Female Thor?!?

[Shinken]

The majority of people who read it hated it.

Do you frequent.. any comic boards to try and garner opinions like that?

In fact In fact there was nearly a 50% sales drop within the first two issues.

Indicating that yes, most people hated it, though the initial issues sold highly because people were interested in the controversy, but it's been taking HUGE consistent dips.

"Been taking"? That series ended months ago. I'm sorry, but it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.
It also kept two issues per month in the top 10 sales every month.
Also, comic book forums are full of people complaining about books they don't read, so I'm not surprised there was a lot of hate about Marvel's best selling book throughout it's entire run.
Also, the majority of readers don't post in comic book forums.

My question is, at the end of the cancelled Fearless Defenders, we have a new, 'worthy' host of the Valkyrie. Why cancel Fearless Defenders? FD is a bunch of women kicking butt, one of whom happens to already exist as 'Thor with boobs'. Valkyrie already exists - and Marvel cancelled her series. What do they hope to gain from Fem!Thor that they couldn't have gained from Valkyrie?
Right. THOR, is a WOMAN now. Name drops. Did you see? THOR.

I'm all for the idea of female super-heroes. But did they cancel Fearless Defenders to make way for Fem!Thor? Or is Fem!Thor a publicity stunt? Because Thor Odinson is still running around with an axe. What happens to him? Does he ever become Worthy again? Of course he will! And it will happen about a month before his next movie comes out.

You know, one of the big mysteries in the new Thor is going to be just who is behind that mask.
Could well be Valkyrie.

[Fan]

My question is, at the end of the cancelled Fearless Defenders, we have a new, 'worthy' host of the Valkyrie. Why cancel Fearless Defenders? FD is a bunch of women kicking butt, one of whom happens to already exist as 'Thor with boobs'. Valkyrie already exists - and Marvel cancelled her series. What do they hope to gain from Fem!Thor that they couldn't have gained from Valkyrie?
Right. THOR, is a WOMAN now. Name drops. Did you see? THOR.

I'm all for the idea of female super-heroes. But did they cancel Fearless Defenders to make way for Fem!Thor? Or is Fem!Thor a publicity stunt? Because Thor Odinson is still running around with an axe. What happens to him? Does he ever become Worthy again? Of course he will! And it will happen about a month before his next movie comes out.

That's the thing. I LIKED Valkyrie. There's no reason to cancel that series, and it is strictly a publicity stunt that is coming at the expense of other female characters.

What argument can be made aside from changing a character who's already so forcibly divorced from his source even further away from it? It's just a publicity stunt to try and draw attention back to what is honestly a dying medium, but that's true of most things that happen in print publications.

[Shinken]

That's the thing. I LIKED Valkyrie. There's no reason to cancel that series, and it is strictly a publicity stunt that is coming at the expense of other female characters.

Low sales?

What argument can be made aside from changing a character who's already so forcibly divorced from his source even further away from it? It's just a publicity stunt to try and draw attention back to what is honestly a dying medium, but that's true of most things that happen in print publications.

Or it may be the logical conclusion to a 25-issues storylines.

[Fragenstein]

You know, one of the big mysteries in the new Thor is going to be just who is behind that mask.
Could well be Valkyrie.

Those lips REALLY remind me of Carol Danvers. I'm not sure what she's up to these days, but I'm sure she's as worthy as Valkyrie. Captain THOR!

[Shinken]

Those lips REALLY remind me of Carol Danvers. I'm not sure what she's up to these days, but I'm sure she's as worthy as Valkyrie. Captain THOR!

She is IN SPACE!

[Cheesegear]

Low sales?

Low sales I understand.
What I don't understand is cancelling a series about Fem!Thor, and then making another series about Fem!Thor but with THOR on the cover.

EDIT: No, scratch that. I do understand it, and it makes me mad.

[Fan]

Low sales?


Or it may be the logical conclusion to a 25-issues storylines.

