Originally a comment by the philosophical primate on Not Thorita.
I think Lees’ criticism is… just damned silly. Yes, I get the critique of the “another strong woman” nonsense, but the idea behind this move in the comic is that Thor is a particular ROLE — a warrior deity — that a woman can fill as effectively as a man. The quoted passage about “Lady Thor,” “Thorita” and so on (which I’m confident has nothing to do with a transgender Eurovision contestant) is simply writer Jason Aaron explicitly saying that he is NOT going down the route of remaking the character in pink and fluff and ribbons and offensive feminine stereotypes just because said warrior deity is going to be a woman instead of a man in the upcoming reboot.
And although it would be nice if he could go without saying so at all, Marvel is making the announcement of the comic in *this* world, not a hypothetical possible world where no one would ever think that was something that might happen: Aaron mentioning such stereotypes to make it clear that he rejects them should not be used to infer that HE is inclined to think that way automatically; he just knows there are lots of sexist nerd-boys out there who will make that sort of criticism, and he is clearly (if perhaps a little clumsily) anticipating and responding to such criticisms.
It’s one thing to be annoyed that the only way women are portrayed positively in so much fiction is by being remade into a “man” as viewed by traditional, narrow gender-binary stereotypes. It’s another thing — a strange, foolish, axe-grindy sort of thing in my view — to single out a superhero comic about a warrior deity who wields a lightning-flinging warhammer against foes as a specific target in such a critique about those general patterns. There definitely SHOULD be more positive portrayals of women in media who aren’t just a gender-bent version of a stereotypical “masculine” hero; but that doesn’t logically entail that it’s always and necessarily wrong-headed and harmful and stereotype-perpetuating to portray women who do have some of those qualities. (Is “Aliens” less feminist because it’s an action movie whose women are portrayed as tough and capable of violence? I don’t think so.)
I found it especially amusing that Lees mentioned possible future movies in the context of this particular critique. Did she actually see “Thor”? In the first movie, the title character regains his divine power and the right to wield Mjolner when he learns not to be a macho, arrogant, violence-is-the-answer-no-matter-the-question, self-involved asshole, and instead demonstrates caring, compassion, and a willingness sacrifice his own interests for the welfare of others — you know, genuinely good human qualities often derided as “feminine”? That’s exactly the sort of narrow-gender-role-defying narrative Lees should be able to get behind, if she weren’t so busy putting axe to grindstone. (Mind you, that transformation happens far too quickly, and is undermined by being a part of a cliche woman-in-peril/love story narrative; I’m not saying it’s thought-provoking feminist cinema. But the story DOES make the unsubtle and explicit point that when Thor is a stereotypical macho-man type, he ISN’T really a good person or a hero to be admired — even though many DO admire him.)
My only quibble is that Thor is (usually) not a particular role, he’s a particular guy named Thor. That was his name when he was a baby, that’s been his name as a powerless outcast, and it’s his name in the future when he succeeds Odin as king. Things get a little murky because he’s been merged with various mortals before, but the name isn’t really dependent on his function in the community.
Conversely, there are other hammer-wielding thunder-god types like Beta Ray Bill, and he’s not named Thor, he’s named Beta Ray Bill. (Don’t ask why.) If Sif, say, inherited the hammer and the powers that go with it, then she’d be Sif, Warrior Goddess of Thunder and Smashing Things and Foremost Champion of Asgard. And that’d be awesome. But she wouldn’t need to change her name or personal identity.
So to me, keeping the name only makes sense if this is the original Thor and he’s transitioned to female for whatever reason. (Which would be a perfectly good story, Loki spent some time in the comics as a woman too.)
I interpret it a little differently–I think Aaron was saying that he wasn’t going to make this character conceptually dependent on male Thor.
In contrast to characters like Namorita and Thor-Girl and She-Hulk, who certainly aren’t all pink and fluff and ribbons, but still have names that imply, “You know that more famous and important male character? I’m the girl version.”
