daredevilkink | Discussion/Off-Topic Post #1

AYRT - No it wasn't aimed at you or even this thread really. I'm glad we seem to be thinking about it more complexly here. It was more aimed at some of the "Jack is a shitty dad" people or even some of the people who oversimplify Matt's relationship with Stick or turn Foggy family into a 70's sitcom family made of hugs.

Sorry if I hijacked things at all. :P

OP (&AYRT): No, how dare you hijack a discussion of parenting in the MCU to talk about... parenting in general? And more particularly, in fannish versions of the MCU?

I think people like to make parents (particularly fathers) EVIL because it's simpler in the same way that comics are usually simpler: you are allowed to hate this person. But just as Daredevil made the villain more sympathetic (although, honestly, I was bored stiff by the Wilson Fisk scenes and never had much sympathy for him at all--give me Magneto any day), there's room for a little more nuanced view of parenting. I've heard a lot of praise for Daredevil being, not darker, but more gritty and realistic; can't that carry through into our interpretations of Jack Murdock?

So, thanks for *contributing to* (not hijacking) this discussion.

(And I've been known to indulge in a good anonymous rant or two at times myself. It's cathartic.)

Speaking of which: I do think Stick did profoundly more damage than Jack did, because he did his best to destroy Matt's ability to form meaningful relationships. He did it for what he thought were good reasons, but his world view is profoundly twisted. Even a soldier, which is supposedly what he wanted Matt to be, is meant to have fairly close bonds with those around him, to be able to trust in them and rely on them in terrible circumstances. (I'm not trying to romanticize the "band of brothers" thing here. Please, anybody, correct me on this. It's not like I've ever served.) Jack may have modeled poor coping mechanisms and given his son too much responsibility, but I still think isolating Matt was worse. (Then again, maybe he would have been stolen by HYDRA or something if he were too trusting, so there's that...) If that's an oversimplification of that aspect of their relationship, it's definitely one supported by the show.

AYRT - I agree with you about that characterization of Stick for sure. I wouldn't call that an oversimplification. Plus, I really appreciate that you took time to give some thought to the other side of the Stick issue, which is that it's entirely possible that if Matt were too trusting, especially with his abilities and circumstances, that he could have potentially been taken advantage of to a much greater degree than what Stick was trying to do.

Also, I would totally read a "Hydra got to Matt before Stick could" AU! Oh man, that would be awesome. A non-isolated, super-trusting Matt Murdock who 100% believes in Hydra's missions and goals because they stepped in and nurtured him when nobody else would and DIDN'T walk away? That is some angsty, good stuff and totally what I'm here for. (If nobody else prompts it based on this, I will).

Holy shit please prompt that it would be amazing

Here's the prompt:

http://daredevilkink.dreamwidth.org/6237.html?thread=11223389#cmt11223389

Except that "Jack is a shitty dad" and "Stick is a terrible person" are also completely valid interpretations.

We all have different life experiences. A father leaving their kid with nothing but PTSD and insurance money is kind of a sore point for me. In my opinion, it cancels out any of the "well, he loved his kid and was just trying is best with what little he had to work with" argument because Matt grew up with prize money instead of his dad, and it didn't have to happen.

And then Stick came in and took advantage of Matt when he was vulnerable, abandoned him, and then showed up again when he had a use for him and spent the entire time gaslighting him.

That's not complex. That is nothing short of fucked up.

OP again:

A father leaving their kid with nothing but PTSD and insurance money is kind of a sore point for me. In my opinion, it cancels out any of the "well, he loved his kid and was just trying is best with what little he had to work with" argument because Matt grew up with prize money instead of his dad, and it didn't have to happen.

I think we may have a difference in worldview here. I'm not a philosopher, I'm just trying to remember a little from Philosophy 101 here. (Literally, it was Philosophy 101. That's how little I know.)

Your argument seems to come from a basis of consequentialist ethics: "the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result" (quoting from Wikipedia's article on normative ethics). The outcome was: Jack Murdock dead, Matt inheriting the prize money AND bet money (remember, Jack bet on his fight as well). Jack obviously went into the fight with at least a strong expectation that he would die as a result of it; therefore, according to the consequentialist argument, that was what he was aiming to do. He was deliberately trading his life for the prize money for his son. I would like to point out that Matt says he never told his father about his senses; Jack had no way of knowing Matt would actually hear him get shot, that he would manage to get to his cooling body before anyone else. The PTSD resulting from that is something he had no way of accounting for.

But I don't agree that this was all of Jack's thinking, and I have trouble with consequentialist ethics as a whole. For one thing, it can have problems seeing any difference between a martyr and a suicide. But there is a big difference. For one, death is the acceptable, if not desirable, trade-off; for the other, death is the goal. If anything, Jack is closer to the martyr on that scale. Not that I'm going to claim that's what he is.

No, Jack is caught in a trap (partially of his own making, since he willingly threw fights before). Either he continues to accede to the demands of the people rigging the fights, and teaches Matt not to bother trying to do what is right (apathy); or he tries to refuse and Matt is used as leverage to force him back into it (fear); or he takes the third option, and does his best to win the fight, accepting the consequences.

If we assume Jack is working from a virtue ethics or deontological ethics perspective, his main motivation is not the money for Matt--that's just being prudent. Instead, moved by Matt's recitation of Thurgood Marshall, he is finally "dissenting from the apathy, dissenting from the fear," and doing what he knows is right: fighting his best as the ethics of his profession demand. Would you really prefer the alternatives? Would they make you think more highly of Jack?

What did Matt learn from Jack's death? I think that Matt learned that fighting for what is right, (particularly with the literal, physical meaning of the word "fight,") and refusing to "play the game" for the corrupt people pulling the strings, will lead to your death. I think that the first time Matt puts on that mask, he honestly expects to die from it eventually (just as Claire later voices). But he has finally decided that that helpless little girl; those frightened, brutalized women; all the cries for help that are amplified by the sirens; are worth more than his safe life as the attorney his father would be proud of. In the end, Matt has even more in common with the parts of Jack that Jack didn't want him to inherit than an aptitude for fighting and the anger that Matt has termed "the devil"; he also has that willingness to die to protect others.

And thank goodness, or there'd never be a Daredevil.

Also, I don't think anyone on this thread has really disagreed with your perspective on Stick?

New Anon to this thread but holy cow. This comment is just. Perfect. I agree so much with everything you say in this, it's awesome.

<3

Discussion/Off-Topic Post #1

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?

Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?