Tag Archives: policy

A Letter- to my future child

15 Dec

My dearest child (who is yet to be conceived and born),

I woke up to horrible news that happened on the other side of the world, the part that I used to reside for a while. I hoped that it was just a heinous story that was made up by those sensational journalists who are fretting over the potential of their job losses. But no, the tragedy in Connecticut, whether I wanted to believe or not, happened, killing, wounding, shocking and permanently damaging dozens of people, including 20 innocent children who died in extreme fear.

My facebook updates (if this will still exist in your times, I’m not sure) were filled with those who are equally horrified as I was. Those who are parents, those who pray to God, those who criticize the lack of gun control in the country, and those who criticize lack of mental health policy, etc. etc.

I couldn’t help but thinking that many of us who talk about all these policy talks on gun control (both  pro and con) and mental health policies (“it’s not the gun control idiots, it’s the mental health policy, yada yada yada”), though important, are missing the point. Even as a previous policy students, I still see many things with my cultural anthropologist’s eyes. And at the end of the day, we must mourn for the culture of violence that we as humans -well, as adults- have constantly built up and masochistically enjoyed, NOT for the lack of list of regulations written on the rule books. And because of that, I greatly fear to bring you to this world, the world I have grown to detest for its gruesome reality and lack of humanity.

When I started to live in the US, a country that I spent my formative years, one thing that my family feared the most for me was the (perceived) prevalence of violence, you know, the kind that you see in Hollywood movies, easy access to firearms, racial bigotry/hatred and all the fear due to the unknown potential of being violated.

Many years later, I see no improvement, and I witnessed that certain things are even worse than Hollywood films. Some of the worst shooting incidents happened over the past several years, at universities, at a place of worship, at shopping malls and just a few hours back, at a school. Many lives, who could have contributed to making this world a more vibrant, perhaps a better place, were taken away. Such violence took away the innocence and hope, the faith that human beings can be “good,” from many of us.

I fear that I’m gonna leave you a world that believes that policy machines, systems and politics can fix such problems while certain policies are formed by those who are funded by interest groups who make profits by contributing to violence. Although I spent 2 years studying public policy, my conclusion is that policy alone is not enough. I’m often angered that those politicians endlessly debate on “the greater policy implications” and “procedures,” because meanwhile, the real narratives and dialogues that must happen -to heal, to change the culture and to bring changes- will get lost and be deliberately forgotten until another shooting incident, another rape, or another tragedy somewhere happens, which brings everything back to the policy cycle ground zero.

I fear everyday for my personal security, whether from the tangibility of the violence that may be imposed upon me -let it be the danger of war, mugging, sexual violence, pop culture’s bombardment of “ideal female images” which often make me feel ugly and powerless- or from the deep sense of inner insecurity that are caused by such potential violence.

I fear because I see many broken systems that don’t seek cure, healing and greater societal effort for holistic approach, but rather seek only endless nit-picking arguments, blaming, hatred-filled speeches, ugly politics that we have lost our faith in, and endless hurting of each other. We hide ourselves behind policy jargon and aggressive facade, while the media gradually fade the narratives away, chasing the next big thing.

I fear that violence everywhere will not cease to happen while girls are violated because they want to go to school, ethnic minorities do not have claims to live in certain countries, people get discriminated for whom they love, girls starve themselves because the society tells them that they are not beautiful enough unless they’re skinny, countries and groups go to wars in the name of peace and religion, violence is considered “real man’s nature,” destruction of nature is going on in the name of “development and progress” and the list can go on.

I fear that I’m gonna leave you and your generation the world in a worse shape where there’s no place for dialogues, justice, hope and healing.

As an adult, I feel that I’m gravely responsible for such tragic state of things. I have been busy blaming others, while I’m one of the guilty ones. I have consumed such violence that are flashed everywhere, but often failed to see the injustice and pain. I decided to look away even when I saw painful signs of social wrong, thinking, “Hey, I’m just a kid,” while in fact, I’m not. The culture of indifference which ignored to care about the others ultimately causes such culture of violence.

I’m not a parent yet, but one day I may become one, to you. I may not even understand a fraction of the pain of the parents who lost their children in this very incident. But I promise you today that I own up to the responsibility as a grownup, as a human being. I promise you that I will do my responsibility as a citizen. I won’t just stop at the state of being outraged and upset. I will continue to be vigilant, discuss and stay alert so that one day, I will be able to tell you that the world is indeed a better place than it used to be when I was in my teens and twenties.

I can’t be bulletproof to protect you from all the harms, but this much I promise you.

 

Advertisements

Day 28: Elections Are Here- Korean Politics and Women

15 Mar

It’s about election time in Korea. It will be held on April 11th, and the hopeful congress-men and women candidates are running around like mad chickens. One thing that the Korean media focused was the fact that the heads of the two major parties –Saenuri Party (conservative- formerly known as the Grand National Party) and Democratic United Party— and one minority party (United Progressive Party- I directly translated, and I’m not sure about their English name) are all women.

For Saenuri, the head is Park Geun-Hye. She is the daughter of a former president Park Chung-hee, who is known as a “benevolent dictator” who held his power for 19 years until he was assassinated. Han Myung-Sook leads Democratic United Party, and she was deeply involved in women’s activism, although not many people seem to know about this. She was also a prime minister for a few years. Lee Jung-hee is a former lawyer who graduated from an elite school yet she has always been with the non-profit law and labor activism. I read an article somewhere that when she was in undergrad, she took a class by Han and was motivated by the feminist education.

So doesn’t Korean politics look more or less over with this gender inequality stuff, no?

But in reality, only 6% of Saenuri’s candidates and 11% of DUP are currently women, and the actual politicians who are at the National Assembly participating actively in policy and law making are even fewer. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, only 44 out of 299 seats in the National Assembly were taken by women, and South Korea ranked 87th out of 143 ranks (there were more than 150 countries while some where ranked the same). This is even below North Korea, although they certainly have a very different system than the rest of the world. This is below the world average of 19.7% and Asian average of 18.3%.

There is certainly a long way to go for South Korea’s political scene to be more inclusive of women. We need more women in the National Assembly, because we need more policies and laws to accommodate the needs of every citizen of the country, not just half of its population (male population, to be specific). I would like to believe that policies and laws are meant to provide social frameworks that guarantee better democracy and human rights for everyone. I can’t imagine people who are not necessarily in need of maternity leave even thinking about the necessity of such laws or making a comprehensive, user-friendly policy. I’m not saying that men are not capable of making women-friendly policies and laws, but they are often hindered by male biases, not capable of seeing the other half’s needs.

I honestly don’t know what lies ahead of Korean politics this year, as there are elections for the president as well at the end of the year. But I hope that there would be more women in the National Assembly, speaking up for those who have been muted for long, whether they are policies on women or others who have been disempowered systematically within the society.

Day 26: The Power of Listening- Kony2012, Development and “the Other” Voices

11 Mar

As a feminist and a hopeful future scholar from the developed part of the world, I always have to deal with a guilt-ridden question that I don’t necessarily have the answer for. “So what gives me the right to talk about ‘the other’s’ story with so much self-righteousness?” After all, this is why I have lots of problems with Nicholas Kristof and his stories, and maybe as a privileged woman, I probably do not have any right to talk about “the other’s” stories, however I am heartbroken and angry about them. It is obvious that I am always (unconsciously and unfortunately) likely to have the “first-world” bias, because I am a product of such education.

What I can do the best for now, until I do get to understand the uncanny boundaries between truly understanding and mistakenly knowledgeable, is listening and learning from those who do speak out. Some do not speak as loud, and others may not speak the same language. But it is my job to develop the ear through constant learning, instead of just being frustrated with more Kristofs who are out there, trying to fix the world with their assertiveness in their own ways. It is not my job to change their perspectives, but to develop my own perspectives from the alternative voices which are way more powerful (Yes, I have been reading Thich Nhat Hanh a bit).

So this time, maybe I won’t speak so much about my opinion on the current debates on Kony 2012, which initially bugged me quite a bit. I will just leave you with a very passionate, intelligent (yes, one can be both) statement from a Ugandan journalist, Rosebell Kagumire, who has written extensively on women’s war experiences in Uganda, South Sudan and DR Congo. There is nothing more powerful than peace and conflict stories told by a woman who is in the midst of them and tries to generate a powerful voice.

