Reflection 3.1

Upon the completion of the third essay, the "Rogerian" argument, I believe I did a pretty decent job with my first draft. It seems complete, thoughtful, and well-structured. Looking at the paper, I think it does a decent job of utilizing Rogerial principles while still standing firm on my beliefs and expressing them carefully. However, there may be room for improvement in this area. In several sections of the paper, it seems to be a little too much like a rebuttal and not quite enough like a rogerian essay. Basically, it comes off a little too harsh sometimes, where I should instead be establishing further common ground between the points. I could work on this for the revision. Also, I believe a beefier and better-structured conclusion (with further identification of the compromise) could aid the essay, and make my revision better than the first draft.

Essay 3.1: Do Video Games Foster Violence?

One of the principal advances in mass media in the past few decades has come with the arrival and the brisk growth and evolution of the video game industry. Video games—from the earliest arcade classics to the subsequent introduction of home consoles—have always been incredibly popular among not only adolescents, but a large sect of adults as well. Given the elevated prevalence and influence of the gaming market, social scientists, concerned parents, and others have raised concerns over the potential effects of video games on those who play them—particularly games with violent content, which, incidentally, counts for a large majority of best-selling games currently in the market. However, concerns have been raised with the recent advances in realism and simulation capabilities, enabling development studios to involve an ever-increasing amount of graphic violence.

With the copious amounts of research that attribute video games to violent acts, it appears sagacious and sensible for a significant percentage of individuals to argue that video games as the source of violent actions or tragedies. Studies have displayed through quantitative evidence how gamers maintain higher levels of aggression and have a much higher rate of being violent. For instance, the horrific shooting sprees by chronic video game players at Columbine High School in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007, along with the “Beltway” sniper shootings in 2002 have all agitated the public itch to scrutinize the effects of violent video game play (Adachi et al. par. 1). These high-profile instances, alongside a plethora of others, cannot be scientifically grounded and thus cannot provide adequate support for public policy decision.


However, several correlational studies involving adolescents have found a “small but significant relation” between playing violent video games and aggression—or the “behavior that is intended to harm another individual” (Adachi et al. par. 1). Furthermore, studies have found that playing violent video games can increase state hostility. In a study conducted by research psychologists Anderson and Ford in 1986, participants played either a highly aggressive game, a mildly aggressive game, or  no game at all (the control). According to the results, hostility significantly differed between the groups, with participants of both aggressive game conditions becoming more hostile than those in the control group (Williams 5). Several mirror studies also found that participants report an increased level of aggression after playing an aggressive game compared to tamer games (5). Thus, there is a tangible connection between video games and aggression. Whether this aggression is temporary, permanent, or a combination of the two, remains ambiguous in this analysis, however; in a meta-analysis conducted in 2001, findings proved that short-term effects indicated that the length of exposure to violent video games matters, and the initial effects may wear out after a short period of time (Sherry 431). Thus, this study and countless others have perhaps been nullified by further research that invalidates the conclusions made by the original studies.


Although it has become popular for social scientists and parents to accredit video games as a principal contributor of violence in adolescents, I believe that problems actually originate sometime prior to the influence of video games in violent adolescents. While I agree that video games may instigate aggression in troubled adolescents, I adhere to the opinion that games do not foster genuine, threatening hostility in a previously harmless person. Parents argue that video games provide ideas of what to do and how to do it, and are the reason for why crazed gamers become violently hostile. The blame for tragedies must reside where it belongs—on the people who commit the violent acts, and should not be falsely attributed to video games. Who is to say what makes a person violent? It could be brought on by a child’s home or school environment; it could stem from a fight between siblings, peers, or parents; or it could simply be hereditary.


Regardless of where the aggression comes from, I do agree with the idea that parents should monitor what their kids play or watch. Likewise, parents have a substantial amount of influence over what their children are interested in. The more involved parents are in their children’s lives in a positive manner, the more they are able to monitor; furthermore, I believe their positive influence can prevent aggressive or violent behavior in their children. Sadly, absentee parenting has become a growing trend over the past few decades. Parents mistakenly allow their children to be raised by technology, and are quick to point fingers and blame video games or other media for what might be perceived by most as poor parenting. While I disagree that video games foster real-life violence, I do agree that parental involvement in their child’s life can influence the child’s perception of the video game’s realism and message. For this reason, I believe the problems behind crimes like the Columbine shooting were deep-seeded and pre-existing. Some parents should take responsibility for their failure as mentors rather than placing the blame on video games.


