17-Year-Old Tzuyu: “A Special Gift for Korean Men”

Turning Boys Into Men? The Performance of Gender for South Korean Conscripts, Part 4

twice-tzuyu-kookmin-bank-a-special-gift-for-korean-men-1       “Do one thing everyday, that scares you.”

My personal motto adopted from Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann (1999), without which I wouldn’t be in Korea now. Nor have had sex in a lot of strange places.

Now a middle-aged parent though, it’s difficult finding scary things to do during my daily routine. So, I force myself to take photos of interesting ads in public. It’s just terrifying you see, knowing that everyone in the bank or subway carriage will peg me as a perverted samcheon fan.

Did I mention that all Korean phones have a faux shutter sound by law?

This ad however, seemed well worth my pain and shame. Much like Chou Tzu-yu’s ads for LG last year, taken when she was only 16, it can take a moment to realize she’s not actually the product being sold here:

twice-tzuyu-kookmin-bank-a-special-gift-for-korean-men-2The header, with the red, reads “A special gift for Korean men.” The subheading in the center, with the black in bold, adds the Catch-22 that: “To qualify as a Korean man, you need a Kookmin Bank Korea Love Card”, which provides discounts at various cinemas, coffee shops, restaurants, language institutes, and stores.

Now that’s patriotism.

But humor aside, it would have been more accurate to say that only those with military experience qualify as “Korean men”, as the card is only available to current or former soldiers who had their physical after January 2007 (i.e., mostly 20-somethings). This link to the military is made more obvious in the following ad, the top line of which reads “Anyone Can Be a Youth That Loves Their Country!”, under which it says you can apply for a card at a military recruitment office in addition to KB banks:

twice-tzuyu-kookmin-bank-a-special-gift-for-korean-men-3(Source)

In fairness, even the most innocuous of Korean ads and government slogans often sound very much like propaganda when translated into English. Also, no-one is denying the great sacrifice made by young men doing their mandatory 21-24 months of military service. What clearly isn’t fair however, is how ad campaigns like these effectively label women, the disabled, openly LGBTQ individuals, conscientious objectors, and (until just 6 years ago) mixed-race Koreans as incapable of “loving their country”, which only serves to justify denying them various privileges given to former soldiers later.

Starting with this card. There’s many more reasons why women end up so excluded from Korean economic and political life of course, with modern, democratic Korea being ranked a shocking 115th out of 145 countries in gender equality by the World Economic Forum. But examples like this one undoubtedly form part of the process.

Related Posts:

14 thoughts on “17-Year-Old Tzuyu: “A Special Gift for Korean Men”

  1. Some translation issues here.

    “대한민국 남자의 자격: KB국민 나라사랑카드” is far closer to “Entitlement of Korean men: KB Bank Korea Love Card” than “Requirement of Korean men: KB Bank Korea Love Card.” Depending on context, “자격” often means entitlement, not requirement.

    “나라를 사랑하는 청춘이라면 누구라도 가능” should be translated as: If you are a youth who loves Korea, then it is possible to (get this card).

    The sentence does not mean: Anyone can be a youth that loves their country. That should be more like: 누구나 나라를 사랑하는 청춘이 될 수 있다.

    The word “병무청” appears right underneath the sentence to imply that this is a military credit card of some sort. So the ad’s quick message is that: You are entitled to the credit card if you are a young Korean man who have some relation to the military.

    The ad is definitely conflating patriotism and military service, but it is not sending any other extra message, at least not the one you seem to think the ad is sending: labeling women, homosexuals, or disabled as incapable of loving Korea. I suppose it’s possible for a foreigner with limited grasp of Korean language to misunderstand the ad. If you were to just ask a few random Koreans about the ad, you will see what I mean.

    Btw, this blog seems pretty sensationalist to me. At the beginning, you cropped only the top part of the ad to make it seem like the ad is presenting an attractive woman as a gift to Korean men. And did you really need that misleading title, which also discloses that the model is a foreign minor, to make your point?

