Letters to the Editor
-
Silda and Tammy's duet
"Sometimes it's hard to be a wo-maaannnnn
Givin' all yer loo-oove to just one maaaaan. . ."
-
@h2owoman
If any letter deserves a star, it's this one.
'nuff said.
-
Have to chime in one more time, to Eric
"...Maybe she's standing there because she promised to stand there "for better of for worse."
Why is it that so many women don't like women who decide to stick out the worst with their husbands?
In theory isn't that a part of the marriage vow?..."
Or course it's part of the marriage vow. But so is being faithful to your partner. The traditional vow goes something like "forsaking all others...". The vows my husband and I recently exchanged said "... be your *faithful* partner in marriage...". It doesn't make sense for you to invoke the "marriage vow" argument for one partner but not the other. Your argument is a classic illustration of the gender-based double standards that are still so prevalent in out society. The governor broke his marriage vows in a major way, many times. He effectively the contract. If Ms. Spitzer chooses to stay with her husband and work things out, more power to her. I would wish her the best. But she is under no obligation to do so.
It's not fair to categorize repeated infidelity with a prostitute as "sticking out the worst". Do you think that a woman who is physically abused should stay with her partner and say that she's "sticking out the worst?". No one is obligated to stay in a relationship that repeatedly causes harm to him/her. "Sticking out the worst" does not mean "continually subjecting oneself to the other's disrespectful and/or harmful behavior".
Many women, especially those who have been cheated on, don't understand why other women allow themselves to be disrespected over and over again. It has nothing to do with feeling threatened by women standing by their men. We want women to feel empowered enough to refuse to be doormats for partners who continually disrespect them.
For the record, I'm not at all saying that a one-time lapse should destroy a marriage. But evidence shows that the governor didn't have a one-time, or even two-time lapse. He had established a pattern of behavior that continually broke his marriage vows. By doing so, he made his marriage contract effectively null and void.
The vows apply to both parties.
And for everyone who says that monogamy isn't in their genes or isn't for everyone: That's fine. Just don't get married and make a promise you have no intention of keeping.
-
Ben Sen...You're not getting it
Ben Sen, you're missing my point. I'm not denying that infidelity could happen to me. I'm not stupid. I'm a 40-something, with lots of notches on the bedpost and the heart, and a 10+ year marriage, and I married in my 30s. No naivete in love and life here. Just a healthy dose of self-respect, and no rose-colored glasses when it comes to marriage.
I'm not holding up my own situation as some sort of example -- of course infidelity is possible -- what married person can say it's not? That would be absurd!
And I did not say that if there were an infidelity, that I would storm off in a blaze of fury.
What I said and believe is, there is a VAST difference between infidelity, and what Spitzer did. For Spitzer, infidelity is just a small part of a pattern of years of lying to his wife, spending their money on prostitutes, committing a crime and covering it up, and potentially endangering his wife's health by having unprotected sex with prostitutes (and, assumedly having sex with his wife, though we don't know that for sure)
Clearly, you believe that if you've seen one infidelity, you've seen them all, and one can easily lump a drunken one-night stand infidelity, or co-worker fling infidelity into the same category as a multi-year, multiple outing to prostitutes infidelity.
For you, it appears that any type of infidelity is a minor "mistake" that is meant to be forgiven by the wife, because of the "in good times and bad times, richer and poorer" vows, and maintaining a "two-parent family" sort of thing.
I don't agree. Some infidelity falls into the mistake category, and depending on the relationship, a marriage can survive it.
What Spitzer did is not an "oops, I made a mistake." What he did is a "I have no respect for you, for the marriage, for the vows, for our family, for the law, or for your health." That's a deal breaker.
If my husband confesses to a drunken one-night stand, we're going to do some serious talking, but is it the end of the marriage? Depends on what precipitated it, and what way forward we can map for ourselves.
But if my husband -- who isn't a politician, rich, a rock star or public figure -- says he's been seeing prostitutes for unprotected sex for years, and spending our money on it, and hiding it from me, that's it. Finito.
It's abusive. That's not the kind of man I want to be with, no matter who he is, how famous, rich or powerful he is. That's not the sort of man I want to share my life with in the future. Nor is it the sort of man I want my daughter to marry, or my son to become.
Because I have too much respect for myself and my family. I wouldn't put up with Spitzer-like behavior any more than I'd put up my husband hitting me. Abuse is abuse.
In that scenario, I would figure out how to deal with him moving forward, as father of my children, but as a husband, he's gone. When he decided to live a pattern of lies and deceit -- and potentially endangering me (AIDS or STDS) -- that made it clear that for him, we don't have anything worth honoring, and certainly not worth saving.
What I suspect is that most self-respecting women would similarly kick an Elliot Spitzer to the curb. But you know, self-respecting women like me don't usually marry an Elliot Spitzer, or Bill Clinton, etc. We marry nice, decent guys who are not the target of a steady stream of propositions. We marry great guys who are wonderful partners and fathers. Do they cheat? Sure, sometimes. But their life circumstances don't typically put them in the path of a steady stream of bimbos, wannabes and sycophants eager to bed them.
We don't marry someone because of what they can give us, or their money, or their political power, or their clout, or because they're famous, or because we can get him and other women can't, or to save us, or help us achieve what we want politically, any of the other dysfunctional reasons many women marry the rich/famous/powerful.
Maybe Silda Spitzer knew. Frankly, I hope she did. Because I could understand better if she's made that deal with the devil. Got herself a rich, charismatic womanizing guy, got to live a life of wealth and privilege, and be first lady of NY. Maybe she even loved him, slept with him (smartly insisting he use a condom of course to protect herself), and figured, as some women do, that his womanizing was a downside of what was otherwise a good deal for her. Just as Hillary Clinton turned a blind eye to decades of bimbo eruptions so as to ride into Washington with Bill, and continued to turn her blind eye so she could become a Senator, and now try to ride in again on the basis of primarily her "experience" as a First Lady/Commander-in-chief's wife. What would Hillary be if she'd kicked Bill to the curb the first time a bimbo erupted? She sure wouldn't be a Senator, much less a President. She made her deal with the devil, and, so far, it appears to be paying off. Just like Silda Spitzer won't want for anything material for the rest of her life.
But do I think it's admirable for woman to make that kind of deal...for women who are otherwise educated, intelligent, to hook themselves to a pathological womanizer, and then stand behind him and support him?
No. Women have a right to do it, but I think it promotes a warped, outdated, "Mad Men", 1950s, view of marriage, where the woman is a hanger-on/second-class citizen and the powerful guy gets his adoring, faithful wife by his side, and his sex & sizzle on the side.
I find it sexist and pathetic.