Look! A post on something other than reverse snobbery or bondage for Christians! Rejoice!
My old friend Bill reads this blog, and has noted my penchant for taking fairly strong stances on certain subjects, like the sinfulness of wearing fur and the generally problematic nature of older-men, younger-women relationships.
Bill recently went to a fundraising event where he briefly met Dennis Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth Harper. Dennis turned 61 yesterday; his wife Elizabeth is, as many folks know, more than three decades his junior. (Dennis’ campaign page is here, and his wife’s page is here.).
Bill, knowing of both my general disapproval of significant age-gap relationships and my deep fondness for the only fellow vegan in congress, writes:
I see lots of deserved kvelling about Mr. Kucinich but nary a word about his being married to a woman thirty years younger than he is. Plenty of paragraphs devoted to that subject in general but nothing about those two. Heck, I don’t think I saw even one word about Mrs. Kucinich at all. So what’s the deal? Does Kucinich get a free pass from you because of his outstanding professional record? Or are you so taken with them as a couple that the age difference doesn’t look so bad on them? Or do you secretly think it all depends on the two people in question?
Like a lot of folks, I raised an eyebrow when I heard about the Kucinich marriage two years ago. 31 years is not an insignificant age gap, after all. At the same time, as I’ve made clear in my many posts on this subject, it’s not wise to subject all age-disparate relationships to rigid hard and fast rules, save when the younger partner involved is under 21.
If Dennis and Elizabeth had gotten married when he was 50 and she was 19, I would have been much more troubled; Mrs. K was 28 when she married the elfen presidential candidate, with a formidable track record of global justice work and, presumably, a healthy quantity of life experience under her belt. My own feeling is that the number of years between the two partners matters less than the age of the younger partner at the time the romance begins. I’m much more troubled by a 17 year-old dating a 27 year-old than I am by a 27 year-old dating a 50 year-old. Given what we know about adolescent development, given that bright young women in late adolescence are famously likely to exaggerate wildly their own maturity (making them perfect targets for predators who flatter them with the assurance that they are wise beyond their years), I’ve said that it’s very, very rare to see a person under 21 in a truly healthy relationship with someone more than eight years their senior.
I think it’s also important to be honest about the ways in which our culture sexualizes young women at the expense of older ones. I have nothing but dripping contempt for the tired arguments from evolutionary biologists who think women peak in pulchritude just as they peak in fertility, and that men in their fifties who leer at teenage girls are just following the dictates of nature. I argued exactly a year ago that the libido ought to mature along with the rest of us. And when we see a devoted feminist man dating or marrying a woman thirty years his junior, it’s hard not to feel, if only for a moment, as if he has failed in some way to match his romantic choices to his public rhetoric.
But of course, there’s a lot more to love than ideology. And Bill’s right that, when the younger partner is closer to thirty than twenty, it all really “does depend on the two people in question.” It seems clear from her biography and her life experience that despite being more than three decades younger than her husband, Elizabeth Kucinich is hardly a wide-eyed ingenue under the spell of a lecherous old man. While those who justify the exploitation of young women frequently exaggerate their agency, in this instance the former Ms. Harper seems to have a very clear idea of what it is that she’s entered into, and with whom.
I continue to be amazed by the percentage of search queries for information on “older men, younger woman” that lead people to this blog. But those looking for a blanket condemnation of all age-disparate relationships, particularly those that begin when the younger partner is old enough to rent a car or run for Congress, will be disappointed. I’m not giving Mr. and Mrs. Kucinich a free pass because I admire their politics. I’m not claiming to know all the inside details of their relationship. I am clear, however, that the gap between 18 and 28 is far more troubling to me than the gap between 28 and 58. Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich are thus not a case model for the problematic nature of older men, younger women romances.
And in the end, even when marriages do begin in an atmosphere of exploitation or dishonesty, they can evolve into something very different. One of the best marriages I know today involves a couple a little less than twenty years apart. He’s in his late seventies now, she is on the cusp of 60. When they met, she was his 21 year-old student; he her nearly-forty, married professor. He left his wife for her the year men first landed on the moon. It was a disastrous beginning to a relationship, fueled by unrealistic fantasy and enabled by infidelity. Over time, however, it evolved into something else, something deeper, something wonderful. A dear friend of mine is the first-born child of that union; now in his mid-thirties, he sees his parents’ marriage as an ideal to which he aspires. What began in cruel and apparently exploitative circumstances became something very, very different — something wonderful and deep and committed. How relationships begin is often, but by no means always, an indicator of how they will evolve and grow.
