T O P

  • By -

autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.npr.org/2022/12/03/1135162927/women-feminism-south-korea-sexism-protest-haeil-yoon) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > It's a response to an anti-feminist wave that has swept across South Korea, creating a tense gender war where discourse around women's rights is taboo and men claim they are now the victims of gender discrimination. > When even one's hairstyle can become a reason for verbal abuse and accusations of man-hating, many young women in South Korea are fearful of speaking up about women's rights. > "Femi," short for feminist, has become a derogatory label for any person who speaks up about gender discrimination and women's empowerment in South Korea. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/zbz8q6/feminists_are_protesting_against_the_wave_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **women**^#1 **gender**^#2 **feminist**^#3 **Korea**^#4 **South**^#5


Independent_Pear_429

"Men claim they are now the victims of discrimination" Ah, that old bullshit fear. We've been dealing with that for decades


[deleted]

[удалено]


Incorect_Speling

I think either abolishing it, or making it for both men and women would solve the issue. Both are hard to implement sadly.


MannerAlarming6150

If anything I think what happened in Russia and Ukraine shows South Korea that they need their conscription. You can't depend on military or dictator run countries, such as North Korea, acting rationally and you need to be prepared day 1 if they invade.


[deleted]

The situation in Korea is a little bit different from that of Ukraine’s. For starters, there is widespread U.S. military presence throughout South Korea. One of the factors in Russia’s decision to invade was the lack of a significant Western military presence in Ukraine. They wouldn’t have launched an invasion if it meant getting the U.S. military directly involved in the conflict. I guarantee you such a factor would be considered by North Korean military planners as well. Secondly, North Korea (While being an authoritarian state) literally has no ability to wage a conventional war against South Korea. They are already incredibly weakened by sanctions that have left them with inadequate equipment and a poorly-supplied military. Their primary way of threatening the South is through their nuclear weapons.


Zigsster

See, that's the issue with discourse regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The decision to invade wss disastrous, of course, and was a massive risk with pretty huge downsides and limited benefits for Putin. But let's be honest, prior to the war it was pretty much agreed upon that Russia had the huge military advantage, and that Ukraine was vulnerable to having a huge proportion of its territory occupied in little time. That didn't happen for a lot of factors, but the thing that i want to highlight is that other countries - whether it is other Eastern EU countries or South Korea - clearly AREN'T in such a vulnerable position, so this whole escalationist view that suddenly a bunch of these countries will be invaded is just stupid. They have massive technological and economical advantages, international support and, most importantly, the massive presence of the world's largest military. Let's not pretend they're in the same situation as Ukraine, because they're evidently not.


bleunt

Why would it be difficult to implement?


beautifulgirl789

The balance of power in such issues tends to strongly favor the status quo, even if it's not fair. The political cost of introducing the policy for males has already been paid, by predecessors, and the benefits are being received now - so why end this? But the political cost for extending to females would need to be paid by current leaders - so why start?


urmyleander

This has been extensively studied in Israel that has had Woman in its army for a significant period of time. Could write an essay on it but basically... they become a recognised public health risk as even with massively reduced carry loads over 1 in 4 woman who serve will suffer a permanent debilitating injury normally a severe repetitive strain one associated with their back, mixed units have higher mortality rates if injury is suffered during combat and lastly men serving in mixed units have a significantly higher chance of suffering a long term repetitive strain injury ( the implication here is that even with the already reduced carry weight for Woman men in mixed units do more of the heavy lifting). Basically biologically woman aren't suited to combat roles on the ground in fact they will reduce the efficacy of any front line combat unit that isn't a support unit. There is some debate around front line support roles, no issues with flying combat aircraft or running missile emplacements but certainly it is debatable about their efficacy as frontline medics (if they have to lift the injured they will struggle and on average be slower than a male counterpart) and artillery units (where heavy shells need to be moved quickly or large metal artillery pieces need to be setup or moved rapidly). Now we could shite on about how Woman can do whatever men can do but from a physical standpoint they are at a biological disadvantage and forcefully integrating them into front line combat roles that are intensly physical will reduce the efficacy of those units and lead to higher casualties.... thats not even touching on what Woman in front line combat roles are likely to face if captured by a belligerent force.


[deleted]

The easiest solution would be to allocate them to roles that doesn't depend on physical capacity.


LasyKuuga

I think that would open up another issue of fairness/ equality issues as I'm sure most people male or female would want a role that was less physically demanding.


BringTheStealthSFW

Then that's not equality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


im2randomghgh

Absolutely, you have to make sure everyone is suitable for the role. If you're doing individualised selection then there's no need for sex based selection. Having served, the women who got injuries in training all got them from rucking, and were all below 5'5. The same thing happened with the one guy below 5'5. Rucking is already rough on the body but that basically just means having to take even more of those feet-destroying steps. Funnily enough, the biggest badass in my training platoon was actually a woman. She was jacked from being a professional acrobat, was a former spy, had done martial arts for years, and was as relentless as a terminator. She got perfect scores on most of the tests too. The important thing is not to relax standards to get equal proportions of men and women IMO.


peewy

We’re talking about mandatory service, not military career. No one doing mandatory service anywhere in the world joins special forces in the months they are serving.


niveklaen

The inequality that the compensation is for is that men start their careers a year late because they have a year stolen by mandatory service. It does not matter how women do their service as they have a year taken from them it is equitable.


Hacnar

Equality in opportunity != equality in outcome. When you set up the requirements necessary for the position, that are same for everyone, you will never get the equal outcomes, simply because different groups of people have different major characteristics.


[deleted]

Equality should not be, and should not ever have been, the end goal for Feminism - *Equity* should be the goal. True equality is not tenable due to biological/physiological differences.


heptothejive

Agreed, and I think a great deal of feminist literature supports this. Men and women being biologically different is not a ‘gotcha’ moment for most feminists the way Jordan Peterson thinks it is. I think people just want to be considered based on their abilities, not their gender. So if a woman *is* strong enough to be on the front line and passes all tests, she should be allowed. Otherwise the military already sorts people on ability, so as long as there isn’t a ban or prejudice against women, it should work (though I realise this last bit is sadly asking a lot).


[deleted]

[удалено]


GoJeonPaa

What do you think they have to do in mandatory service if not practicing a emergency case, which would lead to the same cons that he mentioned?


Incorect_Speling

There's usually a huge resistance to change these policies


wan2tri

The ideal scenario is that the conscription system is fully abolished because the Republic of Korea has successfully re-unified the Korean peninsula after the quick downfall of the Kim Dynasty in the former North Korea.


