The Grand Narrative

The Gender Politics of Smoking in South Korea: Part 4

( Source )

“Smoking Among Men Drops to Record Low” reads a recent headline in The Chosunilbo, with only 39.6% of Korean men over 19 now doing so: a drop of 3.5% from a year earlier, and of 17.1% from 2003. Which is something to be celebrated for sure, but, strangely, the even more amazing news that almost half of women smokers also quit last year barely gets a mention. Why not?

Of course, it may just be an oversight. But there is some context to consider: overemphasizing reductions in the male smoking rate is intrinsic to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s (보건복지부) tobacco control policies for instance, and it also has a long track record of exaggerating its successes. Possibly then, the report just reflects the Ministry’s own emphases in its press release.

Alternatively, readers too may not have been interested in a paltry reduction of 4% to 2.2%. The rate has always been low, they may have said. And with a 2007 Gallup Korea study finding that 83.4% of Koreans thought that women shouldn’t smoke too, with some even slapping them in the street if they do, then apparently the consensus is that so it should be too.

But given that background, then as you’d expect there is chronic under-reporting of smoking by women, best estimates of their real numbers being closer to 20%. Add the absence of any dramatic social or economic changes to prompt women to give up the habit in droves in just the past year too, then it’s difficult not to conclude that these latest figures are essentially meaningless.

Was a line or two to that effect really too much to expect from a newspaper?

(Source)

But I’ve already discussed both statistical issues and taboos against women smoking in great depth in Parts One, Two, and Three (and in a newsflash), and, with the benefit of *cough* 6 months’ hindsight (sorry), then there’s little more to add on those topics really. Instead, let me continue this series by looking at the ways in which transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have successfully targeted Korean women ever since the cigarette market was liberalized in the late-1980s, despite legislation specifically designed to prevent that. Fortunately, the journal article I’ll be relying on – Kelley Lee, Carrie Carpenter, Chaitanya Challa, Sungkyu Lee, Gregory N Connolly, and Howard K Koh in “The strategic targeting of females by transnational tobacco companies in South Korea following trade liberalisation”, Globalization and Health 2009, Volume 5, Issue 2 – is freely available for online-viewing or as a PDF download, and is short and very readable, so I’ll just summarize the main points here.

First, some historical context: this is not the first time tobacco companies have encountered strong taboos against women smoking, with attitudes towards it in the U.S. in the 1920s sounding not unlike those of Korea today (in 1922, a woman was even arrested for smoking on the street). The solution was to get women to associate smoking with equality and female emancipation, as ably described in the following segment of The Century of the Self (2009):

If that gives you a taste for watching the full documentary, as I suspect it might, then see here for links to all episodes. If you’d rather just read an explanation though, then let me refer you to towards the end of this short interview of producer, writer, and director Adam Curtis. Or for something even shorter, then this alternative explanation also gives the gist:

Edward Bernays, the man who supposedly invented most modern PR techniques, in the 1920s convinced women to start smoking. Supposedly at the time smoking was considered gross and basically for men only so very few women smoked. The show claims he hired a bunch of women to march in the New York Thanksgiving Day Parade (a big yearly parade) and had them put a pack of cigarettes in their garters. On cue they were all to lift their dresses and light one up. He then told the press to come to the parade because there was going to be a protest for women’s equality. On cue the women light up, the press took photos and reported lighting up a cigarette as the symbol for women’s equality and like over night it was now seen as if you supported equality for women you should be smoking.

And internal TTC documents demonstrate that that same logic has also been applied to emerging markets across Asia since the early-1990s. Focusing more specifically on Korea here though, crucial is the 1989 National Health Promotion Law Enforcement Ordinance, which bans all tobacco advertising, marketing and sponsorship aimed at women and children (yes really, and for more on this enduring paternalistic attitude, see Part 1). This has been circumvented by TTCs in 4 main ways:

(Source)

First, if not blatantly targeted at them, then advertising of each cigarette brand remains permitted up to 60 times a year in print media, and “tobacco companies are also allowed to sponsor social, cultural, music, and sporting events (other than events for women and children) using company names but not product names” (pp. 4-5). Consequently, sometimes TTCs have simply used ostensibly “gender-neutral” advertisements to target women, in the mid-1990s the former Brown & Williamson promoting the Finesse brand (sold as Capri outside of Korea) by using romantic imagery of couples for instance.

