Last week, Huma Abedin stood by her man, as so many politicians’ wives have done before. Arising from that news conference, some have praised Huma for having the strength and courage required to stand beside Anthony Weiner as he acknowledged further indiscretions, while others have criticized her for subjecting herself to that indignity, followed by criticisms of those criticisms, saying that the matter is a private one between husband and wife, and that we should not be presume to judge her motives.
Of course, only those who criticize Huma are reprimanded, while those who praise her get a pass. As long as one speaks glowingly about how much she cares about her husband, loves her child, and is trying to make the marriage work, one makes such remarks with impunity. The remarks themselves might be challenged, but the one who makes them is never told he has no right to pass judgment on their marriage. But if one makes the suggestion that she is politically motivated, that she is doing what she thinks is necessary to save her husband’s career, or, somewhat more cynically, her own, that person is chastised for presuming to know what is in her heart. This is a most convenient asymmetry, for if all were to follow this rule, we should have only the choice of praising her or remaining silent. Another asymmetry worth noting is that no one criticized Jenny Sanford, who not only did not stand by her husband in front of cameras while he confessed his sins, but divorced him as well. There may be ambivalence about what Huma did, but there is none regarding Jenny.
If Huma Abedin wanted her decision to stay with her husband to remain private, she would not have appeared at the press conference, which by its very nature is a political act. And the thrust of her appearance beside her husband is this: “Since I have forgiven my husband, then you should too.” So if her forgiveness is a reason for us to overlook his peccadillos and vote for him anyway, then we are justified in questioning that forgiveness and being suspicious of her reasons. She cannot have the political benefit of supporting her husband’s efforts to be elected mayor of New York City, and then become the sad wife whose motives must not be impugned.
The tradition of the wife appearing beside a philandering husband, for the purpose of publicly forgiving that philandering, began with the Clintons in a 60 Minutes broadcast in 1992. During that interview, Hillary famously made the following assertion: “You know, I'm not sitting here — some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together.” Even back then, Hillary realized that people would have mixed feelings about a woman who would remain with a man who cheated on her, especially when political ambition strongly suggested itself as the real reason for such loyalty. So, she disparaged the willing-victim stereotype of the doormat-wife, who puts up with a louse under the delusion that somehow he needs her, while speaking proudly of her love and respect for Bill, which we were all supposed to infer was mutual.
It is especially difficult for men not to be critical of women like Hillary and Huma, owing to the fact that no self-respecting man would do the same for his wife. Personally speaking, if I had a wife who was also a politician, and she took pictures of her genitals and sent them to her admirers, then while she was at the news conference apologizing for her transgressions, I would be home splitting the sheets. In any event, if there is a popular song out there in which a man croons sentimentally about standing by his cheating wife, I have yet to hear it. In fact, the complement of “Stand by Your Man” is “Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love to Town.” For those who are unfamiliar with the song, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran pleads with his wife not to have sex with other men, while she gets herself dolled up and prepares to leave for another night of wanton promiscuity. In the last verse, he says, “And if I could move I’d get my gun / And put her in the ground.” Fortunately, most cuckolds refrain from such a drastic remedy, though, sorry to say, certainly not all.
It would be nice to have an empirical test of this hypothesis regarding the difference between men and women. We all know that women cheat, though perhaps only half as much as men. As more and more women enter politics, hopefully one or two of them will get caught engaging in the sort of shenanigans that male politicians seem prone to. Then we will see if the husband stands next to his wife as she admits that mistakes were made, followed by his praise of her public service, and his avowals of how much he loves and respects her. But I doubt it. I mean, it is one thing for a man to use a cigar as a dildo, wear diapers, play footsies in the restroom, and take pictures of his penis to flash women electronically; but surely no man will sink so far as to allow himself to be trotted out as a wittol, disgraced and degraded before all the world.
At least, I hope not. At any rate, while we wait for the day when a female politician gets caught with her pants down, I shall endeavor to keep an open mind.