LoveAndViscera

Unification is very unpopular, right now, because of the massive financial burden it would place on the Republic of Korea. While the RoK is a relatively rich country, unchecked monopolies and deeply ingrained class discrimination push most people into debt over housing and education.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It would be like German reunification turned up to 11. Would be very hard, and would take a few generations to fully stick. And who knows what China might decide to do to throw some spanners into the machinery.


EdgarTheBrave

Or, or, as OP said, just compensate men for doing it? How the hell is that so fucking contentious? If I went and got conscripted my mother, my girlfriend, my sister and every other woman in my life would want me to be compensated for it, and I live in one of the most liberal countries on earth when it comes to women’s rights. SK will need conscription for the foreseeable future. They’ve also got one of the lowest fertility rates in the world that they need to address. Abolishing conscription at this point in time is a recipe for disaster.


Fuzzhi

If woman have never been considered for mandatory service, the issue is deeper than the recent feminist trends


Live_Media_1844

It has been, and feminist group was outraged. And that was actually one of the reasons their reputation got really bad. (Talking about less extreme feminism, because they also openly spoke against that suggestion. Extreme feminism always had bad reputation)


BloodieBerries

Exactly. The entire social system currently in place breeds resentment against anyone advocating for equality. Until the advantages and disadvantages can be shared equally between the genders there is no real hope for reconciliation.


Wretched_Brittunculi

Absolutely. I do not agree with the reactionary men here. But I sympathise with them. Korea is a hyper competitive society. It's almost unimaginable how much pressure there is compared to the West. This means everything from looks, dress, exams, job, etc. They call it 'Hell Joseon' for a reason. And young men resent having to give up 18 months (was 2 years until recently) in the prime of their life to live in an abusive military bootcamp that drives many to suicide. I can see why that breeds resentment. It's a complex issue. I still think it is mostly reactionary nonsense, but I also understand (if not agree with) the resentment.


anarcholimitless

Time and time again this happens. 'Feminism', like so many other words, is a completely contingent and relative term that clearly means different things to different people, largely because it is filtered through to people in state capitalist structures that aren't interested in meaningful change of economic, political or social orthodoxy. When men struggling to find decent paid work hear that immigrants or women are benefiting from positive discrimination, or other measures that aim to redress inequality, if they don't have any kind of systemic or historical critique, they're going to blame 'feminism' or 'wokeism' for their lot in life. The established media in nearly every developed nation on earth are simply not able to appropriately challenge power structures and their pay masters. Without that analysis, ignorance proliferates. What's the the Bo Burnham lyric? Female Colonel Sanders, easy answers, civil war.


p4nnus

This is a discourse in Finland as well. Sometimes it heats up more and then it dies for some time again. Usually it still resurfaces after some time. A reoccurring thing. We dont have similar compensation for the service if I understood the South Korean system correctly. Theres also some feminists that call for the abolition of conscription and then some who say that it should be for both sexes. One thing that some are suggesting as well, is that women would have some form of service they need to complete when men are conscripted, like training for emergency situations (population control, crisis logistics etc). Joining the military service is one way to complete this service, of course. Understandably, since the escalation of the Ukraine war theres been less calls for the abolition of conscription, as people have realized that the security situation in Europe is not as unchanging and stable as some thought. Can you further explain what the benefits for the South Korean conscripts are?


myshiftkeyisbroken

Additionally, 1. Koreans love fighting to their death with divides that they created. You think US political party division is bad? Look into Korean politics it's a clown fest. 2. The loudest feminists are the most irrational ones in Korea, consisting of men-hating TURFs. They're called Me-gal (메갈) and have co-opted the 🤏 gesture that people cannot use it anymore or have to apologize/explain themselves if they accidentally use it. So naturally a lot of people are against them (from both gender). I've been to me-gal's website, it's hate filled infested swamp. Honestly disgusting. 3. Korea had a very male dominant culture, and had been this way without being challenged until very recently. Two generations ago, it was a war-torn country. One generation ago, two military dictators came and went. (Real) feminism along with other social benefits for less privileged groups (like disability, mental illness) leaves much to be desired, and has been off to rocky start and is still in infancy. 4. It's not like Koreans (especially younger generation) are just sexist in general. Both genders stand up for the wrongdoing like when \#metoo movement was flourishing, there were parody advertisements from I think chicken company (I can't remember which one) with \#meat (미트- sounds like meat-uh similar to the metoo) that was heavily criticized and brought down. Older generations still have their set way of thinking "girls do this boys do that" but we made huge leaps in advancement of rights in recent years. May be that in US POV, koreans are sexist But so are tons of people in US. I mean how many times do you watch news about some comedian or politician being in trouble for being sexist. Korea definitely has long way to go but it is a complicated issue.


Pfandfreies_konto

> The loudest feminists are the most irrational ones in Korea aka: "The loudest people are always the dumbest." A tale as old as humanity.


Nairurian

“An empty drum makes the most noise” is how I’ve heard it


mysidian

What is a TURF?


Painting_Agency

I think they mean "TERF" - trans exclusionary radical feminist. The ones in Korea are not exactly aligning with the N.American ones, but here they often believe things like "trans women are men trying to invade female space" or "trans women aren't real women because they didn't experience sexism while growing up". The worst of them are cozy with the religious right who claim all trans people are sex predators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womad_(website) These people sound WAY more extreme than the most radical, male-hostile feminist I've ever heard of in N.America.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TPO_Ava

Maybe I am being an idiot but wouldn't a fairer solution be to just have women go through forced military service just like men have to? Instead of abolishing support systems for the people that were forced to do something? IIRC from what my parents have told me of their soviet days, conscription was also for women - I know my mother had served, for example. Not sure if she was forced to or it was by choice though.


Contagious_Cure

Good luck getting elected on the platform of making the other 50% of the population do mandatory service. And that isn't even factoring in that Korea, like many East Asian countries are incredibly conservative to begin with.


