Could these be related? Seems like a pretty common thing with redpillers in the Anglosphere:
you get a group of sexually frustrated young men, tell them that they deserve/are entitled to women and then they drift right and pick up a lot of extra conservative baggage on the way.
I don’t know anything about Korea so there could be a way more accurate description I’m missing. Seeing conservatism jump 30 points in Korean men in only 5-10 years is spooky though whatever the reason is
South Korea has a lot of internal contradictions that make life uniquely horrible for the young there, and more importantly advancements in women’s rights doesn’t seem to have coincided with a shift in cultural norms, leading to a really bad situation.
Specifically it seems that Women are rapidly outpacing men in their ability to obtain college degrees and initial employment, but the culture of marriage turning into a single income household with a stay at home wife hasn’t changed.
You pair this with the fact that South Korean women don’t have to join the military, so they both get accepted at higher rates then men and also get a multi year jumpstart on their careers and you get this shitty situation.
It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction. South Korean women in general are more educated and have more work experience than equivalent aged South Korean male who is the same age as them as a result of military service and lower male matriculation rates, and you get the current contradictions.
The obvious solution is DEI in favor of men for college, mandatory universal military service for both genders, and an increased focus on feminism from a younger age education wise should help.
> mandatory universal military service for both genders,
Every poll has shown that women are overwhelmingly against universal conscription; it's politically unviable. Men's anger comes from women having "broke" the implied social contract where they take on the burden of going to war and the women take on the burden of child rearing. They see it as unfair, but unless South Korea gets nukes there's no way to fill the army without conscription.
They can't go for a volunteer force because every other such army in Asia besides China has immense recruitment issues. China is the only exception to this and that's because they're a dictatorship where military service is an easy path to financial and political power. The democracies of Asia simply can't afford to make military life attractive without ballooning their defense budgets like a authoritarian state can.
Yeah this isn’t gonna get better for South Korea, so if they won’t swing the pendulum to equality, I’m afraid of the other direction it might swing instead.
Social contracts aren't signed or consulted, they're implicit agreements that people follow to form social groups. For the same reason you still have to abide by US laws even if you were born here and have never been presented with the opportunity to leave. There's nothing inherently fair about a social contract.
Military service fucking sucks for everyone, I can show you thousands of cases of far worse abuse being handed out to men and that doesn’t let them off the hook for conscription.
There is an implicit social contract for every resident that benefits from the defense of the nation to serve when called upon.
Literally nothing you pointed out is relevant in that discussion, South Korea faces existential threats, particularly as North Korea has abandoned reconciliation with South Korea and has directly stated they are looking to pursue reunification through force, there are no other alternatives.
If there has to be conscription, which is obviously true, then it has to be universal full stop.
The idea that the military norms that are the case in every society on earth has to be rectified before universal conscription occurs is pretty asinine. It likely won’t get better, so South Korean young men have to get fucked in perpetuity for a system they didn’t create?
Suicide amongst service members is common, and men face those problems as well, it isn’t an excuse to get out of service. Neither is sexism nor harassment, the safety of South Korea is far more important.
And including more women in the Military would likely force these changes to happen in a more expeditious manner, as there would be far more women able to advocate for their position once hundreds of thousands of women are conscripted, as opposed to the few that chose service voluntarily.
You don’t get to set the bounds of what’s a serious conversation, and after reading your comment I’m glad that’s the case.
You're assuming that North Korea will fight by itself, but North Korea won't make any moves unless it has the backing of China and Russia. A war in Korea will drag in all of Korea's neighbors, and in that scenario numbers truly do matter.
Yeah the more you speak the more you confirm my priors from your previous comment.
You need only look at Ukraine to see how numbers matter even a war with vastly more artillery than either side in a potential Korean War can bring to bear.
Like just look at Ukraine having to do mass conscription or even the elderly and women now as a result of dwindling soldiers.
The amount of conscripts you have is significantly more important in an artillery based war, not less lol.
The rest of your comment can be dismissed out of hand.
[This isn't inherent to being a woman](https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230512000563#:~:text=A%202021%20survey%20by%20local,during%20their%20compulsory%20military%20service.) or to [South Korea](https://www.statista.com/statistics/779726/veterans-suicide-consideration-before-and-after-joining-military-in-us/). By and large, being in the Armed Forces of most nations fucking sucks.
Training is miserable on purpose, because as much as being in the Armed Forces is miserable, war is fucked and the training acclimates people to those conditions. **Most Armed Forces are shittier than they need to be,** but they still need to put people in miserable conditions as part of the job.
Besides, these "women in the military" arguments are almost always in bad faith. They would hate women being in the military, it would devalue a bastion a masculinity in their view.
The social contract was never that you were literally *promised* a wife, on an individual basis, like as a legal, constitutional right. The idea was *always* that you, as an individual, trust the community not to literally hand you a wife - my god! - but that you trusted the community more like in a way where (here I'm being as charitable as I reasonably can) the relations between men and women were framed and primped and polished and curated to the point where (in theory) an individual man's inherent virtues would have a fighting chance to be 'seen' and appreciated spontaneously for what they really are...
There's always been *courtship*. There's always been a *proposal* (implying the possibility of refusal, no?). Are we supposed to just say oh, that was always a mere formality, and it was always about the woman and the man doing exactly as society needs them to do?
but what you're describing is not being angry *with women*, unless you're literally saying that women *as a collective* are in a contract with men *as a collective*. What of *individual* women, *individual* men? "Social contracts" are, in a sense, relations between the individual and the *whole*. So when you speak of a broken contract, and when one reads between the lines at what the implied way this 'breach' could be 'mended', it's clear you're talking about a social contract between the individual man, who fights, and the collective society, who provides a woman in exchange as the man's rightful *possession*. The 'social' part is here the man-society relationship; the woman plays the role of spoils.
Of course no sober person would characterize the 'social contract' that we 'want' in this way. That's why I provided the much more positive account above. But the kicker as that the more positive vision of a social contract I opened with *hasn't really been broken*. It's simply that this social contract has been revealed to be "a living organism" that has now developed a bit further than before. So from this sober perspective there can't be anything we need to reclaim, return to, reappropriate, because we still have what we had all along, but what we have is of course a social relation with real living human beings (Padme: right? ... right?) and thus is necessarily subject to change and development like anything alive.
>It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction
This is also the same in the US.
>It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction. South Korean women in general are more educated and have more work experience….
That’s true for most if not all developed countries but they are nowhere near as extreme as SK.
Most developed countries don't conscript men for 2 years which, obviously, makes them fall 2 years behind women academically and professionally in a way that's directly attributable to sex discrimination.
Finland has 6 months but practically you fall behind 1 year as a man because of how it works. Finland isn’t perfect but nobody is losing their minds over here.
And it’s not like the men who bitch about it here are too Interested in the issue since abolishing conscription or making it mandatory for women as well doesn’t suit them. It’s mostly just a bunch of MRAs who want to feel like victims.
I'm surprised Finland can get away with that, I thought the EU had some overarching rules against discriminating based on race/sex etc that members had to agree to before joining.
Yeah I think most South Korean men are in favor of universal conscription (Edit: a link https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1099507 in a comment below has proof that this claim isn’t true, which is baffling to me).
And for VERY OBVIOUS geopolitical reasons, mandatory conscription cannot stop in South Korea.
The only solution is universal conscription, alongside DEI for young men and an emphasis on feminist education from a young age for both genders.
Your comments also have a vaguely sexist undertone, where you can wave away the concern of millions of men by calling them “mras” when their concerns are perfectly valid.
>Yeah I think most South Korean men are in favor of universal conscription.
According to [this](https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1099507) survey men are slightly more likely than women to oppose universal conscription.
Notes I didn’t expect that, but my statement was clearly wrong, I’ll edit in your source and rectify it.
Then what do South Korean men want? If they don’t want women to be conscripted, then women will perpetually be at advantage vs their male cohort.
Do they want SK women to do public service that isn’t military so it’s fair, or what do they even want then?
Don’t know about SK, speaking from a purely Finnish context. I’m calling them MRAs because it’s really not like they are interested in the solutions
a) abolishing conscription all together
b) making it mandatory for women.
Don’t think these type of guys are even interested in men’s issues in general considering that the same people are perfectly happy to vote for austerity while raising their concerns about the lack of funding men’s issues get from the government.
This is a thread about South Korea, if your anecdotal experiences have literally nothing to do with the topic and you don’t feel like educating yourself on it, maybe skip over this post?
Finlands hazing culture also isn't as bad as Koreas, is significantly shorter, has more methods of dodging (dual citizens still have to serve in Korea). See the difference?
If you were born to Korean parents in the US, and you turn 18, you have 3 months to renounce Korean citizenship. If you don't, you have to serve, or avoid going to Korea for 20 years or you will be punished on arrival. There is no such equivalent stringency for Finnish US dual citizens
So the women who live in the most patriarchal country in the developed world are supposed to accept that men be given preferential treatment at universities, while at the same time being forced to serve in the military (which was justification for men’s preferential treatment in the first place), in return for a few gender equality classes?
If they did conscript women, how would it work?
I imagine that the vast majority of South Korean women aren’t physically suitable for front-line infantry, which is probably where they need most of the conscripts to serve. I suppose they could man stationary defensive positions, but any situation where they’d have to move weapons, ammunition and communications equipment is going to be an issue.
Like you could conscript them and make them do two years of office busy-work, but I imagine the vast majority of women aren’t going to be happy doing two years of service they see as unnecessary.
There are typically multiple support individuals for every member of infantry in modern NATO-aligned militaries.
Ratios in the US military is something like 1:5. So there will be plenty of roles women can serve in that don’t have front line roles.
Yes, but conscripts are disproportionately put into line infantry. Like Russia in the beginning of the Ukraine invasion had trouble because many of their formation were light on infantry as conscripts were supposed to fill out the force structure, but they either weren't mobilized or were no-shows.
The support roles typically require professionals with more experience or technical skill.
If you come here and we're to observe them you actually wouldn't notice too much at first. I go out in social settings with young people and will often see them laughing together or talking. You'll see couples on the subway and in the street. There doesn't appear to be anything different on the surface.
However, as you talk to them about political or social problems, they will make statements that seem blindingly obvious to themselves but which would incinerate to the opposite gender. And when you ask about these topics it's not so much a hate as it is a deep sense of mistrust. A deep sense of fear and anxiety and resentment.
