A World Without Men: Inside South Korea’s 4B Movement
thecut.com
thecut.com
I find it extremely frustrating how government (not just Korean ones) in general wants a scapegoat for its social ails. Never mind the fact that low birth rate is a consequence of higher education + extreme hours + bunch of other contributing factors.
Not sure about the extreme hours thing, since Europe is following the same trend while not having remotely as many hours at work as North-East Asia
https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-chil... https://rdcu.be/c7r33
There's also papers on extreme working hours having negative effects on fertility: https://www.aijssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_1_February_2016/4...
I don't find it surprising since extreme work hours --> worse health/social outcomes --> low fertility.
China and Japan has similar thing going on, but I'm sure there's way more nuance to this issue than my statement shows.
It could be, but the fertility rates are also going down significantly in Europe despite the fact that there's no extreme working hours there - so how much this is a significant factor is a question - if it is, it probably differs from one country to the next.
This reminded me of a post on Reddit that made its way there from someone’s Facebook - a rural couple had a pregnancy announcement that involved her dressing up like a cow and made some jokes about the breeding program. It went over about as well as you’d expect for Reddit - terribly. But all I could think about is how cool it would be to find a woman chill enough to go along with that.
I also advocate a world without women for men.
Not sure about South Korea, but in the USA, there's no benefit for a man to marry a woman, either. I've long advocated for men not to get married. The number of friends I've had go to absolute poverty because of a divorce is incredible. Living in their cars, lose their kids except for 4 days a month (every other weekend).
But in the world without men, they women should probably move to an uninhabited land and start their own cities, put in pipelines, sewers, open auto repair shops, start construction companies, create and pave roads, build homes and highrise buildings, electricians - all that stuff that men traditionally do for women. Only 2-4% of all construction tradespeople are women in the USA, not counting women in admin or management - only counting the actual trades workers. If women are going to do this, they shouldn't depend on the infrastructure that men created, and should be 100% in their world without men. Seems fair to me. If women are going to live without men, then commit to it. And the same with men. Men will have to do without having 284 pillows on their bed, hearing about how their friend's brother's sister's boyfriend's boss' mother re-decorated their house. It's a steep price, but I think men can do make it without women. And women without men. For one generation, anyways. Then if we do it worldwide, the Earth can do a reset and go back to where it was before humans messed it up. So it all works out perfectly. Put a bow on it.
However, I've read artificial uteruses https://imgur.com/lrwGAvv are right around the corner (hello Matrix), and so men can then buy an egg from a woman egg donor, do an artificial insemination, and grow the child in the artificial womb. That way, a man can have a baby but not be in jeapordy of losing the child or any assets like they would if they get married and then divorced. For companionship, maybe with these new robots, that will bring new companionship to the next level.
There is an article on how Korean women are sick and tired of men.
I write basically that men should also do the same thing regarding women.
And get hit with the "incel" word.
I must admit, I honestly don't understand why it's ok for women to say that they want to live without men, but not the same for saying men not to live with women.
Can someone explain this to me? I thought it was pretty fair and equal, didn't mean any offense. I sure wassn't meaning any horrible things by it. I thought it was very honest comment that I wrote.
You make it sound like women can’t do construction jobs. Have you heard or seen how women in those jobs are treated? Maybe the issue isn’t that women can’t do those jobs?
You make the role of the married woman sound like it’s about pillows and mindless yabbering about people of little relevance. Perhaps they have roles in their relationships that are more complex and more important.
When you pick a group that are disadvantaged by most measures (eg lower wages, worse job prospects, worse healthcare outcomes, more likely to be victims of abuse) and deride their concerns, it’s a gross. It’s pretty much the attitude the women in the article were trying to avoid.