Escapist News Now: Thor Is Now A Girl!

[Overhead]

It's true, it's true.

But as I mentioned before, one can also look at the other side of the coin: the fact that the gimmick is about turning Thor into a superheroine just reminds people there aren't really decent superheroines.
Before using the gimmick to reverse-gendered a hero, there should me more heroines with their own costume/identity/powers. Seeing a female Thor can make someone feel like this is how Marvel handles heroines: by reverse-gendering, instead of creating actual new ones.

Which, come to think of it.... they DO.
There's far more cheap, reverse-gendered heroines than actual heroines. Think about all those Batgirls, Spidergirls, She-Hulk...


(OT: I'm curious to check that Ms Marvel comic you've linked.)

I'd say there are decent superheroines, they just are sidelined behind male heroes a lot and I don't see how drawing attention to the lack of mainstream superheroines is a bad thing. I'd have thought the opposite.

Also I don't think that's fair to Marvel or DC regarding the reverse gendering. The problems with reverse gendering can come in quite a few ways. You can have the slightly feminised version, where it's basically just a cookie cutter character in a skirt or wearing a bow to show femininity. You can have characters that lack depth and are just female stereotypes to fill a role. You can have characters that are just there as cheap emotional props for the use of the male protagonist etc.

However in the instances you've mentioned, each character has a fairly wide extended 'family' consisting of male and female characters and I'd say that of these the women are typically more unique and written with greater depth. Take She-Hulk. Although the name is unfortunate because it puts Hulk as the MAIN Hulk and her as the female derivative, she stands out from the crown. A-bomb, Red Hulk, Skaar, Red She-Hulk, etc are pretty much all meat heads who hit things.

She-hulk on the other hand is a smart, funny lawyer who is much more than just a green woman hitting things.

Similarly Batman. He has an extended bat-family including Robin, Nightwing, Red Robin, Batwoman, Batwing, Ace the Bat Hound, Batcow, etc, etc but for me Batwoman was the standout of the New52 reboot. She's a great character and doubly a minority, being lesbian. I'd advise you to check it out for the amazing art if nothing else.

Spider-man has the smallest extended family, but May Parker always stood out as her own hero by virtue of it taking place in the future where she's permanently taken over the Spider role from Peter. In her comics she was playing second fiddle for no-one. Meanwhile Arachne was pretty much completely her own character, just being given a spider-theme to help boost sales numbers. If anything the connection to the existing hero was a gimmick rather than her gender.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (Lady Deadpool, Lady Mojo, X-23 Supergirl) but I think those are bad examples and I don't think the companies can be blamed for making some members of an extended super-hero family hero female when they write them well.

Yes, it would be good if we had an extended Wonder Woman family as well, as well as new heroes reaching the same heights as the big characters like Supes, Spider-man, etc. Hell I'm sure DC and Marvel would love a massive selling female hero to make money off and they do make attempts to do this amongst pumping out some of the awful sexist shit (I'm looking at you here Red Hood and the Outsiders. Yes, that means you every writer of Starfire ever) but so far they don't sell that great.

While they're working on that, why not take strong well written female heroes even if they are connected to one of the big-name male superheroes in some way? Would Young Avengers, for instance, have been better if each of the teen legacy heroes had exactly the same race, gender and sexual orientation as the core hero they mimic (which is to say straight, male and white) instead of being a mixture of races, sexual orientations and genders? What purpose would that have achieved?

Successful new superheroes of any kind, even straight white males, are incredibly rare and nostaliga and linking in to the mythology of a comic company and some big name popular character is pretty much essential for any new character to stand a chance of fickle comic nerds buying the book. Just looking at Marvel's August solicitations, I can only see that 1 hero with their own book was created since 2000 and that's Doop who has a 5 issue limited series and was made in 2001. After that it's Deadpool in 1991 and then the 2nd generation X-men in the 70's.

Even then Doop, Deadpool and the 2nd gen X-men are all X-men releated characters linking in to an existing franchise, so even then they don't really count!

 

[Overhead]

- she's not her own character, but just a reverse-gendered version of an existing male hero;

She's not just a reverse gendered version though, there are a lot of differences. She doesn't have a a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on, she's one of the only superheroes to have a career that isn't Super-scientist, she isn't especially angry, she's usually funny and jokes around, etc.

