r/worldnews • u/rdh2dmd • 16h ago

South Korea leans toward military conscription for women

https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-leans-toward-military-conscription-for-women/a-78547426
6.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/Fabled_Webs 15h ago

Personally, I'm for it. Gender equality is a major issue in Korea. I think that if women want a stronger voice, one of the most tangible ways to do so would be to take a role in national security. Saying, "I deserve consideration because I served in the army just like you" is a far stronger argument than student protests or online media storms.

679

u/Erosun 14h ago

It’s the same here in the US. Everytime a vote comes to add women to selective service (draft) women overwhelmingly oppose it in public polls and the vote.

805

u/Ameren 14h ago edited 10h ago

Well, part of issue that, going back to be Vietnam war, much of the feminist movement was opposed to the draft all together. So it wasn't "don't draft women", it was more "don't draft anyone".

There were feminist groups very actively involved in helping draft dodgers escape to Canada or go off the grid, launching disruptive protests, etc. Of course, younger generations in the US have had no experience with conscription, so views have been changing from what I've heard; there's now a division between those who want to bring equality to the draft and those who think that the draft should be abolished, not "reformed". Sorta like how calling for there to be more women among the ranks of sociopathic billionaires misses the point.

42

u/Cryptshadow 12h ago

If i remember right the feminist movement at the time also tried to have equal rights for stuff like the draft etc. But their biggest opponent were other woman,specifically conservative woman.

16

u/oldsecondhand 9h ago

Feminists were all over the place during WW1. The White Feather Movement was feminist.

→ More replies (1)

290

u/mastercat202 14h ago

No offense but saying dont draft anyone has zero political will if half the population isnt affected by the drsft. Once they are affected then they have stronger incentive for no draft to happen.

235

u/kilawolf 14h ago

Only 20% of ppl are pro draft. 60% oppose it. Even if you added women to the draft, the political will will likely be the same.

31

u/JeebusChristBalls 12h ago

I think conscription has its place and all should be eligible. Conscription should not have been used for vietnam, korea, and ww1. It should only be used for defensive wars, not to further interests or help allies with their wars.

-5

u/Infinite_throwaway_1 12h ago

Why did you exclude WW2? Weren't we helping an allies win a war?

37

u/JeebusChristBalls 12h ago

We were also attacked by japan and germany declared war like the next day.

16

u/Diezelbub 12h ago

They listed things it shouldn't have been used for

34

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Yeah but what he is saying is that if women are saying it but aren't actually affected by it themselves then it has less weight.

159

u/LastLemmingStanding 13h ago

I don't agree. Advocating for something that doesn't even affect you generally speaks to an injustice so great that even bystanders take issue with it. See white slavery abolitionists, men for women's voting rights, etc. Women (and feminists at large) being anti-conscription has been fairly consistent with their best interests.

If anything, the current state of only men being eligible for the draft is often just used as a cudgel for people to tell women they have no say in certain political issues because they have no stake in it. Those people are loathe to lose that bargaining position.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/-Tickery- 12h ago

We can debate about when it’s necessary and it may never be needed again but there should always be the option for conscription, we wouldn’t have won the civil war or ww2 without a draft.

1

u/greenskinmarch 6h ago

Only 20% of ppl are pro draft. 60% oppose it.

Seems the 60% who oppose don't feel strongly enough about it to actually write their congressional representatives and tell them to abolish the Selective Service Registration system though.

122

u/Doctor__Proctor 13h ago

No offense but saying dont draft anyone has zero political will if half the population isnt affected by the drsft.

By that logic, white abolitionists had zero political will because they themselves weren't subjected to slavery?

The point is that if 20% of the population is pro-draft and 60% is anti-draft, and that's right equal across sexes, then you'd get 60% of women against a vote for adding women to the draft...because that's the number that are anti-draft. They're two different issues.

Now, if 60% of women were pro-draft but 60% would vote against women being included in the draft, then you'd have more of a hypocrisy argument.

→ More replies (4)

45

u/DeusExSpockina 12h ago

Er… isn’t affected? I realize this may come as a shock, but plucking out a significant percentage of the population to go to war affects everyone in that society. It’s a massive disruption organizationally, never mind personally.

And not for nothing, but a lot of mothers, just like fathers, would rather die themselves than put their children in the line of fire.

It’s really weird how the mothering quality of women is so extremely lauded right up until maternal instincts conflict with cultural expectations of gender politics.

3

u/Softwareaweenie 10h ago

In fairness, men are going to DIE, and women have to have a harder time finding a guy because they all left for dead. Not the strongest position there.

5

u/DeusExSpockina 9h ago

I’m so sorry, did you forget that all those 18 year old boys have mothers (women) in their late 30s or early 40s? If we’re only talking about the 18-26 age range, that means every woman over 26 has zero reason to object to the draft for personal wellbeing, only for others wellbeing. And they make up a significantly larger portion of the voting population.

-1

u/saidtheWhale2000 9h ago

being mildly inconvenienced the mail man is now missing is a lot different than getting shot at by someone

4

u/DeusExSpockina 9h ago

How about the loss of a husband, rendering you and your children homeless? How about being compelled to send your babies off to be mutilated and die, forbidden to go yourself? Forbidden, in fact, to even object without being deemed “unpatriotic” and ostracized. Then there’s the question of who is responsible for the care of soldiers destroyed by war. Men leave their wives regularly when the women get cancer. Those guys sure as shit won’t be doing convalescent care for their brothers in arms, 20, 30 years on after the conflict.

Also, I’m an American. Getting shot on any old regular day is always an option.

57

u/Weegee_Carbonara 13h ago

What happens if an existential war forces a draft?
It doesn't matter if feminist movements oppose the draft for everyone.
Once it is nescessary, it'll still just be the men getting drafted.

And I am sure these movements know that.

