South Korea’s Draft Dodging Female President Tries To Play War Using Male-Only Conscripts

According to some analysts, North and South Korea are this week closer to real war than almost any other time since 1953. American troops stationed in the South, who number more than most countries’ entire militaries, have been mobilized locally after North Korea declared a “quasi-state of war”. The two Koreas have technically been at war for 65 years, having only ever signed a truce, not a peace treaty. Yet recent developments are creating real concern in Seoul, Washington and elsewhere, especially with artillery being fired by both sides.

Seeking to bolster her “leadership credentials,” President Park Geun-hye has appeared on television with senior military commanders, dressed in combat fatigues. As the privileged daughter of South Korea’s influential dictator, General Park Chung-hee, Park owes so much to her illustrious family name. Quainter still is the image of a woman trying to command a formidable martial force of more than half a million active soldiers, the backbone of which depends on male-only conscripts.

I have a personal attachment to South Korea and aside from my countrywomen, Germans and Poles, Korean is the most common nationality of the girls I have been with. The West undoubtedly has so much to learn from the more culturally proud and sophisticated East Asian nations and it is regrettable that feminism has allowed Park Geun-hye to ever walk the corridors of power when those corridors wholly depend on male martial sacrifice.

Meet the world’s most powerful draft dodger

It’s funny how they call her South Korea’s first female President and not its first draft dodger.

President Park dodged the draft, not because of any unmet legal requirements, but because she is female. No woman is compelled to serve in the South Korean military, nor were women forced to in Park’s youth. The irony of this is truly staggering. With a nuclear-armed state led by Kim Jong-un above the 38th parallel, South Koreans (and their female President) generally sleep peacefully because their brothers, sons, and boyfriends are on watch for them.

I am not advocating for compulsory military qualifications in order to be a head of state or government. What I am arguing for, by contrast, is common sense. If all men of Park’s generation were required to serve and women were not, no female of that age cohort should be allowed to ever lead South Korea or run for public office. They have absolutely zero knowledge of what it means to involuntarily serve and defend their country in a manner that millions of others, all men, do.

By chance (or good fortune, depending on your perspective), some generations in different countries will never be forcibly enlisted to serve their country, let alone fight in a conflict zone. Elevation to the highest offices is acceptable if you either did the duty foisted on all able-bodied members of an entire gender or generation, or if your age group was not one of those made to serve. Obvious exceptions or grey areas, like severe disability or the partial US Vietnam War draft, would exist, but they would be few and far between.

Feminists only recognize “gender differences” arguments where such differences benefit women

I bet Obama congratulated Park on being a “gender warrior” for women’s progress. Try to suppress your laughter as you note the irony.

From South Korea to the East Coast of America, and truly everywhere beyond, feminists are hard at work arguing for “equality” as they simultaneously handpick those areas they want privileges in. The purported “misogyny” of East Asian cultures (or Asian cultures in general) is seen around the world as an impediment to “women’s progress.”

Meanwhile, South Korean and other women enjoy the privileges attached to not being conscripted. There is no interruption to their work life and schooling, and they get the additional benefits of a flurry of measures to encourage “female participation” in multiple workplace and other arenas.

Their male relatives and friends are paid about US$100 per month for the rigors of a brutal “tutelage” in the art (and science) of war. Though necessary to acclimatize these young men to what would be an intensely savage showdown with the perpetually militarized North, it undermines any idea that women get the short end of the straw in South Korean society. The responsibilities are all on South Korean men, as is the increasing Western-style guilt for their role in creating the “patriarchy” that supposedly oppresses their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters and daughters.

Some who commented on a previous conscription article of mine about Finland tended to assume I want women conscripted. Like then, however, my purpose now is to identify the inherent hypocrisy of feminists and indeed millions of women. Intensive civilian service is a definite option for women to get off their backsides and assist their country. But the first task is locating the double standards and juxtaposing them with the fake rhetoric of feminism.

Check your privilege, Park Geun-hye

No woman should be allowed to seek public office in South Korea without two years of full-time, laborious service for their country.

When she was elected, Park Geun-hye promised a “zero-tolerance” approach to provocations from Pyongyang. That’s an easy statement to make when you never did any serving or fighting yourself, even as you watched every male your age march off to a barracks. Park is probably the most privileged female leader of the past half-century, and there have been many with extraordinary privilege during that time.

