Glad to know that you are mentally sound, of good health, mid-thirties, have a full head of hair, well endowed in the chest and/or genitals, physically attractive (but not overly so), weigh the correct amount for your height, have a nominal muscle mass, have a low count of body hair, speak the local language fluently without accent, have perfect vision and ocular muscle behavior and have had an average number of sexual partners.
Some of us aren't quite so lucky, you insensitive clod!
The misogyny is actually in the new character of the female Thor, wherein Thor's breastplate now has protrusions for breasts (commonly referred to amongst roleplaying-, comic- and self-proclaimed nerds as "boobplate").
That is misogynist? Are female super heroes supposed to be flat chested? Is there historical context for plate armor built for women? Depicting ideal forms in comics, or any other entertainment, is how it is done. People read comics, or watch movies, or attend plays, to be taken away from reality. Not to be reminded of it.
Btw, how do you feel about codpieces?
I did not say that feminine attributes make the new Thor weaker; I was pointing out a weakness in the armor.
They are putting a weakness on the new Thor in order to make her pretty parts more clearly on display. That, I feel, is the true misogyny.
I believe that addressing codpieces or physical attributes of other female superheroes either in favor of or against is an attempted trap, and will simply acknowledge other superheroes, which are well known to put their endowedness on display, both male and female alike.
[...] Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. [...]
Personally, I think that turning Thor into a title is the absurdity here. I felt the same about Captain America. I think Thor would have worked as a female in, for example, the Marvel Ultimate universe. One of my favorite Thor moments was in the Marvel vs. DC crossover when Wonder Woman was able to wield Mjolnir; I was disappointed that the Amalgam comics went in a different direction with her.
I'd browse around for more... but honestly, I'm not inclined to do so considering the single word "Ridiculous!" is considered +5 Insightful with this crowd, while obviously thought-out, intelligent calls for discussion by opposing views are considered trolling. Too many signs its time to leave slashdot.
Actually, I am trying to engage in thought-out, intelligent dicussion, but ultimately, I seems you are trying to build a straw man out of my arguments to then refute, which disingenuously undermines what I have said while simultaneously undermines my ability to respect the speaker.
- Replacing Bruce Wayne with a female Batman and calling her Batman
- Introducing a male character and taking the mutant Storm's powers and giving them to him, calling him Storm
- Eradicating the established Norse pantheon in an event called Ragnarok and then bringing them all back later, only with Loki back as a female
- Turning the established white male character Iron Man with his side kick and one of his best friends, a black man
The misogyny is actually in the new character of the female Thor, wherein Thor's breastplate now has protrusions for breasts (commonly referred to amongst roleplaying-, comic- and self-proclaimed nerds as "boobplate"). It has been argued (link; I know, it's just a blog post and the authority of it is beyond suspect) that a strong enough blow would be plenty to break a sternum. Thor is a warrior that is often engaging in battles of super-human strength, which would qualify as a strong enough blow. They are putting a weakness on the new Thor in order to make her pretty parts more clearly on display. That, I feel, is the true misogyny.
Misogyny: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"
Misogyny: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."
Misogynist: "a person who hates women"
There are female superheroes, so you couldn't be saying that there the statement indicated that there should not be any of those. And Thor was a male god in the mythos, so are you saying that not changing the mythos is hating women? Perhaps you meant that they were speaking in defense of continuity? Or do you instead mean that they are transexualophobes? (what exactly would be the word?)
Either way, my takeaway from your post is that if anyone were to say that George Washington did not have female reproductive organs, they must be a misogynist.
I think people know what needs to be done.