Wives of Men Who Cheat

by Little Miss Attila on June 7, 2011

What do they have in common? What are they contributing to the problems we face?

{ 2 trackbacks }

Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Elin Nordegren, Elizabeth Edwards and Maria Shriver « Wintery Knight: June 7, 2011 at 11:30 am
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Feminists: women’s own worst enemies?: June 10, 2011 at 12:04 pm

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce June 7, 2011 at 10:52 am

Hahahaha,

Shorter linked wingnut: Don’t marry those rich, famous and handsome men, ladies!

Foxfier June 7, 2011 at 10:53 am

Mr. Klavan is (probably, mostly) joking, but… who hasn’t noticed how often the same women that talk about how all men are pigs, etc, keep dating men who are bigger asses than the one they just dropped? It’s kind of like my guy friends who complain about how women are users…and keep chasing the same blessed type of woman, anyways.

Doesn’t excuse the pig-men, or the female users. It’s still infuriating, even while I feel sorry for the folks who are wronged. Good heavens, once they get married, folks should stop DOING that.

Cassandra June 7, 2011 at 11:52 am

…who hasn’t noticed how often the same women that talk about how all men are pigs, etc, keep dating men who are bigger asses than the one they just dropped? It’s kind of like my guy friends who complain about how women are users…and keep chasing the same blessed type of woman, anyways.

Yes, but how often do you read rants about men who pick women for their looks and are shocked… shocked I tell you !!! to find out they’ve married a gold digger or a shallow woman who isn’t willing to work at the relationship?

It’s always easier to blame the opposite sex than to take responsibility for one’s own choices.

Foxfier June 7, 2011 at 12:07 pm

And then divorce the gold digger, and go for the same sort, and when it happens again and AGAIN…..

Like I said, users.

Possibly I have an odd social group, but I hear a LOT about men being dumb in their taste in women. Doesn’t come up in popular culture so much because 1) guys are more likely to SPECTACULARLY crash and burn (like this case), and
2) there’s a large number of women who make a living off of talking about how horrible men are, which is much more likely to cause a response. (What’s that amazingly nasty woman in the Times? Dowd, I think, the one that’s shocked that guys aren’t that into her now that she’s not a twenty something?)

mike singer June 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm

Cassandra makes a very good point in regards to “men who pick women for their looks”. In addition “women chose men for their $$$$” and neither work. For a relationship to work – it takes 2 responsible parties.

While she suggests ( I agree with her ) that people dont work at relationships and it is easier to blame other person.

May I suggest, there is a loss of values, character, morals, which leaves a lot of psychopaths running around ( ie emotionally unhealthy) . In addition, the bulk of single people use Hollyweird as a “guidelines” or “cue’s” which leaves it impossible have healthy relationships. Women are pressured to dress/act like tramps and men are forced to “get game” in the meantime there is enormous sexual tension and availability everywhere. Moral relativism = relationship relativism and is a recipe for disaster.

I find it disturbing there are few people worth getting to know (either male /female) let alone enter into a situation of courtship that leads to marriage. Imo, It is for the “select elite” who have enough brains and intestinal fortitude to have the patience to wait it out.

Cassandra June 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm

I wonder if part of the problem is that discrimination – which used to mean being selective, as in “a person of taste and discrimination” – has somehow become a dirty word? We can’t even be choosy about the character of our companions, because the very act of selecting friends of good character implies judgment (and thus rejection) of the character of those you choose not to associate with. Oh, the humanity – how not inclusive and intolerant 🙂

I grew up hearing old maxims like, “Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas”, or “You are known by the company you keep”. Nowadays, that sounds almost quaint – it’s more common to hear, “Well… he didn’t break any laws…”.

And Rep. Weiner *didn’t* break any laws that I know of. But he absolutely DID trade on his status as a member [pun fully intended] of the House of Representatives and, while representing himself not as Anthony Weiner [citizen] but Rep. Weiner [Congressman], proceeded to embarrass himself, his wife, and his fellow Congresscritters.

