When I'm out with friends, I'm always cracking up with women's complaints of men.
After a while, I usually interject this bit of human observation.
"Do you know why men are scumbags?... because women let them".
Case in point, when the next woman refuses to stand on a podium supporting their precious husband for hitting the hookers, toe tapping on bathroom floors, wearing a ball gag in a hotel room, this crap will stop.
Here's a sorry piece on the women in these sex scandals. WTF. Did their husband's force them to stand on that podium with them? If not, they're just as culpable. For cryin' out loud girl, where's your self respect? Make that douche bag deal with it solo.
30 comments:
Gordon, you couldn't be more wrong about what's in a woman's mind when she's deciding one way or the other about standing on that podium.
You also are making the case that men are cro-magnon and have no impulse control or ability to evolve. Not a strong picture of leadership for much of anything now, is that?
Come on - you can do better. Be thoughtful.
Actually you're totally missing my point.
First, men can control their impulses, and they're also fully aware of their codependent relationships.
Spitzer knew he could get away with it because his wife would support him thick or thin.
Like I always say, "you don't get what you deserve in life, you get what you're willing to put up with".
Spitzer's wife is apparently willing to put up with a whore mongering, douche bag and guess what? She has one.
Anyone who is described as a whore-mongering douche-bag has impulse controls, Gordon, as I said.
What did you think of evangelical Ted Haggard's wife staying by him?
I'd say the same thing, along with Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrinch, etc. etc.
Look, my ex-wife, to my knowledge, never cheated on me but put herself in a position where she might as well have, several times.
Notice I call her an "ex" today.
Here's the deal... Too often these people are so consumed with their own appetites they never consider the fallout to others.
Maybe it's time they're forced to but they'll only consider others when they know full and well what the response is going to be on the other side of the screwing around.
My guess is that she was fine with it, except the getting caught and being embarassment part. As long as she had the trappings of power, the inside to a billion dollar inheritance, AND the added benefit of not having to do the sex that he wanted, it was cool with her. I think most people give women more credit for civility than they deserve.
Yo - Gordon - I posted a comment before Joe C's and it's not showing up - what's the deal, blog buddy? Please check, would ya?
Jill
I'm not sure what's going on? I don't have comment moderation on and I made no changes to any settings.
You may need to send again.
Joe,
What you say is probably accurate. For many of these power couples, the marriage nuptials include the trappings of of interest.
And that is a shame and it's also why these things will never stop.
Jill,
I do apologize for your comment not getting on. I don't know what may have caused it.
Trust me I love opposing comments so it must be a flaw in google.
People who engage in behavior like Spitzer's are narcissists. That means that they don't think about the impact on other people. That's the whole thing.
People who marry narcissists typically are not...narcissists. So your expectation of them walking away really is misplaced.
Now - that doesn't mean that the spouse wouldn't choose to not stand by the offending spouse. HOWEVER, since they aren't narcissists, they are going to do exactly what you just said: they will think about the ultimate impact - on themselves, on others.
That doesn't make them a martyr either.
I would urge you to evolve here. :)
Jill
So the way to manage a narcissist is to enable them?
Go to an AL-ANON meeting sometime, they'll tell you how that works out.
I don't think I'm the one that needs to evolve here.
You are twisting what I've said into a very huge cliche.
There is enormous space between a narcissist and people who love that person. Plenty of room for enablers, but many, many other kinds of people who care too.
Caring for a person who is a narcissist comes in a lot of forms you know, not just enabling. The enabling has to do with the person doing the enabling - not the narcissist. That person - the enabler - can change too.
Did I just hit that "conservatives see things as black or white" thing that NixGuy has warned me about?
Damn GG, 11 comments. Is that a record?
Part of the comment that's never showed for whatever reason had to do with how you explain GOP Senator David Vitter's wife standing by him and Evangelical Pastor Ted Haggard's wife standing by him. Would you give their wives the same advice? Those couples continue to be intact - what do you make of that?
Maybe I need to be more clear about something. I'm not suggesting that infidelity necessarily means the end of a marriage.
First, what two people decide after one of these events is between them.
My whole point is that many of these guys need one big old kick of humility up their rear ends. That process starts the day husband has to stand in front of a crowd with lots of questions and guess what? That person who's been there this whole time isn't any longer.
That'll give you a big old snort of humility right then and there.
