You can find a lot of this on American Soap Operas, too. Luke and Laura (very popular couple) from General Hospital…
Interestingly enough, I mentioned an American Soap with that exact situation in my original post. The Luke and Laura story line on General Hospital. Luke kidnaps and rapes Laura, and they later end up getting married. Now obviously, the story itself happened quite a long time ago, but it is still lauded as one of the most romantic pairings on TV. Since stories like this were still on the air in the 70s and 80s on American TV, I wonder what changed.
You can find a lot of this on American Soap Operas, too. Luke and Laura (very popular couple) from General Hospital is one of the most famous American slap and kiss story lines. I think part of the popularity of this is the hero starting out bad and then being reformed by his love for the heroine. It's easy to understand why that's a fantasy but it can be dangerous to think things work that way in real life.
I wish we didn't have to sit through couple moments with her ex-boyfriend and ex-friend. They're both horrible people. I don't care about their relationship or personal problems.
I don't understand why people feel sorry for Soo Ah. You don;t feel sorry for murderer just coz he had a tough…
I think she's horrible, but she's only starting to have people around her who don't think the same twisted way her mother does. She's not trying; she has no reason to right now because she doesn't believe anyone would truly care about her, so why should she care about them? Ha Joon takes his pain out on himself and she takes it out on other people. They're both unhealthy ways of handling life.
Some of these look so good! I started watching Moon River...it's definitely inspired by BOF but it's not the same story. It's like BOF if Gu Jun Pyo hadn't been a jerk in the beginning. It's surprisingly good.
The subtitles on gooddrama are worse than just watching the movie raw. The subs on dramanice are much better. For one, they don't call the leads "Lotus" and "Rapeseed."
Oooh! I agree with you!!! But I have to say, this is a mundial problem (like you mentioned at the begining). Unfortunately,…
The rape was handled that way in Ho Gu's love to highlight how rape victims are treated. Like GummieBears mentioned, treating rape victims like that isn't rare.
When reading articles like these, people have to think through an answer, taking in count the people who will…
The scope of your article (large) is why I suggested you should focus on one issue in one article. These are large issues and there is no reason there can't be a regular series on them, written by you or others. I think you did give people something to think about, but I think there would be more relevant comments if you chose one issue and explored that more deeply.
I didn't say anything about the GIFs so I don't know what you were referring to.
I didn't say you were shaming the dramas, and I read very carefully, or I would not have provided such a detailed response. You wrote: "In Angry Mom, the boss even sexually abuses his secretary (she is a supportive character, but never mind) by smacking her ass and yelling at her. In one scene, while she is massaging his leg like a slave, he kicks her with that leg. She does nothing and just accepts the situation. The similar abuse can be seen in Age Harassment, however, this drama is about the abuse and discrimination, not portraying it as love and something normal." This suggests that angry mom does portray abuse that way. Females endure abuse in real life; it happens and that's why dramas show it. As BrightestStar pointed out, "depiction of abuse and condoning are two different things."
I still disagree with your depiction of Oh My Ghost, but I agree with some of what you wrote about female sexuality. The women shrinking back in fear from a kiss from someone they like suggests woman don't (and shouldn't) have sexual urges. I don't disagree with most of your points, like I said, but I didn't think Oh My Ghost was the best illustration of that, and I still don't. With that said, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Disagreeing with me is fine, obviously, and I appreciate that you took the time to address my post.
When reading articles like these, people have to think through an answer, taking in count the people who will…
I agree that the theme of the article is good and that we, as consumers of these shows, should be aware of these issues. But still, although I admire the author for having the guts to write it, many areas are problematic. The author discusses too many topics in one article to give any in-depth analysis to each one. That is really the main problem here: lack of context and analysis.
This lack of context leads to some misleading passages. For instance, the author suggests that in Angry Mom abuse is seen "as love and something normal." This isn't true at all. The person who assaults his secretary is the villain, and his previous wife left him because of his abuse. When she comes back to the country to save her son, the show depicts it as an act of heroism. Angry Mom also shows a predatory teacher, rich and powerful men who get away with things because of status, and people who turn a blind eye leading to tragedy. These things had to be shown in order to criticize them. They are not depicted as romantic in the least.
