Spider-Man, Diversity and "Who Cares?"

Jetfan007

New member
Nov 9, 2014
10
0
0
JimB said:
Jetfan007 said:
Female Thor is hated because the writing is absolute garbage.
Dude, if you want to argue that's your reason for hating the book, that's fine; though for the record, I kind of doubt it, since you attribute one nonsense line to the book and then denigrate another that the character speaking it first uttered nearly thirty years ago to She-Hulk, making it a pretty well-established character trait by this point. I do wish, though, that you would refrain from speaking unilaterally for every critic out there, as if no one is hating it specifically and solely because Thor is now female.
No one hates it specifically because Thor is female. How do I know? No one hated Earth X Thor, or Lady Loki, or Valkyrie or Sif. Hell, Captain Marvel's death wasn't hated this much, largely because it was written so well and Ms Marvel was already a great character made better by the event. People hate the book because it is written lazily, it is an insult to the aforementioned characters and their writers and artists, and as mentioned above often feels like an attack on its own readership.

MarsAtlas said:
Really? It came off to me as the sort of thing an anti-semite would be saying, the sort who goes on about "THE JEWS" and how they "killed Jesus" and are doing whatever to ruin the world. That was my interpretation of it anyways. I can see it being insensitive, no question, but it seemed more like a swipe at anti-semites rather than Israel. Thats just my perspective and I must admit that it could easily be way off though.
It's all in the wording. It wasn't "disparaging opinion about Israel" or "anti-Semetic rant" or anything of the sort, it was just "opinion about Israel." It wasn't even "opinion about Palestine." Not to mention, it was a "blah, blah, blah" moment, as in something the character made up in her head, not something that was actually said. Aside from being a completely unnecessary, totally out of the blue political reference it made the writer look like a smug, Israel hating ass.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear it now, "Make new characters! Stop changing existing ones!"
Problem is that's very fucking hard to do.
Or they could promote some of their existing, massive library of characters and have them take the spotlight. Absolutely disgusted me when Iceman came out, not because he came out but because the entire "event" and all the coverage surrounding it completely ignored Northstar as if he'd never existed and this was the first gay Marvel character ever. No respect for their own characters, not even giving him a second thought!


Kinda crazy that when it's a straight white guy, no one bats an eyelash, but when it's any sort of minority people lose their minds, and the minority has to justify themselves.
It's the writing that needs to justify the change. Miles Morales' writing most certainly did so, and though I stopped reading the new Ms Marvel it was more than good enough from what I did read (though I still feel like making Carol Captain Marvel is an insult to Mar-Vell's legacy as well as her own. She forged her own identity without him, and they made it feel like none of that mattered 'cause now she *finally* gets to be a real hero!).

The writing did not justify the change in Thor. Though it certainly could be worse: I picked up an issue of Squirrel Girl a while ago and nearly swore off Marvel forever.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
1,353
3
43
Country
England
When Miles Morales first made his appearance it was the lack of difference between him and Peter that caused me issue. You could have dropped one of them into anothers story and it wouldn't have made a difference. They played it too safe.

Though as time went on Miles really did establish himself as a hero in his own right and the stories became unique. You couldn't have put Peter Parker into them and have them play out the same way.

Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers. I can't comment really as I tried to read the original series with Carol carrying the name but I found the art horrendous. Since then I've just not been able to bring myself to pick up the series.

I actually like female Thor and those who say that
Jane Foster
isn't worthy are insane. My only real issue with the series is that they are making out the men, such as Thor himself and Odin, to be absolute idiots. They don't need to do that, she's strong enough to stand among them on her own merit without knocking the male characters down.

On a side note I find it a real shame that Ultimate Spider-Woman didn't make the jump to the main Marvel U.
 

Dreph

New member
Jun 27, 2015
80
0
0
I probably shouldn't step into this, but whatever. I do have a problem with female Thor, but it isn't diversity. I just don't want to have to sit through Natalie Portman trying to be Thor in the MCU. She has been pretty much sleeping through the last two Thor movies and if they try to make her Thor in those I'm going to scream. If she actually tried then it might be ok, but she seems to be solidly on paycheck mentality for those films. I know it is unlikely, but any chance of that scares me.

