Women who stand beside their scandal-ridden husbands . . .

[Liberty]

Might I put forth an additional reason (one that may seem absurd, but, I believe, is a factor sometimes): Some women don't really care whether their dh sleeps with other women.

 

Before y'all throw stones, there are women who believe it's A-OK. I know of examples of this attitude from very famous women, in fact. My following examples will embarrisingly reveal how much TV/rags I watch/read, but oh well.

 

Examples:

-On Biography, Kirk Douglas' second wife stated she doesn't believe men are capable of being monogomous--her lax attitude about his sleeping around is what made their marriage last for so long (this is what she stated).

-Maria Shriver, in an interview I once read, stated the same thing. I can't remember where I'd read her interview before, but the words she used implied her attitude toward the issue was similar to that of other women in her family (how many Kennedy women divorced their husbands?). Men will be men, was the implications (and men fool around)

-Heather Locklear and Kate Hudson have stated in interviews that they didn't expect their rock-n-roll husbands to be faithful while on the road. No big deal to them.

-On Larry King Live, Bono stated that he didn't believe faithfulness to one person was normal (though, he himself practiced monogamy simply because he was SO IN LOVE with his wife).

-Despite what everyone here seems to believe, Clinton, I believe, is a philanderer and never stopped being one simply because of the Lewinsky scandal. In another Bono interview I read (big U2 fan here), Bono's dear friend Bill stopped by Bono's house in Dublin (post-presidency) and wanted to be hooked up with the local women. Has anyone stopped to think maybe Hillary had the "Kirk Douglas wife/Kennedy woman/Locklear/Hudson attitude" that believes "men will be men"? Of course, the First Lady of our country isn't about to come out and state as much.

 

I'm sorry that this may seem completely insensitive, but, like I said, I am speculating here and just throwing this into the discussion, fwiw.

[Scarlett]

My best friend was married to a seriel adulterer. *I* think she stayed too long,(5 years at least), but she did what she felt she had to do. She wanted to be able to say she tried everything.

 

I think most of how I feel about this issue has to do with how long has it been going on? Does he do it again after being caught/confessing and saying he won't do it again? I would certainly hope for forgiveness if *I* did something like that, and I would feel empathy and sympathy for a dh would got himself caught up in an affair. I don't think that compares to what SolaMichelle described or what this governor did.

[chickenpatty]

I don't think I would leave, but I don't think I could stand there and face the press with him. Ugh! I think I'd get physically ill besides. (Or I might be too tempted to strangle him!)

[Kelli in TN]

has remained in a marriage even though DH cheated? I find that hard to believe.

 

I'm going on record to state that my DH cheated, and I'm still married to him. I would never in a million years speculate on why any other woman remains in her marriage after the spouse cheats, but I'm sure at least one or two of my reasons would apply to anyone else, famous or not.

 

Reasons:

We had a young child, I did not want to become a single mother

There was no way I could afford to keep our house on my own

I was too frightened of being alone

I still loved DH

I had already invested many years into our marriage

He promised to never do it again

I did not want to enter the dating world again

I felt it was in DS's best interests to have married parents

I was embarrassed

I was absolutely terrified

I was in complete shock for a long time

I was so filled with anger, I couldn't think straight

I would have to have gotten a new job that paid better

I would have lost many of our friends

 

I could probably think of more, but those come to mind.

 

And by the way, although no cameras were on me, I did get up and go to work the next day after DH's "revelation", and calmly carry on with my job. What else was I supposed to do? You'd better believe I cried in my private time, but I had to hold it together in front of my son.

 

What should these women do? Throw away the last bit of dignity they have remaining, to scream, cry and throw a fit in front of that publicity? Would that help their children through this ordeal? It takes time to figure out what to do and divorce, maybe they just haven't gotten there yet.

 

Sheesh.

Michelle T

 

You know, many women have stayed after betrayal. I don't think the ones who stayed and worked it out will really want to stand up and be counted. Some may just prefer to be private. Some may know someone in real life who reads these boards and wish to keep it from becoming common knowledge among their friends. Maybe it happened 20 years ago and is no longer a factor in the marriage or the life. Maybe it was a one time thing and the guilt and regret were immediately apparent.

 

But yes, women stay, men repent, life goes on. It happens and you are not alone. Your reasons for staying were valid.

 

Sometimes God brings beauty from ashes.

[Scarlett]

Yes, that is right Kelli. And I bet if we could still post anon, more would talk in this thread.

 

As for some women thinking men can't be faithful and those women are 'ok' with it. Ick. What an insult to men in general. I think some of those women are so deeply immersed in a culture (the Kennedys for example) that they know no other way. Others just seem like they are trying to be hip or all knowing or something. Weird. If it were 'natural' for men (or women) to cheat, it wouldn't hurt the offended spouse so much.

[Kris]

And? It still makes the Hilary comments invalid. Her running for president NOW has nothing to do with what happened when her husband was president--especially considering she had nothing to do with what her husband did.

 

You seem to have forgotten the topic of the original post, i.e., women who stand by their scandal-ridden husbands.

 

Hillary had an agenda. Much as you might like to re-write history, using her as a very prominent example of why the humiliated wife might be willing to endure that is completely valid.

 

The wife in the instant case most likely didn't participate or support her husband's indiscretions, either. That's not what the post was about.

[cin]

I stayed. And our marriage is better for it. Was I devastated? You bet, but it was the first time, and I took those vows. If it happens again, there will be some serious consideration as to what to do, and alot of marriage/individual counseling. I do know a lot of Goldy men who have strayed, and only recently is the church realizing that it is a SERIOUS issue for men. Once again, that does not make it right, but it is a problem that they have to deal with and in today's society, dealing with it is more difficult than ever.

[GothicGyrl]

Might I put forth an additional reason (one that may seem absurd, but, I believe, is a factor sometimes): Some women don't really care whether their dh sleeps with other women.

 

Before y'all throw stones, there are women who believe it's A-OK. I know of examples of this attitude from very famous women, in fact. My following examples will embarrisingly reveal how much TV/rags I watch/read, but oh well.

 

Examples:

-On Biography, Kirk Douglas' second wife stated she doesn't believe men are capable of being monogomous--her lax attitude about his sleeping around is what made their marriage last for so long (this is what she stated).

-Maria Shriver, in an interview I once read, stated the same thing. I can't remember where I'd read her interview before, but the words she used implied her attitude toward the issue was similar to that of other women in her family (how many Kennedy women divorced their husbands?). Men will be men, was the implications (and men fool around)

-Heather Locklear and Kate Hudson have stated in interviews that they didn't expect their rock-n-roll husbands to be faithful while on the road. No big deal to them.

-On Larry King Live, Bono stated that he didn't believe faithfulness to one person was normal (though, he himself practiced monogamy simply because he was SO IN LOVE with his wife).

-Despite what everyone here seems to believe, Clinton, I believe, is a philanderer and never stopped being one simply because of the Lewinsky scandal. In another Bono interview I read (big U2 fan here), Bono's dear friend Bill stopped by Bono's house in Dublin (post-presidency) and wanted to be hooked up with the local women. Has anyone stopped to think maybe Hillary had the "Kirk Douglas wife/Kennedy woman/Locklear/Hudson attitude" that believes "men will be men"? Of course, the First Lady of our country isn't about to come out and state as much.

 

I'm sorry that this may seem completely insensitive, but, like I said, I am speculating here and just throwing this into the discussion, fwiw.

No stone throwing here. While I don't that's what's happening in this particular case, it could have been that way in Clinton's (though I doubt it too, based on how it was handled).. but then again, I don't doubt it happening.

 

This guy, I think this is the big deal, spent his political career trying to remove the same people from society that he so galantly slept with. I think that's where the crux of this lay. He lied--not only to his constituency, but to his family.

 

You may never watch this movie--but it reminds me very much like what happened to a Senator in the movie Birdcage (with Robin Williams). Gene Hackman plays a Senator who founds a "coilition" against immoral conduct and his co-founder is found dead, in bed, with a black, underage, prostitute. Of course the underlying story of the movie is deeper than this, but same points--the co-founder of something so highly regarded is found doing exactly what he chastises and fights against.

 

To me, this guy is doing the same thing--it removes any and all credibilty he may have had and the best thing for his wife is to seperate herself from that and get her own credibility!

[GothicGyrl]

You seem to have forgotten the topic of the original post, i.e., women who stand by their scandal-ridden husbands.

 

Hillary had an agenda. Much as you might like to re-write history, using her as a very prominent example of why the humiliated wife might be willing to endure that is completely valid.

 

The wife in the instant case most likely didn't participate or support her husband's indiscretions, either. That's not what the post was about.

Such a lovely back-handed insult. ;)

 

And no I did not forget the intent of the OP, of course, you seem to be ignoring that I never brought Hillary in to this in the first place. I just carpeted the insulting because there is no reason for it.