    Then instead of getting to the point and showing the rest of the ad right away, you talk about how you took the picture of the ad for a few paragraphs to let the perceived inappropriateness of the ad, which is mostly due to your sensationalist packaging, to stew in the minds of readers for a while. I am not a fan of your approach here because as a reader, I prefer an honest and direct approach when it comes to serious subjects like women’s right or gender equality, not a sly and tacky sensationalist approach.

    I also think it’s ironic how you used a sexy picture of a woman in such sensationalist way to get views, similar to how the advertiser used a sexy picture of a woman to get people to notice the ad. The difference is that the advertiser paid the model and used her image with her consent, you didn’t.

    But then again, it’s some internet blog, so I guess you do what you can to get views. Interesting stuff, though.

    • Thank you for offering your advice and thoughts on my translation, which I always welcome and appreciate from readers with better Korean skills than myself. However, please note that I confirmed the translation with my Korean wife before posting it. Does she qualify as a “random Korean” for you? (How about the Korean speakers that shared my post too?)

      That doesn’t mean that I/we don’t often make mistakes of course, and I’m happy to admit that your translation may well be more accurate than mine. But it does mean you’re on pretty shaky ground dismissing my blog post as just a misunderstanding, based on my being just “a foreigner with a limited grasp of the Korean language.” What’s more, I don’t think any of your corrections change its fundamental points whatsoever, which all seem to be flying over your head. Let’s cover some of those below.

      Btw, this blog seems pretty sensationalist to me. At the beginning, you cropped only the top part of the ad to make it seem like the ad is presenting an attractive woman as a gift to Korean men. And did you really need that misleading title, which also discloses that the model is a foreign minor, to make your point?

      Thoughts about my own sensationalism aside for a moment, please take a second look at the ad: what is the most prominent feature in it? That’s right, a 17 year-old girl in a miniskirt. What’s the most prominent piece of text, which happens to be right next to her face? “A Special Gift for Korean Men.” It’s a blatantly obvious double entendre, designed to get your attention. It works. It’s what heterosexual men’s brains register and retain well before they realize that it’s actually advertising a credit card.

      Yet it’s only my title that’s misleading? That the obvious fact that the ad isn’t really gifting Tzuyu somehow means that this double entendre doesn’t exist, and isn’t the main hook of the ad? And I shouldn’t have also mentioned her name and thereby given away that she’s 17 and not Korean, as if those weren’t common knowledge to almost everyone who sees the ad?

      Then instead of getting to the point and showing the rest of the ad right away, you talk about how you took the picture of the ad for a few paragraphs to let the perceived inappropriateness of the ad, which is mostly due to your sensationalist packaging, to stew in the minds of readers for a while. I am not a fan of your approach here because as a reader, I prefer an honest and direct approach when it comes to serious subjects like women’s right or gender equality, not a sly and tacky sensationalist approach.

      Interesting that you frame my intro like that: I thought I was just giving an amusing, actually quite truthful lead-in to the main story (I’m still ROFL about my “sex in a lot of strange places” BTW), although I was worried that I was drifting too far off the topic in the process TBH. Now though, I see, I was actually very calculating, just buttering up my readers for my completely sensationalist take on a completely innocent ad, just like I’ve done with her other completely innocent ads previously. Hell, no wonder you find me so dishonest and indirect. I’d stop visiting my blog forthwith if I were you.

      I also think it’s ironic how you used a sexy picture of a woman in such sensationalist way to get views, similar to how the advertiser used a sexy picture of a woman to get people to notice the ad. The difference is that the advertiser paid the model and used her image with her consent, you didn’t.

      Well, I do always face a dilemma when choosing images for my blog, knowing that sex sells. I prefer actual readers though, as I don’t have any advertising on this blog, and so don’t benefit from simple hits. So, if you’d bothered to look at say, the last 100 posts, you may have noticed that very, very few have “sexy pictures.”