Transfering a title that had low sales to a title with higher sales merely insures you'll damage the sales of the title with better sales, thus losing you even more money.

From a money perspective this has done nothing but cost marvel money, this endeavor is in fact in the red.

No it's not a logical conclusion to a 25 issue storyline. Death of Superman was a logical conclusion to a 25 issue storyline.

Wonder Woman Obtaining the God Wave was a logical conclusion to a storyline.

This is as much a publicity stunt as Death of Superman was where they temporarily introduce some radical change just to retroactively remove it later via bull**** when it doesn't pan out as well as they thought. This happens literally all the time in comics, and all it's done for is the temporary boost in sales such changes create because people want to see what all the hubub is about and then when they realize it's essentially pointless that does nothing interesting or new they leave.

Because this isn't any thing, revolutionary, or exciting. It's stupid, pointless, crap that came at the cost of an existing title. It is literally just a copy of an existing thing, and it's an awful copy of an existing thing that canceled the actually okay thing it copied.

[Kitten Champion]

Pandering, otherwise known as "appealing to an audience" aka supplying a perceived demand aka capitalism.

Admittedly, I think Marvel is phrasing this in order to get free publicity by stirring up exactly this controversy, by saying "New Thor Is a woman" instead of "a woman is taking up the hammer of Thor", but that's par for the course as these things go.

I mostly think Aaron's specific wording is confusing because it exists to dispel the idea that she is "Thor-Girl" -- which is something they made fun in the Ultimate Universe -- rather than really explaining things. He's trying to say that they aren't employing the same blanket tactic of creating gender-swapped counterparts with feminine pronouns attached because of trademark concerns or singular lack of originality, and he thinks that point is worth making crystal clear.

Which, yeah, that's a thing. Just like characters who are depicted from other countries with names and powers oddly representative of some obvious stereotype relating to them, shouldn't really be expanded anymore.... unless this somehow involves Gundams.

However, aside from drumming up attention, he also won't talk about who this Thor actually is which makes it difficult to refer to her as anything else. I'm going to assume that, despite what's been said, that she'll be called - whatever her name is - when they actually get around to writing her.

The majority of people who read it hated it.

Do you frequent.. any comic boards to try and garner opinions like that?

In fact In fact there was nearly a 50% sales drop within the first two issues.

Indicating that yes, most people hated it, though the initial issues sold highly because people were interested in the controversy, but it's been taking HUGE consistent dips in sales. Over all losing 68% of it's sales in the first months.

According to that thread that's fairly consistent comic industry-wide, later estimates show it as the companies' number one selling comic for several months. This is part of the whole issue with the perpetual number ones, they still tend to sell more despite everything. The second issue of Slott's Amazing Spider-Man fell something like 70% as well, and that was completely expected by all parties.

[Fan]

I mostly think Aaron's specific wording is confusing because it exists to dispel the idea that she is "Thor-Girl" -- which is something they made fun in the Ultimate Universe -- rather than really explaining things. He's trying to say that they aren't employing the same blanket tactic of creating gender-swapped counterparts with feminine pronouns attached because of trademark concerns or singular lack of originality, and he thinks that point is worth making crystal clear.

Which, yeah, that's a thing. Just like characters who are depicted from other countries with names and powers oddly representative of some obvious stereotype relating to them, shouldn't really be expanded anymore.... unless this somehow involves Gundams.

However, aside from drumming up attention, he also won't talk about who this Thor actually is which makes it difficult to refer to her as anything else. I'm going to assume that, despite what's been said, that she'll be called - whatever her name is - when they actually get around to writing her.



According to that thread that's fairly consistent comic industry-wide, later estimates show it as the companies' number one selling comic for several months. This is part of the whole issue with the perpetual number ones, they still tend to sell more despite everything. The second issue of Slott's Amazing Spider-Man fell something like 70% as well, and that was completely expected by all parties.

