Tuesday, March 01, 2011

God Loves Tiger Moms

Dear Korean,

I'm writing in response to what you've discussed in your post about Professor Chua's article: in general, you seem to espouse the stance that hard-line parenting is best. If I'm correct in recalling your mentioning Christian faith somewhere in your blog, how do you reconcile your faith with your support of Chua's parenting? Regardless of whether children are happy playing piano more than an hour a day, could they actually become godly in an environment that emphasizes personal achievement over human relationships? I fail to see how a God who calls rich young men to lay down their riches - who tells us to love Him and others extravagantly, and as a pursuit higher than acquiring knowledge or doing good works - could possibly be squeezed into the busy lives of Chua's daughters.

Katherine


Dear Katherine,

You recall correctly -- the Korean is a church-going Christian who takes his faith seriously. That means that the following caveat is necessary:

ATTENTION, asshole atheists who troll the Internet. The Korean respects atheists. The Korean does not respect assholes. The respectable atheists write thoughtful books, articles and blog posts about their beliefs. The asshole atheists go around the Internet, latch onto any marginally pertaining to religion, and screech and holler about how religion is stupid and so are the religious people. The Korean takes all comers -- if you want to debate religion with him, send him an email. Don't shit on the comment board just because religious people want to discuss religion. It is a sad statement on you people that this kind of caveat is even necessary.

With that out of the way, the Korean must add another caveat. While the Korean is a serious Christian, he is not any sort of authority. It's not like he attended a seminary. This is just what he thinks, based on what he believes. Take this post for what it is.

Now, onto the question. Katherine is actually asking two questions. First question is -- could Tiger Cubs become godly in an environment that emphasizes personal achievement over human relationships?

This question begins from a false premise. The greatest misconception about Tiger Parenting is that it leaves no room for human relationships. The champion of this misconception is New York Times' David Brooks, who wrote:
Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.

This skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table.

Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood. Where do they learn how to manage people? Where do they learn to construct and manipulate metaphors? Where do they learn to perceive details of a scene the way a hunter reads a landscape? Where do they learn how to detect their own shortcomings? Where do they learn how to put themselves in others’ minds and anticipate others’ reactions?

These and a million other skills are imparted by the informal maturity process and are not developed if formal learning monopolizes a child’s time.
Amy Chua is a Wimp [New York Times] (emphasis added)

(Would you be surprised that this article was sent or referred to the Korean a few dozen times? No? Ok, let's move on.)

Brooks might have a point if indeed formal learning utterly, completely monopolized a child's time under Tiger Parenting. But that is just not true. It is not as if Prof. Chua chained her daughter to the piano. Prof. Chua's daughters went to school, where they surely must have had many group projects for which group management is crucial. Prof. Chua's daughters surely must have hung out with their friends during breaks in school. Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld has a boyfriend, for crying out loud. This misconception lives on because often, critics of Tiger Parenting have no idea what Tiger Parenting actually looks like. So they conjure up the most horrifying image, and spend their time railing against that specter. In essence, this is no more than a variation of the "roboticity" argument, which is wrong, wrong and wrong some more because it just has no basis in reality.

As Katherine correctly implies, being a godly Christian entails sharing your faith with your fellow Christians. Tiger Parenting does not foreclose this type of sharing. The thriving Asian American churches all across America are proofs that Tiger Cubs have no problem getting together to share their faith. (As the Korean explained previously, Asian Americans are not the only Tiger Cubs of America -- but they serve as a reliable indicator of Tiger Cub behavior, because they are most likely to have Tiger Moms.)

Let us now address Katherine's bigger question:  How does the Korean reconcile his faith with Tiger Parenting?

The Korean believes that Christianity can serve as a guardrail to prevent Tiger Parenting from going wrong. The Korean has no doubt that Tiger Parenting is superior. But as he explained previously, that does not mean Tiger Parenting is perfect. And one of the greatest imperfections of Tiger Parenting is that unless it is firmly backstopped by love, it runs the risk of becoming an ego-tripping trophy creation by the parents.

