I agree that that’s probably a large part of it, especially in light of my experience of being called a racist for my criticisms of Ragnarok.
I think now is a good time to trot out a term I’ve been using in private to describe this aversion to criticizing any work of art made by a POC: benevolent racism. I coined it (or maybe reinvented it) modeled on the existing term benevolent sexism, which refers to the attitude that women are delicate and fragile and morally pure and must be protected. Benevolent sexism is what leads some academic advisors to go easy on female students and not push them to improve their work as much as they could, because they think they’re too fragile and can’t handle tough criticism (and maybe aren’t capable of getting their work as good as a man’s). Similarly, benevolent racism treats creators of color as something less than full agents who can take responsibility for their work and its flaws. (There’s a start to answering your question, @touterd, though there’s a lot more where that came from…)
I have stuff to say about the “fetishizing abuse” thing, but I have somewhere I need to be… I’ll get back to it later.
Hey, I’m back. As @fuckyeahrichardiii remarked on this post and I addressed here, I don’t think Ragnarok deserves a lot of credit for its portrayal of queer characters; it’s either swept under the rug, as you remarked in your reply, or it’s stereotypical “villainous queer-coding” and “dead lesbian” angst (fyriii’s words) + an exploitative relationship as the only overt representation of queerness.
Regarding the major POC characters, I have also made clear (maybe in other places) that in spite of my objections to Ragnarok’s treatment of the pre-existing heroes of the franchise (including the W3, who were unceremoniously slaughtered and never mentioned again), I really liked the roles played by Valkyrie and Heimdall. They are both badass and awesome (and hot), and I really do appreciate how Valkyrie is permitted to take on characteristics of male archetypes and hasn’t been slotted in as an unnecessary romantic subplot.
However, for those taken in by Tumblr identity politics, that will not matter because I am daring to pass overall negative judgment – however incomplete and qualified – on the first Marvel movie to be directed by someone other than a white man. They will also find it offensive that I am passing such judgment primarily based on what I see as the injustice to two white male characters: Thor and Loki. Well, here I stand. Thor and Loki are the reason we, the pre-Ragnarok fans of the Thor franchise, are invested in the films, and a great new character and good treatment of one secondary character aren’t enough to make up for the failure with the two central characters.
I had mixed feelings about Hela as the “female final boss” (LOL). To some extent her story was interesting: her feeling of betrayal at being being imprisoned by her own father and former accomplice, her sense of grievance at being denied her birthright (there’s a theme we’ve seen before!), and her exposure of Asgard’s shameful imperialist history – all that was very cool. On the other hand, some of her motivations were pretty hazy. Why does she want to conquer shit? I sort of got the sense that she just enjoys bloodshed… and maybe that makes sense for the Goddess of Death, but it’s a little unsatisfying to have the first female major villain be your standard “I want to take over the world!!” kind of cartoonish villain.
Hoo boy, I haven’t seen much of that thing about shipping Loki with anyone being abusive (though I have seen people saying that shipping him with a woman is problematic because he’s a misogynist, which I kind of see but think is debatable), but I know what you’re talking about. Yeah, Loki is pretty screwed up, but I think he’s been presented as redeemable, and it’s unfair to say that such people should be excluded from relationships. I also think people are capable of distinguishing fictional relationships they find narratively interesting or even just sexy from good models for real-life relationships (see this post, which I came across earlier today). I have no illusions about Thor/Loki being a healthy or pure relationship as the characters are presented in canon (though I also think that with a lot of work and maybe some therapy they could figure it out). Honestly, though, I’m not sure what to say to the charge of fetishization aimed at people who find abusive and/or power-imbalanced relationships interesting to write and read about because of the complicated interpersonal dynamics they present, or who find such relationships sexy to fantasize about. It’s a kink, it’s not everyone’s kink, and that’s fine; and I don’t think that kinks, if acknowledged as such and appropriately hedged about with warning tags and explicit consent, perpetuate abusive power relations in real life.
Loki is the Philosopher King 