I’m not saying that the Kucinich marriage is anything like this example. But even if it were, now that the marriage has happened and appears to be flourishing, it deserves our whole-hearted support.
But though Dennis has my heart, John Edwards is still getting my 2008 money.
Hugo, you’re backpedaling an awful lot here, and I can’t help but suspect that you’d take a very different stance if the couple in question were right-wing Republicans. (I mean, describing Kucinich as ‘elfen’?)
The fact that other May/December relationships trouble you more is no reason to say this one shouldn’t trouble you. Things you’ve condemned in the past–the view that women stop being attractive past a certain age, being threatened by a partner of equal maturity and experience, needing to be pseudo-Daddy–don’t cease to be issues.
Well, a lot of people have been saying nasty things about Fred Thompson’s much-younger wife, and frankly, what I’ve said here goes for them too (though the details of that marriage are less well-known to me, as I have no time for Fred and a lot for Dennis).
I am troubled when an older man of Kucinich’s age has no interest in women who are his rough chronological peers. If Dennis were to have written me for advice when he first took an interest in Elizabeth, I would have questioned him sharply on this. I would also have had some hard questions for Elizaeth herself.
But they are already married — and it seems a good and happy marriage. These particular horses have left the barn, as it were, and debating whether it was a wise decision for the ageing Shetland pony to pursue the filly he did is a bit of a moot point. At this point, post-nuptials, anything less than enthusiastic best wishes would be uncharitable.
Hugo you seem to have this unique way of pointing out a problem in and of itself then understanding why others would approach a solution (or should I say soulution?) in their own unique way- and if it turns out well, then “all’s well that ends well” type of approach. My point in the d/s blog response and this one is, are they being true to their calling and His life goals for them? Can one safely assume that a life is meant to be challenging to be one’s highest for His purpose/glory (in a follower of Christ’s case, establishing His Kingdom on earth, which is in essence Heaven on earth, via mercy/ goodness/ blessing of those as He leads)
So back to the loyalty issue- you are astutely correct in saying age disparity in a relationship (you’ve only deigned to it existing in those with underage or younger age participants) speaks to the individuals’ desire not to have their likeness facing them- and in part the unique challenge of that (peer to peer). The potential for exploitation though I’d have to confess seems to be equal in any power deferential- age or sex. The real question to me is are we called by whomever we claim to be Creator of our lives to self serve our own needs in whom we choose as a mate or to chose the one we will challenge to be their authentic selves and live His choice of calling for them? Are we called to expect them to be their best?
Is Mrs. Cusinich (sp?) attracted to Dennis solely as a partner? Are you kidding me? She’s turned on naturally, authentically by an old fart compared to herself? If she’d reached that age bracket it’s one thing but please- in this case of ages/sexes is their not HUGE potential for Dennis being ego inflated thus exploited for whatever reason she chose not to choose and challenge a peer herself?
Is it any less incorrect if it’s in bed or in vow to not use one who’s comfortable or gives an extra edge in life to one’s self but is equally strong and commited to their own growth (a side note-you’re telling me the dominant in a D/s relationship doesn’t get off on feeling powerful? and it’s largely for the sub’s “freedom” that they play out their fantasies rather than facing the challenge of feeling powerful by non sexual means in the game of life? I don’t buy that)
My point is this- I’ve always felt despite numerous friends who somehow oddly enough end up with me in their stratosphere of support, any power contrast is a cop out. Dennis, Fred, their wives, D/s, church ladies etc. alike. It’s all just a con to fool our flesh into thinking there’s an easy way out to living and growing by challenge not opportunity to make our growth more comfortable.-
IMO there isn’t. I’d like to know your opinion on that. The Verse of the Day next to this reply box states todays is “It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.” Not comfort, not avoiding temptation only to hedge and give into it in other areas. Not stunted growth and irresponsibility to your calling and “your” God.
