Why do people scream "Feminist Agenda" when there is a female lead?

[Silvanus]

It's honestly a catch 22 at this point. There are people who want more female characters in fiction, but every time one who isn't 100% perfect (and thus boring and uninterested) causes a large number of people who claim they want more female characters to complain that women aren't being portrayed in a fail light.

Just look at the new Star Wars (not going to spoil anything). The character who is an obvious Han Solo clone in terms of his role in these new movies is, despite being a copy of an already established character who is IN these movies already, is more interesting then the female co-lead despite the fact she has 10 times as much screen time. Poe and Fin should have been the co-stars of the movie, and it's honestly sad that one of the two leads played a character who would have made the movie better by being absent, but had she been written in a way that was actually interesting and allowed for emotional investment people would have been complaining.

At this point the only way to make good female characters is to ignore the criticism (and inevitable harassment) good female characters cause from people who claim to want them but in practice do not.

However the character was portrayed would have attracted criticism from some quarters, but the same is true of every character, every facet of the film, every everything. The sheer number of voices means that there will be a "large number" who dislike anything-- male characters; female characters; wardrobe choices; the fact the film is being made at all; every damn thing under the sun.

To take one particular type of criticism (among the thousands) and point to it as some indication that you can't please everybody is rather misleading. You'll never please everybody on anything. Female characters are no worse, no more of a catch-22.

It's rather similar to the incident in which Joss Whedon quit Twitter, and people leapt on the fact he had received criticism from feminists shortly beforehand. That was true, but he'd also received criticism from Christian, among others. People just focused on the one because it affirmed what they already thought. Anything in the public eye attracts criticism from a dozen sources at the same time.

 

[Zontar]

However the character was portrayed would have attracted criticism from some quarters, but the same is true of every character, every facet of the film, every everything. The sheer number of voices means that there will be a "large number" who dislike anything-- male characters; female characters; wardrobe choices; the fact the film is being made at all; every damn thing under the sun.

Yes but there is a difference in that this one select group of people complaining in this case are the only ones who are hypocritical about it, since they're complaining about getting what they literally asked for while the others at least didn't ask for the things they where complaining about.

It's rather similar to the incident in which Joss Whedon quit Twitter, and people leapt on the fact he had received criticism from feminists shortly beforehand. That was true, but he'd also received criticism from Christian, among others. People just focused on the one because it affirmed what they already thought. Anything in the public eye attracts criticism from a dozen sources at the same time.

There's also the fact that the Christians who criticisms him are not people who are from a group he is a part of (they where from more radical sects after all) so him being chased off of Twitter by feminists, a group he is a part of (and was unfortunately the one they turned of in their at the time latest instance of turning on their own) is noteworthy.

 

[Redryhno]

Because for all the belly-aching about another bland male toughguy lead, there's a helluva lot of bland female leads the last few years that have all the same problems in that they're indistinguishable from one another. Jessica Jones is not all that interesting character in the series, which was a big let down because pretty much every other character and person in the show I looked forward to seeing MORE than the titular character for how fucking bland she was(sorta the same problem as Daredevil had, it didn't want to commit to being a part of a comic book universe unless it was convenient, though at least Murdock wasn't boring when he was on-screen and not relying on everyone else to carry his ass and the fighting didn't look like he would rather be doing literally anything else).

Think of most female leads that have been popping up the last few years that have been raved about, they're largely just the same basic character, they have trauma in their background that happened relatively recently, they work past it, the end. And for some people, they see it because they saw the male leads and how similar they could be, but there's people giving points for swapping a character's genitals about and turning a pretty minor, but somewhat interesting character into just another antagonist in a rape-revenge story. Because that's what so much of it all boils down to. Many female leads are just rape-revenge fantasies(whether they be literal or metaphor). Jessica Jones, Maleficient, even Frozen to a point was raved about because Anna was going to be used for her title to get a guy in power and it was averted.

And people don't really like that when they're told that male leads are boring and they can't be told apart because they're all "Steve" when the thing that replaces it is just the same thing with a set of tits and bodily betrayal baggage.

