This is a modern comic inspired by Norse mythology, not a retelling. The old Thor was a stout red head, the next was a blonde pretty boy, the new will be a buff woman. Big deal. Time changes things. It's not like this is the strangest story arc to take place in comics.
If they created a female character based on Freya or another goddess, it wouldn't get as much publicity. They probably wouldn't print as many, and it would fade into obscurity. By doing this, they're drawing attention to the rare lead female hero. It's weird, but it's just a stepping stone to get people to notice the female heroes that I believe/hope they're planning on introducing in the future.
Also, he's not turning into a she. A new character is wielding the hammer. But, by saying that there are better options than a cross dresser, you run the risk of sounding a bit transphobic. So what if Thor did decide he was a female? That's ridiculous in some way?
Strange as it may be, I'm hoping that it does well. If it doesn't, the comic industry will add this to the heap of female characters they tried out that failed. The fact is, they're just not going to make the leap into creating a top billing female hero until secondary characters and attempts like this do well.
Shallow pandering would be making her a little waif wearing tiny outfits. Giving her a decent build and outfit equivalent to the males...that's respect. Go home, coward.
Personally, I think one of the biggest reasons that they haven't sold as well is that female characters don't get as much publicity. It's actually not the easy to find female leads that aren't somewhat sexually objectified. They're often spin offs of the original male characters. Or, they are just not as many printed because they're doing a test run. That's not saying that swapping Thor characters is a better idea than creating a new female hero with her own unique story arc, making her strong and non-sexualized, and promoting the series. But, I doubt they'll do that until they've tiptoed into a successful female character.
It may be a bit sexist to give her big boobs, but the badass outfit and top billing is much better than the underwear clad background characters that have been the norm for women. Yeah, it may be a weird choice to swap out Thor characters, but I think it's working as planned. Everyone's outrage is just more publicity.
Yes, but consent can be a difficult thing to prove or disprove. This gives people an additional angle to ensure that their right to privacy is respected.
And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.
Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...
I think that a major indicator would be where it was posted. Yougotposted vs a P2P porn upload. One shows malintent, where the other could be an honest mistake uploading a folder. I'm sure a lot has to do with whether or not they are willing to take the image down as well.
Not if it was agreed to be kept private (oral contract...go ahead and snicker).
Also, I don't think that many people on here are considering the fact many women have pictures taken of them that they are unaware of (drunk, sleeping, hidden cam, etc.), and the type of person that would take those kinds of pictures is the exact type of person that would post them.
The Doctor is not a long-established (single) character. With each regeneration, an entirely different person is cast to play a different personality. The opposition to a female lead has much of the same reasoning as the supporters, a relatable character. It also seems more feasible to have a female Doctor for one generation than to try to get an entirely new show funded, scripted, cast, marketed, aired, etc.
As for feminism not being "man-hating," either you're woefully ignorant of the current Feminist Narrative (TM), or you're just deluding yourself.
I am actually doing a research study on current gender (male and female) roles, viewpoints, and media influence. While, yes, there are extremists on both sides, looking to them as representation of a cause would be like looking at Westboro Baptist as the embodiment of Christian churches. While they are fighting a similar cause, the methods are drastically different and less respectable. Honestly, hardcore feminists sometimes make things worse for women because they are not paying attention to how their actions are portrayed in the eyes of the opposite gender. Regardless of what others are doing, try to take an objective look at the issue at hand (female non-equality in media). The fact is that there are more men in important/respectable roles while women are usually cast for their sexuality. Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
Also, after a quick Google search, I didn't find anything about a Trademarked Feminist Narrative. There were a few articles and papers that were a similar title, but if you have a link, it would be appreciated.
if he WERE capable of changing sexes, wouldnt it be a 50% chance?
in case you didnt know, boy/girl for childbirth is NOT 50%. each time you have one or the other, your chances of having one of that sex again is much higher. by the time you have 4 boys, your chances of having another boy is like 85 or 90%.
That's actually part of my point. The real world comparison is meant to point out that the more brothers you have and the more sons you have, the more likely you are to have more sons. Hence, the feasibility of a science fiction Time Lord having a male regeneration streak, while still leaving the chance for a female regeneration.
The lead writer Steven Moffat actually commented on this exact topic. "It is a part of Time Lord lore that it can happen. Who knows, the more often it is talked about the more likely it is to happen some day.” Link
He is male, and regenerates as a male, to regenerate as a female would mean a gender change, just to please a small whiny few
He HAS regenerated as a male. That doesn't mean that he has to. The Doctor has been different heights, ages, and personalities as well has having different colored hair, sounding voice, etc. There is no reason that "he" couldn't regenerate as a female other than the fact that a number of male viewers (the larger whiny few) disapprove for no real reason other than status quo.