Like I said, I think reverse gendering can be bad and is usually bad but isn't ALWAYS. I don't think simply pointing our she's based on the Hulk and gender swapped is enough, you have to show she's merely a copy of him that's been feminised (obviously not true), or is just a stereotype lacking depth (She's a well developed character with a strong personality built up over many years and comic books) or is just there as an emotional crutch for the hero (Again, not true because she's often the starring hero of her own solo book).

- everything unsexy about her source has been removed: the Hulk is dumb, ridiculously muscular, angry, and has a ugly face to boot; plus his alter ego is an unassuming geek. All those things have been removed because if you make a female version of Hulk, she has to look sexy both in her human form and in her monster form... so unassuming geekyness, anger, excessive muscle mass and brute stupidity aren't sexy.

I hadn't considered this before and I'd now consider it a mark against her. I do still look at her positively though because i think she has so much else going for her that's positive that she comes out ahead overall. She's a strong-willed, intellectual heroine who is well characterised and has her own stories rather than playing second fiddle to a male protagonist. Additionally a pretty unique concept in herodom. Other heroes have jobs and some are even lawyers but it's not Spider-man who sells photographs to the Daily Bugle, Batman who chairs board meetings, etc. Even Tony after revealing his identity doesn't walk around as Iron Man constantly. Jen has decided to be She-Hulk almost full time in her personal and professional life.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see Lady Deadpool, Supergirl or X-23 to be any worse than Batgirl: Batgirl just got better writers, but at their core the concept idea for all these characters is the same: sexy female copycat of a character.

Batgirl's concept was a mute teenager trained to be the greatest fighter in the world who is stuggling to learn how to live in a world she doesn't understand. It was highly different. Batwoman is more similar to Batman than Batgirl but then Nightwing, Robin, etc are eben more so.

They may give them different background stories and modify their powers. But they're still clones, we must admit that.

Not if they have their own unique personalities and motivations. Just look at all the superman homages? Is Superman really the same as Shazam who is the same as Hyperion who is the same as Sentry who is the same as Blue Marvel who is the same as a dozen other takes on the character? There has to be a point where a character is well developed enough that it isn't just a clone.

Surely you can't be saying that no matter how far away a character gets from it's origins, it is still inevitably a clone of the original regardless of the size of the differences? And that clones are automatically bad?

What are your thoughts on Watchmen then, just as one example? Shouldn't have bothered considering they're specifically based on Charleston characters?

 

[Anaphyis]

This happens ALL THE TIME. It is part of comics. So why does it only seem to matter when the person taking on the role is a woman?

Thank you for being a voice of reason. This thread was seriously depressing as a comic geek minority, reading all that obvious fake indignation of "I have no clue about comic books and wouldn't care less under any other circumstance but OMG FEMINAZISELLOUTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS WANT TO TAKE OUR TOYS AWAY, WE'LL ONLY HAVE, LIKE, 95% LEFT!" Poor straight white boys just can't get a break.

 

[Lilani]

I'm still kind of confused how they are going to pull off the "she is not She-Thor or Thorina, she is Thor" bit when the actual Thor is still running around, if a tad hammerless.

To me, it feels like they are treating the name of "Thor" basically like a title. He or she who wields mjolnir is the god or goddess of thunder, Thor. Those who are more versed than me on this can feel free to correct me, but that is how I'm interpreting the idea.

 

[mecegirl]

In Marvel Comics it has long been the case that only those who are worthy can pick up Thor's hammer but that if they are worthy then they gain his power as well as a rad Thor-based costume (unless you're Captain America in which case you are just a super strong Captain America in whatever you were wearing already).

In the past this has lead to Throg:

And Beta Ray Bill (An Alien Cyborg Horse-man):

A woman becoming Thor is not some brand new feminist re-imagining of Thor but rather a consistent continuation on a classic part of how Marvel's version of Thor works. It's not even especially strange one compared to what we've seen before.

Hell, in Earth/Planet/universe X (a possible future timeline) Thor himself does actually turn into a woman and they've done at least one What If? issue I know of based around Thor being female:

I imagine anyone who's upset about this doesn't actually know much about Marvel's Thor.

That is pretty much where my mind went. And as others have stated other avengers and even x-men (Storm, Captain America, Black Widow) have wielded Thor's hammer.