As much as political dynasties love to keep power in the family, I cannot help but think that General Park is turning in his grave, wondering how someone as martially unqualified as his daughter could ever be allowed to lead South Korea.

This is, after all, a nation that must constantly calculate as to whether to send its millions of sons into the inferno of battle against the world’s most bellicose regime.

Read More: The Case Is Building Against South Korean Women

49 thoughts on “South Korea’s Draft Dodging Female President Tries To Play War Using Male-Only Conscripts”

  1. How typical, the narrative continues! I’d expect no less from one of these power hungry types, especially given the nature of all those border jumping north koreans who leave their family to suffer indignities!

  2. Women don’t belong in the military either, but this is what happens when a country bases itself around a chief executive (president). Most countries with a prime minister, like South Korea, have the prime minister weld most of the power, but the president is technically the head of the military as well.
    The whole system of linking political and military leaderships is a complicated area. But a politician should not be made the commander in chief, for a man or (god for bid, though in many countries) a woman with no military training, education, or experience coupled with political agendas is devasting to militaries and geopolitics.
    Going back to my original statement, women in the military has proven itself an all around back idea. Women aren’t built, mentally or physically, for war (no matter how many women are guided and exempted into its institutions cough cough Army Rangers).

    1. A politician should not be made the commander in chief.
      Absolutely. So often nations end up with these bloodthirsty chickenhawk leaders who are quick to send men off to die on a whim (or, in this case, force the American taxpayer at gunpoint to pay for an American army to sit in the DMZ of Korea for the past 60 years, just in case it might need to fight for the Koreans).
      I remember W saying that his “favorite thing about being president was being commander in chief”. I was shocked and appalled. So your favorite thing about leading the nation, making important decisions that mold the future and affect everyones lives is deciding to kill people? Sick, sick man.

    2. The problem of having the military only obey an unelected military leader is that it creates another powerful branch of government. Situations arise where the military overrules the president and congress (such as what happens in Turkey) when laws are Democratically enacted which the military disliked.
      It also opens up a much quicker path to dictatorship by allowing ambitious unelected cabal of generals to declare martial law as has happened too many times to count world wide. This is a complicated topic.
      The problem with our current system in US is that the checks and balances created by the founders have been partially destroyed (especially by the amendment for popular election of Senators and giving voting rights to people who don’t even pay taxes), and the Supreme Court giving itself powers it wasn’t meant to have without being opposed (a handful of unelected judges having the power to overturn any law, election or plebiscite for any reason or no reason).

  3. Privileged daughters. Woman in power going to war with male-only conscripts (ie taking away the freedom of choice for men), while being “pro-choice” for women. “Patriarchy guilt”. Cutting men off at the knees and then claiming women are repressed and under-represented.
    I remember a time when this used to outrage and surprise me.

  4. I always feel that the term “women’s progress” is funny as well as questionable.When I refer to self-improvisation websites,I find that progress is something where you start from scratch,work,build and turn nothing into something.Yet looking back at some of most so-called influential women of history,I find that almost all of them don’t fit into the definition of progress.There definition starts after the hard work is done.They just occupy a position(or rather usurp) and then brag about woman power.
    At present,look at women who are leaders or occupy Forbes or Bloomberg ranks.They were able to reach that position because of a male legacy(and yeah…they are the ones who blame the patriarchy the most).
    Women don’t understand what is required to reach extremes.In fact,they lack the guts to do so.Military…the problem is with patriarchy.They won’t focus on the fact that they are physically incapable of fighting wars.IT,science….the problem is patriarchy.They won’t focus that rather than taking up some horrible course on gender studies,if they take up proper science subjects,it would ensure female employment.But in order to cover their weaknesses,they will blame but if their logic is found faulty,they will cry foul.
    All the women who tried to defame Roosh in Canada have ample opportunities to do something great.But no…they focus their energies on trying to disrupt free speech.These are the same women who host terrible things like slut walks,try to censor things on online platforms and start good-for-nothing petitions.Now give these opportunities to men.The results…entrepreneurship,athletes,pioneers of science and so on.
    Hollywood is another example.Lack of women directors or actors….patriarchy,when told to take challenging roles,they decline.
    For women like Park Geun-hye,it’s very easy to boast but give them real challenges,they will shrink away.
    The ability to take risks,ventures and challenges will always lie with men and testosterone.Inspite of all manipulation and social engineering,the truth will always be the truth.

