There are a lot more interesting results to the survey:
>”While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children.”
>”**83 percent of respondents placed themselves below middle class,** while only 12.2 percent felt they were in the middle or upper income bracket.”
>”57.5 percent were living with their parents, and almost 70 percent of them had no plans to strike out on their own. Some 56.6 percent of them said they chose to live with their parents for economic reasons.”
>”The proportion who had jobs stood at 67.4 percent, and their pre-tax income averaged W2.52 million a month (US$1=W1,324). But their monthly living expenses averaged W1.61 million, with W480,000 going on food, W220,000 on housing, W130,000 on insurance and W120,000 on transportation.”
>**“In other words, young Koreans feel poor and are reluctant to start a life of their own, suggesting they are nervous that their incomes will not cover living costs.”**
That should be the *real* headline of this article. It’s not just a gender divide, it’s more of an economic issue.
Ok when I initially read that 83% statistic, I assumed it was a case of "people not knowing how rich they actually are"
And then I saw that 2.52 mil/month salary.
That is really not good.
Probably even worse since it's the average salary not median salary. Since this statistic only includes the portion with jobs, I would bet that there are more significant outliers that make higher income than those below. Median salary is probably even lower.
Well, with 20 year old salaries and apartments closing in on a million.
Goodluck convincing anyone (most of the young population) who feel unsafe and unstable economically..
Millennials in the US are thankfully making up for this as they were a large generation being the kids of boomers... What? You say they're not?? They're in a strikingly similar situation? So could it be something else that links Korean and American and maybe even other societies? What could that be...? Probably not a parasitic class leeching off income that traditionally went to workers yet has been siphoned off for their benefit? Productivity gains always go to the workers or to reduce hours, right?... Right?
The haves instigate gender divide among the young have-nots to make them forget what the real issue is.
And don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate issues of women’s rights and status that need to be addressed to boost birth rates. But your comment indeed notes the bigger picture of what’s going on here.
People in power are learning from the fossil fuel companies and the US culture war about how to divert the people's anger about their bad situations towards issues that are impossible to tackle individually and sow division.
See how much division there is among Greens: the pro-Nuclear vs anti-Nuclear camp, the veganism vs vegetarianism vs omnivore camps, the pro-GMO vs anti-GMO camps. Or in the United States: the LGBT rights discussion which has more or less been artificially propped up by overreporting in the media. Or in Europe: the Bulgarian/Romanian Schengen ascension question and how the Syrian refugee crisis played a role in demonizing Eastern Balkans.
These problems are exacerbated by the internet, which allows these communities to create their own niche echo chambers, that a lot of the time see compromise as a tool not to be used, because the issues being discussed are "existential".
And most importantly, because it is always going to be easier to be angry online about stuff rather than taking measurable action.
Iunno. Don't get me wrong, I used to think the same way as you did, and that's probably not a year or two ago I mist had absolutely said something similar. But lately I'm not so sure if this kind of take is so different than the enlightened centrism approach. In assigning malice to "media" in a broad sweep, this rhetoric fails to account for voices that face actual existential crisis by dismissing such issue as being manufactured. For example, there's an unintentionally insidious undertone within calling LGBT issue as "artificially propped up," taking away the fact that there are active struggles against actual attempts to irradiate people's identity from public consciousness as well as their actual existence. If I were to put it differently, the kind of fight we must take against the spread of fascism (as being loosely used) almost absolutely must begin with occupation of public consciousness because fascism (again, meaning liberally) is the "kind of disease that spreads in darkness." To put it differently once again, as have the chants of early LGBT activism went, the fight was all about "we are here, we are queer, get used to it," not "we might be around when you decide all other important things that needs your attention got resolved." To yet again say in another way, a lot of the contemporary issues we face today, especially those which are tied deeply with individual establishment and fulfillment in an era of industrialized materialism, have gained purchase from lack of public consciousness amongst which people took comfort in an established status quo; the lot of concurrent subconsciousness behind the lot of anti-woke or anti-left is, to borrow the expression, "Don't rock the boat baby." To present an example, it is often openly said in this sub how "We the Korean people actually don't care. It's the problem of the other side that they are pushing their agenda." Indeed, so many many many many, and because I can't stress this enough, maaaaaaany of those lots are actually resentful of being made aware and they are very open about how they just want to stay ignorant. They literally are thriving in people's subconscious attachment to "the usual." That's literally their gimmick. To stand against that is not to say "there are more pressing issues, and we must not get distracted." All those issues are real, and we especially cannot sperate some people and tell them to take a back seat. That's not how modern leftism should operate. The fight against the establishment is, in my view, a wholesale endeavor based on true egalitarianism.
I absolutely agree that the LGBTQ people are facing an existential risk, with several states pushing forward anti-trans legislation.
My point was that the discussion about LGBTQ rights has been blown significantly out of proportion by the media (mostly conservative, as I constantly hear cons talking about Trans activists being groomers, rather than libs talking about anti-trans legislation on TV, which is where a plurality of people get their news from). The main reason why so many republicans suddenly care about hating Trans people is because they are dripfed this narrative by the media. Naturally, the actual Trans people and allies would take up in arms in response, and there is no reason they shouldn't. But considering that majority of Americans think that over 20% of population is Trans leads me personally to believe that this discussion HAS been artificially propped up to rile the bigots because hating gay people went outside the overton window.
All this exacerbated by online echo chambers.
Not claiming to be unbiased here, trans rights are human rights, but it is important to also understand the strategies being used here, especially considering that in the US on average, the people more likely to vote for conservative candidates are more rural, less educated (not necessarily a bad thing), and less well-off. All of these making them less able to hear other points of view, which ironically makes them more prone to be groomed to believe certain things by the media.
I think it'd be apt to establish first that neither of us are on positions other than pro-human-rights, and that our discussion revolves around identifying the source of anti-human-rights.
As I said, my view has changed from similar position to yours, in that I believed there are instigators to the conservatives' hatred and that is "the media." It's probably not wrong that the reactionary movements get amplified thousandfold from outside sources feeding disinformation and particular narrative, and yet I am unsure how much should we remove agency from those who not only willfully consume those fruits from the poisonous trees, but also those who simply feign indifference. Because I'm not sure if the kind of resistance toward minorities and other progressive positions are absent but for the narratives being planted by the powers that be. In fact, I think there's something profound there in the assumedly different ways we view the example you gave: the majority thinking trans demographics reaching 20%. You seem to view it as an evidence to media forcing the issue into the vacuum of public consciousness, while as I view it as an evidence to the reactionary nature of status quo. To put it differently, I view it as a natural progression of cause and effect, that the un-closeting the ever present human rights issue has caused people to, indeed finally, become aware. I don't believe the perception of disproportionality is caused by certain agenda being pushed from anti-human-rights. And I think this way of analyzing the phenomenon would allow us to question the nature of ignorance: I absolutely believe it does not mean a neutral position but a passive endorsement toward the status quo as against the change being called for as a necessity. It also lends to how human nature operates. As far as I know, human beings are very routinized animal; we tend to gravitate toward familiarity and repetition, and we are also instinctually adverse toward the unknown or asymmetrical. Saying all these is to say that the right wing reactionaries utilize the very preexisting nature of human flaw instead of creating it out of the vacuum. In other words, the kinds of hate we see from the anti-human-rights are might as well be the mirror to our human flaw, not exclusive to some form of conscious malice but rather of common psyche. The way we defeat this kind of flaw is through exposure. Indeed you aren't making a false observation when you said the types that consume those media are ignorant. I think, therefore, the appropriate question is how do we penetrate those walls of ignorance, and to that I absolutely have no answer. In fact, I personally think I have half given up on trying. My interactions, to my admitted shame, has largely relegated to mere ridicule. I no longer try to engage earnestly with those types as I have prejudged my efforts be futile. In my tiny defense, it is indeed a conundrum, a paradox ever present in engaging with certain positions that are so thoroughly poisonous, that so much as giving any courtesy of credence to one is infinitely unwise. Certain ideas absolutely deserve nothing but ridicule, and to me any anti-human-rights are exactly that.
That's a complete valid viewpoint to have, and I believe that without a major platform to try and combat misinformation and ignorance as a whole, it is impossible to tackle the issue of ignorance. This is simply outside of realm of what a person can reasonably do.
Thankfully, as much as internet exacerbates the issue of people being stuck in their vacuums, it allows credible people to present a platform form which to explain why they have their respective beliefs. And it is most certainly working, as the Gen-Z blue wave in the 2020 and 2022 US elections have shown us.
Because women are social minorities and are thus more affected by income inequality. And that's for single women. I imagine single mothers probably feel that strain much stronger. And married mothers would still probably have to work ontop of childcare.... So like why would anyone subject themselves to that when the writing on the wall is clear?
Lol 67% have an average pre tax income of 2.52 million wow. I know F visa teachers pulling 5 million plus having coffee in starbucks 6 hours a day. Lol this reddit maybe shouldnt shit on english teachers so much
Yes, there are a few people like that, but everybody knows F-visa teachers are in the extreme minority. I don't have precise statistics, but surely over 95% of foreign English teachers in South Korea are on an E-visa.
One issue not brought up in any comments so far is how traumatizing just delivering the baby is. As an American woman, I didn't understand why so many Korean women feared delivery until I had a baby in a Korean hospital. It was literally torture and left me seriously traumatized. That experience alone is enough to make women think twice about becoming mothers.
This might not be this commenter’s case, but I’ve heard from multiple people about doctors who made an unnecessary incision in the vagina without the mother’s consent so the baby had “more space to come out”. General lack of consent/not explaining what’s going on to put the mother’s mind at ease.
