Entry tags:
ANNCast's Podcast on Moe
Zac Bertschy had Chris Haughton (owner/runner of Taskforce Moe) on the show. Here's a link. In the beginning, they discuss Zac's habit of basically trolling moe fans when he reviews moe shows at Anime News Network. I don't hang out on the forums much, & was surprised to hear Zac's been compared to being racist because of disliking moe - fucking seriously? That sucks, and that's stupid.
I found a lot of the discussion boring.
I submitted a few questions via Twitter. So did![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
littlebutfierce.
I'm pretty tired, but there's the Q/A of our questions.
76:something
Zac:![[twitter.com profile]](https://p.dreamwidth.org/e0caa790ec10/-/twitter.com/favicon.ico)
ribbonknight asks, 'Many women and others find value in non-explicit moe because it focuses on female relationships. Is this a reason why you like it?"
Chris: That's a reason I like some shows. Like K-ON!, or Lucky Star.
Zac: Right.
Chris: But, it's not the entire reason I like moe. There are several reasons.
Zac: I mean it sounds like your basic argument is, 'I am not this one-dimensional stereotype or straw-man. I am multitudes.' It sounds like that's the chief...that's the core of your argument, here.
Chris: Yeah. Yeah, and I think that, to a certain extent, moe fans - the moe fandom at large - is portrayed as shallow fans, only looking for the next big thing with cute girls with huge eyes and they don't appreciate quality anime, and I don't think that's true for really many moe fans.
Zac: Well, you wouldn't argue that there aren't people who are totally like that.
Chris: There certainly are vocal people like that. I don't want to associate nor represent nor pay attention to those people. But there are certainly people like that. But I'd argue that the majority of moe fans are pretty much just like other fans. They like a range of anime, not just moe but a whole lot of other stuff.
82:00
Zac:ribbonknight asks: Dudes perving on characters can devalue the shows for fandom at large. Do you think your site contributes to this?
Chris: Dudes perving on moe fandoms...no, I don't think my site contributes to...dudes perving on moe fandoms.
Zac: In other words, if there's a huge, outspoken bunch of, let's say 4-chan users, totally obsessing over whoever from K-ON!, everyone's like oh man. Like it's a turn-off for some people, like they don't necessarily want to engage with the material because they think it's just about that.
Chris: If a person looks at 4-chan especially...& says, 'I don't want to engage with this work of media because of what 4-chan says about it. I think that person probably wouldn't have engaged with that work of media in the first place.
Zac: Yeah, I think you're probably right. [laughter]
ME ASIDE: I totally disgaree with that. The disgust with which other people describe moe kept me away from it for years.littlebutfierce had to convince me that K-ON! was worth trying.
I am absolutely influenced by other people's taste/etc.
87:00
Zac:janiinedelleen asks, "Do you think moe's focus on friendships is part of why it's so devalued and scorned in large parts of anime fandom?
Chris: I think that, 1) part of it is the emphasis on girls. I think that 2 is the de-emphasis on story. I think those are the two big things for why it's devalued.
Zac: I mean, I guess I would sort of make the argument that it also seems exploitative. I don't buy for a second that I think people are watching K-ON! solely because they really care about these characters. There's a voyeuristic appeal to that show that...I think a lot of people have a voyeuristic appeal to that show, and it's like, "Oh these cute girls, they like each other so much," and it's kinda like you're...sometimes it feels like you're watching from the bushes. [laughter] You know, you've got your binoculars. It's a little creepy.
Chris: I don't see it that way. At all.
Zac: You yourself, you're not putting yourself into the situation.
Chris: No, not at all. A complete removal of the viewer as an agent in what is going on in the show.
Zac: Okay. So, the attraction to those characters, then, in a moe fashion, you are totally removed from it? Like you as a person, you totally/psychologically remove yourself?
Chris: When I'm watching the show, I'm not watching, I'm not there at all. That's just going on in the show. It's not me watching them, it's just them happening within the context of the show. As far as being moe for a particular girl, that's certainly me inserting myself into that fantasy.
