The Wall Street Journal article about Amy Chua's recently released Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother has caused such a back-and-forth over the right way to raise one's children that only a few commentators have started to see the real lesson.

Don't get me wrong, I'm deeply involved in issues of education and think that they are a very worthwhile field of inquiry. Really, though, the acrid debate only shows how modern communication tends to fall for the extremes and completely forgets to try and understand what the other side really wants to say - or even overlooks what it is actually saying.

What it looks like is this: One side appears to have Chua in support of the "Chinese Mother." These women don't even have to be Chinese, but they have to know exactly what they want from their children, because it is the best for them. And they have to push, or punish their children to achieve.

The "stereotypical success" of Asian (and Asian-American) children seemingly proves the point. There seems to be something to it, too. The argument that children don't really know what they want and will only get good at something if they are made to persevere seems only too true.

The other side, of course, can't even admit to that. Or at least, not without arguing that the parents need not necessarily know what is best for their children and may in fact destroy them. Suicide rates, social inaptitude, lack of creativity - whatever criticism you may have heard of overbearing parenting, it has been brought to bear on Chua's thesis.

What shall I say? I can understand both sides.

A friend of mine went back to Austria for the teaching of her half-Chinese children because in kindergarten, they were already being punished for the slightest breach of discipline. In Austria, she promptly put them into a private school because the public schools were so lax about discipline that no real teaching was possible.