No dates, no sex, no weddings, no kids
english.elpais.com
english.elpais.com
I'm going to assume (because I think it's very likely) that a large number of these were already not having much sex ("incels") nor planning on getting married. I'm also going to assume that many of these women who now claim they are remaining celibate are actually having sex anyway, as abstaining from sex is difficult to do (unless it comes naturally to you, in which case it's having sex that seems impossible!)
In other words, this is a human interest story about basically nothing, that tries to normalize a fringe group and freak everyone out about it. Or, to be more charitable, it's an article about something that's happening within all genders in many countries (see MGTOW in America, for example), and is also about the fact that women still aren't treated equitably in South Korea.
I don't see the point other than clicks. Beware articles about problems or trends that neglect to quantify anything.
"This movement—known as “the four no’s”—began in 2019. It has since spread..."
> Beware articles about problems or trends that neglect to quantify anything.
"Despite the solid academic credentials of women in South Korea, according to a study by Statista, the gender pay gap is scandalous: men earn 30% more than women. This makes the country, according to the Korean Herald, the most gender-unequal OECD nation."
"According to a survey published by the Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice, eight out of 10 men admitted to having been violent towards their partner"
US studies for example don’t always consider that women overindex in less technical careers (teaching, humanities, etc), often those that have lower salaries but significantly higher benefits and more flexibility. Women also overindex in part time positions.
How about these factors?
"Added to this is a poor work-life balance in South Korea, as well as a disparity in the distribution of domestic tasks. Women often assume the responsibility of raising children, pushing them to have to choose between working or being mothers. In South Korea, the work week is 52-hours-long."
"Single mothers are stigmatized, doctors refuse to give IVF to women without a male partner—even though it’s not illegal—and out-of-wedlock births represent only 2% of the total, compared to the average of 41% for women in the OECD. Marriage and childbirth are closely intertwined; women are pressured to sacrifice their career once they have a child or get married."
>How about these factors?
>"Added to this is a poor work-life balance in South Korea, as well as a disparity in the distribution of domestic tasks. Women often assume the responsibility of raising children, pushing them to have to choose between working or being mothers. In South Korea, the work week is 52-hours-long."
None of what you said contradicts the parent post, which was talking about pay gap (ie. when it comes to employment). What you've quoted is about "distribution of domestic tasks", which is specifically outside of employment.
They're directly related, because time spent on domestic tasks takes away time available for the notoriously time-intensive South Korean work culture.
Moreover, time spent child rearing also takes away time available for paid work. Of course many women choose to do this, but the question is to what extent this choice is forced upon them by various circumstances: society's expectations, the father's refusal to spend equal time child rearing, lack of accommodation for child rearing for both mothers and fathers by employers, etc.
There are many high paying jobs that employers refuse to hire at "part time", so they're excluding everyone who has significant time responsibilities outside of work. Also, employers tend to look unkindly at "gaps" in one's résumé, and time spent on childcare is an important example of a gap. These gaps can also make it more difficult to get promoted to higher positions within a company—those higher positions naturally coming with higher compensation.
A lot of people seem to think that women are just "choosing" lower paid positions, but realistically, what other choice to they have, other than remaining childless? Employers seem to act as if children didn't exist, or are some kind of "illness" that at most warrants a few weeks off.
1. "women only make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes!"
2. "actually, when you account for various factors, women make about the same amount as a man does. it's just that women have different job preferences compared to men"
3. you: "yeah but those preference are due to women having to raise babies and do chores"
I can see why someone might think it's unfair that a women gets paid less because she has to take care of children and do chores, but at the same time that's a separate issue than the original question of pay inequality. It's pretty hard to argue for why a women should get paid less than a man for the same job, but it's at least plausible to think why someone who's working less (because they're taking care of children) should get paid less.
Our economy is designed around the "single breadwinner" model (which isn't even working for the single breadwinner anymore, who often has a side job nowadays). The way lifetime employment compensation works, it's optimal for at least one of a couple to be exclusively focused on their career and not take any significant breaks from work, and if the couple has kids, then it rests on the other member of the couple do an "unfair" share of the child rearing and household maintenance, and if they work at all, seek out less lucrative careers that are more flexible about time and more accepting about gaps in work. It may be true that women are more naturally inclined to want to stay home with their kid after carrying the kid around inside for 9 months, and thus the forced choice of who becomes the single breadwinner usually falls on men. (Furthermore, if the couple has more than one child, and one of the couple has already "fallen behind" in their career to stay at home, then they become the natural, rational choice to be the stay at home caregiver again, because the single breadwinner is already maximizing income.)
