It's Women's Fault

This morning I heard two distinct messages that women are to blame for men's mistakes.  The tricky thing is, the messages came from polar opposites on the political spectrum.

The first message was the one I expected: Dr. Laura on Today said that if Eliot Spitzer had gotten the ego affirmation, love, sex, and ponies he needed from his wife, he wouldn't have strayed.  Women must provide all possible known and unknown needs to their husbands or they're to blame for their husband's indiscretions with hookers and mistresses.  The standard anti-feminist conservative crap.  

The second message was more bewildering.  On CBS, the message was this:  Why are these women time and again submitting to the embarrassment and humiliation of standing by their man in front of the media when he screws up?  By this behavior, they're sending the message that it's ok to cheat.

So women get it from both sides.  We're damned if we provide loving support to husbands who have wronged us, and we're damned if we don't foresee every ego, sexual, romantic, and psychological need and meet it.  

And the message ultimately fails us all because it's not speaking the truth that nobody is to blame for Eliot Spitzer's hubris but himself.

And over and over this morning, I saw pictures of Hillary Clinton next to Bill.  And the unspoken message was she's to blame.  It was her fault somehow.  She encouraged the behavior by tolerating it.  She encouraged the behavior by not satisfying his every need.  It was her fault.  

I support Obama to be our next President.  But this morning, I'm supporting Hillary.  It wasn't her fault Bill cheated.  It wasn't her fault Eliot used hookers.  

And it's not my fault either.  Not my fault if my boyfriend cheats.  Not my fault any man uses hookers.  

•  Tips/blame

  by Tracker on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:43:05 AM PDT

  •  All men are pigs

    They can't be trusted. We should let women rule and use men only for reproduction. Then, eventually, instead of great phallus symbols reaching to the sky, like skyscrapers, the land will be decorated with vaginuss symbols, domes or something. Except for fire hydrants. We should probably keep those the way they are.

    by TocqueDeville on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:13:50 AM PDT

    •  I have no problem with this.

      To be a male minority in a majority of women.....oops.

      As a married man, however, Spitz knew better but wanted his cheesecake and wanted it to fellate him, etc., too.

      by Neosocrates on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:15:46 AM PDT

  •  You Listen to Dr. Laura on the Radio?

    Ummm...you need some serious help.

    by LunkHead on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:35:09 AM PDT

•  My gf had the same complaint the CBS anchors did

  She thinks it's embarrassing for the wives to stand there by their husbands.

  by duha on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:48:18 AM PDT

  •  Because she can parlay it into

    a U.S. Senate seat?

    by bugscuffle on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:50:21 AM PDT

    •  If someone can explain

      why this little bit of cynicism should be hidden I will remove my uprate.  this seems pretty harmless by "Bugs" standards.

      by ratador on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:25:50 AM PDT

      •  How about

        diary hijacking?  This is not a candidate diary.

        by DMiller on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:41:55 AM PDT

        •  the conversation seemed to

          be about a wife standing by her "soiled" spouse and what the motivations might be.  Respectfully, I dont see where Bugs is hijacking.  He mentioned no "candidate".

          by ratador on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM PDT

    •  Uprated as a response to TRs,

      not as a matter of agreement.

      by Meng Bomin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM PDT

  •  Agreed and lets face it...if it was the other way

    ...around, a man wouldn't be standing next to his wife. I personally would end the relationship with the woman. That has always been expected of men (lest you become a pushover) yet women are still expected to be submissive and stand by their men.

    by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:53:30 AM PDT

    •  It never is the other way

      Name one political in a sex scandal.  One.

      by hockeyrules on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:58:55 AM PDT

      •  One woman

        Meant to say, one woman.

        Must have more java.

        by hockeyrules on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:59:17 AM PDT

        •  Can't think of one....

          but I can think of many others involving celebrity women, rich women, etc.

          I think there may be separate psychologies at work here underlying the same behavior.

          by Neosocrates on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:06:14 AM PDT

        •  There was one mayor in WA, I believe

          who got into trouble because of racy pictures on her myspace page.  That's all I've got.

          by Tracker on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:54 AM PDT

  •  I agree too

    My husband and I had the same conversation last night.  

    If my spouse were to do what Gov. Spitzer did, I would be in an attorney's office, not standing next to him showing my support of him and his indiscretions to the world.  

