5 stars!

I was nodding along vigorously while reading the novel. That said, the book read more like non-fiction than fiction, this isn’t really a critique but I did find the film felt more thematically like a story. Still both the novel and film complement each other well imo

Anyway here are some of the quotes I found to either to be interesting, darkly humorous or insightful.

‘Entering high school meant a sudden expansion of her geographical and social world, which taught her that it was a wide world out there filled with perverts’. (p. 51)

‘What do you want from us? The dumb girls are too dumb, the smart girls are too smart, and the average girls are too unexceptional?’ (p. 84)

‘Jiyoung was standing in the middle of a labyrinth. Conscientiously and calmly, she was searching for a way out that didn’t exist to begin with. Baffled and ready to give up, she was told to try, try again; to walk through walls if it came to that.’ (p. 112)

‘Revenue drives a businessman, and you can’t blame someone for wanting maximum output with minimum input. But is it right to prioritise short-term efficiency and balance sheets? Who’ll be the last ones standing in a world with these priorities and will they be happy?’ (p. 112)

‘Do laws and institutions change values, or do values drive laws and institutions?’ (p. 120)

‘I’m putting my youth, health, job, colleagues, social networks, career plans and future on the line. No wonder all I can think about are the things I’m giving up. But what about you? What do you lose by gaining a child?’ (p.124)

‘About to pop and still taking the tube to go make money – clearly can’t afford a kid’ (p. 128)

‘I wish I could live off my husband’s paycheque…bum around and get coffee…mum-roaches got it real cushy…no way I’m marry a Korean woman…’ (p. 153)

This was more of a 3 star read for me. Given that I get the sense that sexism in South Korea often is so omnipresent that it’s seldom even commented on, I understand what a book that relentlessly calls it out would be popular, but to as you mention @linarrick, it felt more like a sociological treatise than a novel. Also, some of this may be the translation, but the prose style often felt flat and awkward. I was hoping to love it, and I completely agree with the points it’s making, but as a work of art it left me rather disappointed.

I think I’m at 4 or so.

“ Just as the mermaid princess lost her voice in exchange for legs, do middle-aged men lose their hiccups in exchange for backward ideas?”

“Even the usually reasonable, sane ones verbally degrade women—even the women they have feelings for.“

5 stars
I liked the way the story was embedded into the stats and I felt it gave a good overview of women’s experiences over time. The twist at the end was unexpected for me and lead to a reappraisal of what I had taken as facts were actually someone else’s perspective on the information that had been supplied by the actual narrator of her own story.

I’d give 4 stars. I loved what the writer tried to convey about sexism in Korea, however, I wasn’t fully excited and immersed while reading this. Maybe it’s the wording or something else, I don’t know… Agreed with @Linarrick that the movie is better in narrating the idea.

To be honest, I didn’t realise the psychiatrist in the last chapter was the narrator for the book until I read this question lol. The twist or punch in the gut feeling for me was sympathising with the psychiatrist in the beginning, learning about his home-life, and then being shocked that while he could be empathic to his patient Kim Ji-young because his wife went through something similar, he was still a sexist boss.

I think the final reveal is meant to suggest that even men who claim to empathize often have no real idea just how bad things are for women, and aren’t willing to sacrifice their own comfort to actually change the system. I do think there is truth in this, and I think the writer is correctly suggesting that expecting the folks benefiting from patriarchy to also dismantle it is a pipe dream.

I didn’t really know entirely what to do with the part of the story in which Ji-young becomes other people. It seemed like it was going to be a bit part of it at the beginning, but by the end it was just a justification for her to be seeing a psychiatrist (when she probably should have been seeing one anyway). It sort of felt like it was meant to be that she was representing an Everywoman and that her experience was typical of all of the women she became, but then it doesn’t make as much sense that she would have known things that only they could have known. Does anyone have any insight into why the author felt like this was an important point in the story? Or is this an unreliable narrator element?

