"... ultimately, to a male-dominated regime.... Since 1948, North Korea has been ruled by three men—the founder, his son, and his grandson—but, nevertheless, it is now conceivable that the fourth man will be a woman. That is because, with reports that Kim Jong Un is in failing health, the most obvious successor is his thirtysomething sister, Kim Yo Jong.... Last week, CNN reported that he was in 'grave danger,' after having undergone surgery (an assertion echoed by a report from a Japanese magazine on Saturday that claimed he was brain dead after a failed operation to insert a stent).... Kim Yo Jong is the youngest known grandchild of Kim Il Sung, carrying what North Koreans revere as a pure bloodline that originated on Mount Paektu, a volcano on the border with China, which is the mythical birthplace of the Korean people. She was reportedly a favorite of her father, Kim Jong Il, who ruled from 1994 until his death, in 2011, [who, it is reported] praised the intelligence of his daughter, while deriding his sons as 'idle blockheads.'... Among the adult males in the family, Kim Pyong Il, a half brother of Kim Jong Il, spent three decades posted in Europe as a diplomat in semi-exile.... Jong Un’s older brother, Kim Jong Chol, best known as a rock-and-roll groupie who once tried to invite Eric Clapton to Pyongyang, is reported to have even more serious health issues, and was dismissed by his own father as being 'too girly' for consideration in the succession."
From "In North Korea, the Fourth Man Could Be a Woman" by Barbara Demick (The New Yorker).
The article quotes Katharine H. S. Moon, a political-science professor at Wellesley College: "North Korea is so outlandishly sexist, despite the fact that they are supposed to be a revolutionary society."
I just have 2 things to say about that:
1. Hypothesis: An outlandishly sexist culture has a bigger problem with a man who is "girly" than with a woman who looks and acts in a way that you wouldn't call "girly." (The article quotes the Washington Post describing Kim Yo Jong — at the South Korea Olympics — as wearing "barely-there makeup," a "lack of bling," "plain black outfits," carrying a "simple purse," and clipping "her hair back in a no-nonsense style.")
2. The New Yorker expects us to accept as a given that a real "revolutionary society" — in contrast to a "supposed" one — will have overcome sexism, at least the outlandish kind. Don't blame the revolution for anything that's wrong with the revolution! Oh, it's just something Professor Moon said. In quotes. Don't pin it on The New Yorker...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
It would certainly be a treat to have a murderous woman in charge of an evil regime. Break that glass ceiling.
Trump could grab her by the pussy.
"North Korea is so outlandishly sexist, despite the fact that they are supposed to be a revolutionary society."
That is an outlandishly stupid sentence, despite the fact that it appears in the New Yorker.
We in Western civilization know through our evolution into Woke Beings that women could never be evil, treacherous, devious, or tyrannical. She is clearly the choice of a smart revolutionary country like NK. And we further know that no truly revolutionary country could be sexist. Sure, many of them have a history of killing millions of their own people, but they did it equally, respecting none of them at the same level. Considering all human life as worthless- equally worthless.
This new leader of NK will be a perfect mix. Evil, yet creating a tough environment for Western journalists to write about her in a negative way. Much like they cannot get their heads around Biden's adult groping vs Kavanaugh's teenaged rumors. They'll have a tough time squaring the peg with this woman. It's so much easier to make Mike Pence out to be evil, than the totalitarian woman of an actual evil regime.
Trying trying to get my head around the notion that, 'truly revolutionary', somehow addresses discrimmination. 'Revolution'is defined by the leaders, not some dictionary.
Does she have the "balls" to have people executed by flamethrower or 20mm cannon? If so she might just fit the bit bill for the new Supreme Leader of the Norks.
Trump could grab her by the pussy.
Biden already down the memory hole. By next week, the fact that Biden even ran for President will be called a conservative lie.
"By neglecting to define the role of women, Confucius allows those interpreting the texts to belittle women.
Confucius' failure to mansplain women resulted in Little Women.
Women now empowered by everything a woman does. Including becoming a tyrannical dictator.
But what a chorus line!
She only needs enough to help her exterminate any detractors. After that, she can continue the ruthless subjugation of the North Koreans regardless of the opinions of others. If she's smart, she can accomplish this task with the lure of power, wealth, and insulation from the brutal conditions of the common people. If the Chinese accept her actions, she'll have few problems.
18th Century Russia was pretty sexist, yet they had 3 empresses who weren't murdered as several czars were.
Heh, the left promoting a terrorist tyranny as being better than America. Though none of them will ever live there. Surprising absolutely no one. Next week, the utopian world of Iran...oh, wait, they've already done that.
She will be the ÜberKaren.
I am Laslo.
Heartless Aztec said...Does she have the "balls" to have people executed by flamethrower or 20mm cannon? If so she might just fit the bit bill for the new Supreme Leader of the Norks.
I was just thinking that this sounds like a great opportunity for Hillary! Your comment confirms it.
I hope the imaginary She doesn't select a white man for her vice-dictator.
