What Was Silda Spitzer Thinking?

Posted on March 18, 2008 11:51

Anonymous:
Nice try George. The real pink elephant in the bedroom is that many men are lousy in bed--believing that it's all about their "release". Maybe your wife, when she's done cranking out your crotch fruit and washing your skid-marked undies out, would agree.

March 18, 2008 11:44 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~

You are right about George's comment. Often times sex for women is nothing but a waste of time and a one-sided event for the man.

Hell, majority of men don't even know the anatomony of the women's sexual body parts to appropriately satisfy her.

But if they are married and sex is a problem there is not an excuse for the man to severe the marriage bond by cheating. Let them go to counseling to try and fix the problem.

A woman should readily make herself availble for sex with her husband, but again sex will become boring very fast if the man only gets satisfied.

This snippet is from 2004.

"Some day a female politician will be caught with, well, her pants down. I wonder how America will react to the cuckolded husband, gazing calmly at his cheating politician wife.

Maybe when a man is put through this humiliating ritual, the polls will show that America doesn't like seeing a wronged spouse biting his cheeks at a very public press conference. And when the polls show it doesn't work, I suspect it will end."

I think the author is exactly right. When it comes to a man standing by his philandering wife, it'll be a cold day in hell before we see it happen. Colder still to EXPECT it as some sort of marital right.

Just for grins, can anyone think of a woman in a similarly powerful position (politics, business, what-have-you) where she cheated and her husband stood with her for the media glare?

I can't, perhaps others can?

Personally, I don't think any husband would. Too much self-respect.

That is a separate issue from whether or not the couple stayed married, by the by.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I wouldn't have stood by him. That had to have been the most humiliating, embrassing experience of her entire life. I pity her, but she should have known better than to let him make her share in his shame. She did nothing wrong. She shouldn't have stood their and taken a public beating JUST by standing there. Family or no family, women need to start standing up for themselves. If she was the one who had cheated, do we think Eliot Spitzer would be standing at her side. No. Probably not.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I wouldn't have stood by him. That had to have been the most humiliating, embrassing experience of her entire life. I pity her, but she should have known better than to let him make her share in his shame. She did nothing wrong. She shouldn't have stood their and taken a public beating JUST by standing there. Family or no family, women need to start standing up for themselves. If she was the one who had cheated, do we think Eliot Spitzer would be standing at her side. No. Probably not.

"What he did was wrong but..."

That's not an apology, or even a pretense of an apology. That's an excuse (note the use of the word "but", another one is "just")--is it one that you have used, or will be needing to use?

It's also called dissembling.

1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence in business.
2. to put on the appearance of; feign: to dissemble innocence.
3. Obsolete. to let pass unnoticed; ignore.
–verb (used without object) 4. to conceal one's true motives, thoughts, etc., by some pretense; speak or act hypocritically.

Nice try George. The real pink elephant in the bedroom is that many men are lousy in bed--believing that it's all about their "release". Maybe your wife, when she's done cranking out your crotch fruit and washing your skid-marked undies out, would agree.

What makes ppl think they have right ( and may be moral/intelectual superiority) to advice??

Men are not perfect but to be with a prostitute is rather unforgivable. Did it ever dawn on him that he might bring home something that even Ajax or bleach wouldn't wash off. I wouldn't have been standing by his side. That is one he would have done on his own. He didn't need help to mess up the lives of his wife and precious daughters and he didn't need help to stand up there and admit to wrong. I think he was only sorry he got caught. He probably grew up with his Daddy's money getting him out of trouble and probably thought that he was way above fault in this also.

Men are not perfect but to be with a prostitute is rather unforgivable. Did it ever dawn on him that he might bring home something that even Ajax or bleach wouldn't wash off. I wouldn't have been standing by his side. That is one he would have done on his own. He didn't need help to mess up the lives of his wife and precious daughters and he didn't need help to stand up there and admit to wrong. I think he was only sorry he got caught. He probably grew up with his Daddy's money getting him out of trouble and probably thought that he was way above fault in this also.

Men are not perfect but to be with a prostitute is rather unforgivable. Did it ever dawn on him that he might bring home something that even Ajax or bleach wouldn't wash off. I wouldn't have been standing by his side. That is one he would have done on his own. He didn't need help to mess up the lives of his wife and precious daughters and he didn't need help to stand up there and admit to wrong. I think he was only sorry he got caught. He probably grew up with his Daddy's money getting him out of trouble and probably thought that he was way above fault in this also.

What he did was wrong but the reality is that she probably wasn't giving him sex at home, and she might be beautiful in your eyes, but she's not what she was when she married him. i mean the pink elephant in the room is that women are supposed to have sex with their husbands when their husbands want--if they don't, then their husbands are just balloons filling up with love juice--it's just a matter of time. I believe some women know this but still for whatever selfish reason refuse to screw their husbands--then they throw up their hands when the inevitable happens, and collect alimony. Women are so sanctimonious about how their husbands are supposed to be good and sex outside of marriage is unacceptable, but if wives would spend some more time on their backs, their husbands would spend less time on the prowl. So get off your high horse, sally. get out of the office and into bed, make babies, take care of your husband emotionally, then you'll see less straying. Or if you want to work, just keep it in moderation.

Is the male miscreant ever to be forgiven by his spouse, and if so how, and after how much time passes?

Is the male miscreant ever to be forgiven by his spouse, and if so how, and after how much time passes?

Is the male miscreant ever to be forgiven by his spouse, and if so how, and after how much time passes?

Rather than criticize Mrs. Spitzer for "standing up there" with her husband, we should let her make her own decision. Obviously, she loves her husband.

How does anyone know that for certain? George Sutton, do you have some inside knowledge that you wish to share? Or are you simply jumping to a conclusion?

I agree with Sally on one thing--Eliot should stand (finally) protect his family by standing up there ALL BY HIMSELF. I think it is the height of cowardice to hide behind his wife's skirts.

What was she thinging?

why am i up here
how emabarrassing
i'm gonna kick his a** when this is done
how do i explain this to the girls?
how do i explain this to my family?
why should i explain it?
dang 22!?
what does she have i don't?
wait he is bald!
i don't need him!
ok, i'll stay for a minute because i have invested a chunk of my life into him and his
LOOK OUT WORLD HERE I COME!!!

she'll be ok! :)

"Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the politician up there at the lectern sweating bullets, apologizing for letting down his wife and family …. alone?

Yes.

Put on your silk undies and face the consequences of your crappy behavior like an adult.

I'd feel the same way if it were her.

I think it is a lot of nerve for Sally Quinn to be questioning what any other woman would do in these cases of infidelity. It comes down to this - it's none of her business!

We all know how Sally Quinn got to where she is and it wasn't from talent or brains!

The daughters are the ones who concern me most. Men may start hitting on them because they are the offspring of an overweening, philandering father. Silda Spitzer should NOT stand by her man. She should leave him, and take her daughters with her

Watching Ms. Spitzer, all you could think about was the Taliban? Watching the Taliban, what do you think about? American Idol?

Sheesh...

Perhaps she is keeping him BECAUSE she has 3 children. Children need a father. Period.

As far as Hillary, she doesn't care about Bill's affairs. She was ticked off because it would mess up their career and quest for power. That is, she was mad he was dumb enough to get caught. Also, in all likelihood, she's a lesbian. Have you seen the Indian model that lives with her full time?

I think that leaving is easy to say, but less easy to do. As these things unfold they get more complex. Your mate has a weakness perhaps not known until he reaches a level of status where new opportunities and stresses arise. He/she yields to less than moral behavior. He/she is humiliated. You are kind of numb and in shock. The nightmare keeps unfolding. As time moves on you who were "done to", can now be expected to "do some doing". Everybody expects you to do what they like to think they would do. What you want to do, however, is not yet clear. Things like feelings of love, words like "in good times and bad", a sense of the needs of your mate, his/her family, your kids- empathy and pity for those you know like no other . . all conspire to generate conflict. The last thing that you are ready to do is something hasty that you will regret later, that will compound the problem. Each person, each marriage will have to find their own way through this.
Furthermore, sometimes sex with someone else is not world-ending. But in an over-sexed, Calvinistic, immature culture thirsty for tittilation and watching people squirm emotionally, like our own, we have a way of making it worse than need be. As a society we generate much more sex and drama than we can handle, and this perpetuates tragedies such as this one.

Why did all these women do it? "Stand by their man"? That is the reason so many dislike Hillary. She sends the message to young girls and women that women are inferior and must be syncophants to men for their existance. She is today running with his shadow! For as a former first lady she would not be qualified for the presidency of the United States were it not for her role as subserviant.

They wanted the power....at any cost!

I think she was a fool to stand up with him. The only reason he is "sorry" is that he is sorry that he was caught. Otherwise his little escapades would still be going on.

The rich and luxuriant American pornographical industry inundates the whole world with porno films which satisfy the most excentric instincts and fetishes of all kinds of sexmaniacs around the planet. But, more than ever, surges of puritanisms still remain in America.
they may be the descendents of the puritans pilgrims. The American puritans seem to accept that a president they elect send thousands of young soldiers do die in an ignominious war. Those puritans face as normal that tenths of thousands of innocent foreign cildren, women and old men die victimized by "intelligent" bombs the president they elected (and re-elected) ordered to be launched in their countries. By rationalizing that the war would bring economical benefits for their country. But it seems that those puritans do not forgive a president, a governor, a senator ou any other incombent commists adultery. Mrs. Silda Sptzer had demonstrated to be a woman of great valor by standing by the side of her husband in the most crucial hours of his life. Her husband had commited some grave errors, sexual miscondact behaviours, a "sexual indiscretions". Mrs. Sptzer is living through "rainy and cloudy days". But these cloudy days will bring many sunny days and many starry nights. It is just a matter of time. When Mrs. Silda, at night, in bed, she will be certain thatshe will not sleep with a man that had commited war crimes. Her hesband did send four thousand of young American soldiers to die in an ingloroius war. Her husband did not give orders to kill tens thousands of innocent children and innocent civilians of other countries. Mrs. Sptzer husband did not disable any men, neither women or children. He had had only many "indiscretion acts of love". Which the puritans do not accept...Neither forgive...

john bailo says-

John Bailo:

Bottom line: it's always the chicks who control these things. Clearly, Silda took a look at herself in the mirror, noticed her newly thin figure and said, "why am I stuck with this old bald guy". Meanwhile, her accomplish (you girls all gang up on us), Ashley Alexandra Dupré, is looking to advance her singing career. So, Silda rolls over, lets things happen, and the next thing you know it, she's got the upper hand. She can walk away from Elliot, take his dough and marry the pool boy. Meanwhile Ashley gets her own CD. All Elliot gets is a bunch of unpaid VISA charges for wanting a little nooky.

========

so, john, this has happened to you?

All you do is judge other people and you get paid for that? sheesh! thats a terrible way to earn a living!

Sally Quinn, you are so right!! These men get away with murder because we women let them. It's something you never get over, even if you try to forgive. Looking back, I'm no so sure that I would marry. It's not worth the agony.

Bottom line: it's always the chicks who control these things. Clearly, Silda took a look at herself in the mirror, noticed her newly thin figure and said, "why am I stuck with this old bald guy". Meanwhile, her accomplish (you girls all gang up on us), Ashley Alexandra Dupré, is looking to advance her singing career. So, Silda rolls over, lets things happen, and the next thing you know it, she's got the upper hand. She can walk away from Elliot, take his dough and marry the pool boy. Meanwhile Ashley gets her own CD. All Elliot gets is a bunch of unpaid VISA charges for wanting a little nooky.

I don't think he did it because he could, or out of arrogance. I think he did it because he's a male and men are not monogamous. He might also need extreme stimulus.

Boy do you have it backwards lady! Here you are talking about how we indeed have not "come a long way" because of women like this- I think the only thing hurting women in this situation is a woman like you, who presumes to know anything about what women in this situation are going through. Instead of standing beside your sister, trusting she is making the right decision for HER and HER family, you blast her. That's where women lose- when we attack each other. Shame on you.
Furthermore, as a woman who has had this happen to her, I can assure you that we are not the pathetic, weak creatures which you portray in your article. It takes a lot of strength to pick yourself up, and work EVERYDAY for YEARS to put your life and family back together. Pathetic is the person who judges the victim. Shame, shame on you.

ms. quinn:
i couldn't agree with you more...the agony on ms. spitzer's face is palpable...she's already been profoundly humiliated. why stand up there and humiliate herself more? no one is fooled by it.

if i were to marry a high-profile person and he betrayed me similarly, i wouldn't stand up there while he announces his sins--would YOU?

The reason is MONEY !. Wives hope that by standing by their husband, he will not loose that
money making job. Sure she could go back to that prestigious post she had, but that means long long hours of hard work and having all over again to put up with many arrogant co-workers and bosses.

I find the whole assumption that she (Silda, whoever) is humiliated fraught with assumptions that the woman defines herself in relation to a sexual relationship with her husband, and that she is necessarily diminished by his sexual conduct of which she had no knowledge. I find this a primitive way of thinking that equates all women who are married with the sort of people who get into bar brawls about sexual jealousy. Certainly, she is shocked and embarrassed, but not necessarily out of primtive feelings of sexual possessiveness. For Silda or other high powered wives, there is damage to a common enterprise, and there is the sudden knowledge that a person with whom you are allied has not been forthcoming with you about all the possible exposures to which he is subjecting the enterprise. Now, in the matter of why the person stands there, I guess I would admit the logic bears a relationship to the assumptions most people make about the shape and meaning of a marriage. Beyond that, it's very hard to read all the text and subtext of the ritual, but simple readings based on an idea of humiliation along the lines of primitive clashes over sexual ownership in confined quarters are forced at best. They impose meanings from the past that fit only poorly the far more complex partnerships in the present day of compartmentalization of so many features of personality. Her being there is not necessarily sexist, although it's related to sex. The readings of the sort suggested by Ms. Quinn are sexist.

What I find interesting is all the angry attention focused on what in essence was a VOLUNTARY act engaged in by two consenting adults. Whether Spitzer was married is a secondary issue.

The relationship we have as individuals to the state is NOT voluntary. All of the involuntary and violent acts of aggression committed or condoned by Mr. Spitzer while he was pretending to be Governor and/or a DA far outweigh his consorting with prostitutes.

No, instead of complaining about the fact that the state is STEALING their money, a VIOLENT and NON-CONSENTUAL act and the basis of Sptizer's TRUE criminality, instead people complain about the one VOLUNTARY act being publicized by the media that this criminal has engaged in.

And by the state's own rules, should he go to jail?

I can guarantee you, dear reader, that won't happen. Yet, if it were any one of us mere peasants, it certainly would.

It is the height of hypocrisy.

Hey Sally are you reading all these comments? I am wondering about this comment feature of washingtonpost.com. Do the reporters read the comments? I think they should, otherwise we readers are being asked to interact without getting heard. This is an interesting forum but a little one-sided if we don't get to hear your reactions.

The marriage vows most of us take call on us, in part, to stick together "for better or worse." While adultery is wrong, our vows should not be abandoned in favor of what is easy.

Silda standing with Elliot is love, confusion and and grief. Hilary staying with Bill was ambition and future planning. Support Bilary for co-president.

I never could stand by husband when I learned that he betrayed me...not only that, he was a thief and liar in a lawyer's suit. I left him and moved far away. He avoided child support and pretty much ruined my life. Now, the kids are grown and have their own children. They love their father and sometimes, seem to favor being with him over me. Would I do it over again? I'm not sure. I'm alone and have struggled for income for the past 40 years.

It seems you can take the woman out of the burqa, but it is proving far more difficult to take the burqa out of the woman.

How about Mrs. Kobe Bryant? Another sad victim.

While I can empathize with the agony of the violated wife, I am astounded that she would stand next to her powerful husband Elliot Spitzer, enabling him to further the public humiliation on herself and on her daughters as mere hangers-on and not as members of a self-respecting family. In typical Hillary-esque fashion, she too committed sati by throwing her Self into the funeral pyre, all the while insisting that he too not step down, possibly hoping that the last vestiges of political power, or the greed for it, would serve her as well.

Silda Switzer's actions were public ones. She will take other, more painful and decisive actions, in private. Her daughters know the difference between her public role as political wife and the private woman who is their mother. Silda Switzer's courageous choice to stand in public, while extremely difficult, protects her family's right to deal with this tragedy in private. We have not "come a long way baby" if we turn the figure of condemnation away from the true culprint.

Silda may be preserving her daughters financial
inheritance, astutely, letting her man not be
visibly available for future dalliance.

John said "Why does it not seem to occur to anyone that she may have encouraged her husband to utilize a prostitute?"

Are you kidding ? Just another liberal Democrat trying to cover for his party which is on deep trouble as we see it now eating it's own young .

Barry

Thank you ! The women should hold their own news conferences , alone and announce the divorce proceedings along with a lawyers request for STD testing on the cheating husband . Why can't these gals get a backbone ? It is embarrassing to know that so many wives are doing this . They did get a fine example from Hillary who went as far as saying
"It was all a vast right wing conspiracy".

Barry D from Texas

Why does it not seem to occur to anyone that she may have encouraged her husband to utilize a prostitute?

Dear Betty K: Thanks thanks thanks......

Norrie Hoyt, Spring Rain and Richard T. Lee good to see some decent humans.

Arun Gandhi to my knowledge is a humble and honest man. He might have made a mistake. The PARASITE went after him and got him fired. She will have her judgement. However, I pray for all her victims.

She belongs to 3rd rated gossip not Faith column.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Betty K- You could NOT have mirrored my sentiments more accurately! When is the Post going to wise up, Ben Bradlee being alive or no, to his Hamptons society matron gossip-monger wife actually being pawned off on the Post's long suffering readers as an actual "journalist?" When is this nonsense going to stop? Oh yes, Sally Quinn can GOSSIP-SHE'S VERY GOOD AT THAT-THAT'S ALL SHE CAN DO THOUGH, AND TO GIVE HER ANY SORT OF PLATFORM THAT SUGGESTS OTHERWISE JUST SHOWS YOU HOW LOW THE POST HAS SUNK IN ITS JOURNALISM STANDARDS (NOT THAT IT WAS EVER VERY GREAT IN THAT AREA ANYWAY) AND THAT THE POST ENGAGES IN RANK DISGUSTING NEPOTISM TO MAKE SALLY QUINN FEEL GOOD, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FROM HER PERSPECTIVE TO MAKE HER FEEL "CREDIBLE."

BOB WOODWARD, ARE YOU LISTENING?

Srini D Balan and PRIYA,
Thanks for your posts. However, do not expect much reason over here.
Peace.

In defense of Sally Quinn, you gotta admit this: even if she has no morals, at least she has no shame!

Amen to your article -- What Was Silda Thinking. You said exactly what I thought.
--Anne

You know there is one thing these women did do that Hillary Clinon did not. They did stand together with their husband when they ackowledged the truth. Hillary was there when her husband lied. And she lied for him as well when she claimed it was a "right-wing conspiracy". No Mrs. Spitzer did not need to and probably should not have stood next to the Governor but at least she was there when he did do the right thing. Stop comparing these women to Hillary. She knew he was lying because of his history and she stood next to him when he lied. She's a liar as well!

Can you please write about your own two marriages and your own exemplary conduct so that we can learn how to conduct ourselves and become good virtuous people. Pretty please!

Sally Quinn making any sort of judgements on Mrs. Spitzer or any other woman suffering similar emotional trauma is truly disgusting. The arrogance she reveals in her writings and television appearances knows no bounds. I have read and watched you make a career out of mercilessly judging the actions of others one way or another and take some perverse pleasure in kicking people especially when they are down. If you really want to understand faith and religion, you may want to start by seriously examining what you have done-beyong cultivating the "right" people, acquiring mansions, wealth, the right connections to keep you in your rarified world, tell everyone how loyal you are, and hosting A-list parties with the "beautiful" people. You have done a tremendous amount of damage to people with that sewer of a mouth and your poisoned pen. Please stop, it's enough. And to the management of the Washington Post-please find a graceful way to get rid of her now because you know it's only a matter of proper timing after her husband passes that you will finally show this shameless human being the door once and for all.

Quinn says, "For young girls, it says this is an acceptable role for women -- to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public/ You take it and must still be supportive. because that is what is expected of women. For boys, it says it’s okay to lie and cheat and dishonor your family, and you might grow up to be a senator or a governor or a president. You can get away with it."

Those statements apply to any famous man or woman who publicly commits adultery. Fortunately, we know that no one in the DC media establishment has ever done that. If they had, mentioning it in these comments would doubtless be considered a prohibited "personal attack." I gather that it is not, however, a prohibited personal attack to impugn the motives of Silda Spitzer without knowing anything about her side of the story. Shame on the Post for publishing this (but, of course, no shame on the writer for writing it, lest that be considered a personal attack.)

Sally Quinn,

You write columns criticzing others, but you don't seem to understand that:

Blood and families are thicker than polemics and abstract doctrines.

Your feminist doctrines are irrelevant to a woman in distress.

You have no human sympathy or kindness.

You are not qualified by any of your personal attributes to write the columns that you do.

*********************

Get a life, but, before you do, try to understand people's real lives.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, correct? In light of the question you pose to Silda Spitzer, I would like to know what you were thinking when you moved in on Ben Bradlee when he was still married? Isn't that a violation of the tenets of every faith?

The response of the media and public to Ms. Spitzer's appearance is perhaps more interesting than Ms. Spitzer's trangressions. I don't see a political woman standing by her man; I see a courageous and intelligent MOTHER, woman and spouse who is probably going through more emotional turmoil every minute than many of us have in a decade. We should respect her courage and have empathy for her difficult position, rather than project our expectations upon her.

Ms. Spitzer, you do what you think is best for you and your family, and you should know that most Americans hope you and your children will come through this with strength and dignity. Don't worry about what people think of you.

I repeat: the ugly, catty, self-righteous, incredibly judgmental and above all arrogant and inaccurate post by Sally Quinn merely underscores her utter unfitness to be called a "journalist" in any shape or form. Yes, indeed, she DID break up the former editor of the Wash. Post's first marriage, now didn't she? But that was OKAY, BECAUSE IT WAS SALLY QUINN DOING IT.

Sheesh! I have NO respect for this woman, and she is allowed to write such tripe, yet, the whole controversy about Arun Gandhi having to resign from his position as President of the Peace Foundation, SOLELY because Sally Quinn was afraid of Jewish opposition to his words, which were interpreted by some, (certainly not by all of us, those who can use their brain, that is!) as anti-Semitic. But oh no, stupid, shallow Ms. Quinn saw to it that he got fired from his position, because she is nothing if not ultra PC-and terribly afraid of "offending" some delicate egos out there. For shame! She would NEVER be allowed to write for any major newspaper except her husband's PURE AND SIMPLE! Her blog on Silda Spitzer makes one cringe with embarassment that Quinn can actually call herself a human being, much less a "writer!"

the anonymous comment at 5:15 was me, i forgot to type in my name.

elizabeth6-this is the only comment in response to you, when you said mccain is a stand-by-his-woman man. all of my other comments were directed at mrs. bill quinn.
==========
i said----elizabeth6-

using mccain as an example of a 'stand by your woman man'?
mccain? oh, you mean the one who didn't stand by his other wife cuz he was having an affair with his current wife, cindy? that mccain?

geeeeeeez
=============you answered with this:
elizabeth6:
DMAC
That was a statement of fact. I leave morals for the experts to sort out. I do not have the credentials. Do you?
==========

statements of fact is what i was agoin' for.......were you referring to when he 'helped' his wife cindy with her drug problem by hiding it under the rug, made sure she wasn't charged with many felonies, like anyone else would have, and not even checking her into rehab? that time he 'helped' her?

i don't recall mentioning morals, but we could. and i don't think you need credentials for morals, just a little common sense, a few golden rules and compassion usually is all you need to get in the door.

i came on here to comment about sally quinn being a hypocrite, not john mccain, you're the one who brought it up, and what i said is true, a statement of fact, as you say.

so, if you're referring to some kind of knight in shining armor act that he did for his wife that i am not aware of, i would love to be informed and educated.

i said a truth, you copped an attitude..........not necessary.

his current wife was his mistress.
he shoved his wife's drug problem under the rug and didn't seek help for her because it would hurt his career.

that's a fact.

Sally, given your own status as the other woman ( http://www.salon.com/media/1998/03/09media.html ), are you really the best person to be moralizing about a married man having an affair?

Issues of morality come home to all of us times. Last night I ran into an acquaintance of mine that I have had some differences with in the recent past. The last time that I saw this man he said some very hurtful things to me. I did not tell him this but at the time that he said them I immediately walked away.

He approached me last night in such a humble manner and came right to the point, identifying the incident that I speak of above. After he identified it, he then verbalized recognition that he may have offended me by what he said. I acknowledged that he had “hurt” me by what he said. He then took full responsibility of his actions and apologized to me.

Based on his approach and sincerity to rectify the situation I immediately accepted his apology. Furthermore, I was so overcome by his sensitivity and acknowledgment of my feelings from his actions and his genuine remorseful attitude that as I forgave his offense I immediately felt a release from my hurt regarding the incidence.

This man obviously has a conscious and an inner conviction at work in order for him to do the above.

Now you ask how can Sidal forgave her husband after what he has done. Really we do not know the true answer but speculate the reason. However, I will tell you that there is “power” in forgiveness in combination with true repentance or remorse over one that has wronged another.

Jesus preached this same concept to freely forgive those that repent,

John 8:3-, {3}And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, {4}They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. {5}Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? {6}This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. {7}So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8}And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. {9}And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. {10} When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? {11}She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Although, there will be a lot of healing for Sidal and her family to go through. The combination of “ true repentance” and “forgiveness” are a powerful source that is not easily broken.

Patrick, thank you for restoring my faith in men again because I had none. But you have given me a foundation to build on again. You are truly a man with conviction and good morals.

CF

DMAC
That was a statement of fact. I leave morals for the experts to sort out. I do not have the credentials. Do you?

SEX iS Not LOVE!

J [JO][ZE][VZ][.US].
O
Z
E
V
Z.US

------------------

WeeklyWeek-End "RAFFLE"(for Home)coming soon!

Please Visit from time to TiME. Thanka Shame!

Note: I.P.O., Initial Public Offerings for "W.H.O.R.E-HOUSE's" frachises through=out America & Beyond!

Imagine?

Eeeeeee Haaaaaaa, "i" love Prostitutes! "i" love that Hotel-life!

Beats Masterbation, hands down! but on the other hand.....?

Note: After So many Years 'Together', Sex w/each-other gets boring , no-excitement no?! So.... why not some side action aye?

imagine: Telling ye Madam-wife, "Honey I am goin to get me a "Message" see ya in afew.."

imagine: No more Jealousy? Especially when ye old Lady sais, "Have a Good Time Honey.."!

Note: W.h.o.r.e House seem more appropriate for MEN than Woman! Hay, if a Woman wants to have some Sexual fun, then she too should have a good time.

POINT: At least each other are TRUE to each other & hence got over their Pre-Apocalyptic Sexual Guilt's 'Biblical' Complex's etc...!

Remember: SEX IS NOT LOVE!

You're hardly in a position to be teaching others about how to handle adultery, Sally, are you? You wrote this column even so? What were you thinking?

Here's what I would do, and it is perhaps what Ms. Spitzer has done, or not.

First, stand still. Don't do anything in
haste, anger or otherwise, util the shock has abated. Who's smart enough to figure all the ramifications, perfectly, instantly?

But, make no mistake. After due consideration, unless staying means a major, benefit, in WHATEVER WAY,whatever say, I'd be out of there. Trust him again? TRUST him again?

Staying would mean daily bathing in humiliation for her and her daughters. Snickers, the lack of respect, leave outs. Will not abate soon. But leaving the jerk, in unimpeachable style would hasten the day surely.

I cannot understand who would want to be married to Eliot Spitzer?

what happened to 'till death do us part'? isn't this supposed to be the faith section?

you must not be as committed a christian as you claim, eh?

each person in a partnership/marriage decides what is a deal-breaker for their relationship.......what you wrote shows that you do not understand this concept. makes me wonder.

elizabeth6-

using mccain as an example of a 'stand by your woman man'?
mccain? oh, you mean the one who didn't stand by his other wife cuz he was having an affair with his current wife, cindy? that mccain?

geeeeeeez

you are SUCH a hypocrite.

dating a married man, while living with another, then married the man from the adulturous affair......didn't hurt your career any, did it?

and you wail and rail against women who made equally hard decisions, only they were the wife, you were not.

yep, you're an expert all right.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/15/shut-yer-piehole-homewrecker/

There are some real monsters in this forum, starting with Sally Quinn and including all of the other self-righteous commentators who think they have the right to tell Mrs. Spitzer how to run her marriage. Why don't you all stop peeping through the curtains and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS...

Sally Quinn,

You write columns criticzing others, but you don't seem to understand that:

Blood and families are thicker than polemics and abstract doctrines.

Your feminist doctrines are irrelevant to a woman in distress.

You have no human sympathy or kindness.

You are not qualified by any of your personal attributes to write the columns that you do.

*********************

Get a life, but, before you do, try to understand people's real lives.

RS, I find it interesting that most of the people who responded to this column saying that Silda should stick by Spitzer seem to be men....isn't that a little self-serving? I don't ever recall a husband standing by his wife in public when she did something bad (I also don't recall women politicians doing this kind of stuff, but that's another topic). While I don't think it's possible to guess her motives, she clearly put aside her career to advance his, and maybe she is now too financially dependent on him to make her own independent choices. Until women truly achieve financial equality with men, I think it will be hard to guess what they really want to do."

****************************************************************

RS,

Wrong. John McCain stood by his wife when she had personal troubles. As did the husband of the woman who drowned their 5 children.

I agree, there are few husbands standing up on the podium supporting their errant wives but I do not believe many women politicians have been arrested for propositioning gays in public toilets, chastised for chasing interns, declaring their " coming out" and illegally entertaining prostitutes.

Your assumption Mrs. Spitzer's actions are influenced by financial independence is not only pointless but insulting. She is a highly trained and intelligent lady, I use this term not lightly, and one would imagine her to be quite capable of managing her life and her financial affairs.

Not only a biased post but irrelevant with bitter undertones.....

Faith? This article is far better described as an "Eye for an Eye!"

I do not believe that Mr. Spitzer had any right to order or require his wife to stand by him. I believe that she had every right to leave him to stand or fall on his own on that stage.

That having been said, I can't believe that the author has the audacity to suggest that we should be upset with Mrs. Spitzer for choosing to stand beside her husband. Morality? What about applauding her compassion and forgiveness. How about a nod in her direction for turning the other cheek? What she chose to do can't possibly be easy. That should be clear from the gut reaction of the author that somehow made it passed the editor and onto the page. This article was nothing short of bigotry.

