Thursday, September 30, 2010
On cyber bullying and cluelessness of the young...
I read, with disgust, the Rutger student who committed suicide by jumping to his death due to his roommate's streaming his making out with another guy. The extent of vulgarity and cluelessness of this roommate is beyond belief. Afterall, they are not 5-year-olds, but 18. One would expect them to have learnt a bit of civility and respect to another human being. And for his friend's coming to his rescue, claiming that this roommate is just being "open-minded" in exposing someone else, be it a gay or a girl, is no excuse at all at the extent of his crime. Why is it that the teens and younger generations these days think it's so cool to expose someone else, and that spying on someone else is no big deal? The extent of cluelessness is astounding. I hope this roommate, and the female accomplice who helps him along, will do jail time.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Has writing become a dying art form?
The other day, I read an article on Sydney Morning Herald, about a million-dollar pen in pen-and-stationery stop in Sydney. I was interested, not of how much a pen can get - or even the question of whether anyone would care to put up that kind of money for a pen - but how writing has become so vintage that this store has become part of this cottage industry and niche.
In a way, I'm saddened by it. I like pens and stationery. I like reading. This is despite the fact that my writing is quite terrible, and I'm no calligrapher at all. As a matter of fact, I hardly need to write for a very long time now, since I work exclusively with just my laptop. I haven't even needed to use my printer either, so there goes anything that's remotely related to papers.
All these are well and good, very environmental-friendly. I'm sure I've helped saved alot of trees due to that, plus it frees up so much space at home (since I telecommute). Recently, I applied for another mortgage, and I was able to use all soft-copy of documents exclusively. All 2Gb worth of documents, which would otherwise have required reams of papers, ink and printing, they are now all on a tiny thumb drive that I can put away in my safebox. Isn't that sweet?
Having said all that, I still miss my pens. I have some really nice pens, some of them I used to use very often, including a Mont Blanc and a Parker that I used in my college days. You have no idea how much I long to use them again. I have tried to put them on my desk, so that I can get to use them, should the chance allow it. But they only get to gather dust, and I have to put them away in the drawer. The word vintage quite nicely describes the fond memory that good pens, but an old, broken-down leather bag, is valuable and, as such, should be treasured.
My only hope is, I might still get to use it from time to time. Hence, they are still in my drawer, rather than in my safebox. If that should become reality one day, I would be very sad. :)
In a way, I'm saddened by it. I like pens and stationery. I like reading. This is despite the fact that my writing is quite terrible, and I'm no calligrapher at all. As a matter of fact, I hardly need to write for a very long time now, since I work exclusively with just my laptop. I haven't even needed to use my printer either, so there goes anything that's remotely related to papers.
All these are well and good, very environmental-friendly. I'm sure I've helped saved alot of trees due to that, plus it frees up so much space at home (since I telecommute). Recently, I applied for another mortgage, and I was able to use all soft-copy of documents exclusively. All 2Gb worth of documents, which would otherwise have required reams of papers, ink and printing, they are now all on a tiny thumb drive that I can put away in my safebox. Isn't that sweet?
Having said all that, I still miss my pens. I have some really nice pens, some of them I used to use very often, including a Mont Blanc and a Parker that I used in my college days. You have no idea how much I long to use them again. I have tried to put them on my desk, so that I can get to use them, should the chance allow it. But they only get to gather dust, and I have to put them away in the drawer. The word vintage quite nicely describes the fond memory that good pens, but an old, broken-down leather bag, is valuable and, as such, should be treasured.
My only hope is, I might still get to use it from time to time. Hence, they are still in my drawer, rather than in my safebox. If that should become reality one day, I would be very sad. :)
From horror show on runway to wearable fashion on streets...
Since flying back from the summer trip to Asia, I've been so busy catching up on everything, including kids starting school, work and all, I can barely find time to even think of my journal, even though I have so much on my mind that I wish I could just do a brain-dump of them all.