Looking at the reviews on audible a lot of the listeners were annoyed that it was a male narrator so seem to have missed the twist at the end. Initially his take that he and other males had a lack of awareness because they were not women made me wonder if he switched off his eyes and ears while observing the world throughout his childhood and in to adulthood. I wondered about his lack of insight and how it impacted on his ability to connect with the female clients who visited for their diagnosis and treatment. I also wondered about his lack of shame when talking about his lack of engagement with his wife and son. His views about future recruitment also made it clear that he genuinely was living the life of the entitled.

I wondered if Jiyoung was hesitant in her sharing because he was a man and maybe his questions or tone meant he let her know he lacked understanding of the issues she was talking about. I wondered what other stories she would have told if it had been his wife in the psychiatrist’s chair.

Thinking more deeply, I did find the scene about the flasher interesting. The girls who caught the flasher were either described as a bully or reckless but there was nothing to suggest they were? Also the repercussions they got for catching a criminal, instead of being cheered and treated as heroes they were scolded and shamed which was just sad to read

And unlike the film, no mention of paternity leave is curious, and this could be because the narrator is a male psychiatrist

I’ve read studies that suggest that societies with very rigid career tracks that make it both very hard to get a first job, and even harder to switch careers or get a second job are the worst for mothers, and are also seeing the greatest decline in birthrates as a result. As a mother myself, I totally get this. I know the book doesn’t make this point specifically, but more paths to entry into the workforce, more fulfilling part-time or flexible jobs, and more ways to get back into a career or start a new one later in life all make it much more possible to take the time needed to parent without giving up all hope of ever having a career again. Weirdly, the US seems to be better about this than other countries, which may explain why the birthrate here hasn’t dropped as much as in some other places. I was able to reenter the workforce in my field after taking time off/working part-time with relative ease, something that I don’t sense happens in Korea or many other places.

I really feel like taking time off after having a child is still stigmatized to a certain extent in the US (where I live). And I think it will remain so until men take parental leave as often as women do. So often in this book, having a child is the thing that drastically affects the careers of women, but not men. If it was a big event in the careers of men also it wouldn’t be such a disadvantage to have a child as a woman because the disruption would be shared much more equally.

I also think that some basic workers’ rights laws (properly followed and enforced) could go a long way. The book talks about the super long hours employees are expected to work, which are incompatible with doing anything extra, let alone having a child. And this is just accepted as logical for companies to try to maximize profits and extract every last bit of value from their employees. But if they were required to pay overtime or compensate their workers fairly, they would likely hire more of them which would make everyone’s schedules less demanding. Then it wouldn’t be as outlandish to get off work in time to pick your kid up from daycare, and it would be much more accessible for parents in general (or anyone else who wants to have a life outside work).

The book gave insights into the changes in policy that were meant to address sexism in the work place and the difficulties the women faced when taking up the entitlement. Women run organisations are few and far between and the chances of any new businesses succeeding are slim. So the implications are that meaningful change is unlikely in the short or long term.

The description of the female doctor’s situation seemed to suggest that even if you were in a privileged position of having options such as a guaranteed position to return to work other factors such as being seen as the main carer by society and her husband prevented the planned return. For the psychiatrist’s son, it was never going to be in his best interests to revert to being a ‘good kid’ as he will lose access to his mum again. His dad had minimal input and this didn’t change when his behaviour declined so he could only rely on his mum to be there.

The only option for the majority of mothers seemed to be to forget returning to their previous career and to work in low paid, low status jobs that fitted in with school hour.

I’m not sure. Does anyone else know or have thoughts on this? It did feel like a way of suggesting that despite the fact that we often pat ourselves on the back for being “progressive” on women’s issues in the “modern world” we still have a long way to go.

I think the author wanted to emphasise that the current low birth rate is a direct result of the policies that were being implemented at her time of birth and early childhood.

The writer probably wanted to emphasize that even in a modern world, it’s not easy to change something fundamental in a society.

I haven’t seen the film, so I’m not sure?

I think the film built up the husband’s part, from the start we see him trying to be supportive which I think enhanced the story as it gave some hope that change can take place when men start to be part of the solution. I liked how they ended the film by offering more than the option of working in a female led organisation or part time in an unrelated field.

