Dude I have such a silly question. I'm working on winter suits for my friend's spider-man au and like...

Do you think Matt's suit has temperature control? I'd imagine cold/heat hits a bit harder for him

this ask sent twice idk if you accidentally did that or if tumblr goofed (probably the latter 😭) but anyway.

okay listen. I've never really thought about this cause in my head Matt's autistic and his poor interoception cancels out any major effects hot or cold weather might have on him. (not that poor interoception would actually make him invulnerable to temperature changes, that's not how being human works, but rather it would mess w his ability to REALIZE that he's being effected by the temperature changes) which makes sense to me cause he wears his suit under his clothes most of the time even when it's super hot so I'd imagine he just like. doesn't really notice it.

as far as canon goes I don't remember ever coming across anything that implies hot/cold weather is harder for him to endure. i believe he's commented on different types of weather like rain/wind and such but even then he usually talks about how it messes w his radar sense/orientation rather than whether he feels it more intensely. I imagine he WOULD (and he probably has said that but i just cant remember it) but the question is if it's enough that he feels the need to have accommodations installed into his suit or not. I'd lean towards no tbh but it's easily up for interpretation.

the reason I say no is because doing anything to counteract what hes actively feeling would fuck with his perception of his surroundings, yknow? he relies a lot on his ability to feel temperature changes in real time to gauge different elements of his surroundings.

in concern to cold weather specifically; maybe make a suit that has some kind of wind resistance? cause harsh wind stings his skin and he also hates the feeling of going numb/loss of sensation so hed do something to avoid it getting that bad. he already wears gloves and boots and more than one layer, so I don't think you'd need to add anything on. cause he's moving around so much he doesn't really need the extra layer for warmth, he'd need to be more concerned about sweat giving him a chill actually. idk how detailed ur getting w these designs but making sure the fabric is the right materials to help keep sweat off his body would be important.

this is all heavy semantics so I'll also propose a much simpler, in-canon meta joke for this solution. a large blue jacket. just. a large blue coat of any kind. this is in reference to a running joke spanning over several runs to include Matt in a blue coat whenever given the chance. it started in volume 1 and you can see examples in miller, chichester, and waids runs just to name a few off the top of my head.

anyway. I love answering silly questions, please send me more any time you like. hope this helped lol

music + matt murdock

funniest thing to me is matt pretty much being 24/7 tuned in to the radio. people around him ALWAYS have it on. he can’t avoid it.

as a result his knowledge of pop music from the last twenty years is unmatched. he’s so good at karaoke. he knows the lyrics to every top 40 you can throw at him. whenever he’s cooking or unoccupied he just tunes in and starts humming or singing along.

foggy just thinks his private music taste is insane, because matt just does not seem like a top 40 kinda guy, and he never puts them on when he gets to pick the music, but every time he catches matt singing it’s always like. ariana grande.

(i just so fervently believe foggy is a grunge/punk/indie/musicals fan and a bit snobby about it so he’s like. MATT. why are you bringing maroon 5 into our sacred space of shitty apartment 2. do we need to have a good music intervention)

i legit don't get the appeal of viewing a character you like as a "100% unproblematic fave". y'all realize that a character can both be staunchly good with many positive traits AND have some flaws as well, right? to me, viewing a moral yet multifaceted character as faultless is like baking a cake with no salt. yeah, it's sweet, but it's too sweet because there's no salt to elevate the flavor! where's the depth in a character that is entirely perfect? where's the compelling motivations and character work? where's the humanity in that?

thankfully, i don't see much of this complete denial of flaws in the popular fanon of characters i enjoy, but what i DO see frequently is a shift in focus from characters' overall negative behaviors - behaviors directed both at themself and towards others - to depicting their self-destructive behaviors as their sole flaws. self-destruction is viewed as an "acceptable" flaw, unlike causing harm to others, and is often exaggerated if not invented out of whole cloth!

for an example of this distortion: there's a heroic yet flawed character i like with a high stress position that he wholly dedicates himself to, who probably loses a bit of sleep and is seen asking for and drinking tea ONCE to buy some time. what's the fanon version of him seen in many fics? well, his missteps and occasional emotional insensitivity have gone entirely out the window, and he's been transformed into a workaholic, sleep-deprived, caffeine addict who is incapable of caring for himself. he WILL collapse at some point in order to justify his love interest swooping in and insisting that this character, a fully grown adult man in charge of 1/10th of the entire army, learns ✨the importance of self care✨

i'm not arguing for every character to be deeply flawed - i love a good hero - but by making a canonically flawed character either 1) entirely beyond reproach or 2) a self-neglectful and/or self-flagellating martyr who has never hurt anyone but themself, you're sucking the life RIGHT out of them, and boring me to tears in the process.