So, these past few days, I read a few fashion-related articles, which have addressed some of my long-standing questions or feelings in general, one way or another.
One of the article is on a fashion column whose columnist obviously glows over Vera Wang, in particular, her latest runway show and collection, with pictures of a couple of runway clothes to boot. Not that I think Vera Wang's designs are all bad. Quite far from it, I see designs from her, from time to time, which looks very cute and pretty. But, by jove, how big a disconnect between fashion columnists (and their big opinions), and their readers; likewise to a fashion industry's near-obsession to use models that can only be described as death becomes her, and the loud, larger-than-life clothing that is totally unwearable, and the market audience's loathe of it. The article best illustrates these disconnects, particularly in the near-universal refute of how horrid-looking the clothing and models are, as expressed by almost all the readers' comments to the article.
So, there goes one of those things that has stayed at the back of my mind, and now I know I'm not alone in seeing how hateful the audience feels, towards all these supposedly contributions from the fashion industry.
But then, how does it justify the fashion industry going so strong, year after year, with runway shows still a yearly mainstay?
The second mystery was quite neatly addressed by another article I read, which illustrates how a seemingly outrageous runway design of a Donna Karan shirt is transformed from runway to become store-salable merchandise for everyday women. It's indeed a quite fascinating read for me, since I'm not in the industry, and obviously have no inkling of what goes on behind the scene to try to relate the runway to our fashion on sidewalk. For that, it shows how extravagant or exaggerating details of the runway design are trimmed, modified, eliminated or replaced, in order to make it a wearable clothing for an average woman.
All those are good to know for me, because I've come to loathe this whole fashion industry which is nothing but narcissistic to me. I've come to wonder how many designers it would take to translate those outrageous clothings from the likes of Marc Jacob or Jean-Paul Gaultier, into something that we can wear. But what more curiously is, at which point has this whole fashion industry moved out of steps from the classic designs of Chanel, in which every woman would dream of having "that exact same dress on the runway," into something on the runway in which we can really relate to? At what point has these runway fashion shows become just a show?
So, these past few days, I read a few fashion-related articles, which have addressed some of my long-standing questions or feelings in general, one way or another.
One of the article is on a fashion column whose columnist obviously glows over Vera Wang, in particular, her latest runway show and collection, with pictures of a couple of runway clothes to boot. Not that I think Vera Wang's designs are all bad. Quite far from it, I see designs from her, from time to time, which looks very cute and pretty. But, by jove, how big a disconnect between fashion columnists (and their big opinions), and their readers; likewise to a fashion industry's near-obsession to use models that can only be described as death becomes her, and the loud, larger-than-life clothing that is totally unwearable, and the market audience's loathe of it. The article best illustrates these disconnects, particularly in the near-universal refute of how horrid-looking the clothing and models are, as expressed by almost all the readers' comments to the article.
So, there goes one of those things that has stayed at the back of my mind, and now I know I'm not alone in seeing how hateful the audience feels, towards all these supposedly contributions from the fashion industry.
But then, how does it justify the fashion industry going so strong, year after year, with runway shows still a yearly mainstay?
The second mystery was quite neatly addressed by another article I read, which illustrates how a seemingly outrageous runway design of a Donna Karan shirt is transformed from runway to become store-salable merchandise for everyday women. It's indeed a quite fascinating read for me, since I'm not in the industry, and obviously have no inkling of what goes on behind the scene to try to relate the runway to our fashion on sidewalk. For that, it shows how extravagant or exaggerating details of the runway design are trimmed, modified, eliminated or replaced, in order to make it a wearable clothing for an average woman.
All those are good to know for me, because I've come to loathe this whole fashion industry which is nothing but narcissistic to me. I've come to wonder how many designers it would take to translate those outrageous clothings from the likes of Marc Jacob or Jean-Paul Gaultier, into something that we can wear. But what more curiously is, at which point has this whole fashion industry moved out of steps from the classic designs of Chanel, in which every woman would dream of having "that exact same dress on the runway," into something on the runway in which we can really relate to? At what point has these runway fashion shows become just a show?
