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

[JimB]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

 

[Zontar]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

So what you're saying is the writers lied to us for 3 issues then had Thor act completely out of character to renounce his name in a particularly badly written piece of fan fiction that somehow got canonized, but it's ok she didn't steal his identity because within the narrative she never stole it herself.

Sorry, but no. She stole his identity, and the writers made it so. Just because within the narrative she did not literally steal his identity does not mean it is not exactly what she did.

She stole his identity, deal with it.

 

[EyeReaper]

That's kinda the funny part isn't it? A game with a female protagonist is supposedly "Feminist Agenda" but I can virtually guarantee you any game one side decries as "feminist" the other side will stomp around yelling "This is objutifrying! Male Gaze! Powah Fantasy!"

I like to call it Schrodinger's Bayonetta.

Or hell, more recently there's Linkle. Both a sign of proof Nintendo is caving in to "Duh EssJayDubbya" and "Disempowering to women cuz Sarkeesian said so" at the same time.

People love two things. To pick fights and insert political commentary into everything. These mix rather well. Best rule of thumb I have is to ignore all of it until you've experienced it yourself.

 

[JimB]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

So what you're saying is the writers lied to us for three issues, then had Thor act completely out of character to renounce his name in a particularly badly-written piece of fan fiction that somehow got canonized, but it's okay she didn't steal his identity because within the narrative she never stole it herself.

No, I am saying none of that, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth, Zontar. If you are going to insist that verifiably untrue things happened, then please at least have the courage to not attribute your words to me to make it seem as if I agree with your blatantly false reading of the story. The plain fact is that the new Thor did not make a single claim toward the name of Thor until it was given to her freely as a gift by an insecure boy whose girlfriend broke up with him and now he's going through a weird identity crisis (except his girlfriend is his hammer).

 

[sumanoskae]

I dunno. I've been trying to puzzle out the strange behavior of human beings for a while now, and I still haven't come up with an answer.

Far as I can tell it goes something like this. For some reason, maybe laziness, maybe a dull wit, maybe because they were crack babies, some folks are just really fuckin' impressionable.

They get introduced to an idea in a safe place, and they don't bother to question or examine it. Sometimes it's awkward to ask because the idea is coming from a person you're attached to or respect, and you don't wanna risk offending them.

But then you publicly commit yourself to the idea and start making a show out of how much you agree with it; you start making friends with other people who agree with it, and the unspoken contract of that friendship is that you continue to wave your flag.

Now, no matter how stupid it turns out to be, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you find, you know that if you stopped waving flags now, you'd look like the gullible idiot that you are. Basically, part of you knows you're on the wrong side, but you're too ashamed to admit it. So you just repress your reason and retreat into dogma.

So since vaginas are not taking over the world, like you were told, now you just have to keep trying to convince yourself that they were, with increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics. Like that one of the goals of this powerful organization is making films with female leads. Because that's an efficient way of taking over the world; screenplay writing.

 

[Redryhno]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

Probably has alot to do with alot of retconning that strikes back to Kirby's days and it not being just another round of "who gets the hammer". She REPLACED him. It's not that she gains Mjolnir because she's worthy, it's that Thor loses EVERY bit of personal detail about him because she's now Thor, it's the classic internet joke of "you made dis? *five minutes* I made dis". Which hasn't really happened in the past. Not to mention the run being largely considered fucking full of just the same bullshit people don't like listening to like with the Prison School dub.

Not to mention very few people bitched about the Falcon taking over from Cap(for a short run at the least), since that was something that sorta happened organically in-universe and he didn't, ya know, become Steve Rogers. He just became Captain America.

 

[Zontar]

No, I am saying none of that, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth, Zontar. If you are going to insist that verifiably untrue things happened, then please at least have the courage to not attribute your words to me to make it seem as if I agree with your blatantly false reading of the story. The plain fact is that the new Thor did not make a single claim toward the name of Thor until it was given to her freely as a gift by an insecure boy whose girlfriend broke up with him and now he's going through a weird identity crisis (except his girlfriend is his hammer).

