Wired reports that:
In case you haven't heard, Thor is now a girl. In an announcement on The View this morning, it was revealed that a woman will soon be wielding the Mjölnir in the Marvel comics. Naturally, people went nuts over the news.
However:
In the last few years, there have been quite a few efforts to make comics not quite so monolithically white/male/straight/gender-normative/etc. In 2012, Green Lantern Alan Scott came out as gay. In 2011, it was announced that mixed-race teenager Miles Morales would be putting on the Spider-Man suit. Batwoman Kate Kane came out of the closet and took on Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl) got a transgender roommate. The new Ms. Marvel is a Muslim teenager. And each time a change like this was announced, it made a blip on the radar, but it mostly circulated on newswires and blogs. Sure, Chris Hayes may herald the news of Batgirls transgender friend on MSNBC, but that happened after the fact. This time, message is being announced on The View, and Marvel itself is claiming that Thor aims to speak directly to an audience that long was not the target for superhero comic books in America: women and girls.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lx on Friday July 18 2014, @07:33PM
Would be to stop trying to cram everything into the tired old superhero format and tell original stories about ordinary people from varied backgrounds genders and orientations.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday July 18 2014, @07:55PM
Yeah, but those stories would be boring since there's no superpowers involved.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 18 2014, @08:16PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday July 18 2014, @08:38PM
If I want to hear about ordinary people form varied backgrounds I'll just listen to the gossip around my neighborhood.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @09:33PM
I saw an item about Archie Andrews being dead.
The "Life With Archie" series is about what the redheaded teenager does when he grows up.
Wednesday's issue is bringing that series to an end.
They added a gay guy to the storyline a while back and in a recent twist he became a congressional candidate.
This week, the protagonist got shot to death when someone tried to kill the gay guy.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @11:34PM
How did that get modded Troll?
If it had a link, would that have helped?
Archie Andrews dies in shooting [Commentary] [baltimoresun.com]
Reflections Upon the Heroic Death of Archie Andrews [slate.com]
Archie Andrews is Killed in Life With Archie #36 [ign.com]
legendary comic book character archie andrews dies in july [archiecomics.com]
A 'fitting end': Archie Andrews joins long list of dead comic book [ctvnews.ca]
Outward reflects on Archie Andrews' death saving his gay best friend. [slate.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday July 19 2014, @06:36AM
I'd like to know why your factual post was downmodded too.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by mrider on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:22PM
Seems like we here are starting to see the same sort of "I disagree with you, therefore I mod you down" thinking that is so infamous at the green site. Funny, the description that comes with mod points says to concentrate on modding up rather than down. I tend to agree - not very many posts are getting high karma, why not just bump the ones you agree with up rather than bump down the ones you disagree with?
This site was started because of the whole Dice debacle, but personally, I'm more attracted to the lack of group-think. I sincerely hope we don't wind up at a point where any differing option is immediately squashed.
Sorry for the O.T. post.
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday July 19 2014, @09:31PM
When I find myself in the situation of being able to moderate a factual post with a differing ideology, I find myself spending so much time on the matter that it is easier to skip it and moderate something else. Essentially, I timeout before I downmod.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 19 2014, @11:56PM
Note: possibly offtopic meta-comment
At the same time, nobody should get all butthurt about being downmodded. In fact, that's probably the first time I've seen gewg_ downmodded, and I'm sure it's because he posts as AC rather than the content of his post. Or perhaps the NSA got mod points.
I've noticed that posting as AC is much more stigmatized here than it is at the other site, even after the collective consciousness at the other site magically decided ACs are bad after all those years of being proud of the AC feature.
Anyway, the main point of this post is to declare that one shouldn't be butthurt or afraid of being modded down. Wear that downmod like that cool scar you always brag about to everybody who asks to see it. The staff here are pretty good at responding to unjust moderations anyway.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday July 20 2014, @01:11AM
If you had said that a few years ago, it would have been funny [bash.org]. Nowadays, not so much [soylentnews.org].
I've noticed that scoring has become fairly stratified but in an organized manner. So, a post which scores +3 is fairly good, a post which scores +4 is very good, and a post which scores +5 is exceptional. It is a very rare circumstance to see a post which deserves a mythical +6. From this, I am inclined to believe that the SlashCode system is being used as it was intended.
I believe that the problem we experience with anonymous posts is due to two problems which emerged at the other place which are not present here. The first problem is that upmodding of anonymous posts at the other place relied on people willing to browse through a large amount of noise to fish out the useful content. This set in motion subsequent rounds of upmods from people browsing with more restrictive filters. This required people who were time rich to raise posts for people with less tolerance for noise. This creates a level of gaming around brevity and influence which was aided by making it easier to change the level of filtering within each topic. Anyhow, people settled into rôles of being censors or king-makers rather than having reasoned discussion. Having a strong Microsoft faction and a strong Linux faction didn't help because people would just abandon a discussion if they were in the minority.
