Being a gallant hero figure for wife or girlfriend

Post Reply New Topic

One movie scene that has always haunted me involves a police stop with an Afro-American couple. The man is told to stand facing the car while the policeman begins to grope his wife in a mock search. The man who is buddhist does nothing much at all.

His wife is understandably angry...

What ive never understood is what he was meant to do in that situation. Anyone?

I think he was expected to sacrifice his physical safety and freedom to avenge her honor. She does not care about his religious beliefs or the fact that he is powerless against the brutality of the police. She cares about him not even trying to fight while some other man violates her. In the unwritten man code called gender, the man is supposed to fight to protect his girlfriend (even lay down his life if necessary). Anything less is cowardice. I do not endorse this perspective and it is by no means universal. Still, a lot of people buy into this.

What was the name of that movie if I may ask??
Can you tell us a bit more about the plot because this summary is a bit on the short side. Oh yes before I forget, do you remember the name of the actores that were in it. I'm getting curious now.

Crash. Actors are Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton playing Cameron and Christine Thayer. Policeman is Matt Dillon.

" LAPD officer John Ryan and his partner, Tom Hansen, pull over a Navigator similar to the one carjacked earlier, despite discrepancies in the descriptions. They order the couple, Television director Cameron Thayer and his wife Christine, to exit. Cameron is cooperative, but Christine is argumentative. This annoys Ryan, who manually molests Christine under the pretense of administering a pat-down. Intimidated, Cameron says nothing. The couple is released without a citation. Once home, Christine becomes enraged that Cameron did nothing while she was being violated. Cameron insists that what he did was correct and storms out. Arriving home from work long after dark"

Wikipedia

The point was that there was nothing he could do. The police officer knew that he would want to stop the attack. But also that if he tried he would be likely be killed, certainly beaten. Knowing this, he could do nothing. He was situationally powerless and making him aware of this was a purpose of the assault. Exerting the same power over her was also a goal in the attack.

Why was she then mad at him? How could she be angry when she also knew that he would have been beaten or killed if he had protected her?

Because she was abused! It's upsetting! Her response is not entirely rational... but it's not a rational situation. Her anger is understandable. That doesn't mean he was wrong. In some situations, there is no good answer.

There is no lesson here other than that racism and police abuse are nasty.

There's a similar idea expressed in a very old episode of Doctor Who (The Expedition, first aired 18 January 1964):

Woman: Are you angry with yourself for striking the young man?
Man: No, I knew he was trying to make me do it. I still couldn't stop myself. Do you despise me for hitting him?
Woman: If you hadn't fought him, I think I would have hated you.
Man: I knew he wouldn't really take you and give you to the Daleks. But I fought him.

The couple belonged to an extremely pacifist race, and the young man he struck had been trying (successfully) to goad him into violence, so that the tribe would stand up and fight, which was logically the only way to avoid being wiped out.

The woman had been in no real danger, but she would still have despised her mate for not attacking one who was playing the role of threatening her. Interestingly, she would have felt that in spite of being raised in a totally non-violent culture. I suspect the author is expressing the sentiment that her reaction is the way things should be. It's almost as if the media is trying to teach us that pacifism is wrong. To some extent I agree with the media, but I think they often take it way too far.

I guess the reason these media messages can seem so creepy to men is that they suggest we live in a society in which our partners would cease to love us if we weren't prepared to be violent in order to protect them, even if it were a suicidal risk against impossible odds, or when there was no logical need.

There must be loads of examples of "strong man risks life to protect woman" in fiction. It's clearly a popular theme. Popeye rescues Olive Oyl over and over again from the evil Bluto. Marty's dad wins his girl by standing up to Biff in Back To The Future. Are such media messages a true reflection of human nature? Of course they're only stories, but I think they do tap into something very real. In evolutionary terms, the female selects the male who is most likely to protect her. You can't expect animal instinct to allow for all the nuances of unusual circumstances. Gut reactions can be very unfair.

Luckily, most of us will never have to experience anything like those movie scenarios. I also think that most women would be able to get over any such gut reactions and see the reality of the situation, so there's no point in thinking that you're bound to lose your girlfriend if you don't act like you're Superman even though you're not. My own experiences suggest that people like to see courage, and that it can be a somewhat sexist and unreasonable thing, but that it's not completely black-and-white, and that there's really nothing to worry about as long as you're prepared to take reasonable risks.

I've always like to be thought of as gallant in a chivalrous sense.

I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't defend my girlfriend/wife from an assailment--whether through physical, emotional, or mental means.

There's more to that scene. Black men have had to stand by and watch white men take advantage of black women for hundreds of years. If they tried to do anything about it in, say, slave times or Jim Crow times, the black man would be severely punished or killed. Those feelings still exist in black culture so when a black man doesn't protect his woman from something like that, it brings up cultural shame and helplessness as well as personal shame and helplessness.

Thats really powerful. Never considered that. It makes sense when you look forward to the later "shucking and jivin.... yes mr polees offica" argument.The man then has to watch his culture itself being subjected to similar treatment during the filming of the television series. Am I right in drawing that parallel?

I haven't seen Crash yet, but VAGraduateStudent is right about the race aspect. Terrance Howard's character probably couldn't have done anything at the time of the stop, but he could have done something like memorized the license plate number of the police car and filed a formal complaint immediately after being let go. Even if it didn't lead to any consequences to the cop, it would be better than doing nothing.

I've physically and verbally protected my husband from other people many more times than he's protected me, and I'm resentful every time I have to do it since he won't stand up for himself, and I know he hasn't given me the same support. It's the idea of support - of being a team - that I'm looking for.

I "kind of" agree with the points you make yet:

When we were a young family of four I felt I was the protector of our family. However my wife did most of the "in-fighting."