    1. “the truth will always be the truth”
      I remember that movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley” when Jobs tells Gates after he lost the argument: Our stuff is better… to which Gates turns around and replies “It doesn’t matter”.
      See.. that’s the problem, the truth doesn’t matter anymore. Men are on their knees being butchered by the society through censorship, discrimination, and outright murder. The truth, who’s right, who’s wrong doesn’t matter anymore..
      I for one do my part.. I boycott, I speak my mind, I challenge feminism, political correctness, white knights etc. I know however that my efforts are futile. Until the great unwashed will start hurting in a insufferable manner not much will change.. And even then, I doubt. In the mean time, as the saying goes “Every man for himself” literally this time.

      1. I disagree, it does matter. You are here commenting on ROK in the manosphere community. What you say is all true save for the defeatism. Conditions suck for men, but, as the suck continues and continues to get worse this actually creates the mechanism that will eventually bring about our liberation. the left and, especially feminists, seem to be obvious to this, let it be. Because as feminism “grows” it can only do so at the expense of men, and with each incremental unit of femo-growth, if you will, another man (or scores of them) are sent to us. At this point, its only a matter of time until we go parabolic. Roosh has accelerated the process and so has Clarey. Both gained global notoriety (Roosh with Canada and dr. oz, Aaron with mad max)…this publicity has been a Godsend of free advertising for the manosphere.

    2. Progress is made when western women become subordinate to men, along with the creation of many more hierarchical structures.
      The last 200 years have been a slow regression to equalism.

      1. And a decrease on European IQ of 8 to 20 points. Equalism means not intelligence needed. Welfare mimics Africa life style where IQ is selected against.

  5. I have a feeling that son’s from elite families will not be participating if war breaks loose. They’ll be long gone before even the first battle rakes place. If i were a Korean guy in his 20’s i would be getting out of dodge as well before serious fighting starts.
    Scenarios like this really brings forth the importance of having a skillset that’s employable internationally, having money and having a second passport.

    1. I don’t have a problem with the elites being able to buy their way out of conscription as long as it is a very significant contribution to the war effort. Say on the order of 1million$. This would be vastly more useful than another grunt on the battlefield and the elites would gladly pay it in droves.

  6. Can you just imagine if a woman was in command for D-Day? Years in the planning for that fateful day and the female commander gets her period? It’ll have to be postponed for the following week I guess. Everyone would be like “WTF!!!”

  7. When shove comes to push all the feminist drivel flies out the window. The most efficient method of defence/offence is chosen and it doesn’t include females on the front-lines (as many as men)

  8. It’s such a joke, watching Naked and Afraid XL and all the women do is lay down and Gossip and complain while the Men hunt, women are scavengers not leaders, if the show were to continue indefinitely women’s abilities would become limited too using sex for survival to attach to an Alpha Male and that’s about it, the women immediately become followers and it’s obvious they expect the Men to Lead and do everything yet the women call all victories a Group and Team victory even though they lay down all day. So we all know women are followers and N&A XL beautifully portrays it, so I just don’t get why there are still Males who believe women should be Leaders and in charge of Matters of Great importance, and since women are mentally children it’s really careless and irresponsible to put them in charge and it’s something only an affluent government who is enjoying peace times can afford to experiment with, it’ll be interesting yet predictable to see how things will go with the tension between N&S Korea and how a Female leader will handle things, but Males who allow women to lead them should have known better and they get what they deserve.

    1. I guess what you can conclude is that if women do not fulfill their natural roles they become parasites of the society they live in instead. There is no way they can benefit any society outside their natural roles because no matter what job they get, all they do is take up space for a man who could do the job much better. That is why every society infected with feminism gets weaker and weaker as the parasites slowly drains its blood.

    2. Other “reality” shows like “Port Protection” and “Wicked
      Tuna: Outer Banks” also have token incompetent females.

  9. Feminists claim men benefited from women’s unpaid labor during history, yet refuse to admit women benefited from men fighting and dying in wars for them because, according to them, women fought in wars too.

    1. Remember Hillary said something to the extent that women suffered the greatest sacrifice during war because they were widowed.
      While I have pity for the people who have lost someone they love in battle, I think Hillary’s statement was an insult to the men that paid the ultimate sacrifice. To Hillary, their lives were second to the wives.

      1. I was stunned by her statement. What sheer arrogance and stupidity! Nevermind the fact that you just got blown to pieces by an IED on the side of the road, the women and children that are still alive and healthy on the other side of the world have it MUCH worse….right…

        1. ‘What sheer arrogance and stupidity!’
          I beg to differ. The real idiots are the males who support her.