 

You are free to believe she had an agenda. Many people do. I am sure she does. But it isn't my place to judge what her "agenda" was based solely on her husband's lack of common sense.

 

No one said the wife, in this case, supports her husband's indiscretions. Nope, no one. What I've said (and some others), is that her saving face (or grace, if you prefer) is to gather up her remaining dignity and build it up better than he could ever do. That is my opinion.

[LisaKinVA]

I am a very sensitive person -- but you would never know it.

 

After years of being teased incessently, I grew walls. Very strong, very thick, and very hard to break through.

 

When facing adversity or difficulties (especially in public) I am unable to cry. People can be crying all around me, but I just can't. I want to, but I can't.

 

Of course, get me behind closed doors, where I feel safe -- and I'm a basket case.

 

Just not in public. Never in public.

 

I would imagine being in the public eye as much as she has, she has "learned" how to put on the stoic, public face. In private, it is in all probability very different.

[Doran]

*Maybe* she actually loves her husband in spite of his flaws. *Maybe* she's in shock, she's heartbroken, and she doesn't know what she's going to do. *Maybe* she wants to try to rip his beating heart out of his body, but she doesn't want to come across as hysterical and violent on national television.

 

Give the poor woman a break.

 

I happen to agree with you, abbey. It's true that we tend to think the worst of so many in the political arena because they have, in many ways, taught us to do so. But, she is also just a woman who up until very recently may have felt she had a decent relationship with her husband, and now she's just trying to figure out how to pick up the pieces. Maybe it is all about her devotion to this man, coupled with the shock of such news. If the "mess" wasn't promoted by the media, we would have no knowledge of it ourselves. It would just be one more marriage in need of a lot of work...and maybe, if we learned of it through friends and neighbors, a lot of prayer...but definitely not in need of stone casting.

 

Doran

[Kris]

Such a lovely back-handed insult. ;)

 

Everyone who disagrees with you and believes your arguments are invalid is not insulting you, much as you seem to want to think so. If my intent was to insult you, there would be nothing back-handed about it.

 

And no I did not forget the intent of the OP, of course, you seem to be ignoring that I never brought Hillary in to this in the first place. I just carpeted the insulting because there is no reason for it.

 

I didn't say you brought Hillary up in the first place. You said that references to her were "sneaky" in the context of this thread. I don't believe they are. If the references to her agenda are insulting, that would be her problem, not yours.

 

You are free to believe she had an agenda. Many people do. I am sure she does. But it isn't my place to judge what her "agenda" was based solely on her husband's lack of common sense.

 

It definitely is my place to judge her if she wants to run this country. And that judgment isn't based on her husband's lack of common sense, but on her actions and beliefs. It is my judgment of Mr. Clinton that is based on his lack of common sense.

 

No one said the wife, in this case, supports her husband's indiscretions. Nope, no one. What I've said (and some others), is that her saving face (or grace, if you prefer) is to gather up her remaining dignity and build it up better than he could ever do. That is my opinion.

 

You've taken my comment out of context. It was *you* who said that that references to Hillary were invalid because she had nothing to do with what her husband did.

[Kris]

*Maybe* she actually loves her husband in spite of his flaws. *Maybe* she's in shock, she's heartbroken, and she doesn't know what she's going to do. *Maybe* she wants to try to rip his beating heart out of his body, but she doesn't want to come across as hysterical and violent on national television.

 

Give the poor woman a break.

 

I can imagine her head is reeling so badly she could barely dress herself this morning, let alone engage in any kind of coherent thought process, especially about matters as important as the future of her family.

 

To me, it's another strike against him and his handlers for placing this poor shell-shocked woman on national TV. I suppose it was *intended* to look like she was standing behind her man, since she literally was. But she looks like she'd rather be doing *anything* else right at that moment.

[astrid]

What if SHE was in a position of power and cheated?

And HE stood by her side during the press conference?

 

Would we not be commenting about what an upstanding, supportive man he is? What a good father, to be standing there for his kids?

 

I'm just wondering--- Hillary is always the object of such a double-standard when it comes to politics.

 

I wonder if the tables were turned, would we feel differently toward the spurned spouse?

[GothicGyrl]

What if SHE was in a position of power and cheated?

And HE stood by her side during the press conference?

 

Would we not be commenting about what an upstanding' date=' supportive man he is? What a good father, to be standing there for his kids?

