Who Is Amy Chua's Essay? Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior?
The essay Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, by the recognized lawyer and author, Amy Chua, is an essay that as the title might suggest, talks about why the Chinese way of raising children is an improved and preferable way of parenting compared to the “Western” style. Daughter of two successful and very strict Chinese immigrants to the United States, Chua herself was raised under the severe stereotypical Chinese way of parenting. She earned her credibility, and the “right” to talk about this subject by demonstrating that in fact, being raised under a strict Chinese way of parenting tends to pay off. Not only did she become successful herself, but Mrs. Chua has raised two outstanding daughters, Louisa who is currently studying History at Harvard College, and Sophia who graduated in 2015 and is currently attending Yale Law School.
…show more content…
The essay discusses what Amy Chua’s daughters were and were not able to do, and even though at the beginning they might have seemed draconian, at the end of the day they always bore fruit, as she exemplifies when she narrates how Lulu, one of her daughters, struggled to learn a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey”.
After various tactics applied, such as threating Lulu, not letting her get water or use the bathroom, she finally learned the song, proving anybody who labeled Mrs. Chua’s ways of teaching as “harsh”, wrong.
Although, Amy Chua may be able to validate that practicing the stereotypical Chinese-like way of parenting has brought positive results to her family, the parenting style that she resorts to, known as authoritarian-like way of parenting, is an approach to child-rearing that is usually not associated with the best academic and emotional child outcomes. As a matter of fact, the best child outcomes are usually linked with a different style, called authoritative parenting, a style characterized by reasonable demands and high responsiveness, which usually will rear well balanced children into
adults.
It is doubtful that Mrs. Chua’s tactics are as effective as she thinks they are, and a recent research bears this out. A new study testing Chua's ideas links “tiger parenting” with lower academic achievement and poorer emotional adjustment. The article “Study: “Tiger” parenting may hurt, not help” by Gwen Dewar talks about Su Yeong Kim, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin that has overseen a study that tracked more than 300 Chinese American families for over 8 years. The testers looked to see if any recurring profiles emerged, and they did: “About half of the parents could be sorted into a category the researchers call “supportive parenting.” These parents scored high on positive parenting and low on the negative parenting dimensions, approximately 25% of parents scored high on both positive and negative dimensions. These were the tiger parents. Another 20% seemed relatively uninvolved or “easygoing.” They scored low on both positive and negative dimensions. The smallest group was made up of “harsh” parents who scored low on positive parenting and high on negative parenting dimensions” (Dewar 1).
With these child rearing styles recognized, the following stride was to take a gander at results, and those were clear, “the best child outcomes – academic and emotional – were linked with supportive parenting. Easygoing parenting came in second place. And tiger parenting? Kids raised by tiger parents had the third best outcomes” (Dewar 1).
The essay discusses what Amy Chua’s daughters were and were not able to do, and even though at the beginning they might have seemed draconian, at the end of the day they always bore fruit, as she exemplifies when she narrates how Lulu, one of her daughters, struggled to learn a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey”.
After various tactics applied, such as threating Lulu, not letting her get water or use the bathroom, she finally learned the song, proving anybody who labeled Mrs. Chua’s ways of teaching as “harsh”, wrong.
Although, Amy Chua may be able to validate that practicing the stereotypical Chinese-like way of parenting has brought positive results to her family, the parenting style that she resorts to, known as authoritarian-like way of parenting, is an approach to child-rearing that is usually not associated with the best academic and emotional child outcomes. As a matter of fact, the best child outcomes are usually linked with a different style, called authoritative parenting, a style characterized by reasonable demands and high responsiveness, which usually will rear well balanced children into
adults.
It is doubtful that Mrs. Chua’s tactics are as effective as she thinks they are, and a recent research bears this out. A new study testing Chua's ideas links “tiger parenting” with lower academic achievement and poorer emotional adjustment. The article “Study: “Tiger” parenting may hurt, not help” by Gwen Dewar talks about Su Yeong Kim, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin that has overseen a study that tracked more than 300 Chinese American families for over 8 years. The testers looked to see if any recurring profiles emerged, and they did: “About half of the parents could be sorted into a category the researchers call “supportive parenting.” These parents scored high on positive parenting and low on the negative parenting dimensions, approximately 25% of parents scored high on both positive and negative dimensions. These were the tiger parents. Another 20% seemed relatively uninvolved or “easygoing.” They scored low on both positive and negative dimensions. The smallest group was made up of “harsh” parents who scored low on positive parenting and high on negative parenting dimensions” (Dewar 1).
With these child rearing styles recognized, the following stride was to take a gander at results, and those were clear, “the best child outcomes – academic and emotional – were linked with supportive parenting. Easygoing parenting came in second place. And tiger parenting? Kids raised by tiger parents had the third best outcomes” (Dewar 1).