That last, if you stop to think about it, is really quite an achievement :p

Roxeanne de Luca June 7, 2011 at 7:24 pm: “Discrimination” is an ugly word, but I think that the real damage is in “judgement”. We used to say that someone had good judgement and mean it as a compliment; now, we just tack on the “al” suffix and make it pejorative.

Reply

Cassandra June 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm

there’s a large number of women who make a living off of talking about how horrible men are, which is much more likely to cause a response

I definitely agree that it’s much more likely to cause a response :p

The question is, “Why?”.

Foxfier June 7, 2011 at 12:39 pm: The question is, “Why?”.

I can make guesses– including the format (words are more likely to bring out words), the style of argument (something about the professional victims sets my teeth on edge), a protective urge (who doesn’t know a guy who’s been done wrong, so yelling that all men are horrible will get response), a desire to distance one’s self from that kind of woman (same way a lot of guys are pointing out Wiener is a moron and scum) and the whole baggage of the “like a fish needs a bike” sort.

May as well ask how on earth there are so many women that CAN make a living talking about how horrible guys are; I fear it’s something hard wired in women, since that seems to be the target audience. (although second hand at times…)

Reply

Wintery Knight June 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Thanks for the link, Little Miss Attila!

I could easily have written a similar blog post about men who marry women based purely on appearance, without considering whether they will make good wives and mothers and helpers. Men should be better at thinking through what it is that women do in the marriage, and with the children, and pick a STRONG, CAPABLE companion who can be a helper and a counselor. Just for one example, think of how much men need someone to confide in about their stresses at work! Men need to choose someone who cares and understands those problems, and who is a good listener and a good encourager.

Cassandra June 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Wintery Knight, I suspect the woman in your life is one extremely lucky lady 🙂

In 7 years of blogging I lost count of the times I objected to irresponsible/sexist behavior by women and never once did I have a female reader step up and defend bad behavior.

One time – once! – I had a woman write me privately to suggest I might have been a little too harsh, but that’s it. She didn’t defend the bad behavior – just noted that there might be mitigating circumstances I had neglected to point out.

After several years of this, I started writing the exact same kind of post about irresponsible/sexist behavior from men from time to time. I was very much taken aback at the response – almost invariably at least one and sometimes several readers would bend over backwards making excuses for the very same behavior that elicited nothing but scorn and condemnation when a woman was the malefactor.

So no, I don’t think some deep, dark flaw in women that makes us blameworthy when *a* woman says or does something objectionable or stupid. I especially don’t blame women for the success of a liberal female columnist in a paper read by more men then women :p

I think people – male or female – are responsible for their own decisions and acts.

If you truly respect masculinity, you don’t buy into demeaning stereotypes (boys will be boys… that’s just how men are… men – they think with their man-parts – they can’t *help* themselves, the poor dears!). I know – and admire – far too many intelligent and principled men to believe that kind of broad brush characterization, and pointing out the utterly unsurprising presence of a few bad apples doesn’t make the many good ones invisible or unimportant.

As to why women like Maureen Dowd find an audience for anti-male screeds, I’d imagine that’s the very same reason a whole slew of famous men have found an audience for anti-female put downs: a lot of people prefer simplistic answers to thinking.

Daniel June 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm

This is as laughably true for adults as it was for high school kids. Remember all those nice guys that the girls called “friends”? The nice guys would bend over backward to be nice, just to watch the girls go for the good looks or the bad boys or both. The nice guys would just look with sincere astonishment at how the girls behaved, and some of them either learned or ended up in relationships with good women who learned.

And there’s no reason to suspect that marriage is going to change this behavior because it has just become a mockery of it’s original societal purpose. Marriage is temporary and we promise to love, honor and whatever for as long as we both shall like. The only commitment in marriage these days is a financial commitment, and even that can be made a flimsy commitment with a simple prenuptial.

Men make their decisions to act badly.

Women make their decisions to marry them.