And let's be clear, men are working too much! I just saw another article on HN, "Less than half of U.S. workers use all their vacation days" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35403776 Employers are inflexible, so it's difficult for the single breadwinner to work fewer hours. And working more is not helping men "get ahead" at work, because everyone is doing it! The sole beneficiary of these working hours is the employers. Workers in high compensation positions are particularly vulnerable to this, because they tend not to be organized into unions, perhaps because they mistakenly believe that compensation is the only issue for unions, not working conditions.
The inflexibility of our employment system creates a massive financial disparity between the lifetime compensation of the "single breadwinner" who never takes significant time off from work and everyone else. It doesn't have to be this way. What's happening is that the natural differences between men and women are getting exaggerated to an unhealthy degree by the system. More flexibility would help both. We've seen how inflexible employers can be, however, now that they're demanding everyone return to the office after allowing them to work from home during the pandemic.
The first google snippet for "domestic violence south korea" says "According to the results of a 2021 study on violence against women, which the Korean Women's Development Institute conducted via a research contract with the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, out of 7,000 adult women surveyed, 16.1% or 1,124 women had experienced physical, sexual, emotional, or financial violence"
You can't simplify something like this down to a simple number and then scream bloody murder.
Nobody thinks that their friends are wife beaters.
> For three consecutive years, the country has had the lowest fertility rate in the world, with an average of 0.78 children per woman. [...] The country is on alert, since an average of 2.1 children per woman is estimated to be necessary to keep the population stable. In 2020, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births in South Korea. Many cities are at risk of disappearing in the coming years.
you're going to have more of a problem writing that one off as "basically nothing."
I've heard only anecdotally from friends about the feminist movements and inequality faced, but the stats in this post sort of make clear the enormous problem of gender inequality in Korea. And furthermore it contrasts Korea with how other developed countries like Sweden and France handle this situation successfully.
Very good article. Hopefully things improve.
Why is this the default solution? Shouldn’t we be asking why - after all these years of technical progress - it is not cheaper and easier to raise a family? Where are all the productivity gains going?
Trying to make women “equal” to men is a ruse to squeeze more labor out of a population. Actual equality could be achieved by fairly disturbing the wealth of the populations labor, but for some reason that option is not considered.
And equality shouldn't be the goal anyway, emancipation is the only way to make life bearable for every woman (not just the top10%).
Right?
This company Buffer appeared in HN for their transparency some while ago [https://buffer.com/salary-calculator/]
We can surely determine if the wage gap is because of sexual discrimination or just a little relaxed performance.
A new government now, that want to make it totally open again.
It’s the ‘Norwegian tax administration’ that give out the information.
Media always have full access and can write articles based on it for individuals or groups of people, as long as they don’t publish the whole dataset.
So, why not publicise the performance metrics of the employees as well? Not public at least accessible like what you mentioned on salary. I'm not questioning why Norway isn't doing it but in general why not?
Such access to performance can also serve as a driver in the employment industry. Along with the engineering blogs, one can display links to the portal with company attested achievements and stats, it will at least reduce false claims in LinkedIn.
I don't think I know of a single manager I've worked with who would have been as honest in performance reviews if they knew their feedback wasn't going to be confidential.
All of that is to say I wouldn't put much, if any, stock in such information.
More often than not, the sum of individual performance is not 2+2=4 but more like 2+2=3 or 1+1+1=4
Combining high performers (2) is often not better (1)
That's because there is no discernible wage gap. There is an earnings differential that has been pretty much fully explained.
For example here, fairly comprehensively: "both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect women's and men's incomes -- including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact -- and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay."
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/154275...
But there are many other sources. One example was a study of wages at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which has completely codified/rigid pay structure and still managed to "discriminate" against women, pretty much at the same rate as the national "gender pay gap". How? The men did more overtime, more shifts at inconvenient times etc.
In fact, given all the evidence, as far as I can tell it is overexplained.
Alas, this doesn't fit The Narrative™.
Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the right to vote?