There is no denying that video games can be addictive, and addictions are rarely beneficial. There are many parallels between video games and gambling—both psychologically and behaviorally. Video game addiction resembles “pathological gambling”; common components, such as “salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse have been identified and used in various studies” (Van Rooij et al. 490-491). Like gambling, video games are indeed addictive and can easily consume one’s life. Conversely, video game addiction has largely escaped governmental action for the most part in the West, despite being such a highly disputed topic of discussion in the media, in scientific research, and in common prose. In Asia, the situation is different; for example, “China has restricted the hours that young gamers can play online games, while South Korea has government agencies organizing an annual ‘no internet day’” (Van Rooij et al. 491). While this may be impractical in Western Europe or even unconstitutional in the United States, other solutions might be ideal. In an editorial by several European research scholars, an interesting solution is suggested for this issue: “An alternative would be for the company to contact gamers who spend an extreme amount of time in the game and offer them contact information for a referral service” (Van Rooij et al. 492). According to the article, there are similar initiatives in place in the gambling industry, including empirical studies showing that social responsibility tools are appreciated by players. (492). While this is indeed a valid suggestion and has merit to be pursued, I believe that there is a much simpler and healthier solution; rather than waiting until the problem of violence arises, it is possible for aggression to be prevented by simply employing good parenting techniques—like those heretofore mentioned.


While I disagree with many social scientists, parents, and others that claim that video games are the source of violence, what we can agree on is that we all want what is best for the adolescent generation. We all want to support America’s youth. We all want them to succeed. None of us, however, wish violence upon anyone, no matter where or how it originated. Most can agree that limiting video games, by both time used and by content, can be beneficial to many adolescents. If parents simply spent more time with their kids and took responsibility for their shortcomings as parents, I believe a clear difference could be made. 

Works Cited

Adachi, Paul J.C., Willoughby, Teena. “The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more than just the violence?” Aggression and Violent Behavior. Volume 16, Issue 1 (2010): 55-62. December 2010. Web. 28 March 2011.

Sherry, J. “The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis.” Human

Communication Research, Volume 27, Issue 1 (2001): 409–431. Web. 28 March 2011.

Van Rooij, Antonius J., Meerkerk, Gert-Jan., Schoenmakers, Tim M., Griffiths, Mark, Van de Mheen, Dike. “Video game addiction and social responsibility.” Addiction Research and Theory. Volume 18, Issue 5 (2010): 489–493. October 2010. Web. 28 March 2011.

Williams, Kevin D. “The Effects of Homophily, Identification, and Violent Video Games on Players.” Mass Communication and Society. Volume 14, Issue 1 (2005): 3-24. 2005. Web. 28 March 2011.

Reflection 2.2

In my revision, I included further analysis and depth into how Chua's authoritative parenting style is detrimental to her child's self-esteem and overall mental stability. I used research that I had previously found but did not originally include in my first draft to provide ethos to the paper, drawing quantitative data results to back up the claims and counterarguments I was making with factual evidence from other studies. I feel as though this helped my paper out substantially; it really gave the paper more "umph" or a kick, for lack of a better word. The persuasive aspect of the paper was heightened through this addition, and aided the paper overall.

Essay 3 Prewriting

• Many people argue that violent video games are the source of many tragedies--argue the opposing side
• Looking for a place to point the finger, to BLAME someone else for insanity?
• There have indeed been studies that prove a relation between video games and aggression
• The blame for tragedies must reside where it belongs—on the people who commit the violent acts, and should not be falsely attributed to video games. 
• do agree with the idea that parents should monitor what their kids play or watch
• addiction problems--gambling
• solutions? compromise?

Essay 2.2: Unfounded, Unproven, and...Superior?

The controversy surrounding Amy Chua’s book excerpt—first appearing in The Wall Street Journal in early January—has inspired those of both Western and Eastern descent to engage in heated debate concerning the benefits and flaws of the strict “Chinese” parenting style and the more “touchy-feely” aspects of Western parenting. The debate is merited by the potentially belligerent, ignorant, condescending, and stereotypical language Chua uses to describe Western parenting. Through her scorn and disapproval, Chua not only belittles her children gratuitously, but slowly corrodes their self-esteem and individualism in a fashion that is only detrimental to their development.


Amy Chua's arguments are not only offensive and radical to western mothers and fathers, but they instigate and reignite age-old stereotypes based on ignorant and illogical claims—most of which lack true evidence. Firstly, throughout the entire article (and even in the title) she uses the word “Chinese” or the phrase “Chinese parenting” far too comfortably and loosely. While she is of Chinese descent, she is not strictly Chinese. She is American. Why label her parenting style “Chinese,” as if to purposely ignite false stereotypes that claim all Chinese mothers use this method of parenthood? Likewise, preexisting stereotypes, like those that claim many Chinese children to be music prodigies, are proudly “confirmed” by Chua. However, these children are “false” prodigies, in that they only became so proficient at playing their respective instruments because their mother forced them to. This does not necessarily yield true “genius” attributes, as almost anyone could be as “gifted” as Chua’s children if he or she were involuntarily required to practice ceaselessly for the duration of their childhood. Because her children are seemingly “false” prodigies rather than having natural-born gifts, Chua spreads false stereotypes concerning the intelligence levels of not only her own children, but Chinese children in general.


