Jenny Sanford tells all…
…but the question is, why?
I don’t completely understand this need of the wronged spouse to publicly unburden herself (and it’s usually a “her”), either through writing a book or granting interviews, or often both—the latter to promote the former. But it seems to be all the rage.
I get that it might be a way to earn money, although both Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards can’t possibly be hurting for dough. I get that it might be a way to take revenge on the wayward spouse who’s been the cause of all the embarrassment. And I get that it feels powerful, after feeling weak and powerless. I also get that it’s tempting to tell your side of the story, when it’s other side that’s gotten all the attention so far.
But it’s a terrible idea that only serves to expose a person’s humiliation. And it’s not good for the children, even if they are grown, even if they urge you to do it. It compromises two things that used to be thought of as important, but don’t seem to be much valued any more: dignity and privacy.
It’s true that in these cases, the exposure of the husband’s actions has already ripped the veil from what might have been kept secret from the world. But is there any need to compound the error by shedding the last vestiges of privacy?
One of the things I admired most about Jacqueline Kennedy was that she resisted this siren call. Whatever may have been gossiped about her husband’s affairs (and it was plenty), she took her side of the story—and her own dignity—to the grave. I am convinced that the world would not have been a better place had she told all. There are many things we simply do not need to know.
[NOTE: Since Jenny Sanford has decided to share so many of the details of her marriage with us, I have a question about an oddity she revealed: would it not raise a few red flags for most people if a prospective spouse insisted on removing the words “to be faithful” from the marriage vows? Jenny thought it rather strange, also, when husband-to-be Mark made that request. But she “got past it”—until he had his dramatic affair, twenty years and four children later. At least Sanford can claim he didn’t break his vows; he had the foresight to plan ahead.]
Sanford sounds like a real flake. The Republicans dodged a bullet on this one.
These are tacky times we’re living in, friends.
“He drew me a picture of a half a bike, and then for the next birthday or Christmas I got the picture of the other half a bike, and then he delivered the $25 used bike,” she recalled.
For another birthday, Mark Sanford gave her a diamond necklace, which she adored, but then he took it back.
Sorry, but that is some funny stuff right there.
I have to admit that this guy had me fooled. I liked him until he pulled that Argentina stunt. I remember when he walked into the SC legislative hall with a couple of pigs on leashes to protest spending. Great political theater.
I agree w/ Occam’s Beard. Class and integrity seem all but lost.
As for MikeLL’s quotes above, don’t think it’s “funny stuff,” but it’s also a bit far out (as in questionable). As neo made the point, these “come back at ya” revenge books & stories are all the rage, but publishers publish them to make a buck, regardless of the author’s (or often, the tell all party cum ghost writer) desires and purpose. These “revelations” seem incomplete at best (as in, there must be more to these stories) but who the heck knows? I just have to wonder how much is truth, how much is padding of the truth, how much was crafted to entertain — or at least sell books?
Been tracking Elin Nordegren Woods throughout her family ordeal… So far she has shown nothing but dignity and class.
the feminists are communists/progressives/socialists… sooooo the faithful know that there has to be a purging in confession… without knowing the practice from seeing it before, it doesnt make sense.
other cultish groups use such confessions. Its a means of creating the feeling of acceptance and belonging after one opens to the collective and rather than it abhor you, it accepts you, when you thought such made you not belong. so in this sense, its a form of rebirth through letting the world know how horrible you were (which for this subtype tends to behow horrible your other was, and give me another ladle of sympathy), and when over, nothing really happens.
the collective seems to have a similar forgiveness like god. that illusion hits the crapper the minute you discover, usually painfully, that this acceptance is a game as long as your playing their game, which is why this subtype helps support the image that all men are bad. if her supporting group was another arm of the progressive march, the confession would require some other trope. thats that ones price for redemption.
what was that famous quote as to absence of religion? that if one does not believe in god, one then believes in anything.. (chesterson?)
