Tuesday, March 25, 2008
It's not the face of the man at the microphone your eyes are drawn to. Not the guy confessing or denying sins to a phalanx of cameras. It is the face of the woman beside him that fascinates.
As he drones on, either contrite or defensive, she stands just off his right shoulder, her thick veneer of shock and stoicism covering the knot of raw pain just beneath.
Most recently, it was Silda Spitzer's turn in the withering limelight, as her husband, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, resigned following the uproar over wiretap evidence that he had paid as much as $80,000 for dalliances with prostitutes. Other members of Silda Spitzer's elite club include Suzanne Craig, wife of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, who has denied allegations of cruising for gay sex in a Minneapolis airport restroom; Dina Manot McGreevey, former wife of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who came out on live TV as "a gay American," and Wendy Vitter, who told reporters at a news conference that forgiving her Louisiana senator husband David for paying call girls was "the right choice for me."
Few would argue that whatever these women decide to do with the rest of their lives is up to them, and that they need time to sort that out. But many casual observers find the sight of these same wounded wives sharing their spouses' public humiliation offensive. Why not let the guy wallow in the mess he created? Why let it splatter on you for all the world to see?
The sight of Silda Spitzer, an attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School, facing the music with her husband has aroused a range of reactions in the blogosphere among political insiders and the public _ mockery, pity, disgust, empathy, anger. Would you stand by your man?
"These so-called 'men' in the public eye know they are targets for scandal and if they can't respect their vows they need not take them," wrote Sheri Lamb of Minneapolis, responding to a StarTribune.com query. "It seems they want to use a woman to give them the image of a secure and family-oriented man with values. If any man or woman feels they have to cheat, then they should be decent enough to end the relationship and have at it."
Lisa Gintner responded with a qualified "no." "Every situation is so different and when you're the person who must put those shoes on things tend not to look so clear," she said.
"I think society's expectations of the woman's reaction is skewed," wrote Kathie Dawiedczyk of Woodbury, Minn. "Let's allow her to be human, feel the pain in public and save face that she doesn't need to put up with this sort of betrayal _ she can stand on her own two feet. That's the message we should be sending to our young women."
Tanya Nordin of Blaine, Minn., said she would have to evaluate the marriage to determine if it were worth saving. "I would also factor in my daughters, the impression this would leave on them and how it could affect their decision-making in relationships in the future. I would want to show them my own strength and integrity at a time when their father was apologizing for his lack of both."
By the old rules, a political wife played sacrificial lamb in hopes that public empathy would rub off on him: If she's sticking with him after this, he must have some pretty remarkable redeeming qualities. But in an age when women are supposed to be independent and powerful in their own right, not appendages, such an act seems beyond the pale.
It's easy to speculate on motivations from our sofas. We try to judge, by facial expressions, body language, under-reaction, over-reaction. But the only people who know what Silda Spitzer is going through are those who have also been through it.
The news brought back some unpleasant memories for Vicki Tigwell, who was married to Minnesota gubernatorial hopeful Jon Grunseth when allegations of sexual impropriety derailed his campaign. The two were divorced in 1998.
Comments
amazonratz (anonymous) says...
One point mentioned by a former political spouse on the news was that the public announcement often takes place right away, only hours after she receives the news. She is in shock, and more pliant. If she had a week to absorb it, would she go on that stage? Maybe, maybe not, but it would be her own decision, not the decision of the man or his aides. In the face of great shock, how well do *we* make decisions? I feel so much compassion for them, and after hearing that, no longer feel that this early public appearance means much.
March 25, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
golfergirl (anonymous) says...
I, for one, would not do it. This was the man's betrayal, his mistake and thus this announcement to make. Alone. Period. And I would tell that to my daughters, too. This is Dad's deal, his public. Not ours.
March 25, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patmcq (anonymous) says...
The more of these moments I see--and there have been several, haven't there--the more one word comes to mind: token. The spouse is being made into a token that legitimizes the illegitimate action.
The doer of the deed is a public figure standing there because of wrong that affects the public in some way. Would the spouse be standing next to the governor or mayor or president if he were speaking about taxes or education or whatever other public topic? This happens to be a topic involving sex, but if it has something to do with the public, the spouse's approval or acquiescence isn't relevant. And if this is private, there shouldn't be a public mea culpa.
So why does the spouse agree? Despite what they say, it's not the kids--it's never the kids. It's the $$ and the power and the prestige that's up in the air. It seems to me that they aren't willing to close the door yet because they haven't had time to settle these issues.
March 25, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.