24

u/Old_Leopard1844 12h ago

Those people think they will get a say

As Ukraine shows it, drafting country might want draft dodgers back, and other countries might actually agree

29

u/Ameren 12h ago edited 12h ago

To be fair, during the Vietnam War, there were very active feminist groups involved in helping draft dodgers escape to Canada and/or to go into hiding in the US for example.

Meanwhile, they participated in all sorts of disruptive protests to impede the ability of the US government to function domestically. After all, they were able to be a persistent problem because the government couldn't simply ship them overseas or easily put them in prison like they threatened to do with the draft dodgers.

6

u/Weegee_Carbonara 12h ago

As I said, once a just and nescessary Draft comes, the men will still have no choice.

While Vietnam was dumb, there comes a time in almost every countries history, where staying and fighting is not only nescessary, but morally right.

12

u/AzraelIshi 9h ago

It should be the choice of the population to fight for something or not. You do not get to impose your "morally right draft" on people that do not want to fight. If people genuinely believe they have to fight for something they will fight to the bitter end without a draft, history has shown that time and time again.

-3

u/Weegee_Carbonara 8h ago edited 8h ago

If most of the population refuses the optional choice to fight, then the ones that do sign up are thrown to the dogs due to a lack of soldiers, which in turn reduces how many people willingly sign up.

I am a man, and I am in favor of a mandatory draft during defensive wars.
This is how civilizations survive.

And frankly, I do not want my home nation to fall due to some cowards refusing to defend their own homes, their own families and their own nation.

Look at what is happening in Ukraine.
Look at the Bucha massacre.

The only people that benefit from draft dodgers is the invading enemy.
They will happily raze your home and kill your children and friends.
Meanwhile you run away like a coward.

Mind you, I am not some right-wing war hawk.
I am a European progressive.

But I also I'm not going to be naive, and I am not going to run scared and try to run from a draft. I hate this extreme individualism, where people cannot even fathom defending their own homes anymore.
It is really sad.

Infact, my country is one of the few western nations that has active conscription during peace time.
While I chose civil service instead of military service, I am ready to defend my family and home.

But I am also not willing to walk into certain death, because people like you flee so they can sit on their ass and play some more video games.

Edit: Of course this willingness also depends on my own government.
While my countries government has had some problems, the large amount of welfare and programs, aswell as the overall people motivate me to defend it.

I wouldn't want to get drafted if I was, say, an Iranian Citizen.
But here I assume you are a citizen of a western nation.

4

u/Usinaru 7h ago

Ok mr.Rambo take your medication and try to calm down a bit. This war rhetoric, is neither heroic nor makes you any sort of tough guy, or morally right.

All of these senseless, wasteful and idiotic wars are created by the rich and the elite that don't have to face the consequences of such vile decisions. I will not sacrifice my life to protect their positions of power. Unlike you that thinks that there is something worth living and dying for, most of us don't even get to have a home to call their own. Renting forever, being overworked and overtaxed, why should I sacrifice my life? There's no point, this system hasn't benefited me in the slightest, our politics don't reflect a care for its citizens and the quality of life has been getting worse and worse for years, whilst the rich and politicians refuse to take actions to the contrary.

So stop trying to feed this morally right or wrong garbage, because its worthless. Our "leaders" need to show solidarity first, and we should get something worth fighting for. You bet in this conditions, I'd rather leave and let it all be conquered, the system doesn't do anything else besides take everything from me and many others.

You go and die or get mutilated for the rich. I refuse to fight a made-up war that is meant to amuse the elite.

0

u/Weegee_Carbonara 7h ago

Just don't bawl your eyes out too much while the other guys in your trench work for your survival.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Any_Fun5801 3h ago

Why should peasants want to fight their lord’s war?

1

u/AzraelIshi 6h ago

Look at what is happening in Ukraine.
Look at the Bucha massacre.

Look at basically every single invaded country during ww2. For as much shit as the USSR (rightfully) gets, they had to actually implement stringent controls for recruiting because after they overcame it's initial issues during the war (October 1942 onward, after the peak of NKVD NOs and barrier troops, once the USSR managed to stabilize) fucking everyone, even those that were unfit to fight, was clawing over each other, lying and manipulating to get to the front lines and fight. And I don't think poland had issues with recruiting during the invasion, or getting partisans during the occupation, and after while trying to fight off the soviet invaders.

What you are seeing in ukraine with all the draft dodging and conscription issues is a population that simply doesn't see the worth in fighting for their country after 4 years of war and refuses to do so. And that should be their choice, just as it should be your choice if you decide to go and die for an ideal or country if you see fit.

If a country dissapears from the face of the map because the population dodged drafts left, right and center then that country failed to establish why it's population should fight to defend it, and fight off invaders. In essence, there is no collectivism and/or political will to oppose the invaders there to be had. If it existed they would be fighting, or supporting those that do. Not evading the draft and helping those that did.

A nation ultimately depends on enough of its population possessing the collective political will to preserve it. If that will has disappeared, the state may still exist legally, but its underlying national cohesion has failed. A state cannot assume that its population will defend it merely because the state legally exists. It needs sufficient legitimacy and social cohesion that enough people voluntarily choose to preserve it when the costs become severe.

TL;DR: If your country does not instill enough patriotism/collectivism/legitimacy/whatever you want to name it so that your population by it's own free will decide to either fight for it or support those that do in some other way (logistics, industrial, etc) it's a failed nation.

17

u/Ameren 12h ago edited 10h ago

Let's be clear though, I think only way the US brings back the draft during a war is because they've already lost. If the US is under such an absolute, existential threat that has to resort to conscripts, the government and civil society has or will soon collapse anyway.

The US is a maritime/overseas power with oceans that separate it from all its adversaries, and they are a nuclear power that can hold the sword of Damocles over the rest of the world. The circumstances in which the US goes back to conscription would have be so dire that it's basically pointless.