By submitting oneself to God, a Christian parent will have a healthier perspective on what they can do for their children, and what must be left to God. Following God's words serves as a good reminder that no one can do exactly what s/he wants to do. On a more practical level, regular participation in church service and activities increases the social interactions over which the critics of Tiger Parenting so worry. This way, Christianity can serve as an essential complement to Tiger Parenting.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

32 comments:

  1. I was actually pondering this myself, but I think you gave a nice response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome post. Well said TK.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This question is weirdly presumptuous about "Christianity" itself. My Southern Baptist parents would have found this type of parenting to line up very, very nicely with their ideas of how to raise a Godly child in a Godly manner. And even though I have a lot of negative things to say about the church I was raised in, I have very little to criticize about the manner in which I was raised. So.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Korean takes all comers -- if you want to debate religion with him, send him an email.

    I, for one, would love to see a post with comments engaging in measured and polite discourse on how people rationalise their respective beliefs.

    As we all grow and grapple with the nature of reality and our place in it, we each form a set of beliefs, and whatever they may be each of us is utterly convinced that we have formed the correct ones. That in itself is fascinating.

    Sorry if this is exactly the comment you'd hoped not to get. I do not have anything worthwhile to add to the original emailer's comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a response to Ryan: If you want any sort of religious discussion, seek to do it in person. The internet is the exact wrong place to hold a forum for that.

    In regards to the question, Katherine has a very grace-based view of Christianity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but if we're going into the realm of teaching we should (by definition) look into Proverbs.

    To preface this though, it would be helpful to emphasize that Jesus was sent as the Word incarnate. He did not come to nullify the old testament, but rather to fulfill it.

    Now onto Proverbs. If you look at Proverbs 29:15-22 it says,

    15 A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom,
    but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother.
    16 When the wicked thrive, so does sin,
    but the righteous will see their downfall.
    17 Discipline your children, and they will give you peace;
    they will bring you the delights you desire.
    18 Where there is no revelation, people cast off restraint;
    but blessed is the one who heeds wisdom’s instruction.
    19 Servants cannot be corrected by mere words;
    though they understand, they will not respond.
    20 Do you see someone who speaks in haste?
    There is more hope for a fool than for them.
    21 A servant pampered from youth
    will turn out to be insolent.
    22 An angry person stirs up conflict,
    and a hot-tempered person commits many sins."

    It's 2am here so I won't exegete the passage and I'll leave it up to you to talk to your pastor about this. Essentially, the discipline that "Tiger Parenting" produces isn't necessarily for the "riches" that you refer to laying down. It produces upstanding kids who are well-mannered and create a community that looks for the benefits of others, which exemplifies loving Him and others. I want to emphasize verse 22, which should be directed at the parents. It supports The Korean's point that it must be done out of love. Reprimand that comes from anger only produces more anger.

    Take a good look at the kids around you. Regardless of ethnicity, you can understand parenting styles from the children they have raised. I think that's an obvious point, but I also want to say that it is never black and white. There are so many factors that contribute to raising a child that we cannot attribute a great kid or an awful kid to one (albiet large) aspect of their upbringing.

    Goodnight and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed with I'm no Picasso.

    I believe that Tiger Parenting more likely can be done successfully if the household has implemented some type of religious or spiritual belief system. For Christians, the belief may be that God loves us sooooo much that his only son Jesus gave up his life. Just like Tiger parents love their children so much that they will do everything to ensure their children reach maximum potential and will spend all their non-working hours focusing on their children. Just like Tiger Cubs love their family and parents so much that they will do whatever their parents ask of them, no questions asked, b/c they believe and have faith in their parents.

    The focus on Tiger Cubs is to not make riches in the material sense, but to have a life full of richness b/c every ounce of effort was put into their life since their life is precious and exists due to sacrifice. Sacrifice from their parents, sacrifice from their God, and sacrifice from themselves. They think of family and parents before they think of themselves (Also a very Asian way of thinking - thinking of whole/family/community/world before the self whereas Western thinking is based on self before the whole/community/family/world).

    I myself am not currently religious in any sense, although I grew up in the Church w/ youth group and rallys and the whole shebang. I think Asians naturally feel comfortable in the church environment b/c they already have a culture and history of putting whole before part, or family/country/community before self.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Being agnostic (but raised in a Protestant homeschooled family), I'm not surprised to see this mindset reconciled. Not unlike homeschooling, the parents in a Tiger Mom family take a very important role in a child's development. That, in and of itself, is key.