    However, in no way does Mrs. Spitzer standing by her husband, show that she is to blame for his indiscretion!  It only shows that she doesn't care a whole lot.  That's her choice and her private business.  One has nothing to do with the other.

    by diddosMN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:59:14 AM PDT

    •  It may not be that she doesn't care

      I think these women - the Mrs. Craigs and Mrs. Vitters, etc. etc. - "stand by their men" perhaps because they are coerced and are told that if they suck it up for the media they will be rewarded - rewarded by their man's groveling back for the lost love and respect, and perhaps these women think that by doing this they can hold onto the scraps of their marriages in the hopes of rebuilding them.

      That is the only thing I can think of, because I sure as hell wouldn't be standing there, looking all docile.  I wouldn't want that kind of pity.

      by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately...

  blaming the wife or Hillary or anybody but Eliot Spitzer is a reflection of our excuse-driven responsibility evasion society.  It is pervasive.  It knows no party, no race, and no gender.

  by George Gould on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:52:47 AM PDT

  •  No one is blaming their wives however

    Many men and women are tired and disgusted by the "shut up and stand by your man" attitude that prevails in politics.

    Spitzer is the culprit, he is the one who broke the law and dissapointed everyone. But there should be somewhat more attention to the sexism of politics that demands women to be submissive and stand by their men.

    Spitzer's wife isn't guilty, but it would be nice to see some independence and pride in politicians women for once.

    by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:56:53 AM PDT

    •  Here, here!

      You hit the nail on the head!

      by diddosMN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:02:43 AM PDT

    •  So, they should be required

      to divorce? How is that "freedom"? That's just another way for the public to tell them what to do.

      Here's an idea...what if families weren't in all the campaign literature, what if they weren't there at the victory party? That would be more honest, too, but that's not American, apparently.

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:03:54 AM PDT

      •  It would simply be nice if they show some BALLS

        Get it?

        I speak from some experience. My parents are divorced. When i was 12 years old, my mother caught me dad cheating. She kicked him to the curve. Back at the time I was devestated, but when I grew up I realised she did the right thing.

        Right now, I cannot see any reason why my mother should stay with my dad. Most people agree that independence and pride are a must for modern women.

        Yet for some reason political wives are the exception. Like in the 50-ies, they are still expected to "shut up and swallow".

        Again, Spitzer is the culprit, his wife is not on trial. What this diary says and what many people believe is that it would simply be nice for political wives to catch up with the times and show some BALLS in how they deal with their relationships. Just because your husband is an important figure in politics is no excuse for you to shut up and swallow.

        by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:09:14 AM PDT

        •  And therefore be humiliated.

          by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:17:34 AM PDT

          •  The one who gets humiliated in this process is th

            cheating lying husband. The wife would become a hero for REAL feminists all over the world. Finally showing that as a political wife you have control over your own destiny and that you for one, do not shut up and swallow.

            by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:30:56 AM PDT

            •  I sure as hell wouldn't be standing on that stage

              looking like I'd just gotten hit upside the head.  Hell no!

              by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:32:07 AM PDT

      •  It's not about forcing a divorce

        but they shouldn't have to share their private grief with a very public audience. I think it was different in Hillary's case because she was a very public figure in her own right, I don't know how public Spitzer's wife was.

        by Muzikal203 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:22:19 AM PDT

        •  It IS about forcing a divorce!

          Modern women don't shut up and swallow. They kick their cheating, lying husbands to the curbe, like they deserve.

          by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:29:34 AM PDT

      •  NO divorce requirement

        It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.  

        In a case such as this (or any other imo) the spouse of a politician should be able to seek legal advice if that's what they've chosen or simply take private time to grieve the situation.  They should not feel pressured to "stand by their man" immediately after they hear the news.  They should be independent, free-thinking, and proud!  

        Maybe this is the course of action Mrs. Spitzer decided to take.  Maybe she had instant forgiveness and sympathy.   I somehow doubt it.  

        by diddosMN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:50:54 AM PDT

        •  If your my wife, and you spend thousand of dollar

          On male gigolo's. Your outta here. No way would I put up with it. And I think most men would agree. Furthermore, if this happens to a guy, people would expect you to dump your wife, because not doing so would send the message that your a walkover.

          But apparently the same does not hold true for political women. In today's sexist America, they are still expected to "shut up and swallow". I don't see how any woman can be happy with that, and with the message it sends to young girls all over the country.

          Again, there is no law requiring to people to get a divorce after they've been cheated. But it would be nice to see a woman with some ballz for a change. And they are out there, I know many of them who aren't the type that shut up and swallow (including my own mother) but apparently political wives are still the exception, and that is a shame.

          by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:10:49 AM PDT

          •  It is a shame

            I'm with you.  I'd be out the door damn quick and I would never go back!