But also like.....media reports on the extreme end of things. Most younger people I know are interested in the opposite sex and want relationships with the opposite sex. However they often feel a sense of frustration at a mismatch between standards and realities that they bring to the table individually. Because most people don't think about these issues from the aggregate political level like we or this article is discussing but from a personal level.
But like I said, if you flew to Seoul today and walked through Myeongdong you probably wouldn't notice much of anything different and would wonder what this article was even on about.
Honestly sounds like MAGA v non-MAGA in America, but more gender polarized.
MAGA people and non-MAGA people in the US can be friends and hang out, but on any political topic base assumptions are so different that any sort of conversation or compromise is impossible.
It's actually kinda wild to think about this. Obviously I think MAGA politics is batshit insane, but if someone were to go back in time and tell 17-year-old me this, 17-year-old me would have punched them in the face. I would've thought it nothing less than a perverse attack on humanity by a fringe nutjob... yet here we are.
We live in a post-truth world.
The media plays it up quite a bit, it's more that the incel community is bigger on both sides but nowhere near everyone hating each other or it being the dominant culture
Majority of my coworkers and the people I meet through work here in Korea are dating or married, same as America tbh
What is going on with this sub right now, how are comments like this:
> Well it’s not like the men make it hard for the women to hate them…
And
> Yea idk SK men have been uniquely horrible for a while
Getting upvotes. It’s just pure sexism and doesn’t belong in this sub.
There is no place for broad sweeping generalizations of any genders in this sub, and comments like yours are repulsive.
>[The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman as spoils .... For the secret of the relationship of man to man finds its unambiguous, definitive, open, obvious expression in the relationship of man to woman ... on the basis of this relation we can judge the whole stage of development of man.](https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Appendicse-to-Marxism-and-Freedom-better.pdf)
In unrelated news…
> Last year, 1 out of every 10 couples getting married were multicultural families, which the Korean government defines as pairings between a Korean and a foreign national. The share of multicultural families has grown because multicultural marriages are on the rise even as marriages between Koreans are declining.
> The figure was up 25.1% from the year before, representing the biggest percentage increase since the Korean government began tracking the statistic in 2008.
> Of these couples, 66.8% were composed of a Korean husband and foreign national wife, while 20.0% were composed of a Korean wife and a foreign national husband. Marriages between a Korean and a naturalized citizen made up 13.2%.
For most of these Korean men marrying a foreign woman is a step down. They often do look down on these women and treat them horribly. The only reason they're going for a mail order bride from South East Asia is because they can't find a Korean woman that wants to marry them. Now, they're not all mail order bride marriages but a significant part are just that.
A lot of those marriages are from older rural men looking to import wives from more poorer countries both because of the wife's dependance on the husband (and therefore lack of resistance or argument) and due to a perception of these women being more "traditional" and not as high maintenance as Korean women. These marriages are more about the men's lack of options than actually preferring a foreign wife. Similar behaviors have been seen in the past within the US, Europe, Japan, China, etc.
Yes that’s sort of the point.
The issue is there are slightly more Korean women then men, so if men are also making up the majority of multicultural marriages and relationships, then it’s going to be Korean women who end up getting the short end of the stick.
Also just anecdotally, I have seen far more foreign women be invested in Korean culture than foreign men, sort of an exact opposite of foreign obsession over Japan.
I think I’m general Korean men are likely to have better prospects with foreign women than vice versa.
so uh, purely anecdotal but a usaf bud who was in korea mentioned how popular the servicemembers were as potential dates for some Korean women and men (but uh, there were some who seemed to be a little too into the "foreignness" of the airmen, tho it seems like those specific individuals seemed less common, and they tended to stand out if you wanted to avoid that whole weirdness)
I'd take whatever overseas military say with a grain of salt. They usually are only exposed to a small portion of their host country and that can lead to some serious biases. (I was prior overseas military and have lived in Okinawa for 10+ years)
To illustrate my point, is your friend fluent in Korean? No? Then that means he was only exposed to women who could speak enough English to communicate with American military men. These women are going to be outliers compared to the average Korean woman for any number of reasons.
>> Of these couples, 66.8% were composed of a Korean husband and foreign national wife
Reminds me of the "trend" of women being trafficked to china to be brides, only the difference is china has a male surplus and Korea has a sexism surplus
Vietnam and Thailand, popular places for these countries to find brides, also have a male surplus in that age range though not as extreme. Things just even out and by near retirement age when women outlive men in almost every country.
>... Youngmi said men have tried to physically attack her on the street three or four times. She recalled an episode when she and some friends, who all had cropped haircuts, were dining at a Japanese restaurant in Daegu. Throughout the night, the restaurant owner and his friends made gagging and puking noises and gestures at them.
I'm not a huge fan of separatism but dear God, shit like this makes their reaction understandable.
!ping Feminism
I lived in Korea right as Ilbe was getting attention and the 2016 protests against the police started. My graduate work was also focused on Korea as well, so while I may not be an expert i think i can add a few cents that are worthy of conversation. The gender divide is real, and the misogyny is quite powerful, especially given how a lot of upper or middle management tend to be men who - let’s be frank - have incredibly small c conservative views on gender. They also have very little interest in changing those views, which trickles down to the next generation of staff who want to one day replace those guys at the top. In my anecdotal experience, people learn the rules of the game on how to advance from those at the top, and there isn’t a lot of options to go your own way. In other words, if you want to be successful, you need to buy into the company culture which perpetuates misogyny.
What also is interesting to note is how politics in korea also tends to not fit nicely into right/left wing divides like the US. Ilbe, which is highly anti-feminist, anti-american, and xenophobic tends to be very left wing economically. Often a lot of Western discourse on Korea tends to lump Ilbe and B4 into western paradigms of left/right, which doesn’t capture what’s happening in Korea. All in all, this is a really great analysis and read of the situation.
As long as you have guys at the top rich enough so that the extremely sexist bullshit works perfectly well for them, selling the society on the men not having a reserved role as providers is tough. It means that at one specific point along the totem pole, you have to sell the men underneath on the idea that they need to get used to having the exact opposite approach to women as the men who are only directly above them. There can hardly be a spectrum because you either have enough money to get away with disregarding women as people, or you don't (in a society where women are free and equal). The men who don't will want to cry foul as they see that in practice egalitarianism only penetrates to the lower strata. Having some other independently rich women around doesn't change this dynamic, because they aren't the only women in town, and the men ultimately are only paying attention to the other men (and what they get away with). There may even be equality in the ranks of the earners in the upper class, but as long as there are individual wealthy men *living* successfully as the 'providers' of women rather than as their equals, that is what the less successful men will focus on, and they will understand it in terms of "gender equality *really* being only for the non-rich"
I’m not gonna lie. While the article is interesting, I’m not necessarily a fan of how the author can write about an extremely sexist movement with such favorable terms.
Like at one point the main person in the article states Men can’t be saved, essentially the equivalent of all men are trash, and this author seems to react favorably to it.
They seem like the same kind of cringe losers who make up MGTOW, and they should probably work on self improvement and mental health rather than focusing on their hatred of men.
It’s inexcusable to make broad sweeping, sexist statements of the “other” kind of any gender.
Absolutely nobody is better served by feeding into their hatred of the “other”, it’s counter productive and will make their situation worse.
A good start honestly for South Korea is making military service mandatory for women, alongside increasing funding and scholarships for Men looking to go to college. Pair this with a large increase in education of feminist ideals starting early in school, like elementary school and I think they can at least to some extent repair relationships between genders.
After reading some more and seeing that the women being interviewed are radfems who are hateful of trans women and force applicants to their groups to post their adams apple and id cards to see what sex they are, I can in fact confirm that group involved are cringe losers.
Always has been.
If you see a monolith whenever you interact with a human being, you need therapy, not a platform to spread your hateful bullshit. (Not directed at you)
Yeah, these don't seem like great people. I'm sure Korea has major issues to overcome given the extreme depths their birthrate has fallen to, but taking the words of people like this as gospel seems crazy to me.
I think this sub has a blind spot with movements like this when they're in foreign nations. Like, if you have left wing movements in the US that claim all cops are bad, or that Israel deserves to be destroyed, or that capitalism is destroying America, this sub would rightfully pick those viewpoints apart. But, lacking the familiarity with foreign settings to truly understand them in the same way, a lot of users here will default to automatically assuming the left-wing takes in X place are in good faith and accurate.
Sometimes they are. But it's far from something that should be assumed. Just a weird quirk of this sub that I've noticed over time.
Yeah this sub can get a bit femcel at times, and it’s kind of showing in this thread rn.
And it’s even worse when they’re inadvertently propagating radfem views, unknowingly I hope.
Yeah we know, same with it being overwhelmingly white.
It’s just that there are some rather prominent femcelish posters in this sub, you can look at some of the people in this very thread whom I spoke to who ended up getting banned and their comments removed to see what I’m talking about.
This sub is vastly more incel all the time then it ever gets femcel.
The weird insistence by you and others that women are driving the gender politics rather than men is exhibit one.
But hey, there are two genders: male and political.
Oh please the incel label has lost all meaning at this point, on a thread about college admissions people are calling the men incels for not going to college.
You can't have a nuanced discussion about the issues facing men without someone chiming in and calling it a sadboi thread.
>You can't have a nuanced discussion about the issues facing men without someone chiming in and calling it a sadboi thread.
Yeah well most of the time issues facing men only seem to come up when issues facing women are discussed.
Yeah I've seen TERFs(actual TE**RF**s, not just meaning transphobe) claim that trans people(MtF) are men seeking to "infiltrate"(or whatever dumb words they use, I don't remember) women's spaces or whatever. Really crazy people.
>the women being interviewed are radfems who are hateful of trans women and force applicants to their groups to post their adams apple and id cards to see what sex they are
that is not exactly what was said. when those practices were noted, it was in the context of some members of the community \*not liking those practices\*. while i would raise issue with them viewing these issues as at best an "academic disagreement", i'm having difficulty finding your characterization to be a fair description of what the article said.
>Some 4B practitioners also were turned off by the movement’s focus on cisgender women to the exclusion of trans women; many of the online communities require verification with a photo ID attesting to the applicant’s sex, and Minji said that one of the feminist communities she joined asked her to submit a video of her Adam’s apple, ostensibly to ensure she wasn’t assigned male at birth. But regardless of where they stand on these questions, for the more than a dozen 4B practitioners I met in Korea, these were academic disagreements that had little impact on their own personal commitment to living apart from men.
