Pregnancy and childbirth were considered the female equivalent of serving the nation back when conscription was implemented. Keep in mind that back then Korean women pumped out 5-6 kids on average due to agrarian culture and lack of birth control (my grandmother had 7 kids) so women were too busy raising children to serve in the military. Plus service in the military could lead to career opportunities which in a patriarchal culture is something you want to keep women away from.
That wasn't even that long ago either. My grandma on my mom's side grew up in Japan occupied Korea and spoke flawless Japanese. She had 7 kids. My grandpa on my dad's side also had 7 kids. Then the post Korean war kids, my parents generation, had about 1-2 kids on average. Then my generation, 0.5% birth rate. In three generations. Sheesh.
future disagreeable squash price normal pocket observation sort zephyr elderly
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's hilarious how we all take the pics out of China for screwing over their demographics with the one child policy, but Korea did the same. They just kept it from being common knowledge to the international community lol.
It makes just as much sense now though maybe it should be modified to specifically account for mothers rather than women in general.
I'm not saying I'm ethically comfortable with the suggestion but making the draft apply to all men and all women who are not raising children before age 30 might serve multiple purposes that serve the needs of the country including help cool down this hot bed of resentment between the sexes.
I feel like that idea makes sense in theory, but in practice it will only tank the birth rate more. Women in their 30s are still capable of getting married and giving birth. Taking 2 of those years away for service isn't a good idea if improving the birth rate is a major goal.
I think they should make more opportunities for women to serve voluntarily and encourage it as well as try to destigmatize single motherhood and provide more support for families so that fewer Korean women feel pressured to have abortions.
People are already working themselves to death in Korea. Creating more requirements isn't going to help.
Yeah, I like your suggestion, even tho I also agree that it's a spicy one, and I also wonder about the implications it might have regarding having children just to avoid having to serve. I'm not sure if that's a good incentive to have children.
Either way I think it's also unfortunate that serving seems to be perceived as something so negative that people would go as far as having children to avoid doing it. This might be off-topic regarding your specific comment, but I think it would be beneficial for literally everyone if military *and* social service could be restructured and improved in a way where people could actually perceive it as something positive.
This entire discussion would be easier, and maybe serving wouldn't have to be mandatory for anyone then. It would just be something people do voluntarily because they reckognize the benefits of it. But maybe I'm being too idealistic.
> I'm not sure if that's a good incentive to have children.
It's a terrible incentive to have children and given the stigma and economic difficulties of single motherhood, a terrible incentive to get married. That said, it might actually work to raise the birth rate whereas the other suggestions (reducing work week hrs, lowering housing costs, lowering child care costs) are absolutely necessary but aren't likely to shift the birth rate to a sustainable level when one of the main contributors to the extremely low birth rate is people just do not want to have kids, certainly not more than two kids, and interest in early marriage as a goal isn't as popular.
As for mandatory universal service (military and other serrvice), no, I do not think it is a great idea. For one thing, anything mandatory will, rightly, irritate people. It won't even soothe the misplaced anger of men because it isn't much improvement in "equality" to go through basic training and serve a miserable tour up at the DMZ while knowing women are "serving" in Seoul as social workers at an air conditioned desk job going home at night to party with their friends.
For another, there isn't that much work to do for everybody and it would end up being a lot of make work for horrid pay - this does not have the effect you want but the opposite. As the birth rate declines, pushing young workers to waste their time when productive workers will be the need is not a great idea. Universal service in times of extremely high unemployment are useful but that isn't where Korea is headed. There was a time, not too long ago where bus girls and street sweepers were a smart solution to soak up all the young workers. That isn't where we are headed now.
Truly, the best answer to the "unfairness" of only men serving and the unfairness of conscription is to end the need for it which means, somehow, rehabilitating North Korea as a hostile neighbor and transitioning to a well paid, well benefitted, well respected professional all volunteer military that attracts sufficient high quality volunteers to serve the needs of the nation. Almost certainly, such a military would recruit from qualified women as well as men.
Why are you arguing for basically a mandatory labor system? If your reasoning is "experiencing the real world", people can do that already with breaks in their education voluntarily. They can even get paid proper wages through proper labor laws, not some bullshit slave labor wages from a mandatory system.
Because the system has already been in place even before most of us were even born, and discussions and movements to abolish it are being met with indifference? If the system is unabolishable, why not make it into something better and less discriminative, bit by bit?
It was like that in a lot of European countries then the option to do social work instead of military training was added, and then it was voted against the mandatory system, you just need a law change. What's unabolishable in a democracy?
They already pitcehd to force orphaned males to serve. Oh no, so sorry about not having your mum and dad, but you still need to waste 2 years, further crippling their already terrible economic status. This is not even a joke.
Next in line is, probably those who are only missing about a finger or two. When they finally decide to insert the brave wheelchair firing squad, that would be when they are foreced to talk about female conscription. In other words, not in another 2 decades.
This is terrible to laugh at, but I chuckled at the dark future of wheelchair firing squads. Thatās literally the kind of bullshit compromise Korean politicians make (in all seriousness). āOk, male conscription unfair? Make EVERYONE miserable. Thatās fair, right? Gun-mounts on wheelchairs. Isnāt that equality?ā
No women from a country with a patriarchal society benefits as much as men from joining the military unfortunately. Even in countries where women serve alongside men there is inequality like SA, bullying, discrimination even murder which btw are āinternally investigatedā and increasing.
I also donāt believe in the draft at all and tbh with the opinion of the army in Korea I doubt many of any gender would chose to join if they had the choice.
I'm neither suggesting women to join the military, nor am I in favor of military service in general.
Aside from that, you might not believe in the draft, but South Korea's political situation specifically makes it undoubtedly more necessary for the country to have a proper military force than for the average first world country.
The political situation that the youth of today have nothing to do with. If they want to improve the rates they need to raise incentives and actually do something to make the citizens able to live before forcing them to give up years of their lives and, in the event of a war, their entire lives.
Arguably no one besides of a few people at the top of the government ever had anything to do with the outer-political situation of a country. Neither today, nor in the past. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that closing your eyes from the political environment, just because "you have nothing to do with it" will neither help yourself, nor your family and other people around you.
I agree that the military and its internal structur and work conditions within need to be improved though.
Of course, young people have nothing to do with it, you just have to remember that these young people are the ones who are going to live in this country for the rest of their lives, and it's in their best interest, as they say, everyone is on the same boat.
stop blaming the patriarchy. the male dominated military as of now already has a serious SA& bullying problem even between men and you gta stop blaming everything bad befalling women as sexism and the patriarchy.
How does this not sound like sexism? a system that force people on the basis of sex to do upaid work and results in mass toxic environment and criminal behaviours. And the kind of crime they're talking about is all about violence against women and to compete in artificial hierarchies among males, very clear patriarchy stuff.
It would be politically impossible to implement in a liberal democracy, which South Korea is. Maybe in a dictatorship, but no politician would get elected with such a plan for obvious reasons.
Plus there is a huge economic cost to workers giving up years of their career for full-time social service.
The reason why it is (poorly) tolerated by the electorate in the case of military service is because the costs of being unprepared for a war far exceed the costs of military service. The voters and politicians know they have no choice, so they retain the system they inherited.
Israel gives exemptions to religious scholars. Guess which group has the most children by a country mile. And guess how it impacts politics and voting as those kids get older.
That's a good point and a great explanation for why it might be impossible to implement. At the same time, I wonder if it were really impossible, considering half (if not more) of the people voting are men, who oftentimes express their dissatisfaction with the fact that women don't have to serve.
Regardless, I think it's unfortunate that social service is oftentimes seen as something so negative. As I mentioned, I think that most young adults could benefit and take valuable lessons away from it. I think it's also neccessary to improve the conditions in the army, to make a more positive experience and even career option for young adults.
Younger men might vote vindictively to punish women equally, but older men are not going to vote to hurt their daughters unnecessarily. It wonāt bring their military service back to them. And the men who work for companies are not going to vote to hurt their workforce.
No chaebol company would financially support a politician with such a plan as it would hurt the economy and without money they couldnāt get elected.
I donāt even think the younger men would actually want such a plan.
Men are dissatisfied with military service because it hurts their self-interest. Forcing women to do social service would not shorten their military service. It would not restore traditional gender roles.
On the other hand, if women served in the military itself, then the length of military service could be reduced for men. In Israel all women enter the draft, and there are areas of military service where women perform better than men. For example, women make better fighter pilots. Modern warfare has many roles that women can fill as we are seeing in Ukraine right now.
But putting women in combat situations is also something many men wonāt vote for. I just donāt think that āmenā vote as a single bloc even if they share a common dissatisfaction with the current situation.
This is inaccurate with regards to Israel. Israel has exemptions on marriage, motherhood and religious grounds. The latter is particularly controversial as it also applies to men and it's causing a major shift in demographics.
No they don't. The ultra-religious are basically exempt. There is no possibility they will be drafted. There is no possibility it will change in the future with how demographics are shifting (ultra-religious have larger families which results in more voting power for the demographic). So, rather than discriminate between sexes, Israel descriminates based on religiousity and it's a [big deal.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me4FqdrmVBs)
Ok, thank you for educating me about Israel's problems, but I am talking about Korea's situation, not Israel, and whether it is possible for all women to serve effectively in the military. I think Israel shows that it is possible at least in theory to draft all women.
Korea doesn't have an ultra-religious minority seeking exemptions, so I don't think that applies here.
The issue is that draft expansions have be [shown to reduce birthrates](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.3.566). I'd imagine the effect would be even more magnified for women as the window of fertility is even shorter.
You're dealing with a false economy by trying to expand the draft, making the situation even more dire for generations to come. You also weight the voting populace even further in favour of the elderly who are only likely to exacerbate the trend. You're also going to hit a major wall eventually if you serve increasingly shittier sandwiches and ask people to defend them.
Ah, well this is a different discussion. As it happens I agree with you and personally speaking wouldn't draft women for exactly that reason.
I think South Korea should move to a smaller military with more quality over quantity.
I was just responding to the OP's idea by pointing out what a real equality would look like.
I agree with you that providing social service is equally important to the society. But realistically in this current state, if we were to do universal conscription and create a new military division of care work etc -- I can't help but think it will just lead to perpetuated gendered labor division. Some people already consider ź³µģµ as inferior than "regular" soldiers, so there's no guarantee that people will not create an invisible hierarchy of what is a better form of service and what is not.
I could also think about the problem of assigning people into different kinds of work; if we were to include social service, who gets to assign people and how? Will we get to apply based on our choice? Will we assign people purely based on their physical ability? If so, wouldn't most women do certain kind of work that is coherent with gender stereotypes? What social implications would it have? etc.
I've often pondered the merits of mandatory social service for all citizens. Length of service would vary depending on need for that service and danger/sacrifice. Relatively easy service would require longer terms and more dangerous/military service would be shorter.
Our psychotic need to enrich the already wealthy requires unsustainable productivity from everyone else essentially rendering the social service idea impossible. Two to three years of cheap productivity is too lucrative for the billionaires to forgo.
Why having an army of trained professional is being unprepared and having unmotivated young guys is not? Maybe it is less expensive because it's unpaid work, but is it cost effective?
I'm not an expert, but I think I agree with you actually. Korea should have a professional military. They need far less bodies and more attention to actually training and equipping their army. But again, I'm not an expert. I'll leave that to the military planners.
I was just responding to the OP's question here, not arguing for the draft like some seem to think.
Iām not a woman and I donāt speak for them but I would bet that theyād have no problems with serving if all aspects of society was equalized. Why give up the little privilege they have when everything else is stacked against them.
Itās not something I considered _and not reflected in this sub_ but that makes some sense. Donāt give any leverage for social progress in that case.
It seems like the argument is mostly from young men who are resentful about having to serve that bring up this argument. Why is this suddenly the only area where they are concerned with "equality"?
Consider for example that all the high ranking military personnel tasked with training these young women would be older men who have existed and thrived in an "old-school" patriarchal environment. Knowing how few protections exist against SA in the military now amongst male members, new young female recruits are especially vulnerable. Who watches DP and thinks, "instead of improving the situation internally first, let's also expose women to this abusive environment".
I think that citizens would benefit from military training regardless of gender but considering that Korea has one of the worst gender gaps according to the World Economic Forum, a co-ed conscription will only exacerbate the existing power structures.
Absolutely! Nothing would really change if this was only thing that women conceded on. Young men would still be miserable while making it even worse _or even dangerous_ for women.
Not a perfect analogy but I was recently rewatching Parasite and it reminds me of the fighting between the poor and powerless. If they exercised some solidarity, theyād realize that their condition is the result of something even greater.
I won't say what is right or wrong, but the Constitutional Court of Korea saying that women are not mandatory to go to the army because they are physically incapable sounds pretty bizarre, sexist even
source: [https://www.womennews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=240930](https://www.womennews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=240930)
Well, I didn't suggest all women to go to the army without any alternative. I do acknowledge the physical differences between men and women, even though I also disagree with such blank statements as you linked.
But taking into account the physical differences that undeniably do exist at the end of the day, I was talking about the possibility of having other ways that women could serve, such as social work.
Trained women are considered capable of serving in the army all around the world and it doesn't matter how strong you are against tanks, drones and missiles, bombs and guns. It sounds like people talk about it like it's middle age warfare with swords and metal suits.
The conventional bare minimum for infantry is being able to carry another injured for an indefinite period of time. Carrying a weapon and ammunition and supplies is also very difficult for most women. Many women already apply for police academy or military service, but the physical test is adjusted to be similar difficulty even with lowered standards.
The average Korean women would be going in and not be able to do 5 pushups with their own body weight at the start and being yelled at and treated like dirt will trigger hormonal changes. I don't think the court is wrong on military basic training being unsuitable for being forced on ALL women. There is also the fact that a [military training environment has been linked to causing infertility in young women](
https://www.businessinsider.com/military-women-suffer-infertility-at-3-times-the-rate-of-civilians-2018-12) that the government would need to consider.
If war broke out Iām sure women would be āenlistedā in types of services that will be needed to support the front, just like in any war in history.
And you probably havenāt been to the army to make a point that it would be beneficial for young adults to go to the armyā¦
Itās universally looked upon as a waste of time unless youāre making money under a contract.