            My point is that I don't believe my reaction/decisoun would be the reaction of all women.  

            But, I totally agree that political wives need to show some pride, some independent thinking, some care for their own self.  They are not secondary to their spouses!

            I don't believe it is usual that ALL these women would have the first (second or third) reaction of standing on a podium next to and in support of their spouse after their spouse stepped all over their marriage vows.

            by diddosMN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:33:24 AM PDT

    •  I don't presume to...

      look into their heads or hearts.

      by George Gould on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:38:49 AM PDT

•  I'm tired of seeing political wives

  standing by their men, looking like they've been hit by a train.

  I'm tired of their husbands even asking that they appear at the press conference like some kind of  god forgive me 'cause my wife does moment.

  Be nice if those "private acts" didn't require the public lies of women at their side in support.

  Hillary's not my choice either, but I can't imagine yesterday was a good day. It brings all of Bill's philandering baggage to the fore and all of the pain of defending him. Not a good day, at all.

  by MrSandman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:52:58 AM PDT

  •  "Public lies"?

    Maybe it would be better if the US could be like other countries where the families of candidates are invisible and irrelevant. Maybe it would be better if there were no press conferences when these things happened, and maybe it's not particularly edifying to see them, but I don't think we can decide that the wife's support is a "lie"--marriage is complicated, we shouldn't presume it's a simple "yes/no" issue.

    by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:59:07 AM PDT

    •  Imagine being at your most vulnerable moment.

      A long relationship has just blown up in your face in a personally devastating way. Maybe your marriage was great; maybe not. But you never expected this.

      Intimate, sordid details are about to be made public that could destroy you and your family. And you're asked to stand beside the person who brought this on for the sake of your family. You're in shock and pain and you agree.

      It furthers the politician's lies. If this were truly a private matter, he would never have requested her appearance in public.

      by MrSandman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:22:55 AM PDT

    •  When I think about politics in other countries

      what comes to mind is Sarkozy et al., whose family is in the news, or Sharon et al. in Israel (same deal), or UK ex-PM Blair, whose wife was in the news, and... well, at least the Russian politicians keep their families out of things, but they don't really bother with all this messy democracy stuff.

      by Shaviv on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:09 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    I'm tired of their husbands even asking that they appear at the press conference like some kind of  god forgive me 'cause my wife does moment.

    The wives are therefore turned into political pawns.

    by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:18:47 AM PDT

•  The expression on Mrs. Spitzer's face

  in those photo ops suggests that she knows damn well who's to blame.

  by SensibleShoes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:57:09 AM PDT

•  The public should be taken to task

  for thinking that so many of these marriages are anything more than calculated and political in nature, and also for thinking that extra-marital sex is somehow the deviation rather than the norm.

  Men cheat.  Women cheat.  It's nothing new.  And I don't see much difference between Trump with his revolving 25 year old bimbo wives (with a prenup of course) and Spitzer paying $4000 for sex.

  It seems to me this story about Spitzer is far more about political hypocrisy than personal failure on anyone's part.  But of course our Corporate Controlled Consumer PseudoJournalists (CCCP) will focus on the money and the girl and blah blah, and even go so far as to start telling wives what they should or shouldn't do in this situation.  

  For all we know, she's got a lover and he's alright with it as long as they can present themselves as the happy family couple as long as he remains a public official.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:57:26 AM PDT

•  Applause..

  It has always mystified me how people can look at Hillary with anything but admiration.. admiration for the crap she had to put up with with that man.  And, admiration for the strength of will to keep herself out in the public eye, when she could easily have hidden herself away.. maybe written books and had a very comfortable life for herself.

  No matter how much you dislike her mannerisms or her less than stellar oratory, how can you not value the life experience she brings to the table?

  Personally, I think Hillary needs to stress that more.  She needs to open up at these rallies and lay it out.

  She also needs to connect with women a little more.. my line for her if I were on her advisory team?

  "I've been called a 'monster' recently.  But, like all women hitting the glass ceiling, I've been called worse..  the "B" word most of all.."

  something like that...

  Sorry for rambling..

  by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:01:45 AM PDT

  •  Because she is a sociopath.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Admire her all you want. But people like that don't get to be in charge of me. Sorry.

    Now, whenever women can figure out how to stop demonizing male sexuality, then men can stop objectifying women. And then maybe we can try trusting each other.

    But until then...

    OBAMA '08!

    by Dr Funkenstein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:07:49 AM PDT

    •  Other people get to be "in charge of" you?

      Funny, I don't want anybody "in charge of" me.

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:12:31 AM PDT

    •  Nice, Doc..