Fortunately, there are still some men who make decisions to act honorably and women who choose to marry them.

mike singer June 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Further thoughts on marriage in the good ole USA (This may be a bit harsh):

90% is a temporary agreement that is “venal” or simply legalized prostitution in nature
10 % is actually is actually a lifelong covenant

Cassandra June 7, 2011 at 2:21 pm: Remember all those nice guys that the girls called “friends”? The nice guys would bend over backward to be nice, just to watch the girls go for the good looks or the bad boys or both. The nice guys would just look with sincere astonishment at how the girls behaved, and some of them either learned or ended up in relationships with good women who learned.

I think this goes both ways, Daniel. An awful lot of guys in high school weren’t interested in “nice girls” with average looks. They wanted “hot girls” who put out: in a word, arm candy with benefits. After a while I figured that those guys weren’t the ones worth having. They didn’t have the sense God gave a grapefruit, and neither does the kind of girl who is impressed by bad boys.

In a lot of ways, people get what they are shopping for. If you look for a man or woman with character, they are all around. They’re just not as flashy as the showboats with the big egos. Interestingly enough, I met my husband in high school but I wasn’t interested in him because he was a big football/basketball jock with girls hanging on him all the time and I just sort of assumed he must be the kind of guy who makes a bad boyfriend. One day, though, I accidentally ended up talking to him and found out what an amazingly thoughtful, intelligent, nice guy he is. And once I got to know him, I noticed that even though girls threw themselves at him, he was picky. That only made me respect him more.

I fell for him – hard. It wasn’t his looks or his status, but his brains and character that made me fall – and stay – in love. I won’t lie and say the outside packaging was completely irrelevant, but I had sat directly opposite him in class for a whole year and never had the slightest interest in him until I got to know him as a person. Who he was won my heart.

30 years later, he is still the same great guy: dependable, kind, gentle, strong. He’s not young anymore and neither am I, but the important stuff – what’s on the inside – will never change 🙂

Reply

Foxfier June 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm

. Remember all those nice guys that the girls called “friends”? The nice guys would bend over backward to be nice, just to watch the girls go for the good looks or the bad boys or both.

Their loss.
Guess who I married. ^.^

Roxeanne de Luca June 7, 2011 at 7:28 pm

I dated a lot of the “nice guys” whom I had initially gotten to know as friends. Aside from the one who dumped me for my then-best friend, to a man, they all dumped me after a few weeks when I wouldn’t put it.

So cry me a river about those poor “nice guys” who can’t get any action. They aren’t after girlfriends; they aren’t after wives; they are after pussy. Cry me a freakin river that they aren’t getting the mattress time to which they feel oh-so-entitled, being “nice guys” and all.

Roxeanne de Luca June 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Last word of first paragraph should be “out”. Long day in Roxe-land.

Foxfier June 7, 2011 at 7:53 pm: Ah, the Tactical Nice Guy. That’s just a user in a different outfit– same as the guys who sign up for “sensitive” classes or use Game Theory. More overlap with the guys who want to be mommied, though.

Reply

Daniel June 8, 2011 at 4:39 am

Sounds like you just had a failure discerning nice from manipulative.

Roxeanne de Luca June 8, 2011 at 8:11 am

Noooo.

They aren’t manipulative; they just don’t have their sexual values in place. Let’s set the stage: New England, college years, mostly super-liberal men, or men who have been raised in that environment. Twenty-year-old men aren’t thinking marriage; they are thinking of scoring. Their yardstick, as it were, is sex – not a relationship, not love, not becoming a better person. So by that yardstick, they did finish last, but they could have finished first if they chose to run a different race.

That is why the “nice guys finish last” thing always now makes me run pell-mell away from any man who says it: he’s showing me the yardstick by which he measures the quality of female interaction. Perhaps that is synonymous with “manipulative” in your eyes, but I look at a confused person who is looking for the wrong things in life, sort of like a girl who complains that she can’t get hot men.

