I enjoyed Sarah Banet-Weiser and Jess Butler’s discussions of postfeminism and race. I want to, for a moment, explore transnational postfeminist media. Both Banet-Weiser and Butler examined postfeminist culture within the US, but it is interesting to consider how postfeminist media interacts with the landscapes of other national contexts.
I want to pull an example from South Korea. In 2019, I studied abroad in Korea, and one of my professors was Ji Hoon Park (who is coincidentally on our syllabus for the week on TV + the Globe!). We discussed postfeminist media in relation to notions of gender. Butler partially defines postfeminist texts as “[implying] that gender equality has been achieved and feminist activism is thus no longer necessary” and “emphasiz[ing] individualism, choice, and empowerment” (44). Park acknowledged this as well, putting popular Korean TV shows in conversation with existing gendered tensions in the country. Korean dramas frequently feature strong female leads, who take executive positions in large companies. Popular variety shows such as The Return of Superman follow “superman” fathers around as they take care of their children alone, almost as if they are single parents (when in reality, the mothers are present parents as well yet are not featured on the show). The prevalence of postfeminist media in Korea has contributed to a perception that society has moved past the need for feminism, like Butler says, as it becomes clear that women can hold the same professional positions as men, and men undertake care-taking duties just as much as women. (Despite the reality that this is not the case.) Nevertheless, this has led to stark backlash against feminism as a movement, largely undertaken by young Korean boys and men. (I am going to butcher the statistics because I do not have them on hand at the moment, but according to a survey taken years ago, something like 80% of teenage boys and young men in Korea did not believe that feminism was necessary, and that men were the ones who were disadvantaged.) Of course, it is not that postfeminist media is to blame for such tension by any means—long-standing and complex gender dynamics heightened by the mandatory military conscription of Korean men certainly is a large focal point. Instead, I believe what this highlights is the interplay between the media and gender dynamics in a non-Western, transnational context. While the US has its own set of gendered tensions, it is not and cannot be of the same nature as Korea, as both countries grapple with unique histories regarding gender.
As a note about race, both Banet-Weiser and Butler touch on the racial dynamics of postfeminism, what Banet-Weiser identifies as postracial. In thinking about the example I mentioned, race is noticeably silent. Issues caused by racial tension and discrimination are some of the lowest social priorities in Korea, as the country is largely homogeneous and dominated by ethnic Koreans. (Interestingly, at the time in 2019, Park likened the intensity of gendered conflict in South Korea to racial conflict in the US.) Korean postfeminist media, however, perhaps signifies something very different in an overseas and US context. Due to the Hallyu Wave, Korean dramas are enjoyed across the globe. While race is not a conversation often held by domestic Koreans watching their own dramas, it becomes a salient factor for diasporic Koreans and East Asians who see themselves represented in it. The dynamicism that is present in the transition between transnational contexts, then, is something worthy of consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment