Why Chinese Parents are Superior

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?

Are western parents letting their kids walk all over them? Are western children not reaching their full potential as adults? Or are chinese children being jipped -excelling intellectually but not socially? Either way, I'm pretty certain these two styles of parenting -as portrayed in this article- mean that the kids will find it hard to intemingle. What do you think?

I think that the described parenting is a bit over the top.

However, we also were strict with our girls. We did not allow the TV on during the school week (Mon-Thur). We read to them every night until they were in eighth grade.

Who's to say how they would have turned out if we had done otherwise, but both girls have excellent vocabularies. Both get top grades.

ETA
We allowed the girls to choose whatever activities they wanted. But if they chose to do something they had to give it their best effort for a year.

The author points out that parents such as yourselves (and us) think of themselves as strict, when in fact they're nowhere near by Chinese standards.

All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough.

And "best effort" wouldn't have been good enough if they didn't turn out to be the best.

And you read to them. That's hardly hard work on their part! They should have been practising their scales and revising their geometry. Uphill both ways.

This is the author's list of chinese parenting rules. Note NO TV, not none on schooldays.

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

And yet...suicide is the #1 cause of death in young chinese adults. The suicide rate in China is 50% higher than the global average.

From 2005 - Guardian.UK

Suicide is the main cause of death among young adults in China, the state media said yesterday in a report that highlights the growing pressures to succeed in love, work and education in one of the world's fastest changing societies.
Increasing stress, loneliness and a lack of medical support for depression are thought to have contributed to an annual suicide toll that is estimated at 250,000 people a year

I, personally, don't believe in abuse, no matter how great a motivator it is.

Well, that's how they get rid of the under-achievers and improve the herd.

I neglected to say that that list is what the kids may NOT do.

The divide in the two styles of parenting is very obvious here in (hippie) Ann Arbor. We just got back from the Orientation night for the Open High School here and it was brought home to us how much of a shock it will be if Hebe attends regular "big box" high after 9 years at Open Elementary School. There are no traditional chinese families at either, despite a huge populatin in Ann Arbor. And those strict academic-perfection-oriented families generally have children in one particular elementary school and one particular middle school. There was a conspicuous lack of studentd from those schools at the orientation tonight. Not all public school sare the same. Which is a good thing.

monster;704632 wrote:

The author points out that parents such as yourselves (and us) think of themselves as strict, when in fact they're nowhere near by Chinese standards.

Oh, I agree. My intent was not to suggest that we were up to their level of crazy. But I think most US parents have gone way too lax. Somewhere in between.

I think part of the difference might lie in our cultural orientation to childhood. We have a cultural expectation of childhood 'innocence' and expect that responsibility will be a gradually acquired trait. It's been a long time since children in our culture were seen as necessary contributers to the family economy or conduits for social mobility.

Instead we have almost the opposite of that. Children shouldn't be expected to carry that sort of responsibility, and children should have freedom to play and explore their talents/interests/proclivities without the burden of adult responsibility.

I read a fascinating history book a couple of years ago on 'The invention of Childhood'. Much of what was assumed about about pre-industrial parenting and attitudes to children in western cultures has now been over turned or refined, but there was a definate shift in how children were seen and what was expected of the childhood and parenting experiences during the post-enlightenment era. It's during the early 19th century we really begin to see the 'cult of innocence' in European and American culture. Something we still have vestiges of in our modern culture.

Of course, the 'innocence' expected of childhood was primarily a middle/upper class expectation, which only later began to be applied to poorer families.

You're spot on, Dana, in my grandfather's generation (born 1880), if children were a burden, rather than an asset to the family, they were often given away. If a family had a large farm, the more the better, but with a business, or small farm, and more children than they need to operate efficiently, the extras would often be given to someone without enough children to do all the work. Most often it was a relative on the receiving end, or a church member, but not always. Remember in those days, if they couldn't make ends meet, people died.

We gave away many children to Australia from the '20s to the '60s - an estimate of 10,000 if you can believe that.

They were from orphanages, although many were not actually orphans - they were simply illegitimate or from families too poor to bring them up. On arrival, many were trapped into a life of great physical hardship, used and abused as slave labour. They were deprived of education, food and emotional contact. Those at home believed they were heading for a better life with boundless opportunuities.

Not particularly relevant to the OT, but brought to mind by Dani & Bruce's posts. No culture has a monopoly on child cruelty.

Back to the OT - what good does it do the children to be thus hothoused?
My sister pushed and pushed my neice in school. She was so determined that she would pass the 11+ and get to grammar school. She even used the words "to have the opportunities I didn't." But what is she going to do after her A Levels? She certainly won't have been prepared for Uni by her parents. They do everything as a family and the parents do everything for her. She is not allowed to get a weekend job, she is not allowed to belong to any clubs or societies. She is only involved in the school plays because it was a curriculum requirement for one of her courses. The household takes the Sun newspaper, has no knowledge of politics outside its pages and recently my sister was baffled by a reference to Cameron Mackintosh - she had no idea who he was.

I know they think Ste & I are pretty snooty, with our big city lifestyles and our knowledge of things like out of town pantomimes and Tube maps. I don't look down on her - I just question whether bringing your children up to be ignorant of anything learned outside of a classroom is really best for them. Ditto over-protection. And as some Dwellars know, this was an issue last year that spread a lot of hurt around. I didn't blame my sister than and don't now, but it raised questions in my mind.

Sundae Girl;705405 wrote:

We gave away many children to Australia from the '20s to the '60s - an estimate of 10,000 if you can believe that.

Here they rounded up thousands in the eastern cities, and shipped them out west to farms and ranches. For some it was a great opportunity, others not so much, largely dependent on the women where they were sent. Some were accepted as family, others became chattel.

HungLikeJesus;704664 wrote:

Well, that's how they get rid of the under-achievers and improve the herd.

You are a bad man! :D:p::blush:;)

--In college I was close friends with some Chinese American girls. Their home life was no fun, did not seem loving (by my standards), and let me tell you--they had mondo "mother issues"! No thanks.

--as a child, my parents used to threaten me when I was bad with "we'll give you away to the Indians." but they never did!

Perhaps they should have threatened to give you away to the Chinese.

NONE of my Taiwan classmates whose parents were like this (and most of their parents were like this) are what I would call happy, or secure, or even, ususally, smart. as David Brooks put it in his NYtimes op-ed:

"I believe she’s coddling her children. She's protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn't understand what's cognitively difficult and what isn't.... Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale."
...
"mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups... Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others' emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others' inclinations and strengths. Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/lac.su.tiger.mother.scars/index.html?hpt=C1

Children need their parents' love and acceptance in order to develop real self-esteem. Belittling children sends the message that they are not worthy of love and support -- as do mind games, emotional abuse, and tight-fisted control.

This message lasts a lifetime. I still question every day if I am, indeed, stupid. I didn't even raise my hand in class until graduate school because I honestly believed that a moron like me has nothing worthy to say.

If I could say one thing to Amy Chua, it's that I would trade every last bit of my success in life to live without the deep wounds given to me by a Tiger Mother.

EDIT: whoops, stormie beat me to it. still. it bears repeating.

I bet they make some awesome egg rolls.