Not seeing how Olivia from Scandal, Cookie from Empire, Alex from Quantico, Rey from the recent Star Wars flick are rape/revenge stories. I'm not even sure how you got that from Frozen.

Those are also shows I never even heard of, much less watched...And Star Wars I don't really have much interest in seeing(used to like it, now I just can't be bothered for whatever reason). And it's not me that got it from Frozen, it's what someone that also insists Elsa is some kind of asexual space Lesbian came up with that was then agreed with by a few hundred people unironically.

To go further, I'm well aware there's other female characters that are very well liked and aren't what I'm talking about here, but they're also not lauded as great female leads either and called unique and wonderful for how "different" and "unique" they are.

Person of Interest basically has the women being the most important characters in the show, they've got a woman in position of "authority" that she's finally realizing is more just a figurehead/pawn position that will kill alot of people on the basis of "terrorism", your standard Mary Sue-lite that's actually turned into a good character you care about, and just a 63'd version of Cavizel's character honestly.

The side [s/]chicks[/s] female characters in Jessica Jones are all great for the most part, just not the person hogging 80% of the screentime(I can't stress enough how dull she is, whether it's the actor or the writing I'm not sure I just know she's not interesting unless someone else has the scene devoted to them).

Blacklist is full of strong women that don't get nearly enough attention compared to this archetype that is lauded as being the most feminist-friendly.

And that's just talking about western media, which I'm not all that knowledgable about anymore(anime's largely replaced it, and I don't think you can spit and not hit at least four series that have strong female characters in them that are more human than these each season)

I wish the people that claimed that Jessica Jones or Mad Max: Fury Road or even the new Star Wars film are "feminist propaganda" had some self-awareness.

Aren't you the same people that get upset about Anita Sarkeesian claiming games are misogynistic because, if their "damsel-in-distress" themes are taken to the extreme, they become abuse and male entitlement?

How is "this protagonist is a white hetero male purely to pander to audiences" any different from "this protagonist is black/female/gay purely to pander to SJWs"? I mean some good arguments can be made against tokenism but all I see is hypocritical whining.

To be fair, it probably wasn't the best idea to talk about pandering while talking about Jessica Jones not being feminist propaganda...As much as I liked Moss as Hogarth, one of my roommates was really annoyed by the lesbian triangle junk that was just sorta there(didn't know this, but Hogarth isn't female, gay, or married in the comics apparently, and also not an irredeemable asshole lawyer trope). And as a result, it's sorta soured the performance to a point. And with people getting annoyed about shoehorning in romantic partners for the main dude in other genres, you'd think there'd be slightly more uproar from the groups that normally complain about it here with the same shit happening.

 

[ShakerSilver]

The same reason people scream "misogyny" or "sexist agenda" when there isn't a female lead: there are many reactionary folks looking for reasons to validate their own agendas. Both sides will make knee-jerk reactions to the most minor issues just so they can make sure they're still being heard. Ironically this sort of works against them as no one will actually care for what they say and just paint them as a bunch of whingers, and if a valid complaint seemingly comes from any "side" of the debate it's grouped with that "side" and ignored.

An example: Prior to release of DmC, there were quite a few knee-jerk responses by hardcore DMC fans to Dante's redesign (not helped by some mocking by the developers), so quite a few people (including much of the media) painted fans as being whiny and "entitled". When the game came out, there were multiple criticisms made against the game by fans and others that didn't involve the game's visual design - auto lock-on with no lock-on button, a shallower combo and style system, a strange reliance on platforming, etc. However, on many forum sites and later by several media outlets when covering the game's lackluster sales never acknowledged some of the criticism levied against the game and still thought the any of the game's detractors were just "entitled fans upset over Dante's hair".

 

[Politrukk]

Snip

Bill was just deemed worthy of the hammer that's all, the fact is when you pick up Mj?lnir you get the getup.
That's different from Masterson who merged with Thor renounced and merged and renounced before getting his own weapon.
And different from this female Thor who is actively replacing the actual Thor.

