I'm not going to click on the Atlantic link and give this person attention.
I assume that she gave appropriate credit to any writers whose work she cites, avoiding the problem she had with the P.L. Travers piece in The New Yorker -- the one that led to the big negotiated correction and was her last bylined piece for that magazine.
If you have time for this woman's bizarre, hypocritical preoccupations, good on you.
@1.1.1.: Do you have a link to the correction? I love the New Yorker more since she left their staff; her essays were obnoxious and unreadable, essentially indictments of unmarried women or mothers who work outside the home.
flanagan's protrayal of men is certainly misandrist and highlights her anti-feminism.
i read this and i picture women, wives and concubines, holding on desperately to men, clutching at them like life rafts, floating downstream.
so these dolt men with their lack of agency are anchors. without them, women have no identity, or value, and are meant to be mocked and are defective in some way. without a dude, we're pissing in the wind (or on the street, as it were), and you gotta use whatever madonna-or-whore qualities you got.
we can arbitrarily assign one higher value than the other, but either way you're fucked, because if the dude leaves you, or doesn't leave his wife for you, you don't even exist. maybe you're too fat. maybe you're too desperate. maybe you're a shrew. maybe you shop at J.C. Penny.
I know very few women who want to be with any dude just for the sake of being with any dude, but it breaks my heart when society tells us that we should compete over men because they are all the same: silent, incapable blobs that have nothing to offer us except a false sense of worth.
Just read the article- surprised to learn from Ms. Flanagan that because I have not reproduced I've never actually felt love! Shock! All those feelings for my family and friends were just some sterile, immature...gropings I suppose. Poor ME!
I agree that the responsibility for honoring promises of faith lies with the party who made them. Still, it doesn't make chasing married people the right or responsible thing to do.
But does Edward's responsibility for his actions absolve Hunter of responsibility for hers? Cheating on your wife is a shitty thing to do, but isn't it also pretty shitty to sleep with a man you know is married?
Maybe there are nuances and levels of wrong between the two, but I think saying Hunter has no blame/responsibility/accountability for Elizabeth's pain takes things too far. We can't control men, but we're certainly capable of controlling ourselves. Edwards made the choice to cheat on his wife, violating a promise he made to her; but Hunter made the choice to help him along, which I think violates an implied social contract. The brunt of the blame is certainly on his shoulders, but I don't think it's unfair to say Hunter's choices were less than stellar and that her actions had a negative effect on Elizabeth.
@Chamalla, now gainfully employed: For me, the bottom line is this could have all been avoided if he said no. If he never had the affair. If he had taken responsibility for his own relationship we would have never had the chance to judge Hunter for trying to have an affair with a married man. That's why I can't get behind judging her for her actions. He could have been the bigger person, and preserved his marriage. He took the vows, not her. So even if she is indeed a mean person who goes after married men, it's Edwards fault for going through with the affair.
@GirlFailer: I agree on Edward's ultimate blame, but I don't see it as necessarily an either/or situation. I think they both acted less than admirably, and condoning her actions while condemning his doesn't seem quite fair.
"Clearly, there is something Appalachian about the easy truck with bodily functions that became so important to Brown’s mission and message."
Goodness, that's a concise analysis of the American class distinctions in Ms. Flanagan's head.
Well, Edwards' has to answer to his wife- who does Rielle have to answer to? Us? Women? Do men who cheat with married women owe something to other men? I don't really feel like I need anyone else looking out for my marriage- nor do I expect it.
@mrsryan: Couldn't agree more. Instead of placing the blame on the person who actually broke their vows, we can gossip about those dirty women who KNEW the husband was married and seduced(!) them. Because the men couldn't have just said "No thanks, I'm married and shit."
@mrsryan: I agree with your comment about people looking out for others' relationships, BUT, I really feel like it is so unbelievably cruel to have an affair with a married man whose wife is struggling not to die. I am all for openness, non-monogamy, etc. but she could have waited to pursue him. It is a totally different situation; however, if the Edwards have an open marriage. In which case, she should still ask permission, but would be free to pursue.
"BORN IN AN Arkansas hollow in 1922, fatherless by 10, Brown was poor—dirt poor—from the get-go, and she was raised by women who tended to step off the road and pee when the urge hit them"
so wait, HGB is related to Jaime Pressly?! nice
@cantankasaurus rex: If they wanted to get it right, they'da said Arkansas HOLLER. I know, because clearly I'm a peeing by the side of the road hillbilly from the Natural State.
"Sexual Pocketbooks" cracked me up b/c Maya Angelou (among others) referred to her ladybits as her pocketbook.
A marriage is the responsibility of the people in it. Sure, one should probably not pursue a married person, but it remains the responsibility of the married person to keep their commitment, tell the other person to get lost, and maintain their own marriage.
Because women — single or married — can't actually control men. Luckily, it's not our responsibility — it's theirs.
this is so true, but it flies in the face of every scientific study made that tries to throw a biological reason behind adultery.
again, it also seems to go back to this foreign, exotic and startling concept of self control. we are just NOT supposed to have ANY self control at all anymore. who thought of this...this "self control" idea? it's just an idea, right?
as for rielle, y'know it's one thing to date somebody who you do not know is already married, but it's quite another to knowingly go after a public figure who is very much married. i've always considered that kind of behavior as the worst girl-on-girl crime ever. the onus is always on the married person to say no, but one would hope that both men and women would respect people's marriages a lot more than they do.