If they make a female Doctor, it will not be to please feminists. There is no value in that. Feminists aren't going to watch it just because there's a female lead. It would be because it was something out of the ordinary. It would be so that approximately half of their viewership would have a female hero to relate to and be motivated by. It would be because it's long overdue for a character that completely regenerates with new DNA.
Don't let the obnoxious and overzealous feminists keep you from understanding the equality struggle that modern women face.
parroting tired old saws about women needing protection
Women need respect; respect that they are not getting. They want to be something other than a supporting character or sex object. Women make up less than 30% of speaking roles, and of those, over 1/3rd are sexualized. The remaining 20% are typically hired based on physical attractiveness and are contractually required to maintain excessively low weights. Even Doctor Who has started running the Hollywood course of prodominately casting petite, young, and attractive females, while The Doctors more closely resemble the average man.
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-women-arent-essential-characters-in-movies-20120924-26ged.html
Modern feminists are not the bra-burning man-haters that they are portrayed as. They want an end to the objectification of women. They want natural beauty to be the norm. They want sci-fi that they can relate to. They want to be the protectors.
'Genderism' is going too far when women are mocked for wanting to be and see more females in positions that are not normally available to them. No one cares what color The Doctor's hair is, so why should we care what skin color, age, or gender "he" is? Gender based discrimination is the fact that the roles women receive are hardly ever lead heroes and are pretty much always sexualized.
Why does everything that has been traditionally been done a certain way have to automatically be untouchable by those who want to do it another way "just because it's already enjoyed"? The doctor has been gender swapped before, namely with Rose. And, people have been just fine with that.
Also, "Madman with a box" would still cheekily apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Abraham Lincoln was a zombie killer...
This is a modern comic inspired by Norse mythology, not a retelling. The old Thor was a stout red head, the next was a blonde pretty boy, the new will be a buff woman. Big deal. Time changes things. It's not like this is the strangest story arc to take place in comics.
If they created a female character based on Freya or another goddess, it wouldn't get as much publicity. They probably wouldn't print as many, and it would fade into obscurity. By doing this, they're drawing attention to the rare lead female hero. It's weird, but it's just a stepping stone to get people to notice the female heroes that I believe/hope they're planning on introducing in the future. Also, he's not turning into a she. A new character is wielding the hammer. But, by saying that there are better options than a cross dresser, you run the risk of sounding a bit transphobic. So what if Thor did decide he was a female? That's ridiculous in some way?
Strange as it may be, I'm hoping that it does well. If it doesn't, the comic industry will add this to the heap of female characters they tried out that failed. The fact is, they're just not going to make the leap into creating a top billing female hero until secondary characters and attempts like this do well.
Shallow pandering would be making her a little waif wearing tiny outfits. Giving her a decent build and outfit equivalent to the males...that's respect. Go home, coward.
Personally, I think one of the biggest reasons that they haven't sold as well is that female characters don't get as much publicity. It's actually not the easy to find female leads that aren't somewhat sexually objectified. They're often spin offs of the original male characters. Or, they are just not as many printed because they're doing a test run. That's not saying that swapping Thor characters is a better idea than creating a new female hero with her own unique story arc, making her strong and non-sexualized, and promoting the series. But, I doubt they'll do that until they've tiptoed into a successful female character.
It may be a bit sexist to give her big boobs, but the badass outfit and top billing is much better than the underwear clad background characters that have been the norm for women. Yeah, it may be a weird choice to swap out Thor characters, but I think it's working as planned. Everyone's outrage is just more publicity.
Thor doesn't become a woman. Thor's hammer is now in the possession of THOR, who happens to be a woman.
The article has the art work. Decent sized boobage, but more importantly she actually has muscle and dons respectable and much more practical armor.
Yes, but consent can be a difficult thing to prove or disprove. This gives people an additional angle to ensure that their right to privacy is respected.
And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.
Victim blaming at it's finest.
If you get in a car, you deserve to die in a terrible, fiery crash because, well, what did you expect?
Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...
Good advice, but the uploader could be an ex-spouse or other long term relationship where a break up wasn't expected.
I think that a major indicator would be where it was posted. Yougotposted vs a P2P porn upload. One shows malintent, where the other could be an honest mistake uploading a folder. I'm sure a lot has to do with whether or not they are willing to take the image down as well.
Not if it was agreed to be kept private (oral contract...go ahead and snicker). Also, I don't think that many people on here are considering the fact many women have pictures taken of them that they are unaware of (drunk, sleeping, hidden cam, etc.), and the type of person that would take those kinds of pictures is the exact type of person that would post them.