Second, I'll stand by my opinion that if you want to see more of these deals just keep "standing by your man" and trust me the narcissist in these guys means they'll just lean on that like they have for oh so many years.
Third, I don't believe that a person can truly love a narcissist. Ask a psychological professional and they'll tell you that relationship is co dependent all the way.
I'll relate the George Bush quote to this situation "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
It's almost like we expect men to act like dogs and then we pretend to be surprised when they do.
I'm actually offering that men can and should control their sexual desires, we're not animals; we have that capability.
If men were to slow down and think about the ripple effect of these decisions I don't believe they would occur as often.
For the record, I am a Christian guy but I am no more immune to temptation than the next guy. With that said, I have to be vigilant about the things that I do to keep those temptations at arms length. One of the things that I have to do is keep myself humble.
There's no question that humility is a quality not associated with politicians but I have an expectation that it should be.
You say some helpful, useful, reasonable things in there - but what you are still implying is what you wrote at first: that women have the task of getting the guys to man up.
I'm saying - nuh-uh. Men should do it themselves. Give me one reason why they shouldn't be expected to be mature enough, vigilant enough etc. all on their own? And frankly, that goes for women who may stray too.
But if I've misinterpreted your original intent, tell me.
FYI, I've got a masters in social work, worked at a children and family mental health agency for eight years and was an LSW, though I passed the LISW exam (I just never went for the clinical license because I was considered to be in the management side, as ombuds and then director of risk management).
I diasgree both with us expecting men to act like dogs and with the no one can truly love a narcissist.
I would say the opposite is true: men expect to be treated like dogs because they don't want to take responsibility for how hard it can be to keep oneself in check and a narcissist is really someone who cannot love themselves.
How's that for reverse psychology!? :) (I actually love this stuff but it is very very complicated)
This whole Spitzer thing has played out for millennia (powerful men and the women who love them).
90 percent of men are decent moral law abiding guys, 9.9% are of questionable character, and 0.1% are downright filth like Spitzer.
It just so happens that to reach high levels of power often requires a Spitzer-like approach. Leading up to last week Spitzer was arrogant, and became rich, powerful and famous.
I wasn't any older than 10 when I realized that, guess what, girls often like boys who are arrogant, rich, powerful and famous. It is almost universal. Liberal girls, conservative girls, pretty girls, ugly girls. Even girls that say they don't like those traits, like those traits. Ironically, these are usually the boys that tend to treat their girls like s**t.
Take that point. Then note that as a society we pay an incredibly dispropotionate amount of attention to the Spitzers of the world. Millions watched with morbid curiousity while Spitzer does what he does best, treat his wife like s**t, and watch as she seems to just take it like she probably has for 20 years.
Then all the analyzers of the world, particularly those who are tuned into the "all women are victims of all men" mode of thinking, make this great leap. They project the actions of this single spectacular failure of manhood, Eliot Spitzer, and project them onto all men, even the 90% who break no laws, who are faithful, and who pull their own weight. And then we are all the "bad guys".
We are used to shrugging it off getting up, going to work, taking care of our families. But it does get tiring to watch this Spitzer crap, then to flippantly be lumped in with him.
I don't doubt that you believe everything you just wrote Anon, but that is what the Cosmo and Esquire magazines have sold you and it's you believing what men try to reinforce with each other in the locker room.
But it's very superficial.
Men and women fail each other and themselves regularly, if for no other reason than we each want to be better than we are in one way or another. Totally, completely human. Failing at that is also human.
Spitzer was a risk-taker but people who take risks like he did don't value their life because if they valued their life, all of their life, they would have taken better care to safeguard it.
Jill
Ultimately, we are all responsible for our actions. I'm not trying to "blame" women for the fall of a man.
What I am saying is this.
When we live our lives anonymously, without accountability, we will all sink to the lowest common denominator.
Our lives excel when we live in community, when we have accountability partners, people that hold us to word. When those things exist in our lives, big things can happen.
Just look at the difference in tone from those who post on your blog anonymously v. having a name on it. In general, which are more productive?
When we live anonymously or surround ourselves with enablers, we will always fall pray to gravity, our worst character traits.
As it relates to Spitzer, I'm guessing that he had no accountability people in his life, his wife was sure not one of them. and I still believe her appearance on a podium is an enabling act.