Friday, August 13, 2010
New money in China, and its effect overseas...
I haven't been writing in my journal for a couple of months now, mostly because our family has taken a couple of months to travel to Asia during the summer. Between kids' activities, gatherings with friends, work and family engagements, there isn't much time left for anything else. Now that the summer vacation is winding down, it might be a good time to jog down some thoughts:
- One would think that, since I grew up in Hong Kong, I should be accustomed to its heat and humidity. I'm still amazed by how much it gets to me, every time I travel back to my hometown. The constant sweating and stickiness can be quite unpleasant. It's no wonder why everyone (no exception) seeks out A/C treatment, even for however brief a moment. We're never big on A/C, but I'm almost saddened, to have to say that we can't sleep without the A/C on. How ironic it is, for a city that is actively promoting going green.
- On going green, Hong Kong has come a long way. But whatever it is, the most powerful behavior changer is always with money. These days, with all supermarkets and convenience stores charging an extra HK$0.50 for a plastic bag, almost everyone brings their own shopping bag. While HK$0.50 might not be much, it can quickly add up, with multiple trips to grocers. I'm impressed by how pervasive the behavior has changed among all walks of life, judging by BYOB ("bring your own bag") is practiced by most everyone, including the very old. When I was going up, my mom used to use her own wicker basket to buy grocery in the wet market. I'm glad that people are reverting to the old tradition.
The success of other green measures though, is less than stellar. One of which is the half-hearted measure of recycle bins. There are groups of recycle bins for metal, plastic, papers, but alas - no glass! They are strategically placed at busy intersections in busy residential areas (but almost none to be found at commercial districts like Central). Very, very rarely would you see any overflowing recycle bins, most likely because you can still easily see the recyclables like plastic bottles and cans being dumped as trash. By jove, in our condo building in US, the recycle bins 50% bigger than the ones used in Hong Kong would have been filled up within two days after they are cleared. I'd say, if the Hong Kong government has really wanted to increase the level of recycling, they can easily have put out coin machine where each can or plastic or glass bottle is reimbursed by just HK$0.50 or even HK$0.10. I can bet ya, it'll overwhelm the system with recyclables within days. - Hong Kong is forever changing, sometimes to my dismay. There seems to be less and less interest among the locals to value history, like old style restaurants or historic buildings. In the past, Hong Kong government has made it more of a point to promote its history (eg. floating an old-style fishing boat in Victoria Harbor that signifies the fishing root of Hong Kong more than a century ago). That's because western tourists appreciate its uniqueness. These days, with an overwhelming majority of tourists in Hong Kong coming from mainland China, no one seems to care. (Afterall, mainland China has been busy shedding its own history, racing to pull down historic districts, replacing them with skyscrappers.) One time, when I was walking into this really old teahouse style of restaurant in Central, I overhead a few mainland Chinese tourists thrashing this restaurant, saying that they have "lots of these" dingy restaurants in their hometown in China. When they come to Hong Kong, they want to see new things, buy new clothes and jewelry. They have no interests, whatsoever, in seeking out the history of Hong Kong which makes it so unique. That makes me both angry and sad, all at once.
- Which brings my thought to the new wealth from those mainland Chinese, alot of them tourists, but with an increasing number of them coming to Hong Kong just to shop, invest, and move/park their monies. For this, you would have to be physically in Hong Kong to truly experience these new wealth coming from China. In the olden days, you would identify mainland Chinese by how backward-looking they dress. These days, you can quite easily pick out those who are from China by how they look too, but now, it's those who go shopping with their luggage (on trolley wheels), and by counting all the incredibly expensive brands that you can't possibly imagine, all on a single body, from eyeglasses, to earrings, to necklace, watches, rings and bracelets, clothes, handbags, and shoes, most of which in very loud colors. The kind of gawdiness can blind you instantly. The ones that tops it all, were one young couple (in late teens to their early 20s) I saw on a bus on the Hong Kong island. The boy dressed in the most asexual way, with full collections in Prada and Louis Vuitton. The girl dressed likewise, but with a blinding diamond necklace and bracelet that would make evening gown look dim. To top it all, he was picking her ears...publicly on a double-decker bus.
