I can see how if you only read the article you could come to these conclusions. It’s really only in other interviews/media that she reveals that she eventually had doubts (it’s on the book cover). I think that the article exists mostly to stir up controversy and sell her book.
While I’m sure I’ll be a more permissive parent, I do agree with one of her core concepts: “Nothing is fun until you’re good at it.” While it’s not strictly true, children should be taught the joy of mastery, because it’s a beautiful, motivating thing. While “regimentation” sounds a bit harsh, structured environments can provide children the security they need to begin exploring the world and themselves without anxiety.
Also, excellence as an individual is not a part of what’s traditionally termed “collectivist” thinking, though a lack of expressed emotion (i.e. not constantly hugging, not displaying inappropriate emotions) is. In traditional Chinese thinking, bragging in ANY form is unacceptable (which is not the case anymore). Japan, often used as the model of a “collectivist” culture, produces a lot of creativity. And what eventually changes Chua’s mind is that her younger daughter, Lulu, does think for herself, and rebells against her authoritarian parenting.
I think the only reason it could be seen as ‘matriarchal’ is that this particular woman’s husband disagrees with her. She’s actually taking on a role traditionally marked for women, which is to say being ‘in the trenches’ of home life. In other interviews, she notes that her husband’s disagreement did a lot to balance out her authoritarian parenting.
I don’t understand how her daughters are being “feminized”, is the assertion that drone-like behavior makes one feminine? Because collectivist=drone=feminine?
I disagree with practically every conclusion this guy draws, except that Chua’s revulsion towards drama is kind of strange.