@rednrowdy: Absolutely -- I don't condone Hunter's actions at all, and I agree that they constitute girl-on-girl crime. But to act like she single-handedly "stole" John Edwards is treating Edwards like he has no agency. Which both lets him off the hook and is weirdly misandrist.
@Anna N., rednrowdy: I agree with both of you, but do we really even know if Hunter's intention was to in fact have an affair with Edwards? I admit whatever I've read about it, I've probably forgotten, but complimenting someone doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to get down their pants. It's just strange to me that that ONE compliment allegedly started the whole thing.
Not to ignore the (excellent) main points of Anna N.'s post, but what's so noteworthy about that pickup line? Compliments on appearance are probably one of the most common come-ons of all time. That said, it's not like they imbue the speaker with magical seduction powers.
@ytuhermanotambien: Cosmo's point was that women don't tell their boyfriends/husbands that they are hot often enough, so when another woman says it, the guy is putty in her hands. Complimenting your partner: good. Implying that by NOT complimenting him enough you are driving him to cheat: not good.
Does this woman ever write anything that isn't an angry projection of her fears, insecurities or resentments? I've never read anything written by her where she's not lashing out against something that makes her feel some sort of hateful rage. Working moms, unmarried women... she seems driven by anger towards the things she seems to feel threatened by in an almost childish way. Is not even amusing.
Also, couldn't agree more with the final paragraph. John Edwards knew what he was doing, he's not the victim of Rielle Hunter. And the "evil worthless temptress vs. saintly perfect wife" narrative is bullshit.
@Casquivana: Also, the poor hapless husband who had no choice but to have extramarital sex, because, after all, he was presented with the opportunity to and you know that men are incapable of declining sex.
@morninggloria: have you seen her article in which she suggests that married women really don;t have the right to refuse sex, and that they should really try to keep the house clean?? she makes my eyes cross.
"It came, surely, from the powerful emotions that accompany all pregnancies, but especially those that occur in women who probably thought they would never get to have a baby, and who find out, at the 11th hour, that the dream might come true after all, and they might have a home and a child, and (please, God) a husband and father to go with that child."
Jesus. Project much? I know she was going for feminist enpowerment but it comes off as really unbalanced and terrified.
Anyone who wants to net something based on an exercise of manipulation deserves what they get, I don't care who or what they are. If people continue to objectify one another in a predator/prey manner, is the outcome that difficult to discern? Seriously, duh. Not to say that's not a choice. I might not think it's a good choice, but it is certainly a choice.
08/12/09
I assume that she gave appropriate credit to any writers whose work she cites, avoiding the problem she had with the P.L. Travers piece in The New Yorker -- the one that led to the big negotiated correction and was her last bylined piece for that magazine.
If you have time for this woman's bizarre, hypocritical preoccupations, good on you.
08/12/09
08/12/09
i read this and i picture women, wives and concubines, holding on desperately to men, clutching at them like life rafts, floating downstream.
so these dolt men with their lack of agency are anchors. without them, women have no identity, or value, and are meant to be mocked and are defective in some way. without a dude, we're pissing in the wind (or on the street, as it were), and you gotta use whatever madonna-or-whore qualities you got.
we can arbitrarily assign one higher value than the other, but either way you're fucked, because if the dude leaves you, or doesn't leave his wife for you, you don't even exist. maybe you're too fat. maybe you're too desperate. maybe you're a shrew. maybe you shop at J.C. Penny.
I know very few women who want to be with any dude just for the sake of being with any dude, but it breaks my heart when society tells us that we should compete over men because they are all the same: silent, incapable blobs that have nothing to offer us except a false sense of worth.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Maybe there are nuances and levels of wrong between the two, but I think saying Hunter has no blame/responsibility/accountability for Elizabeth's pain takes things too far. We can't control men, but we're certainly capable of controlling ourselves. Edwards made the choice to cheat on his wife, violating a promise he made to her; but Hunter made the choice to help him along, which I think violates an implied social contract. The brunt of the blame is certainly on his shoulders, but I don't think it's unfair to say Hunter's choices were less than stellar and that her actions had a negative effect on Elizabeth.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Goodness, that's a concise analysis of the American class distinctions in Ms. Flanagan's head.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
so wait, HGB is related to Jaime Pressly?! nice
08/12/09
08/12/09
A marriage is the responsibility of the people in it. Sure, one should probably not pursue a married person, but it remains the responsibility of the married person to keep their commitment, tell the other person to get lost, and maintain their own marriage.
08/12/09
this is so true, but it flies in the face of every scientific study made that tries to throw a biological reason behind adultery.
again, it also seems to go back to this foreign, exotic and startling concept of self control. we are just NOT supposed to have ANY self control at all anymore. who thought of this...this "self control" idea? it's just an idea, right?
as for rielle, y'know it's one thing to date somebody who you do not know is already married, but it's quite another to knowingly go after a public figure who is very much married. i've always considered that kind of behavior as the worst girl-on-girl crime ever. the onus is always on the married person to say no, but one would hope that both men and women would respect people's marriages a lot more than they do.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Also, couldn't agree more with the final paragraph. John Edwards knew what he was doing, he's not the victim of Rielle Hunter. And the "evil worthless temptress vs. saintly perfect wife" narrative is bullshit.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Jesus. Project much? I know she was going for feminist enpowerment but it comes off as really unbalanced and terrified.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09