Why do people scream "Feminist Agenda" when there is a female lead?

[Cicada 5]

Gonna stop you right there, because you are making more things up. There is only one person in Thor who treats her as having stolen anyone's identity: Odin, who is clearly the antagonist of this story, with whom the rest of Asgard and half the Marvel Universe disagrees on the topic. Even his enforcer Cul is only humoring Odin for the sake of maintaining a position of power in Odin's court.

Alright, so only Odin was the only one acting in-character in the comics and the fanfiction's writer made everyone else act OC, functionally their treating not-Thor as though she was Thor only reinforces the point though, since they're acting as though someone who is unambiguously not Thor is in fact Thor despite the fact that she was not.

No, it's okay because nothing was stolen. Thor Odinson gave up his name of his own free will. Disagree with it all you want, but the words are printed on the page all the same. You are denying reality, and I can't comprehend why. You are mad because a crime that took place, and your proof that a crime took place is because you're mad about it.

So what you're saying is stating what bad writers functionally did is a faux pas because, despite being terribly written and having only 1 character in the entirety of the comics act in character with the entire rest of the universe being out of character in a story so bad all who read it are less intelligent as a result, because the bad writing had Thor willingly give up his identity and the other characters willingly accepting it, the bad writing which functionally had the identity of one character stolen and slapped onto another should be called something else because... I'm actually at a lose to finish that with.

In any event writing so bad that it was clearly not in any way related to how the writers got their position is beside the point. Not-Thor is a Mary Sue who functionally stole Thor's identity to the point where most of the comic's universe somehow are under the delusion that she is Thor with only one character not being spellbound by the magic of bad writing. You may as well say that in Star Trek if Wesley was given Picard's name and everyone started calling Wesley Picard then Wesley wouldn't have stolen Picard's identity even if that is a 100% accurate representation of what has happened out-of-universe.

The argument not-Thor didn't steal Thor's identity hold no water. Didn't when it was announced, didn't when it was happening, didn't when it was over, still doesn't.

Something cannot be stolen if it was given up willingly.

 

[Cicada 5]

I thought the only ones trying to push mad max as a feminist movie were feminist sites themselves, resulting in people calling that out for being rather blatant straw clutching. If someone was being honest in making that claim though, then I agree, they would be rather silly too.

As for Ghostbusters though. A movie series that had 4 beloved actors gets reboot with a full cast gender switch, and even gets pushed by some sites as a righteous jab at the caricature presented in the OP, and you wonder why people are complaining? Hell, it is also twitter, where depth of opinion is harder to demonstrate and people are resorted to short blurbs expressing singular ideas in as shallow a way as possible.

I agree about Mad Max. While I think it was a great movie and I really enjoyed it, it was definitely not a feminist movie. Between ridiculous hot women (I mean, it's ok that they look attractive but they also looked like they came out of a hairdresser's, not a wasteland) who need saving and the idea that only male characters can be evil and warmongering while women deep down are all nice and all about mother nature and "growing seeds".... I don't even know what's feminist about it, it's about as clich? as it gets. Is it only because of Furiosa? Watch out world, a female character who kicks ass (and still gets the spotlight stolen by the male lead and gets saved by him).

I disagree about the new Ghostbusters. Does it make me a bad person that I am intrigued by the movie simply because I can't recall seeing any other movie that has female characters in the goofy roles that are always reserved only to the male characters? (Apart from Whoopy Goldberg I suppose.)

Well, the Wives are concubines so them looking beautiful kind of fits even if it stretches suspension of disbelief. Also, I don't think the movie was saying all men are evil, just that the major problems in the world has been a result of men having disproportionate power to women. The film also showed how patriarchy negatively impacts men through the War Boys.

Considering Furiosa rebels against Joe and fights literally one handed and kills Joe, I'd say the love for her is deserved. And she and the Wives get way more development than Max.

 

[JimB]

Tend to be? I'm not that privy to the greater comics universe, but most female supers I can think of are hitters.