Next, in the 1990s at least there was a focus on retail distribution in venues which tended to be frequented by young women, such as coffee shops, restaurants, event lunches, bars, nightclubs, and so on. Especially the first, and which is worth expanding on here, as it might sound strange in an era of ubiquitous, smoke-free, multinational chain-stores. But then it wasn’t so long ago that they were the place to hang out for young people, a rare oasis from school, work, and/or extended families living under the one, cramped roof. As described in Yogong: Factory Girl for instance (published in 1988, but really about the 1970s):

Often [18 year-old Sun-hi] goes to the home of a friend from her work. Three or four girls, all from the same factory, may walk together, stopping in at a tea room (다방/dabang) for coffee or cola and to listen to music. Or, if they have less money, they may stop to buy a packaged ice cream confection at the local grocer’s. But whether on the street corner or at the tea room, where, for the price of a drink, one may sit without interruption, there is ample opportunity to see and be seen by boys of the same age. (p. 140)

And in particular, in The Joongang Daily:

In the 1970s, cafes…became more commercialized, and owners sought to sell an image rather than a drink. “The dabang was a place for socializing. People didn’t care much about the taste of coffee ― and it tasted terrible,” said Mr. Lee.

The hugely popular “music dabangs” were associated with long hair, blue jeans and folk guitarists. Dabang deejays became the idols of teenage girls. When that trend faded, “ticket dabangs” emerged, where sexy hostesses would do more than just pour your coffee.

After half a century of popularity, dabangs started giving way to modern and chic cafes in the 1980s. Specialty cafes such as Jardin and Waltz House ― imitations of Japanese versions of European style cafes ― spread everywhere. This type of cafe, however, had its limits. Despite expensive interiors and espresso machines, the coffee quality was still poor. “Neither cafe owners nor coffee drinkers knew what a cup of good coffee tasted like,” said Mr. Lee.

But in the 1990s, the mantle of coolness suddenly passed away from dabangs:

During my first week in Korea back in 1990, I started going to a small coffeehouse Jardin, just down the street from the language institute where I taught. It was one of these upscale gourmet-type coffeehouses that, according to an article I had read in one of the English-language newspapers, had suddenly started springing up everywhere in the city….Now almost over night, people could choose a variety of coffee concoctions and flocked to these coffeehouses.

This was a big change in the early 90s in Korea. It might have seemed subtle to some people who just wanted to enjoy their coffee, but what was really happening was a break from tradition.

Young Koreans wanted something new and modern. They did not want to hang out in the dank, dark dabangs that were more often than not frequented by middle-aged Korean men and women. Likewise, the tea houses and cafés their parents had gone to in the 70s and 80s were not hip enough for the urban chic beginning to appear.

And as for what happened after 1999, when the first Starbucks opened, then I recommend this recent article in 10 Magazine. But then *cough* this post is actually about gender and smoking rather than coffee per se, so let me just highlight two aspects of that most recent development here.

First, that these new, Western establishments have been more heavily patronized by women than men, as explained by Gord Sellar back in 2008 (and recently expanded upon by him here):

The interesting thing to look at is the emergent young women’s consumer society. I’ve been trawling about online, trying to piece together the story of the Soybean Paste Girl archetype (or, dwenjang nyeo{된장녀}, as she’s called in Korean), and what I’ve found is that almost all of the criticism of this young woman is focused on her female-consumerism. That is: when she buys a coffee from Starbucks for W4,000 (usually about $4, though the won is doing badly these days) coffee, she gets criticized, but when a young man of the same age consumes two bottles of eminently acceptable (read: Korean) soju, nobody thinks to criticize it. The soju, that’s normal, but the Starbucks… that’s all foreign, all “expensive,” and more disturbingly, it’s “girly.” Girls can go there and have fun without men. (Which is doubly threatening to young men who frustratedly already see such women as “out of their league.”) As in, you see women in Starbucks with women, you see women in Starbucks with men. You almost never see men in Starbucks with men. Starbucks, like Gucci and Prada and Luis Vuitton before it, and like Outback and other “Western” restaurants since, are distinctly of appeal to women.