I think we need to have a kind of sound, intelligent campaigns that gear towards real policy shifts rather than a very sensationalized story that is out to make […] just one person cry and at the end of the day, we forget about it. I think it’s all about trying to make a difference, but how do you tell the story about Africans is much more important than what the story is, actually. Because if you are showing me as voiceless, as hopeless… you have no space in telling my story. You shouldn’t be telling my story, if you don’t believe that I also have the power to change what is going on. And this video seems to say that the power lies in America, and it does not lie with my government, it does not lie with local initiatives on the ground. That aspect is lacking and this is the problem. It is furthering that narrative about Africans totally unable to help themselves, and needing outside help all the time.

Day 21: A Jerk Like You, Rush

5 Mar

It was not a surprise when Rush Limbaugh, a controversial Republican radio host (who does more harm to Republican’s reputation than good, in my opinion), called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” as she advocated for extension of health insurance coverage for contraception before the US Congress. He also said that she should post her sex tapes online because she is a “prostitute,” to his eyes at least. Apparently, he went on continuously for a few days, only to make a very hesitant apology just so that he can keep his advertisers from pulling out. You and I know it very well that he didn’t have any sentiment of apologies, and I am rather disgusted by his so-called “sincere apology.”

His comments were not a surprise to me because he has been very good at making hate speeches against women, and there was no way that he was going to avoid insulting about this smart, courageous woman making a case before the Congress of the United States. He is an extremely insecure asshole who has built up his popularity by making uninformed, controversial speeches which can excite misogynist sentiments around the country. He cannot shut up for 3 hours a day, 5 times a week, because he has so much hatred against the world, and he knows that there are lots of horny, unsatisfied dogs like himself all over the country.

Tell me, people, since when did a woman become a public whore by making political statements? And if she was invited by the Congress of the United States of America to present a cause that she advocates for, isn’t she way more legitimate than a radio show host who rambles on about nothing useful? Is free speech available only for jerks like himself but not for smart women?

Does Rush Limbaugh truly understand what contraception means? Sure, as he says, there might be some people would abuse the privilege of health insurance covering birth control means, but these would be unfortunate consequences that would only be a very small part of it. I can only speak from a woman’s standpoint here with my example. I had to take birth control pills for about 4 years of my life until very recently because of my irregular periods with lots of pain and ovarian cists that have continuously existed. If you are a woman, you probably understand how painful it is to spend a week in misery. I had to constantly underperform at school and work one week out of 4 weeks a month (which is 3 months a year total), and if there was no assistance from the medicine, I can’t imagine how much worse it would have been for me. In the US, I could not afford the pills because of the extremely high cost of them. I usually got them in Korea where I can get certain kinds over the counter at pharmacies. Over the 2 years of time that I was in Singapore, the medical insurance that I had covered the price for the pills, and it was tremendously helpful that I could get them. And I reveal my personal health issues without any shame, whether Rush Limbaugh and other misogynist pigs call me a whore or not. There are thousands of other women who are in my position as well as people in other situations where they have to suffer through if they do not have monetary means to pay for them.

I really hope that Limbaugh’s arrogant “apology” would not make any difference in advertisers’ decisions to pull out. A jerk (or any other misogynist pigs, including some liberal commentators) like him does not deserve to earn any dollars as “the most listened radio talk show.”

*I apologize for my language here, if you are offended by any of the word choices.

Day 17: They [Rape Victims] Had It Coming? Stop Justifying Violence.

29 Feb

Despite the fact that facebook makes you waste a lot of time, it doesn’t matter so much to me now because I have almost too much time in my hand J. And facebook happens to be my news source where I encounter some quality articles and exchange different views with my friends. The article that I just read was posted by my friend Aarushi and published in the NYT.  It gave an excellent overview on the injustice regarding victims of sexual violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/world/asia/29iht-letter29.html?_r=2

It is talking about the “blame the victim” mentality in India in cases of sexual assaults while there are many holes in terms of policies and laws, policy makers’ views, and prejudices against women who are victims of such violence. Well, this proves that whether it is in a developed country like the US (remember my posting on Day 15 and Liz Trotta?) or a rapidly developing country like India, the victims of sexual assaults are tremendously stigmatized multiple times because of the society’s general support of violence.

Yes, I said it. Many societies support and justify violent men, because many think that that is just a part of their nature, and women just have to be careful about it (and if not, it’s considered all women’s fault, not men’s). We have to change this mentality. We need to nurture our society so that the violent “nature” does not prevail and get justified. And no, I don’t think violence is a given nature of men, and it’s rather a product of patriarchal nurturing.