Ok, so literally every single piece of advertisement and the way that 100% of characters act within the story act as though that is the case, and the writers did straight up steal the identity of Thor from him and slapped it on her, but it's ok, SHE didn't do it herself, it's only the writers who did.

I'm sorry, but the identity theft claim holds water no matter how you try to spin it. Maybe if the writing wasn't done so poorly that it was of a level unbecoming of fanfiction and every single damn piece of the story done so badly that it's easier to think that it was intentionally written badly then to image someone that bad got paid for their work, it would be easier to think of it as being similar to Falcon becoming the new Captain America. But because everything that could go wrong did go wrong, it's not. It was identity theft, it's just that the writers are the ones who committed the crime.

 

[JimB]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

Probably has a lot to do with a lot of retconning that strikes back to Kirby's days and it not being just another round of "who gets the hammer." She replaced him. It's not that she gains Mjolnir because she's worthy, it's that Thor loses every bit of personal detail about him because she's now Thor, it's the classic internet joke of "You made dis? *five minutes* I made dis." Which hasn't really happened in the past. Not to mention the run being largely considered fucking full of just the same bullshit people don't like listening to like with the Prison School dub.

Not to mention very few people bitched about the Falcon taking over from Cap (for a short run at the least), since that was something that sorta happened organically in-universe and he didn't, ya know, become Steve Rogers. He just became Captain America.

I actually don't know what "classic internet joke" or what "the Prison School dub" is, but so far as I can tell, not one word of that answers the question of why her vagina is a point worth bringing up. If I am missing some critical information here, please let me know what this rant has to do with my question.

Okay, so literally every single piece of advertisement and the way that 100% of characters act within the story act as though that is the case

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.

Right. What else were you saying?

the writers did straight up steal the identity of Thor from him and slapped it on her, but it's okay, she didn't do it herself, it's only the writers who did.

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.

 

[Redryhno]

I actually don't know what "classic internet joke" or what "the Prison School dub" is, but so far as I can tell, not one word of that answers the question of why her vagina is a point worth bringing up. If I am missing some critical information here, please let me know what this rant has to do with my question.

Rant? Not really. I thought the answer was pretty obvious with the Falcon comparison I brought up. THE WRITING WAS SHIT. That's the easy answer you want.

But if you really don't know what I"m talking about with the other stuff, here you are:

Spoiler: Prison School Dub

The subbed version has no reference to either Fonzie or GG. The translator that did it justified it by saying that it was for localization and that it would "hold up better" and "it's needed", despite the fact that even in-universe, very few people know Fonzie's real name, and GG is not all that well known outside of the gaming sphere. Someone on their high horse decided to shoehorn politics into a comedy show with a silly cast with the most philosophical conversation that's had is about whether boobs or butts are better.

Spoiler: I made dis

As you can see, it's an old joke.

 

[Zontar]

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.

 

[JimB]

I thought the answer was pretty obvious with the Falcon comparison I brought up. The writing is shit. That's the easy answer you want.

No, it's not the answer I want, Redrhyno. I mean, you're welcome to your opinion about the quality of the writing--different strokes, and all that--but you do not seem to comprehend the question I am asking, so I am going to ask it again:

Politrukk complained about Thor being female. When pressed, he said it's because he dislikes the character being usurped. I asked him why he even brought up her gender at all if the underlying issue isn't about her chromosomes. None of your responses have addressed the question, and I feel they are deflecting attention from it.

But if you really don't know what I'm talking about with the other stuff, here you are:

I really did not, so thank you for providing me with them. I still don't quite get them, but there's probably some context I had to be there for. I'm willing to let it go if you are, though, since they don't answer the question of why her gender matters.

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.