Zac: So that's separate like doujinshi culture. The act of watching i separate?
Chris: Yes. The doujinshis for K-ON, it's notorious for having really disgusting doujinshi.
Zac: Most popular shows that feature little girls have hideous doujinshi.
Zac: Okay.
ME ASIDE: I find Zac's take on the voyeurism in K-ON! kind of fascinating, because I didn't feel that way at all watching it. I think that take is entirely related to the male gaze.
I was absolutely invested in the actual characters, their friendship, and the music they made together. That is the only reason I watched the show.
The fact that Zac thinks that there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON a person could watch that show is exactly what my questions are trying to get at - WHY AREN'T NON-SEXUAL FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS VALUED? Which leads to my next question:
94:00
Zac:ribbonknight asks: dudes hanging out in anime considered artistic & moving, moe shows of girls doing the same are called stupid & pointless. Do you think that some fans oversexualizing characters contributes to dismissive fans not examining their own misogyny?
Zac: Wait, these are two unrelated things [me aside: no they're not]. The first one was a statement, the second one was a question. [nope]
Chris: I am not sure where that's coming from.
Zac: Yeah, that's a weird thing. I guess some...no, okay. That is a two-parter. So, he's saying that I guess there's this blanket assumption that critics love shoes where it's just dudes hanging out and doing nothing, but shows where it's girls hanging out & doing nothing are called stupid and pointless, which I don't...I think your premise is flawed, bro? I don't even, like...that's not true? And I guess he's saying that it's misogynistic to hate on "cute girls doing cute things" shows. Which, to answer that myself, it's not misogynistic to be bored by cute girls doing cute things. [laughter]
Chris: Yeah, it's not sexist to have a preference.
112:00 question also worth listening to: about whether women's reasons for watching are different than men?
I found it a little hilarious that Zac assumed I am a guy, especially given the questions I was asking.
Regardless, my question about internalized misogyny shifted to one about sexism. Both Zac and Chris agreed that, "It's not sexist to have a perference" [between watching plotless shows about girls hanging out vs boys hanging out].
I'd challenge that. If you as a media consumer ONLY enjoy stories about boys/men, and are only capable of identifying with men? Then yeah, I think you have some internalized misogyny going on there.
I started joining in the discussion on the forums, but that was before I heard reading of my last question, and their answer/non-answer. I don't know if I'll check back.
Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed. I've been a fan of Zac Bertschy's commentary for years. :(
I found a lot of the discussion boring.
I submitted a few questions via Twitter. So did
littlebutfierce.I'm pretty tired, but there's the Q/A of our questions.
76:something
Zac:
Chris: That's a reason I like some shows. Like K-ON!, or Lucky Star.
Zac: Right.
Chris: But, it's not the entire reason I like moe. There are several reasons.
Zac: I mean it sounds like your basic argument is, 'I am not this one-dimensional stereotype or straw-man. I am multitudes.' It sounds like that's the chief...that's the core of your argument, here.
Chris: Yeah. Yeah, and I think that, to a certain extent, moe fans - the moe fandom at large - is portrayed as shallow fans, only looking for the next big thing with cute girls with huge eyes and they don't appreciate quality anime, and I don't think that's true for really many moe fans.
Zac: Well, you wouldn't argue that there aren't people who are totally like that.
Chris: There certainly are vocal people like that. I don't want to associate nor represent nor pay attention to those people. But there are certainly people like that. But I'd argue that the majority of moe fans are pretty much just like other fans. They like a range of anime, not just moe but a whole lot of other stuff.
82:00
Zac:
Chris: Dudes perving on moe fandoms...no, I don't think my site contributes to...dudes perving on moe fandoms.
Zac: In other words, if there's a huge, outspoken bunch of, let's say 4-chan users, totally obsessing over whoever from K-ON!, everyone's like oh man. Like it's a turn-off for some people, like they don't necessarily want to engage with the material because they think it's just about that.