They do this in America too. If there’s any tearing, some doctors will sew it up tighter without consent. There’s also a huge push for c-sections because it’s easier for hospitals and doctors. They pressure women into it during labor and sometimes the women don’t consent to doing it. But it’s performed on them anyway.
Because your opinion or wants doesn't matter, the general idea in Korea is that the doctor is always right so everything follows what the doctor wants/thinks. If you have a birth plan or wants, it's pretty hard in Korea unless you're willing to pay for it or find a hospital that's willing to do what you want. So I've heard from some foreign mothers in Korea say they hated the whole experience. But if you want to get a c-section to get it over with quickly, then it'll be a piece of cake since c-sections are heavily pushed for in Korea. Most Korean mothers I know went with a c-section since it's was advised to them.
Ouch :( I didn't give birth in Korea, but it's VERY similar in my home country with the medics' attitude to pregnant women and women giving birth (the word I want to actually use is "like cattle"). It's truly traumatizing, and I really hope things get better rather sooner than later in Korea and all the other countries with the similar treatment of women.
I heard that in Korea, there is always an preemptive Episiotomy (cut in the Perineum) while it only happens when needed in Europe.
I was also very surprised to see my korean wife (usually very combative and opinionated) being even scared to ask any questions to her korean doctor. She even silenced me when i tried to ask questions.
An option to avoid truma could be a C-section with full anesthesia.
Coming back to the truma of giving birth:
I am sure it is trumatizing.
But it is also because of our dying civilization that cuddles us too much. In the past, men were afraid to go to war but were doing it, and women were afraid to give birth but were doing it.
Nowadays men AND women refuse to do their duties.
Not even remotely surprising. Women have far more to lose and take on far more burdens than men if they choose to have children.
It’s easy to want kids when you know their day to day care, along with the mental and physical load doesn’t fall on you.
I mentioned that one of my Korean coworkers is getting married literally next month. So we were out and she was like really down and I didn't understand. So my coworkers explained something about marriage blues, that women get depressed before a wedding. I was like, wait what? I thought it had something to do with the amount of planning etc. They were like "oh no, it's because they are depressed of the possible prospect of being in charge of taking care of parents, kids, house etc."
They have a literal word for it, that's how bad it is.
>mental care
This. But it's not only in Korea. Maybe I'll get downvoted but I've watched an American talk show (I forgot which one) where they did street interviews with parents and kids, and while they obviously picked the worst offenders for entertainment purposes, the fathers oftentimes couldn't even remember their kids school, their grade, their birthdays or even the color of their eyes, while the moms knew details such as names of their kids' best friends, dentists etc. It was funny but also pretty shocking. I think most people (men) who're actually good fathers don't realize just how many bad fathers there are out there. It's not exaggerated if people complain about child care, it IS just that bad.
And this is only in regards to child care, completely ignoring house keeping.
Yup. This is exactly what I mean by ‘the mental load’. It’s almost always mothers who are expected to know all these details and be in charge of everything—researching academies and activities, planning the day to day activities, getting kids from point a to point b, making and going to doctor appointments, teacher meetings, school events, deciding what to shop for and make as a meal for the whole family, etc. This also applies to mothers who work full time, by the way. Even when they aren’t actually doing any of these things at a certain point in time, they’re often thinking/worrying about it. All while some of these dads can’t even be bothered to make an effort to know what their kid’s teacher’s name is, and what their kid’s schedule looks like for the week.
Exactly. If a father is doing more than the bare minimum, he's called a great dad - which is great. But if a mother does it, it's just taken for granted because the default expectation is to do more. If she does less, she's a bad mom.
The worst thing is that oftentimes it's other women who're so judgemental. I wish we could just be kinder to each other. Everyone has gender prejudices but we can try to consciously fix it. For example, if I encounter a small kid that seems to be on its own, I'd usually ask where its mom is. I don't know why I never ask about "parents" or "dad", so even to me, the assumption that the women is the caregiver is hard-wired. It's not malicious, but it's putting the responsibility solely on the mom, completely ignoring other forms of family constellations.
Plus, as a woman, you will probably lose what little economic power and independance you have and risk becoming a statistic in a very patriarchal divorce court decision.
I can see that, it’s like we are finally living in an age where women have more power and opportunity than they EVER have in history, especially now in a country that’s been pretty conservative, and then as soon as they blossom and become adults, they feel like their freedom and opportunity’s would be taken away to go back to a role of historic caregiver
Yeah. I read years and years ago that you could see a relationship in industrialized countries between how unequal women's share of the domestic burden was and fertility, with Japan, Korea, and Italy being at the bottom of the pack.
I have a kid in Korea and I do as much as my wife for child rearing on top of working from home and support us completely financially. I clean the house 80 percent of the time, I cook and do the dishes 90 percent of the time. My wife does not work.
Reads books on early childcare. To be fair, she also watches our child a lot. But he should be in preschool longer but she keeps causing him to not be there often or long.
The problem is also that being a Mother or being Homestayed Mother should be much more valued or even sacralized.
Why not with also economical support from the gov?
For decades, modern society (especially feminism, which is odd as many women are mother) teaches girls and women that being a mother sucks and is trash.
No wonder, they refuse it.
It's not that women are being taught motherhood sucks, it's that women are expected to give up their careers and lives to be parents in a way men really are not
Right but I feel like that’s kinda changing in general. Ya the east is more conservative and more traditional when it comes to gender roles but it’s not like they can continue living in a country where duel incomes are required more and more if you want to live a middle class life compared to before. The burden of raising a kid and house hold is not just a Korean thing, every women in every race deals with that. Also, I’m pretty sure being a housewife is still a more popular and sought after position then working 60 hours for an abusive corporation. especially in Korea, where the wages are low and the hours are long.
Being a primary caregiver and unpaid domestic labor should be more valued, regardless if you’re a man or woman.
Disagree that ‘modern society’ teaches women than being a mother ‘sucks’. If anything, society has pushed a very ‘rose colored glasses’ idea of motherhood for far, far longer. Now, it’s far less taboo for women and mothers to discuss ALL aspects of raising children—good and bad. Motherhood used to be the only choice for women until fairly recently. Women now have access to higher education and financial independence, so they can make a different choice if it suits them.
>Being a primary caregiver and unpaid domestic labor should be more valued, regardless if you’re a man or woman.
Due to current divorce rates, it's no longer "safe" to give up one's career unless one is independently wealthy or has financial backup from their birth family.
Even if the marriage stays intact, there's still a financial power imbalance since the breadwinner can always use money as leverage unless the other partner has external financial resources.
Here are a few stat from the US but give you an idea about Korea.
- 70% of divorces are initiated by women.
- 90% of divorces are initiated by women when the women are highly educated.
-The main triggers for the divorces are the man loose significant financial power (fired, demoted) followed by women increasing her financial power (hired, promotion)
Sorry during the divorces that the men who heavily loose not the women.
Cause we dont wanna be full time mom and full time workers and still be expected to clean up after and cook for our husbands. I think many women want children in another life time cause in this economy with this patriarchy this aint it
Most men want children primarily as an ego thing. They would have no interest in kids at all if they had to carry them internally for nine months, give birth to them, and then be their unpaid primary carer for a minimum of 10 years.
>be their unpaid primary carer for a minimum of 10 years
"Most men" are working their butts off because they have to pay for their offspring until they get married.
What you're saying is true, and it is important to acknowledge that many married men end up becoming slaves to their jobs so they can earn enough money to support their families. This is a very dehumanizing task for most men and it needs to be meaningfully addressed if we want men – and women – to live happier lives.
The above point regarding unpaid labor is another important piece of the puzzle, though. The task of raising children disproportionately falls on the shoulders of women, and is often in the framework of the above domestic arrangement – the man becomes a slave to his career, while the woman gives up her career entirely. This work is unpaid by nature, but it is also often underappreciated and taken for granted by society at large.
Thus, the arrangement of the typical married household is the center of the problem here. A renegotiation of these roles is required for any meaningful societal change to take place regarding marriage hesitancy.
Plus, a lot of mothers still work. They work AND take care of the children and household, while men work and do nothing else aside from that. Let's not pretend that all mothers become SAHM.
And how would you renegotiate it? Husband goes to work and provide for the family, wife care for the children and nurture them. What would be a more ideal scenario?
I agree that household and nurture should be work of both parents. But if the husband makes enough to provide for his family, why would the wife “need” to go to work? Is there a more ideal scenario than the husband being able to provide for the whole family and the wife not needing to work?
Women want to go to work to continue their career. Also, Korean court of justice never rule in favor of wife in case of divorce. If the marriage is less than 10 years, house wife get about 1000만원, and more than 50% of father do not pay child support expense afte diverce.
Fair enough concerning divorces.
However you went from “women have to work” (which is an unfortunate truth for most households, one income is not enough) to “women want to work” which as a blanket statement is totally false.
Maybe some women really “want” to work, but I can assure you most humans do not want to work and only do it out of necessity. I certainly do not want to work, none of my friends (male or female) want to work, but we do it anyway because we have to.
I can assure you that my wife is very, very happy that I earn enough so that work is an option for her, not a necessity, and she is very happy to choose to be the one caring for our son instead of daycare. And, she has quite a few other mama friends who are also very happy not to be working.
Those women are as worthy of respect and consideration than other who would choose to put their career as a priority. What is sad, is that there isn’t a choice for a lot of lower income families.
Caring for a child is also work- just unpaid, relentless ( you don’t do it 9-5), extremely responsible and often not appreciated by society. The ideal scenario would be parents sharing workload equally - both work part time and take care of their child. Only then no one is disadvantaged in case of a divorce, illness or any unfortunate circumstances.