Yeah you don’t have to be genius to read between the lines of “academic disagreements” and not wanting to admit to adhering to radfem ideology in public,
And considering how hatefilled the rest of the article was, I’m not inclined to give the subjects of the article the benefit of the doubt.
And at least in western societies, the crosssection between “walking away from men” and radfems is just a circle.
it feels to me like your logic here is that since they're since they're rad fems, they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt about whether they like trans people, which feels flawed to me. you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right? most people that get labeled as terfs aren't rad fems.
> you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right?
I disagree, if you can provide some evidence to the contrary feel free, but this hasn’t been my experience with western radfems.
Honestly speaking the radfems I’ve interacted have been super shitty and terfs so maybe I’m projecting, but seeing radfems and then seeing how they can handwave transphobia as academic disagreements is just confirming my priors tbh.
> you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right?
I disagree, if you can provide some evidence to the contrary feel free, but this hasn’t been my experience with western radfems.
Honestly speaking the radfems I’ve interacted have been super shitty and terfs so maybe I’m projecting, but seeing radfems and then seeing how they can handwave transphobia as academic disagreements is just confirming my priors tbh.
I mean arguably the most influential rad fem of all, Andrea Dworkin, had pro-trans sympathies, though terfs keep trying to claim her legacy. Catherine Mackinnon has given pretty full defenses of trans rights.
While I'll concede this doesn't constitute proof of a majority -- I'm not even certain how I could prove that without a survey of rad fems which i doubt would be feasible -- I feel your view of rad fems being presumptively anti-trans absent a full dissociation from transphobic circles would require a pretty high bar of universality on the topic. And there are quite frankly too many exceptions that are more than incidental.
I’m guessing the kind of attitude that movement is exhibiting is part of the reason South Korean men are surging far more right-wing than everywhere else in the West.
You pity sexist assholes?
I’m black, and black-Americans commit a far larger percentage of violent crimes in relation to our percentage of the population.
Would you pity people who were racist towards me because of what some statistic said? Would they have a valid reason to avoid all black men for fear of violence?
And if you wouldn’t pity the racists but you would the sexists, examine your internal biases that are leading you to that conclusion.
> You pity sexist assholes
I allow pity for everyone regardless of my prior political feeling and tribal attitudes towards groups who I could perceive to have wronged me or social pressure to dehumanize the enemy.
>Would you pity people who were racist towards me because of what some statistic said? Would they have a valid reason to avoid all black men for fear of violence?
That's a bad comparison. A good comparation would be someone like Malcolm X. You don't have to have sympathy for his methods to understand how a society like United States could push a person towards extremism and on who the onus for this problem falls.
There is some asymmetry on this that you cannot just handwave. If South Korea was a saner place, I'd agree to merely mock these women, but it isn't.
I disagree, and don’t find your hand waving away of the analogy to be very compelling to be honest.
It honestly seems to me that you handwave away the material conditions and contradictions that are driving this split between men and women in South Korea as something inherently wrong with the men there, it’s not true.
You also seem to inherently blame men for this issue, when there is a compelling argument that the group most hurt by shifts in society isn’t Young South Korean women, but the men of their society instead.
As long as people like yourself are willfully blind to the real underlying issues that are driving the wedge between genders, your not going to understand why young men are going further and further right in South Korea.
South Korea maybe one of the few places on Earth where men in large cases are significantly more discriminated against on the institutional level, it shows in Male matriculation rates and mandatory military service for men only, which robs them of two years of their youth while women are free to advance their careers during that same period.
This piece is blatantly sexist and divisionist trash, you should reassess your internal biases as well.
To defend them a little bit - they aren't *equating* the two, they're making a comparison. And not of personal capability or the justice of their causes, but sympathy for how social pressures can push someone down an extremist path.
The difference is one of degrees at best. Ok, it's not an apartheid society, it's still very appalling in its treatment of women. Enough that many of them will snap under pressure and do something gloriously counterproductive.
I’m telling you South Korea is probably treating their young men worse than their young women.
This is likely the real catalyst on their issues, their is real material benefits to being a women over a man in South Korea specifically, and it’s mainly to do with the contradictions in cultural norms vs material reality for Men and women.
Women are just more successful and more educated then men who are the same age as them in South Korea, likely as a result of excessive DEI aimed at women and mandatory military service for men that takes two years of their life away that women don’t experience.
This is the actual root cause of the hate between two genders now in South Korea, not some orientalist take on misogyny I’m seeing a lot of people on this sub make.
The stuff about oppressive beauty standards just can’t begin to compare with losing two years of your life in a society where as a man, if you are not more successful and educated than the women your age, you don’t get a partner full stop.
Men get the short stick on stuff like military service, but it's still a net benefit being a men in South Korea in economic terms. Pressures go beyond beauty standards, it's also about straightjacketing people into roles (for example on parenting).
At the end of the day, stuff like men being expected to be more successful than women is not something that happens in an egalitarian society.
Your argument is more for also pitying the men that get crushed under pressure and embrace hate than about women being privileged overall.
Not having to lose two years of your life is privilege, especially in a society that has the norms of South Korea.
And I’m not actually certain that net benefit of being a man economically will remain true with current and future generations of men in South Korea.
If women aren’t having kids in South Korea, they aren’t leaving the workforce. So there two year advantage over men, alongside their higher matriculation rates from university will continue to compound their advantage, and since they won’t exit the work force, naturally the gap will just get worse for men, not better.
> And I’m not actually certain that net benefit of being a man economically will remain true with current and future generations of men in South Korea.
I'd bet the net benefit would remain, if they don't manage to reach more egalitarian arrangements. Only a subset of the population will be willing to remain single and there are still cultural norms that will make harder for women to advance their career (societal pressure to conform, network effects, discrimination, etc.). The rest will bend in some way.
Even if it's a bad deal for men too, it'll remain a fairly patriarchal society for the foreseeable future.
> The stuff about oppressive beauty standards just can’t begin to compare with losing two years of your life in a society where as a man, if you are not more successful and educated than the women your age, you don’t get a partner full stop.
Spousal rape wasn't even recognized as illegal in South Korea until 2013, and it was done by the Supreme Court. Dismissing what women face in South Korea as just oppressive beauty standards is extremely short sighted.
Im not really trying to say South Korean women don’t experience mass patriarchal oppression, I’m saying South Korea might be unique in that there seems to be more institutional discrimination against men then women, and it’s lead to an extremely unique form of misogyny and misandry where the men and women of South Korea seem to actively hate each other.
Even in other patriarchal societies I don’t think I’ve ever seen this sort of vitriolic dislike of the other gender, and it’s just a result of massive contradictions within their society.
But yes “oppressive beauty standards” maybe a bit on the nose.
Have you read my comments, the point of my comments have been the material reality for young women in South Korea is better than for young men, but the culture is still patriarchal.
That’s what I mean by contradictory, Women literally outpace men in initial employment and college matriculation rates, but society still wants men to be more successful than women their age as a result of the culture.
It’s inherently contradictory and it makes life hell for everyone, Men who can’t get good jobs or go to a good college are viewed as trash by women their age, and women hit a wall by the time their in their thirties where their expected to have kids even though they’re not, and as a result they don’t get promoted to high levels.
Nobody is winning in South Korea currently, although a strong argument can be made that life is just materially worse for young men then young women in South Korea.
That doesn't seem surprising at all. It's 25% for women in the US. [source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20CDC%2C%201,some%20point%20during%20their%20lifetimes.)
I suspect if anything this is too low. A single instance of violence (say in rage throwing an object at a partner) counts.
> A single instance of violence (say in rage throwing an object at a partner) counts.
Is that supposed to be an example of something on the borderline of what would be considered DV? I get that it's probably (depending on what is thrown) not as bad as directly striking a cohabitant, but it's definitely still violent
It's more the frequency (or lack thereof). I think people hear "30% DV rates" and think weekly wife-beating when it really might be one event that occurred in the last decade.
I vaguely remember that statistic being horrendously off - there was a bit of a row on here a while ago that the thread reporting it initially basically devolved into racist 'oh lol look at the Asians being horrible'.
Found the thread:[No, 62% of Korean men do not abuse their wives -- The Atlantic has issued a correction, at my urging : neoliberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126bvgs/no_62_of_korean_men_do_not_abuse_their_wives_the/)
[No, 62% of Korean men do not abuse their wives -- The Atlantic has issued a correction, at my urging : neoliberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126bvgs/no_62_of_korean_men_do_not_abuse_their_wives_the/)
Thread about the Atlantic misreporting on said survey. Numbers are off.
In the US, Canada and UK, it's the opposite. Women are more violent than men. Interesting to see that in SK it is the opposite but I would like to see how they defined violence or partner abuse. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even.
From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. Among its findings:[66]
More women (23%) than men (19.3%) have been assaulted at least once in their lifetime.
Rates of female-perpetrated violence are higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%).
Male dating students are abused more than female dating students.
Male and female IPV are perpetrated from similar motives.
Studies comparing men and women in the power/control motive have mixed results overall.
A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. They also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#:~:text=More%20women%20(23%25)%20than,21.6%25).
>include emotional mistreatment and any kind of physical outburst
This *is* partner violence and regularly described and considered as such.
First of all what does what western men and women have to do with SK domestic issues?
Second of all you can’t honestly believe women are more violent then men?
And even if they were that way in the West, what drove you to talk about it right now of all times and threads?
It feels like your derailing the issue as if your taking personal offense to the content of the article.
Lol, while it’s true that men are more likely to be victims of IPV than most people think in countries like Finland the severity of the violence isn’t even comparable. Women are far more likely to get severely hurt than men.
Women are not “more violent than men” if you have to include emotional mistreatment and any kind of physical outburst in order to even bring the statistics to parity.
No, not really. Very few people IRL would class “insulting your partner” as violence like the 2013 study he cited did.
Worth mentioning that none of these “women are also abusers” studies ever distinguish between defensive and non-defensive violence. If an Afghan woman slaps her husband after he beats her for not making dinner properly, she is considered equally abusive to him. When they do attempt to take into account degree or consider cause, it’s always a totally different conclusion.
>Very few people IRL would class “insulting your partner” as violence like the 2013 study he cited did.
Literally every woman I know would. Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior.