How @yellowocaballero and I Fixed Daredevil by Headcannoning Him as Mexican

When Daredevil first appeared in 1964, he was a second-generation Irish-American from Hell’s Kitchen, a working-class Irish-immigrant neighborhood. In a time where Irish people weren’t viewed as “white” or “real Americas.” They were a part of the oppressed working class, the bottom of the food chain, who had nothing but their religion, the vehicle of their culture from the old world, to keep them together.

Note: Today, the argument that “Irish people aren’t really white” has been co-opted by white supremacists and has often been used in bad faith against POC. I want it to be clear that what is considered “white” is and has always been a political term with no backing in science. Discrimination against the Irish back in the day was tied to anti-Catholic sentiment in predominately Protestant states, such as England, Scotland, and the United States. Naturally, Anti-Catholic discrimination overlaps with nativist, xenophobic, ethnocentric and/or racist sentiments (ie Anti-Italian, Anti-Polish, Hispanicphonia).

Jack Murdock was a poor boxer with no education or prospects who had to exploit his body to provide for Matt. And recognized that not a way to live and thrive, so he pushed Matt into academics for social mobility. Sound familiar?

At its core, the story of Matt Murdock is an immigrant story. Matt has the immigrant mentality;  immigrants-get-the-job-done type of thing. Gotta hustle and became a lawyer because that’s how he moves up the social and class ladder. And when he does “make it” he chooses to stay and help his neighborhood because he has a cultural connection to it. 

This worked in 1964, I don’t know how much it works now.  

Hell Kitchen isn’t a rough neighborhood primarily occupied by working-class immigrants, it’s another gentrified hipster hellhole. Irish people and people of Irish ancestry in the United States no long face systemic discrimination. 

Therefore, modern-day recontextualizing is to make Matt Mexican. 

Technically, Matt can also be from any other Latin American country or Filipino but I lean towards Mexican since a) this is my post go make your own and b) we get the most discrimination from the mainstream media. Yes, a lot of it is because racists use “Mexican” as a catch-all term for anyone from Latin America but still. Trump made his presidential platform by calling Mexicans illegal rapists and druggies. 

If Matt was actually the son of Jack Murdock*, an undocumented brown immigrant living in a working-class immigrant/POC neighborhood, it gives him the underdog immigrant arc the character is missing in modern-day adaptations. Matt's core is still the same Matt we know and love, he’s still the son of a boxer, whose dad’s pushed him into succeeding academically, who lost his dad to gang violence, and who is extremely Catholic. Someone who wants to fit into middle-class educated (white) society and feels like he has to suppress the "devil" inside until one day he can’t. He's seeing discrimination and poverty and crime and gentrification tear his neighborhood apart and the police turn their back on it since it's predominantly POC. The law has failed them, he's not going to fail them too. 

Meg made the fantastic point that Matt should still be white-passing (and ginger) so he could exist somewhere in between worlds.  And Matt takes advantage of that, as well as his Columbia Law degree to help his community. Matt not using his conditional whiteness and the fancy degree to “escape” his community and instead help it.

MattJen & Sambucky Parallels (Finale Edition)

Hey. Why do you think Karen Page is a character people seem to hate so much? I’m fairly new to the fandom and I’ve seen people even badmouthing the actress as well, which is awful. I am curious to know what you think about it.

Welcome to the fandom! 💖 I'm so excited for you and I'm super happy that, despite being newish, you're interacting like this. (It took me an embarrassing amount of time to be brave enough to send asks to people lol.)

Also, this is such an interesting question.

I want to address the attacks against Deborah Ann Woll first. No matter how anyone feels about a character, it's absolutely despicable to attack the actor over it. Most of the attacks I've seen have been about her looks, or about her acting abilities. It's fine to critique acting abilities, but looks should be off the table. But even the critiques of her acting abilities aren't actually critiques - they're just, like you said, badmouthing, with little to no analysis. To me, that indicates that they're hating on the actress just because they're emotional (angry or annoyed) over the character.

So why do people get so emotional over Karen?

I think the easiest explanation is: ship wars. Some people struggle to enjoy their favorite ship without tearing down competitor ships. And since Karedevil is one of the few ships that was actually canon (albeit temporarily, but S3 ended with them being pretty flirty again), Karen becomes a huge target.

Another explanation is that Karen appears to be written inconsistently. Personally, I don't think she actually is (except perhaps in The Punisher; I'm not sure because I've only seen S1 of The Punisher). The argument goes: "She loves Daredevil until she finds out Daredevil is Matt, and then she treats it like an addiction, despite being supportive of Frank."

The counter-argument, to me, is clear: she still loves Daredevil, but she hates being lied to and put on a pedestal. Matt did both of those things. Frank (for the most part) did neither of those things. Her issue is with Matt, not Daredevil (which she makes explicitly clear in S3E1, but people still apparently confused on this point). With that in mind, I think she's written consistently in an incredibly nuanced way.