(Sources: left, right)

And second, that women are puffing away in droves in them, as I’m no Picasso explained in a comment on Part 3:

It would be interesting to look into the correlation between the development of coffee shop culture in Korean and that of the growth rate of female smokers. I’ve seen maybe five women smoking on the street in my nearly two years in Korea, and at least three of those were ducked into telephone booths or alleys. However. When I sit in the smoking rooms of cafes (which I do quite often), they are often (particularly in the afternoon, when the coffee shops are full almost exclusively of women, with no male audience around to balk) overflowing with groups of young women smoking. A commenter above mentioned the lack of public space available for such behavior. The coffee shop seems to have become a safe haven for women smoking openly in public. I would say the growth of the popularity of coffee shops have encouraged women to be seen, at least here, smoking in public. Which has probably had an influence on the acceptance of the behavior in general, which has no doubt increased its popularity.

Meanwhile, for cigarette advertising at nightclubs then I highly recommend the 2003 Tokyo Inc. article “The Night is Still Young” about a similar strategy in Japan, and which was quite a shock to someone who used to attend dance parties naively thinking they were more about peace, love, unity, and respect:

Liquor and cigarette companies initially started to push their products to Japan’s club generation about five years ago, when new legislation banned them from advertising to people under 20. Since you have to be over 20 to legally enter a club in Japan, clubs become the perfect forum for legitimate advertising to young people. (Advertisers know, of course, that many people under 20 are habitual clubbers who can easily get into the venues). Ishihara calls it a “closed world,” a guaranteed market of self-selected consumers. Indeed, the rapid rise of tobacco sponsorship in clubs and bars since the 1990s globally has been well documented. Corporate sponsorship started conspicuously in Japan in 1996, notes Ishihara, when Grammy award-winning producer and DJ Little Louis Vega received an unprecedented [yen] 3 million from Gordon’s Gin to spin his magic in a Tokyo club.

(Source: unknown)

And, getting back on track now, then a third strategy to circumvent legislation by TTCs has been “trademark diversification”, also known as “brand stretching”. In short, it means to extend a well-known brand to things with which it isn’t traditionally associated, and the article notes that in 1996, Brown & Williamson took great interest in the fact that leading Korean tobacco company KT&G:

…had advertised its brand Simple in numerous magazines aimed at female readers. Strategies included the coupling of cigarettes with bottles of Chanel perfume, and the placement of advertisements in foreign language women’s magazines available in South Korea. (p. 5)

And which as I explain here, are much more popular among young women than Korean magazines. But finally, and semi-related to the last, TTCs also used – again – ostensibly gender-neutral sports sponsorship to discreetly target females, in 1991 British American Tobacco creating “a Kent Golf Sponsorship program targeted at higher-educated, male and females aged 25 years or older with above average incomes” for instance.

But that was 20 years ago. And indeed, one big criticism of this otherwise excellent journal article (and as far as I know, the only one of its kind), is that despite the authors’ searches of internal TTC document searches being conducted between May 2006 and March 2008, literally all the practical examples of TTC strategies to target Korean women they provide are from the 1990s. Why?

Granted, there may be legal reasons and/or questions of access to consider, but these are not mentioned. But regardless, as I type this I’m suddenly left wondering as to if and/or how much they still apply in 2011, and it seems inopportune to continue as intended with more prosaic matters, like, well, how TTCs determined the appropriate cigarette circumference size for the Korean female market.

(Source)

Instead then, let me reserve that for a new, final Part 5, and I’ll finish here by opening that above question to the floor: what evidence have you yourself noticed of any of the strategies being used by TTCs described here? Or are they a little passé in 2011? And if so, then what else explains why so many young Korean women and teenagers are taking up the habit these days, as explained in previous posts?

(Previous posts in the series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Newsflash)

Share

Tagged with: ,

Korean Sociological Image #53: “SK-II No. 1 Whitening Celebration Party”

Posted in Body Image, Cosmetics, Korean Sociological Images, Skin Whitening by James Turnbull on January 4, 2011
( Source )

For a change, I think I’ll let this one speak for itself.