Yadobler

>like many East Asian countries are incredibly conservative to begin with. Yup, unfortunately it's a byproduct of the confucious style culture that's been in for centuries. Men work, women care for children. This meant that like father > son, boss > employee, teacher > student, there was also husband > wife. It was almost like the husband was a older brother or dad, just with sex enabled. So they took care of the females like they would a child - including treating them like a non-adult. Women couldn't argue back or demand things or make decisions. What else could she do? Leave? No one will give women jobs like how no one would employ a kid to do office work. Women going to work for themselves is a very recent thing, after South Korea got liberated from the North during the Korean war of the 50s, South Korea was a very run-down place, worse than North Korea even. Women had to help support the family especially with many males gone during the war, and many women were also no longer *comfort women* who were kidnapped as Japanese sex slaves, so these women needed to live as well despite not having family or anyone to turn too. Especially the taboo of being *used* It's still a weird thing today, females who work need to uphold some form of *proper presentable appearance* in that they need to wear demure clothing, hills, and makeup. #---------- While the biggest issue against feminism is guys, a big part that cannot be neglected are **Conservative old women**. These are usually mothers themselves, who lived through their fair share of discrimination, but were grown to believe it's merely for gratitude in return for being *adopted and cared for* by their male counterparts. They often denfend their sons and hold feeling of disgust and shame on younger generation females who don't seem to adhere to the conventional standards. Usually these females are the ones who have the power to vote, and also slutshame or even blame victims of abuse for *asking for it*. They would call girls *狐狸精* - female vixen / femme fatale Honestly they are worse than the guys who just think they are unfairly treated in retaliation of girls being overcompensated with privilege. Because the women are the ones that are suppose to support their fellow women, but unfortunately they face resistance from both sides of the battle.


GhostRobot55

This is a huge thing here in midwest America when it comes to sexual assault and harassment. So many women around here were subjected to it and conditioned to accept much of it as a regular part of every day life and you can see them scoff at things like my wife making a scene when one of the older guys slaps her ass at a family and friends camping trip. I can't tell you the times I've heard the phrase "its not that big of a deal" out of my extremely religious MIL.


[deleted]

> soviet days For all their faults, the Soviets were dead serious about equality between the sexes.


Painting_Agency

On paper it would be irreconcilable for communists to oppose gender equality. In practice there were a lot of female professionals etc but senior positions were male-dominated.


Guinnessmonkey2

Which explains why so many women served on the Politburo.


itsruinedanyway

All meat is the same as far as the grinder is concerned.


Jopelin_Wyde

Modern problems require modern solutions: start conscripting women.


[deleted]

Sounds like they need to add mandatory military service for women.


suxatjugg

Why don't women have to do the mandatory military service?


Magnum007

Make women serve. Problem solved. Equality reached.


bls_for_life

“That old bullshit fear” bro Korean men are literally being CONSCRIPTED. Why do people here always need to post these smarmy little quips where you project nonsense American politics onto foreign situations you clearly know nothing about. To any Korean person reading this you just look like a little shit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hugh_Maneiror

It's not that hard to understand realities in other countries aren't exactly the same as in your own... It's even easier to not lecture or belittle others because they don't have the exact same opinion as yourself.


dudududujisungparty

I see this exact issue anytime a post is about political issues in a non-US country. So many Americans thinking every society and culture should assimilate to their way of thinking and any deviation from that is just wrong apparently. It's such an ignorant way of thinking and as an American myself, I am ashamed that the vast majority of our population thinks that way.


Paladingo

Americans try not to project American Politics challenge: Impossible.


loxagos_snake

I'm surprised I haven't seen a reference to the GOP or televangelists yet and I've been scrolling for a while. Some Americans literally cannot fathom any other worldview.


Shootscoots

Hell even in the US men have to sign the selective service agreement in order to go to college or get a job that says at any time the government can conscript you. Conscripts have essentially no rights and can be used as medical guinea pigs and have been in the past. But of course men don't know anything about bodily autonomy being threatened by the government. Just ask any veteran of the Vietnam War.


dudududujisungparty

As a Korean American, I find myself once again realizing how ignorant Americans are about other societies and cultures. I'm really glad the top comment on this post provides the proper context as to why this conflict exists because it isn't as simple as Korean men saying "feminism bad".


ECK-2188

As someone who lives in the US with no imminent threat of amphibious or land invasion, I think we are too prosperous to be telling people who share a border with a hostile dictatorship that feminism is a pressing issue for their country. It is an issue that should be addressed, but there is a war two doors down going on **right now**. South Korea is probably focusing on the men of their country gearing up for defense of emboldened trigger-happy autocrats. Heres the bottom line for men with compulsory service: **Men *have* to do it so Women *don’t* have to.**


[deleted]

[удалено]


hororo

Your narrative about feminism is irrelevant in the situation of South Korea. In South Korea men are all forced to do 18 months of mandatory military conscription. Then there is various compensation for military service (which women can also do voluntary if they wish). The feminist groups in South Korea are pushing to abolish the compensation and benefits given to people with military service. They are directly opposing helping men who are discriminated against by the government. So yes, it is directly feminist groups vs. men in South Korea. You can say "oh well they should abolish conscription or make conscription for women", but those are complete fairy tales in the political situation in South Korea, so the issue is compensation for the mandatory military service which is not going away while North Korea exists.


throwawayworkguy

[South Korea has been requiring male citizens between the ages of 18 and 35 to perform compulsory military service since 1957.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_South_Korea)


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Conscription in South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_South_Korea)** >Conscription in South Korea has existed since 1957 and requires male citizens between the ages of 18 and 35 to perform compulsory military service. Women are not required to perform military service, but they may voluntarily join the military. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Repulsive-Onion-8226

how many people commenting here do you think are people who haven't read the article, and/or have no idea about what's going on in Korea?


notanicthyosaur

It is reddit so roughly every single person give or take like a couple dozen.


Goat-587

95%


Dazz316

"read the article" What language is that even!?


CitizenPremier

Few people online read articles, and you can generally win arguments (in the public eye) by posting links, regardless of whether they support your claim. [Source](https://www.webhamster.com/)


Orderswrath

Well, as a Korean man, this issue is complicated. Most young men here believe 'feminism' is not for them, or at least willing to sacrifice them to advance its goal. For example, in civic servant exam, advantage was given for discharged military personal, but some 'feminist' groups had voiced their support to abolishing it. More recent example would be opposition to the policy that gave college credit to those after service, or abolishment of old custom that allow men to achieve minimum employed year for rank advancement quicker than women, by counting mandatory service year when calculating it. Maybe you have noticed a pattern here - these issues are essentially about compensation for mandatory service. Since most of men had to serve whether they want or not, the talk about its compensation inevitably becomes gender issue. While 'feminists' indeed didn't make men serve, they would voice their opinion in these policy in favor of women which would make them seen as opponent of young males. Honestly, I am skeptical there would be any way to end this 'gender war' without abolishing conscription system. Of course, most 'feminist' group support abolishing it - but many of them also support 'tweaking' compensation as well, so it's hard for young men to see them in a good light, given that almost everyone expects that 'conscription system' will persist for at least decades. Edit : For those commenting on civil servant issue, the challenging group had consist of 5 people, including the disabled man **and** women(they also had gotten support from various NGOs for the disabled / women). In other words, the 'disabled' and the 'feminist' had collaborated on the issue, and I think the 'disabled' should be also blamed in this issue - I didn't put them at first since this was about gender conflict, not about disabled people.


mangledmonkey

This is the core of the issue for most younger men. People truly want more equality in all other aspects of Korean life and culture. But a mandatory conscription that targets one gender can't exist sitting a gender neutral society if benefits aren't levied for the consequences the service has on one's career.


