Episode 1-2 – The Hypocrisy of Plastic Empowerment
The premiere of Honour attempts to sell itself as a bold manifesto for female empowerment, but within sixty minutes, it manages to undermine its own message through staggering hypocrisy and tired tropes. The show introduces us to a trio of "independent" women, but a closer look reveals that their independence is either bankrolled by others or used as a shield for moral failure.
The "Independent" CEO
First, we have Kang Sin Jae. While the show paints her as the visionary CEO of a pro bono law firm, the illusion of the self-made woman shatters immediately upon the revelation that her mother is the one holding the purse strings. There is a fundamental disconnect in trying to portray a character as a rebel when she is essentially a "nepo-boss" playing office. The "rebellious old woman" act feels less like a stand against the patriarchy and more like a refusal to grow up, with her behavior mimicking a schoolgirl rather than a serious legal mind.
Ep.3 -- > Ra Yeong pulls some strings so that the police don’t get their hands on Hyeon Jin’s DNA
The Hypocrisy of Hwang Hyeon Jin
The most egregious failure of the premiere lies with Hwang Hyeon Jin. The production description builds her up as an "elegant, fiery lawyer" who "resists anything that goes against her principles." However, the pilot episode immediately proves this to be a lie, portraying her instead as a textbook example of unprofessionalism.
Hyeon Jin is presented as a champion for rape victims, yet the show creates a bizarre double standard regarding her own "principles":
The Professionalism Paradox: The show explicitly demonstrates why this character cannot be trusted with a professional work-life. Hyeon Jin chooses to visit her ex-boyfriend’s house at night under the guise of "discussing work." This framing suggests that her career is merely a backdrop for providing sexual favors or pursuing personal whims. It raises a devastating question: can a woman who uses her body to "work around" her personal life truly be called a professional? By depicting her work meetings as precursors to infidelity, the show plays into the very regressive stereotypes that suggest women cannot separate their emotions or bodies from their offices.
The Cheating Double Standard: The narrative frames her extramarital affair with her ex-lover as a side-effect of her "working woman" persona. When confronted, she resorts to the weak defense of "not being in her right mind." This is a continuous lie. Cheating is not a single accidental moment; it is a series of active, conscious choices—from going to the house, to the physical escalation, to the completion of the act while knowing her loyal husband is waiting at home. She looked very much "in her mind" when making these choices. The show’s attempt to make the audience root for her "regret" after the fact is insulting, especially since she didn't stop the encounter midway once her "mind" supposedly returned.
The Consent Contradiction: For a character who defends victims of sexual violence, her interaction with her ex-boyfriend is alarming. She is portrayed as submissive, essentially allowing herself to be "forced" into a situation she later claims to regret, all while pretending to be a legal shield for female victims. This suggests the show believes wrongdoing has no consequences as long as the lead is a "pseudo-feminist" woman.
Final Verdict: Fake "Woke" Garbage
Honour claims to be about strength, but it reeks of "woke" garbage and fake feminism. It presents characters who are morally inconsistent and structurally dependent on the systems they claim to hate. By justifying a wife's betrayal and lack of professional ethics as "cool" or "empowering" while condemning men for the same, the show isn't empowering women—it’s portraying them as untrustworthy and hypocritical.
If the goal was to show why some people still hold regressive views about women in the workplace, this script is doing a perfect job of providing the wrong evidence.
The "Independent" CEO
First, we have Kang Sin Jae. While the show paints her as the visionary CEO of a pro bono law firm, the illusion of the self-made woman shatters immediately upon the revelation that her mother is the one holding the purse strings. There is a fundamental disconnect in trying to portray a character as a rebel when she is essentially a "nepo-boss" playing office. The "rebellious old woman" act feels less like a stand against the patriarchy and more like a refusal to grow up, with her behavior mimicking a schoolgirl rather than a serious legal mind.
Ep.3 -- > Ra Yeong pulls some strings so that the police don’t get their hands on Hyeon Jin’s DNA
The Hypocrisy of Hwang Hyeon Jin
The most egregious failure of the premiere lies with Hwang Hyeon Jin. The production description builds her up as an "elegant, fiery lawyer" who "resists anything that goes against her principles." However, the pilot episode immediately proves this to be a lie, portraying her instead as a textbook example of unprofessionalism.
Hyeon Jin is presented as a champion for rape victims, yet the show creates a bizarre double standard regarding her own "principles":
The Professionalism Paradox: The show explicitly demonstrates why this character cannot be trusted with a professional work-life. Hyeon Jin chooses to visit her ex-boyfriend’s house at night under the guise of "discussing work." This framing suggests that her career is merely a backdrop for providing sexual favors or pursuing personal whims. It raises a devastating question: can a woman who uses her body to "work around" her personal life truly be called a professional? By depicting her work meetings as precursors to infidelity, the show plays into the very regressive stereotypes that suggest women cannot separate their emotions or bodies from their offices.
The Cheating Double Standard: The narrative frames her extramarital affair with her ex-lover as a side-effect of her "working woman" persona. When confronted, she resorts to the weak defense of "not being in her right mind." This is a continuous lie. Cheating is not a single accidental moment; it is a series of active, conscious choices—from going to the house, to the physical escalation, to the completion of the act while knowing her loyal husband is waiting at home. She looked very much "in her mind" when making these choices. The show’s attempt to make the audience root for her "regret" after the fact is insulting, especially since she didn't stop the encounter midway once her "mind" supposedly returned.
The Consent Contradiction: For a character who defends victims of sexual violence, her interaction with her ex-boyfriend is alarming. She is portrayed as submissive, essentially allowing herself to be "forced" into a situation she later claims to regret, all while pretending to be a legal shield for female victims. This suggests the show believes wrongdoing has no consequences as long as the lead is a "pseudo-feminist" woman.
Final Verdict: Fake "Woke" Garbage
Honour claims to be about strength, but it reeks of "woke" garbage and fake feminism. It presents characters who are morally inconsistent and structurally dependent on the systems they claim to hate. By justifying a wife's betrayal and lack of professional ethics as "cool" or "empowering" while condemning men for the same, the show isn't empowering women—it’s portraying them as untrustworthy and hypocritical.
If the goal was to show why some people still hold regressive views about women in the workplace, this script is doing a perfect job of providing the wrong evidence.
Was this review helpful to you?