RS, I find it interesting that most of the people who responded to this column saying that Silda should stick by Spitzer seem to be men....isn't that a little self-serving? I don't ever recall a husband standing by his wife in public when she did something bad (I also don't recall women politicians doing this kind of stuff, but that's another topic). While I don't think it's possible to guess her motives, she clearly put aside her career to advance his, and maybe she is now too financially dependent on him to make her own independent choices. Until women truly achieve financial equality with men, I think it will be hard to guess what they really want to do."
~~~~~~~~~

What a bias statement.

I find it interesting that most of the people who responded to this column saying that Silda should stick by Spitzer seem to be men....isn't that a little self-serving? I don't ever recall a husband standing by his wife in public when she did something bad (I also don't recall women politicians doing this kind of stuff, but that's another topic). While I don't think it's possible to guess her motives, she clearly put aside her career to advance his, and maybe she is now too financially dependent on him to make her own independent choices. Until women truly achieve financial equality with men, I think it will be hard to guess what they really want to do.

Indian women committing sati?? Sorry, the author's knowledge of Indian women is out of date by at least 200 years.

Sally has stated so clearly what I have felt for a very long time; what are we teaching our children? When will women understand that they are doing more harm than good? When I see the parade through the public confessional, it makes me physically ill to see the wives standing there as if they are complicit in the deception of themselves. In sickness and in health is one thing, but public humiliation and trampling on the entire family's self worth, goes beyond the pale. In this case, the hypocriscy is palpable. He got into the situation by himself, let him figure out what to do about it by himself. To Hillary's credit, when Bill finally confessed 8/17/1998, she was not by his side.

Wouldn't it have been delicious if she had given him a big sock in the jaw announced she would be filing to run for elective office and walked off the stage.

What a pile of hypocritical, sexist and hateful hot air has settled on this forum, issued from that balloon Sally Quinn burst.

Instead of helping this intolerable situation this poor woman finds herself in too many are eager to exacerbate her strife. All following their leader like self righteous sheep anxious to make a person look and sound bad in order to make themselves look good.

George Fox at the age of 15 discovered religious hypocrisy. After attending his village church on Sunday he noticed come Monday those very same people singing hymns and spouting platitudes were on Monday stabbing each other in the back. He went on to found The Society of Friends( Quakers) who believed, and still believe, to sin is human, to forgive is divine.

I grew up with a Quaker mother who believed "if you can not say anything good about a person, say nothing". Clearly if we all followed that the newspapers and media would have closed down long ago. However it does nor hurt to ponder a little here and consider the Spitzer family. The choice to stand by her husband was clearly hers and the journey they are travelling is their journey. Considering this is supposed to be a religious forum why not button up the self righteous and judgmental talk for a while? Let us try to walk in the shoes of those who need help Instead of using those shoes for kicking them further down.

I agree wholeheartedly. Shameful for these wives to continue to pretend that everything is going to be alright. When are our words, our aspirations going to matter, if the default (the male gaze/will/say, etc.) is always acceptable?

Presumably tough American women are amazingly naive... [The same goes with the whole country: to outsiders, America appears liberal, progressive--even decadent for some; in fact, it is atrociously self-righteous and conformist. But that's another story.]

Where I come from (Old Europe), men don't say sorry easily, but when they do, their seriously angry female partners will likely respond: okay (read: don't do it again, or else). In this country, women treat their men like little boys: e.g., a little boy has broken a lamp in the living room even though his mother had warned, 'stop running around, you'll break something.' The little boy does this over and over again, and every time he's broken the lamp (actually, his promise), he rushes to his mother, crying, and asks for her forgiveness [I am SORRY, mommy!!]--which she does on cue, and immediately proceeds to comfort him--to boot. Until the next time....

Grown men do the same thing with their wives who, in turn, repeat the mommy scenario. Imagine if Hillary Clinton, when confronted with the first mistress, had told and meant it: "Bill, we both want to become politicians; so choices must be made, you can't have it both ways. If you want me to stand by you, help you achieve our Dream, you never do this again. If you do: I am out, for good. The earlier the better, I am still young; I can start again." Perhaps she could have spared this country nasty impeachment hearings, and, more importantly, eight sad years of BAD government.

I have taught my US-born daughter to watch out for these boy-men when dating... My advice: if you think it's going to be serious, first meet the mom: if she's a no-nonsense mom, then, he might be alright. Often, boys raised by strong-willed (and usually single moms), like Obama's mom? are more likely to mind the other sex--as any mature adults should.

SALLY WROTE, "I know why he did what he did. Because he could. Arrogance and power are a lethal combination, and men who combine both often begin to believe in their own invincibility."
~~~~~~~~~~~

ANS: How right you are, the arrogance and over inflated ego syndrome that says, "I am above being the law, can’t get caught or charged because of my status and level of power. So I am free to act on any impulse that I, no matter how immoral the act, to satisfy that impulse."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SALLY WROTE, "The more baffling question to me is why she did it. All I could think of, watching Silda Spitzer’s defeated expression.......Think of the message this image sends -- not to just adults, but to young children, both boys and girls. For young girls, it says this is an acceptable role for women -- to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public/ You take it and must still be supportive. because that is what is expected of women."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANS:Exactly, a 49 second apology does not cut it. This is just a formality anyway often times recommended by their political advisers. But for the woman to stand by her man after such egregious behaviors may only reinforce the behavior of the man for them to continue in the behaviors again, and again.

It is hard to tell the sincerity of the person apologizing, only time will tell if Silda made the right choice to forgive and stay with him. I do believe that if true remorse exist that under certain situation, the person does deserve a second chance.

Since the scandal broke I've been asking the exact same question. As Silda Spitzer stood next to her husband in the clip that was played and replayed numerous times on newscasts, I felt anger simmering below the devastated expression.

We haven't come "a long way, baby" until we can stand up in front of that podium and say what is on our minds...

Thank you for the powerful and well-written piece.

The judgmental and arrogant tone of this piece makes it quite possibly one of the worst Post pieces I have read in many years. I've seen some suggestion that there's favoritism afoot in giving this author space in a respected newspaper. I don't know anything about that and would automatically assume to the contrary. But unless the paper actually wants to publish the work of people who will stir the pot with incorrect statements and poorly reasoned and embarrassingly obnoxious commentary, I can't understand why someone who writes this way would appear here. That this appears as part of an "On Faith" feature only compounds the problem, given the fairly open contempt for the decisions of others and the institution and commitment of marriage, let alone the unmitigated rush to judge others.

Many other responses have addressed the audacity of the author in presuming to know about the situation and decide for Silda Wall Spitzer as to what's right for that family, so I won't repeat their work. And I won't bother to address the overblown comparisons to the Taliban and sati, the inexplicable conclusions (including that this wife is somehow "enabling" anyone or anything), or the many other errors and problems in this item. But here is just one of the author's egregious segments:

"For boys, it says it’s okay to lie and cheat and dishonor your family, and you might grow up to be a senator or a governor or a president. You can get away with it."

How long could the author have actually thought about this paragraph before committing to putting it in printed circulation? "Get away with it?" He clearly didn't. He's facing criminal prosecution. He's resigned from the governorship. And what do you know of the consequences within this family, which are most likely undetermined for now?

A response to an item as weak as this one could go on forever, but I won't, largely because so many others have already done an effective job of excoriating this awful work. Even after qualifying this as an opinion/columnist type of piece, I find myself bewildered and saddened at how someone could generate such mortifyingly bad, and indeed rather mean-spirited, product. The other hard-working people who produce this paper, as well as the readership, are all poorer for having had this appear alongside the otherwise usually good work seen in the Post.

It is interesting that Ms. Sally Quinn who destroyed her husband's first marriage by having an extra-marital affair with him would have the gall to judge Silda Spitzer who is displaying courage and moral judgement by not judging Eliot Spitzer in public for a private lapse. I am sure he is facing hell from her in private.

How do we /know/ he even had sex with that hooker? First of all, for 4300 dollars, you are probably getting more than just sex, perhaps he was only looking for good, intelligent conversation, maybe he felt he couldn't talk to his wife about something, so he needed somewhere to talk.

Granted this scenario is unlikely, but it is always something to consider.

What happened to "for better or for worse." I consider myself a feminist, but I am troubled by the calls for women to ditch their husbands when the going gets rough. What exactly does that phrase mean, or the lifetime commitment, if you get to toss them out when the ride is really rough. And what type of rough patch allows you to employ the heave-ho, and what demands that you stay? The Spitzers' marriage is a personal commitment, not some proxy for the feminist movement. Let's not add to the wife's difficulty by holding up her decision against some standard that we have decided is the test for modern women. I think the true test is to allow each woman to think for herself and to decide what is best for her own situation.

To what can be observed Salida Walls physically stood by the SOB but rather to prop him up. This is far different then the like of these conservative republican women with their being subservient. AS in the case of prescription drug addict Cindy McCain and her painted face.

One would seriously hope that the next one will have the guts and fury to punch the SOB in the kisser on national television.

Sorry, Sally Quinn, but you don't get to tell another woman or man whether to leave their spouse or not. Not every person whose spouse cheats leaves that spouse. In fact, I bet most don't (either way.)

If your husband cheated on you and just that alone is enough to make you leave him, then be my guest. I bet you that has already happened to you.

Otherwise, keep your nose out of someone else's personal business.

"maybe Ms Wall Spitzer is primarily concerned with helping her daughters get through this?" Yes, another excellent point.

Another question: WHAT is with the woman bashing (by other women) in this paper lately?

Physically standing by your spouse in public is making a statement to society. What really matters is one's position in spirit. Does God leave us when we fall? Did the father of the prodigal son leave the son?

I suggest God is disappointed in us when we fall. His preference is we learn through our life action. Yes, we must suffer the consequences.

Then again, when we stand by our spouse, we too are human. Standing by a loved one who falls is not always easy. We too must pray to God and ask, "What can I learn in this?"

maybe Ms Wall Spitzer is primarily concerned with helping her daughters get through this? maybe she is a grown up and able to put their welfare above any other concern?

"Walking a mile in someone's shoes," "for better or for worse," "being courageous" and "standing by your man" does NOT mean having to be a doormat for your spouse when he does something reprehensible, and however brave and courageous Silda Spitzer may be in private in dealing with her husband's horrible behaviour, a doormat is exactly how she came across facing the cameras with Gov. Spitzer---twice. It was painful to watch, and it wasn't necessary. There is a time and a place for keeping up appearances, and there's a time when the offending party should face the music by themselves. Out of the view of the reporters, TV cameras, bloggers and whatever, I hope the Spitzers come to a resolution to this that they BOTH can live with, however that comes about. But while my heart goes out to Ms. Spitzer having had her life and marriage roiled by her husband's folly, given the nature of that folly, my empathy doesn't extend to believing that she needed to physically be there when he 'fessed up. He's done enough to her already. Let Elliot Spitzer stew in his own juices awhile.....alone.

Wow, is there no limit to what mean spirited arrogance will cause a person to say (or write). Bottom line Ms. Quinn, you do not have the information to adequately assess the motivation for Mrs. Spitzer's decision. Why so harsh? Why so arrogant?

If every marriage that had infidelity in its past had ended do you really think their children, communities, extended families, and country would be better off than the alternative of each person making their own decision and other less destructive adjustments in their marital relationship?

Why is this article about "SILDA'S sad choice"? For God's sake, HE was the one with the hookers. Why are we hanging her on the cross? For shame!!!

Amen! Thank you for this op-ed. What is it with people? Ok, if men are making comments about women should do this, that is one thing. But I can not believe the women of this country are still stuck in this "Tammy Wynet world!" When will we grow up, we can not expect these men to change until we have the strength to say, "This behavior is not accectable and IF you choose it, you will stand along. I think Women hold on to whatever relationship because they don't want to give up what they think they have---a relationship that the man is trying to destroy and does not have the guts to ask for a divorce because it might mess up THEIR career. The damage is does to the rest of the family is NOT his biggest concern and apparently not HERS either. I am extremely sorry for their girls because this is going to take a long time to recover from.

Why did she do it?

Maybe she loves him, despite his flaws, despite his stupidity?

Maybe she's committed to the marriage whatever happens?

Maybe she's acting out of strength and not weakness?

One can be severely, cruelly, brutally disappointed in one's spouse and yet still hang in there. People we love fall from themselves sometimes, and we can feel compassion in the midst of our rage and shame. Why is it wrong or weak when compassion wins out?

Sally - Many value so much more than self. Why don't you inquire with Ms. Spitzer and find out what it is that she truly values?

I find people like Sally Quinn to be far sadder than Eliot Spitzer's wife.

Maybe Sally Quinn doesn't realize that marriage is a commitment. Most of us have taken public vows to stick with our partner "for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health."

At the very least, it's decidedly unChristian for Sally Quinn to believe that it is her job to judge others on their painful, personal decisions.

Writers like Sally Quinn have no recognition of their own sad and empty lives.

N Lacey, I TOTALLY agree with you. To call Sally Quinn a journalist, even for the Post, is a stretch. She is where she is solely because of her husband Ben Bradleee, and not for any reason related to good writing, and particularly perceptiveness or insight. A gossip monger (and not a very good one, even with that low bar).

Amen! Thank you for this op-ed.

How many people read this article ? 99.9% of them said " Boy oh boy , am I glad I am not married to Sally Quinn, when things get tough , don't look for her to hang around and help.

Much has been said about Silda Spitzer's suffering, but nothing about her strength. I saw no shackles on her legs, dragging her to the podium, forcing her to stand next to her husband. I believe this was her choice -- who are we to judge her, at this time?

Who is Sally Quinn to say what is wrong and what is right? This type of decision can only be made by the wife.. to leave or stay. And she will have no reason to give as to why she made it. This is a totaly personal and private decision. And should be.

How many people read this article ? 99.9% of them said " Boy oh boy , am I glad I am not married to Sally Quinn, when things get tough , don't look for her to hang around and help.

Sorry to all you that think public humiliation is a sign of courage, I agree with Sally. Remember Mad Magazine used to have a section called "Scenes We'd Like To See"? Rather than the wife not appear at all, I'd rather she haul off and belt him live on national TV! But since that will never happen, I'd settle for the separate press conference.

Dina McGreevy wrote in the NYT that she stood there for her daughter and if she had to do it again, she would. I think this is a total cop out. If she wanted to teach her daughter something it should be that she doesn't have to put up with this crap, that we live in a country where women don't have to be subject to men and she can be her own person and achieve her own goals without a man.

I would be voting for Hillary Clinton if she had dumped Bill, won her senate seat twice and ran for president all on her own. The fact that she "stuck by" Bill just so she could use his name, clout and power to get herself elected, despite the NUMEROUS times he publically humiliated her, speaks volumes to me on her character.

I didn't "stand by my man" when he cheated on me. That was a very personal decision. However, I did not have children with him so the outcome may have been completely different had there been a child. However, I know what divorce does to young and adult children and it is nothing good. Do not judge a woman or a man unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Sally Quinn is pathetic.

It's called walking in someone else's shoes; empathy; whatever. Instead we have the oh so smug village matroness who's in it for the gossip. How sad.

I couldn't agree more with Ms. Quinn in her condemnation of Elliot Spitzer's personal behavior which was certainly despicable, self-serving and most probably sick. His betrayal of the public trust and of his family has set a new standard. The entry for "Hubris" in the dictionary should have his picture.

However, I have a different read of Silda's actions. Risking personal exposure to extreme criticism and judgment from many in the media; she exhibited loyalty, love and courage to such a marked degree that it brought tears to my eyes.

We shouldn't ignore the beauty and integrity of her actions in our desire to punish him for his.

The image of her beautiful, strong and courageous face will stay with me for a long time. I will pray for Silda ...and for Elliot Spitzer.

This column is of a piece with the recent Charlotte Allen "parody" about the stupidity of women, as well as Dr. Tina Alster's piece in the health section, still online after all these months, about how man can wrinkle up like prunes but ANY wrinkle on a woman is socially unacceptable.

Let's face it -- the Post hates women, and who better to voice hate against women than other women?

Time to turn the page and find different reading matter. This is why newspaper readership is down.

You guys and gals just don't get it. Old news.

Turn the page.

Sic Transit Gloria, Woman's independence.

Looks like the notion that a woman is an independent self defining individual is passe.

Instead of being subordinate to her husband's will, a wife is now subject to the orders of a Poltically correct coterie which presumes to dictate a "one size fits all" cultural standard, to which they all must submit.

I'd like to ask if this showing up with the husband in such a situation could connect with the 'good times' and 'bad times' line they tell you (in case it's a christian marriage ritus) during the wedding ceremony?
Not out of obedience, but out of loyalty to your partner, even though he committed an error?

Could her standing there be a sign of moral strength, to not let him alone in this moment?

Would it show a great step forward, if partners in such moments of crisis pull back? Even though the origin of the crisis is self-inflicted and inexcusable, I'd think a multiple year marriage and kids weigh more. By going out there, Silda Spitzer showed too, that it is their marriage crisis they are facing.

If she decides she can stand out there with her man, who are we to judge how she should act?

Sally,
the truth is that Silda is many times a better person than you. It's simple as that.

I'd like to ask if this showing up with the husband in such a situation could connect with the 'good times' and 'bad times' line they tell you (in case it's a christian marriage ritus) during the wedding ceremony?
Not out of obedience, but out of loyalty to your partner, even though he committed an error?

Could her standing there be a sign of moral strength, to not let him alone in this moment?

Would it show a great step forward, if partners in such moments of crisis pull back? Even though the origin of the crisis is self-inflicted and inexcusable, I'd think a multiple year marriage and kids weigh more. By going out there, Silda Spitzer showed too, that it is their marriage crisis they are facing.

If she decides she can stand out there with her man, who are we to judge how she should act?

Sic Transit Gloria, Woman's independence.

Looks like the notion that a woman is an independent self defining individual is passe.

Instead of being subordinate to her husband's will, a wife is now subject to the orders of a Poltically correct coterie which presumes to dictate a "one size fits all" cultural standard, to which they all must submit.

Perhaps a smart, talented spouse stands before the press because she is courageous - because she's done nothing wrong - because her husband's failings don't define her - because there's no need to hide - because moving forward is better than running away - because her strength, and the strength of her daughters, will cement the family, even as a father falls apart.

Standing by her husband is a choice she made. How would that equate to Men being invincible and able to get away with adultery. The American Society in general is not honest with it's sexual history and present. We parade women as sexual objects. Women are created from within us to bring a partner in life to bring us closer to God. America must come to grip with the reality of how we interpet and engage in sex in this country. Just because he had a picutre perfect marriage, does not necessarily mean the former Governor and wife did not have marriage issues. The reason a person cheats to to seek support of something they are not getting at home. There are many angles to gain perspective on this issue. This is not a shock, and it will not be the last time this happens.

A little misleading to imply that only wives of those in public office, "stand by their man."
I don't remember actually percentages, but I understand that a very high % of men and women conduct ilicit affairs, at one time or another.
Who are we to question their motives? Frankly, most of us have had to make the same deceision, at one time or another, althought maybe in not so public arena.
Still, most of our friends & families will know.
There is something said for trying to protect your home & your life. Although it may be misguided effect. Who knows.
But, my thoughts are with the families. What cost collateral damage!

The "On Faith Moderator" should know the answer or surrender the title.

Like Hillary, Silda demonstrates to her daughters and to sons and daughters everywhere........ that an oath before Eternal God for better or worse until death do us part has consequence!

For my part I say thank you Silda.

Some of us take the promises we make seriously. It isn't for better or else, it's for better or worse.

After forty-one years of marriage, I rejoice in a relationship of joy and forgiveness, dumb moves and a sense of the ridiculous.

I'm curious: did you also write the same when Hillary Clinton stood by her husband? When Hillary Clinton hired PI to find "dirt" on the women he was involved with? I guess it's safe to come out now, now that Hillary has disgraced herself and earned the right to piggyback on his shoulders at the cost of her dignity as a woman.

In our society we seem to think that leaving our spouse is the right thing to do after he/she is unfaithful. We seem to believe that the episode of unfaithfulness is the deal breaker. But that is not the promise we make when we marry. Yes, Governor Spitzer needs to be punished. He broke the law. He betrayed the trust of not only the public, but also, and especially, his wife and children. Should this family be further punished for his sin? I admire this woman. Even though her husband has not kept his promises, she still has. Perhaps if we had more people with this kind of comittment we would not have a fifty percent divorce rate and all the trauma that it causes to families.

Sally Quinn is usually pretty sensible; it's disappointing to see her join the chorus deploring Silda Spitzer's appearance with her disgraced husband as he bowed out.

Smart as he is, Spitzer seems to have a screw loose. His personal recklessness matched his belligerent arrogance in office and he had to go. But whether Silda did or did not choose to stand by him publicly is nobody's business but theirs. The easy moralizing about her proper role is not only hackneyed--how many times have we heard it by now?--but more than a little presumptuous and disgusting.

I agree with Sally Quinn's statements and would add another "lesson" to remember - never quit your job for your man. So many women have found themselves in lousy situations many years later because they have.

Yonkers, New York
15 March 2008

Would it be morally right for Silda Wall Spitzer to leave husband Eliot for this one moral lapse?

Sally Quinn answers in the affirmative.

But Ms Quinn is not Silda Wall Spitzer. She is not the wife of Eliot Spitzer. She is not the mother of the Spitzers' three children.

When they were joined together in marriage, Silda Wall and Eliot Spitzer surely must have vowed to stick together in sickness and in health, through thick and thin, for richer or poorer, through life's ups and downs.

Does Sally Quin pay only lip serve to those marriage vows?

Obviously, Silda Wall does not. She obviously is made of stuff superior to Sally Quinn.

Obviously, Silda Wall has the capacity to forgive an errant husband, the loving father of their three children, whom she must have loved deeply for so long.

Obviously Silda Wall knows quite well that husband Eliot is not a saint, but a human being capable of making mistakes, including those mistakes which "flesh is heir to."

Obviously, Silda Wall has the good sense to realize that saving her marriage and her family takes precedence over issues of personal hurt or pride.

Personally, I admire Silda Wall Spitzer. I wish her, Eliot Spitzer and their children happiness as together they defend themselves from "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"--to borrow the words of the Elizabethan bard, W.S.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

I'm tired of reporters who can't get their facts straight, especially when it comes to relentless digs on Hillary Clinton. She did not attend the Lewinsky press conference. Look it up. Course facts don't get in the way of reporter bashing do they?

"One can only assume that the women who do this are just as enamored of the power and the position as their men. Of course their power is derivative, which makes it all the more difficult to lose. (It was reported that Silda Spitzer did not want her husband to resign.) Would Hillary Clinton have run for the Senate or even President had she not stood by her man after the Monica Lewinsky episode and insisted he not resign?"

Thank you...you're the first columnist I've read to tell the TRUTH.....these women probably (certainly in Clinton's case)knew what their husbands were doing, but they didn't care as long as they shared in the prestige, power, and money. Does anyone in their right mind really believe Hillary Clinton would have given up life as the First Lady (and her future political life, including the possibility of becoming the President of the United States)because Bill ahd sex with other women??

It was Mr. Spitzer's choice to go to prostitutes for years and spend thousands of dollars using women's bodies as a commodity. He did that on his own, so he can apologize and resign on his own as well. It's one thing for Mrs. Spitzer to forgive him to keep the family together, but that is a private matter. She shouldn't be obligated to stand next to him as he apologizes for his own "failings." And by the way, in all his apologies, there was no apology to the women involved in the prostitution ring.

The reason married people (both men and women) have affairs is that they are bored to death with their spouse, sexually and otherwise. It's not any more complicated than that.

The reason political wives stand by their philandering man is equally transparent. Even with the humiliation, it's a better deal than losing what Quinn describes as derivative power. It's the real aphrodisiac that drew them to their husbands in the first place.

It was Mr. Spitzer's choice to go to prostitutes for years and spend thousands of dollars using women's bodies as a commodity. He did that on his own, so he can apologize and resign on his own as well. It's one thing for Mrs. Spitzer to forgive him to keep the family together, but that is a private matter. She shouldn't be obligated to stand next to him as he apologizes for his own "failings." And by the way, in all his apologies, there was no apology to the women involved in the prostitution ring.

Perhaps she loves him. Is that too hard to imagine?

Perhaps a lot more forthright talk about sex would help couples to keep the sex in their relationship instead of outside of it. But, alas, its not our relationship is it? Its theirs, and now that he is no longer a governor its none of my business.

May the Spitzer family find a way to their own prayers and peace.

The reason Silda Spitzer stood by her man is because they are playing the victim and the martyr or sado-masochitic game. They love torturing each other, and this was his get even chance. He is intrinsically unlovable, she married for money - a social climber-he married for her looks. They are both bottom feeders - so
deserve each other. AFter learning she wanted him to stay on as GOv. it proves she also loves for power and is beyond humiliation. SHe only lost sleep to helo him scheme his way out of this. They are sociopaths.

I totally agree with Sally Quinn regarding Silda.
She should have not stood or supported in anyway with her disgraced husband as he never thought of her when he was having sexual trysts and did not even think of the future of his teenage daughters who will be taking this incident for their whole lives. Shame on you Governor and hats off to this lady who should have slapped you in front of the media.

This is just mean. Walk a mile in her shoes, first, before offering unasked-for advice.

Who are you to judge Mrs. Spitzer? Did your husband make a public apology to his ex-wife after his affair with you was made known?

People are the worst type of carnewores, are they not? This case of Silda Spitzer shows it brightly. She needs some help, and encouragements, but, instead, the people are trying to rip her fully off. I am experiencing the same "nice" treatment; and Richard Morris, if he is Dick Morris of Clinton's time scandal, is contributing to this treatment, as much, as he can.

I would like to see Hillary win the White House and then announce she's ditching Bill. From the Oval Office. That is justice.

I think that I share the point of Richard Morris.
Why does the author of this article need so much to hit Mrs. Spitzer right now? It, sure, looks cruel and sadistic. Is Richard Morris the hero of Clinton's time scandal and the former advisor of Clinton, who runs now NewsMax?

"Taliban women covered from head to toe in burqa, standing a few paces behind their men, appendages to their all powerful husbands."This statment is ridiculous,and untrue. A Muslim women would never be humilited like this,because the punishment for adultry in Islam is death. Shw wouldn't have to leave because he'll be dead.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment I am about to express but shouldn't we consider the fact that perhaps these women stand by their men because they believe in their wedding vows --to stay with their husbands through thick and through thin. Yes, he broke the vows by cheating and that was really wrong, but what role does religion play in this and if that is the reason some of these women stand by their men, should they be criticized for it? Do you think every woman who gets cheated on by her husband should leave her man, or just the ones who get cheated on publicly?

The answer is, I think, pretty obvious. She was thinking that he became the victim of the provocation because her was too active in actions against many influential people. So, she considered it unfair and stood by him. Maybe, their family doesn't require mutual fidelity. Maybe, they are together because of mutual children and mutual life goals, not because of already disappeared within years sexual attraction.

Maybe the question here is, what is Sally Quinn thinking? Is Sally expressing grief over the loss of a loved one, by striking out at Silda Spitzer? Sally check in with your own feelings about broken trust and abuse.

Well done, Sally.

The women like Hillary and Slida are disgrace. They are good examples of hypocritical women who are blinded by ambition. They would willingly play a role of vulnerable, victimized women, even though how demeaning it is, draw a public sympathy and exploit the situation, if they can, to hang on to their power and influence through their spouses. They are the kind of women who would betray the principles of sisterhood.

To use an example set by someone you and your husband admired, how many times did Jackie stand by Jack after she KNEW he was fooling around the night before? If anything, she set the example.

But, to echo Jim's comments, this is an ON FAITH column? Seems like a stretch since "On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life." A throwaway line about burkas and sati makes for a weak justification for this column to be placed on this board. I don't see ANY mention, or even an attempt, to tie in her decision to stand by her husband with her faith.

A more appropriate column might be one on the ideal of "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" Then maybe you would be justified in writing about this matter. But you didn't do that...

Is your whole effort wasn't a joke before with its censorship a few week's back, it's a complete laughingstock now.

Where's the ombudswoman when you really need her?!

To use an example set by someone you and your husband admired, how many times did Jackie stand by Jack after she KNEW he was fooling around the night before? If anything, she set the example.

But, to echo Jim's comments, this is an ON FAITH column? Seems like a stretch since "On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life." A throwaway line about burkas and sati makes for a weak justification for this column to be placed on this board. I don't see ANY mention, or even an attempt, to tie in her decision to stand by her husband with her faith.

A more appropriate column might be one on the ideal of "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" Then maybe you would be justified in writing about this matter. But you didn't do that...

Is your whole effort wasn't a joke before with its censorship a few week's back, it's a complete laughingstock now.

Where's the ombudswoman when you really need her!

Ms. Quinn is quite correct in making an intellectual argument against Silda Wall Spitzer's decision to appear with her husband in the worst of times. But I cannot imagine the numbness and pain Ms. Wall Spitzer would be feeling as this news hit her from all sides in such a short period of time. Indeed, it is a private matter writ large publicly, and while we look in from the outside and assess, perhaps we might be better sisters by sparing this burdened woman further judgment, and say walk when when you need to, but not when we say.

To use an example set by someone you and your husband admired, how many times did Jackie stand by Jack after she KNEW he was fooling around the night before? If anything, she set the example.

But, to echo Jim's comments, this is an ON FAITH column? Seems like a stretch since "On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life." A throwaway line about burkas and sati makes for a weak justification for this column to be placed on this board. I don't see ANY mention, or even an attempt, to tie in her decision to stand by her husband with her faith.

A more appropriate column might be one on the ideal of "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" Then maybe you would be justified in writing about this matter. But you didn't do that...

Is your whole effort wasn't a joke before with its censorship a few week's back, it's a complete laughingstock now.

Where's the ombudswoman when you really need her!

Lied to cheated on and disrespected in public. How about treated used like disposable tissue? How about this is what you can do if you are a man. Don't worry you don't have to be a Spitzer; there will always be a woman less than you. All women are. Your choice, if you're a woman, is to be his wife or his rented organ.

Heck yes! I agree 100%, there is enough betrayal and infidelity in this world. Having to see the look of defeat on yet another politicians wife(New Jersey ring a bell?) makes me wonder how many others out there are unknowingly going to bed at night with a stray dog. You will not see a female politican admitting to an adulterous affair with her loving, supporting husband by her side, because it would never happen.

I am not sure we can ever know what is in the mind of a man and a woman who are married, and one or the other is unfaithful to the union. I am sure there is much pain, when a union is broken, for whatever reason.

When a woman is mistreated, abused, emotionally or physically battered, it is not always easy to simply walk away, get a divorce, or throw the bum onto the street.

To lay this instance of mistreatment by a powerful, overbearing man on Silda Spitzer strikes me as silly. Let's treat her with dignity, and respect her privacy. We cannot know what motivates her to "stand by her man", when he appears to be a monster.

Sally, you sound like a sanctimonious b$#!* who should mind her own business.

She who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.

This is the On Faith Column correct? So here are two faith based concepts for you - vows and forgiveness. Why is it subservient to forgive someone, especially someone you truly love? Also, two wrongs don't make a right, such that if one spouse violates their vows, the other doing so via divorce does not fix the situation. I don't recall my vows being "until death, or cheating, do you part"

A rend in a marriage is only beyond repair when both parties refuse to continue to try.

I'm not even that religious...and I certainly wouldn't be seen on camera as supporting him. But I would at least look in my heart to forgive and to continue to honor MY vows to him, hopefully bringing him back to honoring his vows to me.

Sally Quinn: How nice it must be to have a pulpit entitled "On Faith" from which to substitute your judgment for others, and to be blessed with the moral authority and impeccable background for exercising that judgment. It is kind of you to share your unique perspective such that we might be less likely to stray from the ideal which you've set. Thank you so very much.

Would that all the attention being put into Silda Spitzer's private life were spent instead on resolving Iraq, where people are dying.

You know, from the outside looking in, all of us can say, "Oh, in that situation, I'd do this." But the thing is, until you've been there, you just don't know. Silda Spitzer is probably in shock that her husband was cheating on her. She might need time to think about her next move... novel concept that is.

