reflection 3.1

This paper might have been the hardest I've had to write. I had a very difficult time really understanding my topic and being able to do thorough research. I felt like I kept getting off track and had many "what am I talking about?" moments. Arguing in a rogerian style was also harder then expected. Being polite, and empathetic while also trying to convey a point took a lot of effort. I think I have a lot to work on for my final draft. I have to focus on sticking with my argument and keeping the flow through each paragraph. I'm actually disappointed on how bad I feel my draft came out. I wasn't able to write as concisely as I would have liked to and I'm not exactly sure if I was able to make my points valid.

essay 3.1

Grace Park

Capitalism and the free market is the base of the American economy. Seeing our country is established on certain troths that allow us to preserve our freedom and pursuit of happiness, I understand why so many of us favor American capitalism. Our freedom embodies the control of one’s self and as our country diverged from a socialist to a complete capital economy, we profited in a complete ownership of our freedom. And with this independence it is the individual’s responsibility to understand and push oneself to succeed in this capital economy. As capitalism is the segregation of economy and government, I empathize with extreme capitalist who may argue: society’s assumption that there should be a correlation between economic achievement and social justice seems inappropriate. 

Walter E. William’s describes the integrity of our capital economy in an article in which he claims

“… Economic efficiency and greater wealth should be promoted as simply a side-benefit of free markets. The intellectual defense of free-market capitalism should focus on its moral superiority. In other words, even if free enterprise were not more efficient than other forms of human organization, it is morally superior because it is rooted in voluntary relationships rather than force and coercion, and it respects the sanctity of the individual.” (Williams)

Morally, I agree with capitalists, that ideal capitalism gives complete freedom. It allows the individual to own private property and withstand government coercion that enables them to redistribute one’s wealth. I understand the inherent freedom the unrestricted market gives us to become entrepreneurs and innovators.

In any structured economy, there will always be subgroups of upper, middle and the lower class. But the issue in our extreme capital economy is the colossal difference between these subgroups. Sadly, the polarity between the upper and lower class is a degradation to the equality and social mobility our government and financial system stood for. With wealth determining social class in our society, and 48% of the economies wealth being profited by the top 5% of our population (Johnson), our uncapped capital economy is making the rich wealthier and the poor live in penury.

Pro capitalists celebrate the notion that everyone can achieve the American dream (even ones living in penury), but is it possible for many in our society to achieve such success solely through our tenacity today? As wealth is also the determining factor of where one lives, the segregation between the rich and poor also determines the types of education one may be able to afford. Even in the early stages of life, the dissociation between the classes allows the wealthy superior education in order to stay in the top five percent while urban schools keep the pauperized poor.  Jonathan Kozol (a well known writer through his books on the American education system) in his article Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid, he explains children in urban settings are not given the proper necessities to be educated. He goes on to give frightening statistics

“In 48 percent of high schools in the nation's 100 largest districts, which are those in which the highest concentrations of black and Hispanic students tend to be enrolled, less than half the entering ninth-graders graduate in four years. Nationwide, from 1993 to 2002, the number of high schools graduating less than half their ninth-grade class in four years has increased by 75 percent. … There are 120 high schools in New York, enrolling nearly 200,000 minority students, where less than 60 percent of entering ninth-graders even make it to twelfth grade.”

In our competitive economy, college degrees are becoming a necessity, but as public education systems are failing to help students (living in urban settings) achieve even their high school diploma, the playing field for the rich and poor are disparate to begin with. As 37.3 million Americans live in poverty, 14 million of which are children (Eitzen 31), our extreme capital economy has provided us with the highest-ranking poverty rate in the industrialized world. (Eitzen 31) Many of our youth are struggling with the stress and the dehumanizing lifestyle poverty entails. Living in penury they’ve also stripped of a proper education due to their demographics. For many these students, it is not their intelligence or the lack of motivation they posses keeping them from achieving the American dream, but the lack of education and poverty they struggle with.

