Honestly, at this point I pity all three of the people in this situation, and especially the children involved.
I just watched a movie called "Forbidden" made by Frank Capra with Barbara Stanwyck. A pre-code film made in 1932 about a woman who falls for a man, only to find out after she's knocked up that he's married and a prominent politician.
It was very interesting and kind of similar to this whole Edwards situation. I suggest tracking down a copy of it. The movie made all three people (and the child caught in the middle) all very sympathetic- including the wife he couldn't leave out of guilt due to her being sick.
i have been trying to figure out why john edwards is so discomfiting and baffling to me.
i'm sure i'm projecting, but he strikes me as exceedingly passive-aggressive. he is perfect for everyone, doesn't express any anger, says and does the right things, and then goes ahead and does whatever he wants and says afterwards, "i'm so sorry, i didn't mean to hurt you, you're perfect and i'm so terrible".
you can't have a dialogue with that. i wonder if its one of the reasons that elizabeth chose to work this out publicly - i can't imagine john is much help in trying to construct a cohesive narrative of her life and marriage.
i adore elizabeth edwards. she isn't to blame for her husband being a systematic asshole with rielle hunter. but the story here is that john made one mistake one time and it doesn't retroactively recast their marriage, and the dissonance there would be overwhelming to me.
I think it was probably a sustained affair between him and Hunter, but it's intereseting that Hitchens says this was his only affair. My bias is to assume that when a politician has cheated once, it's been a pattern (maybe I learned this from Clinton?). But I wonder if Hitchens is right.
I agree with you. Certainly the affair with Hunter as long-standing, and I would suspect not the first time.
It seems at least publicly though Edwards is sticking to his one mistake, one time in the marriage, i feel terrible mantra. The message seems to be that it's the end of the discussion and an isolated event, but this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. It seems infuriating to deal with someone like him who refuses to discuss what his motivations were and what led up to his actions.
Oh, BS on any excuses for crappy choices. When my aunt was dying of cancer at the ripe old age of 34, do you know how her husband coped with death? By holding her hand through it. By spending as much time as he could helping their young children understand the process. And by being loyal to her and her choices. And when he remarried less than two years later, none of us begrudged him another chance at love and happiness, because he filled the end of my aunt's life with peace and love.
@kithkin: It wouldn't be Hitchens if it wasn't kind of annoying, but at least he was pretty respectful of Elizabeth Edwards, her intelligence, and her strength.
well there went my last sliver of hope that maybe just maybe John Edwards wasn't THAT bad that he didn't even use protection when cheating on his imuno-compromised wife.
@Alohamaid: Ugh, my thoughts exactly. Cheating is bad enough, unprotected sex is worse, but unprotected sex and then going back to your wife who is on serious chemo is THE WORST.
@truckasaurus is jackie jormp-jomp: It's definitely all gross, but in regards to the last part-- we can't know that John and Elizabeth were sexually active, can we (unless this was addressed in her book and I just didn't realize it)?
He definitely cheated, and he clearly didn't use protection (or use it properly), but I'm not sure we can accuse him of exposing his wife to possible disease without knowing if they were still sexually active.
It is consistently amazing how much loathing and contempt Christopher Hitchens has for religion. I don't object to the quote you pulled about overwhelmingly female congregations in male-dominated religions, though. "The menfolk" is a troubling phrase, sure, but the question is a valid one and I don't think his explanation is bogus. The issue of women-majority congregations is one that's hotly debated and researched in religious studies communities and Hitchens' explanation isn't really out of line.
This is an interesting question, something I've often wondered:
Why is it women who keep up the congregations in male-dominated places of worship?
I wish Hitchens gave it more than a smug, cursory faux-explanation. I'd like to see this question treated by thinkers who would give it the analysis it deserves.
@JerseyGrrrl: If you have access to JSTOR or religious studies journals (published by the American Academy of Religion) at your local library, you'll be able to find plenty.
@kithkin: Thanks! Any writers you recommend? Also, if these are being published by writers with religious affiliation, do you suppose that makes them biased or more insightful? I wonder how influenced these thinkers might be by feminism.
