Should K-pop band BTS be exempted from military duty? South Korea to decide

Well, if Elvis Presley had to serve his time in the military, they can too, IMO.

but the thing is some people such as top athletes who won Olympic gold or won in the Asian Games are given exemption becasue that is their way to contribute for the country. BTS has strengthened a cultural wave called hallyu which has skyrocketed Korea to one of the most popular tourist destinations and contributed to the GDP annually by around 3-5 billion dollars so there’s the debate that if a random average football player who never even becomes globally known and wins the Asian Games as a substitute without ever playing a minute and gets exemption, shouldn’t people who contribute more to the country more than pretty much anyone else also be allowed? If BTS serves in the military it’s a huge loss in GDP for Korea.

Time for the woman, whom are EQUAL to the MEN (as I have been told my the legacy media/politicians/etc), to also SERVE their time.

I was surprised you didn’t argue for ”women aren’t capable of serving in the military” as that’s usually the conservative stance. Or was this a sarcastic take?

Now, I have NEVER heard any conservative or anyone else for that matter say women are not capable of serving in the military.  Surely they are capable.  But should they?  Working within the military, sure.  On the front lines or in combat.  No.

this is kinda what I mean. But some females are physically more fit than some men. I really don’t have a strong opinion here tho but I would tilt towards not having military mandatory for females, since I agree males are in general physically more capable and and more urgently required. Also, women have higher pay in the militaty so it’s more cost efficient to have more men in the military.

And on top of that, women already get left behind in their career progress when they get pregnant and on maternity leave so having to waste another 1-2 years in the military would be too much. And it’s a problem since Korea is such a hyper capitalistic country that businesses refuse to hire women in the age when they are about to have a family, leading to women choosing to not have a family as they would get dropped and fall of from their career, being another reason for the alarming birth rate in Korea.

Of course some buff lady might be more capable physically than some tiny guy.  But those are outliers and not at all common.  So making rules based on that is senseless and harmful.

I know, which is why I would tilt towards it being more effective to not have it mandatory for females but let them join if they want to, as these are often the more capable ones.

You can serve without being in a combat role (support, logistics, communications, etc.)

If they are fit enough for combat roles, then they should.

I mean I wouldn’t go crazy if military was made mandatory for females but I would still say no for a couple reasons.

1) are there enough supplies and gear to equip? If it was made mandatory for females, that would mean the staff and equipment should be pretty much doubled which would cost a lot.

2) Female soldiers have higher military pay because of their need of hygiene products. That means the military would also have to more than double their budget for the soldiers, only to get a shit load of more logistics etc personnel? Not very handy since there are way fewer spots open for them than normal combatants.

3) it would be a huge setback for women in society, as I explained earlier. Women already struggle with progressing their careers because of how hyper capitalistic the society is and especially in chaebol companies where profit and revenue is the most important, kinda similar to the theory of Milton Friedman. A woman can’t afford to get pregnant or she will get rolled over during her absence, so having them to serve for 2 years to slower their career progress evenn more could have catastrophical consequences, as Korea already has an alarming low birth rate because women simply don’t want to have families because they will fall off their career path then.

So in conclusion, I think that would be a bad move before Korea fixes their economic situation and the societal structure which still today is in favor of men.

@Vknid

I think every woman should have the right to choose what to prioritize. And there should be nothing that blocks her chance to reach the top. Companies not hiring women close to the age of starting a family is just messed up and straight up oppressive. Why can’t a woman have a family and a successful career path? There are many examples proving that to be completely possible, yet in Korea in certain companies they discriminate women. If the wife has a better education than the husband thus a better chance of a better work, why should she throw away her career and live in a poorer family? And you would probably answer here that family is more important so that sacrifice must be made, which brings me back to the point that it’s fucked up how women have to give up on something to start a family in the society.

My point is simply that the society discourages women to start families and it shouldn’t be that way. And the oppression of society towards women is seen in a grim way. Korea has the lowest birth rate in the world and a very high age for marriage and having a child.

You can have both but you can only devote yourself to one thing.  Only one thing can be your priority.

Exactly. But this becomes a struggle when companies won’t hire you because you might get pregnant. This is a clear case of male privilege in Korea and a reason why Korea, as advanced and modern as they are as a country, are ranked 102nd in gender equality index.

From a logical point of view the BTS members should serve.

With respect to women serving, in countries where feminism has pushed for equality: yes they should. Feminists wanted “equality” so let females and indeed all members of the LGBTQ+-%<> community be eligible for placement on the frontline to take bullets up their wazoo just like Men.

No picking and choosing here.