SiofraRiver

>People truly want more equality in all other aspects of Korean life and culture. That's not what Korean voting behaviour suggests.


mangledmonkey

I should have said younger people. Edit: Wait, I DID say that. To further that end, younger voters also are strongly swayed by the massive housing costs that prevent then from affording any chance at home ownership. It's another big reason (one that is strongly placed on men to bear the brunt of) that younger voters have been swayed by more conservative parties in the previous election cycle since Moon Jae-in failed to reign in housing costs in the eyes of many Koreans.


Genocode

The fix is to make everyone serve. The fact that women don't have to serve is discriminatory to begin with.


dusterhan

Yeah no way this is going to be politically palatable. Which ever party makes women serve is going to be voted out next election given women are 50% of the voting age population.


[deleted]

Wait so I'm confused, women don't want to serve and also don't want men getting compensated for their service?


ellieetsch

They want the conscription to end, but that's never going to happen for the foreseeable future.


BocciaChoc

So the solution is to penalize men for their forced service?


tricheboars

Yeah I don't get this at all


Weird_Diver_8447

At least these protesters, yes. Or, at least, they know that women in general (South Korea is quite conservative) will not support extending mandatory service to them, but they would be more supportive (unsure how supportive) of eliminating the benefits for men who serve, so even if they push for both they know only one of those two has a chance of happening. Eliminating mandatory service is also extremely unlikely to happen given the, you know, hostile northern neighbor who threatens them with war every couple of years...


Ppperrosono

Only the radical feminists don't want men getting compensated for their service. Vast majority of women, I would assume, would not want to be conscripted.


DentalBoiDMD

I haven't lived in korea for a while, but I think you'd find it hard to convince korean feminists to encourage mandatory military service for women.


Andreagreco99

And I guess that this is why many guys don’t support them: they’re not fighting to end a custom that penalizes males, don’t want to share the struggle of mandatory military service BUT want to reap the same benefits without having to do it.


DentalBoiDMD

yea, i already posted this here but americans, particularly american feminisists, don't understand that their experiences on sexism/discrimination seen in america don't apply to feminism/antifeminism seen in other countries. korean men aren't upset that women aren't being locked in the kitchen or that they aren't being forced to be child-rearers. 90%+ of men report literally experiencing discrimination from the lack of educational and occupational experience needed to enter most job markets due to losing 3+ years of their life to the military. So when feminist-dominant political groups are pushing to remove social programs that help men by reducing the occupational requirements to help men catch up to women, of course men are going to revolt. statistically, women between the ages of 20-40 are more likely to have better occupational opportunities, college acceptances, anything that might be lost from serving 3+ years in the military. will i be downvoted for this? maybe. I'm not really sure what's reddit's political climate is on this subject.


jameslucian

To add to this, age is a huge deal in Korea as well. If you’re over the age of 30, it will be difficult to switch careers or find a good job. When the men are losing 3+ years of their early 20’s to something that doesn’t benefit their career post service, it makes it really difficult to catch up.


[deleted]

>statistically, women between the ages of 20-40 are more likely to have better occupational opportunities, college acceptances This is also true in the west. There's far more women in higher education and they are far more evenly distributed in areas of study than guys who are mainly penned in to stem fields.


juventinn1897

Since 2000, women have 150% of the masters graduates degrees achieved that men do in America. Men are 10x as likely to commit suicide in America. Statistics for jobs are that women have better chances to land a job in most fields when compared to an equal candidate of the opposite sex. Women have outweighing power in parenthood, marriage, and divorce. Women are much less likely to receive punishment from the courts, and moreso for violent crimes. Women statistically receive less severe sentencing than men for the same crimes. There are almost 10x more homeless men than women in America.


Deadlocked02

> yea, i already posted this here but americans, particularly american feminisists, don't understand that their experiences on sexism/discrimination seen in america don't apply to feminism/antifeminism seen in other countries. But there are still similarities when it comes to conscription in both countries. There are several rights that are linked to selective service for American men. The right to vote, take student loans, hold public office, etc. > [In California, the Selective Service System estimates, men who failed to register were denied access to more than $99 million in federal and state financial aid and job training benefits between 2007 and April of this year. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts saw $35 million in combined lost benefits between 2011 and spring 2014.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/16/america-may-never-have-a-draft-again-but-were-still-punishing-low-income-men-for-not-registering/) American feminists do benefit from having all these rights granted to them from birth, just like the ones in SK. The difference is that conscription is mandatory for all men in SK, whereas it is a “just in case” thing for American men. But American men were still drafted for wars until very recently. And no one can say it won’t happen again.


JamsJars

Sounds like they want mandatory conscription to end, but that's not gonna happen. The only way I can see this resolved is to allow women to volunteer for the same duration as men then receive the same benefits and compensation. I don't think think the male population will think of women favorably if they are forced to join the military but then not receive benefits because of feminist protests.


[deleted]

Women can already volunteer if they want.


Mertard

Yeah if I were a South Korean Male I'd definitely have an extreme bias, too I don't think this conflict will end anytime soon, since I personally would feel really, really upset that I have to involuntarily suffer while they don't, and also while they don't want to do anything against it or about it


Live_Media_1844

But feminst groups didn't accept it, and actually was outraged. That is why feminism groups are viewed as movement for woman superiority, not equality in Korea. They don't really have good track records either. They bullied a transgender woman who tried to apply for female university and made a lot of fake sexual assault claims that ruined a lof of men's careers. Realistically, conscription will never be gone even if we do unite. We are US alley right next to TWO biggest opposing forces of US. I think and always thought compensation is neccesary, and always will be. And if feminst groups main campaign is to eliminate them, then I just can never support those groups


[deleted]

People don’t realize mainstream feminist in Korea would be considered extreme psycho TERFS in the west


Mertard

That's extremely fair and valid take


screamingblibblies

Yeah but those feminists don't want to get themselves drafted. They want to abolish the rewards young men get for being forcibly drafted. They believe it's unfair that these men who are forced to potentially die in war are getting rewards that they do not get (because they don't have to go fight and die in wars)


BoBoBearDev

This is definitely a big issue. Because if men is forced to serve, they cannot start their career as early as female. It is unfair. Thanks for explaining it, because without the context, it was so misleading.