The beauty of capitalism is it allows the American dream to be possible for anyone, unbiased of the social class they were born into. But our extreme capital economy has stripped the middle and lower class of this possibility. As corporations have monopolized our deregulated economy a large portion of the profit are expended into the pockets of investors and CEOs. In a recent poll it’s revealed that the average American CEO makes 431 times as much as the average worker in compensated and on average are paid 75% more then their European compeers. (Eitzen 5) Deregulated markets do allow for corporations to profit immensely and I feel would be beneficial if workers were able to profit also. But as Heiner in his book Social Problems an Introduction to Critical Constructionism exclaims “millions of American workers are being- or face the threat of being- ‘downsized’ because corporations seek to ‘trim the fat,’ American workers and workers all over the world are facing cuts in their benefits.” (Heiner 17)

Capitalism promotes a generally equal opportunity for everyone in which I agree with. The issue is the extreme capitalism, where the wealth distribution has stained the troths of equality and ability to pursue happiness that our nation stands for with ignominy. Eitzen asks the questions “Social policy is about design, setting goals, and determining the means to achieve them. Do we want to regulate and protect more as the well-developed welfare states do, or should we do less? Should we created and invest in policies and programs that protect citizens from poverty, unemployment, and the high cost of health care or should the market economy sort people into winners, players, and losers?” (Eitzen 11) Personally, I would respond yes. Although I agree with what capitalism entails, social policies that semi-regulate markets, promote a better distribution of wealth and replenish the middle class. This would also lower poverty rates, and allow families to move out of urban settings, providing children with better opportunities. A more proportionate distribution of capital (where the top 5% does not own 48% of our economic wealth) would level out our economic playing field in which one has the freedom of social mobility and economic prosperity unbias of their social class.

Work Cited

Heiner, Robert. Social Problems: an Introduction to Critical Constructionism. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Eitzen, D. Stanley. Solutions to Social Problems: Lessons from Other Societies. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon, 2007. Print.

Waddan, Alex. "The US Safty Net, Inequality and the Great Recession." The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 18.3. JSTOR. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.

Johnson, Allan G. "Why Is There Poverty?" Allan G Johnson. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Kozol, Jonathan. "Still Separate, Still Unequal: America's Educational Apartheid." Harper's Magazine 1 Sept. 2005. Print.

Reflection 2.2

I think I did better on this revision. I looked over my grammar and had a friend review it too which helped a lot. The challenge was finding more relevant sources, I felt like my sources helped me defend my argument in my rough draft but I was able to find other scholarly journals to improve my essay. The only real concern I had was being able to really explain my quotes. I really hope I did better!

Essay 2.2

Grace Park

3.2.11

Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior

In Amy Chua’s editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior, Chua stereotypes thousands of Asian mothers and their attitudes on child rearing based entirely through her personal experience. Her bias article, (as she herself is a Chinese parent) gives personal anecdotes of her strict methods of parenting and Chua concludes from it, her authoritative system is what makes her a better parent than other western mothers. Her generalizations seem not only to hold any affirmation but from a personal perspective (as a child of growing up with Asian parents) seem to be exaggerated. Although Chua is not completely wrong since non-western mothers do hold a different view on parenting, her article seems to be three-page testament boasting her cold, mothering skills.

Chua’s entire article is based on assumptions and stereotypes of non-western mothers. She begins by stating “Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.” (Chua, 2) She fails to provide any valid evidence for her supposition other than going on to describe her relations with her daughters. From which the reader can conclude, Chua feels she spends more time pushing her daughters then other parents rather than the subgroup of Asian parents she’s mentioned.  Chua later iterates the strict rules implemented on her children that do not allow for them to attend sleepovers or be in school plays in order for them to become academically successful. Ruth K. Chao Ph.D an associate professor and the University Of California explains

“parenting concepts ‘authoritarian’ and ‘restrictive’ are not very relevant for Asians, although they may be important understanding European-American parenting. Indeed, these concepts are more pertinent to American parenting values in which ‘strictness’ is sometimes equated with manifestations of parental hostility, aggression, mistrust, and dominance. For Asians, parental obedience and some aspects of strictness may be equated with parental concern, caring, or involvement. Just as important, for Asians parental control may not always involve ‘domination’ of children per se, but rather a more organizational type of control for the purpose or goal of keeping the family running smoothly and fostering family harmony.” (Chao, 1112)

Although Chua’s assumption that Asian parents are just as “strict” as she is holds some validity, her portrayal of an Asian mothers, as authoritative parents seems over exaggerated. Due to culture differences, Asian parents may have more involvement in their children’s lives but the harsh treatment portrayed in Chua’s anecdotes are not a clear representation of the type of relationship all Asian parent’s have with their children.