care to read? http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2007_820-13g_Kizenko.pdf
Religion and its attendant rituals have characterized much of Russian public and private life. Of all the forms religious practice has assumed, few embody the elements of psychology, conscience, and faith more directly than the sacrament that links the individual to the divine in a rare act of choice–confession. Indeed, from the seventeenth century onwards, confession in Russia has been a staple of autobiography, a literary genre, a political tool, even transformed nearly beyond recognition in the television talk show. Legal codes, theological treatises, artistic representations, and written confessions of the past, along with present-day innovations in practice, demonstrate the unique and persistent importance of confession in modern Russian religious and political culture.
other cultural ideas and views and customs often dont seem to make sense, but if you understand the rich tradition that forms part of the inner universe that a person lives in… you start to understand why they choose the forms of things they do.
the key line in the document is
Igal Halfin, for example, has argued that ritualized confession borrowed from Orthodoxy became a key part of Bolshevik discourse.17
reasearch that line and you will find why confession takes on an odd strain with them, and comes from and is mixed with the devout confession that westerners find normal generally only with catholic priests, their shrinks, hairdressers, and maybe girlfriends (but definitely strangers in las vegas 🙂 )
its not the kind of document most would like to read, but gives a nice foundation fast in confession as seen by eastern europeans.
Present-day post-Soviet space offers a perfect illustration of what happens when living traditions are not preserved and both sides seek to re-create an ideal Orthodox reality ‘by the book.’ It becomes all the more problematic if one realizes that the books consulted are in most cases reprints of nineteenth-century translations of even earlier works for ascetics, and not more recent or more liberal examples of pastoral guidance.
there is a warning to us in that… if any should understand it most it would be african americans… a perfect illustration of what happens when living traditions are not preserved and both sides seek to re-create an ideal Orthodox reality ‘by the book.’if you dont learn from the old, you might wear bell bottoms, but your a shadow of the actual persons that did.
The sociologist Nikolai Mitrokhin has another explanation for the new emphasis and dependence on the figure of the confessor. He links the attachment to the dukhovnik to apocalyptic and eschatological world-view typical of the neophyte who, he argues, has usually undergone social traumas in the post-Soviet shakeup of previous habits and expectations…Mitrokhin argues that the dukhovnik represents a parallel, or alternative, church ‘within’ the official Orthodox Church…If people did trust the average parish priest before 1917, they were far less likely to during the Soviet period, particularly after the official church reached a concordat with the persecuting regime. On the other hand, the impulse to unburden oneself to someone else persisted–hence the urge to seek out ‘unofficial,’ even unordained, men and women one could trust.
from this history they learned how a secular person still has needs to confess, and to belong. and so elders (leaders) can thereby serve this by making such confessions become custom… then when there are so many… the custom becomes rite of passage. soon, people are making things up to belong and have such a rite themselves.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
neo, if you could cut the above down into better, please do so.
Hey Artfldgr – get your own editor. You need one.
Artfldgr: I did my best.
Sloan: As you can see, I sometimes take on the task.
After this my sympathies are entirely with the children only. Just before the marriage, when presumably both parties are in a highly charged and delusional state, he says he wants the “faithful’ clause dropped from the vows. I wonder if she asked him why or thought anything of it, but she can hardly claim to be surprised when he plays around.
She reminds me of the women, the “other woman” who is now married to the guy and is stunned to find out he’s cheating on her. The usual plaint is, “But he told me I was different.”
Why did Jenny Sanford tell all?
Well, why is Oprah so popular, and why do mostly women follow soap operas? Why does public protestation of “caring” sell so well?
An intriguing mix of expectable sentimentality and cheap political opportunism.
When Auchincloss mourned the death of old WASP morality, that gave us Bush Sr. & Jr., he had an image of our political future, that they attempted to push into the future.
Ordinary folks are pretty ordinary.
Like Alex, I have no sympathy for husband or wife. That wasn’t the case earlier, as it seemed Mrs. Sanford was dealing with it fairly well. But now her true colors are revealed, and from the ABC article it now appears husband and wife deserved each other (he was an a-hole, she was either too dumb to realize it or too needy to reject him).
And like Alex, my sympathies are entirely with the children. Among many other unfortunate statistical probabilities, they now have precious little chance of growing up to have good marriages of their own. And that is due entirely to their parents.
Heavy sigh.
