With complete predictability in the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal, the media has begun a frenzied analysis of how exactly it is that wives ought to respond to their husbands’ very public infidelities. The Los Angeles Times runs a story this morning about Silda Spitzer, connecting her to the suffering political spouses before her: Wife puts troubling face on the Spitzer scandal. In the San Francisco Chronicle, Joe Garofali asks Why do political wives stand by their men? And Dr. Laura, whose ability to find fault with women for everything is near-legendary, suggested on the Today Show that wives “share the blame” for their husbands’ philandering. (Next week, she explains how women’s materialism led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis!)
The feminist response to Spitzer himself is fairly straightforward: anger, shock, disappointment. But the media — and ordinary folks — seem eager for those who identify as feminists to offer up a “protocol” for how a “real feminist” woman ought to respond to the revelation of her husband’s betrayal. And the frustrating thing, of course, is that the spouse is immediately placed in a no-win situation. If she appears in public by her husband’s side (as so many have done), she risks the accusation that she is a “doormat”, or that she is willing to sacrifice her dignity for the sake of her husband’s career. If she doesn’t appear, she’s unsupportive, abandoning him in his hour of great need and crisis. She garners sympathy, but that sympathy tends to be contingent upon how well the wife lives up to the observer’s expectation of how a wife “ought” to behave. If she deviates from the script, the scorn that awaits her from all sides is as great as that directed towards her husband — if not greater.
A few years ago, here in the blogosphere, the subject of “feminist credentials” came up. There were lots of jokes about losing them, getting them, issuing them. So many posts and comments started with the words “I’m probably going to lose my feminist credentials, but…” that most of us agreed to stop talking about the whole notion of “credentialing” for a good long time. Contrary to the fantasies of some misognystic voices in the culture, there is no Feminist High Command. (Where do they think it is, I wonder? Paris? Manhattan? Austin? Berkeley? Peoria?) Handbooks are not distributed, pledge cards and rings are not pressed into the hands of the young. Feminists are not the progressive equivalent of the abstinence movement, brow-beating young people into swearing to uphold a party line in their public and private lives. There is no feminist dress code, no feminist political party, no official feminist position on bikini waxes (a subject that absorbed a colossal amount of time in the ’sphere a while back.) And of course, there’s no “official” feminist position on how to respond when you find out your husband has been unfaithful.
What feminists can do is draw a distinction between judging an individual woman’s response to infidelity and starting a serious conversation about what it is that we as a culture expect from women in marriage. There’s little good that can come from saying that Silda Spitzer should or shouldn’t leave her husband, and it’s silly — unless you’ve been in that exact same position — to issue bold pronouncements about what you yourself would do differently. But at the same time, we need to look with a critical eye at the real problem: the tremendous vulnerability to which women expose themselves when they sacrifice so much for their husband’s careers. I’m not talking only about financial vulnerability, though that is certainly part of the issue. I’m talking about the way in which we — even now, in this supposedly egalitarian age — teach women that when they marry, their greatest successes will come through their husbands and their children.
Without putting words in her mouth, it’s easy to imagine women like Silda Spitzer saying “His success is my success, and it becomes ‘our’ success.” (The Times says: Silda Wall Spitzer left the workforce when her husband decided to run for attorney general. “It was, for me, a very difficult decision,” she told the New York Observer in 2006). The implication is clear: if your successes are joint, then your failures and humiliations are as well. Your husband’s fall from grace becomes your own very public embarrassment. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that most of us who call ourselves feminists — and even many who don’t –find that degree of vulnerability to be problematic.
What a woman in Silda Spitzer’s situation needs more than anything else is clarity and freedom: the clarity to figure out exactly what it is that she wants to do as a result of this horrifying revelation, and the freedom (both pyschological and financial) to act accordingly. But when you’ve spent years telling yourself that your husband’s success is your success, that you are a team bonded together by love and sex and ambition and children and the memory of so many years of work, it’s going to be damn near impossible to act autonomously. That doesn’t mean marriage makes women like Silda Spitzer into robots. It means that all too often, in the wake of a crisis such as this, the first response is to act in defense of the joint project that is your marriage. To do otherwise is to acknowledge that you’ve been a fool for putting all of your eggs in one basket, to have mortgaged your hopes and your dreams and your private ambitions to a man who has humiliated you. If — even in this awful public moment — you can stand with him, and take some sense of ownership of what has happened, the illusion that you are still a team, united against the world, can persist in your mind a while longer. And damn, that’s an illusion to which many, many women have clung with stunning and heartbreaking tenacity.