  10. Same shit in Singapore.
    the women there talk so much shit and the men that are forced into serving our country is treated like crap
    and groups like AWARE always going on about how they need more special priviledge

  11. This is not an honest article. She did not “dodge” anything because no requirement was made on her to serve. Further, in her case, I would say it’s great that she didn’t go. Women do not advance the cause of the army, they retard it and make it more difficult for the men to serve.
    Saying that women should be required to serve before seeking office is also foolish. Why in the world would I want an incompetent bull dyke lesbian who hates men and only got advancement due to her pussy pass? It is well known that women in the army get to where they do because of biases in the system, they advance over better qualified men, they do a shitty job, they force men to overcompensate for them, tend to be wildly promiscuous, and they tend to have a hatred for the men they serve with.
    What’s more it shows they are in total rebellion against their men, by seeking to both supplant and undermine them, and refuse to fulfill the role for which we actually need them for.
    If anything, her serving for two years would disqualify her right from the get go.
    That being said, they are fucking idiots for electing any woman to office. This is a country under constant threat from literally every side. Their main ally (the US) is unreliable, and their neighbors are nasty and powerful.
    One more thing: she is a cunt for putting on her cute little cammies for a show. So they is plenty of contempt to go around.

    1. I beg to differ. Equal rights means equal responsibilities. Women should be drafted and put on the line of fire just like men.

    2. Remember that when you vote, you are electing a TEAM. Reagan was great but without Schultz and Weinberger and Rumfeld his administration wouldn’t have been nearly as effective.
      Parks’ name recognition kept a conservative team on the job. I think the team did a decent job of dealing with the scheduled Biannual Nork Provocation.

  12. I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the article as few western countries have had conscription, let alone a state of war, in several generations. That being said, any time conscription is activated, all elected officials’ children (both male and female) should be the first conscripted, remain in the military until the last conscript is released, AND placed in the front line with the highest casualty rates (exceptions apply to missions requiring specialized or elite troops such as navy seals and such). This way no politician can pursue war without suffering as much as the parents of those sent to fight it. To avoid a politician quitting shortly after declaring war, apply it to anyone in elected (or appointed) office as of 2 years before the start of the conflict.

    1. Thing is, they’ll pull the same old tricks. Their sons and daughters would suddenly go into jobs that are deemed ‘necessary’ to the nation, such as farming, health services, etc. Then they’ll never see conscription and get out of those careers once the war ends.

    2. “Politicians hide themselves away.
      They only started the war.
      Why should they go out to fight?
      They leave that role to the poor.
      Time will tell on their power minds.
      Making war just for fun.
      Treating people just like pawns in chess.
      Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah!”
      -Black Sabbath, “War Pigs”

  13. Men should dodge the army too. Only a fool would risk his life for today’s women. I’d rather side with the enemy. Let them have 100% female army.
    MEN DO NOT ENROLL IN THE ARMY!

  14. Well, if the NK’s decide to shell Seoul, men women, and children will all die in big numbers.
    I don’t pay attention to South Korean politics so I’m stunned they would elect the daughter of a brutal dictator. Park Chung-hee’s assassination was the best thing to happen to SK since the war ended.

  15. Should heads of state be ineligible to make any decisions pertaining to matters they have no personal experience of? That’s an absurd and utterly untenable position. The inevitable conclusion of such a position is that only polymaths like Leonardo da Vinci are eligible to be heads of state.
    Park is not expected nor required to command troops and direct military operations. That’s what generals are for, and generals will do, in the (extremely remote) event of an actual war. As for the actual cost of war in terms of suffering, death and destruction, being the head of state, she has access to all possible expert advice on that. Much more than some random conscripted dude who’s serving as a grunt on the ground.

    1. I disagree. If you are going to be in charge of the military, you need to have a good understanding of how it functions. You are making life and death and the fate of your country decisions for the armies to protect your people.
      Generals would say they need thicker armor for their tanks, but she may think that having potpourri bowl the bathrooms come first.

      1. I’m starting to think that for the USA at least, since we’re pretty much the de facto world police force, this should be a requirement.

      2. No, you don’t need to know how it functions. You don’t need to know the details of how it gets shit done. What you need to know are the limits of its capabilities, and the implications and consequences different military actions can be expected to have. You need to know what it can’t do, and what price your country will pay for having it do what it can do.
        Besides, no such expertise you’re calling for can be had simply by having been a conscripted grunt for a while. Only high-level generals and general staffers could be the president, under your qualification. Heinlein, is that you?