The second problem is that the other place became a default destination and therefore it had a large influx of newbies over a sustained period. This lowered the tone of discussion, as has been noticed in many popular forums. Here, we've a core of about 1,000 greybeards who were followed by a less pressing influx. As noted towards the end of Howard Rheingold's book: The Virtual Community [rheingold.com], the initial members greatly influence the culture of a forum.
Anyhow, the problem we've got is that the step between a zero rated anonymous post and a +1 registered post is too great and there is no incentive to upmod an anonymous post.
After considering a range of options, I believe that the gap can be closed stochastically. That is, a minority of anonymous posts would immediately be assigned a score of +1. I can appreciate that programmers don't like to rely on a ramdom, unrepeatable process. However, at the granularity of forum posts, it would add a level of serendipity which would allow responsible, anonymous contributors to be heard.
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Funny) by dyingtolive on Friday July 18 2014, @07:36PM
This is a really really good idea and should actually go even further. I think that every single super hero should have a redesign that makes them some sort of pop-diversity role model. They should also be unequivocally proud about it and unfazed by any sort of lesser person questioning it or portraying any sort of traditional views.
There's probably ways we can take this in the correct direction even further than I have. More work certainly needs to be done in this direction.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Funny) by frojack on Friday July 18 2014, @07:51PM
I see you've been paying attention. [soylentnews.org]
Well played Soylentil, well played.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Alfred on Friday July 18 2014, @08:28PM
Meh, or not.
Comic books exist for one reason, profit. There is only one path here:
1) Announce/reveal a character has a trait/descriptor/attribute
2) Grow market base with those who identify-with/like item in #1
3) Profit
No mystery step needed. These things don't happen for the sake of diversity. They are pandering for profit. There is no group identifier that helps a character kick criminal butt. Therefore the writers are (out of ideas or) just trying to sucker those that self-identify with item in step 1 just to make a buck.
In fairness it's not like many people search out comic books for depth of dialog and plot, that's what graphic novels are for.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 18 2014, @09:28PM
Following this trend, and considering the target market according to recent opinion polls, we should soon be able to read about a new group of superheroes capable of super-sensing of border breach, super-expelling of illegals, hyper-birth-certificate-check, and incredible-budget-balancing.
There's also a resilient, but probably too small, niche for Super-Slaverman or at least his sidekicks EntitlementChaser and SafetyNetCutter.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday July 18 2014, @09:55PM
I see a whole sub-genere forming here.
There would be some appeal to kids who want to grow up to be lawyers or any others with an aptitude to read horribly boring text (and the requisite not-fall-asleep-from-it superpower)
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Friday July 18 2014, @11:10PM
I would actually buy a Lawyer Man comic book, so long as it involves him using his Super Injunction Powers against the most evil villain of all, Average Joe.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday July 18 2014, @10:29PM
That's just superdepressing.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @08:41PM
Are the people modding you insightful actually reading what you're saying? I just slipped in the puddle of sarcasm that your post is dripping.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Random2 on Friday July 18 2014, @08:51PM
Look at forjack's reply and all shall be made clear.
If only I registered 3 users earlier....
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday July 18 2014, @07:43PM
I realized that comic-dom was ruled by white guys was when watching Ty'Veculus getting booted off of the first season of "who wants to be a super hero."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Superhero%3F [wikipedia.org]
Don't get me wrong, Feedback is a cool character but Fat Momma should have never made it to the finals.
Season 2 reinforced my view and Season 3 thankfully doesn't exist. It is so bad that it is funny.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @07:49PM
...sounds like they're too afraid to create new characters so they need to retcon the shit out of their existing roster.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 18 2014, @08:22PM
Perhaps. But it is more likely that they're retconning minorities into the canon for a more broad appeal -- which basically means that they'll sell more shit.
Being somewhat of a traditionalist, I'm rolling my eyes and facepalming at the heavy-handed way diversity is being shoved up our asses in the case of comics. Surely they could just introduce new characters, or bring into the forefront existing minority characters such as the Black Panther [wikipedia.org] or Northstar. [wikipedia.org] And we've seen plenty of Storm over the years as well.
Marvel comics has always been subversive and has always questioned the status quo, even while subject to little-known rules in America's past -- such as the fact that comics were not allowed to depict the occult (cannot find link to the rule). Comics were a perfect escape for nerds and others who were "different," and they've implied plenty of things over the years, such as Batman and Robin sleeping together [oddballdaily.com] in the same bed (nice pajamas, guys).
