What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it.

To get good at anything you have to

work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This
often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the
beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a
virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in
America. Once a child starts to excel at somethingwhether it's math, piano, pitching or ballethe or she gets
praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn
makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.
The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginableeven legally actionableto
Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fattylose some weight." By contrast, Western
parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their
kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image.
(Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best.
Chinese parents can say, "You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you." By contrast, Western parents
have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're
not disappointed about how their kids turned out.
I've thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big
differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.
First, I've noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children's self-esteem. They worry about
how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how
good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are
concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result
they behave very differently.
For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child.
The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test,
some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express
disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their
child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace." Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test
well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole

school. If the child's grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to
challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher's credentials.
If a Chinese child gets a Bwhich would never happenthere would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion.
The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them
with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.
Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn't get
them, the Chinese parent assumes it's because the child didn't work hard enough. That's why the solution to
substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their
child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is
plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)
Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it's
probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for
their children. (And it's true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally
tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must
spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.
By contrast, I don't think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their
parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. "Children don't choose their parents," he once said to me.
"They don't even choose to be born. It's parents who foist life on their kids, so it's the parents' responsibility to
provide for them. Kids don't owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids." This strikes me as a
terrible deal for the Western parent.
Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their
children's own desires and preferences. That's why Chinese daughters can't have boyfriends in high school and why
Chinese kids can't go to sleepaway camp. It's also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, "I got a
part in the school play! I'm Villager Number Six. I'll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to
7:00, and I'll also need a ride on weekends." God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.
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.

Here's a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on
a piano piece called "The Little White Donkey" by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute
you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its masterbut it's also incredibly difficult
for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.
Lulu couldn't do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But
whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally,
the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.
"Get back to the piano now," I ordered.
"You can't make me."
"Oh yes, I can."
Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it
to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again.
Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't
have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the
Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah
presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was
purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being
lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.
Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Luluwhich I wasn't even doing, I was just motivating herand
that he didn't think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn't do the technique
perhaps she didn't have the coordination yethad I considered that possibility?
"You just don't believe in her," I accused.
"That's ridiculous," Jed said scornfully. "Of course I do."
"Sophia could play the piece when she was this age."
"But Lulu and Sophia are different people," Jed pointed out.

"Oh no, not this," I said, rolling my eyes. "Everyone is special in their special own way," I mimicked sarcastically.
"Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger. I'm willing to put
in as long as it takes, and I'm happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them
pancakes and take them to Yankees games."
I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right
through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The
house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I
began to have doubts.
Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came togetherher right and left hands each doing their
own imperturbable thingjust like that.
Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more
confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.
"Mommy, lookit's easy!" After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn't leave the piano.
That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed
"The Little White Donkey" at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, "What a perfect piece for
Luluit's so spunky and so her."
Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a
parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's
nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.
There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people
indifferent to their kids' true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their
children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their
children turn out badly. I think it's a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what's best for
their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.
Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions,
supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the
Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what
they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

-What are the characteristics of Tiger Mother? Koreans share an apocryphal myth about how mother Tigers push
their cub down the cliff, electing to raise only the ones that climb back up. This is a good way of thinking about
Tiger Parenting. Under a Tiger Mother, the Tiger Cub will go through what appears to be hellish, almost always
against his own desire. Tiger Parenting demands excellence -- almost exclusively academic excellence, punctuated
by high-brow hobby such as classical music -- from Tiger Cubs.
The precise extent to which Tiger Moms define excellence is worth mentioning. To Tiger Moms, the word
excellence means its purest definition, not the watered-down mark of excellence given out for simply showing
up. Excellence means perfection, or as close to it as humanly possible. Excellence means all As. Excellence means
top awards, first place.
It must be noted that this demand for excellence is not out of some sadistic desire, but out of a staunch belief that
excellence CAN be achieved. Prof. Chua described it well in her book: Chinese parents demand perfect grades
because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn't get them, the Chinese parent assumes it's
because the child didn't work hard enough.
Because excellence is constantly within reach, failure to achieve excellence always reduced to a single reason:
laziness. And laziness is the greatest sin for Tiger Mothers. Prof. Chua explains: That's why the solution to
substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their
child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. Many people are aghast at this, because
they lack the imagination to think that parents who love their children would act this way. But for Tiger Moms, not
treating your child this way is a sign that they do not love their children. It means that they quit believing in their
children, as there is no more potential to mine. This last point is very important. All the toughness of Tiger Moms is
backstopped by love and nothing else. All the pain inflicted is not designed to kill. They are designed to strengthen.