...The opposite of what you said happened proves your point about what happened? Yeah, okay, I think I'm done here. Objective reality does not require me to defend it from whatever weird grudge you're chasing. You are misreading the text so vigorously at this point I have to assume it's willful on your part, and anyone who has actually read the book can tell it, so there's nothing to be gained from me continuing to argue...

So what you're saying is stating what bad writers functionally did is a faux pas because, despite being terribly written and having only one 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 loss to finish that with.

...But I will point out that you are at a loss to finish it because none of that is what I said. You are once again deliberately misrepresenting me, disrespecting my intelligence by acting like I'm too stupid to notice you're putting words in my mouth, disrespecting the audience's intelligence by acting like they're too stupid to remember what I wrote in the very paragraph you quoted, and frankly disrespecting yourself by stooping to such low tactics. Shame on you, Zontar.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Also if say Jean-Luc Picard married Beverly Crusher, and both she and Wesley took his last name, that wouldn't be Wesley stealing Picard's identity. Even if Wesley graduated Starfleet Academy, climbed the ranks, and ended up in command of the NCC-1701-D Enterprise and was called "Captain Picard". The same goes if Wesley ended up in command of any starship in Starfleet if he'd been adopted by Jean-Luc and Wesley took the last name Picard, this applies if his mother marries Jean-Luc, or if Wesley is orphaned and adopted because of being orphaned, or abandoned. It's not the canon of the Prime Universe, that doesn't remove it as a possibility in other time lines though. It still wouldn't be Wesley stealing Jean-Luc's identity either, even if Wesley is "Captain Picard".

 

[Zontar]

...The opposite of what you said happened proves your point about what happened? Yeah, okay, I think I'm done here. I am done defending objective reality from whatever weird grudge you're chasing, Zontar. You are misreading the text so vigorously at this point I have to assume it's willful on your part, and anyone who has actually read the book can tell it, so there's nothing to be gained from me continuing to argue...

Hey now, if the writers didn't want people to act as though not-Thor didn't steal Thor's identity, they shouldn't have had the whole ad campaign be literally stating that Thor was now a woman, and not have the flimsy in-universe justification be that, through the power of bad writing, Thor gives up his name (not title, name) to someone who has not proven themselves any more worthy then he is, and that everyone save his father accept it uncritically where if everyone was being written in character NO ONE would be treating her as such because shit like that has happened before and, until now, it has ALWAYS been part of a villain's plot, and in recent years general characterization has included characters no longer being genre blind and instead acting more like regular people. Would your brother stating that some random woman you've never met was now him have you act as though said random woman where him? The answer is no, yet for some reason everyone save Odin acts like they would.

The writers functionally stole Thor's identity, and openly used that as the basis for the comic's ad campaign. If they didn't want me to act like that is what happened they should have not used it as their attempts to GET me to buy it, and they shouldn't have had the comic have shit writing from start to finish in a comic book which insults the intellect of its readers.

 

[Zontar]

I'm just no.... Marvel characters have a long history of giving their monikers to other,

I'm going to stop you right there. Thor is not a moniker, it's his name, it's his identity. Thor Odinson is his full name, giving away his name Thor is like Luke Cage giving away the name "Luke", it doesn't make sense, it's literally a part of who he is that is inseparable.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'm just no.... Marvel characters have a long history of giving their monikers to other,

I'm going to stop you right there. Thor is not a moniker, it's his name, it's his identity. Thor Odinson is his full name, giving away his name Thor is like Luke Cage giving away the name "Luke", it doesn't make sense, it's literally a part of who he is that is inseparable.

It makes perfect sense for Thor as he's not just Thor Odinson in Asgard, but also Thor the Superhero on Earth. His name is a symbol of his power most places, that means someone with his power can easily be given his name, because that person has "the power of Thor". So while it's his actual name, it's also a moniker of Thor as a symbol of heroism.

 

[Redryhno]

I thought the answer was pretty obvious with the Falcon comparison I brought up. The writing is shit. That's the easy answer you want.

