Her character is supposed to be 20, but the actress is 35. While some actors can pass for younger than their age, she clearly looks closer to 35 than 20. Why didn’t they just cast a younger actress who actually fits the role?
I totally agree those scripts are full of misogynistic values and deprive women way too often of agency.When they…
I think this is exactly where we fundamentally disagree. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious conclusion, but what I see is a framework that explains every possible outcome in the same way. If women dislike these tropes, it's patriarchy. If women enjoy these tropes, it's internalized misogyny. If women actively seek them out and make them commercially successful, it's still patriarchy. At that point, the conclusion seems predetermined regardless of the evidence.
You say I'm being naive for pointing out that these stories are overwhelmingly consumed by women, but I would argue it's equally naive to assume that millions of women cannot genuinely enjoy certain romance fantasies without it being explained away as conditioning, oppression, or false consciousness. At some point, women have to be given credit for their own choices rather than having those choices continually reinterpreted as evidence of conditioning whenever they don’t fit a particular framework. Are you suggesting that women’s preferences only count as "real choices" when they match your interpretation, and otherwise should be understood as conditioning?
I agree that culture influences media. What I reject is the leap from "culture influences media" to "therefore these stories are primarily tools for keeping women in check." That's an assertion, not a proven fact.
What I've noticed throughout this discussion is that the tropes that favour male characters are constantly highlighted, while the tropes that favour female characters are largely ignored. The female lead is often the emotional centre of the story, the object of desire, the one pursued by multiple romantic interests, and the person around whom the entire narrative revolves. Those elements seem to disappear from the analysis because they don't fit the conclusion.
So no, I don't accept that these stories can simply be reduced to patriarchy, misogyny, or oppression. That's one interpretation among many, and presenting it as the definitive explanation is precisely where I think the argument falls apart.
I totally agree those scripts are full of misogynistic values and deprive women way too often of agency.When they…
I think we've drifted a long way from the original point. The discussion started with the claim that these dramas are misogynistic because the male lead is often rich, powerful, competent, or in a higher-status position than the female lead. But what keeps getting ignored is that these same dramas are often heavily centered around the female lead. She's usually the emotional focus of the story, the character multiple men are interested in, the one being pursued, desired, protected, and treated as uniquely special.
If we're going to analyse tropes, then we should analyse all of them, not just the ones that support a particular conclusion. Focusing only on the male lead's status while ignoring the female lead's narrative advantages feels like looking at half the picture.
You keep interpreting these stories through a patriarchal/misogyny framework, but that framework doesn't explain why so many of the same stories are clearly designed around female wish-fulfilment and are overwhelmingly consumed by female audiences. If these tropes are so oppressive to women, why are women the primary audience keeping them popular?
I have no problem with wanting more variety in romance stories. What I disagree with is taking a selective reading of a few tropes and then treating that as proof that the genre itself is misogynistic. That's a conclusion, not an objective fact.
Not much to say about this one, really. It's a very simple show with very little drama. Quick and easy to watch. It's not great, but it's not bad either, just okay. My biggest issue is that the male lead is a complete simp. The female lead breaks up with him because she doesn't trust him, and then when she comes running back, he immediately takes her back. Like, mate, grow some balls. At least make her put in some effort to win you back. After all, you were the one doing all the pursuing in the first place.
I totally agree those scripts are full of misogynistic values and deprive women way too often of agency.When they…
I think you’re treating a theoretical interpretation as if it’s a universal fact.
Hierarchy in romance narratives is not automatically “patriarchal construction” or misogyny. That’s one framework, but it’s not the only way to understand storytelling. In fiction, contrast between characters (status, personality, emotional openness, experience, etc.) is a basic narrative device used to create tension and development — it isn’t inherently a reflection of real-world gender oppression.
Real-life attraction studies about similarity also don’t settle this, because fiction is not constrained to mirror real-world partner choice. People routinely engage with exaggerated, symbolic, or fantasy-based narratives that don’t reflect their personal preferences in real life.
So I don’t agree with the conclusion that writers using these structures are therefore misogynistic, naive, or lazy. That’s a very broad and assumptive claim about intent applied across an entire genre.
It’s fair to want more variety in romance storytelling, but it’s not accurate to reduce these long-standing narrative conventions to a single ideological explanation.