Another explanation is that Karen is a character who doesn't learn from her mistakes. She's rash and reckless and she lies just as much as Matt, and more often than not, people end up dead because of it. Ben is the most obvious and chilling example. Yet even after her actions get Ben killed, and she expresses serious guilt and remorse, she continues to do the same thing. That makes people wonder: is she stupid? Or, worse: was her guilt and remorse only an expression of her personal grief, and not actually the result of evaluating her actions affected Ben?

This, to me, is the most fair critique of Karen, and I sympathize with people who dislike her because of it. I will point out, however, that Matt and Foggy also repeat the same mistakes. It's obvious with Matt; it's talked about less often with Foggy, but I roll my eyes every time he acts like Matt and Karen are being reckless for wanting to operate outside the law - despite the fact that every time they limit their plans to operating inside the law, people end up dead. This makes me wonder: is Foggy stupid? Or does he simply care more about keeping Matt and Karen alive (and out of jail) than he cares about other people dying?

The actual explanation, I think, is that Daredevil is a show about very flawed and surprisingly realistic characters. People rarely shake off old habits and bad ways of thinking quickly. No matter how many times you tell a person that their friends are there for them, they (like Matt) may continue to push people away if that's their coping mechanism. No matter how many times you tell a person to ask for help before doing something alone, they (like Karen) may continue to go rogue if that gives them some feeling of control over their lives. No matter how many times you tell a person that the systems they want to trust are broken, they (like Foggy) may continue insisting that everyone should trust the system if they continue seeing the world through a lens of privilege.

Can it be frustrating to watch? Absolutely. Is it a good reason to hate a character? I'd say no, but I guess that's more subjective. Is it a reminder to all of us to be gentle and patient both with ourselves and with other people when we find ourselves making the same mistakes over and over? I hope so!

I've said before that I sometimes feel self-conscious over the fact that, in my longer stories, a character's growth is rarely linear. It's usually what I think of as a spiral. They make a mistake, they learn from it...and then the stakes rise, and so they fall back on that old mistake again, since it's comfortable and familiar, rather than trying a new approach. Or the character tries to blend the old mistake with the new approach, to varying degrees of success. Sometimes I worry that this feels repetitive, or like the character isn't learning.

But from the comments I've received, people seem to appreciate it more often than not. They resonate with it and relate to it.

So now that I think of it...maybe the root problem is simply that Daredevil doesn't have author's notes telling us why Karen (and Foggy and Matt) are making the same mistake again. 😅

Or maybe people are more compassionate towards characters in fanfiction than on TV? Or maybe people are more compassionate towards the main character than the side character? Or maybe it's misogyny? Or maybe people are just less compassionate towards Karen in particular because she threatens their favorite ship.

Aaaaand this post has come full circle.

I was reading a fic yesterday where the following happened:

"I'm fine." *snort* "The word or the acronym?"

Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic, Emotional

I immediately thought of Matt. He is usually at least a couple of those things when he says he is fine. Especially if one substitutes Injured for the I.

Ranting about the old Netflix Marvel shows:

Looking back at the original NMCU as a whole, while I think the general consensus is that this side of the MCU fell off when “Iron Fist” premiered, I think the real issue is more complicated then that. I think that the Netflix shows started off strong, but couldn’t implement their long-term plans for their side of the universe due to mismanagement/lack of collaboration. Oddly enough, the NMCU sorta reflects the current issues with Phases 4 and 5 of the mainstream MCU.

When you look at the shows overall, it feels like a bunch of creators were given free reign with these characters, and it shows. All of them had their own distinct identity, as well as what audience they were targeting. The problems started occurring when the shows had to start connecting.

I can’t say this for sure, but it really feels like no one was put in a Kevin Feige-like position to direct the overall journey. Instead, it feels like Jeph Loeb and Marvel Television (which was its own thing before being absorbed by Marvel Studios) just sorta mandated that the shows need to have a big crossover event. It made sense, especially since the Arrowverse was pulling this off as an annual thing with their shows. While it sounds good on paper, I feel like none of the teams behind each show were in sync with each other:

1) Daredevil didn’t really find a good way to balance the needs of the show and the needs of the crossover. Rewatch season 2 and you’ll notice that while the Punisher storyline feels more thought-out, the Elektra storyline feels jumbled and incomplete. In fact, the first 4 episodes are focused on Frank, and then all of a sudden, Elektra is pushed into the story. I can’t prove this but it feels like the original idea was to focus on Frank Castle, but then Elektra had to be introduced in order to set up “The Defenders”. Which was premiering the following year.