Here are several words that I want to be ABSOLUTELY clear about sexual violence. Although I don’t claim to be an expert, I do believe that these are some absolute facts that all men and women should be aware.

A man does not have permission to sexually assault women at any time of the day. Whether it is during the broad daylight or 2:30am, no one has any right to impose such violence against women. At 2:30am, she might be coming back from work which supports her family, and don’t you ever blame her for being outside when it is so late. The fact that a woman is out late doesn’t give anyone the right to rape her.

It is a rape if you try to have sex with your girlfriend/wife/partner when she has clearly said no. The fact that you feel entitled to have sexual intercourse with your significant other doesn’t mean that you always have free pass to do so. That makes it an unequal relationship, and that is not healthy. Without mutual agreement, it is called spousal/date rape, and yes, you become a rapist without her consent.

A man does not have permission to have unwanted physical contact with women no matter what she is wearing. The standard for “revealing outfits” varies from country to country, and what one wears does not automatically invite you for any unpleasant contact or sexual assault. It is easy to blame women who wear “revealing” clothes, but a decent, normal man would not even think of such gross acts whatever he sees while rapists probably won’t even care what women wear (sadly true).

It is sexual assault if you try to have sex with a woman who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs (which might have been taken against her will), because her ability to make reasonable decisions for herself is impaired (and same to you). FYI, big NO to date rape drugs that some men slip into women’s drinks and spike them up. You have to walk away.

It is a rape if you have sex with children who are in brothels. In many countries, girls are often trafficked, because there are families who are too poor and do not value girls and because there are many men who want to have sex with them very cheaply.

Of course, there are many grey areas when it comes to sexual assault, and that is precisely the reason why many women are at disadvantage in current legal systems. And I do not mean to victimize all women, especially the survivors of sexual assaults, but at the same time, the systematic injustice is precisely the reason why many of VAW cases are not reported and still considered “something that should be taken care of between the two people.” Well, the physical strength tends to take care of the business all the time. And in India’s case in the article above, the people who are making policies and laws are oblivious about what is considered violence against women. Maybe we should just invent a program that can educate these old top dogs and implant chips in all of their heads. Such ignorance on sexual violence/VAW is a social disease that should be cared as soon as possible.

Day 5: Why South Koreans Won’t Have Kids- And Why Policy Cannot Solve the Low Fertility Issue (part 2)

16 Feb

In the last post, I said that the overarching policy frameworks are mainly patriarchal, and that is what is preventing the formation of long-term policies. And the specific problems that I can think of (or heard of) are below.

First of all, in my opinion, Korean culture (along with others) has demanded women’s tremendous sacrifices for their families, although its women got to take various social roles outside of their homes over the past several decades. In traditional Korean household, she is the one who takes care of domestic duties while the husband is the “breadwinner” who works outside, bringing income to the house. However, Korea’s economy has modernized in a very short time span, without giving people enough time to change the traditional family/social norms. Hence, even if both the husband and the wife are working, woman “naturally” has to take care of the work outside and inside household. For example, both of my parents work as teachers, and they bring similar amount of incomes to the family. However, my mother’s work doesn’t end at 5pm when she gets out of her workplace, but continues as she has to cook dinner, clean the messy house and fold laundry. When I was much younger, she breastfed me, read to me and helped my homework when I was enrolled in school, along with doing all the house chores. I don’t remember when the last time my dad actually did any of the work (no offense to him), and if he did anything, it was him offering help, not doing his duty. My mother was often at a place where she had to feel guilty as she had to leave me with my grandmother (who raised me since I was born until 9) and had to ponder whether she had to choose either her work or her wife/mother duty. And this was the 80s and the 90s.

Is it any different now in Korea overall? I don’t think so, unfortunately, although the modern fathers are more involved in childrearing than my parents’ generation. Even today, many young mothers have to ponder whether they are going to keep working, take some months off (maternity leave) or just quit her job so that they can devote their time for their babies, thanks to family friendly labor policies and practices. It is commonly believed that the child has stronger bond to the mother than the father, but I think it’s a matter of how we humans make it to be (i.e. it’s not a matter of nature, but nurture). I don’t think women are any more caring than men, especially in terms of parenting. What I mean is that many fathers have not been actively involved in raising children ever since they were born, and seriously, other than the fact that man can’t produce breast milk, there is no difference with the mother in terms of parenting. The child is the product of the two people, and let’s face it, the parental responsibilities have never been fair. Culture dictates people’s behaviors, while “policy making culture” within the country is the space for policy makers to influence the social norms (how things “should” be for the general social wellbeing). Policies which does not seek to influence shifting of cultures and behaviors are short-sighted and doomed to be ineffective. Korea needs a very deep gender role overhaul.