Beyond that, don't care. I haven't read the Thor comic in a while, so I don't really have a horse in that race.

Edit: Also Thor's official name being Odinson is dumb, but that is an entirely different argument.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
15
23
Alright, so a lot of people assume its racism that makes people upset. Might be true for some but for me, its about accuracy. Johnny Storm is white. Peter Parker is white. Luke Cage is black. Red Skull is...well he was white, but now is red, but cause of events in the comics. I don't like changing established characters races cause that IS pandering for diversity. Now, as for replacing heroes with different people, that is less upsetting, but now my issue is that it says to me these people cant be great on their own. Why does this muslim girl need the mantle of Ms Marvel to be worth anything? Why does Miles need to be Spider-Man? They cant be their own unique characters? They cant stand on their own?

A lot of it also has to do with earning it. The Falcon becoming Captain America doesn't bother me. Why? Cause he earned it. He was his own awesome character, and worked along side Rogers, and earned what is more of a title. Its ok if mantles pass on if its earned and makes sense, but honestly, Id prefer diversity that stands on their own. I'm transgender. Id love a trans character, but Id prefer if they were their own unique character and not given The Wasps or Ms Marvels or whoevers costume and name. Id rather have a new interesting unique hero to like.

I think comics need to try to be new new, not stagnant new. You want a non white Spider-Man? Maybe Peter grows up in those 50 years, marries a black woman who he genuinely loves, and their mixed race son inherits his father's power and mantel. That would be a neat plot and means of diversity.

Plus Id be just as bothered by a white Luke Cage or Black Panther or Storm or Falcon or whoever else. But if someone tried to make those characters white in a movie, THEYD be called racist. Equality means equal, but a lot of people forget that.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
Would anyone actually appreciate having a qualifier like that attached to their job?

"Oh, hey, it's that gay electrician!"

"Finally, we have a black doctor"

"Is that a trans plumber?"

"An asian hairdresser? What a novelty!"

"A white teacher? Cool"

Having qualifiers attached to your job, when others in the same line of work may not, would feel like you're being exceptioned, even if the people doing it are attempting to highlight it as a good thing.

I have a hard time believing most people would actually LIKE to be known as "the black doctor" or "the gay electrician", or any other kind of "the X Y". It's far easier to believe that they just want to be known as being a good doctor, or good electrician, etc.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,836
638
118
Country
Philippines
Hoooo, I was wondering when this would come up.

I have been thinking about all these changes, so I want to give my individual opinions on them.

Miles Morales I was completely fine with. He's a great character, he is a sensible choice, and he's just plain cool and different enough to warrant a change. I didn't know that they killed off Ultimate Spider-man just for his character, I never kept up with the Ultimate series, so I harbor no bad feelings against Miles.

Thor (Thorina?) is a bit more complicated. While I do think she is a nice character, she just makes no sense. She breaks a lot of the rules of the Thor mythos. Which I guess is okay, this is comics after all. But what I don't like is how they shove her being a woman down our faces so much. Every villain has something to say about her gender, and you start to feel like the writers are making a dig at their critics, which is not cool. There are a lot of people who don't like the new Thor for reasons besides her being a woman. And they way that they made Odin and other Thor characters dicks (well, even more dicks) also seems excessive. The story line at this point is "Odin is misogynist and old fashioned, Lady Freyja (his wife) should rule because she is progressive and shtick". This makes no sense. If I wanted to be edgy, I would throw in some jokes that would contain the words "patriarchy" and "feminazi". Odin is literally the only real god on Asgard. The force that enables him to be a literal god is called the "Odinforce". And now FemThor wants him off the throne because she doesnt like him and he doesnt like her? Okay...

Also, I don't like the way she looks. Her helmet is hella ugly, and the way they try to make her look muscular just comes off as weird. Why not just go all the way instead of making her arms slightly thicker?