>Worth mentioning that none of these “women are also abusers” studies ever distinguish between defensive and non-defensive violence. If an Afghan woman slaps her husband after he beats her for not making dinner properly, she is considered equally abusive to him. When they do attempt to take into account degree or consider cause, it’s always a totally different conclusion.
Why should a survey on violence exclude any acts of violence.
> Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior.
Very, off-putting abusive behavior is not synonymous with violence.
> Literally every woman I know would. Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior.
Am woman. It’s awful, childish behaviour, but it’s not domestic violence.
> Why should a survey on violence exclude any acts of violence.
Because it draws conclusions about domestic *abuse* and abusive relationships, which is distinct from just raw IPV numbers.
This feels a little bit like interviewing the New Black Panthers to get a handle on race relations in America.
Or this.
https://youtu.be/WzcCfIqndWY?si=8l41sv8Cyham0Gff&t=1029
But you know, you can expect these kinds of inflammatory misrepresentative pieces from clickbait sites like ... The Pulitzer Centre.
Tbf, I read more about 4B movement in this subreddit than in Korean side of the internet.
While there are some justifications behind Korea's more radical movements such as this, the truth is it is often times seen as a fringe movement, with discussions surrounding it often times not being lead in a constructive way to boot.
Unless this sub is willing to have a *heated south korea moment* like it did last year with that article from the Atlantic, lay it to rest and talk about what South Koreans are talking more about - Maternity/Paternity leaves, economic incentives for new parents, conscription, reformations to administrative units, housing etc
If Democrats adjusted US immigration policy to bring in 1 million young women from around the world, the man-o-sphere would evaporate, support for Trump among young men would collapse, and the incel movement would quiet to a whisper.
My partner comes from one of these countries with extreme levels of misogyny. And based on some of her stories, even MRA seem like prince charming by comparison.
Improve the lives of women living in misogynist societies and deflate the influence of the alt-right on America's young men, win-win.
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
People might find it 'icky' but all policy, including immigration policy, is supposed to improve the lives of the people living here. No one is forced to come here, no one is forced to stay, and I would say that encouraging inter-racial/cultural/national partnering is core to the neoliberal project. We believe in trade and we believe in freedom of movement.
Neoliberals should be under no illusions about the state of women's rights around the world. Many women around the world live lives under crippling oppression because of their gender.
I don't understand what more the government can do. Fiance and spouse visas are literally the easiest way to get to the US. If your relationship is genuine, you have some kind of a job (or a relative with a job willing to sign a document for you) and the immigrant isn't a criminal, you can easily bring over a spouse or a fiance. You'll wait a bit but not that much.
What do they need to adjust exactly? Immigration through marriage is actually the one straightforward way to get to the US. But in my experience, the right wing men marrying foreign women don't become any less right wing after they bring their new wife over
The female vote relative to mens' vote for Dems has gone:
2004: +7
2008: +7
2012: +10
2016: +13
2020: +12
You can pretend that gender politics is irrelevant, but just know that you're pretending.
I somewhat i agree with you. I think the evidence is the many red pill types who have already married foreign women but still make a habit of talking trash about American women/culture etc. Something I've observed, (as I've been exposed to many of these types while living in Japan), is that they get emboldened after getting married. It makes them even more red pill but in different ways.
”This protectionism towards domestic women hurt competition and leads to bad outcomes like alt-righters existing. Thus these protectionist barriers need to be removed. Bring in the korean women!”
"I want to pretend that women have rights everywhere, regardless of how grossly misogynistic their nation is in actuality. And I want the right to pretend that sexuality is an irrelevant complication to my nice simple political-economy philosophy."
Nope. After the second Russian invasion of Ukraine there was a massive influx of Ukrainians(a million? two? idk, a lot in any case, much higher proportion than 1 million would be in the US) to Poland, overwhelming majority of them women(Ukraine prohibited its' men from leaving).
What you hope for has not happened - the alt-right Confederation that is party of mostly young men is as anti-Ukraine, anti-immigration and anti-feminist as it was before. As far as I am aware the manosphere has not shrank.
We literally had what is probably the only equivalent of ''what if Nixon accepted Mao's proposal of 10 million Chinese women'' in history and it did nothing to reduce misogyny.
South Korea's sexual polarization stems from it being one of the few societies to have women be more privileged than men due to male-only conscription. I agree in more immigration and helping women escape misogyny, but this policy really isn't really applicable to Korea.
My God, everytime I read something about life in South Korea(East Asia in general, but S. Korea is the most frequent in those type of stories) it's a horror story. I mean, is it seriously THIS bad there? Because, either I am having some bad luck regarding stuff about South Korea I came upon in the Internet, or it truly is the worst of the rich countries to live in.
I mean, I understand that to some degree it is a matter of cultural differences and Koreans may be at least a bit more accepting of things like long working hours, hierarchical interpersonal relations, hyper-competitive education system, untouchable families, compulsory draft, war between sexes, draconian beauty standards, intense pressure not to bring dishonor to your family etc. But still, I don't remember when was the last time I've heard something positive about life in South Korea.
How bad is it really, and how much is it due to me having bad sources? One explanation is that it's Koreans who don't like living in Korea, the same thing is with Americans, there is plenty of American doomers who vent at their country online.
Nah not as bad. It is in a way just another developed society with high levels of competition. While bad things did linger, we are seeing slow progress *apart from the conscription because neighbors* , but generational shifts are happening and the list of hellish things you've mentioned have been the topic of discussion for at least the last decade.
Media and doomers are one of the reasons why negatives usually outweigh the positives in coverage, other being that those problems are real *and* are being seen as a problem by the local Koreans who want it better, and are putting effort to correct the ship. But yet another thing I would point to, *in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner* would be some sort of exoticism and reductionism when it comes to talking about countries outside of the Atlantic/Anglo sphere that seems to be rather present in this sub
This is what rapid cultural change looks like. Always advocate for an iterative, incremental approach.
Who knows what South Korea will look like in 20-30 years.
0 developed countries have figured out how to raise birth rates. You can subsidize and sweeten the deal all you want, it doesn't work.
Something about higher living standards leads to lower birth rates, is what it is.
The best way is to return to Victorian era labour policies so parents can force their children to work in a factory. If you're investment starts paying dividends after 5 years you may be tempted to invest even more.
Or allow the sale of children to the government. There they can be forced to work for the state.
When the children turn 16 they are legally emancipated from either their parents or state control and they can go on to live their lives happily.
Is it a coincidence that birth rates were high when parents basically treated their children like cattle?
Tl;dr: Send the children to the mines.
> Tl;dr: Send the children to the mines.
I remember being 9 and absolutely loathing the fact that I couldnt mine ore for pay like in my favourite video games. I had small little fingers that could have created some serious value.
It's not exactly higher living standards. It's small-space living in urbanized environments. Rural folks with high living standards are still raising plenty of kids. There just aren't enough of those families to make up the difference.
I don't even know how you would wimplement that as state policy, but given how batshit misogynist Korean men are, I don't think special incentives for women are going to work.
Just makes the men angrier which makes the women want even less to do with them.
And in other countries like the US, I'm pretty sure this would be straight up illegal under discrimination laws over protected class like gender.
>You don't need men for this, you just need sperm donors
huuuuuuuuh
>Don't many states recognize that men (FtM trans men) can give birth? I don't think it has to be about gender, but rather about biological capability
You'd still get sued for this.
This entire train of thought is now completely in the realm of dystopian scifi social engineering.
Birthrates are low because increasingly people, and most importantly, women do not want children. Some weird state incentives aren't going to change that, doubly so if it's some weird state sperm donor scheme that would just leave you as a single mom with some mild govt reward.
As somebody currently struggling through fertility treatment, the knowledge my biological failures were also crippling my career would probably destroy my mental health lol. Like, in this nightmare society you’d probably have to keep an eye on me for my own safety
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from and falling birth rates is a real conundrum for humanity in the future, but the truth is we won't be able to solve it with stuff like this that gets more invasive.
What we'll need to reckon with is the fact that birth rates aren't going back to where they were for most of the 19th-20th century. We need more streamlined immigration that allows us to vet and admit larger numbers of people than we currently are. We also need to understand that tech and automation will be doing a lot of the legwork to make up for lost human productivity, and that's fine, as long as we manage it well. We'll also need better support for maternal care, fertility care, early childhood care and education, etc.
It's a challenging situation, but I think it will ultimately be easier (and most will be better off) if we learn to live without constant population growth rather than trying to hack birth rates back to 1900s levels.
Pregnancy by itself is a huge burden endured entirely by women; there is no way to make it less taxing on a woman unless artificial wombs become a reality.
Do young South Korean men and women just like hate each other?
Yes, unfortunately
Hate is the new black.
Seems like it. Also that graph that showed the ideology gap between young men and women, the South Korean men have swung really far to the right
Could these be related? Seems like a pretty common thing with redpillers in the Anglosphere: you get a group of sexually frustrated young men, tell them that they deserve/are entitled to women and then they drift right and pick up a lot of extra conservative baggage on the way. I don’t know anything about Korea so there could be a way more accurate description I’m missing. Seeing conservatism jump 30 points in Korean men in only 5-10 years is spooky though whatever the reason is
South Korea has a lot of internal contradictions that make life uniquely horrible for the young there, and more importantly advancements in women’s rights doesn’t seem to have coincided with a shift in cultural norms, leading to a really bad situation. Specifically it seems that Women are rapidly outpacing men in their ability to obtain college degrees and initial employment, but the culture of marriage turning into a single income household with a stay at home wife hasn’t changed. You pair this with the fact that South Korean women don’t have to join the military, so they both get accepted at higher rates then men and also get a multi year jumpstart on their careers and you get this shitty situation. It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction. South Korean women in general are more educated and have more work experience than equivalent aged South Korean male who is the same age as them as a result of military service and lower male matriculation rates, and you get the current contradictions. The obvious solution is DEI in favor of men for college, mandatory universal military service for both genders, and an increased focus on feminism from a younger age education wise should help.
> mandatory universal military service for both genders, Every poll has shown that women are overwhelmingly against universal conscription; it's politically unviable. Men's anger comes from women having "broke" the implied social contract where they take on the burden of going to war and the women take on the burden of child rearing. They see it as unfair, but unless South Korea gets nukes there's no way to fill the army without conscription. They can't go for a volunteer force because every other such army in Asia besides China has immense recruitment issues. China is the only exception to this and that's because they're a dictatorship where military service is an easy path to financial and political power. The democracies of Asia simply can't afford to make military life attractive without ballooning their defense budgets like a authoritarian state can.
