Lionel vs. Jonathan (and abuse tactics)
Since we’re having this conversation I wanted to add my two cents, that being on how Lionel and Jonathan hold similar beliefs and therefore positions within the story (outside of the narrative since that itself is so turned around and confused about what’s actually happening on the show). Both characters are depicted as holding power over their bubbles within the show, Lionel in his house and in his company and in Metropolis and Jonathan within his home and over the way his “household” is perceived. And they approach their use (abuse) of this power in the exact same ways for the same reasons, and also hold (in regards to their families) the same ethical framework.
Lex says this himself in Descent that “our fathers were a lot alike” even if he further elaborates this to mean something to stoke a reaction out of Clark, but it holds a lot of truth, because they both fell for and implemented the same patriarchal lie, that women and children are essentially property. Furthermore, when this idea is challenged, when their wives and children bid for their own autonomy they are met with vindictive cruelty and physical violence. Now Jonathan is less all encompassing with his abuse and control and even softer in a way (this is because he cares for Martha and Clark and genuinely loves them even if trapped in his own bigoted reality).
However, it’s not hard to imagine Jonathan as a Lionel apologist, in regards to how they fundamentally view their family as extensions of their power and the ways they lash out dealing emotional and physical damage when things don’t go their way. But the ways they’re the same and fulfil similar roles in their respective homes can be seen not just in this view of their family as their property (in Jonathan’s case he takes a more socially accepted stance of “responsibility”) but also in how their tactics of abuse are mirrors of each other.
For example, in regards to emotional abuse and manipulation they are both shown shaming and belittling their sons in regards to their “nature’s” as a way to get final say and control over them. These conversations usually occur only after their children attempt to make their own choices or do anything autonomously that goes against what they themselves desire. Lionel does this every time he reminds Lex what it means to be a “Luthor” usually in response to him trying to cut ties with Lionel or establish himself in some way Lionel doesn’t like, such as 1x10 with his romance with a business competitor’s daughter. While Jonathan uses Clark’s alien heritage or abilities to shame him when he attempts (granted a lot less often than Lex) to go against Jonathan’s wishes and do something of his own. This can be seen in episodes such as 1x03 and 4x03 with Clark’s football arcs. Now these are two separate scenarios that are different in intensities, however, not in abuse tactics or reasonings. Both men use this form of emotional abuse and manipulation to get their end all goal through shaming and belittling their children. Clark’s experience mirrors more readily the ways emotional abuse exists in most parent child dynamics. So even if one might want to balk at the comparison, remember Lionel is almost a caricature of abuse in that he embodies so many facets of it and takes them to extremes that are horrific.
This obsession with control of their families extends outside of their children to their wives. However, again different they both display the same emotional manipulation and attempts at control over their wives. This can be seen with Jonathan when he turns cruel and displays his poor emotional regulation when Martha starts to work for Lionel. He responds like this to her when she tries to usurp his feelings of “providing” for the family and uses this in tandem with his feelings on “Luthor’s” to attempt to get his way. This itself isn’t so much an abusive situation especially given a lack of continued instances against Martha (but given it’s a tactic he uses time and again against his son says something about him) and is more so a depiction of his views of women and children as extensions of himself and his “property”. This same issue can be seen in Lionel’s very few scenes with Lillian, as he is depicted as forcing her to not only stay in a marriage she wants out of but to have a baby she doesn’t want (this is abuse and rape, so like, again, same belief leading to similar tactics, however, they fundamentally play different narrative roles, that being Jonathan is supposed to be a “good” guy and a “good dad”).
In addition, they both use physical violence against their children as a way of controlling them and getting their end all agenda. However, Jonathan is more limited in how this can occur yet somehow manages to meet Clark with Physical violence and the threat of it whenever the opportunity coincides with Clark’s autonomous decisions countering Jonathan’s wishes. For example, in early season three Jonathan jumps on the chance to be as strong as Clark so he can physically beat him into submission. This is something they’ve already established in season two isn’t necessary due to the fact that Green K still works on Clark when he’s exposed to Red K. Therefore, the choice he makes to make a deal with Jor-El at the loss of Clark in the future is one that doesn’t need to be made (even if Jonathan paints it as the only way). Not only this but the decision to keep green kryptonite stored in a lead box on the property is one made for this same sense of control and power over Clark. Because how fucked up it is for them to store the thing that makes their son sick in his home, for the possibility he will become “uncontrollable” when he’s proven this to be highly unlikely and also they live in a town where it would be easy to store said box somewhere else or rather just go outside and find some if the situation arose (but this is me just nit picking parenting styles). As for Lionel’s use of physical abuse and violence, I think it’s been observed very heavily in the show, the threats of it inside Lex’s home (end of season one when physical violence is threatened if Lex tries to get outside of Lionel’s control) to the actual implemented abuse such as the plethora of times Lionel hits Lex on screen, the Asylum arc (drugging, forced institutionalization and the lobotomy) as well as poisoning and other such violences and abuse.
All to say, both these men use emotional and physical abuse to get their desired outcomes which usually run counter to their families wishes and autonomy. This makes the characters function as mirrors of each other in a way that makes the show have to either sell Jonathan as not a good father or sell its very soul to making the claim that Lionel wasn’t that bad. Because if Lionel only ever takes Jonathan’s actions to the extreme then the action itself can’t be bad or they have to make the claim “the ends justifies the means” both of which are slippery slopes. The first being they have to acknowledge the flaws in the worldview baked into the show and acknowledge the “good dad” is actually abusive and manipulative. While the second creates the debate on Utilitarianism and reflects fascist ideals, both of which are concepts the Superman ethos rejects, yet hold interesting political footholds in right wing America (at the time the show was being written/filmed).
