Mother, Superior?
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
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 don't know; the book's only received negative attention by my perception.
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.
But the analysis of the mother is just brilliant.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
Don't believe what newspapers tell you. More often than not, you're worse off after reading them.
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.
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.