Netflix ‘When Life Gives You Tangerines’ Review #9

[#1] The Boundary Between Hardship and Violence

The Moral Conditioning Embedded in Korean Families

1. The Violence of “They suffered too, you know.”

In Korean society, hardship functions like a moral badge. But somewhere along the way, that virtue morphed into a mechanism that justifies violence. Even when parents hit their children, when husbands belittle their wives, or when bosses scream at employees, the refrain is always the same:
“They were having a hard time too.”

This sentence shifts the cause of harm onto the situation, and reframes the impact of harm as the victim’s emotional overreaction. Responsibility becomes blurry, and the wound is pushed back into the victim’s body.
This, in essence, is the foundation of Korean-style gaslighting.

2. When a Society Turns Suffering Into Morality

Hardship was originally a record of survival.
But in Korea, it became a moral hierarchy:

The one who endures = the good person
The one who stays quiet = the mature person
The one who expresses emotion = the childish one

Within this hierarchy, the person who endures the longest ends up at the “moral summit.”
But that summit is always a graveyard of unspoken pain. Hardship isn’t virtue; it’s the residue of suppressed emotion. Yet society markets it as a mark of adulthood.

3. Who Created the Father’s Hardship?

Eun-myung’s father certainly lived through a brutal era. His anger and coldness had their reasons. But the moment he transfers that pain to his child, it’s no longer “a reason” — it’s violence.

The real issue is that society wraps this violence in the language of family devotion:
“He did it for the family.”
Which really means:
“That’s how men were back then. Just understand.”
This is nothing more than a collective self-absolution.
Thus hardship becomes “morality,” and violence becomes a “role.”

4. Why We Need Acknowledgment, Not Understanding

We can understand a parent’s suffering.
But understanding does not erase responsibility.
A child may empathize with a parent’s past, but they are not obligated to inherit it.

“I know you were hurting. But when that pain turned into violence toward me, I no longer wanted understanding — I needed acknowledgment.”

This is not unfilial behavior. It is a boundary.
And boundaries are what stop generational violence from repeating itself.

5. Filial Piety Is Not Virtue — It’s an Instrument of Control

Filial piety (hyo) originally referred to mutual responsibility.
But in modern Korea, it has become a one-way emotional obligation.
Parents claim lifetime repayment for the mere fact that they “gave love,” and children are bound emotionally by duty.

In this framework, “Your father suffered too” becomes emotional coercion.
A parent’s hardship becomes a weapon that forces the child’s silence.

6. Beyond the Aesthetics of Hardship — Toward an Ethics of Emotion

We no longer feel comforted by the words “You’ve suffered.”
The phrase is not emotional language — it’s a social code that conceals pain.

True ethics isn’t about how much someone suffered.
It’s about how they treated others while suffering.

We need a society that honors not the people who endured the most,
but the people who chose to stop the wound.

[#2] A Love That Does Not Disappear

The Question Left Behind

1. A Quiet Tragedy

Many people remember My Sweet Mobster as a warm story of healing.
But to me, it was a tragedy.
Someone’s peace is always built upon someone else’s disappearance.
A person erases themselves in the name of love, and another family smiles in the space they vacated.
That’s not a beautiful ending.
It’s a quiet choreography of erasure.

2. The Violence of “Ordinary Life”

“It may be a normal life — but I don’t want it.”
That’s what I felt.

The characters seal away their desires in order to become “good people.”
But this very “ordinariness” is the cruelest violence of all.
The world calls it virtue, but I know what it really is:
a system maintained by someone’s silence.

3. The Ethics of Love — The Courage Not to Lose Myself

“Do I have to abandon myself because I have a child? Because I have a family?”
I refuse to live that way.

If love must be proven through self-erasure,
it is no longer love — it is penance.
I want to choose love, but take myself with me.
To take responsibility, but not lose my existence.

4. A New Model of Marriage

“I want to get married without giving myself up.”
This is not rebellion — it is a declaration of balance.

Love must become a practice of coexistence, not sacrifice.
Living together without destroying each other’s worlds.
Growing old together without abandoning one’s dreams.

I refuse to live as part of an “ordinary tragedy.”
I will love — and still keep myself.
A love that does not disappear.
A love I will now begin to write myself.

