. And again, it’s a topic of conversation because Amy Chua made it one by publishing her book and a provocative article.</p>
<p>And by the way, a sensible argument can be made that Asians may be facing bias in college admissions. But to make Jian Li the poster child for that proposition is really dumb.</p>
<p>All right, so the book was about Chinese parents, so? My Polish parents (immigrants) were also demanding. Joy Behar was talking about it on her show and agreed that Jewish parents have similar child rearing styles. And Connie Chung said that many non-Chinese parents (those without this type of work ethic) are not demanding enough of their children. Do I love my parents any less? No. Were they right? You bet! It is because of them that I am where I am today. Thanks. Mom and Dad. Thanks for not running to school bailing me out - thanks for making me suffer the penalties for my foibles (at least I learned there were penalties as so many kids nowadays do not until it’s too late) and thanks for pushing me to be the best that I could be. And thanks for not allowing me to accept anything but my best in whatever I did.</p>
<p>Did anyone see Ms. Chua on the Joyce Behar show last night? She was saying that people weren’t getting what she wrote. I guess the book was meant to be funny? I didn’t see the whole interview.</p>
<p>I bet there were a lot of violin toting European Jewish immigrants in the 20s who could have written a somewhat similar book ( albeit in yiddish).
Skip forward a couple generations, and not quite as many IMO.</p>
<p>I don’t think you have a leg to stand on. You accused me of not having harped on Rubenfeld – who didn’t write the book, who isn’t making the rounds – because of our “shared ethnicity.” Really, now, gag. Who’s being stereotypical here? It doesn’t get more stereotypical than to say, “Well, now, you didn’t judge him because he’s Jewish and so are you.”</p>
<p>Don’t put it in quotes, ok? IMO, Rubenfeld most certainly did enable abuse. The fact that his children were always well-fed, had places to sleep, had the things money could buy, etc. doesn’t mean that it wasn’t emotional abuse. And the fact that so far both girls appear to be “normal” doesn’t mean it wasn’t emotional abuse. They don’t have to be drug-addicted or cutting themselves or whatever to have been emotionally abused.</p>
<p>Bingo. Her name could be Amy Whitebread Johnson and I’d feel the same way. Really, fabrizio, you’re making a point of looking specifically for bias that you want to see.</p>
<p>I never watched the show, but your point is well taken. In Hung’s case, it’s good that unlike many other aspirants, he didn’t get defensive when Simon told the cold, hard truth. But it’s bad that he doesn’t realize that his talents probably lie in civil engineering as opposed to professional singing, and perhaps a reason why he took Simon’s criticism “so well” is because he was simply so deluded in his singing ability that nothing could change his mind, not even the truth.</p>
<p>I’d like to offer an example in defense of my point. From what I’ve read, Alex Wong, one of last year’s contestants on “So you think you can dance?” had no training in modern dance. He was in fact classically trained. Yet the routine he did with Twitch was mostly modern dance, which meant that he had to train his butt off to prepare for it. How did the audience react? Unless we’re watching separate Youtube clips, I thought the audience LOVED his routine with Twitch. I’m sure he had a lot of fun performing the routine and basking in the deserved adulation.</p>
<p>In my opinion, he had fun because he is good at what he does. Wong doesn’t strike me as having Hung’s delusions, and I’ll bet that if Wong’s performance was bad, he wouldn’t have had much fun on stage.</p>
<p>And you know what? I’m glad I got you to the point where I can now say “Sorry, I was wrong about you, ma’am.” When I first brought the issue up, you acknowledged Rubenfeld was at-fault but left it at that. After a bit of prodding, you opened up and now you’re criticizing both parents fairly. That’s all I wanted. Thank you for making me satisfied. I’d be really happy, though, if you could acknowledge that supporting race-blind admissions does not mean supporting “stats only” admissions.</p>
<p>I read the first chapter of the book on Amazon. What strikes me is that a mother who demands excellence from her daughters would turn in such a sloppy manuscript. It’s disjointed and it reads like a stream of consciousness. Some of it seems to follow a chronological thread but in many parts the prose deteriorate into a bunch of points she wanted to make that are strung together. If I may, I’d like to quote the opening paragraph.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is she joking? I can’t tell. Can she possibly be serious? That’s the opening paragraph and it doesn’t get any better after that. It’s like she is just thinking off the top of her head and writing it down. I’d like to see some data that supports the assertion that a lot of us are sitting around wondering how the Chinese raise such successful kids. Unless she’s joking, I really can’t tell. The first paragraph from any book should not be so ambiguous that I can’t tell if the author is serious or not. The rest of the first chapter is full of the same type of thoughtless, offensive stereotypes many of which are non-sensical.</p>
<p>She goes on to say in a later paragraph that she is making a final point and then she lists 7 subpoints. Why does she say she has a final point to make and then list 7 subpoints. This is something that should have been caught and edited on the second reading of the manuscript.</p>
<p>This writing is sloppy. She would never let her daughters get away with this kind of sloppiness at the piano.</p>
<p>^^ Great post. I think if more people read what she wrote (unfiltered through her education, social standing and the lovely pictures of her mansion of a house) they would see the same things. Amy could probably keep a crack team of psychologists busy unravelling the damage done to her by such parenting - but instead she’s passing it on and justifying it with a book that would never have been published if somone of lesser credentials had submitted it to the publisher.</p>
<p>I’m not making a case for lax parenting, I think instilling a work ethic in children is important - but abuse is abuse, and it’s wrong no matter who is dishing it out.</p>
<p>Is this a better writing? My English is so bad that I can’t recognize a bad opening paragraph like Chua’s. Both read fine to me, but I like Friedan’s.</p>
<p>Well, what do I know? I’m not an English teacher but I think this opening paragraph by Betty Friedan is outstanding.</p>
<p>It uses its descriptive words to paint a picture. I read it and the scene she is describing comes to life in my mind. It seemed even better the second time I read it. Her use of vocabulary, the way the prose flows, it seems like a paragraph that was rewritten many times. The point she is making is subtle but the paragraph leads me to that point which is the dissatisfaction felt by this woman.</p>
<p>There is nothing subtle in Amy Chua’s opening paragraph. She begins by telling the reader what they are thinking and wondering, (Chinese kids are amazingly successful and why is that?) and then she volunteers to explain to us how that is done. I’m paraphrasing but I think that is a fair assessment of her opening paragraph.</p>
<p>It’s not that her command of English is bad because it seems fine and she may very well be capable of writing a paragraph as good as Betty Friedan’s. I just don’t think she worked very hard on her first chapter. It doesn’t read like it was edited multiple times, it reads closer to a first draft.</p>
<p>She keeps saying that people should work hard on what they do. How hard did she work on this? With all the stereotypes and blanket statements in it I don’t think she spent a lot of time on it.</p>
<p>Pea - and now that many have “rejected” her book - much like the hastily made card for mommy in her book - her corrections consist of telling us that we don’t understand. It is our reading comprehension that is at fault - not her content or delivery.</p>