Why BTS won’t be at South Korean presidential inauguration

Although the change has been slow to come, the general direction has been forward. But as is expected in any area of social progress, there are always setbacks due to internal conservative forces – Yoon’s election represents a significant instance of backsliding.

Korea’s legacy of state sanctioned misogyny calls for an examination of what is being said now by politicians and international news outlets. Considering the United States’ significant responsibility in this legacy, coverage from American media of the recent election is particularly striking.

While articles discussing Yoon’s discourse were limited abroad – understandably because of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine – what was written serves as a reminder that most people abroad are not aware of Korea’s history with sexism, and especially unaware of America’s responsibility in the current outlook of gender relations.

Most major outlets have chosen to focus on the President elect’s stance towards North Korea, while often completely ignoring any domestic issues with Yoon’s neo-conservative policies.

This narrow understanding of the potential effects of a new administration comes at a time when North Korea has been testing more ICBMs than ever before. While tensions with North Korea and nuclear war are extremely serious issues, it is hard to imagine how the news coverage of  the election would not even mention his domestic policy agenda.

Why are major news companies only choosing to briefly mention the new President’s oppressive plans for government?

For the United States and subsequently for major news outlets, international issues are solely considered through a utilitarian lens. ‘Will this advance American interests abroad?’ and ‘will Americans care about this?’ – the answer to the second question often being that they do not care.

These questions are some of the most reliable predictors of Western interest in any problems abroad. As long as a country’s foreign policy interests and commodity exports are aligned with US interests, they will not intervene or even comment on an internal situation.

It is therefore unsurprising to see a lack of attention on this issue which inherently calls on people to consider American responsibility in the construction of a sexist state.

The United States’ main stake in this situation has to do with mitigating the risk of North Korean aggression on regional allies. Once that issue is dealt with, why should we care about the rest?

I strongly suspect that there would be far more attention and media coverage of recent backsliding on gender equality in South Korea if Yoon’s team of diplomats were not aligned with American goals for the peninsula.

But in the spirit of the West’s relationship to states like Saudi Arabia, the media apparatus seems to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses when those committing them are useful to the US and European countries.

The lack of coverage of the anti-feminist rhetoric of Yoon and South Korea’s recent regression back to a more oppressive standard for women should be taken as emblems of imperialism’s staying power. It is also proof that conservative systems of government are some of the strongest forces in politics and that American news media will not take issue with it as long as there is little attention on a given issue.

We should expect more from international media outlets. It is vital they bring attention to and call out alarming events, even if news-consumers seemingly have no knowledge of the issue. Bringing attention to until then unknown subjects is at the heart of what the news’ role is in society.

At the very least, we can rest assured that when the news fails us, BTS will step up to the plate and object to Yoon’s sexist policies by refusing to perform at his inauguration.