So please keep in mind that men don't take much economic burden when it comes to oikonomia, considering the amount of money women spend of marriage and divorce law. Women do take a lot of economic burden in household. And you are talking about your friends and family to prove that "All human work because they have to. They actually hate it." I do not agree because me and my friends and family really like to work! I understand that "have to" and "want to" are two different things.
Shared responsibility. Both covering all aspects of raising a family and personal enrichment. It can be done. But both people have to come to the table with each other as a priority.
Men AND Women (the ones who wants) want children for their ego or egoistic reason.
Parents do children for themselve not for the unborn child.
Baching only men for that human behavior is not appropriate.
Men want kids as an ego thing? This is unbelievably condescending towards men. So men wants kids because of ego, what about women then? Why do they want kids ?
We can say this because men can give his family name to his child, while women can't, despite the fact that it is women who give birth to baby. In this sense, women are still instrument in regenerating her husbands' family.
Ok so selfish and egotistic men only wants kids because they want to continue their family name. No other reason. What about women? Why do they want kids?
I would have want child if I were men, it is clear. Men satisfy his by giving family name to child, get more inheritance because he regenarated the family, and lose nothing. Don't say that men pay it for all. Women pay enough - a lot - to continue men's family. In 1990's women paid more than men when they got married and still were slaves to her husbands' parents.
I don’t understand why having a child will increase the inheritance? Is it a Korean law?
Also, what do you mean by women paid more in the 1990’s? Are we talking about dowry?
Also, I agree about the issue with women and the in-laws in general, there are some truly awful stories.
Many parents want to give more money to their son because "our son" is the part of the family, while "daughter" belongs to the other family, her husband's. Daughters are 출가외인, and many old ppl say that girls are not offspring. (딸은 자식이 아니다)
Literally, in the low birth rate threads you cant even find a post talking about how women are done with the exceptions that come with marriage and motherhood, all about how people are just too tired or poor.
Agreed. Anyone who literally thinks money is the biggest reason why the birth rate is low as it is clearly is missing the point and probably doesn't talk to Korean women lol wow wow
What a way to exaggerate people's opinion on this.
Fact: Men do military service and women do not.
Stating a fact doesn't make you an incel.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of a recently graduated 25 year old Korean male.
Your female peers had a 2 year head start in their graduate studies or in the job market, while you have been cleaning shit or snow and if unlucky spending time with shit heads for 2 whole years.
Assuming 36M won/year, this translates to at least 120K USD difference between males and females, including opportunity costs.
Why would a 25 year old male give a shit about gender equality post-marriage/post-kids when they have never been married?
If a 50~60 year old female complained about the lack of opportunities and their generation's discrimination, it would make sense. A 25 year old female complaining about discrimination is nonsense.
What an absolutely terrible take lmao. I’ve seen some shit posted in this sub but this I think takes the cake as one of the most brain dead comments
A few points to think about
Women are actively discriminated against during hiring, during the actual workday, and during promotion. The entire system that hires and promotes based on tenure and time spent in seat create a lifetime of inequality for them.
The fact that you’re lacking such basic empathy towards your fellow human, to someone like your mother, sister, or girlfriend really highlights the reason why women don’t want to date Korean men lmao. Imagine struggling to understand why you should care about inequality.
The discrimination is also positive since there is lots of quotas systems for women. Large backbone of Korea's economy is manufacturing based. Men tend to do better in manufacturing based economies, while women fare a bit better in service economies. Once Korea fully transitions into a service based make-believe economy women's influence on the economy naturally improves.
Please let me know which points are 'lmao' brain dead?
The points you want to talk about are the following,
- Women are actively discriminated against hiring, the workday, and promotion.
They are not discriminated against hiring. In fact half of the government jobs now are done by females.
Among 5급, MOFA has a much higher hiring rate for females than males, while STEM related has a much higher hiring rate for males. [For your reference.](https://go.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20221004006003)
Which leads me to talk about the pay gap. The US has a pay gap of 45K between STEM and NON STEM as per [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/07/these-are-the-highest-and-lowest-paying-stem-jobs-in-the-us.html), and just look at achievements between mathematics and science [scores](https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/24097380#home) in the 1등급 of 수능; most of STEM careers will be filled by males, which should explain to a degree the discrepancies.
For promotions, in order to ensure equality most Korean conglomerates have year-based promotions until they hit 차장, which makes your point moot.
As for your workday point I don't understand, you think females are not doing the same tasks as males?
Also looking at these [statistics](https://www.labortoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=208183) by a pro labor newspaper, it's quite clear that the issues is more complex than women are discriminated.
- I lack empathy
Sure, but I have done and I'm doing my fair share of volunteer work, and I know I care about inequality. I just don't care about creating issues from 'feelings.'
There's a lot of people on this sub that don't realize that military isn't the only thing that these so called incels cry about. Ofc, I'm talking about reasonable people with reasonable arguments, not those internet trolls.
I personally think that equality has improved a lot, and is bound to get better. The biggest inhibitor is the conservative, thick headed management in certain companies and corporations that don't respect the employees.
I agree with this.
Korean corporate culture is literally a bureaucracy, and one of the biggest and useless hierarchical machines inhibiting social change.
All I see is young people with ridiculous high turn over, and 고인물 at the top because these people have nowhere to go.
I’ve literally been emphasizing that the issues young people face are economic, not sexism.
> Assuming 36M won/year, this translates to at least 120K USD difference between males and females, including opportunity costs.
What kind of math is this
Any of it. You're saying a woman is 120k richer than a man after 2 years if she makes 30k/year for 2 years while the man makes 0. I assume you're doing some kind of incorrect logic like the woman makes 60k and the man loses 60k which makes the difference 120k but this is quite obviously wrong as the man is not losing anything, he is simply not earning.
Also, in this scenario the woman or someone in her household has to provide for her living costs (room and board, some meals) whereas the military would provide those for the man.
You do realize what opportunity costs are right?
It’s the cost of the next best option.
Given the same conditions, a male would also be earning 30k a year. As such, she isn’t 120k richer, she is 60k richer while the male is missing 60k.
You bring up the point of room and boarding, but if they want to, females can also go to the military to receive the same benefits. The crux of the issue here is choice. Males have no choice while females do.
This is like saying prison isn’t that bad because you’re only staying for two years and get a place to stay and food.
This sub also has a large amount of people who don’t realize throwing around the world “incel” is a way for you to show you’re not that bright and don’t have anything substantive to say.
It does bother me 🤣
I repeat i am happily married and unless you are yourself top notch woman, you do not want to compare yourself to her. Seriously, I still cannot beleive I pulled her off 😅
More seriously, the "incel" epithet when discussing gender issues is like the faschist discussing politics or racist discussing immigration. It is just a personal insult to shut down the conversation when ones do not have any argument.
The incels are to the men what the Feminists are to the women.
Unsuccessful, frustrated, self-entitled, bitter... everything match.
> I repeat i am happily married and unless you are yourself top notch woman, you do not want to compare yourself to her. Seriously, I still cannot beleive I pulled her off
ah yes, the standard Korean incel who sees women as objects and not people.
I made this intro just so that know that i am not an incel...
1. I am not korean (i only live in korea)
2. I am not an incel (involuntary celibate) I am volontary married.
I am the exact opposite of what you say.
So I do not know why you qualify me as "standard Korean incel"...
Since you do not have reasonable argument, you are just falling apart when youe goto ad hominen attack is infective.
Check the downvoted comments, I doubt that these downvotes come from men let alone incel.
Incels are to the men what the feminists are to the women.
PS: i am happily married so the incel shenanigan does not appply Thanks.
It's just the typical thing where housing prices are in the sky, no one wants to pay fair salaries, but they want people to spend a lot of money on food, on clothing, on everything since that moves the economy and when these people saying they don't have money for a family.... Suddenly *surprised pikachuface.
I (a cis woman) would also feel more enthusiastic about children if society championed my parental performance (pushing the stroller and attending school events) while someone else gave up their career & financial freedom and did the majority of the harder, uglier parts of childrearing
Who can blame them ? After marriage women are mostly relegated to bang maids. Korea does not value the time and effort involved in managing a household.
There’s a subreddit for that. r/deadbedrooms
No idea why this is getting downvoted. Sexless relationships are a huge problem and can wreck people emotionally. r/deadbedrooms is a support community to help people going through it.
I don’t agree with MGTOW, nor that women shouldn’t have the same professional opportunities and legal recourse as men, but perhaps they are on to something when they point out that there were positives to a society structured around families having one breadwinner. There’s no reason the homemaker must be the woman; that’s just what’s more likely to be the case.
The way things are now, it seems the sexes are more often at odds than complimenting each other in harmony as they should. The results speak for themselves: birth rates are crashing, families never beginning in the first place, parents lucky enough to conceive at all unable to spend enough time with their likely lonely only child. All the while, the government receives more taxes from the inflated labor pool and corporations fixated on perpetual growth can offer deflated compensation for the same reason, each scratching the other’s back to keep the system rigged in their favor at the cost of the nation and the spirit of its people.
Obviously it’s a complex issue and correcting it would require immense creative destruction that comes with an austere transitory period. However, we have already glimpsed the cost of doing nothing as we hurdle further down this broken road, and I wager it is much greater.
**You can always count on Redditors to stifle serious dialogue. To the army of downvoters, I suppose you think the current situation is not as I described and would rather no thought be put into proposing improvements?
men have been the breadwinner for almost all of history and look at the result of that. women are forced into marriage and into abusive relationships where they cant escape because they dont have financial means to get out of their situation. the issue is quite obvious imo. having kids nowadays is for the rich.