    2. Civilian politicians are supposed to lay out objectives to the military leadership. The Generals are supposed to turn those objectives into strategies and see them carried out.
      It is usually disastrous when civilian leadership gets too involved with battlefield decisions. Hitler’s bumblings are exhibit one.

      1. I agree. Now, is there any indication that President Park has any intention of micromanaging the military Hitler-style?

        1. I have no idea. Hopefully wearing the uniform is just stupid political posturing and she isn’t going to start ordering units around.

  16. I’m torn on this article. While it is well written, I can’t help but think of thatcher. It is hard to imagine another UK leader of her generation not giving up on the Falklands or staring down the Warsaw Pact.

    1. Margaret Thatcher was truly one of the few exceptions to this idea. On top of this, she never presented herself as something she wasn’t, that is, a military leader who would have worked her way up through the ranks.

    2. Yes, to be fair Park Geun-Hye is a rightist, and is almost good enough to qualify as an ethnic nationalist.
      The real problem in South Korea are the liberal elements picking up on American issues, and transplanting them into a non-Western country.

      1. My year here in Korea has seen the same appalling problem – every dumb idea in the West gets picked up here. From recycling to “green energy,” the dumber the better because it’s so cool!
        I’d add Golda Muir to Baron Thatcher as good women leaders.
        That said, get two martinis in me in a dim bar and I’d hit on Ms. Parks.

    3. Thatcher had the Falkland garrison reduced to a handful of men.
      Argentina attacked after troops were ordered back to Britain by Thatcher.

      1. To be fair, it was the height of the Cold War and they had their eyes on a much larger threat. A garrison twice as big would have meant twice as many British POWs.
        Won’t happen again because the Argentinians decided to elect Socialists and destroy their economy.

  17. Any nation with a women president is doomed. The fact is men did all the heavey lifting to build this cushy world from a hard asture world and now that it is the way it is times need to change. But when it was time to chop logs all day then fight some Indians or pagans. The women had no problem taking the backseat, but now we have cars and airplanes and a males only use is to be conscripted to die becuase everything else is built to benifit females, schools, desk jobs. while males are regulated to a low paying blue collar job the chickens will come home to roost. You’ve got a women in charge and a crazy guy I’m predicting total war in Korea.

  18. Oh, they’ll find a way to use women in the military to boost morale. Look what Japan did! Made the women PROSTITUTES! 😛 What were they called again, ah yes, “Comfort Women.” Small price to pay. You never hold a gun you just suck a d*ck! 🙂

  19. I’ve long thought that giving women the franchise was a bad idea on the whole. My family members give me grief for even mentioning that BTW.
    Perhaps we should re-read “Starship Troopers” by Robert Heinlein for a cogent fictional argument for only allowing those who have served the state and put themselves at risk by doing so to select its leaders.
    I hate to see the new push for universal franchise and mandatory voter registration being mentioned by the Left today. My daughter-in-law is all hot to commemorate Jimmy Carter’s legacy by enacting that. Just another way to increase Democratic Party power.

  20. This applies to all politicians though. Obama and Donald Trump never served in the military and have no clue what it means to be in combat – and yet both of them have ridiculous die-hard supporters. Well-to-do cushy millionaires can’t relate to people who sleep, live, and fight in the trenches.

  21. Compare this to Kurdish women who have to take up arms, not because some ideology, but because either they will end up as sex slaves to Al Baghdadi or one of his ISIS acolytes, or beheaded.

  22. I’m a big fan of women’s contribution to the war effort, most notably in WW1 & 2. Indeed, a big part of the Allies’ success was the fact that millions of women got their fingers dirty building the planes, tanks and ships that ensured our boys came home safe. Even privileged rich women got their hands dirty, opening their manor houses as hospitals and refuges for city children. Conversely, the Axis’ homefront was notable for utilizing slave labor, while their women sat comfortably on their asses.. right up until they were blown to hell by bombs made by their sisters on the other side.
    That said, we must remember that not a single woman was ever conscripted into the war effort.. it was entirely 100% voluntary. Not one of them ever received a white feather, or cooled her heals in prison for choosing to sit on her privileged ass, which millions did. And therein lies the difference between the contribution of men and women to war effort: One is mandatory, the other not so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *