I love it. They addressed the less spoken issue of Korea's marriage tradition wherein a spouse's family registration is transferred to the other spouse's family.
For those who are not familiar, in Korea, it has been their tradition for centuries, for a spouse to transfer to their spouse's clan. Usually, to this day, it is the wife. Family registrations, as it is called today, or family trees, is a huge thing in Korea to this day. When you get married, typically the wife's family tree is moved to the husband's family tree. The wife stops being a member of her original family. And she is treated as a “daughter-in-law”, not as a full daughter, of her new “family tree”.
There is a centuries old issue with this practice, the in-law spouse, if she's unlucky, is treated less, as a slave, or as a helper. They are expected to serve their new “family tree”, because if they don't, it is a valid cause for divorce the new “family tree” can force on the married couple.
Unfortunately, this tradition of serving your new “family tree” lingers on, and many are afraid of speaking out against it, especially if the new “family tree” a spouse was adopted into are people in power or influential. As proven by the case in this episode.
There is nothing wrong with keeping “family trees”, or being adopted into your spouse's family tree/registration. Personally, I like that. However, the adopted spouse should be treated as an equal. If a wife was transferred to your family tree/registration, then she should be treated as a full daughter. You should not let your daughter-in-law do things you wouldn't ask of your own flesh-and-blood daughter.
The same way goes if the spouse who was adopted/transferred is the husband (which is not unheard of, and did happen centuries ago [at least, in this regard, Korea is more advanced socially]). Using this episode's case, if you wouldn't ask your children to be your driver and personal secretary, and treat them as slaves, then you shouldn't treat your adopted children's spouses like that.
A good way to end this social issue without killing the tradition of family registry/trees is to give the married couple an option to start their own family registration/tree, and be 100% independent.
Of course, in a culture where family registration/tree is integral, being independent, or starting your own registration/tree, would also mean you are disowning your original families. That will be the main argument of many. And if you do, if one day you need help, they wouldn't bother helping you.
But, is there any difference to it when a spouse is removed from their original family registration/tree and transferred to another? No one complained when their daughters stopped being a member of their own family registration/tree and moved to their husband's. The original family's “rights” are very limited, almost none, but they don't turn a blind eye when they require help (unless it's political, or forced by law).
If so, then there shouldn't be an issue if the married couple decides to start their own family registration/tree. People who will interpret it as “disowning their own family” are the problem, not the couple.
Think of it this way, instead of only one spouse (wife or husband) transferring to another family registration/tree, it is both of them. Does that make them “no longer your child/family”? No. And if one day they need help, you help. It is, after all, your responsibility as parents, regardless which family registry/tree they are under.
Our responsibilities as parents never stops. As this episode has shown, once our kids are married, the parents become passengers. Parents do not disappear because our responsibility to our children continues, it only changed in form, as a passenger. As a guide. As a support.
The ones at the front, holding the wheel and making decisions, are the married couple.
So, you see, the tradition can stay, but there is an option to become independent.
Lastly, if the married couple chose not to be independent, the in-law who whose family registration/tree was transferred to their spouse, should have a protection against being treated as anything but a full child.
Seriously. If your child married him/her, and you treat their spouse less than your own flesh-and-blood child, what does that make your child? In the first place, you approved their marriage. Haven't they realised by treating their children's spouses as a 'slave', they're practically saying that their own children are slaves, too? And you, as the parent, are a complete fool for having approved of their marriage?
Even in political marriages, be it centuries ago or this very day, you don't pick just anyone because the spouse of your children will also reflect on your children, and yourselves as the parents.
Let's be more liberal. Children getting married without the approval of their parents, which is the case in many countries today. It still will reflect on your children, and you as parents, whoever their spouse is. After all, you were the ones who shaped them to be who they are.
If they chose someone “undesirable”, it simply means you failed as a parent. In the first place, why did your child pick as a person? More likely than not, when they were growing up, their choice of “friends” were also undesirables. What did you do as a parent? Make excuses like “I'm too busy with work, it is all for you so you will have a better life than me?”
Watch this episode. It applies, not only to Koreans, but for all of us.