Chris: If a person looks at 4-chan especially...& says, 'I don't want to engage with this work of media because of what 4-chan says about it. I think that person probably wouldn't have engaged with that work of media in the first place.
Zac: Yeah, I think you're probably right. [laughter]
ME ASIDE: I totally disgaree with that. The disgust with which other people describe moe kept me away from it for years.
littlebutfierce had to convince me that K-ON! was worth trying.I am absolutely influenced by other people's taste/etc.
87:00
Zac:
Chris: I think that, 1) part of it is the emphasis on girls. I think that 2 is the de-emphasis on story. I think those are the two big things for why it's devalued.
Zac: I mean, I guess I would sort of make the argument that it also seems exploitative. I don't buy for a second that I think people are watching K-ON! solely because they really care about these characters. There's a voyeuristic appeal to that show that...I think a lot of people have a voyeuristic appeal to that show, and it's like, "Oh these cute girls, they like each other so much," and it's kinda like you're...sometimes it feels like you're watching from the bushes. [laughter] You know, you've got your binoculars. It's a little creepy.
Chris: I don't see it that way. At all.
Zac: You yourself, you're not putting yourself into the situation.
Chris: No, not at all. A complete removal of the viewer as an agent in what is going on in the show.
Zac: Okay. So, the attraction to those characters, then, in a moe fashion, you are totally removed from it? Like you as a person, you totally/psychologically remove yourself?
Chris: When I'm watching the show, I'm not watching, I'm not there at all. That's just going on in the show. It's not me watching them, it's just them happening within the context of the show. As far as being moe for a particular girl, that's certainly me inserting myself into that fantasy.
Zac: So that's separate like doujinshi culture. The act of watching i separate?
Chris: Yes. The doujinshis for K-ON, it's notorious for having really disgusting doujinshi.
Zac: Most popular shows that feature little girls have hideous doujinshi.
Zac: Okay.
ME ASIDE: I find Zac's take on the voyeurism in K-ON! kind of fascinating, because I didn't feel that way at all watching it. I think that take is entirely related to the male gaze.
I was absolutely invested in the actual characters, their friendship, and the music they made together. That is the only reason I watched the show.
The fact that Zac thinks that there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON a person could watch that show is exactly what my questions are trying to get at - WHY AREN'T NON-SEXUAL FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS VALUED? Which leads to my next question:
94:00
Zac:
Zac: Wait, these are two unrelated things [me aside: no they're not]. The first one was a statement, the second one was a question. [nope]
Chris: I am not sure where that's coming from.
Zac: Yeah, that's a weird thing. I guess some...no, okay. That is a two-parter. So, he's saying that I guess there's this blanket assumption that critics love shoes where it's just dudes hanging out and doing nothing, but shows where it's girls hanging out & doing nothing are called stupid and pointless, which I don't...I think your premise is flawed, bro? I don't even, like...that's not true? And I guess he's saying that it's misogynistic to hate on "cute girls doing cute things" shows. Which, to answer that myself, it's not misogynistic to be bored by cute girls doing cute things. [laughter]
Chris: Yeah, it's not sexist to have a preference.
112:00 question also worth listening to: about whether women's reasons for watching are different than men?
I found it a little hilarious that Zac assumed I am a guy, especially given the questions I was asking.
Regardless, my question about internalized misogyny shifted to one about sexism. Both Zac and Chris agreed that, "It's not sexist to have a perference" [between watching plotless shows about girls hanging out vs boys hanging out].
I'd challenge that. If you as a media consumer ONLY enjoy stories about boys/men, and are only capable of identifying with men? Then yeah, I think you have some internalized misogyny going on there.
I started joining in the discussion on the forums, but that was before I heard reading of my last question, and their answer/non-answer. I don't know if I'll check back.
Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed. I've been a fan of Zac Bertschy's commentary for years. :(