Essay: Amy Chua – 'Why Chinese mothers are superior', and David Brooks, 'Amy Chua is a Wimp'

It is true that every mothers and fathers strive to give their children the finest development of knowledge so that it supports them blossom in their career. Two writers who have opposing views based on the parenting techniques of children are Amy Chua, in her article ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’? and David Brooks, in his article ‘Amy Chua is a Wimp.’ Both of them have similarities and differences in bias in their article; there are differences in their tone and the way which they utilize evidences, but both of them depend heavily on evidence to prove their points.
After reading both of Amy Chua and David Brooks’ article, it is not too difficult to conclude that both of them are in contrast in tone. In the other word, they have difference biased attitude toward the topic. Clearly, Brooks’ article comes up with objective tone. His details, which reason in order to compare two parenting practices, are mostly neutral and facts. There is no doubt that social skill are vital for kids’ success. In his article, ‘Amy Chua is a Wimp,’ David Brooks give the result of research which conducted by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon that group working are much more efficient at solving problems than individuals, ‘groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each other’s emotions’ (Brooks 58). As the result of the research, he points out that although Amy Chua’s daughters get straight As and have won a series of musical competitions, they still need to learn to adapt with real world by social skills. In his article ‘Amy Chua is a Wimp,’ Brooks declares that ‘this skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table’ (Brooks 59). In contrast, Chua’s article was written with a subjective tone. She uses words that describe her judgments on Western parenting practice. Yet, her tone is biased. It is easy to notice that her tone is self-righteous. Amy Chua compares between Western parents and Chinese mothers that, ‘all the same, even when Western parents think they’re being strict, they usually don’t come close to being Chinese mothers’ (Chua 53). Moreover, in her article, she adds ‘don’t get me wrong: It’s not that Chinese parents don’t care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It’s just an entirely different parenting model” (Chua 56). In brief, there is clearly differences in bias in Amy Chua and David Brooks’ article.
Not only they are contrast in the attitude toward the topic, but also the way that they use evidences to persuade their point is dissimilar. Amy Chua utilizes evidence to verify that Western parenting practice is wrong and not as effective as Chinese parenting practice. In her article, Chua comments, ‘Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable-even legally actionable-to Westerners, ‘Hey fatty-lose some weight.’ By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue’ (Chua 54). She also gives her observation as evidence to convince Westerners treat their kid wrongly. She adds her observation in her article ‘Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,’ ‘I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her ‘beautiful and incredibly competent.’ She later told me that made her feel like garbage’ (Chua 54). Brooks, in opposite, does not fight against to prove Chinese parenting techniques are completely wrong. However, he just want to give evidence so that Chua and Chinese, in common, understand Western parenting practices are good in some ways. In Brooks’ article, he clears, ‘So I’m not against the way Chua pushes her daughters’ (Brooks 59). Furthermore, David Brooks writes in his article ‘I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library’ (Brooks 59).
Although Brooks and Chua have difference in tone and the way they use evidence to support their point, both of them rely heavily on evidence to argue the same topic. Parents’ job is to prepare kids for the real world. Amy Chua lists many proofs as evidences to prove her parenting practice is better than Western parenting practices. In her article, she once informs the result of one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers; the result shows that ‘almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that ‘stressing academic success is not good for children’ or that ‘parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.’ By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way’ (Chua 53). Additionally, Chua acknowledges that Western parenting practice is weak when she asserts ‘Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best’ (Chua 54). Similarly, David Brooks also uses heavily evidence to convince reader that Amy Chua’s parenting techniques is not good for her children in many ways. He points out that Chua’s children may be good at mathematics and music, but they could not grow up happily. He argues, ‘Her kid can’t possibly be happy or truly creative. They’ll grow up skilled and compliant, but without the audacity to be great’ (Brooks 58). He also reasons Chua’s parenting practice is not only bad for her kid, but also hers destroy them, ‘She’s destroying their love for music. There’s a reason Asian-American women between the ages of 15 and 24 have such high suicide rates’ (Brooks 58). Undoubtedly, Both Brooks and Chua utilize many proof to prove their point of view on parenting practice between Western and Chinese.
In conclusion, Both Amy Chua and David Brooks’ bias in their article ‘Why Chinese Mothers are superior’ and ‘Amy Chua is a Wimp’ contrast to each other, also they are comparable. Ms. Chua attempts to poison the well with her negative tones and comments regarding to Western parenting. However, Mr. Brooks, in contrast, uses neutral evidences and facts to point out what is wrong in Chua’s parenting techniques. In addition, both two writers are clearly using evidence massively to explain their vision. Both Western and Chinese parents have to know which healthy foods and activities will make their kid strong, and which discipline technique will help them mature in to responsible, talented, and successful adults.