I totally agree those scripts are full of misogynistic values and deprive women way too often of agency.When they…
First, hierarchy in romance doesn’t automatically equal misogyny or misandry. I only used “misandry” earlier as a consistency test, not as a claim that those role-reversal tropes are actually harmful in that way. My point was more about how quickly labels get applied depending on which gender is in which role.
Second, I’m not sure romance can realistically exist without some form of imbalance or contrast. Even in “equal” relationships, you still have differences in personality, emotional openness, timing of attraction, who falls first, and so on. That difference is often what creates the tension and development in the story, and I don’t think that automatically makes it misogyny.
So I’d see hierarchy in fiction less as a value statement and more as a storytelling tool. The real question is probably not whether hierarchy exists, but how it’s used and whether it’s meaningful within the narrative.
I totally agree those scripts are full of misogynistic values and deprive women way too often of agency.When they…
If we interpret traditional male power tropes as misogyny, can we also label role-reversal or emotionally softer male leads as misandry, such as CEO female leads with assistant or subordinate male leads, emotionally dependent male leads, or stories where the male lead is one of several romantic options competing for the female lead’s attention, or is it more consistent to see both as romance fantasy archetypes rather than ideological statements about either gender?
True but some kdramas luckily do make the FL the rich and/or super Competent one:for exampleSpooky In Love has…
I was with you until the sexism part. I don’t see how that conclusion follows.
These dramas are primarily marketed to and consumed by women. If the "rich, cold, competent male lead" trope keeps appearing, that doesn't automatically mean sexism. It could simply mean that a large portion of the target audience enjoys that fantasy. Entertainment companies follow ratings and profits. They don’t keep producing the same trope for decades if their audience doesn’t want it.
And if we're talking about fantasy fulfilment, people tend to focus only on the man's status while ignoring what the female lead gets. In many of these dramas, the female lead is the centre of the romantic universe. She often has multiple attractive men interested in her, several potential love interests competing for her attention, and is treated as uniquely special by the story. That’s a fantasy element too, and one that’s very consistently written for female leads.
On top of that, there are plenty of dramas where the woman is clearly the dominant figure: Hotel del Luna, It's Okay to Not Be Okay, Encounter, Begin Again, Oh My General, The Legends, Love Beyond the Grave, and others. The industry is clearly willing to produce and succeed with those dynamics as well.
If this were truly “sexism” in a structural sense, you’d expect something very different. You wouldn’t see so many female-centred stories, you wouldn’t see women as the clear emotional and narrative focus, and you wouldn’t see so many dramas built entirely around female wish-fulfilment. You’d expect systematic exclusion or consistently one-sided storytelling with very little variation. That’s not what we actually see here.
So wanting more balance is completely fair. Everyone has preferences. But calling it sexism feels like a big stretch when the genre is largely shaped by female audiences and frequently built around female-centred fantasy. To me, audience preference and genre conventions are a much more convincing explanation than sexism.
Why do they always give the imposing and authorative role to Man like why couldn't that dragon be the FL and normal…
I don't really agree that powerful, authoritative roles are always given to men in dramas. That trope definitely exists, but there are also plenty of examples where the woman is clearly the one with the power, status, authority, wealth, or supernatural advantage.
For example, in Hotel del Luna, the female lead is a centuries-old supernatural hotel owner and the male lead works for her. In It's Okay to Not Be Okay, the female lead is wealthier, more confident, and is the one pursuing the relationship. In Encounter, the female lead is the CEO while the male lead is an ordinary employee. In Begin Again, the female lead is a billionaire CEO and the male lead is a doctor from a normal background. In Oh My General, the female lead is a legendary military commander while the male lead is a prince who is far less powerful. In The Legends, the female lead is one of the most feared figures in the martial world. And in Love Beyond the Grave, the female lead is literally the ruler of the spirit realm while the male lead is a mortal.
Also, these dramas are primarily made for a female audience. If the "powerful man falls for the female lead" trope keeps appearing decade after decade, it's probably because a large part of that audience enjoys it. Romance dramas are fantasies, and one common fantasy is the idea of a powerful, capable, protective man choosing the female lead above everyone else.
At the same time, if we're talking about wish-fulfilment tropes, it's worth looking at the whole picture. In many dramas, the female lead is surrounded by multiple attractive men who are interested in her, compete for her attention, or remain devoted to her. Love triangles and multiple male admirers are extremely common. By comparison, it's much rarer to see a male lead surrounded by several women competing for his affection in the same way, and when it does happen it's often criticised more heavily. So even in stories where the male lead is the more powerful figure, the female lead is frequently the centre of attention romantically and has multiple potential partners pursuing her.