I honestly don't think her accession as Regina Communistissima of the DPRK would be a problem at all. Ultra-chauvinistic societies have regularly accepted female leaders who are lineal descendants of past male leaders. See, e.g. Indira Gandhi (daughter of Nehru), or Park Geunhye (daughter of Park Chunghee), or Megawati Sukarnoputri (daughter of Sukarno), or Elizabeth I (daughter of Henry VIII).
Katharine H. S. Moon, a political-science professor at Wellesley College
An expert? We have a lot of expert guidance lately.
Re: Fernandistein:
I don't know what that author is talking about. There's plenty of references to women in the Confucian classics (albeit, not necessarily the kinds of references feminists might like). The Analects aren't the only place you hear from Confucius after all. Indeed, one of my favourite bits of the Book of Rites is when Confucius and his students come across a woman out tending a grave in the middle of maneating tiger country, and one of the students asks what she is doing there. She replies that tigers ate her father in law, her husband, and now her son. Why doesn't she go live in the city where it's safe? Because, she replies, here there is no oppressive government. And Confucius sagely turns to his students and tells the "oppressive government is worse than maneating tigers."
Also, my recollection is that Confucius observed the three years mourning for his mother, and later reburied her together with his father (something I remember because my own grandfather followed his example and reburied my great-grandmother and great-grandfather together).
Elizabeth I (daughter of Henry VIII).
Her sister Mary I was a bigger step--female and fiercely Catholic and married a Spaniard and nutty false pregnancy, yet she died in her bed.
It would be great to have Kim Yo Jong as Dictator. Sociology has proven that societies run by women are all peaceful ‘n shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ge2TQfqwX4
I don't know what that author is talking about.
Me neither, but probably for very different reasons.
There's plenty of references to women in the Confucian classics (albeit, not necessarily the kinds of references feminists might like).
They said "define the role of women"; your anecdotes don't seem to do that either, as opposed to "Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord."
Re Ralph L:
Fair enough, although by those lights wouldn't the Empress Matilda have been the true trailblazer? I guess she wasn't widely accepted as the legitimate claimant, though . . .
North Korea is the new Hewlett Packard.
Re Fernandistein:
Most of the classics aren't in Confucius's "voice" although he may have edited or assembled them somewhat. They speak more extensively about the role of women. E.g., in the Book if Rites section 內則 (inner regulations) the child's duty is addressed to both parents (父母). There is particular discussion of the duties of a daughter in law. Segregation of roles by sex is explicitly discussed, e.g. 男不言內，女不言外.非祭非喪，不相授器.("The men should not speak of what belongs to the inside (of the house), nor the women of what belongs to the outside. Except at sacrifices and funeral rites, they should not hand vessels to one another.") Similarly the 喪大記 (greater record of mourning rites) details both for men and women the proper rites and observances. There are also detailed descrptions of the correct observances around pregnancy, only I can't remember them, or what section they're in.
I know many tough women who could be great CEO’s. But woke boards pick one of a type that will make HR crusades and “Inclusive decision planning systems” their main strategy plank.
Who really runs things in North Korea? Is the Dear Leader a figurehead for the regime? Is it merely a question of who the Army or the Chinese will prop up?
Yep. Everybody knows that sexism prevents female dynasts from ever achieving power or position. That's why when King James V of Scotland died in 1542, and King Edward VI of England died in 1553, they were both immediately succeeded by James VI and I, who was born in 1566.
iowan2 said...
By next week, the fact that Biden even ran for President will be called a conservative lie
you mean, back in the '80's?
No One is saying that Biden didn't run for President, back in the '80's
This is the sort of typical conservative conspiracy stuff that we demos have to put up with
</snark
All I expect from New York is lies.
"North Korea is the new Hewlett Packard."
I was thinking General Motors.
As others have pointed out, it is a common enough occurrence for female relatives of male despots to become despots themselves as to be expected – Bayesian, almost.
What a pathetic and stupid article.
Totalitarian dictatorships are definitively post revolutionary. They are all done with revolution, and require, at gunpoint, adherence to the dictates of authorities.
"World ends tomorrow, women and minorities hardest hit."
I look at NYT, WaPo, New Yorker, CNN, MSNBC, a few others, and it is hard to beleive that their audience still contains anybody who has been paying attention the last few years. Obviously, I am missing something, which may be as simple as confirmation bias overwhelming facts and logic.
Most of the classics aren't in Confucius's "voice" although he may have edited or assembled them somewhat. They speak more extensively about the role of women.
I don't doubt it; the reason I didn't know what the author (who I quoted) was talking about is that I don't know jack about Confucius. I just like to contradict NY media...
Is she hot?
Narr
Important things first
She is hot...for a commie tyrant.
in related news
I re-watched "the death of stalin" on Netflix last night. Terrific movie with Steve Buscemi as Kruschev.
I think it is supposed to be a comedy and it does have some funny moments but very dark.
Mostly about the scheming that goes on when a murderous (20-30mm dead) "leader" dies. Who gets to be on top?
What to do about the murderous pervert Beria?