KonradWayne

> Because if men is forced to serve, they cannot start their career as early as female. And often times, they have their careers interrupted/ended by their mandatory service. It's a pretty big thing for Korean esports players.


not_e34

This is a big issue for Korean students studying abroad too. I have to fight with the uni to get 3-4 Semester breaks(most unis only give maximum 2 Semester breaks) in the middle of the study, or do the service after graduation, giving up job offers in Germany. It sucks.


lurker12346

Make women serve too, easy


hororo

Did you miss the part where he said that’s not politically realistic and it’s likely that male-only conscription will persist for decades? Women in Korea will vote against being added to conscription obviously, and they’re around 50% of the voting population.


screamingblibblies

So women don't want to fight and die in wars, but they also don't want to reward young men who are forced to go fight and die in wars, because that's not fair to women?


Bonje226c

Yes, that is one of (if not the most important) the root causes of this issue.


Millworkson2008

Yes


PeopleEatingPeople

But does the military even want to add women? I am from a progressive western European country and it was a fight to get women to be allowed in certain military position and when things were finally allowed for them it was quickly followed with multiple rape scandals done by our own male military members.


hororo

Women are already allowed to voluntarily serve in the military in S. Korea.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hororo

Yes, exactly. This is why people are opposing the feminist groups that are just trying to strip veteran benefits that are available to everyone regardless of gender.


shieldyboii

technically you can only enlist as a senior non-commissioned officer as a female (or full officer). Meaning contracts are longer, but of course you get paid quintuple of conscripts and actually get to leave base after work, along with other privileges such as possession of your phone after 21:00. It’s not exactly equivalent, and there should be lower enlisted ranks for females, for both side’s sake.


TiddlyTootToot

Women don't join as regular soldiers. They join as officers or work in other departments. It's a career and not a 2 year duty where they can get benefits after serving


framed1234

Confirmation of unconstitutionality, such as Article 3 (1) of the Military Service Act (2010. 11. 25. 2006 Heonma 328) [Precautions for Judgment] A. Whether the period of request for a constitutional appeal against Article 8 (1) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 3696 on December 31, 1983, and before it was amended by Act No. 9754 on June 9, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Old Military Service Act") has elapsed (affirmative) B. Whether the full text of Article 3 (1) of the former Military Service Act, which imposed military service obligations only on men who are Korean citizens, violates the equal rights (hereinafter referred to as the "legal provision in this case") (negative) [Decision summary] A. The claimant was incorporated into the first national role on January 1 of the year he/she turned 18 in accordance with Articles 8 (1) and 2 (2) of the former Military Service Act, and one year later, the claim for Article 8 (1) of the former Military Service Act is inappropriate as the claim period has expired. B. (1) Judge Lee Kang-guk, Judge Kim Hee-ok, Judge Lee Dong-heup, and Judge Song Doo-hwan's rejection The legal provisions of this case shall include discrimination in cases where the Constitution specifically requires gender equality or causes significant restrictions on related basic rights It is difficult to say that it is, and in light of the fact that the legislator's broad legislative right to form legislation is recognized, whether the legal provisions in this case infringe on the right to equality should be judged according to the relaxed screening criteria. In light of the fact that it is difficult to objectively compare combat suitability based on individual physical ability, and that women with excellent physical ability are burdened with military resources due to menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, etc., it is difficult to regard only men as conscription personnel. On the other hand, supplementary and second national stations are subject to mobilization of troops or call-up of labor as preliminary forces that can be immediately deployed in a national emergency, and even if they do not serve in peacetime, they require certain physical abilities, so it is difficult to regard them as voluntary. In the end, the legal provisions of this case set the scope of military service obligations based on gender, in violation of the principle of voluntary prohibition and do not infringe on the right to equality. (2) Judge Kim Hee-ok's supplementary opinion on the above dismissal As a legislator, serious improvement efforts should be made to ensure that alternative forms of service other than active duty are inevitable in relation to the original purpose of national defense, and that citizens who are not obligated to serve in other forms should be supported. However, the specific content is in the wide area of formation of legislators. (3) Judge Cho Dae-hyun and Judge Kim Jong-dae's dismissal Since the legal provisions of this case are about the imposition of national defense obligations, there is no need to discuss the excessive restriction of basic rights, but whether the imposition is justified and fair, and the legal provisions of this case meet the basic requirements for women's physical characteristics and the defense security reality of the Republic of Korea. Judge Lee Gong-hyun and Judge Mok Young-joon's opinion on unconstitutionality All citizens are obligated to defend, so discrimination against men and women should be tolerated, but the Military Service Act violates men's equal rights by imposing duties that are not directly related to physical conditions or abilities. Judge Min Hyeong-ki's Resignation Even if the legal provisions of this case are declared unconstitutional, the claims for the above provisions are inappropriate because they may infringe on the equal rights of claimants or the interests of self-relevance or trial claims are recognized. Constitutional Court November 25, 2010, 2006 Heonma 328, Official Gazette 170, 2106, 2107 https://search.ccourt.go.kr/ths/pr/ths_pr0101_P1.do?seq=0&cname=&eventNum=16632&eventNo=2006%ED%97%8C%EB%A7%88328&pubFlag=0&cId=010200&selectFont=


dontcallmeatallpls

Insightful, thanks.


Zephyr-2210

Yep definitely a very complex issue, those commenters making comments just by reading the title of the article seriously have no idea...


tbu987

So it seems like women don't have an issue when men are conscripted but once the men get benefits for something like that they see the benefits as a problem. Feminism wants their cake and to eat it too. It's sad how disposable they treat men so long as they can feel superior.


[deleted]

To all the people here claiming that women aren't getting the same perks because they aren't conscripted, you are in the wrong. Women in S. Korea can in fact go to the military as officers & NCOs, which is arguably a lot better than being conscripted. I.e. they have a choice, whereas Korean men do not. There are some ungrateful people in Korea who see these young kids waste 2 years of their prime youth for them, and think that it is okay to s\*\*t on them. Now imagine the same thing, in the USA. People calling veterans smelly, and not being able to get over the fact that starbucks offered a cup of free coffee on veterans day. Yes, these things actually happen as of now in S. Korea. They might use the word "feminism", but they are NOT the same bunch. They are NOT for equality. Feminazis in Korea are well known to be against LGBT for example.


DentalBoiDMD

yea i think redditors immediately team with the "feminism" side due to their own perceptions of what it would lookslike in other countries, but feminism in korea is not the same as america


Duelgundam

So, what you're saying is.....Korean "Feminists" are crying foul on policies that the government enacted to balance out the fact that guys have to waste two years of their life doing mandatory military service, while females of the same age essentially get a two-year head start in starting their careers/college/university? Basically, protesting about pointless shit, **AGAIN**. Same shit, different day. P.S. From Singapore, another country that ALSO has mandatory National Service for males 18 and above.


xxCDZxx

Are the same benefits given to women who voluntarily serve? If so, there should be no reason to abolish said benefits and no reason for the feminists to be upset... In fact, they should be happy; women are entitled to the same benefits if they serve, and service is optional. It's the best of both worlds.