Contrasting Chua’s unfounded conclusions about “Chinese mothers,” psychologist and author Jean Cheng Gorman, found in a study conducted in 1998 how the manner by which Chinese mothers convey their expectations are typically “subtle and rational” (79). She went on to say how “this stylistic difference, coupled with the difference in parenting philosophies, suggests the traditional concepts of authoritarian parenting may be inaccurate descriptors for Chinese parenting” (79). Gorman acknowledges that while there are many instances where Chinese parents use the “authoritarian” approach to parenting, labeling all Chinese parents as strict and unloving is wrong. Although she sardonically mocked it in her article, Chua neglected to understand one fundamental aspect about people—how each person is different and unique. Thus, assuming such stereotypes to describe parenting is inaccurate and perhaps insulting to some.


With individualism tossed aside to establish her rash parenting technique, Chua refuses to accept—or even allow—personality and uniqueness as a trait her children possess. Further sanctioning Asian stereotypes, Chua takes pride in the repression of her children’s natural abilities and intellect; she refuses to recognize her own children’s desires and passions, and instead instilled false dreams and goals in them early on. Would Chua have threatened to take lunch, dinner, Christmas, Hanukkah, or birthday presents away from them had they refused to accept elite musicianship and top grades as their goals? Most likely; in fact, it would not be a stretch to believe that she would have threatened worse. In the excerpt, Chua protests her husband’s remark about how their daughters are different people by exclaiming “‘Oh no, not this’…‘Everyone is special in their own special way,’ I mimicked sarcastically. ‘Even losers are special in their own special way’” (par. 32). Here, Chua’s tone provides context through which she is able to clearly express her attitude towards Western parenting. Sarcasm adds a layer of cynicism and hatred to her tone, overlooking individualism and free-thinking as “worthy” contenders in this great parenting-technique “battle.” By patronizing independence and individualism, she indicates an egotistical and condescending demeanor by which she and her elite prodigies can eventually rise to the top. Furthermore, she is ultimately promoting conformity and submission to her children. Raising her children to be automatons that perform on command, she expects them to act like little dogs whose only pleasure comes from the happiness and pride of their master; she is thus clearly the epitome of empathy.


Sarcasm aside, Chua prods not only her children in her parenting, but her readers in her language, disregarding and overlooking the values of Western parenting completely. It is simply too easy to counter argue her arguments. Her article is an open invitation and beacon for mothers and fathers to debate her unorthodox techniques. In response to similar reports to Chua’s techniques, Vanessa Fong, professor at Harvard University, analyzes in her early 2008 article how Chinese society is an “uneasy mixture of Confucianism, socialism, and capitalism,” and how Chinese parents attempt to instill values in their children that would enable them to fulfill the roles that are expected of them (Fong 115). She goes on to say how “they would have to be excellent and self-reliant enough to make their way to the top of the neoliberal world system, but still sufficiently devoted to their duty to bring their families and society with them in their uphill march” (Fong 115). Thus, while Chinese parents may say they force their children to practice their instrument four hours every day because they “love them” and “only wish for them to succeed,” the true meaning behind this smoke-and-mirrors excuse is how they may only wish to ride on the coattails of their children’s glory, forever known as the “source” of the children’s genius. Chinese culture is family-oriented and family-associated, so for every honorable deed a child commits, the credit slips through their fingertips and goes directly to, and embellished by, their elders. This “uphill march” perfectly describes Chua’s situation; while she outwardly claims that it is for the benefit of the child, the only real benefit is for her to feel better about herself and her parenting. However, it is clearly evident that her parenting is not as well-appreciated by her Western counterparts.

