SoylentNews

'Spycam' Epidemic Seizes South Korea's Women

posted by chromas on Monday October 22 2018, @08:21PM   

Phoenix666 writes:

Al Jazeera:

South Korea is in the grip of a "spycam" epidemic with covert footage of sex, nudity, and urination posted online in what amounts to a "social death penalty" for thousands of female victims.

The footage may be taken surreptitiously by boyfriends or captured on covert devices as small as car keys. Daily camera checks are now part of life for cleaners in many public toilets.

The spy camera phenomenon has reached such epidemic proportions in tech-savvy South Korea that tens of thousands of women have taken to the streets to march for action.

Srsly?

Previously: South Koreans Protest Spy Cam Pornography

---

Original Submission

• Re:Nobody said otherwise. (Score: 1) by Blymie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:09PM

  by Blymie (4020) on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:09PM (#752474)

  Here's the deal. Men and women are not equal.

  Women and men deserve equal rights, but it is fine to say "Women are interested in shoes", or "Women/Men are better at $x".

  Why? Because *averages*. Insurance companies do this all the time. They stipulate that women ARE safer drivers, due to the stats. Yet this is legal, and certainly correct because averages are just that.

  And averages are what our automatic, built in human pattern matching systems are based upon. We see typical behaviour that can be associated with an identifying feature (sex, colour, race, etc).. and then by default our brains map that behaviour to ALL of that same feature.

  It makes sense -- for, it is a survival mechanism. If you're a squirrel, you don't wait around to see if the next cat is friendly. You see a cat walking/running towards you, you *run* -- because it makes sense to do so, even if you've only seen one cat do "bad things", eg a specific behaviour.

  Back away from all of that, and one must realise that discrimination doesn't come from understanding averages, or from knowing that stereotypical behavior exists, and is real. No, discimination is when you take that pattern, that typical behaviour and ASSUME that it means the same for all of that identifying feature.

  Having breasts doesn't mean you aren't capable of doing well in, say, science -- but it is indeed an indicator of the fact that people with breasts tend to do poorly in science.

  So when you try to hire someone? You interview the PERSON. When you speak about someone, you must speak about the INDIVIDUAL. This is what makes for equality. Not "this is typical behaviour", but "DESPITE typical behaviour, this INDIVIDUAL may not match that behaviour".

  So when you start saying things like "But maybe only 1 out of 100!", you're actually being prejudice and sexist by doing so. Because sexism/*ism comes when assuming that NO person of group $x does thing $y, because of averages"

  Parent