Gender in Korean Dramas

One thing about Korean dramas and gender dynamics is that mothers-in-law are almost always portrayed as terrible people. This resonates with many people’s real-life experiences, as women often complain about their mothers-in-law being annoying. However, these dramas tend to exaggerate the situation, showing mothers-in-law as egregiously terrible, which I think is pretty accurate. I understand that some people don’t like their mothers-in-law but is it really that bad in South Korea? Actually, yes. Yes, it is. In fact, it’s to the point where some women are choosing not to get married at all. Why? Because if they do marry, they’re expected to take on the responsibility of performing ancestral rites for their husband's entire family—honoring ancestors who have passed. Yet, the same expectation isn’t placed on men when it comes to the woman’s side of the family. I’ve heard that the ancestral rites along with the mother-in-law drama are why many women in South Korea are not interested in marriage. I really need to do research on this. Hae Yeon Choo, I need your books….

But it’s definitely become a trope in any Korean drama. There’s always the rich guy with the classic Cinderella story—rich guy, poor girl, or working-class girl. They meet, they fall in love, especially after initially hating each other, and then they grow to love one another. It’s that “enemies to lovers” situation. But the funniest thing I see in these shows is how the mother-in-law will hand over a big, fat envelope full of money, slide it across the table to the daughter, and say, “Hey, stop seeing my son. Take the money.”

What the hell?

This is how they’re portraying mothers and women in these shows. I’m like, “Is it because the mothers-in-law, or soon to be mothers-in-law, are doing the dirty work for the husbands?” I wonder about that sometimes. In some of these shows, there is no husband, right?

But I think that if you're a rich heir, your dad is going to be very invested in you taking on the family business. So why isn’t he the one passing the envelope full of money to the girl? It’s like, oh, the woman has to do it, probably for appearances, so it doesn’t look like she’s using her as prostitute or some other form of sex work. But also, like, maybe not to look like you're cheating on your wife.

The point is that these mothers-in-law protect their sons as if they’re married to them. It’s so troubling, but I love watching it. I love watching the patterns and the storylines, and I’ll keep watching. It’s just that the gender components are so fascinating to see because I haven’t seen a lot of these gender tropes in a long time. I grew up in the United States in the 1980s and 90s, and there was a time when the Bechdel Test had very few winners. Women were always talking about guys, and women were constantly tripping and falling for some reason, while men were portrayed as these big, brawny figures saying, “Let me help you,” because women couldn’t do things for themselves. It’s like the "dumb blonde" narrative—the blonde girl with blue eyes acting like, "Oh, I don’t know what to do; my brain doesn’t work because the bottle of dye has neutralized my brain function." It’s so weird. I just remember always watching girls fall for that, especially in older shows like Gidget. Those were the kinds of shows I grew up with. But American TV doesn’t do that as much anymore; they’ve gotten far more egalitarian in their storylines.

It’s odd to watch Korean dramas that are doing things I saw ages ago. For example, the whole "How dare you marry my son?" storyline. "You can’t marry my son; you’re not a Vanderbilt or a Rockefeller. How dare you think you can marry into such a dynasty?" Any of those old soap operas had a similar plotline—mother-in-law versus future daughter-in-law. That’s a narrative I haven’t seen on TV in a long time, and when it is used, it’s often played for jokes, like, "Oh, your mother-in-law is coming over."  Oh, God, okay, she'll be annoying, sure, but not this idea of mothers, like, before their kids even get married, telling the woman, "You can't marry my son. My son is so precious, and you could never measure up to the type of woman he deserves." It's like, excuse me, if I can boil water for tea without a kettle, you know? Sure, he's got millions of dollars and all the access that comes with that, but can he iron his own pants? Doubt it.

Those are my thoughts on gender equality but I haven’t heard much about the women’s movement in South Korea. It seems that a lot of women are feminists there, but they have to keep it under wraps because they might face serious might get killed, they are getting beaten up for having short hair or participating in the 4B movement, a radical feminist movement based on four principles: no dating, no sex, no marriage and no having children. This idea of women not wearing makeup or cutting their hair short so that they honestly look more like men—it’s interesting. A lot of guys don’t like it, and they see it as a feminist statement.

And guess what? Power doesn’t like to concede easily. So, I’m not surprised that many men find women fighting for their right to live life on their own terms threatening. Societies, especially in the wake of post-colonialism, are structured around patriarchy. Sure, maybe Confucianism plays a role too. But in these societies, women are not supposed to live life on their own terms. They're supposed to live the lives their husbands desire for them, which often means taking care of them. I'm not saying there aren't great husbands out there because I know there are many, but at the end of the day, it’s striking how many women, after they get divorced or their husband dies, are like, "I’m good, I’m done. I got what I needed out of that relationship; I don’t need to enter another one." I'm just like, wow. These women are worn out by their husbands. They're at a point where they’re like, "I’m middle-aged now, I have nothing more to give. I’m tired." I was like, wow, this is a lot for women. Not sure if that’s really what I was trying to say before, but I’ve definitely seen it.