Judging Silda Spitzer is bad form. It’s cruel and pointless, though not as cruel and pointless as suggesting — as the execrable Dr. Laura has done — that a wife whose husband cheats is to blame for his peccadilloes. (That’s another post.) But it is important for feminists to raise questions about what marriage (or its close facsimiles) mean for women. It is important to question the powerful ideal that suggests that marriage is a partnership in which a woman becomes a key participant in, and perhaps the chief architect of, her husband’s success. It is essential to challenge this notion of “contingent happiness”, in which a woman’s greatest joy comes less from her own accomplishments and more from those of her husband — or her children. A real partnership, after all, doesn’t involve the subordination of one person’s dreams to those of another. And no partnership ought to be so tightly bonded that the recklessness of one forces the humilation of the other.
Is that an unrealistic vision for a feminist marriage? For some — who renounce marriage altogether — it is. But I’m not convinced. In that fusion of bodies and plans and families and checking accounts that is marriage, there can still be the autonomy to think and act and respond as an individual. That autonomy means having the ability to separate supporting a spouse when they fail (like when they lose a job) and supporting a spouse when they betray (like when they sleep with prostitutes.) Feminists can seek to ensure that women and men alike grasp that distinction, and have the emotional and physical resources to act on that distinction — even in marriage.
Great post. But damn, I thought there was a feminist handbook. Whatever are we going to do in America on the day when there are as many or more women as men in public office, and they start getting caught cheating on their husbands? How will we help the ol’ chaps then?
Isn’t the whole purpose of marriage is that there must be mutual and complete trust between both parties for it to work. Such as level of trust by definition means that both are “so tightly bonded that the recklessness of one forces the humilation of the other.”
Once again it seems that this board has taken an individual’s scummy, indefensible behavior and used it to more broadly indict an institution. Earlier comments were blaming the media frenzy and Bush on this, as well as attributing Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal to right wing zealots. Now, because of the unfortunate circumstances that arise from public infidelity, we are questioning marriage?
Silda was certainly a victim in all of this. She may have had no clus as to Eliot’s alleged $80K of transactions with prostitutes, although if she is remotely bright this seems implausible. However, the fact that they were in the institution of marriage was not the problem. The problem is that Eliot is a cheating scumbag and he betraed his oath to his wife.
In your vision of marriage, in which autonomy is the goal and subordination of one spouse to another is to be avoided, how will any true trust be built? You many choose to build a lifetime relationship on independence, mutual expense sharing, and logistical enhancements of having an extra friend and companion–but always remain independent enough to have an out if things don’t really work. Or you may choose to put your whole being–trust, love, reputation, financial, and life–into your marriage. I think it is hard to do both since they are a mindset and a choice.
The benefit of the independent model is that one can rebound more easily from the infidelities and disppointments of the spouse since one is implicitly expecting them. But when you go with this approach, you miss out on the benefit of the committed model. If commitment works, the sense of partnership, intimacy, trust, and love yields a far more meaningful relationship and rewarding existence.
Vulnerability is a two-way street in marriage, incidentally. There are instances of men who lost their family after a cheating wife decided to leave him and take the kids. These men are frequently left without the opportunity to raise their own children in a meaninful manner and further saddled with alimony and child care payments, essentially making their financial existence equally perilous.
Very well said. Silda is like the mother bear protecting her children and her husband. You don’t want to mess with them. I always watch the women’s faces in these press conferences. I was like Mrs. McGreevey a few years ago. I had to take into account the best interests of my children and those closest to me. I had not given up my career, but had allowed my ex-husband to pursue his dream of his own business. It was not profitable and I had to support the family. The sense of betrayal was so strong, but I felt it would be wrong to publicly humiliate him. These politicians don’t seem to mind publicly humiliating their spouses.
Look, Married Tom, if marriages were a car, they would be pulled off the road for persistent defects. I’m a fan of marriage, but the failures of traditional marriages are so many that there is no way that the institution can survive and thrive unless we come up with a brand-new model, one that emphasizes not radical independence or mutual dependence but a kind of interdependence — Venn diagrams, if you will, with areas of intersection and areas of autonomy. This is easier, by the way, when you have significant financial and educational resources, and I concede that.