Chua’s skewed perception of successful parenting not only creates an unhealthy home life for her children, but damages their self-esteem. She dictates how “the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child” (Chua, par. 15). Chua’s models of “successful” parenting are unfounded and only belittling to her children; calling a child “fatty” or “garbage” can only be damaging to the child’s psyche. Rather than childishly taunting and insulting a child, a parent should be encouraging and optimistic to avoid damaged self-esteem, depression, or possible violence in the child. In a study on self-esteem in Chinese and American children, psychologist Lian-Hwang Chiu found that children of Chinese families obtained lower self-esteem scores on a self-report measure than did American children (9). Likewise, the study concluded that there are several major factors in contributing to the development of self-esteem: respect and acceptance from significant others, the individual’s history of success, and the response to devaluation (Chiu 10). According to the study, “Chinese children are disadvantaged as far as these factors are concerned” as a result of receiving “less respectful treatment because they live in authoritarian families where the parents make the decisions and the children are expected to obey” (Chiu 10). Finally Chiu found that “Chinese children tend to blame themselves when they fail and give credit to others when they succeed, and thereby limit their abilities to maintain self-esteem in the face of negative appraisals” (11). The findings of this study provide conclusive evidence for the detrimental effects on self-esteem of the authoritative parenting style of Chua. Limited appreciation, emphasis on expectations, and harsh punishments only undermine the child’s success. Thus, parents should encourage their children to pursue their talents and passions to achieve happiness rather than be an unhappy product of the parent.

Chua’s arguments are not only unfounded, but stereotypical and belittling. Her scorn and disapproval of her children is unnecessary and unfounded, and can really only be detrimental to their adolescence. Although I have never met his woman, I am sure she is lovely in real life, especially considering her anecdote concerning a dinner party she once attended where she made the other woman cry simply by describing her parenting techniques. Yes, I am quite positive that she is “special” in her “own special way.”

Works Cited

Chiu, Lian-Hwang. “Self-Esteem of American and Chinese Children: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” 97^th Annual Convention of American Psychological Assosiation, New Orleans, Louisiana. 1989. Web. 27 February 2011.

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 January, 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 19 February 2011.

Fong, Vanessa L. “Parent-Child Communication Problems and the Perceived Inadequacies of Chinese Only Children.” Ethos. Volume 35. Issue 1 (6 January 2008): 115-117. Web. 27 February 2011.

Gorman, Jean Cheng. “Parenting Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents.” Family Relations. Volume 47, Issue 1 (1998): p. 79. 1 January 1998. Web. 27 February 2011.

Reflection 2.1

After completing my first draft of my rebuttal to "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," there are several things I'd like to comment on. Firstly, research was both easier and more difficult than I expected. It was easier because I was able to find many relevant articles and studies--all that would aid me in my paper; however, at the same time, it was more difficult because I had a difficult time narrowing down which articles and sources that I should actually utilize in the paper. Before I started researching, I assumed that it would be difficult to find information on this topic and easier to incorporate, but I was surprised to find that the research was the easier part, and making decisions on what would work best for my argument was the more difficult part.

For my revision, there are several things I believe I should change or add to the paper. Firstly, I believe I need to discuss the idea of self-esteem more. One or more body paragraphs covering how Chua's techniques are detrimental to her children's self esteem and development would greatly improve my argument, especially considering I have already found several sources that provide quantitative observations with statistics for how this parenting style is damaging for children.

Essay 2.1: Rebuttal to "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior"

The controversy surrounding Amy Chua’s book excerpt—first appearing in The Wall Street Journal in early January—has inspired those of both Western and Eastern descent to engage in heated debate concerning the benefits and flaws of the strict “Chinese” parenting style and the more “touchy-feely” aspects of Western parenting. The debate is merited by the potentially belligerent, ignorant, condescending, and stereotypical language Chua uses to describe Western parenting. Through her scorn and disapproval, Chua not only belittles her children gratuitously, but slowly corrodes their self-esteem and individualism in a fashion that is only detrimental to their development.


Amy Chua's arguments are not only offensive and radical to western mothers and fathers, but they instigate and reignite age-old stereotypes based on ignorant and illogical claims—most of which lack true evidence. Firstly, throughout the entire article (and even in the title) she uses the word “Chinese” or the phrase “Chinese parenting” far too comfortably and loosely. While she is of Chinese descent, she is not strictly Chinese. She is American. So why label her parenting style “Chinese,” as if to purposely ignite false stereotypes that claim that all Chinese mothers use this method of parenthood? Likewise, preexisting stereotypes, like how many Chinese children are music prodigies, are proudly “confirmed” by Chua. However, these children are false prodigies; they only became so proficient at playing their respective instruments because their mother forced them to. This does not necessarily yield a “genius” status, as almost anyone could be that good if they were forced to practice that much. Because they are seemingly “false” prodigies, she is spreading false stereotypes about the intelligence levels of Chinese children—but the same cannot be said about her parenting.


