Thanks to her new book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,Yale professor Amy Chua has almost overnight become one of the most famous -- and infamous -- mothers in America. First excerpted, to wide attention, in The Wall Street Journal, her book argues that the Chinese approach toward childrearing is superior to that practiced in most American households. Chua contends that “Chinese” mothers (they don’t necessarily have to be Chinese, in her opinion, or even Asian) are unconflicted about pushing their children to achieve and feel no qualms about taking scorched-earth measures in the process -- insulting their children, for example, or meting out harsh punishment for underperformance. Western mothers, on the other hand, are more wishy-washy about achievement, are reluctant to push their children hard, and care too much about mushy concepts such as self-esteem and happiness.
It’s Chua’s belief that the Chinese way results in children who not only grow up to be high achievers, but are ultimately happier, because of their skills and achievements, than coddled Western-raised kids. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother is the story of Chua’s efforts to raise her two daughters, now 18 and 15, and mold them into academic and musical standouts.
Since almost everyone who has heard even a fragment of Chua’s argument has a strong opinion about it, I thought it couldn’t hurt to read the actual book itself. What struck me, after finishing Tiger Mother, was how incredibly lucky Chua is. Her daughters are clearly amazingly smart and musically talented. Every time she prods them into going for some big audition, they end up getting it or at least being told they have the potential to be superstars. I try to imagine the effect of this kind of parenting on a child who has learning issues, is tone deaf, or does not end up at the top of her class no matter how hard she tries. Kids need to feel accepted and valued for things other than their achievements.Yes, it is true that having high expectations for a child can empower her. But having insanely high expectations can be destructive and debilitating. I think that Chua overestimates how much of her daughters’ happy outcomes should be attributed to parental prodding and underestimates how much is due to their natural gifts. Because first she pushed and nagged her daughters and later they achieved things, she can believe that she was what made it happen. But there’s not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship there.
I also found myself wondering about Amy Chua’s attitude towards food. She writes, “Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, ‘Hey fatty--lose some weight.’” I’m not sure why anyone would want to speak to their child like that. For one thing, if hearing derisive comments about obesity were all it took to motivate people to become thin, overweight people would disappear from America. And while some children might be toughened by parental insults, others are beaten down. But my further problem with her attitude is that I wonder whether this is another way that Chua -- a thin person, judging from recent photos -- is luckier than she realizes. She gets to attribute her frame to her self-discipline and self-control when in fact she may be naturally thin. Yes, there are things we can do to control our weight, but there are limits to that, just as there are limits to our intellectual, musical, and athletic capabilities. Part of the job of being a parent is to help a child grow and develop as well as she can, but also to be satisfied if she’s not the smartest, fastest or thinnest child in her class.
Showing posts with label weight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weight. Show all posts
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obesity Prejudice in the News
Recently, colleagues on an eating-disorder message board were discussing the value of using weight-loss drugs to help reduce people's weight. (The consensus: There is very little evidence that the drugs lead to meaningful, sustainable weight loss.)
The discussion raised the question of how we see weight. Is being overweight and having a high body-mass index immediately indicative of health problems? Or is a high BMI one of several indicators of poor health? Not everyone who is overweight is unhealthy, and not everyone who is of normal weight is healthy. As one person on the mailing list put it, when we automatically consider someone with a high BMI to be unhealthy, it's as if we are saying that tall people are at a greater risk of medical problems—and then jumping to the conclusion that tallness itself is the disease we need to treat.
Soon after this discussion, I came across the following article on The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-04/fat-judges-need-not-apply/] about the candidates for the Supreme Court replacement for David Souter. The article suggests that some Democrats—who want Obama's appointments to be on the court for as long as possible—are using weight and thinness as a proxy for health and longevity. In this case, they prefer thinner candidates, such as Diane Wood and Kim McLane Wardlaw over the heavier ones, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Their belief is that because Kagan and Sotomayor are heavier, they are less healthy and likely to die younger. (Although not slim, neither woman is obese.)
This is a widely held view—that thin equals good and healthy and that fat equals bad, unhealthy and likely to die an early death. Yes, it is true that, on average, obesity is associated with a higher risk of death. But that doesn't mean that any given thin person will outlive someone who is heavier.
What I actually see in this particular Supreme Court debate is a weight prejudice doctored up as a health concern. Underneath the seeming concern about longevity is the dismissal of two women who do not completely fit social expectations for appearance.
The discussion raised the question of how we see weight. Is being overweight and having a high body-mass index immediately indicative of health problems? Or is a high BMI one of several indicators of poor health? Not everyone who is overweight is unhealthy, and not everyone who is of normal weight is healthy. As one person on the mailing list put it, when we automatically consider someone with a high BMI to be unhealthy, it's as if we are saying that tall people are at a greater risk of medical problems—and then jumping to the conclusion that tallness itself is the disease we need to treat.
Soon after this discussion, I came across the following article on The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-04/fat-judges-need-not-apply/] about the candidates for the Supreme Court replacement for David Souter. The article suggests that some Democrats—who want Obama's appointments to be on the court for as long as possible—are using weight and thinness as a proxy for health and longevity. In this case, they prefer thinner candidates, such as Diane Wood and Kim McLane Wardlaw over the heavier ones, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Their belief is that because Kagan and Sotomayor are heavier, they are less healthy and likely to die younger. (Although not slim, neither woman is obese.)
This is a widely held view—that thin equals good and healthy and that fat equals bad, unhealthy and likely to die an early death. Yes, it is true that, on average, obesity is associated with a higher risk of death. But that doesn't mean that any given thin person will outlive someone who is heavier.
What I actually see in this particular Supreme Court debate is a weight prejudice doctored up as a health concern. Underneath the seeming concern about longevity is the dismissal of two women who do not completely fit social expectations for appearance.
Labels:
eating disorder,
health,
Supreme Court,
weight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