As much as I love racist ranting and bashing forced diversity, if you know the history of Marvel comics, it makes perfect sense. Though in my opinion Marvel (for example) was already diverse enough. The only thing that makes me mad is when they take traditional folklore like Thor, who is very obviously intended to be a Nordic White man, and make "him" a female. I have less of a problem with the Black Captain America, although I think it's a bit unnecessary. Although if they retconned wolverine into a tranny, I'd certainly pay money to see that -- I haven't have a good laugh in quite a while!
(Score: 3, Informative) by compro01 on Friday July 18 2014, @08:39PM
Presumably this bit from the, thankfully now indisputably dead, Comics Code.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday July 18 2014, @07:49PM
The *cough* "private" lives of the actors are not germane, and are a totally different thing than the identity of the characters.
While Battlestar's Starbuck transitioned from Dirk Benedict to Katee Sackhoff and made a big splash at the time, because it totally changed the story line, she largely pulled it off, and there was never a long running comic book, er (sorry) "graphic novel", behind the franchise anyway.
Rather than taking the opportunity to expand the brand(s) and come out with a totally new character on equal footing, (Pickard + Janeway) this trend of revisionism dilutes the brands in the pointless quest for political correctness. It isn't a move toward equality or inclusiveness when the only way a female character can gain traction is via replacing a pre-existing male character. It probably teaches little girls exactly the opposite lesson the writers were going for.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday July 18 2014, @08:14PM
The Starbuck swap in BSG worked because, as you said, there was no long-running franchise (of any kind) in place. BSG, before the 2003 version, was some campy 70s sci-fi show that recycled the same spaceship footage over and over every episode, and also had a TV movie or two. By the time the "re-imagined" series came along, nothing had happened with the original one for over 20 years. The new BSG took a few ideas and most of the overall premise from the first one, and made up an all-new show, mostly with fairly new characters, extremely loosely based on the old ones (recycling a few names mainly). It wasn't just Starbuck; that character went from "Starbuck" to "Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace"; "Apollo" changed to "Lee 'Apollo' Adama"; and "Adama" changed to "William Adama". What used to be actual names changed to military pilot-style callsigns or nicknames. Since very few details were retained from the original series, just a few names and such mostly, switching a character's sex wasn't that big a deal.
Taking a long-running franchise, keeping most things the same, but changing the main character to a new (some might say "more PC") person just isn't the same as what BSG did. It'd be like one of these fan-made Star Trek series (Star Trek Continues, Star Trek Phase II) suddenly changing Captain Kirk to a Hispanic female, but still keeping Spock, McCoy, Sulu (albeit with different actors as they have), keeping the sets exactly the same as TOS, and somehow expecting fans to accept that. It just smacks of desperation at trying to attract a new audience while thinking the original fans won't mind. If they really want to have a more "diverse" cast of superheroes, they should just make up all new characters, the way they did decades ago, instead of recycling existing characters.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @08:19PM
I don't think it's a quest for political correctness, but a quest to revive fleeting interest in a character whose never-ending, often rudderless story has been dragging on for five decades. If some white males get butthurt over having one of their icons vandalized, well, there's no such thing as bad publicity. In fact Marvel may be trolling for exactly that response -- kind of the opposite of political correctness, now that I think about it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tramii on Friday July 18 2014, @08:23PM
Couldn't have said it better myself. The Picard/Janeway comparison is quite apt.
Most fans were fine with the progression: Kirk -> Picard -> Sisko -> Janeway
A lot of fans would NOT have been fine with: young white Kirk -> old white Kirk -> black Kirk -> female Kirk
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday July 18 2014, @10:39PM
...actually, I'm pretty sure we got old Kirk (conveniently cured by deus ex transporter) and female Kirk (courtesy of alien mind-transfer device) in various original series episodes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Friday July 18 2014, @08:00PM
this article [guardianlv.com] says my thoughts on the matter:
this could've been handled way better. passing mjolnir to freyja or one of his daughter valkyries could've been a cool story arc, but "thor" is a specific god, and while he may have done some crossdressing, i dont recall him ever even taking female avatars like some of the other gods did on their visits to earth, so making him a woman makes no sense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @08:08PM
I don't think it's the title character's lack of tits that is currently holding (most) women and girls back from reading Thor. If the current Thor is not appealing to female readers, it's more probably something about the story line and the way the character develops. TFA does not say what about the story and character are going to change other than the aforementioned tits. I do notice an absence of plans to bring in a female writer, for example, so I suspect the changes will be limited to the superficial.
This is probably just another gimmick (like when DC killed Superman) to generate some buzz and revive sales of a character who's basically two-dimensional and, I suspect, played out. (I haven't read Thor since college and I always thought he was boring.) I fail to see how this could benefit Marvel's long-term growth. If they change the way they write Thor stories, they will alienate many of the current Thor readers and any new readers they want to pick up may be put off by the baggage of Thor's image as what I would call a belligerent, self-important, fundamentally shallow character. If they keep the stories the same, any broader audience who didn't like the old Thor won't like the "new" Thor either.