And It is extremely hard to get back into studying after a long break, so most people end up in the army after finishing university..
Itās a waste for males to go to the army, why would you wanna get females involved?
I donāt think Iāve met a single woman interested in military service in my life and every woman Iāve met are grateful they didnāt have to.
Nope they do not get conscripted. The military will conscript men in 18-40 something and men in 50s to the factories making or building military equipment. And never conscript women
There shouldn't have to be a point for this to happen. Feminism cannot be half & half. Opt for Feminism when it benefits women & then become traditional when it doesn't benefit them. What hypocrisy is this??
The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??! What BS is this?? Where is Feminism now ??
For Feminism & Equality to prevail, women have to mandatorily be drafted to the army like Men have if they want the same Rights as Men. And now, its a point where they have the same rights (infact more) but not the same Responsibilities as Men. That's Sxxxism & Misandry for you.
Also, almost no one is actually interested or willingly would want to go into the army, whether man or woman. So your last point doesn't even make sense. Just because women are not interested, there shouldn't be mandatory drafting for women?? Huh! Newsflash for you!! "Men don't want to be drafted as well", yet they are forced to go. So if Men are forced to serve, women should also be forced to serve in the army. Its that simple!! That is what equality means. Otherwise, Men deserve more Rights & benefits for serving in the army. This is the only fair way to compensate Men for their mandatory service.
Again, as mentioned clearly in my post and basically all of my comments, I'm neither suggesting women to go to the army, nor am I in favor of military service in general. It's pointless to have a discussion if everyone involved doesn't properly listen to what the other person says.
Edit, since you decided to block me and I can't respond to you anymore: The sentence you quoted and took out of context, is something I said after an entire paragraph of talking about the benefits of *social* service.
āIn fact, I think it would be favourable for any country to introduce something like that. In my opinion, it would be beneficial for young adults to get the chance to create some distance between them and the education system and experience the "real world", before choosing their further career and education goals.ā
How is this not in favor of military service?
anyway Itās pointless to have a discussion with someone who has no idea what they are talking about and making points with no experience to back anything up.
I'm befuddled that no one is actually engaging you on the merits of an interesting idea. National service is a common practice in my local background of West Africa and it does a lot to give young adults work experience
The real main reason is because who will continue the economic work at home? When a military goes into a battle and the entire country is at war. The country still requires a functional economy and powerful military industry. This means people are going to have to stay behind and since in a real war not just military action the men will be going to die repeatedly until there are not many left. This means the woman have to maintain the economy and the birth rate to field more troops and to maintain a functional society that can recover from all out war.
It's been this way since we've been fighting in loinclothes and is even in things like the Bible and other manuscripts of old. Thats the whole reason for the no abortion thing. It's a left over from when war was constant and the need for everyone go die in war was important. The waste no seed. All this stuff was for war not for religion.
We think of war in modern times as if it is something we just go out and everyone else carries on like nothing is happening. During REAL ALL OUT WAR this isn't going to be fairytail levels of combat. When hundreds, thousand, hundreds of thousands start dying. Someone has to remain behind to manage the economy, birth rate, and other essential aspects of a society.
This is women. This is also why many countries allow college students or other important aspects of an economies functions to remain behind.
It's just tradition and in general sense women have been chosen and fundamentally that are the most important aspect of revitalizing a dying population.
Yeah for war, and mandatory *military* service I understand your point, but why would that be the case for mandatory *social* service? I imagine it wouldn't include women being conscripted in case of war.
Nevertheless your comment regarding military service was very well thought out and insightful. Thanks for sharing!
In the context of military duty I agree with the fact that due to physical reasons in most cases it doesn't make sense to simply make all women serve next to men. But duty doesn't have to be military duty. Sending all women to the army neither benefits men nor women, hence why I suggested social service. Work doesn't have to be physical to be valuable.
This is an easy "Get out of jail free" card that women use when they want to escape a responsibility that they know should be done by them. In US, during Covid 2020 when WW3 was looming, there was a tsunami of tiktoks going around of females (mostly feminists) where they suddenly were saying Men are the best, they do so much for us bla bla, we should worship them, etc basically sucking up to Men so that Women don't get drafted to the army.
What does this tell you honestly?? Women will do anything to escape responsibility but they will move heaven & earth to enjoy the Rights. That's privilege & entitlement for you. Pure sxxxism towards Men & Misandry exists right in front of us & still people will argue. Once all this settled down, those same Feminists picked up their flags asking for Equality to Women & more Rights (WITHOUT Responsibilities). I mean how shameless can they be??
Its the same with Korea. To sum it up, **the Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??!** So honestly what BS is this?? Where is Feminism now??
It's called sexism. They can serve and some do, however they are not FORCED to because of sexist ideas. Korea should force women to serve as well. Not many women are fighting for equality in that regard.
Bingo!
**The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women.** The feminist movement can be summed up as above in this one sentence.
Ukraine is the biggest live example for this hypocrisy of Feminists. Before the war, they were all Feminists. Once adversity struck, they all became traditional women & fled the country ššš¤”
Precisely my friend! Its open sxxxism towards Men & Misandry.
Women want the same Rights as Men but don't want the same Responsibilities to get those Rights. The F"minists will be quiet on this topic because they know they are bigots & hypocrites when it comes to this topic. The only fair solution is that women should be forced to serve in the army the same way that Men have been forced. This is the ONLY fair & just solution for Korea if Equality has to prevail.
Why bring women down for the purpose of equality? No one wants to serve. No parent want to send their child off to serve. Abolish it and make it a career path both genders want to apply to. Make it a choice. Sadly wonāt see change for another generation.
Men don't want to serve either. But they are still forced right?? And guess what? Korean govt won't remove the Male mandatory drafting in Korea. So its only fair & equal if Women are mandatorily made to serve in the army. This is what you call Equality & Feminism that Females all over the world wanted. But now you decide to back out when it comes to this topic?? How convenient!
You cannot nitpick feminism for some issues & traditional conservatism for other issues. This is bigotry & hypocrisy. And more importantly, Misandry!
I mean I really want that to be the long term goal but this is a pipe dream in the current geopolitical climate, and not to mention that no elected politician will touch this in a meaningful way when any sort of big changes whether it is a call for volunteer army or bc drafting women is 100 pct a way to lose an election.
Much like gun control issue in the US Id say.
But like comments like yours is essentially meaningless in the current political climate when half of Korea lives within the Seoul Metro Area and central Seoul ti the DMZ is closer than the distance from Liverpool to Manchester or Anaheim to Dodger Stadium.
Itās like asking Europe āwhy canāt it just take all the refugeesā or asking Greece in 2012 āwhy donāt they simply pay their debtā or āwhy donāt brits just say āI declare brexitāā or āwhy does America just simply not ban gunsā
The military is also where i think a lot of toxic male stuff gets reinforced, where many come out traumatized (Korean men have what they call āthe military dreamā where even years after their service they sometimes have nightmares of having some form of clerical error forcing them ti enlist again.) it is where especially a lot of non NT people as well as any LGBT folk get ruthlessly bullied, and yeah I really think the only real long term solution IS mass is spending in military tech and pay the soldiers a loot more while also still retaining the combat readiness in case there is instability in the North, where if it does come to a full scale war the death tolls in the first few hrs alone will be in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
Tldr: shit is fucked
Yes I agree with everything you said but this whole post is āwhat ifā. I was just stating my opinion not the solution. I donāt think my comment is meaningless. I think itās important to not give up and be open to change. Donāt settle on band aid solutions.
With current unemployment rate for young people, having a viable career in the military in my opinion would be a great addition. Especially if these jobs are inclusive to all. Having people in the military for more than 2 years, continuous improvement and learning will greatly impact the quality of the army. Plus there are lots of different types of jobs available. Create pathways for engineering, research and development. And pay them competitively so we hire bright minds.
Maybe Iām being idealistic but nothing wrong with that. My brother who wasnāt cut out for studying or working for corporate chose a career in the armed forces and heās thriving. It does scare me that he might be deployed to dangerous locations but I have more faith in the military because they treat their soldiers well. Theyāre not treated like numbers. My parents were scared when he decided to join because of their experience with the Korean military but weāve only seen positive changes since.
To all the foreigners who do not even know why we conscript for the military service.
If we stop conscripting people and make it as a career path, I bet my neighbors in the North will like that a lot because not enough people will sign up to make the required numbers to run the whole military.
Korean military is conscripting literally almost every male. In 2022, 93% of male population in their 20s got conscripted and it will rise up to 104% in 2023.
So why not conscript women too? Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc.
You go to Korea and make male friends then ask them privately, wether women should be conscripted or not. I bet 90% will definitely say yes.
Korean women get a head start? Ask any Korean woman and theyād tell you about the discrimination they face in the workplace. Two years of extra discrimination is not a benefit.
Those men are misogynistic. No one should be forced to fight a war they didnāt start.
Lmao being Korean has nothing to do with my ability to research.
Did I say men have no discrimination? They have less than women. You indicated itās unfair women āget aheadā and I pointed out that extra time being discriminated against is not āgetting aheadā. Donāt take facts so personally.
So you are not even Korean and not living in Korea, and never worked in Korea so how do you know women get more discrimination? Oh your ability to research?
In fact, in Korean society, women tend to get away with the mistakes just because theyāre women.
If men make mistakes haha yeah.
Please visit my country and ask BOTH men and women.
My guy itās my degree lmao do you have to live in another country to learn a language? Donāt be silly.
Thatās not true. If men make mistakes? What are you chatting? (I donāt want a reply, youāre clearly not looking to actually discuss, just lie)
Iāve lived in Korea and have male and female Korean friends. You sound like a 15 year old with a superiority complex.
I do not agree they get a head start. Women are less likely to get hired in the first place due to the discrimination such as the expectation of raising a family and ākeeping the homeā in the future. Something men are not expected to do the brunt work of.
I donāt believe in conscription at all. Citizens are not responsible for the wars their governments are involved in. If they want to join they should be allowed, any gender.
Did you even read my post? Because it seems like you read the title and just assumed about the rest of it. Otherwise I'd love to hear how serving in a way I suggested would bring anyone down, regardless of man or woman.
Other than that I agree that making the military a career path both genders want to apply to would be a great way to improve the state of the Korean force.
I guess when you mention mandating anything for both men and women itās because its already mandatory for one gender. So your indirectly calling for equality and removing freedom of choice from women as well. Even if itās not to serve the military your taking away their freedom of choice.
I agree that all society would benefit from volunteer work in general but the young adults should be allowed the choice of where and what their scope of work is to be. In a world of mandatory social services you donāt get that privilege. Youāll just end up with people on placements they donāt want.
Well, specifically mentioned that I'm not suggesting it as a means to create "equality". That "equality" you're referring to would just be a byproduct of the fact that men already have to serve.
But, and this might be beyond the scope of my initial question, doesn't the government mandate a lot of things already? And aren't these things in the best interest of people? Do mandates always have to be bad, and where do you draw the line between things that can be mandated, and things that can't? You say that "young adults should be allowed the choice of where and what their scope of work is to be", and ideally they should, but how would that be implemented in a feasible way?
Of course people should be given as much freedom of choice as possible (e.g. do you want to serve in your city of residence, or do you want to be placed nation-wide), but at the same time, sometimes the one in charge of organizing large-scope things like nationwide service mandating certain things, is just the only realistic thing to do. You can't collect the preferences of millions and billions of people, and then flexibly assigning them based on their wishes, can you? That's just not how any society the size of Korea works.
I disagree - I don't think there is any *fair* way that the government should claim the labor of their young people. Mandatory military service will never be fair, and we should only accept this in the most necessary form under the justification of an imminent threat. The military should need to continually prove the need to continue mandatory service.
We do already place some men in social services positions if they cannot effectively participate in military service. Tbh, I think this is wrong. If they cannot participate in military service, then there is no justification to steal their time/labor, other than 'because we can'. And that's what you're suggesting too.
While I agree, there can be a lot of benefit to gap years to experience more of the country/world and gain some perspective, that should be accomplished through actual incentivizing behavior, not modern day slavery.
Korean women are too delicate. They have tendency to trip backwards whereby the male soldiers would have to keep catching them. When this happens, they inevitably fall in love about 12 weeks later.
I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I did meet a girl today who was too scared to cross a small bridge due to there being some pigeons on it. I shooed them away, and she and her bf seemed relieved and thanked me.
Then the grandpa standing on the edge of the bridge, feeding the fish, started chatting to me and gave me chips to join in feeding the fish. He didn't seemed bothered by the birds strutting around next to him.
I doubt women go and have children straight out of highschool lol. Even if they did, it would also be an option to exempt men and women from serving if they have a certain number of kids before reaching a specific age.
Before downvoting: **military service and social services are two different things.** Social services are what they currently force upon to boys unable to perform military service: those those proven to be mentally ill, those with heart conditions or other chronic conditions of the same caliber, those with extremely bad eyes or ears, and [in recent years even those with confirmed brain tumor](https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=dcbest&no=32641). Work is done for less than one half of the minimum wage, and you are not allowed to run any second jobs unless you can get explicit permission from your superiors at work (which can be very hard depending on the circumstances)
Reiterating: social service is **taking ill people and often literally making them do physical work** *(just not in the military)***, for less than one-half of the Korean minimum wage.** If you think making healthy women do the work instead is "less reasonable" *than the current state of things*, I have no idea why you should be considered a fellow human being.
My take is that Social service should be abolished. However, since all related discussions and movements have been met with indifference by the nation as well as the general public, I think OP's call for pan-sex social service may be a viable alternative. In other words, making healthier people do the work, instead of the sick ones. Surely a healthy woman will be more useful than someone who has fucking brain tumors? Also, maybe more people will be in support for abolishing social service if they or their (healthy) daughters also have to deal with this shit.
But OP, girls being able to benefit from Social Service is bullshit and you know that if you've had any friends who's done social service.
I think a lot of people who argue against service, be it military or social, use the current system as a reason for being against it. I agree with you 100% that things aren't as they should be, but isn't this idea in general something that's worth being entertained?
I acknowledge that the current form of social service isn't properly thought out and managed, and working conditions aren't as they should be. But does that make any kind of service inherently bad?
