Double Standards Endorsed by Women

You know, it occurs to me that women are much harder on women than anyone else is. Take for instance the take on Sarah Palin's gubernatorial retreat by two of the New York Times opinion columnists, Maureen Dowd (pictured at left, photo by Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times) and Gail Collins. Ouch. Not that I'm a fan of soon-to-be-ex-Governor Palin--I, personally, don't like her and I think she gives women a bad name--but still, ouch. I didn't see the male columnists rushing in with the same level of unrelentingly vicious commentary.

Another one by Maureen Dowd with an edge of viciousness was aimed at the wives of political leaders, leaders whose affairs had been exposed to public scrutiny. Now, I'll tell you. I don't know if there's a real correlation between being willing to betray your vows to your wife or selling out the interests of those you "represent". One can make the argument that a willingness to betray loyalty in one direction equates with a willingness to betray loyalty in another. Perhaps that's true, but I've seen many apparently (maritally) faithful politicians who seemed to have no qualms about selling their constituents down the river and an (admittedly few) politicians with the fidelity of alleycats to their spouses who looked like they were at least trying to work on our behalf.

But I don't think being a family man or being faithful really mean anything more than one of many indications of character. What the taxpayer/voters pay for is the work done on the job, the efforts on behalf of the constituents for their good. I can readily digress at this point on special interests, but I should probably save that for a different post. This is not a departure for me. I don't feel that Michael Phelps owed the public, well, anything. He owed his sponsors and himself a good performance in the pool (which they got in spades) and, in my opinion, nothing else. I've yet to understand the urge to make heros of celebrities beyond what they're famous for (beauty, talent, skill, etc.). I don't and never have understood this preoccupation to know every frickin' detail of the private lives of people in the public eye. You can try to convince me otherwise, but I suspect it will be slow going.

Some of her advice seemed practical, like not dragging the kids into the mess in front of the cameras (I wish most political parents would do this) and changing the locks when he tried to excuse his transgressions and professed willingness to work on the marriage. And I tend to agree with the notion that blaming the other woman is a waste of time. After all, the only person who owed you loyalty was the dork with the wandering eye (and hands and genitalia) - let's place the blame where it belongs.

But much of her advice struck me as catty. Like avoiding the press. Sure, your husband is professing his undying love (to someone else) and his own duplicity to every news agency. You see/hear your husband's betrayal splashed on every headline and from every news source. Even if your relationship isn't close or romantic, it's a public humiliation. Now, everyone's eyes are on you and, right or wrong, a fair number will be looking for your shortcomings to explain the situation. Even if you didn't have any, your judgement and trust in your signficant other hardly flatter. Shouldn't, however, that advice apply 10-fold to the philandering loser rather than his spurned spouse? Why does she come off as the "harriden" when her husband has all the control and judgement of a pimply teenager?

In fact, according to this, there were no winning answers for the humiliated women: don't stoically stand by his side as he goes on in detail about how he loves someone else (OK, I agree - 1), don't take your side to the same press that's blasting his side to all the world (3,4,11, 12), don't be sarcastic (6), and, here's a winner, if you gave up your career to back him, hey, you asked for it (10). The only thing that is apparently OK (by omission) is quietly slinking away and, at best, coming back later pretending nothing ever happened.

Unh-hunh. Did I suddenly wake up in the nineteenth century? Mr. Public Servant can't shut his trap about his indiscretions but Mrs. Humiliated Private Citizen has to be stoically quiet no matter how much humiliation her husband dished on her? Or it will reflect poorly on her? Folks, as much as I think these marital squabbles are no one's business but the spouses involved, I'll be the last to say she should, for the good of her husband's image (and, inexplicably, her own) be publicly silent on a very public betrayal. The fact that society still sees that as appropriate just goes to show that we haven't come as far forward as we think we have.

And it makes me terribly sad that women are in the forefront of perpetuating that sort of thing.