The change of gender of the psychiatrist was an interesting move and I feel the book gave more importance to the role of the woman on the bus. The scene on the bus is the one that stands out for me because of the dad’s berating behaviour when his daughter had faced such a terrifying situation.

The film brought in some of the issues differently like the psychiatrist’s wife maths solving was part of a group of mum’s discussion about motherhood. They showed Jiyoung as the author of her own story, she also responded directly to the office worker with the bad attitude about mothers.

The issue of individualising societal problems leads to people having to find individual ways to cope with unbearable situations. It is only when society takes on the challenge and normalises shared childcare, subsidises childcare, penalises those who discriminate that is when change happens.

It sure did! A Lot better IMO. This is the first time in my experience watching movie adaptation outdid the original source. As I said above, it could be the choice of words of the writer or the translation as @wonhwa mentioned. It fell flat mostly. That said, I am convinced there are authors that are really great at words and story telling and some are less. And I think the writer belongs in the latter category.

Mostly rage, which I’m assuming is exactly what the writer was going for. I do think there is a place for works that clearly call out oppression and injustice, and I get the sense that really doesn’t happen much in South Korea, especially under the current right wing government that came to power in part based on its promise to specifically dismantle the office of gender equality.

I felt tired. So often this is how my anxiety at the state of the world manifests these days. I feel like I only have a set amount of anxiety to allocate to everything, so when disasters happen in quick succession, or when they are chronic and long-standing, my anxiety is spread thin and my overwhelming feeling is one of exhaustion. In this case I feel like it mirrored Ji-young’s feelings – like you can’t take a full breath, like you can’t do anything without making the wrong move.

Empathy because women across the globe are treated differently and yet this is just one of the many faces of discrimination.

I felt angry and aghast, while some of the situations were sadly relatable,I learnt some things too.

However, I felt resigned knowing that ultimately no matter what choices girls and women make, they’ll be shamed for it.

Rage and helpless.
Seeing how little the society valued women even in the modern world (Although I’m sure it it lays on the culture more than anything else.) and how it’s not easy to change this mindset, proven by the birthrate in Korea.

As some one born ten years before Kim Ji-Young and living in the US, I think the experiences described here unfortunately still pop up in most societies. While the US in my lifetime has not put quite the same premium on male children as described here, there is definitely still plenty of sexism in both workplaces and homes, and women are still disproportionately expected to handle the rigors of housework and child-rearing and to sacrifice their careers first if they can’t juggle both work and parenthood.

I often feel like the discrimination is more subtile in the US. We are quite a polite society, so you’re much less likely to overhear someone saying something awful about you, and asking sensitive questions during an interview is enough to get you sued in a hurry. But companies have lots of less explicit ways of making life miserable for their female employees, particularly if they are juggling family duties as well as work. “Women don’t stay because you make it impossible for us to stay.” <- suuuuuper relatable.

I grew up in a country that has had female Prime ministers, I went to mixed gender schools and worked in professions where women are the majority of the workforce. Legislation addresses discrimination based on gender, and maternity and paternity leave are standard. The issues around discrimination are still present; there is a gender pay gap, a national paper had topless women as a feature for years, female presenters are dropped over a certain age on tv whilst male presenters stay regardless of age, and the absence of females in CEO posts. The expectations re the main carers of dependents and the proportion of part time workers in lower paid jobs remains female focused.

While I admit that we’re not as progressive as in the US, I’d say it’s pretty good. Females are treated fairly in society (young and adult), although when it comes to parenting/domestic role, people still expecting more from women than men. And thus, more women quit their career except for government workers after having child or just starting a new job on their own so they can juggle work and raising kids simultaneously.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but what I found fascinating was that the book supposedly spoke for the Korean everywoman. The idea that a society can be homogenous enough to make such a claim is foreign to me.

Next time do what I did and make a note of the questions and as you read things will jump out at you. I wrote my answers while it was fresh, ready to cut and paste when the time was right.