relationship between gendered representation and urban space, the financial power of Gangnam women and how it has influenced Korean women’s power and rights is discussed. Furthermore, the rights of Korean women today are explained but also questioned as not being true rights in terms of gender equality. Then, recent social actions depolyed by women in urban space, to attain their rights and identities in the streets of Gangnam are examined. Korean women were granted gender roles in private space to contribute to national modernisation. The authorities on one hand, and media on the other, oppressed and reproduced women by using the dichotomy of space. Women were framed as ideal Korean women by being nice wives and good mothers who stayed at home and supported the public domain constituted by their husbands, the government, and other males, such as workplace bosses. However, women started to alter these preconceived notions and to broaden their area to public space such as streets and stores after entering the Gangnam area. Gangnam was formed by male-dominated powers and women found ways to conduct their roles in this space. The conciliatory policies applied to transform the Gangnam area into an economic and education centre became significant factors, allowing Gangnam women to broaden their social positions to public space based on financial power. Their effect on society helped develop Gangnam as a desirable place that attracted the middle and upper class. However, in doing so, Gangnam women were represented negatively with terms such as ‘speculation’, ‘obtrusion’, ‘extravagance’, and ‘grooming’ by the media and society. This stereotype of ‘Gangnam-themed women’ that both influenced and was desired by women in other parts of the country is discussed in this dissertation. Gangnam women’s gender identity which was constructed by home life and consumption tends to extend social prejudices towards the general female population. This prejudice is not only a vestige of traditional Confucian norms but also a historical and
30
WORKING PAPERS / ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY MA 2017–2018