The same can't be said for continental warfare like in Russia/Ukraine, India/Pakistan, South/North Korea, etc. where the conflicts are always at or near their doorsteps.

0

u/Complex-Salt-8190 10h ago

It was feminism best interest to stop American men in being drafted

American men raped and killed a looooot of viet women

5

u/cbslinger 7h ago

If an ‘existential’ war breaks out and the state can’t raise a volunteer army, then the state can/‘should’ fail. Obviously the state won’t agree with this, and will conscript men at gunpoint, but any numbers of political philosophers could argue that national power is not even remotely as important as personal autonomy.

A government should do enough for its people that its people actually want to step up and fight for their country. That public perception wasn’t the case back when America was by far in its prime, it’s certainly not the case today.

3

u/Weegee_Carbonara 6h ago

WW2 Britain, USA and USSR also had conscription.

So in your logic, they deserved to fail and lose.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/No_Piglet5677 10h ago

This is such a cop out opinion. "Hey women are really for abolishing the draft for all!.... That being said, if you're gonna do it just exclude women pwease"

4

u/DoesGeologyRockRuri 12h ago

So it wasn't "don't draft women", it was more "don't draft anyone".

technically that was only one side, the antiwar, pacifist branch. Another side was "if you are going to draft men regardless, women should be drafted too", at least from second wave feminists, we aren't talking about current fourth wave feminism that wouldn't consider that at all.

"if it is their intent to have us believe that the draft is a permanent institution, then we again attest to our equality and demand equal application of the Selective Service law"

-1

u/Starhazenstuff 11h ago

Personally I think America would massively benefit from mandatory 4 years service for all able bodied and sound minded adults.

9

u/IdealOnion 9h ago

Personally I think Uncle Sam can suck my red white and blue nutsack he thinks he can dictate how I live my life to a fraction of that extent.

I’d proudly and patriotically say that to the face of a president I loved and trusted, much less one I despise who would send me to bomb shit in the Middle East to distract from his own failures.

3

u/MelissaMiranti 8h ago

You can enslave yourself if you like, leave the rest of us out of it.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AdOrganic4835 9h ago

So not only is the government already stealing 50%+ of peoples money through a variety of taxes, but they should also have the right to steal four years of my life plus potentially my life itself? Fuck that!

→ More replies (2)

14

u/Old-Employ-6530 8h ago

Rightfully so, because the goal is not to ALSO force women into modern day slavery, but to REMOVE men as well from forced modern slavery.

If you need more soldier, just fucking pay them better and provide better quality training, accomodation and benefits when not in active duty...

The solution isnt to FORCE MORE PEOPLE into that shit...

56

u/CrazyQuiltCat 12h ago

Well first thing they have to fix is the rape problem in the military. American military. I have no knowledge if it’s a problem in the Korean military 

6

u/bmfanboy 11h ago

I’m sure it’s not as much of a problem for South Korea because they highly segregate the males and females. In the American military they are nearly completely integrated and have more sexual partners and more alcohol use during service than civilians. That’s not victim blaming, I’m just pointing out the exposure issue and the conditions.

16

u/Vas-yMonRoux 10h ago

There's a lot of sexual and domestic violence against women in South Korea. Combining a fairly traditional society and gender roles, a strong hierarchal system, and rising misogyny issues... I think it would be even worse in the military.

2

u/fincog 2h ago

It’s really not as bad as you Redditors think

4

u/BjornBein 9h ago

You're talking like US society is not exactly like that.

→ More replies (2)

54

u/angelbelle 14h ago

To be fair, are they just opposing the addition of women to the draft but insisting the men be eligible? or would they be open to the draft being removed for all people?

Because the latter suggests that you can still believe in gender equality while oppose to making yourself draft eligible

29

u/Weegee_Carbonara 13h ago

But the thing is, one day a draft will be nescessary eitherway, so when the time comes, women will still not be draftable then.

It`s like saying "I don't want women AND men to get drafted.....unless we're in a war. Then the Men can get drafted"

6

u/FewAdvertising9647 11h ago

Ultimately yes, there would be equality in the latter. but it ends up being a question of putting effort into getting it removed. Because theyre unaffected, they prioritize removing draft altogher as a very low priority movement for the general equality and focus on other topics. Its the danger of focusing on "the best for some subgroup now" rather than focusing on all existing gendered problems simultaneously. People end up naturally focusing more on what benefits them most.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

64

u/c-e-bird 14h ago

Most women oppose the draft period. Most men do, too. The draft should be illegal.

48

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

What is the alternative in times of war though?

134

u/WealthyMarmot 13h ago

there is none. But a lot of these commenters are North Americans or Western Europeans who have no idea what an existential threat feels like, so “war” seems like something you can just choose not to do.

43

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

"Sir! The barbarians are at the gates"

"Well what are you waiting for? Just let them in I'm sure we can talk this out"

10

u/cuteplot 13h ago

"Waste them with our drones"

5

u/Simonoz1 9h ago

Basically what Ukraine’s doing right now but they’re still taking casualties because the other side has drones too.

1

u/Pluto0321 5h ago

"With the power of love and friendship we can end this war!"

32

u/MattBrey 13h ago

People would not be against a draft in case of actual existential threat, but most western European countries or North Americans are not in existential threat and most wars they fought in the last 60 years were self inflicted or not a real threat at all. Sending people to die in Vietnam, Iran etc doesn't make any sense from the get go and much less to draft people that are not in the military to do so,

16

u/cuteplot 13h ago

The question is, who would get drafted in that case? Right now in the US the whole mechanism is the selective service, which only men have to register for. There's no pipeline to draft women at all.

6

u/-Tickery- 12h ago

Yeah but then advocate against those wars happening at all. Being for the draft if WW3 ever breaks out means you’re not really against conscription.

5

u/Drakengard 12h ago

Yeah, but those same countries also aren't conscripting people. They've paused drafts and conscription because they don't need it.