I'm up for changing the conventional wisdom about men. That men be accountable for their relationships. Unfortunately, women will need to raise the bar on their partners for that to happen.
I think the down side of the feminist movement is that it has minimized the role of men. We have a culture that says a woman can do it all, and there are way too many men who are more than willing to lay down in hammock and let them.
You can see it in the numbers. More women on college campuses, more women in Masters programs, the number of child support deadbeats. Better grades in school, etc, etc.
I just think that Spitzer's wife played right into all those stereotypes.
She could have sent a message to women all around.... "I'm making that bastard step up" and I'd say "you go girl".
Are my taxes done yet????
Good point. Now that's accountability.
I appreciate your comment Jill. But I don't read Cosmo or Esquire. And I have never discussed social issues with the naked guy next to me in a locker room. (Where do these stereotypes come from?)
This is simply what I have seen in my life experience of what attracts women to men. I'm sorry but the guy with the nice sports car and a fat wallet usually gets the girl. (Am I right guys?) To your point on being human, men can be weak and equally superficial in other areas. We all occasionally have minor failures of character.
My point was that we take the hyper character failure of guys like Spitzer and project it on men in general. And we look at women who are drawn to this dangerous flame, wonder why that flame burned her so bad, then conclude that all boys must be bad.
The problem I have with that, in turn, is that it lays a flawed foundation for future social discourse on topics of gender politics and justice for the average joe and jane.
Gordon - I cannot emphasize enough how great I think it is that you've allowed us to keep going at this, writing up what we're thinking, reflecting back and so on.
But I do think that we're basing what we write on completely different assumptions - I absolutely do NOT buy into a bunch of assumptions that you state with what I promise I do not read as arrogant or anything, but I do read as being very very different from both my life experience and what I believe to be true.
So - I don't want to hog your time or anything - if you want me to keep going and to comment on which assumptions exactly and all that, I am happy to - I just wouldn't want you to think that I'm thinking that I need to change them or something.
Of course, I do think that. :) But partly only because I would love to persuade you to at least SEE how I see things - not to necessarily re-commit yourself to my way of thinking.
Do you know what I mean?
Let me know if you do want to keep up the dialogue - but sincerely, I don't want to monopolize you or this thread (as if I haven't already!) :)
Anon - why no name, just out of curiousity?
Well, I would say to you - you need to get out more! Because the life experiences I have lead me to believe that what you describe about what attracts women and all that? VERY narrow description - I sure don't know any women like that and I know many men who would furrow their brow and crinkle their foreheads at what you've described.
Maybe we've simply discovered that our life experiences are that far apart.
Jill
I have no problem with the conversation, that's actually why I do this blog.
But I'm still unclear, what is it exactly that you disagree with.
Ugh - I started an excellent if I do say so myself reply but lost it! I hate it when that happens.
The gist was that I see responsibility falling to the individual. What you describe makes me want to know if you are actually a libertarian, because the libertarians I've met, when I ask them how people who are infirm etc. will be taken care of, always say that it's the community's responsibility to do that.
But otherwise, I don't see this thing about others making others be better people. Sure, in some friendships and relationships. But as a general rule? This country was founded on bootstraps and people learning to take care of themselves. The community impact is secondary.
My anonymous commenters are pretty good! But I really have little tolerance for anons in general - mostly because if you can't stand behind what you believe with your name, what is the point of voicing an opinion that you're supposedly passionate about if you won't put your name to it, won't put your identity on the line? This is about commitment too, as I see it.
But I digress.
I still hear you saying that men can't control themselves and women need to rein them in and if they don't, then shame on the women. I don't hear it so much as blame but you think that it's the natural position or something and I say, no - that is not the case. Men can control themselves if and when they deem it's necessary - and when it comes to taking marriage vows? I'd say that necessitates them to control themselves.
Whether a spouse is an enabler or not has to do with that person's insecurities and needs - not the weakness of the person who can't control themselves - because they are too busy struggling with trying to control themselves, right? :)
You say women have to raise the bar - why can't men raise the bar for themselves? What about women who cheat?
Tell me why you don't think people need to be doing it themselves - that's what I don't get. You are a conservative, yes? So this all really befuddles me - where's that individual responsibility lean thing we often hear from the right (not that the right owns the concept - but I'm surprised you aren't pushing that more).
