The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000

We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson  for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.

First of all - every culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling. Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the authors are more interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They think academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group" with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish, Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going on there.

Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?

Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.

However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.

A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education, discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism, macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

And they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book, it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success, yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?

What it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded, arrogant pricks in the process.

The American work-family conflict

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/three_faces_report.html

A recent study from the Center for Am. Progress and UC Hastings College of Law recently published a study demonstrating that the US is the most difficult nation for working families in all of the industrialized world. Comparing US families from today and 30 years ago, it shows that we now work 11 more hours per week vs. 1979, which is now longer hours than any other nation, even Japan and South Korea. The modern workplace is still designed for the 1960 worker (males who can work longer hours freely, since his stay-home spouse attends to nearly all the child and home care), even though the US workforce is demographically much different today. 70% of moms work today vs. 20% in 1960.

The US is the only OECD nation without mandatory paid sick and maternity leave laws. I believe CA has progressive paid maternity laws, and federal employees are also covered, so why wouldn't Congress pass a law for all workers? Corporate resistance? In addition, the US has much less part-time "good employment" opportunities (white-collar work, not just Taco Bell), overtime compensation for salaried workers, and flex-time schedules available for parents. Here, we spend much more time working than we do with our spouses and kids. Think about how obscene that is. Why must we have our Blackberries on at 11PM to put out some fire at the Singapore office (thankless too, since such "dedication" is expected in some jobs), but we get a dirty look from the boss if our kid gets sick and needs to be picked up from day care? These pressures on working families are compounded even further by elderly care, as the grandparents are living longer.

Dual-income working professionals who "take shifts" to cover morning and evening childcare are 3-6X more likely to divorce. I guess they are too exhausted to work out problems, and have less couple time. For lower income parents (who are more often single parents), child care and health care costs are consuming most of their pay. "Unofficial" discrimination against mothers is higher than with most other minority groups. If your employer's HR is good, they will caution you to never ask about kids or pregnancy if you are interviewing a female. But statistics show that employer disapproval of a working mother's time commitments for her kids is manifested in poorer performance reviews for her and even firings. The US is the most gender-friendly workplace for a woman to reach the top, but very hard if that female professional wants to have a happy family too. It's even harder for single professional-managerial women too. Since staying home is not possible and their kids depend on their salary, they may feel more pressure to advance. They tend to work over 50 hours/week at a rate of 32%, vs. 14% for married women. That is insane for single moms to have more parenting responsibilities and also work longer (voluntarily or not).

These conditions also impair US workforce productivity, because good workers are "forced" to quit and stay home if they feel they are neglecting their kids, absenteeism/attrition rates are terrible, and most working parents are not operating at peak performance due to distractions and stress from the unsustainable juggling act. But like PTSD in the military, no one wants to acknowledge this for fear of appearing weak to coworkers.

The last pro-working-family legislation passed was in 1993. Currently there is a bill to provide paid paternity leave for federal workers (benefiting Congress of course), but it hasn't passed the Senate. Childcare tax credits and subsidies are meager help. There is also class hypocrisy. Professional mothers are praised for leaving the workplace to put their kids first, yet lower income moms are labeled as deadbeats if they do the same. It is true that a higher percentage of lower income parents don't work, but this is not due to laziness. Their take-home pay is often less than child care costs, so it doesn't make financial sense for them to work. And since more middle and upper class mothers are working vs. last generation, the household incomes of those classes are rising (and contributing to the widening wealth gap) and making lower class single-income households appear even poorer. Poor mothers have a harder time finding and keeping jobs, especially good stable jobs in this recession, due to their reduced skill sets and social factors. So there is a paradox that richer moms want to work less but can't (unless they quit completely), yet poorer moms want to work more but can't.

If the family unit is the building block of society, and labor is the force sustaining the economy, then how can we and our leaders tolerate this unacceptable situation that compromises both?

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201001260900

The Family

"Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over." - member of the Family and US congressman

"We desire to see a leadership led by God," reads a confidential mission statement. "Leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." Another principle expanded upon is stealthiness; members are instructed to pursue political jujitsu by making use of secular leaders "in the work of advancing His kingdom," and to avoid whenever possible the label Christian itself, lest they alert enemies to that advance.