Can Any Parenting Method be Superior?

We have to deal with a threshold question first. Is it possible to say one parenting method is superior over another?
This is, in fact, one of the most common objections over Prof. Chuas story I have seen. Every child is different,
the objection would go. It makes no sense to have a single hard-and-fast rule for a myriad of different children and
a myriad of different situations. Discussing what method is superior is pointless -- individuals must be treated like
individuals.
This objection seems to make intuitive sense. It also feeds right into American societys desire for individuality. We
all want ourselves, and our children even more so, to be the special snowflake -- different from everyone else,
unable to be reduced to a formula.
But this objection is wrong. It is eminently possible for us to decide which method among many is superior. In fact,
we do it all the time. Take, for example, the speed limit of 55 miles per hour for most freeways. Lets have two
radically different drivers -- NASCAR champion Jeff Gordon, and my 94-year-old grandmother who, despite being
possibly the most energetic nonagenarian ever (still can walk on her own, has clear memory and carries a
conversation without any problem,) would be unbelievably dangerous behind the wheel. Now, suppose Gordon
drives on the freeway at 85 mph, my grandmother at 55 mph. Jeff Gordon makes a living by routinely driving faster
than 100 mph without causing any injury to himself or others. He is far safer at 85 mph than my grandmother at 55
mph, who might be driving straight but may doze off and cause a fatal accident at any moment.
But if Jeff Gordon and my grandmother were both on the road, there is no question that the police would pull over
and ticket Gordon for speeding while my grandmother gets a free pass. In doing so, the police failed to take into
account Gordons individual brilliance at driving, or my grandmothers miserable lack of it. The speed limit just

caused a suboptimal result because it failed to take individuality into account.

So, is the speed limit pointless? Should we get rid of speed limit, which holds Jeff Gordon back from getting to
where he wants to be as quickly as he can, while failing to eliminate the ticking time bomb that is my grandmother
on the road? (I should tell you at this point that thankfully, my grandmother has never driven anything in her life -except for her children, who respectively turned out to be school principal, successful businesswoman, professor,
nurse and doctor.) Is it futile to discuss whether having a speed limit is superior to not having it, because individual
results may vary?
Of course not. Whether or not you are a fan of a 55 mph speed limit, you can still rationally and reasonably discuss
whether having a speed limit is superior to not having it. And the reason for your ability to do so is simple: superior
systems create superior results. They may not create superior results for every single individual instances.
Occasionally the Jeff Gordons of the world might be shortchanged. But the overall trend is undeniable -- having a
speed limit is superior to not having one, because the speeding cars are generally more dangerous. Our streets are
safer with speed limits. That makes having speed limits superior.
Truly, this is how it works for assessing any system in the world. Winston Churchill famously said, It has been
said that democracy is the worst form of government -- except all the others that have been tried. Churchills point
is that while democracy may not be perfect in all situations, it still does a better job approximating perfection than
all other governing systems thus tried. (And history proved him right.) Assessing any system or method -- public
policy, dieting system, medical treatment method -- all depends on assessing the overall results, not individual
results. It makes no sense to say that all such assessment must stop because they fail to take individuality into
account. If we were to demand that every system and method cater to every last one of our individual quirks, we
would paralyze ourselves from even following a cooking recipe. (The recipe calls for a stick of butter, but I only
have half a stick of butter! This recipe is terrible!)
The Case for Tiger Moms
If we can accept the premise that a system that yields superior results is superior, the case for Tiger Moms becomes
clear: Tiger Moms create superior results.
The relevant numbers for Asian Americans might be an old hat for some readers, but staggering nonetheless. Put
simply, Asian Americans go to better schools, get better jobs and live a more stable life. Based on 2000 census,
nearly 50 percent of Asian Americans have college and graduate degree, double of Caucasians who is the next
highest group broken down by ethnicity. Despite being less than 5 percent of Americans, Asian Americans make up
17% of incoming Harvard freshmen. (And 29% of Harvard medical school.) Despite being less than 15 percent of
Californians, Asian Americans make up 45 percent of incoming UC Berkeley freshmen. Asian Americans are most
likely to be in a high-skill occupation -- the quintessential Asian doctorlawyerengineer. The median Asian American
household income leads all ethnic groups of America. Asian Americans are more likely to be married, and live with
their spouses.
This is a great achievement by any measure, but consider the degree of difficulty -- Tiger Moms achieved all this,
despite battling still-present race-based discrimination, xenophobia against immigrants, and significant language
barriers. And this is before getting into the general state of poverty and dearth of cultural capital of the first
generation immigrants. Asian American parents did not have the luxury of sending their children to summer camp
or the ability to read and comprehend Dr. Spocks child-rearing techniques. They were raising their children while
often putting in 100-plus hours per week in their jobs. They only had the Tiger Parenthood, and it worked.
The analogy with speed limits provides insight as to why Tiger Parenting is superior. Having speed
limits is superior because in most cases, a car traveling at a high speed is far more dangerous than a car traveling at
a low speed. Even Jeff Gordon traveling at 85 mph is more dangerous than Jeff Gordon traveling at 55 mph.
Similarly, Tiger Parenting is superior because in most cases, giving relentless effort while squelching own desire to
get lazy and quit creates the best result.

This is absolutely not to say that Tiger Parenting is perfect. It is superior, but superior is not the same thing as
perfect. In fact, off the top of my head, I can suggest three improvements to Tiger Parenting:
1. I think Tiger Moms should be educated about mental health issues, in particular learning disabilities. Not every
mental health issue is the namby-pamby bullshit about self-esteem. Tiger Parenting is about maximizing potential.
Then it is a good idea to have a reasonable expectation on where the maximum line is. This can be done at the same
time as demanding from children a lot more than what they would demand out of themselves. (Prof. Chua has a
sister with a Down Syndrome who was a two-time gold medalist in swimming in the Special Olympics. It is entirely
possible for Tiger Moms to maximize the potential of those who are not naturally "gifted.")
2. Tiger Moms could put more emphasis on sports. (And in fact many do, judging from young Asian American
tennis and golf players.) Often, physical toughness begets mental toughness. Also, school sports is one of the few
remaining areas of American schooling in which competition is encouraged and short-term sacrifice is demanded
for long-term benefits. In fact, Americas Sports Dads may well be the last indigenous breed of American Tiger
Parents. (Sports Dads are to be distinguished from Soccer Moms, who merely shuttle their children to practice and
only give praises. Sports Dads are like Tim McGraw from Friday Night Lights -- they demand perfection from their
children and rip into them if they do not achieve it.) This can be done while getting straight As, as many Tiger Cubs
end up doing.
3. Tiger Moms could put more emphasis on part-time jobs. That American childhood education emphasizes actually
experiencing real life as opposed to preparing for the real life in a hothouse deserves attention. (Unfortunately, this
proud American tradition is declining. Only 33% of American teenagers -- aged 16 to 19 -- are on the labor force.)
Nothing prepares for having a job in the real world like, well, having a job. In particular, working at a service
industry gives one a perspective in life that is difficult to gain from any other experience. This can also be done
while getting straight As.
These suggestions are not balancing discipline and freedom like many commentators facilely urge. This is not a
50-50 mixture as the term balance suggests. It is a complementary addition to an already superior system. Think
of it this way: you can make a sports car go faster by adding an aerodynamic spoiler. But even without a spoiler, a
sports car will still go pretty fast. Without a sports car, the spoiler goes nowhere.
Objections to Tiger Moms -- and Why They are Wrong
Other objectors to Tiger Parenting apparently accept that one can determine a systems superiority by examining the
systems results. Instead, they object on the basis that Tiger Parenting actually does not produce superior results.
There are two major objecting arguments -- the first I will call roboticity argument, the second I will call
happiness argument.
Roboticity
Roboticity argument essentially makes the case that Tiger Parenting creates robotic children. The argument goes
something like this: Tiger Moms excessive focus on academics creates children who might have stellar academic
credentials, but lacking in many important intangibles. Those important intangibles include leadership, social skills,
creativity or critical thinking. The Tiger Cubs end up being mechanical wonders, performing great feats without joy
or passion.
There are many ways to prove this wrong, but the easiest way is to give the examples of numerous Asian Americans
who directly contradict that argument. You want leadership? Eric Shinseki, a former four-star general who dared to
stand up against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the number of troops necessary in Iraq was oozing with
leadership. So were Chang-Lin Tien, a China-born former chancellor of University of California, Berkeley, and Jim
Yong Kim, former director of WHO HIV/AIDS Department and the current president of Dartmouth College. Social
skills? I am sure that Connie Chung and JuJu Chang did not become prominent newswomen by being social stiffs.
Creativity? Need I remind you that the current face of classical music is Yo-Yo Ma? Or the canons of American
literature include groundbreaking works by Amy Tan? Or every bride in America wants Vera Wang wedding dress?

