Promoting access based on sex is sexually discriminating. Whether it's men or women, for or against, it doesn't matter. Building bias into the system under the guise of promoting 'diversity' and/or 'equality' is even worse than the original discrimination it claims to fight because it adds hypocrisy to the pile.

The reality is that 'diversity' and 'equality' are mutually exclusive. To feminists, it should be the ('empowered' female run) state that decides how and when one trumps the other, building privilege for women into the system. A system that encourages use of relevant discriminators when making decisions doesn't need any of this because it would treat everyone justly. Of course, this would also put a lot of politicians and lawyers out of a job.

Superman is a DC property. Superwoman was a counterpart for him, not a replacement. Good thing too because the demand for her just isn't as great. Same goes for all the other versions of the character. Bait-and-switch never goes over well with the customer. Character development and evolution is fine, but swapping out core traits arbitrarily for the sake of disingenuous politics does not count.

A lot of that increased 'demand' is coming from 'social justice warriors' claiming to speak for unrepresented majorities. The reality is that a lot of women prefer a male in such roles as well, but I guess the market will decide whether the female thor story arc sells..

I suggest you read the article as it makes the motivation for the change quite clear.

Feminism is cultural marxism across sex (males are the oppressor class, females, the oppressed). I'm sure marvel loves to make as much money as they can, but they're also using their platform to push disingenuous politics. I'm criticizing them for it. Of course, they're welcome to do what they want with their business.

Notice how I responded without personal attacks? Try it on for size.

Also the god of protection, strength, thunder/lightning/storms, etc. Those are masculine traits. If marvel wants a female character based on norse mythos, pick a female deity to base it on or make one up. Hell, they already have Storm, right? She's not based on norse mythos, but so what? There are plenty of strong women characters already, and it's pretty obvious they've been softening the male characters for quite some time. They shouldn't do this. Who wants a whiny passive aggressive male superhero character emoting all the time?

You're right, though, it is the perfect choice, if the goal is to stamp out positive male roles in entertainment.

You might see it as a problem. I consider the fact you see it as a problem, as the problem (if this was meant as sarcasm, I apologize). What's wrong with white, straight males? Norse mythology comes from scandinavian culture. They are/were largely white. Seems reasonable to me for them to depict their deities as such.

The name 'Thor' is masculine too. If marvel wanted a new female character, why not create a new one? Either borrow from existing norse mythos like they did with thor, or come up with all new material. I know, what a concept, right? It's pretty clear from the language of the article that this was done for 'grrl power' political correctness and not for any legitimate creative reason.

Nope. False dilemma used as ad hominem.

Cluebat -- The thor comic is based on the norse mythology, making it reasonable for the character to be male. The narrative in the article makes it clear this change is being done for 'grrl power' political reasons.

Yes.

Stop using your platforms to push marxist propaganda. It's so blatant when history is so blatantly contradicted for no good reason. The mythos always depicted thor as male. Why is it so terrible to have a dominant male in a protagonist role? It's not misogyny.

to the cloud with you!

hyuck hyuck.

Just because people disagree with you are in large numbers doesn't mean they're wrong.

I know it was editable. That's what was great about it. It could do everything metro did, just minus all the gay crap. My menu doesn't have many of those folders. You know why? Because I edited it! Fixing this does not require a whole new design meant for fixed use devices.

Text menu with small icon:
easy to see what you need based on color or picture alone, with the text right beside it.
small and unobtrusive to the rest of your workflow.
easy to organize, drag and drop where you want, or sort by alpha.

If you are typing stuff into widgets instead of finding what is needed with a few clicks, you aren't using the GUI very well..or it's badly designed. At that point, I'd prefer a command prompt...that doesn't suck.

Sizing is an unknown for win9 at this point. I hope I can just turn them off. I don't need huge idiocracy style icons, nor shitty mobile apps on my desktop. I want actual productive desktop applications and information density.
I don't use the OS to look at the OS, I use it to quickly get what I need to do work or play games, so I don't need pretty tiles, lots of white space, and brain dead tablet style workflow. I prefer it without the jarring shifts between the full screen menu and the desktop. The huge vista/7 start menu sucks too, just less than windows 8.

Ah yes, the 'hater' fallacy. If you don't agree with the current trend, you must hate all change.

All that's needed is a simple editable menu for application links. It's not that hard.

How is searching for tiles easier than searching a list in the menu? If you hated doing it in the start menu, you should hate doing it with the tiles, with all that extra eye panning and scrolling. As far as text search goes, users shouldn't need it because your menu is neat and orderly and easy to read. Sticking a search box onto widgets just says loudly and clearly that the design has failed.

If all you want is one click access, add some shortcuts to the shortcut bar...oh right, they broke that too.

Can you shut all those bullshit tiles off and have a simple text menu?

Well the term 'professional' simply means someone who is paid. Since most businesses still use windows, you are wrong.