If Marvel were serious about attracting a more diverse audience, then I think they would be much better served to take some creative risks and introduce some new characters, as well as bring in writers who have a record of keeping both men and women engaged in the story.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 18 2014, @08:24PM
Considering how Marvel draws women with attributes geared towards their male audience, I don't quite see how yet another bimbo is going to attract girls, regardless of writing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Zanothis on Friday July 18 2014, @08:44PM
This was my first thought as well. As long as the current readership is predominantly male, the best you can hope to get is "in this issue, Thor will fight in a bikini because diversity."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gman003 on Friday July 18 2014, @08:41PM
If you're thinking about being angry about this, ask yourself a few questions:
1) Am I mad because the change is bad, or because they're changing something I'm familiar to something strange? People, particularly nerds, tend to react to change negatively.
2) Am I mad because it's gender/race, or because it's a change, period? If Thor suddenly went from being a god to being, say, a mortal superhero who themes himself with Norse myths, would you be as mad as him suddenly being a her? Tokenism is a valid concern, but Marvel's current writers seem to be good at avoiding it.
3) Have I actually been following the comics? Did they lead up to this at all or was it a sudden, drastic change? I have not been following it at all, let alone reading it, but sources nerdier than I tell me they did lead up to this. And of course, if you haven't ever bought the comics (ie. you are not a customer), are you really justified in telling Marvel what they can and can't do?
4) Is this really that unusual for a comic? Thor (the character) remains around, just depowered - something that my admittedly-limited comic reading tells me is not that unusual. A new character is taking up the mantle. Seems to happen several times a year.
5) Ignoring the legacy, would this be a good comic? I see the words "Norse warrior-goddess defending earth from aliens and shit" and I see something awesome. Putting the Thor label on that might be a bit disingenuous, but hardly uncommon for comics.
6) Doesn't Marvel have two continuities anyway? So there's still a comic with Thor being the regular-old Thor you know. Why be mad when you can just ignore it completely?
7) Am I being "that guy"? Do I want to be "that guy"? Hopefully you don't, and aren't.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Saturday July 19 2014, @12:26AM
Mad?
I haven't bought a comic book in 50 years.
Won't be starting any time soon.
Undomesticated equines couldn't drag me to Mad over a comic book.
(Score: 1) by GDX on Saturday July 19 2014, @01:05AM
Actually if they had told something in this line:
"Thor woes from being a god to being a mortal woman superhero who themes himself with Thor Norse myths, in their superhero form it dresses to pas as the male god Thor. And it happens after the real god Thor disappearance."
I'm sure that the people had accepted it better than in going simply to being a woman. The problem with Thor is that its heavily based on established mythology. Actually the main problem with this type of changes is that tend breaks the actual history-line abruptly without apparent reason for the change, instead on actually make the change blends with the history-line in a conforming way..
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Friday July 18 2014, @08:56PM
Arturia was here. Thor is a loser.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by forsythe on Friday July 18 2014, @11:24PM
I've listened to friends who are comic nerds discuss this. The conclusion is that this is nothing more than clickbaiting. It's not even new [wikia.com] to have a woman carry Thor's hammer. Wonder Woman has used it on occasion as well. If you're looking for actual controversy here, it's is over the definition of "Thor", and whether that should refer to a character wielding Mjolnir or to an actual incarnation of the Norse god. That's been twisted slightly to allow the sentence "Thor is a woman now" instead of the more precise "A woman wields Mjolnir", or perhaps "Thor's incarnation is female".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @11:36PM
If you watched the Colbert Report on the 17th of July, Captain America has 'died' and was replaced by the Falcon (ie an african-american), so the diversity is moving to more head line characters than just thor.
Unsure if he also has super soldier syrum coursing through his veins... but it's fun to watch Disney try to diversity to reach more markets.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tom on Saturday July 19 2014, @07:40PM
It is still the most stupid thing I've heard this year.
Thor (the comic book character) is based on a norse god. If you want strong women characters, warriors even, the norse mythology has plenty to pick from. It would have been absolutely trivial to build up a new female character from the same background.
Turning Thor into a woman is flamebait, cheap PR crap and an utter idiocity that can only happen in boardroom conferences when marketing people and middle managers meet (i.e. the petri dish of stupid ideas). Thor (the norse god) being a man is not just incidental, it's a defining part of his character, and many of the best stories only work because of it. Like the one where Loki dresses him up as a woman for a giant wedding to steal his hammer back.
If I were a feminist, I would hate this move, because instead of demonstrating that female characters can be equally interesting, it's a slap in the face that says "we can't create any good female characters, so we'll gender-change a male one".
Might & Fealty [mightandfealty.com], my political sandbox game