2) Jessica Jones didn’t even bother building up into “The Defenders”.

3) Neither did “Luke Cage”.

4) Although I have a ton of separate issues with “Iron Fist”, I do feel sorry for the production team. This show had the unfortunate burden of having to introduce its hero while also doing most of the build-up for the crossover. To make matters worse, if you read up on the behind-the-scenes development, you would know that the show was rushed out. Finn Jones was literally learning the fight choreography minutes before filming.

I have this funny feeling that Marvel Television set up the schedule for each show and refused to change it. Given more time, Netflix could’ve made it work. I can easily imagine the Elektra storyline being its own season of “Daredevil”, “Jessica Jones” and “Luke Cage” each having a season focused on the Hand, and “Iron Fist” being given more breathing room to introduce Danny Rand before diving into the crossover.

But let’s say Marvel Television didn’t want to make people wait that long for a crossover. Then they still failed to move the storyline of the shows in a way that could naturally lead into “The Defenders”. You’re telling me Jessica and Luke couldn’t have at least had a 1-2 episode subplot about the Hand? Or that the Daredevil team couldn’t have introduced Frank Castle later on in order to prioritize Elektra, who is arguably the most important character in the crossover? “Iron Fist”, while not a good show, at least tried to lead into the crossover.

(Side note: Just as a reminder, a common problem people had with the NMCU was that each season was too long at 13 episodes and that the shows didn’t have enough story to squeeze in. Jessica and Luke could’ve definitely worked in a 1-2 episode Hand stand-alone subplot to offset these issues)

I don’t mean for this post to take away from any of these shows. I still am fond of the NMCU. But looking back at it, I can’t help but feel that they were mismanaged. Good on their own, but since they had a crossover miniseries set up, there needed to be stronger collaboration between each show. Or, at least move the damn crossover if the shows weren’t ready for one.

PSA for fellow Matt Murdock fanfic writers:

Please do not ignore Matt’s blindness. Regardless of his heightened abilities you cannot forget that he is legitimately blind and cannot see at all. It’s bad enough that DD writers (both in the show and comics occasionally) dismiss his blindness for a plot point or to gloss over the fact that he has a disability. So please, be mindful and make sure you’re writing Matt correctly/realistically within descriptions or scenarios

As part of a joke about diversity in the MCU, Someone on Tumblr described Daredevil as blind, Catholic, and mentally ill. I know the comics Daredevil had a multiple-personality arc, but as far as I know that wasn't used in the MCU. Other than that, does the live-action Matt actually have a mental illness?

In the comics, Frank Miller, Brian Michael Bendis, and Mark Waid have established that Matt Murdock suffers from clinical depression, and has periodically sought treatment for his condition. As one might expect from his Catholic upbringing and personal background, Murdock conceptualizes his depression as a "demon" he has to fight to overcome.

The show is less explicit about it than the comics, but the MCU Matt Murdock seems to share the same condition, and we see this particularly in Season 3.

A Human Fly: The Importance of Daredevils Before Daredevil

I've recently watched a video on "human flies", a social phenomenon that peaked in the 1920s-30s, where people would go out and do death-defying tricks literally just because they wanted to. (At first. Money became involved later, of course.) They were called human flies (sometimes human spiders, human lizards, etc.) for their ability to climb up the walls of buildings so easily. They weren't just called human flies, though. They were also called daredevils.

The video I watched talked about how this phenomenon was so popular because of the role it played in displaying masculinity. Most of these daredevils were men, and at the time being seen doing these death-defying stunts was the height of manliness. And suddenly, while learning all this new information, all I could wonder is if that at all was related to Stan Lee's motivation behind the creation of Matt Murdock. Anyway, here we go.

Okay, so, gender roles and how they functioned in society around the first half of the 20th century are similar but also different from what they are now. There were stiffly set rules to what it meant to be a man that was entirely unrelated to genitals. These same standards are echoed in the modern day. I don't think it's a coincidence that Matt falls outside of those rules.

Obviously, Matt's blind. Disabled. And, as a fictional character, that had really heavy (negative) implications before the disability rights movement became more popular. You even see that reflected in the comics themselves. There's the implication that Matt is expected to live out his life unhappy, unmarried (which extends to not having children), and is helpless to such a fate. That is the complete opposite of what being a man in US American culture was in the 1950s and 60s. Matt exemplified what it was to not be a man.

Stan Lee, when co-creating this character, takes these concepts that absolutely oppose one another and he smashes them together. It feels like spitting in the face of standards and expectations. He says, "Oh, look, a blind man. A man that can't be a man. I'm going to take him and I'm going to turn him into something that is undeniably manly." Lee does this through this phenomenon that links back to human flies.