But if you would like some context though, then see here. And in fairness (no pun intended), apparently model Lee Soo-hyuk (이수혁) on the right always looks like that.

But still, is such a deathly pallor really something to be aspired to?

(For all posts in the Korean Sociological Images series, see here)

Share

I Don’t Care by 2NE1 (투애니원): Lyrics, Translation, & Explanation

Posted in Girl Groups, Korean Music, Song Lyrics & Translations by James Turnbull on January 1, 2011
( Source )

Seems like everyone was really disappointed with Korean girl groups in 2010, and for good reason.

It’s kind of embarrassing then, that it was also the year that I first got into them. But still, I too was struck by how many of their members couldn’t even sing, and soon resolved to stick to the original tracks and official music videos rather than watch any live performances again.

It was with some trepidation then, that after I discovered I Don’t Care by 2NE1 (투애니원), I immediately thought to describe their voices as, well, simply beautiful, especially Park Sandara’s (박산다라). Fortunately however, they don’t seem too different on stage either, and I think I’d enjoy listening to them singing even without any accompanying music.

Here is the original music video that got me hooked:

A live performance for the sake of comparison:

Next, a video which already has English lyrics. Some are very strange and/or completely wrong though, but otherwise they’re mostly correct, and good for getting the gist:

Yeah, I don’t think a Playboy bunny costume is apt either, even for an anime version of – I think – Park Bom (박봄).

But next, a reggae mix that I hate myself, but you might like it, and I think it actually became more popular than the original in Korea:

Finally, a not bad dance remix, although I’m not really sure who the “Baek Kyoung” referred to is sorry:

Meanwhile, I’m just as surprised as you are to find myself describing the “bad girls” of K-pop as having beautiful voices. But now that I think about it, why can’t they go together?

If I did have to find a flaw with the song though, it would be that the lyrics are a little inconsistent with what stage of the relationship the couple is in exactly: as you’ll soon see, in one line the girlfriend can appear to have just split up with the boyfriend, then in the next they seem to be together but she’s thinking about it, and then in yet another they sound like they split up a long time ago!

It would be very very tempting just to have assumed that they’re in one of those stages and translated accordingly (like in the video with English lyrics above), but I don’t think the lyrics justify that, and so ended up stumbling along accordingly. But with just a bit more thought by the writers, all that unnecessary confusion could easily have been avoided.

Update – In hindsight, the final verse does indeed resolve their relationship: they’re together, but about to split up. But please forgive me though, for declining to rewrite all 2400 words of translations and explanations accordingly!^^

Hey playboy, it’s about time and your time’s up

I had to do this one for my girls you know

Sometimes you gotta act like you don’t care

That’s the only way you boys learn

Oh oh oh oh oh oh 2ne1 이야이야

Oh oh oh oh oh oh 2ne1 이야이야

니 옷깃에 묻은 립스틱들 나는 절대로 용서못해

매일 하루에 수십번 꺼져있는 핸드폰

변하지 않을것만 같아 oh oh

I absolutely can’t forgive your collar being stained with lipsticks

Every day your phone dies many times

I don’t think you’ll ever change oh oh

( Source )

Line 1 of the Korean is a pretty basic, literal translation, although personally I was pretty surprised to learn that “묻다” means “stain” as well as “dig”. I’m more familiar with”얼룩지다”, easier to remember because “zebra” is “어룩말”, or literally “stain horse”.

Line 2 was more difficult though. First, because “매일” means “every day”, but then “하루” means “a day,” or “one day”, so already there’s some either unnecessary and/or nonsensical repetition (not to be confused with that about the relationship though). Not being able to figure out what the combination meant, then I decided to plump for the former, although I was tempted to put “all day long” in there instead, or “하루정일”, as given the next part then that would make sense in English at least.

That next part was “수십번”, rather confusedly “several” and/or “many times” according to my dictionary, but clearly the latter is more appropriate in the context of the song. Then, “꺼져있다”  was a little confusing for a moment, as it has many meanings. And for a while, I thought that the 2 most suitable here – “fade/die out/extinguish” and “be turned off” give slightly different nuances to the song: does the boyfriend’s phone “keep on dying”, like the lyrics in one of the videos above gives, or is it turned off, presumably deliberately in order to avoid the girlfriend? But either way, note that it’s actually “꺼지다” + “있다”, meaning that the phone is left in the state of dying and/or being turned off for a long time…and I guess that the 2 meanings actually amount to pretty much the same thing in the end.

