Off My Mind: Female Characters Made From Male Characters

I think if you are going to create an opposite gender version of the same character they shouldn't be personality wise identical. For example, Hulk is a more violent, smashing neutral hero whilst She Hulk has followed the superhero path, Superman is the champion of Earth and the world's greatest superhero but Supergirl lately has been getting a lot of stick from Cat Grant. You see the point I'm making. If you are going to do a gender opposite version of a character, at least have the decency to make them their own person rather than a carbon copy of the original. And Lady G-Man or should I say G-Woman? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA lol that is brilliant. I want to see that in the future.

" There's absolutely no incentive for a writer to create new characters, when he will never make a dime off the merchandising, future movies, other associated rights to said characters.  If a writer has a GREAT idea for a new character, or an original plot, he's probably going to save it for a creator owned project, where he is beneficiary of his talents.  So if you want blame someone, blame Marvel and DC, who need to come up with some sort of profit sharing plan with the creators. "

@Gman I'd say its less bad when done in a different universe, like Captain America and his female counterpart American Dream from MC-2. But I'd say aside from "the Smurfette Principal" at work here there's just the problem of too many REPETATIVE superheroes.  My in no way comprehensive list is below.
 
Ignoring your sidekicks(kids) based on primary characters(adults) like Red Devil and Kid Devil, Martain Manhunter and Ms Martian, or Zachary Zatara and Zatanna, You've got Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) and Spider-Woman/Arachne (Julia Carpenter), Captain America and USAgent, I've lost count of all the Ant Man/Giant Man/Wasp/Yellowjacket that have run around Marvel's earth-616. You've got 2 Flashes who dress almost identically and Jay Garrick, and THEY each have a palette swapped Reverse Flash (the darker Rival in Garrick's case), there are 3 Green Lanterns just from Earth AND Allan Scott, Captain Marvel (DC) has Captain Marvel Jr and Black Adam, Human Torch (Johnny Storm) and Human Torch (Jim Hammond) and Toro, Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze) and Ghost Rider (Dan Ketch), Elongated Man is just a lamer (though perhaps more sane) version of Plastic Man and lest we all forget, we're going to have at least 2 Batmen. 
 
Then you have what I'd call your DERIVATIVE superheroes, yeah they're a little different but not enough (in my opinion) to make them interesting. Your various Ghost Riders had Vengeance,  Thor has/had Beta Ray Bill and Thunderstrike,   Hulk has Red Hulk, She Hulk has Red She Hulk, Superman has Mon El, Wolverine has X-23 and Daken,  there's Araña who is now Arachne, Captain Mar-Vell and his Power Bands were a lot like Quasar and his Nega Bands, a jillion people have wielded the Phoenix Force, Bling is just a combination of Emma Frost and Marrow, Domino and Longshot, Magneto has Polaris, and although he didn't start out as one Wild Child became a lame version of Sabertooth.

" The reason why is "marketability" a female version of a Male character is marketable to a fan interested in that character. Interesting enough not all version succeed such as Marvel's "Wolverina" a wolverine Parody or "WildThing". X-23 succeeds do to the fact she is not female carbon-copy of Wolverine.  The thing that fascinates me more is why there are not more male versions of female characters. "

" @Om1kron: What kind of comics do you read? "

I don't think it's Lazy Writers or Lack of Originality, but Money.  When a writer creates an all new original character, that character belongs wholly to the publisher.  There's absolutely no incentive for a writer to create new characters, when he will never make a dime off the merchandising, future movies, other associated rights to said characters.  If a writer has a GREAT idea for a new character, or an original plot, he's probably going to save it for a creator owned project, where he is beneficiary of his talents.  So if you want blame someone, blame Marvel and DC, who need to come up with some sort of profit sharing plan with the creators.
 
I find many of the newer female versions of established male characters to be tedious, but the older established ones, like Supergirl and Namorita, have grown on me and become individuals in their own right.

I've read about the psychology of gender swap in manga/anime, where it's a way to safely live out homo-erotic tendencies, while not having to worry that the oneself might be a homosexual. I don't know if the same applies to american/european comics, since manga/anime focuses on a more liberated (and explicit) form of sexuality, but i would say it's impossible.