Being a human fly was about proving to the people around you that you were a man among men. That you were capable of physical feats that others only could wish to accomplish. And Lee grew up in a time when he was surrounded by these types of people as a child. Most of these people would travel to New York City, where Lee grew up, just to perform these stunts.

How masculinity was defined in that age was rigid. You had to be strong, you had to be capable, you had to have the ability to provide for your family. There were certain elements that also took away from your masculinity. You couldn't be too smart or bookish, you couldn't be too skinny, you couldn't be disabled. And being able to fit into these standards wasn't just about pride, it was about social status.

These human flies were often referred to as daredevils by newspapers. It doesn't seem like much of a reach for me to think that they could've possibly related to Lee's creation of Daredevil.

This strip is from the second issue of volume one.

It was revolutionary* (asterisk), to an extent, what Lee was implying with his creation of Matt's character. That you could be disabled and still be fully capable of accomplishing what society has deemed impossible for you or deemed you unworthy of. That you could represent the peak of masculinity (meaning you could be perceived as an equal to those around you) while having supposed qualities that strike you from it.

I'm not saying that that's a goal that every disabled/blind person has or should have. In fact, under a modern lens, I think it's very counterproductive. But, I think the social and cultural context surrounding the character's creation is important to understand. I think it's important to know why implying those things at the time was important to disabled representation.

Many people don't like or struggle to read older comics due to them aging badly. While I don't blame them, I think there would be less resistance if people stopped trying to interpret those comics through a modern lens.

Context is important. History is important.

(asterisk) *This is in relation to the time-specific era of disabled representation. This is not to ignore the problems with the representation of Matt as a blind man. I'm not saying or implying that there's nothing wrong with the original comics, in fact, they are incredibly ableist. I am simply focusing on the importance of that representation at the time of the issues being published.

Thanks for reading.

I haven't seen anybody point this out, so I guess I will.

(Pardon the rambling, it sounded better in my head)

I think it's amazing how both Matt and Wilson Fisk's mentors gave them advice that not only stuck with them, but formed the basis of their beliefs and moral codes. It's a testament to the amazing writers on this show and the effort Charlie and Vincent put into developing the characters. 

 Wilson's mentor, his father, repetitively told him [in reference to facing his bully] to 'kick him', which Wilson used as a mantra when he beat his bully and later, when he killed his own father. Wilson kept this ideology when he took over Hell's Kitchen; metaphorically (and sometimes literally) kicking anyone that stood in his way. He rose to power by force- obtaining it through trampling on people he saw as lesser than him (Mrs Cardenas, Ben Urich, etc.). 

He tried on multiple occasions to use his brutal tactics on Daredevil, but Matt never let Fisk get away with it. Which leads me to the next point...

Matt's mentality is to keep getting up, no matter how hard he falls down. This is in part due to the advice he got from Stick.  Whenever young Matt would get injured during training, Stick would apathetically tell him to 'get up'. Matt's greatest strength (and sometimes weakness) comes from this perseverance. Through the series, he gets stabbed, shot, heartbroken, and betrayed time and time again. Thanks to Stick's mantra, Matt always gets back up and never gives up on his goal. 

Despite Fisk's tendency to 'keep kicking' his enemies, Matt keeps 'getting up'. In the end, Matt's perseverance outperforms Fisk's brute force, giving everyone the message that staying power can defeat whatever opposition it faces.

Some thoughts about Matt Murdock and relationships

GIF by Kamillahn

Wanna hear something messed up? Of course you do, that's why you love this disaster of a man.

To start with, Matt was raised by a single dad, who, as far as we know, never had a woman in his life as long as Matt can remember. After his dad died, he was raised by nuns and priests, who didn't have earthly romantic relationships.

He probably didn't really discover sex until college, when he would have learned that A) sex is great, B) girls are very attracted to him, and C) he's pretty good at it.

But there's a catch. Girls (not all, but a lot of them) want relationships. And here's the problem. He has no idea what a committed relationship even looks like. (Or sounds like, in his case.) He has never had a role model in his entire childhood who was in any relationship, let alone a healthy one.

So he gets this reputation as a player, because a player is someone who wants sex but not a relationship, right? And that's how he acts, but it's not that he doesn't want a relationship, it's that he has no idea how to pursue one. He doesn't call the next day because he doesn't know he's supposed to. He doesn't share his hopes and dreams with girls because why would he? He doesn't even pretend to offer emotional intimacy because he's never had it, and he doesn't realize that's what relationships are made of.

So that means--and here's the messed up part--guess who taught him how to be a boyfriend? Elektra. Since he was a mission, she didn't take his failings personally. If he was a bad boyfriend to her, she just reprimanded him and told him what to do. If he got spooked by the closeness, she dragged him right back in.