That's why I think it's overly simplistic to focus only on the man's status or authority. These dramas often contain different fantasy elements aimed at the target audience. Sometimes that's a powerful male lead, sometimes it's multiple devoted suitors, and sometimes it's a role-reversed story where the woman is the dominant figure.
So it's completely fair to be tired of a particular trope and want more variety, but I don't think it's accurate to say dramas always favour male characters. A lot of these stories are clearly designed around female audience fantasies and preferences, just in different ways.
This was quite good. I don’t really understand some of the criticism, because I watched the entire thing trying to identify the issues, but I couldn’t find much wrong with it.
It started off strong, and the interactions were engaging throughout. I really enjoyed the romance. It was well-developed and had good chemistry between the leads. The pacing was good as well. They even introduced a second female lead who had feelings for the male lead, which created an interesting and balanced dynamic alongside the second male lead and the female lead. Usually, we see a second male lead with feelings for the female lead, but it’s rare to see a second female lead used in the same way to balance things out. In this case, it was handled well. Neither of them became overly involved with the main leads, but their presence added just the right amount of tension and drama. The sleepwalking storyline was also handled well.
It’s not a perfect 10, but it felt very reasonable and well put together. I’d rate it around an 8, not flawless, but definitely solid.
You say I'm being naive for pointing out that these stories are overwhelmingly consumed by women, but I would argue it's equally naive to assume that millions of women cannot genuinely enjoy certain romance fantasies without it being explained away as conditioning, oppression, or false consciousness. At some point, women have to be given credit for their own choices rather than having those choices continually reinterpreted as evidence of conditioning whenever they don’t fit a particular framework. Are you suggesting that women’s preferences only count as "real choices" when they match your interpretation, and otherwise should be understood as conditioning?
I agree that culture influences media. What I reject is the leap from "culture influences media" to "therefore these stories are primarily tools for keeping women in check." That's an assertion, not a proven fact.
What I've noticed throughout this discussion is that the tropes that favour male characters are constantly highlighted, while the tropes that favour female characters are largely ignored. The female lead is often the emotional centre of the story, the object of desire, the one pursued by multiple romantic interests, and the person around whom the entire narrative revolves. Those elements seem to disappear from the analysis because they don't fit the conclusion.
So no, I don't accept that these stories can simply be reduced to patriarchy, misogyny, or oppression. That's one interpretation among many, and presenting it as the definitive explanation is precisely where I think the argument falls apart.
If we're going to analyse tropes, then we should analyse all of them, not just the ones that support a particular conclusion. Focusing only on the male lead's status while ignoring the female lead's narrative advantages feels like looking at half the picture.
You keep interpreting these stories through a patriarchal/misogyny framework, but that framework doesn't explain why so many of the same stories are clearly designed around female wish-fulfilment and are overwhelmingly consumed by female audiences. If these tropes are so oppressive to women, why are women the primary audience keeping them popular?
I have no problem with wanting more variety in romance stories. What I disagree with is taking a selective reading of a few tropes and then treating that as proof that the genre itself is misogynistic. That's a conclusion, not an objective fact.
Hierarchy in romance narratives is not automatically “patriarchal construction” or misogyny. That’s one framework, but it’s not the only way to understand storytelling. In fiction, contrast between characters (status, personality, emotional openness, experience, etc.) is a basic narrative device used to create tension and development — it isn’t inherently a reflection of real-world gender oppression.
Real-life attraction studies about similarity also don’t settle this, because fiction is not constrained to mirror real-world partner choice. People routinely engage with exaggerated, symbolic, or fantasy-based narratives that don’t reflect their personal preferences in real life.
So I don’t agree with the conclusion that writers using these structures are therefore misogynistic, naive, or lazy. That’s a very broad and assumptive claim about intent applied across an entire genre.
It’s fair to want more variety in romance storytelling, but it’s not accurate to reduce these long-standing narrative conventions to a single ideological explanation.
Second, I’m not sure romance can realistically exist without some form of imbalance or contrast. Even in “equal” relationships, you still have differences in personality, emotional openness, timing of attraction, who falls first, and so on. That difference is often what creates the tension and development in the story, and I don’t think that automatically makes it misogyny.