A sane voice in a crapstorm! Huzzah!
More people need to hear this kind of talk about the whole Spitzer mess, and I (and I’m sure many more young feminists and/or protofeminists) need to hear those last couple of paragraphs on the marriage partnership in general. Thank you.
“There’s little good that can come from saying that Silda Spitzer should or shouldn’t leave her husband, and it’s silly — unless you’ve been in that exact same position — to issue bold pronouncements about what you yourself would do differently. ”
Even if one has been in the exact same situation, we should still refrain from comparing. Individuals have different responses, handle feelings distinctly and have differing reasons for what they do.
“When I was in her situation, I…” is just as much a form of judgement as “If I were her, I would…”
I agree. This is an incredible opportunity to look critically at the institution and the roles that people are expected to play.
I agree, but…
And the “but” is that there are certain jobs in our society, they may be few, but they exist, that cannot be done with a working spouse, or that cannot be done with a spouse in a particular line of work (which may be the line of work the spouse has always engaged in).
Mr. Spitzer’s job may or may not be one of these. However, for example, I can’t see Michelle Obama maintaining a law practice while Barak is President, if he were to win. There’s just not really any way to do it and live together as a family. A 4-8 year break from your law career/practice is significant, and may not be desired, but how could she practice while living in the White House?
Do people think I lack sufficient vision? Do people think that she could actually maintain a law practice while living at the White House? I’m not really focused on the time that her “duties” as first lady might take up, but rather whether it is practical for anyone to be represented by someone who lives in the White House with the President.
Married Tom: “But when you go with this approach, you miss out on the benefit of the committed model. If commitment works, the sense of partnership, intimacy, trust, and love yields a far more meaningful relationship and rewarding existence.”
How it is you’re so sure that my committed partnership (of 10+ years), with its separate checking accounts and other signs of independence is lacking intimacy, trust and love? How do you know that our lives would become magically more meaningful if we were do to the external things (wed, mix finances, whatever else)you recommend. That’s incredibly presumptuous, and kinda snotty, too.
Hugo, I know you’re pro-marriage, and good for you. I respect that. But not good for me. And I think you respect that, too. I really like your interdependent “venn diagram” idea–that’s how I like to think of my relationship, and all relationships I see as healthy and functional.
I don’t fault Silda for appearing next to that rat bastard, but I do fault the rat bastard for pressuring, encouraging, or even allowing her to do it. He deserved to be publicly humiliated. She didn’t.
“I’m a fan of marriage, but the failures of traditional marriages are so many that there is no way that the institution can survive and thrive unless we come up with a brand-new model, one that emphasizes not radical independence or mutual dependence but a kind of interdependence — Venn diagrams, if you will, with areas of intersection and areas of autonomy.”
That doesn’t feel right to me. What made my marriage a transcendent sacrament for me was that it felt stepping off a cliff, because the intent of the vow was: Forever, come what may. “For richer for poorer . . . etc.” There was a liberation in that intent that I’ve felt at no other time in my life. The “other model” seems to make commitment limited, and tentative, not total. “I’ll love you as long as I get to keep my day job.”
When I got married I risked it all. I know of no safe way to have gained anything of equivalent value.
And yes - I know how lucky I am in my choice. Trust me - I know what I risked, and what she risked. I know it is not for everyone, and is not approached as such by everyone.
JW, I did not say that your relationship is lacking intimacy, trust, and love. It may have it regardless of marital status. I am saying that unless you are willing to fully trust your partner or spouse, leaving yourself vulnerable to that individual, then you are going through the motions.
A mutually independent relationship without some form of vulnerability that emerges from commitment seems kind of like going to church to be seen there but not truly believing the message. You may have friends at church and enjoy the experience, but if you don’t believe in the message and institution what is the point?
Hugo, I agree that marriage seems to have problems, but one could argue that the cavalier attitude that so many approach it with–knowing that if it does not work out for me I can move on–is a large driver of these issues.
If marriage is like a car, as you have suggested, one may be tempted to trade it in as the miles accrue because it requires more and more work. If you feel like you can run down to the dealership whenever the costs of repair are too much, then you are correct about the institution having issues.
If, instead, you were serious about the vows and intend to keep the car for better or worse because it is your only means of transportation, you would probably take better care of it and avoid many of the problems in the first place.
Silda was certainly a victim in all of this. She may have had no clus as to Eliot’s alleged $80K of transactions with prostitutes, although if she is remotely bright this seems implausible.