With the possible exception of Foggy's parents, this was the first relationship he'd ever seen close-up. So whatever spoiled or sociopathic -- or girlboss, I guess, depending on how you interpret her character -- ideas she had about what makes a good boyfriend, that's his baseline. His assumption about how the world works. He's probably okay with women who talk over him and punish him childishly, because that's just what relationships are like, as far as he knows.

Ironically, he probably treats his partners like princesses because that's what Elektra taught him to do. He tells them what they want to hear and puts their feelings over his own because that's what she required. Anything else is something he's learned/unlearned from other partners since her.

Thoughts and discussion are welcome.

Is Matt Murdock Homophobic?

Short answer: Doubt it.

Long answer: I seriously doubt, just because he’s Catholic/was raised in a highly Catholic environment (a Catholic orphanage) doesn’t mean he’s homophobic. Being Catholic does not automatically equal being homophobic. 

And if we’re being completely honest, I won’t consider Matt to be “extremely” Catholic in the way the fandom seems to think about him. Matt attending mass on Sunday, going to confession, and having a relationship with his priest just makes him a churchgoer. Which I guess makes him more devote than a lot of other Catholics but the way some of the fandom talk about him makes it seems like he’s having a crisis of faith every other Tuesday. 

I've seen this topic come up in fanfiction and in fandom in general so I’d like to offer a liberal queer Catholic perspective on being queer. 

Is being gay a sin in Catholicism?

Having same-sex attraction is not a sin in Catholicism. However, having sex outside of marriage is a sin. And since the church only recognizes heterosexual marriages, it essentially does make being gay a sin. The whole “being gay isn’t a sin but if you act upon it is” which is... ugh.

We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity. Being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime. 'Yes, but it is a sin.' Fine, but first let us distinguish between a sin and a crime. It is not the first time that I speak of homosexuality and of homosexual persons. And I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just. When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said, 'It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.' This is to speak of 'the matter' of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin. And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong. - Pope Francis 2023

HOWEVER: We have not seen Matt Murdock having religious objections/feel guilty for having premarital sex. Birth control is also not accepted in Catholicism but I seriously doubt Matt’s not wrapping it. I’m sure I don’t need to cite one of the million jokes about him being a manwhore, we all know it. Do we really think Matt would be such a hypocrite to think someone is a sinner for being LGBT when he himself has had how many girlfriends? Not to mention he was also born and raised in New York City and his need for justice is one of his primary character traits. Do you really think Matt learned about the Stonewall Riot(his own city’s history), the AIDs epidemic, the general mistreatment and discrimination of LGBT people and would really support it? BFFR.

Matt Murdock is a lot of things, mainly a self-loathing idiot in desperate need a therapy, but he’s not a bigot. 

I’m going to link this post by the lovely @ceterisparibus116 about Matt’s "religious guilt" and what I think is fandom’s general misunderstanding of Matt’s Catholic guilt. 

What about internalized homophobia?

In my own fics I’ve written Matt as bi/pan (hooking up with Moon Knight) (also that one Ziwe meme) and as a trans guy who pre-transition thought he was a lesbian/sapphic. (If you read it I’ll love you forever). Mattfoggy is the biggest ship in the fandom so it's only normal to have this discussion.

Sure, maybe Matt wouldn’t judge other people for being gay and having sex outside of Catholic-recognized marriage but would he judged himself? How can Matt still consider himself Catholic and queer? 

A misconception I think a lot of people have about Catholicism is that we must all follow the church’s teaching and that everything the Pope says is infallible. Which is silly and simply not true. Pope Benedict XVI once stated that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know." Pope John XXIII also once said: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible." 

First of all, the church is not a monolith institution. Second of all, not all Catholic teaching is infallible, “no church teaching is automatically free from error, because the church is composed of human beings. God alone is a priori free from error in detail and in every case.” (Infallible? An Inquiry by Hans Küng). Very few things are infallible statement. The Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary are infallible statements. But as far as I know, “being gay is a sin” is not. 

Conscience, actually, takes priority over church teaching. Pope Francis said “that priests must inform Catholic consciences ‘but not replace them.’ And he stressed the distinction between one’s conscience—where God reveals himself—and one’s ego that thinks it can do as it pleases.” (x)

In extolling conscience the Catechism quotes from another Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes. It states: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. “For a man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary,” the document goes on, “There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” In summary, it is possible for a good Catholic in good faith to act contrary to the teachings of the church. - Patsy McGarry

If Matt prayed, asked for guidance and his conscience said that being (trans, gay, bi, however you headcanon him) is not sinful, he can, in good faith, oppose the church. And yes, he’d be welcomed to take the Eucharist. Eucharist is not a reward that only the most faithful free-on-sin living saints. It’s a source of healing and for those striving to live in the Gospel.  

