I was hoping that's what you were thinking and that my post would clear things up. Thank you for listening!Lunncal said:I see what you mean. It's more that they're changing a character to bring in a female, and not about the female being illegitimate because they act the same way a male. That's fair enough then, I apologise, I was arguing against a point you weren't really making. I have seen other people complain when a female character is used that they aren't "female enough", and that's basically what I read your comment to mean.
Yeah, we'll have to see how they do it to begin with and how they handle it going forward. I think this particular situation is more blatant because Thor isn't just Thor of Marvel fame. Thor is a mythical figure from a culture they appropriated. Unlike most of the other male characters, this is the one that's been male for over a thousand years. We gave references of the Germanic people talking about Thor during the Roman era and by that time Thor was frequently mentioned meaning his history spans that much further in the past.As for your actual complaint, it does seem to be a bit odd that they're firing him and replacing him as part of the story, and it does seem a little wrong if they're only doing it to fulfil some imaginary quota of required female heroes. I wonder if, though, it might be more like a retooling of the original Thor character. What I mean is, is the original Thor still going to be a character with his own adventures and such, except he no longer has his old position? Or are they really just sweeping him under the rug to get some positive PR with a female lead? (which seems a little scummy and misguided)
I don't really know the subject well enough to be able to tell.
So, to that effect, this is an even bigger slight against men than had IronMan become IronWarrior with breasts.