      You proved my point about male attitudes of powerful women... just reduce them to a level you can denigrate.. they're all just "crazy bitches", huh?

      by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:17:28 AM PDT

      •  There's plenty of legit reasons not to vote

        for Clinton, I think;

        None of the ones I can think of have to do with her being female, though, unless her whole career is viewed through the lens of "to be thought as half as good as men women have to be twice as good".

        So in that light, her AUMF vote was a woman trying to fit into this men's club (Congress) by voting for more aggression; her cluster-bombs-in-cities vote was influenced the same way, because calling for restraint and investigation and tact and so on would be seen as womanly and proof she's unsuitable to wield power in this men's club.

        I am not sure I buy this, mind you, and the "I had to do it to survive" argument doesn't really impress me either.

        by Shaviv on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

    •  When men stop abusing women left and right

      and turning women into nothing but those objectified trinkets who are only comprised of parts, then perhaps women can stop "demonizing male sexuality."  

      I have a pretty good feeling that women didn't make the rules that led them to "demonize male sexuality."

      by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:28 AM PDT

  •  I think Hillary has done all that

    The trouble is, she already has the support of women who see things that way. Talking about it more isn't going to win over the MoDo's and other judgmental types who say any woman who doesn't walk out at the first sign of indiscretion is somehow push-over and a doormat. It's really ironic seeing people who so blythely decide for someone else what is the correct thing for a "free" woman to do.

    by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:11:37 AM PDT

  •  What?

    She should be applauded for being a doormat?  In what parallel universe is Hillary Clinton a strong woman for never holding Bill accountable for his myriad affairs?

    There are two explanations:

    1. She truly loves Bill and will put up with anything from him.  She respects him more than herself and cannot leave him.

    2. She is a sociopath intent on political success and knows that she needs to ride Bill's coattails to gain power.

    There are HUNDREDS of successful female politicians in this country who have not let their husbands publicly humiliate them time after time after time.  There are MILLIONS of successful female CEOs and lawyers and doctors who have earned every stripe and won every battle on their own.  Hillary Clinton is not one of them!  If we're picking strong female role models, I've got a list a mile long and nowhere will you find Hillary's name.

    I'll tell you what: one way Hillary could win my vote would be to divorce Bill.  Until then, it's hard for me not to see as anything but a sociopath who has entered into a business relationship with Bill for personal political gain.

    by billysumday on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:16:18 AM PDT

    •  And why does that make her a sociopath?

      rather than a pragmatist?  You guys sure like to throw that word around without anything to back it up.

      by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:19:56 AM PDT

      •  I know....

        I want to rec billysumday's comment so badly but for the "sociopath" statement.  I don't think Hillary Clinton is a sociopath at all.  George Bush is sociopathic but I don't think even he is a bonafide sociopath.

        Strongly career-driven and cutthroat, maybe.  But Clinton is no sociopath.

        by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:26:39 AM PDT

        •  Okay, maybe not a sociopath

          But there is something unseemly about staying with Bill through all this nonsense.  Like I said, one way to look at it is that she is so intent on political success that she'll put up with anything.  I don't know what else to call it, maybe there is a better word out there.

          by billysumday on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:57 AM PDT

          •  Maniacally ambitious?

            BTW I totally loved the rest of your comment.

            by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:29:39 AM PDT

          •  How about "downright creepy"?

            I can see both sides at the same time.  In some ways it just plain creepy the way Bill and Hill have stuck together for the purpose of gaining and retaining power.

            But, I still think it's sexist the way people look at Hillary when, if she was a man, people would be saying how they admire his "dogged determination".. "fighting against insurmountable odds".. blah blah blah..

            She has showed up and stayed in the game long after many people (men or women) would have dropped out from the embarassment.  That's what I admire.

            by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:36:09 AM PDT

    •  And to go further...

      Hillary is not to blame for Bill's indiscretions anymore than Spitzer's wife is to blame for his.  But they are responsible for how they respond to their husband's actions.  That's how it works in an equitable society.  You DO something, and you are judged on it.  Whether that is standing by your man or leaving him, both are ACTIONS.  Actions that only the woman can make.  Why is it okay to say that it's the fault of society that some women stand by their man?  Why have we stripped these women of their ability to act as individuals?  Women are not ROBOTS!  They make decisions just like men do, and should be held accountable.  And to say that it's laudable to forgive and move on, remember that in the case of the Clintons, this is a frequent pattern that has gone back 30 years.  Bill has engaged in serial infidelities, many of which have been made public.  So to forgive is one thing.  But to forgive and forgive and forgive and forgive is something else entirely.

      by billysumday on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:37 AM PDT

      •  "Should be held accountable"

        Exactly why should Mrs. Spitzer or Mrs. Clinton be held "accountable" for their husbands' indiscretions? This should be a private matter, and the decision whether to stay together should be a private matter as well. Marriage is far more than simply a sex contract, though a lot of people seem to think that is the beginning and end of it. It should be up to the individuals involved to decide whether AND how often to forgive.