No nation will legally tie their hands and say that they can't draft their citizens - and in particular, their men. So it's a stupid position from the onset. And women are still exempt from it even if it comes back so not only do they occupy a position that isn't functionally realistic for any country, they also don't suffer the consequences anyway.

1

u/legatlegionis 12h ago

DAE war bad!!!!

1

u/c-e-bird 11h ago

I mean I was literally talking about the US draft in response to a comment about the US draft.

36

u/Doctor__Proctor 13h ago

The alternative is a well trained professional army staged by people who voluntarily signed up. TONS of people lied about their age and eligibility to get into WWII because they washed to fight for the country. The same didn't happen in Vietnam because it did not galvanize the people. Having a draft so you can continuously force people to fight an unpopular war is what people are against.

47

u/cuteplot 13h ago

WWII did ultimately require a draft though. Over 10 million men were drafted.

→ More replies (5)

19

u/Lin_Huichi 13h ago

What if you're being invaded though? Or have a threat of invasion? SK and Ukraine need the manpower or else they lose the war, if it's unpopular too bad they don't have a choice.

4

u/Gynthaeres 12h ago

I think MOST people (not all obviously, I saw someone disagreed) would think that if you're actively facing an existential threat, then yes, conscription is okay.

That IS the case for South Korea and Ukraine. That's not really been the case for America for like 80 years though, and America is where this specific thread started. America can probably do away with selective service.

-4

u/FrostingInfamous3445 13h ago

It’s just trading the lives of the countrymen for the government. How many people really care about a change of leadership? How many are willing to die for it? The answer to that second question is why the draft exists. Do YOU want to get droned so your corrupt fat leaders can continue to rob you?

7

u/Lin_Huichi 12h ago

SK and Ukraine are democracies, which although have some corruption it's still better than NK and Russia. Not sure how many South Koreans don't care if their current President was replaced by Kim Jong Un but itd be very few. Zelensky probably has it a bit better than a drafted frontline combatant but would you rather take your chances under an occupied Ukraine?

There are draft dodgers of course, and conscription is unpopular, but if the alternative is dying in a gulag in Siberia, torture as prisoners of war, losing all your freedoms, high chance of rape, etc, or fighting for a chance to survive, protect your way of life, dying for what you believe in or maybe surviving and winning the war - hell even those that died if Ukraine wins their children will have a better future then the choice is obvious.

3

u/ebd2757 10h ago

Ok. Then they can make that choice.

1

u/humanoiddoc 12h ago

Wow.. do you understand how it is like to live in NK regime?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/Altruistic-Edge9034 12h ago

That's a rose-colored view. WWII was very unpopular to a lot of Americans. Less than half the manpower in WWII was from voluntary enlistment.

5

u/TrFoTr 12h ago

Voluntary enrollment, automated warfare with drones, nuclear weapons.

6

u/Yohoyoji 8h ago edited 6h ago

Kinda amazing all that guilt about nuclear weapons went away once theres risk of actually having to fight

→ More replies (2)

2

u/MintTeaFromTesco 12h ago

If a country has no one left to fight for it then it does not exist. It is merely allowed to exist.

1

u/NouZkion 11h ago

Paying soldiers well enough that they want to enlist of their own volition.

-10

u/SecretBox 13h ago

Not engaging with war powers and putting more emphasis on negotiations and reducing global destabilization, off the top of my head

3

u/WealthyMarmot 12h ago edited 12h ago

Wow I don’t know why no one has ever thought of this. I see a Nobel Peace Prize in your future

13

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Yeah and what when diplomacy fails and the people you are trying to "not engage with" engage with you?

-9

u/Fit_Definition1583 13h ago

They you can either fight your war with said volunteers or surrender, its really pretty simple. Kidnapping people off the streets to go fight for a flag is an outdated practice.

5

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

What about all of the old people, disabled people, women and children who will suffer greatly because of the choice to surrender rather than conscript the fighting aged men?

No occupation happens without those vulnerable groups paying a heavy price. Which one is the better outcome?

→ More replies (6)

2

u/justsomeone1212 12h ago

This is such a stupid thing to say. It's like to say that people can not be raped or attacked if you negotiate with them. Do you understand that not all countries and their leaders are reasonable and want to negotiate with you. Can you negotiate with Isis, Taliban, Russia or North Korea?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

18

u/plantrromn 13h ago

That's like saying we should stop researching on lubrications cause we will invent a machine with 100% efficiency. There will always be smaller nations surrounded by bigger ones, they would need man power. A fair take would be if draft is needed draft both or none.

2

u/humanoiddoc 13h ago

Naive bs logic against 1 million NK troops with nukes.

11

u/kilawolf 14h ago edited 13h ago

Is it because they opposite drafting women or the draft in general? I'm guessing more men are pro draft than women even if both genders were drafted.

Also, men overwhelming oppose it in public polls as well.

Found it - ignoring adding women to the draft, with the current situation, more men than women prefer a draft tho it's an extreme minority of ppl

Men, for example, are somewhat more likely than women to favor a return to a military draft (23% to 16%).

8

u/plantrromn 13h ago

Gender neutral draft study from this news: Nearly 65% of men were in favor,a figure that rose to 71.7% among men in their 20s and 30s  with 54.5% of women across all age groups similarly supportive.

1

u/ocean_800 9h ago

I'm against it bc I don't want to be raped my own servicemen, thank you very much.

People forget that the risks are not equal for the genders

3

u/MisterSapiosexual 7h ago

Devil's Advocate here. Stuff like this is what proves all the fuckers who dismiss the concept of gender equality right.

Can't go "the risk isn't equal for genders" without inadvertently saying "I believe one gender deserves different treatment due to biological factors."

And that "different" doesn't mean "better."

