Ajumma and 76-Year-Old Entry Ban Sparks Hate Debate [After Deadline]

Store Safety Accidents, Owner Responsibility
Increase in ‘No○○ Zones’ After Ruling
Concerns Over Exclusion, Hatred, and Discrimination Spread
Calls for Stronger Ordinances, but
Some Defend ‘Problem Customers’ Incidents

Editor's Note‘After Deadline’ delivers in-depth stories online that could not be covered in print. Moving beyond breaking news, straight reports, and brief articles that everyone remembers, we present the background stories, issues and discussion points, pros and cons, accompanied by various visual materials.

Following the coverage by the UK’s BBC News of a notice banning “ajumma” (middle-aged women) from entering a gym in Incheon, a similar controversy has reignited with the revelation of a notice at a hotel gym in Daegu banning customers aged 76 and above, sparking debates over No Ajumma, No Silver, and No Kids zones. While some view these as expressions of business freedom and economic creativity, there is considerable criticism that they promote hatred and constitute discriminatory acts violating equality rights. Some argue in defense that these measures are desperate attempts to block “problematic customers,” reflecting the hardships faced by small business owners.

Recently, the UK’s BBC reported on the gym banning ajumma, interpreting it as evidence of growing “intolerance for specific age groups” in Korean society. The report explained that “generally, ajumma refers to women in their late 30s and older, but it also carries a derogatory meaning condemning rude or unpleasant behavior.” The BBC also mentioned cases where Korean stores restricting entry to children and the elderly faced criticism.

On the 14th (local time), the British BBC reported news about a gym banning middle-aged women, stating that it can be seen as evidence of growing "intolerance for specific age groups" in Korean society. The BBC also mentioned cases where Korean stores restricting entry to children and the elderly faced criticism.

The gym in question posted a notice stating “No Ajumma Entry,” with an additional line at the bottom saying “Only cultured and elegant women allowed,” which fueled the controversy. The notice also listed eight criteria distinguishing ajumma from women. The gym owner defended the notice, claiming it was posted due to damages caused by some women.

A notice posted at a gym in Incheon that sparked controversy. The distinctions between ajumma and women are outlined (Source=Online Community)

Increase in ‘No○○Zone’ Following Court Rulings Holding Owners Responsible for Store Safety Accidents

‘No○○Zone’ policies, which prohibit entry to certain groups, have been a persistent issue in small business communities. This is because the number of establishments restricting entry by certain age groups has significantly increased after court rulings held business owners responsible for safety accidents occurring on their premises.

For example, in 2013, the Busan District Court ruled that a small business owner must pay 41 million won in damages after a 10-year-old child was scalded when colliding with an employee carrying hot water at a restaurant in Busan, citing insufficient employee safety training. In 2014, the Uijeongbu District Court ruled that in a 2012 incident where a baby in a stroller was burned at a restaurant, the restaurant bore 70% of the responsibility and the parents 30%.

The problem is that the scope of ‘No○○Zone’ policies is becoming more specific regardless of safety accident prevention. Zones such as No Middle Schoolers Zone, No Couples Zone, No Rappers Zone, or notices stating “Politely refusing those aged 49 and above” exist. A Google No Kids Zone map was even created and shared online based on consumer reports.

No-Kids Zone Map Created from Consumer Reports (Source: Online Community)

Concerns Over Spread of Exclusion, Hatred, and Discrimination Culture Based on ‘Attributes’ Rather Than ‘Actions’

Restricting entry based on age clearly falls under discriminatory acts as defined by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK). The NHRCK defines 19 types of discriminatory acts infringing on equality rights, including ①gender ②religion ③disability ④age ⑤social status ⑥regional origin ⑦national origin ⑧ethnicity ⑨physical condition, with age being the fourth category.

For this reason, the NHRCK ruled in 2017 that No Kids Zones constitute discriminatory acts. The commission stated in its decision that “not all children or guardians accompanying children cause significant harm to business owners or other users.” However, the NHRCK’s decisions are only recommendations, so operating No○○Zones does not result in legal penalties, leaving a legal gray area.

Experts express concern that such notices may spread prejudice by excluding or antagonizing others based on attributes rather than actions. Lee Dong-seok, professor of social welfare at Daegu University, said, “When notices banning specific age groups are publicly posted, hatred or exclusion of socially vulnerable groups becomes internalized in people’s perceptions and can serve as a rational basis for discrimination.” He added, “This is an area that should be regulated through local government ordinances,” emphasizing that “the principle of business freedom cannot infringe on all human rights or equality rights.”

Calls for Regulation via Local Ordinances VS Defense as a Response to ‘Problematic Customers’

Park Seung-hee, professor of social welfare at Sungkyunkwan University, also said, “Banning elderly customers without reasonable grounds can develop into ageism, so efforts to raise awareness at the local government level are necessary,” adding, “It is also important to expand health facilities in elderly welfare centers so that seniors have comfortable places to exercise.”

Meanwhile, a 4-star hotel gym in Suseong-gu, Daegu, previously posted a notice stating, “Customers aged 76 and above are not allowed to register as members or enter for a day.” The gym explained that this was due to concerns over accidents such as collapses or slips, and said, “Currently registered members aged 76 and above may submit a family consent form stating they will take responsibility in case of safety accidents, and decisions will be made after review.”