The post is made with acknowledgement that as a controversy generating issue it provided a temporary sales boost.

Any sort of controversy generating issue does that, however, it also had the largest consistent drops of any other single title in the industry across a consistent time frame.

Did it help them pad the holiday bonuses that year? Yes.

Is it going to come back and hurt them the year after? Also yes.

Was it a good comic? No.

In fact, the numbers are only "good" in the sense that Spider Man suffered from a MASSIVE drop off after OMD / BND, it used to consistently sit in the 80-90k range for sales figures before that, and after OMD it saw a consistent 20-30k sales drop.

So, basically SSM is only marginally better than BND / OMD sales wise, and before that The Amazing Spiderman was selling similarly and in fact better now that controversy has worn off than SSM. Which is.. exactly what I've been saying.

Explosive controvesy generates temporary sales, when things stop happening new things are generated to keep the story going in what is a constantly evolving medium.

However, if a character's gender is all it has to offer in being different or catchy then it's irrelevant.

[Avilan the Grey]

You know, if they wanted to really push it, they should switch completely. Thor becomes a woman (Or rather, a woman becomes Thor), and Valkyrie ends up in the body of a man.

I'd read that.

[Drascin]

Low sales I understand.
What I don't understand is cancelling a series about Fem!Thor, and then making another series about Fem!Thor but with THOR on the cover.

EDIT: No, scratch that. I do understand it, and it makes me mad.

Here's the thing. We have a comics market that doesn't read authors, or runs. It reads logos.

You could make an amazing series about Valkyrie! And it would sell like **** because it doesn't say THOR on the cover. For every non-huge-name series that survives ten go down. Remember Scarlet Spider? It was funny and well drawn and had better and funnier characters than over half the entire lineup of Marvel... and went under in twelve issues because it didn't say SPIDER-MAN on the cover so it sold like balls, while Superior Spider-man, whose only good point was introducing Anna Maria Marconi, sold better than it because it did say Spider-Man on the cover..

The comics market is set in a REALLY unhealthy paradigm. But while inside that apradigm, a new female Thor makes more sense than Valkyrie, because people will buy the THOR logo.

[paddyfool]

It won't happen. Not that it wouldn't be an interesting idea, but Hemsworth is too popular. Plus he's probably contracted for the role in Avengers and Thor.

Good points all.

Besides if anything has shown, comics tend to imitate the movies rather than the other way around. That's why they brought a black Nick Fury to the main marvel universe (Yes I know he was in Ultimate originally).

More than that, Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Samuel L Jackson before he ever had the part of Nick Fury... and then this happened:

in a scene in which the Ultimates discuss who they think should play each of them in a hypothetical movie about the team. Fury's answer for himself is "Mr. Samuel L. Jackson, of course, no discussion." It was only after seeing the redesigned Nick Fury in the first issue of The Ultimates that Samuel L. Jackson learned of the use of his likeness and contacted Marvel in order to secure the role of Nick Fury in any future movies which will feature the character.

[SeeDarkly_X]

Pandering (noun): the act of, through representation or consideration that the world they live in is not accurately reflected by the experiences of straight white cis men, throwing a bone to women, queers, and people of color and letting them have a slice of the pie at all.

Pretty sure "straight white cis men," "women, queers, and people of color," and "slice of the pie" are not in the actual definition of "pandering," which also happens to be a VERB! #wordcrimes
Did you even look it up or simply define it through the narrow lens of your unsubstantiated outrage? That's a rhetorical question.
And if Marvel chooses to attempt to make their stories potentially more inclusive or interesting, what's the real shame in that? They clearly have a story they want to tell. Increasing their heroine population is honestly just a side note.
The fact is, with this kind of storytelling, things change constantly. If we always expect that the heroes will stay the same, that can get dull. I think this is a good thing, though again, NOT an entirely ORIGINAL idea for them... they have done it before.