This is probably, however, where I find we most diverge:
"I think the down side of the feminist movement is that it has minimized the role of men. We have a culture that says a woman can do it all, and there are way too many men who are more than willing to lay down in hammock and let them.
You can see it in the numbers. More women on college campuses, more women in Masters programs, the number of child support deadbeats. Better grades in school, etc, etc.
I just think that Spitzer's wife played right into all those stereotypes.
She could have sent a message to women all around.... "I'm making that bastard step up" and I'd say "you go girl"."
Okay - Spitzer could send a message by not screwing around, by being the upstanding person he tried to get everyone else to be, by whatever means necessary. Instead, he showed he's as lousy as the next louse and as insecure and messed up in the head too.
Why in the world are we even asking about Silda? Seriously? The idea that there is a burden on her, individually, is ridiculous.
As a partner in a marriage - now that's a different question! And that has nothing to do with feminism. Feminism isn't about whether you stand by your man or not, Gordon.
It isn't about minimizing men - that's absurd. That men FEEL minimized is one thing but some men feel empowered by letting women find strength within themselves, just as men have been able to do. What exactly is wrong with letting a woman try to have it all (I happen to never have been someone who has ever thought that ANYONE can have it all, all at the same time - that's unrealistic to begin with - and like the rising star moniker, a sure bet that something's going to disappoint).
The achievement of women in college, in post-grad programs etc - how is all that a bad thing??? You've totally lost me there.
What you've written seems to say that you simply don't believe in egalitarian principles.
So I ask you, is that right? And if that's right, I would like to know why - why don't you support egalitarian principles? Why shouldn't men and women decide between themselves whether a man will lay in a hammock and let a woman go to school?
What exactly are you wishing the world looked like?
The very thing that feminists today - who are called third wave feminists - would LAST say to a girl, except in their making up their own mind, would be "I'm making that bastard step up"
You know why? Because guess what? It's not about HIM. It's about HER. Period. And she must do what SHE comes to decide is what she must do. No one else.
[Disclaimer - sorry if I got passionate there - please just know that's my if we were talking over a beer tone - not personally getting angry or anything. :)]
My thoughts on Spitzer's wife are very libertarian.
"Subsidize it and you have more of it".
Her "supporting" him for being a scumbag, just means he's likely to continue being a scumbag.
Again - I don't see it as support - many women don't and probably some men too. But I know there are people who will - like you.
I disagree with that characterization.
As for him being a scumbag, that's really not it either except in how ordinary scum is.
I'm doing pretty good this week... being called a racist and a sexist.
I read your post over at another blog so I'm going to try this one more time.
Explain to me how supporting a scumbag for a husband advances anything for women?
My whole point is when a woman stands next to one of these dolts, they make women look weak and subservient to these derelicts.
I'm not a proponent of women looking weak and subservient. Which is why I'm suggesting that they quit doing it.
For the record, Mrs. Gekko has told me that she would never do that if I cheated. In fact, I could probably find divorce papers in my lap the next morning.
I respect that because I would do the same.
SO when Hillary, Silda, et al "stand by their man" it sends a message to women that boys will be boys.
I think that's creepy.
Gordon, I completely and totally understand what you say is your perspective.
I'm telling you that I don't share that perspective, I don't see it the way you and I believe that the perspective you hold reflects very solid non-egalitarian unrealistic media-pushed stereotypes.
That is MY perspective - and I know people share it, but I'm reading plenty of people who don't. I would only say that when your wife is actually GOD FORBID faced with the exact situation, let me know what she does. Likewise, other people. This is not to say that they won't do what they believe they would do if they were Silda Wall Spitzer. This is to say that we should not be judging what she does nor should we be name-calling women who make the choice she did.
I just had this conversation with Mr. Writes Like She Talks and he agrees with the perspective that standing next to the cheater actually makes the cheater even more accountable. If Silda isn't there, then...it's like she's not there and it reinforces this insane notion infidelity and prostitution are victimless crimes - that is absolutely absurd.
Again - I know you really believe what you're writing and I'm sure Mrs. Gekko does too.
What I'm saying is: it's fine to not stand there, it's fine to stand there. Neither one is "weak" - that's ridiculous to me - though not to you. Making such a choice only gets termed weak by those judging the victim's actions, which, by the way, compounds injury.
Where is the justice in that?
Post a Comment