Another reason for not having children seems to be the economics of having children which is not economical at all. It’s just too darn expensive to raise even one child in a family. Even if both wife and husband work, it is impossible to have big savings from the beginning, as the housing cost is getting quite expensive in the urban area. Many couples start their lives with some debt, and then when they finally decide to have a child or two, the expenses are tremendous, starting with all the basics like diapers, formulas, and clothes (that they will grow out of so quickly). I remember watching news on how expensive these items are, way more than other countries with the similar purchasing power. When the child grows, they have to go to nurseries, kindergartens, schools and extracurricular activities, but they all cost tremendous amount of money that the parents may not have. The government came up with “free pre-school education policy” for the bottom 75% of the economic strata, but to be exact, the education is not free as the government provides about 150USD a month per family with a preschooler, while the monthly fee of a private kindergarten is often easily 300-500USD (or even more). So the name of the policy itself is pretty populist in itself as you see. I can’t imagine having 2 kindergarteners in my family and supporting them with my pay. I mean over 1000 dollars a month just for schooling? Even if both of the parents work, it is a huge chunk of spending. Now, the elections (both for the national assembly and presidential) are coming, the politicians decided that they will expand this to all households with pre-school age children as of this year. And what would happen to the budget of this country? I have no idea, and it’s only scary to think of the terrible cycle of near-sighted populist welfare policies and budget limits. I mean I’m all for welfare, and South Korea’s welfare system has a long way to go, but I hate these populist politicians and their policies playing with the tax money without much planning, while all they need is just a few more votes.

I’m sure there are many other reasons for low fertility rate. Some couples agree to not to have children, and it’s their life style choice that I have nothing against. Others choose not to marry, which reduces the chance of having children tremendously (In Korea, alternative family forms, such as single parents raising children without partners and gay couples adopting children, are not very common and perceived with much cultural stigma).

But in sum, Korea has many different elements that prevent young women and men from having more children (or having kids at all). Human, cultural elements are missing in family policies very often, causing other issues which require more new policies. Some Korean policy makers now seem to realize gradually that it’s not just “women’s problem” but there are a lot of obstacles to overcome in terms of social and gender norms, and policies should have long term goals which can drive the change of traditional mentality. After all, it is most important to create an environment where people can willingly have children, not because of the national economic issues, but because they want to have the joy of having more family members.

Day 4: Why South Koreans Won’t Have Kids- And Why Policy Cannot Solve the Low Fertility Issue (part 1)

15 Feb

I have a bachelor’s degree in Cultural Anthropology and master’s in Public Policy. While I have these swanky titles after 20 years of formal education, I honestly cannot tell you what these disciplines are about and what I actually learned. But I can tell you for sure that I learned how to think about various social issues from the perspectives of the both disciplines. And today, although my cold meds are bothering me extremely, I really want to get this off of my chest. It’s about birthrate in South Korea.

Many demographists and others have pointed out that South Korea has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, fighting for the top (?!?) along with Japan and Singapore, two other developed economies in Asia. Just to get some perspective, I have found the CIA data on global birthrates, which ranked the countries with the highest birthrate on top and the lowest at the bottom.

Not so surprisingly, out of 221 countries, South Korea ranked 215 (in other words, 7th in low birthrate) while Japan ranked 220, Hong Kong 219 and Singapore 216. Yes, the data might be a bit skewed because Monaco, Hong Kong (which is not a country, but oh well) and Singapore’s population sizes (and samples) are perhaps not so compatible with those of South Korea and Japan. Regardless, low birthrate is one of the greatest threats in more developed countries as the aging population is rapidly increasing, posing financial threats to the country’s welfare budget, further economic development and many other elements. So maybe to many people’s minds, it is a policy problem, and I totally agree. But I would argue that it is also a greater social and cultural issue that should be attacked from a much wider angle, while globally, we are still facing the issue of population explosion rather than lack of people.

