|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"Tiger Mothers" leave lifelong scars.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-20/opinion/lac.su.tiger.mother.scars_1_parenting-stupidity-daughters?_s=PM:OPINION
I'll admit that I haven't read the book, but from what I've read, the part that bothers me the most isn't just the method, but the motive. A parenting method can't be deemed successful simply because the children end up "successful" since there are many different ideas about what "success" is. The motive here, is to get the child to "succeed" according to the limited definition of the parent.
My wife is naturally left-handed. She was forced to write with right hand because her grandfather was of a generation that believed that right-handedness was preferred. She still throws left and favors her left hand for all activities (like eating and such) but she does write with her right hand.
This tiger mother method reminds of my wife's right-handed writing. It has a very narrow definition of success and forces the child to "succeed" according to the parent's narrow view of success. Basically, the mother is a type A personality who seems to think that everyone should be a type A personality in order to "succeed." Any child who is naturally more of a type B, is just forced to go against their nature and become a type A. Demanding your children always do their best is one thing, but demanding they do their best in subjects you choose and using methods that work for you, is selfish and impersonal. Individual personality is thrown out the window.
But any person who defines success simply as obtaining a well-respected, well-paying job, will inevitably develop tunnel vision and ignore all the other important aspects of life in their parenting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tiger Mothering Does Not Work
| Quote: |
| When Chua�s book first hit the transom, Su Yeong Kim thought, �Oh my God! I actually have data for this!� An associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas, Kim had been following more than 300 Asian-American families for a decade when the book came out. In March, she published her results; they will no doubt surprise Chua and her admirers. Children of parents whom Kim classified as �tiger� had lower academic achievement and attainment�and greater psychological maladjustment�and family alienation, than the kids of parents characterized as �supportive� or "easygoing.� |
Amy Chua's children got into Harvard because she teaches at Yale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Tiger Mothering Does Not Work
| Quote: |
| When Chua�s book first hit the transom, Su Yeong Kim thought, �Oh my God! I actually have data for this!� An associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas, Kim had been following more than 300 Asian-American families for a decade when the book came out. In March, she published her results; they will no doubt surprise Chua and her admirers. Children of parents whom Kim classified as �tiger� had lower academic achievement and attainment�and greater psychological maladjustment�and family alienation, than the kids of parents characterized as �supportive� or "easygoing.� |
Amy Chua's children got into Harvard because she teaches at Yale. |
I read the book, and I got the impression that her kids are smart in spite of, not because of, how they were raised. I could see how it would be good for raising classical musicians, because it require practice but not creativity, and perhaps math, but as a whole I was just glad my parents were not like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see these studies that always claim the less punitive approach is better.
But then I look at the military and how it teaches people skills and how to do things and follow directions, with death being the consequence of poor learning, and I come to the conclusion that a completely lovey-dovey approach might not be the way.
If lovey-dovey worked better, the military would use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I see these studies that always claim the less punitive approach is better. |
What makes me suspicious is the particular correlation to causation leap being engaged in here. Students who do poorly are correlated with "authoritarian" parents, but is that because these parents choose to be authoritarian and it results in the students doing worse, or it is because students who are naturally inclined to do worse are more aggravating to act as a parent to, which in turn inclines those parents towards authoritarianism? Moreover, unless I'm misunderstanding, both the parent and the child fill out "ratings" surveys, and the child's survey seems to be factored into the classification of the parent's style. The kind of child whose personality inclines them towards poor academic results is also likely the kind of child who is likely to clash with their parents, which surely in turn cannot help but color their survey. "Bad kids think their parents are more authoritarian, and the parents of bad kids feel more authoritarian" is not a very compelling headline though I suppose, and after all, every child is a winner and special in their own way, right?
I don't know if her conclusions are right or not, but I'm hesitant. I have a feeling that a huge amount of this entire dynamic -- both the child's academic results and the emergent dynamic between the parent and child -- comes down to genetics. In any case, I suppose it doesn't matter to my own children, because I'm definitely not "tiger parent" material.
| Steelrails wrote: |
But then I look at the military and how it teaches people skills and how to do things and follow directions, with death being the consequence of poor learning, and I come to the conclusion that a completely lovey-dovey approach might not be the way.
If lovey-dovey worked better, the military would use it. |
To be fair, the military instills discipline in adults, while parents are raising children from infancy. Those are clearly different situations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
I see these studies that always claim the less punitive approach is better.