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM PDT

        •  Did you not read my comment?

          Should be held accountable for HOW THEY REACT to their husband's infidelities.  Dr. Laura is an idiot to suggest that it is the woman's fault that a man cheats on her.  However, once the man cheats, the woman has choices.  Does she stay with him, leave him, divorce?  What if he does it repeatedly?  You say that marriage and sex is a private affair, but it's only private until it's PUBLIC.  Until there are lawsuits and threats of imprisonment.  But look, don't twist my words.  Women should not be held accountable for their husband's actions.  Women should be held accountable for their own actions.  That is, if we truly wish to live in an equitable society.

          by billysumday on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:45 AM PDT

    •  It's becoming clear, though

      that Bill's coattails have functioned more as a banana peel for her...without him she might have been leading instead of behind at this point.

      So...you would vote for a "sociopath" if she was so ambitious that she would ditch her husband for votes. OK...

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:35:40 AM PDT

      •  I would vote for her in that scenario

        Because it would refute the things I dislike about her and reinforce the things I occasionally see from her that I do like - her humanity, strength, and respect for herself.

        by billysumday on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:41:43 AM PDT

  •  being the innocent spouse

    in an adulterous marrige is neither a positive or a negative factor in considering whether you are worthy of being elected. It's a nonissue.

    Her husband cheated on her publicly, repeatedly. This doesn't make her worthy of admiration or condemnation.

    She did publicly trash the women he cheated on her with. Like Maria Shriver, she implicitly blamed those other women for "tempting" her husband into boorish behavior. That's understandable, but hardly admirable.

    by elmo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:21:44 AM PDT

  •  Also...

    Hillary "hit the glass ceiling" because she sucks and the voters don't like her.

    She did NOTHING to deserve this nomination, and yet she had the blind support of millions of older white female democratic voters who felt it was "their turn", that Hillary was entitled to win this election. But with all of her advantages, she couldn't get it done.

    No doubt, many women are limited because of sexism. Hillary isn't one of those women. She's gotten much further than she ever would've without Bill. And now that she has to face real compition, it turns out that's she's not qualified at all.

    by Dr Funkenstein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:29:02 AM PDT

    •  And Obama's success isn't due to racism?

      she had the blind support of millions of older white female democratic voters who felt it was "their turn"

      You don't think AA voters are going for Obama blindly?  You don't think they believe it's "their turn"?  Is that why you blindly support Obama?  just askin'

      by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:45:07 AM PDT

      •  Blacks only blunt white racism in many states

        The 80-odd % of blacks who vote Obama (which wasn't 80-odd % until Billary pissed 'em off) are only somewhat compensating for the white racists in many cases.  Racism has probably helped Hillary more than Obama.  Hillary won the 20% who characterized "race as one of many factors" vote in Ohio 60-40, much larger than her overall margin of victory, as an example.  It doesn't take all that much racism on the part of whites to make it so blacks have to unite as a bloc just to try and balance it out.

         

        by other72384 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:30 AM PDT

•  asdf

  You wouldn't catch me standing by "my man" in that situation.  I would more likely do a Lorena Bobbitt on him.

  by BDA in VA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:04:39 AM PDT

  •  it's easy for someone to say that when it isnt

    them.  who knows what they would do in that situation if it were them.  that's why i like the song 'forgive' by rebecca lynn howard.  

    I always said that'd be it
    That I wouldn't stick around if it ever came to this
    Here I am, so confused
    How am I supposed to leave when I can't even move?
    In the time it would have took to say "honey I'm home, how was your day?"
    You dropped the bomb right where we live
    And just expect me to forgive...

    Chorus:
    Well that's a mighty big word for such a small man
    And I'm not sure I can
    Cause I don't even know now who I am
    It's too soon for me to say...forgive

    I should ask but I won't
    Was it love or just her touch?
    Cause I don't think I wanna know
    So get you some things
    And get out
    Don't call me for a day or two
    So I can sort this out
    Well you might as well have ripped the life right out of me
    Right here tonight
    And through the fallin tears you said
    "Can you ever just forgive?"

    Chorus

    You know what they say
    Forgive and forget
    Relive and regret

    Forgive...

