Are Batman and Superman good fathers?

[Alpha]

... who are written the way they are by the authors.

The argument you're making is that we should ignore the basic tenants of the concept of Robin, simply because long ago writers did it for entertainment and today it's still done for the sake of entertainment (regardless of it being chosen by the writers themselves or editorial) but every single story is done for entertainment, so you just want to ignore literally any action. I don't understand the fundamental difference between these things for you.

[Alpha]

Yes, but the authors and office politics affect/informed how the character is portrayed. Since the characters are written differently by different writers, I have to categorize it first. It's like this: people ask is Batman a good father, I ask back first, which Batman?

Like I feel silly when people say Batman's not a good father because he's taking kids fighting criminals if the story is intended to be an inspiring/empowering superhero story for kids/teens. I know what's the purpose of why these characters act this way in this genre, so why are we questioning this?

Different answer if the story's meant to be more realistic, or a deconstruction of the superhero genre, but basically I can't separate the background/intent with the story/character.

But there are stories where it's all supposed to be realistic and yet Bruce still adopted a kid and despite being a billionaire couldn't find a way to stop them from running around at night and ended up endorcing and helping them out themselves in danger. This is not the type of inspiration you wanna give kids.

[Alpha]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to hold the concept of Robin against Bruce, but I do think the trajectory of those people after his influence is.

If we're calling out Bruce for Robin, literally every kid hero is a poor reflection on anyone else. Even Jon "invulnerable" Kent because the threats he and his dad go up against are to goddamn scale. I do understand the idea that GLs shouldn't be children, but that's more because I don't see children being directed by the Guardians as a good idea.

I can understand why a kid with super powere could be allowed to do some superhero stuff. I don't think they are immune to the responsibility of helping the world. But if your super power is acrobatics and determination, stay home.

[Alpha]

Only for adults with rigid imaginations. Kids never had trouble with it. They know it's not real.

Adults are the ones who see an alien flying and lifting a planet with his hands but not asking "why doesn't he shoot through like a bullet since he's not exerting that force over a wide area?"

Kids can absolutely be pedantic, but I think on some level they know it's all make-believe. They have logic issues with stuff (Clark Kent's glasses, for example) but on some level they know Robin's fictional and in a world where career criminals simply cannot aim and somehow the Batmobile operates in the most populated city in America but never gets stuck in traffic. In many ways, they're smarter than we are.

Adults? We want our superheroes to be unassailable because if I like something silly it means I'm not a growed-up!!!!!1!

I don't think you can complain about the morality of these characters during fantastical crisis and still disregard the concepr of child soldier. Either understand that these things are done for entertainment or choose to take most things seriously. I get the appeal of Robin, but if we're discussing their qualities as parents how can we ignore this.

[Alpha]

And it's not like there's no solution to all of this. Bruce could've adopted Dick and trained him but jot allowed him to become Robin. He gets all the training from Bruce ans eventually leaves home after being 18, decides to become a vigilante.

Or go with the We Are Robin concept. Bunch of kids from an orphanage (maybe financed by Bruce) decide to form a street gang to protect their neighbourhood. Thry become robins. Dick, Jason, Tim (maybe he is friends wuth them but isn't an orphan), Stephanie, etc.

It could show the impact of Batman without making him responsible for them, nor placing them in as much danger. Maybe they collect some villain equipment like Mr Freeze's freeze ray and other stuff, and now they can fight henchmen off the street. They see Batman at a distance and help him out without him noticing. There are many things that could be done with this.

[Frontier]

And it's not like there's no solution to all of this. Bruce could've adopted Dick and trained him but jot allowed him to become Robin. He gets all the training from Bruce ans eventually leaves home after being 18, decides to become a vigilante.

Or go with the We Are Robin concept. Bunch of kids from an orphanage (maybe financed by Bruce) decide to form a street gang to protect their neighbourhood. Thry become robins. Dick, Jason, Tim (maybe he is friends wuth them but isn't an orphan), Stephanie, etc.

It could show the impact of Batman without making him responsible for them, nor placing them in as much danger. Maybe they collect some villain equipment like Mr Freeze's freeze ray and other stuff, and now they can fight henchmen off the street. They see Batman at a distance and help him out without him noticing. There are many things that could be done with this.

But then you don't get the Dynamic Duo.

[The Darknight Detective]

The argument you're making is that we should ignore the basic tenants of the concept of Robin, simply because long ago writers did it for entertainment and today it's still done for the sake of entertainment (regardless of it being chosen by the writers themselves or editorial) but every single story is done for entertainment, so you just want to ignore literally any action. I don't understand the fundamental difference between these things for you.

I think the problem I'm having is that some of you almost think Bruce is a real person doing all of these things.

[The Darknight Detective]

But then you don't get the Dynamic Duo.

Right. That's a big part of DC's history. Before the Bronze Age, people didn't say Batman, but Batman and Robin.

[9th.]

I think they're doing the best they can under the circumstances. The do live in a wacky world, parenting a demon spawn raised by assassins and an aged up half kryptonian would be difficult for anyone.

[Anthony Shaw]

This. On all counts.
DC really leaned into the damaged psyche version of Bruce Wayne to the detriment of his family.
I can't think of a ward he HASN'T shit on post-Crisis.
Dick
Jason
Tim
Steph
and to a lesser extent Damian have all been abused, berated or abandoned by him.

Due to the Crisis, Bruce failed upwards with Dick, and thought he could duplicate the experience with Jason.

One can look at several episodes of various Batman cartoons like B:TAS, and The Batman, and see the clear influence of Alfred during Dick's upbringing. Dick and Alfred look like a legit Grandfather & grandson.

I get a good laugh at how Damian almost acted in an age appropriate manner when Dick was his primary guardian.

One theory is that Bruce may have experienced a second chance of a childhood while raising Dick when one scrutinizes the set-up of the Batcave, particularly those trophies.

Jim Gordon and/or Kal-El should have whupped Bruce's arse after Jason died, imho.

[Anthony Shaw]

I think the problem I'm having is that some of you almost think Bruce is a real person doing all of these things.

My favorite version of Bruce is Bronze age Batman. Back then, Bruce was great. I believe the original run of BTAS is based on bronze age Bruce while the new adventures, and subsequent shows are post crisis.

To me, Bruce's parenting problems can be summed up by one creator: Frank Miller.

I find it easy to make fun of Bruce now due to the influence of Frank Miller, and the other writers who based their characterization from his work.

[Agent Z]

They wear the "S" and aren't old enough to vote, they're his responsibility. Assuming they don't already have legal guardians like Nat Irons, obviously.

And a lot of us raise kids on less than a journalist's salary.

But by that logic, you're responsible for every kid who wears the same logo as you. Linda Danvers wore the S and she had parents. Kon wanted nothing to do with Clark and had adults taking care of him already.

A lot of us aren't superheroes who have to deal with fighting crime while also working our jobs.

[Robanker]

Right. That's a big part of DC's history. Before the Bronze Age, people didn't say Batman, but Batman and Robin.

A more civilized time of Batman.

[Agent Z]

They’re better than Ollie

Aside from the overreacting to Roy's addiction Oliver is still better than Bruce. And even the Roy incident doesn't come close to the worst Bruce has inflicted on his kids.

[PCN24454]

The reason why DC likes portraying Batman (and a lot of other superheroes) as a bad father is because it actually gives his children more freedom than if he was a good one. Obviously, in real life, no good parent would let their child fight crime.

Parents in fiction are often killed for the same reason: to get rid of one or two more people that would prevent the protagonist from becoming a superhero.