Lastly, Falcon Cap. This one I am just completely against. There is absolutely no reason to have Falcon as Captain America other than his race. First off, why does there need to be a Captain America anyway? "But he's the leader of the Avengers!" So? Cap Falcon isn't the leader of the Avengers. Captain America as a symbol is not important, what matters is the man himself. Second, Falcon has no skills to be Cap. He has no improved strength, reflexes, or thinking. How does he even know how to throw the shield? Kudos I guess to the early comics that had him struggling to be Cap, but that's all gone now. Third, its a change in name only. This new Captain America is just basically a blue Falcon with a shield. This is what tells me that they changed him purely so they could say that Cap is black now.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Kameburger said:
Female Thor? Was released at the height of tensions in the geek world, taking liberal swipes at its readership who had a problem with it.
I'd really like to know where this attitude comes from. Is it from her appearances in books other than her own? Because literally no one in the book said anything about Thor being female, either positive or negative, until the culmination of the first story arc was complete and issue #5 or #6 had Crusher Creel say stupid things. Frankly, I think anyone who feels that Crusher Creel's attitude is intended to be representative of their own needs to examine their own conscience and see why they think a writer who has never met them, never spoken with them, and never corresponded with them is somehow targeting them specifically with Crusher's rhetoric, because if he managed to nail your (hypothetical you, not specific you, Kameburger) attitude enough that you feel threatened by it, then that says a lot more about you, the things you said, and the way you said them than it does about him and his writing.

I will also point out that literally no one in the book brought up her gender after that, either positive or negative, until after the original series rebooted and Laufey made a single snide comment, somewhere around the #4 or #5 mark. If two references in two years is too much for the audience to tolerate, then again, I really feel like that says more about the sensitivity of the audience than the abrasiveness of the author.

Kameburger said:
Her story is full of her villains quipping about her gender and her hitting them with a hammer in response.
No. It is not. I have gone through her entire run and provided a page-by-page breakdown of this on this site before, and I'll do it again if I have to, but what you are describing happens literally only twice; three times if you assume one insult Odin lobs is due to misogyny rather than the limitation of English insults against women tending to single them out for being women.

Jetfan007 said:
No one hates it specifically because Thor is female. How do I know? No one hated Earth X Thor, or Lady Loki, or Valkyrie or Sif.
If you need to assert absolute omniscience over every member of a fanbase, no matter how many of them you have not been exposed to, then I personally do not buy it. Sorry, but I just don't. To speak in one hundred percent absolutes as if the entire fanbase is a hivemind bespeaks an attitude to me I cannot trust.

Believe what you want or need to believe, because I won't bother arguing it any more, but...damn, dude.

Jetfan007 said:
Or they could promote some of their existing, massive library of characters and have them take the spotlight.
That's what Thor is, but whatever.

Areloch said:
Would anyone actually appreciate having a qualifier like that attached to their job?
This is a good point (though for pedantry's sake, I'll point out that of course the answer is yes; of course some people identify so strongly as a member of this or that demographic that it informs how they want to be viewed by the outside world, and that's fine, because none of us have any business telling someone else what his identity ought to be), but it's a good point for the specific character in question. It's a less good question for the people who feel they've been invisible to the world before now and finally have some representation.

Bob_McMillan said:
Thor (Thorina?)
Thora. The female form of the name is Thora. You know, like Thora Birch from American Beauty. Not that it matters here, though, since "Thor" is more than a male-female binary name in the Marvel Universe.

Bob_McMillan said:
Every villain has something to say about her gender, and you start to feel like the writers are making a dig at their critics, which is not cool.
Again, unless you guys are talking about appearances in books other than her own eponymous title, this is just plain not true.

Bob_McMillan said:
They made Odin and other Thor characters dicks (well, even more dicks) [which] seems excessive.
I don't know what you mean by "other Thor characters," but the story has been pretty obviously setting up that something has gone dramatically wrong with Odin as a result of his resurrection, possibly related to his relationship to Bor. Since we still don't know what Fury whispered into the Odinson's ear to make him unworthy of Mjolnir, I suspect the two situations are linked.

Bob_McMillan said:
The story line at this point is "Odin is misogynist and old fashioned, Lady Freyja (his wife) should rule because she is progressive and shtick."
No, it's not. The story is that Thor needs to beat the shit out of Malekith and Dario Agger because they're conquering the realms. The subplot about Odin is that he has become an arrogant, self-absorbed tyrant to whom male-female divides are pretty clearly secondary to people threatening his sense of his own importance to the universe. Creation had the bad taste to continue on without him, and he takes that as a personal insult.