I respect that you have lived a life more challenging than most. I’m glad you’ve found a spouse who does the same by your accounts, thus I take the time to hear your comments, and try to understand where you’re coming from. and I’d give alot more credence to Thompson’s/Kusinich’s/whomever’s politics (gag) if they had as well. Now pick a topic in this to respond to but it all leads to 1.
To quote any of a large number of statements you have made on this subject in the past:
Later in the comments to the same post you wrote:
I have three points to make about this:
What Mythago said, and in addition, the argument that a man should not court a woman seems to include the suggestion that he should not marry her.
I’d like to challenge you on a much larger issue, pointing out that intrusive judgments about what we “ought” to do and who we “ought” to do it with comes with “Euro-American” cultural baggage, and that other cultures (see Rupert Ross’s excellent book on Ojibway and Cree culture Dancing with a Ghost) avoid a huge amount of inconsistency and conflict by not judging or telling each other what to do. While I don’t think we can stop giving advice to each other, I do think we can sometimes softly turn away and gently say to ourselves: I have no right to judge.
I would argue much more strongly against saddling feminism with this choice to make judgments and to advise or dictate to others the intimate details of their lives.
Ann, a truly power-free relationship is illusory. After all, given that men continue to have privilege in our culture, and statistically are likely to earn more than their partners, it’s impossible to create a dynamic where there is no possibility of exploitation.
Your argument is similar to that of those who argue that women should never be Stay-At-Home Moms, because that will leave them vulnerable to bad male behavior without an income of their own to use as leverage. Thanks to jobs and childbirth and sickness, most of the time over the course of any marriage there will be some sort of power disparity.
You’re right that we should marry those who will challenge us. And yes, those who are older are far less likely to be challenged by those who are much younger than they are by their peers. (As the Kucinichs will perhaps find when Dennis is 81 and his wife is 50, old age brings frailty and vulnerability. Many older men-younger women relationships see a dramatic power reversal as the older man ages
and grows physically and even intellectually weaker.)
God has a history, by the way, of calling people into age-disparate relationships. Some of them even turned out all right. In the end, I stand by my conviction that they are generally inadvisable, but having been entered into, they can also provide opportunities for each partner to grow and flourish.
John, I think it’s been made very clear on this blog that not only do I come with a lot of Euro-American baggage, I have an entire Lous Vuitton luggage set worth of it.
That said, I do think that it’s possible to call people on what you perceive to be their shortcomings, and having said your peace to them, drop the subject and live in charitable, amicable, loving harmony with them.
As for the “not old enough to be their parent” line, I absolutely stand by it. But again, that’s a line I would use on a man considering dating a much younger woman, or on a much younger woman considering dating a much older man. But given that the Kuciniches have already married, it’s pointless to do anything other than offer them best wishes for a lifetime of mutual joy.
I thought Kucinich was great — until I found out he had a 90+ rating from pro-life organizations before running for president.
I’m not really sure he should have any feminist’s heart for his politically motivated switch.
Hugo, your argument boils down to:
1) Well, it’s water under the dam. No point in worrying about it now.
2) I really, really like the guy.
The issue isn’t what to say to Kucinich at a family dinner; obviously in that situation there’s no point in expressing disapproval and it would be rude to do so. The problem is that you’ve said an awful lot of things about older men who choose younger women, and you’re refusing to apply those to Kucinich because you don’t like the implications.
“Old enough to be the other’s parent.” I am old enough to be my husband’s parent; in fact, I have children older than he is. We’ve been married 24 years now.
How do you know that Dennis “has no interest in women his own age”? I was interested in men my own age. I had previously been involved only with men my own age, but the man who is now my husband persuaded me that age was not a meaningful distinction in our case. I wouldn’t say that I “had no interest in men my own age,” only that, in this case, I married someone who happened not to be my own age.
OK, I’ll be honest about something here and then just leave it.
I have issues with Dennis Kucinich in that I think that as admirable as some of his stances look on paper, and as much as he may have been proven right by history in his biggest and most controversial decision as mayor of Cleveland (his refusal to privatize the municipal power plant), I don’t think he would make a great president, because I don’t think he’s good at all at diplomacy and working persuasively with others to achieve his ends. Instead, he sets himself up from the start, unashamedly, as virulently opposed to everyone who disagree with his goals, and then tends to act like either a bulldozer or a windmill-tilter. But aside from that…
Yes, I have what some here may recognize as issues against the older man-younger woman thing to begin with. At least here, we’re dealing with a woman who has some experience of life, some keen intelligence and some knowledge of the world, rather than a naive girl fresh out of college looking for someone to worship and adore.