There are other misleading passages, many of them around the word "rape." It is used around the hair-cutting scene you mentioned, but there are other instances. Saying Han-gyul "almost raped" Eun Chan suggests that he actually tried to rape her. He didn't; he forcibly kissed her (which yes, is a violation) and told her he liked kissing her more when he thought she was a man. You don't need to suggest that Eun Chan was in physical danger for Han Gyul to be sexist and horrible there. The scene is problematic because he's deliberately humiliating her and mocking her gender. It is not intended to be romantic, but since he is the lead it's still an issue. Why isn't that discussed at all? This also brings me to the "almost rape" scene in Autumn's Concerto. That was an incredibly problematic show without that scene. Early on the male lead thinks the female lead is sexually experienced and uses men, and seeks to humiliate her by making her strip. He stops because she starts crying and he realizes she is in fact "innocent and pure." It almost suggests that if she had been sexually experienced what he was doing wouldn't have been bad. The actual "almost rape" scene, while disgusting, was actually less objectionable to me because it showed starkly that forcing sexual advances in a marriage is still rape. The character realizes this himself and stops. Autumn's Concerto, like I said, has some horrible ideas about female sexuality and relationships, but it is pervasive and can't be summed up in one paragraph about one scene.
The part about "Oh my Ghostess" also had some strange ideas about rape, in my opinion. While the author acknowledges that the male character is being abused, the text also suggests that he's "afraid of [the lead female's] sexuality" and that the female character is condemned for having sexual needs. However, the male character is not in a relationship with either the ghost or the person the body belongs to. He's being constantly pawed at by a woman he is not in a relationship with. He is not afraid of her sexuality; he doesn't want to have sexual relations with a woman he's not involved with. Dismissing this as him being 'afraid of her sexuality' is shaming him as a male for not wanting to have sex, which is a distinctly non-feminist attitude. When he actually develops a relationship with the lead character, their physical relationship progresses.
As for the commentary on the hair scene: the wording was awkward and inappropriate, and the author has been rude to everyone who nicely suggested it be changed. In the U.S., 1 out of every 6 women, and 1 in every 71 men, has been the victim of a rape or attempted rape (and that's just those that talk about it.) Worldwide, about 35% of women have been raped. Meaning that some of the people the author told to kindly shut up have most likely been victims of sexual assault and in my mind are therefore completely allowed to be touchy about the word use. Getting raped is not like getting your hair forcibly cut. Yes, there are many words with different meanings but there are also words where a primary meaning has taken over, and that's the case with the word "rape." The part about Reply 1997 also ignored cultural ideas about abuse. What is considered abuse isn't universal.
And you are right, we shouldn't dismiss abuse by saying "oh, it's a cultural thing." However, to properly discuss these issues we need cultural context. If we're going to talk about parental abuse, we should know if the parent is doing something outside of what is considered appropriate or if the child is receiving a traditional punishment. If we're going to talk about depictions of workplace discrimination/harassment, we should know how prevalent those issues are in the countries shown. We should learn something about laws and traditions in those countries- are the workers not saying something about injustice in order to make a juicer plot, or because in real life the laws protecting workers aren't very strong and the characters are realistically concerned with losing their livelihood? If a person is slapped by an elder and doesn't respond, what would the consequences be if they did? We don't have to then condone the actions, but we have a better idea of what they mean in the shows we watch.
So, with this extremely long comment, what I am trying to say is that a surface listing of scenes out of context can't effectively communicate issues.
I didn't say anything about the GIFs so I don't know what you were referring to.
I didn't say you were shaming the dramas, and I read very carefully, or I would not have provided such a detailed response. You wrote: "In Angry Mom, the boss even sexually abuses his secretary (she is a supportive character, but never mind) by smacking her ass and yelling at her. In one scene, while she is massaging his leg like a slave, he kicks her with that leg. She does nothing and just accepts the situation. The similar abuse can be seen in Age Harassment, however, this drama is about the abuse and discrimination, not portraying it as love and something normal." This suggests that angry mom does portray abuse that way. Females endure abuse in real life; it happens and that's why dramas show it. As BrightestStar pointed out, "depiction of abuse and condoning are two different things."