Most of the ones I can think of are energy manipulators. Top of my head, we have Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, Monica Rambeau as Captain Marvel, Clea the sorceress, Scarlet Witch, Polaris, Firestar, Storm, Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde, Magik, Jubilee, Emma Frost, Dazzler, Blink, Dagger, Fire, Ice, Icemaiden, Starfire, Raven, Terra, Amethyst, Zatanna, Mera, Atom Eve, Freefall, Rainmaker, Voodoo, Void, Cyblade...and I'm tempted to include characters who have hitting powers but tend to solve them with energy, like my general experience with Supergirl (more apt to solve things with freeze breath or heat vision, or in the Peter David continuity, with fire wings and teleportation) and Psylocke (to whom hitting is simply a delivery method for her magic telepathic knives), but I don't want to muddy the waters by arguing about which writer's preferred method conflict resolution is most prevalent.

I don't know of any other superheroes that have their name be their regular identity and superhero identity, except maybe the earlier mentioned Luke Cage.

There aren't many superheroes who are also gods (well, more or less), who have weird ideas about how personality and legend interact. See also Loki, who is currently not the god of evil because he had to be reborn and commit suicide to be reborn again the god of stories, an act for which he is reviled in Asgard because since the god of stories is not the god of evil, Loki's suicide is also an act of murder even though the murderer is the same person as his victim.

There just aren't many equivalent situations to compare to, here, and I think your extended example about Luke Cage is ignoring the context of the mythology of Thor within the confines of the Marvel Universe. Even if he's not strictly a god, he's prone to big, sweeping, melodramatic gestures like a god...and there's still the issue of us not knowing what Nick Fury whispered in his ear to make him unworthy. I will admit that I don't believe any reveal could possibly live up to the mystery for as long as it's dragged on at this point, but you never know, maybe in some fundamental way he really isn't Thor any more.

And we come around once again to the same junk.

We are coming back to the same junk, as you say, because you keep bringing up Thor's vagina, saying her vagina isn't the problem, and then changing the subject when I ask why you brought up her vagina in the first place. If you won't answer the question, then that's fine, but please quit trying to act like changing the topic is a useful response to a very simple question. It reeks of shifting the goalposts, and maybe I'm still cranky from having just woken up, but I'm not in the mood for it.

It could well be that people have differing ideas on what makes an interesting character.

Mm, no, I'm pretty sure feminism is a single monolithic entity, kind of a hive mind defined by the sins of the worst of them.

 

[JimB]

I gotta ask how people got to the Lord of the Rings is racist?

In the books--and in the movies, to be fair--the good humans are white. The "wicked men of [I forget which cardinal direction and can't be bothered to look it up]" who join with Sauron are dark-skinned.

There's also a lot of room to argue that dwarves are intended to be Jews. They're short, big-nosed, greedy for gold, and they cause wars with their refusal to share all their hidden treasures. These are traits Cartman has accused Kyle of dozens of times in the last twenty years.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Can't we just agree that if a character is well written then it ISN'T a feminist/MRA agenda trying to screw something up?

Are the two things mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure.

People have me slightly worried about the new Star Wars. I don't care if the main character is female, but I don't want it to be laden with corny girl power messages either. No choice but to reserve judgement, I suppose.

In a way, they are mutually exclusive, because an "agenda meant to screw something up" wouldn't produce stories that we could all agree are good, with well written characters.

Or maybe it's just me who connect "nefarious agenda" with "ham-fisted handling of issues".

 

[Ogoid]

Mm, no, I'm pretty sure feminism is a single monolithic entity, kind of a hive mind defined by the sins of the worst of them.

I don't know, considering that when some 12-year old playing CoD tells a woman over voice chat to go make him a sandwich it means gaming as a whole is inherently misogynistic and problematic, I was kinda under the impression that's how these things work.

 

[JimB]

Mm, no, I'm pretty sure feminism is a single monolithic entity, kind of a hive mind defined by the sins of the worst of them.