But basically this is just a temporary change until Thor becomes worthy again. The new woman is "Thor" insomuch that she weilds the hammer and has taken on his responsibility to protect the nine realms. And as mentioned by a previous poster the incription on the hammer reads. "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor"

But for now.

 

[Hodo Astartes]

1. If you are tired of thor just don't DO thor. we don't need NEW thor who is now a chick. There are plenty of asgardian warriors you can use that don't s*** all over viking lore.

You know, Thor is sh*tting all over Viking mythology, the series. Has always been. Also one of the most important legends of their mythology features Thor in a pretty wedding dress.

would you do this to Jesus? Moses?

Sure. Mary Mag knives Peter in his sleep and takes command of the disciples, building a church on Peter's grave because that's totes what JC meant. We go from there with Mary going GoT on the power structures of Jerusalem. Or Hamyuts Meseta, if you want action. Hell, Hamy's sling would probably even be the best choice of weapon for someone carrying on David's line.
And then Dan Brown has written books that suggest all kinds of stuff about potential children of Jesus. As have dozens of other authors. I don't think anyone went so far as to make messianism a hereditary thing or implied Jesus was replaced. But 'Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal'makes Jesus a Buddhist monk and sees him reach enlightenment. Also inventing the cafe latte, but that's kinda beside the point.
Thing is, dicking around with Christian religion is not at all something people shy away from.

 

[Hodo Astartes]

Except it's not retcon, and people are jumping on ERMAGERD FEMINISM with no real evidence. Yeah, that's part of the problem. Marvel's doing what they've been doing for decades. Crying "feminism," even "psuedo feminism" displays a lack of Marvel history....Wait, I got it. They're all fake geek guys, right?

It's just funny how Marvel has this history of switching up characters, and it's only when the character becomes a minority or a woman, and only recently, that it's an issue. I mean, it'd be one thing if their tendency to do this was something new, like how there was a Human Torch before the Fantastic Four, but...it's not just an old timey thing.

But yes, I very much think sexism is a part of the outcry. I think even more so, since I never said sexism, but you brought it up to deny it. I think, frankly, thou doest protest too much.

I seriously doubt this would have even been an issue if they had pulled this with another blond white dude.

Careful reading of my post might reveal t you that I did not actually accept that position as my own. I was merely reflecting on the reasoning of people. But naturally you are absolutely correct in that turning strange people into 'Thor' is not actually a new development. Also I want to say it very clearly that I don't give a flying hammer about the entire shebang and don't even read comics. I just enjoy internet arguments. The reason why this might feel strange even to people who have read all thor-related material is the insistence that "this is THOR now". Which tries very hard to make it sound like a new quality to the musical hammers. The impression of a cashgrab comes in when you look at the marketing platform they chose. Making important women publicly announce your stuff gives it a certain spin, don't you think? Again, I don't condemn anything, I can just see where people come from (and why you would argue against that). But I can also see how this is certainly to a degree calculated to make us do exactly what we do right now. Speculate and discuss it. But yeah, this is interesting, even if it is probably just a big redemtion arc / character establishment scheme.

I'd say there are decent superheroines, they just are sidelined behind male heroes a lot and I don't see how drawing attention to the lack of mainstream superheroines is a bad thing. I'd have thought the opposite.

Well, that's a good point.
Although even better than drawing attention by making yet another reverse-gendered hero would be to solve the issue by launching a new heroine.

She-hulk on the other hand is a smart, funny lawyer who is much more than just a green woman hitting things.

Oh, boy, do we disagree here!

It's not the sexy Emma Frost or the femme fatale Black Widow that I usually bring as the token example of why I think comic books have a problem with sexism: it's She-Hulk!

- she's not her own character, but just a reverse-gendered version of an existing male hero;

- everything unsexy about her source has been removed: the Hulk is dumb, ridiculously muscular, angry, and has a ugly face to boot; plus his alter ego is an unassuming geek. All those things have been removed because if you make a female version of Hulk, she has to look sexy both in her human form and in her monster form... so unassuming geekyness, anger, excessive muscle mass and brute stupidity aren't sexy.


As for all of the Batgirls and Spidergirls... I'm just allergic to clones. I must admit however that I liked the design of Cassandra Cain's costume.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see Lady Deadpool, Supergirl or X-23 to be any worse than Batgirl: Batgirl just got better writers, but at their core the concept idea for all these characters is the same: sexy female copycat of a character.

They may give them different background stories and modify their powers. But they're still clones, we must admit that.

