That out of the way, I think that the affair is a private manner between John and Elizabeth Edwards and what I think about his conduct is not relevant. I do think it’s ridiculous that he lied about it for many months only to turn around and admit to it- he should have either said it was between he and Elizabeth and refused to answer questions or admitted it and moved on. I think he made it ten times worse by lying about it. I do think this will have an effect on his political career, despite the fact that I don’t think it should. I don’t think a personal mistake should impact your professional career. I am really disappointed in his lack of judgment though- I can’t believe he just handed the GOP this kind of ammunition, and I was an early and vocal Edwards supporter. I can’t imagine what this would have done if he had the nomination instead of Obama.

also, i’m blanking on instances of high-profile women cheating on their husbands (there must be some?!), BUT how much do you want to bet that “slut,” “tramp,” and “whore” would be the top words used in any discussion of those women? edwards, however, is just a narcissist, and there’s nothing wrong with that–in fact, it’s basically the american dream.

La Lubu wrote:
Wait a minute. Why not? Why shouldn’t heterosexual couples with an open marriage—-couples who already enjoy a helluva lot of legal and societal privileges based on their het and married status—-be expected to risk some of that privilege by being real about who they are?

Well of course they should be able to do that, and it would be the much more honest and courageous thing to do. i would greatly admire anyone who was honest about being in an open relationship, but in our current political context ANY national politician who says they are involved in a non-monogamous marriage would be ending their national political career.

i DO NOT think that is a good thing, i think it’s very bad and dishonest and leads us to unfair and unrealistic expectations of our “leaders.” basically we are saying that monogamy is the only acceptable lifestyle for a politician, which i think absolutely disqualifies a large number of perfectly qualified candidates. it is a ridiculous hypocritical reality, but that’s American politics, ridiculous and hypocritical.

I want to see us use this time to invest energy into promoting Elizabeth as a national figure akin to Al Gore — doing something CONSTRUCTIVE rather than using it as an opportunity to be destructive, to John in particular.

’cause you know what? Fuck John. I admire Elizabeth for staying with him, and I still admire him in other ways, but fuck him, let’s not devote our attention to HIM. Let us instead look to Elizabeth. She is a strong, passionate, intellectually honest woman and she can do so much good if we give her the chance to.

But if we just keep flogging John, well, we’re basically throwing her in with him by sheer ignorance. We can’t neglect her.

I don’t know whether I mean “we” as feminists, “we” as Americans, “we” as society? I think feminists would do well to create a strong movement under Elizabeth, diligently building a platform for her to make use of. I think we in a broader sense just need to quit focusing on John, because that does no one any good besides the pompous media figures who can feel self righteous. It doesn’t help Elizabeth, it doesn’t help the Democratic Party, it doesn’t help us “regular Americans” — it doesn’t even particularly help Republicans. It’s a fucking dead end. Let’s take the narrow road.

So did Elizabeth Edwards. Why no criticism of her?

Lisa and LaLubu had some good comments on this. Here’s mine:

1) It’s somewhat irrelevant because statistically far fewer hetero affairs are initiated by the married woman.

2) That’s partially because she is typically working two shifts.

3) Also, statistically far fewer women feel “entitled” to trade in (sexually) for a younger model.

4) That’s mostly because women have historically been slotted into a decorative/accessory/toy role and men have been judged and judged themselves by the quality of their toys.

5) So to answer your question, hetero affairs perpetuated by women are typically, as La Lubu put it, “a replacement relationship for the current unsatisfying one.” And I agree with her that this is true for men in some cases too. But I think the powerful man/younger woman motif is also likely to have entitlement complex as a factor.

“If we state that all people should have sexual freedom that applies to men like Edwards.”

First, this isn’t about sexual freedom. Secondly, feminism isn’t about sexual freedom.

That said, what pisses me off is Edwards continued pimping of his wife, which is made abundantly clear by the light of his extramarital affair. Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer has a causal link to the fertility treatments she took in order to conceive a son for John. See, John lost his first son to an accident; but despite his having an almost adult daughter at the time, John *really* needed another male unit in the family. And further, despite Elizabeth’s age and her having birthed two children for him, she went on fertility drugs to conceive. But oops! The first conception post-fertility drugs was another daughter. Not.good.enough. More drugs. Another pregnancy. And lo! there was a son born to John Edwards. And then there was cancer. Scratch that. Is cancer.

Too bad John doesn’t have a fraction of the loyalty Elizabeth has.

So, it’s not really about sex Renee. It’s about an almost utilitarian use of women that John seems to relish (and breed!).

Personally? I care a great deal. We don’t need men like this anymore. Let them go back to their hundred acre, 28,000+ sq ft homes, and ponder their navels.

Octo says, “Exactly. Hetero affairs on the part of a powerful man usually are associated with some level of entitlement complex.”

I say: EXACTLY! This is what I find so irritating about these high profile infidelity cases. Not to mention the fact that the men in these high profile scandals usually has a public position, which sings the praises of family values, respect for women…blah, blah, blah.

I also have to agree with Octo about how this is rooted in the inequality between men and women in the work force. Elizabeth Edwards, Hilary Clinton, and on and on and on and on (highly educated women) put their careers on hold for their men because it was “necessary” so that they could support their husbands, raise their kids, whatever…and blamo…they are thanked by having their husbands cheat on them.

But their husbands couldn’t help it because, you know, it’s lonely at the top and they have so much pressure on them and they just needed to blow off a little steam and their wives don’t make them feel “special” anymore and, plus, their wives aren’t really that interesting anymore, what with them spending all their time supporting their men and raising their children. BLAH!