 

I'm just wondering--- Hillary is always the object of such a double-standard when it comes to politics.

 

I wonder if the tables were turned, would we feel differently toward the spurned spouse?[/quote']

bingo.. double bingo and power bingo at that ;)

 

always the double standard.

[PariSarah]

I'm just wondering--- Hillary is always the object of such a double-standard when it comes to politics.

 

This is so true.

 

From what I understand' date=' both Clintons are known for their naked political ambition. But Hillary is the one that gets flak for it. Both are known to have done many things in order to get/maintain power. But Hillary is the one that is perceived most negatively (among those who perceive either or both negatively).

 

I can't stand her--I can't stand either of them. But I am a little chastened when I think about how my particular revulsion for her may just spring at least as much from how I perceive "women [i']should[/i] be" as from any actual character or political judgments.

[astrid]

For instance, Hillary comes out swinging in a debate. She's called a "bee-otch." Do you hear male candidates of either party being characterized similarly for similar behavior? I've read recently about McCain's outrageous temper (well-publicized by members of his own party, mind you.) He's called "forceful" and "decisive." If Hillary or any other female in a position of influence and power refused to take advice, flew off the handle to the point of temporary insanity or stood on the senate floor in front of video cameras and told a fellow senator to "go f-himself," it would be all over, and some of us here would be performing a virtual drawing and quartering and vivisection of the woman.

 

I'd just like to think that we've come further than that in this country. :o

[OhM]

Might I put forth an additional reason (one that may seem absurd, but, I believe, is a factor sometimes): Some women don't really care whether their dh sleeps with other women.

 

Before y'all throw stones, there are women who believe it's A-OK. I know of examples of this attitude from very famous women, in fact. My following examples will embarrisingly reveal how much TV/rags I watch/read, but oh well.

 

Examples:

-On Biography, Kirk Douglas' second wife stated she doesn't believe men are capable of being monogomous--her lax attitude about his sleeping around is what made their marriage last for so long (this is what she stated).

-Maria Shriver, in an interview I once read, stated the same thing. I can't remember where I'd read her interview before, but the words she used implied her attitude toward the issue was similar to that of other women in her family (how many Kennedy women divorced their husbands?). Men will be men, was the implications (and men fool around)

-Heather Locklear and Kate Hudson have stated in interviews that they didn't expect their rock-n-roll husbands to be faithful while on the road. No big deal to them.

-On Larry King Live, Bono stated that he didn't believe faithfulness to one person was normal (though, he himself practiced monogamy simply because he was SO IN LOVE with his wife).

-Despite what everyone here seems to believe, Clinton, I believe, is a philanderer and never stopped being one simply because of the Lewinsky scandal. In another Bono interview I read (big U2 fan here), Bono's dear friend Bill stopped by Bono's house in Dublin (post-presidency) and wanted to be hooked up with the local women. Has anyone stopped to think maybe Hillary had the "Kirk Douglas wife/Kennedy woman/Locklear/Hudson attitude" that believes "men will be men"? Of course, the First Lady of our country isn't about to come out and state as much.

 

I'm sorry that this may seem completely insensitive, but, like I said, I am speculating here and just throwing this into the discussion, fwiw.

 

 

I've read that Rose Kennedy had a similar philosophy. And I've met couples - everyday, ordinary people like me(!) - who live by that philosophy. As long as he keeps it quiet and it doesn't intrude on "their" or "her" life, he's permitted whatever indiscretions he desires. She's usually happy to have him "out of her hair". I've never delved into the health issues with such an arrangement, though I've always wondered. I just know I could never stomach it.

 

I'm surprised not to see my theory represented yet. Doesn't anyone else think that these high-profile, high-power marriages are (at times, not always) a contract? I've always expected that a wife in such a union would have specific and restrictive responsibilities regarding how and when she can/should present herself in public.

 

Maybe this is an extension of the "marrying for money" discussion we had awhile back? Marrying power?

 

It all reminds me of a high school classmate whose sole ambition after high school was to marry a man with money who would provide her the lifestyle that she wanted. She returned to our 10 year reunion a CT society housewife with 2 kids and a husband commuting to NYC. She serves on boards for local arts organizations and supervises the decorating and running of her house. The lifestyle is completely foreign to me and the rest of our classmates here in central OH! And it seemed to me that her "job" is much more difficult than any I have had: the house, the kids, her life, her manner, her body must be kept "just so" to fulfill her part of the bargain. Maybe ignoring the husband's dalliances is just another part of the bargain for some of these wives? And standing stoically, supportively beside them when they face the music is another part?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I did say I was cynical, but I was being general not specific.