And on balance, they also hardly need to pander... Marvel has a female dominated X-title, almost every other team has high percentages of diversity, and they have had such teams for YEARS. Though the truth is many of their female led books don't tend to sell well and end up canceled. Maybe this one will do better.

As for having a problem with it: I have three problems.
1. Female Thor, as pointed out above, already exist. Her name is Valkyre, and if a logical female would pick up the hammer, it would be her.
2. Thor, as pointed out above, is not a title. It's the name. Thor had that name BEFORE the hammer even EXISTED.
3. And yes, I also am old fashioned enough to have a problem with a female having a male name.

As I keep pointing out... THOR has been Female before! Not Valkyrie (whose team title Fearless Defenders featuring an all-woman cast didn't work out so well.) Not Storm. Not Rogue. Thor HIMself.
Also not long term. Not 616 universe. But definitely high profile with Alex Ross doing the artwork.
No one seems to want to click through to the link I've provided before so here's a pic or two.

[Avilan the Grey]

Ah. But wasn't that the same deal as with Frog!Thor? Aka Thor turned female.

[SaintRidley]

Pretty sure "straight white cis men," "women, queers, and people of color," and "slice of the pie" are not in the actual definition of "pandering," which also happens to be a VERB! #wordcrimes

Gerund, actually. Pander is the verb.

Did you even look it up or simply define it through the narrow lens of your unsubstantiated outrage? That's a rhetorical question.
And if Marvel chooses to attempt to make their stories potentially more inclusive or interesting, what's the real shame in that? They clearly have a story they want to tell. Increasing their heroine population is honestly just a side note.

I'm curious in which direction you think my outrage is directed. Because it's directed at people who think that giving Falcon the mantle of Captain America and giving us a woman with the title Thor is pandering, not at Marvel.

Since you asked a rhetorical question, I'll give you a real answer. Most of the time when people make an accusation of pandering, they don't mean pandering. They mean the definition I gave, but pandering sounds more neutral and less racist/sexist.

The fact is, with this kind of storytelling, things change constantly. If we always expect that the heroes will stay the same, that can get dull. I think this is a good thing, though again, NOT an entirely ORIGINAL idea for them... they have done it before.

So you really did misread me, since I've made no claims that could even be misconstrued as suggesting I think this is a bad idea. If you really want to see my thoughts on this, I'll direct you here.

And on balance, they also hardly need to pander... Marvel has a female dominated X-title, almost every other team has high percentages of diversity, and they have had such teams for YEARS. Though the truth is many of their female led books don't tend to sell well and end up canceled. Maybe this one will do better.

I certainly hope it does - I like what Aaron's been doing, and I want him to keep doing it.

[Coidzor]

Thor is, by now, BOTH a name and a title, because "whosoever wields this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of THOR". So, far as I can see it, it's not even slightly difficult to understand nor particularly complex.

That clause does not actually say that "THOR," or even the less bombastic "Thor," is a title. Your reading it to mean that is, at best, slightly twisted, at worst, tortured.

There is Thor Odinson, who is also Thor, God of Thunder, because he wields Mjolnir.

What is the current order of operations vis-a-vis the hammer and god of thunder anyway? Was he god of thunder, judged to be a prat, and stripped of his power with the caveat that if he was a good little boy he could have it back? Or did he have to prove himself and pass some trial or another to get mjolnir, which always been the source of god of thunder status, without having had to go through a 'bad son, no powers for you till you shape up' phase?

The new person gets to call herself Thor God of Thunder, because she wields Mjolnir - but I figure she's not Thor Odinson because she's not the son of Odin, because for one she's a woman which makes it hard to be a son, so that's probably still classic Thor's surname .

Eh, women can be sons now, this is the 21st century after all.

[Avilan the Grey]

For that matter... if the exact wording is "Power OF Thor" then it seems wielder does NOT necessarily become Thor. Just get Thor's powers. In fact, the way I read that, that is the logical, intended meaning. Nevermind that Marvel at this point choose to interpret the wording in a less logical way.