Foxfier June 8, 2011 at 8:39 am: That is why the “nice guys finish last” thing always now makes me run pell-mell away from any man who says it: he’s showing me the yardstick by which he measures the quality of female interaction.

If they’re telling you that face to face, and they’re not drunk or already dating you, they probably aren’t genuinely nice guys, just more polite than the raging asses. Might be emo, though.

I can’t remember the actual quote, but a relative liked to say that if someone had to spend all their time telling you how good they are, they’re probably not spending any time being good.

John June 8, 2011 at 4:51 am

One difficulty that appears to have gone unnoticed is that the respectful men for which women claim to long will by definition avoid offending women.

In olden times, this was not a problem, but in recent decades the notion has gotten around that any act based on unwanted romantic interest is grounds for offense. So the sort of men that women profess to want will hang back until they are reasonably certain that their interest will be welcome.

All good and fine, but another idea to spoil things has gotten around, that the ideal man is going to be a mind-reader, and will know which woman to approach and which woman not to. Which means that many women feel justified in being vague in the signals they put out.

The result is that gentlemen will not approach any woman unless he is very well acquainted with her, or she is one of the sensible ones who clearly signals to a man whether his interest is welcome.

On the other hand, the other sort of fellow, known as the asshole, doesn’t care who he offends, and so he approaches every woman he can. This has its greatest effect in places where relative strangers socialize together; the women get hit on by an army of assholes, some of whom manage to hide their assholery for the time being.

The upshot: If you sleep with a guy that you hardly know, your chances of sleeping with an asshole go up considerably.

Cassandra June 8, 2011 at 5:45 am

… [a] gentlemen will not approach any woman unless he is very well acquainted with her, or she is one of the sensible ones who clearly signals to a man whether his interest is welcome. On the other hand, the other sort of fellow, known as the asshole, doesn’t care who he offends, and so he approaches every woman he can.

John, that’s a great insight. Allow me to offer a related one: “nice girls” usually aren’t the type to be aggressive with guys (typically they wait for the man to show interest or make the first move).

I often read men’s interpretations of female behavior with a mixture of dismay and despair :p Both men and women have trouble interpreting the actions of the opposite sex. Years of people watching have convinced me that most problems between the sexes are more the result of missed cues and misinterpreted behavior than anything else.

Guys see some girls go for so-called “bad boys” (more aggressive and persistent men) and assume that all women prefer bad boys. But it never seems to occur to them that the girl may not even realize that a guy who acts like a friend (but never makes a move on her) is interested. Or he may just be beaten to the punch by a more aggressive guy.

Likewise, because women have a hard time separating sex and love, we tend to assume that a guy who shows interest in us must care about us (i.e., want a relationship).

Women don’t think like men – we think like women. But men frequently expect us to understand how men think without being told. Women do the same thing to men.

And in my experience, neither sex is born understanding the other. That’s why communication is so important. I’ve been married for over 30 years and have always thought I knew – and understood – my husband pretty well. After all, he’s not just the love of my life — he’s my best friend! But I’m still learning – and am frequently surprised by – just how differently we interpret the very same events. As well as we know one another, I have hurt him without meaning to and he has hurt me without meaning to. It’s not deliberate – it’s just that we’re starting from a different set of assumptions about the world.

Roxeanne de Luca June 8, 2011 at 8:16 am: Well, I would also say that the missed cues and misinterpretations are a reason why old-fashioned courtship worked so well: people knew the system and could work with it. Look at how birds mate. Without an appropriate context, the blue-footed bobby dance seems weird, but the birds know that it means, “I love you, pretty girl bird!”, so it works.

As for the a-hole thing: after I was propositioned by the bartender at a hotel bar, I asked one of my guy friends why men do that. His response: “He doesn’t think that you’re going to say yes, but some girl will. He can ask 100 girls and have 99 of them turn him down, but the one that says yes makes it worth it.”

Reply

Wives of Men Who Cheat

Search this site

Links and Things

Pages

Archives

New Posts

Site Admin