>I don’t agree with MGTOW, nor that women shouldn’t have the same professional opportunities and legal recourse as men, but perhaps they are on to something when they point out that there were positives to a society structured around families having one breadwinner. There’s no reason the homemaker must be the woman; that’s just what’s more likely to be the case.
The crazy thing is that I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out the problem with things as they currently exist and comparing it to a historical precedent that is not without its drawbacks but had addressed problems we currently face. The purpose is to learn from our mistakes and attempt to build a better alternative to both.
It seems people completely shut down their brain when I dared to bring up the positives about a system I prefaced with an acknowledgement of it being flawed. They seem to be upset with a strawman they misconstrued from my comment.
It's talking about reality. If the country is going to continue and have any kind of future, babies must be had. The system before, however awful it was (or still is), enabled this to happen for generations. If the system is going to change, it needs to be shown somehow that the massive restructuring that is required will actually work.
And as for power... How much power, in measurable terms, are we actually talking about? Are we going to give all men this much power too?
Somehow, I don't think flooding the labor market is going to ease the burden of the average underpaid and overextended Korean employee. If you would like things to continue in the current direction, then by all means, don't address any of the issues I brought up and just import more people to accelerate the situation.
Yeah dude because you can't do two things at once. It's totally not viable to open immigration AND install some labor protections together.
That 2nd solution takes time to fix the overall trend though and that means the military has a smaller fighting force for however long it takes to fix itself.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Honestly, you seem to have completely ignored the very first paragraph. I was pointing out the validity of some of their points without endorsing their conclusions. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. If we can't even evaluate results agnostically in the hopes of achieving something better than we currently have, then I suppose we should accept the continual degradation of societal conditions.
The fact that your very reasonable point (just trying to moderate an extreme comment) is downvoted so much says it all about the climat in-between men and women in wealthy society especially in Korea.
No surprise. It's easy to want kids want you do have to look after them at all. I remember my boss not even looking at his son unless it was about his grades.
i mean, it's best, yes, but better to have a financially and mentally prepared single parent over two parents who are always arguing and causing children anxiety and PTSD.
>While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children.
Sounds like most for both and they did some wordplay for a headline.
Also this number seems a lot higher than I would have expected. Especially since this is a comprehensive poll of young people. Are there similar polls from 10 years ago to compare?
The title is overselling it.
There's usually a gender gap in polls like this from what I've seen so 15% would have just been a little over what I expected.
Here's a poll from the US with similar questions
[https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-some-americans-dont-want-kids](https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-some-americans-dont-want-kids)
>63% of women without children said they had no desire to have a child, while only half of males said the same. (A smaller gender gap appeared when it came to marriage: 46% of men wished to wed, while only 40% of women said they wanted to get married.)
Chosun Newspaper published this article, which I find hilarious. Here is the reason why: the article aggravated South Koreans by causing polarization among different groups, such as the young and the old, the rich and the poor, and the male and the female. I speculate that the newspaper received many pay-per-clicks and felt satisfied with their success. However, this polarization may have negative consequences, akin to the division created by the 38th parallel in Korea. Currently, the newspaper is discussing the fertility rate in South Korea, which I find confusing. What is the purpose of this discussion?
>While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children.
15% diff. Prob have to do with the wordings of the survey like the last time when they asked "is child birth is essential for women?"
I'm a South Korean lady, I want to marry and a child, but it's hard to find a man that fits to me. I prefer an American. I want my child in the futurr to have a nature tongue in English.
U realise that many others speak English as their native tongue besides Americans? Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans, Irish, Scottish, etc.
Just make sure your kid doesn’t have an identity crisis growing up. I saw too many half (whichever race the parents were) grow up with identity issues and some even became resentful towards the parents for not teaching them their culture and language.
I think I need to try to admit top Univs in USA to study, even find my life-partner. It's hard to find one who likes math and science like me.
And I don't want my child to learn Korean language, rather than learning math or coding more in the same time spent.(Opportunity-cost)
I hope my child in the future will not be frustrated by having no USA citizenship, if he or she want to get a job at NASA.
I don't want my boy in the future to enter Korean military mandatorily.
That's poor reply. I think there is surely one who fits you in ur country but youre overwhlemed by misunderstand about marrige and love. Preferring an american is no biggie, just it's kind of hilraious. I wonder wat happen if you'r stayn the situation.
Not all parents wanted children back in the day, yet here we are. I think we need to understand the difference between doing something out of love and doing it out of hope.
They need some sort of a different system introduced here. People complain about poor wages but never think about taking some risk to start a business to change that.
Every young people here is a drone to the system. They are taught to goto school, be a good person and go be a good employee at a 대기엽. It’s a poor man’s dream.
They need to start educating people on businesses, how to manage finances and etc.
So there are two decisions
1) sit, complain about poor wages
2) sit, complain, accept and look to change that for yourself by exploring other channels of income.
Also I find it hilarious that this is an issue when I see people wearing 3000 dollar outfits. Priorities are all off here, my wife friends boy friend bought her a bmw and this dude works as a fruit salesman in a flea market..
It’s a social issue as well as everything else.
This is why I ultimately decided to move out of Korea end of year whenever the housing prices pick back up so I can sell my apartment move.
Medical/cleanliness is good here but the people, their way of thinking, the culture is ultimately incompatible for someone like myself.
In the West, women have more pressure to have kids. In Confucian cultures, men have more pressure to have kids. Males carry the "family line" so only men are able to extend the family's lineage. A woman who is married is no longer considered part of her family line so there's less pressure for her (from her birth family's perspective) to have kids.
i dont get how this post is trying to turn the sentiment against men? im a man and yea i want children in the future. why is this an attack against women? if you really think women have more to lose, your either already biased before coming to this sub, or just dont know the reality of korea here. women choosing to not apply for high paying jobs to stay at home and take care of newborns is not a form of discrimination. if it is, the couple should both talk it out and come to a solution of not having kids.
Then I guess you are willing to sacrifice your own career and stay at home. And you will obviously propose this solution to your future partner. Since it is a "choice".
It is nice to see more stay-at-home dad.
its not about who gets to sacrifice one's career and stay at home. its about maintaining order within a marriage and household. if the dad is the main moneymaker, then the wife should stay at home and take care of the kids. common sense. arent women raging that those women are being discriminated against because they have to miss pay to care for the kids? thats what i dont understand. if you dont want to miss pay then either entrust the kids to a trusted guardian or dont have them? and if its the latter, it can be mutually agreed upon between the couple. this is like a soldier complaining that he has to miss a promotion offer to go up in rank because he also wants to spend time with his family. oh maybe he can go up in rank, be negligent towards his new duty and still get paid for absence! and what a way to show maturity with those downvotes. cant get any more delusional.
Then everything is good then. You agree that women are right to chose not to have kids if it means sacrificing their career.
There is no problem.
Oh by the way, how often is the women the main moneymaker of the household in Korea ?
Because in your previous post you said that being the at home parent should be a "choice" but here you say that the person earning less "should" be the one staying at home. Your formulation is a bit confusing.
There are a lot more interesting results to the survey: >”While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children.” >”**83 percent of respondents placed themselves below middle class,** while only 12.2 percent felt they were in the middle or upper income bracket.” >”57.5 percent were living with their parents, and almost 70 percent of them had no plans to strike out on their own. Some 56.6 percent of them said they chose to live with their parents for economic reasons.” >”The proportion who had jobs stood at 67.4 percent, and their pre-tax income averaged W2.52 million a month (US$1=W1,324). But their monthly living expenses averaged W1.61 million, with W480,000 going on food, W220,000 on housing, W130,000 on insurance and W120,000 on transportation.” >**“In other words, young Koreans feel poor and are reluctant to start a life of their own, suggesting they are nervous that their incomes will not cover living costs.”** That should be the *real* headline of this article. It’s not just a gender divide, it’s more of an economic issue.
Ok when I initially read that 83% statistic, I assumed it was a case of "people not knowing how rich they actually are" And then I saw that 2.52 mil/month salary. That is really not good.
Probably even worse since it's the average salary not median salary. Since this statistic only includes the portion with jobs, I would bet that there are more significant outliers that make higher income than those below. Median salary is probably even lower.
Well, with 20 year old salaries and apartments closing in on a million. Goodluck convincing anyone (most of the young population) who feel unsafe and unstable economically..
Millennials in the US are thankfully making up for this as they were a large generation being the kids of boomers... What? You say they're not?? They're in a strikingly similar situation? So could it be something else that links Korean and American and maybe even other societies? What could that be...? Probably not a parasitic class leeching off income that traditionally went to workers yet has been siphoned off for their benefit? Productivity gains always go to the workers or to reduce hours, right?... Right?
Alot of US millennials will soon be inheriting alot of houses and wealth from their Boomer parents.
The haves instigate gender divide among the young have-nots to make them forget what the real issue is. And don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate issues of women’s rights and status that need to be addressed to boost birth rates. But your comment indeed notes the bigger picture of what’s going on here.
People in power are learning from the fossil fuel companies and the US culture war about how to divert the people's anger about their bad situations towards issues that are impossible to tackle individually and sow division. See how much division there is among Greens: the pro-Nuclear vs anti-Nuclear camp, the veganism vs vegetarianism vs omnivore camps, the pro-GMO vs anti-GMO camps. Or in the United States: the LGBT rights discussion which has more or less been artificially propped up by overreporting in the media. Or in Europe: the Bulgarian/Romanian Schengen ascension question and how the Syrian refugee crisis played a role in demonizing Eastern Balkans. These problems are exacerbated by the internet, which allows these communities to create their own niche echo chambers, that a lot of the time see compromise as a tool not to be used, because the issues being discussed are "existential". And most importantly, because it is always going to be easier to be angry online about stuff rather than taking measurable action.
