From Sociological Images Micheal Lozano –
[…] Japanese fast-food has found a way to bypass the cultural stigmas that impede their profits. One food chain noticed many women would not buy their biggest-sized burgers. The culprit was ochobo, a Japanese custom that prevents women from opening their mouth widely in public. Small mouths are considered beautiful and opening them widely is considered “ugly” and “rude.” The restaurant concluded that it would get into the business of “freeing women from the spell of ‘ochobo.’”
Face Veil, so liberating! much burger! noms tasty!
Of course, the irony is that the burger chain’s “solution” isn’t actually liberating women. By hiding the deviation behind a paper mask, it is actually reinforcing Ochobo. After all, the social reality remains — it is not acceptable for Japanese women to display an open mouth in public.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
August 13, 2014 at 8:31 am
Mikayla Hensley
Yea, looks like they are still following the norm of women covering their mouths in public, so I don’t even get why they say they are “freeing women” from the custom. And they could use any wrapper to conceal the mouth while eating, even without the lower portion of a face printed onto it. :-/
Still I thought the video was funny. The cultural norms of other cultures are hilarious sometimes (though I’m sure some of the norms I am used to are hilarious too — it’s just that I’m so used to them. XD)
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 8:58 am
VR Kaine
Light touch on Japanese norms, heavy touch on “Evil Capitalism”. Nice. ;)
Capitalism came up with an innovation to deliver, and the market accepted it. Women wanted the hamburgers but didn’t want to appear inappropriate eating them, and according to Freshness Burger, after introducing the sexist wrapper, sales of the “Classic Burger” rose by 213%.
It’s treating the symptom and not the underlying cause, of course, but then again where is it capitalism’s responsibility to go after the underlying cause? How are they supposed to not reinforce cultural norms here? Should they create a sexist “women-only” restaurant so women can eat as many big burgers as they want without the wrapper? The restaurant responded to the needs of their market best way they could, in my opinion. Curious as to what you think the right answer is here that actually involves the restaurant as opposed to the entire Japanese race.
Anyways, still laughing at the wrapper – it looks ridiculous – but more ridiculous is the “need” for it. The Japanese have many (and many sexist) norms and traditions that seem not only antiquated but downright odd.
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 10:55 am
john zande
I adore the Japanese. Fabulously wacky.
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 12:13 pm
bleatmop
Vern – The message that I received is not that the burger chain needs to liberate these women but instead that it is pretending to do so while in fact they are actually perpetuating ochobo by just giving Japanese women a different means by which to cover their mouth whilst at the same time proclaiming that they are liberating these women. I do agree with you that the problem lies with Japanese society and not necessarily with individual businesses (although those businesses are still a part of said society).
To me the solution to this problem from a society point of view is blatant disregard for ochobo. This of course would be difficult to initiate, but every movement like that needs a Rosa Parks of sorts. If you are wondering what the individual business could do, that would be to not have these wrappers but instead invite women to come in and eat their big burgers without the wrappers, have advertisement campaigns that show women eating their burgers, ect. This would help to normalize the behaviour and move it out of the fringe and into the mainstream. Of course, from a business perspective that would require striking while the iron is hot so to speak. It would have to line up with the women of the country being fed up with being ashamed to open their mouths and being willing to do something about it. Thus it is unlikely a big burger chain would likely take the risk of the public backlash without being certain of it increasing their profit margins. And thus the critique of capitalism here is apt, as it will favour encouraging harmful/negative behaviours as opposed to not doing that and risking a profit margin.
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm
The Intransigent One
I agree with Bleat – the message I got here was not “omg capitalism is teh ebil”, but rather, capitalism is not our saviour and cannot fix the ills of the world because there’s easier money to be made in perpetuating the status quo.
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 7:32 pm
VR Kaine
The restaurant has provided more privacy, which is different than freedom. Therefore, I think the criticism lies in their marketing, not in allowing greater access to their product. The restaurant isn’t forcing anyone to use the wrapper, but they’re certainly not “Liberating” anyone, so in that I agree.
A wrapper, however, as proof that capitalism can’t help fix the ills of the world? I think that’s a bit much, but I’ll reiterate my statement that it’s never had to. That’s a public’s responsibility that for the most part sits on its ass and waits for a savior (of some kind) to come.
LikeLike
August 14, 2014 at 10:21 am
The Intransigent One
OK, so it’s not capitalism’s responsibility to fix the world; that’s “the people”s. Yet when the people express desires to fix the world in ways not inline with market forces, for example by electing left-leaning governments, that’s bad because Big Government is bad and can’t do anything right only markets and business can do anything efficiently; and if people rise up and demonstrate (Occupy?) they’re thugs and vandals and stupid idealists who need to grow up and learn some economics so they can properly defer to the status quo. What mechanism of change exactly would you like society to use?
LikeLike
August 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm
VR Kaine
It goes back to my same point, IO, that you seem to have skipped over: that individuals shouldn’t rely on either side – big government or free markets – to save them. Theory might say that one or the other is better, but that’s a myopic view that most operative capitalists reject and leave to the academics and bloggers to bicker over while they themselves juggle the midpoint of both in the real world.
Occupy while inventive, was stupid for rejecting every successful and proven theory of organizing for change that capitalism has for the most part mastered while striving for efficiency. For one thing, Occupy rejected both structure and leadership which is why, even though I was supportive and hopeful of Occupy in the beginning, it ended up as a joke and still is one to this day. The only result they got or legacy they left behind was thuggery and rape, which cretans will do in a vacuum of leadership and structure (the same way the big banks robbed and arguably “raped us” financially with a lack of leadership and structure there, too).
Regardless, Occupy didn’t need to learn economics – their underlying theory on income inequality was sound – but they did need to grow up and learn some “big boy” leadership skills and stop with all that twinkly-fingers and “mic-check” crap. In my opinion they were SO anti-capitalist and corporate that it caused their demise.
As for electing left-leaning governments, the issues most operating capitalists have are two: 1) the fundamental flaw that a left-leaning government inherently has which is that it ignores waste, and 2) that it largely rejects a market which can help balance spending. That’s not to say that right-leaning governments don’t waste or don’t go wrong in trusting the market too much, but your belief of capitalists and their view on “big government” is skewed and unrealistic.
When right-leaning citizens speak of “smaller government” they’re in fact referring to less overlap, less waste. That it means fewer necessary regulations, less enforcement, less check-and-balances, and less protection of the environment has been something politicians have hijacked and repackaged and sold to the stupid.
So to your point, what system should we use? One that allows what the Founding Fathers wanted – a system not ruled by a king, a system that allows each citizen the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a system that allows any pauper to become a king/queen, which can only happen through a free market where they are protected from theft. You get that through a vote (which most don’t exercise), through self-reliance (which most don’t pursue), and through self-improvement (which most avoid).
For the most part, I fully believe this is a system that for the most part we already have. Even with the “big corporations” and “big government”, a business or a citizen can still thrive if they exercise the three things I mention above (voting, self-reliance, self-improvement). The only thing I’d add there is health – it was the one thing I think the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee likely because they couldn’t foresee the technology and people becoming bankrupted by medical bills. That, I believe we need to rely on the goverment for and it falls under each of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happniess, but beyond that if we truly want to fix the world then I believe the responsibility falls solely on us as individuals – not companies or governments – to do those three things I mention above.
We may not agree but I appreciate the question. :)
LikeLike