Eh, women can be sons now, this is the 21st century after all.

Not on Iceland. Or in old Norse culture.

[huttj509]

Admittedly, I think Marvel is phrasing this in order to get free publicity by stirring up exactly this controversy, by saying "New Thor Is a woman" instead of "a woman is taking up the hammer of Thor", but that's par for the course as these things go.

They didn't say "New Thor is a woman."

http://marvel.com/news/comics/2014/7..._presents_thor is their marvel.com announcement.

Marvel Proudly Presents Thor

Meet the new female hero who will wield Mjolnir and see an exclusive first image of the unworthy former Thunder God!

The only part that might be taken out of context to mean such is

Series writer Jason Aaron emphasizes, “This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.”

Now everyone ELSE'S announcements/articles about Marvel's announcement, yeah, they often screwed it up.

[SeeDarkly_X]

[I've made a couple edits before replies have been posted...]

Gerund, actually. Pander is the verb.

I'm not a perfect student of English... perhaps I should leave it at that. In this, it's not entirely relevant to your primary point anyway, which might have been better stated to avoid the confusion... and getting to that...

I'm curious in which direction you think my outrage is directed. Because it's directed at people who think that giving Falcon the mantle of Captain America and giving us a woman with the title Thor is pandering, not at Marvel.
Since you asked a rhetorical question, I'll give you a real answer. Most of the time when people make an accusation of pandering, they don't mean pandering. They mean the definition I gave, but pandering sounds more neutral and less racist/sexist.

Fair. I misunderstood the direction of your outrage. I accept that. However, you might see how, in context, your definition-as-response to another seemed to reflect a certain point of view and not clearly an expression of irony or reflective of the comment you were responding too.

So you really did misread me, since I've made no claims that could even be misconstrued as suggesting I think this is a bad idea. If you really want to see my thoughts on this, I'll direct you here.
I certainly hope it does - I like what Aaron's been doing, and I want him to keep doing it.

I've gone back to read the previous comment of yours in this thread. And skimmed your article (I will review more fully later since there are some details there that interest me.) Clearly I mistook your intended meaning. You might see why but my apologies nonetheless.

Back on the overall topic, I am not a huge fan of Thor one way or the other, but in as much as it was interesting that Loki was once female (yet ANOTHER example that this is not wholly an original idea) I think this too can lead to an interesting story about both the person taking the role of Thor and perhaps even Odinson's journey, wherever that leads.

On the point some have made about "why not just elevate an existing female character to her own title without making her "Thor."
Female counterparts to male heroes have been around a long time. (Though oddly not so much male counterparts to female heroines. Why is that?)
But the truth is most female heroines who are NOT named after or similarly to a previously or currently known male hero, do not do entirely well as ongoing titles except in rare cases. If the current title Ms. Marvel were called anything else, I honestly don't think it would get the attention it has, despite its diversity. Likewise, I feel pretty confident that if the title were to be "Angela" or "Frigg" instead of "Thor" it would gain little traction or attention. (Which is kind of interesting when you consider Thor's first appearance in Marvel Comics was in a female-led title called Venus in the late 40's. But that also only lasted about a year and a half.)
So in that, yes, it seems obvious that as a ongoing exercise of marketing product it could be that it serves Marvel better to do it this way.
But they want to tell the story and have it read. And I can see the argument some have about it being a stunt. To some degree everything done to sell a book is such. That is any comic company's overall objective of course, but Marvel has traditionally done so from a stand of writing the story first and letting the PR work it self out after that, not so much the other way around (unlike DC,) so I lean toward giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

After all, even as a female, the old joke is just as funny:

The thunder god went for a ride
Upon her favorite filly.
"I'm Thor!" she cried,
And her horse replied,
"You forgot your thaddle, thilly."