Finally, the “만” in line 3 doesn’t mean “only”, but is just used for emphasis, as we’ve seen in many previous song translations.

(Source)

그저 친구라는 수많은 여자친구

날 똑같이 생각하지마 I won’t let it ride

이제 니 맘대로 해 난 미련은 버릴래

한땐 정말 사랑했는데 oh oh

All those girls you call just your friends

Don’t think of me as the same, I won’t let it ride

Now just do what you like, I want to be rid of my lingering affection for you

I really loved you once

(Source)

Pretty easy, although my wife said that “그저” in line 1 meant “just”, which wasn’t one of the meanings in my dictionary, and that “한땐” in line 4 was “한때” + “는”, or “once”.

But as for the jump in the middle of the song, between sounding like they’re still together and she’s working at improving the relationship, to sounding like she, well, just doesn’t care, presumably them having split up? I’m just as stuck as you!

Update: In hindsight, it’s strange that she wants to be more than just one of his female friends? I thought that she already was, and the problem was that all of those female friends of his were actually women he’s cheated on her with?

( Source )

가끔씩 술에 취해 전활 걸어 지금은 새벽 다섯시 반

넌 또 다른 여자애 이름을 불러 no no

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

Frequently when you’re drunk you call me at 5:30 in the morning

And again you call me by another woman’s name no no

I don’t care, I want to end this, Wherever you are, Whatever you do

Now I won’t have anything to do with it, Get out of my way

Don’t suddenly hold on to me and start weeping

( Source )

A long section, but pretty easy. Just a couple of points: first, don’t be confused by the “걸다” in “전활를 걸다” (shortened to “전활 걸어” here), as I often used to be; although by itself it does mean “hang”, “”전활를 걸다” does not mean “hang up the phone” but rather “to make a phone call”, the complete opposite.

Next, my wife says “이제와” is short for “이제와서”, which means “suddenly”. Frankly I don’t get that, so I’ll have to take her word for it, but if anybody else has an explanation then that would be appreciated!

Meanwhile, the next part is very easy, so I’ll skip an explanation:

(Source)

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

Boy I don’t care

다른 여자들의 다리를 훔쳐보는

니가 너무너무 한심해

매일 빼놓는 커플링 나 몰래 한 소개팅

더 이상 못 참을 것 같아 oh oh

You steal a glance at other women’s legs

You’re so pitiful

Every day you take off your couple ring and secretly go on a blind date

I guess I can’t take it any more oh oh

( Source )

넌 절대 아니라는 수많은 나의 친구

난 너 땜에 친구들까지 다 잃었지만

차라리 홀가분해 너에게 난 과분해

내 사랑이라 믿었는데 oh oh

My many friends that said you weren’t right for me

I lost all of them because of you, but

That’s actually a relief

You don’t deserve me

I believed you were my true love oh oh

( Source )

And as if to make up for the easy part, that was quite difficult. True, the basic translations are easy enough, but an important part was unspoken, then yet again some sentences seem to contradict the others, then finally one way of saying something in English is said completely the opposite way in Korean!

Dealing with each in turn, line 1 is literally “you-absolutely-not-many-my friends”, but the “not” part is a relative clause incorporating the “many-my friends”. But what is the boyfriend “not”? Presumably, right for her, and presumably they said that to her too.

Next, I don’t how on Earth losing all her friends was “차라리 흘가분해”, literally “rather [a] relief” but that’s what it says: maybe because they weren’t really her friends or something.