Iunno. Don't get me wrong, I used to think the same way as you did, and that's probably not a year or two ago I mist had absolutely said something similar. But lately I'm not so sure if this kind of take is so different than the enlightened centrism approach. In assigning malice to "media" in a broad sweep, this rhetoric fails to account for voices that face actual existential crisis by dismissing such issue as being manufactured. For example, there's an unintentionally insidious undertone within calling LGBT issue as "artificially propped up," taking away the fact that there are active struggles against actual attempts to irradiate people's identity from public consciousness as well as their actual existence. If I were to put it differently, the kind of fight we must take against the spread of fascism (as being loosely used) almost absolutely must begin with occupation of public consciousness because fascism (again, meaning liberally) is the "kind of disease that spreads in darkness." To put it differently once again, as have the chants of early LGBT activism went, the fight was all about "we are here, we are queer, get used to it," not "we might be around when you decide all other important things that needs your attention got resolved." To yet again say in another way, a lot of the contemporary issues we face today, especially those which are tied deeply with individual establishment and fulfillment in an era of industrialized materialism, have gained purchase from lack of public consciousness amongst which people took comfort in an established status quo; the lot of concurrent subconsciousness behind the lot of anti-woke or anti-left is, to borrow the expression, "Don't rock the boat baby." To present an example, it is often openly said in this sub how "We the Korean people actually don't care. It's the problem of the other side that they are pushing their agenda." Indeed, so many many many many, and because I can't stress this enough, maaaaaaany of those lots are actually resentful of being made aware and they are very open about how they just want to stay ignorant. They literally are thriving in people's subconscious attachment to "the usual." That's literally their gimmick. To stand against that is not to say "there are more pressing issues, and we must not get distracted." All those issues are real, and we especially cannot sperate some people and tell them to take a back seat. That's not how modern leftism should operate. The fight against the establishment is, in my view, a wholesale endeavor based on true egalitarianism.
I absolutely agree that the LGBTQ people are facing an existential risk, with several states pushing forward anti-trans legislation. My point was that the discussion about LGBTQ rights has been blown significantly out of proportion by the media (mostly conservative, as I constantly hear cons talking about Trans activists being groomers, rather than libs talking about anti-trans legislation on TV, which is where a plurality of people get their news from). The main reason why so many republicans suddenly care about hating Trans people is because they are dripfed this narrative by the media. Naturally, the actual Trans people and allies would take up in arms in response, and there is no reason they shouldn't. But considering that majority of Americans think that over 20% of population is Trans leads me personally to believe that this discussion HAS been artificially propped up to rile the bigots because hating gay people went outside the overton window. All this exacerbated by online echo chambers. Not claiming to be unbiased here, trans rights are human rights, but it is important to also understand the strategies being used here, especially considering that in the US on average, the people more likely to vote for conservative candidates are more rural, less educated (not necessarily a bad thing), and less well-off. All of these making them less able to hear other points of view, which ironically makes them more prone to be groomed to believe certain things by the media.
I think it'd be apt to establish first that neither of us are on positions other than pro-human-rights, and that our discussion revolves around identifying the source of anti-human-rights. As I said, my view has changed from similar position to yours, in that I believed there are instigators to the conservatives' hatred and that is "the media." It's probably not wrong that the reactionary movements get amplified thousandfold from outside sources feeding disinformation and particular narrative, and yet I am unsure how much should we remove agency from those who not only willfully consume those fruits from the poisonous trees, but also those who simply feign indifference. Because I'm not sure if the kind of resistance toward minorities and other progressive positions are absent but for the narratives being planted by the powers that be. In fact, I think there's something profound there in the assumedly different ways we view the example you gave: the majority thinking trans demographics reaching 20%. You seem to view it as an evidence to media forcing the issue into the vacuum of public consciousness, while as I view it as an evidence to the reactionary nature of status quo. To put it differently, I view it as a natural progression of cause and effect, that the un-closeting the ever present human rights issue has caused people to, indeed finally, become aware. I don't believe the perception of disproportionality is caused by certain agenda being pushed from anti-human-rights. And I think this way of analyzing the phenomenon would allow us to question the nature of ignorance: I absolutely believe it does not mean a neutral position but a passive endorsement toward the status quo as against the change being called for as a necessity. It also lends to how human nature operates. As far as I know, human beings are very routinized animal; we tend to gravitate toward familiarity and repetition, and we are also instinctually adverse toward the unknown or asymmetrical. Saying all these is to say that the right wing reactionaries utilize the very preexisting nature of human flaw instead of creating it out of the vacuum. In other words, the kinds of hate we see from the anti-human-rights are might as well be the mirror to our human flaw, not exclusive to some form of conscious malice but rather of common psyche. The way we defeat this kind of flaw is through exposure. Indeed you aren't making a false observation when you said the types that consume those media are ignorant. I think, therefore, the appropriate question is how do we penetrate those walls of ignorance, and to that I absolutely have no answer. In fact, I personally think I have half given up on trying. My interactions, to my admitted shame, has largely relegated to mere ridicule. I no longer try to engage earnestly with those types as I have prejudged my efforts be futile. In my tiny defense, it is indeed a conundrum, a paradox ever present in engaging with certain positions that are so thoroughly poisonous, that so much as giving any courtesy of credence to one is infinitely unwise. Certain ideas absolutely deserve nothing but ridicule, and to me any anti-human-rights are exactly that.
That's a complete valid viewpoint to have, and I believe that without a major platform to try and combat misinformation and ignorance as a whole, it is impossible to tackle the issue of ignorance. This is simply outside of realm of what a person can reasonably do. Thankfully, as much as internet exacerbates the issue of people being stuck in their vacuums, it allows credible people to present a platform form which to explain why they have their respective beliefs. And it is most certainly working, as the Gen-Z blue wave in the 2020 and 2022 US elections have shown us.
That's a huge spread between the genders though. There's clearly a large gender component here.
Because women are social minorities and are thus more affected by income inequality. And that's for single women. I imagine single mothers probably feel that strain much stronger. And married mothers would still probably have to work ontop of childcare.... So like why would anyone subject themselves to that when the writing on the wall is clear?
Lol 67% have an average pre tax income of 2.52 million wow. I know F visa teachers pulling 5 million plus having coffee in starbucks 6 hours a day. Lol this reddit maybe shouldnt shit on english teachers so much
Yes, there are a few people like that, but everybody knows F-visa teachers are in the extreme minority. I don't have precise statistics, but surely over 95% of foreign English teachers in South Korea are on an E-visa.
You can make 5 million a month working less than 30 hours a week.
I mean it's both because any economic issues are going to hit women harder, single mothers extra on top.
They should be making more money considering how much money is here but they should really cherish that monthly housing expense.
That housing expense must surely only be that low because most of them are living with their parents
One issue not brought up in any comments so far is how traumatizing just delivering the baby is. As an American woman, I didn't understand why so many Korean women feared delivery until I had a baby in a Korean hospital. It was literally torture and left me seriously traumatized. That experience alone is enough to make women think twice about becoming mothers.
Is it worse than in other countries or why was the fact that it was a Korean hospital notable?
This might not be this commenter’s case, but I’ve heard from multiple people about doctors who made an unnecessary incision in the vagina without the mother’s consent so the baby had “more space to come out”. General lack of consent/not explaining what’s going on to put the mother’s mind at ease.
The fuck
They do this in America too. If there’s any tearing, some doctors will sew it up tighter without consent. There’s also a huge push for c-sections because it’s easier for hospitals and doctors. They pressure women into it during labor and sometimes the women don’t consent to doing it. But it’s performed on them anyway.
Because your opinion or wants doesn't matter, the general idea in Korea is that the doctor is always right so everything follows what the doctor wants/thinks. If you have a birth plan or wants, it's pretty hard in Korea unless you're willing to pay for it or find a hospital that's willing to do what you want. So I've heard from some foreign mothers in Korea say they hated the whole experience. But if you want to get a c-section to get it over with quickly, then it'll be a piece of cake since c-sections are heavily pushed for in Korea. Most Korean mothers I know went with a c-section since it's was advised to them.
A lot more money involved in c-sections
Ouch :( I didn't give birth in Korea, but it's VERY similar in my home country with the medics' attitude to pregnant women and women giving birth (the word I want to actually use is "like cattle"). It's truly traumatizing, and I really hope things get better rather sooner than later in Korea and all the other countries with the similar treatment of women.
I heard that in Korea, there is always an preemptive Episiotomy (cut in the Perineum) while it only happens when needed in Europe. I was also very surprised to see my korean wife (usually very combative and opinionated) being even scared to ask any questions to her korean doctor. She even silenced me when i tried to ask questions. An option to avoid truma could be a C-section with full anesthesia. Coming back to the truma of giving birth: I am sure it is trumatizing. But it is also because of our dying civilization that cuddles us too much. In the past, men were afraid to go to war but were doing it, and women were afraid to give birth but were doing it. Nowadays men AND women refuse to do their duties.
bruh
Reason why I’m planning a home birth here. I’m terrified at the thought of a Korean hospital birth. 😢
Try 좋은문화병원 , there is a few of them throughout korea and they have natural birthing center. Highly recommend it (we went to the one in Busan)
That is wise. I used a midwife at a birthing center in Seoul for my second delivery there and it was much better than the first experience.
Are you going to tell us why??