And from what I've read in the previous comments... you are the absolute last person who should be talking about what a cheated-upon wife should do.

Sally,

Terrible piece. Sanctimonious, judgmental, and probably erroneous psychobable. You need therapy to address your misogyny....or is it Hillary hatred????

Who gives Sally Quinn the right to judge anyone?! She is primarily a socialite, a party-giver. She is extraordinarily proud of her social contacts. Why, how, would she have any better idea about deep committment than any other public wife? ? Live and let live ,Sally, especially when someone like Silda,who is so very intelligent, perceptive, accomplished, graceful, ladylike, practices forgiveness. Learn from your betters, don't pass judgment and criticize them like a provincial busy-body.

Could your questions be simply answered with: individual differences. Women you mentioned may have different husband-wife relational perspectives than you or I and other women might have about marriage, theirs in particular. Why is it so important for others to put them under feminist cultural pressures and speculations. Or else question and denigrate the motives behind those intelligent women's decisions not to break their marital ties but continue on working hard to preserve and keep their families together. I do think it is something very difficult to do but a very Christian way of keeping intact marital vows made on their wedding day, till death do they part, you know...

And how about the humbling concept and thought of forgiveness. After all, married couples who have experienced and shared so much with each other and have gone through extraordinary life together could have bonded and developed something much, much deeper than merely living as married couples, beyond other people's comprehension.

Also, these women you have mentioned, must be strong, independent and intellectually superior must still know and continue to experience the depths of love, trust and kindness from their philandering husbands that they don't break so helplessly or easily, like dolls or other door-mat types. Remember Eleanor Roosevelt? Jackie Kennedy?

So, instead of demeaning their status as women, I consider them with a huge reservoir of grace and strength as human beings and as women, not only for themselves, but for their entire families, and even the outside world when they continue to render government service to make it a better place.

I am sorry for the pain caused them but not blame them or disparage their intelligence or reasons why they have continued to support their husbands and keep their families together. We cannot nor try to attempt to know the depths of love, trust, kindness, forgiveness and understanding between husband and wife. To each our own...

You will never read this but I would bet a million dollars that if Ben Bradlee had had sex with another woman or man Sally Quinn would be standing beside him, you may love him but you also love the stature he gave you. Your comparison of Silda to truly subjugated women is so offensive as to make me sick to my stomach.

All this high-minded commentary is a crock.
The fact is, this is the way people behave. Him AND her. The same holds true for the people commenting.
Need proof?
Silda is smart and attractive.
Imagine what would have been written here if she looked like Totie Fields.

Spitzer used his wife. Having her there by his side must have been very difficult for her. If he cared about her he would have told her that he would front the media alone. I did not hear him talking about his wife's suffering and I cannot recall him turning to her as a sign of caring and respect.

I suspect that facing the media was spin. If there is one thing that is clear about politicians it is that they can dish it out but they cannot take it.

Spitzer should go down the drain hole.

I would have had more respect for him if he had stood there alone and had given a frank disclosure of what had happened. Instead we got a confession by way of innuendo.

He deserves obscurity.

By the way you say that his wife is 'beautiful'. Why does that matter? Are you suggesting that ugly wives do not need our sympathy or that they do not suffer?

I personally admire Ms. Spitzer for her bravery in standing with her husband despite his actions instead of leaving like most women would. Now, that is class.

I personally admire Ms. Spitzer for her bravery in standing with her husband despite his actions instead of leaving like most women would. Now, that is class.

I personally admire Ms. Spitzer for her bravery in standing with her husband despite his actions instead of leaving like most women would. Now, that is class.

Gosh Sally,

I have to wonder how you view your own marriage if you advocate leaving your hubby if you discover he is sleeping with a prostitute. I could understand if he has some form of emotional connection with another woman but this is a prostitute so we are talking about sex and sex is pretty trivial in the larger scope of a lifelong relationship. If you have a deeper connection to your spouse beyond sex I think the morally correct thing to do would be to deal with it; not leave like a hurt child. I think Ms. Spitzer showed real strength standing beside, not behind her man and facing everyone during his humiliation, not hers. He was the one that showed weakness here Sally.

Also keep in mind, prostitutes generally make their living off of married men. There are obviously alot of women married to men who have been with prostitutes, maybe yours as well...

I am a proud Indian.
I am proud of Sati.
Why do American's only see with Western View?
Sati happens everyday in modern India.

Vijay

What thoughtul comments I'm reading here. Time, not Sally Quinn, will tell whether Spitzer's wife is making the right choice, but I'm willing to give her (the wife) the benefit of the doubt. I would also argue that not every wife sees paying for sex as the worst thing her husband could do. It smacks more of addiction than infidelity. I'd be more concerned if my spouse had a long-running affair. But it depends on the marriage and the circumstances.

The best we can hope for is that she made her deal before getting up there, "I get the house and you sleep in the car for two years." Considering what little he said, it is a wonder that he made any statement at all. His next wife's IQ will be the same as her age, and she'll laugh about this kind of thing.

Being extremely surprised by Elliot Spitzer's conduct is one thing. Being in shock is another.

We are "in surprise" and at a safe distance. We are free to analyze her behavior, turn it over in our minds, pretend to know what we would do in the same situation, and quite happily moralize about it.

But for Silda this is not a head game; this is her family. She may be trapped in shock right now. Let's give her a break.

Alleluia Sally! I have been asking the same question.

Your collegue Mr. Robinson addressed this topic much more effectively, but, Sally, I beg to differ with both of you. In the face of such a hideous surprise, don't judge Silda Spitzer for responding in the manner she saw fit. The Spitzers have a long history together that cannot be erased overnight, no matter how grievous the offense. Being present at this week's press conferences certainly was not the easy choice, nor was it necessarily a weak or submissive act. Many news organizations would have loved to chronicle a public spousal display of wrath and vengence, but I can't expect that it would ease Silda Spitzer's pain. In the end, she appears to be acting with regard for those she loves, not for the media or historians of the feminist movement. Cheers to her.

I won't ask what you think of me for what we did to Tony.

We don't know anything about the Spitzers' marriage or how they will deal with this. One thing I'm sure won't be helpful is for Mrs. Spitzer to go to Homewrecker Sally to for advice. She surely must be the most arrogant woman in DC.

It is disappointing to see a woman...particularly in a column "on Faith"...stand in such harsh judgement of another woman in such a difficult situation.
Your harsh judgement discounts the impact of the astounding shock that Mrs. Spitzer must be feeling. How does one in the immediacy of such a moment decide to "cut bait" on her husband of so many years with no time to evaluate the long term impact of such decision on her children and family...with insufficient time to even filter through her own reactions to wrap her mind around such news and understand her own feelings and reactions. You ought not to issue such proclamations of judgement on Mrs. Spitzer, reducing her motivation to political position...lacking any understanding or compassion for the myriad thoughts and feelings with which she must be struggling til you've walked in her shoes.
Eliot Spitzer has and will continue to suffer the consequences of his actions...His wife, Silda should be acknowledged for the class and grace with which she has weathered this most difficult experience.

Isn't it a shame our daughters are exposed to this behavior and isn't it a shame we have to try to separate ourselves and our families from it? I can't explain it. I'm offended by it.

The hypocrisy of Spitzer's actions is breath-taking but if I try to put it into some kind of perspective, I'd ask more questions about Laura Bush staying with George - his lies have had much more serious effects, he's done more harm to the people who elected him, they have been going on for a longer time, and his hypocrisy as a "Christian" has no limits. Sex of course sells more newspapers but perhaps if journalists had investigated Bush's lies with as much energy and speed, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
As for Silda standing by her man, she has perhaps taken her marriage vows seriously - "for better, for worse, in sickness and in health". He's the father of her children and they will all have to work out some kind of future - whatever awful things he's done, children need their father.

>

I do know. The answer is ... no.

What was Silda thinking?

I do not know. No one would know the answer to this question unless Silda communicated her thoughts to them. It is incredible that so much is being made in the media of Silda supporting her husband but that is her choice and her business - just as it would have been if she had decided not to support her faithless spouse ...

Perhaps, to Silda (and to other ladies in this article), this one event is not the be all and end all that sums up her married life as it appears to be for the rest of the country.

Perhaps, to Silda (and others), to err is human ...

Cawing, feminist magpie alert! I'll give another reason Silda Spitzer may have stood by her husband: she loves him. She forgives him. She's aware of her own baseness before God and that his sins are worse by human standards but she and we all fall equally short of the glory of God.
She has a family with him. She is nobly teaching her daughters a much greater truth than the falsity of "self-esteem" the feminist world offers. She is teaching her daughters, and those in the public who will learn, that God's greatness is best defined by His mercy. He could condemn us all. And well we would deserve it. But we hope for mercy. Should we not give it?
Out of love, Silda Spitzer teaches us to forgive, to get up in humility and start again after our falls from grace, to love. She is a model for all women of intellect. She is a paragon of femininity in a public of shrews. She is the quintessential First Lady. I wish we had an entire generation of her type. Let her daughters and mine grow up to be such LADIES. And let her husband be grateful every hour of the day that God has endowed him with that gift. I hope she endures and has as merciful a heart toward HER persecutors, who so ironically have much to learn from her.

If Hillary Clinton had divorced her husband, she would have my vote in the coming election. Convoluted hypocrisy is not appealing, and my son, who is seven, ought to be shown that no one, male or female, should "get away" with such behavior as has been described in your article. By either the men or their partners.
Their choices are uncreative, redundant, and frankly, boring.
Better to leave one's spouse and get on with it, whether in pursuit illicit sex or just to proclaim one's freedom from the audacity of dopes.

I command you for your article. We should not send the wrong message again and aging to the public. This is the mesaage : If you are Powerful you can get away with lying, cheating and stealing were as common people can not.

I cannot say enough how refreshing it is to see a WOMAN say the things you just did. As a man and someone who has respect for himself. I will never understand anyone be it man or woman who will allow themselves to be so disrespected in such a terrible way by someone who supposedly loves them and "forsakes all others". Sadly it seems to be women over and over and over who tolerate this kind of thing. Men rarely do.

I think you have hit on the cause precisely. Women will simply "overlook" this type of thing from men. Why? Because they want all the little "perks" that come from being married to these type of men. Sadly though even women married to men with normal jobs tolerate this behavior also. Its just sad. I wish women would stand up and tell these men to "shove it" and leave them. I think something is going wrong in our society in the way young women are raised. All parents need to take a good look at the qualitys they instill in their children and that includes having respect for yourself. People who respect themselves will not tolerate this kind of behavior.

Do you have any idea of what has gone on in this relationship? Do you have any idea of how many times he stood by his wife through this and that? I know I'd do the same for my husband because of the way we've faced life together through thick and thin for so many years. What this says to me is that he has been there in the past for her and now it is her turn. Maybe the situations weren't infidelity. Relationships face many challenges and hardships. The good ones get through it intact.

Maybe she really loves him and wants to support him through this obviously stupid mistake. It seems to me that both Mr. Spitzer and his wife are people of high integrity and committment. She is in no way diminished by choosing (and I honor her choice) to stand for her family, which I suppose includes this flawed (aren't we all) man who is her husband. I also don't think our absurd American preoccupation with marital affairs and the evils of sex discounts all the noble achievments of Governor Spitzer. Let he who is without sin...

Dear Sally,
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! ...for saying what strikes me every time I watch a woman try to maintain her dignity while her philandering husband tries to rescue his career at her expense. The unspoken story of this remarkable political year is that writers and commentators - both men and women- still freely find ways to insult and demean Hillary Clinton in unacceptably sexist terms while being holier than thou about avoiding racist terms when dealing with Barack Obama. Neither is acceptable, yet we are still stuck in the mental burquas of an unabashedly sexist society. That is why we still see woman after woman paraded around and publicly humiliated by the actions of their powerful husbands.

We will never have a woman president as long as that is the norm.

The woman candidate for president who will win - whether it is Ms. Clinton or someone else- is the one who can regenerate women's awareness and empower them. It will be the woman who is unafraid to talk about women's issues as a priority matter. We still live in a world where the highest paying job an uneducated girl can get is as a prostitute. And, on the other end of the spectrum, we watch a highly educated, sophisticated woman who is equally "enslaved" to "her man", her power attained through his. What's wrong with this picture?

Until women free themselves of the emotional bondage of their relationships to men and recast those relationships as empowered beings, we will never be independent, free-thinking,or autonomous. It is not about ending relationships with men, but standing up to our full height as women. There is an old saying that says what a woman cherishes the most is her sovereignty. The sad reality is that few women know how to grab it for themselves.

The only way a "sea change" shift from male to female power will occur is when women are willing to say "No more." and stand together and support each other, regardless of their race, religion, philosophy or social standing. The way to do it is when women like you -in high visibility- are willing to demand that we take our power back. And, when women seize their power, their men will be right behind them.

Perhaps that kind of marital "fidelity" on behalf of women (only?), comes with the political territory. Those attracted to public life are officially self-sacrificing, while innately self-serving. Some women see the end of their marriage as an opportunity to "even the score," regardless of their particular circumstances. I personally wish my kids hadn't seen the huge destruction that their mother wrought, a 'financially independent woman,' whose career I had supported for decades, as she knifed me in the back, took all the money she could, and wasted hundreds of thousands on lawyers attempting to take the kids too, for nothing but ego. I guess besides the huge strength that Silda shows, and possibly still even love and understanding for her partner, she may possess that gift of humility, that her husband so clearly didn't.

Listen, SHE said she would love and honor through thick and thin or words to that effect.

Should she BREAK her vows just because her husband did?

You want her to become a shopkeeper or an accountant - do this then I will stand by you, do that then I won't.

He will suffer his own karma, why should she add to her bad karma.

Ms. Quinn, pardon me for saying so, but please don't be a complete twit.

Reading anything written by Sally Quinn always gives me a laugh-because I have never read the work of anyone so completely arrogant, snotty, judgemental, and self-important. In every single piece she writes, one way or another, directly or indirectly she is saying to her reader "I am better than you".

This is too rich - Sally Quinn writing about wanting to see women divorce their husbands who have affairs. That takes some chutzpah given her history!!!

Spitzer stood by her man for the same reason all the other women stood by theirs. Love. For better or for worse. We're all flawwed. We all make mistakes. No I have never cheated on my wife or kids the way Spitzer et al, including my father, cheated on their significant others. But I do understand why they stick around: Love! You're so high and mighty. Why???

a spouse must decide to make choices best suited for them and their respective families,
standing beside the jerk while they says opps...
that's just plain sad.
however, even sadder is your viewpoint or commentary in a section defined as faith.

Sally Quinn is always good for a laugh-because in every piece she writes, one way or another, directly or indirectly she is saying her her reader-"I am better than you". I have never read any columnist, blog moderator, jounalist, society maven, author-however she defines herself these days-so completely arrogant, snobbish, and completely taken with herself. She could never survive outside her rarified world.

Sally, I am sure that this sounds catty. However, you had an affair with your now husband prior to his divorce. At least, that is what the headlines said. I don't think it is YOUR place to comment on what Silda Walls Spitzer did. She sure has a lot more quality than her husband, and perhaps, more than you.

Maybe Silda Spitzer loves her husband, sees him for the foolish adolescent boy that he is, and is big enough to try to forigve him. Why label her as being subject to humiliation for standing by her man? He's the jerk, and she's being the mature, if somewhat disillusioned woman, who has the strength to try to heal the wound he has inflicted on her and their family.

Sally, I am sure that this sounds catty. However, you had an affair with your now husband prior to his divorce. At least, that is what the headlines said. I don't think it is YOUR place to comment on what Silda Walls Spitzer did. She sure has a lot more quality than her husband, and perhaps, more than you.

Wife's must decide to make choices best suited or them and their respective families,
but, to stand beside the jerk while he says opps.
that's just plain sad.

Dear Sally Quinn,

Aa a superannuated gossip columnist who made her profession the defaming the reputations of others you now feel you are the one to judge Silda Spitzer for standing by her husband in the hour of his fall from grace. How superior you must feel.

Absolutely. All I could think of when Spitzer was standing there - was that he expected his wife to be there - and she expected to be or lose more than she had already lost.

Women need to cut lose men who do this, esp. publicly. (There may be some private choices to make) -- but the public posture of women in these unhappy roles must change.

Those who suggest that the Post get rid of Sally Quinn are, of course right, but it will never happen.

Why? Because she slept with the right connected, powerful, married man at the right time (i.e. the Editor who in his interview of Ms. Quinn quipped "nobody's perfect" after she advised she had never written anything professionally before.)

Gotta love a woman who slept to the top and then sanctimoniously rips a self made woman like Silda Spitzer...the irony is palpable.

In the Spitzer scenario, doesn't Quinn realize which part she would play? Hint: it isn't Silda.

Those are other people's marriages, not for you to make any judgement on. Leave those people along. This is nothing but self-righteous and self-serving to write such passages.

I completely agree. My husband would show up bruised from the beating I'd give him at home.

A very good piece here... The pain on her face was heart breaking. What must the Governor's daughters be thinking? What would it be like for them at school in the light of all this?

In the midst of this family turmoil it must rest with the nature of their relationship.

Is there genuine contrition, repentance, a willingness to forgive?

One can only pray the family will receive strength, wisdom, and direction for the future.

When I saw Silda Spitzer, I saw a very sad woman dealing with shock as best as she could. Maybe they can save their marriage, maybe not. But I didn't think she had to decide immediately.

I did not see her as shamed, only as someone who had to deal with the shame of someone she loved. A very hard thing.Now, in the middle of her trouble, not trouble she brought on herself but which probably came as unexpectedly to her as it did to everyone else, people like Sally Quinn have decided she should be attacked, too. Is this simply another way of attacking Hillary? Or does Quinn really believe feminism requires one way of acting. I thought feminism was about choice.

I find Quinn's choice to attack Silda Spitzer disgusting.

Gosh, "these wives" must be grateful for a Sally Quinn come shame and glory, conversation and religion.

A very good piece here... The pain on her face was heart breaking. What must the Governor's daughters be thinking? What would it be like for them at school in the light of all this?

In the midst of this family turmoil it must rest with the nature of their relationship.

Is there genuine contrition, repentance, a willingness to forgive?

One can only pray the family will receive strength, wisdom, and direction for the future.

No way would I be standing by Governor Spitzer! He would be on the dais all alone. Women no longer need to "protect" their husbands reputations. Men like Eliot Spitzer certainly don't care about the reputations of their wives!

A very good piece here... The pain on her face was heart breaking. What must the Governor's daughters be thinking? What would it be like for them at school in the light of all this?

In the midst of this family turmoil it must rest with the nature of their relationship.

Is there genuine contrition, repentance, a willingness to forgive?

One can only pray the family will receive strength, wisdom, and direction for the future.

I agree with you 100%! And I was just having this exact conversation with a friend before I read your article. Well said!

I concur. I didn't feel that this was chastising, but rather voicing what so very many of us were thinking---Why is she there--with so much pain, shock, emptiness on her face. I do not perceive this as critical of Silda. But I do really worry about 3 teenage daughters. What an ugly way to find out about daddy's playtime and especially how much money exchanged hands. Yuk.

The word is ADDICTION! As in Bill Clinton and John Kennedy and Wilt Chamberlain and hundreds or thousands of other men and even women. Why will no one discuss it in these terms? It explains everything.

Surely you don't think this situation is as black and white as you've described. No one can ever know what goes on in a marriage. For you to judge a woman's actions after her spouse has cheated is patently ridiculous.

I maybe wrong, but some career marriages appear to lose the ordinary picket fence type marriage. Maybe just maybe something happened many years prior to this that led the governor to outside intimacy. Or, just maybe, the first lady has really known of her spouses absence as a husband for years and this inccidenc is the first for the public but not for them. If this kind of thing has been going on for ten years, something happened many years ago, either with the first lady or the governor that separated their marriage. She appeared stoic, not hurt, probably more humiliated that the media can be so cruel. But, I believe they both have their own intimate lives and the daughters are like any other normal children. If something is not right in the home, the children are aware of it. Mommy may have been the one who started outside intimacy or something that led to Daddy going outside the home. I just don't think it is as sad as the media is portraying it. The sad part is we as normal married folk without professional careers spend the time with our families doing family things. Career families just don't get involved with love, trust, honesty and the need for affection that binds a house to make a home.

Bravo on your commentary. It is time that women stop enabling their cheating husbands by publicly supporting them through their public confessionals. It would be gratifying to finally see a woman in this position refuse to go on camera and stand beside the person who broke their marriage vows, who betrayed her and the children, and who had so little regard for the laws he has sworn to uphold.

If anything, it suggests the continuing inequality of women in American marital relationships, that they are seemingly "required" to go public with their cheating spouse as opposed to having the option to stay behind the scenes during the public apology and confessional stage. To me, that would be more supportive of the children rather than allowing them to think what dad did was ok because mom is standing in front of the cameras along with him.

I really don't agree with you. I felt sorry for the whole family . . . even him. I admire her and acknowledge that we can never know her reasons and how this has affected their relationship. We should not judge.

Why didn't you just run Eugene Robinson's piece?

Why does poor Mrs. Spitzer deserve to be publically attacked by both of you?

These pieces are cruel and holier-than-thou.

One political wife did have the courage to avoid the humiliation of standing behind her philandering husband. In 2003 Gov. Bob Wise of West Virginia, had an affair with a state employee and when he admitted it to the press, Sandy Wise was no where to be seen. She took her dignity and her daughter and left. The Wises reconciled, and he left office at the end of his term.

I don't understand why standing by her husband is humiliating. She did nothing wrong. The one who humiliated himself is Eliot Spitzer.

Why do you pretend to know everything about the Spitzers' marriage? Maybe Silda knew about her husband going to hookers. Maybe she encouraged it. Maybe she watched. Or maybe she figures she'll stick around until her father-in-law, now 83 and worth an estimated $500 million, dies. I'm not suggesting that any of these is actually the case, just that you are not in a position to judge. Who knows what really goes on in the marriages of others? Fortunately, most of us don't have to endure the invasive scrutiny of you and your gutter media colleagues.

Right on Claudia! Sally Quinn is the biggest snobbiest most judgmental moralistic hypocrite in Washington, DC and the political elite. She's right on par with Chris Matthews in disingenuous elitist moralalist mendacity and intellectual dishonesty.

How she has the audacity to sneer at Silda Spitzer privately, much less publicly is beyond the pale.

It takes all kinds. And Sally Quinn is making her contribution to the annals of hypocrisy and snobbery like no one else.

I don't know what Mrs Spitzer is thinking and I don't know why Ms Quinn did in her private life should somehow disqualify her from stating how she perceived Mrs Spitzer’s action.

When I see all these ladies that society held in high regards standing by their ‘man’, they makes me ask :

- How much public disrespecting and abuse should I tolerate from my husband in the name of love?
- Should I put the sanctity of my marriage vow above those of his?
- Should I put love for him above love and respecting myself?
- Should my standing in this society be defined by how supportive of him I am being the 'biggest victim' of his actions?
- What do my actions teach my daughters about loving and respecting themselves?

Self sufficient woman who choose to stand by their men under these circumstances were praised for being ‘strong, classy, courageous, graceful etc.’, but what do we called those ladies that choose to walk away knowing that that they would face a tougher future alone supporting their children? Some poster e.g. Elizabeth6, David suggested that having average ‘breeding’, lower level of education and intelligence explain why these ladies make the stupid decision of walking away… This is utterly confusing societal standard...

This article about morality is funny coming from someone who had an affair with her married boss, broke up the marriage and then married him herself. She married a cheater -- what does that tell you?

"Think of the message this image sends -- not to just adults, but to young children, both boys and girls. For young girls, it says this is an acceptable role for women -- to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public/ You take it and must still be supportive. because that is what is expected of women."

I guess as long as you're the one doing the disrespecting and humiliating, then it's OK!

What nonsense, Ms Quinn. And what arrogance for you to speak, apparently, for Ms Wall Spitzer, about whom you know nothing. Who know why she did why she chose to stand with her husband. Who knows why she was reportedly against him resigning. Frankly, who knows what goes in theirs or any other marriage. Perhaps, just perhaps, she might actually love the guy, consider her long marriage something not worth throwing away, and consider a few hookers not worth a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things. There are many ways to read this situation and her public stance; you've chosen just one. Perhaps you could be more balanced next time?

I think I understand her choice. She has three teenage girls, who presumably love their father. Mrs Spitzer did what was probably best for the girls at the time. There will be opportunity in the coming days to emphasize to the girls the unacceptability of what he did, and to make arrangements for a separate residence and start divorce proceedings. The girls are probably stunned and baffled right now, and a denouncement of their father by their mother would add to their emotional trauma.

Having said all that, if Eliot Spitzer makes some "I have a sex addiction and I'll go into treatment for it" excuse, I will then agree that his wife has made a mistake.

Ms. Quinn,

Assumption is the motherlode of all mistakes, and your column is at best, filled with assumptions, and at worst, filled with an arrogant perspective that the entire world is as only you see it and not as it is. Or perhaps your intent was to incite the reader and bring in more comments, securing your position with WaPo. Perhaps.

Since you profess your occupation as "journalist," why not do what a journalist does? Ask Ms. Spitzer why she stood by her husband. Go ahead, call her up and ask her.

We stand by our partners through, as the words state, "until death do us part," and like another very publicly wronged wife, the reasons aren't really any of our business.

I think that Silda showed great courage and class. She appeared to feel that he should own up to his indiscretion at his side. We don't know if she will be with him when this is all said and done. At the embarrassment he is probably feeling, she really wouldn't have to say a whole lot to him. What an incredibly stupid move on his part.

"I know why he did what he did. Because he could."

As if a woman would do any different. Cases in point: Leona Helmsley and Emelda Marcos.

And why does she stay with him? Because it's her choice. She can stay with him, she can leave, she can do any of thousands of different things. In the end, it's her choice and she chose to stand with him.

You may not realize it Sally, but there are some marriages in which the wife knows her husband needs (that's right, needs) to cheat on them in order to overcome some lack of confidence in his ability to perform in bed. And those wives suffer in silence.

Perhaps the reason they are wlling to stand being publically humiliated is that they feel guilty for "enabling" the errant husband and somehow contributing to his eventual downfall.

And, of course, it is important for the children to understand that the respect she has for the marriage can overcome the worst of calimities.

I am not a woman, but in over 80 years, I have known lots of them and they are all different.

An arrogant guy like Spitzer is probably not a warm, loving guy at home ... over the years the women make many compromises to live with such a person, making it that much harder to draw the line and say this is finally it.

At least that's my speculation.

Possible Answers:

1) She loves her husband even if she's furious at him.

2) She takes her wedding vows seriously. She married the man for better and for worse. She took the better. Now she's taking the worse. Novel idea. Keeping your wedding vows, even when your spouse breaks his. Eh?

How does this shame the wife? We all know she did nothing wrong. I see the wife standing next to her husband as he makes a public confession of infidelity not as humiliating to the wife but as an obligation of the cheating husband to face his wife, in public, and tell her what he did. Face the music. Make it as uncomfortable for that man as possible.
I don't know what the wife is thinking, feeling. Can't begin to imagine until you have been there yourself. I know what I'm thinking when I look at the wife and I'm not ashamed or embarrassed for her. I also think the wife is on auto-pilot. Are there established protocols for what a wife should do when her husband must announce to the public that he has cheated on her? Apparently not. Give the lady a break.

Oh for god's sake, let's pillory the poor wife. What is she supposed to do to make us happy? She 's in shock, she's depressed, she's got kids. You're binging her "YOU DECIDE RIGHT NOW WHAT IS THE YOUR RESPONSE!!!! "

It isn't that clear in the first days or weeks even. It's like someone smacked you in the head with a brick then said, "What is your investment strategy" How clear are you at that point?

God, give her a break.

Sigh. Why are women our own worst enemy.

When it a Democrate, the sky is falling and why do they, stand by their man, but when David Vitter and Larry Craig, it a differnt deal....
Bill Clinton, had a B.J. but nobody died.
So, what the hell is the matter with you people, get a live, mind your Business.....
I just like to no how many of the people writing to this stupid topic have cheated on their spouses?

40 years of the feminist movement is now officially dead, why would successful women like Hillary and Mrs. Spitzer be treated by these men? I guess Rosie O'Donnell was right, if Hillary did not divorce Bill, I have no respect for her. Very insightful Rosie?

Silda Spitzer has the greatness, not the weakness to forgive. You religious bigots will never get it.

This is exactly right i couldent agree more.

I agree that is pathetic to see a woman standing by her man in utter humiliation. Perhaps these woman were attracted to power so much that they are standing by the position rather than by the man. Hillary "forgave" Bill's affairs because she had to if she wanted power, and Bill knew this. She was not as upset with being lied to but that he had been so stupid.

My problem with Ms. Quinn's piece is the presumption it requires. How can we presume that Silda Walls Spitzer, a highly intelligent and educated woman, did not know what her husband was up to? Perhaps they had an understanding. Perhaps she told him, "Elliot, I no longer find you attractive and no longer want to have sex with you. Go find a prostitute." Perhaps she had something on the side as well. Perhaps. Yes, I know, this is all supposition, and the look on her face at those press appearances suggests that she was taken unawares by all of this. And maybe she thought they had the perfect marriage. But who knows? Does Sally Quinn?

In this age where more than half of all marriages go sour (even those that seem, to an outsider, to be storybook), I would hesitate before making the presumption that seems to underlie Ms. Quinn's article. Absent some inside knowledge of the Spitzers and their marital bedroom, that's a lot to take on faith.

What a load of melodramatic piffle.

"For boys, it says it's okay to lie and cheat and dishonor your family, and you might grow up to be a senator or a governor or a president. You can get away with it.

I know that many women are supportive of those who stand by their man, for no other stated reason than to keep the family together. Imagine, though, the scars that the children will suffer from getting conflicting messages."

Umm, no, he didn't get away with it; and, in fact, he stands a good chance of disbarment and a little visit to the slam.

And, lady, you ain't no psychologist--trust me, because I am: you haven't the foggiest notion whether the children will be more or less scarred by this woman's choice.

But since you people are so in love with your own stink: how about the notion that the children *won't* be scarred because their mother confronted their father and said "this family is integral, no matter what you've done; and now you pay the consequences."

You disgust all persons of even the merest common sense.

Sally

Every woman has a right to do as they choose in such a situation. Ms. Silda decided to stand by her man and that was her choice and not yours or anyone else for that matter. If you were to be caught up in same situation, please feel free to do as you please. If you would decide to hold your own press conference and pile up on your spouse, so be it.

Sally, you go girl. If I had done what he has done, my wife would be standing, with a lawyer, in front of a judge.

Ms. Quinn, once again having nothing substantive to write about, turns to National Enquirer tactics to fill up her allotted space. Worse, she inserts herself into a couple's private marriage business as if this is a matter for public debate. Absolutely disgusting and probative of the Post becoming just another celebrity mag. Sally, why not get yourself a good camera and go be a papparazi? Then, at least you could give us some disgusting pictures to go with your awful, no-substance column? Probably not; means you'd have to do real work. Sheesh, get a life. This isn't an issue for women, just you. Morality coming from Ben's other woman seems a bit ironic.

How is Spitzer sending the message that to boys that it's ok to lie and cheat? He had a successful career that is now ruined because he lied and cheated.