- And yes, that brings me to another thought, of how uncivilized the mainland Chinese can behave. Apart from the ear-picking episode on bus, I've also seen another young couple scratching and picking each other's feet while waiting for a cross-harbor ferry. Even my youong kids are flabbergasted when they see it; how can it be that these young adults can be so oblivious of how terrible that looks in public? Do they do the same in China too???
- The other thing that you won't believe it, is the amount of wealth that these mainland Chinese bring to Hong Kong (for shopping and investment). It's not uncommon to see outrageously priced luxury condo being bought by mainland Chinese, or the jewelry and skin care products...all in cash. One time, I was in this watch shop in Causeway Bay browsing. The sales assistant in the shop was trying to entertain a small group of unruly mainland Chinese. They were asking "which are the most expensive watches?" to which the shopkeeper points out the Vacheron Constantin to them. These mainland Chinese men were suitably impressed by the price tags (upward of HK$200k), but one of them thrashing them, saying"Cons-si-what?" in Chinese.
- One has to ask, where does all these wealth come from? One would not imagine that they come from the monthly savings from salary of regular workers. The consensus answer comes from government stimulus. When the government turns on the spigot, monies flow left, right, and center, to officials and those businessmen who pay to get results from these officials. Everyone worries about the possibilitiy of collapse of this not-so-invisible bubble in China, even the thought of a slowdown sends shudder around the world now.
While there's no doubt about the red-hotness in the Chinese economy, one has to wonder, how real is the statistics put out by government. How much of those 8-9% GDP growth have ended up in private pockets, rather than going towards public good, like the social safety net for healthcare? - Beneath the almighty China lies the small but dynamic Hong Kong which is famous for reinventing itself. I've slowly come to the realization that Hong Kong is losing its own uniqueness, while trying to mimic itself as another Chinese city like Shanghai or Beijing. With its gradual loss of grip in manufacturing and potential financial sector, would it one day have lost its way in reinventing itself with a new sector? Its education system has been on shaky grounds since its handover back to China in 1997, with shifting focus from English to Mandarin, then to dual language, then back to try to hold onto English, with a lost generation of teachers having the capability to teach English. The mass production of graduates from the many universities (promoted from little more than community colleges or technical institutes) with depreciating level of competitiveness, offers little comfort. To be sure, I emphasize with the younger generations these days, whose starting salary of graduates is on par with my starting salary 20 years ago. How they survive, with higher inflation and cost of living, is quite beyond my imagination.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
On debt-related stress and America's new-found frugality...
There are times when I feel peeved, even unsettled, after reading news of what's happening around us. Lately, one of the latest topics is debt-related stress "suffered" by Americans.
I double-quoted the word "suffered" because alot of those cases sound more like whining to me, longing for the good 'ole days when bank credits were free-flowing, and everyone - literally everyone, even your dogs - could get huge loans and live large. Some has made it sound like it's a birth right that all Americans should have. The thinking goes like this: If my neighbor can afford to live in a big mansion, why can't I? Why shouldn't I? The banks are stupid enough to lend me the money afterall. Now that the property market has crashed, and prices has stopped rising (in most cases, it's still falling, albeit at slower clip), these same people complain that they can't repay the loans, or that the government does not step in to help them out. Stories after stories like this abound, when people are almost bragging about going into foreclosure, and let the stupid banks suffered, until the banks come begging these free-riders to just stay in the goddamned properties, for free.
