Talk:4B movement

Not radical movement

if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical. If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical. For me to engage in 4b: is not anti men, my brain is past that knee jerk reaction. Greateagle17 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IDK crap about Korean gender relations, and am just some nerd from Chicago who stumbled across this page, but if you consider "radical" not as a pejorative, but just as a description, it is a pretty radical departure from the norm for all of human history to just say no more love/romance, period. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This would seemingly imply that monks and priests are radical sexists for taking vows of chastity. I wouldn't describe it as radical until they start doing actual majorly radical actions. N7o2h3 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about our own judgements of what is radical & isn't. Within South Korea, the 4B movement is certainly seen as an extreme movement. Therefore, it should be classified as such to reflect the culture in which it exists, not the culture of the observers. Itzybella8 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any indication that 4B is considered radical to the average person? N7o2h3 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not anti-men, but my personal viewpoints are irrelevant. In South Korea, it is very much seen as a radical movement. Itzybella8 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical."

> Abortion was decriminalized in South Korea by court order in 2021.

"If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical"

> Rape, murder, and/or other forms of torture are illegal in South Korea. See Article 297 of the Criminal Act.

All these arguments are based on false premises, hence, it is a radical movement. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The unreliable source used is a website run by the Catholic Church's Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions. Find a reliable source, e.g. a major South Korean or international news agency. Jwuthe2 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Feminisms, 1850 to Present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LakersGoat, Smcusher, Kiggykissy, Atlas002, Tiazjane (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sonadav., Maisygreen, Beefpatty06, LilIlyich, Johnyha.

— Assignment last updated by Cliopentimento (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Explaining the removal of the "Result of 4B" Section

Result of 4B movement

Korean people don’t know much about the 4b movement. On the Korean internet, the 4B movement is used as a meme about femcel. In 2024, English-speaking users on TikTok claimed that Korea's low birth rate was due to the 4B movement. However, contrary to their claims, the influence of feminism is decreasing in Korea.

This section, at least in the way it's presented, seems completely unnecessary. It points out that Korean people don't know about the movement without providing a source, while in a previous part of the same page the movement's participants range up until 50,000, that is a considerable amount of people.

The second sentence mentions that there are memes about the movement in Korean social media. I question the importance of that fact. Almost everything can be a meme at this point, should we point out on every page that there were memes made about a certain thing?

The fourth sentence mentions that "the influence of feminism is decreasing in Korea". That is a big statement that needs strong evidence and citations. The article that was provided? Nothing to do with it. It discusses the difficulties that women who describe themselves as feminist in Korea face, and it does admit that the movement's growth has stagnated compared to the growth around 2015, but the word "influence" means more than growth. The article also says (translated to English) “The existence of backlash is paradoxically evidence of existence,” she added, “If it were an entity that did not need to be checked, politicians would not have come forward to ‘abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.’” So I would mark this citation to defend the initial statement as inconclusive, at best. Sapienz12 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you can't read the Korean Internet because you don't know Korean.

Then, I will show you an English video

[[1]]

The 4b movement is not popular in Korea.

And About decreasing feminism in Korea, see Feminism in South Korea#Collapse of feminism in Korea Acolex2 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to be Korean, since this is the English page, after all, to point out that the previous section was badly written in the for the standards of Wikipedia. Now, regarding your revision, I think it's a big improvement, since the information is presented in a relatively unbiased manner.

Also, I'm not trying to debate the matter, but there's a difference between contesting if something is true or just questioning if you're using the best source for it. For example, the video you just sent has a total sample size of *1*. When presented alone, it's not a good source.

Some of the sources in the second link you posted involve actual statistics so, at least at face value, they seem more faithful to reality, although I'd question the importance of some other points there, but that would need another discussion in that page. Sapienz12 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, while I also do not aim to debate source quality, the linked section Acolex2 provided was a very recent addition that they appeared to have penned and added themselves. While my intention is not to question the applicability of 4B information sources discussed here (or in the linked page, for that matter), it may not be good form to cite a page section that an editor themselves has claimed authorship of, especially when the section on that page appears to have caused some contention regarding the necessity of its inclusion. CelsiusMail (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)