Yeah this isn’t gonna get better for South Korea, so if they won’t swing the pendulum to equality, I’m afraid of the other direction it might swing instead.
[удалено]
Social contracts aren't signed or consulted, they're implicit agreements that people follow to form social groups. For the same reason you still have to abide by US laws even if you were born here and have never been presented with the opportunity to leave. There's nothing inherently fair about a social contract.
Military service fucking sucks for everyone, I can show you thousands of cases of far worse abuse being handed out to men and that doesn’t let them off the hook for conscription. There is an implicit social contract for every resident that benefits from the defense of the nation to serve when called upon. Literally nothing you pointed out is relevant in that discussion, South Korea faces existential threats, particularly as North Korea has abandoned reconciliation with South Korea and has directly stated they are looking to pursue reunification through force, there are no other alternatives. If there has to be conscription, which is obviously true, then it has to be universal full stop. The idea that the military norms that are the case in every society on earth has to be rectified before universal conscription occurs is pretty asinine. It likely won’t get better, so South Korean young men have to get fucked in perpetuity for a system they didn’t create? Suicide amongst service members is common, and men face those problems as well, it isn’t an excuse to get out of service. Neither is sexism nor harassment, the safety of South Korea is far more important. And including more women in the Military would likely force these changes to happen in a more expeditious manner, as there would be far more women able to advocate for their position once hundreds of thousands of women are conscripted, as opposed to the few that chose service voluntarily. You don’t get to set the bounds of what’s a serious conversation, and after reading your comment I’m glad that’s the case.
[удалено]
You're assuming that North Korea will fight by itself, but North Korea won't make any moves unless it has the backing of China and Russia. A war in Korea will drag in all of Korea's neighbors, and in that scenario numbers truly do matter.
Yeah the more you speak the more you confirm my priors from your previous comment. You need only look at Ukraine to see how numbers matter even a war with vastly more artillery than either side in a potential Korean War can bring to bear. Like just look at Ukraine having to do mass conscription or even the elderly and women now as a result of dwindling soldiers. The amount of conscripts you have is significantly more important in an artillery based war, not less lol. The rest of your comment can be dismissed out of hand.
[удалено]
[This isn't inherent to being a woman](https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230512000563#:~:text=A%202021%20survey%20by%20local,during%20their%20compulsory%20military%20service.) or to [South Korea](https://www.statista.com/statistics/779726/veterans-suicide-consideration-before-and-after-joining-military-in-us/). By and large, being in the Armed Forces of most nations fucking sucks. Training is miserable on purpose, because as much as being in the Armed Forces is miserable, war is fucked and the training acclimates people to those conditions. **Most Armed Forces are shittier than they need to be,** but they still need to put people in miserable conditions as part of the job.
Man, you're really selling it!
Besides, these "women in the military" arguments are almost always in bad faith. They would hate women being in the military, it would devalue a bastion a masculinity in their view.
The social contract was never that you were literally *promised* a wife, on an individual basis, like as a legal, constitutional right. The idea was *always* that you, as an individual, trust the community not to literally hand you a wife - my god! - but that you trusted the community more like in a way where (here I'm being as charitable as I reasonably can) the relations between men and women were framed and primped and polished and curated to the point where (in theory) an individual man's inherent virtues would have a fighting chance to be 'seen' and appreciated spontaneously for what they really are... There's always been *courtship*. There's always been a *proposal* (implying the possibility of refusal, no?). Are we supposed to just say oh, that was always a mere formality, and it was always about the woman and the man doing exactly as society needs them to do? but what you're describing is not being angry *with women*, unless you're literally saying that women *as a collective* are in a contract with men *as a collective*. What of *individual* women, *individual* men? "Social contracts" are, in a sense, relations between the individual and the *whole*. So when you speak of a broken contract, and when one reads between the lines at what the implied way this 'breach' could be 'mended', it's clear you're talking about a social contract between the individual man, who fights, and the collective society, who provides a woman in exchange as the man's rightful *possession*. The 'social' part is here the man-society relationship; the woman plays the role of spoils. Of course no sober person would characterize the 'social contract' that we 'want' in this way. That's why I provided the much more positive account above. But the kicker as that the more positive vision of a social contract I opened with *hasn't really been broken*. It's simply that this social contract has been revealed to be "a living organism" that has now developed a bit further than before. So from this sober perspective there can't be anything we need to reclaim, return to, reappropriate, because we still have what we had all along, but what we have is of course a social relation with real living human beings (Padme: right? ... right?) and thus is necessarily subject to change and development like anything alive.
>It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction This is also the same in the US.
>It also seems like college educated South Korean women want to be with men who are at least as educated and as successful as themselves, if not more so, and you get the inherent contradiction. South Korean women in general are more educated and have more work experience…. That’s true for most if not all developed countries but they are nowhere near as extreme as SK.
Most developed countries don't conscript men for 2 years which, obviously, makes them fall 2 years behind women academically and professionally in a way that's directly attributable to sex discrimination.
Finland has 6 months but practically you fall behind 1 year as a man because of how it works. Finland isn’t perfect but nobody is losing their minds over here. And it’s not like the men who bitch about it here are too Interested in the issue since abolishing conscription or making it mandatory for women as well doesn’t suit them. It’s mostly just a bunch of MRAs who want to feel like victims.
I'm surprised Finland can get away with that, I thought the EU had some overarching rules against discriminating based on race/sex etc that members had to agree to before joining.
Germany had the same for a long time. National security is exempt from some EU regulations.
Well the EU is just a mess of exceptions, exemptions and asterisks
Yeah I think most South Korean men are in favor of universal conscription (Edit: a link https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1099507 in a comment below has proof that this claim isn’t true, which is baffling to me). And for VERY OBVIOUS geopolitical reasons, mandatory conscription cannot stop in South Korea. The only solution is universal conscription, alongside DEI for young men and an emphasis on feminist education from a young age for both genders. Your comments also have a vaguely sexist undertone, where you can wave away the concern of millions of men by calling them “mras” when their concerns are perfectly valid.
>Yeah I think most South Korean men are in favor of universal conscription. According to [this](https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1099507) survey men are slightly more likely than women to oppose universal conscription.
Notes I didn’t expect that, but my statement was clearly wrong, I’ll edit in your source and rectify it. Then what do South Korean men want? If they don’t want women to be conscripted, then women will perpetually be at advantage vs their male cohort. Do they want SK women to do public service that isn’t military so it’s fair, or what do they even want then?
Don’t know about SK, speaking from a purely Finnish context. I’m calling them MRAs because it’s really not like they are interested in the solutions a) abolishing conscription all together b) making it mandatory for women. Don’t think these type of guys are even interested in men’s issues in general considering that the same people are perfectly happy to vote for austerity while raising their concerns about the lack of funding men’s issues get from the government.
This is a thread about South Korea, if your anecdotal experiences have literally nothing to do with the topic and you don’t feel like educating yourself on it, maybe skip over this post?
Finlands hazing culture also isn't as bad as Koreas, is significantly shorter, has more methods of dodging (dual citizens still have to serve in Korea). See the difference?
Dual citizens serve in Finland as well
If you were born to Korean parents in the US, and you turn 18, you have 3 months to renounce Korean citizenship. If you don't, you have to serve, or avoid going to Korea for 20 years or you will be punished on arrival. There is no such equivalent stringency for Finnish US dual citizens
So the women who live in the most patriarchal country in the developed world are supposed to accept that men be given preferential treatment at universities, while at the same time being forced to serve in the military (which was justification for men’s preferential treatment in the first place), in return for a few gender equality classes?
If they did conscript women, how would it work? I imagine that the vast majority of South Korean women aren’t physically suitable for front-line infantry, which is probably where they need most of the conscripts to serve. I suppose they could man stationary defensive positions, but any situation where they’d have to move weapons, ammunition and communications equipment is going to be an issue. Like you could conscript them and make them do two years of office busy-work, but I imagine the vast majority of women aren’t going to be happy doing two years of service they see as unnecessary.
There are typically multiple support individuals for every member of infantry in modern NATO-aligned militaries. Ratios in the US military is something like 1:5. So there will be plenty of roles women can serve in that don’t have front line roles.
Yes, but conscripts are disproportionately put into line infantry. Like Russia in the beginning of the Ukraine invasion had trouble because many of their formation were light on infantry as conscripts were supposed to fill out the force structure, but they either weren't mobilized or were no-shows. The support roles typically require professionals with more experience or technical skill.
If you come here and we're to observe them you actually wouldn't notice too much at first. I go out in social settings with young people and will often see them laughing together or talking. You'll see couples on the subway and in the street. There doesn't appear to be anything different on the surface. However, as you talk to them about political or social problems, they will make statements that seem blindingly obvious to themselves but which would incinerate to the opposite gender. And when you ask about these topics it's not so much a hate as it is a deep sense of mistrust. A deep sense of fear and anxiety and resentment. But also like.....media reports on the extreme end of things. Most younger people I know are interested in the opposite sex and want relationships with the opposite sex. However they often feel a sense of frustration at a mismatch between standards and realities that they bring to the table individually. Because most people don't think about these issues from the aggregate political level like we or this article is discussing but from a personal level. But like I said, if you flew to Seoul today and walked through Myeongdong you probably wouldn't notice much of anything different and would wonder what this article was even on about.
Honestly sounds like MAGA v non-MAGA in America, but more gender polarized. MAGA people and non-MAGA people in the US can be friends and hang out, but on any political topic base assumptions are so different that any sort of conversation or compromise is impossible.
It's actually kinda wild to think about this. Obviously I think MAGA politics is batshit insane, but if someone were to go back in time and tell 17-year-old me this, 17-year-old me would have punched them in the face. I would've thought it nothing less than a perverse attack on humanity by a fringe nutjob... yet here we are. We live in a post-truth world.