    Chorus

    Oh...it's too soon for me to say FORGIVE

    by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:08:41 AM PDT

  •  hmm

    that's what Mrs. Vitter said in theory. In practice, though, when it happened, she stood right by her cheatin' husband.

    by elmo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:32 AM PDT

•  I have heard that dr laura bs

  when i was in MOPS (mothers of preschoolers) which said it wasn't about religion but moms, but was religious and i ended up quitting after trying to volunteer for the steering team and was expected to sign a pledge that i accept jesus christ as my personal lord and savior.  and when i asked why they wanted me to sign such a thing  they said so that they know that they can count on me and that we are all on the same page.  so i quit.

  anyway, they had speakers sometimes that would talk about how women need to support their husbands.  we are supposed to nurture them and take care of them and all that bs.  actually, i ended up going out in the hall because i couldn't listen to it anymore.  geesh!  i hate that bs.  but there are a lot of these folks who think that way.  and that they are a helpmate of sorts.  the man is closest to god and we are subservient.  wtf!!  

  I am of the persuasion that it is insidious to trot the wife out there to stand next to a man who screwed around on her, let alone with a prostitute.  larry craig's wife probably had known for awhile and had time to process it.  but spitzer's wife really looked like she'd been hit by a truck.  i am guessing she was still in a daze.  

  whatever...  i will not judge these women for standing there with their husbands.  we all have our choices to make in life.  and for whatever reason these women have chosen to stand with their husbands.  i personally haven't gone through that kind of ordeal, so I don't feel it is up to me to say what anyone should do in that situation. i don't think i could even say what I would do in that situation were it to happen to me.  

  i am sure that dr laura should just shut her friggin trap.  she is vile and i can't stand her.  it takes balls to blame the woman for not massaging her husband enough.  wtf.  go back to your trailer park, laura.

  by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:04:51 AM PDT

  •  yes, she did...

    spitzer's wife really looked like she'd been hit by a truck.

    It was so sad to see the contrast between the file footage of the Spitzers in happier times with the way she looked yesterday.  Barely any makeup, dazed indeed.  She looked so beautiful when she didn't know...and I'm sure she wishes she could go back to then and have it work out differently.

    I don't think these wives should publicly support their husbands right away, but I think years of being a political wife clouds their judgment as to what they really HAVE to do (they do so MANY things they don't want to, I'm sure).

    Every marriage is different, and couples make their own decisions... certainly, not ever episode of cheating leads to divorce.  I hope he resigns and they come to whatever decision will be in the best interest of Mrs. Spitzer and their daughters, who must also be devastated.  Tough lesson for them.

    by gfre on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

•  Well, I give Spitzer credit for one thing...

  he's at least (or appearing to be) owning his mistake.  He ain't Dr. Laura-ing this thing.  He admits he f-ed up.

  What's odd is that I know someone (a woman) who cheated on her husband and used the Doctor Laura defense as her reason (he didn't love me enough, not enough affirmation, not enough sex, etc.).  So while I agree -- it's not a woman's fault if their man strays -- the shoe can always go on the other foot, too. Everybody needs to own their own mistakes.

  Just sayin'.

  by wmtriallawyer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:05:36 AM PDT

  •  Some people would argue our culture is at fault.

    For celebrating monogamous lifestyles that are "archaic" or something.

    I don't agree, but that sentiment is out there.

    Just more of the entitlement L'Oreal lifestyle.....we're worth it.  We are, therefore we can fuck around because it's free speech.  Don't you oppress me!

    Jeebus..........humans are ugly in their behaviors.

    by Neosocrates on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:09:05 AM PDT

    •  Ugly is a good word for it.

      It's not "ugly" because of any morality play.  Could care less about that.

      It's ugly when one breaks the trust of another in that way, because it really is a bad hurt to inflict.

      Like I say, I've got two friends, both women, who cheated on spouses. Both ended in divorce.  One owned her mistake, and never wanted to relive that again, because of the hurt and ugliness it caused her husband when she told him.

      The other one...still hasn't admitted to her husband she cheated. Really weird denial since he, and everybody else, knew. Ugh. That's the entitlment syndrome I think you speak of.

      by wmtriallawyer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:19:01 AM PDT

    •  My wife is a European feminist

      and has been shocked by the American feminist perspective on marriage. She constantly finds herself saying things to American women like "But I love my husband and I'm perfectly happy being a wife!" and "But I don't want him to cheat on me, and I know he wouldn't, so I don't want to ever consider cheating on him either!" and "But I want to have kids someday! And I don't think it's bad at all for kids to have a father!"