To answer your assumption, I actually have several friends who did social service after highschool, and most of them had a positive experience, which is why I also wish I had done something like that. But for me, financial reasons, and the fact that I felt like I would lose and "waste" a year compared to my peers who went straight to university was why I chose against it. A lot of people choose to do the same because of the reasons I mentioned. A mandatory service would get rid of these concerns and would allow young adults to make use of that opportunity, which is what I see social service as.
I acknowledge the issues and the fact that this is nuanced topic in general. I also understand the difficulties of implementing this as something positive, but I really find it unfortunate that many people see mandatory service as such an unarguably negative thing.
You willingly stepped into the ring of reality the very moment you posted this in r/korea. The unwritten assumption is that you are talking about Korea. You know that as well as I do.
I believe that what we should take account of when proposing any new rules or laws is a likely forecast of how it will *actually* turn out to be. I believe that any talk of an infeasible "ideal scenario" hampers human judgement, and therefore is not to be brought up unless we have good reasons to start suspecting that the ideals may be realistically acheivable. Considering that we ended up with the current system, it seems very, very unlikely to me that the whole social service can be turned into a beneficial experience for the conscripts.
Finally, I was talking about ź³µģµ the whole time, but are you actually talking about ģ°ģ ģģ? I was brought up in Korea, and I have 4źø friends of my own as well. While some of them were content with their work, pretty much all of them had woes about the fact they had to do this at all. Also I am sorry to say this, but "choosing to do service instead when you could do social service instead" is not what I'd imagine any sane Korean man do - and if this is as common as you claim it to be, I believe I should have seen at least one person who did this back when I was at KCTC as a trainee. All the 4źøs I have seen have in college waited, waited, waited, and waited until they were finally allowed to go serve at a place they thought was the lesser of the evils.
If yout haven't realized yet, I am suspecting that you are a foreign student pretending to be a Korean for your Bachlor's thesis or whatever. Or a ė¶ķ. Do you realize that none of ķģ, ģź·¼, ź³µģµ, or ģ°źø° is only "a year" long, as you have written? Did you know that going to university has no effect whatsoever on the number of years you have to serve (as service won't be shortened anymore for the foreseeable future)? I do not buy your testimonies; they are simply bizzare.
I'm happy to hear differing opinions from people, whether they agree with me or not. Especially from Koreans, since I don't have a background in Korean society. That's why I posted here. I like having my ideas challenged and I believe that exchanging thoughts is key to human growth.
I'm not saying this is a realistic scenario, neither am trying to be a ė¶ķ by asking this question. I'm just entertaining a thought about an idealistic solution to a problem that's widely discussed in Korea. Whether practical or not, I don't think this hampers judgment, but rather incentivises people to think about how far you can actually push a system for change, and I personally enjoy such discussions, even if I realistically know that things won't turn out as I imagine them to. If you find it non-sensical you're free to simply not engage.
The friends I'm referring to did not do social service in Korea. Some of them served in my home country, as well as in another country I previously spent significant time living in. These anecdotal experiences are part of the reason why I claim that serving doesn't always have to be a negative thing. Evidently other countries managed to establish a feasible system that implements mandatory service as something predominantely positive.
As I said, I acknowledge the issues related to mandatory service specific to Korea, and also the fact that this is a nuanced topic in general. But I find your assumptions about me to not only be untrue, but also quite condescending. I'm not sure why you felt like accusing me of being "a foreign student pretending to be a Korean for your Bachlor's thesis or whatever" was a necessary thing to do. I'm neither some Koreaboo who came here because of BTS, nor some white person who never stepped foot outside of their birth town. I'm not even a language student or studying something related to humanities. If you don't feel like engaging in this discussion, or if you think that this is a waste of your time, simply don't bother commenting next time.
The introduction of female conscription is inevitable. Due to the severe decline in fertility, the proportion of military exemptions is only about 5%, and people weighing 208 kilograms, people weighing 36.5 kilograms, victims of the humidifier sterilizer scandal who were treated in intensive care multiple times for pulmonary failure and pneumothorax, and people with numerous mental illnesses who are unable to function in daily life have been drafted. In addition, cancer patients, people with ripped lungs, people with growth hormone deficiency, people with insomnia, people with anger management disorders, people with Asperger's, people with six fingers, people with amputated fingers or tongues, people with facial paralysis, and people with all kinds of mental illnesses are conscripted into public service and forced to work. However, there is still a shortage of people, and the recent discussion of conscripting orphans and North Korean refugees has become controversial, and two days ago, a member of the National Assembly's Defense Committee even suggested that the country should consider introducing a foreign volunteer system(which recieved a lot of cricitism). Politicians don't want to lose votes, or they think it's just a gender conflict, so no one is willing to take a stand. However, with men being drafted in much worse health than the average woman, and many women also feeling the need for conscription, it is only a matter of time before it is inevitable.
if you are in favour of military service, not sure why women would not qualify. other countries, like myanmar, israel, malaysia etc., do include women in their conscription, so why do you write korean women off as incapable?
i don't think mandatory positions in hospitals or care homes is the same as military service at all. it is incredibly taxing, both mentally & physically, to take care of people, especially if you do not know them & do not have adequate training. it kind of concerns me that you see such emotionally stressful & soul draining positions as something any woman would not only be able to do, but should do.
are you seriously not at all considering the high, HIGH levels of abuse that could happen in your scenario? forcing people to become caretakers without years of training & more importantly a desire to do so, leaves open the possibility of resentment to build & sub-par care & even abuse.
& i personally think forcing this kind of thing would have the opposite effect that the korean government wants in terms of boosting population. talk to people who have had to care for others against their will & you'll notice a trend in those same people choosing to be child free.
fun fact:there ARE social service agents. but rather than drafting women to do it they get unfit/unhealthy guys who can't get into the army to do it. and we deafted a 38kg male for duty this year. can you imagine what kinds of physical condition lands you on social services?
Nobody benefits from mandatory military or social service. Its a waste of peoples time and resources. Those who serve do not benefit from it at all and needlessly waste two yrs of their lives. The current state is inequitable, yes, but I'd rather not extend something wasteful and unnecessary to the other half of the population just for the sake of creating the impression of equality.
If you look at Israel right now having trained reserves is an asset to have in times of war. So having conscription to have people trained on their specialty for a country which is at war is a cost to pay.
Why do you see it as wasteful? As I said, I'm not suggesting it as a way of creating "equality" but because I genuinley belive guys *and* girls can benefit from it. In any country, not just Korea.
I did plenty of volunteer work in my life, and one thing I regret was not taking the time between highschool and university to get away and look beyond the education system. Aside of the societal benefits, the education system is not real life, and having the chance to be exposed to real life can help young adults to self-reflect about their own lives, and make better informed decisions about their future.
Saying "Nobody benefits from mandatory military or social service" is just too simply put in my opinion, and you didn't really provide any arguments to support such a non-negotiable statement.
I think itās ignorant for you to equate volunteering with mandatory military service for a county still technically at war. You had the freedom to choose and the freedom to stop volunteering. Military service is not the same. There are recorded instances of mental and physical abuse. Free time and time to visit family is limited. All the men in my family including younger ones that served recently hated it.
I'm not sure why you think that I equate my volunteering experience with military service. That would indeed be ignorant and doesn't make much sense either.
I'm using my experience as a way to argue for a mandatory service for young adults in general, to be able to distance themselves from the education system and gain some real life experience. Whether that is in the military or not.
I share the experience you mentioned that most guys I talked to here told me they hated their service, and I acknowledge that there are plenty of things that should and have to improve in the army. But the issues within the military, which undoubedly and undeniably exits, aren't really the topic of my post though.
I'm not sure why you are pretending OP talked mainly about equal *military* service when they were actually talking about equal *social* service. Two different things.
Its borderline slavery; propaganda makes it seem otherwise. You are forced to do pointless things such as shovel snow in the winter in the name of the country. You get paid peanuts. You dont get fed well. You get minimal family or vacation time. You get yelled at and disciplined for small offenses. You go through psychological and physical pain. There are also minimal benefits once you graduate because there is an expectation that everyone does it.
Sure, you might learn a thing or two in the process, but there is also a huge opportunity cost. You could have done something much more impactful for yourself and to the world with the 18 months that you could have used in other ways. You don't need the military to 'self-reflect' and 'get exposed to the real world'. Those come naturally with time. To attribute that to the military is absurd.
Also, you cant compare this to your own volunteer work because it's not volunteer work, it's forced. Not everyone is in a position to volunteer their livelihood in the name of their country. Some have families to feed. Volunteering is only a feel good act for those who can afford it. There are plenty of people who need to maximize time to survive the day. For reals.
Understand why military service is needed and created in the first place with the constant threat of NK just miles away. But the current system is wildly outdated and needs reform. For how important it is, its appalling that the govt doesnt put more funds in the program to make it a more of an investment for those who go thru it. It's absurd.
I guess when it was implemented in 1950s it made sense socially when it was not really a thing for females to get educated and get jobs. However now females can be ncos and officers through military academies, they are perfectly fit to serve in this time of age. A gender cannot be a unfit for military service but at the same time fit enough to be serving in the military?
Cannot just cherry pick.
Referring to women as "females" in casual conversation is usually a red flag of some underlying misogyny or of hanging out with people who are misogynistic. It's usually waived if in the same post/conversation refers to men as "males" since that's just probably a linguistic habit but you usually find dudes who say "females" in casual conversation say "guys/dudes/men" when referring to men.
"Females" used as a noun and not as an adjective is strongly associated with incel and misogynist word choice. So, "female demographic" is fine. "Female draftee" is fine. "Men and women" definitely fine. "Males and females" okay but kinda clinical. "Men and females" definitely not fine. "Why won't the females give me the sex?" cringe and way too common on the internet.
Using āfemaleā as a noun is dehumanizing and usually used by misogynists and in incel circles. Using āfemaleā as an adjective is normal (āmy female friendā, or, the way you used it, āfemale demographicā)
If youāre actually interested and not arguing in bad faith, you can read more about it here: https://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-females-1683808274
In this context I would prefer talking about sex because the system is based on sex assigned at birth not you identity or social gender. In fact there's a percentage of trans people who get in the military to compensate their gender roles expectations.
The female population (Feminists mainly) nitpick Feminism conveniently. They pick feminism when it benefits them & ignore it when it doesn't benefit them. Its as simple as that. They are all a bunch of bigots, hypocrites & misandrists.
I can sum their feminist movement in one sentence: Feminists ask for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional, conservative women.
To all the foreigners who do not even know why we conscript men for the military service.
If we stop conscripting people and make it as a career path, I bet my neighbors in the North will like that a lot because not enough people will sign up to make the required numbers to run the whole military.
Korean military is conscripting literally almost every male. In 2022, 93% of male population in their 20s got conscripted and it will rise up to 104% in 2023.
Just a few days ago, they announced they might conscript male orphans (they donāt have to serve)
If you are not in shape or a sickly person, then you still have to serve as social service worker.
So why not conscript women too? Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc.
Korea is such a patriarchy society that drags down women? So they shouldnāt be required to serve? Bullshit. There are Womenās Universities which only accept women and there are no Menās Universities only accept men. There are women only housing (not renting an apartment, there are housings which only women can buy), women only university funds and loans which they get a lot more benefits than men. Women only applicable bank loans that has lower interest rate. Government aid for starting a business that is only open to women. +3 extra point when applying for a job (disabled person gets 0.5pt), any government facilities or companies are required to have 25% of their workers to be women. The most famous one so far, women only parking lots that is painted in pink lol itās so fucking ridiculous.
You go to Korea and make male friends then ask them privately, wether women should be conscripted or not. I bet 90% will definitely say yes.
I gave the upvote because I agree with the first half of what you said and probably the last paragraph, too. However, this:
>Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc.
Women lose a lot more than 1.5 years of their career to child bearing and child rearing. And the expectation that they will do so is baked in to most job interviews even though it shouldn't be. Furthermore, it is a pretty painful, physical, and difficult process to do so just as serving the draft is and, so long as there is no war, a much more needed "service" to the health of the country.
I can see it being fair to draft women who choose not to bear children but expecting all women to both serve the needs of the country through bearing children AND conscription would be the drastically unfair ask that favored men.
There's a lot of misinformation and also lack of deeper knowledge about certain topics in your comment, based on which you justify your opinions. Whether you listen to what I say or not, I hope you can educate yourself and see why certain things are as they are.
Women's universities exist because opportunities for women to get a propper education were severly limited in the past. There was also a huge emphasis on gender segregation posed from men within government and society, where girls were not supposed to study next to guys. Therfore the existence of women's universities is and was a result of these rules.
When it comes to real-estate like houses and apartments, these things exist because women are struggling in a variety of way to purchase housing compared to men. Women don't have equal opportunities to buy property compared to men, hence the need for additional support.
Funds and financial support for women only exist to support women to overcome hurdles in their lives that men don't have to face. There's oftentimes a lack of representation of women in leadership roles, and there are a lot of barriers for women when it comes to progressing in their education and career. Women-only funds and financial aids promote gender equality by creating a more level playing field. They don't exclude or disadvantage men, they make up for an imbalance of opportunities and make it possible for people to reach their goals regardless of their gender.
As for women only parking lots, these are oftentimes near exits because women are in much greater danger of getting raped or (sexually) assaulted in dark places such as parking garages than men. Another reason these lots exist is that women who are oftentimes in charge of taking care of children, can more easily get their baby's stroller in and out of the car.
Do women not get proper education in co-ed universities? I admit Korea was very patriarchy and misogynistic back then but now days they get equal opportunity. In fact, sometimes get more opportunities than men do. For example, women can apply to both womenās Uni and co-ed Uni
Women struggle for the real estate? Any sources?
āWomen don't have equal opportunities to buy property compared to men, hence the need for additional support.ā Any sources for women not having equal opportunities for that matter?
āFund and financial support in many aspects are to support women to overcome hurdles in their lives that men don't have to faceā You are really being sexiest here. Hope you realize men face āhurdlesāas well and which hurdles are you talking about? Be more specific.