I don't know, considering that when some twelve-year-old playing Call of Duty tells a woman over voice chat to go make him a sandwich it means gaming as a whole is inherently misogynistic and problematic, I was kinda under the impression that's how these things work.

I'll accept that point, as long as you're not making it to argue that two wrongs make a right.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Can't we just agree that if a character is well written then it ISN'T a feminist/MRA agenda trying to screw something up?

Are the two things mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure.

People have me slightly worried about the new Star Wars. I don't care if the main character is female, but I don't want it to be laden with corny girl power messages either. No choice but to reserve judgement, I suppose.

In a way, they are mutually exclusive, because an "agenda meant to screw something up" wouldn't produce stories that we could all agree are good, with well written characters.

Or maybe it's just me who connect "nefarious agenda" with "ham-fisted handling of issues".

It's kinda a weird sentence to start with, since I think ideologues who make propaganda probably assume they're doing good rather than trying to "screw something up".

I took it in more broad-strokes to mean that propaganda in film can't be "well written" (a term that's bound to mean different things to different people), and I'm not sure that's at all true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of person who would watch a couple of Bruckheimer films and then be confident in declaring him a sexist. But, I am no stranger to films trying to persuade me of things. Sometimes it's full-ham and sometimes it's well-integrated, imho.

 

[Treeberry]

Regarding the "feminist agenda" thing, I think it stems from people not understanding what feminism is in the same vein that there are asshats out there who genuinely think that by treating non-white and/or non-male people as actual human beings means they're going to take over the world and treat them as they have been treated.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what feminism is - as there are and have been with other civil rights concerns. People are quick to forget how certain types of people have historically been regarded as waste even in the realm of fiction. I can imagine this would smart quite a bit.

I remember when I was a kid, quite a few times I thought 'I'd like to play a female character. I wish it was an option' when playing perfectly good games. I remember seeing an advert for Urban Chaos and thinking something to the effect of 'WTF? The (playable) character is black?*' as it was the weirdest thing ever. Please note, I used to play as blue hedgehogs, purple dragons etc. It's strange that a kid I wanted to play as my own gender but didn't recognise that maybe a non-white person would want something similar. This wasn't something that ceased my enjoyment of those games but just things that popped into my head as a young child.

Also, I think we underestimate how many children use the internet. (Well, I hope they're children anyway)

Also also, isn't kind of weird how we're fine with non-human protagonists but people suddenly flip out if a human protagonist is designed to be non-white or non-male? Or if other gamers want there to be a non-male or non-white protagonist?

*I think some people may have a similar experience with the Earthsea books...(I still wanted to play that game though. Even though I thought it was weird she looked like an absolute badass and she was a cop! I might go track down a copy and see how it is.)

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know, considering that when some 12-year old playing CoD tells a woman over voice chat to go make him a sandwich it means gaming as a whole is inherently misogynistic and problematic, I was kinda under the impression that's how these things work.

That sounds like an absurd and ridiculous thing for someone to calim and I can see why you'd be against it.

It also sounds like the sort of thing that is either not what was actually said or is made up from whole cloth. So, that latter bt in mind, who actually said this?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Can't we just agree that if a character is well written then it ISN'T a feminist/MRA agenda trying to screw something up?

Are the two things mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure.

People have me slightly worried about the new Star Wars. I don't care if the main character is female, but I don't want it to be laden with corny girl power messages either. No choice but to reserve judgement, I suppose.

In a way, they are mutually exclusive, because an "agenda meant to screw something up" wouldn't produce stories that we could all agree are good, with well written characters.

Or maybe it's just me who connect "nefarious agenda" with "ham-fisted handling of issues".

It's kinda a weird sentence to start with, since I think ideologues who make propaganda probably assume they're doing good rather than trying to "screw something up".

I took it in more broad-strokes to mean that propaganda in film can't be "well written" (a term that's bound to mean different things to different people), and I'm not sure that's at all true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of person who would watch a couple of Bruckheimer films and then be confident in declaring him a sexist. But, I am no stranger to films trying to persuade me of things. Sometimes it's full-ham and sometimes it's well-integrated, imho.