With Masterson around Thor was not considered "not Thor" anymore, with the lady in the suit that's different.

At least there's a distinction made like that on the databases and wiki's and as far as I have found the general interpretation of the characters.

The main difference is that Bill and Masterson were "deemed worthy of the power of thor" whereas our lady simply becomes Thor.

on your Masterson comment:
The asgardians don't take kindly to Masterson but there's an entire confused tangle going on there throughout his storyline.


Back to the relevant point again :

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

 

[visiblenoise]

It's because you keep looking in places where they would scream that sort of shit.

 

[Redryhno]

It's because you keep looking in places where they would scream that sort of shit.

Ok, scratch everything else I've said here, I like this answer best.

 

[JimB]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

 

[Zontar]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

The what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

 

[JimB]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Zontar]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

I see. Well, I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity that was done purely as a marketing gimmick that had terrible writing (the worst in a Thor comic in at least 20 years) that made no sense in-universe and had no place being done at all.

 

[JimB]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

 

[Zontar]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

So what you're saying is the writers lied to us for 3 issues then had Thor act completely out of character to renounce his name in a particularly badly written piece of fan fiction that somehow got canonized, but it's ok she didn't steal his identity because within the narrative she never stole it herself.

Sorry, but no. She stole his identity, and the writers made it so. Just because within the narrative she did not literally steal his identity does not mean it is not exactly what she did.

She stole his identity, deal with it.

 

[EyeReaper]

That's kinda the funny part isn't it? A game with a female protagonist is supposedly "Feminist Agenda" but I can virtually guarantee you any game one side decries as "feminist" the other side will stomp around yelling "This is objutifrying! Male Gaze! Powah Fantasy!"

I like to call it Schrodinger's Bayonetta.

Or hell, more recently there's Linkle. Both a sign of proof Nintendo is caving in to "Duh EssJayDubbya" and "Disempowering to women cuz Sarkeesian said so" at the same time.

People love two things. To pick fights and insert political commentary into everything. These mix rather well. Best rule of thumb I have is to ignore all of it until you've experienced it yourself.

 

[JimB]

I can't speak for him, but for me a major issue was the fact that she straight up stole his identity.

No, she did not. She never once called herself Thor until Thor Odinson announced to her that he was no longer worthy of his own name and gave it to her in issue #4. Prior to that, she never referred to herself as Thor. You are making things up, Zontar.

So what you're saying is the writers lied to us for three issues, then had Thor act completely out of character to renounce his name in a particularly badly-written piece of fan fiction that somehow got canonized, but it's okay she didn't steal his identity because within the narrative she never stole it herself.

No, I am saying none of that, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth, Zontar. If you are going to insist that verifiably untrue things happened, then please at least have the courage to not attribute your words to me to make it seem as if I agree with your blatantly false reading of the story. The plain fact is that the new Thor did not make a single claim toward the name of Thor until it was given to her freely as a gift by an insecure boy whose girlfriend broke up with him and now he's going through a weird identity crisis (except his girlfriend is his hammer).

 

[sumanoskae]

I dunno. I've been trying to puzzle out the strange behavior of human beings for a while now, and I still haven't come up with an answer.

Far as I can tell it goes something like this. For some reason, maybe laziness, maybe a dull wit, maybe because they were crack babies, some folks are just really fuckin' impressionable.

They get introduced to an idea in a safe place, and they don't bother to question or examine it. Sometimes it's awkward to ask because the idea is coming from a person you're attached to or respect, and you don't wanna risk offending them.

But then you publicly commit yourself to the idea and start making a show out of how much you agree with it; you start making friends with other people who agree with it, and the unspoken contract of that friendship is that you continue to wave your flag.

Now, no matter how stupid it turns out to be, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you find, you know that if you stopped waving flags now, you'd look like the gullible idiot that you are. Basically, part of you knows you're on the wrong side, but you're too ashamed to admit it. So you just repress your reason and retreat into dogma.