Even so, though, there’s just so much about the current Kucinich marriage that rings weird. This whole business about how they just “knew” they were meant for each other, that it was love at first sight, that they instantly sensed that they had found their kindred spirit in life from the moment they met in a blissful union of souls…it all just seems to be so much to swallow. I hate to sound like the cynic, but it’s just hard for me to believe.
That aside, however, I must confess that I find the coverage of their relationship within the context of profiles of him and stories about his candidacy, and the attitudes of many average Democrats considering him as a candidate, to be annoyingly driven by…well…the fact that to all appearances, in terms of his marriage, Dennis Kucinich is “living the masculine dream,” and many male journalists and many male Democrats seem to be moved to admire him and think of him more positively as a Presidential candidate because of it. In other words, because he is the age he is and is not conventionally attractive, yet has managed to “snag” this woman who is by all common judgment physically gorgeous (at times her intellect is mentioned as well but not nearly as much) and also a great deal younger than he, there is a kind of assumption that there is something “special” and “magic” and “exceptional” about this man. It could be summed up in: “If a woman THAT young and THAT hot thinks he’s the most wonderful guy on the planet, then the most wonderful guy on the planet is what he must be.”
When you think about it, it’s a form of persuasion no more sophisticated than the stereotypical movie star appearing in an ad for soap or soda pop–and those who are falling for it would swear up and down that they would never fall for that kind of blatant nonsense. Yet in a sense they are willing to “buy” Dennis Kucinich because his young, gorgeous wife did so as eagerly and quickly as she did. And their comments are frequently as much about what a wonderful First Lady she would make as they are about what a great President he would make.
There’s more than a little bit of envy mixed up in it, too. Recently I read a profile in Esquire magazine in which the writer nearly drooled at the prospect of seeing the stud in Elizabeth’s tongue, which she had refused to show him when he asked. Later, while she’s speaking, he catches a flash of it, and writes of the experience as if he’s just witnessed the Second Coming. He also spends at least a paragraph speculating as to whether the Kuciniches have tantric sex, and what it must be like (they probably do, and how wonderful it must be, he concludes, sounding like a wistful puppy with his nose pressed to the glass).
Even the photos in the article back up the theme; several are sequential shots of the couple riding side-by-side carousel horses, hands entwined and engaging in showy, passionate kisses. One is reminded (or at least I was) of teenagers “going steady” for the first time and their constant need to show off the depth of their love in public.
It’ll sound awful to say, but I’ll say it: This gets old after a while, and I don’t know what on earth it does to prove that Dennis is better qualified to run the country than anyone else. Especially when you read over and over and over again about Elizabeth and the one theme that comes up, over and over again, above and beyond her education, her ambitions, the thoughts of her head, is “She’s SO beautiful…”
There is something about it that seems to me to be…wrong. I thought that progressive minds had come further than this, all this judgment of a woman based on her stunning personal appearance and of a man based on the fact that he was able to instantly win the love of said stunning woman. But, sadly, I suspect that you can take the most progressive heterosexual man on the planet, put a gorgeous female in front of him, and just count the seconds until he is reduced to the level of a blithering idiot. And it will never take long.
Debra, I agree the coverage has been appalling. But I don’t see that it’s been encouraged by either Dennis or Elizabeth. I’m troubled for the same reasons you are, but that doesn’t lessen my fondness for Kucinich, whose life and whose work and whose politics are the closest we have to the progressive ideal anywhere in elected federal office.
All marriages in the public eye tell a slightly inaccurate narrative. We tell people “we just knew” (when we struggled with doubt) or “it was love at first sight” (when it was lust, or curiosity, or maybe neither and the whole thing grew up over a long period of time). And maybe they are telling the truth.
If I had been giving either of them dating advice a few years back, I would have expressed my concerns about the age gap. Now that they are building a common life, anything less than complete support for their decision is uncharitable and unwarranted. At some point (to refer to Mythago’s remark above) “water under the dam” is reason enough to stop the criticism, at least in a case like this. The criticism is now rightly directed at the sexist coverage you, Debra, refer to.