Later in her article, Chua makes her claim that “Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t.” (Chua, 3) She goes on to explain that Asian child rearing methods allow parents to be frank with their children where western parents are more cautious and tiptoe around “sensitive” subjects. She reasons with her audience that being blunt with children is a better tactic through a story a friend has told her. She exclaims her western friend felt “like garbage” (Chua, 3) when her father gushed about her. She goes on to give an example of her “better” methods. Forcing her daughter to play the piano against her will for an ungodly amount of time, Chua exclaims her daughter (after many bickering matches) was happy her mother was so forceful. Chua through her article makes the assumption that all Asian parents are blatantly honest (to the point of cruelty) to their children out of love. She claims all Asian parents (like herself) use an authoritative mothering tactic. Contrary to Chua’s claim, Dr. Jean Cheng Gorman (a licensed psychologist from NYU) in her article Parenting Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents (Published by the National Council on Family Relations) found in her studies “none of the mothers made any ultimatums, but rather, discussed the matters with their children in a rational manner and left the final decision up to their children.” (Gorman, 75) Although there must be cases of very strict Asian parents such as Chua, there are also strict parents of western ideology. Her claim seems to be an overstatement and unfair as she speaks for million of Asian immigrant mothers.

            As a daughter of two Korean immigrants, I’ve noticed several cultural differences from my peers with parents of western ideals. But the only similarities I see in my mother’s parenting skills and Amy Chua’s is my mother pushed me to get good grades in school. Although my grades came first, as long as I was able to maintain a B average, (which Chua mentions would never happen) my parents allowed me to participate in extracurricular activities such as lacrosse, field hockey, fencing, volleyball and piano. Like many Asian children, I attended tutoring sessions and had a very full academic schedule besides school, but unlike Chua my mother has never called me distressing names if I did poorly in school, nor has she ever punished me to practice my piano. Immigrating to a foreign country, and adapting to a culture they were not accustomed too, my parents have faced a lot of hardship. Understanding that, I feel insulted on their behalf as Chua gives herself the right to talk on behalf of all Chinese, Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian immigrant parents. I was never brought up in such a strict atmosphere and for her personal mothering skills to discredit such a vast amount of mothers (who may disagree with her parenting skills) in a popular journal is harrowing.

            Professors Chin-Yau Lin (University of New York at Gemeseo) and Victoria R. Fu (Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University) in their journal A Comparison of Child-rearing Practices among Chinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American Parents, analyze the cultural differences of the three subgroups. They conclude many of the Chinese parental values come from Confucian principles. They go on to explain “Definitive views on parental control, obedience, strict discipline, emphasis on education, filial piety, respect for elders, family obligation, reverence for tradition, maintenance of harmony and negation of conflict are attributed to the influence of Confucianism.” (Lin, 429) Because of traditional values of Asian immigrant families, parenting skills differ. It seems to be more family oriented and children are to be more disciplined to respect their parents. In Gorman’s study she sheds light on a different reason to further emphasize a more family oriented child rearing method. She believes “these mothers also felt that mainstream American parents where not as invest in their role as parents ... the majority of the [Chinese] mothers attributed the successful outcomes of their children to parental protective watchfulness and involvement in their children’s daily activities.” (Gorman, 77) Although cultural differences give westerners the notion Asian mother’s are extremely strict, Lin and Fu believe “Thus it seems that parents of Chinese origin, especially fathers, tend to encourage their children to be independent and adaptable...”. (Lin, 432) This leads me to conclude although Asian parents seem to have a tighter grip on their children their motive (similar to westerners) is for their children to become self sufficient and independent thinkers.

            Although some truth lies behind Chua’s argument, her theory that Chinese mother’s are better because they are stricter holds no validity. Her evidence lies solely in personal anecdotes. She transforms hard working Asian mothers that struggle as parents raising children in a different culture to sinister, authoritative figures that treat their children despotically. Although differences lie between the two parenting methods, Chua’s depiction of Asian parenting seems exaggerated. As Asian parents tend to be stricter research show no proof of the harshness illustrated in Chua’s article.