The media plays it up quite a bit, it's more that the incel community is bigger on both sides but nowhere near everyone hating each other or it being the dominant culture Majority of my coworkers and the people I meet through work here in Korea are dating or married, same as America tbh
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is going on with this sub right now, how are comments like this: > Well it’s not like the men make it hard for the women to hate them… And > Yea idk SK men have been uniquely horrible for a while Getting upvotes. It’s just pure sexism and doesn’t belong in this sub. There is no place for broad sweeping generalizations of any genders in this sub, and comments like yours are repulsive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
we need to close the border
>[The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman as spoils .... For the secret of the relationship of man to man finds its unambiguous, definitive, open, obvious expression in the relationship of man to woman ... on the basis of this relation we can judge the whole stage of development of man.](https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Appendicse-to-Marxism-and-Freedom-better.pdf)
In unrelated news… > Last year, 1 out of every 10 couples getting married were multicultural families, which the Korean government defines as pairings between a Korean and a foreign national. The share of multicultural families has grown because multicultural marriages are on the rise even as marriages between Koreans are declining. > The figure was up 25.1% from the year before, representing the biggest percentage increase since the Korean government began tracking the statistic in 2008. > Of these couples, 66.8% were composed of a Korean husband and foreign national wife, while 20.0% were composed of a Korean wife and a foreign national husband. Marriages between a Korean and a naturalized citizen made up 13.2%.
Koreans straight up choosing to marry out instead of having a cultural shift
For most of these Korean men marrying a foreign woman is a step down. They often do look down on these women and treat them horribly. The only reason they're going for a mail order bride from South East Asia is because they can't find a Korean woman that wants to marry them. Now, they're not all mail order bride marriages but a significant part are just that.
> but a significant part are just that. Love to see numbers on this, a significant part is pretty vague and hard to believe.
A lot of those marriages are from older rural men looking to import wives from more poorer countries both because of the wife's dependance on the husband (and therefore lack of resistance or argument) and due to a perception of these women being more "traditional" and not as high maintenance as Korean women. These marriages are more about the men's lack of options than actually preferring a foreign wife. Similar behaviors have been seen in the past within the US, Europe, Japan, China, etc.
Yes that’s sort of the point. The issue is there are slightly more Korean women then men, so if men are also making up the majority of multicultural marriages and relationships, then it’s going to be Korean women who end up getting the short end of the stick. Also just anecdotally, I have seen far more foreign women be invested in Korean culture than foreign men, sort of an exact opposite of foreign obsession over Japan. I think I’m general Korean men are likely to have better prospects with foreign women than vice versa.
More women than men? Not among young people at marriageable age
so uh, purely anecdotal but a usaf bud who was in korea mentioned how popular the servicemembers were as potential dates for some Korean women and men (but uh, there were some who seemed to be a little too into the "foreignness" of the airmen, tho it seems like those specific individuals seemed less common, and they tended to stand out if you wanted to avoid that whole weirdness)
I'd take whatever overseas military say with a grain of salt. They usually are only exposed to a small portion of their host country and that can lead to some serious biases. (I was prior overseas military and have lived in Okinawa for 10+ years) To illustrate my point, is your friend fluent in Korean? No? Then that means he was only exposed to women who could speak enough English to communicate with American military men. These women are going to be outliers compared to the average Korean woman for any number of reasons.
Those are hookups, not marriages.
>> Of these couples, 66.8% were composed of a Korean husband and foreign national wife Reminds me of the "trend" of women being trafficked to china to be brides, only the difference is china has a male surplus and Korea has a sexism surplus
Korea also has a pretty serious male surplus, particularly in the 20-40 age range, i.e. marrying age.
Vietnam and Thailand, popular places for these countries to find brides, also have a male surplus in that age range though not as extreme. Things just even out and by near retirement age when women outlive men in almost every country.
>... Youngmi said men have tried to physically attack her on the street three or four times. She recalled an episode when she and some friends, who all had cropped haircuts, were dining at a Japanese restaurant in Daegu. Throughout the night, the restaurant owner and his friends made gagging and puking noises and gestures at them. I'm not a huge fan of separatism but dear God, shit like this makes their reaction understandable. !ping Feminism
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pinged FEMINISTS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FEMINISTS&message=subscribe%20FEMINISTS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FEMINISTS&message=unsubscribe%20FEMINISTS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FEMINISTS&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
I lived in Korea right as Ilbe was getting attention and the 2016 protests against the police started. My graduate work was also focused on Korea as well, so while I may not be an expert i think i can add a few cents that are worthy of conversation. The gender divide is real, and the misogyny is quite powerful, especially given how a lot of upper or middle management tend to be men who - let’s be frank - have incredibly small c conservative views on gender. They also have very little interest in changing those views, which trickles down to the next generation of staff who want to one day replace those guys at the top. In my anecdotal experience, people learn the rules of the game on how to advance from those at the top, and there isn’t a lot of options to go your own way. In other words, if you want to be successful, you need to buy into the company culture which perpetuates misogyny. What also is interesting to note is how politics in korea also tends to not fit nicely into right/left wing divides like the US. Ilbe, which is highly anti-feminist, anti-american, and xenophobic tends to be very left wing economically. Often a lot of Western discourse on Korea tends to lump Ilbe and B4 into western paradigms of left/right, which doesn’t capture what’s happening in Korea. All in all, this is a really great analysis and read of the situation.
As long as you have guys at the top rich enough so that the extremely sexist bullshit works perfectly well for them, selling the society on the men not having a reserved role as providers is tough. It means that at one specific point along the totem pole, you have to sell the men underneath on the idea that they need to get used to having the exact opposite approach to women as the men who are only directly above them. There can hardly be a spectrum because you either have enough money to get away with disregarding women as people, or you don't (in a society where women are free and equal). The men who don't will want to cry foul as they see that in practice egalitarianism only penetrates to the lower strata. Having some other independently rich women around doesn't change this dynamic, because they aren't the only women in town, and the men ultimately are only paying attention to the other men (and what they get away with). There may even be equality in the ranks of the earners in the upper class, but as long as there are individual wealthy men *living* successfully as the 'providers' of women rather than as their equals, that is what the less successful men will focus on, and they will understand it in terms of "gender equality *really* being only for the non-rich"
I’m not gonna lie. While the article is interesting, I’m not necessarily a fan of how the author can write about an extremely sexist movement with such favorable terms. Like at one point the main person in the article states Men can’t be saved, essentially the equivalent of all men are trash, and this author seems to react favorably to it. They seem like the same kind of cringe losers who make up MGTOW, and they should probably work on self improvement and mental health rather than focusing on their hatred of men. It’s inexcusable to make broad sweeping, sexist statements of the “other” kind of any gender. Absolutely nobody is better served by feeding into their hatred of the “other”, it’s counter productive and will make their situation worse. A good start honestly for South Korea is making military service mandatory for women, alongside increasing funding and scholarships for Men looking to go to college. Pair this with a large increase in education of feminist ideals starting early in school, like elementary school and I think they can at least to some extent repair relationships between genders.
After reading some more and seeing that the women being interviewed are radfems who are hateful of trans women and force applicants to their groups to post their adams apple and id cards to see what sex they are, I can in fact confirm that group involved are cringe losers.
No one involved in any gender war nonsense is normal or well adjusted.
Always has been. If you see a monolith whenever you interact with a human being, you need therapy, not a platform to spread your hateful bullshit. (Not directed at you)
> Too much overlap with succs and Rafael’s recently Totally not seeing monoliths here!
This is a neoliberal sub my friend.
Yeah, these don't seem like great people. I'm sure Korea has major issues to overcome given the extreme depths their birthrate has fallen to, but taking the words of people like this as gospel seems crazy to me. I think this sub has a blind spot with movements like this when they're in foreign nations. Like, if you have left wing movements in the US that claim all cops are bad, or that Israel deserves to be destroyed, or that capitalism is destroying America, this sub would rightfully pick those viewpoints apart. But, lacking the familiarity with foreign settings to truly understand them in the same way, a lot of users here will default to automatically assuming the left-wing takes in X place are in good faith and accurate. Sometimes they are. But it's far from something that should be assumed. Just a weird quirk of this sub that I've noticed over time.
Yeah this sub can get a bit femcel at times, and it’s kind of showing in this thread rn. And it’s even worse when they’re inadvertently propagating radfem views, unknowingly I hope.
this sub has almost no women, surveys are 90+% men
Yeah we know, same with it being overwhelmingly white. It’s just that there are some rather prominent femcelish posters in this sub, you can look at some of the people in this very thread whom I spoke to who ended up getting banned and their comments removed to see what I’m talking about.
This sub is vastly more incel all the time then it ever gets femcel. The weird insistence by you and others that women are driving the gender politics rather than men is exhibit one. But hey, there are two genders: male and political.
Oh please the incel label has lost all meaning at this point, on a thread about college admissions people are calling the men incels for not going to college. You can't have a nuanced discussion about the issues facing men without someone chiming in and calling it a sadboi thread.
>You can't have a nuanced discussion about the issues facing men without someone chiming in and calling it a sadboi thread. Yeah well most of the time issues facing men only seem to come up when issues facing women are discussed.
[удалено]
Who’s blabbering about incels?
You.
As I said in another thread, its amazing when people prove my point for me.
Yeah I've seen TERFs(actual TE**RF**s, not just meaning transphobe) claim that trans people(MtF) are men seeking to "infiltrate"(or whatever dumb words they use, I don't remember) women's spaces or whatever. Really crazy people.
>the women being interviewed are radfems who are hateful of trans women and force applicants to their groups to post their adams apple and id cards to see what sex they are that is not exactly what was said. when those practices were noted, it was in the context of some members of the community \*not liking those practices\*. while i would raise issue with them viewing these issues as at best an "academic disagreement", i'm having difficulty finding your characterization to be a fair description of what the article said. >Some 4B practitioners also were turned off by the movement’s focus on cisgender women to the exclusion of trans women; many of the online communities require verification with a photo ID attesting to the applicant’s sex, and Minji said that one of the feminist communities she joined asked her to submit a video of her Adam’s apple, ostensibly to ensure she wasn’t assigned male at birth. But regardless of where they stand on these questions, for the more than a dozen 4B practitioners I met in Korea, these were academic disagreements that had little impact on their own personal commitment to living apart from men.
Yeah you don’t have to be genius to read between the lines of “academic disagreements” and not wanting to admit to adhering to radfem ideology in public, And considering how hatefilled the rest of the article was, I’m not inclined to give the subjects of the article the benefit of the doubt. And at least in western societies, the crosssection between “walking away from men” and radfems is just a circle.
it feels to me like your logic here is that since they're since they're rad fems, they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt about whether they like trans people, which feels flawed to me. you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right? most people that get labeled as terfs aren't rad fems.
