Referencing the other side of the Petraeus All In Broadwell saga. I like this since it neatly slices across the military and current cultural currents, so to speak…
“Scott Broadwell Proves to Be a Class Act in the Wake of His Wife’s Affair…
And to make it worse, to make it at once excruciatingly intimate and horrifyingly public, the news of Paula Broadwell’s affair with General David Petraeus first reached Scott when he and his wife were celebrating her 40th birthday with a romantic getaway at the cosy Middleton Inn in Virginia.”
Of course, there is no being certain, but it seems most likely that as he arrives at Thanksgiving, a day of families, Scott Broadwell will continue to be the Good Husband.
He is proving in his own way that sometimes being a real man means being one of the girls.”
This sort of treatment really bothers me. “Good Husband” capitalized in this seems particularly ironic, underhandedly contemptuous. If it’s this apparent and true, why do we have to point it out?
I can’t go with the “class act” thing. Putting a happy forgiving face on this is not the response of a ‘class act’, it seems to me. While the article posits that women are classy for standing by their men when the men cheat, I submit that, although cheating is bad, it’s a different standard for men and women.
When a woman cheats, she’s giving away to an interloper what the guy offered his commitment and support for–fundamentally, sex and kids, that the guy would then raise, having been cuckolded.
When a guy cheats, he’s not fundamentally giving away his resources or commitment. Well, maybe in this day and age with child support laws, one never knows. But it’s a different point. If he was taking a woman other than his wife on vacations (even without sex), paying for her house, her education, her kids, or etc, that’d be an equivalent transgression and I suspect you’d see the wife apoplectic with rage over that.
In this case, Scott is standing by bravely while his wife robs him of the one thing, really, that she offers him. She might have ended up preggers and had Scott raise Dave’s child. In contrast, when Bill cheated on Hillary, she didn’t lose anything in the way of her future career path or provenance. She just lost a little face and may have even gained feminist allegiance due to the pain of having been cheated on.
To be sure, it’s easy for me to be snarky about this from a distance, with no kids, and particularly in light of the fact that in most cases kids go to the woman in a split. This could be his thought process–life already sucks, why not avoid risking the loss of what winnings (i.e. kids and a technically intact family) we already have? Bad choices all around, right?
However, there’s been a disturbing trend of amazingly dedicated cuckolds lately where the guy sticks with the girl after she sluts it up, and in some WTF cases even insists on marrying her even though trouble is on the horizon. These gents seem to be quietly sneered at for doing what they think is the right thing in this emasculated age.
So even in the case where ol’ Boy Scott is avoiding the divorce consequences of Marriage 2.0, he’s left his balls in the closet by offering no negative consequences at all to Paula. And by no negative consequences, I mean none that anyone can actually see. Public repercussions are the only ones that matter here in discouraging other women from following her example.
He’s being lauded by the New Establishment for condoning the reckless, selfish, hypergamous undoing of his investment and marriage. At least what Paula did was technically legal. I hope, for his sake, that he’s sleeping well.
Michael Daly, the author, by the way, is also encouraging this behavior (on both sides) by penning this article. Wonder how he would react if his sig other did this.