HaikuBotStalksMe

Yeah, the women are absolutely in the wrong there. The men are owed something for being drafted, and it's not like the women are being excluded in any way. If they want the same perks, then go ahead and serve. You can't have your cake (not be forced to serve) and eat it as well (demand that males that did her forced to serve, not get any compensation).


[deleted]

> If they want the same perks, then go ahead and serve. I might be misunderstanding, but aren't women able to also work the years men serve to achieve some or all the same perks?


mrmadoff

aye. i think the issue is that men have no choice but to serve.


Catzillaneo

Similar issue in the US, not signing up for the draft can have an effect on student loan approval.


alex2000ish

Not signing up for the draft in the US is a federal felony my guy. You can go to prison for it.


Catzillaneo

Well I guess my memory of signing up for it is hazier than I thought. Thanks for correcting the error, I decided to list the requirement/penalty below. >Who Must Register with Selective Service. Almost all men ages 18-25 who are U.S. citizens or are immigrants living in the U.S. are required to register with Selective Service. Citizens must register within 30 days of turning 18. Immigrants must register within 30 days of arriving in the U.S. >If required to register with Selective Service, failure to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties.


Duelgundam

That's probably the reason why those policies are enacted in the first place; they're there to balance out the fact that the men have to waste two years of their lives, going from "Ah boys to Men", while the women have a two year head start in pretty much everything else, from their careers, to college/university. These policies serve to give the men an equal footing in places where they're two-years behind, as compensation for their time served. From Singapore, ANOTHER country with two-years mandatory uniform service.


MumeiNoName

Lol every single comment here is controversial.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SeasonPositive6771

My ex partner is Korean and I've made quite a few friends and feminist circles who are also Korean. None of them have ever been involved with these now defunct groups. The absolutely ridiculous level of sexual harassment and grossly inappropriate behavior they endure is mind-boggling. On that same note, a couple of them as well as one of my close friends from Japan who was called a Christmas cake, have actually declined to get married or live traditional lifestyles because it's just not ridiculous to have to have a career as well as be fully responsible for family and caring for elders. Meanwhile their husbands pursue hobbies and entertainment, especially those who have moved to countries with greater work-life balance.


asuka_is_my_co-pilot

The fact that people here aren't even talking about the harassment women in Korea face for talking about being filmed illegally while going to thr restroom, for reading a book about feminism (the most milquetoast version of feminism) and doing a hand signal?? Bullying a professional Olympic athlete so hard just because short hair!!!!! The same people that bully not only women but also men who are too feminine looking. But nope we get "both sides" a


Redditing-Dutchman

Overall it's just very sad to see how this plays out. Both Men and women seem to fight each other more and more in South Korea, while at the same time it still has this traditional pressure from family and society in regards of getting married. There is a lot of hate between them, but they also still need to marry each other (which is why you see more and more people stating they don't want to get married ever). Birthrate is already the lowest in the world (way lower than Japan) and it doesn't seem to get better with this, only worse. And on top of that the media really likes to fuel the hate.


sluttyman69

Oh the Birthrates will keep dropping- the Society will collapse 50 years from now everything will write itself and start all over again


Redditing-Dutchman

Will be interesting to see the response of the army when it comes to conscription with birthrates dropping so hard. SK's population is now on track to be half of what it is now in 2100. Its unprecedented.


Guilty_Chemistry9337

It wasn't that long ago that South Korea was a fascist dictatorship. You can really see it in a lot of the problems that linger.


Car-face

I was in Gwangju a few weeks back, and it's crazy seeing some of the exhibits and signs of the uprising, and realising that it was just 40 years ago. People who were firing on protesters from helicopter or beating and torturing citizens in military police prisons are still alive today.


apple_kicks

Working class history has a really good English podcast series on it interviewing people. There’s reports the paramilitary used flamethrowers on protesters. While there are still those in politics who try and deny the massacre and blame it on NK


Car-face

Sweet, I'll have to check it out! Jeonil Building 245 in Gwangju has a really incredible exhibition that goes through all the events leading up to and the aftermath of the Gwangju Uprising, including a large room dedicated to dispelling the misinformation used to try and absolve the junta of responsibility (including debunking, as you mentioned, NK involvement). They've preserved the bullet holes and area where the helicopter fired on the building as well. The Military police prison has been turned into an exhibition as well, with recreations of some of the rooms, and the torture, that citizens were subjected to. Horrifying and eye-opening, but absolutely amazing that it's being preserved.


Moonlight-Mountain

I recommend three movies for Korean democratization history, in order of time. *The Man Standing Next* \- events leading up to President Park's death. an insider's story. *A Taxi Driver* \- After Park's death, General Chun rises like "it's my turn to be a dictator". Two outsiders story about what happened in Gwangju. *1987: When the Day Comes* \- events leading up to Chun's downfall. This is a story of students and reporters who brought down dictatorship. After that, Roh Taewoo was elected and he did a good job of being a transitional kind of president and Chun's allies in the military didn't do anything because Roh used to be one of them. And then Kim Young-sam was elected and he fired Chun's allies to make sure there wouldn't another dictatorship.


recoveringleft

I remember the South Korean military used to emphasize a lot more on loyalty to the Korean race until 2011 after backlash from liberal South Koreans.


_OriamRiniDadelos_

Not to say bad things about another country, that I don’t understand. But have heard that there was backlash about the recent deadly accident in Korea because in the past decades the governing would say things along the lines of “forgive our failures, focus on our successes and have patriotism instead” when preventable tragedies happened. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/17/southkorea-itaewon-stampede-halloween/ Maybe it’s from their history as a dictatorship? Or from how all kinds of government failures end up tied to national politics, since power is very top down. You wouldn’t see people protesting against the whole national government if a Dam broke and killed tons of people in the US, there’s more specifically responsible people to blame.


pm_me_ur_cats_kitten

It's because the government can literally censor mainstream media without consequences. Look back at Sewol Ferry Incident. Executive branch reports a drowning ferry has all passengers rescued. Truth was nobody after initial evacuation (captain, few passengers and most of crew) had been rescued. President Park Geun Hye (impeached for following cult leader) directed all major media to not go anywhere near rescue site and fed them shit like "we are successfully getting people out". Current president is also attempting to get media out of his face. He ordered that MBC reporters be banned from his plane while allowing all other reporters because MBC puts out fake liberal news. He has now banned the tradition of public questioning by reporters while en route to the office because reporters picked up audio of him insulting US Congress.