Ms. Quinn, once again having nothing substantive to write about, turns to National Enquirer tactics to fill up her allotted space. Worse, she inserts herself into a couple's private marriage business as if this is a matter for public debate. Absolutely disgusting and probative of the Post becoming just another celebrity mag. Sally, why not get yourself a good camera and go be a papparazi? Then, at least you could give us some disgusting pictures to go with your awful, no-substance column? Probably not; means you'd have to do real work. Sheesh, get a life. This isn't an issue for women, just you. Morality coming from Ben's other woman seems a bit ironic.

Mrs. Spitzer should NOT stood by when her husband
read his resignation speech. He's a NY BUMB.

Ms. Quinn, once again having nothing substantive to write about, turns to National Enquirer tactics to fill up her allotted space. Worse, she inserts herself into a couple's private marriage business as if this is a matter for public debate. Absolutely disgusting and probative of the Post becoming just another celebrity mag. Sally, why not get yourself a good camera and go be a papparazi? Then, at least you could give us some disgusting pictures to go with your awful, no-substance column? Probably not; means you'd have to do real work. Sheesh, get a life. This isn't an issue for women, just you. Morality coming from Ben's other woman seems a bit ironic.

Well done, Sally.

The women like Hillary and Slida are disgrace. They are good examples of hypocritical women who are blinded by ambition to advance their own political career and willingly to play a role of vulnerable, victimized women, even though how demeaning it is, and exploits the situation, if they can, to hang on to their power and influence through their spouses. They are the kind of women who would betray the principles of sisterhood.

If one remained married only in times that were not challenging or troubling, what is love and marriage but a fair weather tax break?

I am not one to indulge in ad hominem (or ad feminem) attacks, but one certainly must question the moral authority of a columnist who had an affair with a married person, and aided in the destruction of a marriage. Where would you be if your spouse had worked things out and tried to salvage his previous marriage? What does it tell boys and girls to marry a man who once cheated on his wife himself...with you?

Sally Quinn was Ben Bradlee's mistress.

Is she saying that Bradlee's wife shouldn't have stood for it?

Is that how she got Bradlee for himself?

And are we to believe that Bradlee didn't mess around on Quinn after they married?

The "journalists" who run the Washington Post may have recently helicoptered into town, but some of us are actually natives of this area and we know the facts.

Just one more reason to stop reading the Post, or at the least never subscribe.

Great call, "editors."

Oh, and now I see this all comes under a "faith" column.

Thanks for the extra laugh.

Maybe she likes him?

Maybe she felt sorry for him?

Maybe she thought she would help him get through this and then discuss where to go from here?

I think women who have their own money and who can pack up and leave know they have a choice and she chose to stand with him on one of the worst days of his life.

Any womanist worth her salt understands that life is made up of choices; everyone doesn't have to make the same choice, just have the capability and right to make their own.

As for him, Elaine,on a memorable Seinfeld, stated it best:

I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.

Oh, please Ms. Quinn! Who are you to judge this woman? This is her life, her family, her marriage you wish she had cast aside so you could have a moment of self-satisfaction thinking "the bastard got what was coming to him." Mrs. Spitzer has nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not sure you can say the same.

Regarding Sally Quinn's piece "What was Silda Spitzer thinking?"

The Spitzer trainwreck is further compounded by Sally Quinn's uncalled for criticism of Silda Spitzer who has acted with courage, grace, and dignity under completely unexpected circumstances. Isn't it patronizing, and maybe even a little peculiar for one woman to tell another how she should behave by writing it up to in a newspaper as part of her job?

Who knows why Silda Spitzer has done what she has done? Maybe she is thinking about her children and the need of their father to have a life after this recedes from the front page, maybe she cares more about the 16 million people who live in New York who need leadership from their governor than her husband ultimately did. I don't know, but I do know she has a perfect right to behave as she sees fit without fear being judged by alleged feminists who "know" how she should behave.

Yours, etc.

Why do you assume *she* is humiliated? I look at Mrs. Spitzer and I see a woman who knows that she is firmly in charge at that point. She's strong enough for both of them. He was weak and humiliated, not her. Ms. Quinn is guilty of her own stereotypes here. As far as "morally correct?" I believe the marriage vows read "for better and for worse, in sickness and in health, until we are parted by death." This would definitely be "for worse." Maybe Mrs. Spitzer looks beyond his pathetic humiliation and says "I'm strong enough to work through this. And dammit, Eliot, pull it together. Do it for yourself, for your children, and for this marriage. Be the man you claim to be."

Unless someone has been through what Selda Spitzer, Hillary Clinton, and various other men and women have experienced, you will never know what led people like Selda and Hillary to that podium or venue to support their spouse.

Often times we view a social setting where the wife is supporting their husband. In my case, I found on 9/11 after a futile search that may wife was having an affair. Subsequent revelations led to finding out that my wife had been cited for activity in a public setting. I was devastated with these discoveries, but I felt I needed to join her at the court proceeding. We both thought the offense would be a small infraction, but the judge asked her how she wanted to plead and he advised her it was a very serious citation. He proceeded to tell her the implications and the possible scenarios, and he asked her if she want to obtain a lawyer. She looked at me sitting in the court room, and asked me what she should do. The judge asked her is this the man that was also cited? She said, "no, that is my husband"! The judge, the court reporter, and people in the court room looked at me in a state of shock. When I saw Selda Spitzer's expression, so many emotions came flooding back, but to answer the question that Sally Quinn poses, there was no other place I wanted to be at that moment. When she asked me what she should do. I immediately told her that we would hire an attorney.
I would hope that everyone in their life would have have at least one person that could get them through at least that one brief moment of humiliation. Those actions by Selda Spitzer refected an amazing grace that comes from no other place than the deepest part of the human soul. It is an act of selflessness that comes without even thinking. That is what family, marriage, and unflinching support are all about. Many pundits have said that these women are force by their husbands to attend these ackward public knowledgements. If anyone took the time to ask these people, most would say there was no other place I would rather have been at that very moment. The doubt, self examination, and resolution will come later. I hope the best for Selda, her husband and their family. Selda is one class act. To anyone who poses the question, "what she was thinking"? You truly don't understand the meaning of love and commitment!

Be dovoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourself.

You are quite correct , David. there is a code of behaviour entirely synonymous with good breeding. One learns through example from family and social influence. The Kennedy wives, Rose, Jackie and Joan are good examples. Outsiders cannot break through that shield, no matter their wealth or how many sleep overs they may have had, delivering them to that coveted social position. The old saying, "one can not make a silken purse out of a sow's ear" is explanatory. To speak ill of one's family rebounds and the one who is is intent on humiliating becomes the humiliated. A good example would be Prince Andrew of Great Britain. He was humiliated by his wife's affairs and they were eventually divorced, but he never spoke an ill word about the Duchess in public. They still keep a good relationship for the sake of their two children.

Agree with you.

Ms. Quinn,

You mention:

"Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre."

Perhaps you are unaware that this practice arose because Indian women did not want to be defiled by the men of conquering armies. The nobility of this concept often escapes those women who have been with men after men.

Wives with children must stand by their children's father; its almost as simple as that.

Silda Spitzer

I have seen less visible but highly intelligent women endure infidelity from their husbands and take them back, trying to restore the threatened marriage. Both with kids, maybe for their sake, and after kids.

The latter has more to do with the fact that the woman loved her husband, saw his weakness and decided not to desert him because of it. And Women cheat too.

Young boys hearing the Spitzer story would get a message of humiliation if one is caught cheating, and learn what happens to a prominent man who is found out. Another words, the message to young boys is if you play, you could pay. After all, Spitzer didn't get away with it.

Some day feminists will perceive the relationship between men and women as potentially less adversarial and more loving. At 64, I know lots of successful marriages. I am empathetic toward Silda Spitzer as she endured the public scrutiny with obvious pain. It took strength and courage to do what she did, and as a man, I think more of her for it.

No one would blame her for running away while spitting fire; however nothing would have been accomplished except to reveal what we all knew, that she was hurt and had the right to be angry. But to hang in there, take the pain perhaps to portray an image of unity to her children, that was contrary to expectation, classy and gutsy. And just maybe, she loves him (is that a novel idea in Washington?).

But to excoriate E. Spitzer to the nth while fretting why is a waste of energy. As John Adams noted, people are capable of the best of things, and they are capable of the worst of things. Who knows why. What we do know is that Spitzer is paying deerly for his indiscretion, while his wife is admired (except by feminists) for the elegant manner in which she has conducted herself.

Jim Methven
San Diego

I have often thought about this very same question, what I would do in the same situation and why? And I too am with someone who is very ambitious, who is a rising shining star and who is gaining fame and power every day.

What I think people completely fail to realize is that these people did not get to the levels of fame and power alone. Besides the hundreds, if not thousands, of associates, friends and supporters, there is the spouse. Usually, this is a team effort by both the spouse and the family. You want to support the rising star in your family, often for just the simple reason of what else would you do?

I'm sure there are very ambitious spouses that live vicariously through their rising star spouse's famous and fabulous lives. But I think for many, the joint effort is something you do out of love and dedication. If your child suddenly developed a passion or talent for say chess or ice skating or singing, you would support that effort 150%. And the same goes for a spouse. And any family would rally around the one that is having the most successful career often sacrificing many of their own needs and desires.

Everyone pitches in and suddenly the star's rising career becomes the family's focus with every rise and fall a family experience and not just an individual one. And the family, especially the supporting spouse, does a great deal. It becomes a huge investment in time, patience, support, love, attention, money, and the list of tangibles and intangibles goes on and on.

So when something this devistating and this quick were to arise, again, I would have to ask myself, what else would I do? I may not be happy and I may not even be feeling all that supportive. But this has been a team effort so far and before this glorious team is possibly dissolved forever, this is the last team effort you can make to put a brave face on a crumbling situation.

When you have invested so much in one person, it's not so easy to walk away so quickly. So I probably would be standing there as well thinking of a million things but mostly thinking if only this had not happened everything would still be ok. And I'd be asking myself what I'm going to do next. But standing there, next to my disgraced spouse, would be the only thing I could think of doing at that time and later, I'll consider what other options I may have.

I hope that helps.

Bill

I see why McGrevey's wife stood by him.

She completely clueless.

Hi,

I could not agree with you more on the points you have brought up in this essay. For days, it has bothered me very much to see Silda Spitzer stood by her husband and shared his humiliation.

As a woman who grew up in Vietnam and was told by older women then that it was ok for men to buy sex or to have a mistress - something that has disappointed me so much about Southeast Asian culture and people. Yet, it seems that women universally have very little expectation and respect of themselves.

Of all people, Ms. Quinn must realize that you can never really know the true dimensions of another couple's relationship.

It is easier to critize Silda Spitzer for standing by her husband than to commend her. I think her staying says much less about the degree women can be duped by their philanerous spouses and more about the degree the society believes in marriage and about the human spirits' better angels. Staying in this case demonstrates commitment and mercy to the other when otherwise it would be far easier and less humiliating to cut and run to be. Mrs. Spitzer seems far too bright and capable to be used and, as many spouses do when the other strays, consciously chose to stay. Everyday we are drawn to the failings of people but less attention is brought when people exhibit virtues.

Very interesting and, at least conceptually right, Sally.

But practically wrong, becuase there are invisible variables in the equations of political wife. Havent we all heard the expression "her husband ran around because she was too cold to give him attention"?

The trick is to distinguish between cases --- when is a husband's affair somehow the fault of a wife, and when is it, as you imply it was, an act of power --- 'Spitzer did it because he can'? BTW, I agree on your assessment of Spitzer and Clinton. But Craig? Vitter? Wayne Hays? John Doe? Surely marital counselors will tell you that it isnt ALWAYS the husband's fault. Even when the husband is political. Sometimes, just sometimes, it maybe mother nature's fault. Why would Mts Spitzer want to rush to judgment on that?

Getting back to practicality --- how is Mrs Spitzser's life going to improve if she leaves him? Would such a breakup be more than a massage for a scorned woman? The Economist magazine sai dthat Hillary stayed with Bill Clinton because "she liked the way the world looks from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." Hmm, isnt THAT an action of power --- she stayed with him, BECAUSE SHE COULD?

The tangible impat here may just be on Hillary more than Silda Wall. Derivative power has its benefits, too. One may be a life of comfort. Another may be, to borrow a term from space exploration, " a gravitational slingshot" for a political career. And who knows, perhaps Ms. Wall-Spitzer may run for something. ya never really know do ya?

Lady -

I realize you have to push out words on a regular basis and make deadlines, but
it is really none of anyone's business why Silda Spitzer was up on the podium. Have you tried -SHOCK?

It's pretty gross that the media thrive and gorge on these kinds of scandals, and That prostitutes get PR like "IT" girls... The cameras zoom in for Schadenfreude and that's all there is to it. It's not as if more than half the couples in this country don't experience infidelity...and divorce, well, let's be frank - marriage doesn't work at least for more that the usual 4.5 years - death do us part -ha ha, so why does our society pretend and brush it under the carpet?

It would be refreshing to see the press focus on more
meaningful issues - instead of pumping this sensational dross beyond human tolerance.

Turn the page.

Thank you, Micheal Patterson from Scotland. My comment was too long to include what you stated. Mrs. Spitzer has done nothing wrong. She should not be attacked in the media.

This is a harsh view on events. Spitzer's wife is in shock. The marriage will not survive. She will not stand by her man. Right now, she's doing what she has to do to move forward as she processes the information she's just received. You don't just throw away a long-term relationship overnight. She has to process in her mind that there is NO way to get around what happened, NO way to forgive the situation, and NO way to move forward without leaving. She won't stay with him. Hillary, on the other hand, stays because she has a personal agenda that requires her to be married not because she forgives her husband and "stands by her man."

Ms. Quinn, I think you got it wrong. The men in those cases, political or not, behave this way because they have no self control, and a character flaw so deep that they can, and never will, live up to the standard demanded of those in public service, or the trust placed in them by their family. It has, in my view, nothing to do with arrogance - that they get away with such behavior for some period of time reinforces my view of their flawed character with all the lying and acts that demonstrate such a lack of honor. In some cases it may be a loss of personal self direction, but still a demonstration that they never deserved the trust given to them by their wives, family and the people who voted for them.
The wives are not demeaned or somehow belittled by standing by their partner. In my view, the wives appear to show the strength of character lacking in their wayward husbands. They live by the vows they made - and when I see them, I believe I'm even more disappointed at their husbands failing - such upstanding women deserve better than they received.

As a married heterosexual male, I am continually confused by women. As a group, they claim to want respect. But then in one incident, you have a woman demeaning herself by selling her body, and another woman accepting the ultimate disrespect from her "husband". Every woman who supports equal rights should be infuriated with both these women. Fortunately, I am married to a woman who would never stand by me if I violated my commitment to her.

I'm puzzled by what to me reads like an attack on Mrs. Spitzer. As far as I am aware, she has done nothing to merit such abuse. Maybe she loves her husband and plans to stay with him.

You wrote: "That is why these wives must stop standing supportively next to their husbands as they confess and explain and apologize. They are just as enabling of them in their shame as they were in their glory."

Do you know Mrs. Spitzer? Are you planning to manage her life for her from now on? Your remarks do come across as intrusive, offensive and very hostile.

You know, this story is not finished.

Ms. Spitzer may be helping get her husband, and herself, through this crisis right now. Maybe she's that kind of woman. But when the worst is over, and things settle down so that she can take measure, she will have choices to make. And don't bet your farm that she won't make them.

Those who suggest thst the Post get rid of Sally Quinn are, of course right, but it will never happen.

Why? Because she slept with the right connected, powerful, married man at the right time (i.e. the Editor who in his interview of Ms. Quinn quipped "nobody's perfect" after she advised she had never written anything professionally before.)

Gotta love a woman who slept to the top and then sanctimoniously rips a self made woman like Silda Spitzer...the irony is palpable.

In the Spitzer scenario, doesn't Quinn realize which part she would play? Hint: it isn't Silda.

It seems to me that Ms. Quinn is determined to teach women how to be combative yet correct in response. The fact that Mrs. Spitzer stood by her man in times of trouble just shows how much more grace she possess than Ms. Quinn who basically wants to see Mr. Spitzer further humiliated by an outraged woman who runs to the best divorce lawyer in the New York and so on...
straight out of Jerry Springer school of shame.
Let me give you a piece of advice Ms. Quinn- Expect a combative behavior filled with anger and revenge from an average woman who is only exposed to day time soap opera as well as the Opra point of view. Both Mrs. Spitzer and Senator Clinton are way above average. Does Harvard and Yale ring a bell Ms. Quinn?
Backround and level of education are 2 indicators of a certain code of behavior.
Counting to 10 and accepting humiliation at times are critical to survive and salvage a complicated personal crisis.
I sincerely believe that your input on the matter is different simply because you are an AVERAGE person with an average level of intelligence. Maybe masking it with a well articulated article is working on some of us. But it does not rise to the level my expectations.

Of course we expect the media to cast the first stone, but it seems unfair to an innocent party to insult her for putting her family ahead of her public reputation. Many people consider this forgivable. That's a decision for the family to make. Not everyone shares the media's obsession with scandal; some people make choices for what's best for themselves and their families, not for what plays best in the tabloids.

What a lot of self-righteous bunkum.

I agree with you completely, Sally.

What a bunch of self-reighteous whackos!

Dear Ms. Quinn,

Although you have stood on a point different from Mrs. Spitzer, Mrs. Hart, and Senator Clinton, you have been caught up in a similar extra-marital triangle. (I believe Mr. Bradlee was quite candid in his autobiography that you two began dating while he was still married.) That you might position yourself as a judge of the behavior of these women strikes me as tacky, to put it in the kindest way possible.

What makes your essay altogether ghastly is likening Mrs. Spitzer’s decision to support her husband with religious- and state-sanctioned misogyny, which elicits as much outrage as jaw-slackened disbelief.

In addition to a competent editor who might save you from such egregious writing, you could stand a healthy dollop of grace and humility.

Ms. Quinn, I think you got it wrong. The men in those cases, political or not, behave this way because they have no self control, and a character flaw so deep that they can, and never will, live up to the standard demanded of those in public service, or the trust placed in them by their family. It has, in my view, nothing to do with arrogance - that they get away with such behavior for some period of time reinforces my view of their flawed character with all the lying and acts that demonstrate such a lack of honor. In some cases it may be a loss of personal self direction, but still a demonstration that they never deserved the trust given to them by their wives, family and the people who voted for them.
The wives are not demeaned or somehow belittled by standing by their partner. In my view, the wives appear to show the strength of character lacking in their wayward husbands. They live by the vows they made - and when I see them, I believe I'm even more disappointed at their husbands failing - such upstanding women deserve better than they received.

This is the most idiotic line of thought I have read in a long time. Most impressive, for me, is to see that it is written in a so-called religious blog.

I thought marriage was also about love and forgiveness, am i wrong?

I'm not trying to justify mr. sptizer's mistakes. He was wrong, he sends the wrong message to his kids and he is guilty for hurting his family. But don't we all make mistakes?

I'm a wife and pray that my husband never betrays me. I truly don't know if i would be able to stand by him. But i understand and respect those that do.

What a great column. The best column written so far on Mrs. Spitzer. It does not have the one-dimentional perception of Mrs. Spitzer that the other columns were.

Why should it be a matter of choice for a woman? We forget that its not just politicians wives who stand by their men, often forgiving them, taking them back after being betrayed and hurt. Many women in everyday America face the same problem...and many stand by the men even after the fact. Is it possible that there could be other reasons for a woman to decide not to leave her husband during such an exhausting time? I come from one of those homes...one of those families where such an unfortunate situation has occured, and a beautiful, strong and compassionate woman decided to stand by her husband. Think again...

Why should it be a matter of choice for a woman? We forget that its not just politicians wives who stand by their men, often forgiving them, taking them back after being betrayed and hurt. Many women in everyday America face the same problem...and many stand by the men even after the fact. Is it possible that there could be other reasons for a woman to decide not to leave her husband during such an exhausting time? I come from one of those homes...one of those families where such an unfortunate situation has occured, and a beautiful, strong and compassionate woman decided to stand by her husband. Think again...

I think the point is we really don't know what she was thinking. I think it's demeaning to her for us to assume that she has somehow abdicated her free will in this case. She's not stupid and she's not not necessarily in a 1950s subservient woman frame of mind. Treating her simply as a victim demeans her. We don't know what sort of agency she might be exercising. I suspect she's stronger than people give her credit for.

The LADY DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH, given her
background.

(and if handing out the title 'lady' to Sally is appropriate here. Think not.)

Note how it's always the self aggrandizing religious type, the editors of such as ON FAITH
who come up with uglinest 'unChristian, unforgiving nastiness. Really, it's too cliche.

And let's bet Sally supports Hillary Clinton, fawns over her and runs right over when invited, and has for years. Let's talk hypocrit.

Silda Spitzer was probably in a deep state of shock. The resulting drama, of saying no, may not seem worthwhile.

Also, if she had not been at her husband's side, the media frenzy that followed would have been completely out of hand. She probably would have hounded for an explanation, until the press got an answer. By being there and saying nothing, she was able to preserve a morsel of her dignity.

Rick:

Men chase hookers. Wives chase money. Oh wait...that's a hooker

March 14, 2008 5:05 PM
------------------------------------------------------
No, Rick, that's a male-dominated society.

Didn't Sally Quinn seduce Ben Bradlee while she was a Post reporter?
Throwing stones is easy. We seem to forget about our own transgressions. And I've not lead a completely saintly life either.

To David Stallard: who wrote that Sally Quinn makes him sick by comparing Mrs. Spitzer to Taliban women & sati Indian women:

I agree with your saying Sally Quinn cannot know what went on between the Spitzers before he got up in front of the cameras. Their private relationship is their’s, nobody else has any right to know it.

However, I think you miss the point that women all over the world have long been taking 2nd place positions to men - with often catastrophic results - & do even in this society, which prides itself on not allowing this to happen any more.

In fact, the political use of women is rather outdated, don’t you think?

Still, watching a couple (or anyone) in trouble is a time-honored practice in any society, it teaches the rest of us how other people handle problems, & hopefully teaches us how best to handle our own. We learn by watching - that’s why we make TV that simulates reality instead of attending Roman coliseum-type fights to the death in person.

Ms Quinn does not “trivialize” women’s real problems in this article. The fact is, we cannot know what “real“ problems the Spitzer’s have since they have not made their whole private life public. Ms Quinn simply comments on the public appearance of a consummate & calculating political wife still standing behind her husband as he is made ridiculous by his own behavior. And her standing with him does indeed involve her in his ridiculousness. She is taking on his problems. And that is her choice. As it was Hillary’s once before. I actually admire a woman who stands up to the pressure of the whole world to divorce her disgraced husband & refuses. It’s actually putting more salt on his wound, don’t you think? So many people will say how undeserving he is to have such a faithful woman.

Plenty of people have quoted, "for better or for worse," and, "until death do us part." I may have missed it, but I didn't see any reference to, "And, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto her, until death do you part."

I agree that the message communicated by the image of the "supportive" spouse is a dreadful one. It constitutes a societal approval of spousal abuse. And make no mistake, with or without physical abuse, infidelity is spousal abuse. I have had a marriage founder on this issue, and it was because I refused to be a victim, and to put up with it. I set out on my own, and, while it wasn't an easy road, I became economically self-sufficient enough to support both myself and my children. Ladies, you don't need to take it.

Obviously Mrs. Spitzer did this because it is what she thinks society and constituents expect of her. I agree that private life should be private, unless it become hypocrisy. However, it is also about time we gave these women a break and quit expecting them to be humiliated because it is supposed to show they are good women.

Great column!! I'm glad you provoked such interesting comments on a subject that is long overdue.

And of course Sally Quinn knows nothing at all

about cheating with someone else's husband.

And harsh, prim scoulding of others is in line.

And of course Sally Quinn knows nothing at all

about cheating with someone else's husband.

And harsh, prim scoulding of others is in line.

IF you STAY by a husbnand WHO HAS CHEATED, but whose outting doesn't demand a public statement...

...If other words, if you've been cheated on and stayed with the rat anyway, and lots and lots of people know...is your position different than Spitzer's wife?

Doesn't your STAYING make you more wunnerful
than te wife who does so in a big public show?

Ms. Quinn must be very sure her own spouse has never strayed. Or that if he has, she doesn't know.

Otherwise she has pounced a little too hard and primely and self rightously on Spitzer's wife.

And Washington is SUCH a small town, with memories that go way back, waaaaay back.

Anonymous wrote: "Show of hands gentlemen--
How many of you would get up in front of the cameras and stand by your wife if she were caught committing adultery?"

I cannot imagine my wife ever committing adultery; but if she ever did, there's no way I'd be willing to get up in front of a camera and stand by her, no matter what I might have to gain by doing so.

"What would you think of a husband who would do so? Would you admire him, or would you laugh at him as being less than wholly male?"

I don't know if I'd view him necessarily as less than a man, but I certainly wouldn't admire him. I'd be inclined to think he was slightly off his rocker.

Good point, Anonymous! I couldn't have said it any better.

It is inappropriate to criticize Silda Spitzer in such a harrowing moment. She did what she thought was best in the situation. I admire her for it. The press should leave her alone.

It is none of your business what she does or how she handles it.

I was horrified for Silda Spitzer and truly thought she looked shell-shocked. However, I reacted in much the same way as Sally Quinn. When women stop standing by their man in these situations, maybe their men will stop taking the chances.

Most of those writing here seem to forget that this is not just about dalliances with prostitutes. Spitzer broke many laws--some of the same laws that he has prosecuted and imprisoned others for breaking. The utter hypocrisy and arrogance of his actions tell us a great deal about what kind of husband and father he is.

This is none of your business.

It is none of your business what she does or how she handles it.

I never understood why these men had their wives stand beside them, rather than stand alone in openly confessing their contriteness to the world.

It seems rather cowardly, in that the wives weren't party to their sinful playtime, but rather kept in the dark,

But like it or not, the lawyers advise their clients to station their wives by their side, as it softens the crime in the viewer's eyes, subliminally linking the wife, suggestively, as the possible perpetrator in why her man to strayed.

Dear SteelWheel1:
Thanks for your post.

This preaches hatred and selfishness instead of FAITH.

Anyone coming down hard on Ms. Spitzer or who is agreeing with this column's author Sally Quinn needs to do a little research on the author.

I never understood why these men had their wives stand beside them, rather than stand alone in openly confessing their contriteness to the world.

It seems rather cowardly, in that the wives weren't party to their sinful playtime, but rather kept in the dark,

But like it or not, the lawyers advise their clients to station their wives by their side, as it softens the crime in the viewer's eyes, subliminally linking the wife, suggestively, as the possible perpetrator in why her man to strayed.

I never understood why these men had their wives stand beside them, rather than stand alone in openly confessing their contriteness to the world.

It seems rather cowardly, in that the wives weren't party to their sinful playtime, but rather kept in the dark,

But like it or not, the lawyers advise their clients to station their wives by their side, as it softens the crime in the viewer's eyes, subliminally linking the wife, suggestively, as the possible perpetrator in why her man to strayed.

You'd think he would want to protect his wife and children from further damage. Wouldn't that mean he wouldn't WANT his wife there? Isn't he adult enough to face the consequences of HIS actions without needing the "weaker sex" wife to hold his hand?

Is he really that much of a coward and a cad?

Evidently, yes he is.

I hate to sound cynical, but, given how smart, competent, etc. Ms. Spitzer is, isn't it possible that she has negotiated a deal with him whereby she stands there while he purports to apologize and she later gets something valuable that she wants? That's what I'd do in her position. That's what many of us suspect Sen. Clinton did a long time ago with her errant husband. These are people who went into, or at least stayed in, their marriages with their eyes open. They either truly love their husbands despite their failings, or they're getting something important out of their shows of support.

Um, does anyone recall that Sally Quinn was herself the other woman and broke up the marriage of Ben Bradlee ? That makes the sanctimousness of this piece MUCH harder to swallow.

Men chase hookers. Wives chase money. Oh wait...that's a hooker

Going by your past, Sally ,you would have done the same thing as Spitzer did if you were a man . So enough of your self-righteous and feminist writings.

Perhaps Ms. Spitzer loves her husband. He's made an unbelievably stupid and hurtful mistake, but can we really say we love someone and then not at least remain open to forgiving them when they make a mistake? Let s/he who is without sin...you know the rest.

Show of hands gentlemen--

How many of you would get up in front of the cameras and stand by your wife if she were caught committing adultery?

What would you think of a husband who would do so? Would you admire him, or would you laugh at him as being less than wholly male?

I bet that in this society, he'd be laughed at; not held up as an example of a good husband.

As for Silda, well, whatever she decides to do about her marriage is her business. But I fail to understand why she is tacitly approving of his actions by standing up there next to him.

He had more sex than she did, without her there, why did he need her there now? Is he that much of a coward?

Infidelity once is a mistake. Infidelity with prostitutes multiple times, while prosecuting others for the same activities is a character flaw. Perhaps he simply lacks a conscience and viewed this as a game.

Well, game over. He lost his cover.

Try as we may to create an illusion of grandeur about ourselves, the fact is we're not all that fabulously educated, brilliantly careered, and powerfully positioned as we like to think we are, and we spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves otherwise. Like by being able to pay for an extremely expensive, beautiful woman who isn't aware of (or doesn't act like she's aware of) that fact that we are anything but perfect.

I disagree. If you took Ms. Quinn's opinion literally it means that whenever your spouse disagraces themselfs than it is justifiable to leave to avoid disgrace themselves. What she failed to mention is why women choose to stay and support the men who choose to let their power and ego to fade. What a marriage is a commitment between one man and a woman peroid. It does not include what others may perceive from outside of that marriage. And if Silda Spitzer choose to step beside her husband behind that podium and watch her husband repent with his dialiences with a hooker, so be it. None of us know what is going on behind closed doors and no one us should know for that matter.

That same argument of women leaving when a man acts a fool could be swung right at the woman? And what kind of marriage do you really have when your commitment is based on the perspectition of others opinion?

No I am not saying that Spitzer's behaviour appropriate, no I am not saying that at all, it was a complete disgrace to himesef, his family as well as the public office. But he stood up and acknoledged his error and asked for forgives, we do not need to rub salt in the woound.

But if a spouse chooses to support their spouse they do it in both sucess as well as their failures.

FACT OF LIFE:
No woman in her late 40s or early 50s can offer what a 22 year old woman can. No matter how good or gracious she is, she cant. Everybody keeps overlooking that simple fact of life. How hard is that to understand?
MARCH 14, 2008 4:12 PM
****************************************************************

I have read most of the comments on here today and this is the one that gave me the first laugh out loud.

My guess it is written by one of the following:

1. A high school girl with her eye on her sports teacher.
2. A high school boy with his eye on his Math teacher.
3. Their Father with his eye on the new receptionist.
4. The receptionist who has her eye on the C.E.O
5. The C.E.O.'s wife who just spent half a million on
cosmetic surgery, looks 22 and has run off with Donald
Trump.

I think Danielle Crittenden said it best in her article (attributing the wit to her journalistic husband) that when your marriage is on life support the first reaction shouldn't be to pull the plug. Ms. Quinn may think it best for the kids that mom up and leaves post haste, others, including me, would disagree. As rightfully angry as his wife and children must surely be, he is the only husband/dad they have and they have every right and should be granted the benefit of every doubt in coming to their own conclusions in their own good time.

Oh please. A woman gets cheated on by her husband with a prostitute and you decide to attack HER? Are you friends with Charlotte Allen?
No one knows what goes on behind the closed doors of a marriage. Why would you be so audacious to question her motivations? I certainly don't approve of the use of a prostitute by a governor, but I'm certainly not going to judge his wife in the immediate aftermath.