I would guess it wasn't introduced just for fun, so presumably before that unequal pay was commonplace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
South Korea introduced equal pay legislation in 1987.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/
I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that.
But I really have no idea.
Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..."
Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected").
https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-...
It's not completely gender neutral.
For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol.
Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.)
Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter.
You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results.
> women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol
On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact.
This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender.
Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination.
> emphasized the physical differences between men and women,
I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs.
So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means, but I think you have a rather narrow (and largely useless) interpretation of "completely gender neutral", whereby something can be deemed completely gender neutral regardless of whether it generates a huge difference in outcome by gender. After all, there are always individual differences among members of each gender, so if we have to ignore the averages, then what's left? According to your interpretation, it seems that the only issues that are not completely gender neutral are specifically where men are required to do X and women not-X, which as I said is largely useless for practical discussion (one of the few examples is the US Selective Service, which does discriminate by both gender and age).
The main question to me is not just whether an outcome is actually unequal, the question is whether an outcome is predictably unequal. When someone applies an input, allegedly gender neutral, that they know in advance will produce important gender differences in output, how can they honestly claim that it's completely gender neutral? That's not fooling me, at any rate; it seems more like self-deception.
Let me put it this way: if you wanted to discriminate against a certain class of people, but you needed plausible deniability, then what would you do? You would select arbitrary criteria, allegedly neutral, that play the averages and tend to filter out the undesirables. It's not perfect discrimination, some false positives and negatives, but "better" than nothing, right?
> Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination.
This seems like a rather minor issue. It's a special case. I don't think it carries much weight overall, pardon the pun. The economy doesn't seem to be littered with disappointed firefighter wannabes. "I want to be a firefighter" is what children say, not generally what adult women are saying about gender inequality.
Regardless, I don't think it makes much sense to compare physical fitness standards for firefighters and late-night drinking "fitness" for business. Nobody is going to die if you don't drink, though somebody could die if you do drink! Drinking is not even a plausibly reasonable requirement for work.
> I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them.
Well, I've known you for years, and I've observed that you constantly go out of your way to argue with strangers on the internet about gender. Of course I'm doing it in this submission, but I can't even begin to match your prolificness, nor do I aspire to. ;-)
Anyway, quibbling aside, the larger issue is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations, explanations that have nothing to do with "gender preferences", unless you would claim that "not wanting to get sexually harassed or assaulted" is just a preference.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing, and the definition you argue for is almost entirely useless. Your claim is that any activity that can or does produce even statistic differences in outcomes for different genders is discrimination.
This is not true.
Discrimination is when you discriminate, and do so based on gender.
I am not going to rebut what you wrote in detail, it's just wrong.
> perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations
Exactly. And they have nothing to do with "discrimination", but with different people having different preferences, and different societal pressures. For men, having a good job, climbing the top of whatever hierarchy is available is essential if they want to partner up, for example, because that is what women require of their partners.
So men, statistically, do the dangerous and dirty jobs that women would never put up with. And thus account for >90% of workplace casualties. And die earlier in general. And make more money, statistically. And they put up with stupid things like having to go out drinking for work after working hours, after also working more hours in general, more overtime and more inconvenient shifts.
And of course having to go out on drinking contests after work is a, how did I put it, "shitty business practice" that needs to be weeded out. But not because it is discriminatory, which it is not, but because it is a shitty business practice.
And no, I am also not going to rebut crazy conspiracy theories about men banding together to come up with ultra clever and devious business practices that are designed to shut out women while appearing to be gender neutral.
And yes, I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic, because it is not just comically wrong, but also divisive and harmful. It does nothing but breed resentment and since its analysis is so wrong ensures that things cannot get better.
But things are improving, the number of people who blindly buy into the narrative seems to be declining. Yay!
Good chat.
No, it's not.
> Good chat.
No, it wasn't.
Every "chat" you have seems to end up with some variation of the sarcastic "have a nice one". Don't you ever tire of that outcome?
> I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic
It does feel like you're talking to an abstraction (maybe talking to yourself?) rather than talking to me. That would actually explain a lot about how these chats go.
I am not the Dominant Narrative. Neither are you the Lord-selected savior from the Dominant Narrative. We're just two guys talking on the internet. Do you want to have a real discussion, or just pound keys and chests like monkeys?
Have a good one.
It is possible, but you'd have to radically change your typical approach to these discussions and treat me like an equal human being rather than as a "narrative" to fight.
