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.