Bob_McMillan said:
Thor wants him off the throne because she doesn't like him and he doesn't like her? Okay...
I would not want my world ruled by someone I consider unworthy of rule; particularly if I have an objective measure of what constitutes worthiness in the form of a hammer I can hold in my hand. Odin is not worthy of Mjolnir, but he's worthy of stewardship of all existence? Yeah, no.

And please note I did not argue Thor is worthy to be God either. I said someone who holds the reins of existence should be expected to be able to hold the handle of Mjolnir. Worthiness of one does not imply worthiness of both.

There. That took long enough. I'm going to go up to my longbox and dig out all my copies of Thor, because I just know I'm going to have to do another page-by-page breakdown of the entire series to count all the times anyone has said anything about Thor having a vaj or Thor has said anything about anyone having a cockinballs.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
JimB said:
Areloch said:
Would anyone actually appreciate having a qualifier like that attached to their job?
This is a good point (though for pedantry's sake, I'll point out that of course the answer is yes; of course some people identify so strongly as a member of this or that demographic that it informs how they want to be viewed by the outside world, and that's fine, because none of us have any business telling someone else what his identity ought to be), but it's a good point for the specific character in question. It's a less good question for the people who feel they've been invisible to the world before now and finally have some representation.
Ha ha, touche. Putting "anyone" on there definitely would mean there are some people out there that WOULD be cool with that. However, I'm pretty certain most people wouldn't want that.

Going back to the entire scene in the comic though, Miles is a character, written well and thus is intended to act as an actual person would. And given that most people wouldn't appreciate being qualified with their demographic, it's a perfectly reasonable reaction from a character/actual person to go 'please don't do that'.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
"Who cares?"

People obsessed with identity politics, that's who. It's tainted every creative medium.

People as a whole really don't have a problem with creators using other races/genders in a given role, people like Miles Morales as spiderman, they just don't want changes made because the creators feel they are pressured and "have to" or going down a checklist. Fans of a given genre sometimes feel they have to question the motives now. Of course comics are known for taking big turns out of nowhere anyway.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,307
1,928
118
Country
United Kingdom
Areloch said:
Would anyone actually appreciate having a qualifier like that attached to their job?

"Oh, hey, it's that gay electrician!"

"Finally, we have a black doctor"

"Is that a trans plumber?"

"An asian hairdresser? What a novelty!"

"A white teacher? Cool"

Having qualifiers attached to your job, when others in the same line of work may not, would feel like you're being exceptioned, even if the people doing it are attempting to highlight it as a good thing.

I have a hard time believing most people would actually LIKE to be known as "the black doctor" or "the gay electrician", or any other kind of "the X Y". It's far easier to believe that they just want to be known as being a good doctor, or good electrician, etc.
Well, that's because they're not the same thing as representations in media, and come with different expectations as a result. They're intrinsically connected with iconography and the impact they have on culture.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Tanis said:
Note:
'Male Thor' has a real name, it's Odinson.

Female Thor made Thor worth reading again.
Eh?!?

That's his surname.

Thor Odinson.

It's no more weird than Hans Christian Andersen.

Odinson means "Son of Odin", just like Andersen means "Son of Anders".

Also, in Scandinavia, Thor is a commonly used male name.

So basically what the writers of FemThor has done, is call a female character "Richard".
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
Let's just go down the list and look at things in a case-by-case basis.


Captain Falcon: Somebody explain to me how stripping away the identity of the first African American super-hero and putting him in the clothes of an old white guy is "progressive." This is pandering at its worst because not only is it blatant and shameless, it's also racist as hell and a seriously terrible message to send if you think about it for more than two seconds. Moreover, it's insulting. Marvel acts as though Sam Wilson hasn't been around for 47 goddamn years. It's nothing but "Hey! Look at us! We have a black super hero with a name you recognize from the movies! We couldn't get a book with him to sell before, but now we're calling him Captain America so you have to care!"


Hawkeye: I love the fact that they're just, "Fine. We'll both use the name."


Kamala Kahn: This is how you do it. Kamala Kahn is an original character who just wants to be a super hero. Whatever diversity check box she fills in is secondary to the fact that she's just a cool super-hero. It's even appropriate how she got her identity because she's hardly the first character to take on the Marvel moniker without being associated with any other character.


