OK. I need to start this post with an apology. Here at WTM, we commit ourselves to try our hardest to avoid falling into the pattern we have called ‘journalist thinking’. By this we mean the attitude you find commonly in our media today, that the writer’s job is limited to raising awareness of a problem but he/she is not obligated to provide leadership towards finding solutions. We feel that this is the greatest bane of journalism today and a better explanation for the threatened ‘death’ of journalism rather than new digital distribution models. I might not live up to that standard in this article.
I need to further apologize because I’m going to share some thoughts on this new ‘tiger mom’ phenomenon without first reading the book that has caused the stir. Furthermore, I have no intention of reading either this author’s current book ‘Battle Hymns’ or any of her previous works. I’m stating an opinion based solely on her own article in the WSJ, the cover story in Time magazine and also on the summaries and reviews of her previous work on Amazon.
There. Got over the apology. Let’s talk about Amy Chua Rubenfeld and this ‘tiger mom’ phenomenon.
I’m writing because if Amy Chua Rubenfeld really wrote what is attributed to her in the WSJ and Time articles, then I feel that she is a charlatan. As an educator, especially one at an institute of higher learning, which the Yale Law School purports to being, this author should be held to a standard higher than the race-baiting, stereotyping sensationalism that she is peddling with this book. She hides behind the claim that she wrote this as a ‘memoir’ and not as a how-to guide to parenting, but that doesn’t hold water. As a professor of law, she should know that her position as a published author and a university professor gives what she writes added weight…. and as such, an added obligation. She has failed this obligation miserably and, I feel, knowingly.
If she had intended to make a contribution to society by pushing forward the conversation about effective parenting, I would have lauded her work. There is a need for us as a society to find the right balance between strictness and understanding when raising children. However, it is not believable that this is her intention. Instead, she is trying to sensationalize the issue by taking advantage of the current simmering mistrust between China and the US, by cashing out on her ethnic roots. That is REPREHENSIBLE. To characterize specific behavior patterns and values as distinctly from one race or another, as she does by calling out strict mothers as ‘Chinese mothers’ is an ugly form of racism. That her husband is a Jew and the Jewish people have suffered so much in the 20th century because of this type of racism makes her offense even less forgivable. Is it alright for people with Chinese-roots to spew racism about Chinese people, or Jews about Jews, or Blacks about Blacks? Harriet Beecher Stowe gave us the answer 150 years ago. It’s high time this author rereads Stowe’s work. Pulling an Uncle Tom to make a quick buck or stroking a professional ego is disgusting, especially for someone in such a privileged and respected position.
If Amy Chua Rubenfeld wants to leverage her position of influence to do her part to advance the conversation about parenting in this modern era, she needs to roll up her sleeves and do some real work. Here are some ideas, Amy, if you are reading:
1) Parenting, as practical application of the cognitive sciences, should be investigated as a science. Instead of presenting one isolated anecdote (your own experiences), you need to provide the scientific rigor to find credible (and helpful) recommendations. This should include statistically significant analysis that exposes strong correlations as well as experimentation to identify causality. Furthermore, if you want to pursue the hypothesis that all kids are equally tractable and can equally benefit from a fixed set of parenting techniques, please also include this in your test design.
2) If you are mathematically challenged, as the you imply with the following quote, please seek the help of a qualified statistician. “If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.” — I don’t know of any school other than Yale where all the kids in the class can get As.
3) Try to assume the humility of an intellect and scientist. You may not always be right and, even now, with one kid starting college, you haven’t proven that you behavior was the cause. Could the results just as likely be caused by your kids having kindly Jewish and Chinese grandfathers?
4) Be alert to the possible outcomes from you recommendations. I cringed when I read your writing because you boast so proudly of your strictness. Have you stopped to think what separated you from equally strict parents who could now write the sad book, ‘Funeral Dirge of the Tiger Mom’?
There is a time and place for sensationalism. Dressing it up to substitute it for an honest discussion about raising responsible and successful citizens of the 21st century is neither the right time nor the right place. There is never a time nor a place for racism.
Even if we can’t hold authors like Amy Chua Rubenfeld from the temptation to exploit the commons, I feel we should hold our journalists to raise the level of the discussion and not further flog the sensationalism to sell their own papers. Holding our journalists responsible , however, is a discussion for another day.