      This one is a valid exception however, as “the sexy picture” you refer to is the very object of discussion. I can’t believe you’re even raising that “irony” as an implied criticism. Nor that you think I can’t take a picture of an advertisement because I didn’t pay the people in it, nor use my picture of that ad without their consent.

      With logic like that, it’s no wonder that you suddenly describe the ad as “a sexy picture,” when just a moment ago you made out that that interpretation was all in my head, which I’ve twisted my gullible readers into believing for the sake of hits.

      Really, the only gullible person here is me, now regretting spending all this time on your utterly facile, utterly inane comment. I’m out.

      • I meant asking random Koreans as in Korean strangers about your conclusion. Btw, those were simple translations, so even dictionary or Google Translate might do a better job than you did. I dismissed your conclusion mainly because you didn’t offer a clear-cut logical explanation as to why you think the ad labels some Koreans as incapable of loving Korea. I did think the mistranslation had something do with your conclusion, though, because it’s hard for me to imagine any reasonable Korean reaching the same conclusion as you did.

        And it really is just your title that’s misleading because no reasonable Korean would think that the second largest bank in Korea is seriously offering a famous young woman as a present to Korean men, especially when almost the entire left side of the ad is about the credit card with a big picture of the card. If it’s anything, it’s a subtle advertising trick to make people curious so they would read the rest of the ad to find about the card, not a double entendre.

        Your post does come off as sensational whether or not you consciously intended or not. The sensationalist aspect is less about whether or not sexy pictures were used, and more about how you used those pictures with cropping, misleading title, the structure of the post, etc. Furthermore, disclosing that she’s a foreign minor does add to the sensationalist aspect. It’s because steering readers to perceive that the ad is presenting a foreign minor as a gift to Korean men implies less consent (human trafficking, child abuse, etc) than presenting a Korean adult female as a gift.

        These issues were not about whether you can or cannot do these sort of things. It’s your post, so unless the KB bank or JYP were to raise legal issues with it, which they won’t because your blog is unknown to almost all Koreans, you can do whatever you want with it. But when you use similar tactics as the advertisers you critique to gain your readers’ attention, it weakens your argument by shaking the very moral ground that you imply you stand on. Most readers may not be able to articulate what I told you, but I’m guessing I’m probably not the only one who took issues with the tone of your posts. The sensationalist approach has a lot to do with it.

        • If you still can’t accept that the ad relies on a sexual double entendre, and if you still feel that my blog post is more deserving of criticism than the bank is for using a picture of a teenage girl in a miniskirt to advertise a credit card, then I’m not sure what else I can do to convince you otherwise.

          I will only add one thing to my last comment then, as I was already planning to mention it, but gave up in exasperation with your own comment before I did:

          I did not say the ad literally “labels some Koreans as incapable of loving Korea.”

          I did say “What clearly isn’t fair however, is how ad campaigns like these effectively label women, the disabled, openly LGBTQ individuals, conscientious objectors, and (until just 6 years ago) mixed-race Koreans as incapable of ‘loving their country.'”

          By which I mean that there is a widespread, popularly-held notion in Korean society that men deserve a great deal from having served, which should be denied to those that didn’t. Again, two years of military service is certainly a sacrifice for those men, but ultimately the many tangible and intangible benefits granted to them afterwards still propel them far ahead of non-soldiers financially and politically. By conflating patriotism with military service however, and indeed providing a service unavailable to non-soldiers, these ads perpetuate this division, and remind us of one reason why women, the disabled, and openly LGBTQ individuals are effectively second-class citizens in their own country.

          I realize that that may have been too abstract for you, much like the sexual overtone of the double entendre of the ad is. Not understanding the word “effectively” however, which is what sparked your whole facile, holier-than-thou comment to me in the first place, is a much worse language mistake than any of my alleged mistranslations of the Korean ad (which, again, none of your “corrections” really change the meaning of.)

          Are we done yet?

  2. After looking at the ad that clearly looks like a credit card ad from a big bank, do you really think typical Koreans would be confused whether the credit card or the young K-pop star is being offered as a gift to Korean men?