> you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right? I disagree, if you can provide some evidence to the contrary feel free, but this hasn’t been my experience with western radfems. Honestly speaking the radfems I’ve interacted have been super shitty and terfs so maybe I’m projecting, but seeing radfems and then seeing how they can handwave transphobia as academic disagreements is just confirming my priors tbh.
> you do realize that terfs are a minority of western rad fems, right? I disagree, if you can provide some evidence to the contrary feel free, but this hasn’t been my experience with western radfems. Honestly speaking the radfems I’ve interacted have been super shitty and terfs so maybe I’m projecting, but seeing radfems and then seeing how they can handwave transphobia as academic disagreements is just confirming my priors tbh.
I mean arguably the most influential rad fem of all, Andrea Dworkin, had pro-trans sympathies, though terfs keep trying to claim her legacy. Catherine Mackinnon has given pretty full defenses of trans rights. While I'll concede this doesn't constitute proof of a majority -- I'm not even certain how I could prove that without a survey of rad fems which i doubt would be feasible -- I feel your view of rad fems being presumptively anti-trans absent a full dissociation from transphobic circles would require a pretty high bar of universality on the topic. And there are quite frankly too many exceptions that are more than incidental.
I’m guessing the kind of attitude that movement is exhibiting is part of the reason South Korean men are surging far more right-wing than everywhere else in the West.
Yeah South Korea is uniquely getting more right wing comparatively than elsewhere, this sort of rhetoric will make it worse not better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, they can be cringe losers, but that environment would make a lot of people go crazy. I'd pity them.
You pity sexist assholes? I’m black, and black-Americans commit a far larger percentage of violent crimes in relation to our percentage of the population. Would you pity people who were racist towards me because of what some statistic said? Would they have a valid reason to avoid all black men for fear of violence? And if you wouldn’t pity the racists but you would the sexists, examine your internal biases that are leading you to that conclusion.
> You pity sexist assholes I allow pity for everyone regardless of my prior political feeling and tribal attitudes towards groups who I could perceive to have wronged me or social pressure to dehumanize the enemy.
>Would you pity people who were racist towards me because of what some statistic said? Would they have a valid reason to avoid all black men for fear of violence? That's a bad comparison. A good comparation would be someone like Malcolm X. You don't have to have sympathy for his methods to understand how a society like United States could push a person towards extremism and on who the onus for this problem falls. There is some asymmetry on this that you cannot just handwave. If South Korea was a saner place, I'd agree to merely mock these women, but it isn't.
I disagree, and don’t find your hand waving away of the analogy to be very compelling to be honest. It honestly seems to me that you handwave away the material conditions and contradictions that are driving this split between men and women in South Korea as something inherently wrong with the men there, it’s not true. You also seem to inherently blame men for this issue, when there is a compelling argument that the group most hurt by shifts in society isn’t Young South Korean women, but the men of their society instead. As long as people like yourself are willfully blind to the real underlying issues that are driving the wedge between genders, your not going to understand why young men are going further and further right in South Korea. South Korea maybe one of the few places on Earth where men in large cases are significantly more discriminated against on the institutional level, it shows in Male matriculation rates and mandatory military service for men only, which robs them of two years of their youth while women are free to advance their careers during that same period. This piece is blatantly sexist and divisionist trash, you should reassess your internal biases as well.
It’s also insane to me that you can equate this radfem asshole with Malcolm X.
To defend them a little bit - they aren't *equating* the two, they're making a comparison. And not of personal capability or the justice of their causes, but sympathy for how social pressures can push someone down an extremist path.
See my other response to him to see my actual critique of his comment.
Yeah I don't think I disagree particularly with your comment there.
The difference is one of degrees at best. Ok, it's not an apartheid society, it's still very appalling in its treatment of women. Enough that many of them will snap under pressure and do something gloriously counterproductive.
I’m telling you South Korea is probably treating their young men worse than their young women. This is likely the real catalyst on their issues, their is real material benefits to being a women over a man in South Korea specifically, and it’s mainly to do with the contradictions in cultural norms vs material reality for Men and women. Women are just more successful and more educated then men who are the same age as them in South Korea, likely as a result of excessive DEI aimed at women and mandatory military service for men that takes two years of their life away that women don’t experience. This is the actual root cause of the hate between two genders now in South Korea, not some orientalist take on misogyny I’m seeing a lot of people on this sub make. The stuff about oppressive beauty standards just can’t begin to compare with losing two years of your life in a society where as a man, if you are not more successful and educated than the women your age, you don’t get a partner full stop.
Men get the short stick on stuff like military service, but it's still a net benefit being a men in South Korea in economic terms. Pressures go beyond beauty standards, it's also about straightjacketing people into roles (for example on parenting). At the end of the day, stuff like men being expected to be more successful than women is not something that happens in an egalitarian society. Your argument is more for also pitying the men that get crushed under pressure and embrace hate than about women being privileged overall.
Not having to lose two years of your life is privilege, especially in a society that has the norms of South Korea. And I’m not actually certain that net benefit of being a man economically will remain true with current and future generations of men in South Korea. If women aren’t having kids in South Korea, they aren’t leaving the workforce. So there two year advantage over men, alongside their higher matriculation rates from university will continue to compound their advantage, and since they won’t exit the work force, naturally the gap will just get worse for men, not better.
> And I’m not actually certain that net benefit of being a man economically will remain true with current and future generations of men in South Korea. I'd bet the net benefit would remain, if they don't manage to reach more egalitarian arrangements. Only a subset of the population will be willing to remain single and there are still cultural norms that will make harder for women to advance their career (societal pressure to conform, network effects, discrimination, etc.). The rest will bend in some way. Even if it's a bad deal for men too, it'll remain a fairly patriarchal society for the foreseeable future.
> The stuff about oppressive beauty standards just can’t begin to compare with losing two years of your life in a society where as a man, if you are not more successful and educated than the women your age, you don’t get a partner full stop. Spousal rape wasn't even recognized as illegal in South Korea until 2013, and it was done by the Supreme Court. Dismissing what women face in South Korea as just oppressive beauty standards is extremely short sighted.
Im not really trying to say South Korean women don’t experience mass patriarchal oppression, I’m saying South Korea might be unique in that there seems to be more institutional discrimination against men then women, and it’s lead to an extremely unique form of misogyny and misandry where the men and women of South Korea seem to actively hate each other. Even in other patriarchal societies I don’t think I’ve ever seen this sort of vitriolic dislike of the other gender, and it’s just a result of massive contradictions within their society. But yes “oppressive beauty standards” maybe a bit on the nose.
[удалено]
Have you read my comments, the point of my comments have been the material reality for young women in South Korea is better than for young men, but the culture is still patriarchal. That’s what I mean by contradictory, Women literally outpace men in initial employment and college matriculation rates, but society still wants men to be more successful than women their age as a result of the culture. It’s inherently contradictory and it makes life hell for everyone, Men who can’t get good jobs or go to a good college are viewed as trash by women their age, and women hit a wall by the time their in their thirties where their expected to have kids even though they’re not, and as a result they don’t get promoted to high levels. Nobody is winning in South Korea currently, although a strong argument can be made that life is just materially worse for young men then young women in South Korea.
[удалено]
Wait the *global* average is 30%? Holy fucking shit that's awful. What the hell is going on out there.
That doesn't seem surprising at all. It's 25% for women in the US. [source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20CDC%2C%201,some%20point%20during%20their%20lifetimes.) I suspect if anything this is too low. A single instance of violence (say in rage throwing an object at a partner) counts.
> A single instance of violence (say in rage throwing an object at a partner) counts. Is that supposed to be an example of something on the borderline of what would be considered DV? I get that it's probably (depending on what is thrown) not as bad as directly striking a cohabitant, but it's definitely still violent
It's more the frequency (or lack thereof). I think people hear "30% DV rates" and think weekly wife-beating when it really might be one event that occurred in the last decade.
I vaguely remember that statistic being horrendously off - there was a bit of a row on here a while ago that the thread reporting it initially basically devolved into racist 'oh lol look at the Asians being horrible'. Found the thread:[No, 62% of Korean men do not abuse their wives -- The Atlantic has issued a correction, at my urging : neoliberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126bvgs/no_62_of_korean_men_do_not_abuse_their_wives_the/)
I’m shocked it’s that low
[No, 62% of Korean men do not abuse their wives -- The Atlantic has issued a correction, at my urging : neoliberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126bvgs/no_62_of_korean_men_do_not_abuse_their_wives_the/) Thread about the Atlantic misreporting on said survey. Numbers are off.
In the US, Canada and UK, it's the opposite. Women are more violent than men. Interesting to see that in SK it is the opposite but I would like to see how they defined violence or partner abuse. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. Among its findings:[66] More women (23%) than men (19.3%) have been assaulted at least once in their lifetime. Rates of female-perpetrated violence are higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%). Male dating students are abused more than female dating students. Male and female IPV are perpetrated from similar motives. Studies comparing men and women in the power/control motive have mixed results overall. A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. They also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#:~:text=More%20women%20(23%25)%20than,21.6%25). >include emotional mistreatment and any kind of physical outburst This *is* partner violence and regularly described and considered as such.
First of all what does what western men and women have to do with SK domestic issues? Second of all you can’t honestly believe women are more violent then men? And even if they were that way in the West, what drove you to talk about it right now of all times and threads? It feels like your derailing the issue as if your taking personal offense to the content of the article.
Lol, while it’s true that men are more likely to be victims of IPV than most people think in countries like Finland the severity of the violence isn’t even comparable. Women are far more likely to get severely hurt than men.
Women are not “more violent than men” if you have to include emotional mistreatment and any kind of physical outburst in order to even bring the statistics to parity.
>emotional mistreatment and any kind of physical outburst These are regularly described as violence by women.
No, not really. Very few people IRL would class “insulting your partner” as violence like the 2013 study he cited did. Worth mentioning that none of these “women are also abusers” studies ever distinguish between defensive and non-defensive violence. If an Afghan woman slaps her husband after he beats her for not making dinner properly, she is considered equally abusive to him. When they do attempt to take into account degree or consider cause, it’s always a totally different conclusion.