--------

No, this is not about the mafia, but it's not that far off either. There is a secretive fundamentalist Christian group headed by Doug Coe named "The Fellowship" or "The Family", founded in the 1935, which makes Scientology or the K Street Gang look like Boy Scouts. Members of the Family include US senators, cabinet members, and state governors, and they seek to use their business/political connections to advance their views. They help organize the Congressional National Prayer Breakfast in Washington that sitting presidents also attend.

Their agenda is quite bizarre and hard to even call Christian. They believe that the New Testament's emphasis on helping the poor, humility, love, and compassion is all wrong. In fact, the Bible's secret message is all about worldly power, and they use free market capitalism, anti-gay, and anti-abortion issues to rally support. Yes, I know, Dan Brown is taking notes as we speak. Ironically for US lawmakers, they believe that American democracy is doomed to fail and totalitarianism is the way to go - the way Christ intended for us. Like many US elites, they were enamored with the European fascists (rising from nothing, their manipulation of the masses, uniformity of thought, and rapid industrialization/militarization), but after WWII they had to tone it down of course. Though even today, their leaders including Coe have used the examples of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot to instruct and describe how the Family seeks to embody and propagate total fanatical commitment to absolute power for Christ and his "true message".

They could be described as "elite fundamentalism". They also believe that Jesus has a special message for the chosen few, and his parables for the masses were just Spam, because we can't really handle the truth of his grand plan. Of course the high-ranking members of the family are the chosen. Strangely, the Family has both Catholic and Evangelical members. I suppose they put their dogmatic differences aside to join forces for the Culture War.

Their prominent members:
- Congressmen (some potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees, and some Dems too): Coburn, Prior, Grassley, Pitts, Stupak, Wolf, Ensign, Shuler, Nelson, Enzi, Thune, Inhofe, Wamp, McIntyre, Clinton (while she may not be an official member, Family head Doug Coe is an intimate spiritual advisor to her since her husband was president).
- Governor: Mark Sanford (yes, the guy who was caught using state resources to go to Argentina for a booty call).
- Other notable alums: Strom Thurmond, Charles Colson (Nixon's hatchet-man who went to jail for Watergate but after became CEO of big defense contractor Raytheon), Pat Robinson's father, David Kuo (Dubya's head of Faith-Based Initiatives).

Maybe leftist journalists are just trying to tar these conservative politicians with shady, unproven connections to a religious cult (like how douchebag Glen Beck tries to connect Obama to ACORN to the end of the world). But many of the Congressmen listed above live at C Street residences while in Washington owned by the Family, and rented to them at below-market rates. Probably the only reason the mainstream knows of the Family is some of their members were caught in embarrassing affairs (Ensign, Sanford, Pickering). I guess sometimes God wants you to break one of his commandments in service to the greater good.

Maybe you think that this is just tabloid and doesn't really affect our lives, but look at some of the Family politicians' recent actions. The last-minute abortion amendment to the House health bill was called the Pitts-Stupak amendment. Mother Teresa was not an outspoken critic of abortion until she met Pitts in the 1970s. Family members have used government funds to go on overseas missions in support of cruel dictators and corrupt regimes who happen to endorse pro-Family policies. They helped get weapons and money to Indonesian dictator Suharto, supported Christian militias in Lebanon, and currently back Yoweri Museveni, the despotic leader of post-Idi Amin Uganda (a nation with some of the most draconian anti-gay laws in the world). Before Museveni, they also armed Somali strongman Siad Barre during the Reagan-Bush years, who contributed to thousands of deaths. I have no idea how those Third World, war-torn nations and their pathetic leaders factor into God's plan for the world, but apparently the Family does. But what's the big deal, since other politicians take trips sponsored by companies or special-interest groups all the time? Well, it undermines US foreign policy and credibility when US legislators travel to speak with foreign leaders, advancing a private agenda that may or may not be aligned with official Washington policy (I would hope it isn't). One thing we have to thank Abramoff for are 2007 Congressional reforms that allow these trips and their funding to become public knowledge.

So to close, I know the Family is probably less of a risk to global stability than Al Qaeda or H1N1, but the fact that they are out there, that they believe what they do, and occupy very high positions of US power is cause for concern. If they are doing God's work and mean no harm as they say, then why be so secretive? Level with us and lead the masses on the path of righteousness, like the dictators they admire. Hopefully government transparency and accountability will grow, and constituents may find out if their leaders are affiliated with and executing the agenda of private groups that don't have the people's or America's best interests in mind.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVrQkunIZXo&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 (a criticism of the Family from a Christian right source)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet