What a discussion my children and I had last night around the supper table!
I read aloud an opinion piece and book review from the Boston Globe about Yale Law Professor Amy Chua's controversial new memoir. I'm sure you've heard of it by now: Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Last week, the controversy went viral on the internet after the Wall Street Journal printed an essay written by Chua titled, "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior".
Here is the front cover of the book, which includes a description:
A week after Chua's essay, The Wall Street Journal printed a response by Ayelet Waldman, called, "In Defense of the Guilty, Ambivalent, Preoccupied Western Mom". (Waldman is the author of Bad Mother).
NPR did an interview with Amy Chua, allowing her to explain herself and her book, but it didn't assuage the controversy or stop the death threats from coming in (yes, death threats!).
At supper last night, the controversy surrounding Chua's memoir lead us to question and discuss what constitutes child abuse. Have you ever taken a look at the federal definition of child abuse and neglect? It states that hitting is abuse, but then goes on to say that physical discipline, such as paddling and spanking, is not abuse so long as it is reasonable (???) and causes no bodily injury to the child. The government sets clear parameters for what constitutes neglect, but then states: These situations do not always mean a child is neglected. Emotional abuse is defined as, a pattern of behavior that impairs a child's emotional development or sense of self-worth. This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance. But, the government literature then goes on to say that it is almost impossible to prove, and therefore child protective services cannot intervene unless some other physical form of abuse is evident.
And, that is why Chua's memoir has sparked such controversy. She believes that her extreme parenting style has benefited her children--and when they become adults, they will probably agree. Chances are that they will parent their own children similarly. Waldman's permissive, "don't bother me" parenting style will likely also produce offspring that follow in her parenting footsteps. The question is--and it is a VERY important one--: at what point does a controlling "parenting style" become abusive? And at what point does a permissive "parenting style" slip into neglect?
Is it okay to hit people if they are young? Or old? Is it ever okay for someone to hit you? Is it acceptable to ignore the needs of those in your care? Is it okay to tell someone they are worthless? Stupid? Ugly? Is it okay for people to speak to you that way? Is it okay to manipulate your loved ones with threats in order to achieve the results you desire? Is it okay to say, "If you don't eat your lunch you can't have a story later?" What about, "If you don't play that piano piece perfectly, then I will burn your stuffed animals?" Where is the line? Is the line the same for every child? Or do children in other cultures deserve different lines?
When I look around at my friends and neighbors, the reality is that most of the adults I know were abused as children in some way. They are grown-up now, and functioning members of society. They have jobs. They shop and visit with friends. Even though many of them are trying to do better by their own children, some are still unaware that they are stuck in the same patterns they experienced as children. After all, they turned out okay, didn't they? I've heard these parents justify their actions by saying, "My children won't obey me otherwise." But, should the focus of the parent-child relationship be obedience? If it is, I think the result is very likely to be frustration and misery for both parent and child. Obedience to parents should be the fruit of a relationship based on love, trust, kindness, and respect. Surely these qualities are universal, crossing all cultural and economic classes.
Love, trust, kindness, and respect should be the foundation of every parenting style.