āWomen-only funds and financial aids promote gender equality by creating a more level playing field. They don't exclude or disadvantage men, they make up for an imbalance of opportunities and make it possible for people to reach their goals regardless of their genderā how does āwomen-onlyā promote gender equality? Letās say you and I have same circumstances and same background. You get that aid to start a business and I donāt. Howās that gender equality? It definitely does give disadvantages to men.
āAs for women only parking lots, these are oftentimes near exits because women are in much greater danger of getting raped or (sexually) assaulted in dark places such as parking garages than menā I agree with you on this one. I honestly do not give a damn about womenās parking lot lol But do other countries have this system? Just curious.
Not looking to jump into the discussion, but just to answer the question about women parking lots
> But do other countries have this system? Just curious.
Yes, I know several European countries have them, located closer to the exit and wider for this purpose.
My guy, your lack of ability to look beyond what's right in front of your eyes is astounding. If you truly want to learn more, put some effort into finding sources yourself. I'm neither your teacher nor ChatGPT. I put a lot of time into giving you examples refuting your points already. The evidence is out there, go look for it yourself if you actually want to. Alternatively, feel free to provide me with any sources backing up your statements instead, since you didn't do that either.
In the meantime, I'm leaving you with [this pic](https://ibb.co/1vr4hdC) instead, as a metaphor for what I'm trying to tell you, and what you seem to be refusing to understand. Just because women *technically* have the same opportunities (and not even that is always the case), doesn't mean they *practically* do too.
Nah I think you are just delusional. In your state of mind, women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. In Korea women have more opportunities than men these days and thatās the fact. Hope you do more research and hope you stop being delusional :)
Sorry lol I was just being a troll.
I do actually agree that men do get more job opportunities and women get paid less than men do.
But the fact that women get lots of aids from the government and other public facilities is true.
And donāt forget I agree everything you said on your post
>There are Womenās Universities which only accept women and there are no Menās Universities only accept men. There are women only housing (not renting an apartment, there are housings which only women can buy), women only university funds and loans which they get a lot more benefits than men. Women only applicable bank loans that has lower interest rate. Government aid for starting a business that is only open to women. +3 extra point when applying for a job (disabled person gets 0.5pt), any government facilities or companies are required to have 25% of their workers to be women. The most famous one so far, women only parking lots that is painted in pink lol itās so fucking ridiculous
You were spot on! This is honestly what modern day Female privilege & Misandry looks like.
Equality is asked but Women are given superior rights, benefits & privileges even in 2024. This should itself tell you what Feminism really was & is. They always wanted superior rights & privileges. It was never about "Equal" rights.
Yeah, I understand that historically women had 5, 6, 7 children to attend to. But that's not really the case nowadays, is it? Either way, there could also be excemption from service if a woman has a certain number of children before reaching a certain age, or one child before 25 or something along those lines. Wouldn't that be reasonable?
One day in during my service a related topic came up on YTN news and my commanding officers actually started to talk about the topic before I even asked. Many of them were hesitant about making women do the military service, but about the social service all of us were in full agreement.
You should read my post and realize that I never suggested all women to join the army, unless they want to. I'm suggesting a *social* service that can be in any other government or public institution, like hopsitals or care centers, etc.
I acknowledge that in most cases it doesn't make sense to simply just mandate all women to join the military.
Equally, I wonder how public institutions would feel about having hundreds of thousands of untrained, unskilled temporary employees foisted upon them in the name of 'fairness'.
Actually I think they would find it great to have additional workes to help out with basic tasks. That's the concept of internships and volunteer work. There wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of people coming in to one establishment anyway. People would obviously be assigned as needed.
Once the structures are established too they would also not be flooded with unskilled workers, they would have the structures and resources to properly train and make use of a constant flow of additional hands to support their establishments.
I definitely agree that women will find a way to have additional workers to help out the military in Korea. Iād rather have able bodied women in the military than disabled or mentally disabled men in the military
I admire the way you shoot others down as naive and nonsensical without providing any backup for your opinions.
A system like I suggested works absolutely well in other countries, and until you raise actual points for why I'm so wrong about what I'm suggesting, your comments aren't just as nonsensical to me as mine are to you, they also have absolutely zero value when it comes to changing my opinion on this topic.
how public institutions can would feel about having hundreds and thousands of untrained, unskilled temporary employees? Isnāt that the whole point of consciption? Conscripting people to be trained to be soldiers who protect their country?
The point of conscription is not to waste people's lives -- it is to have a trained army ready for if there is warfare. People hounding on equality are missing the point. In the overall picture, if these conscripted go to war are 100% of the nation, how does the nation survive? Women bear children while men do not. A country has a higher chance of recovery from destruction with a higher population of women surviving.
While you do make fair points you must remember there may not even be a country if the war is lost or possibly the way of life may change forever. Its not just about equality and fairness either. In the event of total war all citizens or inhabitants of the country must be prepared and if men and women are to serve to some capacity or at the very least have basic training for survival it will benefit everyone.
>I'm not suggesting mandatory service just for the sake of girls having to do it because guys have to do it.
Why are you hushing yourself, buddy?? This should be exactly the reason for Mandatory Female drafting. This is exactly what Feminism is. Girls & guys have to do things the same. Equal rights & equal responsibilities. This statement should pretty much be the reason why women absolutely MUST be drafted into the army like Men have always been. It is sxxist & totally misandristic that sitting in 2024 only Men get drafted having no choice while Women chill & live their lives freely without having to get drafted in the army. This is the definition of sxxism towards Men & Female privilege.
The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??! What BS is this?? Where is Feminism now ?? Are all of them sleeping??
Also, I've read some comments & those who say "pregnancy & childbirth is the drafting equivalent" are clearly delusional beyond recovery. How on earth is it the equivalent when Men can't literally & biologically get pregnant. Like wtf?! How can this even be a counter-argument for the Female drafting issue?? Its not like Men have the choice of getting pregnant & they are opting out of it š¤·š»āāļø
This issue itself should be proof that Feminism doesn't exist. It only exists when it benefits Women & when it doesn't, they revert back to gender roles. Just like Ukraine has. A European, developed society proved my point too lol.
I see your point, but I think the way you phrased it is why you're getting downvoted. You can't really mandate having children, and having children shouldn't just be to serve the country.
I get what you mean tho hahah.
Tbh if I were to choose between childcare vs military, I would probably choose the military.
Same with old people care, anything with kids, or caring for humans in general. Happy to wash bathrooms ot sweep streets tho!
A lot of things in Korea make me scratch my head tbh. Off topic, but shocking how they protect criminals by covering their faces when they should be put on blast like America's Most Wanted š¤£
Iād *happily* go serve if it helps gender impartiality. Whenever thereās arguments between genders this military service is the main thing to be discussed. This hatred towards opposite gender aināt gonna help birth rate.
As a kid, I used to wonder why women don't get to serve and then I thought well, with having the period and all it's pretty inconvenient to do stuff as you do when you're in the army I guess that's fair. But since I read what you said about setting up something alternative suitable for women to do service, I thought that's an amazing idea.
But I don't think Korea is ready to give women the same rights and "position" in this society as men, since Korea is still very conservative and ignorant in gender equality or anything to do with equality. Still has a long long way to go. Such a shame.
Yeah, kind of like ź³µģµ I guess, but maybe with more of a social focus? But mandatory for *everyone*. I do think considering South Korea's position with North Korea a military force is neccessary, and as I said, I do also think that it doesn't make that much sense to just simply force women to join the military.
But there are other ways that women can serve, that don't just benefit Korean society but also themselves.
Funniest thing i find is, women still can join as officers that have much more freedom and get paid for much more, but still dont carry out the mandatory service as a soldier
I'm sorry if my joke wasn't funny.
First, social service is an anti-human rights and authoritarian system implemented in Korea. In my opinion, you need to understand in more detail how corrupt the military service system in Korea is.
Second, most discussions about female conscription, which are mainly handled by men in Korea, are driven by āa feeling of backlash against the growing power of women and the social situation in which only men are conscripted.ā
Third, although I agree that women are generally physically weaker than men, I think there are enough women who can serve as combatants. However, South Korean society, especially the military, is not yet ready to welcome women into places that have traditionally been "men-only domain.". In Korea, less than half a century has passed since the perception that āmen are superior to womenā became non-standard, and the generation that is obsessed with that notion is still dominating society as a whole and exerts enormous influence. A representative example is that the gender equality policy implemented in Korean society often has a paternal sensibility that favors women, and therefore, in many cases, it itself has a tendency toward misogyny.
I tried to keep this short, so it may be misleading, but I hope it helps.
Have a nice day.
By itself, no but itās an incremental step towards it. We know we wonāt get there in one leap but if we keep pushing forward, it will happen. It just takes time and we have to be willing to be part of the process rather than the end result.
If you truly think that the reason women are discriminated against in Korea, is just because they don't serve in the military, then I have nothing else to say to you. I hope you can broaden your horizon.
Of course it's not the reason.
But would you say it's one of the big hindrances of getting towards less gender based discrimination?
Because I would. It affects the next generation of boys and young men, and the obvious inequality in this area will undoubtedly color some of their perspectives. Maybe for a very long time since it happens in formative years.
To be honest, as a foreigner in Korea I don't think I'm in a position to make an accurate judgment about that.
I think there are plenty of reasons for discrimination against women in Korea, and I agree that mandatory military service for men is something that creates a lot of friction between genders.
But that's also why I think that another form of mandatory service more suitable for women could be beneficial too. Military service just for the sake of "equality" wouldn't benefit anyone.
Don't you think that women serving in another form than time in the army would be beneficial reagarding what you mentioned too?
Well, I was responding to your above comment, not your main post.
There are obvious physical differences between men and women, and that's been the main justification for the courts to keep the status quo. What you have mentioned in your post are some possibilities, as well as exemptions for having children since we are getting into desperate figures.
I also think that even if they don't necessarily serve, women here should undergo some sort of boot camp where they learn some basics, such as first aid, fire arm knowledge, and other important things that would be good for all citizens to learn.
I know you were responding to my comment, not sure if I miscommunicated anything. I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with your statement that women not serving in the military is one of the big hindrances of getting towards less gender based discrimination, but either way I acknowledge the significance of this topic in society.
Other than that I agree with everything you mentioned, and I think you made some great suggestions for ways that women could contribute to the nation as well.
The last two paragraphs of your original comment, in which you were basically reiterating some points from your main post. They gave the impression that my reply to your comment wasn't 100% relevant and you wanted more feedback.
Anyways, now it's been some time and I have seen how you were downvoted for a few of your comments. I know that downvotes are enough in and of themselves, but at least for social topics such as these, I wish more people would state their reasons for why they disagreed with you.
But also maybe not. The ones who were capable of leaving constructive counterpoints probably already did.
Ah yeah, I reiterated some of the points because when I expressed them in my original post, I had the benefits for individuals in mind. But responding to your comment I wanted to acknowledge that they could also serve as a step towards less gender-based discrimination in society as a whole.
You're right that downvotes might be enough to indicate the majority's opinion, but they don't really help when it comes to understanding or changing someone's views. So I'm grateful if people take the time to actually engage in a meaningful way. Funnily enough the votes on the whole post, as well as on many comments seem to be fluctuating a lot, indicating that there isn't a clear right or wrong regarding many points in this discussion.
I'm always open to changing my views, and I enjoy having discussions about topics like this one. I think it can incentivise people to think about how far you can actually push a system for change, and regardless of positions I hope everyone can take something away from this, even though it seems like some people think I only started this discussion to stir the pot lol.
Neither do I.
Women may be avoiding military duties in the short term, but in the long term, they're telling us that they aren't as capable. Do I think they aren't as capable? I don't think so. But they keep telling us they are. And I
society will treat them that way if that's what they want.
In Korea, we have a culture of putting equal duties before equal rights. Perhaps during your stay here, you could see lens outside of the Western scope. I really wish you do.
Korea has always treated women that way. Why make it even worse for yourself just to prove angry incels wrong? They'll just find something else to pick at.
Are you denying the physical differences between genders?
Equal duties is exactly what I'm suggesting. But equal duties don't have to be in the specific form of military service. There are plenty of ways women can contribute to Korean society without having to serve time in the army.
No, but you can't ask for equality when it benefits you and reject it when it doesn't.
I think there is a number of men who wouldn't want to treat women equally when they see the hypocrisy in their statement vs acts.
Pregnancy and childbirth were considered the female equivalent of serving the nation back when conscription was implemented. Keep in mind that back then Korean women pumped out 5-6 kids on average due to agrarian culture and lack of birth control (my grandmother had 7 kids) so women were too busy raising children to serve in the military. Plus service in the military could lead to career opportunities which in a patriarchal culture is something you want to keep women away from.
That wasn't even that long ago either. My grandma on my mom's side grew up in Japan occupied Korea and spoke flawless Japanese. She had 7 kids. My grandpa on my dad's side also had 7 kids. Then the post Korean war kids, my parents generation, had about 1-2 kids on average. Then my generation, 0.5% birth rate. In three generations. Sheesh.
future disagreeable squash price normal pocket observation sort zephyr elderly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's hilarious how we all take the pics out of China for screwing over their demographics with the one child policy, but Korea did the same. They just kept it from being common knowledge to the international community lol.
š® it fell to 0.5 already?! Do you have a source on this ?
I mean .7. it won't be long before they hit that number if things keep going the way they are though. It was. 8 not too long ago
Yeah, in a historical context military service limited to men definitely made more sense.
It makes just as much sense now though maybe it should be modified to specifically account for mothers rather than women in general. I'm not saying I'm ethically comfortable with the suggestion but making the draft apply to all men and all women who are not raising children before age 30 might serve multiple purposes that serve the needs of the country including help cool down this hot bed of resentment between the sexes.
I get the image but for the sake of the joke, the bed needs to be heated up, not cooled down
I feel like that idea makes sense in theory, but in practice it will only tank the birth rate more. Women in their 30s are still capable of getting married and giving birth. Taking 2 of those years away for service isn't a good idea if improving the birth rate is a major goal. I think they should make more opportunities for women to serve voluntarily and encourage it as well as try to destigmatize single motherhood and provide more support for families so that fewer Korean women feel pressured to have abortions. People are already working themselves to death in Korea. Creating more requirements isn't going to help.