    You would, of course, have the people who would ask the Tiger Mom why their child isn't more active 'in the church' - as if the institution can become a full-time job - but one's religion is not dependent on the building they're in.

    With that said, I have to disagree somewhat with you, The Korean. Being religious does not necessarily open up oneself to social introductions. A few places may become easier to socialize (a church), while others would probably be seen as questionable (a park with friends of the opposite gender, a sleepover). You may be around more PEOPLE, but you're not necessarily making more friends. That Sophia has a boyfriend now (at 18) is immaterial - that he's barely mentioned in the article reminds me of how some of my 9-year-olds have 'girlfriends' and 'boyfriends'. Sure, she has freedom NOW - at 18...

    I'd agree that a Christian mother submits to God and God's plan for her children's lives. At the same time, one's own plans for one's child often seem to get in the way of needing to go to church, participate in Bible studies, and so on. Sure, they could fit it in - but would it be given the recognition it deserves?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris in SK,

    Being religious does not necessarily open up oneself to social introductions. ... You may be around more PEOPLE, but you're not necessarily making more friends.

    Isn't that true with any social setting? You could participate in a ton of sleepovers, but you may not necessary make more friends.

    At the same time, one's own plans for one's child often seem to get in the way of needing to go to church, participate in Bible studies, and so on. Sure, they could fit it in - but would it be given the recognition it deserves?

    That's a crucial point. A good Christian should recognize church and Bible studies to be essential. And ideally, the process of that recognition will cause Tiger Parents not to go overboard -- because no matter how much violin one wants to push upon one's parents, the time for church and Bible study have to be reserved AND must be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The respectable atheists write thoughtful books, articles and blog posts about their beliefs. The asshole atheists go around the Internet, latch onto any marginally pertaining to religion, and screech and holler about how religion is stupid and so are the religious people. The Korean takes all comers -- if you want to debate religion with him, send him an email. Don't shit on the comment board just because religious people want to discuss religion. It is a sad statement on you people that this kind of caveat is even necessary."

    Sweet we get special acknowledgment haha. Tiger moms suck nuff said. So when did being a bitch become good parenting...and when did a forced faith become the guiding light for good parenting?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry bigsampson, I don't think that included you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with this response. I was raised with this verse guiding my heart:

    "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men..." Colossians 3:23

    It was never called "Tiger Parenting" in my household, but it was the way we were expected to carry ourselves and do our work. I think this has influenced me positively in they way I work and carry myself in daily life as a grown adult. I was never encouraged to strive for material or worldly success, but to do my best at everything no matter what. And since my parents were in the position to recognize whether the work I was doing was my "best", they were able to guide me to do better if they knew I wasn't trying hard enough or if I was about to give up without some effort.

    I think encouraging children to do their best at everything they do, no matter what your family's religious or cultural background is, is important for childrens' self-confidence and personal strength.

    ReplyDelete
  13. interesting post;

    i don't think one can properly reconcile "tiger parenting" and christianity. the goal of tiger parenting is fame, achievement and love of the world; the teachings of jesus would point to the opposite.

    the reason you have made the conclusion you did is because you reshape "tiger parenting" into something it was never intended to be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who intended tiger parenting to be about fame, achievement and love of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Troeltsch, the reason you have made the conclusion you did is because you chose to create an odd (and incorrect) purpose for "tiger parenting."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Re: The James

    "Odd" and "incorrect" definition? Let's put aside "odd" for now because you are positing that there is a normal definition- that verbiage in this context seems rather odd.

    Am I positing an "incorrect" definition? Probably not; if you actually look at the text of the book and and interviews with Chua (rather than say using second-hand accounts by hack NY Times quasi-philosophers), one would find that the values I pick line up rather nicely with what Chua herself describes-including limiting time for the children to see their grandmother because they are "too busy", a focus on preparation for (only) a top-tier college, and molding identities based on activities rather than genuine interests.

    But let's just say I am completely crazy and petulant scholar which is probably a 50-50 bet. Let's conduct a thought experiment. If Ms. Chua and her fine husband raised their children in the putative "Tiger" manner and they could only enter a two-year college or not make college, would they consider it a success?