I get what you mean, and it is hard to quantify.

The only examples I can come up with in both categories would be Furiosa (as a well written character), and Fem-Thor (piece of trash that barely qualifies as bad fanfic).

The only critisism against Furiosa seems to be that she has more screentime than Max (which is a bit cherlish if I'm honest), while Fem-Thor can be critisized on all fronts, from poor writing to just complete lack of knowledge regarding the source material.

But then, I'm from Denmark, where Thor isn't just the name of the old viking God of Thunder, but also an everyday male name. So to me, a female character called Thor, would sound like a female character called Stephen (or Richard, or Benjamin, or Arnold) to you.

EDIT:

But then again regarding Fem-Thor, even before I learned how atrocious the writing was, I just wondered "Why stick with the name Thor?!?"

What was wrong with Freya? I mean I get that "Goddess of Love and Fertility" might be a hard sell in socially conservative US, who're fine with disembowelment, but the second a nipple is visible the moral guardians come out en-masse, but Freya was also the Goddess of War, Magic and Death (and some links to the Valkyries).

 

[elvor0]

In any event writing so bad that it was clearly not in any way related to how the writers got their position is beside the point. Not-Thor is a Mary Sue who functionally stole Thor's identity to the point where most of the comic's universe somehow are under the delusion that she is Thor with only one character not being spellbound by the magic of bad writing. You may as well say that in Star Trek if Wesley was given Picard's name and everyone started calling Wesley Picard then Wesley wouldn't have stolen Picard's identity even if that is a 100% accurate representation of what has happened out-of-universe.

I'm just no.... Marvel characters have a long history of giving their monikers to other, if not having their monikers out right stolen. Iron Man isn't always Tony Stark, Steve Rogers often dies and some one takes up the mantel of Captain America, Captain Marvel has been a number of different people too. Hell this applies to DC comics too, like how Green Lantern isn't always Hal Jordan. Thor Odinson giving up the moniker of Thor to the person with the hammer currently isn't a real stretch.

It's slightly different in this instance though, when people take up the mantle of other characters, they are just considered the guy who is currently Iron Man, or currently Captain America, they don't assume the identity of Tony Stark or Steve Rodgers and aren't considered to be them. Falcon may now be Captain America, but he is still considered Sam Wilson and Steve Rodgers is still Steve Rodgers.

Green Lantern is different because its for all intents and purposes a job, not an identity. Hal Jordan has never been the only Green Lantern since the inception of his character, and multiple Green Lanterns have always existed alongside him. In universe, he is A Green Lantern, not THE one and only Green Lantern.

Thor is tricky because Thor isn't his superhero identity or an alternate identity, its who he is. He can give up wielding Mjonir sure, but is still Thor even without the hammer, because that his name. The same as Tony Stark is still Tony Stark without his Iron Man armour. Characters have taken up Mjonir before and they are just considered to be worthy of wielding it, they don't become Thor or are even considered to be taking up the mantle, just Steve Rodgers who is currently wielding Mjonir.

I'd be fine with it if he said that he is no longer worthy of being called Thor and went under a pseudonym, whilst "She" takes up the Hammer. But Thor is still Thor even if he says he's called Bob Fletcher. It's not the hammer that makes Thor Thor, its just who he is. It could maybe work if whomever wields the hammer is considered The God(ess) of Thunder and only one person can be worthy at a time, that could work, but they shouldn't become Thor.

It feels clunky because they're mitigating all canon in a way that doesn't even make sense. There's no reason for any of the characters to consider this new woman Thor, they should just consider her to to be the person wielding Mjonir because she is worthy of doing so.

 

[JimB]

What was wrong with Freya? I mean I get that "Goddess of Love and Fertility" might be a hard sell in socially conservative US, who're fine with disembowelment, but the second a nipple is visible the moral guardians come out en-masse, but Freya was also the Goddess of War, Magic and Death (and some links to the Valkyries).

