Part 2 of Lisa VanDamme's Response to "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior"

In this video, Lisa VanDamme takes the article to task methodologically, exposing that it is premised on a false dichotomy. Is our choice only to be high-handed or hands-off? Domineering or deadbeat? Abusive or permissive? Or is there another alternative?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• FlipShare

[DreadLaw2]

Shame you stepped over the massive gaping hole that outcomes are IRRELEVANT because Abuse is Evil and should be attacked at all times regardless. This means you also missed the massive contradiction in that a Well brought up child must be evil by abusing their own children in order to fulfill the articles definition of good parenting... and so it fails whatever.

Then you stepped over the other hole that a child doesn't get fat naturally That's caused by self esteem destroying child abuse

[VanDammeAcademy]

@DreadLaw2 Perhaps you missed that this was "Part 2"?

[nocturnalc]

I would recommend Stefan Molyneux's response here at: watch?v=u-jg90JNksE

The tiger mother is excellent at creating fearful slaves that will not be able to overcome their slavery. Slaves are not happy by the way. A world with next to no violence requires child development with no verbal, physical, sexual violence. No fear what so ever. Governments are in opposition to this because they know that's the foundation to keeping power. Fear driven by their morality.

[Sam26100]

Now that I think about it, many of the problems that your critics cite such as: gluttony, drugs, violence, etc are to a very large extent a result of parenting which supports the false dichotomy of happiness and success. Children are bored in schools because they don't honestly see the purpose for WHY they are forced to study and don't see it as a way to become more happy

THAT is the reason they do drugs, and join gangs. Self-destructive behavior is by definition not the path to happiness

[aldoreshgaramok]

I'd say I'm relatively successful. I graduated summa cum laude, and now I am a PhD sci student at a prestigious US university. I also admit, I would have cracked under Amy Chua's rulership. B average would have been fine with my parents. I slacked until I took an AP science class; then I was hooked. I know my parents are proud; not because I did it for them; but because they know I did it for me. Afterall, I will outlast them. When they're gone, all that will remain are my goals; not theirs.

[AlexanderLee1]

@Sam26100 Very good point; you are correct.

One additional point: there is a small carrot dangling in the child's future, in the form of "a good college education" which leads to a high-paying job, but he won't necessarily be happy once he gets there.

[aldoreshgaramok]

i chuckled at the "black mom" line.

[fro7k]

Part 3: Physical or mental punishment? forever offer the child of a swift and measured physical punishment, or a slightly crueler nonphysical punishment that would be simply ignoring him beyond meeting his basic needs, until it drives him nuts. You may find, as he would, that he selects the physical punishment in future.

None of this should be met out to a child who is merely erroneous, but that should be clear already.

Thanks for reading.

[fro7k]

Follow up: We punish others as adults anyway. To be unjustly treated is to receive unspent energy, which would result in a subsequent energy of anger if supressed and frustrated. Most (weak) adults today punish through passive-aggression; cruel hurtful words, inconsistently ignoring, etcetera.

[fro7k]

I think children should be punished, on certain conditions. Those are when they a) know better but b) do the thing anyway. Why would they even do that, if they know better? Because what they lack is the understanding that reality seldom mets out immediate punishment, to make the consequences real for them in a tangible way, but _people do_ (as adults the law). So it follows that if being a teacher fails you in your household, you must be the law-upholder, instead, to make the concept tangible.

[Jasonlittlex]

@DreadLaw2 Well Dread you aren't speaking clearly. You most definitely said genetics are irrelevant. Anyone can see the post. And you also made the statement about self-esteem and overeating, its in the post. So I really don't know what you are saying. Why don't you try it one more time. Why are you personally insulting me by the way? Nevermind, that's probably a pointless line of questioning. But please clarify, do you believe genetics influences personality or not.

[DreadLaw2]

@Jasonlittlex Nope, I didn't say that... Or that. You should become a proffesional strawman builder. It seems you are far more interested in attacking the fringe meaning you can take from my perfectly true statements, then in taking the majority of the content about being good parents and treating all people as human beings however young they are. God I hope you don't have children with prorities as twisted as that.

[Jasonlittlex]

@DreadLaw2 I didn't understand your last post at all. You seemed to state that genetics are irrelevant to mental functioning and psychology - that would be false. Also, you said that self-esteem and overeating are the same thing - I am not even sure what you mean by that statement. Are you claiming that all issues related to overeating and being overweight can all be reduced to self-esteem issues? That would be false as well.

[DreadLaw2]

@Jasonlittlex As with all idiotic posts, easily cast away with a simple sentence as to the bias and Absurdity of your own projections. I'm no Objectivist, not be a long shot.