[#3] Gwan-sik, the Quiet Protagonist

On the Drama’s Hidden Center

**1. The Surface Belongs to Aesoon and Geum-myung —

But the Depth Belongs to Gwan-sik**
On the surface, the drama seems to belong to the women:
Aesoon’s healing, Geum-myung’s coming-of-age.
But the invisible axis holding everything together is Gwan-sik.

Without him, neither woman’s world would exist.
He moves the story by not moving.
The drama’s emotional rhythm flows along the quiet gravity he creates.

2. A Replaceable Narrative, an Irreplaceable Structure

Aesoon and Geum-myung symbolize eras and generations.
In theory, other characters could fill their roles and the story would still work.
But Gwan-sik is different.

He isn’t merely a “character.”
He is the center of relational gravity.
Remove him, and the world collapses.

He is not a pillar of the story —
he is the weight that keeps the entire structure upright.

3. The Tragedy of a “Non-Protagonist Protagonist”

Gwan-sik provides every narrative reason,
yet he never gets to tell his own story.
His suffering becomes a storytelling tool,
his sacrifice becomes someone else’s growth.

Aesoon can speak because he remained silent.
Geum-myung can leave because he stayed.
His disappearance completes the world.

The real protagonist is the one
who disappears last.

4. Gwan-sik Is Not “the Father” — He Is the Human Foundation

He is not simply a patriarchal figure.
He is the person who bears relational weight —
the ground others stand on.

Society calls him diligent.
The story calls him a supporting role.
But the truth is different:
The moment he is gone, the world loses its footing.

Aesoon blooms only because Gwan-sik became soil.
And only those who recognize the grain of that soil
have truly seen the drama.

[#4] The Redistribution of Emotional Labor

Why Modern “Independent Female Narratives” Miss Their Own Ethical Blind Spot

1. Why Does the Independent Woman Narrative Always Need a “Steady” Man?

Contemporary dramas and films celebrate women finding their voice and independence.
She escapes patriarchal pressure.
She chooses her own desire.

But this narrative almost always requires a specific male archetype:
the calm, non-violent, endlessly understanding man.
He becomes the emotional infrastructure supporting her awakening.
His wounds vanish.
His desires vanish.
His role is to provide emotional stability for her growth.

In such stories, her “independence” doesn’t grow from her alone.
It grows on someone else’s emotional labor.

2. Men Become Not Oppressors — But the Ones Who Must Endlessly Endure

Within this structure, men are no longer patriarchal tyrants.
They become people who must understand everything, endure everything,
and never break.

They cannot be angry.
They cannot be vulnerable.
Their pain is dismissed as something the “strong can handle.”

They become ethical resources —
fuel for someone else’s liberation.

This looks like a reversal of gendered power,
but it is simply exploitation wearing a new mask.

In the past, women did the domestic labor.
Now men perform the emotional labor.

**3. Exploitation Isn’t About Who Has Power —

It’s About the Structure That Repeats**
The issue is not the shift from women’s suffering to men’s.
The issue is that the structure remains unchanged.

Once, women were the ones who understood, absorbed, and endured.
Now men do it.
But the asymmetry persists.
The story still requires one person’s quiet sacrifice to generate “emotional impact.”

And now that sacrifice is packaged as moral beauty.

4. Ethical Asymmetry — A World Where Only Women’s Growth Is Justified

When the woman cuts ties or chooses herself,
it becomes “self-discovery.”
But when a man does the same,
it becomes “irresponsibility.”

Under the banner of “agency,”
a moral free pass is created.

This is not equality.
It is merely the creation of a new ethical hierarchy.

5. Real Equality Means Carrying Each Other’s Weight

Equality is not about who was the bigger victim.
Nor about who gets the spotlight.

It is an ethical structure where both carry emotional weight — together.

The “independent woman”
and the “steady man”
must not lean on each other’s unspoken labor.

A relationship becomes true only
when both pay the cost of their own existence.

If someone’s liberation is built on someone else’s silence,
it is not liberation — it is exploitation.

6. Toward a New Ethics of Emotional Labor

Independent female narratives matter.
But that independence cannot be nourished by someone else’s exhaustion.

As long as emotional labor remains unbalanced,
the liberation we celebrate
will be built on someone’s fatigue.

True freedom begins
when two people can stay together
without consuming each other’s emotional resources.

☕ Support & Follow my work:
BuyMeACoffee • Substack • Patreon