 

If it was me, I would have emptied the bank account and packed my bags long ago. I haven't a noble bone in my body when it comes to certain things. The only reason to stay in that kind of situation that *I* could conceive of was if I had a motive. Thank God I have never been put to the test.

 

One thing I agree with, I don't think President Clinton is or has ever been stupid in any way. I believe he has always known exactly what he was doing. He was already known as a philanderer when he was governor and while he was running for president. So far he's managed to get away with it, hasn't he? Hillary, also, has never been stupid, she has known what he is like for a very long time. I don't presume to be able to read her heart or mind, but one can't help wondering.

 

As for the newest situation, I have nothing to say except that if the wife was clueless about her husband's exploits and she still loves him, she has my unbounded sympathy, and I hope she finds some kind of future happiness.

[Janet in WA]

Two possibilities come to mind:

 

1. She's a seasoned politician's wife, and this is the kind of thing a seasoned politician's wife does.

 

2. This isn't a surprise to her -- it's only a surprise to us. She's stuck by him this long, why not a little longer?

[WTMindy]

I just don't think I could stay. I told dh that last night when we were talking about it and he said, "I wouldn't expect you to."

 

I will say that there is something about power (in politics, in the church, etc...) that leads people to think they are above the law. I am always saddened when pastors fall to the very things they preach against. I am always amazed that leaders risk so much when they have so much to lose, but it seems that there is something about the position of authority that affects the thinking. I told dh he was not allowed to run for president!

[Liberty]

 

This guy, I think this is the big deal, spent his political career trying to remove the same people from society that he so galantly slept with. I think that's where the crux of this lay. He lied--not only to his constituency, but to his family.

 

You may never watch this movie--but it reminds me very much like what happened to a Senator in the movie Birdcage (with Robin Williams). Gene Hackman plays a Senator who founds a "coilition" against immoral conduct and his co-founder is found dead, in bed, with a black, underage, prostitute. Of course the underlying story of the movie is deeper than this, but same points--the co-founder of something so highly regarded is found doing exactly what he chastises and fights against.

 

To me, this guy is doing the same thing--it removes any and all credibilty he may have had and the best thing for his wife is to seperate herself from that and get her own credibility!

 

I agree and I did see that movie (which was very funny). I've read reports stating the man (Spitzer) had always carried himself arrogantly, especially in his pursuit of these very same type of crime rings. In the end, though, I believe we are all a bit hypocritical. In this case it's a matter of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."

[Audrey]

I think it's easy to say what "we" "might" do in this situation, but really none of us knows how Ms. Spitzer feels, or what she is going to feel down the road. She could have reasons for standing next to him that we can't even imagine. She could have had discussions with him that we couldn't ever fathom. She could have plans and thoughts going on in her head right now that might blow our minds, or make us scream or cry.

 

Bottom line is: You'd have to walk a mile in her shoes... and frankly, I don't ever want to have to do that. From my vantage point, at least, her shoes suck.

[Gigi]

To me, it's another strike against him and his handlers for placing this poor shell-shocked woman on national TV. I suppose it was *intended* to look like she was standing behind her man, since she literally was. But she looks like she'd rather be doing *anything* else right at that moment.

 

The honorable thing would be to go and stand in front of the news media alone. He should be thinking first of his wife and letting her process everything and not have to face the cameras. These public confessions make wives look like political accessories. Let the men stand up and face the music alone. Let them take the full hit of the consequences publically and let their wives deal with it privately.

 

I think it is adding insult to injury that those who counsel with these politicians are willing to see the wives as an object. They want people to focus on the wife, offer sympathy, and forget about the jerk who is actually speaking.

[Scarlett]

I don't know what I would do if I found out my dh was having or had had an affair. After almost 25 years of marriage, and all we've seen happen to others as a result of that type of behavior I would just think, 'wow. If you haven't 'got' it by this point you arent' going to get it.' I don't know if I would leave or not. (shhhh. Don't tell him that)

 

I do know that if I found out he had been seeing prostitutes on a regular basis for 6-10 years.....spending $1000s on them....I'm am pretty sure I would be gone. Because that degree of transgression is a way of life more than just a mistake. Or a compulsion. And I wouldn't want to deal with either.

 

I do agree though that we can't say for sure until we are in that exact situation. And I pray none of us ever have dh's seeking prostitutes!