Terrible connection, interesting question
Well, turns out there is connectivity up here but not very much. But since the Larry Craig business is *still* being discussed (a more unjust, backwards fate couldn't have befallen a more unjust backwards man) I've got a question about a *different* kind of terrible connections that as far as I know hasn't been mentioned elsewhere: What about the spouses?
I mean, yeah, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And I'm sorry but I have a very, very hard time believing that Suzanne Craig and every other spouse of a scandal-plagued politician of the Left or Right has been completely in the dark in the face of their partner's sometimes continuous patterns of behavior.
Some, surely. But all? Surely not!
We're so conditioned (by the "no-sex" class paradigm and other social conventions) to see spouses, particularly women spouses, as innocent of all notions of sexuality beyond a) a sense of marital duty and b) a sense of jealous outrage in the face of transgression.
Yes, and women have been conditioned (by other social conventions but also, more subtly, by the "no-sex" class paradigm's assumption of exchange of sex for security) to look the other way rather than risk what until only the last two generations has been a risk of *catastrophic* economic and social devastation, both personal and for one's children, should they "cross" their husbands in any way.
But...
But...
But *surely* not all of these generally very well educated, experienced, and politically savvy spouses have been caught this off guard for this long. I'd really love to hear about their sides of the stories.
Update: Just to be clear I'm *not* suggesting there's anything right or wrong with any politician's "wronged" partner. Nor do I think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer to my question. When I said I'd love to hear their sides of the stories I mean that as sincerely as anyone possibly can.
Update: It sounds like Dina Matos McGreevey, former partner of former New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey, either has or is just about to release a book about her experience of her husband's outing himself and resigning in response to a blackmailer's threats three years ago. More details, perhaps, when I find a better connection.
Maybe I just get cranky in the AM, and need to take a tums or two, but can we move past the "no sex" paradigm cites? Just the facts, plus maybe pointers to articles or the like that merit discussion. Who, what, when, where, how, why is fine - and done well here. This does not mean I disagree that there is a "no sex" paradigm, I am just ready to get back to the story (let the theory prove itself).
[First of all if you're tired of it enough to say something then chances are everyone else is tired of it too. Also it seems like in the last week people have started reflecting the term back, which I think means I don't have to keep defining it. So yeah, it's time to take your advice to heart. Thanks so much for actually saying something instead of, say, just not reading anymore, CFW. I seriously appreciate that! --fl]
I think being the wife of a highly-placed politician is one of the cases in modern society where to leave your husband would be to see your own status in the world drop like a rock. Being a senator's wife may be worth more, to many women, than being an exclusive wife.
It would be nice however to see more of them speak honestly about it after everything comes in the open. Really any response besides "I stand by my man no matter what" (feh) or "We're dealing with it privately between ourselves" (totally valid, but no fun for ME) would be fascinating.
[I agree about the loss-of-social-standing thing (not that many people can pull off what the Keven Federlines or, more positively, Ariana Huffingtons of the world have.) But yeah, it really would be good to know how different people approach their decisions. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
while it most likely social standing is a big part of it, "career" marriages (for lack of a better term) hardly have monogamy as one of the deal-makers (and hence deal-breakers) of the union.
these partnerships make both partners prosper because they fill in each other's personality "deficiencies". for instance, with the bill and hillary thing, he takes the edge off of her and she gives him a seriousness and 'i mean business' attitude that he sometimes lacks. personally speaking, i don't think people like them were ever truly madly in love with one another in the storybook sense of the word; they just saw the opportunity that they could be extremely good for one another's goals.
it's a fair (and inevitable) tradeoff that some people make. just because you're extremely compatible horizontally doesn't necessarily mean that you're compatible vertically. whichever one of those things is most important to you is a big determinant of who you wind up marrying/spending your life with (assuming you're the marrying kind). moreover, i think it's a bit unrealistic to expect one person to fulfill each of those roles completely and excellently.
[I agree that the kind of people who choose to form "power couples" might have priorities that sometimes make them seem more like business partners to each other than married ones. According to Stephanie Coontz's book about the history of marriage that was the model for marriage anyway for maybe thousands of years! Thanks, Kermit. --fl]
They have to know. If they've been married for any length of time, they have to know.
[You'd sort of think they'd have to. On some level or another. But then heck, I know about a much older couple who married, and even had children, even though one was gay and the other a lesbian. Sure, they pretended *to the world* that they were both straight, but not to each other or their "we seem to spend so much time together" "good friends." Of course they weren't politicians and I'm not saying that's a common arrangement in any event. But I am saying that there can be more to it than a seemingly endless succession of hapless partners who "found out from the papers." Thanks, Kate. --fl]
I'm not bored, or cranky. I could go along with this theme for at least another 25 posts. I'm not proud ... or tired.
[Oh I'll continue the theme, I just won't telegraph it with the big intro every time. (At this point people seem to know what I mean.) Thanks, E. --fl]