I suppose I'm just inherently a little distrusting of the bias of traditional religious sources. Of course, I'm not at all distrusting of the biases of fellow feminists ;)
@JerseyGrrrl: It's not my area, but a lot of people I go to school with specialize in just this subject. I can't offer you any names, but you shouldn't have to search very long. I imagine the interpretations of the religious and nonreligious would vary, but most academics in religion are good at keeping their personal beliefs out of their work. And there are a great number of religious and nonreligious scholars, so the studies probably won't be overwhelmingly done by religious people.
This is Exhibit 1,300,045 in the "Christopher Hitchens is an Asshole" case study.
I have a friend who owes me $50 now. I always said that kid must be John Edwards's. The fact that they didn't do a DNA test right away to dis-prove the rumors was as good as a positive test, IMO.
@BeckySharper: I'm convinced there are many more of us that are owed between $50 and $100 over the results of a DNA test. Much money is changing hands today, out of the pockets of optimists into the hands of pragmatists.
@SomeAuthorGirl: So true. As a pragmatist, I'm going to take my winnings to Costco and buy a massive case of condoms. I'll put a few in the mail to John Edwards.
08/13/09
I just watched a movie called "Forbidden" made by Frank Capra with Barbara Stanwyck. A pre-code film made in 1932 about a woman who falls for a man, only to find out after she's knocked up that he's married and a prominent politician.
It was very interesting and kind of similar to this whole Edwards situation. I suggest tracking down a copy of it. The movie made all three people (and the child caught in the middle) all very sympathetic- including the wife he couldn't leave out of guilt due to her being sick.
08/13/09
08/13/09
i'm sure i'm projecting, but he strikes me as exceedingly passive-aggressive. he is perfect for everyone, doesn't express any anger, says and does the right things, and then goes ahead and does whatever he wants and says afterwards, "i'm so sorry, i didn't mean to hurt you, you're perfect and i'm so terrible".
you can't have a dialogue with that. i wonder if its one of the reasons that elizabeth chose to work this out publicly - i can't imagine john is much help in trying to construct a cohesive narrative of her life and marriage.
i adore elizabeth edwards. she isn't to blame for her husband being a systematic asshole with rielle hunter. but the story here is that john made one mistake one time and it doesn't retroactively recast their marriage, and the dissonance there would be overwhelming to me.
08/13/09
I think it was probably a sustained affair between him and Hunter, but it's intereseting that Hitchens says this was his only affair. My bias is to assume that when a politician has cheated once, it's been a pattern (maybe I learned this from Clinton?). But I wonder if Hitchens is right.
08/13/09
I agree with you. Certainly the affair with Hunter as long-standing, and I would suspect not the first time.
It seems at least publicly though Edwards is sticking to his one mistake, one time in the marriage, i feel terrible mantra. The message seems to be that it's the end of the discussion and an isolated event, but this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. It seems infuriating to deal with someone like him who refuses to discuss what his motivations were and what led up to his actions.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
He definitely cheated, and he clearly didn't use protection (or use it properly), but I'm not sure we can accuse him of exposing his wife to possible disease without knowing if they were still sexually active.
08/13/09
It is consistently amazing how much loathing and contempt Christopher Hitchens has for religion. I don't object to the quote you pulled about overwhelmingly female congregations in male-dominated religions, though. "The menfolk" is a troubling phrase, sure, but the question is a valid one and I don't think his explanation is bogus. The issue of women-majority congregations is one that's hotly debated and researched in religious studies communities and Hitchens' explanation isn't really out of line.
08/13/09
Why is it women who keep up the congregations in male-dominated places of worship?
I wish Hitchens gave it more than a smug, cursory faux-explanation. I'd like to see this question treated by thinkers who would give it the analysis it deserves.
08/13/09
08/13/09
I suppose I'm just inherently a little distrusting of the bias of traditional religious sources. Of course, I'm not at all distrusting of the biases of fellow feminists ;)
08/13/09
08/13/09
I have a friend who owes me $50 now. I always said that kid must be John Edwards's. The fact that they didn't do a DNA test right away to dis-prove the rumors was as good as a positive test, IMO.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09