I think the problem we have here is you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You demand female heroes, but they have to be unique. Fine. We do have a ton of those. Not as big or as over the top as many of the mainstream crew but there. Now you demand they are not too perfect and that's where you run into problems. Larger-than-life heroes have the stupid tendency to look awesome and many of them are awesome in many ways. And they have to be. They have to juggle a life, saving the world and entertaining the audience while doing so. There are few supers who actually look bad. Because most of them are in some way stonking rich and privileged. And those who are not are deliberate anti-heroes or more heroic for it. You mentioned Hulk. I stuggle to consider him a hero in the first place. He is a big, raging force of nature. Deadpool looks like shite and is relatively poor, but he's not a hero, either. He's a high-powered asshole merc. Heroes are to be heroic and something to aspire to. That's why male heroes tend to be handsome, muscular and PROTECT EVERYTHING! while heroines are often pretty and smart and independent. To claim that was just what men want is a load of bull. Women's mags feature the exact same aesthetic and traits. Sure, there is a point when positive traits piled on a character becomes ridiculous, but that goes for all heroes and is the reason we see established supers go dark and broody. It is a fashion thing depending on how super we want people to be.
That said, you are making it hard to think of acceptable female supers. They can't be too over the top without starting to look like clones of existing male heroes, they can't be useless because who wants a useless hero? They can't be ugly because ugly doesn't sell and they can't be too pretty because feminism said so. They have to tie in to something or they become hard to establish but they can't be tied directly to a franchise because clones. They can't have typically male traits because that's just slapping tits on it and they can't have too many feminine traits because then they are male wish fulfillment.

And that's the big problem. Male supers are just accepted as what they are but once they are female, they are scrutized to no end because people seem to need a reason to not make them count. Hero with improbaly awesome body, tons of dosh, genius and a super hero side-job? Awesome! Heroine with the exact same shit? Male fantasy and therefore terrible!
I assure you, people do not read comics for sexual fantasies (they have an internet full of porn for that) but because they like the characters and stories. So if you want more female supers, alright. But try to ask yourself this: "Would I find this kind of thing terrible if a guy did the equivalent?"

Oh, and maybe look into non-super hero comics. Things tend to be more toned down there.

 

[Something Amyss]

Careful reading of my post might reveal t you that I did not actually accept that position as my own.

And part of my point was the fact that you felt the need to bring sexism into it indicated to me that it was your stance. This persists regardless of whether or not you actively stated your views, so no condescension was necessary. In fact, if you took your own advice, you may have noticed that I addressed the initial claims with "They" and then moved on to claims using "you."

Except it's not retcon, and people are jumping on ERMAGERD FEMINISM with no real evidence. Yeah, that's part of the problem. Marvel's doing what they've been doing for decades. Crying "feminism," even "psuedo feminism" displays a lack of Marvel history....Wait, I got it. They're all fake geek guys, right?

See, I say "people" and "they" here, but:

But yes, I very much think sexism is a part of the outcry. I think even more so, since I never said sexism, but you brought it up to deny it. I think, frankly, thou doest protest too much.

Then I switch to "you" when addressing your specific things.

There was really no need to bring sexism into it, the very reason I suggested you protest too much.

And it's nice that you're saying you don't care, but I'm not so sure.

Until you brought up sexism, the only uses in this thread were going the opposite way. Barring my address of your response, I can see one example of the word sexism in the thread, courtesy of 8 bit owl, and that was on this page (page 4, in case this posts after other people). I find it kind of strange that the people bringing up sexism specifically seem to be disproportionately decrying accusations that don't exist. And you, friend, did exactly the same.

When I spoke to it being more controversial than a black Cap in the 60s, I didn't comment on why there was outcry, merely that it was. Your response appears to infer sexism, and I cannot imagine another reason you would bring it up. I mean, I was talking outrage, but not the source.

The reason why this might feel strange even to people who have read all thor-related material is the insistence that "this is THOR now".

Like Eric Masterson was? I did bring this up before. He was at points both merged with Thor and Thor's replacement. I mean, this isn't entirely a new idea, even with Thor. But even if it was, there is an amazing legacy of characters taking over roles. The idea that Thor is immune would seem to be the more absurd notion.

The impression of a cashgrab comes in when you look at the marketing platform they chose. Making important women publicly announce your stuff gives it a certain spin, don't you think?