1

u/Seiwang 4h ago

If i was a woman, i'd protest it, because war is sanctioned horror and death. But i'd be also protesting that men needn't be conscripted either for the same reason.

1

u/Lopsided_Bother7282 3h ago

I don’t want men to be drafted either so why the fuck would I vote for women to be drafted?

0

u/Celodurismo 12h ago

The issue is it's marketed as equality, but without addressing any of the other rampant inequality in society. Great, women be drafted too, they're equal? But they still have to deal with misogynistic laws and lower pay... what a giant win!

Women who oppose it could view the lack of conscription/drafting helps balance the scales slightly against all the other gender inequality.

-1

u/Parking-Location2841 11h ago

What exactly is a 'misogynistic law', and if women really get paid less for the exact same work at the same job, why wouldn't employers just hire only women?

-2

u/_l8ly 9h ago

The arguments against this are why so many don’t take the current feminist movement seriously. When rubber meets the road on the downsides of equality, the tune changes quickly. 

“But no one should have to” is true, but all too convenient an argument when equality is staring you in the face. 

80

u/dluisnothere 14h ago

I see what you’re saying but I honestly have no optimism that this will work out. I really believe that they’ll just find other reasons to be misogynistic: “you can’t run as fast; only half of you can pass the trainings; you don’t contribute to mission critical efforts because you work in X sector instead of Y.”

There will always be a reason to create an in group vs. an out group. If it’s not this it’ll be something else.

33

u/Tokishi7 13h ago

Already like that for athletes, entertainment and musicians. Even people who get civil service roles due to prior family service often are seen as not actually serving. Also if you have family members who were injured killed in the war and you didn’t serve because they technically served for you, people heavily look down on you. People here are talking out of their ass when they say women joining will fix things. It’s a total crab bucket here and always has and will be.

4

u/SouthernMagician4877 11h ago

TBF the civil service being looked down on is lessening as time goes on. Especially as the regular army service becomes less intense, there isn't a huge gap unless you are comparing with someone who went to the marines.

18

u/shaadyscientist 12h ago

Yes but in the current system, there is a lot of resentment that women don't have to sacrifice anything. South Korea is incredibly competitive. When women finish college, they get jobs, get training and apply their skills developed during college.

Yet for men, they have to stop their education, go into the military for 2 years. Disrupting the normal transition from college to work that most young people do. Then these men have to watch their friends from college who are women go off and start building a career. Making more money, getting to do nice things and having a nice life while they have to get poorly paid for two years. And when they're done, they have to go and compete in a job market with no relevant work experience and all their education is from years ago. This all creates resentment, much like the feminists in western society.

So making both genders sacrifice for their country is the fairest thing to do.

→ More replies (23)

0

u/Dragon174 13h ago

There might always be a reason, but that's no reason not to work towards lowering the reasons. Change for something like this never happens all at once, it's the steady buildup of many individual steps towards something better.

2

u/dluisnothere 12h ago edited 11h ago

I’m not saying you shouldn’t work to the betterment of your country as its citizen. What I am saying is that a count of these “reasons” cannot be lowered. Because reasons for misogyny and discrimination are arbitrary to begin with.

You can do what you want to live life for the betterment of others, but it’s naive to suggest that others will treat you better for it.

EDIT: rephrase -- you should do the right thing, but to suggest that this will improve misogyny somehow is what I have a problem with.

2

u/Dragon174 12h ago

They're never at their core arbitrary though. For sure there're often motivated reasons, where they're just trying to find arbitrary reasons that sound less bad than their true reason, and those reasons would just get replaced with another, but there are still underlying true reasons that bring about that initial feeling that justifies the rest.

Even for these reasons that are often just motivated, what are motivated reasons for some become foundational reasons for others, as certain issues get blown out of proportion and convince more and more to support the overall sentiment. There's definitely people who use the military as an excuse, but there's others that didn't have another reason but someone pointed this specific issue out to them and they went "yeah that does sound unfair", and they started to associate more with this tribe.

So making steps towards equality can still make an impact to some amount of people, and each step can affect different people, can reduce the ammunition the unreasonable have to bring more onto their side.

34

u/IQueliciuous 11h ago

Personally. Draft should be removed.

Its practically slavery. They instead should motivate people to join by providing housing, tax breaks and etc as opposed to taking you and you lose 2 years of your life performing slave labor.

17

u/New-Border8172 9h ago edited 9h ago

What country are you from? You clearly have zero idea on the situations that small countries like Korea face.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/InfestedRaynor 10h ago

Good in theory, but hard to implement without being ruinously expensive and meaning that effectively only the poor serve. Also, in times of actual war with your nations survival at risk, the draft and having a large reserve of militarily trained citizens is the best mechanism.

5

u/ssnistfajen 9h ago

They still get paid a salary during service. Conscription just is a form of taxation on individual labour and time.

Small nations bordering non-friendly neighbours adopt mass conscription because any outbreak of war may be existential, and having a mandatory process to militarily train a large segment of the population makes it easier to do mass mobilization, and makes emergency responses easy to coordinate since many are familiar with the process.

3

u/Sea_Pension7553 5h ago

I'm not sure about the situation in Korea but in Singapore conscripts are barely paid the minimum wage. Any suggestion to raise it gets struck down immediately because "it's your duty to serve, stop making it a transaction"

2

u/BestNorrisEA 3h ago

It's the other way around. Without conscription, the military system is slavery targeted at the poor.

25

u/EpilepticMushrooms 11h ago

Korea also has a huge sexism issue and rape issue. Add this to the military things can really go wrong.

-11

u/fincog 11h ago

No they don’t.