MRAs are already registering their disgruntlement. Did you know that males’ defining attribute is strength? And that this character change is “omega male’ supplication at it’s [sic] ugliest”?
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/16/red-pillers-making-thor-a-feeemale-will-accelerate-our-societys-plunge-down-the-rabbit-hole-of-feminization/#more-12593
From the sketch I saw on google, it looks like Thor’s breasts are bigger than her head. Anyone surprised?
Well, it depends on how you interpret the inscription (even though the smith used the word “he”. )
“Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.”
When Beta Ray Bill wielded Mjolnir, he reverted into a very Thor-like version fo Beta Ray Bill, having the full power of Thor, while the former Thor reverted to human form.. Beta Ray Bill was essentially Thor, even though he didn’t change his name. Wonder Woman also transformed. She says “The power courses through me, more power than I ever had as Wonder Woman.”
And Eric Masterson, when he wielded the hammer, he transformed into Thor’s outfit and said that he had “become the new Thor.”
Even the creator of Beta Ray Bill, when talking about why he made Bill look the way he did said:
“His costume was the same so that the minute you see that image, when he strikes the stick and becomes “Beta Ray Thor” or whatever, you know: OK, that guy has the powers of Thor. So that’s why Bill had the monstrous face, that’s why that stuff was done the way it was done.”
Anton: I think your interpretation of the stuff about She-Thor and Thorita is valid, but it isn’t really mutually exclusive with or even slightly contradictory to the spin I gave it. Yes, Aaron is emphasizing that she will not be a secondary or derivative character, that she will be the one and only Thor in the Marvel universe (at least through the run of this story arc); but he’s ALSO clearly saying that there will be nothing “girly” about this Thor, who will be the same ass-kicking thunder god fans know and love (only different).
As for Thor being a role rather than a person, that’s always been complicated and ambiguous: As I dimly recall from reading the oldest Thor comics in my (now long gone) collection, Dr. Donald Blake took up the hammer and the power of Thor but was still largely himself psychologically — except when he was really the immortal Norse deity Thor who put on the mortal Donald Blake disguise. Different writers seemed to interpret that element of the character very differently over the years. I don’t think it’s ever been an entirely consistent, clear, one way or the other sort of thing — which is unsurprising, because comics rarely have that kind of long-term consistency. And whatever the past history of the character — and I think Tessa’s take is basically spot on — it’s clear that Aaron’s intent is to emphasize the element of Thor being a role one takes on. How radical a break with the past that is strikes me as a largely uninteresting issue: I’m more concerned that he writes good stories.
Marcus Ranum: Eh. The full-body drawing I’m looking at (cover art of issue 1 here) shows a broad-shouldered woman with muscular arms wearing a metal breastplate. While the breastplate is certainly attention-getting, it includes a substantial gorget and isn’t just “cheesecake armor,” and she doesn’t seem particularly disproportionate.
Of course, the best commentary so far has been the “American Voices” feature in The Onion. Ouch.
A female Thor? Whatever next, a black Heimdall?
I have no problem with this at all but as Captain America is more of a ‘role’ anyone can inhabit, including a one-armed ex-Soviet assassin, that might have been a more interesting move. Cap is, after all, supposed to represent the best of America. Thor won’t even have to change her hair style.
My understanding is that She-Hulk was invented as a one-off because one of Marvel’s competators was about to steal the name so Marvel did the strip simply to preserve the copyrite. While it does owe its origin to the original He-Hulk it is a vastly different comic, more a postmodern take on the superhero genre. It’s far more complex and witty than just He-Hulk in a bra.
Looking t the cover art for the new Thor, and speaking as one who remembers when She-Hulk was introduced…
I’m certainly on board with a female Thor. The consistency-nerd part of me resists a bit, but the writer in me wants to see where they take it. I think there’s a lot of good stuff they could do.