So I’d see hierarchy in fiction less as a value statement and more as a storytelling tool. The real question is probably not whether hierarchy exists, but how it’s used and whether it’s meaningful within the narrative.
These dramas are primarily marketed to and consumed by women. If the "rich, cold, competent male lead" trope keeps appearing, that doesn't automatically mean sexism. It could simply mean that a large portion of the target audience enjoys that fantasy. Entertainment companies follow ratings and profits. They don’t keep producing the same trope for decades if their audience doesn’t want it.
And if we're talking about fantasy fulfilment, people tend to focus only on the man's status while ignoring what the female lead gets. In many of these dramas, the female lead is the centre of the romantic universe. She often has multiple attractive men interested in her, several potential love interests competing for her attention, and is treated as uniquely special by the story. That’s a fantasy element too, and one that’s very consistently written for female leads.
On top of that, there are plenty of dramas where the woman is clearly the dominant figure: Hotel del Luna, It's Okay to Not Be Okay, Encounter, Begin Again, Oh My General, The Legends, Love Beyond the Grave, and others. The industry is clearly willing to produce and succeed with those dynamics as well.
If this were truly “sexism” in a structural sense, you’d expect something very different. You wouldn’t see so many female-centred stories, you wouldn’t see women as the clear emotional and narrative focus, and you wouldn’t see so many dramas built entirely around female wish-fulfilment. You’d expect systematic exclusion or consistently one-sided storytelling with very little variation. That’s not what we actually see here.
So wanting more balance is completely fair. Everyone has preferences. But calling it sexism feels like a big stretch when the genre is largely shaped by female audiences and frequently built around female-centred fantasy. To me, audience preference and genre conventions are a much more convincing explanation than sexism.
For example, in Hotel del Luna, the female lead is a centuries-old supernatural hotel owner and the male lead works for her. In It's Okay to Not Be Okay, the female lead is wealthier, more confident, and is the one pursuing the relationship. In Encounter, the female lead is the CEO while the male lead is an ordinary employee. In Begin Again, the female lead is a billionaire CEO and the male lead is a doctor from a normal background. In Oh My General, the female lead is a legendary military commander while the male lead is a prince who is far less powerful. In The Legends, the female lead is one of the most feared figures in the martial world. And in Love Beyond the Grave, the female lead is literally the ruler of the spirit realm while the male lead is a mortal.
Also, these dramas are primarily made for a female audience. If the "powerful man falls for the female lead" trope keeps appearing decade after decade, it's probably because a large part of that audience enjoys it. Romance dramas are fantasies, and one common fantasy is the idea of a powerful, capable, protective man choosing the female lead above everyone else.
At the same time, if we're talking about wish-fulfilment tropes, it's worth looking at the whole picture. In many dramas, the female lead is surrounded by multiple attractive men who are interested in her, compete for her attention, or remain devoted to her. Love triangles and multiple male admirers are extremely common. By comparison, it's much rarer to see a male lead surrounded by several women competing for his affection in the same way, and when it does happen it's often criticised more heavily. So even in stories where the male lead is the more powerful figure, the female lead is frequently the centre of attention romantically and has multiple potential partners pursuing her.
That's why I think it's overly simplistic to focus only on the man's status or authority. These dramas often contain different fantasy elements aimed at the target audience. Sometimes that's a powerful male lead, sometimes it's multiple devoted suitors, and sometimes it's a role-reversed story where the woman is the dominant figure.
So it's completely fair to be tired of a particular trope and want more variety, but I don't think it's accurate to say dramas always favour male characters. A lot of these stories are clearly designed around female audience fantasies and preferences, just in different ways.
It started off strong, and the interactions were engaging throughout. I really enjoyed the romance. It was well-developed and had good chemistry between the leads. The pacing was good as well. They even introduced a second female lead who had feelings for the male lead, which created an interesting and balanced dynamic alongside the second male lead and the female lead. Usually, we see a second male lead with feelings for the female lead, but it’s rare to see a second female lead used in the same way to balance things out. In this case, it was handled well. Neither of them became overly involved with the main leads, but their presence added just the right amount of tension and drama. The sleepwalking storyline was also handled well.
It’s not a perfect 10, but it felt very reasonable and well put together. I’d rate it around an 8, not flawless, but definitely solid.