"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."
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
I think - supposing that Mrs. Chua was grossly misrepresented, which seems a bit likely - that the WSJ owes her a public apology and the opportunity for a rebuttal piece.
There is a such thing as bad publicity, but there's a reason we say there isn't: Because it's mostly true. Sounds like the book is doing way better than it ever would have on Amazon without this little kerfuffle.
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.
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.
I think only the very last paragraph analyzing the WSJ's motivations overreached a bit, making them a bit too complex.
The WSJ's wants to sell papers and add space in those papers. That story just makes for great bait for readers, I mean look at us we're all discussing it.
I was with him at first, particularly bringing up college as a motivator, but the author pretty quickly loses focus and takes the analysis a bit further than he really has context to support, particularly since he's analyzing strictly from the WSJ article, not having read the book. I don't think he really needed to make tangential and dubious claims about her beliefs and her world view to make his ultimate point that the WSJ chose this article to support theirs.
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).
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