[huttj509]

However, aside from drumming up attention, he also won't talk about who this Thor actually is which makes it difficult to refer to her as anything else. I'm going to assume that, despite what's been said, that she'll be called - whatever her name is - when they actually get around to writing her.

The new Thor.

3 syllables, no exclamation marks needed.

[Math_Mage]

The thing that bugs me is, yes. Thor. Great. But...Doesn't Valkyrie - a semi-recurring character of Man!Thor's support cast - already exist?

'Thor with boobs' is Valkyrie. Actual readers of the comic know that this character already exists, and that's one genuine concern that I - personally - have. What will be the difference between Fem!Thor and Valkyrie? Why not push Valkyrie - or a Valkyrie, given recent MCU events - as her own series? Why? Because it's THOR, and THOR is a WOMAN now. BUY NOW!

Because booting a new movie franchise is freakin' hard. Yes, ideally they would bring in a new franchise with a new female lead, and it would sell, and everyone would be happy.

Also, frankly, what's the point of introducing a new superhero to be Thor with boobs when you can just do Thor with boobs? If there's a new superhero, let her be her own character.

[GloatingSwine]

What is the current order of operations vis-a-vis the hammer and god of thunder anyway? Was he god of thunder, judged to be a prat, and stripped of his power with the caveat that if he was a good little boy he could have it back? Or did he have to prove himself and pass some trial or another to get mjolnir, which always been the source of god of thunder status, without having had to go through a 'bad son, no powers for you till you shape up' phase?

Sort of, yeah.

Except in the comics he's also got a dodgy leg and he stays that way for ten years before he finds the hammer again.

Except he was also always Thor as well, Donald Blake was basically an earthly form he was sealed in until he stopped being a prat.

Apparently as of Original Sin he won't be worthy again and we will have female Thor (as opposed to alien horse Thor or frog Thor), who is an existing Marvel character but it won't be revealed who until later.


At best, since the power of Odin himself is as naught before the might of the status quo, the result of this will be that she will end up receiving her own copy of Mjolnir so she can carry on being Thor even when Thor is being Thor as well. (see also: alien horse Thor, frog Thor)

[Jayngfet]

At best, since the power of Odin himself is as naught before the might of the status quo, the result of this will be that she will end up receiving her own copy of Mjolnir so she can carry on being Thor even when Thor is being Thor as well. (see also: alien horse Thor, frog Thor)

Realistically, that'd happen like ten years after her series gets decent first issue sales then steadily drops to almost nothing, barring a fluke like Superior Spider-Man.

Though that's honestly damaging in it's own way. Once you have too many of a thing it loses it's value. There are probably a dozen spiderdudes, half a dozen earth lanterns, and five different guys throwing around bouncy shields even before recent retcons. It's just nobody cares about any of them except maybe three in the most extreme case.

I mean, we'll pretend to care if it makes us look good(See also: Everybody getting up in arms about John Stewart getting killed off, while his series holds mediocre numbers. Or everyone saying how attached they are to Kyle Rayner, then having his lantern book sell far worse than that, or everyone saying how great it is to have Simon Baz be a character, then nobody caring what's done with him), but we won't bother reading the books anyway. Diversity replacement characters never do as well and nobody ever cares. Maybe the only exception is John Stewart and that has nothing to do with comics and everything to do with cartoons.

You can cry racism and misogyny all you want, but it's an empty cry when Ms. Marvel is currently inching towards the point most big two books get cut at. Angry fanboys don't it, but neither do the vast majority of the books cheerleaders. We argue and piss and moan, but basically none of us ever put our money where our mouth consistently.

[GloatingSwine]

Realistically, that'd happen like ten years after her series gets decent first issue sales then steadily drops to almost nothing, barring a fluke like Superior Spider-Man.

I'd expect more like she'll last a year or so in the main Thor solo title and Avengers, get her own hammer and then be shuffled off to a B team like Defenders or something.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think its more to do with how obvious most of the ploys are.