      She says that based on how the left treats her here, she feels like a rank conservative half the time (for believing in things like "love" and "family" and that men are basically okay and not that different from women) and a communist the other half (for advocating socialized medicine, finance, energy, food, and housing for a left that still can't stand words like "socialized" and that is unwilling to touch food and shelter with the same magic wand that they want to touch health care with).

      by nobody at all on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:58 AM PDT

  •  "owning his mistake"???

    "I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong," he said. "I apologise to the public, whom I promised better."

    He never once in his statement said what he was apologizing for!

    The was the lamest, vaguest apology I ever heard.

    by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:11:00 AM PDT

•  I too get sick of seeing the victumized

  wife on the podium. But my reaction is different. It makes me think even less of the politician for dragging out his spouse for further humiliation. Watching Spitzer yesterday I kept thinking - why is he doing this to her - hasn't he hurt her enough? What I'm trying to say is I fault him for having her by his side, not her for standing there.

  by mr crabby on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:07:12 AM PDT

  •  i agree. it takes a lot of cajones to

    even ask someone to subject themselves to further humiliation by standing before the public like that.  

    by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:11:14 AM PDT

•  I agree that he is the asshole but...

  ..there is no law requiring women to shut up and stand beside their husband. No one will hunt her down if she simply refuses. Again, she is not to blame for what Spitzer did. But it would be nice for her to show some spine, and there is nothing stopping her from doing that.

  by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:11:40 AM PDT

  •  Who are you to judge? Maybe

    she is following her own will, not his. Neither of us know one way or another what moves her actions.

    You know, just because Eliot Spitzer was an idiot in this area, doesn't mean that he is a worthless person or a bad husband in other areas. Marriage is far too complicated an emotional relationship to make such harsh judgments about either participant.

    by ohiolibrarian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM PDT

•  It IS embarassing!

  As a woman and a wife, I AM embarassed for her.

  However, to say that she is to blame for his indiscretion, because I'm embarassed for her, is foolish.  

  He did it.  He is to blame.

  by diddosMN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:12:21 AM PDT

•  oh i also wanted to say something else...

  I remember being told by someone, can't remember who...  men are men.  they aren't responsible for their behavior.  women are supposed to be the brakes.  

  so remember girls, it's our job to keep men in line.  no matter what happens, it's our fault.  just remember that.  /snark.

  by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:19:13 AM PDT

  •  Just like women are solely responsible

    for chastity before marriage, pregnancy/disease prevention, etc.  Men can't possibly be expected to take responsibility for their own sexuality.  It's a meme I would have hoped to have died out years ago, but it's still prevalent.

    by Tracker on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:06 AM PDT

  •  I don't think you get it.

    Shame really. It's not about blaming the women. It's about women showing they are with the times and arent the slaves they used to be.

    That means if your boyfriend cheats on you, or spends thousands of dollars on prostitutes, do the thing that any man would do in a similar situation.

    Dump him. It's really not that big of a deal. There are other men in the world you know that right? Why put up with a cheater?

    by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:29 AM PDT

    •  It *is* about the blame

      Dr. Laura blamed Mrs. Spitzer.  Directly, non-equivocally.  So did the CBS commentator.  She said that the women standing by their men were sending a message that's it's ok to cheat, use hookers, etc.  Both sides were directly blaming women for men's faults.  

      And it needs to stop.  Stop blaming women for men's bad acts.

      by Tracker on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:33:09 AM PDT

      •  Basically she is right

        Look Spitzer made the mistake of going after prostitutes. For his crime his wife bears no responsibility.

        However his wife made the mistake of marrying Spitzer, a cheater and lyar that apparently cannot be trusted. Could she have known that beforehand? No.

        But she knows now doesn't she. So she should do the right thing and dump him. Its really that simple.

        If she stands by him, like Hillary did, she basically does send the message that wives are supposed to kneel down and swallow, because thats basically what this " stand by your husband" crap is about.

        by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:04:36 AM PDT

    •  men and women have different ideas about things

      like sex.  men are about the act.  women are about the intimacy of the act.  women tend to try to figure out what they did wrong or what they didn't do to keep the man happy.  men see it as a betrayal.  i think it has more to do with social conditioning.  women have always been treated as less throughout our history.  have we made strides?  sure.  but it's like growing up catholic.  i am no longer catholic, but the things that were shoved down my throat as a child still are in there trying to mess with my head.  for social conditioning, it goes further than that and permeates everything.  it's harder for women to repudiate that social conditioning.  i know i am probably not making any sense.  sorry.

      by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:37:36 AM PDT

    •  Not that big a deal?