    I would posit probably not; no matter what "character" was installed in their kids via this parenting method, my guess is some type of existential guilt or blaming would result as this outcome.

    This gets at my point; that is, at the base of Ms. Chua's system (not the system proposed by Mr. Brooks or the one proposed by this blog's author) is a clasist base. I am not Karl Marx, nor I am Karl Polanyi; nor am I proposing that her system is 100% based on these values. However, for one to present the system and not put a significant emphasis on this is to equivocate the specific outcomes Chua is hoping to achieve with "strict parenting." The two are not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You make very valid points. There is definitely a different perspective that we took when addressing this issue.

    You are most definitely correct to say that "odd" was a bad word choice and for that I apologize. I also agree that an immense sense of guilt from failure is probably the biggest drawback to this style of parenting.

    I think a misunderstanding between us is that I viewed this "tiger parenting" as a whole from the culture, not how it is defined by Mrs. Chua. Even though she coined the term, I was taking on the perspective of my own personal experiences as well as all the Asian-Americans that I know.

    As a Korean-American with immigrant parents I understand what you are saying in terms of those who seek "fame, achievement, and love of the world." There are definitely families out there (not just Asian ones) that pursue that and I would never argue against that. It's a bit unfair to classify the entire parenting style under those pretenses though. Although many of the stereotypes are true, I find amongst my friends and family, it is not the norm. I won't call it "tiger parenting" from here on out because I don't want to limit it to Mrs. Chua's own experience and purpose.

    The styles of parenting that fall along these lines though serve many purposes. The Korean's point about how Christianity creates a "guardrail" to keep parents from going overboard and going on a power trip.

    Jesus teaches many things, but relevant to the subject at hand he addresses love and rebuke. Doesn't He teach to rebuke out of love? For me, that's much of what this type of parenting is all about. Christianity aside, our parents stopped us from doing things we wanted to do for our own sake. Our parents also made us to things that we didn't want to do for our own sake. It's the same things, these parents try to set up their children for optimal success. By pushing their children to excel at things they allow for greater potential to achieve what ever they choose to pursue.

    Luke 6: The wise build foundations. Tons and tons of passages in Proverbs support this tough love type of parenting too (See post above).

    ReplyDelete
  18. James,

    I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion. I readily believe that there is nothing wrong with a strict upbringing or one that emphasizes discipline. I just believe Chua's method doesn't emphasize these things as necessarily good things unless they result in achievement.

    My point in the post was not criticize how immigrants raise their children; rather, I am trying to call into question whether Chua's parenting method may not actually be the most generalizable for all immigrants with its highly classist emphasis.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  19. Troelstch,

    Let's conduct a thought experiment. If Ms. Chua and her fine husband raised their children in the putative "Tiger" manner and they could only enter a two-year college or not make college, would they consider it a success?

    I would posit probably not...


    The Korean agrees; they would probably would not consider it a success. But that is not because of the "classist" impulse. They would consider it a failure because if their children were really taught to give their best effort, there is NO WAY the children fail to do better than a two-year college.

    ReplyDelete
  20. it's an interesting comment. however, i don't think your logic stands. The interesting aspect of a counterfactual is that it lays bear motivations.

    Ultimately, I don't think you can tear apart the causality with classist expectations and effort- they are intricately woven together. The real question is: does the tiger mother believe in character formation without expressed outcomes? I believe, at least with my reading, that the answer is no.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If a proper character formation almost inevitably leads to a certain result, one can properly look at the result to gauge whether the character was formed also.

    Again, it is damn near impossible to be a hard worker and not get oneself to a four-year college. (Absent extenuating circumstances, e.g. poverty necessitating the student to work many hours part-time.) So if a student fails to get him/herself into a four-year college, the parent has every right to be disappointed -- it is a sign that the child did not work hard enough.