Please, tell us more about how the wife of a man who betrayed her must have been either dumb or complicit. I find it adds so much to a feminist consideration of the issues.
Hugo,
And why would that be? Of course, there’s a problem if there’s a systemic dicrimination against the dreams of one person in a partnership. But if there isn’t? Why should a ‘real’ partnership not include submission to the dreams of the partner? I’m not saying I’m not favoring a healthy balance, but who am I to tell people how to live their lives? In fact, a lot of relationships are symbiotic, but on different levels, not all visible to the eye of a casual observer.
I would feel uncomfortable to tell a person that his/her partnership isn’t ‘real’ because he/she is appearing to “sacrifice” more than the partner. As for the appropriate tightness of a relationship, I think the risk of the consequences of being exposed to the recklessness of the other is precisely what makes a relationship worth anything. In organisational science this is called the “fundamental transformation”, when there is a possibility for one party to improve their individual yield by exploiting the other (who is locked into the transaction to some extent). No risk, no fun. No exposure to possible (emotional and otherwise) exploitation, no relationship.
Folks, the concept of interdependence is a hard one, and this middle ground position between enmeshment and radical autonomy will be negotiated individually by individual couples.
I love my wife with my heart, mind, and soul. We dream together, and we encourage each other to pursue our dreams — indeed, we push and exhort and comfort each other. We have shared dreams and dreams that are uniquely ours. We have trust, yes, and we have a very real degree of mutual reliance. But in the end, even though we share a common surname and a common checking account, we are two people. We become one flesh — and then go out into the world as two strengthened individuals. She is not the woman behind me, nor I the man behind her.
If one of us betrayed the other, the hurt would be real. But neither of us has placed “all the eggs” of our happiness in the other’s basket. That doesn’t mean we are sexually and romantically available to others! It means that in living our lives, there is a part of each of us that is still ours alone — not because we don’t trust each other, but because in the end, in the real end of all things, our lives belong to us (and to God) alone.
Sophonisba, if this were a one time indiscretion based on a lack of judgment, I would not have made this observation. But some reports have indicated that this has been going on for 10 years, and Spitzer’s act to pay up a credit balance for the service seems to indicate that this was both deliberate and ongoing.
Again, she appears to be the victim in this. But I would suggest that any wife (Hillary?) who is intelligent, as Silda appears to be, that puts up with this for a decade is either detached and apathetic or willfully ignorant. The odds of hopelessly naive seem pretty long.
The part of marriage that seems so tough to me is the part where you are able to hang on to your true self while simultaneously be a partner in a successful relationship. How do you not give yourself away to the relationship? As a woman I believe I have a natural inclination to put my interests, wants, and needs aside for my partners in order to be a “good partner”. I can definitely relate to falling into the trap of putting all of your eggs into one basket and I feel that this blog is incredibly insightful into the complexity of keeping hold of your true self while also being committed to your marriage. I read a truly great article on how women give themselves away to their marriages by Kristin Armstrong titled, “What I Wish I Had Known about Marriage.” Kristin, like this blog, argues that in marriage you need to remain true to yourself while also being a dedicated part of a union. Kristin talks about how we do not adequately prepare women for the realities of marriage and how easy and often many of us are putting all of our eggs into the man’s basket with devastating results. I think blogs like this one are incredibly important discussions on women, marriage, and expectations. Many of my fellow girlfriends in their twenties who are getting married are too busy picking out wedding coordinators and reception sites to even be aware of the fact that marriage has the possibility of taking over who you are as a person and can erode your sense of self. For so many of my young girlfriends getting married I wonder if they ever even had a chance to develop a strong sense of self to begin with prior to their nuptials. I do believe women like Silda Spitzer deserve the freedom and respect to be able to make the best decisions for themselves in a very difficult situation without fear of judgment but I can’t help but feel that if she was being true to herself and honoring her own self-respect then she would be nowhere near that press conference.
Spitzer reported $1.9 million in 2006, his last publically available tax return (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbn0pGJNidI7Ajy1sRrQCB2vHG2QD8VC4L1O0). With that much money, it’s entirely possible that his wife isn’t monitoring when he spends $4000 here, $4000 there. Also, politicians don’t keep your standard 8-5 hours, and do travel. So I don’t think it would take unusual naivete on Silda Spitzer’s part for him to, a) run up a large balance, and b) somehow find time for repeated visits to prostitutes, without her realizing what he’d been up to.