Hugo, thank you so much for your wisdom and insight. I will be reading and re-reading these posts. You brought up several social points that I have never considered.
As a young attractive woman, now 31 I have often found myself to be in the postion to exchange my attention, and presence with older men.
Perhaps men in positions of power, money, or a certain type of valuable knowledge also seek out their “entitlement”( the young beauty) without thinking about it. Just as a young beautiful woman may begin to make herself available to these older men without thinking about it.
I rely on God as well in my relationships to help me discern what is real and what is fantasy. Dating outside your generation can be tricky if not treacherous.
I tend to agree with Debra. I do not know if the Kucinich’s have encouraged it or not. I’m certain they have hired their spin doctors and while they may not have complete control of the images that are covered—they do exercise some control with what they allow and what they seek to amend. Unlike Hugo it does lessen my fondness for Kucinich. Fondness isn’t the exact word for me—no, it makes me feel cautious and wary of his intentions and motivations. I don’t like admitting to that I find the images and copy troubling. (I realize that this probably has a lot to do with my own troubling experiences with older men.) Experiences are cumulative regardless of the unsolicited DISMISSIVE advice of “forgive and forget” that people like to proffer.
As for the “slightly inaccurate narrative of public marriages,” there is the public self and private self—and therein inaccurate narratives abound. It is not uncommon in relationships (marriages) for people to treat their spouses as extensions of themselves or how they want other people to perceive them (their image). Politicians are good at manipulating images and hire professional image makers to manage these perceptions. There may always be a grain of truth to the stories people tell. People come together for all kinds of reasons and stay and leave for the same.
When it comes to truth telling (a problematic concept), in my experiential experience—people are quite good at hiding the truth from themselves—rationalizing their motives, ignoring what they don’t like about themselves, can’t accept and refuse to own and these flaws and deficiencies of their character provide the details for the inaccurate narratives they tell themselves and others. Marriages and relationships more often than not fail for what people choose to ignore, hide, disown and can’t accept about themselves and others.
As for John Spragge’s commentaries…Hugo, I do not believe that your observations are intrusive judgments. I believe they are valid and it is quite clear to me that your observations come from a caring place towards others, regardless of whether or not someone wants to label you as someone constrained by “Euro-American” cultural baggage.” I tend to find commentaries like that as sounding more like a dismissive judgment about you. And you do know that people’s reactions are more about themselves than what they are about you. Therefore, I disagree with John’s comments that your observations somehow are “saddling feminism with this choice to make judgments and to advise or dictate to others the intimate details of their lives.”
Moreover, if someone is truly concerned about the relationship that they have not only with themselves, but with others (I’m speaking of caring, loving, and appropriate relationships rather than destructive ones), then I believe they have an obligation to monitor their motivations, thoughts and emotions—this takes self-honesty and introspection—a behavior choice that some people are unwilling to engage in. Truth seeking and self-honesty is not for the faint of heart.
Hugo, I see your introspective writings as more of a willingness on your part to share your knowledge and to open up emotions (what motivates us) rather than constrict and constrain them.
Karen writes: Marriages and relationships more often than not fail for what people choose to ignore, hide, disown and can’t accept about themselves and others.
Bingo. Thanks for a very thoughtful response.
Dennis was single when he started dating her. It is a normal biolagical thing to be attracted to women in their child bearing years. It’s not like he dumped an older wife to run off with a young woman. It’s not a matter or not being loyal.
John McCain’s wife looks considerably younger than him also.
Kusinich’s political stands indicate to me he is of sound mental health. The rest of Congress, well the fact that I am coming around to Kusinich’s point of view indicates what I think about the mental health of Washington.
Perhaps Kucinich’sroblem is that he is not eating meat, and therefore not blood thirsty enough.
Was it Pat Budhanan that advocated an isolaltionist foreign policy? Look, if the 3 trillion dollar cost of the war had been spent on solar thermal plants would we be energy independent and driving electric cars? I think we would have been better off to do that. As far as military bases all over the world, I think with energy independence you don’t have to have such a robust military. It’s better to have it and not use it. There is no advantage to being the only super power. I mean, who has a beef with Canada?