This thesis investigates Japan’s normalization of pedophilia via the proliferation of popular culture and media. This analysis will begin by looking at historical examples of pedophilia, specifically focusing on chigo in Medieval Japanese Buddhism, wakashu in Edo Period pleasure quarters, and the spread of soft power diplomacy after World War II.
This phenomenon will also be viewed in the modern context by discussing lolicon in Japanese media and advertising, idol culture in the Japanese music industry, the JK business, and “real” child pornography. The ways that Japan benefits from this culture economically and politically will also be investigated.
Finally, this thesis will take into consideration the opinions of those who do not see these media forms as morally reprehensible, and consider the ways this phenomenon may or may not endanger children in real life.
Currently reading through this. Thought I'd share.
Base and superstructure. They can acknowledge the base but they can only attack the superstructure. In a way it is like climate vs. weather. The climate of patriarchal hierarchy gives way to various weather patterns (and not all of them bad, which is why patriarchy doesn't immediately collapse), and we can't individually do much about the climate so let's just express our dissatisfaction at the most extreme of weather events. But in a way, talking about extreme weather is just spectacle. Just like it's more fun to talk about hurricanes rather than rising or falling crop yields, it's more fun to talk about (and otherise) pedos than to extrapolate the data points on how hierarchy perpetuates violence.
And in a way this is how she got away with writing such a trash thesis. It is hard to critique the "pedos bad" narrative. She hung the patriarchy on the coatrack so you can't say she ignored that aspect, but honestly she is just focusing on the superstructure and gawking at the stormy weather. In a way the Isekai thesis I noted above is it's antithesis. It's better structured (probably because it is easier to critique in editing and perhaps because the writer is genuinely familiar with the topic and maybe even possibly a weeb), and it acknowledges the base and superstructure of capital and alienation. But in the case of this isekai thesis, he comes out and says the superstructure is good! Cashing in on alienation is a good thing and the only problem with exploiting this alienation is that some people may wallow in their alienation rather than serving capital. (Oh, and also eventually, overinvesting in this boom of cheap escapist fantasy will eventually lead to a market collapse). It turns out his critique is also trash, but it survived the travails of academic critique, not because it is unassailable, but because he, his advisors, and even ourselves are caught unaware that we still haven't escaped the trashcan of ideology.
And I don't want to come down to hard on either one of them for making and eating trash. We are all consumers of trash, the problem is with eating from the trashcan all the time.