In terms of the church, as I said, it’s not a monolith and people can and do disagree in current teaching. Here’s Cardinal McElroy calling for the ‘radical inclusion’ of LGBT, women and others in the Catholic Church. Here’s a letter by 6,000 nuns standing in solidarity with Trans community.

This is just my headcanon, but I don’t think Father Lantom is homophobic. I’d like to think he’s one of the priest calling for reform and acceptance of LGBT people. I also like to think Sister Maggie was one of the nuns that signed that letter. If Matt came to him asking for support, I honestly think Father Lantom would give him that.  

Would everyone in his community accept him? No, probably not and that’s unfortunate. But there are those in the community don’t accept the young single mom or the recovering alcoholic. Religious gatekeeping is a problem and I don’t want to pretend it isn’t, but it’s not the only truth. I dislike the idea that being queer and Catholic are mutually exclusive. Or that Matt would leave his religion for being queer. To be honest, as a queer Catholic I find it pretty disrespectful. I would love to read more fics where Matt realize he’s queer and struggles with it but it’s so incredibly annoying when the fic concludes with Matt leaving his faith. We’re Catholic for God not for a church. There are other queer Catholic Matt could hypothetically find community with. 

And I get it, a lot of people are coming from a place of religious trauma and are writing fanfic to express it. I'm sorry for anyone who was hurt by the church, religion or toxic family. The church has and continues to do a lot of harm, both on the individual and global level. If anyone wants a rant about colonization of Latin America, I’m your girl. I just dislike this black-and-white mindset that Matt is either Catholic or gay.  

If anyone has questions, I can try to answer. I’m not a theology expert, I’m just a virgo and a fanfic writer. 

More Matt & Foggy in s4

I always find it so interesting how distant Foggy is in the TV show after s1. Though he’s definitely not a perfect friend, he shows a familiarity and loyalty to Matt that is undeniable. I love how s3 began to delve further into Karen and Foggy, but it always sticks out to me how, while Matt is involved in much of Karen’s circumstances, Foggy keeps to himself. It is understandable though since, it’s a sad fact Karen doesn’t really have many people while Foggy has Marco and the extended Nelson brood. However, I feel like it’s been a while since Matt has been there for Foggy and vice versa, especially when Matt acts as Daredevil. Foggy has always been more critical of his nightlife, but Foggy also hasn’t really seen him save others or be saved by them. If you think about, compared the amount of times Karen has witnessed Matt fight, Foggy has never truly experienced it (to our knowledge). It’s hard to reconcile how much Foggy cares for Matt with how little we see him actually have moments with him.

Of course, I’m not saying Foggy doesn’t care or hasn’t been there for him; he has always given everything to protect his friend, but there have not been many scenes where the two truly connect on a deeper level and develop their understanding of the other, like we see happen with Matt and Karen. I believe it’s worth noting how much more stoic Foggy becomes as the seasons progress, as well. Unlike in s1, where he’s open and emotive, making jokes and crying for those who are being harmed, there are few times we see Foggy visibly shaken in s3 (though most pertain to Matt, such as his nightmares, aftermath of The Bulletin). There are probably correlations between his attitude, new high-profile lifestyle, and change in relationship with Matt, but as most identify him as the heart of the group, it’s interesting how closed-off he becomes. We witness Matt slowly act more comfortable with him and Karen as well, less polite/careful in his actions (I’m citing his behavior at Fogwell’s when they bring in Nadeem and Towers, which always feels reminiscent of his physicality in the presence of Elektra) and more open with both of him as times goes on, though this is rare in s2 and takes almost all of s3.

Considering how little Foggy knows of the current Matt, including how little he’s wanted to know since he found out about Daredevil, I am desperately hoping they explore this in s4. S3 focused a lot on advancing the relationship between Karen and Matt (which I thought was done pretty well in the way it could be interpreted as romantic or platonic), but Foggy and Matt haven’t really addressed their relationship since their lukewarm conversation in s2 and quick exchange in The Defenders. It would feel right to take this on more, especially in priority over introducing a new love interest… clearly, Matt still has a LOT of issues to address after Midland Circle and the events of s3, so I think having him work through this with people who have been there for him and continue to to do seems much more meaningful. This is Matt’s best friend, one of the few people he has left, and one of the very few people he can fully trust, so although they both have their own lives, it’d be nice to see them making space for each other again

((also, Matt’s best man speech at Foggy’s wedding when))

Frank has lied to Karen and even put her in explicit danger by using her as bait in the diner to lure out the Blacksmith's men and lied to her by omission by not disclosing his plans. That's worse than any other shit Matt did so? Easily disproves one of your talking points about how "fRaNk nEveR LiEd tO hEr" 🤪 goofy

Normally, I don't consider it productive to engage with someone who...talks like this...but I do think it's interesting to compare Frank's lies vs Matt's lies.