That's the point when it makes my blood boil. When the times were good, no one was complaining about banks stuffing loans to their hands, as if they were free money. No one was complaining about government (like George W. Bush's push for the notion of ownership nation). No one was complaining about too much fineprints in the contracts that the borrowers did not bother to read, because they were always counting on the next guy to prop up the property market, and they just kaching their property (with no money down) like a personal piggybank or private ATM.
Alot of people compare the current recession (dubbed the Great Recession) with the Great Depression in 1929. But there's simply no comparison, of the generations that grew up under the Great Depression, their frugal ways of living, and steeliness towards life and any hardship that might ensue. Our generation now only complains about not getting help when they don't get to sustain the good way of living, shifting blame wherever they can find, even to the farfetched corners of currency valuation of Chinese Yuan. This is just so very pathetic, totally.
I double-quoted the word "suffered" because alot of those cases sound more like whining to me, longing for the good 'ole days when bank credits were free-flowing, and everyone - literally everyone, even your dogs - could get huge loans and live large. Some has made it sound like it's a birth right that all Americans should have. The thinking goes like this: If my neighbor can afford to live in a big mansion, why can't I? Why shouldn't I? The banks are stupid enough to lend me the money afterall. Now that the property market has crashed, and prices has stopped rising (in most cases, it's still falling, albeit at slower clip), these same people complain that they can't repay the loans, or that the government does not step in to help them out. Stories after stories like this abound, when people are almost bragging about going into foreclosure, and let the stupid banks suffered, until the banks come begging these free-riders to just stay in the goddamned properties, for free.
That's the point when it makes my blood boil. When the times were good, no one was complaining about banks stuffing loans to their hands, as if they were free money. No one was complaining about government (like George W. Bush's push for the notion of ownership nation). No one was complaining about too much fineprints in the contracts that the borrowers did not bother to read, because they were always counting on the next guy to prop up the property market, and they just kaching their property (with no money down) like a personal piggybank or private ATM.
Alot of people compare the current recession (dubbed the Great Recession) with the Great Depression in 1929. But there's simply no comparison, of the generations that grew up under the Great Depression, their frugal ways of living, and steeliness towards life and any hardship that might ensue. Our generation now only complains about not getting help when they don't get to sustain the good way of living, shifting blame wherever they can find, even to the farfetched corners of currency valuation of Chinese Yuan. This is just so very pathetic, totally.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
On 3-year vs. 4-year college timeframe...
There will always be things that continue to baffle me, one of which is the resistance of American colleges, general public, and most certainly faculty members, in adopting 3-year college as the norm, rather than the existing 4-year system. Numerous opinions and theories are floated, including the note that students are not ready; or that it's just a cost-saving measure in disguise; or that it would not have helped the students, pushing them to graduate and get out to the depressing job market in this down economy right now (this one being the weakest supposition).
For those who put forth the arguments against 3-year college time frame, I wonder how many of them have really been exposed to such a realty. To those, I'd say, I have. I started my college in England, a much stricter term system, with a much more focused syllabus on the major that I've selected. Due to family reasons, I transferred and finished my undergrad study to Australia which follows the US semester system that lasts 4 years. And then, after I move to US, I took my masters degree as well. As such, I have a few opinions of my own.
True, the English system is much stricter, and much more elite-based. When you flunk a subject and couldn't get through the second take (last chance) of the exam, you would get kicked out. In a semester-based system like US or Australia or Canada, you can retake the subjects again and again, if you flunk it. Sure, you have to pay for it (tuition), but at least you get to stay in the school to keep trying. And in the English system, you have to know what you want, and then start the classes in your major rightaway. In US, you get to have one whole freshman year when you take general classes for everybody, and then you pick your major. Sure, you get an extra year to enjoy the idyllic college life and load up on alcohol and partying (pardon for the extreme generalization here); but to me, it's a waste of money and time, if the student (like myself) already know exactly what s/he wants.
