Last month, the election of Rep. Choo Mi-ae to steer the main opposition party on Aug. 27 brought on a handful of news articles that highlighted on her gender. Some even anticipated what her “chemistry” would be like with the nation’s female president.

Staging the climax to such gender-oriented commentaries was the ruling Saenuri Party, whose spokeswoman Rep. Kim Hyun-ah said, “It is hoped that (Choo) will take on a delicate attitude like that of a mother to prioritize everyday economy over political strife.”

Choo actually is a mother, but that does not matter. As it should not matter that the nation’s first female president never got married or had children.

It seems quite natural for a country that still presumes a person to be a man unless otherwise specified, to take greater emphasis on a person’s feat when she is a woman, or to expect more, because she is a woman.

Upon the Dec. 19 presidential election of Park Geun-hye, all 15 major dailies – including The Korea Herald – carried front page headlines saying that South Korea elected its first-ever female president. Nine of them decked the articles with how Park had won a majority of votes, while five of them noted that she was the first second-generation president.

Three years on, the only reference of Park made related to her gender seems to be the inevitable descriptions of her wardrobe on her public appearances. Apparently, wearing pink shows her willingness to soften, while wearing blue shows her more combative side.

The impact of a fashion statement by anyone is not disputable, and Park could be doing very much that. However, none of Park’s male predecessors have had their wardrobe so voluntarily or resourcefully interpreted by the media.

The “female compass” on how women leaders would, or should, be more nurturing, soft and flexible is applied both by her proponents and opponents.

Some of her staunchest followers – many conservative seniors – often say that their hearts ache for Park, who never got a chance to live a normal life -- meaning she never got to marry or give birth to a child as a healthy woman should.

Some of her internet-savvy opponents have also often questioned her ability as a leader on social media with such nicknames as “Madame Amollang,” presumably playing off of a derogatory term for clueless and irresponsible middle aged ajumma.

But one has to question, does being a woman in such an important job matter?

The ratio of women in the top tiers of a society, economy and politics is important in that it is a numerical index to show how much equal opportunities have been guaranteed regardless of gender.

However, the ultimate direction in fighting for better protection of women’s rights or securing gender equality should be bottom-up. It should strive to balance out the benefits of both genders, not just to advantage one side.

The flamboyant celebration for having elected the first female president three years ago, before most other countries, was only valid in terms of the potential policies for women with fewer resources and systematic discrimination.

Maximizing the strong points of one’s gender should be a choice for the person striving to reach a certain position, instead of a presumption by the watchers or the followers.

Now, as the country shows the highest ratio of underpaid working women among the Organization for Economic Cooperation, with women graduates from lower-ranked universities suffering the most in the job market crunch, having elected the first female president seems irrelevant.

The undoubted political and democratic regression that has occurred under the country’s first female president, again, has nothing to do with her gender.

Upon the first debate between US presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump this week, emphasis by the watchers had not simply been on their genders. Rather, Clinton was seen dexterously taking full advantage of her gender to attack her rival by calling out on his alleged discrimination against women.

If one should gauge the pros and cons of everything about a candidate, then it should be done so in a relevant way.

As South Korea stands at a dangerously critical juncture for both economy and security, the inexorable yardsticks on those that could lead our country should not be so forgiving, presumptuous or unjustified.

All leaders should be sternly evaluated and judged on their vision, policies, communication capacity and ethical standards, whether they are women or men. (jhl@heraldcorp.com)

By Lee Joo-hee

Lee Joo-hee is the national editor of The Korea Herald. She can be reached at jhl@heraldcorp.com. — Ed.