Miles Morales: A great example of legacy done right. Ultimate Spider-Man is dead. Not "dead until the next movie." D-E-D Dead. In his absence, Miles steps up with a... okay, kinda overly coincidental backstory and... I donno, is it racist that the Black Spider-Man's uncle is a criminal? Whatever. Still a job well done.


Sam Alexander: SCREW YOU! BRING BACK RICHARD RIDER!... Okay... Sam's not bad. Once you resign yourself to the fact that Nova isn't coming back and the heyday of D&A's epic reign over Marvel's cosmic universe has been replaced by Bendis making everything like the GotG movie, Sam makes for a good successor.


Thora: Jane Foster taking Thor's powers is fine. Taking his name, not so much. Like Captain Falcon, Thora is insulting to the reader's intelligence with its pandering. Like with Captain Falcon, Marvel isn't interested in making more female heroes. They're interested in saying "Thor is a woman, look how progressive we are! We have a woman character with a name you recognize from the movies!" And even then I was willing to get behind the book until the cringy as hell character assassination of Absorbing Man and Titania. If you need any more proof that the Post-2000's Marvel Universe is a different reality than the Pre-2000's Marvel Universe, compare Thora's Absorbing Man to the one shown in Secret Wars. I defy you to tell me that those two are the same character.


X-23: It doesn't feel like pandering to put her in Wolverine's outfit. It just seems unnecessary. It's not like anybody was out there saying "The world must always have a Wolverine." Except maybe a Fox Studio executive.


The Young Avengers: The Young Avengers is ample evidence that the shade thrown at these "sexist and racist comic nerds who hate diversity" is full of crap. Long before Marvel attached hams to their fists and started courting the Tumbler snowflakes, we had a team of awesome characters that consisted of exactly one straight white male. They were not only some of the best original characters Marvel has come up with in recent time, but they exemplified how to properly increase and promote a more diverse cast of characters. Everybody loved them and their mismanagement is one of Marvel's biggest blunders of this century.






The basic gist is... nobody likes being treated like an idiot.

Brian Bendis: "We're killing Ultimate Spider-Man, for real. And he'll be replaced by a black kid."
Readers: "Cool. Let's do this."

Dan Slott: "Herp derp! I'm totally killing the real-deal Spider-Man. Doc Ock is the new Spider-Man, now and forever."
Readers: "Uh huh... riiiiiight."
Dan Slott: "No! Seriously! He's gone forever! It's The Superior Spider-Man from here on out!"
Readers: "We already know you're going to bring him back for the next movie."
Dan Slott: "Waaaaaaaaaah... no I'm not... nuh uh..."
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Travis Fischer said:
Captain Falcon: Somebody explain to me how stripping away the identity of the first African American super-hero and putting him in the clothes of an old white guy is "progressive."
Did anyone say it's progressive? Seriously, I'm asking. Has anyone said that Falcon getting a promotion to Steve Rogers's job and getting his own title is "progressive," whatever that means in this context, rather than just being a promotion?

Travis Fischer said:
It's nothing but "Hey! Look at us! We have a black super hero with a name you recognize from the movies! We couldn't get a book with him to sell before, but now we're calling him Captain America so you have to care!"
I feel this assertion assumes a lot of facts not entered into evidence.

Travis Fischer said:
I dunno, is it racist that the Black Spider-Man's uncle is a criminal?
No, but it's a little racist people keep calling him black when he's half black and half Hispanic.

Travis Fischer said:
Thora: Jane Foster taking Thor's powers is fine. Taking his name, not so much.
This may be missing the point, but just because I feel precision is important here, Thor did not "take" anyone's name. The Odinson gave it to her; or the writers did, depending on how you look at these things. Since that's kind of a dumb and melodramatic thing for the Odinson to have done, one that implies to me he cannot distinguish between the hammer and himself, I assume it is a symptom of whatever mystery made him unworthy of holding Mjolnir in the first place, but that's really speculation on my part until someone tells us what Fury whispered to him.