      How many times have you been married?

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:41:48 AM PDT

    •  Why oh why must I do what "any man would do"

      when I'm a woman? Since when is what "any man would do" ideal behavior?

      by ohiolibrarian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM PDT

  •  Really???

    damn! After 33 years of marriage I had learned that everything is always MY fault!  Now you tell me! grrrrr.

    is a /snark really needed?

    by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:30:06 AM PDT

    •  sometimes people think you are serious.

      by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM PDT

  •  Speaking of which,

    where's my burka?  I'd hate to tempt too many men today while I'm out buying groceries.

    by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:35:51 AM PDT

    •  hubba hubba..

      is that a {insert your favorite humorous veggie name} in your basket, or are you just happy to see me?

      by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:38:51 AM PDT

    •  we have an invisible burka of sorts

      don't we.  women who are too revealing are asking for trouble.  it's amazing how repressed our country is for all our freedom.

      by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:37 AM PDT

      •  There must be a lot of trouble about

        because a lot of women dress that way, and women who don't because it doesn't look good on them are condemned for being frumpy...actually, I think in our (consumer-oriented) society frumpiness is considered the greater sin.

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:45:07 AM PDT

        •  i get so mad when i go to get clothes for my

          daughter.  since she stopped fitting in toddler stuff, i have had a heckuva time finding clothes i felt were appropriate for her age.  everywhere i went had all the same styles of short shorts with words on the butt and skimpy shirts.  for a FIVE YEAR OLD!!!  wtf is that!  i know i am conservative in my dress, but since when did five year olds start dressing like teenagers?  and i don't see me letting my daughter dress like that as a teenager either.  

          by ejpoeta on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:49:47 AM PDT

          •  I hope you have the choice when she

            becomes a teenager.  Clothing companies oversexualize the girls in preparation for them to become the hoochiemamas of the future...But if we dress "sexy" we're either whores or desperate for attention, or maybe we're just expressing ourselves!  We're totally free to show cleavage, we fought for the right!...to become nothing but a pair of tits to every man around us.

            Oh God, I am SO CONFUSED......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            by exiledfromTN on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:53:47 AM PDT

•  The wives of politicians,

  need to stop bailing their men out on this. Lying and cheating is lying and cheating. One's spouse is neither a reason-nor an excuse.
      Dr. Laura provides a tremendous disservice to these women. In her screwed-up "conservative mentality," women are second class citizens. God forbid-anyone should blame a man for poor conduct.  
      On some level, you just know, the woman has to be to blame. Women really need to stop being available for blame, here. Spouses are not the reason-nor are they the excuse. Using them as such, really is second class citizenry.
      Political conservatives like Dr. Laura are such throwbacks. She hurts more than she helps. She actually encourages wives to stand there-and shutup. Maybe she ought to shutup for a change.

  by lyvwyr101 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:55 AM PDT

•  Of course I'd stand by my man if he cheated-

  How else do I get close enough with my hunting knife?

  by WiseFerret on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:36:53 AM PDT

  •  Ha!

    Reminds me of response Jack Cafferty (sp?) gave yesterday. Something along the line of:

    If it were me, I'd be lying on the floor in a pool of blood, with my wife standing over me asking, "How do I reload this thing?!"

    by Reel Woman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM PDT

•  Sex is a wmd men use against men

  and have used to set up their male foes this way since the beginning of time. Doesn't matter if a man is hetero or gay, if a foe knows your weakness, watch out. Women are used as the weapon, though some do it willingly (don't ask me why? money maybe)

  Couples who are friends in their relationship find it easier to forgive than others. We are much nicer to our friends than to our lovers also. So some couples are able to overcome this betrayal or weakness if they have a strong friendship.

  So if there is any blame, I say blame the many weak men.

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:49:01 AM PDT

•  Fuck Dr. Laura!

  That gasbag couldn't hold a candle to Silda Spitzer.  She's a classic example of "please assist yourself before assisting others", and belongs in the trash along with a lot of other gasbag media refuse!

  by other72384 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:10:17 AM PDT

  •  I guess your the type of guy that prefers their

    women to "shut up and swallow" then eh?

    by DarkOmnius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:21:30 AM PDT

    •  If they're like Dr. Laura...

      ...I'd prefer they just go away and take their spew elsewhere.  Take Ann Coulter with her too.

      by other72384 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:34:25 AM PDT

•  Making informed judgments

  about other people's marriages, is not really possible. Trying just displays our own hangups.

  by StevenW on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:23:49 AM PDT