Hugo always has some great points, but his opinion is going to hold a considerably more sway after he puts together ten solid years of marriage or more. Maintaining something is much harder starting it.
Emily, it’s been suggested before. Judith Steinberg Dean, who appeared with her husband on the campaign trail less than half a dozen times before his defeat in 2004, planned to maintain a medical practice in DC were her husband elected President. And Elizabeth Dole intended to remain head of the Red Cross while her husband was President, had he been elected in 1996.
I empathize with Silda Spitzer. I gravitated to her face in the photographs and what I saw was an expression etched with emotional pain. In one picture I noticed how he was reaching toward her hand. How painful this must be to her and her family. Maybe the reaction she has is the best she can do under the circumstances. How would anyone know how they would respond to anything, if they are not in a similar circumstance? And even if they were in a similar circumstance, an individual’s reaction is bound to different. It’s mere speculation and for what that is worth—it is worth very little, except to the person speculating and criticizing.
How could anyone know what is going on in their private life, except the two people involved in the relationship. Everything else is speculation and any criticism about her responsibility or response is solely about the person criticizing. If I was in the public spotlight, I may react as she did. I’m certain I would put on a very stoic face towards thoughtless busybodies; however I don’t know because I’m not in the same position that she is. She’s the victim of her husband’s ugly behaviors, even if she supported her husband’s decision to lead a public life. He made the poor choices, NOT HER. Why should she be blamed for his conduct? I tend to feel that people in powerful positions adopt the attitude that the rules don’t apply to them. A friend listening to a radio program about this incident told me about a caller who made the ugly comment that he didn’t blame the guy for seeking a prostitute, adding a deprecating commentary such as, “…did you look at his wife.” So now her physical appearance is being blamed for his betrayal. Her response is a private matter. His behavior was NOT. He occupies a public position and thus held accountable to a higher standard of conduct. I feel anger and disgust towards him. When there’s dissonance between someone’s words and actions, it undermines their credibility. When someone is a victim of betrayal and a very public one at that, the only suitable response is one of empathy and compassion.
Karen - well said. We should not judge her.
If Mrs. Spitzer was not clueless, then Spitzer himself must have been really, really smart.
Has to be one or the other. And his smarts (not) included financial transactions of the kind he had prosecuted. So he knew that they could be tracked, due to laws regarding money laundering and the requirement that financial institutions report suspicious transactions.
That’s dumb.
I have no idea what went on between them, or what Mrs. Spitzer knew. But being a victim is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. She could well have been in deliberate denial.
Schlessinger makes a good point. It’s always useful to ask what the guy is missing that he would go to the trouble elsewhere to get it.
If the woman has it in her power to provide it, but doesn’t, we have a reason.
If what he wants is vile or destructive or personally repulsive, then he needs to get an attitude adjustment.
There’s a difference between a reason to cheat and an excuse. Separating the two makes it possible to address the reason question without blaming anybody. Then you can decide if the reason, what hubby wants, is legitimate or not.
If it is, then the wife may want to think about providing it, if not, then not. If she does, things might change.
If the reason is not legitimate, they have a problem.
But in either case, he has no excuse.
To condemn Schlessinger’s point is to insist that the wife can do whatever she likes and nothing untoward will ever happen. Hubby is not allowed to notice, or something.
“It’s always useful to ask what the guy is missing that he would go to the trouble elsewhere to get it.”
Often, that answer is “variety.” Some people aren’t satisfied having sex with just one person for life, regardless.
“To condemn Schlessinger’s point is to insist that the wife can do whatever she likes and nothing untoward will ever happen.”
No, it’s to say that the wife can do whatever she likes and the husband should never cheat (and vice versa - the wife isn’t entitled to cheat on her husband if she feels neglected). There is this thing called divorce, if your husband or wife is really seriously falling short as a spouse.
Richard,
“I have no idea what went on between them, or what Mrs. Spitzer knew. But being a victim is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. She could well have been in deliberate denial.”
The emotional pain etched in her face along with the expression that indicates she’s on auto-pilot, the betrayl, lies and deception and the public humiliation–I just don’t see the get-out-of-jail-free. I think whatever happened between them (and no one knows), or if it’s just him on the perpetual quest of sexual variety and novelty, has created devastating emotional pain. I think it cruel to judge under the circumstances. That of course, doesn’t mean that there are not people who lack empathy towards others…
“Schlessinger makes a good point. It’s always useful to ask what the guy is missing that he would go to the trouble elsewhere to get it.