Travis Fischer said:
I was willing to get behind the book until the cringy as hell character assassination of Absorbing Man and Titania.
Both of their behaviors were in character. Absorbing Man and Titania are thugs who could rule the world but don't because their ambitions and perspectives are too small. Absorbing Man just wants to fight people, and has defeated the entire Avengers and surrendered at the end because he was out of people to fight, so I don't consider testosterone to be out of character for him; Titania has surrendered to female heroes before (specifically She-Hulk when she joined the Fantastic Four) on the explicitly stated basis of female solidarity.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
1,353
3
43
Country
England
JimB said:
but it's a little racist people keep calling him black when he's half black and half Hispanic.
It does seem as if 'black' overrides every other part of an ethnic origin.

After all the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, has a black father and a white mother. Yet I've never seen him referred to as anything other than black/African American.

As to Thor. It's his name, not a title. When others previously have called themselves Thor it was because they were pretending to be him.

So yes I do find it a little odd how no hero is questioning who this new person calling themselves Thor is? When it is pretty clear that it isn't Thor.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
votemarvel said:
The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, has a black father and a white mother.
Huh, I thought his parents are black but his maternal grandmother is white. I suppose I could check that, but I don't honestly care. Let's agree you're right.

votemarvel said:
As to Thor. It's his name, not a title.
As far as most of the Marvel universe seems to be concerned, it's also the title of the lightning guy with the hammer who says shit like "Have at thee."

votemarvel said:
I do find it a little odd how no hero is questioning who this new person calling themselves Thor is when it is pretty clear that it isn't Thor.
It's someone with Thor's powers who helps the same people the old guy did and beats up the same people the old guy did. After that, I'd imagine they don't pry. Seems like bad form to pry into someone's identity when you're hiding your own behind a mask.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
JimB said:
Travis Fischer said:
Captain Falcon: Somebody explain to me how stripping away the identity of the first African American super-hero and putting him in the clothes of an old white guy is "progressive."
Did anyone say it's progressive? Seriously, I'm asking. Has anyone said that Falcon getting a promotion to Steve Rogers's job and getting his own title is "progressive," whatever that means in this context, rather than just being a promotion?
These guys did. I'm sure they're not the only one.
"Pow! Bang! Thud! That?s the sound of the new, progressive Captain America." - Chuck Ross
"the title?s otherwise progressive stance." - Oliver Sara
"Maybe a name change to ?Captain Progressive? would be a more accurate way Marvel could describe the character." - DW Robinson
"Is a black Captain America progressive enough to be worth celebrating?" - Robert Brian Taylor

And WTF are you talking about with Captain America being a promotion? You do realize that the "Captain" part is just part of the name, right? There's no line of progression. It's not something you work your way up to. There's no "Lieutenant America," and even if there was, that's not Sam Wilson. Wilson has his own identity.

Even calling it a promotion is a disservice to everything Sam Wilson achieved as The Falcon.


JimB said:
Travis Fischer said:
It's nothing but "Hey! Look at us! We have a black super hero with a name you recognize from the movies! We couldn't get a book with him to sell before, but now we're calling him Captain America so you have to care!"
I feel this assertion assumes a lot of facts not entered into evidence.
Your ignorance is not my problem.

Ask yourself, did stories get run in national news when The Falcon got a four issue limited series in 1983?


JimB said:
Travis Fischer said:
I dunno, is it racist that the Black Spider-Man's uncle is a criminal?
No, but it's a little racist people keep calling him black when he's half black and half Hispanic.
Now you're just being pedantic.


JimB said:
Travis Fischer said:
or the writers did, depending on how you look at these things.
That's how I'm looking at things.


JimB said:
Since that's kind of a dumb and melodramatic thing for the Odinson to have done
Congratulations. You've identified the problem people have with it. Shocker. It's not because "vagina."


Travis Fischer said:
I was willing to get behind the book until the cringy as hell character assassination of Absorbing Man and Titania.
Both of their behaviors were in character.

Not even a little bit. Absorbing Man is a pragmatist that defies his stereotype by generally being above petty behavior and acting on the whims of a fragile ego. Instead Aaron turned him into a strawman caricature of exactly the opposite kind of person he is because apparently he thought the book was being too subtle about its message. (That or he couldn't afford to shoot a giant set of neon lights that say "THIS BOOK IS ABOUT FIGHTING THE PATRIARCHY" into space.)
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
1,353
3
43
Country
England
It's true JimB. Black father, white mother. Yet he's considered black and not white.