I commented earlier, but after scanning more of the other comments, I feel compelled to say something else. The number of media representatives and readers who are using the Spitzer episode as an excuse to pile on Hillary Clinton or once again trash Bill Clinton is simply disgusting and rather frigtening. I've yet to come across anyone from either group connecting Eliot Spitzer with say, Martin Luther, King, Jr., Ted or John Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, David Vitter, or maybe even Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. Or for that matter, any of their respective wives.

I commented earlier, but after scanning more of the other comments, I feel compelled to say something else. The number of media representatives and readers who are using the Spitzer episode as an excuse to pile on Hillary Clinton or once again trash Bill Clinton is simply disgusting and rather frigtening. I've yet to come across anyone from either group connecting Eliot Spitzer with say, Martin Luther, King, Jr., Ted or John Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, David Vitter, or maybe even Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. Or for that matter, any of their respective wives.

Ms. Quinn, your sanctimoniousness is despicable. How could you presume to know one shred what Silda Spitzer is going through as to pass judgment on her? You speak of Mr. Spitzer's arrogance, but your own arrogance is astonishing. Please spare us your self-righteous blathering.

This is outrageous and offensive nonsense.

What gives you the right to say what Silda Spitzer should do or not do in this situation? How do you know what went on between the two of them prior to their appearance on that podium? Maybe their marriage or their sex life was wretchedly unhappy. Or maybe he was stricken by remorse, sobbing his guts out and begging her for forgiveness. Or maybe they just don't want the public to know what's going on between them. You don't KNOW. And it's not your BUSINESS. You have no right to judge her - none, and no right to inject your foolish, self-righteous, and callow commentary into this excruciatingly private matter.

But particularly outrageous, offensive, and contemptible is this:

"All I could think of, watching Silda Spitzer’s defeated expression, was of Taliban women covered from head to toe in burqa, standing a few paces behind their men, appendages to their all powerful husbands. Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre."

This disgraceful sentence speaks for itself, and scarcely needs any elaboration. It trivializes the agonies of women in such cultures. It reduces to petulance and caricature the real issues raised by feminism. And it forfeits your right to be taken seriously in intellectual discourse.

I can assure you, more harm is done to cause of equality by women like you, then by women like her. You make me sick.

I doubt that I would have stood there beside him. He alone got himself into this mess and he alone should have held the press conference...on the other hand who are we to judge her motives w/o having walked in her shoes.

I totally agree with Sally Quinn. It doesn't equate that the wife who is with her husband for the glory should also share his shame. After all, Mrs Spitzer wasn't consulted about Gov. Spitzer's deliberate decision to be unfaithful with a hooker. Or his deceptive money transfers.

He didn't think about his wife or
family; only his selfish impulses. She should kick him to the curb.

Silda Spitzer had a successful career and returning to it will give her and her children the strength to start a new life without now exGov Spitzer. To shame his family like this for all the world to see is despicable. He doesn't deserve them. And they certainly don't need him.

Here is another example of degredation for the female.

Damned if she stands with him, and damned if she does not stand with him.

If she stands with him, she is an enabler...just like an enabler for an alcoholic.

The next question is: WHY? WHY did HE
EXCHANGE ANY TYPE OF FAVOR, FOR GENITAL SEX WITH A PROSTITUTE!!!????

THIS BEHAVIOR PUTS SILDA AT RISK OF BEING INFECTED WITH AIDS FROM HER HUSBAND!!!

WHEN the time arrives for Silda to consider
disolving the marriage....EVEN THE BIBLE SAYS EXTRAMARITAL GENITAL SEX IS WRONG.....
THE COURT SHOULD GIVE HER EVERYTHING.

I wouldn't assume she was clueless about her husbands predilictions. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that she is a victim. Perhaps she is, perhaps not. Maybe they had a terrible sex life and she condoned his looking elsewhere for satisfaction. We just don't know what happened in a marital relationship and it was her choice to be there. She's a big girl, Harvard educated a lawyer to boot. Let's not extrapolate from apprearances.

Mrs Spitzer was obviously stunned by the incident.She no doubt was advised by her husbands close associates to stand by his side and she complied as no one else probably advised her to avoid publicly appearing with him.The unsuspecting wife is always stunned when such matters surface.Maybe MS Quinn would react in the same manner if her husband pulled such a caper?When young children are involved a womans natural instinct is to think of her children and keep her family together.It is called survival of the family entity.In time she may realize that he is not worth her noble effort and dump him.Unlike most woman who face this dilema,MRS Spitzer would not have to concern herself with economic considerations in deciding whether to remain or leave the relationship.She may eventually seek a divorce and that would be the best punishment that could be imposed upon him. Most women remain with unfaithful spouses because they have no viable economic alternative.She does.

In response to Facts of Life
Neither can a man in his late 40s or 50s give what a man in his 2os can give.

Men are always seeking the "taunt fine sexy women", while bringing to the table flabby inoperable equimpent (men in the 40s and older).

this from a woman who couldn't get the editor of the wa post to marry her for years.
and she is an insider? sure, quinn has got where she got by sleeping with ben bradlee.

Fact of Life claims: "No woman in her late 40s or early 50s can offer what a 22 year old woman can. No matter how good or gracious she is, she cant. Everybody keeps overlooking that simple fact of life. How hard is that to understand?"
I completely, totally disagree. That is why, when I became a widower at the age of 49, I lost no time going right after a woman 4-1/2 years my senior. We were married within eight months, and neither of us has ever been happier than we have been for the last eleven years.
A woman in her 40s or 50s has experience in life, which almost always translates into maturity. Those are things that a woman in her early 20s completely lacks. She can be a true companion and partner in every sense to a man in her age bracket, again something of which a woman in her 20s would generally be incapable.
As for the idea that women in their 20s are better in the bedroom, that's an absolute myth. And by the way, contrary to the message broadcast nonstop by the entertainment media, marriage is far more fulfilling than fornication or adultery.

In response to Facts of Life
Neither can a man in his late 40s or 50s give what a man in his 2os can give.

Men are always seeking the "taunt fine sexy women", while bringing to the table flabby inoperable equimpent (men in the 40s and older).

It is so easy to judge the actions of others when we are not directly involved. I would think that Mrs. Spitzer has a lot more on her mind that just "standing by her man." What we need is understanding and charity not to mention compassion for a family that has been torn apart by yet another foolish man. She and her daughters need our support not criticism.

I agree; however, I am a private person, so I would never release my own statement saying I'm leaving him or anything else. My private life is my private business and I'd say nothing. So those who think the wife should publically blast the guy should realized maybe she doesn't care to air her laundy in public.

Right on Sally, I couldn't have said it better!

this from a woman who couldn't get the editor of the wa post to marry her for years.
and she is an insider? sure, quinn has got where she got by sleeping with ben bradlee.

I don't assume to know what's going on in their personal lives. I have heard, tho, that she advised him NOT to resign.

However,even if she decides to stay with him and work it out with him, she should have done it in private rather than appearing by his side - which sends a message to young women that's ok to be treated like crap. (My god woman, have you no pride???)

There are so many young women out there with low self esteem this kind of action really doesn't help matters much.

I'm sure like these young women, she assumes he'll get better and it will "never happen again." Unfortunately, statistics show that if happens once, the chances are it will happen again and again.

Astonishing that a blog that bills itself as being "on Faith" would put so little value on empathy, compassion, and the ability to forgive.

Anyone coming down hard on Ms. Spitzer or who is agreeing with this column's author Sally Quinn needs to do a little research on the author.

Ms. Quinn isn't a paragon of virtue on either side of this argument. She knowingly slept with Benjamin C. Bradlee,a married man who happen to be her boss at the time while working at the Washington Post. She was responsible for break up a family and sleeping her way to the top. And now she is presenting herself as some really tough feminist that wouldn't put up with a philandering man. WOW!

Ms. Quinn,

In all of your arrogant, self-righteous, smugly assumed superiorioty as you pass judgment on Silda Spitzer and other women who have endured similar trauma, has it even once occurred to you that Silda is still in shock? Or better yet, has it even once occurred to you that the choices she makes regarding her personal life are none of your business?

Right on Quinn!
I shared the same sentiments Wednesday on my blog.
www.5andapossible.blogspot.com

Can Sally Quinn point out to me ONE example in RECENT times of an Indian Woman committing SATI?
So it seems even if your are moderator in a Panel you cannot get rid of your sensational journalistic habits!

Savard:
**"Till death do you part" ... not till adultery do you part. To be a person of faith, and then criticize a woman (be it Silda Spitzer or Hillary Clinton) of standing by their man to make a marriage work instead of showing them the door is appalling.**

Actually, adultery is even recognized as grounds for divorce in the Bible. And the way I see it, if my husband can't be trusted with something as simple as keeping his fly up when he leaves the house, how can he be trusted with anything else? Once he whips it out with another woman, he has broken a sacred trust, and has effectively killed the marriage. A marriage can die and the individuals in it survive.

**Get real... before "liberation" many marriages survived infidelity to go on to be long and loving marriages. How does forgiveness of adultery become a sign of weakness?**

Long, perhaps, especailly since obtaining a divorce was more difficult. But loving? I doubt it. I've been married to an adulterer. You can't love him if you can't trust him. Howis it a sign of strength to stay with someone you know is not trustworthy and not call him on it?

I am in complete agreement. We as women MUST STOP allowing men/boys to treat us anyway and we still take it. If every lowdown man was told NO by his wife and told No by girlfriends the world would be a better place. We have not "come a long way". We as women have only made progress in the work world-violence against women is increasing. REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM IN ALL PARTS
OF YOUR LIFE!!

Hindu religious scriptures do not demand widows to commit Sati. Sati is an option of the woman who wants to go to the other world with her husband. The word sati has been confused with word Jauhar.

In the medeival ages, when foreign Islamic armies attacked India, Jauhar or mass self immolation was committed by women when their husbands died to protect themselves from the perversions of the invading barbarians.

In past one hundred years there has been only one recorded case of "Sati" in India. This event was rightfully considered illegal and those involved were charged with murder.

Dear Sally:

Arrogance and power! Wow!
You are exactly correct,in my opinion.

The "average" American woman, married to the "average" American man...
now I'm not talking about the person on the "fast track" or "destined for corporate leadership"....
is left with one less excellent role model.

What a pity.

psb/

We she did not have to stand next to her husband during the press conference. She did that ON HER OWN FREE WILL. There is no legal way to force her to be there. So, if she wants to be "humiliated" on national television, that's pretty much her problem.

This is what she could have done instead (and, she still can do this, the law allows her to). She could have simply told her husband:

"I'm keeping the house and half your assets. I'm taking full custody of the kids. I expect monthly alimony checks plus child support for the kids in the amount of $whatever. My divorce lawyer will contact you tomorrow, first thing in the morning. And as for that press conference you are talking about, well, you are on your own mister."

But no, she decided to be there supporting her husband, well, that's her business.

The moral of the story is that there is no moral. We should know by now that, generally speaking, politicians are not to be taken as moral role models.

It vas di munee!

I am just curious about possible answers for the following questions: What would have been the countries' reaction--all the men and women and politicians, etc.-- if the gender situation was inverted? That is, what if the "cheater" was a woman? Would he have had the guts and character that so many women have displayed?

Jorge.

When you saw her standing next to him, didn't you think, "Wow, he really screwed this up. He's never going to find another woman like her."

Plus, the power of guilt rays drops off with the square of distance. Eliot Spitzer probably would have been more comfortable on his own.

No woman in her late 40s or early 50s can offer what a 22 year old woman can. No matter how good or gracious she is, she cant. Everybody keeps overlooking that simple fact of life. How hard is that to understand?

sally-- " We are women, hear us roar!!!" Boy you sure know how to kick someone when there down---WHY do you so piously assume you would walk any differently in their shoes? Human beings are so much more than simply defined,"appendages".

I can understand Silda Spitzer's first appearance. The news had no doubt come as a shock to her, and she probably had not had time to think about what to say. However, on the occasion of his resignation, she could have grabbed the microphone and announced: "In case you all were wondering, I have engaged the services of [name of high-priced divorce lawyer], who charges $5,000 an hour, for all of which Eliot is going to end up paying. See you in court, dear!"

I agree fully with everything you said. Maybe the wife is too used to the way of life and likes his millions !

What you're advocating is an eye for an eye. It's a bit haughty to paint the whole spectrum of marriages (political and otherwise) with such a broad brush. It's impossible to know the inner workings of these relationships, much less the individuals, that bring them to make their decisions and it's an arrogant point of view to think that simply making a public statement about leaving the husband who committed such a gross public misdeed is in itself empowering. Even in a cynical age as this one, people can and still do have genuine love and respect for each other, even though we are inclined as human beings to be less than perfect. Bottom-line: Difficult, personal choices remain the realm of the individuals involved and not to the purview or judgement of those who play a role in the media machinery and thank God for that.

In this life, we ought to speak only for ourselves and our choices ... never to project our perceptions of reality on to another. For what ever her reasons, this lady has made the choices she deems appropriate for her and the rest of us has no right to pass judgment. Unless you walk in another (wo)-man's shoes, you will never know. I ask that you at least allow this lady the right, if she so chooses to be by her husband's side.

I have only one comment regarding Mr. Spitzer:

"let he who is amongst us without sin, cast the first stone"

In this life, we ought to speak only for ourselves and our choices ... never to project our perceptions of reality on to another. For what ever her reasons, this lady has made the choices she deems appropriate for her and the rest of us has no right to pass judgment. Unless you walk in another (wo)-man's shoes, you will never know. I ask that you at least allow this lady the right, if she so chooses to be by her husband's side.

I have only one comment regarding Mr. Spitzer:

"let he who is amongst us without sin, cast the first stone"

Dear Ms. Quinn:

I enjoyed reading your post on the developing saga of the Spitzer family and find it freshing and candid. From a practical standpoint, I am unable to offer an insight as to why Mrs. Spitzer would stand on the dais in support from my male perspective. I could offer some speculations like tremendous grace, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc, however the impact of those values are all contigent on the long-term attitude from her spouse after the fact.

Not to stray to far from your topic, but as a 42 single male in American society, the values and focus I sure would love to be inpsired by my peers and mentors is one who would stand up and live to never have to be on "that" dais over the course of a long career in business, politics, etc. rather than to find and understand that woman would be compelled to stand up and fall on a sword with me or ponder let alone ponder that direction of thought.

I do not know if these thoughts help or are what your are looking for, but as a man today, it does not make life any easier as this continues to occur. It seems like getting away with it is just not worth it.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

David S. Conklin (Dave)
Silver Spring, Maryland
david.conklin@fda.hhs.gov

what about mrs. barney frank?

I agree with your statement, "One can only assume that the women who do this are just as enamored of the power and the position as their men." I am from the Philippines and lived under the Marcos dictatorship for almost twenty years. The main reason Imelda stood by her man through all his infidelities is the power she was given in exchange for her silent acceptance.

Your self-righteousness makes me sick. I guess you think you are a perfect human being.

I am afraid I have to agree with the writer - it is high time that women take a stand to reject this role that society has thrust on them. Sorry...my Mother was one of those who stood by and supported my Alcoholic Dad, and I will never know what it would have been like if she had acted differently, but I don't think she had it in her to do so.

I totally and completely agree with you Ms. Quinn.

As a child I was raised in an abusive family. I do not know if my father ever had an affair, but on a daily basis I witnessed and was a victim of physical and verbal abuse. I swore I would not have this in my adult life and my children would not have to live with those types of behaviors. Because I stood up for my beliefs and the rights of my children I am a single parent. I was walked out on for wanting better for myself and my children. Since then I have remained single for the simple fact that men believe they can treat women and children any way they want to and get away with it.

It is hard living life without a partner, but like I tell my close friends and family I would rather live my life alone than suffer in relationship where my children and I are not honored, cherished, respected and loved.

My youngest will graduate high school this year and will join the military. When this happens I will focus on my future and begin college. I hope that I will learn something that will help other women, like myself, have the courage to stand up for themselves and make a change that will be lasting and positive.

Why are you taking the stance that she is being humiliated as if she has done something wrong? She is not responsible for his actions. Just because she is physically standing beside him does not necessarily mean she is there in support. I perceive it as being present for a public apology as well as making him feel even worse that the person he harmed the most is right there and he cannot deny the harm.

Rather than criticize Mrs. Spitzer for "standing up there" with her husband, we should let her make her own decision. Obviously, she loves her husband. When anyone has such feelings and something happens like this comes along -- something you can hardly believe is happening and you have little time to sort out your feelings --, the natural instinct is to keep loving that someone, regardless. I'm sure she will eventually come to some decision, but in the meantime, we can only respect her for her innate courage and -- something her husband needs now, whether he knows it or not -- her compassion.

The kind of woman who marries a man like that is the kind of woman who stands up there next to him. It is self-selection - the women with the self-esteem to dump him now were the ones who saw through him on the first date.

Why don't we wait to hear all the facts before judgement is passed; maybe, just maybe, she had her own good reason for being there that has nothing at all to do with your analysis.

This is completely unfair. Somehow, through her hustband's wrongdoing, Mrs. Spitzer has become an object of scorn for those of us who claim we would never do such a thing. Why are we women so tough on each other? To think it is one thing. To publish criticism for the world to see is another. Some self-reflection before publishing such a self-righteous column would have been advantageous for all of us women who are trying to do it all.

These folks live in a world of pomp. Out in public you are regal, the First Lady. Spitzer can’t then come back home and ask for freaky stuff, a BJ. That would seem condescending. So these men need a ‘Ho’.

She went out and played the role. Trapped in power. Maybe she thought they could hold-on to that, and deal with Elliot in private.

Further, what is Silda to do in protest, at this point? Perhaps she encouraged her husband to seek sex in some new fashion. What does she lose by standing for him in crisis? You're full of double standards, aren't you?

Maybe she forgave him?

Could that her and her children's well being are at stake too if she walks away from him?
I bet you she have better reason than you can think of.

American politicians' wives may have trouble standing up for themselves, but not so Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz, the wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who divorced him a few months after he took office.

Sally, this is a shallow and foolish column.

Those of you who read Dina McGreevey's commentary in the NY Times on Tuesday or listened to her on NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday got the best take on this kind of thing.

Mrs. McGreevey gave several reasons why she stood by her husband (NJ Governor) as he declared himself gay.

First, for her daughter. She was trying to avoid a scorched earth response that would harm her child.

Second, she was in a state of shock and didn't necessarily have time to come to the kick him in the groin response that many of us would like to see. I haven't read her book, but it would be interesting to understand her process in sorting it all out over time.

Third, she'd built a life with this guy and didn't jettison her love for him overnight.

And as far as all speculation about what Silda Spitzer knew or didn't know about Elliot's adultery, felt or didn't feel, blah blah blah endless media speculation - that's for her to know and for the rest of us to leave alone.

The irony (or hypocrisy) is that so many in the media express sympathy with Mrs. Spitzer while trashing her decision making and heaping on the coals. It's obviously too much to ask that she be left alone by bottom feeders like Ms. Quinn.

Dumb column Sally. Dumb.

What has the straying of a spouse have to do with the realities of marriage? It is in the nature of the species to stray, and we all know it. What a bifurcation of reality. Let's normalize it, as we do in reality, and remove another falsehood from our lives.

Amen!

Your story is right on. Silda, however, was in shock and unable to think clearly as everything was moving so fast. She wasn't able to think clearly and thus assumed the role of a typical victimized housewife "standing by her man." I believe she was devastated, humiliated, torn and conflicted by trying not to have to think about how their lives were going to change by this. It would have been better for her and her girls if she had not appeared by his side either day and let him face the media alone. While he goes through with all he has to do, she should shelter herself and the girls from all that his behavior has and will put them through. She needs to let him face his consequeences of his action alone.

Your story is right on. Silda, however, was in shock and unable to think clearly as everything was moving so fast. She wasn't able to think clearly and thus assumed the role of a typical victimized housewife "standing by her man." I believe she was devastated, humiliated, torn and conflicted by trying not to have to think about how their lives were going to change by this. It would have been better for her and her girls if she had not appeared by his side either day and let him face the media alone. While he goes through with all he has to do, she should shelter herself and the girls from all that his behavior has and will put them through. She needs to let him face his consequeences of his action alone.

Your story is right on. Silda, however, was in shock and unable to think clearly as everything was moving so fast. She wasn't able to think clearly and thus assumed the role of a typical victimized housewife "standing by her man." I believe she was devastated, humiliated, torn and conflicted by trying not to have to think about how their lives were going to change by this. It would have been better for her and her girls if she had not appeared by his side either day and let him face the media alone. While he goes through with all he has to do, she should shelter herself and the girls from all that his behavior has and will put them through. She needs to let him face his consequeences of his action alone.

Women like her have spent their lives chasing men like Elliot. She stands by him for one reason. It is all she knows. She is going to continue standing by him until the (BD) 'better deal' presents itself. If the better deal doesn't she will stay with him period. You really think she is going to date your average Joe running around New York? You think that in the social circles she runs where conceit is consider an admirable trait one of those men are going to take her and the children in. These women are defined by the men they marry period.

Wow, this is refreshing!!!
Sally got it right!!!

Women like her have spent their lives chasing men like Elliot. She stands by him for one reason. It is all she knows. She is going to continue standing by him until the (BD) 'better deal' presents itself. If the better deal doesn't she will stay with him period. You really think she is going to date your average Joe running around New York? You think that in the social circles she runs where conceit is consider an admirable trait one of those men are going to take her and the children in. These women are defined by the men they marry period.

Silda Spitzer is doing the same, embarrassing and belittling thing that Hillary Clinton did. I do not want the president of the US to be able to just stand their and accept the lies and refuse to do anything about it. How about you act like you have some sort of fortitude and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Does Hillary's vast experience in the public eye include her standing next to the scumbag who cheated on her?

Silda Spitzer is doing the same, embarassing and belittling thing that Hillary Clinton did. I do not want the president of the US to be able to just stand their and accept the lies and refuse to do anything about it. How about you act like you have some sort of fortitude and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Does Hillary's vast experience in the public eye include her standing next to the scumbag who cheated on her?

Yet another idiot pundit making far-fetched comparisons to make her point (whether tenuous or not.) In particular, this woman's referring to sati in India is idiotic since it has not existed in India since at least 250 years, and even when it did, it was an extremely rare occurrence.

As for the main point of the article of wives as the always suffering victims, sociology tells us that adultery is not exactly uncommon among women.

so maybe they feel obligated to stand by as part of their marriage contract.

How much does that contract cost her? I wonder how much he will agree to pay her, for services rendered on that podium.

He should have been a man and protected his family from further harm by standing on that podium by himself. After all, he didn't invite her to play with his little call girls, he did that all by himself!

Dear Ms.Quinn:

As one of the co-founders of NOW, I couldn't agree with you more. You omitted Effie Barry, who may not have stood alongside her husband, former Mayor of DC Marion Barry, but did stay with him and make appearances at his trial--although she divorced him thereafter--for being caught on videotape smoking pot with a hooker in a DC hotel room, if memory serves.

Best regards,

Sonia Pressman Fuentes
spfuentes@comcast.net
website: http://www.erraticimpact.com/fuentes

This is why western society should allow men to have many wives. You have the 'trophy' wife, and then the others for play time.

There is a difference between having a big heart and not considering yourself worth fighting for.

Silda Spritzer is simply taking advantage of her husband's position just as much as he did. I dont think she views his infidelity as a big deal. In fact, I would be surprised if this was the first time he had been involved with other women. In her own mind, she may think she is being smart.

The only ones that will empathize are women in the same situation.

Kim wrote -

"I dont think it makes the wives look bad at all to stand by their husbands during a time of crisis."

A crisis is when your husband loses his job and is penniless. A crisis is when he is ill and needs your support to pull him through. A crisis is when he goes away to serve his country and you have a family to raise. A crisis is when he is forced to work menial jobs to put food on the table.

A marriage that goes through all of this and still stays faithful should be NOT be considered equivalent to a marriage that is the victim of a wandering eye. It may sound harsh - but its true.

A crisis is NOT forking over thousands of dollars for sexual pleasure. A crisis is NOT forgetting about the reputation of your wife and children at stake. A crisis is NOT wounding the pride of a woman who you swore to cherish and love. A crisis is not hurting thousands of people who believed in you and your cause. A crisis does not include dropping your pants for a few bucks. A crisis does NOT constitute betraying your family.

Cheating is not a crisis - its an irresponsile and selfish choice you make voluntarily.

This is not the kind of example you want for your daughters. I would NEVER tell my daughter to stand by a man who hurt her so severely.

Which is why I think either Mrs Spritzer is not really hurting or she just doesnt find this to be a worthy battle. This is probably not the first time her husband has looked outside their marriage for pleasure. She has to be used to it by now.

I agree with Millie Bea.

I also hope that he gives her a really big check. Hmm, like 5x what he's spent on prostitutes over the past 10 years?

With interest too.

Seems the least he can do for needing her there to prop up his image as a family man for the media. It would've been better for him if he hadn't dragged her out into the spotlight right after he drove a truck over her heart.

I mean, he's using her image to buff his own. I hope she demands a big payday for it. I only wish she had put on her Power Panties and told him to sweat it all by himself, instead. But, that was their decision.

What a jerk.

Women have not come very far it seems. No matter how poorly Mr. Spitzer has acted, people are angry at the wife!

Mr. Spitzer deserves our criticism and judgement. He broke the law and acted immorally. Silda does not deserve judgement. It's nobody's business how she chooses to cope with this crisis. You have no insight into their private relationship. Who are you to tell her what her next move should be? Do you think that she should be unwilling to forgive and work things out? Why do you feel this way? Is watching a family break apart some sort of new entertainment?

Give her a break, and let her manage without your armchair family counseling.

I disagree with Ms. Quinn's opinion that standing by your man through adversity, albeit self inflicted, is a sign weakness. On the contrary, I think it demonstrates courage. I don't pretend to understand what the reasons were for Mr Spitzers unfaithfulness, but is it possible that his wife still loves him?
I wonder why the first thing that comes to Ms. Quinn's mind would be Taliban or Indian women. Does she believe that they are inferior to western women in some way? I would like to remind her that India elected a woman as prime minister almost 50 years ago. Indira Gandhi was accused of many things, but being weak was not one of them. And neither is Hillary.
I think Elliot Spitzer deserves everything that is coming to him. But have we become so cynical that we can't accept that a beautiful, brainy and undoubtably strong woman is capable of the noble, and and certainly Christian path of forgiveness?

Ask Eliot Spitzer whether he thinks he got away with it. And in case he remains delusional about this type of thing, let me know if you find any other man interested in trading places with him right now; that would be better evidence on the subject.

As for Silda Spitzer ... children play tit for tat. I do not see that that makes it wise for her to do the same. I give her credit for thinking for herself.

Eliot Spitzer is an idiot for cheating on his accomplished and spectacular wife. That being said, if it was my wife who cheated I would stand up by her and support her--because I love her...isn't that the point? I don't think I view it in terms of 'advancing equality' but in terms of the entirety of our relationship and how much my wife means to me. I find it sad that you may not be in a relationship that you could feel that way. It is less an outward statement of mens v. womens rights as oppossed to a personal statement of what marriage (and that person) still means to the individual (despite their tragic flaws).

Women are expected to stand by their man, but I just don't think people hold the same expectation for men. I mean could you visualize Spitzer standing beside his wife under the same circumstances? How about Bill standing beside Hillary at a press conference had the circumstances been reversed? If the men stayed they would be seen as weak.

I'm really tired of hearing people tell women what they must or must not do. To bully a woman into leaving her husband because he cheats is as wrong as guilting her into staying.

Silda Spitzer made her own choice. Why she did it is beyond Me. Quinn's right to speculate or judge.

Here's my advice to offended feminists; go home, talk to your daughters, talk about what happened and explain that what we think we see happening is only the surface of what really goes on between a man and a woman in a marriage. That Silda Spitzer has every right to make the choice she wishes but that choice may not be right for all women. We all have to fight our own battles.

Not one single one of us can truly say what we would do in her situation.

Just quit. Just quit with the silly speculation.

Rock on sister!

Those who suggest thst the Post get rid of Sally Quinn are, of course right, but it will never happen. Why? Because she slept with the right connected, powerful, married man at the right time. In the Spitzer scenario, doesn't Quinn realize which part she would play? Hint: it isn't Silda.

Glad to have found this article. It`s high time to criticise those well-educated women for their behaviour. As you rightly pointed out in your article Mrs. Silda Spitzer wasn't the first (Mrs. Gary Hart, Mrs. Bob Livingston, Mrs. Larry Craig, Mrs. David Vitter, Mrs. Bill Clinton) and I fear she wasn`t the last. I wonder what these women expect to get from those guys in return? Hillary Clinton didn`t find any much help in Bill campaigning for her.
Young women: it`s time to set precedents. Don`t let anyone treat (humiliate) you this way. Speak out!
Fellow-women: support those who speak out and distance themselves from their husbands who cheat on them and tell lies. They deserve our support as it might initially be harder for them.

Well Sally, given your subjective morality I can understand your question. But as way of information there are still some people who marry who take the oath of marriage seriously.
"In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, in good times and bad. Till death do you part." Sally, please tell me you DON'T teach your morality to children!?

"Till death do you part" ... not till adultery do you part. To be a person of faith, and then criticize a woman (be it Silda Spitzer or Hillary Clinton) of standing by their man to make a marriage work instead of showing them the door is appalling.

Get real... before "liberation" many marriages survived infidelity to go on to be long and loving marriages. How does forgiveness of adultery become a sign of weakness?

Get real. Elliot Spitzer is in no way getting off easy from Silda. But it is NOT our place to tell her how she should choose to live her life.

Great column and spot on. It all starts with their decisions on picking men in the beginning. They want the money and power versus choosing a regular educated working guy. These pay the price and then they don't want to give up the perks. In the end, in a deeper way, they are prostititues too, and in a less straight-forward way.

Great column and spot on. It all starts with their decisions on picking men in the beginning. They want the money and power versus choosing a regular educated working guy. These pay the price and then they don't want to give up the perks. In the end, in a deeper way, they are prostititues too, and in a less straight-forward way.

a woman who burns her self on the fires of her deceased husband is 'moral and virtious' in India.

how barbaric

a woman who burns her self on the fires of her deceased husband is 'moral and virtious' in India.

how barbaric

a woman who burns her self on the fires of her deceased husband is 'moral and virtious' in India.

how barbaric

Great column and spot on. It all starts with women's decisions on picking men in the beginning. Ms. Spitzer is a Harvard MBA and that's not enough. They want more money and power versus choosing a regular educated working guy. These women pay the price and then they don't want to give it up. In the end, in a deeper way, they are prostititues too, and in a less straight-forward way.

I couldn't help but to sense an air of irony reading this article...I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but let's not lose sight that the author herself is one who slept all the way to the top at the Wahington Post!! Good article but written by the wrong person....

Silda is entitled to behave as she wishes.

Where do you get off dictating people's behavior?

Does it occur to you that she chose to be there at that time?
I can see why anyone would choose not be at their spouse's side at a moment like that, but who are you to pontificate?