    Keeping saying it’s a double entendre is a gross exaggeration at the best when typical Koreans can only draw one conclusion as to what the ad is describing as the gift from the bank: the credit card. You should learn to understand the difference between a subtle advertising device and an actual double entendre.

    The word “effectively” does not make your point true. It only means that you’re claiming that the ad and other similar ads are implicitly or functionally, rather than explicitly, labeling some Koreans as incapable of loving Korea. You don’t provide examples of similar ads, and you still don’t explain how this ad “effectively” labels those Koreans you list as incapable of loving Korea. I think you’re just being evasive here.

    Sensationalism is generally frowned upon in serious journalism or academic writing because it often misrepresents or exaggerates factual information. When you combine that sort of sensationalism, culturally sensitive topics, mistranslation issues, and probably some subtle ethnocentric bias, you just sort of end up with a big mess. It can be an entertaining mess like a badly written tabloid newspaper article, but “Grand Narrative?” I’m not so sure about that.

    • After looking at the ad that clearly looks like a credit card ad from a big bank, do you really think typical Koreans would be confused whether the credit card or the young K-pop star is being offered as a gift to Korean men?

      Keeping saying it’s a double entendre is a gross exaggeration at the best when typical Koreans can only draw one conclusion as to what the ad is describing as the gift from the bank: the credit card. You should learn to understand the difference between a subtle advertising device and an actual double entendre.

      Again, you seem to think that the fact that the ad is for a credit card, and that everyone (including you and me) knows this, somehow renders the double entendre null and void. Alternatively, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term, thinking that a double entendre means the alternative, sexual meaning has to be just as legitimate and valid as the “official” one to qualify. You are mistaken.

      The word “effectively” does not make your point true. It only means that you’re claiming that the ad and other similar ads are implicitly or functionally, rather than explicitly, labeling some Koreans as incapable of loving Korea. You don’t provide examples of similar ads, and you still don’t explain how this ad “effectively” labels those Koreans you list as incapable of loving Korea. I think you’re just being evasive here.

      Evasive? I explicitly covered that in my last comment, although I admit I was editing it as your comment came in, and you may have been responding to an earlier version (my bad). Regardless however, I have discussed this theme at much, much greater length and provided many more examples in the links provided at the end of the post, if you care to look.

      Sensationalism is generally frowned upon in serious journalism or academic writing because it often misrepresents or exaggerates factual information. When you combine that sort of sensationalism, culturally sensitive topics, mistranslation issues, and probably some subtle ethnocentric bias, you just sort of end up with a big mess. It can be an entertaining mess like a badly written tabloid newspaper article, but “Grand Narrative?” I’m not so sure about that.

      I’ve already covered the alleged sensationalism, don’t need your permission or approval for what topics I can write about thanks (and why is it so “culturally sensitive” if it’s just an ad? That’s the second time you can’t seem to make your mind up), and already responded to your charges that I’ve mistranslated. As for some “subtle ethnocentric bias,” all I’ve witnessed myself is that of your ad hominem attacks based on my being a dumb non-Korean who speaks the language poorly.

      Perhaps it’s about time to move on from something you keep telling me is nothing but sensationalist trash, yet still feel strangely compelled to keep coming back to?

  3. As a last note, the ad does not imply that you need a military experience in order to be patriotic. Sure, the ad implies that being in military or having military experience can mean being patriotic, but it also does not rule out other avenues of being patriotic for other people. There is no mention of it. How some people cannot serve in the military is a separate issue from this ad, and you shouldn’t be conflating that issue with this ad.

  4. We all have ethnocentric bias in different degrees. I have it, and you have it. There is nothing “dumb” about having some subtle ethnocentric bias unless you have tons and tons of it.

    In order to be an actual double entendre, one has to be able to reach two plausible conclusions. One can be a more obvious conclusion, and the other can be a more subtle one. But you still need two. But there is only one plausible conclusion that people can reach from this ad. You’re expanding the meaning of double entendre beyond its general usage to fit your argument here.