Spidergirl? Devoted fanbase. Female Thor? Errrrr.

Its more to do with quality writing then some sort of bias.

[SaintRidley]

I think its more to do with how obvious most of the ploys are.

Spidergirl? Devoted fanbase. Female Thor? Errrrr.

Its more to do with quality writing then some sort of bias.

It's always hard to judge the quality of the writing before you've ever seen any of it. If past performance is any indication, Aaron will be bringing some good writing here, though.

[Coidzor]

Sort of, yeah.

Sort of both? Soft of which?

I mean, either Mjolnir has always been the source of his power, even before he got it taken away from him so that he could only pick it up again if he was worthy, or he had his own power and then it was sealed into Mjolnir because he was a clod/oaf/prat, right?

Or I guess there was his own power as an Asgardian and then he got even more from the Hammer and then both his own intrinsic Asgardian stuff and the Hammer stuff got sealed away when he was being punished by daddy for being bad?

Except in the comics he's also got a dodgy leg and he stays that way for ten years before he finds the hammer again.

Except he was also always Thor as well, Donald Blake was basically an earthly form he was sealed in until he stopped being a prat.

Apparently as of Original Sin he won't be worthy again and we will have female Thor (as opposed to alien horse Thor or frog Thor), who is an existing Marvel character but it won't be revealed who until later.

Oh, Donald Blake hasn't been retcon'd away by now? How about that. I thought that his wheel-chair bound scientist-type alter-ego had gone the way of the dodo by now. Though I never could figure out when I was actually researching him if Donald Blake was completely manufactured or if he actually was placed inside of a previously extant person and then ate his way out of his host's psyche as he matured.

It's always hard to judge the quality of the writing before you've ever seen any of it. If past performance is any indication, Aaron will be bringing some good writing here, though.

So he's able to deal with female characters well, then? That's a relief.

I was a bit concerned when I saw his answer to the question of whether his dudebroness would impact his ability to write Thor as a woman, as it was less than inspiring and called back to being able to write male and genderless aliens well, rather than having demonstrated his ability to treat female characters right.

[Cheesegear]

Okay, some people don't understand why I'm pissed off. Here is the best issue that makes my point the best.

Fearless Defenders #5

Spoiler

Show

Variant cover

Spoiler

Show

Fearless Defenders was a critical success, but commercial failure? Why? Everyone loves DC's Birds of Prey, but when Marvel tries it? Flop. Not only does the comic feature pretty much only women - including the antagonists - not only does the cast feature several minorities, but a minority character - black and female - is one of the ones in charge. Now, from this post alone, you could probably see 'pandering' all over it. But, just like Birds of Prey, Fearless Defenders has a good storyline, so, when you actually read the comic (hint; I know you didn't), it doesn't feel like pandering because it's actually worth it.

Cable & Deadpool Valkyrie & Misty Knight is a good pairing. Marvel cancelled it. Six months later? Fem!Thor.

[t209]

Not on Iceland. Or in old Norse culture.

Ummm, the mythology Odin (shapeshifting) and Loki (shapeshifted into a female many times and even carried children) want to have a word with you.
http://v.cdn.cad-comic.com/comics/ca...0721-f9394.png
Then this guy decided to make fun of furries. I thought it was making fun about Transgender until it render fully.

[SaintRidley]

So he's able to deal with female characters well, then? That's a relief.

I was a bit concerned when I saw his answer to the question of whether his dudebroness would impact his ability to write Thor as a woman, as it was less than inspiring and called back to being able to write male and genderless aliens well, rather than having demonstrated his ability to treat female characters right.

He's introduced us to Roz Solomon, who seems fairly well-written to me. Do you have a link to those comments at all? I'd love to see them. The brief time I talked to him a couple years ago, he came off really chill and not very dudebro-y at all, and very, very excited to be playing with themes of godhood and identity via Thor.