I still disagree with your depiction of Oh My Ghost, but I agree with some of what you wrote about female sexuality. The women shrinking back in fear from a kiss from someone they like suggests woman don't (and shouldn't) have sexual urges. I don't disagree with most of your points, like I said, but I didn't think Oh My Ghost was the best illustration of that, and I still don't. With that said, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Disagreeing with me is fine, obviously, and I appreciate that you took the time to address my post.
This lack of context leads to some misleading passages. For instance, the author suggests that in Angry Mom abuse is seen "as love and something normal." This isn't true at all. The person who assaults his secretary is the villain, and his previous wife left him because of his abuse. When she comes back to the country to save her son, the show depicts it as an act of heroism. Angry Mom also shows a predatory teacher, rich and powerful men who get away with things because of status, and people who turn a blind eye leading to tragedy. These things had to be shown in order to criticize them. They are not depicted as romantic in the least.
There are other misleading passages, many of them around the word "rape." It is used around the hair-cutting scene you mentioned, but there are other instances. Saying Han-gyul "almost raped" Eun Chan suggests that he actually tried to rape her. He didn't; he forcibly kissed her (which yes, is a violation) and told her he liked kissing her more when he thought she was a man. You don't need to suggest that Eun Chan was in physical danger for Han Gyul to be sexist and horrible there. The scene is problematic because he's deliberately humiliating her and mocking her gender. It is not intended to be romantic, but since he is the lead it's still an issue. Why isn't that discussed at all? This also brings me to the "almost rape" scene in Autumn's Concerto. That was an incredibly problematic show without that scene. Early on the male lead thinks the female lead is sexually experienced and uses men, and seeks to humiliate her by making her strip. He stops because she starts crying and he realizes she is in fact "innocent and pure." It almost suggests that if she had been sexually experienced what he was doing wouldn't have been bad. The actual "almost rape" scene, while disgusting, was actually less objectionable to me because it showed starkly that forcing sexual advances in a marriage is still rape. The character realizes this himself and stops. Autumn's Concerto, like I said, has some horrible ideas about female sexuality and relationships, but it is pervasive and can't be summed up in one paragraph about one scene.
The part about "Oh my Ghostess" also had some strange ideas about rape, in my opinion. While the author acknowledges that the male character is being abused, the text also suggests that he's "afraid of [the lead female's] sexuality" and that the female character is condemned for having sexual needs. However, the male character is not in a relationship with either the ghost or the person the body belongs to. He's being constantly pawed at by a woman he is not in a relationship with. He is not afraid of her sexuality; he doesn't want to have sexual relations with a woman he's not involved with. Dismissing this as him being 'afraid of her sexuality' is shaming him as a male for not wanting to have sex, which is a distinctly non-feminist attitude. When he actually develops a relationship with the lead character, their physical relationship progresses.
As for the commentary on the hair scene: the wording was awkward and inappropriate, and the author has been rude to everyone who nicely suggested it be changed. In the U.S., 1 out of every 6 women, and 1 in every 71 men, has been the victim of a rape or attempted rape (and that's just those that talk about it.) Worldwide, about 35% of women have been raped. Meaning that some of the people the author told to kindly shut up have most likely been victims of sexual assault and in my mind are therefore completely allowed to be touchy about the word use. Getting raped is not like getting your hair forcibly cut. Yes, there are many words with different meanings but there are also words where a primary meaning has taken over, and that's the case with the word "rape." The part about Reply 1997 also ignored cultural ideas about abuse. What is considered abuse isn't universal.
And you are right, we shouldn't dismiss abuse by saying "oh, it's a cultural thing." However, to properly discuss these issues we need cultural context. If we're going to talk about parental abuse, we should know if the parent is doing something outside of what is considered appropriate or if the child is receiving a traditional punishment. If we're going to talk about depictions of workplace discrimination/harassment, we should know how prevalent those issues are in the countries shown. We should learn something about laws and traditions in those countries- are the workers not saying something about injustice in order to make a juicer plot, or because in real life the laws protecting workers aren't very strong and the characters are realistically concerned with losing their livelihood? If a person is slapped by an elder and doesn't respond, what would the consequences be if they did? We don't have to then condone the actions, but we have a better idea of what they mean in the shows we watch.
So, with this extremely long comment, what I am trying to say is that a surface listing of scenes out of context can't effectively communicate issues.