I'm curious as to what a comic publisher is supposed to do with cash, other than grab it. I mean, I don't see anything different in them doing this than in their usual shtick, except maybe that they had the audacity to target women. But then, I think the reason you think this way is because you're justifying a personal belief.

This isn't even the first time they've made an announcement on the View.

But I can also see how this is certainly to a degree calculated to make us do exactly what we do right now. Speculate and discuss it.

Since this has turned into a discourse on sexism, I doubt that was their intent if your proposed "cash grab" hypothesis is the case. While that would have the potential to draw in women, it has the potential to alienate men.

Of course, the men already seem to be alienated, mostly for arbitrary or made-up reasons. And I think that's more important than whether it's sexism. Though yes, I do think the root is sexism. And I think the people denying it so adamantly are demonstrating that.

 

[Vault101]

1. If you are tired of thor just don't DO thor. we don't need NEW thor who is now a chick. There are plenty of asgardian warriors you can use that don't s*** all over viking lore.

2. Was going to go with doesn't this s*** all over viking lore? Hey vikings you know your god of storms you takes your ships to battle? Well he lost his job and some chick got it, don't worry she's totally worthy.

erm....I'm fairly certain marvel has been mangling the norse mythology since the inception of thor...much like anything to do with greek myth

[quote/]would you do this to Jesus? Moses?[/quote]
I'd make Jesus an "effeminate" gay man and moses his lover...OR I'd gender switch them both and have them as lesbian lovers

[quote/]KILL HIM IN HONORABLE BATTLE if you are going to replace him. don't lay him off and replace him with this affirmative action Bull S***[/quote]
just because its a women does not make it "affirmitive action"

 

[Hodo Astartes]

[quote/]would you do this to Jesus? Moses?

I'd make Jesus an "effeminate" gay man and moses his lover...OR I'd gender switch them both and have them as lesbian lovers[/quote]

I'd like to see the time travel plot that gets them both into the same country and millennium. Since Moses and the flood myth probably have been an import from mesopotamia (where it makes much more sense in the light of their religion) and the flood has happened quite some time before Jesus was born, they'd likely speak competely different languages. So intercultural lesbian lovers in an oppressive patriarchal society that is itself oppressed by a military dictatorship, who have to bridge unimaginable cultural and language barriers while being persecuted by the Roman authorities and the Jewish priests for their sexuality as much as religious ideas and political uproar and travel the land with their entourage of outcasts? Where can I buy it?

Until you brought up sexism, the only uses in this thread were going the opposite way. Barring my address of your response, I can see one example of the word sexism in the thread, courtesy of 8 bit owl, and that was on this page (page 4, in case this posts after other people). I find it kind of strange that the people bringing up sexism specifically seem to be disproportionately decrying accusations that don't exist. And you, friend, did exactly the same.


Since this has turned into a discourse on sexism, I doubt that was their intent if your proposed "cash grab" hypothesis is the case. While that would have the potential to draw in women, it has the potential to alienate men.

Of course, the men already seem to be alienated, mostly for arbitrary or made-up reasons. And I think that's more important than whether it's sexism. Though yes, I do think the root is sexism. And I think the people denying it so adamantly are demonstrating that.

Oh boy, do I ever regret bringing that word up. I thought I was just pointing at the elephant already in the room. I will not get into a discussion of who said what.

Anyway, what we see here is the typical bitching at any announcement of any kind of change. Uninformed bitching from people who either know little about the topic at all, people who look for a reason to see their existing opinions confirmed and junp on to push their agenda or are just those offended by change on principle.

 

[mecegirl]

Really though this "issue" boils down to three things.

1. Mjolnir is the town bicycle, everyone has had a ride. Giving Mjolnir to someone else is a go to plot point for the Thor comics. They do it ever so often as a way to shake things up. Or just to point to another chracter and say "Hey this person is really awesome".

2. No shit its a cash grab/publicity stunt. Have any of you looked at the Diamond rankings?
http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/29081.html

The last Thor comic only sold $37,000 copies putting it at #55 overall. The highest ranking was of course Batman with a total of 130,077 copies sold. All of the success from the movies does not translate to sales for the books. It would be wonderful if it did, but it does not. Every product needs marketing. And for an industry that used to be massively wide spread, but that is barely holding on now, they need all of the publicity that they can get. Marvel doesn't even own itself anymore, Disney does, which has been working pretty well thus far. And since they have a backer now that has the bucks to advertize far and wide why not? What do you all expect them to do? Sit on it? This isn't like video games where the publishers can just wait for millions to come in(and subsequently ***** if the millions are one less million less than what they want).