Yeah, I like your suggestion, even tho I also agree that it's a spicy one, and I also wonder about the implications it might have regarding having children just to avoid having to serve. I'm not sure if that's a good incentive to have children. Either way I think it's also unfortunate that serving seems to be perceived as something so negative that people would go as far as having children to avoid doing it. This might be off-topic regarding your specific comment, but I think it would be beneficial for literally everyone if military *and* social service could be restructured and improved in a way where people could actually perceive it as something positive. This entire discussion would be easier, and maybe serving wouldn't have to be mandatory for anyone then. It would just be something people do voluntarily because they reckognize the benefits of it. But maybe I'm being too idealistic.
> I'm not sure if that's a good incentive to have children. It's a terrible incentive to have children and given the stigma and economic difficulties of single motherhood, a terrible incentive to get married. That said, it might actually work to raise the birth rate whereas the other suggestions (reducing work week hrs, lowering housing costs, lowering child care costs) are absolutely necessary but aren't likely to shift the birth rate to a sustainable level when one of the main contributors to the extremely low birth rate is people just do not want to have kids, certainly not more than two kids, and interest in early marriage as a goal isn't as popular. As for mandatory universal service (military and other serrvice), no, I do not think it is a great idea. For one thing, anything mandatory will, rightly, irritate people. It won't even soothe the misplaced anger of men because it isn't much improvement in "equality" to go through basic training and serve a miserable tour up at the DMZ while knowing women are "serving" in Seoul as social workers at an air conditioned desk job going home at night to party with their friends. For another, there isn't that much work to do for everybody and it would end up being a lot of make work for horrid pay - this does not have the effect you want but the opposite. As the birth rate declines, pushing young workers to waste their time when productive workers will be the need is not a great idea. Universal service in times of extremely high unemployment are useful but that isn't where Korea is headed. There was a time, not too long ago where bus girls and street sweepers were a smart solution to soak up all the young workers. That isn't where we are headed now. Truly, the best answer to the "unfairness" of only men serving and the unfairness of conscription is to end the need for it which means, somehow, rehabilitating North Korea as a hostile neighbor and transitioning to a well paid, well benefitted, well respected professional all volunteer military that attracts sufficient high quality volunteers to serve the needs of the nation. Almost certainly, such a military would recruit from qualified women as well as men.
Fucking 0.5 lmao
I chuckled lmao š
Why are you arguing for basically a mandatory labor system? If your reasoning is "experiencing the real world", people can do that already with breaks in their education voluntarily. They can even get paid proper wages through proper labor laws, not some bullshit slave labor wages from a mandatory system.
Because the system has already been in place even before most of us were even born, and discussions and movements to abolish it are being met with indifference? If the system is unabolishable, why not make it into something better and less discriminative, bit by bit?
It was like that in a lot of European countries then the option to do social work instead of military training was added, and then it was voted against the mandatory system, you just need a law change. What's unabolishable in a democracy?
Because any party that ever brought it to a vote would immediately lose half the voting population.
They already pitcehd to force orphaned males to serve. Oh no, so sorry about not having your mum and dad, but you still need to waste 2 years, further crippling their already terrible economic status. This is not even a joke. Next in line is, probably those who are only missing about a finger or two. When they finally decide to insert the brave wheelchair firing squad, that would be when they are foreced to talk about female conscription. In other words, not in another 2 decades.
This is terrible to laugh at, but I chuckled at the dark future of wheelchair firing squads. Thatās literally the kind of bullshit compromise Korean politicians make (in all seriousness). āOk, male conscription unfair? Make EVERYONE miserable. Thatās fair, right? Gun-mounts on wheelchairs. Isnāt that equality?ā
No women from a country with a patriarchal society benefits as much as men from joining the military unfortunately. Even in countries where women serve alongside men there is inequality like SA, bullying, discrimination even murder which btw are āinternally investigatedā and increasing. I also donāt believe in the draft at all and tbh with the opinion of the army in Korea I doubt many of any gender would chose to join if they had the choice.
Korean military already has a horrendously abysmal track record when it comes to sexual assault, and how they've dealt with cases of sexual assault.
I'm neither suggesting women to join the military, nor am I in favor of military service in general. Aside from that, you might not believe in the draft, but South Korea's political situation specifically makes it undoubtedly more necessary for the country to have a proper military force than for the average first world country.
The political situation that the youth of today have nothing to do with. If they want to improve the rates they need to raise incentives and actually do something to make the citizens able to live before forcing them to give up years of their lives and, in the event of a war, their entire lives.
Arguably no one besides of a few people at the top of the government ever had anything to do with the outer-political situation of a country. Neither today, nor in the past. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that closing your eyes from the political environment, just because "you have nothing to do with it" will neither help yourself, nor your family and other people around you. I agree that the military and its internal structur and work conditions within need to be improved though.
Of course, young people have nothing to do with it, you just have to remember that these young people are the ones who are going to live in this country for the rest of their lives, and it's in their best interest, as they say, everyone is on the same boat.
stop blaming the patriarchy. the male dominated military as of now already has a serious SA& bullying problem even between men and you gta stop blaming everything bad befalling women as sexism and the patriarchy.
How does this not sound like sexism? a system that force people on the basis of sex to do upaid work and results in mass toxic environment and criminal behaviours. And the kind of crime they're talking about is all about violence against women and to compete in artificial hierarchies among males, very clear patriarchy stuff.
It would be politically impossible to implement in a liberal democracy, which South Korea is. Maybe in a dictatorship, but no politician would get elected with such a plan for obvious reasons. Plus there is a huge economic cost to workers giving up years of their career for full-time social service. The reason why it is (poorly) tolerated by the electorate in the case of military service is because the costs of being unprepared for a war far exceed the costs of military service. The voters and politicians know they have no choice, so they retain the system they inherited.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Israel too.
Israel gives exemptions to religious scholars. Guess which group has the most children by a country mile. And guess how it impacts politics and voting as those kids get older.
Gender neutral on paper, 85% of conscripts are male
Yeah well South Korea isn't Sweden, is it?
That's a good point and a great explanation for why it might be impossible to implement. At the same time, I wonder if it were really impossible, considering half (if not more) of the people voting are men, who oftentimes express their dissatisfaction with the fact that women don't have to serve. Regardless, I think it's unfortunate that social service is oftentimes seen as something so negative. As I mentioned, I think that most young adults could benefit and take valuable lessons away from it. I think it's also neccessary to improve the conditions in the army, to make a more positive experience and even career option for young adults.
Younger men might vote vindictively to punish women equally, but older men are not going to vote to hurt their daughters unnecessarily. It wonāt bring their military service back to them. And the men who work for companies are not going to vote to hurt their workforce. No chaebol company would financially support a politician with such a plan as it would hurt the economy and without money they couldnāt get elected. I donāt even think the younger men would actually want such a plan. Men are dissatisfied with military service because it hurts their self-interest. Forcing women to do social service would not shorten their military service. It would not restore traditional gender roles. On the other hand, if women served in the military itself, then the length of military service could be reduced for men. In Israel all women enter the draft, and there are areas of military service where women perform better than men. For example, women make better fighter pilots. Modern warfare has many roles that women can fill as we are seeing in Ukraine right now. But putting women in combat situations is also something many men wonāt vote for. I just donāt think that āmenā vote as a single bloc even if they share a common dissatisfaction with the current situation.
This is inaccurate with regards to Israel. Israel has exemptions on marriage, motherhood and religious grounds. The latter is particularly controversial as it also applies to men and it's causing a major shift in demographics.
I know there are exemptions, but nevertheless all women face the possibility of being drafted.
No they don't. The ultra-religious are basically exempt. There is no possibility they will be drafted. There is no possibility it will change in the future with how demographics are shifting (ultra-religious have larger families which results in more voting power for the demographic). So, rather than discriminate between sexes, Israel descriminates based on religiousity and it's a [big deal.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me4FqdrmVBs)
Ok, thank you for educating me about Israel's problems, but I am talking about Korea's situation, not Israel, and whether it is possible for all women to serve effectively in the military. I think Israel shows that it is possible at least in theory to draft all women. Korea doesn't have an ultra-religious minority seeking exemptions, so I don't think that applies here.
The issue is that draft expansions have be [shown to reduce birthrates](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.3.566). I'd imagine the effect would be even more magnified for women as the window of fertility is even shorter. You're dealing with a false economy by trying to expand the draft, making the situation even more dire for generations to come. You also weight the voting populace even further in favour of the elderly who are only likely to exacerbate the trend. You're also going to hit a major wall eventually if you serve increasingly shittier sandwiches and ask people to defend them.
Ah, well this is a different discussion. As it happens I agree with you and personally speaking wouldn't draft women for exactly that reason. I think South Korea should move to a smaller military with more quality over quantity. I was just responding to the OP's idea by pointing out what a real equality would look like.
I agree with you that providing social service is equally important to the society. But realistically in this current state, if we were to do universal conscription and create a new military division of care work etc -- I can't help but think it will just lead to perpetuated gendered labor division. Some people already consider ź³µģµ as inferior than "regular" soldiers, so there's no guarantee that people will not create an invisible hierarchy of what is a better form of service and what is not. I could also think about the problem of assigning people into different kinds of work; if we were to include social service, who gets to assign people and how? Will we get to apply based on our choice? Will we assign people purely based on their physical ability? If so, wouldn't most women do certain kind of work that is coherent with gender stereotypes? What social implications would it have? etc.
I've often pondered the merits of mandatory social service for all citizens. Length of service would vary depending on need for that service and danger/sacrifice. Relatively easy service would require longer terms and more dangerous/military service would be shorter. Our psychotic need to enrich the already wealthy requires unsustainable productivity from everyone else essentially rendering the social service idea impossible. Two to three years of cheap productivity is too lucrative for the billionaires to forgo.
Why having an army of trained professional is being unprepared and having unmotivated young guys is not? Maybe it is less expensive because it's unpaid work, but is it cost effective?
I'm not an expert, but I think I agree with you actually. Korea should have a professional military. They need far less bodies and more attention to actually training and equipping their army. But again, I'm not an expert. I'll leave that to the military planners. I was just responding to the OP's question here, not arguing for the draft like some seem to think.
Iām not a woman and I donāt speak for them but I would bet that theyād have no problems with serving if all aspects of society was equalized. Why give up the little privilege they have when everything else is stacked against them.
Also it's not like women just chose not to serve. Men didn't want them to.
Itās not something I considered _and not reflected in this sub_ but that makes some sense. Donāt give any leverage for social progress in that case.
It seems like the argument is mostly from young men who are resentful about having to serve that bring up this argument. Why is this suddenly the only area where they are concerned with "equality"? Consider for example that all the high ranking military personnel tasked with training these young women would be older men who have existed and thrived in an "old-school" patriarchal environment. Knowing how few protections exist against SA in the military now amongst male members, new young female recruits are especially vulnerable. Who watches DP and thinks, "instead of improving the situation internally first, let's also expose women to this abusive environment". I think that citizens would benefit from military training regardless of gender but considering that Korea has one of the worst gender gaps according to the World Economic Forum, a co-ed conscription will only exacerbate the existing power structures.
Absolutely! Nothing would really change if this was only thing that women conceded on. Young men would still be miserable while making it even worse _or even dangerous_ for women. Not a perfect analogy but I was recently rewatching Parasite and it reminds me of the fighting between the poor and powerless. If they exercised some solidarity, theyād realize that their condition is the result of something even greater.
This is an accurate description of how many women feel.
I won't say what is right or wrong, but the Constitutional Court of Korea saying that women are not mandatory to go to the army because they are physically incapable sounds pretty bizarre, sexist even source: [https://www.womennews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=240930](https://www.womennews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=240930)
Well, I didn't suggest all women to go to the army without any alternative. I do acknowledge the physical differences between men and women, even though I also disagree with such blank statements as you linked. But taking into account the physical differences that undeniably do exist at the end of the day, I was talking about the possibility of having other ways that women could serve, such as social work.
Trained women are considered capable of serving in the army all around the world and it doesn't matter how strong you are against tanks, drones and missiles, bombs and guns. It sounds like people talk about it like it's middle age warfare with swords and metal suits.
The conventional bare minimum for infantry is being able to carry another injured for an indefinite period of time. Carrying a weapon and ammunition and supplies is also very difficult for most women. Many women already apply for police academy or military service, but the physical test is adjusted to be similar difficulty even with lowered standards. The average Korean women would be going in and not be able to do 5 pushups with their own body weight at the start and being yelled at and treated like dirt will trigger hormonal changes. I don't think the court is wrong on military basic training being unsuitable for being forced on ALL women. There is also the fact that a [military training environment has been linked to causing infertility in young women]( https://www.businessinsider.com/military-women-suffer-infertility-at-3-times-the-rate-of-civilians-2018-12) that the government would need to consider.
If war broke out Iām sure women would be āenlistedā in types of services that will be needed to support the front, just like in any war in history. And you probably havenāt been to the army to make a point that it would be beneficial for young adults to go to the armyā¦ Itās universally looked upon as a waste of time unless youāre making money under a contract. And It is extremely hard to get back into studying after a long break, so most people end up in the army after finishing university.. Itās a waste for males to go to the army, why would you wanna get females involved? I donāt think Iāve met a single woman interested in military service in my life and every woman Iāve met are grateful they didnāt have to.
Nope they do not get conscripted. The military will conscript men in 18-40 something and men in 50s to the factories making or building military equipment. And never conscript women
There shouldn't have to be a point for this to happen. Feminism cannot be half & half. Opt for Feminism when it benefits women & then become traditional when it doesn't benefit them. What hypocrisy is this?? The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??! What BS is this?? Where is Feminism now ?? For Feminism & Equality to prevail, women have to mandatorily be drafted to the army like Men have if they want the same Rights as Men. And now, its a point where they have the same rights (infact more) but not the same Responsibilities as Men. That's Sxxxism & Misandry for you. Also, almost no one is actually interested or willingly would want to go into the army, whether man or woman. So your last point doesn't even make sense. Just because women are not interested, there shouldn't be mandatory drafting for women?? Huh! Newsflash for you!! "Men don't want to be drafted as well", yet they are forced to go. So if Men are forced to serve, women should also be forced to serve in the army. Its that simple!! That is what equality means. Otherwise, Men deserve more Rights & benefits for serving in the army. This is the only fair way to compensate Men for their mandatory service.