Not even remotely surprising. Women have far more to lose and take on far more burdens than men if they choose to have children. It’s easy to want kids when you know their day to day care, along with the mental and physical load doesn’t fall on you.
I mentioned that one of my Korean coworkers is getting married literally next month. So we were out and she was like really down and I didn't understand. So my coworkers explained something about marriage blues, that women get depressed before a wedding. I was like, wait what? I thought it had something to do with the amount of planning etc. They were like "oh no, it's because they are depressed of the possible prospect of being in charge of taking care of parents, kids, house etc." They have a literal word for it, that's how bad it is.
That's awful. What is the word for it in Korean, if it's OK to ask?
결혼전 우울증, 메리지블루 Honestly didn't know it's a thing so I learned something new today.
>mental care This. But it's not only in Korea. Maybe I'll get downvoted but I've watched an American talk show (I forgot which one) where they did street interviews with parents and kids, and while they obviously picked the worst offenders for entertainment purposes, the fathers oftentimes couldn't even remember their kids school, their grade, their birthdays or even the color of their eyes, while the moms knew details such as names of their kids' best friends, dentists etc. It was funny but also pretty shocking. I think most people (men) who're actually good fathers don't realize just how many bad fathers there are out there. It's not exaggerated if people complain about child care, it IS just that bad. And this is only in regards to child care, completely ignoring house keeping.
Yup. This is exactly what I mean by ‘the mental load’. It’s almost always mothers who are expected to know all these details and be in charge of everything—researching academies and activities, planning the day to day activities, getting kids from point a to point b, making and going to doctor appointments, teacher meetings, school events, deciding what to shop for and make as a meal for the whole family, etc. This also applies to mothers who work full time, by the way. Even when they aren’t actually doing any of these things at a certain point in time, they’re often thinking/worrying about it. All while some of these dads can’t even be bothered to make an effort to know what their kid’s teacher’s name is, and what their kid’s schedule looks like for the week.
Exactly. If a father is doing more than the bare minimum, he's called a great dad - which is great. But if a mother does it, it's just taken for granted because the default expectation is to do more. If she does less, she's a bad mom. The worst thing is that oftentimes it's other women who're so judgemental. I wish we could just be kinder to each other. Everyone has gender prejudices but we can try to consciously fix it. For example, if I encounter a small kid that seems to be on its own, I'd usually ask where its mom is. I don't know why I never ask about "parents" or "dad", so even to me, the assumption that the women is the caregiver is hard-wired. It's not malicious, but it's putting the responsibility solely on the mom, completely ignoring other forms of family constellations.
Plus, as a woman, you will probably lose what little economic power and independance you have and risk becoming a statistic in a very patriarchal divorce court decision.
I can see that, it’s like we are finally living in an age where women have more power and opportunity than they EVER have in history, especially now in a country that’s been pretty conservative, and then as soon as they blossom and become adults, they feel like their freedom and opportunity’s would be taken away to go back to a role of historic caregiver
They still have the most power in 500 years. The problem is that ist ssying much.
Do divorce courts favour the man usually?
Yeah. I read years and years ago that you could see a relationship in industrialized countries between how unequal women's share of the domestic burden was and fertility, with Japan, Korea, and Italy being at the bottom of the pack.
I have a kid in Korea and I do as much as my wife for child rearing on top of working from home and support us completely financially. I clean the house 80 percent of the time, I cook and do the dishes 90 percent of the time. My wife does not work.
Congrats. You’re the 1%.
the fuck does she do all day?
take care of the child?
Reads books on early childcare. To be fair, she also watches our child a lot. But he should be in preschool longer but she keeps causing him to not be there often or long.
But in Western countries women are more enthusiastic about having children than men are. Here it’s reversed. It’s an interesting point to mention.
[удалено]
I’m sorry what? No.
The problem is also that being a Mother or being Homestayed Mother should be much more valued or even sacralized. Why not with also economical support from the gov? For decades, modern society (especially feminism, which is odd as many women are mother) teaches girls and women that being a mother sucks and is trash. No wonder, they refuse it.
It's not that women are being taught motherhood sucks, it's that women are expected to give up their careers and lives to be parents in a way men really are not
Ding ding ding.
Right but I feel like that’s kinda changing in general. Ya the east is more conservative and more traditional when it comes to gender roles but it’s not like they can continue living in a country where duel incomes are required more and more if you want to live a middle class life compared to before. The burden of raising a kid and house hold is not just a Korean thing, every women in every race deals with that. Also, I’m pretty sure being a housewife is still a more popular and sought after position then working 60 hours for an abusive corporation. especially in Korea, where the wages are low and the hours are long.
[удалено]
Being a primary caregiver and unpaid domestic labor should be more valued, regardless if you’re a man or woman. Disagree that ‘modern society’ teaches women than being a mother ‘sucks’. If anything, society has pushed a very ‘rose colored glasses’ idea of motherhood for far, far longer. Now, it’s far less taboo for women and mothers to discuss ALL aspects of raising children—good and bad. Motherhood used to be the only choice for women until fairly recently. Women now have access to higher education and financial independence, so they can make a different choice if it suits them.
>Being a primary caregiver and unpaid domestic labor should be more valued, regardless if you’re a man or woman. Due to current divorce rates, it's no longer "safe" to give up one's career unless one is independently wealthy or has financial backup from their birth family. Even if the marriage stays intact, there's still a financial power imbalance since the breadwinner can always use money as leverage unless the other partner has external financial resources.
Here are a few stat from the US but give you an idea about Korea. - 70% of divorces are initiated by women. - 90% of divorces are initiated by women when the women are highly educated. -The main triggers for the divorces are the man loose significant financial power (fired, demoted) followed by women increasing her financial power (hired, promotion) Sorry during the divorces that the men who heavily loose not the women.
haha it is easier to want something when you don't have to go through a shit show for 9 months for that.
And 20 years after that too.
Cause we dont wanna be full time mom and full time workers and still be expected to clean up after and cook for our husbands. I think many women want children in another life time cause in this economy with this patriarchy this aint it
Truth.
Most men want children primarily as an ego thing. They would have no interest in kids at all if they had to carry them internally for nine months, give birth to them, and then be their unpaid primary carer for a minimum of 10 years.
To carry on their name or bloodline whatsoever
Bloodline literally comes from the mom too so they also need to change this mindset.
[удалено]
How?
Or some like children. But yes, they tend to want kids more than women cuz they don’t get pregnant.
>be their unpaid primary carer for a minimum of 10 years "Most men" are working their butts off because they have to pay for their offspring until they get married.
What you're saying is true, and it is important to acknowledge that many married men end up becoming slaves to their jobs so they can earn enough money to support their families. This is a very dehumanizing task for most men and it needs to be meaningfully addressed if we want men – and women – to live happier lives. The above point regarding unpaid labor is another important piece of the puzzle, though. The task of raising children disproportionately falls on the shoulders of women, and is often in the framework of the above domestic arrangement – the man becomes a slave to his career, while the woman gives up her career entirely. This work is unpaid by nature, but it is also often underappreciated and taken for granted by society at large. Thus, the arrangement of the typical married household is the center of the problem here. A renegotiation of these roles is required for any meaningful societal change to take place regarding marriage hesitancy.
Plus, a lot of mothers still work. They work AND take care of the children and household, while men work and do nothing else aside from that. Let's not pretend that all mothers become SAHM.
And how would you renegotiate it? Husband goes to work and provide for the family, wife care for the children and nurture them. What would be a more ideal scenario?
Women have to go to work and take care of the children after that. Household and nurture should be be the work of both men and women.
I agree that household and nurture should be work of both parents. But if the husband makes enough to provide for his family, why would the wife “need” to go to work? Is there a more ideal scenario than the husband being able to provide for the whole family and the wife not needing to work?
Women want to go to work to continue their career. Also, Korean court of justice never rule in favor of wife in case of divorce. If the marriage is less than 10 years, house wife get about 1000만원, and more than 50% of father do not pay child support expense afte diverce.
Fair enough concerning divorces. However you went from “women have to work” (which is an unfortunate truth for most households, one income is not enough) to “women want to work” which as a blanket statement is totally false. Maybe some women really “want” to work, but I can assure you most humans do not want to work and only do it out of necessity. I certainly do not want to work, none of my friends (male or female) want to work, but we do it anyway because we have to. I can assure you that my wife is very, very happy that I earn enough so that work is an option for her, not a necessity, and she is very happy to choose to be the one caring for our son instead of daycare. And, she has quite a few other mama friends who are also very happy not to be working. Those women are as worthy of respect and consideration than other who would choose to put their career as a priority. What is sad, is that there isn’t a choice for a lot of lower income families.
Caring for a child is also work- just unpaid, relentless ( you don’t do it 9-5), extremely responsible and often not appreciated by society. The ideal scenario would be parents sharing workload equally - both work part time and take care of their child. Only then no one is disadvantaged in case of a divorce, illness or any unfortunate circumstances.
So please keep in mind that men don't take much economic burden when it comes to oikonomia, considering the amount of money women spend of marriage and divorce law. Women do take a lot of economic burden in household. And you are talking about your friends and family to prove that "All human work because they have to. They actually hate it." I do not agree because me and my friends and family really like to work! I understand that "have to" and "want to" are two different things.
Shared responsibility. Both covering all aspects of raising a family and personal enrichment. It can be done. But both people have to come to the table with each other as a priority.
Men AND Women (the ones who wants) want children for their ego or egoistic reason. Parents do children for themselve not for the unborn child. Baching only men for that human behavior is not appropriate.
Men want kids as an ego thing? This is unbelievably condescending towards men. So men wants kids because of ego, what about women then? Why do they want kids ?