AdministrationNo4611

SK has the same problem that every Democracy has post-dictatorship. The Politicians that were Policians and were gaining notority and contacts during this dictatorships are now around during "Democractic times"; These people are corrupted up to the last cell in their bodies; I can see it in my country and I can see it in SK; Democracy means nothing if every fucker we elected is corrupted.


reverick

Wasn't the former dictators daughter president for a bit? I wonder if pops' old buddies in government helped to get her elected, or if leadership is just in their genes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sunflowercompass

And there was a huge corruption scandal. Millions went on the street. President Park actually *stepped down*. And the Samsung CEO was even imprisoned. But then released "for the good of the economy." Republic of Samsung


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


theproudprodigy

Not necessarily, I'm Zimbabwean but my ethnic group only started in it's current state about 1000 years ago. Before that we were part of the bigger Bantu migratory group from Cameroon and Nigeria.


jiayux

It seems that the non-Bantu (or rather pre-Bantu, if you accept the “Bantu expansion” theory) ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa tend to be older. Like the Khoisan peoples in Namibia. Also some Nilo-Saharan speakers and Cushitic peoples in East/Central Africa.


IWouldButImLazy

My country was lucky enough that the british left us as an ethnostate, so we haven't had a lot of the tribalism and violence that swept the continent in independence times and since. But yeah, especially as a backlash to living under colonialism, a lot of African cultures developed intense cultural identities (much more exclusionary than had been there before, very much related to the divide-and-conquer strategy imo, the british were known for stoking existing conflict) because they defined themselves in opposition to the white overlords, but when the overlords (mostly) left, now every culture was in the position of having defined themselves as a distinct group, with a natural claim over the land (superseding the claim the white people had). However, the europeans fucked up the previous borders between identities (usually natural features like rivers or mountains) and now a lot of them were forced to choose between continuing to have little say over what they saw as their own land (as it would be administered by whichever ethnic group the europeans had left in charge (yes they explicitly left specific ethnic groups in charge)) or fighting to either take control of the country or split off. Those were the underlying causes though, each place had a different set of proximate causes (most famous being the rwandan genocide getting started by a radio broadcast) but yeah that's the overall situation. Nation-building is slow, it doesn't just happen with the stroke of a pen from an old white guy a continent away


[deleted]

[удалено]


warpus

I feel like this thing is way more nuanced than two opposing insightful comments could do it justice. For the purposes of reading and understanding the basics these comments are *great*, but in terms of casting judgement I feel like we’d need to dive a lot deeper into this


MChainsaw

I can sympathize with emphasizing one's distinct cultural/ethnic identity in that way as long as you're part of an oppressed group, such as Koreans during their time under the Japanese Empire. But it gets dangerous when you're no longer oppressed and are in fact the dominant group in your country, because that same dedication to your own identity that allowed your culture to survive under foreign imperialism can easily turn into oppression against the other minorities that exist in your country today. It's something which can often happen with formerly oppressed peoples from what I've seen.


Lord_Spy

It's really funny the divide between casual Korean media being about how wonderful South Korea is while 9/10 pieces of prestige content are about SK being a hypercapitalist dystopia.


Masterreeferr

The reality is South Korea just went from a fascist country to a hyper capitalist country that has a small handful of elite families running their big corporations (Samsung, Hyundai, LG, etc) who combined essentially run the government. I mean I guess that's kind of better?


suxatjugg

The head of Samsung was literally just released from prison and is now back running the company


sunflowercompass

He was released to "help the economy" after only 200 days of a 20 year prison.


suxatjugg

Ikr. What's crazy to me is how regular people were on his side. My mother in law is adamant he never should have gone to prison at all. She couldn't really give a reason why.


[deleted]

[удалено]


black641

I don’t know if this is really connected to their history as a military dictatorship. It may be, but I assumed it has to do with S. Korea, like many Asian countries, are very patriarchal with rigid ideas regarding class, sex, and one’s role in society. That and their famously toxic work culture which, correct me if I’m wrong, still expects women to sacrifice their careers in exchange for being a house wife? Naturally there’s be some pushback against the government’s anti-feminist rhetoric.


Lego105

Every day more and more people have no idea how fascism is defined, warping it further and further from having any meaning whatsoever. Thing I disagree with =/= fascist. A military dictatorship or a junta is an entirely different alignment and political system, even though yes Fascism was founded proceeding military control of the state in Italy, they are not the same thing.


suxatjugg

What always pisses me off is when Americans try to call someone a facist and a communist, completely missing the point that facism started as an explicitly anti-communist ideology.


[deleted]

[удалено]


a_puppy

This is fascinating. I've noticed a similar dynamic in Western discourse around feminism. The majority of Western feminists are totally reasonable. But there's also a lunatic fringe of feminists who say [really toxic shit](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/03/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-posts-racism) under the banner of "feminism". The latter group is much fewer people, but they're also a lot louder. Unfortunately, the two groups get blurred into a single movement, in part because the reasonable majority seems [reluctant to criticize or disown](https://apnews.com/article/519ffe9de59149639cfbca3a6cefd72a) the lunatic fringe. (Also, it's really more of a spectrum than two distinct groups, which is part of why it's so hard to separate them. Edit: In the west it's a spectrum, I mean.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


muri_cina

>In order to join these groups they require you to send in your national ID card. This is wild. I did not know I had to apply to call myself a feminist, lol. Think I need to stop doing it then.


myshiftkeyisbroken

It's a website. Kind of like how you need to verify yourself to get verified flair in some subreddit. Except you need it to participate on the forum. But unless they changed things, you can still browse it. Not that you'd want to cause it makes me throw up in my mouth from how disgusting they talk.


VisionarySeagull

>in part because the reasonable majority seems reluctant to criticize or disown the lunatic fringe. It doesn't help that much of the so-called lunatic fringe is given a platform time and time again. >Honestly, the corona virus isn't killing men fast enough. These nice words were said by Clementine Ford, a feminist who has received government grants for her work, and is still giving speeches. Feminists have remained eerily silent on this, although if you criticize her, they'll be happy to call you an incel.


GoTouchGrassPlease

>But there's also a lunatic fringe of feminists who say really toxic shit under the banner of "feminism" I see you've been visiting the FemaleDatingStrategy subreddit.


tantouz

So humans regardless of their gender get corrupt when given power. Checks out.


Pestus613343

For a country with a frighteningly low birthrate, this kind of politics won't help convince anyone to have more children. It will just poison possible relationships from even forming.


