This is *such* a basic question, but… what does the title of this section refer to?
Although the first half did have a lot of history of mistreated and marginalized women (most horrifically the “comfort women,” but also the factory girls in the 1970s, who reminded me of the girls in the mills of Lowell in the 19th century), it seems like the big story of this section is women coalescing into an organized women’s rights movement (albeit one organized around revenge/using some questionable means). But the title makes it sound like this section is going to be about girls disappearing.
Finally caught up and am working through the section for this coming week.
I have to say: this is a fairly depressing book so far.
The Korean male culture on display here is very bad, and at best the female culture discussed is focused on protecting each other and fighting back (at worse, it's focused on getting even through their own version of bad behavior.)
I'm hoping we eventually get around to some sort of positive vision of a culture worth living in, but maybe that's just not the focus of the book.
I was thinking about the worldview differences again this week--notably, the in-built honor/shame culture that Confucianism has fostered in South Korea for centuries. Vestiges of that mindset would explain what seems so surprising to us--e.g., the point Patrick brought up about the traditionalists' opposition to criminalizing domestic violence. It's incurring shame and dishonor for the family to air this out in public!
Except by the time something like that is criminalized, it is a sign also that the previous honor/shame culture is not working anymore to enforce public/private morals. And that does raise the question of whose responsibility it is at that point to protect the vulnerable, and what even qualifies as the line beyond which someone does have to step in.
Really, all of this is a reminder that a purely legalistic approach doesn't work to change societal values. It may punish bad behavior and may encourage better action (or may encourage hiding bad behavior instead of flaunting it), but it cannot change how people actually think of other people. And I think that this last element--how people really think of other people--is the most important one in bringing about genuine change.
This is *such* a basic question, but… what does the title of this section refer to?
Although the first half did have a lot of history of mistreated and marginalized women (most horrifically the “comfort women,” but also the factory girls in the 1970s, who reminded me of the girls in the mills of Lowell in the 19th century), it seems like the big story of this section is women coalescing into an organized women’s rights movement (albeit one organized around revenge/using some questionable means). But the title makes it sound like this section is going to be about girls disappearing.
I feel like I missed something!
I agree with this!
Well, at least it wasn't super obvious to everyone else. But I'm still curious what the answer is!
Finally caught up and am working through the section for this coming week.
I have to say: this is a fairly depressing book so far.
The Korean male culture on display here is very bad, and at best the female culture discussed is focused on protecting each other and fighting back (at worse, it's focused on getting even through their own version of bad behavior.)
I'm hoping we eventually get around to some sort of positive vision of a culture worth living in, but maybe that's just not the focus of the book.
Yes, as a Christian I believe there’s a path out but I have no idea what it could be
I was thinking about the worldview differences again this week--notably, the in-built honor/shame culture that Confucianism has fostered in South Korea for centuries. Vestiges of that mindset would explain what seems so surprising to us--e.g., the point Patrick brought up about the traditionalists' opposition to criminalizing domestic violence. It's incurring shame and dishonor for the family to air this out in public!
Except by the time something like that is criminalized, it is a sign also that the previous honor/shame culture is not working anymore to enforce public/private morals. And that does raise the question of whose responsibility it is at that point to protect the vulnerable, and what even qualifies as the line beyond which someone does have to step in.
Really, all of this is a reminder that a purely legalistic approach doesn't work to change societal values. It may punish bad behavior and may encourage better action (or may encourage hiding bad behavior instead of flaunting it), but it cannot change how people actually think of other people. And I think that this last element--how people really think of other people--is the most important one in bringing about genuine change.