Korea’s Two-Child Policy

Perhaps you are familiar with One-Child Policy in China which is strictly enforced by the government. But Two-Child Policy of South Korea was rather a series of campaigns from South Korean government in the 1970s and the 80s to encourage couples to have only 2 children. I don’t believe that there was any penalty for having too many or incentives for having fewer than 2, but it was a campaign under dictatorship, so many people were often more or less collaborative to government’s policies and campaigns.

Of course there were legitimate reasons. South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world after the Korean War (even worse than North Korea and Ethiopia at the time), and as the government pushed for economic development, controlling the number of population became a key factor in promoting this national goal. Since Korea traditionally had been an agricultural society, a family easily had over 6 kids. There were simply too many mouths to feed in the country and families while there were too few economic opportunities (i.e. jobs). But with the rigorous campaign during the 60s and the 70s along with truly miraculous economic development, the average number of kids per family dropped to 4 kids, then to 2 kids during the 80s. As part of the campaign, the posters below were distributed by the Ministry of Welfare and Korea Family Planning Association. The top one says, “Let’s have only two kids whether sons or daughters,” while the bottom one says, “Even two are too many.” Obviously they did not foresee the problems that the future would face while there are too few kids around to support the national economy.

Source and more information: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/koreafertility.aspx

I don’t feel that the campaigns were incorrect, and they were necessary moves at the time to lift the country out of poverty (and for the population of developing countries, I believe that encouraging fewer kids while promoting proper nutrition and education is a key development strategy). Korea then and Korea today have completely different economic situations and needs, and I believe that developing countries should actively participate in lowering birthrates.

However, South Korea’s policy did not consider the potential sex-ratio imbalance, as people still had strong preference for sons over daughters. Girl children were often aborted illegally (abortion has been illegal in Korea), and it caused sex-ratio at birth of 108, meaning 108 boys for every 100 girls (in 2005), according to a UNFPA report. Although the son preference has been reduced (and nowadays, there’s actually a general sentiment towards daughter preference) and the ratio is more or less normalized (around 105:100, which is considered almost “normal”), there is a whole policy challenge regarding marriage migration (i.e. “importing” wives from other countries —a new form of mail-order brides– mainly from China, Viet Nam, and the Philippines, but not limited to) and increasing number of multicultural families. The trend is a challenge for welfare and education policies among others, while Korea has been a relatively homogeneous country for many years. This policy showed the necessity of considering human behaviors and cultures into the policy, while cultural and social norms greatly influence people’s behavior reacting to policies.

Why are family policies not working today?

So back to the question of why South Koreans do not have enough children…

Firstly, I believe that the policy makers’ perspectives are starting out on a wrong foot. To me, many policy makers on families, children and women (which all fall under the vague category of welfare policy) have been asking the wrong questions. They have been asking, “Why are women not having kids?” But you all know very well that it takes two to have a child. Such a question inherently blames only women for not being married and pursuing other goals in lives, stigmatizing women for “going against the nature.” Well, it might not be so surprising that such policy question is asked, because the entire policy framework regarding this issue is constructed under patriarchal assumptions just like many other policies. I am aware that women are also parts of the policy formation, but one’s sex has nothing to do with the role that one chooses to play, even in policy world. As long as birthrate is considered primarily “women’s issue,” or women’s issues are considered the same thing as family issues, further policy discussions would not make much progress.

In addition, there’s a problem in considering population simply as numerical values, not humans. As seen in Korea’s two-child policy, the government did not necessarily consider the cultural preference of having son, and that those sons may not end up with partners because there are simply too many men compared to the number of women (potential marriage partners). It seems that the sustainability of family units was never a big question to the policy makers. The campaign did not penetrate well enough to change a certain culture and behaviors that are discriminatory and sexist against female children. Part of the reasons is that policies are quite politicized and the policy makers have to implement those policies that would bring the most bangs for the buck they spend within the fiscal year or until the next elections. When the discussion of having children and raising them is only focusing on the economic impact and numbers, such as potential “units” who will participate in economic activities and the number of tax payers, we dehumanize the meaning of family and bring further challenges throughout the implementation of policies. Women’s bodies are only valuable because of their reproductive organs and their “natural roles” as the caretakers. Children are only future workers and tax payers. Men are a small part of reproduction and breadwinners. The gender role assumptions are quite stark in policymaking while humans become simple units of a country, no?

Part 2 will continue tomorrow (when I can think and breathe better). I will write about what the actual problems are in birthing and raising children in South Korea.