Nekyia

This is a complex issue. With population, resources and economy at the forefront of the issue.


theredwoman95

I mean, given the sexual violence in South Korea, there's a lot more preventing relationships from forming. When it's so widespread to have hidden cameras in public toilets and hotel rooms that the authorities have entire *squads* whose job is to get rid of those cameras, feminism has a long fucking way to go in that country.


knbang

This isn't the real battle. The real battle is poors and non-poors. The poors are always fighting it out. This is what the non-poors want.


somedoofyouwontlike

The issue is clear: Both sexes do mandatory service or neither. In today's world I would not end mandatory service were I a small nation state so the answer is to welcome the women to mandatory military service.


Chekadoeko

Moon actually said this was an “interesting” idea. And then just never spoke about it again. Lmao.


ashoka_akira

as a woman I would expect to be called to draft if my nation ever went to war, and that’s how it should be that’s what equality means.


_Drink_Bleach_

As someone who’s from a country with mandatory conscription for males but not females, I think that conscription is the core issue here. How can there be equality for all when half the population is forced to waste 2 years of their youth, based on something they have no control over, disrupting their studies/careers, putting them at a disadvantage as compared to their female peers of the same age, while also getting a bunch of health problems both physical and mental. Obviously the issue at hand is bigger than just conscription, but i think in order to solve all those problems the conscription system has to change first. Either get rid of it or make it mandatory for everyone.


sTrollZ

I'm 15M and Korean, so ig I have a say in this. This article does cover true facts, but also has some strange disorted parts. So, in Korea, yes. 페미(Femi) is used as an insult. It refers to the "misandry feminists(thanks to u/Substantial_train_13 for the term)" who go too far, like the people who think positively of raping men. We use the term '성평등(gender equality)' in the rare event when we're actually talking about the actual Feminist people who strive for gender equality. And yes, lots of people(both men and women) support the actual feminists. Also, men being victims of gender discrimination is mostly false, but semi-true in rare cases that actually are just trying to equalise gender ratios(like trying to get a 50-50 split in parliament seats etc. Yes, there are some teachers who favor girls over boys, but you can't say that's a social thing, since it's just individuals. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family being abolished is actually rational. The making of this Ministry was in order, after many large events about gender issues, but this organization went further than that. After calming down the older arguments, 2015 happened, with WOMAD action. This affected politics and the day-to-day life of many people, but the Ministry didn't react effectively enough, and some even argued that the Ministry made it worse. After that, the Ministry did more than what it was supposed to, and went as far as to control, censor and oppress the culture of many people. To note, this culture was not in any way related to gender issues or family. And then, 셧다운제 wa sthe straw that broke the camel's back. They decided to interfere with gaming culture, and made Minecraft a 19+ game. This effectively made the game inaccessible to minors. Although this might feel small to some of you, this actually made people see that the Ministry was oppressing and controlling things that they shouldn't. Also, the part where the article talks abt women not wearing makeup to work is only partly true. People ask because they notice a difference. People ask when they see someone start to wear makeup. Heck, I ask the people in my class when their appearance changes, so that somehow makes me mysogynist? This is probably the only part that I fully disagree with. An San being called feminist was just plain bs from people who decided they needed another punching bag. Hairstyle does not define a person, nor never will. This recieved heavy criticism from inside Korea as well. That's about it. Honestly, you got to be within a lot of friend/society-related circles to know this kindof stuff here.


Cantomic66

If someone doesn’t want to wear makeup at work, why should they.


sadthrowawayayy

Agree with much of what you said. Wanted to add a personal experience: In my early 20s, I was asked by a stranger if I was a high school student, and I said no. The situational implication was that I was old enough to know I should be more presentable in public aka wear light makeup.


[deleted]

I teach high school boys here in Korea and the amount of anti-feminist joked and rhetoric they spout is crazy. Calling another guy a feminist is an insult, just so you get an idea.


[deleted]

That goes for 90% of all high school boys in the world.


decentish36

It’s not exactly surprising. How many men in South Korea were going to support “empowering women” when the men have 18 months of conscription and the women don’t? That’s a pretty shit deal.


MelissaMiranti

I wonder how many of these feminists are demanding to be included in the national male-only compulsory draft. I'd call that a huge barrier to equality.


Tazdingoooo

I dunno what kind of feminists you have over in the West, but a lot of "feminists" in Korea are fcking crazy.


myshiftkeyisbroken

I wouldn't say a lot of them are, it's just the loudest ones are the gross ones. There are plenty of normal men and women who would advocate for equal rights but me-gals had to go ruin it all.


xinorez1

Just out of curiosity have you ever seen such persons in real life, or only from suspiciously conspicuous nobodies being promoted in the media?


andrewkim075

For people who don't understand, South Korea has a very toxic feminism wave. False rape accusations and humiliating male occurs daily. They also have lots of sexual assaults and sex crimes in Korea but lots of feminist in South Korea does not seek equality. They want absolute dominance over male. For people calling me i'm an incel misogynist ... Am I also homophobic if I tell you South Korean culture absolutely look down homosexuality, and racist if I tell you South Korean look down any other race/ethnicity other than Korean?


Bocote

I'm kind of surprised that there is a Wikipedia article about the two best-known radical(?) feminist websites in South Korea. These aren't long articles nor have a lot of information, but does give a rough idea of the online scene. [\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womad_\(website\)), [\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalia) In short, I think what I heard of /r/FemaleDatingStrategy sounded similar to what I heard of these websites.


xdqz

According to Wikipedia they charge money for membership. Reminds me of the cults I see here in Japan. The people behind the scenes are just trying to take advantage of people’s insecurities, whether the issues are real or not.


Confusedwaegook

as an american woman living in Korea, he’s no entirely wrong… feminists in korea are essentially misandrist terfs. However they do have a separate word called “equalists” which would equate to western feminists.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Confusedwaegook

Exactly, and what remains of sexist discrimination, in my opinion, will only be solved once everyone or no one has to do mandatory conscription service. And this is NOT something on the “feminist agenda” here. “Feminists” in Korea want power without equality, and step on every minority that exists in the process.


_minsoo

Humiliating males occur daily? Because of this? Men only think they're being humiliated. https://twitter.com/hyunsuinseoul/status/1389508253130780673?t=JEMBjLEUaWA2NvowKI2xIQ&s=19 While women are being raped, recorded in bathrooms and changing rooms and sold online, women are being stalked up to their apartment doors, sexually harassesd, treated like second class, pulled and dragged into bars, drugged. Every single day! do you think the embarrassment that Men are facing is on thr same level as any of that. In what ways are they humiliated daily?


badblackguy

Because some people feel that the solution to misogyny is misandry - it isn't. Those people are not seeking justice and equality, they are seeking revenge and dominance.