If the woman has it in her power to provide it, but doesn’t, we have a reason.
If what he wants is vile or destructive or personally repulsive, then he needs to get an attitude adjustment.”
How does one evaluate and set standards of sexual conduct between two people? Is there a measurement? How does one decide what is legitimate? In one of Hugo’s earlier posts he discusses an act called “facials”, which has gained popularity in porn. Does porn set the standard for what is legitimate? And if one doesn’t want to participate in that request is that grounds for cheating?
I still feel empathy towards her. How could anyone look at her and think of her family and not?
Karen.
“How does one judge?” In this case, one does not judge.
It’s between the two.
Richard,
My point exactly.
Well, then, why say it? Nobody was judging in the first place.
Schlessinger’s point is almost as solid as a law of physics: If the guy could get what he wanted at home, he probably wouldn’t stray.
If he strays, he’s not getting it.
Second issue:
Is the wife prepared to, capable of providing it?
If she can/will, he may not stray.
Whether he’s getting it or not, he has no moral excuse for straying, but people are fallible. It would be better if he had a reason to stay home, so as to avoid stressing his fallibility.
Sometimes what he wants is, to the wife, repulsive, disgusting, immoral. So he and she have to come to some kind of agreement which might even include divorce.
None of which has anything to do with a legendary ability to blame women for almost anything. Or judging.
If you listen to Schlessinger carefully, you will note she differentiates between what WILL happen and what SHOULD happen. Unfortunately, a juvenile way of thinking believes that even pointing out the latter is the equivalent of excusing or supporting it. Not true. But sometimes some things will happen and the question is, now what?
It might be satisfying to rag on an interfering mother-in-law or an alcoholic father, but the point for her callers is what to do about the situation.
Woops. “even pointing out the FORMER….” Try again. Suggesting that a particular thing is likely to happen is not really saying it’s a good idea.
Richard,
Your comment, “But being a victim is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. She could well have been in deliberate denial,” sounds very much like a judgment, in my opinion.
I would agree the point for her callers is what to do about the situation.
Also, your comment “Schlessinger makes a good point. It’s always useful to ask what the guy is missing that he would go to the trouble elsewhere to get it.”
I would say that it is more useful to ask what is missing in the relationship for both people. It’s good to ask the question about BOTH people, then it sounds less like blame. Was and is he neglectful, so there’s little emotional connection? Is he emotionally abusive? There could be many things that may be missing for both people, they just have different ways of coping or not coping and no one could possibly know. Seeing a marriage counselor is an option, before the situation gets to the critical point.
Here are things he can’t get at home, no matter how willing and devoted his wife: The novelty of a new sex partner. The feeling that he can do whatever the hell he wants to do. The power to ignore his partner’s wants and make it all about him, regardless of what she enjoys. The ability to walk away and not need to care how she will feel about him in the morning.
“If he got what he wanted he wouldn’t stray” is indeed blaming the wife for the husband’s choice to take care of some unmet desire (not “need”–spare me) by having sex with a stranger, for pay, without his wife’s knowledge.
mythago.
Wrong.
The question of what he gets or doesn’t get at home is followed–you can read, surely–by the point that it’s still wrong to cheat.
Also that some of what he may want at home is not legitimately something the wife can be asked to provide.
Nevertheless, the fact is, if he were getting it, he might not stray.
Read again the difference between “reason” and “excuse”. The former is not the latter.
As one commenter said, a couple in the situation that the hubby wants what it is wrong to ask the wife to provide can divorce.
And “blame”? That’s juvenile thinking.
“I’m a fan of marriage, but the failures of traditional marriages are so many that there is no way that the institution can survive and thrive unless we come up with a brand-new model, one that emphasizes not radical independence or mutual dependence but a kind of interdependence — Venn diagrams, if you will, with areas of intersection and areas of autonomy.”
Venn diagrams can take various shapes, depending upon what they represent. We math instructors refer to the one you describe as the “Mastercard” Venn diagram because of the two interlocking circles.
…And now, my annual Final Fourcasts…
WOMEN: Rutgers, Tennessee, L.S.U., Maryland
MEN: Memphis, Tennessee, Wisconsin, U.C.L.A.
Boy Genteel