Finally, just after that you have literally “you-to-me-unworthy”. Which sounds fine in English when put like that, but then the “me” is the subject here, as indicated by the addition of the “ㄴ”, short for “는”, and Korean is made much easier by thinking of “는” and “은” as meaning “as for” in English. So with those qualifications, now you have “you-to-as for me-unworthy”, which would be best re-ordered in English to “as for me-to-you-unworthy”. But rest assured, it is definitely still he that is unworthy of her in the Korean nonetheless…

There are only 2 new lines in the next section, and they’re pretty easy, so again I’ll skip an explanation. Yeah, I ‘m beginning to notice a pattern too:

(Source)

오늘도 바쁘다고 말하는 너 혹시나 전화해봤지만

역시 뒤에선 여자 웃음소리가 들려 oh no

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

You said you were busy today too, but by chance I got a hold of you and

In the background I heard a woman’s laugh oh no

I don’t care, I want to end this, Wherever you are, Whatever you do

Now I won’t have anything to do with it, Get out of my way

Don’t suddenly hold on to me and start weeping

Cause I don’t care e e e e e

I don’t care e e e e e

(Source)

난 너 땜에 울며 지새던 밤을 기억해 boy

더 후회할 걸 생각하면 맘이 시원해 boy

날 놓치긴 아깝고 갖기엔 시시하잖니

있을때 잘하지 너 왜 이제와 매달리니

I remember the night I cried until dawn because of you boy

I think I will regret it more if we stay together, now I feel relieved boy

When I’m gone I’m valuable, but when we were together I was nothing

You should have done better back then, why are you are hanging on to me now?

(Source)

As per the pattern, you’d expect this verse to be difficult. And indeed, although line 1 was fine, frankly I can’t make head or tail of line 2 especially, and invite alternative translations.

Literally, it is “more-regret [will]-think [if]-my heart & mind-relief”. But regret what? Not splitting up? And if you think? Arrgh!

As you can see, I came up with something for line 2 that certainly sounds okay, but it’s largely guesswork really. Line 3 and 4 at least though, were simple enough, with my wife telling me that the “있을때 잘하지” in the latter (when you have [them], you have to do well) is often used to express regret about relationships.

(Source)

속아준 거짓말만 해도 수백번

오늘 이후로 난 남자 울리는 bad girl

이젠 눈물 한방울 없이 널 비웃어

사랑이란 게임 속 loser

무릎꿇고 잘못을 뉘우쳐

아님 눈 앞에서 당장 꺼져

Now clap your hands to this

I also know about the hundreds of lies you’ve tricked me with

As of today, I’m a bad girl that makes men cry

Now, without so much as a tear I laugh at you

Love is a loser in this game

Get on your knees and repent

Or get out of my sight

( Source )

With great relief, the pattern was maintained with this last verse(!), and so it was quite easy, only the “속아준” in line 1 throwing me off a little. Normally, saying a verb + “주다” means to do the verb for the speaker, i.e. a request, but how do you  be tricked” for someone (note that “속다” means “be tricked”, wheres “속이다” means ” to trick”)? I gave up, but the native speaker in the other room told me that it basically means that, she, the singer, knows or knew she was being tricked.

I’ll take my wife’s word for it. Other pearls of wisdom from her include “오늘 이후로” in line 2 meaning “as of today”, and “잘못을 뉘우쳐” in line 5 as a whole meaning “repent”, my dictionary just giving the 2nd word.

And not before time, there’s just the chorus after that:

I don’t care 그만할래 니가 어디에서 뭘 하던

이제 정말 상관 안할게 비켜줄래

이제와 울고불고 매달리지마

you know I don`t care e e e e e

I don`t care e e e e e

you know I just don`t care e e e e e

I don`t care e e e e e

Boy I don`t care

And on that note, I hope you enjoyed it, and as always I’m open to and grateful for any help and suggestions for anything you think I made a mistake with, and/or – in this case – simply couldn’t understand.

Before I wrap this up though, one thing I was very surprised about in it was that no matter how bad her boyfriend has been, and no matter how much of a “bad girl” the singer supposedly is now, that she would still take him back if he did indeed repent. Granted, confession and expression of remorse carries considerably more weight in Korean (and Japanese) society than in Western ones. But still, perhaps 2ne1 is not quite as “bad” as I’ve been led to believe all these years then (or only is by restrictive Korean standards for female performers), and it’ll be very interesting to see just how provocative (or not) their lyrics in their other songs are now.

But first, I’ll be translating Like The First Time (처음처럼), by T-ara (티아라):

Share

Tagged with: , ,