> A brilliant examination of South Korean feminists’ struggle for equality with global resonance. It describes how many South Koreans still see women only as cooks, cleaners and “baby-making machines” and tells tales of misogyny, from spycams in public toilets to bigots in public office.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this book probably isn't a great idea. The birth-rate in S.Korea is now, by far, the lowest in the World -- TFR 0.7 for the nation [1], and Seoul itself might be as low as a stunning 0.3 -- with many asserting that a "cold war" between traditionalist men and feminist women is the culprit.
Really seems to me that we might want cooler heads to prevail, and that promoting books demonizing Korean men and claiming that they see women as "baby making machines" (lmao) is a step in the wrong direction.
This doesn't appear to be a sober outline of the causes, but a partisan book full of cherry-picked anecdotes. And even if it describes true trends, it does so only from one side.
As such, it's probably best ignored, yeah. What's more, I think that, in a word, the most appropriate thing one can say about its publication and promotion is that it is unwise.
A wise book would probably strive to reconcile both viewpoints to the fullest extent of their compatibility, and seek commonalities rather than complaints. One should hope for détente, not more airing of grievances.
The economist is known to have an extreme liberal bent. So a book like that is expected.
A lot of classical liberal values are going extremist. Way back when I was liberal I couldn't see it coming.
Now the two big movements within liberalism are pretty extremist: identity politics and feminism.
The weird thing about this list is although the economist is very liberal they have a book on there that is against identity politics that essentially against liberalism.
However, on the feminism side they still have a lot of books on the "patriarchy" and blaming and attacking men for traditional gender roles that dominated the anthropological landscape for eons.
It's not a coincidence that feminism is on the rise this century. It's almost a universal thing that crosses cultural lines... Unilaterally we see women in most 1st world counties gaining more power than they ever have before in human history. We would assume that culture evolves randomly so random cultures would have random perspectives on gender roles, but the fact that the rise of feminism is so universal among first world countries points to a single factor: technology. One book in that list is about the rise of females in outdoor sports. That book likely blames men for not allowing women to be in said sports (which plays a small role in the whole situation) while also likely doesn't mention how tampons basically are the main technological enabler that allowed women to even entertain the concept in the last century.
This divide among men and women does partly lead to the low birth rate you see not just in Korea. But internationally among all 1st world countries.
They've been liberal since they were founded.
They defend free-market economy, self determination of individuals, open societies, free global movement of capital, men and information.
However, they might not be liberal in the sense that the word has taken in the US in recent years.
No it's not. It's true. The economist is really liberal. It's readership is majority liberal at 59 percent. The rest are a combination of moderate and conservatives, I think conservatives are 18 percent.
In general with more power women are able to be more selective of their mates. By default women are hypergamous. They rather share an alpha male. This changes dating culture into hookup culture where thousands of young women hook up with a few top tier men. Coupled with birth control and disdain for polygamy it lowers the population overall as women seek polygamy, but culture doesn't allow it so they are sort of stuck in this hookup mode as there are "no good men" willing to settled down from their point of view.
Prior to women gaining power we would have no choice but to marry a man because marriage was coupled with survival. Women in general couldn't work and even in prehistoric times we couldn't hunt. Thus before feminism, someone like me had to settle for a man that was at my level. So overall this imbalance is better for us and worse for men.
> A brilliant examination of South Korean feminists’ struggle for equality with global resonance. It describes how many South Koreans still see women only as cooks, cleaners and “baby-making machines” and tells tales of misogyny, from spycams in public toilets to bigots in public office.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this book probably isn't a great idea. The birth-rate in S.Korea is now, by far, the lowest in the World -- TFR 0.7 for the nation [1], and Seoul itself might be as low as a stunning 0.3 -- with many asserting that a "cold war" between traditionalist men and feminist women is the culprit.
Really seems to me that we might want cooler heads to prevail, and that promoting books demonizing Korean men and claiming that they see women as "baby making machines" (lmao) is a step in the wrong direction.
[1] - https://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20231208000534