[First, pro tip: if you're going to say a person's point is "easily disproven," it helps to articulate that point correctly. I never said Frank "never" lied to her; I said: "Frank (for the most part) did neither of those things [lied to her nor put her on a pedestal]." I'm conceding that Frank did lie to her, but suggesting that his relationship with her was not marked by lies the way Matt's relationship with her was. Misrepresenting someone's point like this is called a "straw man fallacy." I encourage everyone who's unfamiliar with the idea to look it up!]

Let's talk about the lies. Frank totally lied to Karen and used her as bait, which I (as a viewer) find pretty horrific. And is that "worse" than Matt's lies? If the metric we use to determine "worse" is "which endangers Karen more," then I think Frank did directly endanger her more than Matt did.

But we have to look at this from Karen's perspective, and I don't think the metric she's using is "which lies endanger me more." Frankly, Karen doesn't much care about danger. She cares about Capital-T Truth. She cares about trust. She cares about honest relationships. And by that metric, I think yes, she believes that Matt's lies are "worse."

I believe this for the reasons listed below, but also because it strikes me that her reactions to Frank's lies vs Matt's are quiet different. Like, was she mad that Frank lied to her? Absolutely. But when I watch it, I don't get the impression that she was hurt.

Mad is not the same as hurt.

With Frank, she was mad.

With Matt, she was mad and hurt.

Why? For several factors.

Depth/intimacy of the relationship. She'd known Matt for over a year (I think; timelines are weird) by the time she realized he'd been lying to her. Not only that, but she'd been working with him for that whole time period. Not only that, but she'd had a crush on him for probably that whole time period (or close to it) (which I bring up because a crush is one surefire way to make a relationship feel intimate, maybe even more intimate than it really is). Not only that, but their relationship was fairly intimate. From the very beginning, he invited her to ask him some very personal questions about his blindness, and she was depending on him to keep her out of jail. Then we have him literally falling apart and sobbing in her arms. Talk about intimate! And not only that, but they also literally dated and she invited him to her apartment to have sex, let's be real. So when Matt lies to her, it's not the same as a guy she's known for a few weeks whom she wants to rescue the way you want to rescue a lost puppy lying to her. This is her coworker, her best friend, and her would-be partner lying to her.

Scope of the lies. The scope of Matt's lies runs deep. A) Him lying (by omission) about his senses clearly hits Karen very hard. It feels like a massive invasion of privacy. Now, I've argued before that it's unfair for characters to punish Matt for something he can't control, and I've also argued that Matt is not required to reveal his senses to anyone. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't still hurt (and shock, and even offend) people to realize that he could smell their breath and hear their heartbeat this entire time. B) He's lying about a huge part of his life and personality. Frank's very up front: he might lie about goals and tactics, but when it comes to who he is as a person, what you see is what you get. Whereas Matt presents himself (as Matt) as a very buttoned-up, reasonable, conscientious, safety-oriented, controlled person...the very opposite, in many ways, of Daredevil. C) Matt's lying about things that could have huge direct consequences for Karen (and Foggy) - namely, their law firm falling apart and Karen and Foggy possibly going to prison. D) Matt lied more to Karen than he did to another person. I don't think Karen's reaction to Elektra was primarily jealousy per se; I think instead she's like: "You won't share this part of my life with me, but you will with Elektra." Not dissimilar to how Foggy was mad about Claire knowing more about Daredevil than he did. It just hurts to find out that your friend has chosen to reveal things to someone else, rather than you.

What the lies say about how the other person views Karen. What does it say about how Frank views Karen that he'd lie to her the way he did? Ehhhh. I guess that he didn't want her getting in the way of his plans? Maybe he thought she couldn't handle something, and that would annoy her? But with Matt, wow, we know exactly how she thought Matt felt about her, based on the lies. She says: "Why didn't you trust me? What, did you think I would judge you?" To her, Matt's secret-keeping was proof that he didn't trust her (ouch) and that he fundamentally misunderstood her by believing she'd judge him when she prides herself on finding the humanity in those others would condemn.

All of these factors show why when Matt lied to Karen, she wasn't just pissed off. She was hurt. Matt's lies struck deep in a way that Frank's didn't.

And listen. I say all this as a giant Karedevil fan. I don't ship Kastle at all. In fact the argument from the first factor (that Karen was so hurt by Matt's lies because of the intimacy of their relationship) is, to me, a pro-Karedevil argument.

But being a fan of a ship doesn't mean we can't evaluate it critically. Evaluating all things critically is one of the aims of my blog.

So, dear Anon, if you're still reading this far (which I kinda doubt lol), I hope this made sense. But if you're just going to send me another ask misstating my positions and calling my position "goofy," then into the trash it shall go!