These politicians' wives - what gives?

[lawrocket 3]

We've got the wife of Gov. Spitzer, standing at his side as he makes announcements of his criminal infidelity.

We've got Suzanne Craig - wife of Sen. Larry Craig - standing by her husband.

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's wife, Carlita, was there in the spotlight with him.

Senator David Vitter's wife, Wendy, in his arm as he announced his own escort service dealings

Hillary Clinton. We know that story.

Jim MCreevy's wife there on stage as the governor admitted to a gay affair. Shellshocked for millions to see.

Admittedly, I've got a few problems with this. Mainly, my problem is with these so-called "men" whose word and vows apparently mean very little to them. Secondly, I say, "So-called men" because I don't believe a real man would put his wife - the mother of his children - in front of the lights for such a thing. What the hell is with these guys where they lack the gumption to take the heat themselves? Man up and take your lumps and keep your wife out of it.

But yet another question is - why do women put themselves otu there for that? There is, of course, something to be said about respect for marriage vows, etc. But that has ZERO to do with standing before the cameras for that type of, what I believe, is humiliation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>why do women put themselves otu there for that? There is, of
>course, something to be said about respect for marriage vows . . . .

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there. Most people's vows include standing by their spouse when they need them. And when people screw up that monumentally, that's a time when they need the most support.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Many of thee women have given up everything in their lives to support their husbands.

It must be hard to then give up the only other thing that has defined them for decades.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

But yet another question is - why do women put themselves otu there for that?

Probably because their loser husbands cry and beg and plead (rather than man-up), and the wives relunctantly do it despite the anger.

. . =(_8^(1)

[wmw999 2,603]

Quote

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there. Most people's vows include standing by their spouse when they need them. And when people screw up that monumentally, that's a time when they need the most support.

I've never been a political wife, but I'd have to say that's as good a wording for my likely reactions in that kind of situation.

What I say in public about my emotions has little to do with them. That doesn't mean I'm lying, it's just that they are a private part of my life, and not on display for the rest of the world. And if I loved that person enough to marry them at one time, I still love them enough to want the best for them. Not necessarily at my expense, but deciding what that is requires long-term thinking, not short-term thinking. And saying "fuck him" in public is definitely short-term thinking.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

I'm disappointed. They have betrayed the sisterhood of feminism.

[billvon 3,132]

>Probably because their loser husbands cry and beg and plead (rather than
>man-up), and the wives relunctantly do it despite the anger.

I suspect it is precisely the opposite. "I really screwed up, and I need your support now" _is_ manning up - and is what seems to happen in the cases I've seen of women standing by their husbands in times of crisis.

The movie Fatal Attraction wasn't very good overall, but contained an interesting tidbit that, I found, carries over into real life. For much of the movie the stalker has power over the husband because she can always tell his wife that he's been lying. Towards the end, the husband tells the wife what has been going on - and suddenly the stalker has lost most of her power over him. She is now trying to get between two people who have pledged themselves to each other, and who now recognize her as the enemy, despite the bad things the husband did.

I find this true in real life as well. If anything, it makes more sense for that woman to stand by her husband's side once he has confessed to her than when she was being lied to.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Most people's vows include standing by their spouse when they need them.

Indeed. But won't most people see a limit to it? A person who agrees to be married understands that there is a common fidelity involved. And that is a two-way street.

The natural human emotion is to view the spouse with scorn. "But we're married" is a sickening thing for the cheater to say. To me, a marriage can survive such things. But a marriage is also a "private" matter, much as the "private" conduct that got the guy in trouble.

The issue is not so much the "marriage" so much as being out there, in front of the lights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>"I really screwed up, and I need your support now" _is_ manning up

Agree totally with this, but the question centers on dragging her up to the podium. Manning up might mean not putting her through that agony.

Quote

Fatal Attraction

PS: There was only one good scene in this movie, a very short scene.

. . =(_8^(1)

[wmw999 2,603]

Who's to say that it's his choice whether she goes to the podium. It might be hers.

It might even be "I'll stand with you for one week, then I'm outta here." Most of the women in these circumstances have been exposed to publicity in the past; it's part of being married to a public guy.

One more question -- what would be the reaction to a man who stood by his wife under similar circumstances?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,132]

>But won't most people see a limit to it?

Of course, and that will vary from person to person.

> A person who agrees to be
>married understands that there is a common fidelity involved. And that
>is a two-way street.

Again, depends on the person. Here's a common wedding vow:

"I take you for my wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."

No "unless . . ." clauses in there. Indeed, the vows are careful to mention "for better and for worse" because many marriages do have to deal with that "worse" part.