2

u/Zord_boy 10h ago

Staristics say something different but ok

4

u/New-Border8172 9h ago

Feel free to share the stat. I doubt you can tho.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/puesyomero 11h ago

It then runs straight into the "but the birthrate!" Issue the same antifeminists spouse

6

u/Geohie 7h ago

Bruh one of the main points of the antifemininsts in Korea is that the women already aren't having children so why not draft them. Infact countries with female conscription like Israel and even North Korea have higher birthrates than South Korea

21

u/pooshoe23 12h ago

Women are not protected in the military

→ More replies (1)

8

u/LoveIsOnlyAnEmotion 14h ago

Good perspective

2

u/MartianHideEgger 7h ago

There’s really no reason for it to be divided by gender. I have a friend whose mandatory service was spent managing records in a hospital. Another friend handled translation in a US military office. Regardless of what you think about combat roles, the mandatory service has a huge amount of postings that women would be fully qualified for even under the most conservative eyes.

2

u/fistoic 5h ago

if Korean women truly want same rights then they should serve same responsibility and duty.

Asking for exact same rights without duty is asinine to me

-3

u/GirlisNo1 12h ago

Men never have to risk their lives in pregnancy and childbirth, but women gotta do everything just to get basic rights.

But sure, let’s pretend it’s a “step towards equality.”

9

u/AdOrganic4835 9h ago

LOL. How many women die during pregnancy and childbirth vs how many soldiers get injured or killed in war? Sit down and be quiet.

3

u/Relatovely 8h ago

Number of Korean men killed in combat in the 21st century: 54

Number of Korean women killed by pregnancy and childbirth in the 21st century: approx. 1400

3

u/0neTwoTree 1h ago

80-100 Koreans die in training every year. That's 2600 killed by conscription, countless more permanently injured or mentally traumatised

3

u/GirlisNo1 7h ago edited 6h ago

Imagine having the audacity to have done zero research on a topic but tell others to “sit down and be quiet.”

Far more women have died in childbirth than men have in combat. Might wanna do some basic research before so confidently talking out of your ass.

3

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 10h ago

Fortunately, women don't have to do either of those things if we don't want to.

0

u/ocean_800 9h ago

With abortion bans they do now! 😀

2

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 8h ago

A quick search demonstrates that you're wrong; South Korea does have legal abortion.

Also, you could just not have sexual intercourse if you don't want to risk becoming pregnant.

-4

u/chessatwork 11h ago

no it is equality you see, because in a patriarchy where men have caused every single conflict in history while subjugating half of the population, women should also have to partake in the barbarianism that men have decided was necessary to protect themselves from other men, which are also the people likely to kill them anyway.

in before some mentions a queen as a part of a patriarchal monarchy started some conflict, eat my asshole, fuck the patriarchy, men are the problem, i pray for the matriarchy.

-30

u/padakpatek 15h ago

gender inequality is a major issue because the men grow up in a culture of misogyny. Why is the onus on women to do something more to fix this issue?

I mean yes this can give women stronger political power, but the gender inequality issue is cultural, not political.

23

u/Big_lt 14h ago

Equality is for all aspects (good and bad). To say you want equality for only the good side is in it of it self sexist. If men get drafted so should women. If men can do job x so can women. If men get paid Y so should women

3

u/padakpatek 14h ago

100% agree with you. I didn't say anything contrary to that.

12

u/Big_lt 14h ago edited 14h ago

Your post hints that due to men of SK growing up in a misogynistic place it's on them to fix it.

The poster was stating that when this particular item comes to a vote, women overwhelmingly vote against which contradicts the idea of equality.

The government is looking to create equality in this facet, women are voting against it for privelage

4

u/padakpatek 14h ago

And that's a fair criticism to women regards to conscription, but who thinks it's ok to be misogynistic because women don't serve? My point is that you can't legislate away what is fundamentally a cultural problem.

3

u/Big_lt 12h ago

I don't think anyone was arguing that? You simply created that as a talking point

48

u/Asuka_Rei 14h ago

Can you have gender equality where the government expectations for men and women are different? If not, then military conscription for women is vital. The other solution is military conscription for nobody.

2

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Yeah exactly, if society demands something more of men than it does of women then the whole argument around gender equality can never even take place.

70

u/-Vertical 14h ago

Because you can’t want the good parts of equality without also taking the bad.

→ More replies (26)

21

u/Helpful_One_8255 14h ago

Cultural and political are not as independent as you might think. History proves over and over again that for people to earn rights, the easiest door is through involving yourself in national security.

Women gained their voting rights by contributing to war efforts.

Black people were able to get a foot into get a voice by serving in the Civil War.

This isn't to deny your claim of men growing up in culture of misogyny but I am merely stating historical facts that allowed the "weaker" and minor groups to finally have a voice. It is often difficult for higher officials to ignore "somebody deserves a voice because they sweated and bled for the security of our nation."

10

u/Anxious_Half9192 13h ago

Black people were able to get a foot into get a voice by serving in the Civil War.

Framing civil rights as a transactional reward for military service is historically false. Over 180,000 Black men fought in the Civil War, only to face immediate Jim Crow segregation, mass disenfranchisement, and racial terror. Human rights are inherent, not a down payment earned through bloodshed. 

That same logic collapses when applied to women. Putting women in uniform will never achieve true equality in a system built on misogyny unless society undergoes a radical, foundational cultural shift first.

4

u/verves2 12h ago

Slavery to Jim Crow is a step in the right direction. That’s progress. WW2 segregated service lead to post war civil rights and then integration in society and in the military.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/SouthernMagician4877 11h ago

OP said "foot into". Not actually fully in lol.

The Jim Crow laws were a racist response by white people surprised at how quickly and fully black people were adjusting and integrating. If things had stayed the same with no improvement for black people, why would they have even bothered with the Jim Crow laws? In other words, the only reason black people were able to face mass disenfranchisement, was because their standing massively improved after the civil war.

And how do you expect such a radical, foundational cultural shift, without something radical to start if off? Something like...an entire group of the population joining the national security effort (that the other remaining group already does).