I remember when they intro’d She-Hulk and Spider-Woman. The latter even had a Saturday morning cartoon treatment, and though I haven’t watched it in decades I recall it wasn’t all that ‘girly’ in any particular way. I felt no embarrassment at watching it as a boy in a time when gender expectations were probably if anything more rigid.
She-Hulk was IIRC one of the last Stan Lee creations. Lee and his crew had all kinds of issues with portrayals of — well, everybody — but at least they made a shot at not being insanely sexist. They often failed, and She-Hulk was an uneven effort a lot of the time. But hey, at least someone was trying. Monique Wittig this wasn’t. As the character progressed a few writers took a kind of postmodern vibe and ran with it, and that turned out to be the right way to go, making the She-Hulk comics a much more interesting and fun read.
And yes, I can see that Thor is following standard ideas of beauty, and I really would be interested in seeing artists draw female superheroes more like female bodybuilders rather than models. I wonder if they’ll go that way with Thor.
What’s interesting to me is how things have changed in the last few decades. I look at my comics from the 70s and 80s even and the sexualization isn’t so turned up to 11, it seems. It made me think of the art of Jim Starlin, because he used his girlfriend at the time [I think they married later on, not sure] as a model for some work he did in the 70s, and she looks a lot more ‘real’. At some point I would want to ask comic artists if the tools available now and the porn-ification of so much of mass culture has changed the way they approach things. But that’s sort of another discussion.
[Re: form-fitting armor: You actually wouldn’t want that, either as a man or a woman. Why not? The point of armor is to deflect the forces that hit your body; you want it shaped in such a way that the impact energy goes away from you. If I had a Batman-like nipple-hugging breastplate on (or one like you see on some Roman artwork) when a blade or club hits me the force would be directed right into my rib cage. OUCH. Shaping something like that to follow breasts too closely makes the problem worse — any hits to the sternum and the “natural” collapse of the metal would be inward, guaranteeing that you’d die. The armor you see in medieval displays (or even ancient ones) is sort of turtle-shell-shaped to prevent that. You’ll note that it is curved, or has a centerline that is raised, so that if you were laying it down and stood on it, it would be like an arch and actually hold you up. Brienne of Tarth has the right idea].
Shatterface, Captain America is also about to change:
http://comicsalliance.com/marvel-female-thor-black-captain-america-announcement-colbert-report/
You just beat me to it!
Cap’s a more flexible role and since he was created specifically for propaganda purposes – diagetically as well as non-diagetically – any changes to Captain America are more culturally significant.
Thor exists in his/her own bubble-universe and any changes to the character say little about America’s view of itself; having Cap go Nomad during the Korean War, teaming up with black superhero Falcon (now set to take the Shield) in the Sixties, or leading the revolt against the Superhero Registration (Patriot) Act and then killing him off are comments on society in a way the more fantasy-oriented stories of Asgaard are not.
@#2 Stacy, I shudder to ask, but what’s an omega male? Or, am I better off not knowing?
Omega is one of the Thanosi and so might feature in The Avengers 2
http://marvel.com/universe/Omega_(Thanosi)
Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’ve come down too.
Exactly. And it (usually) extends beyond just the names. The “girl versions” are typically significantly weaker than the original (male) versions. For example, She-Hulk is one of the strongest women in the Marvel universe, but is nowhere near as strong as cousin Bruce. (She-Hulk has referred to herself as “Hulk-Lite.”) They’re also usually nicer and less brutal than their male counterparts, tho frequently smarter. So I interpreted Aaron’s comment as saying they’re not creating a new, more feminine character derived from the “real” Thor; they’re taking the mantle of Thor and putting it into a woman’s body.
To put it mildly. The original stories said Don Blake was a mortal who just happened to find the hammer and be worthy of it (ie – Thor is a role). But later writers stated Blake had been The Real Thor all along, and finding Mjolnir just released that (ie – Thor is a person). Other writers completely ditched the Blake persona altogether. [shrug] So really there’s precedent either way.
.
And yeah, don’t get me started on the impracticality of pointy-boob-armor.