Field Marshall Zhukov has a wonderful role but I foget who played him. He did, literally, grab kruschev by the pussy at one point. Telling himhe had balls like the kremlin domes.
John Henry
Don't women tend to get their countries into wars?
Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher and Golda mier come immediately to mind
It's almost like they think they have something to prove
John Henry
Diversity? In a left-wing (redundant) progressive, liberal society? #PrinciplesMatter #HateLovesAbortion
Zhukov was played by Jeremy Isaacs.
The Death of Stalin is one of the best historically-set movies I've ever seen--and when you let yourself laugh it's even better.
Narr
Some things cry out for comedy
How long before the media compare her favorably to Thatcher?
Not Margaret Thatcher, but a more "pleasant" combination of Marlo Thomas as "That Girl" and Cher: That-Cher.
Before Greg Allman.
"Totalitarian dictatorships are definitively post revolutionary."
Very true, the rule is, the day after the revolution succeeds, all the revolutionaries are shot.
It's high time.
Does she want it?
Even ambassador Rodman doesn't know Rocket Man's status.
I think of it like a royal succession in a feudal state:
The ruler's job is to provide stability for the nobles who support the regime. Many nobles might in principle like to move up the pecking order, but all fear losing what they have or being asked to support a losing candidate.
The ideal candidate would be an energetic young (20s -40s) man with an heir on the horizon or enough virility that the appearance of an acceptable heir can be reasonably anticipated. You don't want someone so young that someone else is going to be the power behind the throne, and a candidate who is too old is not going to be able to ensure stability for a long time.
A female ruler is basically acceptable if no male candidate is apparent, or if the succession is already assured. There have been many of female regents keeping the throne warm for their children, which for practical purposes is the same as having a female ruler for a while.
A female is always acceptable if the ruling doesn't have any acceptable male candidates. Queen Elizabeth is an example of this, as was Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt. However, you'll notice that a lot of these rulers tend to show up at the end of the dynasty. The lack of an acceptable male is sometimes the luck of the draw in births (Elizabeth) and sometimes a sign that the ruling family is getting feeble (Hatshepsut). In the latter case, you'll sometimes see civil disorder as rival cliques decide to take their shot.
An interesting variant of this last type: a lot of the later Roman Emperors (who for various reasons were frequently childless) would announce a junior emperor who would rule at the same time as the senior emperor (who was not necessarily a blood relation). The loss of unitary control was worth it to the senior emperor because the advantages of having a guaranteed succession were so large.
So, "revolutionary" or not, the basic question I would have about North Korea is: is the nobility (plus outside patrons, ie China) happy with the current dynasty, or would they rather see a shakup? If they're happy, the objections to Kim Yo Jong will melt away. If they're not happy, or if the Kim dynasty can't unite around a single candidate, you could be looking at some upheaval. The next question I would have is whether Kim Yo Jong has any prospects for a stable succession, or whether she would end up being a dead end for the dynasty.
The Soviet Union is an interesting example of non-lineal succession. The Soviets didn't tend to promote people according to bloodline, but they did tend to pick people who were already in the ruling clique who didn't want to upset the apple cart. That led to stagnation and an increasingly elderly ruling clique.
The first leader of the Soviet Union who *wasn't* in a prominent position at the time of Stalin's death was Gorbechev.
As far as a self-perpetuating ruling clique, look at the early succession of the US Presidency:
Washington (2 terms).
Washington's Vice-President, Adams (1 term).
Washington's Secretary of State, Jefferson (2 terms).
Jefferson's Secretary of State, Madison (2 terms).
Madison's Secretary of State, Monroe (2 terms).
Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams (1 term).
Note also the element of dynastic succession. Only one of the first five presidents had any legitimate sons who survived to adulthood, and the eldest son of that president became the 6th president.
That's an interesting point, Steven. Lots of Virginians, too.
A likely conclusion from history would be that revolutions eventually bring a new puritanism, but the hopes of "liberation" that the supporters of revolutions have in the beginning have blur that reality. And after 50 years or so of feminism, it becomes a given that revolutions will advance the feminist agenda. In some ways they may - women get roles in the party apparatus and there may even be minimum quotas for female membership in the cadres - but in other ways they don't. The North Korean dictatorship looks like a way of freezing society in a certain form and it doesn't take well to modern Western ideas. If a woman comes out on top of the hierarchy, she could stay there, but the idea that the "revolution" was going to make North Korean women into Western women is misconceived. And how far was it really a "revolution" - a spontaneous uprising of the people? Wasn't it more just the imposition of a dictatorship after the Japanese were defeated?
The Romans were YUGE adopters--creating legal children. I know it flourished in the late Republic and early Empire, but don't recall how long it was common among the elites.
We simply have no comparison in history for the situation in NorKo. My gut feeling is that she will be a very temporary dictatress if she gets the job, and that the regime itself is likely to topple.
Narr
Stand away, please
@Balfegor:
re: Empress Matilda: she might well have been the legitimate claimant, but it is noted that her strident ways were extremely off putting to potential sympathizers. Too many years spent in the German courts for her to find supporters outside of her trusted inner circle.
Post a Comment