Just once I’d like to see the wife take the microphone and say, “It’s time to end sexual hypocrisy in this country. For tens of thousands of years polygamy was the norm because society recognized that some men are biologically driven to need more than one woman. This isn’t a moral failure, it’s a biological imperative produced by millions of years of evolution. To require non-monogamous men to be monogamous is as contrary to nature as requiring gay men to be straight. How my husband and I conduct our sex life is our business, not yours. It’s time to separate church and state, separate religious morality from secular morality, and legalize polyamorous marriage as well as gay marriage in this country. Notice I say polyamory not polygyny because what goes for the gander should go for the goose as well. (Elbow to husband's ribs.)”

Silda is entitled to behave as she wishes.

Where do you get off dictating people's behavior?

Does it occur to you that she chose to be there at that time?
I can see why anyone would choose not be at their spouse's side at a moment like that, but who are you to pontificate?

Please go easy on Indian Women Sati business....You make it out to be a common phenomenon.

Why should she? Hillary stood by her man, and now she's a Senator who's running for president! Had she not stood by her man, she would be out of the limelight already!

What's really offensive is you Sally...you don't know Mrs. Spitzer and your presumption in tossing around her first name as if you are friends -- that moves me to more pity for her than her own decision to stand by her husband and the father of her daughters. You are ridiculous.

What's really offensive is you Sally...you don't know Mrs. Spitzer and your presumption in tossing around her first name as if you are friends -- that moves me to more pity for her than her own decision to stand by her husband and the father of her daughters. You are ridiculous.

Excluding the exceptional freaky men with low self esteem and pervy fetishes, when a decent family man strays, the spouse has played some roll in that...

It's because you know I'm right that it makes so many of you so angry.

People in general tend to place blame on others without any self reflection. Sure, he's the pig. Yes, he's the one who cheated and is the one who did wrong. But ask yourself, am I doing MY part in keeping things interesting?

I suppose it's possible that in spite of everything, she loves him . . .

sad truths, except for the acknowledgement that at some level the majority of women must face indiscretions or abuses of some kind or the other from their men. You can have your pride - but frequently, you'll have it alone.

But the same is true of men, women are not invulnerable to stupidity. There is cheating on the part of women, probably more so, since we've been "liberated" (not just in sexual liason, but in many other ways in relationships-selfishness, neglect due to obsession with house or children, financial ruin from shopping indiscretions for instance, drugs, name your poison).

Betrayel is so devastating because it comes from the ones we love. Forgiveness gives back power, and it definately comes from a place of strength and also choice; not weakness as you assume, because it is a much more difficult path to take. It seems to me we have a country of broken marriages because we no longer have the concept that at some time our spouse will fail us and that it is possible to forgive.

The difference between the average person and these people is their day in the sun in front of the cameras, the inability to hide sin behind closed doors. From the reports I've read, they did each chose that for themselves.

How about the women's responsibility:

This woman (prostitute) "chose" to have sex with a married man. Don't woman have social/moral obligations just like men? Or are they just prostitutes?

I appreciate Sally's insights on this article. I concur completely with her assessment--that one's incredibly damaging behavior (such as Mr. Spitzer's) such as lying, cheating and humiliating one's family is sending the wrong message to young women and men (especially to his own children).

Similarly, it sends a mixed message to children--simply put--it is not important to follow one's words with actions. I too think that it is sad that Ms. Spitzer, a highly educated, accomplished woman, and from what I hear an affable woman, must undergo this humiliating experience.

While there are indeed consequences for such harmful actions, sadly Mr. Spitzer does not publicly have to go through the requisite consequences on his own--instead he has the benefit of having the very person that he disrespected standing right next to him--it seems so counter-intuitive.

Moreover, I agree--it would be nice if for once a woman decided not to publicly support her partner's indiscretions that directly affect her personal and familial well-being.

Stop blaming the victim. None of us know what we would do if we were put in that position.

Perhaps Silda has decided to honor her marriage vows - for better or for worse. Yes, rare that people keep their promises, their vows, their oaths. But just because he broke his vows does not mean she should. Children play tit for tat, the mature deal with their problems in their own way and in their own time.

I guess Silda is kindof like Sally's Dad, while her mom carried on an affair with Barry Goldwater.

Former Governor Spitzer is paying a very heavy price for betraying his family and the public trust, as are his wife and three children. The entire Spitzer family is suffering public humiliation, and Mrs. Spitzer's public support of her husband in no way enables or absolves him of his wrongdoings. What this sad episode teaches us (if we are paying attention) is that it's NOT ok to lie and cheat and dishonor your family. Eventually the lies surface and you and those closest to you suffer dearly.

Concern for what messages the Spitzer children (and all young children observing) will take from this experience is valid. The best we can hope for is that Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer have had and will continue to have open and honest communication with their children, not only about honoring one's family, but also about supporting it through the worst times. That is, in fact what Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer likely committed to when they exchanged wedding vows. Mrs. Spitzer certainly deserves no additional ridicule for choosing the more difficult of the options available to her.

A short while ago I posted a comment without realising this is supposed to be a religious forum.

I just need to add a small post script to you, Sally Quinn. "whom God has joined together let no man ( nor woman I guess), put asunder." . it also probably could apply to coveting one's neighbour's wife( or husband ) or something like that. But I may be wrong.

It seems unfair these naughty girls are doing so well in their careers after the havoc and misery they have caused poor Mrs Spitzer and her children.

Regards to Bill. I read his biography a while back . Katherine Graham was my idol. She was endowed with intellect and grace plus an iron will. She met her many challenges with courage and
dignity.

Oh yes, I almost forgot,there is also something about "judge not, lest ye be judged'. i think that's the way it goes. But I may be wrong.

Although Mr Spitzer has clearly made a terrible mistake, Mrs Spitzer (and other women in the past) has chosen the more difficult path of staying with him through the situation. I do not agree that her choice sets a bad example. On the contrary, it is a beautiful example of someone with an enduring commitment and character.

While I can understand if a wife did NOT choose to stand by her husband in this circumstance, it is exeedingly commendable that they do so.

The writer states that staying with an unfaithful husband is a "demeaning role for women to play." Demeaning to the women? Does anyone blame the wife? The sins of the husband do not reflect poorly on the wife- just on him.

In Matthew 19:8 Jesus he says that marital unfaithfulness is the one reason to allow for divorce. Certainly Mr Spitzer has been unfaithful, so Mrs. Spitzer would be within her rights to leave him. But Jesus did NOT say that you HAVE to divorce for that reason, only that it is an acceptable reason. God hates divorce. He also hates unfaithfulness. Given that unfaithfulness happened, what would the best outcome be here?

Our culture is pretty casual about choosing divorce. I do not find the same casual attitude in scripture. Moreover, it would be in keeping with mercy that a wife might remain with her husband. Again and again, Jesus and his followers gave up their rights for the sake of loving sinners.

It is impossible for us to know Mrs. Spitzer's exact reasons for staying with Mr Spitzer. Should we even try to guess? I feel it is very unseemly to speculate that they are due to some sort of weakness or flaw.

I see a parallel. Jesus himself withstood the humiliation and pain of crucifixion because of his love for sinners- you, me, and everyone.

Look, we will all screw up, in big ways or in small. We are people with a sinful nature. So when our spouses or other loved ones blow it, how SHOULD we respond? I can only hope I respond to my spouse with as much compassion and humility as Mrs. Spitzer has shown.

How presumptuous and invasive the press has been in recent days to question the decision of Silda Spitzer to stand next to her husband during his public statements. This notion that a liberated women is compelled to leave a marriage under certain circumstances befuddles me. Shouldn't liberation mean that a woman is free to leave a marriage or not? Perhaps Silda Spitzer values other aspects of her marriage enough to attempt to rebuild it. Maybe she'll stay with him for the kids. Or maybe not. We cannot possibly know her reasons. We are not in a position to judge. We are certainly not in a position to make absurd and unfounded proclamations about the morality of Silda Spitzer's leaving or not leaving her husband. Perhaps her personal morality values forgiveness. I guess we won't know until she writes her book. In the meantime, journalists and commentators make themselves look like tabloid hacks with their obsession with this question.

Marriage vows are sacred. "For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, cleaving unto one another until death do you part." If you are not willing or able to do that, don't get married.

A wife like Silda who stands by her husband in his moment of humiliation is not thinking of herself. She is thinking of her children and of her marriage vows. She may be angry enough at her husband to chew an iron I-beam into tiny fragments, but it isn't about her at that moment.

They may or may not stay together--that is for them to decide and to work through and not for us to know or even to get a vote. Their children are hurting and will continue to hurt, but if both parents do what they need to do for the children and for themselves as a couple and as a family, they just could come out of the experience stronger and closer.

It has happened before. I have first-hand knowledge.

I agree with Sally. Silda is sending a message that many of the above commentators want. OK let the tabloids, or even the little pulpits across America promulgate that agenda. The agenda that "stand by your man = virtue = what marriage vows are about". Let Silda talk about that herself on Larry King if she wants. Hillary publicly talked about her reasons in a separate venue. The fact that many of the same "female "forgiveness" = virtue" crowd condemn Hillary for it is interesting. It makes me wonder if the vitriol against Sally has more to do with keeping women in their place than extolling the virtues of "forgiveness" "fidelity to vows" etc. But if you really want to support the Christian (and Jewish) value of forgiveness then let the man take full personal responsibility ALONE. In Psalm 51
David took his full naked responsibility before God without the fig leaf. If Mr. Spitzer, Bill Clinton etc. etc. sincerely do that, then they don't need their wives beside them. If you really
want to talk about the virtue of "Christian forgiveness" don't confuse it with cheap grace!!

Your article is thoughtful and worth reading. I would have liked Spitzer standing alone, with Spilda issuing a seperate statement that she will not condone this, but would not abandon him, at least now. She could make a deal with him, so that he can help her become governer 10 years later, just like the Hilary's deal with Bill Clinton.

By the way, you are historically and factually wrong in your statement " Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre". That used to happen in the 1700's,was wrong obviusly; but historically the whole world was backward at that time. There was slavery and barbarism in the west, Europe and America used to treat women like cattle. Do you read history or have you travelled to India in the last 50 years?

Jyoti Prakash

If there's one compelling reason Silda Spitzer shouldn't have appeared beside her husband, it's that in doing so, she made herself available to the media as an artifact to be scrutinized to the same degree as any other figure in the scandal. "She shouldn't have quit her day job!" "She should have made him stand up alone at the podium!" "Political wives who don't leave their philandering husbands ought to be wearing burqas!" The so-called feminists who deem themselves authorities on how a woman should act publicly in the midst of a personal tragedy are have no higher claim to moral authority than Dr. Laura. Blame a woman for not "taking care of her husband's needs," blame her for sending the wrong message to women... victims do not need blame, but compassion. She did a brave thing by appearing in public. Now, can we please cut out the criticism and allow her to grieve in private?

What I find rather mindless is the idea that these people who feel comfortable asking wives to leave their husbands after they have humiliated themselves and the family might have something worthwhile to contribute. If Ms Quinn wants to leave her husband, she should feel free to do so. I don't think she or anybody else is in any position to suggest to a grieving woman to leave her husband as a way of coping with the grieve. My personal feeling is that marriage is ultimately a very private affair between the couple involved. If Ms Silda had decided to leave Mr Elliot, that would be fine if that was her way of coping with the humiliation. On the other hand, I do not see anything sad about her decision to stand by him. Their relationship is strictly a matter between the two of them to sort out.

What I find rather mindless is the idea that these people who feel comfortable asking wives to leave their husbands after they have humiliated themselves and the family might have something worthwhile to contribute. If Ms Quinn wants to leave her husband, she should feel free to do so. I don't think she or anybody else is in any position to suggest to a grieving woman to leave her husband as a way of coping with the grieve. My personal feeling is that marriage is ultimately a very private affair between the couple involved. If Ms Silda had decided to leave Mr Elliot, that would be fine if that was her way of coping with the humiliation. On the other hand, I do not see anything sad about her decision to stand by him. Their relationship is strictly a matter between the two of them to sort out.

If there's one compelling reason Silda Spitzer shouldn't have appeared beside her husband, it's that in doing so, she made herself available to the media as an artifact to be scrutinized to the same degree as any other figure in the scandal. "She shouldn't have quit her day job!" "She should have made him stand up alone at the podium!" "Political wives who don't leave their philandering husbands ought to be wearing burqas!" The so-called feminists who deem themselves authorities on how a woman should act publicly in the midst of a personal tragedy are have no higher claim to moral authority than Dr. Laura. Blame a woman for not "taking care of her husband's needs," blame her for sending the wrong message to women... victims do not need blame, but compassion. She did a brave thing by appearing in public. Now, can we please cut out the criticism and allow her to grieve in private?

Sally:
Why would you write this? Perhaps now you could enlighten us on how you feel about single women having affairs with married men??

I thought the women's movement was about CHOICE. Choose a career or choose to stay at home. (You're still an unequivocal equal to all.)

You have no idea what their marriage is like so stop judging. Maybe she CHOOSES to stand by her man cause she understands that people are fallible and do make mistakes. Maybe she sees the big picture of her life with this man and doesn't want to throw it all away.

Burka's? Sati? Who made you all knowing what's right? You're a rabble rouser just like Geraldine. Hillary would not be where she is right now if she wasn't a woman -who married someone who became president. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. (Didn't you marry a former editor?)

Enough of the bitterness. I wouldn't want you raising my daughter. I want her to like men. As I want my son to like women. And if my wife was cheating, I wouldn't just cut and run but rather examine the situation as whole, deal with the insane amount of pain, try to understand the WHY, examine the big picture, put some time in and THEN decide if we are better off apart. Crazy huh?

I dont think it makes the wives look bad at all to stand by their husbands during a time of crisis. The men look bad for their betrayal and the women look strong and decent for showing up and being supportive during a difficult time. I think the wife should be at the press conference just to make a public appearance and to keep the press from hounding her and any children further.

Making the public appearance does not mean that a couple will stay married or that the wife won't hit the roof behind closed doors. Not showing up would be strange and probably fuel more rumors about what may have gone wrong in the marriage. Marriage is showing up during the hard times not just when things are going well. Also when I see the wife it sends a message that they are in it together and will take the next step to deal with what has happened as a unit even if means separating. A wife that stays at home is only going to make things harder than they already are.

What business is it of yours ?

It is so true that these accomplished, beautiful women time after time support their spouses when they get into trouble and disgrace them. I truly believe it is the power and position these women attain through their marriages i.e. Gary Condit's wife, Jim McGreevy's wife, Hillary, etc. I also wonder if there are men who have supported straying wives who are in prominent positions. Maybe the women are just smarter at keeping it hidden. I also can't believe I actually heard some women "counselors" suggest that the wives simply are not attentive enough towards their husbands and this causes them to cheat. HA HA, that's a laugh. I cannot condone cheating by anyone, but it is natural at some point in time by some men and women who develop close alliances with coworkers, etc. I just don't understand how the spouses seem so understanding in the face of such public humiliation.

Thanks for this article Ms. Quinn. As to the apology, the only thing this jerk is sorry for is the fact that he got caught. Ken

Well, I don´t know what she was thinking about what her husband did. But I guess she thougt she was expected to behave like Hilary Clinton behaved. After all seems to me that this belongs to the nowadays culture; that this bahavior is acceptable to all, considering what the religion says, beause in the bible says that the "woman shall be submited to her husband" although I don´t agree with it and I mean it, sure I don´t.
Sorry for my bad english but I am trying. this is an opportunity for me.
My other opinion: To women belongs the peace!
That is way I would vote for Hilary for president if I was an american citizen.So the Iraq and afganistan wars would be over once and for all!!!
Thank you

Ms. Quinn,

You hit the nail head on by comparing American women with the Islamic and Indian women.

This so called feminism/equal rights created by American society are lost on American women.

American women have "chosen" to be treated as pieces of meat when it comes to social/sexual situtations with men. How many women do you know who have approached a man, introduced themselves, pursued them for a date and then asked to marry them? My experience in this country is that, women have chosen to be chased like a piece of meat. There is no equality/choice displayed by women in this regard.

Therefore, this explains why middle aged (or even young) women are afraid to leave the man they currently have, even though he may love a prostitute more than you.

I don't think I could say it any better than Sally Quinn did. The first women who does stand up and says "this isn't acceptable, and you're going to go out there and face this on your own," is going to be a heroine to women every where.

This would have been a much better article if it were solely about Hillary Clinton. As a father of three daughters, I find Hillary's history of standing by her husband to be one of the worst examples that could be set for the young women in this country. A woman like Hillary who is disrespected and abused her entire adult life by her husband and yet she still 'stands by her man' is someone who should we should all feel sorry for and get help for and is not someone that we should elect as the first woman president and leader of the U.S.

Maybe someone can explain it to me how any woman in this country could support Hillary Clinton after showing such continuous poor judgement.

Would ya want to be in a relationship with a person who could set aside their feelings and join in a public attack against ya, for a victimless crime? Hope you're single.

Ms Quinn: You know nothing of Mrs Silda Wall Spitzer or what motivates this fine LADY. Mrs. Wall Spitzer is a great and magnificent person, not the pitiful "Taliban" figure that you suggest. Maybe she stood there with her errant husband for her three innocent daughters -- did you think of that? Instead, you desire some shabby marital drama to be played out in public for your benefit. Mrs. Wall Spitzer will sort out her marriage on her own terms and not for your jollies.

Guilianis wife comes to mind..I think her actions were more acceptable than Spitzers wifes........I would have sluggged him, taken the children and left!

First, not all political wives stay with their husbands. Corina Villaraigosa comes to mind (although, concededly, it was mayor Villaraigosa's second reported affair).

I'm far more troubled by the moral equivalence of comparing the forced wearing of the burqa or chadri (along with prohibitions against getting a drivers license, rights in a divorce, etc.) to standing by a husband who cheats. None of us has ANY idea what was going on inside the Spitzer's marriage, or what might be going on inside their heads now, and to presume to judge Silda's choice as anti-feminist, and on par with the subjugation of women by the Taliban (where, for example, a cheating woman gets the death penalty, and a cheating man gets a second wife) is galling.

I can understand why many women agree with Sally Quinn on this sad matter. But I have to ask, too: Can such women see the possibility that Silda Spitzer, in appearing with her husband, was not the victim of handlers seeking to "soften" him, but made an independent, individual choice to stand beside the person who has been her husband for 20 years, and who is the father of her children? To live her own marriage vow, even if he didn't live his (regardless of what she decides to do in the future)? Can we see her not as a pathetic victim but as someone empowered to make her own choice, which she did? As someone who may want to be able to say to her daughters, "Yes, I'm enraged. Yes, I'm humililated. Yes, I'm hurt. But I made a commitment, and in your father's weakest moment, I decided to stand next to him -- for him, and for myself, and to show you what commitment is." Might this be a form of self-respect -- keeping one's own sacred vow -- even in the face of our loved one's egregious behavior?

To state the obvious, ALL of us make mistakes -- minor to heinous. It's misguided to paint men as "pigs" when it appears there are just as many of us women who behave badly in a variety of ways -- including acting out a desire to hold on to "derivative power." While Silda Spitzer is no doubt enraged, humiliated and hurt, perhaps she's someone who also recognizes that human weakness and arrogance aren't the province only of men. Maybe she's honest with herself. Maybe she possesses humility.

Can we give Silda Spitzer credit for being the smart, strong person that she is, rather than seeing her as a pitiable reflection of women's collective suffering through the ages? No one deserves that kind of reductionism.

Ms. Quinn: You "...have come a long way baby."
And, your personal progress is actually based on science. Its science that provides the foundation to demonstrate that human females are at least equal to human males, if not biologically superior.
If you choose to base your thinking on your religious faith, fine. However, please don't get illogical about this issue.
Science and logic are not related to your religious rant. Both males and females of our species have extramarital affairs.
If Silda Spitzer chose to stand with her family perhaps her brain is more evolved than yours.
Sincerely, Joe Kocon

Ms. Quinn: You "...have come a long way baby."
And, your personal progress is actually based on science. Its science that provides the foundation to demonstrate that human females are at least equal to human males, if not biologically superior.
If you choose to base your thinking on your religious faith, fine. However, please don't get illogical about this issue.
Science and logic are not related to your religious rant. Both males and females of our species have extramarital affairs.
If Silda Spitzer chose to stand with her family perhaps her brain is more evolved than yours.
Sincerely, Joe Kocon

Ooohhh, the home-wrecker speaks... Do tell us, Sally, what is the moral thing to do? You were much better for Ben than his wife, right? And that is how you got to where you are, in your glass house, lecturing others?

We are each ultimately only responsible for ourself, our choices. To take the freedom to make one's own choices, for oneself alone, based on one's conscience, is the path to Joy.

Silda made her bed when she decided that it was in her best interests to set aside a high-powered career to wait amiably at her husband's side while he climbed the ranks politically. She deserved to stand next to him and think about her decisions as much as he did.

If you decide to be an accessory when it's politically convenient, you should stand there and take it when it stops being convenient too.

"Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the wife issuing her own statement saying that what he had done was unacceptable and that she was leaving him?

Wouldn’t that be morally correct?"

No, it wouldn't. That would be impulsive and childish and disrespectful of the vows of marriage. When a loved one has hurt you, it is not okay to immediately cut and run. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Let's just switch up the roles a bit to remove the issue of gender roles in this case. Imagine you have a child. You raise her lovingly and do everything "right". She grows up, becomes independent, then does something just horrible - she drives drunk and kills someone. This happens all too often, and the media usually covers these cases extensively in the local news. Are you suggesting that it would be morally correct for you to desert your drunk-driving daughter and leave her to appear in court alone? I've never read any opinion piece in any media outlet railing against the parents of drunk drivers for appearing in the courtroom with their children.

Eliot Spitzer has behaved despicably. And he certainly has consequences to face. However, attacks upon his wife for "standing by her man" are so repulsive it truly makes me sad for our country. As if we don't have enough problems, we have all these silly people in the media unable to recognize grace, commitment, and true morality when they see it.

I don't think that anyone should be judging Mrs. Spitzer's motive for standing by her husband. None of us are in that marriage. They have a history together-a family-and no one should pretend to know or judge anything she does in this situation. I think that people should stop trying to analyze this situation based on what THEY may or may not do. I know plenty of people who say "throw the bum out" who reconcile six months later, for WHATEVER reason. We also do not-nor we can pretend to know the reasons he felt the need to go outside of his marriage. What is needed here is support for the Spitzer family and prayers that whatever problems they have can be worked out. The best piece of advice I ever got was to never get involved between a man and wife. You will ALWAYS lose.

If you look at the faces of the women in the slideshow on NPR at http://www.npr.org/news/images/2008/mar/11/wives_gallery/index.html , they all look pretty much the same--pained, shocked, worn emotionally and humiliated.

In contrast, "Krista" doesn't look any of those, and it appears now she will be paid a lot to disrobe for the camera or sing.

Sally's right.

Why is this any of your business?

Butt out.

Get out now!

Sally, I agree with all of your points. However, what is true in the aggregate might not be in the exceptions. I've no insight into Mrs. Spitzer's private life and motivations. It is just possible that she loves him - improbable and undeserved as it seems to us outsiders. In the end, these choices are hers and we can grieve for her pain and the pain of other women who have endured outrages.

I know I wouldn't stand by my woman if she were caught committing adultery.....unless I wanted the world to see who I was and how graciously I handled the affair for future references.

Who knows what kind of shock spouses are in when they discover these scandals while living in a fishbowl?

Even Jackie Kennedy confided in a friend after the assassination of her husband, "I am untouchable, the whole world feels sorry for me."

I suppose standing next to a spouse in the middle of a train wreck is a small measure of being in control of a situation that has spun out of control.

Minimizing the humiliation of it all could happen if the public officials just sent out a press release instead of holding a press conference!

Americans do not understand Indian culture and religion. They think Jesus is great.

They do not understand that we love our gods just as much like the elephants, monkeys, snakes, etc. Yes we are idol worshippers, so what? How do you know that your god is better?

Sati is good.
Sati is real.
Sati is holy.

Do not be ashamed... Admit that sati will never end!

Prem

Americans do not understand Indian culture and religion. They think Jesus is great.

They do not understand that we love our gods just as much like the elephants, monkeys, snakes, etc. Yes we are idol worshippers, so what? How do you know that your god is better?

Sati is good.
Sati is real.
Sati is holy.

Do not be ashamed... Admit that sati will never end!

Prem

Americans do not understand Indian culture and religion. They think Jesus is great.

They do not understand that we love our gods just as much like the elephants, monkeys, snakes, etc. Yes we are idol worshippers, so what? How do you know that your god is better?

Sati is good.
Sati is real.
Sati is holy.

Do not be ashamed... Admit that sati will never end!

Prem

Americans do not understand Indian culture and religion. They think Jesus is great.

They do not understand that we love our gods just as much like the elephants, monkeys, snakes, etc. Yes we are idol worshippers, so what? How do you know that your god is better?

Sati is good.
Sati is real.
Sati is holy.

Do not be ashamed... Admit that sati will never end!

Prem

Does Sally Quinn, who is now apparently the wanna-be Doyenne of Washington society, not to mention a self-styled expert on morality and religion, think that our memories are so short that we do not remember her husband's description of how she aggressively pursued him when she was a single Post writer and he was a (by all appearances, and according to his then-young children) comfortably married man? Now that she has the money, power and platform that she craved, she has the unmitigated gall to castigate other women for the choices they make? Women who marry men who cheat on their wives shouldn't be surprised when they find themselves married to men that cheat on their wives.

Americans do not understand Indian culture and religion. They think Jesus is great.

They do not understand that we love our gods just as much like the elephants, monkeys, snakes, etc. Yes we are idol worshippers, so what? How do you know that your god is better?

Sati is good.
Sati is real.
Sati is holy.

Do not be ashamed... Admit that sati will never end!

Prem

This is the kind of psychobabble tripe that Sally Quinn has used for years to pass herself off as a journalist. What makes it most disgusting is the air of moral superiority that wafts from this reeking on-line rag sheet. How can this woman actually be employed by a major newspaper? Oh, that's right. She married the guy who used to be the editor.

I do not get what others – including you - are not getting. Her life is intertwined w/Spitzer’s in all the obvious ways, and one does not – and should not - disentangle oneself from the slew of commitments that make up life in a snap or under extreme pressure.

But perhaps there is another aspect of their intertwined lives that is less obvious. Presumably, she loves him, which is to say that he has a (probably inexplicable but nonetheless undeniable and to an extent uncontrollable) deep feeling of affection and solicitude for him, of the sort that has led her to conclude quite naturally that his life is hers too. This is . . . well, quite human of her. If this love is genuine – I have heard nothing to believe that in her case it is not so - then instinctively she will begin the effort to reconcile that love w/the disappointment, no matter how crushing the latter is. That effort may – or may not – include standing by her man in what for him is a supreme moment of need. But the point is this: she chose to stand there. While it is possible that he pressured her, and very likely that he implored her, to do so, I have a hard time believing that she had no choice in the matter.

I, for one, would not want to be married to, or friends with, anyone who did not shore me up at critical times, even if I caused the crisis. Loyalty is a prized characteristic, as it should be. Love – to coin but slightly alter a phrase – at least gives one some hope to believe that it can indeed conquer all. IOW, genuine love tolerates disappointment, even in the extreme, and may assuage and even redeem it.

My question is: what is wrong w/this, especially in the short run while she herself gathers her own thoughts about what to do next? It seems to me that it is much easier/wiser for her to stand w/him today and leave tomorrow (if that is what she chooses to do) than the other way around. In this respect, I think she made the absolutely correct call, and I wonder whether the best answer to your own question about whether her decision was the morally correct call is this: it depends on your point of view.

C. Gaetanos

I don't understand either. Perhaps I am just too much a southern Italian - all those stories about emotionalism in our cultural temperament is NOT that far from the truth - but If my husband of 32 very happy years tried such nonsense, Ms. Quinn, I would blow several gaskets screaming - not to mention loading my 40mm.. ok, I might not load my 40mm - I don't want to end up in jail forever & ever - and killing is wrong and I don't want to endanger my everlasting soul. But I would not take it kindly or submissively. I wouldn't stand by him, I'd be too busy kicking his shins.
I am not a submissive woman. I am not my husband's slave. I am not a burka-covered broken woman in Islam. I am free.

God doesn't want any woman to be a victim of her religion, society, family, father or husband. We have as much right to believe that the oath of marriage is forever as any man. We must believe in ourselves, in our worth and value to understand our role in both society and our marriages.

My husband and I, all joking aside, are spiritual people. We both love God and do God's will to the best of our ability. We are both very loving towards one another. We are friends. Neither of us boss the other, though I tend to allow him to have the last word, simply because I trust his intellect and good sense.
I would have liked Hillary Clinton better if she hadn't stood by Bill-the- zipper-less Clinton. I would have believed she had a heart, self-respect, and really did love her husband if she had thrown all his possessions out on the front lawn of the White House. (Actually she should have done that the first time she caught him cheating!)
Love is the issue, isn't it..? There is no love without respect. My husband respects me. I respect him. I truly believe it is a question of love, friendship & loyalty.
I have immense loyalty towards my husband because I love him and he loves me. "We are in this together" is what I always say whatever comes our way. We have been through so much together! But if he cheated. Looked for sex somewhere else - he would not only be cheating me of my bedroom pleasures and paying our hard-earned money for something he can get for free here --- it would be a betrayal on so many levels - I am his friend. It would be a betrayal of friendship. I am his wife. I meant my vows. He would be destroying his vows by cheating. It would mean I could never believe him or trust him again to mean what he says. The friendship and marriage would be over.
Trust, love and friendship are the roots of this thing we call marriage. Cheating - having sex outside of the marriage destroys all three.
Why do these rich, successful,famous women submit and allow their husband's their affairs. I don't know. I don't get it. They don't need their loser husbands to survive, they are free women, they aren't owned. They don't live in Islam or any culture that demands that a woman puts up with all kinds of abuse and smiles. What goes through their heads as they stand there in front of God and man and look like victims?
My husband answered this question 10 years ago : they weren't really married - it was a marriage of convenience, a political partnership, not a marriage of passionate love. It is as good an answer as I come up with. I couldn't be so ... cold-hearted about life, though.

Ironically, the Hindu term for sati literally means “a good woman,” a woman who has become capable of self-immolation. Sati is as a person one becomes, gradually through good behavior. Dying as a sati demonstrates to all concerned that the woman has developed appropriate and admirable behavior. In India, it is a tradition that has been instilled in all of us since childhood. It is very, very ingrained in the Hindu psyche. In addition, it is glamorized, eulogized, it is drilled into us, whether we are educated or not, that the husband is a god figure. Furthermore, according to Lord Shiva, committing sati guarantees that a woman, her husband and seven generations of the family after her will have a direct passport to heaven. Through her sacrifice, she releases herself and family members from the painful cycle of birth and rebirth. In this way, one can see the responsibility appropriated to women for not only the salvation of her husband but his family as well. It is through her suicide that all others can be freed from the painful cycle of reincarnation.

Having discussed the significance of this selfless act, one can see the reasons why millions of Indian women would happily perform sati. This religious ritual is believed to be an act of purity, self-sacrifice and dignity. In fact, a majority of men of India admit to being proud of what Lord Shiva has demanded in our holy book. As one man said “our women are very valorous. What they do has made the whole nation of Hindus respect sati women."

Shamin

Clearly you are basing your opinions without any idea what this couple's marital life may be. Without first hand knowledge of possible arrangements and adjustments they may have come to over the last 20 years or so, how can you do this?. There are scenarios known only to those two alone. Mrs. Spitzer is a mature women and has her reasons for her actions She does not need to listen to this ranting crusade of outraged womanhood. Suggesting a public outburst of anger from a woman decrying her husband's actions to be " morally correct" suggests a certain bitterness.