    ReplyDelete
  22. i am not kurt godel, but the example is meant to be illustrative rather than necessarily real life- you could probably substitute Rutgers for a CC and get the same result. If you feel that a classist strain cannot be deducted or is not a major part of the parenting style, then even better delusions for you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. By "classist strain," the Korean is willing to agree this much: Tiger Parenting often ends up taking a classist characteristic, because Tiger Parents obviously delight in their children going to Princeton over Rutgers, UCLA over Sacramento State. What the Korean wants to emphasize is that while the foregoing may be true, Tiger Parenting's motivation is not classist. It is about self-fulfillment.

    To use a different example, the Korean loves fine Scotch. He spends a lot of effort and money collecting fine Scotch (which are usually expensive,) and refuses to drink bad Scotch (which are usually cheap.) Is the Korean being classist? One could get that impression, and one can fairly say that the Korean appears to be classist. But in his mind, he is not. There is no mistaking what comes first in his motivation -- it is about good Scotch. If good Scotch were cheap, he would get them. But good Scotch are generally expensive, so he gravitates toward expensive Scotch and pauses before buying a Scotch that is too cheap.

    The Korean was raised by, and surrounded by, the most cut-throat Tiger Moms imaginable. So he can say this very confidently: Tiger Parenting's motivation is about giving one's best. When the Korean Brother got into his college -- a state college that was good, but not top-tier -- the Korean Parents were far happier than when the Korean got into his college. They literally broke down in tears of joy. That's because they knew their younger son pushed himself far beyond what they expected deep down. That's what Tiger Parenting is about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. First, all this name dropping is unnecessary. I think we understand where you're coming from.

    Second, I think you mean "deduced" right? Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself.

    Third, and most importantly, your argument is based on only the motivation to one-up other people. Can I venture to say that you are not a parent? There are definitely parents out there that do put this "classist strain" on their parenting style, but you can't place that on the entire system. Like The Korean said, the motivation for many parents is providing the child with self-fulfillment.

    To bring this all back to your original comment, the reason why you are unable to reconcile Christianity to this parenting style is because you are basing your knowledge of the ENTIRE style around one set of parents. In both Christianity and "Tiger Parenting" the center of it all lies within love.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To both the Korean and James:

    I really appreciate the arguments you guys are making, and they are interesting arguments; they are just the wrong ones.

    One of my main points is that "Tiger Parenting", as conceptualized by Amy Chua, is fundamentally different than your conceptions. To illustrate this point, look at evidence both of you have provided from Ms. Chua's account: zero. Indeed, you have made the (unwarranted) assumption that her parenting style is equal to that you have experienced and described. That's a great argument; but neither of you made it or provided a shred of evidence that is the case.

    The other main point, related to the first point, is that the point of "Tiger Parenting" is not self-fulfillment. Once again, you may say that you experienced strict parenting and that was out of "love" ; that's fine, I just dont believe that's the argument she is making. I have provided numerous examples that her parenting style is based on outcomes: refusing to let kids sleep over, limiting exposure to family members, and only allowing children to participate in activities deemed appropriate by the parents. These examples would suggest that the children's self-fulfillment is not at the core of the parenting style.

    Moving to the last point, a quick tour of the Bible would suggest that while love is certainly important in raising children, its necessary and not sufficient. The Bible teaches to raise children up in the knowledge of the Bible; that is, to build character over all else. Thus, the point of Christianity for adults or kids is not self-fulfillment; it’s about instilling character of Christ. You’re right; I am not a parent, but that’s an ad hominum attack, and in theory, we aren’t supposed to make ad hominum attacks because it usually means we don’t have any points. At the end of the day, I don’t believe you have even touched the concept of how Chua’s conception is similar to Christianity; to cop out with “it’s all starts with love” is a disturbing conclusion, and frankly not necessarily biblical. Once again, I respect your experience and what you have learned, but we are not explicitly talking about your experience- I thought we had consensus on that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A point I left out; I think it is wonderful you like good Scotch, but that is not "classist", at least not in the sense I am using the word. The fact that the selection of schools, behavior, and activities is meant to end in a serious of outcomes is classist. To perhaps put a finer point on it: I am not trying to backsolve and posit a casual mechanism by saying because the Korean drinks good scotch, he must be a classist. I am looking at the casual forces and decisions are making with the outcome in mind to achieve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In reference to your 'Amy Chua didn't let her kids have sleepovers, limited exposure to family members and allowed them to participate only in activities deemed appropriate by the parents' point: I believe Chua herself has tackled this argument head-on. She limits her child's freedom to do whatever he/she likes for the child's self-fulfillment... only this kind of self-fulfillment comes later down the track. She points out that if children were left to do whatever they wanted to, they would choose to play rather than study or practise. Children (by and large, although there are exceptions) chase whatever gives them instant fulfillment and gratification; by regulating what her children did in younger years (note that Chua's daughters are now given significantly more freedom now that they've hit eighteen) Chua showed them the kind of deeper self-fulfillment that comes with knowing that you have tried your best and truly pushed your limits.