For those who oppose to it, on the basis of costs saving alone, I'd say, sure if it can save students money/time, and save money for the school too, good for them! What's so evil about costs saving, if the costs are not really necessary?
As to those weakest argument, that we should not push those poor kids to graduate quicker, in order to face the grim prospect in this poor labor market, I'd say, there's no way to time the market. The same goes with advising students on what to major on, given what's hot in the job market right now, because by the time they graduate, everything could have changed. So, we should not have argued against 4-year college simply because job prospect is terrible right now.
I'd say, for the cost savings realized by the college, more scholarships should be granted to students, in order to benefit more to come; rather than extending college life span of those who have set foot on the campus already. The net effect of that should even be positive for faculty, admin, and alumni network (since you'll have more, rather than less alumni, since you're graduating more folks in a shorter time span).
So, the question goes back to this: Why not (for 3-year college)? What is it that is so bad about it? For those who're never exposed to the 3-year college life, they should try it before opening their mouth.
For those who put forth the arguments against 3-year college time frame, I wonder how many of them have really been exposed to such a realty. To those, I'd say, I have. I started my college in England, a much stricter term system, with a much more focused syllabus on the major that I've selected. Due to family reasons, I transferred and finished my undergrad study to Australia which follows the US semester system that lasts 4 years. And then, after I move to US, I took my masters degree as well. As such, I have a few opinions of my own.
True, the English system is much stricter, and much more elite-based. When you flunk a subject and couldn't get through the second take (last chance) of the exam, you would get kicked out. In a semester-based system like US or Australia or Canada, you can retake the subjects again and again, if you flunk it. Sure, you have to pay for it (tuition), but at least you get to stay in the school to keep trying. And in the English system, you have to know what you want, and then start the classes in your major rightaway. In US, you get to have one whole freshman year when you take general classes for everybody, and then you pick your major. Sure, you get an extra year to enjoy the idyllic college life and load up on alcohol and partying (pardon for the extreme generalization here); but to me, it's a waste of money and time, if the student (like myself) already know exactly what s/he wants.
For those who oppose to it, on the basis of costs saving alone, I'd say, sure if it can save students money/time, and save money for the school too, good for them! What's so evil about costs saving, if the costs are not really necessary?
As to those weakest argument, that we should not push those poor kids to graduate quicker, in order to face the grim prospect in this poor labor market, I'd say, there's no way to time the market. The same goes with advising students on what to major on, given what's hot in the job market right now, because by the time they graduate, everything could have changed. So, we should not have argued against 4-year college simply because job prospect is terrible right now.
I'd say, for the cost savings realized by the college, more scholarships should be granted to students, in order to benefit more to come; rather than extending college life span of those who have set foot on the campus already. The net effect of that should even be positive for faculty, admin, and alumni network (since you'll have more, rather than less alumni, since you're graduating more folks in a shorter time span).
So, the question goes back to this: Why not (for 3-year college)? What is it that is so bad about it? For those who're never exposed to the 3-year college life, they should try it before opening their mouth.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
On politically incorrect parenting...
The other day, I caught up with a parent of one of the kids' classmates, and had a pretty long chat. Incidentally, I read this article too, on the almost politically incorrect parenting, and thought maybe I should jog down a few thoughts in the heat of the moment.
When I was growing up, my dad never raised his voice. While he's a mild-tempered guy, I've always speculated that the main reason is that, he never really has the chance. Not that me and my siblings are bad kids, but my dad has been working 14-16 hours a day, and he probably sees us only on our best behavior. So, he never has the need to raise his voice.
My mom, on the other hand, is a different matter. She's a stay-home mom, taking care of five kids, 24x7, 365 days a year, child-rearing non-stop. In all my childhood, I have only rare memory of playing or chit-chatting with my parents. The oft memory of my parents are their incredible work ethics, because they are always so very hard-working. The waking hours of my mom are all spent tending to us: walking us to/fro school, grocery shopping, cooking, doing dishes, ironing, cleaning, the list goes on. Just talking about the laundry-list of how my mom's day was like is a quite mouthful, that can tire you out already, not to mention actually doing it (as she did back then).
