Here she is again, the docile, stoic wife.

This go around it’s Silda Wall Spitzer, spouse of more than two decades to Eliot Spitzer, the New York ex-governor snared in a prostitution ring. She’s the latest woman to play the supportive female, standing by her man – well, more like a little bit behind and off to the side – as her man gives his public resignation and declaration of sorrow for the pain he has caused. Ever notice how the wife is always positioned in these media moments? She is a mute backdrop. Saintly, you might say, in her suffering.

Recall Sen. Larry Craig’s wife, Suzanne. Dina Matos McGreevey, who is now in the process of divorcing the former governor of New Jersey. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s wife, Carlita.

Faced with the public humiliation of a cheating spouse, each woman stood to the side as her husband expressed remorse. They all knew the drill: At the end of his speech, the couple walk off the stage together, his hand gently touching her shoulder. It’s about time we start questioning this display.

Scandals such as Spitzer’s understandably invite all kinds of musing about the state of marriage today. Society now is far less tolerant of trysts outside of marriage. That is progress. Used to be, the wife of a public figure was supposed to ignore his infidelity. Now at least she gets a role in his chastisement for it, albeit still a silent one.

“Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me,” Spitzer said of his wife and daughters in resigning. Silda looked on blankly, her thoughts concealed. You didn’t see rage from her. No, that would have been deemed inappropriate. We still have an extremely cemented role of the quiet, accepting wife.

Stephanie Coontz, an expert on marriage and author of “Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage,” has closely observed how attitudes and expectations about marriage have changed, especially during the past 40 years in the United States. She notes that when a jilted woman appears “too pushy” about her grief or anger, it tends to gain sympathy for the man, not herself. Don’t be caught throwing a fit about your husband’s transgressions. No, not in 2008!

Imagine if the roles were reversed. A politically prominent woman is caught hiring young male studs for sexual pleasure. Once the scandal was exposed, would the husband be a quiet creature of support? Or would his rage be viewed as justified?

Rather, would the male public reaction match the anger and hurt that no doubt is felt by any betrayed spouse but that, in the case of women, is left only to private venting?

In the media post-mortem that has surrounded the Spitzer scandal, Dina Matos McGreevey has been quoted about why she initially stood beside her husband as he came out about being gay. She did it, she said, for their daughter.

By that she meant she played the role of the wife attempting to keep the family intact. The intended image, apparently, was Mom and Dad standing together, weathering a storm. The Spitzers have three daughters. One wonders if eventually those young women will process this incident as being less about Mom and Dad, and more about men and women. The implication being: Men do wrong and women stand by. Men are sexual creatures, and women are either the object of their conquest or the silent sufferer of the pain of infidelity. Neither is exactly what I would wish for a young woman.