I have commented on the “new” female Thor on this blog a few months ago, but know it appears that last week’s Thor #5 hit a raw nerve with the fanbase. The long and short of it was that Thor scribe, Jason Aaron, used Crusher Creel (AKA the Absorbing Man) as the mouthpiece for skeptical fans that questioned why this particular woman was worthy to wield Mjolnir. He used “feminism ruins everything” as loaded phrase that was a thinly veiled accusation of misogyny. However, I already brought of the point that placing Mjolnir in the hands or the outright (temporary) replacement of any hero with another, particularly with a visible minority, is a tired cliché. After reading the pages in question I have come to a conclusion.
Lady Thor is not a character. Rather, she serves as an ideological mouthpiece bereft of any identifying characteristics. Her worthiness to wield Mjolnir is an informed attribute that violates the old axiom of “Show, don’t tell” and is a telltale sign of sloppy writing. It also particularly egregious when there are other Asgardian women who are capable warriors in their own right like Lady Sif and Valkyrie and both are fairly prominent in the Thor mythos and the Marvel universe in general. It is essentially an admission that Marvel has no faith in the character outside of briefly bumping up sales.
Speaking of which, compare the case of Lady Thor to the new Ms. Marvel AKA Kamala Khan, who received considerable promotion by Marvel and the mainstream press. While I have not been able to pick up Ms. Marvel, but I have glanced through the tale on my intermittent trips to the comic shop so see what she is about. Kamala Khan is a character with her own distinct characteristics; yes, Marvel heavily publicized her Muslim identity but she is more than the sum her parts. One quote from Ms. Marvel scribe, G. Willow Wilson, resonates with me.
“She’s very much the kind of girl who grew up staring wistfully at Manhattan, thinking ‘If only I could make it to the big city.’ Jersey City is not just the backdrop of the series, but very much a part of Kamala’s own journey.”
The operative word here is “journey” where Kamala is supposed to grow as a character and form her own identity as an individual. Her wish of making “it” in the big city makes her a sympathetic character, not just Muslims and young girls, but also anyone who dreams of becoming more than what they are.
Kamala’s idol, Carol Danvers also experienced growth as a character that culminated in her taking the mantle of Captain Marvel, having “began” life as a supporting character for Mar-Vell. Immortus manipulated and raped her; Rogue stole her powers and her memories; and she struggled with alcoholism but came out of those experiences a confident and stronger heroine. If I could equate one Marvel character to Wonder Woman, it would Carol Danvers, or rather Captain Marvel. Granted, given that she attained the rank of colonel with the USAF, referring to her as “captain” sounds like a demotion.
But I digress.
Heroes must undergo their own crucibles and struggles. However, I see no such struggle Lady Thor, she simply lifted Mjolnir without so much as a demonstration of her worthiness and appropriated the name. The fact that Marvel has concealed her identity has to the hollowness of the character and the revelation of her identity will be disservice to women in comics because either her creation was an ideological means to an end, or Marvel stripped an existing character of her identity in the name of “girl power.” Some like Ben Kuchera of Polygon praise this ham-fisted approach, but the fact of the matter that people of his mindset do not see women as people. They see women and other minorities as tools to further their own agenda and will deny the very existence of minorities that have the audacity to question their narrative.
How people decide to spend their money is none of my business. However, the events of Thor #5 confirm my fears for the (non) character and affirm my decision not to sink my money into another cynical attempt to temporarily increase sales. Such sloppy storytelling ultimately shows that Mr. Aaron and Marvel do not see women as characters, just other soundbox for their regressive values. Perhaps the bigger sin here is that Lady Thor diverts attention from worthier titles like the Ms. Marvel and Captain Marvel titles.
I return after month of hiding from the mob in the Canadian tundra… actually, I jest because I have not had much to say on anything as of late, however, I found this article on the new female Thor that debuted this week. The gist of it is this: writer/comedian Brett White implies that a certain segment of the fandom is upset that a woman wields Mjolnir because of an innate male fear of feminism as evidenced by this quote.
There’s a real noticeable difference when the hero’s replacement is a woman. I think that’s because it takes the already strong resistance to change that a lot of predominantly male comic book fans have and multiplies it by “misandry” to the power of “feminazi.” There’s a whole misogynist vocabulary that comes into play when the new hero is a woman. (…) I would be surprised if the same men that are uncomfortable with the idea of a female Thor are not also uncomfortable with the idea of having a woman for a boss. The fear that a female Thor is going to replace the male one seems to run parallel to the fear that feminism means women destroying men.
Let it be clear that I loathe it when identity politics drips into popular entertainment. First, I concede that there are many fans who resist change. We are a rather conservative bunch; we generally accept one definitive version of character, though it varies from fan to fan. By that I mean we have had several versions of the Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, and the Atom because of the split between the differ epochs of comic book history. Case in point–Barry Allen is my definitive Flash because of my affection for the Silver Age but many fans prefer Wally West because he was the Flash they grew up with in the Modern (post-Crisis on Infinite Earths) Age. However, with the Marvel heroes, there has been only one definitive version of their primary heroes since the 1960s. While Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, and Thor were “replaced” at various parts of their history by the likes of John Walker, Jim Rhodes, and Eric Masterson, such substitutions were temporary and the originals resumed their roles.
I find it highly disingenuous that Mr. White cries “misogyny!” when fans get upset over a woman replacing a man in the role of a hero. Where were the complaints when Carol Danvers took on the mantle of Captain Marvel? I seriously doubt anyone took issue with it because Carol Danvers was a member of Mar-Vell’s supporting cast before becoming a hero in her own right. Factor in her time as a United States Air Force officer (though she earned the superior rank of Colonel, so she outranks Captain America), it made sense for her to inherit the role though Monica Rambeau set the precident of a woman holding the title. If this new “Thor” was Valkyrie or Lady Sif, I would have less reservations. Both are part of the Asgardian mythos Marvel built and it would make sense if they were able to lift Mjolnir. As Thor #1 (2014) does not reveal the identity of the new “Thor,” I shall withhold judgement.
In any case, I ask Mr. White and Thor scribe Jason Aaron this question: why should I be invested in this character? Comic book fans have long memories and we know this changeover is ultimately temporary. Thor 3 is currently on Marvel Film’s slate and its highly likely that Thor Odinson will become worthy of lifting Mjolnir again and this as-of-yet unnamed character will share the fate of Beta Ray Bill. Likely placed on the shelf and becoming little more than a footnote in Marvel history twenty years’ time. Perhaps I do not know the little details but they are irrelevant compared to the broader strokes. Mr. White may make claims about sexism and talk down to his audience for ideological reason but misogyny is not the problem here, it is cynicism on the fans’ part because the House of Ideas has gone into the recycling business.