So since vaginas are not taking over the world, like you were told, now you just have to keep trying to convince yourself that they were, with increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics. Like that one of the goals of this powerful organization is making films with female leads. Because that's an efficient way of taking over the world; screenplay writing.

 

[Redryhno]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

Probably has alot to do with alot of retconning that strikes back to Kirby's days and it not being just another round of "who gets the hammer". She REPLACED him. It's not that she gains Mjolnir because she's worthy, it's that Thor loses EVERY bit of personal detail about him because she's now Thor, it's the classic internet joke of "you made dis? *five minutes* I made dis". Which hasn't really happened in the past. Not to mention the run being largely considered fucking full of just the same bullshit people don't like listening to like with the Prison School dub.

Not to mention very few people bitched about the Falcon taking over from Cap(for a short run at the least), since that was something that sorta happened organically in-universe and he didn't, ya know, become Steve Rogers. He just became Captain America.

 

[Zontar]

No, I am saying none of that, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth, Zontar. If you are going to insist that verifiably untrue things happened, then please at least have the courage to not attribute your words to me to make it seem as if I agree with your blatantly false reading of the story. The plain fact is that the new Thor did not make a single claim toward the name of Thor until it was given to her freely as a gift by an insecure boy whose girlfriend broke up with him and now he's going through a weird identity crisis (except his girlfriend is his hammer).

Ok, so literally every single piece of advertisement and the way that 100% of characters act within the story act as though that is the case, and the writers did straight up steal the identity of Thor from him and slapped it on her, but it's ok, SHE didn't do it herself, it's only the writers who did.

I'm sorry, but the identity theft claim holds water no matter how you try to spin it. Maybe if the writing wasn't done so poorly that it was of a level unbecoming of fanfiction and every single damn piece of the story done so badly that it's easier to think that it was intentionally written badly then to image someone that bad got paid for their work, it would be easier to think of it as being similar to Falcon becoming the new Captain America. But because everything that could go wrong did go wrong, it's not. It was identity theft, it's just that the writers are the ones who committed the crime.

 

[JimB]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

Why would you ask a question that's answered in the quotation it is a response to?

It doesn't answer the question, though. Every time he's brought it up, her femaleness has been an issue. If the only complaint is that she's not the original Thor created by Jack Kirby, then why keep bringing up her ovaries? It doesn't make sense to me.

Probably has a lot to do with a lot of retconning that strikes back to Kirby's days and it not being just another round of "who gets the hammer." She replaced him. It's not that she gains Mjolnir because she's worthy, it's that Thor loses every bit of personal detail about him because she's now Thor, it's the classic internet joke of "You made dis? *five minutes* I made dis." Which hasn't really happened in the past. Not to mention the run being largely considered fucking full of just the same bullshit people don't like listening to like with the Prison School dub.

Not to mention very few people bitched about the Falcon taking over from Cap (for a short run at the least), since that was something that sorta happened organically in-universe and he didn't, ya know, become Steve Rogers. He just became Captain America.

I actually don't know what "classic internet joke" or what "the Prison School dub" is, but so far as I can tell, not one word of that answers the question of why her vagina is a point worth bringing up. If I am missing some critical information here, please let me know what this rant has to do with my question.

Okay, so literally every single piece of advertisement and the way that 100% of characters act within the story act as though that is the case

Gonna stop you right there, because you are making more things up. There is only one person in Thor who treats her as having stolen anyone's identity: Odin, who is clearly the antagonist of this story, with whom the rest of Asgard and half the Marvel Universe disagrees on the topic. Even his enforcer Cul is only humoring Odin for the sake of maintaining a position of power in Odin's court.

Right. What else were you saying?

the writers did straight up steal the identity of Thor from him and slapped it on her, but it's okay, she didn't do it herself, it's only the writers who did.

No, it's okay because nothing was stolen. Thor Odinson gave up his name of his own free will. Disagree with it all you want, but the words are printed on the page all the same. You are denying reality, and I can't comprehend why. You are mad because a crime that took place, and your proof that a crime took place is because you're mad about it.