I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking why when [REDACTED] took Mjolnir and the power of storms, she didn't take the name of a god with an entirely different portfolio of powers, or are you asking why the writers didn't give [REDACTED] Freya's powers and then replace Thor with her?

 

[JimB]

I'd be fine with it if he said that he is no longer worthy of being called Thor and went under a pseudonym, while "she" takes up the hammer.

That...that is what happened, though. Again, this is all very explicitly laid out in the book. Thor Odinson said he's not worthy of being called Thor now, and is letting people call him the Odinson or the Prince of Asgard or whatever, while people are calling the person holding Mjolnir Thor because the Odinson gave her the name in front of just about all of Asgard and nearly every superhero in existence. There was a huge crowd of them all around when this happened.

But Thor is still Thor even if he says he's called Bob Fletcher. It's not the hammer that makes Thor Thor, its just who he is.

I like to think that being a god and a prince of gods grants a person the authority to decide what his own name is.

It feels clunky because they're mitigating all canon in a way that doesn't even make sense. There's no reason for any of the characters to consider this new woman Thor, they should just consider her to to be the person wielding Mjonir because she is worthy of doing so.

I consider "she can do everything he can do, and also he said she's Thor now right in front of me" to be pretty compelling. They're superheroes. This shit happens all the time.

 

[MrFalconfly]

What was wrong with Freya? I mean I get that "Goddess of Love and Fertility" might be a hard sell in socially conservative US, who're fine with disembowelment, but the second a nipple is visible the moral guardians come out en-masse, but Freya was also the Goddess of War, Magic and Death (and some links to the Valkyries).

I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking why when [REDACTED] took Mjolnir and the power of storms, she didn't take the name of a god with an entirely different portfolio of powers, or are you asking why the writers didn't give [REDACTED] Freya's powers and then replace Thor with her?

The second.

If the need was seen to replace Thor with something, why not make a replacement that makes sense?

EDIT:

And in this case it seems there were only to qualifiers for a replacement.

1: Must be a Norse God.

2: Must be [REDACTED] who in this case is female, so a Goddess would be preferable.

The issue seems to stem from the fact that US Americans only know two Norse Gods, and that'd be Odin and Thor.

 

[JimB]

If the need was seen to replace Thor with something, why not make a replacement that makes sense?

I'm not going to comment on the motivations of people I've never met. This is the story they wanted to tell, so they're telling it. I disagree that it makes no sense--Thor becoming unworthy of Mjolnir is definitely a repeating motif, and one they started setting up something like two years ago--so what's the problem?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Mm, no, I'm pretty sure feminism is a single monolithic entity, kind of a hive mind defined by the sins of the worst of them.

I don't know, considering that when some 12-year old playing CoD tells a woman over voice chat to go make him a sandwich it means gaming as a whole is inherently misogynistic and problematic, I was kinda under the impression that's how these things work.

It's not really that gaming is misogynistic, or problematic, though some very narrow mined feminists like to play that card, because they refuse to see the bigger picture. Though it's more along the idea that the culture of gamers says that gaming is exclusively a male space, that comes with the baggage of "toxic masculinity". Which honestly is a term people use wrong a lot, people on both sides tend to equate "toxic masculinity" to mean "all masculinity is toxic", which isn't what that term means. Toxic masculinity is things like challenging a guy's manhood because he does what his girlfriend tells him, calling a friend gay because they don't cat call at every woman, and such. The idea that men must be stoic and show sadness through only a single tear, that's toxic masculinity, that showing emotions like fear, sadness, insecurity, and the like is something to be mocked and derided, because femininity.

Anyways the 12-yearold who tells a woman over voice chat to go make him a sandwich, that's an expression of toxic ideas of what masculinity is in society. The fact that a kid said it puts it into the category of a pervasive social issue, because this is a kid being a disrespectful shit to another because of gender. Even when used in jest it does show that there is a problem with how men view women and visa versa, part of a set of toxic ideas about gender that ends up getting taught to children.