No, it's not the answer I want, Redrhyno. I mean, you're welcome to your opinion about the quality of the writing--different strokes, and all that--but you do not seem to comprehend the question I am asking, so I am going to ask it again:

Politrukk complained about Thor being female. When pressed, he said it's because he dislikes the character being usurped. I asked him why he even brought up her gender at all if the underlying issue isn't about her chromosomes. None of your responses have addressed the question, and I feel they are deflecting attention from it.

Considering I also said that she took his identity which hasn't happened before with other people taking up the hammer and she has been hailed as a feminist icon because she usurped a male character's identity, I think the answer's pretty obvious. It's honestly got nothing to do with her being female, and all to do with the hub-bub surrounding her...retcon-creation.

There's a hundred and one ways they could've done it better by having another Loki-inspired moment, some kind of Doom meddle machine, Mysterio mind swap shenanigans, Sif being involved, Thor not being relegated to his name "actually" just being Odinson, etc. But they decided to go with none of them. Instead it's just Jane "somehow" being considered worthy of title, powers, and the complete identity of Mjolnir and Thor because Thor isn't actually Thor. He's just the schmuck the weapon decides isn't Thor anymore because the name of the weapon isn't Mjolnir, it's "actually" Mjolnir Thor or some variation.

It would honestly be largely the same outcry if Beta Ray Bill and Frogthor had been renamed to Thor instead of just Mjolnir's current permitted wielders. Only difference would probably be that people wouldn't get so much pushback from people demanding female heroes(when honestly there's been alot throughout comics, most just don't get to go to Hollywood and that's what most of the people plopping awards in the writer's lap have as a background with comics). Their hearts are in the right-ish place, but their lack of knowledge(again, not fully their fault) shows through. Though I can't say I'm up to date on much of anything comic related these days either.

 

[Zontar]

I'm just no.... Marvel characters have a long history of giving their monikers to other,

I'm going to stop you right there. Thor is not a moniker, it's his name, it's his identity. Thor Odinson is his full name, giving away his name Thor is like Luke Cage giving away the name "Luke", it doesn't make sense, it's literally a part of who he is that is inseparable.

It makes perfect sense for Thor as he's not just Thor Odinson in Asgard, but also Thor the Superhero on Earth. His name is a symbol of his power most places, that means someone with his power can easily be given his name, because that person has "the power of Thor". So while it's his actual name, it's also a moniker of Thor as a symbol of heroism.

But Thor isn't a secret identity, it's his actual identity. It's literally his name, and it's not like it's only characters from Earth treating her as though she is Thor, Asgardians did the same when they should not have even considered doing so for a second.

Plus, Mjolnir's power is not given to someone who has the title of "Thor" that power, it's granting to anyone who is worthy the power of Thor. The few characters who have lifted Mjolnir never took his name, because they didn't have to, that's not what lifting and wielding Mjolnir is about. Every time a new Thor was created they where always made distinctly their own character who was very much open about the fact they where not Thor, only that they possess the power of Thor. Not-Thor is different because no such distinction was ever made. Maybe it was so that marketing could claim that Thor was now a woman without being sued, but no matter what the reason was behind it it was handled terribly and the comic had horrible writing which only reinforced how forced, unnatural and out of nowhere the change was.

It takes skill to handle a new character taking up another's title, and Thor's case made an already hard job all the harder to accomplish. The writing staff wasn't up for it, they didn't even try.

 

[JimB]

Considering I also said that she took his identity which hasn't happened before with other people taking up the hammer and she has been hailed as a feminist icon because she usurped a male character's identity, I think the answer's pretty obvious.

A name is not an identity. It's a name. As for who's hailing her for what, I can't say anything about that because I haven't seen anyone hailing her for taking anything from the Odinson. The closest I've seen is people praising her for being a hero who's a hitter instead of a sorcerer, as female heroes tend to be.

It's honestly got nothing to do with her being female

Then we're back to the question I've asked four or five times now: Why bring it up if it's nothing to do with that? I feel I am being forced to choose between what you profess and what you say when you're not professing, and they contradict one another.