As my mom was also so busy doing chores, she has very little patience for arguments or things that go out-of-line. I'm, by nature, very head-strong and upfront about things. It's only natural that my mom and I have had big fights. When I was younger (probably before 13 or 14), I would get beaten up by mom for not listening to her. As I got older and a bit more mature, I tend to mellow down some, reducing the chance of having fights with her.
I remember I used to get really angry with her after each fight, condemning myself that I must not have been her real daughters, or else she would not have beaten me up like that. Thinking back, it's actually not so bad, since she has a rule, that she would never hit us in the head or body. She never used hard object for beating, opting for those elastic bamboo sticks that most traditional Chinese parents favor. Boy, I can tell you they leave big wedges and hurt like hell; but they don't really leave any scars after a day or two, and they don't leave any permanent damage.
Since I don't like being beaten up, I don't like to hit my kids either. Sure, I would raise my voice, or even yell at them to listen up, I rarely raise my hands. (There were probably couple of times when it has to come down to spanking, but I really hated doing it on my kids.) My husband does not agree with my philosophy. While he himself hates the beating in his childhood, he has come to see that as a useful child-rearing tool, to bring kids back in line. His philosophy almost goes hand-in-hand with what's said in the article. From his perspective, I'm like a toothless tiger (or dog) - it's all bark and no action.
Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes not. He used to wack the kids when they're young and don't listen. These days, the kids are pretty much conditioned to be afraid of him. And all parents know, that fear is a powerful tool. When the kids are scare, you'll get immediate actions, to bring them back in line.
Having said that, I've always had doubts. While effective, is his way (of making the kids afraid of him) the only way of parenting? Naturally not. I've always believed there are other ways and means. Sometimes when I look at other parents in school, particularly alot of American parents, they seem to be so calm and cool, and the kids would listen. I have always wondered how they did it. It's funny that, when I was talking about to that parent in my kids' school, she was wondering out loud of the same puzzlement. She was saying, other Japanese parents really admire the American way.
But then, as we're parents ourselves, we know for a fact that no parent will complete their child-rearing years without raising their voice. This parent I was talking to, she's very mild-mannered and soft-spoken. One would never be able to imagine how she would raise her voice in any foreseeable situations. So, you can imagine how surprised I am, when she confesses to me that she does that so often at home. The main angst came from her youngest child who has developmental delays. While she's very understanding and is learning the rope, patience can wear thin at times. What makes matter worse is that, her husband would question and almost criticize her for yelling. In response, she's telling him, if he would "do something," then maybe she wouldn't need to bear all the brunt to do all the yelling. THEN, maybe he would understand more where she's coming from, of why she's yelling, or feels the need to yell to get some results from the kids.
I guess that's the power of "support group." While I don't regret the way I rear my kids, I have always had wonders, as to how the other parents "did it." Guess what the response from this parent is? She said, "I don't believe it." As she sees it, sure the parents will put on the best behavior and face to it when they're in public. But she does not believe it one bit, that they're always in such good behavior and manner when they're at home, behind closed doors. And you know what, I agree with her.
Not that there's anything good or bad about it. As parents, we do what we can for the kids. I just wish that the kids would not periodically ask me to divorce their father, simply because they're afraid of him, and they don't want to go home when he's around. (Now that they're getting older, they have this concept of divorce already. Have I planted the wrong seeds in their head??)
When I was growing up, my dad never raised his voice. While he's a mild-tempered guy, I've always speculated that the main reason is that, he never really has the chance. Not that me and my siblings are bad kids, but my dad has been working 14-16 hours a day, and he probably sees us only on our best behavior. So, he never has the need to raise his voice.