> so I am bowing out.
I thought you already did.
> Have a good one.
Good chat. Have a nice one. Have a good one. Why did you even need to add the superfluous line to your comment that I've already highlighted as sarcastic?
There is a real story here, the gender inequality in South Korea. But it is dressed up into a ridiculous bunch of nonsense and portrayed as some kind of country wide "gender war", trying to evoke intense emotions in the reader.
Why cannot one just be factual and informative instead?
Either you are happy with your pay or not. If my next door neighbour makes more it doesn't change my bills. If I make more than them it doesn't sudden make my bills easier to pay.
But if a large number of people in your area start earning more, and you don’t keep up, you are going to find it hard to continue living in that area because local prices will reflect the increased wealth. And if you rent you’ll likely be unable to afford the rent rises that are sparked by the increased desirability of the area.
That’s my best guess at what GP meant.
How much of that can be attributed to the birth strike considering South Korea's fertility rate started its latest downward spiral in 2016 and two out of those three years had heavily-enforced lockdowns?
Over here the government passed draconian anti-abortion laws, but that didn't have an immediate effect. Other things, like economic uncertainty were the main driver.
No number or any kind of clue about the size of the movement was given.
Seems like SK is more suffering from an overwork culture that leaves little time for anything outside of work. Fastest way to destroy fertility rate is wage slavery.
By her account he's happy here, because the work hours in South Korea are properly insane by European standards and he enjoys having so much free time now.
Female people’s wombs don’t belong to the State. It shouldn’t be conscripting women into pregnancy to shore up the population, that’s pretty dehumanising (never mind sexist).
Blaming lockdowns for Korea's low fertility rate seems... surface level at best. It was hardly just Korea that had lockdowns, though getting used to no dating, sex, marriage, or children may have helped this movement.
And this is framed as a negative?
Yes, because it means there's very little freedom of choice.
Would you say that "shotgun weddings" are a positive?
And if it's down to a choice between shotgun weddings where both parents commit (whether by choice or social pressure) to raising their child or single parenthood, I'd say the former is definitely a positive for the child in question and for society as a whole.
If love-of-justice tends to suppress fertility then the descendant populations will have a lower love-of-justice than otherwise.
What will happen is exactly what is expected to happen based on those personality traits: you will be playing "chicken" all the time with a person that always chooses to compete and you will always lose. "If you want those tasks done, do them yourself".
If only there was a solution for that :)
Hint: Don't get romantically involved with jerks
This seems like a blanket assumption that all are always low on empathy, all the time non-agreeable and always competing. A workplace would in general give a person a good sense of self worth, high esteem, willingness to agree and disagree with whole heart. One or two bad people don't make the company and definitely need not use such a low bar to define the rest.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/09/02/c...
Is everything described, evil?
Consider the direction that the vast majority of countries have been moving in with regards to all these. South Korea appears to not have moved at all.
Presumably you disagree with that, so why not just tell us why?
The condition would be the same no matter if liberals or conservatives are in power.
The article even states that the current president is related to this protest. So you‘re disputing that?
* He would never win were it not for the female vote.
* Those doing the four Nos are not representative of the voting females which could otherwise achieve their goals at the ballot box.
* Those who vote against their supposed interests at the election often also vote against their supposed interests when they pick a mate.
My personal conclusion from this is that the biology runs deep in all human beings and many are not aware of it. Our brain is not just our conscious thoughts. We are a product of evolution and what we want is not always what we should want individually. Selfish gene, etc. etc.
Arguably this all started with universal suffrage in NZ in 1919 and I think this is just the most recent iteration.
People used to have hope, but as we are seeing more and more concentration of wealth, and rent seeking everywhere, lack of economic mobility (unless you're a psychopath that will do anything to make money) is the likely path without a major counter-revolution.
We need a voluntary, peaceful and measurably equitable society in order to create a world where people have hope for the future. All of the previous illusions of gods and governments as masters has failed. The only thing left is solidarity with other people qua people, vulnerability, sharing, caring etc... is the only option.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_strike
[2]http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Sex-...
[2]https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/aboutms/organization_abcl/
> Machismo
“Many South Korean women are so fed up with machismo that, in recent years, they’ve taken up a radical stance: refusing to marry, date men, have sex and reproduce.”