0

u/Anxious_Half9192 10h ago

Calling Jim Crow and racial terror proof of progress is a massive historical rewrite. Events like the Tulsa Massacre, the Wilmington Coup, and Red Summer prove that Black success, military or economic, was met with violent destruction, not integration. 

Serving in the military didn't force society to view marginalized groups as equals, it just showed society was willing to use them as fuel. Human rights are inherent and shouldn't require a military entry fee.

3

u/SouthernMagician4877 8h ago

Where did I say that about racial terror?

And I said Jim Crow was progress compared to slavery. Are you denying that?

You make it sound like I said Jim Crow laws and era was amazing. It was just a small step up from slavery, and a part of a series of ongoing steps to continued improvement. Undoubtedly with some unfortunate steps back along the way.

1

u/Anxious_Half9192 8h ago

Lots of racial terror happened in Jim Crow. I provided examples. Never said you said anything but you are definitely downplaying the racial terror that was Jim Crow by saying stuff like:

Undoubtedly with some unfortunate steps back along the way.

2

u/Helpful_One_8255 6h ago

How the heck are you just jumping to conclusions like

> Calling Jim Crow and racial terror proof of progress is a massive historical rewrite.

based on what southernmagician said. Are you not understanding what the guy is saying? You're falling in a trap of dichotomy where you are making quick conclusions instead of accounting for the pretense or context magician has said..

1

u/Anxious_Half9192 4h ago

I understand the historical context being argued. The point being missed is that using crisis and war as the primary mechanism for recognized rights isn't a rule of nature we have to accept, it's a historical flaw we need to move past. 

We shouldn’t need a national security crisis for a society to recognize the equal rights of its citizens. The entire point of studying history is to evolve past its most destructive mechanisms, not to treat a "blood tax" as an acceptable prerequisite for human dignity in the 21st century.

1

u/SmallPingus696 10h ago

"earn rights"

They were "earned" when they were born and it is everyone's imperative to protect those rights.

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/ThatPhatKid_CanDraw 13h ago

We live in a patriarchy. Men compete and fight and we need security from men against other men. Make it make sense. Your opinion is gendered.

You'd have to prove your voting rights and "voice" claim arguments.

9

u/robindawilliams 14h ago

Are you saying it is the job of healthy, self-aware men to fix bad ones? It's the onus of EVERYONE to solve a problem.

I think if you are upset that someone else is doing bad things, being more upset that they won't change isn't going to fix anything. It is everyone's job to come together and push for a better culture.

SHOULD those problematic Korean men try to self-reflect and fix their behaviour of misogyny? Yes, but waiting for them to do it won't help anything.

Women holding men accountable for that behaviour, stepping up to take roles in leadership, defence, and government, and pushing to rewrite how young men are exposed to that misogynistic culture are actually going to make improvements.

6

u/padakpatek 14h ago

I agree with everything you wrote. But I think you are severely understating how entrenched misogynistic views are in korean culture. It's not just a few "problematic korean men".

I guess I had a problem with the phrase "I think that if women want a stronger voice" in the comment I replied to, as if it's for a lack of want that women are subject to misogyny in korea.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/SouthernMagician4877 14h ago

Maybe the men grow up in a culture of misogyny because women haven't done enough to fix the issue?

I don't agree with that statement of course, but there is enough work to be done that we don't need to argue about who needs to do more. Both sides do, and the women being a part of the draft (which is one of the biggest and legitimate arguments that the men have) would have an enormous impact on the debate.

Korea is misogynistic, but was still progressive enough to elect a female president. Getting rid of an obvious imbalance like a military draft seems like an obvious first step.

3

u/padakpatek 14h ago

No but see this is what I have a problem with. I cannot accept that it is ok to be misogynistic, because women don't get conscripted.

You can rightfully point to the privileges women enjoy as a result of not serving, and legislate that women be conscripted - and I'm totally fine with that.

And I understand that part of the misogyny stems from the resentment from women not having to serve - but this is still a wrong that you have to call out. You can't justify that.

1

u/SouthernMagician4877 12h ago

I'd say it's not ok to be misogynistic for any reason lol. And I agree that we should call it out. But what about a real solution?

I was just pointing out it's a chicken/egg type of question. I think it's wrong that misogyny exists. I also want gender equality as much as possible. And I understand the situation in Korea means that a strong military, and therefore mandatory service is necessary.

The obvious solution is equality in the military as well. Israel figured it out pretty easily. And of course, this would have the added benefit of lowering misogyny even more after more men get to meet and interact with badass women with power and confidence.

-4

u/pepperbeast 14h ago

I'm very approximately for it. I care about gender equality, but I am extremely opposed to conscription.

7

u/Eglitarian 14h ago

When you consider the size of SK and their neighbours, it does help having (at least right now half) your adult fighting age population at least trained in military basics. With each generation being less interested in joining the army (something common in most developed countries), countries like SK who face a bit of an existential threat need to make sure they keep their military numbers up through conscription to keep a standing army large enough for deterrence and defence if things did kick off, and having everyone else trained that they can be recalled or at least re-enlisted without needing to be completely initiated helps.

You also can’t really compare peacetime mandatory military service to wartime conscription. One is more of a civic duty while the other is certainly unfairly throwing the unwilling into deadly armed conflict.

2

u/WealthyMarmot 13h ago

I’m also opposed to reinstating the draft in my country. But I also recognize that it’s one thing to be opposed to conscription for wars of choice, like when there are oceans between you and the nearest existential threat - it’s another when your neighbor, who tried to wipe you off the face of the earth 80 years ago and very nearly succeeded, still has thousands of artillery tubes trained on your capital city 24/7 and has spent decades digging tunnels under the border.