P.S. Art, rather than say what I feel about you employing Neo to edit your comments, I’ll make a suggestion. How about taking some of the time you currently use to assemble lengthy semi-literate comments which most literate readers will skip over, and instead use that time to learn how to write and communicate more effectively and concisely. Even if you don’t care about Neo’s time investment in editing your comments, do this so that your own time investment in writing comments will have a better return (i.e., more people may actually read your comments and respond to them).
Splashman: many long time readers of Neo’s blog have been around the horn with Artfldgr’s inattention to editing his comments. It’s been in vain, although you can expect his next few posts to be edited. It won’t be long though before it’s back to business as usual. I simply skip over them. That’s much easier than trying to read them.
@JohnC: Noted, and thanks for the tip. I’m new around here, obviously. It’s Neo’s blog, and she can do as she pleases, of course — it’s just difficult to watch. Well, life goes on.
Actually Splashman: it hardly takes me any time at all to do the edits. And it was I who made the decision to edit the comments quite some time ago; today is the first time Artfldgr ever asked me to do it, as best I can recall.
I decided to edit his comments because I feel there is often a great deal in them that’s of interest, and I think in their raw form they are very hard to read because they are too long. I rarely edit them for anything except length. I certainly don’t always agree with everything he says. But I think he has a unique point of view that bears hearing.
@Neo: Noted. I apologize for my assumptions.
Regarding the Sanford saga, I forgot to mention something. I went to the link, and watched the first 30 seconds of the Barbara Walters video. That was all I could take before the gag reflex kicked in. Trashy tabloid TV, pandering to base emotions and cementing the demise of dignity and privacy — all with Ms. Sanford’s blessing. She and Ms. Walters are a perfect match.
Splashiman: apology accepted.
I have long wondered how it is that Walters has come so far down the road from actual journalism to trashiness. She is so fakey-sugary that I have not watched her in many years.
This is part of the general chickification in which we are awash. I almost wrote ‘pussification’, but that would be vulgar. Look at the supermarket mags, for example: “Brad and Bimbo split up; her terrible pain”. Nothing new here, but breathlessly reported, as if none of the reading chicks had ever experienced same, and never would. This stuff is everywhere! May just be the chickees need to gossip and titter, but today there’s no neighborhood, no back fence to gossip over, so they buy it instead.
Artfldgr invests this with more significance and scholarship than I think is due. They’re just chicks.
With apologies to Neo! Not a chick, no siree.
It’s a shame Jenny disgraced herself in this way. As infuriating as her position would be, she does have the kids to consider and this is really making her look bad. Yes, Mark looks bad too, but then she got all of the sympathy. You gotta milk it sister! Hold your head up high, dress beautifully and keep Your Mouth Shut in public!!! But now she has squandered all of that good will and capital. She no longer has any class because everyone is horrified that she has done this to her children. Now if there were no children involved, I’d say, hey go for it, bring him down lady! Make it Even Worse! But that is not the case here, and so wives who are mothers have to step it up and have some dignity, as tiresome and as unfair as that may be, such is the burden of public life.
I married to an Argentine so I learned a bit about the game is played down on the pampa. For instance, if Sanford thinks he is the last man in Sra. Evita’s life then he is as nutty as he appears, assuming that is possible.
I don’t completely understand this need of the wronged spouse to publicly unburden herself (and it’s usually a “her”)
I get “never say ‘never’ and always avoid ‘always'”, but – can anyone suggest an example from American politics where the wronged spouse was a guy?
I’m stumped. I’ll blame a paucity of fish oil in my diet, a paucity of women in politics, and little public interest in men as victims.
Tom Maguire: my guess is that there have been incidents where the wronged spouse was a guy. But they’ve been kept more private. There are likely a lot fewer of them, though, partly because there are not as many women in politics to begin with. The other reason for the disparity might be that, although women flock to men in power (as Kissinger said, power is an aphrodisiac), it may not work that way vice versa. Perhaps Kissinger ought to have qualified that statement—power is an aphrodisiac to women when it is displayed by men. It is less reliably an aphrodisiac for men, when it is displayed by women.
I think Art could teach a most interesting class in a university somewhere. I don’t know what discipline, and it would so diverse that a student would never know what to expect from class to class. What a wide world of reading would be done!