Research published in Sex Roles suggests that male victimhood ideology among South Korean men is driven more by perceived socioeconomic status decline rather than objective economic hardship.
In recent years, male victimhood ideology—the belief that men are primary targets of gender discrimination—has gained prominence globally. Advocates of this view argue that feminist policies unfairly disadvantage men. South Korea offers a unique context for exploring this ideology due to significant economic and gender-related social shifts.
Despite high levels of education, young South Korean men face precarious job markets and increasing competition in traditionally male-dominated domains, which has created fertile ground for such beliefs.
Joeun Kim investigated the roots of male victimhood ideology, questioning whether it arises from actual economic hardships or a perceived loss of social privilege.
The study utilized data from four large-scale surveys conducted in South Korea between 2015 and 2023. Each survey assessed male victimhood ideology through agreement with statements like “Men are discriminated against due to excessive feminist policies.” Other variables included age, marital status, education, employment, income, and perceptions of socioeconomic status.
Study 1 surveyed 1,200 men aged 15 to 34, and responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Study 2 expanded to 3,000 men aged 19 to 59, adding measures of anxiety about social status decline, captured on a 4-point scale. Study 3 included 8,917 men aged 19 to 39, introducing comparisons between participants’ current socioeconomic status and their perceived status at age 15 to evaluate downward mobility. Study 4 analyzed 2,028 men aged 19 to 44, focusing on whether participants perceived their socioeconomic status as lower than their parents’ and including parental class data to examine privilege-related status loss.
All surveys were conducted online to improve accessibility and minimize social desirability bias.
The results consistently showed no significant relationship between male victimhood ideology and objective economic hardship. In Study 1, variables like education, unemployment, and non-regular employment did not predict male victimhood beliefs. Study 2 similarly found no association between income or precarious employment and such beliefs. In some cases, higher-income men were more likely to endorse victimhood ideology.
On the other hand, perceived status decline was a consistent and strong predictor. In Study 2, men with anxiety over status decline were more likely to adopt victimhood beliefs. Study 3 reinforced this finding, showing that men perceiving downward mobility, comparing their current socioeconomic status unfavorably to their status at age 15, were more likely to endorse male victimhood ideology, especially among middle- and upper-class men who experienced sharper losses in privilege. Study 4 further confirmed that perceived status decline relative to one’s parents strongly correlated with male victimhood beliefs, again most pronounced in men from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
These patterns were absent in women, who displayed much lower levels of victimhood ideology under similar conditions. The findings consistently demonstrate that male victimhood beliefs are driven by perceived privilege loss rather than objective economic hardship.
Findings may not fully generalize to other cultural contexts with different gender and economic dynamics.
The research, “Male Victimhood Ideology Among Korean Men: Is It Economic Hardship or Perceived Status Decline?,” was authored by Joeun Kim.