You name these unfortunate women enablers. They may have their reasons for standing there next to their spouses. Perhaps one of the reasons could be they have no intention of either dropping their dignity nor washing their dirty linen in public in order to give the world the opportunity to gloat over what the press and the media, always eager to see blood in the water, are more than happy to print..

I have much more respect for the woman who tells her cheatinghusband not to let the door hit him in the ass on his way out than the one who stays after such betrayal.
I know how it feels to find lipstick in a shade I wouldn't be caught dead in on my (ex)husband's underpants. Quite frankly, if he can't be trusted, he's not worth having, nor are any of the baubles (material or political) that come with him.

The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. it is twice blessed;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
`Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown

- Mechant of Venice

I would love to see a nice hard right hook sucker punch delivered by Silda Spitzer right in the middle of that 49 second apology. She woulda gone down in herstory for that one!

That one would voluntarily and happily commit sati in this modern-day is very difficult to comprehend for Westerners. This is especially evident in the reactions that occurred in 1987 when it was revealed that millions of widows have committed sati within the 20th century to-date.

For many traditionalists, this deeply religious Hindu practice symbolizes the epitome of wifely devotion. In addition, most Hindus believe the act of self-immolation by a widow facilitates the attainment of spiritual salvation for her dead husband. The woman who commits sati is also revered as a goddess. Even Indian feminists, political leaders, and many of India’s rural people and elite contend that the glorification of sati is of national pride and moral act.

Comprehending why a woman would choose to commit sati, however, requires the removal of the “western lenses.” The act of self-immolation of widows on their husband’s funeral pyre may be construed as a horrific act by the Westerner but in India sati has been documented in our culture for thousands of years--- blessed by LOrd Shiva. More important, the symbolic significance of sati is intricately intertwined in the Hindu belief system.

Shri Lam

I would love to see a nice hard right hook sucker punch delivered by Silda Spitzer right in the middle of that 49 second apology. She woulda gone down in herstory for that one!

Maybe the women are not innocent victims? Maybe they love the power and position so much that they were and are willing to look the other way when they suspect or know that their husbands are cheating on them? Maybe the wives of powerful men are enablers of more than the success and cheating of their men, but also of their own personal power gains?

Maybe the women are not innocent victims? Maybe they love the power and position so much that they were and are willing to look the other way when they suspect or know that their husbands are cheating on them? Maybe the wives of powerful men are enablers of more than the success an cheating of their men, but also of their own personal power gains?

All we can do is speculate about another person's motivation. But for my two cents worth, I believe that Mrs. Spitzer's sharing in her husband's public humiliation may simply be an expression of faith in her husband's essential goodness. If Mr. Spitzer has any capacity for self-reflection, he will realize from his wife's actions what great gift he has risked losing as well as who is, by a large measure, the stronger partner in their marriage.

This is so breathtakingly unempathic, it suggests Ms. Quinn has a blind spot where her professional colleagues are the beast - the beast a seasoned wife of a career politician tends, in due course, to feel, naively or not, is worse than a bad husband. When this beast swoops in close and hungry, she'll reflexively protect her entire family including him, whom she married not just for love, money or status but, perhaps, just perhaps for better or for worse, etc, etc. When the shock wears off, and she can see her way to leaving a husband "for dead", then and only then is she justified, in my mind, to let the beast devour his remains. Effie Barry left what's-his-name, 3 mos after standing by him, which seemed both well-timed and righteous. Had she never left, however, she'd not have to justify an old fashioned goal of death will part us - not to a widow like me.

I believe his private misdeeds were merely an extension of his outrageous behavior as AG and Governor. Silda apparently had no problems with that behavior and, indeed, soome to have been the last person arguing against his resignation.

Why should she find this any more outrageous?

Really, Sally, I am having a hard time working up sympathy for her.

If he had giant lacunae in his super ego (holes in his conscience). So did she.

Interestingly, in far less sophisticated language than what I've used, I'm seeing this is the gut reaction of lots of women. It's like crying for Mrs. Soprano..

I don't see that she had to be at the news conference, but respect her for it. I think people divorce too easily. What's all this talk about 'the protection of marriage,' when we encourage people to break their vows. I do think he's a jerk, but a lot of us can be jerks at times.

I completely agree with Sally. Spitzer's wife power was derived from Spitzers and it was widely reported she served as a close advisor to him during his time as governor, that he often valued her insight above all others. That’s a hard position to give up for a woman, even if your husband spent $80,000 having sex with other women. I’m sure when couples enter public life and one of them achieves a position of great power, there is an agreement, implicit or explicit that not matter what they will stand together. I also agree with Sally that Silda was humiliated by this, made to look a fool for her husband’s folly, and shamed for what he was done to her and their children. Maybe she was afraid of what his resignation would require them to give up, and that’s why she urged him to stay in office. I would have loved to see Spitzer face this by himself with his wife denouncing him publicly for his crude behavior. Contrary to some of the silly comments of other posts, Spitzer didn’t blow $80,000 for sex because his wife was tired or had a headache. This is about extreme arrogance and believing you can have whatever you want without consequences. He wasn’t thinking of his wife when he did this or his family, just himself. And now Silda stands next to him and we applaude because that’s what a doting, dedicated wife does, not matter how successful or smart she is. I’m sure we’d all be just abhorred if Silda went public with how angry and hurt she is by this, and how damag-ing this must be to their teenage daughters. But Americans don’t do well with public displays of female anger; no it’s better if Silda stands next her man, looking defeated.

I agree Sally...the are so many things wrong with this whole situation I can barely see straight. The Governor should have done his apologizing and explaining on his own the same way he arranged for his prostitute to service him, lied to the public, and broke the law, all on his own. Now, all of a sudden, he needs all the "support" he can get. Please. If the Governor's wife chooses to stay with him, that is fine. She is entitled to evaluate the situation and make her own decisions going forward privately and respectfully. But, by no means, do I find it appropriate or beneficial to anyone that she have to stand next to him during his shameful confession of adultery, law-breaking, and all around repulsiveness.

I am (sadly) not at all stunned that the woman who came between Ben Bradlee and his second wife has the nerve to criticize any woman for how she handles her husband's infidelities.

Your glass house may sit behind the cameras, rather than in front of them, Ms. Quinn. But that does not mean that you are any less guilty of setting a bad example for women everywhere.

Do you believe that "Kristin" isn't the one in the burka from head to whatever. Lets hear you pontificate on her position in life. Quinn, you should really give up this column, it is really the opposite of what believing people know...but then you've probably got some ulterior secularism to promote.

In response to "George Bush", actually that's not what will send someone to an eternal lake of Fire. It's not receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. That's what will send you to hell.

God is a forgiving God and HE loves Man so much that He gave His only begotten son to die on our behalf. Therefore, there is no condimnation to them that believe. He washes your sins away. That's not to say you won't pay for it once you get to heaven (if you make it there).

In the medieval morality tale, the offending man would indeed stand alone to face the shameful music. And that's certainly appealing to many of us who'd like, just once, for powerful people (let's face it, mostly men) to take full responsibility for their reprehensible actions. But this is, after all, the season of Lent, reminding us of the grace of redemption and the balm of forgiveness. It's Mrs. Spitzer's decision whether she can forgive her husband, and her decision to stand by him in a time of trial (albeit of his own making) or not. How many of us are not undone by our own faults? And how many of us have not known our spouse's needful support at our lowest moment? I think she deserves credit for that. I wouldn't have it in me, I think.

Sati (Su-thi , a.k.a. suttee) is a deeply religious Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

"Sati" means a virtuous woman. A woman who dies burning herself on her husbands funeral fire is and always will be considered most virtuous, and is believed to directly go to heaven, redeeming all the forefathers rotting in hell, by this "meritorious" act. The woman who commits Sati is worshipped as a Goddess, and temples are built in her memory.

Sati is prevalent among most sects of the society in modern-day India, who either take the vow and deem it a great honor to die on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Sati is considered praiseworthy by most Hindus, with it being obligatory.

Lord Shiva and the Agni Purana declares that ONLY the women who commit sati goes to heaven. This is a major and important part of the Shastras, the Hindu code of conduct. The majority of the widows did undergo Sati in India--- especially in the villages.

Ram Krishna

I am not sure what Silda Spitzer did is the correct thing. What her husband did is wrong without a question and she showed tolerance and forgiveness. People make mistakes. If we are a little more tolerant, there would be less divorces and less strife in the families.

But..on day two after learning that her husband got caught with a prostitute, why did she show her face in the public..with him? I am not sure if she is meek or has a magnanimous heart.

Do you believe that "Kristin" isn't the one in the burka from head to whatever. Lets hear you pontificate on her position in life. Quinn, you should really give up this column, it is really the opposite of what believing people know...but then you've probably got some ulterior secularism to promote.

Quinn is presuming to know what's going on in this marriage. She does not know. For all any of us knows, the Spitzers haven't had sex in ten years and she signed off on his occasional use of call girls. Until someone on the inside gives details (not very likely), we should all acknowledge our ignorance, express our sadness and disappointment, and shut up about the Spitzers marriage and about how they are behaving publicly.

Women have, for the most part been the foundation of most marriages for many reasons The more compelling question is for the husbands.
After what you have done,"How can you even think of asking your wife to come share in your public humilation"?

Umm, I'm going to go with D) none of your damned business, Sally!

How about you shut up and find something NEWSWORTHY to write about, rather than being a busybody?

Yeesh, when did Newsweek become the online equivalent of a sewing circle?

No, it is not what is expected of women. It is what is expected of wives and mothers. And that is OK.

In marriage, often it is more important to honor your commitment, your promise, your vows, than to honor yourself. The vows say "through good times and bad", not "through the things that I enjoy". She did the right thing. Her family should come first.

I doubt that he feels a tacit permission to continue sleeping with prostitutes because his wife is standing by him. Her support probably makes him feel like even more of a jerk in contrast. The best thing you can do to someone when they hurt you is to respond in love...unconditional love It makes their selfishness seems even worse in comparison. I believe Sptizer is DEFINITELY "paying the consequences". But that doesn't mean that his daughters should have to as well.

Perhaps the reason Silda, and other political wives placed in the same position, have chosen to stand by their man, is the result of a 4 letter word that seems too often forgotten in marriage....LOVE. We are all imperfect however, this society seems to believe that marriage and mates will give us a personal perfection that we lack. When we dont find that in marriage, the current American dogma is to run....what does that teach our families about commitment and life in general? Should we run from every tough situation that life presents? How many of us have run and gone on to find perfection in future relationships? Perhaps very few, if any. When I see Mr. Spitzer, I see a man who is not remorseful. However, when I see Silda, I see a woman who understands that in order to find and experience real, longstanding love, time, patience, forgiveness, and yes, even struggle are all necessary.

Dear, dear H.Caulfield, what you call "artificial abstinence" others merely refer to as "self control." Granted, some have evolved more than others and are ruled more by their brain than their groin and hormonal imperatives, and are actually capable of deciding whether or not to sleep with others; others are not capable of this. Those who are not shouldn't ensconce themselves in marital situations or committed relationships. Recognize one's nature and act responsibly and accordingly, is all I'm saying.

Oh, Sally, Darlin', just stick to McLean dinner parties and Georgetown cocktail parties and fretting about buying enough gas masks as your part of the Bush War Effort.

I suppose you know more than a little bit about being a home wrecker yourself. Maybe you'd have been more impressed if it had been Silda who slept with her husband's rivals in order to further a career of her own. Sally would've really related to that.

By the way, Sally, don't you think that dress is a little young for you?

I've been intrigued by observers' applying the term "humiliation" to Silda Spitzer, as Ms Quinn does here.

It's my belief that no one can humiliate another person. They can be attacked, abused, degraded and violated. But humiliation is something one does to one's own self.

As Elliott Spitzer has demonstrated, the public condemnation of others simply serves to underscore the humiliation he brought upon himself.

But Ms Spitzer is not her husband.

Ms Spitzer is not being humiliated when she stands with her husband. She can be abused, attacked, degraded. Ms Quinn has done that here.

Ms Spitzer has, regardless of her husband's infidelity, come to her own opinion about what her commitments to her husband means for herself. She has come to her own decision about what she will do to carry out those commitments -- again, regardless of her husband's infidelity.

And Ms Spitzer is not her husband.

Unlike a contract which may allow a party to rescind when the other breaches, some people do not view their marriage vows that way. For these people, the question of whether to stay married to an unfaithful partner is a decision requiring more than a tripwire event.

That may, or may not, be Ms Spitzer's view. But either way, as the self-determining individual she clearly is, that is her decision to make. She has apparently decided that at least for now, she will not let her husband, by his exceedingly poor choices, make her decisions for her.

Ms Spitzer is demonstrating that she is not her husband.

Ms Quinn presumes to ascribe intentions, opinions and decisions to Ms Spitzer's behavior, and disagrees with it. Ms Quinn then attacks her for it. All on the occasion of her husband's infidelity.

But Ms Spitzer is not her husband.

Ms Quinn, where can I find the respect for Ms Spitzer, which she deserves as a human being, in what you say? Where I can find the compassion?

That apparently is not your concern.

But using your own yardstick, Ms Quinn, how is it supportive of Ms Spitzer, as an individual who is clearly able and willing to make her own personal decisions and make her own way in her life, for you to attack her for making her independent decision in response to her husband's infidelity? What role are you modeling for children? Where is the justice in that?

Ms Spitzer is not her husband. Do you understand that, Ms Quinn?

Ms. Quinn, of course, has personal experience in how to handle extra-marital sex discreetly, having played "Kristen" to the first Mrs. Bradley's "Silda." How very curious that the POST tapped her for "On Faith." How bizarre that SHE
lectures the betrayed wife about proper behavior.

Ms. Quinn, of course, has personal experience in how to handle extra-marital sex discreetly, having played "Kristen" to the first Mrs. Bradley's "Silda." How very curious that the POST tapped her for "On Faith." How bizarre that SHE
lectures the betrayed wife about proper behavior.

Ms. Quinn,

Was surprised to read such an opinion from a Post writer. When I saw Silda standing next to him my impression was that, at that very moment, she was the strongest women in the world. Her demeanor was not simply one of a person deeply hurt, far from it. She clearly projected expectations, of him doing the right thing regarding his political career and his personal life. She seemed to confidently know who she was - rendering herself "unembarrasable" - and seemed intent on looking forward, not backward. What an incredible person. I just hope for her sake, their children's' sake and his, that he will meet these most noble of expectations.

Ms. Quinn,

Was surprised to read such an opinion from a Post writer. When I saw Silda standing next to him my impression was that, at that very moment, she was the strongest women in the world. Her demeanor was not simply one of a person deeply hurt, far from it. She clearly projected expectations, of him doing the right thing regarding his political career and his personal life. She seemed to confidently know who she was - rendering herself "unembarrasable" - and seemed intent on looking forward, not backward. What an incredible person. I just hope for her sake, their children's' sake and his, that he will meet these most noble of expectations.

I think we need to consider their relationship a couple different ways. Let's start by taking the fairytale out of the equation. Little girls do not grow up and get married and live happily ever after. Things change, careers and kids cause exhaustion--sex becomes a distant memory or an annual event.

It is more likely that the Spitzers lived as respectful friends--no longer lovers--just partners in his career and their family.

As to why she stood by him and was the loudest opponent to his leaving the office, well maybe she felt he was not the only one to blame for having sexual relations outside of their marriage. Perhaps she felt guilty for being tired all the time, for being completely overworked at home with the kids and her duties as NY's first lady, and especially too tired to do what was needed to keep him from going elsewhere.

Wives lose their desire for their husbands. Sometimes they replace libido for everyday responsibilities. Then one day wake up and find husbands/boyfriends are having an office affair, having an online relationship or going to prostitutes.

Then on the otherhand what makes you think Silda was such a saint? Just because men are the only ones who ever get caught doesn't mean they're the only gender that cheats.

Imagine the Governor breaking the news to his wife and him saying to her, like Bill probably said to Hillary, 'I didn't mean this to humiliate you. You know I have the utmost respect for you.' And her saying to him, 'Why didn't you just have a normal affair, like the one I'm having?!'

I think we need to consider their relationship a couple different ways. Let's start by taking the fairytale out of the equation. Little girls do not grow up and get married and live happily ever after. Things change, careers and kids cause exhaustion--sex becomes a distant memory or an annual event.

It is more likely that the Spitzers lived as respectful friends--no longer lovers--just partners in his career and their family.

As to why she stood by him and was the loudest opponent to his leaving the office, well maybe she felt he was not the only one to blame for having sexual relations outside of their marriage. Perhaps she felt guilty for being tired all the time, for being completely overworked at home with the kids and her duties as NY's first lady, and especially too tired to do what was needed to keep him from going elsewhere.

Wives lose their desire for their husbands. Sometimes they replace libido for everyday responsibilities. Then one day wake up and find husbands/boyfriends are having an office affair, having an online relationship or going to prostitutes.

Then on the otherhand what makes you think Silda was such a saint? Just because men are the only ones who ever get caught doesn't mean they're the only gender that cheats.

Imagine the Governor breaking the news to his wife and him saying to her, like Bill probably said to Hillary, 'I didn't mean this to humiliate you. You know I have the utmost respect for you.' And her saying to him, 'Why didn't you just have a normal affair, like the one I'm having?!'

I think we need to consider their relationship a couple different ways. Let's start by taking the fairytale out of the equation. Little girls do not grow up and get married and live happily ever after. Things change, careers and kids cause exhaustion--sex becomes a distant memory or an annual event.

It is more likely that the Spitzers lived as respectful friends--no longer lovers--just partners in his career and their family.

As to why she stood by him and was the loudest opponent to his leaving the office, well maybe she felt he was not the only one to blame for having sexual relations outside of their marriage. Perhaps she felt guilty for being tired all the time, for being completely overworked at home with the kids and her duties as NY's first lady, and especially too tired to do what was needed to keep him from going elsewhere.

Wives lose their desire for their husbands. Sometimes they replace libido for everyday responsibilities. Then one day wake up and find husbands/boyfriends are having an office affair, having an online relationship or going to prostitutes.

Then on the otherhand what makes you think Silda was such a saint? Just because men are the only ones who ever get caught doesn't mean they're the only gender that cheats.

Imagine the Governor breaking the news to his wife and him saying to her, like Bill probably said to Hillary, 'I didn't mean this to humiliate you. You know I have the utmost respect for you.' And her saying to him, 'Why didn't you just have a normal affair, like the one I'm having?!'

To the Washington Post: Please remove this disgusting posting from your web site. You have no right to assassinate this woman's character, and she has no obligation to help advance Ms. Sally Quinn's agenda or anyone else's but her own.

This kind of trash has no place on the pages of any respectable newspaper, let alone the Washington Post. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

"On Faith" -- yeah, right...

Ms. Quinn,

Was suprised to read such an opinion from a Post writer. When I saw Silda standing next to him my impression was that, at that very moment, she was the strongest women in the world. Her demeanor was not simply one of a person deeply hurt, far from it. She clearly projected expectations, of him doing the right thing regarding his political career and his personal life. She seemed to confidently know who she was - rendering herself unembarrasable - and seemed intent on looking forward, not backward. What an incredible person. I just hope for her sake, their childrens' sake and his, that he will meet these most noble of expectations.

It's truly curious you believe the untruthful yet suffering Gov. Spitzer can be described in the terms you choose to use. Spitzers failure is a personal one, his alone, not his wife's not his children's not the State of New York's. Harm fu, hurtful yet personnaly understandable by those who love him...which isn't you is it. It can be appropriately stated without contradiction that the help - he provided through law - will help many people like those involved in prostitution. Your lack of forgiveness in the face of his abject confession marks you and your column as fudamentally irreligious. Write and tell me what you really believe.

What an absurd column, Sally. Do you think a marriage means standing by your spouse only when she/he has done something wonderful and noble? Poppycock! A marriage means nothing unless you're willing to stand by a spouse when he/she has done something stupid, immoral, and/or foolish. "Standing by" them doesn't mean to condone the sin, but to realize that love transcends human flesh, which as we all ought to know is all too weak.

Spitzer didn't kill anybody, didn't molest any children, and didn't cause grave physical harm to an innocent person. He screwed a hooker, laundered money, and acted like an ass. He should rightly be held accountable for his misconduct, both my her and by resigning the governorship. But a spouse's role in such a situation is to be a loving mate and a forgiving partner. Silda has nothing to be ashamed of.

Well, whatever her reason, she did stand next to him, and your comments are pretty inappropriate, and not really something I would expect from someone as well brought up as you seem to have been. I would guess that Mrs. Spitzer has some elemental decency and thought this was something she had to do, at least for their daughters.

I do hope that when they got home she smacked him upside the head and said "Who the hell do you think you are", and then gave him another dope smack, which he richly deserves. She probably threw up afterwards, too. What an awful, awful experience to go through, especially in public.

We women "of a certain age and experience" feel her pain. Sadly, we can't do much more than shake our heads in sympathy and tell her that this, too, shall pass.

Ms. Quinn is only adding to the humiliation she claims to deplore by having the arrogance to question Mrs. Spitzer's motives and compare her to women oppressed by the Taliban. It really is not her or anybody's business whether or how Mrs. Spitzer chooses to support her husband. Who is Ms. Quinn to say what "these wives" must or must not do? Just because a wife decides to forgive a straying husband does not mean she is submissive or opressed. I would have expected Ms. Quinn to have a much more nuanced, sophisticated, and empathetic view of marriage and of human frailty.

Your are a homerecker yourself Sally girl. You fornicated with a married man. In the Christian canon, that means you will burn in the eternal fire.

Sally, Nonsence.

Mrs. Spizer was standing beside her children's father.

She had just been kicked in the stomach... you could see she was reeling. But you expect her to stand for all womanhood and do her "I am woman hear me roar." I am a feminist, but I have been in times when I had to go along to get along, or when I just did not have time to feel or think.

As a woman my heart goes out to Silda and to her children. She needs our prayers, not second guessing what she should do.

terra

It's for the same reason I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. They put underlying agenda's ahead of what is the right thing to do. I can't respect those choices, but it happens all the time.

I believe his private misdeeds were merely an extension of his outrageous behavior as AG and Governor. Silda apparently had no problems with that behavior and, indeed, soome to have been the last person arguing against his resignation.

Why should she find this any more outrageous?

Really, Sally, I am having a hard time working up sympathy for her.

If he had giant lacunae in his super ego (holes in his conscience). So did she.

Interestingly, in far less sophisticated language than what I've used, I'm seeing this is the gut reaction of lots of women. It's like crying for Mrs. Soprano..

I believe his private misdeeds were merely an extension of his outrageous behavior as AG and Governor. Silda apparently had no problems with that behavior and, indeed, soome to have been the last person arguing against his resignation.

Why should she find this any more outrageous?

Really, Sally, I am having a hard time working up sympathy for her.

If he had giant lacunae in his super ego (holes in his sconscience). So did she.

Interestingly, in far less sophisticated language than what I've used, I'm seeing this is the gut reaction of lots of women. It's like crying for Mrs. Soprano..

This is a pointer to the fact that American women do not believe in their own power. This is why hillary does not get even sixty percent of women votes while Barrack gets ninety percent of African-American votes.

I thought this was a mean column.

Ms. Spitzer is an individual and her response is personal. She does not have to stand up and say anything at all! No one should speculate or point fingers at her.

My guess is that she is very strong and is doing exactly what she wants and what she believes is right.

Ms. Quinn,

According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, the practice of sati “was abolished by law in British India in 1829, but isolated cases of voluntary suttee have occurred into the 20th century.”

During my 20+ years of growing up in India in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, I cannot recall having read about any contemporary instances of sati.

I suggest, therefore, that you not refer to what might be happening to Taliban women in present-day Afghanistan and what may have been committed by Indian women a long time ago in the same sentence.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with modern India before making judgments and pronouncements about Indian culture.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Vijay R. Balse

Wow, what a great read this was. I am a school teacher in Canada, and your message is one I send out to my kids all the time. I am a husband and my kids love to hear how I lower myself to my wife's smartness, I know, the older I get the dumber I get and the reverse for women. But I always send out the message that equality in our world has to begin at home, and that females must be recognized as superior in so many ways. I, as well as most people I know, am waiting for Silda to pull the plug and say good bye to this loser husband of hers. Women NEED to see this happen at this level. At the other end of the socio economic strain, many women live in fear of a men who dominate them and treat them like trash. These women need a role model like Silda to show them that women can control their own lives and destiny. But Silda has to wake up and do it. Thanks for your writing!

Wow, what a great read this was. I am a school teacher in Canada, and your message is one I send out to my kids all the time. I am a husband and my kids love to hear how I lower myself to my wife's smartness, I know, the older I get the dumber I get and the reverse for women. But I always send out the message that equality in our world has to begin at home, and that females must be recognized as superior in so many ways. I, as well as most people I know, am waiting for Silda to pull the plug and say good bye to this loser husband of hers. Women NEED to see this happen at this level. At the other end of the socio economic strain, many women live in fear of a men who dominate them and treat them like trash. These women need a role model like Silda to show them that women can control their own lives and destiny. But Silda has to wake up and do it. Thanks for your writing!

Just so I'm clear, if Mrs. Spitzer had been running around with the pool boy (if he's following a cliche, let's assign her one as well) then his appropriate response would be to leave her to the wolves and keep on going by himself and his career? I just don't see how that's helpful for the family. Some people really do believe in sticking it out in good times and bad.

Your are a homewrecker yourself Sally girl. Your moral pontifications are nauseating.

I totally agree with Jon Milt and others with a similar perspective who have commented on this post. In fact, I am quite relieved to find that there are some people who actually take a minute to think. Ms. Quinn's arrogance is breathtaking and her analogies vapid. The relationship that Mr and Mrs Spitzer have is theirs, not any one else's to comment on or make recommendations about. We have no privileged access at this point to even begin to understand the complexities of their relationship, and Quinn's judgmental attitude, thinly veiled as feminist imperative, has no place.

to ohforpetessake:

You pronounce the accepted opinion/dogma verbatim. You have been indoctrinated well. Human desire is not something exclusively for 'cavemen.' We as a species are not 'beyond' nature. You delude yourself to believe that somehow you are more sophisticated by preaching artificial abstinence.

Could it be that she loves him in spite of his failures? Could it be that she is holding her own for the sake of her daughters that their world doesn't completely fall apart? Could it be that he is genuinely repentant? Could it be that something higher is motivating her to walk through this with her head up and in the opposite spirit of her husband?

I for one see dignity, grace, compassion, genuine suffering, and purpose written all over her countenance. She has the right to leave him. She also has the right not to. How about a little respect, here?

I could not agree with you more. I would never judge a woman who (after all is said and done) decides to stay in her marriage. But standing next to him while he confesses or lies about sex with another man or woman is another thing entirely. It conveys the message that it's okay to make me look like a fool and even if you put my life in danger by giving me an std or AIDS -- its okay - I'll be by your side no matter what. Very bad message to send to her daughters and another ego booster shot to an ego maniac.

I could not agree with you more. I would never judge a woman who (after all is said and done) decides to stay in her marriage. But standing next to him while he confesses or lies about sex with another man or woman is another thing entirely. It conveys the message that it's okay to make me look like a fool and even if you put my life in danger by giving me an std or AIDS -- its okay - I'll be by your side no matter what. Very bad message to send to her daughters and another ego booster shot to an ego maniac.

Ms. Sally Quinn,
Very good article and same question most of us are asking.

Just to inform you, India women committed Sati when her husband was killed in war and she wanted to protected her chastity from the invaders (Muslims and other attackers of their kingdom. So there is difference if you can appreciate the culture where lady only married once and will have phisical contact with only one man.

Thank you for the nice article...

If I was the governor's wife I would of had a large sharp knife with me when he "apologized" on camera and after he was done I would of pulled it out and cut his power organ from his body........cheerfully. I am very sure of myself and would NEVER let myself be taken advantage of like Mrs. Spitzer did. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton.

I agree with you completely Sally. It is sad that these women stood by their men the way they did. Thats why I do not think Hillary Clinton is a good candidate for president. Here is a piece on why exactly I think this way:

Why Hillary Clinton Would Not Get My Vote
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49951

No person knows what goes on, really, in another couples marriage. It is so easy to criticize without all the information. It is so easy to transfer your own guilt on to others with selfrighteous indignation. What is that about? It's about YOU. This young woman (Mrs. Governor of NYS) is in shock and depressing her anger right now at least publicly. She has taken a hard blow. She is not a victim because she is not a child. Only children are true victims. She is an adult considering her choices. Why are we jumping on her? She is a human being with hopes and dreams like all of us. They have three young daughters. Leave this family alone. Can't we do that? Did she deserve this because she is married to a governor? He is a sick man. They resigned. It's over. When did this "Goon Squad" mentality take hold in this nation? What would Karl Rove do? That's the question to ponder.

As I said when this situation first came to light, if I were Silda Spitzer I would kick his sorry a** out the front door, into the paparazzi scrum, and change the locks. The combination of incredible arrogance and betrayal shows a tremendous character flaw that I would not be able to forgive. What message would that send to my daughter about the value of marriage or of a woman?

"Sally, I read your article and agree with most of what you said. However, "keeping the family together" is just a small part of why women stand by their men. The real reason most women stand by their men is: for the simple fact that they took their wedding vows serious [for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part]. Well the "for better or worse" category would qualify here."

That's all very well and good, but why does anyone feel that it's necessary to trot out the cuckolded spouse for the photo ops at these times?

Why wouldn't a cheating spouse simply have the backbone to make the public declarations all by his or herself?

Why drag your stunned spouse in front of the cameras? Who are you doing it for? The cuckolded spouse, or yourself? If the answer is "yourself", well, wasn't that how you got into trouble to begin with?

Yeah, I'd LOVE to see them stand up in front of the microphones and cameras all by themselves. Or maybe with their extramarital partner, if they really need someone to hold their cheatin' hand.

Without in any way trying to "psych out" the Spitzer family dynamic, or justify the governor's behavior, I feel we should all butt out about Mrs. Spitzer. We have no clue as to the internal workings of the family and need to hope that they find a resolution. This much shame is more than any family should have to bear. Other than the hurt to the Spitzer family, especially the wife and children,noone was injured and the crime is rarely punished. The young woman involved voluntarily chose to earn large sums of money by renting out her body. In this case there is no evidence of coercion physically or even emotionally to cause her to be a sex worker. Tsk,tsk pontificating is basically emotional masturbation for those who do it.

While my initial reaction was to agree with your article entirely, it was indeed my reaction when watching the press conference - but I'm not sure it's that simple.

For example, you mention her children, right or wrong - I'm sure what she thought was best for them played a role in her decision to be present at the press conference.

I think the sadder scenario is that it that there wasn't a choice or decision to make. It is simply the role a "wife" assumes when they support their spouses' bid for election. I'm sure that many spouses see their role as a public service just as much as the elected official, and believe that it is their obligation to face the media and public during these unfortunately very tragic and personal times.

Ultimately we'll never know. And in the end, even if you disagee with her choice, what she did took a huge amount of personal courage and strength. I wish Mrs. Spitzer the best as she struggles with this very public humiliation and works to repaire the damage it has done to her and her children.

Instead of standing next to her husband, Mrs. Spitzer should have been on the phone to the nearest attorney.
She demeans herself and all women and certainly isn't a role model for her children and/or "family values".