    There is nothing in the ad to imply only those with military experience can be patriotic, but I do get a feeling that you have some issues with general level of social benefit for people with military experience. That issue is complex and has nothing to do with this ad. Are we going to start arguing who should get more social benefit and how? Women, children, homosexuals, those with military experience, retired, and more?

    • We all have ethnocentric bias in different degrees. I have it, and you have it. There is nothing “dumb” about having some subtle ethnocentric bias unless you have tons and tons of it.

      I never said having an ethnocentric bias was dumb. I acknowledge that we all have it, and that we can but be aware of it and try to overcome it.

      What I did say, is that all I’ve witnessed of any ““subtle ethnocentric bias” here is that of “your ad hominem attacks based on my being a dumb non-Korean who speaks the language poorly.” Forgive me if I’m not in the mood to outline exactly where you do so in your comments at the moment sorry, but then you don’t actually provide any evidence of my alleged subtle ethnocentric bias either.

      In order to be an actual double entendre, one has to be able to reach two plausible conclusions. One can be a more obvious conclusion, and the other can be a more subtle one. But you still need two. But there is only one plausible conclusion that people can reach from this ad. You’re expanding the meaning of double entendre beyond its general usage to fit your argument here.

      I invite you to pass on so much as one link to a definition that mentions the requirement of two plausible conclusions. I also invite you to comment on whether, say this or this (the latter one further explained here) count as double entendres to you either? Or that because we all know that the advertisers didn’t really mean that the woman wanted to orgasm, or that because we all know that the advertisers didn’t really want married couples to fuck at their restaurant, then there were no double entendres involved at all? If so, then why were so many people upset at the latter one?

      Your earlier comment:

      …the ad does not imply that you need a military experience in order to be patriotic. Sure, the ad implies that being in military or having military experience can mean being patriotic, but it also does not rule out other avenues of being patriotic for other people. There is no mention of it. How some people cannot serve in the military is a separate issue from this ad, and you shouldn’t be conflating that issue with this ad.

      And:

      There is nothing in the ad to imply only those with military experience can be patriotic…

      Yes, technically there is nothing in the ad to suggest that because heterosexual male soldiers are patriotic, other groups can’t be too. By all means then, let me know of any other KB bank campaigns extolling the patriotism of young women, middle-aged women who aren’t mothers of soldiers, disabled people, LGBTQ people, and so on, and giving them benefits denied to others based on what those groups do for their country. Hell, let’s expand that request to any campaigns, stores, and/or services in Korea.

      …but I do get a feeling that you have some issues with general level of social benefit for people with military experience. That issue is complex and has nothing to do with this ad.

      Whatever gave you that feeling that I had issues? Could it possibly be because that’s what this entire series is about? Which this ad and the implications of the exclusive services provided to soldiers is a very small part of to be sure, but still a part and worthy of discussion nonetheless?

      Again, obvious points seem to be flying way over your head.

      Finally, you say:

      Are we going to start arguing who should get more social benefit and how? Women, children, homosexuals, those with military experience, retired, and more?

      Er…yeah? Please, lets! Like I said, that’s what this entire series is about. Why didn’t you just start with that in the first place?

      Oh wait…you mean arguing about that is a bad thing?

      • In case you didn’t know, I didn’t imply you’re a dumb foreigner. I said something like you have a limited grasp of Korean.

        Most dictionaries would define double entendre as having two meanings. For something to have a meaning it needs to makes sense or be plausible. Saying something like “sea religion necktie” is nonsensical for example.

        I do agree that the ads you list feature double entendre. I suppose it makes sense that you need vitamin C to perform well sexually. It makes sense that you can eat food or “eat” as in oral sex. It also makes sense that it’s fun to have sex or shop in some way, I think, using the word “따먹다.” Two meanings that actually make sense can easily be derived from the key sentences in each ads.

        The KB Bank ad is different. You can’t drive two meanings from the sentence about the gift alone, and it does not make sense that KB Bank is gifting a popular K-pop idol to Korean men due to all the context of the ad and common knowledge. Most people are likely to view her similar to a model presenting a fancy car at an auto show. For most people, she’s just a pretty face presenting a credit card.