But then I look at the military and how it teaches people skills and how to do things and follow directions, with death being the consequence of poor learning, and I come to the conclusion that a completely lovey-dovey approach might not be the way.
If lovey-dovey worked better, the military would use it. |
Are you raising your kids for war, or to live in a totalitarian society where they won't be responsible for decision making or creative thinking? If not, what's your point. Also looking at the massive sexual assault rates recently released by the military, plus their general behavior in itaewon/ other places, plus other scandals on bases, I'm not sure you're making a strong case. Apples to oranges at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Most Chinese children also get a lot of "spoiling" as well as discipline. |
Never been so I can't say, but I've heard the One Child Policy has created legions of little emporers. |
So many lil' emporers running around Korea.
http://globaleduc.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fertility-rates.png |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
I see these studies that always claim the less punitive approach is better.
But then I look at the military and how it teaches people skills and how to do things and follow directions, with death being the consequence of poor learning, and I come to the conclusion that a completely lovey-dovey approach might not be the way.
If lovey-dovey worked better, the military would use it. |
Are you raising your kids for war, or to live in a totalitarian society where they won't be responsible for decision making or creative thinking? If not, what's your point. Also looking at the massive sexual assault rates recently released by the military, plus their general behavior in itaewon/ other places, plus other scandals on bases, I'm not sure you're making a strong case. Apples to oranges at best. |
People seem to think that Tiger parenting is about total control over the kid. That's not it at all. Tiger parenting is ultimately about understanding that it is sometimes okay to push your kid through something, even though they'd rather quit because children are naturally capricious. It's about understanding that most things in life- math, science, reading, sports, music, etc. are not enjoyable, or at least you are not able to fully appreciate them, unless you are good at them. And in most of these things, becoming good at them requires time, and yes, discipline. It's also understanding that in order to create and make good decisions in such fields, you have to have a certain level of proficiency. If you lack that proficiency, while you may have the theory in your head, if you lack the skills to turn that theory into something real, then it is wasted energy and thought.
Time and time again, Chua emphasized that you generally don't enjoy things unless you are good at them and becoming good at them takes practice and with children, practice necessitates parental oversight and discipline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
I see these studies that always claim the less punitive approach is better.
But then I look at the military and how it teaches people skills and how to do things and follow directions, with death being the consequence of poor learning, and I come to the conclusion that a completely lovey-dovey approach might not be the way.
If lovey-dovey worked better, the military would use it. |
Are you raising your kids for war, or to live in a totalitarian society where they won't be responsible for decision making or creative thinking? If not, what's your point. Also looking at the massive sexual assault rates recently released by the military, plus their general behavior in itaewon/ other places, plus other scandals on bases, I'm not sure you're making a strong case. Apples to oranges at best. |
People seem to think that Tiger parenting is about total control over the kid. That's not it at all. Tiger parenting is ultimately about understanding that it is sometimes okay to push your kid through something, even though they'd rather quit because children are naturally capricious. It's about understanding that most things in life- math, science, reading, sports, music, etc. are not enjoyable, or at least you are not able to fully appreciate them, unless you are good at them. And in most of these things, becoming good at them requires time, and yes, discipline. It's also understanding that in order to create and make good decisions in such fields, you have to have a certain level of proficiency. If you lack that proficiency, while you may have the theory in your head, if you lack the skills to turn that theory into something real, then it is wasted energy and thought.
Time and time again, Chua emphasized that you generally don't enjoy things unless you are good at them and becoming good at them takes practice and with children, practice necessitates parental oversight and discipline. |
What does this have to do with the military, though? Military leaders aren't tiger mothers, so what's your point? Military is about total control over the solider, at least during battle situations, so that's what I was critiquing.
Many people aren't great at playing music and enjoy it. I enjoyed music more when I was still learning it, now that it's easy to me it's not really as interesting, just for a counter example. Many top innovators never had routine formalized education, and if you look at Asian countries it is innovation where the come up short compared to the west. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I have a feeling that a huge amount of this entire dynamic -- both the child's academic results and the emergent dynamic between the parent and child -- comes down to genetics. |
Agree. For example:
| Quote: |
| Are you raising your kids for war, or to live in a totalitarian society where they won't be responsible for decision making or creative thinking? |
Creative thinking is basically individualistic thinking. Better yet, it is white thinking, as only whites are inclined towards individualism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I'm With You
Joined: 01 Sep 2011
|
| Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
She forbade them from playing anything other than the piano and violin. What if they had other interests? What if their skills would have been better used on other instruments?
I find her methods limiting. |
Multiple intelligences theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