Us gals need heroes too! I'm totally fine with it as long as the characters are fleshed out nicely and it makes sense. For example, all the members of the Bat-family make sense to me. They aren't knock-offs of one another with the same powers, they are all just united under the symbol of the Bat. I think the Super-family makes sense as well.

In broad strokes it's largely economic, as opposed to purely creative, reasons however the way it works out isn't as A-to-B as one might expect from economically motivated decisions... 
 
For example, pressure came from above to inject Wolverine into more of the teenaged storyline of his animated series, but in order to not compromise his character by making him unrealistically hang out with kids, X-23 was created... so a creative decision, but sourced from economics.  You can hear the creator's rationale in this video.  Why a version of Lady Deathstrike wasn't used.... 
 
With She-Hulk, Benny Hill did a sketch in the late 70s about, essentially, a woman hulking out and Marvel panicked given the relative success of their Hulk television show at the time.  She-Hulk was rushed out the door and created solely for securing the rights to the character and concept.  Spider-Woman was created for the same reason because Filmation was planning to release a new cartoon character called Web Woman. 
 
You have to realize that the biggest source of long term and meaningful intellectual protection for comic book characters is trademark which is enforcible only through use and exposure (such that consumer confusion as to source could arise)... in broad strokes this means that, in theory, there's nothing preventing a rival company from creating a female variation of your hero unless you monopolize the idea yourself first with an established character. 
 
This should be somewhat intuitive as it makes sense that people cannot own monopolies on character concepts... if you wanted to make a female version of James Bond or Indiana Jones as an archetype (heh, Angelina Jolie apparently having done both) no one who did not have an established version of that character out there to call you on it could stop you. 
 
This means that often the female analogs are not created to profit in and of themselves but to prevent someone else from profiting off their creations.

The reason why is "marketability" a female version of a Male character is marketable to a fan interested in that character. Interesting enough not all version succeed such as Marvel's "Wolverina" a wolverine Parody or "WildThing". X-23 succeeds do to the fact she is not female carbon-copy of Wolverine.  The thing that fascinates me more is why there are not more male versions of female characters.

Three words: Lazy. Ass. Writers.

" Well, G-man forgot joker's daughter but the real question is where are all the girl heroes to guys? "

I think most of these female characters ARE first conceived to cash in on a popular male hero, and at the worst, they become uninteresting clones of their male counterparts.  However, when given the right care and attention, a lot of "female clones" become interesting and worthwhile in their own right.  Less than the character itself, I believe it just depends on the creative team given the character.

Not sure what's worse, the dude that looks like a lady or the lady that looks like a dude. 
Would Lady G-Man have a spotlight column here called 'The G-Spot'? 
 
Oh and you forgot Superman, he's been femanized several times.

Well, G-man forgot joker's daughter but the real question is where are all the girl heroes to guys?

Yeah don't you hate it.
 
you got:  Wonder Woman and Wonder Man.............oh wait

I like it... but only if they're slightly different. Deadpool and Lady Deadpool, for instance, are far too similar. Spider-Man and Spider-Woman have different abilities, so that's fine in my view.

Isn't Sara Lady G-Man? Oh yes I did. :P

I think publishers just do it as a fan service for people who wanna see some girls who do bad-ass things, some female versions are good like Lady Blackhawk, but I guess she kinda stands out coz the other blackhawks are dead and she works with BOP.

" @fesak:  Dude that's brillaint! Where'd you ffind it? "

 I think it's just an over used writer's trick to give the audience an instant connection to a new character. 

Their goals and attitude and personality should be different 

Lady G-Man is terrifying!

It's just fan service and trying to cash in

There are definitely some female characters which may have been created to cash in on a successful idea . But even so, i do like how there are female versions of characters . Some of my favourite characters are derived from male superheroes (Supergirl, Lady Deadpool, X-23...) 
:)

I dont mind if they got a good backstory for like example X-23 her 2 mini-series where really really really good.

IMO they are trying to capitalize on a character's success although some of them are interesting. From what I know Spider-Man and Spider-Woman are unrelated. LMAO at Lady G-Man.
 @fesak:
LOL

Loki even went so far as to completely change his gender. 
 
But now I'm gonna have this song stuck in my head all day. 
  

Overused imo far too many female clones of male characters..

Rule 63 at it's finest. lol

I think it's overused, but this topic gives me an excuse to post this: