Awful stupid ending haunts me still years later😅, probably that's why the low rating.Otherwise this is peak…
Oh my!! What a train wreck. Seems like one of the few dramas where the ML and 2ML get tangled up as to who the actual ML is. It's weird for MDL to have the original 2ML listed next to the FL like he's the actual ML. Phew, I think I'll steer clear! 😅
There is no incest here tho, male lead is not the real brother for FL
Um, MAYBE in a makjang/soapy drama between support characters, but never between the leads. I don't think there's any spoiler here, cause anyone who's seen Kdramas would know that would never happen (except maybe if it was original to Netflix, haha), and for those new to Kdramas, it will help give them a idea of the tropes they will never come across; the sordid plot point will always be explained away. 😉
They actually changed who the ML was halfway through production when they got an extension on episodes and the…
Wait, the ML (Emperor, who she's married to) was supposed to be a villain and the 2ML was supposed to be her love interest? But they decided to switch it and kept the Emperor as her love interest?
I'm still at the beginning but I've gotten so used to strong, well-written FLs in Cdramas that I'm hoping/wondering if the FL continues to just be cute and sickly? And does she enter the plot merely as motivation for the ML?
Ahh I completely disagree. This is one of the best family dramas out there.
I started using the spoiler feature as I don't want to annoy people trying to scroll past our convo. 😅
Interesting, I've never heard evolution cited as the reason for these (what I would consider to be largely cultural) stereotypes of men and women.
I personally tend to hold psychology and anthropology loosely, as they're called soft sciences for a reason and change their theories about humans and how they work every few decades, and they are fairly new-ish disciplines/ways of seeing the world (I mean, Freud's ideas, for instance, at one time considered progressive and cutting edge as a way of thinking about humans, are considered completely obsolete today... 😬). I don't think they're useless or baseless, I just don't think they're 100% reliable for making judgments about humans, because, well, they might revamp their theories again in 2050 😋. And evolution, as a historical phenomenon is not "measurable" in a way that truly represents science and it's principles (the scientific method is all about gathering and testing data--how can you "test" something that already happened in the past? 🤔) so even that I see as more philosophical extrapolation or a compelling theory than anything really "scientific" in the sense of the word as it's used today.
At this point, I imagine we will continue to talk past each other because you probably now think I'm a crazy person, haha.
I'm on episode 7, and Fan Si Zhe is such an adorable dweeb. 😅 He's growing on me, and on top of that, the way Fan Xian showed his dad how much Si Zhe adored him (and helped his dad to see his giftings) was kind of precious. 🥰
She tried and succeeded to kill their unborn child. He watched her do this. Who wouldn’t try to save the child…
I don't think it's an easy decision no matter what (and I agree that someone else shouldn't be able to make that choice unless the mother is on board, too), but having to choose between two human beings is not easy, even if you can "justify" that one is more worth saving than another simply because they are a full-fledged adult who can make a case for themselves and a contributing member of society (while the other has no voice).
And I wonder if it's a slippery slope to say choosing the baby over the mother is more selfish--they're both humans? If you think either is less "worth saving," you run into problems. Because by that argument what if you had to choose to save a person without disabilities or a person with severe disabilities (with Downs Syndrome or something of that kind)? Would we be quick to pick one over the other for similar reasons to the baby? Because, like babies, they don't have a voice and are a "burden" to society, and technically both are also a pretty significant drain on their parents' energy, autonomy, and resources...
That said, some men/families historically have seen women like baby vending machines, and if they're choosing the baby over the mother for reasons of that kind or only see the mother as the "bearer of their child" and not valuable outside that, that's disgusting. THAT is certainly selfish and isn't valuing human life at all. The baby isn't being valued as a human then, either, just a bearer of their bloodline or something, which gives me the heeby jeebies. That's probably the same sort of person who would be devastated and stop caring if the baby was a girl...
She tried and succeeded to kill their unborn child. He watched her do this. Who wouldn’t try to save the child…
So, do you mean a literal, unborn baby isn't valuable until it's outside the womb instead of inside it (since I think we'd both agree that killing a BORN baby is not socially acceptable...)? 🤔 Help me understand that logic.
Interesting, I've never heard evolution cited as the reason for these (what I would consider to be largely cultural) stereotypes of men and women.
I personally tend to hold psychology and anthropology loosely, as they're called soft sciences for a reason and change their theories about humans and how they work every few decades, and they are fairly new-ish disciplines/ways of seeing the world (I mean, Freud's ideas, for instance, at one time considered progressive and cutting edge as a way of thinking about humans, are considered completely obsolete today... 😬). I don't think they're useless or baseless, I just don't think they're 100% reliable for making judgments about humans, because, well, they might revamp their theories again in 2050 😋. And evolution, as a historical phenomenon is not "measurable" in a way that truly represents science and it's principles (the scientific method is all about gathering and testing data--how can you "test" something that already happened in the past? 🤔) so even that I see as more philosophical extrapolation or a compelling theory than anything really "scientific" in the sense of the word as it's used today.
At this point, I imagine we will continue to talk past each other because you probably now think I'm a crazy person, haha.
I known it's easier to attack a person because they associate with a group than to engage their argument, so I hope that's not why you asked.
And to answer your question, I don't associate with a "group." 😉
And I wonder if it's a slippery slope to say choosing the baby over the mother is more selfish--they're both humans? If you think either is less "worth saving," you run into problems. Because by that argument what if you had to choose to save a person without disabilities or a person with severe disabilities (with Downs Syndrome or something of that kind)? Would we be quick to pick one over the other for similar reasons to the baby? Because, like babies, they don't have a voice and are a "burden" to society, and technically both are also a pretty significant drain on their parents' energy, autonomy, and resources...
That said, some men/families historically have seen women like baby vending machines, and if they're choosing the baby over the mother for reasons of that kind or only see the mother as the "bearer of their child" and not valuable outside that, that's disgusting. THAT is certainly selfish and isn't valuing human life at all. The baby isn't being valued as a human then, either, just a bearer of their bloodline or something, which gives me the heeby jeebies. That's probably the same sort of person who would be devastated and stop caring if the baby was a girl...