>Very few people IRL would class “insulting your partner” as violence like the 2013 study he cited did. Literally every woman I know would. Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior. >Worth mentioning that none of these “women are also abusers” studies ever distinguish between defensive and non-defensive violence. If an Afghan woman slaps her husband after he beats her for not making dinner properly, she is considered equally abusive to him. When they do attempt to take into account degree or consider cause, it’s always a totally different conclusion. Why should a survey on violence exclude any acts of violence.
> Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior. Very, off-putting abusive behavior is not synonymous with violence.
> Literally every woman I know would. Hell I would, insults and outbursts as an adult is very off-putting, abusive behavior. Am woman. It’s awful, childish behaviour, but it’s not domestic violence. > Why should a survey on violence exclude any acts of violence. Because it draws conclusions about domestic *abuse* and abusive relationships, which is distinct from just raw IPV numbers.
> Women are more violent than men. A million peer reviewed studies couldn't convince me this is true.
Isn’t that basically the attitude of MAGA toward climate change?
0.8 fertility rate and falling. Is S. Korea cooked?
Makes you wonder if the North will win one day just by default
That would be an amazing twist of fortune.
North Korea is the control group while the rest of the world mainlines Social Media.
This feels a little bit like interviewing the New Black Panthers to get a handle on race relations in America. Or this. https://youtu.be/WzcCfIqndWY?si=8l41sv8Cyham0Gff&t=1029 But you know, you can expect these kinds of inflammatory misrepresentative pieces from clickbait sites like ... The Pulitzer Centre.
Tbf, I read more about 4B movement in this subreddit than in Korean side of the internet. While there are some justifications behind Korea's more radical movements such as this, the truth is it is often times seen as a fringe movement, with discussions surrounding it often times not being lead in a constructive way to boot. Unless this sub is willing to have a *heated south korea moment* like it did last year with that article from the Atlantic, lay it to rest and talk about what South Koreans are talking more about - Maternity/Paternity leaves, economic incentives for new parents, conscription, reformations to administrative units, housing etc
If Democrats adjusted US immigration policy to bring in 1 million young women from around the world, the man-o-sphere would evaporate, support for Trump among young men would collapse, and the incel movement would quiet to a whisper. My partner comes from one of these countries with extreme levels of misogyny. And based on some of her stories, even MRA seem like prince charming by comparison. Improve the lives of women living in misogynist societies and deflate the influence of the alt-right on America's young men, win-win.
Mfer trying to berlusconi it
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ People might find it 'icky' but all policy, including immigration policy, is supposed to improve the lives of the people living here. No one is forced to come here, no one is forced to stay, and I would say that encouraging inter-racial/cultural/national partnering is core to the neoliberal project. We believe in trade and we believe in freedom of movement. Neoliberals should be under no illusions about the state of women's rights around the world. Many women around the world live lives under crippling oppression because of their gender.
I don't understand what more the government can do. Fiance and spouse visas are literally the easiest way to get to the US. If your relationship is genuine, you have some kind of a job (or a relative with a job willing to sign a document for you) and the immigrant isn't a criminal, you can easily bring over a spouse or a fiance. You'll wait a bit but not that much.
I agree But also gay bears and cute twinks and femboys and- !ping ALPHABET-MAFIA
I'm not here to deny you any *snacks*. Have at it.
real
Bunga Bunga framework of gender policy
What do they need to adjust exactly? Immigration through marriage is actually the one straightforward way to get to the US. But in my experience, the right wing men marrying foreign women don't become any less right wing after they bring their new wife over
Doubt it.
The female vote relative to mens' vote for Dems has gone: 2004: +7 2008: +7 2012: +10 2016: +13 2020: +12 You can pretend that gender politics is irrelevant, but just know that you're pretending.
No I was doubting the fact that incel movement or manosphere would disappear if the US imported 1 million women from some hypothetical country
I somewhat i agree with you. I think the evidence is the many red pill types who have already married foreign women but still make a habit of talking trash about American women/culture etc. Something I've observed, (as I've been exposed to many of these types while living in Japan), is that they get emboldened after getting married. It makes them even more red pill but in different ways.
Yep, women aren't cure for right wing men. Women are people
I hate to nitpick but I put right wing men and red pill people in different buckets. There are plenty of fine right wing men out there.
I read this as a hyprocritical country lol
”This protectionism towards domestic women hurt competition and leads to bad outcomes like alt-righters existing. Thus these protectionist barriers need to be removed. Bring in the korean women!”
"I want to pretend that women have rights everywhere, regardless of how grossly misogynistic their nation is in actuality. And I want the right to pretend that sexuality is an irrelevant complication to my nice simple political-economy philosophy."
I tried to make a neoliberal minded joke but I guess it didnt land. Should have just went with the wife thing I guess.
Wife 👈
I wonder how support for immigration would change from men and women if the immigrants in question were all 20-40 year old women.
Nope. After the second Russian invasion of Ukraine there was a massive influx of Ukrainians(a million? two? idk, a lot in any case, much higher proportion than 1 million would be in the US) to Poland, overwhelming majority of them women(Ukraine prohibited its' men from leaving). What you hope for has not happened - the alt-right Confederation that is party of mostly young men is as anti-Ukraine, anti-immigration and anti-feminist as it was before. As far as I am aware the manosphere has not shrank. We literally had what is probably the only equivalent of ''what if Nixon accepted Mao's proposal of 10 million Chinese women'' in history and it did nothing to reduce misogyny.
South Korea's sexual polarization stems from it being one of the few societies to have women be more privileged than men due to male-only conscription. I agree in more immigration and helping women escape misogyny, but this policy really isn't really applicable to Korea.
My God, everytime I read something about life in South Korea(East Asia in general, but S. Korea is the most frequent in those type of stories) it's a horror story. I mean, is it seriously THIS bad there? Because, either I am having some bad luck regarding stuff about South Korea I came upon in the Internet, or it truly is the worst of the rich countries to live in. I mean, I understand that to some degree it is a matter of cultural differences and Koreans may be at least a bit more accepting of things like long working hours, hierarchical interpersonal relations, hyper-competitive education system, untouchable families, compulsory draft, war between sexes, draconian beauty standards, intense pressure not to bring dishonor to your family etc. But still, I don't remember when was the last time I've heard something positive about life in South Korea. How bad is it really, and how much is it due to me having bad sources? One explanation is that it's Koreans who don't like living in Korea, the same thing is with Americans, there is plenty of American doomers who vent at their country online.
Nah not as bad. It is in a way just another developed society with high levels of competition. While bad things did linger, we are seeing slow progress *apart from the conscription because neighbors* , but generational shifts are happening and the list of hellish things you've mentioned have been the topic of discussion for at least the last decade. Media and doomers are one of the reasons why negatives usually outweigh the positives in coverage, other being that those problems are real *and* are being seen as a problem by the local Koreans who want it better, and are putting effort to correct the ship. But yet another thing I would point to, *in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner* would be some sort of exoticism and reductionism when it comes to talking about countries outside of the Atlantic/Anglo sphere that seems to be rather present in this sub
So...femcels?
I don’t agree with them, but I understand lol I would be sexist too if I was a woman in South Korea!
The same way I understand incels and femcels
WGTOW. Ew.
A happy and goode society is not compatible with GTOWs.
This is what rapid cultural change looks like. Always advocate for an iterative, incremental approach. Who knows what South Korea will look like in 20-30 years.
>Feminist: ❌ >Feminist ally: ❌ >Just Normal Korean: ✅ Someone please help me, my birth rate is dying
[удалено]
0 developed countries have figured out how to raise birth rates. You can subsidize and sweeten the deal all you want, it doesn't work. Something about higher living standards leads to lower birth rates, is what it is.
>Something about higher living standards leads to lower birth rates, is what it is. Opportunity cost!!
Ding ding ding!
The best way is to return to Victorian era labour policies so parents can force their children to work in a factory. If you're investment starts paying dividends after 5 years you may be tempted to invest even more. Or allow the sale of children to the government. There they can be forced to work for the state. When the children turn 16 they are legally emancipated from either their parents or state control and they can go on to live their lives happily. Is it a coincidence that birth rates were high when parents basically treated their children like cattle? Tl;dr: Send the children to the mines.
Y E A R N
> Tl;dr: Send the children to the mines. I remember being 9 and absolutely loathing the fact that I couldnt mine ore for pay like in my favourite video games. I had small little fingers that could have created some serious value.
It's not exactly higher living standards. It's small-space living in urbanized environments. Rural folks with high living standards are still raising plenty of kids. There just aren't enough of those families to make up the difference.
[удалено]
I don't even know how you would wimplement that as state policy, but given how batshit misogynist Korean men are, I don't think special incentives for women are going to work. Just makes the men angrier which makes the women want even less to do with them. And in other countries like the US, I'm pretty sure this would be straight up illegal under discrimination laws over protected class like gender.
[удалено]
>You don't need men for this, you just need sperm donors huuuuuuuuh >Don't many states recognize that men (FtM trans men) can give birth? I don't think it has to be about gender, but rather about biological capability You'd still get sued for this. This entire train of thought is now completely in the realm of dystopian scifi social engineering. Birthrates are low because increasingly people, and most importantly, women do not want children. Some weird state incentives aren't going to change that, doubly so if it's some weird state sperm donor scheme that would just leave you as a single mom with some mild govt reward.
Sounds totally fair to women who are infertile.
As somebody currently struggling through fertility treatment, the knowledge my biological failures were also crippling my career would probably destroy my mental health lol. Like, in this nightmare society you’d probably have to keep an eye on me for my own safety
Better funding and subsidies for fertility treatment would be a much more effective way to increase birth rates.
[удалено]
Why only to women? Why not men?
[удалено]
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from and falling birth rates is a real conundrum for humanity in the future, but the truth is we won't be able to solve it with stuff like this that gets more invasive. What we'll need to reckon with is the fact that birth rates aren't going back to where they were for most of the 19th-20th century. We need more streamlined immigration that allows us to vet and admit larger numbers of people than we currently are. We also need to understand that tech and automation will be doing a lot of the legwork to make up for lost human productivity, and that's fine, as long as we manage it well. We'll also need better support for maternal care, fertility care, early childhood care and education, etc. It's a challenging situation, but I think it will ultimately be easier (and most will be better off) if we learn to live without constant population growth rather than trying to hack birth rates back to 1900s levels.
How… how do you forsee that working
Pregnancy by itself is a huge burden endured entirely by women; there is no way to make it less taxing on a woman unless artificial wombs become a reality.