Works Cited

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 January 2011. Web. 16 February 2011.

Gorman, Jean Cheng. “Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents.” National Council on Family Relations 47.1 (1998): 73-80. JSTOR. Web. 25 February. 2011.

Lin, Chin-Yau Cindy. and Victoria R. Fu. “A comparison of Child Rearing Practice among CHinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian American Parents.” Blackwell Publishing 61. 2 (1990): 429-433. JSTOR. Web. 25 February. 2011.

Chao, Ruth K. "Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting Through the Cultural Notion of Training." Child Development 64.4 (1994): 1111-1119. JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

Grace Pre-writing 3

Grace's Journal
Sitting in my last class on friday what I most want is some mac-n-cheese. The only issue is I've spent my weekly allowance on a new dress and now I'm broke.... I wish I had a job. I've never actually had to do any manual labour. It's not that I haven't tried, I think I'm just too awkward to work a job that has to do with talking to a lot of people. What kind of opportunities do people like me have? The economic imbalance in our economy has stripped people without much talent or higher education degree out of jobs that a couple decades ago could have fed an entire family.
Rough Outline
I understand that at the heart of capitalism it allows personal freedom and provides one with the American dream. The American dream which grants one the opportunity to make as much money one wishes in correlation to their drive. I understand that government interference in redistributing wealth with an aura of justice can be seen as a lack of freedom and bullying.
BUT
Large corporations have taken over the heart of capitalism which is small businesses and individual ownership.
Globalization
Large Corporations interfering in politics and media
Poverty rising and the low income families living in penury
SOLUTION
No extreme capitalism
Some cap on what corporations can and can't do
free market but checked so we don't find ourselves in a recession

Reflection 2.1

I felt this paper was a lot harder then the last one. I had a harder time finding my thesis and making intelligent arguments. I felt as though Chua was just so absurd that it was hard for me to refute her and come up with my own opinion on this issue. I don't think I was as organized so for my final draft I want to re-organize and make my paper more concise. I also had an issue with the grammar and run-on sentences. I realized that my sentences were very lengthy which can make my paper look sloppy and too wordy. Other then that I think I made some good points and I works hard to utilize my research.

First Draft

Grace Park

3.2.11

Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior

In Amy Chua’s editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior, Chua stereotypes thousands of Asian mothers and their attitudes on child rearing based entirely through her personal experience. Her bias article, (as she herself is a Chinese parent) gives personal anecdotes of her strict methods of parenting and Chua concludes from it, her authoritative system is what makes her a better parent then other mothers. Her generalizations seem not only to hold no affirmation but from a personal perspective (as a child of growing up with Asian parents) seem to be exaggerated. Although Chua is not completely wrong as to non-western mothers do hold a different view on parenting, her article seems to be three page testament boasting her cold, mothering skills.

            Chua’s entire article is based on assumptions and stereotypes of non-western mothers. She begins by stating that “Chinese parents Spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.” (Chua p. 2) She fails to provide any valid evidence for her supposition other than going on to describe her relations with her daughters. From which the reader can conclude, Chua feels she spends more time pushing her daughters then other parents rather then the subgroup of Asian parents she’s mentioned.  Chua later iterates the strict rules implemented on her children that do not allow for them to attend sleepovers or be in school plays are in order for them to become academically successful. Jean Cheng Gorman (a licensed psychologist from NYU) in her article Parenting Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents (Published by the National Council on Family Relations) performs a study of  Chinese immigrant mothers in the U.S which reveals “ Specific rules regarding time spent away from home generally involved safety concerns, with half of the mothers asking their children to come home after school activities, or to call if they were going to be late.” Although Chua’s argument holds some truth in that Chinese mother’s control their children’s time spent away from home, the reasons seem to differ from Gorman’s professional study case. 