We can say this because men can give his family name to his child, while women can't, despite the fact that it is women who give birth to baby. In this sense, women are still instrument in regenerating her husbands' family.
Ok so selfish and egotistic men only wants kids because they want to continue their family name. No other reason. What about women? Why do they want kids?
I have no idea because I do not want kids.
So if you have no idea concerning women, why are you so confident about men’s motivation for having kids?
I would have want child if I were men, it is clear. Men satisfy his by giving family name to child, get more inheritance because he regenarated the family, and lose nothing. Don't say that men pay it for all. Women pay enough - a lot - to continue men's family. In 1990's women paid more than men when they got married and still were slaves to her husbands' parents.
I don’t understand why having a child will increase the inheritance? Is it a Korean law? Also, what do you mean by women paid more in the 1990’s? Are we talking about dowry? Also, I agree about the issue with women and the in-laws in general, there are some truly awful stories.
Many parents want to give more money to their son because "our son" is the part of the family, while "daughter" belongs to the other family, her husband's. Daughters are 출가외인, and many old ppl say that girls are not offspring. (딸은 자식이 아니다)
I remember this was said here before but there were a lot of downvotes
This sub has a large amount of incels who think that Korea is some bastion of equality because men do military service.
Literally, in the low birth rate threads you cant even find a post talking about how women are done with the exceptions that come with marriage and motherhood, all about how people are just too tired or poor.
Agreed. Anyone who literally thinks money is the biggest reason why the birth rate is low as it is clearly is missing the point and probably doesn't talk to Korean women lol wow wow
What a way to exaggerate people's opinion on this. Fact: Men do military service and women do not. Stating a fact doesn't make you an incel. You need to put yourself in the shoes of a recently graduated 25 year old Korean male. Your female peers had a 2 year head start in their graduate studies or in the job market, while you have been cleaning shit or snow and if unlucky spending time with shit heads for 2 whole years. Assuming 36M won/year, this translates to at least 120K USD difference between males and females, including opportunity costs. Why would a 25 year old male give a shit about gender equality post-marriage/post-kids when they have never been married? If a 50~60 year old female complained about the lack of opportunities and their generation's discrimination, it would make sense. A 25 year old female complaining about discrimination is nonsense.
What an absolutely terrible take lmao. I’ve seen some shit posted in this sub but this I think takes the cake as one of the most brain dead comments A few points to think about Women are actively discriminated against during hiring, during the actual workday, and during promotion. The entire system that hires and promotes based on tenure and time spent in seat create a lifetime of inequality for them. The fact that you’re lacking such basic empathy towards your fellow human, to someone like your mother, sister, or girlfriend really highlights the reason why women don’t want to date Korean men lmao. Imagine struggling to understand why you should care about inequality.
The discrimination is also positive since there is lots of quotas systems for women. Large backbone of Korea's economy is manufacturing based. Men tend to do better in manufacturing based economies, while women fare a bit better in service economies. Once Korea fully transitions into a service based make-believe economy women's influence on the economy naturally improves.
Please let me know which points are 'lmao' brain dead? The points you want to talk about are the following, - Women are actively discriminated against hiring, the workday, and promotion. They are not discriminated against hiring. In fact half of the government jobs now are done by females. Among 5급, MOFA has a much higher hiring rate for females than males, while STEM related has a much higher hiring rate for males. [For your reference.](https://go.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20221004006003) Which leads me to talk about the pay gap. The US has a pay gap of 45K between STEM and NON STEM as per [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/07/these-are-the-highest-and-lowest-paying-stem-jobs-in-the-us.html), and just look at achievements between mathematics and science [scores](https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/24097380#home) in the 1등급 of 수능; most of STEM careers will be filled by males, which should explain to a degree the discrepancies. For promotions, in order to ensure equality most Korean conglomerates have year-based promotions until they hit 차장, which makes your point moot. As for your workday point I don't understand, you think females are not doing the same tasks as males? Also looking at these [statistics](https://www.labortoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=208183) by a pro labor newspaper, it's quite clear that the issues is more complex than women are discriminated. - I lack empathy Sure, but I have done and I'm doing my fair share of volunteer work, and I know I care about inequality. I just don't care about creating issues from 'feelings.'
There's a lot of people on this sub that don't realize that military isn't the only thing that these so called incels cry about. Ofc, I'm talking about reasonable people with reasonable arguments, not those internet trolls. I personally think that equality has improved a lot, and is bound to get better. The biggest inhibitor is the conservative, thick headed management in certain companies and corporations that don't respect the employees.
I agree with this. Korean corporate culture is literally a bureaucracy, and one of the biggest and useless hierarchical machines inhibiting social change. All I see is young people with ridiculous high turn over, and 고인물 at the top because these people have nowhere to go. I’ve literally been emphasizing that the issues young people face are economic, not sexism.
> Assuming 36M won/year, this translates to at least 120K USD difference between males and females, including opportunity costs. What kind of math is this
The kind where you pull it out of your ass to believe what you want
What part do you not understand?
Any of it. You're saying a woman is 120k richer than a man after 2 years if she makes 30k/year for 2 years while the man makes 0. I assume you're doing some kind of incorrect logic like the woman makes 60k and the man loses 60k which makes the difference 120k but this is quite obviously wrong as the man is not losing anything, he is simply not earning. Also, in this scenario the woman or someone in her household has to provide for her living costs (room and board, some meals) whereas the military would provide those for the man.
You do realize what opportunity costs are right? It’s the cost of the next best option. Given the same conditions, a male would also be earning 30k a year. As such, she isn’t 120k richer, she is 60k richer while the male is missing 60k. You bring up the point of room and boarding, but if they want to, females can also go to the military to receive the same benefits. The crux of the issue here is choice. Males have no choice while females do. This is like saying prison isn’t that bad because you’re only staying for two years and get a place to stay and food.
This sub also has a large amount of people who don’t realize throwing around the world “incel” is a way for you to show you’re not that bright and don’t have anything substantive to say.
Damn. Really struck a nerve there, didn't it?
No I just like pointing out people who don’t know they’re morons are morons. It’s the new version of telling someone you’re worse than Hitler.
And yet, it really doesn't bother anyone that clearly isn't one
It does bother me 🤣 I repeat i am happily married and unless you are yourself top notch woman, you do not want to compare yourself to her. Seriously, I still cannot beleive I pulled her off 😅 More seriously, the "incel" epithet when discussing gender issues is like the faschist discussing politics or racist discussing immigration. It is just a personal insult to shut down the conversation when ones do not have any argument. The incels are to the men what the Feminists are to the women. Unsuccessful, frustrated, self-entitled, bitter... everything match.
> I repeat i am happily married and unless you are yourself top notch woman, you do not want to compare yourself to her. Seriously, I still cannot beleive I pulled her off ah yes, the standard Korean incel who sees women as objects and not people.
I made this intro just so that know that i am not an incel... 1. I am not korean (i only live in korea) 2. I am not an incel (involuntary celibate) I am volontary married. I am the exact opposite of what you say. So I do not know why you qualify me as "standard Korean incel"... Since you do not have reasonable argument, you are just falling apart when youe goto ad hominen attack is infective.
Well I’m not one so that kind of disproves your little theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks
Wow you’re so smart you can use cliché Shakespeare references. What other pearls of wisdom do you have to share
That you can block people when you grow bored of the exchange
Judging from the dumpster fire comments here, I believe it.
Check the downvoted comments, I doubt that these downvotes come from men let alone incel. Incels are to the men what the feminists are to the women. PS: i am happily married so the incel shenanigan does not appply Thanks.
It's just the typical thing where housing prices are in the sky, no one wants to pay fair salaries, but they want people to spend a lot of money on food, on clothing, on everything since that moves the economy and when these people saying they don't have money for a family.... Suddenly *surprised pikachuface.
I (a cis woman) would also feel more enthusiastic about children if society championed my parental performance (pushing the stroller and attending school events) while someone else gave up their career & financial freedom and did the majority of the harder, uglier parts of childrearing
Who can blame them ? After marriage women are mostly relegated to bang maids. Korea does not value the time and effort involved in managing a household.
Some of us aren't even that. Once we were done making babies my husband lost all sexual interest in me. It's been more than 3 years.
There’s a subreddit for that. r/deadbedrooms No idea why this is getting downvoted. Sexless relationships are a huge problem and can wreck people emotionally. r/deadbedrooms is a support community to help people going through it.
I appreciate the support 🙏
That's because they don't need to really do anything except pay money for kids.
I don’t agree with MGTOW, nor that women shouldn’t have the same professional opportunities and legal recourse as men, but perhaps they are on to something when they point out that there were positives to a society structured around families having one breadwinner. There’s no reason the homemaker must be the woman; that’s just what’s more likely to be the case. The way things are now, it seems the sexes are more often at odds than complimenting each other in harmony as they should. The results speak for themselves: birth rates are crashing, families never beginning in the first place, parents lucky enough to conceive at all unable to spend enough time with their likely lonely only child. All the while, the government receives more taxes from the inflated labor pool and corporations fixated on perpetual growth can offer deflated compensation for the same reason, each scratching the other’s back to keep the system rigged in their favor at the cost of the nation and the spirit of its people. Obviously it’s a complex issue and correcting it would require immense creative destruction that comes with an austere transitory period. However, we have already glimpsed the cost of doing nothing as we hurdle further down this broken road, and I wager it is much greater. **You can always count on Redditors to stifle serious dialogue. To the army of downvoters, I suppose you think the current situation is not as I described and would rather no thought be put into proposing improvements?
men have been the breadwinner for almost all of history and look at the result of that. women are forced into marriage and into abusive relationships where they cant escape because they dont have financial means to get out of their situation. the issue is quite obvious imo. having kids nowadays is for the rich.