The Doctor is not a long-established (single) character. With each regeneration, an entirely different person is cast to play a different personality. The opposition to a female lead has much of the same reasoning as the supporters, a relatable character. It also seems more feasible to have a female Doctor for one generation than to try to get an entirely new show funded, scripted, cast, marketed, aired, etc.
As for feminism not being "man-hating," either you're woefully ignorant of the current Feminist Narrative (TM), or you're just deluding yourself.
I am actually doing a research study on current gender (male and female) roles, viewpoints, and media influence. While, yes, there are extremists on both sides, looking to them as representation of a cause would be like looking at Westboro Baptist as the embodiment of Christian churches. While they are fighting a similar cause, the methods are drastically different and less respectable. Honestly, hardcore feminists sometimes make things worse for women because they are not paying attention to how their actions are portrayed in the eyes of the opposite gender. Regardless of what others are doing, try to take an objective look at the issue at hand (female non-equality in media). The fact is that there are more men in important/respectable roles while women are usually cast for their sexuality. Think of the women that you do see in magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, commercials; do they actually seem representative of women?
Also, after a quick Google search, I didn't find anything about a Trademarked Feminist Narrative. There were a few articles and papers that were a similar title, but if you have a link, it would be appreciated.
if he WERE capable of changing sexes, wouldnt it be a 50% chance?
in case you didnt know, boy/girl for childbirth is NOT 50%. each time you have one or the other, your chances of having one of that sex again is much higher. by the time you have 4 boys, your chances of having another boy is like 85 or 90%.
That's actually part of my point. The real world comparison is meant to point out that the more brothers you have and the more sons you have, the more likely you are to have more sons. Hence, the feasibility of a science fiction Time Lord having a male regeneration streak, while still leaving the chance for a female regeneration.
The lead writer Steven Moffat actually commented on this exact topic. "It is a part of Time Lord lore that it can happen. Who knows, the more often it is talked about the more likely it is to happen some day.” Link
He is male, and regenerates as a male, to regenerate as a female would mean a gender change, just to please a small whiny few
He HAS regenerated as a male. That doesn't mean that he has to. The Doctor has been different heights, ages, and personalities as well has having different colored hair, sounding voice, etc. There is no reason that "he" couldn't regenerate as a female other than the fact that a number of male viewers (the larger whiny few) disapprove for no real reason other than status quo.
If they make a female Doctor, it will not be to please feminists. There is no value in that. Feminists aren't going to watch it just because there's a female lead. It would be because it was something out of the ordinary. It would be so that approximately half of their viewership would have a female hero to relate to and be motivated by. It would be because it's long overdue for a character that completely regenerates with new DNA.
parroting tired old saws about women needing protection
Women need respect; respect that they are not getting. They want to be something other than a supporting character or sex object. Women make up less than 30% of speaking roles, and of those, over 1/3rd are sexualized. The remaining 20% are typically hired based on physical attractiveness and are contractually required to maintain excessively low weights. Even Doctor Who has started running the Hollywood course of prodominately casting petite, young, and attractive females, while The Doctors more closely resemble the average man. http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-women-arent-essential-characters-in-movies-20120924-26ged.html
Modern feminists are not the bra-burning man-haters that they are portrayed as. They want an end to the objectification of women. They want natural beauty to be the norm. They want sci-fi that they can relate to. They want to be the protectors.
A change in appearance and personality leaves open the possibility of a female Doctor. Nothing suggests that he's unable to change sexes, and gender streaks happen.
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_23828455/all-boys-club-couple-welcomes-12th-son
My take is that the DNA of The Doctor is male. ...obey the programming within his DNA
The Doctor is a completely different person with each regeneration; therefore, the DNA is changed. If that's possible, a gender swap is.
Why do we have to extend this PC crap to everything in life?
Because everyday in every medium women get sexually objectified and have to deal with it. The best way to get rid of feminism is to get rid of sexism.
This kind of objectification is exactly the reason that there shouldn't be a female Doctor.
'Genderism' is going too far when women are mocked for wanting to be and see more females in positions that are not normally available to them. No one cares what color The Doctor's hair is, so why should we care what skin color, age, or gender "he" is? Gender based discrimination is the fact that the roles women receive are hardly ever lead heroes and are pretty much always sexualized.
Why does everything that has been traditionally been done a certain way have to automatically be untouchable by those who want to do it another way "just because it's already enjoyed"? The doctor has been gender swapped before, namely with Rose. And, people have been just fine with that.
Also, "Madman with a box" would still cheekily apply.