Contrasting Chua’s unfounded conclusions about “Chinese mothers,” psychologist and author Jean Cheng Gorman, said in a study conducted in 1998 how the manner by which Chinese mothers convey their expectations are typically “subtle and rational” (p.79). She went on to say how “this stylistic difference, coupled with the difference in parenting philosophies, suggests the traditional concepts of authoritarian parenting may be inaccurate descriptors for Chinese parenting” (p. 79). Gorman acknowledges that while there are many instances where Chinese parents use the “authoritarian” approach to parenting, labeling all Chinese parents as strict and unloving is wrong. Although she sardonically mocked it in her article, Chua neglected to understand one fundamental aspect about people—how we are all different and unique. Thus, assuming such stereotypes to describe parenting is inaccurate and perhaps insulting to some,


Individualism is tossed aside for her rash parenting technique, as she refuses to accept—or even allow—personality and uniqueness as a trait her children possess. Further sanctioning Asian stereotypes, Chua takes pride in the repression of her children’s natural abilities and intellect; she refused to recognize her own children’s desires and passions and instead instilled false dreams and goals into their minds early on that she literally forced them to believe. Would Chua have threatened to take lunch, dinner, Christmas, Hanukkah, or birthday presents away from them had they refused to accept elite musicianship and top grades as their goals? Most likely; in fact, it would not be a stretch to believe that she would have threatened worse. In the excerpt, Chua protests her husband’s remark about how their daughters are different people by exclaiming “‘Oh no, not this’…‘Everyone is special in their own special way,’ I mimicked sarcastically. ‘Even losers are special in their own special way’” (par. 32). Here, Chua’s tone provides context through which she is able to clearly express her attitude towards Western parenting. Sarcasm adds a layer of cynicism and hatred to her tone, and overlooks individualism and free-thinking as “worthy” contenders in this great parenting-technique battle. By patronizing free-thinking and individualism, she indicates an egotistical and condescending demeanor by which she and her elite prodigies can ultimately rise to the top. Raising her robot kids to be machines to perform on command, she expects her children to act like little dogs whose only pleasure comes from the happiness and pride of their master; she is the true epitome of empathy.


Sarcasm aside, Chua prods not only her children in her parenting, but her readers in her language, disregarding and overlooking the values of Western parenting completely. It is simply too easy to counter argue her arguments. Her article is an open invitation and beacon for mothers and fathers to debate her unorthodox techniques. In response to similar reports to Chua’s techniques, Vanessa Fong, professor at Harvard University, analyzes in her article published in early 2008 how Chinese society is an “uneasy mixture of Confucianism, socialism, and capitalism,” and how Chinese parents attempt to instill values in their children that would enable them to fulfill the roles that are expected of them (Fong, p. 115). She goes on to say how “they would have to be excellent and self-reliant enough to make their way to the top of the neoliberal world system, but still sufficiently devoted to their duty to bring their families and society with them in their uphill march” (Fong, 115). Thus, it is appropriate to say that while Chinese parents say that they force their children to practice their instrument four hours every day because they love them and only wish for them to succeed, the true meaning may be in that they wish to ride on the coattails of their children’s glory. Chinese culture is family-oriented and family-associated, so for every honorable deed a child commits, the credit slips through their fingertips and goes directly to, and embellished by, their elders. This “uphill march” perfectly describes Chua’s situation; while she outwardly claims that it is for the benefit of the child, the only real benefit is for her to feel better about herself and her parenting. However, it is clearly evident that her parenting is not as well-appreciated by her Western counterparts.


Chua’s arguments are not only unfounded, but stereotypical and belittling. Her scorn and disapproval of her children is unnecessary and unfounded, and can really only be detrimental to their adolescence. Although I’ve never met his woman, I’m sure she is lovely in real life, especially considering that story at the dinner party she mentions where she made the other woman cry by describing her parenting techniques. I’m sure she is “special” in her “own special way.”

Works Cited

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 January, 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 19 February 2011.

Fong, Vanessa L. “Parent-Child Communication Problems and the Perceived Inadequacies of Chinese Only Children.” Ethos. Volume 35. Issue 1 (6 January 2008): 115-117. Web. 27 February 2011.

Su Yeonh Kim, Vivian Y. Wong. Asian American Mental Health. New York, New York. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002. Web. 27 February 2011.

Lian-Hwang Chiu. “Self-Esteem of American and Chinese Children: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” 97^th Annual Convention of American Psychological Assosiation, New Orleans, Louisiana. 1989. Web. 27 February 2011.

Guo, Philip J. “Attention: Overbearing Asian Parents.” Stanford University. 22 December 2009. Stanford University. Web. 27 February 2011.

Jean Cheng Gorman. “Parenting Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents.” Family Relations. Volume 47, Issue 1 (1998): p. 79. 1 January 1998. Web. 27 February 2011.