        And If many Koreans actually think that the ad is working as a double entendre, then there would be a huge public outcry over it because it would be incredibly controversial for KB Bank to present a very famous minor girl as a gift to Korean men, mostly military men at that. And given how famous she is, it would likely be a much bigger public outcry than the one over the restaurant ad.

        As I said, it’s just a subtle advertising trick, not a proper double entendre. It certainly is not working as a double entendre, given the lack of any public outcry. Are all those Koreans wrong? On the other hand, you used sensationalism (cropping, the delay, etc) to make the ad seem a lot worse than it actually is to push you own agenda. That’s one reason why I used the word “sly” to describe your post.

        As to the other point, are you kidding or are you actually being serious? So what if the KB bank is or is not extolling the patriotism of other groups? It still doesn’t change how the ad is mostly innocuous. Btw, I’m mainly talking about your KB bank post, not your entire series about whatever. And while it maybe a worthwhile discussion to talk about how the resources should be allocated to various groups of people in Korea, it would be irrelevant and greatly enlarging the scope of the argument.

        In general, though, military people get extra benefits because they make relatively little money and do a very dangerous job that is integral to a society. I’m sure other groups, especially women, LGBT community, and mixed-race people, do need to be treated a lot better and receive more benefits in Korea. I never objected to those points, and I am completely with you on that.

        But why try to make that point while using a sensationalist packaging to pass off a relatively innocuous ad as something a lot worse and falsely implying that the ad is effectively labeling some Koreans as being incapable of being patriotic? To get more views? Because it’s more fun to write a sensationalist post? You can obviously do whatever you want with your blog, but in my opinion, you have a very odd and ineffective way of making your point. “Grand Narrative?” I doubt it.

        • In case you didn’t know, I didn’t imply you’re a dumb foreigner. I said something like you have a limited grasp of Korean.

          Oh? As per your first comment: “I suppose it’s possible for a foreigner with limited grasp of Korean language to misunderstand the ad. If you were to just ask a few random Koreans about the ad, you will see what I mean.” I’ve called you out on both, but you stubbornly refuse to admit your mistake with either. You also repeatedly stress that this is just a crappy blog, it’s not important, no-one cares, no-one reads it, and it’s widely sensationalist to compensate.

          But hey, you’ve still got nothing but the deepest respect for my opinions, and for my ability to understand the place I’ve called home for the past 17 years, right?

          Most dictionaries would define double entendre as having two meanings. For something to have a meaning it needs to makes sense or be plausible. Saying something like “sea religion necktie” is nonsensical for example.

          I asked you for a link to just one definition to support your understanding of the term, not a reiteration of what you think dictionaries would say. It is very telling that you did not provide one.

          I do agree that the ads you list feature double entendre. I suppose it makes sense that you need vitamin C to perform well sexually. It makes sense that you can eat food or “eat” as in oral sex. It also makes sense that it’s fun to have sex or shop in some way, I think, using the word “따먹다.” Two meanings that actually make sense can easily be derived from the key sentences in each ads.

          The KB Bank ad is different. You can’t drive two meanings from the sentence about the gift alone, and it does not make sense that KB Bank is gifting a popular K-pop idol to Korean men due to all the context of the ad and common knowledge. Most people are likely to view her similar to a model presenting a fancy car at an auto show. For most people, she’s just a pretty face presenting a credit card.

          Hey, I can hardly persuade you there’s a double entendre in the ad if you have such a flawed notion of what that term means in the first place, and refuse to look at a dictionary when I point that out. All that’s left for me to do here then, is to point out (again) that I never said here or in the comments that KB was seriously suggesting it was offering Tzuyu (or any other teenage girl) as a gift, or that people ever would think so. The double entendre in this case, and how it differs from the two I mentioned, is a juxtaposition, that just so happens to perfectly encapsulate the role of girl-groups (and women in general) vis-a-viz the Korean military.