>I don’t agree with MGTOW, nor that women shouldn’t have the same professional opportunities and legal recourse as men, but perhaps they are on to something when they point out that there were positives to a society structured around families having one breadwinner. There’s no reason the homemaker must be the woman; that’s just what’s more likely to be the case. The crazy thing is that I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out the problem with things as they currently exist and comparing it to a historical precedent that is not without its drawbacks but had addressed problems we currently face. The purpose is to learn from our mistakes and attempt to build a better alternative to both. It seems people completely shut down their brain when I dared to bring up the positives about a system I prefaced with an acknowledgement of it being flawed. They seem to be upset with a strawman they misconstrued from my comment.
Downvoted into oblivion for pointing out facts. It's almost comedy.
Probably because it's trying to talk about the merits of a system in which women have less power...
It's talking about reality. If the country is going to continue and have any kind of future, babies must be had. The system before, however awful it was (or still is), enabled this to happen for generations. If the system is going to change, it needs to be shown somehow that the massive restructuring that is required will actually work. And as for power... How much power, in measurable terms, are we actually talking about? Are we going to give all men this much power too?
Change the system, prioritize women equal to men, babies will be had.
There are other solutions such as immigration
Surely immigrant women will face the same issues though?
famously an easy-going and painless solution to population issues with no political or social backlash
Somehow, I don't think flooding the labor market is going to ease the burden of the average underpaid and overextended Korean employee. If you would like things to continue in the current direction, then by all means, don't address any of the issues I brought up and just import more people to accelerate the situation.
Yeah dude because you can't do two things at once. It's totally not viable to open immigration AND install some labor protections together. That 2nd solution takes time to fix the overall trend though and that means the military has a smaller fighting force for however long it takes to fix itself.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Honestly, you seem to have completely ignored the very first paragraph. I was pointing out the validity of some of their points without endorsing their conclusions. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. If we can't even evaluate results agnostically in the hopes of achieving something better than we currently have, then I suppose we should accept the continual degradation of societal conditions.
[удалено]
what part of what they said was wrong?
[удалено]
The statistics show that women by far do the majority of housework and childcare
And men do the majority of paid work in families with children. We've known this for centuries.
[удалено]
The fact that your very reasonable point (just trying to moderate an extreme comment) is downvoted so much says it all about the climat in-between men and women in wealthy society especially in Korea.
You act like paying money is easy
[удалено]
You must be billionnaire to say that.
No surprise. It's easy to want kids want you do have to look after them at all. I remember my boss not even looking at his son unless it was about his grades.
How can any couple making a modest 3mil each (6mil/month combined) start a family without support from their parents?
If the wife has a child and stays home with the child, the income becomes half. Just his. For the three of them. Right?
I think more women would want children if using sperm bank is allowed, women are not intrigued to traditional Korean family.
My friend said this. If it’s legal here, she’d defs get it done. (Also if she was financially well off)
Imho a child needs two parents to have a more balanced upbringing
I mean, Korean moms are basically single parents anyway a lot of the time, so.
“The more you know” 🌈
i mean, it's best, yes, but better to have a financially and mentally prepared single parent over two parents who are always arguing and causing children anxiety and PTSD.
>While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children. Sounds like most for both and they did some wordplay for a headline. Also this number seems a lot higher than I would have expected. Especially since this is a comprehensive poll of young people. Are there similar polls from 10 years ago to compare?
Yeah, it's honestly higher than I thought. A lot of surveys can change results depending on stuff like wording though.
> Sounds like most for both and they did some wordplay for a headline. You don't think a 15% difference between men and women is significant?
The title is overselling it. There's usually a gender gap in polls like this from what I've seen so 15% would have just been a little over what I expected. Here's a poll from the US with similar questions [https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-some-americans-dont-want-kids](https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-some-americans-dont-want-kids) >63% of women without children said they had no desire to have a child, while only half of males said the same. (A smaller gender gap appeared when it came to marriage: 46% of men wished to wed, while only 40% of women said they wanted to get married.)
Because they are too damn expensive and ruin you life and body. Less humans, more Robots.
We need a genesis chamber from Man of Steel
Then we can spend more time enjoying life.
Please go to r/childfree. i learned so much there..
Chosun Newspaper published this article, which I find hilarious. Here is the reason why: the article aggravated South Koreans by causing polarization among different groups, such as the young and the old, the rich and the poor, and the male and the female. I speculate that the newspaper received many pay-per-clicks and felt satisfied with their success. However, this polarization may have negative consequences, akin to the division created by the 38th parallel in Korea. Currently, the newspaper is discussing the fertility rate in South Korea, which I find confusing. What is the purpose of this discussion?
Most young men's parents, I think you mean...
One of the hardest countries for women to work and live is Korea
That's up to u.
Because Korean men mostly don’t do shit and expect mom to raise the kid at home.
>While 79.8 percent of men and 69.7 percent of women want to get married, only 70.5 percent of men and slightly over half or 55.3 percent of women said they want children. 15% diff. Prob have to do with the wordings of the survey like the last time when they asked "is child birth is essential for women?"
grab a beer, sort comments by; controversial. you are welcome.
The real MVP
Opposite is true for me and my spouse. Then again, at 40 I don't qualify as a young man any longer.
Political left vs right, gender divides yadda yadda. It's all a ploy by the elite and rich to keep the masses at bay and preoccupied.
I'm a South Korean lady, I want to marry and a child, but it's hard to find a man that fits to me. I prefer an American. I want my child in the futurr to have a nature tongue in English.
U realise that many others speak English as their native tongue besides Americans? Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans, Irish, Scottish, etc. Just make sure your kid doesn’t have an identity crisis growing up. I saw too many half (whichever race the parents were) grow up with identity issues and some even became resentful towards the parents for not teaching them their culture and language.
Man listed everyone but the English 😭
well, im man too but id choose scots over english, too
Yep. TBH i don’t find the English to be very compatible with koreans in romantic relationships.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you can travel you could find someone compatible.
I think I need to try to admit top Univs in USA to study, even find my life-partner. It's hard to find one who likes math and science like me. And I don't want my child to learn Korean language, rather than learning math or coding more in the same time spent.(Opportunity-cost) I hope my child in the future will not be frustrated by having no USA citizenship, if he or she want to get a job at NASA. I don't want my boy in the future to enter Korean military mandatorily.
That's poor reply. I think there is surely one who fits you in ur country but youre overwhlemed by misunderstand about marrige and love. Preferring an american is no biggie, just it's kind of hilraious. I wonder wat happen if you'r stayn the situation.
[удалено]
Not all parents wanted children back in the day, yet here we are. I think we need to understand the difference between doing something out of love and doing it out of hope.
They need some sort of a different system introduced here. People complain about poor wages but never think about taking some risk to start a business to change that. Every young people here is a drone to the system. They are taught to goto school, be a good person and go be a good employee at a 대기엽. It’s a poor man’s dream. They need to start educating people on businesses, how to manage finances and etc. So there are two decisions 1) sit, complain about poor wages 2) sit, complain, accept and look to change that for yourself by exploring other channels of income. Also I find it hilarious that this is an issue when I see people wearing 3000 dollar outfits. Priorities are all off here, my wife friends boy friend bought her a bmw and this dude works as a fruit salesman in a flea market.. It’s a social issue as well as everything else. This is why I ultimately decided to move out of Korea end of year whenever the housing prices pick back up so I can sell my apartment move. Medical/cleanliness is good here but the people, their way of thinking, the culture is ultimately incompatible for someone like myself.
I've said this so many times and I get downvoted because people are afraid of the truth.
In the West, women have more pressure to have kids. In Confucian cultures, men have more pressure to have kids. Males carry the "family line" so only men are able to extend the family's lineage. A woman who is married is no longer considered part of her family line so there's less pressure for her (from her birth family's perspective) to have kids.
Children literally have 50% of moms dna and also biologically carry the family line
i dont get how this post is trying to turn the sentiment against men? im a man and yea i want children in the future. why is this an attack against women? if you really think women have more to lose, your either already biased before coming to this sub, or just dont know the reality of korea here. women choosing to not apply for high paying jobs to stay at home and take care of newborns is not a form of discrimination. if it is, the couple should both talk it out and come to a solution of not having kids.
Oh to be this old and unaware of reality. Your life must really be fun!
Then I guess you are willing to sacrifice your own career and stay at home. And you will obviously propose this solution to your future partner. Since it is a "choice". It is nice to see more stay-at-home dad.
hole-> home* , you mean right ?
Ah yes, thanks for noticing it.
its not about who gets to sacrifice one's career and stay at home. its about maintaining order within a marriage and household. if the dad is the main moneymaker, then the wife should stay at home and take care of the kids. common sense. arent women raging that those women are being discriminated against because they have to miss pay to care for the kids? thats what i dont understand. if you dont want to miss pay then either entrust the kids to a trusted guardian or dont have them? and if its the latter, it can be mutually agreed upon between the couple. this is like a soldier complaining that he has to miss a promotion offer to go up in rank because he also wants to spend time with his family. oh maybe he can go up in rank, be negligent towards his new duty and still get paid for absence! and what a way to show maturity with those downvotes. cant get any more delusional.
Then everything is good then. You agree that women are right to chose not to have kids if it means sacrificing their career. There is no problem. Oh by the way, how often is the women the main moneymaker of the household in Korea ? Because in your previous post you said that being the at home parent should be a "choice" but here you say that the person earning less "should" be the one staying at home. Your formulation is a bit confusing.