>The issue is not so much the "marriage" so much as being out there,
>in front of the lights.

If Amy really screwed up that much, and she had to make a very public mea cupla, I'd want to be there.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

One more question -- what would be the reaction to a man who stood by his wife under similar circumstances?

Phrasing the question that way allows me to more easily imagine what I would do under those circumstances, and I'm betting I indeed would willingly support my wife by walking up there with her despite my feelings or future intentions. And I guess that's the norm, since we see such a consistent pattern with that lately.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

"I take you for my wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."

I'll be married soon, and the Spitzer thing prompted a discussion on that very vow.

We'll state a line similar to that, but agree it is a very important and sincere promise, not a binding "no exceptions" agreement.

. . =(_8^(1)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Towards the end, the husband tells the wife what has been going on - and suddenly the stalker has lost most of her power over him. She is now trying to get between two people who have pledged themselves to each other, and who now recognize her as the enemy, despite the bad things the husband did.

And I can appreciate that point. But the issue for me is that "manning up" is not about asking your wife - the betrayal of whom got you in this situation - to be there for you to help you out.

"Manning up" is sucking it up and facing your lumps - yourself. If I've got an employee who was stealing money, I'd tell that employee to go fuck himself if he asked me for bail money.

What good did it do these guys to have their wives there at the press conferences? What good? Career salvation? Above all - what good does it do for these wives who are now public figures?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who's to say that it's his choice whether she goes to the podium. It might be hers.

True. This is where I am torn. Is "manning up" saying to her, "No. This is my problem and I am not going to subject you to it." Or is "manning up" supporting her in that decision. This is the tough one for me.

Quote

It might even be "I'll stand with you for one week, then I'm outta here."

Which, to me, is even worse. Why should she humiliate herself?

Quote

what would be the reaction to a man who stood by his wife under similar circumstances?

That's tough to say. I would suspect that the reaction would run the gamut between, "What a nice guy" to "He's her bitch." I'd think that the response would be far more polar.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>But the issue for me is that "manning up" is not about asking your
>wife - the betrayal of whom got you in this situation - to be there for you
>to help you out.

If someone thinks they must be "a man" and "man up" by going it alone when things get tough - they should not get married. (IMO of course) Marriage means you are no longer just a man or just a woman. You are a new thing, a couple, and each has to be part of the other's life. ESPECIALLY when things go bad.

>If I've got an employee who was stealing money, I'd tell that employee
>to go fuck himself if he asked me for bail money.

Agreed.

Now imagine that your wife was imprisoned for stealing money from you, and she admitted it to the police. Would you bail her out?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You are a new thing, a couple, and each has to be part of the other's life.

That means not keeping that secret that caused the problem to begin with. I see your point, but in this situation, the wife is not the governor.

And going it alone? No. They should not have gotten married. Those who look elsewhere (without the spouse's consent) should probably also not be married.

Quote

imagine that your wife was imprisoned for stealing money from you, and she admitted it to the police. Would you bail her out?

Dern tootin. It's not "my" money. It's "our" money. And then I'd discuss with her why she thought it important to take that money for something.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>That means not keeping that secret that caused the problem to begin with.

I agree. It is likely that these men violated their vows to their wives. But I don't think a reciprocal violation of their vows (even if quite justified) is a good thing. Indeed, I admire men (or women) who can accept such poor behavior from their spouses. fix the problem and continue to make their marriages work.

>Those who look elsewhere (without the spouse's consent) should probably
>also not be married.

Also agreed. Unfortunately, people sometimes fail to measure up to their promises.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Who's to say that it's his choice whether she goes to the podium. It might be hers.

These wives always appear to be standing there of their own free will, so I'd say the choice is most likely always hers.

Quote

One more question -- what would be the reaction to a man who stood by his wife under similar circumstances?

I would expect the reaction to be similar. But in general, women who cheat seem to be judged more harshly than men who cheat, so perhaps a man who stood by his wife in such a situation would be judged more harshly too.(?)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Indeed. But won't most people see a limit to it? A person who agrees to be married understands that there is a common fidelity involved.

Not every married couple considers infidelity something that requires divorce, or even important enough.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And going it alone? No. They should not have gotten married. Those who look elsewhere (without the spouse's consent) should probably also not be married.

Maybe they did have spouse's consent, you'll never know. It's not something found in county records :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I don't think these are situations that can be explained with the "logic", "emotions" and "feelings" that would be used in a "regular" relationship.

Many of these women have already given up a lot, if not everything in their own lives. They are defined by their husbands (mostly public) lives.

In many cases I don't even think love has anything to do with it any more. Many are almost more in the form of business relationships than anything else.