For your own good

The existence of narrative tropes (also closely related to the concept of "archetypes") is justified by the need to have expressions that, while been wider than single words, are almost equally unequivocal. Whenever we read the saga of Harry Potter we quickly understand that he is "the chosen one", the hero (and potentially the martyr) that will bring about a greater good even at their own expense. Long ordeals, despair, loss, etc. are an intrinsic part of this trope to the point that we not only expect this kind events to happen, but we can even be disappointed or disoriented if the do not. By jumping into the trope or archetype the author just needs to work out the details, but the overall arc is pre-formed, and its existence alone helps the communication between the creators and their audience.

However, folding back to my previous post, one of the tropes that I most dislike, because of its high content in arrogance and condescendence, is a character doing something they allegedly do not want to do "for someone else's own good". Of course, being a parent myself I am painfully aware of how often this device is fully justified in the process of turning a baby into a grown-up, but this legitimate use requires two important aspects. The first one is the relational, the parent has to be at a higher level of experience and responsibility than the child, they not only know better than their child, but they are also responsible for their well-being. The second one is the neutral result for the decision maker, they cannot derive any proximate benefit from the decision (one might argue that seeing you child grow up healthy is an ultimate benefit, but it is not in the same level of self-interest as taking candies away from your child to eat them yourself). In other words, the intervention has to be "legal" and "fair".

Photo: Ryan Hyde

If we revisit the popular culture, it is not difficult to find abundant instances where these two conditions are not met, so that an action depicted as well-intentioned turns out to be manipulative, abusive or plainly self-interested. In many teen stories, the leader of clique, tired of seeing their friend not making progress with that crush of theirs, decides to spill the means and make the crush known to everybody (or at least to everybody that matters) with a hint that "you will thank me later". An action like this, beyond the fact that it is uncalled for and might come at an inconvenient time for the subject, removes all agency and is likely to provide benefits only to the leader of the group, who reassesses their control over the group, at the expense of the alleged subject of the help that spirals through a rabbit hole of shame, insecurity and disorientation. The leader does obviously benefit from the action and, even if as the group leader they assume a minimal amount of responsibility, it is nothing comparable to the one that parents bear in the education of a child.

Still, the most burning example of this attitude is the character (normally a man) that breaks up a relationship because their partner (normally a woman) "deserves someone better". And this trope has many layers, all of them problematic, like a rotten onion. The first layer covers the fact that one adult is taking the decision for another one. This links back to my article the other day about the arrogant mind: the guy arrogates the right to make the decision in the woman's stead. He is neither responsible for her nor much more experienced, and yet he adopts a paternalistic tone as if he were "assuming the responsibility". Under this attitude lies the conception that the woman is essentially mentally incompetent, not only unable to make any significant contribution to the society but, what is worse, incapable of taking sensible decisions with respect to her own future.

One important part of this narrative is that women need protection, not only from external agents but also from themselves. Since they cannot be trusted to reason sensibly, men have to stay alert to take control of the woman's situation as soon as it seems to veer off the expected course. And all that even without any request (neither explicit nor implicit) on the side of the woman. But if we continue digging through the mental processes we can finally reach the rock bottom: that the man is not ready to take up his share of the burden in the looming joint plan, so rather than confessing his doubts he prefers to don the shining armor and come to the rescue of the damsel in distress who is about to make a terrible mistake.

Essentially, in every occasion when a masculine character chooses to discontinue something for the sake of his female character, that is the right decision, but not because she deserves "a career" or "fulfilling a dream", but because he is a weasel that will either scurry away at the first chance or stay with her only to spew out his resentment for a situation that he feels he has been forced into. Still, the female character shall be given the opportunity to decide which way her life should turn: if she is ready to willingly give up her life-long dream in exchange for the companion that she has found, that is her right, and no one should take that decision for her. And the actual duty of her partner is not to come to her rescue and to decide for her, but to provide her with the best information that he can gather, so that her decision can be truly informed. If he does not seem himself spending his life with her, it is better to say so than to shield himself behind "for your own good" arguments. Because most of the time someone who does not like being forced into a situation is also unlikely to force someone else. The key of this conundrum is that all parties are allowed to decide by themselves and to participate in the compromise if needed.

Now that we have picked through the problem, it might be difficult next time to nudge your spouse to go out with friends, now that we all know that all you want is a bit of quite time at home or inviting your own friends over. It is okay to show interest in their well-being but it is simply not true (at least not always) that that is the main drive for the pushing. Having an open discussion about the win-win situation of both of you having a great time on your own can be much more productive than turning paternalistic and implying that the other person cannot "think right" (and eventually having to sleep in the couch). Have a nice weekend.