3. If it was another white male no one would be calling it pandering, just advertizing. The same way that people gave less of a shit about Doctor Octopus taking over Peter Parker's body in the 616 universe. But cried foul over the Ultimate Peter Parker's mantle being passed down to Miles Morales. A damn villain taking over Peter Parker's body caused less of a fuss than a Black boy taking up the mantle. All that clamoring for "organic" diversity but not "forced" diversity. Bendis was the one writing Ultimate Peter Parker for all those years. He started he book and wrote it for whats gonna be like 14 years now. And he was the one who decided that it was time for Peter to hand over the mantle. How is that not organic when the primary writer is the one with the creative control? Ultimate Spiderman might as well be a creator owned book considering how long Bendis has been writing it. Meanwhile Doc Ock was the same ole tired 616 nonsense where someone "dies" and finds a way to come back. It was a frivolous change just like all of the changes in the 616 universe. And like this change sooner or later man Thor will be back, so cool your jets.

 

[happyninja42]

Ok so I don't read comics anymore, but as I understand it, in the comic-verse, Thor is actually more of a mantle of power yes? I mean, haven't they had other people, and apparently in one case a freaking alien be Thor? That it's not actually about being the male offspring of Odin Allfather, but about being worthy to wield Mjolnir? Which they've fiddled with on multiple occasions?

Is that correct?

If so, what's the big deal about a female Thor? It's not like they actually gave the being Thor a sex change operation, but more that the powers/duties of Thor have passed on to another person, this time female. Which, as I stated above, has apparently happened multiple times in the comic books.

And seriously, what's the deal with that freakish horse faced Thor alien? I mean come on, if that's kosher, a human female doesn't make me bat an eyelash.

Edit: Ah, and I see mecegirl posted my exact point with the help of visual aids. Excellent! xD

 

[mecegirl]

Edit: Ah, and I see mecegirl posted my exact point with the help of visual aids. Excellent! xD

Just to give credit where credit is due. I only quoted Overhead who pretty much beat me to the punch.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh boy, do I ever regret bringing that word up. I thought I was just pointing at the elephant already in the room. I will not get into a discussion of who said what.

That's convenient, because it would clearly not benefit you.

Anyway, what we see here is the typical bitching at any announcement of any kind of change.

No, because it's rather disproportionate to the simple change of character sort of deal.

And don't think I didn't notice you shift the goalposts there.

 

[Something Amyss]

If so, what's the big deal about a female Thor?

When you say "Alien," do you mean "Beta Ray Bill?" Bill wielded the hammer, but to my knowledge was never called Thor, which is their supposed sticking point. Other people have wielded the power and not been called Thor, so this change is stupid!

Well, except Eric Masterson became Thor, so the argument that this isn't how it works is kind of lame. Someone new can be appointed Thor, even post-Blake retcon. Even if not anyone who picks up the hammer becomes Thor, Thor can be replaced.

 

[the December King]

I'm just blue skying this, as I have an admittedly small comic collection that didn't include alot of Marvel. Except for Ghostrider- I dunno, he looked cool to me at the time.

If this happens to most if not all of the major heroes over a long enough time cycle, that is, having their mantles passed to others, whether it's their gear, or title, or 'job', then HAS it happened to Wonder Woman, or other unique female heroines in the past? I'd be very curious to see if this sort of hiring and firing happens to ALL characters in the Marvel Universe.

If it does, and not just to the 'white male' ones, and it has been equal opportunity across the board, then this is just another development in the fascinating job position of Thor- I say read on, and enjoy the ride. If, however, it doesn't happen to other types of hero because of reasons, then I am a little... surprised.

And quite frankly, the 'there are zillions of other white dude superheroes' argument is not going to mean much to someone who actually likes Thor, the one who currently has the position that is, and now has a completely different character with a story arc/life story/frame of reference/political agenda. I can see how that could turn fans off, and probably has in the past. On the other hand, if the author/writer is a selling point based on skill, then the benefit of the doubt should be extended- great writing is always a win.

(And I do see how Ghostrider could have been, or could potentially be, anyone - anyone can make a deal with a demon!)