material9101
varishangout.com
There is an article on Phys.org (link) based on a research paper titled "More than just the regional promotion in Japan: The case of Chita Musume" published in volume 26, issue 3 of International Journal of Cultural Studies (link) (archive).
The research raised some issues about a Japanese regional promotion project that uses anime characters, basically saying the way the promotion works reinforce male-gaze. However, there are some issues with the research itself.
The research focuses only on one case study - the YouTube video series that features the Chita Musume characters and their promotion of the Chita Peninsula, but the conclusion is applied to all moe-okoshi practices. It overgeneralized the findings to all regional promotion practices that use moe characters. The context of the case is lost at the conclusion.
There is also no counterarguments or alternative viewpoints in the research paper. The aspects of moe culture, regional promotion, and gender dynamics in Japanese society are not acknowledged.
The way this research is conducted is prone to the researcher's biases and assumptions, it's only based on one case, cultural context is ignored, it only has views from one side, and the research overgeneralized the issues raised in one case to all moe-okoshi practices.
The issues with this research may cause people to think moe = bad. Therefore I thought it is necessary to point out the issues with this research. Even if that particular moe-okoshi has some issues, it doesn't mean all moe-okoshi is the same. This biased research may be an attack on moe culture by feminists to achieve the "gender representation equity".
The research raised some issues about a Japanese regional promotion project that uses anime characters, basically saying the way the promotion works reinforce male-gaze. However, there are some issues with the research itself.
The research focuses only on one case study - the YouTube video series that features the Chita Musume characters and their promotion of the Chita Peninsula, but the conclusion is applied to all moe-okoshi practices. It overgeneralized the findings to all regional promotion practices that use moe characters. The context of the case is lost at the conclusion.
There is also no counterarguments or alternative viewpoints in the research paper. The aspects of moe culture, regional promotion, and gender dynamics in Japanese society are not acknowledged.
The way this research is conducted is prone to the researcher's biases and assumptions, it's only based on one case, cultural context is ignored, it only has views from one side, and the research overgeneralized the issues raised in one case to all moe-okoshi practices.
The issues with this research may cause people to think moe = bad. Therefore I thought it is necessary to point out the issues with this research. Even if that particular moe-okoshi has some issues, it doesn't mean all moe-okoshi is the same. This biased research may be an attack on moe culture by feminists to achieve the "gender representation equity".