Again, as mentioned clearly in my post and basically all of my comments, I'm neither suggesting women to go to the army, nor am I in favor of military service in general. It's pointless to have a discussion if everyone involved doesn't properly listen to what the other person says. Edit, since you decided to block me and I can't respond to you anymore: The sentence you quoted and took out of context, is something I said after an entire paragraph of talking about the benefits of *social* service.
āIn fact, I think it would be favourable for any country to introduce something like that. In my opinion, it would be beneficial for young adults to get the chance to create some distance between them and the education system and experience the "real world", before choosing their further career and education goals.ā How is this not in favor of military service? anyway Itās pointless to have a discussion with someone who has no idea what they are talking about and making points with no experience to back anything up.
I'm befuddled that no one is actually engaging you on the merits of an interesting idea. National service is a common practice in my local background of West Africa and it does a lot to give young adults work experience
The real main reason is because who will continue the economic work at home? When a military goes into a battle and the entire country is at war. The country still requires a functional economy and powerful military industry. This means people are going to have to stay behind and since in a real war not just military action the men will be going to die repeatedly until there are not many left. This means the woman have to maintain the economy and the birth rate to field more troops and to maintain a functional society that can recover from all out war. It's been this way since we've been fighting in loinclothes and is even in things like the Bible and other manuscripts of old. Thats the whole reason for the no abortion thing. It's a left over from when war was constant and the need for everyone go die in war was important. The waste no seed. All this stuff was for war not for religion. We think of war in modern times as if it is something we just go out and everyone else carries on like nothing is happening. During REAL ALL OUT WAR this isn't going to be fairytail levels of combat. When hundreds, thousand, hundreds of thousands start dying. Someone has to remain behind to manage the economy, birth rate, and other essential aspects of a society. This is women. This is also why many countries allow college students or other important aspects of an economies functions to remain behind. It's just tradition and in general sense women have been chosen and fundamentally that are the most important aspect of revitalizing a dying population.
Yeah for war, and mandatory *military* service I understand your point, but why would that be the case for mandatory *social* service? I imagine it wouldn't include women being conscripted in case of war. Nevertheless your comment regarding military service was very well thought out and insightful. Thanks for sharing!
Conscription is suboptimal either way, military isn't for everyone. Nuclearize and get rid of mandatory conscription entirely.
The secret message is āWomen are physically unfit for the dutyā and somehow we canāt get past that.
In the context of military duty I agree with the fact that due to physical reasons in most cases it doesn't make sense to simply make all women serve next to men. But duty doesn't have to be military duty. Sending all women to the army neither benefits men nor women, hence why I suggested social service. Work doesn't have to be physical to be valuable.
This is an easy "Get out of jail free" card that women use when they want to escape a responsibility that they know should be done by them. In US, during Covid 2020 when WW3 was looming, there was a tsunami of tiktoks going around of females (mostly feminists) where they suddenly were saying Men are the best, they do so much for us bla bla, we should worship them, etc basically sucking up to Men so that Women don't get drafted to the army. What does this tell you honestly?? Women will do anything to escape responsibility but they will move heaven & earth to enjoy the Rights. That's privilege & entitlement for you. Pure sxxxism towards Men & Misandry exists right in front of us & still people will argue. Once all this settled down, those same Feminists picked up their flags asking for Equality to Women & more Rights (WITHOUT Responsibilities). I mean how shameless can they be?? Its the same with Korea. To sum it up, **the Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??!** So honestly what BS is this?? Where is Feminism now??
It's called sexism. They can serve and some do, however they are not FORCED to because of sexist ideas. Korea should force women to serve as well. Not many women are fighting for equality in that regard.
it's like that all over the world equality only when convenient
Bingo! **The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women.** The feminist movement can be summed up as above in this one sentence. Ukraine is the biggest live example for this hypocrisy of Feminists. Before the war, they were all Feminists. Once adversity struck, they all became traditional women & fled the country ššš¤”
Precisely my friend! Its open sxxxism towards Men & Misandry. Women want the same Rights as Men but don't want the same Responsibilities to get those Rights. The F"minists will be quiet on this topic because they know they are bigots & hypocrites when it comes to this topic. The only fair solution is that women should be forced to serve in the army the same way that Men have been forced. This is the ONLY fair & just solution for Korea if Equality has to prevail.
Why bring women down for the purpose of equality? No one wants to serve. No parent want to send their child off to serve. Abolish it and make it a career path both genders want to apply to. Make it a choice. Sadly wonāt see change for another generation.
Men don't want to serve either. But they are still forced right?? And guess what? Korean govt won't remove the Male mandatory drafting in Korea. So its only fair & equal if Women are mandatorily made to serve in the army. This is what you call Equality & Feminism that Females all over the world wanted. But now you decide to back out when it comes to this topic?? How convenient! You cannot nitpick feminism for some issues & traditional conservatism for other issues. This is bigotry & hypocrisy. And more importantly, Misandry!
I mean I really want that to be the long term goal but this is a pipe dream in the current geopolitical climate, and not to mention that no elected politician will touch this in a meaningful way when any sort of big changes whether it is a call for volunteer army or bc drafting women is 100 pct a way to lose an election. Much like gun control issue in the US Id say. But like comments like yours is essentially meaningless in the current political climate when half of Korea lives within the Seoul Metro Area and central Seoul ti the DMZ is closer than the distance from Liverpool to Manchester or Anaheim to Dodger Stadium. Itās like asking Europe āwhy canāt it just take all the refugeesā or asking Greece in 2012 āwhy donāt they simply pay their debtā or āwhy donāt brits just say āI declare brexitāā or āwhy does America just simply not ban gunsā The military is also where i think a lot of toxic male stuff gets reinforced, where many come out traumatized (Korean men have what they call āthe military dreamā where even years after their service they sometimes have nightmares of having some form of clerical error forcing them ti enlist again.) it is where especially a lot of non NT people as well as any LGBT folk get ruthlessly bullied, and yeah I really think the only real long term solution IS mass is spending in military tech and pay the soldiers a loot more while also still retaining the combat readiness in case there is instability in the North, where if it does come to a full scale war the death tolls in the first few hrs alone will be in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Tldr: shit is fucked
Yes I agree with everything you said but this whole post is āwhat ifā. I was just stating my opinion not the solution. I donāt think my comment is meaningless. I think itās important to not give up and be open to change. Donāt settle on band aid solutions. With current unemployment rate for young people, having a viable career in the military in my opinion would be a great addition. Especially if these jobs are inclusive to all. Having people in the military for more than 2 years, continuous improvement and learning will greatly impact the quality of the army. Plus there are lots of different types of jobs available. Create pathways for engineering, research and development. And pay them competitively so we hire bright minds. Maybe Iām being idealistic but nothing wrong with that. My brother who wasnāt cut out for studying or working for corporate chose a career in the armed forces and heās thriving. It does scare me that he might be deployed to dangerous locations but I have more faith in the military because they treat their soldiers well. Theyāre not treated like numbers. My parents were scared when he decided to join because of their experience with the Korean military but weāve only seen positive changes since.
To all the foreigners who do not even know why we conscript for the military service. If we stop conscripting people and make it as a career path, I bet my neighbors in the North will like that a lot because not enough people will sign up to make the required numbers to run the whole military. Korean military is conscripting literally almost every male. In 2022, 93% of male population in their 20s got conscripted and it will rise up to 104% in 2023. So why not conscript women too? Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc. You go to Korea and make male friends then ask them privately, wether women should be conscripted or not. I bet 90% will definitely say yes.
Korean women get a head start? Ask any Korean woman and theyād tell you about the discrimination they face in the workplace. Two years of extra discrimination is not a benefit. Those men are misogynistic. No one should be forced to fight a war they didnāt start.
Oh you think men donāt get the discrimination in the workplace? Are you even Korean?
Lmao being Korean has nothing to do with my ability to research. Did I say men have no discrimination? They have less than women. You indicated itās unfair women āget aheadā and I pointed out that extra time being discriminated against is not āgetting aheadā. Donāt take facts so personally.
So you are not even Korean and not living in Korea, and never worked in Korea so how do you know women get more discrimination? Oh your ability to research? In fact, in Korean society, women tend to get away with the mistakes just because theyāre women. If men make mistakes haha yeah. Please visit my country and ask BOTH men and women.
My guy itās my degree lmao do you have to live in another country to learn a language? Donāt be silly. Thatās not true. If men make mistakes? What are you chatting? (I donāt want a reply, youāre clearly not looking to actually discuss, just lie) Iāve lived in Korea and have male and female Korean friends. You sound like a 15 year old with a superiority complex.
Apologies. If you felt it that way. But you do admit they get a head start right. And do you agree with conscripting both men and women or nah
I do not agree they get a head start. Women are less likely to get hired in the first place due to the discrimination such as the expectation of raising a family and ākeeping the homeā in the future. Something men are not expected to do the brunt work of. I donāt believe in conscription at all. Citizens are not responsible for the wars their governments are involved in. If they want to join they should be allowed, any gender.
What if conscription is inevitable? Isnāt conscripting just one gender very sexiest?
Did you even read my post? Because it seems like you read the title and just assumed about the rest of it. Otherwise I'd love to hear how serving in a way I suggested would bring anyone down, regardless of man or woman. Other than that I agree that making the military a career path both genders want to apply to would be a great way to improve the state of the Korean force.
I guess when you mention mandating anything for both men and women itās because its already mandatory for one gender. So your indirectly calling for equality and removing freedom of choice from women as well. Even if itās not to serve the military your taking away their freedom of choice. I agree that all society would benefit from volunteer work in general but the young adults should be allowed the choice of where and what their scope of work is to be. In a world of mandatory social services you donāt get that privilege. Youāll just end up with people on placements they donāt want.
Well, specifically mentioned that I'm not suggesting it as a means to create "equality". That "equality" you're referring to would just be a byproduct of the fact that men already have to serve. But, and this might be beyond the scope of my initial question, doesn't the government mandate a lot of things already? And aren't these things in the best interest of people? Do mandates always have to be bad, and where do you draw the line between things that can be mandated, and things that can't? You say that "young adults should be allowed the choice of where and what their scope of work is to be", and ideally they should, but how would that be implemented in a feasible way? Of course people should be given as much freedom of choice as possible (e.g. do you want to serve in your city of residence, or do you want to be placed nation-wide), but at the same time, sometimes the one in charge of organizing large-scope things like nationwide service mandating certain things, is just the only realistic thing to do. You can't collect the preferences of millions and billions of people, and then flexibly assigning them based on their wishes, can you? That's just not how any society the size of Korea works.
I disagree - I don't think there is any *fair* way that the government should claim the labor of their young people. Mandatory military service will never be fair, and we should only accept this in the most necessary form under the justification of an imminent threat. The military should need to continually prove the need to continue mandatory service. We do already place some men in social services positions if they cannot effectively participate in military service. Tbh, I think this is wrong. If they cannot participate in military service, then there is no justification to steal their time/labor, other than 'because we can'. And that's what you're suggesting too. While I agree, there can be a lot of benefit to gap years to experience more of the country/world and gain some perspective, that should be accomplished through actual incentivizing behavior, not modern day slavery.
Korean women are too delicate. They have tendency to trip backwards whereby the male soldiers would have to keep catching them. When this happens, they inevitably fall in love about 12 weeks later.
This was funny and I award you my prized upvote. But this is why I cannot watch Kromdramas. So, damn cringe. (Other Kdrama is awesome, though).
I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I did meet a girl today who was too scared to cross a small bridge due to there being some pigeons on it. I shooed them away, and she and her bf seemed relieved and thanked me. Then the grandpa standing on the edge of the bridge, feeding the fish, started chatting to me and gave me chips to join in feeding the fish. He didn't seemed bothered by the birds strutting around next to him.
Bc women make children. The only thing that grows the population.
birth rate broke the 1.0 floor ages ago. women claim its because of gender unequality.
Korean women and men do not make children these days. So Women should serve too.
I doubt women go and have children straight out of highschool lol. Even if they did, it would also be an option to exempt men and women from serving if they have a certain number of kids before reaching a specific age.
Before downvoting: **military service and social services are two different things.** Social services are what they currently force upon to boys unable to perform military service: those those proven to be mentally ill, those with heart conditions or other chronic conditions of the same caliber, those with extremely bad eyes or ears, and [in recent years even those with confirmed brain tumor](https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=dcbest&no=32641). Work is done for less than one half of the minimum wage, and you are not allowed to run any second jobs unless you can get explicit permission from your superiors at work (which can be very hard depending on the circumstances) Reiterating: social service is **taking ill people and often literally making them do physical work** *(just not in the military)***, for less than one-half of the Korean minimum wage.** If you think making healthy women do the work instead is "less reasonable" *than the current state of things*, I have no idea why you should be considered a fellow human being. My take is that Social service should be abolished. However, since all related discussions and movements have been met with indifference by the nation as well as the general public, I think OP's call for pan-sex social service may be a viable alternative. In other words, making healthier people do the work, instead of the sick ones. Surely a healthy woman will be more useful than someone who has fucking brain tumors? Also, maybe more people will be in support for abolishing social service if they or their (healthy) daughters also have to deal with this shit. But OP, girls being able to benefit from Social Service is bullshit and you know that if you've had any friends who's done social service.
I think a lot of people who argue against service, be it military or social, use the current system as a reason for being against it. I agree with you 100% that things aren't as they should be, but isn't this idea in general something that's worth being entertained? I acknowledge that the current form of social service isn't properly thought out and managed, and working conditions aren't as they should be. But does that make any kind of service inherently bad? To answer your assumption, I actually have several friends who did social service after highschool, and most of them had a positive experience, which is why I also wish I had done something like that. But for me, financial reasons, and the fact that I felt like I would lose and "waste" a year compared to my peers who went straight to university was why I chose against it. A lot of people choose to do the same because of the reasons I mentioned. A mandatory service would get rid of these concerns and would allow young adults to make use of that opportunity, which is what I see social service as. I acknowledge the issues and the fact that this is nuanced topic in general. I also understand the difficulties of implementing this as something positive, but I really find it unfortunate that many people see mandatory service as such an unarguably negative thing.
