Immanentising the eschaton

I confess I have never considered the matter carefully, Socrates. I suppose shounen is for boys and shoujo is for girls?

A fine beginning. But let us look deeper. Imagine a young boy, playing with his toys. Does he not bash them together?

He does, yes.

And do he and his friends not argue endlessly over which of their toys would win in a fight?

Constantly, and with great passion.

Now imagine a young girl, playing with her toys. Does she not make them kiss?

…She does.

Does she not argue with her friends not over who would win in a fight, but over who belongs with whom?

I begin to see where you are going.

And if Aphrodite has been kind, and has bestowed upon her the φουτζόσι nature — does she not find her brother's Naruto and Sasuke toys, and make them explore each other's bodies?

I — yes, Socrates. I suppose she does.

Then the soul of shounen discourse is powerscaling — who beats whom — and the soul of shoujo discourse is shipping — who loves whom, and how, and with what degree of emotional devastation.

That seems correct.

Now. Is there a further distinction to be made, within these categories? Between those who are, as the moderns say, woke, and those who are chuds?

I think there must be, though I am uncertain how to draw it.

Consider: is it not the woke who care deeply about the precise definitions of abuse and consent — who will debate endlessly about power imbalances and trauma responses and what exactly constitutes a toxic dynamic?

It is. I have seen these debates. They are very long.

And do the chuds not repudiate such pretensions entirely, and concern themselves only with who is the most attractive — who, as they put it, is best to goon to?

They do, and they are also very loud about it.

Good. Then let us apply this framework to some examples, so that we may be sure we understand it. What of Dragon Ball Z?

Clearly a shounen. The discourse is entirely about power levels. Goku versus Superman. Whether Vegeta could beat Frieza if he had another week to train. Neither especially woke nor especially chud — simply loud.

Ouran High School Host Club?

Shoujo, plainly. The discourse is entirely about which host Haruhi should end up with. Neither particularly woke nor unwoke — simply romantic.

Steven Universe?

Woke shoujo, and almost insultingly obvious. The entire discourse concerns whether various gems were abusive toward Steven, what his codependency with his father means, and whether Spinel deserved better. I have never once seen anyone ask whether Steven could beat a particular gem in a fight. I have seen thousands of words written about whether Pink Diamond was a victim or a perpetrator.

And now — Chainsaw Man?

Surely it is a shounen? It has a chainsaw for a head. There are extremely gory fight scenes. I would have said… neither woke nor chud, perhaps. But certainly shounen.

Think carefully, Adeimantus. Did not the scene in the back alley, with Yoru, and the nature of what she offered Denji — did that not spark hundreds of Reddit threads?

…It did. I remember them. They were quite heated.

And were they debating whether Denji could beat a given devil in a fight?

No. They were debating whether what occurred constituted a meaningful violation, given Denji's initial objection and Asa's anger.

Consent and abuse discourse.

…Yes.

And do not some fans still mourn Reze, and insist she was the one who truly understood Denji? While others argue passionately that Asa is the only one who could give him what he actually needs?

The shipping wars are, I will admit, extensive.

And have you ever — even once — heard Chainsaw Man fans argue about whether Denji could beat a particular devil in a straight fight?

…I cannot say that I have.

Then observe what we have found. Chainsaw Man's discourse is concerned not with power, but with relationships. It is therefore shoujo. Its discourse is concerned not with attractiveness, but with abuse, consent, and emotional damage. It is therefore woke. And thus —

Astonishing, Otakrates. Chainsaw Man is a woke shoujo manga.

“Steal blood donations from hospitals and blood banks” = my personal favorite. They assume the process for this is simpler than dealing with eating people, clearly the most ethical.

“Stealing blood bags is more unethical than eating people” = surprisingly common take. Perhaps they hold the belief some people deserve life saving care over others. If stealing blood people donate anonymously that would keep both you and potential victims alive, then how is it unethical? Most likely, they read this take online and never really thought about it too hard just agreed because everyone else did. Very telling.

“I’d only feed off of volunteers”= has a deep set faith in a sense of community. Not only people that you trust to keep your secret but would put themselves in danger for you. That’s beautiful. Probably gay.

“I’d feed off of strangers but knock them out first, I’d just take a little” = the belief this is more ethical than stealing blood donations is fascinating

The New Yorker RPF

This one goes out to Maverick.