Chua later in her article makes her claim that “Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t.” (Chua pg. 3) She goes on to explain that Asian child rearing methods allow parents to be frank with their children where western parents are more sensitive and tiptoe around “sensitive” subjects. She reasons with her audience that being blunt with children is a better tactic with a story a friend has told her. She exclaims her western friend felt “like garbage” (Chua pg. 3) when her father gushed about her. She goes on to give an example of her “better” methods. Forcing her daughter to play the piano against her will for an ungodly amount of time, Chua exclaims her daughter after many bickering matches was happy her mother was so forceful. Chua through her article makes the assumption that all Asian parents are blatantly honest (to the point of cruelty) to their children out of love. She claims all Asian parents (like herself) use an authoritative mothering tactic. Contrary to Chua’s claim, Dr. Gorman found in her studies “none of the mothers made any ultimatums, but rather, discussed the matters with their children in a rational manner and left the final decision up to their children.” (Gorman pg. 75) Although there must be cases of very strict Asian parents such as Chua, there are also strict parents of western ideology. Her claim seems to be exaggerated and unfair as she speaks for million of Asian immigrant mothers. 

            As a daughter of two Korean immigrants of the U.S, I’ve noticed several cultural differences from my peers with parents of western ideals. But the only similarities I see in my mother’s parenting skills and Amy Chua’s is my mother pushed me to get good grades in school. Although my grades came first, as long as I was able to maintain a B average, (which Chua mentions would never happen) my parents allowed me to participate in extracurricular activities such as lacrosse, field hockey, fencing, volleyball and piano. Like many Asian children, I attended tutoring sessions and had a very full academic schedule besides school, but unlike Chua my mother has never called me distressing names if I did poorly in school, nor has she ever punished my to practice my piano. Immigrating to a foreign country, and adapting to a culture they were not accustomed too, my parents faced a lot of hardship. Understanding that, I feel insulted on their behalf as Chua gives herself the right to talk on behalf of all Chinese, Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian immigrant parents. I was never brought up in such a strict atmosphere and for her personal mothering skills to discredit such a vast amount of mothers (who very well may be unlike her) in a popular journal is harrowing. 

Although Chua’s argument is flawed, her claim is accurate in that western and Asian ideologies differ in child care. Professors Chin-Yau Lin (University of New York at Gemeseo) and Victoria R. Fu (Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University) in their journal A Comparison of Child-rearing Practices among Chinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American Parents, analyze the cultural differences of the three subgroups. They conclude many of the Chinese parental values come from Confucian principles. They go on to explain “ Definitive views on parental control, obedience, strict discipline, emphasis on education, filial piety, respect for elders, family obligation, reverence for tradition, maintenance of harmony and negation of conflict are attributed to the influence of Confucuanism.” (Lin pg 429) Because of traditional values of Asian immigrant families, parenting skills differ. It seems to be more family oriented and children are to be more disciplined to respect their parents. In Gorman’s study she sheds light on a different reason to further emphasize a more family oriented child rearing method. She believes “these mothers also felt that mainstream american parents where not as invest in their role as parents ... the majority of the [Chinese] mothers attributed the successful outcomes of their children to parental protective watchfulness and involvement in their children;s daily activities.” (Gorman pg 77) Although cultural differences give westerners the notion Asian mother’s are extremely strict, Lin and Fu believe “Thus it seems that parents of Chinese origin, especially fathers, tend to encourage their children to  be independent and adaptable...”. (Lin pg 432) This leads me to conclude although Asian parents seem to have a tighter grip on their children their motive (similar to westerners) is for their children to become self sufficient and independent thinkers. 

Although some truth lies behind Chua’s argument, her theory that Chinese mother’s are better because they are stricter holds no validity. Her her evidence lies solely in personal anecdotes. She transforms hard working Asian mother’s that struggle as parents raising children in a different culture to sinister, authoritative figures that treat their children despotically. Although difference lie between the two parenting methods, Chua’s depiction seems exaggerated. As Asian parents tend to be stricter research show no proof of the harshness illustrated in Chua’s article. 

Works Cited

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 January 2011. Web. 16 February 2011.

Gorman, Jean Cheng. “Attitudes and Practices of Immigrant Chinese Mothers of Adolescents.” National Council on Family Relations 47.1 (1998): 73-80. JSTOR. Web. 25 February. 2011.

Lin, Chin-Yau Cindy. and Victoria R. Fu. “A comparison of Child Rearing Practice among CHinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian American Parents.” Blackwell Publishing 61. 2 (1990): 429-433. JSTOR. Web. 25 February. 2011.