Or I.M. Peis glass pyramid gracefully decorates the Louvre? You want innovations? How about Jerry Yang, who
came up with the first meaningful web portal in Yahoo, which served as a model for Google? Or Dr. David Ho,
who was the 1996 Time Magazines Man of the Year for pioneering the use of HIV inhibitors?
The foregoing are not exceptions to the rule; they are examples of the rule. The examples contrary to the roboticity
argument is so numerous (and disproportionately huge compared to the number of Asian Americans) that the
argument becomes laughable. (People I did not get to mention: Seiji Ozawa, Far East Movement, Maxine Hong
Kingston, Changrae Lee, Jason Wu, Richard Chai, Norman Mineta, Elaine Chao, David Chang, Roy Chung, Preet
Bharara, Ken Jeong, John Cho, half of Juilliard School and numberless everyday Asian Americans with creativity
and leadership.) Step out into countries that predominantly use the Tiger Parenting method, and the roboticity
argument becomes even more ludicrous. Does Nintendo -- a company that made its fortune by telling a story about
two Italian plumbers who eat mushrooms to grow big -- lack creativity? Did the students of Korea generate waves
and waves of protest, often at the cost of their lives, to topple Koreas authoritarian regime (implicitly endorsed by
the U.S.) because they always listen to authority and lack critical thinking?
In the face of such overwhelming counter-examples, the roboticity argument lives on because of one reason: sour
grapes. In the face of obvious success, people feel the need to cut down and find faults. It does not matter that there
are a thousand examples of Tiger Cubs success. They are all trumped by the argument that starts with, I know this
one Chinese guy... or I have been to Korea once... Again, Asian Americans are not the only Tiger Cubs, but they
are the only ones that are obviously visible as Tiger Cubs. And when Asian Americans do everything America has
expected from her immigrants -- work hard, get successful and not be a burden on the society -- suddenly, the
goalposts are moved. Asian American success is somehow not real, because it is apparently a robotic achievement.
There are two lessons to be learned from Tiger Cubs success. First, not every Tiger Cub turns into a
doctorlawyer. A Tiger Cub with true passion is stopped by nothing, including a Tiger Mom. Vera Wang was an
Olympic-level figure skater when she quit and went into fashion design. Ken Jeong of the Hangover fame was a
doctor before becoming a full-time comedian. Second, and more important, relentless effort works well in every
context, including those that require leadership, creativity, innovation, anything. Tiger Moms do not squelch
creativity; they press down until the rubber meets the road by cultivating the basic mastery and the tenacity not to
quit. In fact, that tenacity is what distinguishes hobbyists from professionals. Professionals pursue perfection
regardless of external conditions, while hobbyists pursue something only as long as it is fun to do so. Tiger Cubs are
professionals. Hobbyists can only hate from their armchairs.
Happiness
The happiness argument usually goes like this: There is no way children could be happy growing up as Tiger
Cubs. Kids need time to be kids. You cannot force them to follow your idea of happiness, because they will hate
themselves when they fall short. They have to be allowed to find what makes them happy on their own, and achieve
that happiness. In essence, the happiness argument talks about achieving happiness by achieving goals that are
individually discovered and set. Material/outward success matters only to the extent it contributes to this internal
self-satisfaction.
But consider this: if internally set happiness is ultimately what matters, what is wrong with being hooked up to a
morphine drip and an intravenous tube, and be happy until we die? I personally have no experience with morphine,
but a very good friend of mine who underwent a major surgery used to say being on morphine was the most
incredible feeling. In fact, my friend liked morphine so much that one day, his wife discovered him lying motionless
on his couch. He had waken up in the middle of the night to use heroin, another opiate like morphine, and
overdosed. Interestingly, I did not hear anyone say at his funeral, At least Shaun died doing what he loved, or At
least Shaun died happy. Maybe I was too busy crying with everyone who were lamenting the loss of a promising
young attorney, husband, son and friend.
If an objector said, But drug addiction is not true happiness, she is walking right into my point: a huge part of
true happiness is set externally, and has nothing to do with individual desires. It is not nearly enough to float
mindlessly in contentment, like a drug addict would. There are immutable, objective and externally-imposed

