Tiger Mom (Strength, not Weakness)

I have been following the "Tiger Mom" stories for almost a year.  This is about Amy Chua - a mother that expects a little more than most today.  (See my first post on Amy here.)  Basically the philosophy is something like this:

- No sleepovers, parties, camp, TV, computer games, getting less than an A.

- Insulting and/or belittling their kids when they deserve it.

- Use what by today's Western standards would be considered abusive physical or verbal coercion.

- Expecting their child to excel.

Now a year later I found this video (though its from the spring of this year) I posted on Christmas in "Children: Assume Strength." Amy also has a book - which I have not read - which has generated a lot of controversy as well.

The video is interesting because you get to listen to the oldest daughter offer her perspective on being raised in this way.

Would the oldest daughter raise her child this way: "yes, with some minor changes."

Recently the WSJ published a follow up article to the one I mentioned in my first post.

Now what's not be reported about this and what I find most interesting is this comment about her "tiger parenting" (from the article): "... [ it ] assumes strength, not weakness, in children ..."

Amy relates her actions to the the parents of children of the "pioneers"...
 And I think that, upon reflection, I was also raised with the same model.

I was expected to be self reliant, to be able to handle situations, to be able handle failure and the consequences when I failed, and I was expected to excel.

Now, in the video, Amy Chua makes a very important point: she never expects her child to excel at what she (as mom) wants the child to do, i.e., play the piano - instead she expects that, what ever the child chooses to pursue, the child must expect to excel at their choice.

Today you so often hear how little Jr. must go to college to become whatever.  Almost without fail the choice is, of course, not little Jr.'s but instead some form of the parents "fantasy" lived out through the child.

When I was a kid things were far, far different - social progress, even amongst cousins, close relataives and family - required work: you had to act like a grown up.  Older cousins and relatives laughed at you (belittling, insulting, abusive) when you behaved in a foolish or stupid manner.  So, to be treated like a grown up, i.e., receive privileges and "perks of adulthood" you had to move forward - excel.

This made you "grow up" - you didn't want to be treated like a child - none of my peers did.

Time wasting TV, computer games and parties didn't really exist when I was a child.

Sure there were a few shows on in the morning but no one watched TV before school.  There were also a few in the afternoon - reruns of Gun Smoke and things like that.  Not that appealing.  There were no parties either - you sat home in your room entertaining yourself.

One of the consequences of this was you had to learn to "entertain yourself."  That is, read, build a model airplane, play with toys or dolls, ride your bike, whatever.  No adult sat with you and made sure your day was "fun".

The point of childhood at this time was "growing up."

Today, which I think that so many find Amy's comments and book so troubling, is that there is no more "growing up" - at least not as I see it.

As I wrote, for example, yesterday about Google in their interview technique: child-like.

People today act far more like children than they did in the past: no one can "wait" for anything anymore, everyone has to have what they want "now,"  everyone runs out and buys the cheapest imitation of something they can find.

As a child I was admonished to "save my money" and to "buy something made with quality."

The ultimate sin was to buy some cheap foreign "junk" and to have it break in front of your friends - you were considered stupid and foolish.

Children today are considered "weak and fragile" by adults - unable to take care of business - yet one hundred years ago children were born, particularly in rural America, into very difficult circumstances.  You had to be tough - to get enough food, to do what you were interested in, to survive.

Instead I think today's adults are instead "weak and fragile."  They cannot expect anything from their kids - that would be too "stressful."  They are busy with their lives so they make the kids feel like successes, not because they are successes, but because it makes them, the parents, feel better because they are weak.

Adults became soft as the 60's "me" generation grew into adulthood.

Its not clear exactly why.

I suppose that breaking away from traditional family structures to "find yourself" didn't require as much effort it did to "grow up".

Less self control, less discipline.

More about "them" - less about their "child."

Parent's like Amy, and those who raise me, were selfless in many ways.  Not by "giving" us, the children what we wanted, but by taking on the difficulty of not giving in to our childish ways.  This required an adult.  It was not easy.

And this is were the 60's "me" mentality is an utter failure.

It elevates the "childish ways" to adulthood and to an art form: "it's all about me..."

To me this is a tragedy.

I think Amy is right.

Only time will tell.