Recently, columnist David Brooks of the New York Times published a piece titled “Amy Chua Is a Wimp”, referencing the parenting style laid out by Amy Chua, a Yale professor of Chinese descent, in her new book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. In response to Chua’s strict, controlling child-rearing techniques, Brooks argues that Chua is “protecting [her children] from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t”.
Some of the activities labeled “intellectually demanding” by Brooks are sleepovers and playdates with other girls that Chua’s two daughters would benefit from having on a consistent basis. These kinds of social interactions outside of school would teach her children the importance of building and maintaining relationships, problem-solving in a group, and leading others, all of which Brooks values over academic superiority in school and beating an opponent in a musical competition.
But, who says that Chua’s idea of punishment, which notably includes assigning thousands of math problems to her children and forcing them to rewrite birthday cards that failed to meet expectations, is one-sided? Does the Chinese-style of punishment only lead to better grades and nothing else?
What detractors of her parenting style, like David Brooks, leave out in their criticisms is that academic achievment is only of secondary importance to Amy Chua.
In truth, competitiveness, attention to detail, and striving for perfection are all byproducts (or triproducts, if you will) of Chua’s methods. She understands that punishing her daughter with math problems after coming in second in a math competition will only teach her to win the next competition. Her punishment is not unnecessary and over-the-top. In reality, it is Chua’s simple way of showing her daughter that winning is everything in the world today.
The person with the desire to come out on top will always have the upper hand, and that is a fact of life.
Similarly, the issue with the unsatisfactory birthday cards is not just an example of an extreme parent who is looking to exert control over her kids at all costs. It is a case of a parent making a point to her child that work must always be done properly or not be done at all.
If Chua’s daughter puts time and effort into making her mother a birthday card that is as perfect as possible, then she will do the same when her work is even more important. She will put that same level of focus into her next exam in high school, the all-important college essay, and the resume for the job that she applies for after graduating from college.
As my head coach at Vassar College, Del Harris, says to his players, “the little things are actually big things”, and that is the same message Amy Chua sends to her children at home.
Most importantly, if there is any doubt that her parenting style will develop her children into highly-intelligent, competitive, and socially adaptable adults, then all one has to do is look at Amy Chua’s personal life. Not only is she a renowned professor at one elite academic institution and a graduate of another, which fulfills the academic requirement of her own strict guidelines, but Chua was successful in building a stable family with the help of her husband, Jed Rubenfeld. Together, the two have raised children who are poised to study at a high-profile college or university and become successful, independent adults in the future.
Having been taught the same principles herself by two immigrant parents from China, it is safe to say that Chua has succeeded thus far in her lifetime, in terms of academic achievement, financial stability, and social interaction.
Was Amy Chua unable to develop socially as a young girl because she couldn’t sleep over other girls’ houses? Did she remain socially awkward into adulthood because her parents prohibited playdates? Well, considering that the “Tiger Mom” is highly respected by her fellow professors at Yale, including her devoted husband, of course, and that she has built a stable household as an adult, I beg to differ.
She doesn’t seem to have any social “shortcomings”, as David Brooks puts it, to me and I will wager that her children won’t have any, either. Judging by the parent herself, the children shouldn’t have anything to worry about and neither should we as pundits.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