      Although I do have to agree that limiting time with family members seems pointless and unnecessary, the 'no sleepovers policy' (which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to most westerners) mainly stems from the deeply Confucianist roots of most Asian societies. I myself was never allowed sleepovers (school camps were thankfully excluded from this) and when I asked why, my mother always replied with 'you shouldn't sleep out of your own bed'. I didn't understand this when I was younger but now that I am older I believe that by not blindly letting me go to every single friend's house for every single party my mother has instilled in me a sense of my own self; when I complained my mother would always firmly reply that 'you are you and they are them; no matter how much you like them, you should be your own person'. Basically, what the 'no sleepovers policy' is trying to teach is the concept of boundaries, of keeping something of yourself to yourself. While I agree there are other ways of teaching such concepts, the 'no sleepovers policy' worked very well for me. There is a deep sense of self-fulfillment in knowing that a part of you is purely YOU and is not influenced by or open to anyone else; no matter how close I get to someone else, I will always be my own person. Though I do not think that SLEEPOVERS are the root of all crumbling boundaries and that everyone who attends sleepovers do not have such a sense of self, not letting me have them was a way of teaching me said boundaries and it worked rather well.

      Delete
  27. Whoa whoa friend, I didn't ask in an attempt to attack you in any way shape or form. I apologize if it came across that way. I was asking because the parental perspective doesn't seem present in your argument. Of course that doesn't illegitimize anything you're saying. Yes, people want their kids to do better than other kids, but at the end of the day a loving parent is more than satisfied with the accomplishments that their child achieves regardless of what the other kids have done.

    I think the problem of our perspective lies within the "Tiger Parenting" as a whole versus Chua's version. If you're going to argue against her, then you can't address the system as a whole. We all know that Chua did not invent this style of parenting, so if it is her specific experience you are opposing, then I agree with everything you have said. I don't expect Chua's parenting to line up with Christianity because she's not a Christian!

    I never said, "It all starts with love." It is very much so Biblical. We agree and disagree on things, but this is the only thing where I will say you are wrong. Jesus himself is the ultimate sign of love, he was sent for the reconciliation between God and humanity. How is self-sacrifice not love? Abraham's faith is tested through his love. True love leads to action. If you love something enough, like... let's say... scotch? You will go out of your way to not only get the good stuff, but keep it safe. Love is what drives people to do the things they do; lack of love leads to nothingness. Not Biblical? "Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and Prophets hand on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV) In the inner quotes Jesus refers to scripture as well in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 respectively.

    I think at the end of the day, or our lives, we won't agree on this. Mainly because we are looking at the parenting style as a whole and applying our own personal experiences as well as the experiences of the people we know, but you are addressing the issue from how Chua's experience relates. Does that sound right? It just seems that we're not really arguing along the same lines.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Troeltsch,

    The Korean is experiencing the same kind of confusion as The James. What is your definition of "Tiger Parenting"? Is it the kind of parenting described in Amy Chua's book? If that's the case, well, the original post is not about Amy Chua.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I apologize for the confusion. As Ms. Chua was explicitly referred to in the post, and is widely known to be the main fountainhead of "Tiger Parenting", I used her standards for the post.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "ATTENTION, asshole atheists who troll the Internet. The Korean respects atheists. The Korean does not respect assholes"

    LMAO!! Nobody has a problem w your religion, bro, we just have a problem with your hypocritical 'so-called-christian' politicians, who've never opened the good Book. Instead of jabbering at the Atheists, why don't you put a little more pressure on real trolls.

    ReplyDelete

To prevent spam comments, comments left on posts older than 60 days is subject to moderation and will not appear immediately.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...