requirements for happiness. Without satisfying those requirements, happiness is nothing other than delusion, no
different from a drug-induced high that comes crashing down when the harsh reality inevitably intervenes.
What are some of the external requirements? A sense of achievement that will live on beyond ones own life is a big
factor. Meeting an intellectual challenge tackling a sophisticated problem is conducive to happiness. So is a sense of
triumph, not necessarily over other people but over your own weakness and short-sighted desire to do only what is
easy. So is a sense of feeling helpful and useful to other people.
Also crucial is money, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. A person without money stands naked before
all the elements in life. Bad things happen in life, and money wards off much of unhappiness caused by those bad
things. If you get injured or fall sick, you have to have enough money to visit the doctor and make yourself healthy
again. (And your society has the obligation to make that visit affordable, but thats a separate topic.) Without money
saved up for retirement, your sunset years are guaranteed to be crushingly miserable.
In right situations, money can even buy a bit of happiness -- not necessarily the permanent kind, but happiness
nonetheless. Last month, I paid for my parents winter vacation to Florida as a Christmas present. I called them
every day to make sure they were having a good time in their well-earned vacation. My mother loved the natural
beauty of Everglades National Park, and my father enjoyed the scenic drive from Miami to Key West. And I was
exceedingly happy that they were having a good time. Now tell me my money did not buy me happiness. I dare you.
When these external requirements are considered, one thing becomes clear: it is actually Tiger Parenting that does
the superior job at providing these external requirements for happiness. Opponents of Tiger Parentings have to
concede that Tiger Cubs usually end up gaining a sophisticated, professional job and earning above-average income.
That much is easily more than halfway toward happiness.
But Tiger Moms also instill the internal requirements for happiness as well, albeit tacitly and indirectly. One such
requirement is mental toughness, the ability to handle difficulties without paralyzing oneself with stress or fear. To
this day, it is my source of strength that I survived one year of my hellish high school in Korea, which began at 7
a.m. and ended at 10:30 p.m. (Yes you read that correctly.) Trust me on this -- if and when I go into detail about
what I went through at my school, Amy Chuas parenting will look like a soft cuddly teddy bear. After experiencing
that, there was no task too difficult in life -- including learning a whole new language at age 16 and learn it well
enough to become an attorney.
Mental toughness feeds directly into another critical internal requirement for happiness: the ability to endure the
short-term challenges for the eventual gratification. Prof. Chua made this point very well: "What Chinese parents
understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on
their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences." In the post about language
learning (which is one of the most popular post ever on this blog,) I made essentially the same point: "[T]here are
certain things about contemporary America drives the Korean crazy, and this is one of them: the idea that the
process of learning is somehow supposed to be fun. Just drop it. Forget it. What is fun is the result of learning the
infinite amount of fun when you finally put the finished product to use." And truly, the stupid insistence that every
last moment of life must be fun and happy could be the greatest reason of the culture of indolence we have in
America now.
Tiger Moms also instill the value of the family. Tiger Cubs might hate their parents and hate the work when young,
but they almost always recognize the value of effort and sacrifice of their parents as they come to age. After all, it is
not a picnic to be a Tiger Mom either. The Tiger Cubs, in turn, end up concentrating on their family, which is the
surest source of happiness in all of human history.
At this point, we should take a look at a major strain of the happiness objection -- the argument that says Tiger
Moms cause suicide.
But is this right? Here is a presentation by Prof. Noh on the topic. Nowhere does she say Asian American women
age 15-24 have the highest rate of suicide among all women. She does say this: Asian American women, ages 15-