My mom, on the other hand, is a different matter. She's a stay-home mom, taking care of five kids, 24x7, 365 days a year, child-rearing non-stop. In all my childhood, I have only rare memory of playing or chit-chatting with my parents. The oft memory of my parents are their incredible work ethics, because they are always so very hard-working. The waking hours of my mom are all spent tending to us: walking us to/fro school, grocery shopping, cooking, doing dishes, ironing, cleaning, the list goes on. Just talking about the laundry-list of how my mom's day was like is a quite mouthful, that can tire you out already, not to mention actually doing it (as she did back then).
As my mom was also so busy doing chores, she has very little patience for arguments or things that go out-of-line. I'm, by nature, very head-strong and upfront about things. It's only natural that my mom and I have had big fights. When I was younger (probably before 13 or 14), I would get beaten up by mom for not listening to her. As I got older and a bit more mature, I tend to mellow down some, reducing the chance of having fights with her.
I remember I used to get really angry with her after each fight, condemning myself that I must not have been her real daughters, or else she would not have beaten me up like that. Thinking back, it's actually not so bad, since she has a rule, that she would never hit us in the head or body. She never used hard object for beating, opting for those elastic bamboo sticks that most traditional Chinese parents favor. Boy, I can tell you they leave big wedges and hurt like hell; but they don't really leave any scars after a day or two, and they don't leave any permanent damage.
Since I don't like being beaten up, I don't like to hit my kids either. Sure, I would raise my voice, or even yell at them to listen up, I rarely raise my hands. (There were probably couple of times when it has to come down to spanking, but I really hated doing it on my kids.) My husband does not agree with my philosophy. While he himself hates the beating in his childhood, he has come to see that as a useful child-rearing tool, to bring kids back in line. His philosophy almost goes hand-in-hand with what's said in the article. From his perspective, I'm like a toothless tiger (or dog) - it's all bark and no action.
Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes not. He used to wack the kids when they're young and don't listen. These days, the kids are pretty much conditioned to be afraid of him. And all parents know, that fear is a powerful tool. When the kids are scare, you'll get immediate actions, to bring them back in line.
Having said that, I've always had doubts. While effective, is his way (of making the kids afraid of him) the only way of parenting? Naturally not. I've always believed there are other ways and means. Sometimes when I look at other parents in school, particularly alot of American parents, they seem to be so calm and cool, and the kids would listen. I have always wondered how they did it. It's funny that, when I was talking about to that parent in my kids' school, she was wondering out loud of the same puzzlement. She was saying, other Japanese parents really admire the American way.
But then, as we're parents ourselves, we know for a fact that no parent will complete their child-rearing years without raising their voice. This parent I was talking to, she's very mild-mannered and soft-spoken. One would never be able to imagine how she would raise her voice in any foreseeable situations. So, you can imagine how surprised I am, when she confesses to me that she does that so often at home. The main angst came from her youngest child who has developmental delays. While she's very understanding and is learning the rope, patience can wear thin at times. What makes matter worse is that, her husband would question and almost criticize her for yelling. In response, she's telling him, if he would "do something," then maybe she wouldn't need to bear all the brunt to do all the yelling. THEN, maybe he would understand more where she's coming from, of why she's yelling, or feels the need to yell to get some results from the kids.
I guess that's the power of "support group." While I don't regret the way I rear my kids, I have always had wonders, as to how the other parents "did it." Guess what the response from this parent is? She said, "I don't believe it." As she sees it, sure the parents will put on the best behavior and face to it when they're in public. But she does not believe it one bit, that they're always in such good behavior and manner when they're at home, behind closed doors. And you know what, I agree with her.
Not that there's anything good or bad about it. As parents, we do what we can for the kids. I just wish that the kids would not periodically ask me to divorce their father, simply because they're afraid of him, and they don't want to go home when he's around. (Now that they're getting older, they have this concept of divorce already. Have I planted the wrong seeds in their head??)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)