Bakustra, I think you're reading way too much into the staff, or a Norse God not being really feminist.
I can see both sides of the phase 2 argument. Fury is right, after two alien invasions that resulted in substantial death and property damage, Earth absolutely needs the means to defend itself.
No, no, you see. The author is dead, there is no author, there is no in-story logic, you're missing the point.
point, the real
reason fiction exists, is to make critics look clever. And the way the critic looks clever is to use the critical equivalent of a stock footage montage: Condemn the story as homophobic, because if you look hard enough you can find enough 'evidence' that anyone
Seriously, guys, you're wasting your time. You can't argue with a deconstructionist, you just look, nod, chortle when they say funny things, and get on with your life.
Who appoints the Avengers? Who holds them accountable? Fury does. Fury, who is accountable to none but another group of unaccountable types, who he breaks free from anyways. Fury and the movie insist that we ought to revere the Avengers because of how cool they are. This is fascistic.
And rule by shadowy oligarchs armed with superweapons and troops equipped by a monopoly on super-science personal weapons isn't. Riiight.
See, I always thought of fascism as a kind of dark-populist tyranny, where the few justify their rule by their power to command the affections of the many. But that's the historian's version, not the lit-crit version.
EDIT: Also, within the movie's framework, Phase 2 is A-OK. There's nothing wrong with it, really. Otherwise, Coulson wouldn't have managed to humiliate Loki with a Phase 2 weapon.
This is the funniest thing you've said in weeks.
But the biggest sign is probably Loki calling Black Widow a quim. I didn't actually know the meaning of this slang before Bakustra mentioned it above and I googled it. Yeah, that's pretty much the biggest 'subtle' clue about the character.
He's sure misogynistic. I don't think I buy the assumption that every character presented as misogynist is also being presented as gay. Whedon's been bringing in misogynist characters since Buffy the Vampire Slayer
, and a lot of them aren't gay.
I'm pretty sure "misogynist" is Whedon-code for "this character is an irredeemable asshole." Not so much "and this character is gay but we're not actually going to say it explicitly."
Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:
What is this 'favourite character' you speak of? I have walls lined with bookshelves, having a single favourite character would be like having a favourite brick.
-Story of my literary tastes.