24 years, have had the second highest suicide rate across race for the same age group from 1990 to 2003. And the
available data bears this out. At p. 254 of this CDC report, it shows that Asian American women age 15-24 have a
suicide rate of 4.0 per 100,000 people, second only to Native American women age 15-24 who have a suicide rate of
8.9 (!) per 100,000. Is 4.0 per 100,000 the second highest rate? Yes. But it is only slightly higher than the next
leading group (white, non-Hispanic), which has the rate of 3.5 per 100,000. And this is before taking into account
that there are few Asian American women, relatively speaking. Even just a few more suicides from Asian American
women cause a huge spike in the ratio.
But before we even parse the numbers, consider -- why do we only care about Asian American women, aged 15-24?
Asian American women aged 15-24 are not the only ones who have Asian parents! In fact, when all age groups are
considered, the suicide rate for Asian Americans is less than half of national average. (See pp. 202-205.) If parenting
causes suicides (which is already somewhat dubious a proposition given the many intervening factors of life,) the
greatest culprit for suicides in America is not the Tiger Moms -- it is the parents of white, non-Hispanic Americans,
who commit suicide at the rate of 13.2 per 100,000 people, highest among all races in America.
We have to look at the flip side as well, because non-Tiger Parenting is even poorer at preventing other kinds of
self-inflicted death, although such death might not be intended. It stands to reason that Tiger Cubs, who are taught
self-discipline and boundaries, would not develop bad habits that ultimately kill them. And the available data bears
this point out. Take drug overdose, for example. Look under Poisoning, which includes drug overdose. Asian
Americans poison themselves to death at the rate of 1.4 per 100,000, staggeringly low compared to 9.1 per 100,000
for overall population. If we expand the circle into other undesirable behaviors that might not necessarily cause
death, the case for Tiger Moms gets even better. Ever seen a big population of hyper-obese Asian Americans? Or
pregnant Asian American teenagers?
Why You Should be a Tiger Mother
To recap: Through their strict methodology, Tiger Mothers are superior because they create superior results. Tiger
Cubs go to good schools, get good jobs and live a more stable family life, despite what appears to be emotional
abuse. Tiger Cubs do so without sacrificing leadership, creativity or critical thought as stereotypes suggest. Finally,
Tiger Cubs are better equipped for happier lives, and are less likely to engage in self-destructive behavior.
But maybe I didnt convince you. Maybe you still think that all you want for your children is for them to be happy
within their own terms. Those terms do not have to be as extreme as getting hooked up to a morphine tube for the
rest of their lives, but they do not have to be becoming a doctorlawyerengineer and spend 80-hour work week in
exchange for a little more money either. They might end up achieving greatness if they are so inclined, but it is ok if
they do not. It's their life, not yours. As long as they are happy, it does not matter.
If you still think this way, I will give you one last reason why you should be a Tiger Mother.
So here it goes: you should be a Tiger Mother because your country needs you to.
I emigrated from a country that had its own way of happiness once upon a time. Only 150 years ago, when America
was finishing the construction of transcontinental railroad, Korea was still living up to its nickname -- the Hermit
Kingdom. Secluded from the rest of the world, it had been enjoying 200 years of peace. Founded under Confucian
principles, Joseon Dynasty devoted its best and the brightest minds to perfect the sophisticated and esoteric
Confucian theories by which the kingdom would be ruled, economy and technology be damned. Did Koreans enjoy
happiness as we envision the term now? Certainly not. But it was a country satisfied in its own way of life,
established over centuries of marching to its own drumbeat. That self-satisfaction was not good enough to prevent
Koreans from losing their country. And it took 36 years and a million dead for Koreans to regain their country, only
to lose half to a communist dictatorship that again killed another million.
Americans do not know what it is like to lose their country, because they never experienced it. But Koreans do; they
lost their country twice in the last 100 years.
I am not telling you this story because I fear the permanent decline and disappearance of America in the near future,

although I would be lying if I said I am totally unconcerned about the possibility that the generation of my fellow
Americans are taking steps toward that direction. No, I am telling you this story because I want you to understand
the strength of motivation that propels Americas competitors. Chinas story is more or less the same as Koreas.
Who do you think will win in a race -- a person motivated by the desire to be happy, or a person motivated by the
desire to fend off death?
You might object, as many on my blog have previously objected: Our children are precious. We do not want to
debase them by making them mere cogs in the economy. Koreans of mid 19th century said exactly the same thing:
We do not want to debase ourselves by submitting to anything other than Confucian ideals. Then Koreans were
proven wrong. It was not possible to ignore the world. Ignoring the world only brought backwardness, decline,
invasion and subjugation. Pursuing their own ideals of happiness only led to the ruination of that happiness.
Knowing this, Koreans are desperate not to repeat their past. There is a lesson here, and Americans need not
actually experience Korea's level of decline to learn that lesson.
America became the greatest country in the world by generating the greatest wealth and power in the world. We
Americans have happiness now, not because we decided to be happy, not because our parents did not abuse us
emotionally. We have happiness because our previous generation sacrificed and worked hard in the face of
adversity. We are the products of the American Tiger Mothers that came before us. We owe it to them not to piss
away their legacy. So for god's sake, please stop being so afraid of hurting your child's feelings. You are an adult;
you know better than her. She is strong enough to take whatever you can throw at her, because she is a Tiger Cub.