While the citizens of the Marvel U may consider it a title, would the other heroes who have worked with Thor on so many occasions think the same? They'd know that is not the case. Why would the new Thor not reveal who she is to Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, whom she knows that Thor trusts (aside from that Civil War stuff with Tony), who would then vouch for her with the other Avengers. That would have made for a more interesting piece of storytelling to me than just instant acceptance.

As to why they'd question? Well in universe it isn't that long since a Secret Invasion.
 

Jetfan007

New member
Nov 9, 2014
10
0
0
JimB said:
If you need to assert absolute omniscience over every member of a fanbase, no matter how many of them you have not been exposed to, then I personally do not buy it. Sorry, but I just don't. To speak in one hundred percent absolutes as if the entire fanbase is a hivemind bespeaks an attitude to me I cannot trust.

Believe what you want or need to believe, because I won't bother arguing it any more, but...damn, dude.
It's as valid as someone asserting that some mythical group of people hates it because she's a woman. Only difference is I'm not the one that needs to provide evidence, they are. They're making the claim that people hate it because she's a woman. Since they've got nothing to back it up, I can just say "that's not true" and guess what? It's not true.

That's what Thor is, but whatever.
A mainstay character that is already extremely popular, with instant name recognition and a major film franchise is not "digging into their library." It's riding off of the publicity. They could have very easily sidelined him in favor of Sif, or Valkyrie, or brought Earth X Thor back. They could have promoted their other characters. They chose instead to change an existing one, specifically because of his popularity and recognition.

It's exactly the same as it was with Iceman and Northstar. Northstar could have been the premiere gay hero that he used to be, they could have brought him into the spotlight. Instead they chose to take Bobby, who has in his entire history never been hinted at being gay, and make him gay because he's ICeman, he's recognizable. People know the name. Northstar, meanwhile, was cast off as having never existed in most coverage, with Bobby being called things like "trailblazer" and this being such a significant moment for Marvel, who "finally" have a gay hero.

It's not about good storytelling, it's not about making an actual statement and it's not about actual progressiveness, it's just bandwagon-riding "social justice." It's taking a popular thing and using it for an agenda, completely disregarding history and character identity in favor of a cheap stunt. Yeah, it'll be back to normal in a few months more than likely, and this whole thing will have been a forgettable event. That's arguably the worst part, that they had the opportunity to do something much better, something that actually brought other characters into the spotlight, characters that more than deserved it. Instead, we got New 52 level trash.


And WTF are you talking about with Captain America being a promotion? You do realize that the "Captain" part is just part of the name, right? There's no line of progression. It's not something you work your way up to. There's no "Lieutenant America," and even if there was, that's not Sam Wilson. Wilson has his own identity.

Even calling it a promotion is a disservice to everything Sam Wilson achieved as The Falcon.
This. Same exact problem with "Captain" Marvel. She's not a captain of anything, hell she was a Colonel in the USAF, but even that was a long time ago. It's not a rank, it's a title. Unless she's now part of the Kree military, of course. When did she enlist?

She had her own achievements, her own legacy--a much more involved one than Mar-Vell's--and yet only *now* is she truly a hero, now that she took on his name. Because his legacy is clearly the more important one. Clearly.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
574
0
0
JimB said:
Kameburger said:
Female Thor? Was released at the height of tensions in the geek world, taking liberal swipes at its readership who had a problem with it.
I'd really like to know where this attitude comes from. Is it from her appearances in books other than her own? Because literally no one in the book said anything about Thor being female, either positive or negative, until the culmination of the first story arc was complete and issue #5 or #6 had Crusher Creel say stupid things. Frankly, I think anyone who feels that Crusher Creel's attitude is intended to be representative of their own needs to examine their own conscience and see why they think a writer who has never met them, never spoken with them, and never corresponded with them is somehow targeting them specifically with Crusher's rhetoric, because if he managed to nail your (hypothetical you, not specific you, Kameburger) attitude enough that you feel threatened by it, then that says a lot more about you, the things you said, and the way you said them than it does about him and his writing.

I will also point out that literally no one in the book brought up her gender after that, either positive or negative, until after the original series rebooted and Laufey made a single snide comment, somewhere around the #4 or #5 mark. If two references in two years is too much for the audience to tolerate, then again, I really feel like that says more about the sensitivity of the audience than the abrasiveness of the author.
I can appreciate what your saying, and to be honest Thor is a tough character for me in this particular argument because aside from God of Thunder I'm not big a fan of Thor in general.