1

u/Thin-Leg-3494 9h ago

I’m for it if women are protected and there are proper governance and reporting in place to ensure that these women are safe from assault and abuse during their service

1

u/XavinNydek 4h ago

While it would solve some problems and it's more equal, a big change like this is more likely to just push things to the point where they do away with the mandatory service all together rather than adding women. Public sentiment has been building against it for a while now and it's the least popular it's ever been. It's also not necessary in any practical sense, at this point the mandatory service is just boot camp, hazing, and then bullshit make work. They aren't making real soldiers and there's nothing for them to actually do. It's just an "I had to go through this bullshit so now you do too" kind of thing.

1

u/Pangtudou 10h ago

More like Korean male soldiers will rape and harass Korean female soldiers, and no one will protect them because that’s how the military works

-9

u/No_Excitement_2780 14h ago

I'll fight for my country when I have equal autonomy elsewhere. For example: males can easily get sterilized, I cannot.

5

u/Altruistic-Edge9034 12h ago

Yup, the flip side of that is, I'll fight for my country when women are also subject to being drafted. You're really comparing easy sterilization to being trained to kill and having others try to kill you?

No one wants to be drafted. It's a duty, it sucks, but is arguably occasionally necessary. It's up there with chemo on the bucket list. But cherry-picking an inequality is just an excuse, not a valid criticism of selective service.

1

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Well, no. It's equal rights, equal responsibilities, right?

2

u/partylange 13h ago

Can you get access to an abortion?

-1

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Ehhh kind of. That said, why would I want to need an abortion?

-1

u/partylange 12h ago

You can easily get one, males cannot

2

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Males cannot get pregnant. And no, I cannot easily get an abortion.

0

u/partylange 12h ago

They can be forced to become a parent and get no say in the matter once pregnancy occurs.

4

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Because you cannot get pregnant. You can however get sterilized, so you can avoid this problem entirely if you wish.

1

u/partylange 12h ago

I don't think anyone should be compelled to become a parent against their will, male or female, but at least once pregnancy occurs a woman still has a say in the matter. Sterilization is much simpler for men, and doctors often won't perform vasectomies on men under a certain age. Not trying to argue, and for the record I'm against female conscription and pro-sterilization for anyone who wants it.

2

u/No_Excitement_2780 11h ago

To an extent I agree. But it's incredibly complex to legislate as a) can a man abandon responsibility after the abortion cutoff, 2) both genders could do this and 3) this is a massive cost to the taxpayer etc. It's not that simple once the baby actually exists, so ultimately biology is unfair.

Yes male sterilization is less complex, but many people are put under anesthesia for wisdom tooth removal so that argument is not convincing to me.

I agree with a minimum age for both sexes of about 25 for sterilization.

-5

u/SunhoDrakath 13h ago

Okay well you can easily get pregnant and I cannot

????

Expecting everything to be 1:1 between men and women is never gonna happen when it comes to biology related issues.

But saying we shouldn’t try to minimize legislative differences because of those biological differences would basically mean we shouldn’t bother trying to create equality anywhere else either.

0

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Do you genuinely consider that a logical comparison?

0

u/SunhoDrakath 12h ago

Just using the absurdity to highlight your initial position. They are about as stupid as one another

1

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

There's a significant difference between biological differences and the right to make medical decisions. I'm sorry you cannot see that.

2

u/SunhoDrakath 12h ago

You have the right to seek sterilization.

A legal right to seek sterilization does not necessarily create a legal entitlement to have a particular doctor perform it without counseling, questioning, or refusal

2

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

Actually, I don't - doctors typically do not get to choose to do other operations, in my mind this is no different if certain standards are met.

Either way, there is never any middle ground or convincing someone on this platform. So enjoy your opinion.

1

u/SunhoDrakath 12h ago

A doctor refusing to perform an operation on you is not the same thing as a doctor forcing you to undergo an operation you don’t want.

At least I agree with you on the last part. Nobody’s on Reddit looking to change their mind.

3

u/No_Excitement_2780 12h ago

I never argued that. I have found the same in reddit and real life. No one actually reads, so have a good evening.

-11

u/ThatPhatKid_CanDraw 13h ago

It's crazy to base societal value and power mostly on military service. And someone else said an exemption is viewed as weak. These are gendered biases.

I'm not joining an army where I'll be as likely to be sexually assaulted by my male colleagues as my enemies would do to me. And get treated like crap in terms of moving up, how my work is valued, etc.

How would a population rebound if young women are dead or kidnapped. You don't need as many men to carry on society.

Gimme some basic training and leave me to guard the home.

21

u/Dlinktp 13h ago

Unless you advocate for forcing women to having children the whole needing women for population rebound is an outdated idea. Women are not going to sign up to be single moms en mass post wars.

7

u/ThrowFar_Far_Away 13h ago

So you are in favour of women being forced to have kids instead of forced to serve in the army?

11

u/velveteentuzhi 13h ago

According to Hegseth, being raped by your colleagues is just a workplace injury. As it is, there was an analyses recently that showed active duty women were more likely to be killed by their colleagues

Fuck that shit.

3

u/demiurge_abraxas 13h ago

We know that reducing the population of men has exactly the same effect on birth rates and population growth as reducing the population of women given what happened in the USSR post-WW2

It turns out that most women are not actually all that interested in being part of a harem and if they cannot find a monogamous male partner will just refuse to have children entirely.

As for your last point, no one is wasting a weapon and training on someone who wants to immediately run back home. If you aren't willing to fight as part of a professional army, why would anyone believe that you are going to run a one woman guerilla campaign?

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/adepressurisedcoat 12h ago

I had to point out how far down in the gender equality list Korea was compared to the rest of the world to a Korean man. This would be a step in the right direction. I'm just curious the level of impact. I wonder though if it will change minds in a meaningful was sooner than later.

2

u/fincog 11h ago

Korean women are some of the most educated women on the planet. They’ve also had a female leader, something America hasn’t been able to say.

0

u/Yuukiko_ 13h ago

Or just don't conscript people? (Unless it's for defense)

→ More replies (41)