It's just [REDACTED] "somehow" being considered worthy of title, powers, and the complete identity of Mjolnir and Thor because Thor isn't actually Thor.

She is worthy of Mjolnir. Thor considers himself unworthy of his name, because he's apparently a codependent little twerp who defines himself by the relationships he's in, so he changed his name and started hanging out with the Goth kids behind the school because Wendy broke up with him.* Thor Odinson is the only person who has decided he's not Thor anymore.


*I may be confusing which property I'm talking about, here.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

But Thor isn't a secret identity, it's his actual identity. It's literally his name, and it's not like it's only characters from Earth treating her as though she is Thor, Asgardians did the same when they should not have even considered doing so for a second.

Plus, Mjolnir's power is not given to someone who has the title of "Thor" that power, it's granting to anyone who is worthy the power of Thor. The few characters who have lifted Mjolnir never took his name, because they didn't have to, that's not what lifting and wielding Mjolnir is about. Every time a new Thor was created they where always made distinctly their own character who was very much open about the fact they where not Thor, only that they possess the power of Thor. Not-Thor is different because no such distinction was ever made. Maybe it was so that marketing could claim that Thor was now a woman without being sued, but no matter what the reason was behind it it was handled terribly and the comic had horrible writing which only reinforced how forced, unnatural and out of nowhere the change was.

It takes skill to handle a new character taking up another's title, and Thor's case made an already hard job all the harder to accomplish. The writing staff wasn't up for it, they didn't even try.

Okay so it's an unprecedented change... That automatically makes it badly done? No I don't think so. First, they've established that in Asgard, Earth logic need not apply. Second, it's a comic book series, so real world logic need not apply.

More importantly, all of the complaint's I've seen about "not-Thor" is that the character is a female and that some how ruins Thor, because bad writing... I don't know I can't penetrate the comic book fan bias on this one. Still saying it's bad writing... I read a lot of fiction books, in comparison comic book, graphic novel, and manga writing is laughably bad at best. It's a charming badness and there are quite a lot of comic books, graphic novels, and manga that buck the trend, but the general quality of the writing is rarely amazing. I'm not saying this to be a snob, but complaining about bad writing in comic books is like complaining about bad food at McDonald's, some people adore it, but we're lying to ourselves if we say it's the best.

So really it's all reaching for points and grasping at straws, because they decided to make a female Thor. No matter how it was done, Thor fans were going to be pissed, because they decided to do a female Thor, people are going to shout "Feminist Agenda!", because people, especially comic book fans, are uncomfortable with change. Really if they'd written an entire alternate universe for there to be a Thor that was born female, we'd still have all of the exact same complaints.

 

[Areloch]

The closest I've seen is people praising her for being a hero who's a hitter instead of a sorcerer, as female heroes tend to be.

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

Supergirl, Ms Marvel/Captain Marvel, Powergirl, Wonder Woman, Spiderwoman, Hawkgirl, Catwoman, Batgirl, Psylocke, X13, all of the top of my head examples there fisticuffs their opponents.

Most of the mainstream female supers that I can rattle off the top of my head are hitters. It may be different once you get out of the mainstream, but I'd imagine the 'not-punching' supers also get more prolific on the men's side as well.

Also, all things aside, the fact that the name is the superhero identity and the person identity and are intricately tied together until they're not feels like lazy writing. Thor Odinson is known to everyone by his name, Thor, until he's suddenly not Thor, and Thor is the new Thor, even though her name isn't Thor, but people call her Thor anyways while Thor piddles about not being Thor.

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.

So the equivalent would be Luke Cage decides to stop being Luke Cage, so he passes on the name Luke Cage to....Tiffany Willows, who is now known to the world as Luke Cage, while Luke Cage goes on being regular old Luke Cage, rather than the super hero Luke Cage.

It's weird, and smacks of bad writing to treat the name as a title while also not being a title.