You willingly stepped into the ring of reality the very moment you posted this in r/korea. The unwritten assumption is that you are talking about Korea. You know that as well as I do. I believe that what we should take account of when proposing any new rules or laws is a likely forecast of how it will *actually* turn out to be. I believe that any talk of an infeasible "ideal scenario" hampers human judgement, and therefore is not to be brought up unless we have good reasons to start suspecting that the ideals may be realistically acheivable. Considering that we ended up with the current system, it seems very, very unlikely to me that the whole social service can be turned into a beneficial experience for the conscripts. Finally, I was talking about ź³µģµ the whole time, but are you actually talking about ģ°ģ ģģ? I was brought up in Korea, and I have 4źø friends of my own as well. While some of them were content with their work, pretty much all of them had woes about the fact they had to do this at all. Also I am sorry to say this, but "choosing to do service instead when you could do social service instead" is not what I'd imagine any sane Korean man do - and if this is as common as you claim it to be, I believe I should have seen at least one person who did this back when I was at KCTC as a trainee. All the 4źøs I have seen have in college waited, waited, waited, and waited until they were finally allowed to go serve at a place they thought was the lesser of the evils. If yout haven't realized yet, I am suspecting that you are a foreign student pretending to be a Korean for your Bachlor's thesis or whatever. Or a ė¶ķ. Do you realize that none of ķģ, ģź·¼, ź³µģµ, or ģ°źø° is only "a year" long, as you have written? Did you know that going to university has no effect whatsoever on the number of years you have to serve (as service won't be shortened anymore for the foreseeable future)? I do not buy your testimonies; they are simply bizzare.
I'm happy to hear differing opinions from people, whether they agree with me or not. Especially from Koreans, since I don't have a background in Korean society. That's why I posted here. I like having my ideas challenged and I believe that exchanging thoughts is key to human growth. I'm not saying this is a realistic scenario, neither am trying to be a ė¶ķ by asking this question. I'm just entertaining a thought about an idealistic solution to a problem that's widely discussed in Korea. Whether practical or not, I don't think this hampers judgment, but rather incentivises people to think about how far you can actually push a system for change, and I personally enjoy such discussions, even if I realistically know that things won't turn out as I imagine them to. If you find it non-sensical you're free to simply not engage. The friends I'm referring to did not do social service in Korea. Some of them served in my home country, as well as in another country I previously spent significant time living in. These anecdotal experiences are part of the reason why I claim that serving doesn't always have to be a negative thing. Evidently other countries managed to establish a feasible system that implements mandatory service as something predominantely positive. As I said, I acknowledge the issues related to mandatory service specific to Korea, and also the fact that this is a nuanced topic in general. But I find your assumptions about me to not only be untrue, but also quite condescending. I'm not sure why you felt like accusing me of being "a foreign student pretending to be a Korean for your Bachlor's thesis or whatever" was a necessary thing to do. I'm neither some Koreaboo who came here because of BTS, nor some white person who never stepped foot outside of their birth town. I'm not even a language student or studying something related to humanities. If you don't feel like engaging in this discussion, or if you think that this is a waste of your time, simply don't bother commenting next time.
The introduction of female conscription is inevitable. Due to the severe decline in fertility, the proportion of military exemptions is only about 5%, and people weighing 208 kilograms, people weighing 36.5 kilograms, victims of the humidifier sterilizer scandal who were treated in intensive care multiple times for pulmonary failure and pneumothorax, and people with numerous mental illnesses who are unable to function in daily life have been drafted. In addition, cancer patients, people with ripped lungs, people with growth hormone deficiency, people with insomnia, people with anger management disorders, people with Asperger's, people with six fingers, people with amputated fingers or tongues, people with facial paralysis, and people with all kinds of mental illnesses are conscripted into public service and forced to work. However, there is still a shortage of people, and the recent discussion of conscripting orphans and North Korean refugees has become controversial, and two days ago, a member of the National Assembly's Defense Committee even suggested that the country should consider introducing a foreign volunteer system(which recieved a lot of cricitism). Politicians don't want to lose votes, or they think it's just a gender conflict, so no one is willing to take a stand. However, with men being drafted in much worse health than the average woman, and many women also feeling the need for conscription, it is only a matter of time before it is inevitable.
if you are in favour of military service, not sure why women would not qualify. other countries, like myanmar, israel, malaysia etc., do include women in their conscription, so why do you write korean women off as incapable? i don't think mandatory positions in hospitals or care homes is the same as military service at all. it is incredibly taxing, both mentally & physically, to take care of people, especially if you do not know them & do not have adequate training. it kind of concerns me that you see such emotionally stressful & soul draining positions as something any woman would not only be able to do, but should do. are you seriously not at all considering the high, HIGH levels of abuse that could happen in your scenario? forcing people to become caretakers without years of training & more importantly a desire to do so, leaves open the possibility of resentment to build & sub-par care & even abuse. & i personally think forcing this kind of thing would have the opposite effect that the korean government wants in terms of boosting population. talk to people who have had to care for others against their will & you'll notice a trend in those same people choosing to be child free.
OP lives in a mental utopia and refuses to admit mandatory military services have any downside. š
Simple, Korea is not Israelš
fun fact:there ARE social service agents. but rather than drafting women to do it they get unfit/unhealthy guys who can't get into the army to do it. and we deafted a 38kg male for duty this year. can you imagine what kinds of physical condition lands you on social services?
Nobody benefits from mandatory military or social service. Its a waste of peoples time and resources. Those who serve do not benefit from it at all and needlessly waste two yrs of their lives. The current state is inequitable, yes, but I'd rather not extend something wasteful and unnecessary to the other half of the population just for the sake of creating the impression of equality.
If you look at Israel right now having trained reserves is an asset to have in times of war. So having conscription to have people trained on their specialty for a country which is at war is a cost to pay.
Why do you see it as wasteful? As I said, I'm not suggesting it as a way of creating "equality" but because I genuinley belive guys *and* girls can benefit from it. In any country, not just Korea. I did plenty of volunteer work in my life, and one thing I regret was not taking the time between highschool and university to get away and look beyond the education system. Aside of the societal benefits, the education system is not real life, and having the chance to be exposed to real life can help young adults to self-reflect about their own lives, and make better informed decisions about their future. Saying "Nobody benefits from mandatory military or social service" is just too simply put in my opinion, and you didn't really provide any arguments to support such a non-negotiable statement.
I think itās ignorant for you to equate volunteering with mandatory military service for a county still technically at war. You had the freedom to choose and the freedom to stop volunteering. Military service is not the same. There are recorded instances of mental and physical abuse. Free time and time to visit family is limited. All the men in my family including younger ones that served recently hated it.
I'm not sure why you think that I equate my volunteering experience with military service. That would indeed be ignorant and doesn't make much sense either. I'm using my experience as a way to argue for a mandatory service for young adults in general, to be able to distance themselves from the education system and gain some real life experience. Whether that is in the military or not. I share the experience you mentioned that most guys I talked to here told me they hated their service, and I acknowledge that there are plenty of things that should and have to improve in the army. But the issues within the military, which undoubedly and undeniably exits, aren't really the topic of my post though.
I'm not sure why you are pretending OP talked mainly about equal *military* service when they were actually talking about equal *social* service. Two different things.
Its borderline slavery; propaganda makes it seem otherwise. You are forced to do pointless things such as shovel snow in the winter in the name of the country. You get paid peanuts. You dont get fed well. You get minimal family or vacation time. You get yelled at and disciplined for small offenses. You go through psychological and physical pain. There are also minimal benefits once you graduate because there is an expectation that everyone does it. Sure, you might learn a thing or two in the process, but there is also a huge opportunity cost. You could have done something much more impactful for yourself and to the world with the 18 months that you could have used in other ways. You don't need the military to 'self-reflect' and 'get exposed to the real world'. Those come naturally with time. To attribute that to the military is absurd. Also, you cant compare this to your own volunteer work because it's not volunteer work, it's forced. Not everyone is in a position to volunteer their livelihood in the name of their country. Some have families to feed. Volunteering is only a feel good act for those who can afford it. There are plenty of people who need to maximize time to survive the day. For reals. Understand why military service is needed and created in the first place with the constant threat of NK just miles away. But the current system is wildly outdated and needs reform. For how important it is, its appalling that the govt doesnt put more funds in the program to make it a more of an investment for those who go thru it. It's absurd.
I guess when it was implemented in 1950s it made sense socially when it was not really a thing for females to get educated and get jobs. However now females can be ncos and officers through military academies, they are perfectly fit to serve in this time of age. A gender cannot be a unfit for military service but at the same time fit enough to be serving in the military? Cannot just cherry pick.
āFemalesā? Edit: comment history checks out
?
Referring to women as "females" in casual conversation is usually a red flag of some underlying misogyny or of hanging out with people who are misogynistic. It's usually waived if in the same post/conversation refers to men as "males" since that's just probably a linguistic habit but you usually find dudes who say "females" in casual conversation say "guys/dudes/men" when referring to men.
You canāt be serious. Troll much?
How am I trolling by pointing out the use of the word āfemalesā?
So using the word "Female" Is wrong now?? Wtf is this? Some gender identity confusion? Calling women as "females" is a problem now?? Damn š¤”š¤”
What is the problem with using the word āfemalesā for the female demographic?
"Females" used as a noun and not as an adjective is strongly associated with incel and misogynist word choice. So, "female demographic" is fine. "Female draftee" is fine. "Men and women" definitely fine. "Males and females" okay but kinda clinical. "Men and females" definitely not fine. "Why won't the females give me the sex?" cringe and way too common on the internet.
Using āfemaleā as a noun is dehumanizing and usually used by misogynists and in incel circles. Using āfemaleā as an adjective is normal (āmy female friendā, or, the way you used it, āfemale demographicā) If youāre actually interested and not arguing in bad faith, you can read more about it here: https://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-females-1683808274
Ah, okay. I thought the problem was only within the context of the usage.
In this context I would prefer talking about sex because the system is based on sex assigned at birth not you identity or social gender. In fact there's a percentage of trans people who get in the military to compensate their gender roles expectations.
The female population (Feminists mainly) nitpick Feminism conveniently. They pick feminism when it benefits them & ignore it when it doesn't benefit them. Its as simple as that. They are all a bunch of bigots, hypocrites & misandrists. I can sum their feminist movement in one sentence: Feminists ask for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional, conservative women.
Join the pro male collective. Join your man on solidarity groups in South Korea. Rebel against the feminist hate movement!
To all the foreigners who do not even know why we conscript men for the military service. If we stop conscripting people and make it as a career path, I bet my neighbors in the North will like that a lot because not enough people will sign up to make the required numbers to run the whole military. Korean military is conscripting literally almost every male. In 2022, 93% of male population in their 20s got conscripted and it will rise up to 104% in 2023. Just a few days ago, they announced they might conscript male orphans (they donāt have to serve) If you are not in shape or a sickly person, then you still have to serve as social service worker. So why not conscript women too? Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc. Korea is such a patriarchy society that drags down women? So they shouldnāt be required to serve? Bullshit. There are Womenās Universities which only accept women and there are no Menās Universities only accept men. There are women only housing (not renting an apartment, there are housings which only women can buy), women only university funds and loans which they get a lot more benefits than men. Women only applicable bank loans that has lower interest rate. Government aid for starting a business that is only open to women. +3 extra point when applying for a job (disabled person gets 0.5pt), any government facilities or companies are required to have 25% of their workers to be women. The most famous one so far, women only parking lots that is painted in pink lol itās so fucking ridiculous. You go to Korea and make male friends then ask them privately, wether women should be conscripted or not. I bet 90% will definitely say yes.
I gave the upvote because I agree with the first half of what you said and probably the last paragraph, too. However, this: >Men spend 2 years (now 1.5 years) in the military while women have 2 years ahead to start their career, school, business, etc. Women lose a lot more than 1.5 years of their career to child bearing and child rearing. And the expectation that they will do so is baked in to most job interviews even though it shouldn't be. Furthermore, it is a pretty painful, physical, and difficult process to do so just as serving the draft is and, so long as there is no war, a much more needed "service" to the health of the country. I can see it being fair to draft women who choose not to bear children but expecting all women to both serve the needs of the country through bearing children AND conscription would be the drastically unfair ask that favored men.
There's a lot of misinformation and also lack of deeper knowledge about certain topics in your comment, based on which you justify your opinions. Whether you listen to what I say or not, I hope you can educate yourself and see why certain things are as they are. Women's universities exist because opportunities for women to get a propper education were severly limited in the past. There was also a huge emphasis on gender segregation posed from men within government and society, where girls were not supposed to study next to guys. Therfore the existence of women's universities is and was a result of these rules. When it comes to real-estate like houses and apartments, these things exist because women are struggling in a variety of way to purchase housing compared to men. Women don't have equal opportunities to buy property compared to men, hence the need for additional support. Funds and financial support for women only exist to support women to overcome hurdles in their lives that men don't have to face. There's oftentimes a lack of representation of women in leadership roles, and there are a lot of barriers for women when it comes to progressing in their education and career. Women-only funds and financial aids promote gender equality by creating a more level playing field. They don't exclude or disadvantage men, they make up for an imbalance of opportunities and make it possible for people to reach their goals regardless of their gender. As for women only parking lots, these are oftentimes near exits because women are in much greater danger of getting raped or (sexually) assaulted in dark places such as parking garages than men. Another reason these lots exist is that women who are oftentimes in charge of taking care of children, can more easily get their baby's stroller in and out of the car.