Of course if I am a victim of all the hype surrounding Female Thor before it's release than I'd be more than willing to bow out and say I'm sorry. The truth is I actually really like gender swapped characters. But of course there was a lot of attention paid to this switch. Being that it was reported on by all sorts of geek sites with statements about superhero semantics. Marvel issues a statement making sure that we are supposed to acknowledge her as the actual Thor and that she's not just someone picking up the mantle of Thor but the other Thor (as I hesitate to use the word "real") still exists but he's no longer worthy or something so he's not Thor anymore? Marvel released a plot synopsis at some point explaining this but the message was very clear to me. They wanted to make the conversation center around this point whether the comic actually did or not. I couldn't get through enough of this to participate point by point, but the conversation surrounding it made sure I kept away. If you google female Thor there was a comic scan popping up about a line deliberately taking a swipe at gamergate, and while I could care less about that movement and I'm certainly not supporting them. in 2015 the last subject I wanted to talk about was gamer gate whether it was anti-gg or not.

I don't know, and while that look awful fake to me and it may have been, but with these kind of images floating around how could you not assume that this is the conversation that Marvel wanted us to have?
JimB said:
Kameburger said:
Her story is full of her villains quipping about her gender and her hitting them with a hammer in response.
No. It is not. I have gone through her entire run and provided a page-by-page breakdown of this on this site before, and I'll do it again if I have to, but what you are describing happens literally only twice; three times if you assume one insult Odin lobs is due to misogyny rather than the limitation of English insults against women tending to single them out for being women.
You don't need to break it down individually. I'll take your word for it. I personally don't view it as a reflection on myself so I wouldn't ask you to expend your energy that way. I said "full of" only because I remember posts like of break downs point to things like this. If percentage wise this is rather small than I'm happy to concede that too. Comics as an industry has done this for ages. They have tried to shock people into having conversations about diversity with these kinds of debates hitting all angles possible. Archie takes a bullet to save a gay guy. One of the flashes becomes gay, Spider-man is now black, these items get reported on fox news or otherwise on the internet trying to manufacture outrage. Right now whether we like it or not we're both playing into that manipulation. What if I start reading Thor now just to prove you wrong? I may not like any moment of that but Marvel still wins. So maybe my point about her is invalid, because if Female Thor is written just as well as Miles Morales, than I am wrong.

Personally I would like to see Miles Morales as Spider-Man and I would like him to see himself that way. Not just "black Spidey." But Female Thor isn't selling all that well and there are two ways to look at it. One is that the readership is just too misogynistic or the writing is not good enough to make the changes believable. Now since the book isn't selling to well, that would suggest the former is true, but since racists didn't stop Morales from becoming a now popular Marvel Staple, I'm not so sure I buy that. I think Thor #1 didn't generate the kind of word of mouth that would make people like me, who are not looking to be allies and would rather remain neutral (choosing a side is what my vote is for), I wasn't convinced that this comic wasn't interested in having that fight with readers who may disagree. Again I may be wrong, but a first impression is difficult to change.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
Kameburger said:
But Female Thor isn't selling all that well and there are two ways to look at it. One is that the readership is just too misogynistic or the writing is not good enough to make the changes believable. Now since the book isn't selling to well, that would suggest the former is true, but since racists didn't stop Morales from becoming a now popular Marvel Staple, I'm not so sure I buy that. I think Thor #1 didn't generate the kind of word of mouth that would make people like me, who are not looking to be allies and would rather remain neutral (choosing a side is what my vote is for), I wasn't convinced that this comic wasn't interested in having that fight with readers who may disagree. Again I may be wrong, but a first impression is difficult to change.
Thor isn't selling well because Thor doesn't sell. The latest volume of Thor isn't doing much different than the last few. It has nothing to do with sexism. Ironically, the people complaining most are probably the ones actually buying the book and the people defending it the most probably aren't.

Why? Because comic fans will ***** and moan their way through a series they hate just to keep their collection going (I know, I have the complete run of Chuck Austin's Uncanny X-Men) while the Tumbler snowflakes the book is marketing itself to don't actually buy comics.