          Maybe I should have explained that earlier; maybe you shouldn’t be so stubborn about your flawed definition of double entendre, which makes you seem so willfully obtuse.

          And If many Koreans actually think that the ad is working as a double entendre, then there would be a huge public outcry over it because it would be incredibly controversial for KB Bank to present a very famous minor girl as a gift to Korean men, mostly military men at that. And given how famous she is, it would likely be a much bigger public outcry than the one over the restaurant ad.

          As I said, it’s just a subtle advertising trick, not a proper double entendre. It certainly is not working as a double entendre, given the lack of any public outcry. Are all those Koreans wrong? On the other hand, you used sensationalism (cropping, the delay, etc) to make the ad seem a lot worse than it actually is to push you own agenda. That’s one reason why I used the word “sly” to describe your post.

          I dealt with much of that above. True, I have not noticed a public outcry about this specific ad…which implies nothing whatsoever. Ads like these are ubiquitous in Korea, and considered completely normal by many. But sociology, which I teach, is all about examining and questioning what people consider the norm and unworthy of comment, such as 17 year-olds in miniskirts advertising credit cards to soldiers. Moreover, outsiders in that society, not used to and/or unaccepting of that norm, are often best placed to notice them and their negatives.

          Maybe you’d agree with that, and were just referring to the lack of outrage about the double entendre. Either way, while ads like this are I think you’d be surprised at what vitriolic opposition there is to ads like this out there, and to women’s relationship to the military that it epitomizes.

          I also have already dealt repeatedly with my alleged sensationalism, including my heinous crime of including a picture of the object of discussion, and cropping the first image to highlight the most important elements. Yet again, you ignore what I said because you’re so hung-up about my “real” motives.

          As to the other point, are you kidding or are you actually being serious? So what if the KB bank is or is not extolling the patriotism of other groups? It still doesn’t change how the ad is mostly innocuous. Btw, I’m mainly talking about your KB bank post, not your entire series about whatever. And while it maybe a worthwhile discussion to talk about how the resources should be allocated to various groups of people in Korea, it would be irrelevant and greatly enlarging the scope of the argument.

          You complained that I didn’t provide examples; I pointed out links to them, and which also show the relevance of having that discussion in relation to this ad. Now you’ve so much as admitted you’re not actually prepared to go to those links, despite asking for them.

          Notice a trend here?

          In general, though, military people get extra benefits because they make relatively little money and do a very dangerous job that is integral to a society. I’m sure other groups, especially women, LGBT community, and mixed-race people, do need to be treated a lot better and receive more benefits in Korea. I never objected to those points, and I am completely with you on that.

          Well, aren’t you a peach.

          But why try to make that point while using a sensationalist packaging to pass off a relatively innocuous ad as something a lot worse and falsely implying that the ad is effectively labeling some Koreans as being incapable of being patriotic?

          I’ve dealt with that question in previous comments, again, and again, and again. Now I really have to ask myself why I bothered.

          To get more views? Because it’s more fun to write a sensationalist post? You can obviously do whatever you want with your blog, but in my opinion, you have a very odd and ineffective way of making your point. “Grand Narrative?” I doubt it.

          I’ve dealt wi…oh, what’s the point?

          Yeah, I can do what I want with my blog…including telling you to stick your opinion of it, rebutted time and time again, where the sun don’t shine.

          As your next comment would just be 9/10s of your previous one, and ignore 9/10s of mine, then I do not care to read it. Consequently, you are banned from making further comments in this thread. I hope that means you will make more productive use of your time, and stop wasting mine.

          That said, you remain free to comment on other posts (but not about this one), where your responses will receive the respect they deserve.

  5. What a fuss about tzukiyu KB ad
    advertisement. About the skirt, short? The way I read the discussion, it gave the impression
    that she’s wearing a mini skirt.
    Focused on military recruitment.
    So what. I don’t see any
    illegality. But of course, I’m not a Korean (just like Korea and Korean ladies, and studying the Korean language)

    Best regards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s