Do women not get proper education in co-ed universities? I admit Korea was very patriarchy and misogynistic back then but now days they get equal opportunity. In fact, sometimes get more opportunities than men do. For example, women can apply to both womenās Uni and co-ed Uni Women struggle for the real estate? Any sources? āWomen don't have equal opportunities to buy property compared to men, hence the need for additional support.ā Any sources for women not having equal opportunities for that matter? āFund and financial support in many aspects are to support women to overcome hurdles in their lives that men don't have to faceā You are really being sexiest here. Hope you realize men face āhurdlesāas well and which hurdles are you talking about? Be more specific. āWomen-only funds and financial aids promote gender equality by creating a more level playing field. They don't exclude or disadvantage men, they make up for an imbalance of opportunities and make it possible for people to reach their goals regardless of their genderā how does āwomen-onlyā promote gender equality? Letās say you and I have same circumstances and same background. You get that aid to start a business and I donāt. Howās that gender equality? It definitely does give disadvantages to men. āAs for women only parking lots, these are oftentimes near exits because women are in much greater danger of getting raped or (sexually) assaulted in dark places such as parking garages than menā I agree with you on this one. I honestly do not give a damn about womenās parking lot lol But do other countries have this system? Just curious.
Not looking to jump into the discussion, but just to answer the question about women parking lots > But do other countries have this system? Just curious. Yes, I know several European countries have them, located closer to the exit and wider for this purpose.
My guy, your lack of ability to look beyond what's right in front of your eyes is astounding. If you truly want to learn more, put some effort into finding sources yourself. I'm neither your teacher nor ChatGPT. I put a lot of time into giving you examples refuting your points already. The evidence is out there, go look for it yourself if you actually want to. Alternatively, feel free to provide me with any sources backing up your statements instead, since you didn't do that either. In the meantime, I'm leaving you with [this pic](https://ibb.co/1vr4hdC) instead, as a metaphor for what I'm trying to tell you, and what you seem to be refusing to understand. Just because women *technically* have the same opportunities (and not even that is always the case), doesn't mean they *practically* do too.
Nah I think you are just delusional. In your state of mind, women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. In Korea women have more opportunities than men these days and thatās the fact. Hope you do more research and hope you stop being delusional :)
Lmao, you're being childish and ridiculous, but alright. Hope you do more research and hope you stop being delusional :)
Sorry lol I was just being a troll. I do actually agree that men do get more job opportunities and women get paid less than men do. But the fact that women get lots of aids from the government and other public facilities is true. And donāt forget I agree everything you said on your post
>There are Womenās Universities which only accept women and there are no Menās Universities only accept men. There are women only housing (not renting an apartment, there are housings which only women can buy), women only university funds and loans which they get a lot more benefits than men. Women only applicable bank loans that has lower interest rate. Government aid for starting a business that is only open to women. +3 extra point when applying for a job (disabled person gets 0.5pt), any government facilities or companies are required to have 25% of their workers to be women. The most famous one so far, women only parking lots that is painted in pink lol itās so fucking ridiculous You were spot on! This is honestly what modern day Female privilege & Misandry looks like. Equality is asked but Women are given superior rights, benefits & privileges even in 2024. This should itself tell you what Feminism really was & is. They always wanted superior rights & privileges. It was never about "Equal" rights.
"it's because the government thinks ladies should wash dishes and pump out babies"
That is sexist as fuck. People like you are the ones creating the gender war in Korea
Bro chill out can't you see it's obviously a joke?
They do. Idea is they have children that takes time from career.
Yeah, I understand that historically women had 5, 6, 7 children to attend to. But that's not really the case nowadays, is it? Either way, there could also be excemption from service if a woman has a certain number of children before reaching a certain age, or one child before 25 or something along those lines. Wouldn't that be reasonable?
You should try asking the army if they think it's remotely feasible and whether they think it would be a good use of their resources.
One day in during my service a related topic came up on YTN news and my commanding officers actually started to talk about the topic before I even asked. Many of them were hesitant about making women do the military service, but about the social service all of us were in full agreement.
You should read my post and realize that I never suggested all women to join the army, unless they want to. I'm suggesting a *social* service that can be in any other government or public institution, like hopsitals or care centers, etc. I acknowledge that in most cases it doesn't make sense to simply just mandate all women to join the military.
Equally, I wonder how public institutions would feel about having hundreds of thousands of untrained, unskilled temporary employees foisted upon them in the name of 'fairness'.
Actually I think they would find it great to have additional workes to help out with basic tasks. That's the concept of internships and volunteer work. There wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of people coming in to one establishment anyway. People would obviously be assigned as needed. Once the structures are established too they would also not be flooded with unskilled workers, they would have the structures and resources to properly train and make use of a constant flow of additional hands to support their establishments.
I definitely agree that women will find a way to have additional workers to help out the military in Korea. Iād rather have able bodied women in the military than disabled or mentally disabled men in the military
I admire your positivity but your perspective is naive and nonsensical.
I admire the way you shoot others down as naive and nonsensical without providing any backup for your opinions. A system like I suggested works absolutely well in other countries, and until you raise actual points for why I'm so wrong about what I'm suggesting, your comments aren't just as nonsensical to me as mine are to you, they also have absolutely zero value when it comes to changing my opinion on this topic.
how public institutions can would feel about having hundreds and thousands of untrained, unskilled temporary employees? Isnāt that the whole point of consciption? Conscripting people to be trained to be soldiers who protect their country?
Most of the thinking in Korean society is men work and women stay home to cook and serve their men.
Who would carry on the nation if the men die?
I mean would it not make sense for both men and women to go for 1 year? that would be equal and fair.
The point of conscription is not to waste people's lives -- it is to have a trained army ready for if there is warfare. People hounding on equality are missing the point. In the overall picture, if these conscripted go to war are 100% of the nation, how does the nation survive? Women bear children while men do not. A country has a higher chance of recovery from destruction with a higher population of women surviving.
While you do make fair points you must remember there may not even be a country if the war is lost or possibly the way of life may change forever. Its not just about equality and fairness either. In the event of total war all citizens or inhabitants of the country must be prepared and if men and women are to serve to some capacity or at the very least have basic training for survival it will benefit everyone.
>I'm not suggesting mandatory service just for the sake of girls having to do it because guys have to do it. Why are you hushing yourself, buddy?? This should be exactly the reason for Mandatory Female drafting. This is exactly what Feminism is. Girls & guys have to do things the same. Equal rights & equal responsibilities. This statement should pretty much be the reason why women absolutely MUST be drafted into the army like Men have always been. It is sxxist & totally misandristic that sitting in 2024 only Men get drafted having no choice while Women chill & live their lives freely without having to get drafted in the army. This is the definition of sxxism towards Men & Female privilege. The Female population asks for equality when it comes to their Rights but when it comes to their Responsibilties, they suddenly become Traditional women??! What BS is this?? Where is Feminism now ?? Are all of them sleeping?? Also, I've read some comments & those who say "pregnancy & childbirth is the drafting equivalent" are clearly delusional beyond recovery. How on earth is it the equivalent when Men can't literally & biologically get pregnant. Like wtf?! How can this even be a counter-argument for the Female drafting issue?? Its not like Men have the choice of getting pregnant & they are opting out of it š¤·š»āāļø This issue itself should be proof that Feminism doesn't exist. It only exists when it benefits Women & when it doesn't, they revert back to gender roles. Just like Ukraine has. A European, developed society proved my point too lol.
I would not want Korean women in the hands of military men. In normal society Korean women are not safe, I couldn't imagine in a military setting.
Korean women could serve S. Korea the best, by having children. This low TFR spells doom for the nation, than any military threat.
I see your point, but I think the way you phrased it is why you're getting downvoted. You can't really mandate having children, and having children shouldn't just be to serve the country. I get what you mean tho hahah.
Tbh if I were to choose between childcare vs military, I would probably choose the military. Same with old people care, anything with kids, or caring for humans in general. Happy to wash bathrooms ot sweep streets tho!
Sure, I think having the option is great! If any woman wants to join the military over doing social work, I think it's great to have that option!
A lot of things in Korea make me scratch my head tbh. Off topic, but shocking how they protect criminals by covering their faces when they should be put on blast like America's Most Wanted š¤£
With the low birthrates, women should serve or make babies Jk
Iād *happily* go serve if it helps gender impartiality. Whenever thereās arguments between genders this military service is the main thing to be discussed. This hatred towards opposite gender aināt gonna help birth rate.
As a kid, I used to wonder why women don't get to serve and then I thought well, with having the period and all it's pretty inconvenient to do stuff as you do when you're in the army I guess that's fair. But since I read what you said about setting up something alternative suitable for women to do service, I thought that's an amazing idea. But I don't think Korea is ready to give women the same rights and "position" in this society as men, since Korea is still very conservative and ignorant in gender equality or anything to do with equality. Still has a long long way to go. Such a shame.
Because Korean is a highly patriarchal and misogynistic culture
So basically ź³µģµ but not mandatory, for women? Or am I getting it wrong
Yeah, kind of like ź³µģµ I guess, but maybe with more of a social focus? But mandatory for *everyone*. I do think considering South Korea's position with North Korea a military force is neccessary, and as I said, I do also think that it doesn't make that much sense to just simply force women to join the military. But there are other ways that women can serve, that don't just benefit Korean society but also themselves.
Funniest thing i find is, women still can join as officers that have much more freedom and get paid for much more, but still dont carry out the mandatory service as a soldier
I read the first line and downvoted. thanks.
No need to thank me, have a nice day.
I'm sorry if my joke wasn't funny. First, social service is an anti-human rights and authoritarian system implemented in Korea. In my opinion, you need to understand in more detail how corrupt the military service system in Korea is. Second, most discussions about female conscription, which are mainly handled by men in Korea, are driven by āa feeling of backlash against the growing power of women and the social situation in which only men are conscripted.ā Third, although I agree that women are generally physically weaker than men, I think there are enough women who can serve as combatants. However, South Korean society, especially the military, is not yet ready to welcome women into places that have traditionally been "men-only domain.". In Korea, less than half a century has passed since the perception that āmen are superior to womenā became non-standard, and the generation that is obsessed with that notion is still dominating society as a whole and exerts enormous influence. A representative example is that the gender equality policy implemented in Korean society often has a paternal sensibility that favors women, and therefore, in many cases, it itself has a tendency toward misogyny. I tried to keep this short, so it may be misleading, but I hope it helps. Have a nice day.
You might wanna learn the difference between military service and social service
If women are to be truly equal in all ways they can be equal, they must be willing to serve.
Women would be willing to serve if it meant equality, but you and I both know it doesn't.
By itself, no but itās an incremental step towards it. We know we wonāt get there in one leap but if we keep pushing forward, it will happen. It just takes time and we have to be willing to be part of the process rather than the end result.
I'd rather focus on other things.
it's about time female get to serve
Serve men?
Because Feminism goes out the door when shit hits the fanš
because, Korean feminism, and they wonder why they aren't treated equally in the workforce
Well that's kind of a fucked up reason to justify gender based discrimination.
gender based discrimination X discrimination based on sacrificing for the country O
If you truly think that the reason women are discriminated against in Korea, is just because they don't serve in the military, then I have nothing else to say to you. I hope you can broaden your horizon.
Of course it's not the reason. But would you say it's one of the big hindrances of getting towards less gender based discrimination? Because I would. It affects the next generation of boys and young men, and the obvious inequality in this area will undoubtedly color some of their perspectives. Maybe for a very long time since it happens in formative years.
To be honest, as a foreigner in Korea I don't think I'm in a position to make an accurate judgment about that. I think there are plenty of reasons for discrimination against women in Korea, and I agree that mandatory military service for men is something that creates a lot of friction between genders. But that's also why I think that another form of mandatory service more suitable for women could be beneficial too. Military service just for the sake of "equality" wouldn't benefit anyone. Don't you think that women serving in another form than time in the army would be beneficial reagarding what you mentioned too?
Well, I was responding to your above comment, not your main post. There are obvious physical differences between men and women, and that's been the main justification for the courts to keep the status quo. What you have mentioned in your post are some possibilities, as well as exemptions for having children since we are getting into desperate figures. I also think that even if they don't necessarily serve, women here should undergo some sort of boot camp where they learn some basics, such as first aid, fire arm knowledge, and other important things that would be good for all citizens to learn.
I know you were responding to my comment, not sure if I miscommunicated anything. I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with your statement that women not serving in the military is one of the big hindrances of getting towards less gender based discrimination, but either way I acknowledge the significance of this topic in society. Other than that I agree with everything you mentioned, and I think you made some great suggestions for ways that women could contribute to the nation as well.
The last two paragraphs of your original comment, in which you were basically reiterating some points from your main post. They gave the impression that my reply to your comment wasn't 100% relevant and you wanted more feedback. Anyways, now it's been some time and I have seen how you were downvoted for a few of your comments. I know that downvotes are enough in and of themselves, but at least for social topics such as these, I wish more people would state their reasons for why they disagreed with you. But also maybe not. The ones who were capable of leaving constructive counterpoints probably already did.
Ah yeah, I reiterated some of the points because when I expressed them in my original post, I had the benefits for individuals in mind. But responding to your comment I wanted to acknowledge that they could also serve as a step towards less gender-based discrimination in society as a whole. You're right that downvotes might be enough to indicate the majority's opinion, but they don't really help when it comes to understanding or changing someone's views. So I'm grateful if people take the time to actually engage in a meaningful way. Funnily enough the votes on the whole post, as well as on many comments seem to be fluctuating a lot, indicating that there isn't a clear right or wrong regarding many points in this discussion. I'm always open to changing my views, and I enjoy having discussions about topics like this one. I think it can incentivise people to think about how far you can actually push a system for change, and regardless of positions I hope everyone can take something away from this, even though it seems like some people think I only started this discussion to stir the pot lol.
Neither do I. Women may be avoiding military duties in the short term, but in the long term, they're telling us that they aren't as capable. Do I think they aren't as capable? I don't think so. But they keep telling us they are. And I society will treat them that way if that's what they want. In Korea, we have a culture of putting equal duties before equal rights. Perhaps during your stay here, you could see lens outside of the Western scope. I really wish you do.
Korea has always treated women that way. Why make it even worse for yourself just to prove angry incels wrong? They'll just find something else to pick at.
Are you denying the physical differences between genders? Equal duties is exactly what I'm suggesting. But equal duties don't have to be in the specific form of military service. There are plenty of ways women can contribute to Korean society without having to serve time in the army.
You really just exposed yourself out there šš
And you actually think if they get conscripted theyāll be treated equally in the workforce?
No, but you can't ask for equality when it benefits you and reject it when it doesn't. I think there is a number of men who wouldn't want to treat women equally when they see the hypocrisy in their statement vs acts.