

Mother, Superior? - michaelchisari
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/apop011311.DTL

======
michaelchisari
_"I was very surprised," she says. "The Journal basically strung together the
most controversial sections of the book. And I had no idea they'd put that
kind of a title on it. But the worst thing was, they didn't even hint that the
book is about a journey, and that the person at beginning of the book is
different from the person at the end -- that I get my comeuppance and retreat
from this very strict Chinese parenting model."_

~~~
itistoday
I think the WSJ owes Mrs. Chua an apology.

Come to think of it, if they actually do release an apology, it will probably
serve as an additional boost to the book's sales.

It makes me wonder whether the author of the original piece was just an
inconsiderate asshole, or an evil genius who's getting a slice of the pie and
planned out the "lie" and apology in advance as a marketing stunt. Either way,
there's an idea. Don't recommend it though. :-P

~~~
kmfrk
> (...) it will probably serve as an additional boost to the book's sales.

I don't know; the book's only received negative attention by my perception.

~~~
jamesaguilar
It doesn't take a whole lot of looking to find that your perception may be
non-standard: <http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books>

------
surlyadopter
This post by The Last Psychiatrist is an excellent breakdown of the article
(and WHY it was in the WSJ in the first place).
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/why_chinese_mothers_a...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/why_chinese_mothers_are_not_su.html)

~~~
dkarl
I think the WSJ's intent in publishing it was a little more complex. The piece
accomplishes two goals: it ridicules the ineffectiveness of soft, touchy-
feely, liberal childrearing, and it presents the Chinese as alien, inhuman,
and a superhuman threat, just like the Soviet scientific juggernaut we feared
after Sputnik. We are supposed to be scared that the Chinese will "bury us"
with inhuman discipline and achievement, and we are supposed to blame liberal
attitudes for our weakness.

~~~
jdminhbg
Those don't sound like the WSJ's goals to me.

In this case, I think the simplest reasoning, and one Chua herself hit on, is
correct: They strung together the most controversial parts and got bundles of
page hits.

------
bane
_I now believe there's a hybrid way of parenting that combines the two
paradigms, but it took me making a lot of mistakes along the way to get
there._

This is what I was hoping would be the truth. For all the reaction to the
original trolling article, I also found myself agreeing with many of the
criticisms leveled against Western child rearing practices (not all, but
many).

------
larrik
The article acts like it's Ms Chau vs. WSJ. But, it smells to me like a PR
firm is the real culprit here (possibly even with Ms Chau's involvement).

~~~
libpcap
It's Chua (蔡), not Chau. Thanks.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Why the attitude?

------
teyc
Asians don't have the genes to compete on sports. So entry to college is
essentially going to be based around academic scores and music. Asians are
also physically can't compete with caucasians when it comes to labouring, so a
position in the office offsets that disadvantage.

Some of the hard work put into training the children is simply trying to
overcome whatever physical disadvantage their children have.

This isn't particularly good in societies which are predominantly Chinese,
because hyper competitiveness leads no where. There is nothing to hack.

However, in Western society, I'd think a moderate form of authoritative
parenting is useful.

~~~
cafard
"Asians don't have the genes to compete on sports." Asia is a big continent,
and there are a lot of sports. One is starting to see Chinese players in the
NBA, and the Japanese and Koreans are showing up and doing well in major
league baseball, to say nothing of gymnastics, swimming, and so on. And then
there's cricket, squash, etc., but perhaps you aren't including the
subcontinent.

"Asians are also physically can't compete with caucasians..." You might want
to read up on the history of the transcontinental railroad. It seems to me
more likely that people who have made it here from Asia over the last 60 years
have figured out pay scales: doctor, high; laborer, low.

"This isn't particularly good in societies which are predominantly Chinese,
because hyper competitiveness leads no where." No, except to the best schools,
the best jobs, and so on. I am reliably assured the kids in Taiwan and Korea
work awfully hard.

~~~
teyc
I'm speaking of myself as a person of southern Chinese descent. As one
progresses north, people are physically taller.

Transcontinental railroad - it's a testament of hard work despite physical
limitations.

"because hyper competitiveness leads no where." I lived in Malaysia and
Singapore, and I'm speaking of the declining marginal utility of hyper
competitiveness. It is a kind of mania that leads to overinvestment in a
sector at the expense of another.

------
dsplittgerber
Time and time again, people fall for marketing stunts. Before getting your
knickers in a twist, read the book in question and magically find out that
(place author name here) is actually making a quite different argument.

Don't believe what newspapers tell you. More often than not, you're worse off
after reading them.

------
kmfrk
Single-page link: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/apop011311.DTL&ao=all).

------
curtis
This article was submitted with the title "Wall Street Journal lied about Amy
Chua's book", which sounds like excessive editorializing to me.

~~~
michaelchisari
The original title of "Mother, Superior?" was not nearly descriptive enough.

And considering that the article focuses on how the conclusion of the book is
in direct opposition to the conclusion of the article (and how this decision
was made by the WSJ and not Chau), I found the title apt.

~~~
curtis
I agree about the original title. I disagree that your replacement title is an
accurate representation of the article. The article does cover the inaccuracy
of the original Wall Street journal, but that didn't seem to be the main
thrust of the article. The article is more about what Amy Chua's book is
really about, rather than being about how the WSJ wrote a misleading article
about it. I think a better title would have reflected that.

That said, I think even a title like, say, "Wall Street Journal article about
Amy Chua's book was misleading" (basically "lied" ==> "misleading") would be
better. Saying they "lied" is a much stronger statement than saying they
"mislead", and the former seems to imply something more extreme, like that
they were pushing an agenda. If the article had addressed the WSJ's motives
and asserted that they were, in fact, pushing an agenda, the stronger title
would have been justified, but, again, the article wasn't really about that.

All that said, I think it was a good article and I upvoted it. I also think it
would be interesting to hear some thinking about _why_ the WSJ spun the
article in the direction they did and as hard as they did. It seems like the
WSJ is unlikely to have a specific agenda relating to the parenting styles of
Chinese immigrants, but what do I know.

------
rbanffy
Erm... Am I still reading Hacker News?

~~~
michaelchisari
For reference:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2090678>