One factor to consider is that if both roles are to be played simultaneously you do need a different name so if Hulk runs in parallel with a female version would need to be named something else (She-Hulk or Superior Hulk or The Amazing, Uncanny Hulk) . if however you are replacing the character in the same book then you will usually continue the name (so Winter Soldier would still be Captain America or Azrael, or Nightwing would still be Batman). if female Thor proves popular enough to have her own title while also restoring original Thor – Id expect the title to get a female name or a an adjective to differentiate
I’m mostly irritated, not because I really care about Thor as a character, but because:
a) stupid boob armor. If you’re going to recast Thor as a female in an attempt to get some antisexist cred, at least give her human proportions and functionally-designed armor.
b) In a few months, Orignal Bro Thor will get his hammer back, and the female Thor will be relegated to some 3rd-string superhero team or something. I bet she wont even get a spinoff series. Marvel will get their precious status quo back, and any time someone asks “Why can’t any scene with Jean Grey pass the Bechdel Test?” they’ll just say “hey, remember when we made Thor a woman? Huh? Remember that?”
It’s basically the comics equivalent of stunt casting.
I’d much rather they do things like “maybe not make all the remaining female characters dress like lifeguards or gymnasts.”
In a few months, Orignal Bro Thor will get his hammer back, and the female Thor will be relegated to some 3rd-string superhero team or something.
Assuming Aaron does a good job – Arent the readers partly to blame for what they buy or dont? If new Thor matches or beats sales number , no need to go back to old bro Thor
if readers insist on buying X-Men no matter how crappy it is v/s say a Lazarus , you cant really do anything about Marvel policy.
Yeah. Good bad or indifferent, I give it a year before Thor gets his man card back.
Actually, check out the new Ms. Marvel. Her costume is fairly tight, but not revealing, and the character is drawn like the skinny, geeky teen she is. For that matter, Captain Marvel (ie – the former Ms. Marvel) has a costume that wouldn’t look out of place on a male superhero. OK, She-Hulk still tends to get her clothes shredded on a regular basis, but overall I’d say Marvel’s doing a bit better in this regard. Points for trying at least.
But think of the narrative possibilities of Thor the god, invisible most of the time (really, when Thor is not needed, why bother putting on a human body, what a bunch of annoying details to worry about, just stay vaporous and invisible), decides to take on both a female and a male human body. And they meet. And the universe gets a little crack in it. And the magnetic poles shift. And EVIL totally has to get its butt out of town.
And hilarity ensues.
No one character can be all the things that women (or any other category) should be in fiction, because there’s not just one way anyone should be. In this case, we have a female character taking on a fairly masculine mantle, and the criticism is that this presents women as needing to behave like men to have worth; but any other option would be open to similar criticism from a different direction, because ultimately the key to representation is to have many characters of diverse types who are all shown as having worth. This spells out the point, more with reference to LGBT representation.
Personally I mostly agree with ericoehler; this just seems overblown, because this new character simply isn’t Thor, given that Thor is a person who’ll still be kicking around and will probably get his powers back soon enough; wielding the power of Thor isn’t the same thing as being Thor, especially not when “you know, Thor-Thor” is right over there. I really can’t see this new character remaining in the role permanently, which means she’s probably going to either die or become, indeed, “She-Thor” or something equivalent. (Unless they just call her Katee or something, which is its own issue.)
She’s Thor if people accept her as Thor so it’s really people like the cynics on this thread who are the problem.
@culuriel #11
*grin* Well, MRAs tend to be obsessed with concepts like “alpha male” and “beta male.”
Since omega was the last letter of the Greek alphabet–you get the idea.
Obviously there’s something wrong with a guy who likes women and takes them seriously. There’s no explanation for behavior like that except “that’s the only way he can get pussy!”
You can learn all about it on that “We Hunted the Mammoth” site I linked to.
P.S. At the risk of furthering the toxic male hierarchy crap, I have to say I find it amusing to think that the likes of MRAs are calling the likes of successful comics writers “omega males.”