I think a individual needs to do what they feel is best for them. Obviously we don't know what is happening behind closed doors or in the privacy of ones home. But in public the way you handle yourself in a situation like this is being scrutinize by many and so for that reason you can't always do or say the first thing that comes to mind.

I think a individual needs to do what they feel is best for them. Obviously we don't know what is happening behind closed doors or in the privacy of ones home. But in public the way you handle yourself in a situation like this is being scrutinize by many and so for that reason you can't always do or say the first thing that comes to mind.

I completely agree and I'm glad someone wrote down what I'm probably many of us were thinking - thanks Sally.

I can't help but get the feeling that the people who speculate about, or criticize Mrs. Spitzer for appearing with her husband don't really know what marriage is.

The depth of a marriage can be deeper than despair.

The moralistic tone of this article is breathtaking,particularly coming from Sally Quinn.

Sally Quinn should have mentioned that she had an adulterous affair with her current husband, Ben Bradlee. He was her boss, 20 years older than she, married to his second wife Toni. Was Sally outraged that Toni was lied to, cheated on, betrayed and humiliated? I am sure she makes excuses for herself.

She is blind, judgmental, arrogant and throwing stones at the wrong person, all while living in a glass house.

It is always nice to watch someone spin a woman's personal sorrow and embarrassment into a Betty Friedan tract.

This is vapid prose:

"All I could think of, watching Silda Spitzer’s defeated expression, was of Taliban women covered from head to toe in burqa..."

"For young girls, it says this is an acceptable role for women -- to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public..."

These sentences are sloppy, lazy hyperbole.

The public shame Spitzer is enduring makes it quite clear, I think, that as a society we believe it is NOT okay to lie to and cheat on one's wife (especially, ahem, with hookers).

I refuse to comment on the insipid Taliban analogy.

Personally, I respect Silda Spitzer's decision to stand beside her (loathsome) husband during the most difficult and humiliating moment of his life. It reflects her strength, not weakness.

Moreover, I refuse to judge a woman trying to make sense of things and operate during such a trial.

I am not as harsh as a judge as Ms. Quinn; perhaps she is more virtuous than I.

As Chesteron said: “For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.”

Excellent article, and deeply needed. What price: power, fame and fortune? This is the American question this moment, and for a long time now. Of course Hillary would not have run for Senate or President, had she told Bill to pack it up and get lost the first 1,2, or 8 times he cheated on her back in Arkansas. But her eyes glowed at the possible prizes she could clutch if she could weather the soul reducing, shameless ride that was her husband's (and her own) ambition express. Enough of pity for these women -- they knew these men quite well, before we had even heard of them, and they stuck by them the whole way. To borrow the computer programming term, GIGO.

Hey, Sally - did you offer the same counsel to Ben Bradlee's first wife?

Just wondering...

Silda,
May you continue to hold you head high; for you are, without a doubt, the stronger and better woman!

To the other woman and all of those like her:
You may have their money, time, and a few thousand worthless swimming friends their husbands choked out... but you will never have class. You will never deserve the respect that the women, your "Johns" cheated on, have. No matter how much money you make, you can't buy what's truly important in life. You are either born with it, or you're not. Being poor and underprivileged as a child is not an excuse for being a poor quality person. That was a choice you made; and needless to say, a poor choice.

To the "Johns",
It is sad that most of you have children as well. What will you say to your daughters (who will unfortunately marry a male, much like yourself) when they come crying to you, and ask what they did to deserve this? Or when your grandkids sit up on your lap crying because your son followed in your footsteps and emotionally crushes there mommy? Will you be the same big, old, bad guy you were when you were just doing you thing? Think twice guys! Life is not just about you! Each and every one of us is responsible for lessons in life. Are you certain you want to be the one to pass that lesson on to your family?

I agree with many of posters' comments re HC. There are two things I can't forgive her for: (1) the "Alice in Wonderland" black velvet headband and (2) the "I'm not Tammy Wynette just standin' by her man" comment.

It is ironic that these two women - with Ivy League educations - arguably better positioned than 99.9% of the American female population to do their own thing - somehow, seem to pale in comparison to the late great Ms. Wynette - who I can imagine just b**ch slapping the guy - and then writing a great song about it - and furthering her own career.

It is hurtful to watch the devastation on the wives faces time and again.

I've often wondered whether any of them thought of leaving their husbands before the public apologies, but was discouraged from doing so for the politics of it--to stand by your man. I agree it sends mixed messages to children.

Perhaps, leaders need a refresher course in ethics and the sanctity of marriage.

You say, "Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the wife issuing her own statement saying that what he had done was unacceptable and that she was leaving him?
Wouldn’t that be morally correct?"
My answer is, no. Moral correctness should not be determined by you or me, rather by the offended and the offender. However "pathetic, ravaged . . . and humiliated" the wife (sometimes the husband is the victim) is, remember that she is part of a union. When she stands beside her husband, she is supporting the husband of twenty years, the father of their children, and not the nogoodnick he has come to be. Also bear in mind that people are complex, that this episode is only one in a life. He may actually have redeeming features. Those features may be more in play now that he has been relieved of power and, no doubt, a sense of invincibility.
For you to suggest that Silda Spitzer was "just as enamored of power" as he was is callous and egocentric. Not all women in this situation think that way. This lady has been hurt at a visceral level that far transcends a yearning for power. This threatens her very raison d'etre: her family.
You go on to say that her action "says this is an acceptable role for women -- to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public. You take it and must still be supportive. because that is what is expected of women."
Ask Mrs. Spitzer if this is her message.
And ask what happened to "for better or for worse?"
As for paying the consequences, we are all for that. The question is, as always, what should those consequences be? The sole judge in these cases is the offender's family.

It must be terrible to be a woman and have your "sisters" forever telling you how to behave, no matter their own failings.

Even worse must be the torment of a political spouse who must endure legions of politically motivated pundits who push their favorite political agenda at the expense of the victim already in the media headlights.

Leave Silda alone, admire her family and achievements, and be humble in the face of others' failings.

Sally, I read your article and agree with most of what you said. However, "keeping the family together" is just a small part of why women stand by their men. The real reason most women stand by their men is: for the simple fact that they took their wedding vows serious [for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part]. Well the "for better or worse" category would qualify here. Not only is that why, but one doesn't know what they will do until they are put in a situation as such. It's always easy to say what you will do until that unfortunate incident happens. Lastly, it is written in the bible that once you marry, you become one. What you feel, he feels and what he feels, you feel. In other words, when one hurts, so does the other. As crazy as this sounds, it is true. When things such as this happens, they touch the core of who you are deep within. Why, sometimes we are even surprised at our ownselves and the strength that we can muster.

Yes! Why is she still there? This leads into the real question. Why did he get married in the first place? What kind of a man allows himself to get trapped in a marriage in the first place? Study after study show that the majority of men want multiple partners, and they want them to be young. [The occasional urge to be with an older lady not withstanding.] Settling on one that is only going to age over time defies all sexual logic.

My god, it is as if Silda Spitzer has become the Brittney Spears of the smart women set.

Who cares why this rich, powerful woman decided to stand next to her rich, powerful husband? I'm sure she suffered all the way back to her 5th Avenue home. Maybe she felt a tinge of humiliation as she contemplated which Mediterranean or South Pacific island she vacation at this summer.

My god, it is as if Silda Spitzer has become the Brittney Spears of the smart women set.

Who cares why this rich, powerful woman decided to stand next to her rich, powerful husband? I'm sure she suffered all the way back to her 5th Avenue home. Maybe she felt a tinge of humiliation as she contemplated which Mediterranean or South Pacific island she vacation at this summer.

Ms Quinn cannot know what is best for Silda Spitzer and her family.

It's ugly, unbridled arrogance to tell Silda Spitzer that it's "morally correct" to put punishing her husband ahead of trying to keep her family together.

Moreover, I believe it is the wife's choice of whether she should stand next to her idiot politician husband when he is forced to stand up and reveal to the world what lengths he has gone to make an ass of himself and victims of his family. Who are we to judge another human being about which we know so little personally? Everyone has an opinion on these very personal matters based on what they know from a notoriously flawed media. And regarding blogs? Please, don't get me started . . .

Why does everyone take this as a black and white issue? Either stand by your man or leave him, when there are other options!

I have been troubled by these hapless women standing beside their husbands during their infidelity press conferences. Mostly because they are not trotted out to stand beside them on OTHER press conferences!

But why is the other option presented as "announce their intention to leave their husband"?

No - those are the 2 extremes. I could completely understand the wife choosing not to participate in the humiliating press conference, but that does not mean that this one (terrible) issue has completely sundered their marriage. I think they should feel free to not go to the press conference and work out any issues where they belong -- in the privacy of their family.

Sally,

Your article was wonderful and I completely agree with you. You eloquently articulated what I myself was thinking. It seems that "standing by your man" is a societal expectation of the "proper role" for these hurt and humiliated women...they seem bullied into subjecting themselves to the degredation.

Thank you for stating what I believe many of us have been thinking.

What did the bible say about people passing judgment on others? Shame on you! When you meet your maker, he will be judging as you're passing judgment on Silda. You're passing judgment on Silda so that you don't have to feel sorry for your own poor miserable life. Pathetic.

Sally,
after reading your blog, it seems as if you want disgraced women to do what "you would do". If this sort of thing was to happen to you, it would be "your" decision to stand by your man or not. I, personally feel that she is taking the "high road' in all of this. She is actually helping him mitigate the percieved damage by standing with him.
We will see what she decides to do about this later when it becomes a private, family matter, not to be discussed with the media. He deserves whatever he gets, but it does not necessarily needs to be played out in public.

The reason these women do is because they are also enamoured of power. Most of the wives do not want their husbands to give it up ( Silda did not want her husband (Spitzer) to resign. Hillary blamed it on right wing conspiracy and had to know that her husband had cheated on her multiple times). Wives do share power behind the scenes and power is as addicting to them as to their husbands. These powerful people are not normal folks with normal pschology.

Silda is a grown-up. It's her choice. Can't people just leave her alone?!? This kind of "holier than thou" criticism on how she should or should not behave is over-the-top.

LEAVE HER ALONE!

Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the politician up there at the lectern sweating bullets, apologizing for letting down his wife and family …. alone?

YES!

Or when it happens (just a matter of time, I'm certain), if SHE is the one to get caught with her panties around her ankles, I don't see that anyone would:

a) expect her husband to stand in front of the cameras
b) would respect him if he did so

You're assuming too much. With your conservative leanings, you're assuming any relationship short of absolute monogamy is humiliation or a failure. What's next? A piece on the humiliation unmarried and sexually active adults bring on their parents? Or worse, the humiliation of having "a gay" in the family? A piece about the shame brought on by a son that has only one wife [to break from the WASPcentric paradigm]?
You might be surprised. It's quite possible that Ms. Spitzer has come miles further than yourself and accepts an open relationship with her husband. It just might by you that is trapped by dogma.
And on another note, "arrogance of power" doesn't drive a man to solicit prostitutes. I know broke men who frequent brothels. The need to get it on, and the will to hand over cash in order to do so lead a man to become a John.

Sally you are 'right on' when you say that wives need to stop putting themselves in the firing line when their husband screw up in a public forum. I am the same age as Silda and can't understand her behavior either, but maybe she was just really tired to dealing with this and wanted to get it over. I am sure that she still remembers why she married him, and maybe has enough intestinal fortitude to stick it out and see if he can change his behavior.
I was raised by a very conservative southern mother who told me that I was not supposed to be smarter than men and they had all the power because unfortunately that is what her generation had to put up with... We have to teach our sons and daughters to respect themselves regardless of the relationship they are in.

Independent in Centreville....

Re. "...Your article reflects your and society's denial of the biological imperative that men instinctually are compelled to spread their seed frequently and with a variety of partners..."

This is a biological imperative that dates back to times when nature required such propogation in order for the species to survive. What separates (some of) us from animals is the ability to control our more primal, 'caveman' urges. The residual cavemen amongst us who are unable to resist their animalistic imperative to copulate with as many women as possible might reconsider marriage, hm?

Sally Quinn spends an inordinate amount of time judging the private lives of others - usually in a mean, lecturing manner, as personalized as possible - usually half-heartedly dolled up as really caring about who she's writing about. Here we have someone yet again who didn't live up to what Sally Quinn deems correct behavior inside a marriage. I wonder why she feels this is a helpful or even interesting use of her forum? It's frankly no one's business why Silda made the choice she did. You'd think that would go without saying. Write about something that matters, with substance Quinn.

The answer is this: It is none of our business.

Why do YOU, Ms. Quinn, stay with your disgusting slob of a husband? You know, the one that sits around in front of the TV breaking wind and hollering for beer? The bald guy with erectile disfunction?

Faith, forgiveness and devotion are funny things.

The answer is this: It is none of our business.

Why do YOU, Ms. Quinn, stay with your disgusting slob of a husband? You know, the one that sits around in front of the TV breaking wind and hollering for beer? The bald guy with erectile disfunction?

Faith, forgiveness and devotion are funny things.

I don't understand it either.

He didn't want her support when he was paying for sex, why would he want her next to him when he's been caught?

Hmm, I guess he needs her to stand there, in order to burnish his tarnished public halo. Otherwise, he'd be a lot more human, and humane, to not even ask her to go through that dog and pony show.

I hope he paid her handsomely for her time and televised support. Seems the least he can do for her services.

I am so glad, Ms. Quinn, that you can say for certain "why he did it", and that you can also say with equal certainty what the "morally correct" response should be. None of us knows why he did it, let alone that it was because he was arrogant and believed himself to be "invincible". He may not even know. The charge of arrogance belongs elsewhere. Nor is it so obvious that the response by a spouse (wife OR husband) should be the same in all circumstances, or should be dictated by what you or anyone else thinks should have happened. These are deeply personal matters, to be resolved according to one's own conscience, humility, charity, and love (pick one)--not what you or anyone else thinks.

Why do women do it? I would have voted for Hillary Clinton if she had had the gumption to divorce Clinton right then, but she didn't. And presumably she lived through a fair number of such dalliances prior to the WH. So the only conclusion seems to be that she wanted the (reflected) power more than any sense of dignity. How pathetic is that? (I am a man, in the interests of full disclosure, though apparently not powerful enough to have opportunities or motivations for such behavior.)

The Washington Post Jesus Section really needs to go. What a waste of electrons.

Sally,

Your article was wonderful and I completely agree with you. You eloquently articulated what I myself was thinking. It seems that "standing by your man" is a societal expectation of the "proper role" for these hurt and humiliated women...they seem bullied into subjecting themselves to the degredation.

Thank you for stating what I believe many of us have been thinking.

Ms. Quinn raises some poignant and provocative issues, ones I've pondered as well (it does, on the surface, seem very humiliating). But at the end of the day it's a narrow and shallow commentary, not considering the complexities of a relationship, particularly layering on the prominent position. And we have absolutely no information about their relationship, arrangements, etc. What about "christian" values regarding marriage, forgiveness? Criticism without walking a mile in her shoes is pointless.

You have written exactly the thoughts I was having.

If it were me, I think I'd have been using that Harvard law degree to draft my civil suit for negligence in having exposed me to myriad sexually transmitted diseases and reach of fiduciary duty for having frittered away tens of thousands of dollars of family funds on a selfish "hobby".

For damages, I'd have asked, at a minimum, the same amount of money for each of my three children and me to throw away on any dumb hobby we personally chose. And for the pain and suffering of not knowing whether I was going to, for example, develop cervical cancer some day because I'd been exposed to HPV - maybe $1 Billion.

And then I'd have had my own press conference to discuss my lawsuit - and that I'd be asking the State's Attorney General to explore whether the potential medical issues actually amounted to *criminal* negligence - or assault.

Sally. Would you please be a contestant for "Moment of Truth?"

Your article reflects your and society's denial of the biological imperative that men instinctually are compelled to spread their seed frequently and with a variety of partners. No arbitrary, puritanical 'moral' limitation on the perpetuation of the species will ever alter these powerful instincts. So we insist on forcing men into antiquanted, artificial societal creations called 'monogamous relationships' and 'marriages' and are then surprised when they fail to live up to these impossible, inhuman standards. And the self-delusional human comedy persists.

Sally,

You article was wonderful...it eloquently articulated what I myself was thinking. I completely agree. It seems that "standing by your man" is a societal expectation of the "proper role" for these hurt and humiliated women...they seem bullied into subjecting themselves to the degredation.

Thank you for stating what I believe many of us have been thinking.

What upsets me most about the women who stand by their powerful men as the "mea culpas" are issued is that not one of them is without resources and abilities to succeed on her own. What does it say about them - and their judgment - that the appearance of support for the men who have absolutely no visible respect for them is more important than their own sense of self-respect and self-worth? How can these women then speak to their daughters about being choosing wisely and standing up for their own integrity, or to their sons about treating women with respect and honor?

I liked and admired Mrs. Clinton, until she sat beside her husband on "60 Minutes" in 1992 when he acknowledged the Gennifer Flowers incident - which Mrs. Clinton must have known even then was not his first dalliance. Had she called Mr. Clinton on the carpet when the Lewinsky scandal came to light, forcing him to face the consequences of his poor judgment, lying, and out-of-control ego, I might have regained a substantial portion of respect for her. But as she runs for the Democratic nomination for president, I am forced to consider her behavior in these two events along with the other evidence available; I find her judgment at best questionable and at worst, cynically, self-serving and calculating.

I hope that when this happens again, as it inevitably will, the next wife of a politician caught "inflagrante delicto" will let him stand all alone to face the cameras, and then present him with divorce papers forthwith. She is a woman I would vote for as president.

Like I said, the vows can be broken when the 3 "A's" are involved.
-Adultery
-Abuse
-Addiction.

Looks like Spitzer has a 3 under his belt
Adultery- Self Explanatory
Abuse- This is emotional abuse on the family
Addiction- If he is addicted to sex then this applies.
Sounds like grounds for divorce to ME.

Women on becoming 50 undergo well known changes. Men, especially balding men with high testosterone levels have trouble accepting this and seek lubricity assuming they do not have the imagination for first-aid at home. If they seek solace from commercial sources of sensation, and the sources are business like, as this one was, it becomes a simple transaction. However, if there is governmental interference in this process that is legal in 15 counties in Nevada, but not in New York or Washington, all Hell breaks loose. The results are inhuman and based on lipsmacking morality.
The lessons from this are:
The young woman involved was not a sex slave chatteled to a pimp and with no choice as to her work.
The former governor of New York did not have the imagination to visit the drugstore displays of lubricnt and similar aids.
The wife of the former Governor of New York did not have the gumption to negotiate a simple solution to their problems (no pun).
The entire matter is the result of a lack of communication and understanding in a life predicated by change. KY

Women on becoming 50 undergo well known changes. Men, especially balding men with high testosterone levels have trouble accepting this and seek lubricity assuming they do not have the imagination for first-aid at home. If they seek solace from commercial sources of sensation, and the sources are business like, as this one was, it becomes a simple transaction. However, if there is governmental interference in this process that is legal in 15 counties in Nevada, but not in New York or Washington, all Hell breaks loose. The results are inhuman and based on lipsmacking morality.
The lessons from this are:
The young woman involved was not a sex slave chatteled to a pimp and with no choice as to her work.
The former governor of New York did not have the imagination to visit the drugstore displays of lubricnt and similar aids.
The wife of the former Governor of New York did not have the gumption to negotiate a simple solution to their problems (no pun).
The entire matter is the result of a lack of communication and understanding in a life predicated by change. KY

What is your problem Ms. Sally Quinn? It is tough enough for this women to go through what she has gone through. This is hardly the place or the moment for Mrs. Spitzer to display her "I'm woman, hear me roar" antics. Have you ever felt betrayed by a love one? It is emotionally crushing. I think her action does not necessarily mean she's condoning his actions or that she is sending the wrong message to children. She is grace under pressure and no matter what her husband is still the children's father. You can't change that. I'd like to see you go up there and see how you behave under the same circumstances.

This column is disgusting. Shame on the Washington Post for ever allowing this hatchet job to see the light of day. Sally Quinn should be ashamed of herself.

Sally. Would you please be a contestant for "Moment of Truth?"

We would like to see you turn out.

I absolutely agree. I am so tired of seeing these defeated-looking women stand next to their morally-corrupt husbands; trying to appear strong. For once, I just want to see a wife slug her husband in the jaw on national television for humiliating and disrespecting her--and their family--like that.

When everyone does something there is a reason. All of these women stand beside their man - IN THE BEGINNING. They are in shock. Who should they believe? Do they suddenly hate the man they loved and assumed was faithful just yesterday?

I think it is unreasonable to expect the woman to forsake the husband immediately. What I do find sickening is that the man, if guilty as Spitzer obviously has admitted he is, would ask the woman to stand by him.

I completely agree with Sally. It does not set a good example for our younger female generation. And for those of you commenting that they have a lifetime of shared history, well it sure didn't mean that much to Spitzer. The only reason he has come forward and apologized is because he got caught. This was not a one time thing, it was ongoing and this illegal act would have continued if he had not gotten caught.

It is so easy to write story after story about why these women stood there with their husbands. The real fact is what would you do if you are in the same position and so much to lose especially when children are involved. every respectable woman would decide this behind closed door away from media securitny rather then make it a Jerry Springer show. I would very much like the media folks to think before using their pens wreking more havoc on this poor family. What wouold we do if we have to go through the same situation. Thier is whole lot at stake then what media wants to to see or write. Be sensible and compassionate then over zelous writers.

Don't you think, Ms Quinn, this was Mrs. Spitzer's decision to make and although different from what you would have done, was neither right or wrong in general but right for her.

You must think this only happens to the rich and famous and should follow some type of guide lines and rules. Look around, you will find adultry is a fairly common occurance. It is also a fairly frequent occurance that the wronged party in their final decision, remains along side the guilty, for many reasons but does indeed remain.

For whatever the reasoning of Mrs. Spitzer, it was her decision and despite the meat for a column, her actions in this situation is really none of your business. Her husband should draw attention because of his position and what he did, the basis of her reasoning, should not. You might try to use your column more constructly than an outlet for your own feelings.

She might just be on auto-pilot, for now.
There are many reasons people stick with a spouse through the hurt of various types: fear to politics to repression to love and forgiveness.

I echo dismay at the fact that men and women stay in abusive situations because of the pressure of social norms. However, I do not know this couple. I don't know if her husband is genuinely contrite, how much their relationship means to each other. Sometimes people love each other through their faults. I don't think there are a lot of unforgivable isolated sins. A habit, danger -- these are unforgivable in a sense. A waver, a romp, an emotionally-strained period, a fight -- these have many causes other than unforgivable, unrepairable problems. A marriage commitment can extend beyond a devastating blow for bad reasons, but it can also survive for good ones. I don't presume to know their hearts or their love. I wouldn't prescribe any course of action. I don't even suggest that all who "really" loved would forgive unfaithfulness. I'm not saying that at all. But I do say that this kind of forgiveness is possible. Amazing, too.

I agree with Sally. I have also wondered why wives stand next to their husbands in these situations. It is enabling them and making themselves look like stepford wives. Let him take the public humiliation in front of the cameras alone. It is said that power currupts...maybe it also corrupts the sensibilities of those close to the ones in power. I feel sorry for the wives

I agree with Sally. I have also wondered why wives stand next to their husbands in these situations. It is enabling them and making themselves look like stepford wives. Let him take the public humiliation in front of the cameras alone. It is said that power currupts...maybe it also corrupts the sensibilities of those close to the ones in power. I feel sorry for the wives

I agree with Sally. I have also wondered why wives stand next to their husbands in these situations. It is enabling them and making themselves look like stepford wives. Let him take the public humiliation in front of the cameras alone. It is said that power currupts...maybe it also corrupts the sensibilities of those close to the ones in power. I feel sorry for the wives

I am disappointed that Washington Post decided to publish another stupid article. You ought to ask this Sally to resign. How dare she put down Silda's decision to stand there beside her man. Like someone commented, Sally is a moron.

What a brainless twit you are, Ms Quinn. What does it take to get beyond your desire to write yet another clueless feminist tract and realize that when two adults spend the better part of their lives together, its sort of difficult to let each other twist in the wind, alone.

Let me put it another way, perhaps you will finally be able to get it. These two brainy, talented people have stored up half a lifetimes experiences, pain, sorrow and happiness together. Thats a lot of life lived together under one roof.

And raising three wonderful children into the bargain. Yet you willy nilly expect these wives to simply walk away and call their divorce lawyers. What happend to accepting each other through thick and thin? Through sickness and in health? What happened to the millions of mornings over coffee when excited plans are laid for the days ahead?

What happened to simply understanding each others weaknesses that have become apparent and perhaps more understandable over the years?

But, no, all that goes for aught in your Friedan playbook. You simply advocate not to show any compassion for your husbands, or wives, weaknesses, but are supposed to throw it all out the window for your feminist principle.

Nice lady you turned out to be. And writing your columns will help thousands of similarly unfortunate women to solve their problems easily. You should be ashamed.

Tony Gillotte

What a brainless twit you are, Ms Quinn. What does it take to get beyond your desire to write yet another clueless feminist tract and realize that when two adults spend the better part of their lives together, its sort of difficult to let each other twist in the wind, alone.

Let me put it another way, perhaps you will finally be able to get it. These two brainy, talented people have stored up half a lifetimes experiences, pain, sorrow and happiness together. Thats a lot of life lived together under one roof.

And raising three wonderful children into the bargain. Yet you willy nilly expect these wives to simply walk away and call their divorce lawyers. What happend to accepting each other through thick and thin? Through sickness and in health? What happened to the millions of mornings over coffee when excited plans are laid for the days ahead?

What happened to simply understanding each others weaknesses that have become apparent and perhaps more understandable over the years?

But, no, all that goes for aught in your Friedan playbook. You simply advocate not to show any compassion for your husbands, or wives, weaknesses, but are supposed to throw it all out the window for your feminist principle.

Nice lady you turned out to be. And writing your columns will help thousands of similarly unfortunate women to solve their problems easily. You should be ashamed.

Tony Gillotte

Ms. Quinn;

It is hard to say why any of these women do or don't say. I would have to agree with the writer who said that maybe she was putting the interest of their three daughters first. It would be much harder to deal with finding out what your Dad did at the same time as you find out your parents are separating.

It may still end in divorce. Unlike Hillary; who I believe was well aware of Bill's infidelity; Silda looks to be in shock.

Only time will tell how this will play out, but once he's gone from office, it really isn't our business.

As for why we don't see the reverse, it's simply a numbers game. There are many more men in politics than women. There was a time when the media would have let all of this go, nobody ever dared write something bad about JFK and his infidelity. However, times have changed and journalist know that if they're the first to report a "big story", they can make their career. I believe that the media would give a woman politician more privacy at this point, and thus, we'd be less likely to hear about it.

The same personality trait that drives men to power and control certainly drives those women in politics, and thus, it is unlikely that there are no females involved in extra-marital affairs.

What a brainless twit you are, Ms Quinn. What does it take to get beyond your desire to write yet another clueless feminist tract and realize that when two adults spend the better part of their lives together, its sort of difficult to let each other twist in the wind, alone.

Let me put it another way, perhaps you will finally be able to get it. These two brainy, talented people have stored up half a lifetimes experiences, pain, sorrow and happiness together. Thats a lot of life lived together under one roof.

And raising three wonderful children into the bargain. Yet you willy nilly expect these wives to simply walk away and call their divorce lawyers. What happend to accepting each other through thick and thin? Through sickness and in health? What happened to the millions of mornings over coffee when excited plans are laid for the days ahead?

What happened to simply understanding each others weaknesses that have become apparent and perhaps more understandable over the years?

But, no, all that goes for aught in your Friedan playbook. You simply advocate not to show any compassion for your husbands, or wives, weaknesses, but are supposed to throw it all out the window for your feminist principle.

Nice lady you turned out to be. And writing your columns will help thousands of similarly unfortunate women to solve their problems easily. You should be ashamed.

Tony Gillotte

Why in the world is this any of our business?

SCOTT - re: your comment "Adultery is a private matter between the adulterer and his or her spouse". this was not just adultery, this was paying for sex, which is a crime, which makes it a public matter.

Sally, I couldn't agree with you more and have felt the same way ever since this news broke. Thank you for speaking up.

Why in the world is this any of our business?

I am disappointed that Washington Post decided to publish another stupid article. You ought to ask this Sally to resign. How dare she put down Silda's decision to stand there beside her man. Like someone commented, Sally is a moron.

Ms Quinn--

How a couple deals with their problems is their business. Why she chose to stand by him and not dump him on the spot is none of (y)our business.

In any case, I don't think Silda Spitzer was humiliated in front of the cameras. She showed great dignity. I have great respect and admiration for the way she conducted herself. Her husband, on the other hand-- oh well...

I agree with Sally. I have also wondered why wives stand next to their husbands in these situations. It is enabling them and making themselves look like stepford wives. Let him take the public humiliation in front of the cameras alone. It is said that power currupts...maybe it also corrupts the sensibilities of those close to the ones in power. I feel sorry for the wives.

I agree with Sally. I have also wondered why wives stand next to their husbands in these situations. It is enabling them and making themselves look like stepford wives. Let him take the public humiliation in front of the cameras alone. It is said that power currupts...maybe it also corrupts the sensibilities of those close to the ones in power. I feel sorry for the wives.

Sally, Sally, Sally...coming from you, this is hypocritical in the extreme. Ben Bradlee was married when you took up with him--and now you take it upon yourself to pass judgment on a wronged wife? Give me a break.

Ms. Quinn. I have a favor to ask you. Can you be a contestant for "The Moment of Truth?" Please?

"..How do you think those vunerable young girls must feel? Well...SHE is thinking of that...."

Too bad she wasn't thinking about the terrible and misguided example she's provided for her girls in regard to requiring respect and loyalty from a life partner. Her husband's extramarital dalliances are of a very private nature in regards to the impact on the family; why not let him manage his public reputation on his own, and deal with their private issues privately? Why show her girls that she has no self-respect by acting as a public buffer for a man who betrayed her and his children?

No comments, but perhaps check out Free Republic's take:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985664/posts

Sally:

Would a man in the position Silda Spitzer found herself in behave the same way? Maybe this is less a gender issue and more a personal family issue. Far be it for any of us to know why a spouse of either sex would stand by while the minutiae of their partner's indiscretions are publicly displayed. Perhaps there is more to it that what meets the eye.

I have wondered the same thing--why would she stand there repeatedly, looking like she had been drug through a knot-hole.

After a while I began to wonder if she didn't look more like she had bee drugged.

Then it struck me!

She is getting ready to run for Governor! Executive Experience! 3 A.M. calls! The works!

It all fits.

What a nasty column to write about a woman who is already having a hard time. Maybe the message she wanted to send to her daughters wasn't "stand by your man even when he's a jerk," but "whatever we end up doing in the next weeks and months, our family is still together TODAY." That's kind of important for a kid to know.

How perfect to hold up the "marriage vows"...love, honor, forgiveness, family...can anyone tell me what was Spitzer thinking ...it is painfully obvious that he is human and that he made a mistake...the mistake on his part was getting caught - had he not, would he be sorry to his wife and family. Sorry, for those who don't agree with Sally...I'm really sorry.

I'm sorry that the implication that maybe a woman should expect just as much from her husband as is expected of her.

And for the record, how many men have stood up next to their adulterous wives in the midst of public humiliation and disappointment?

The example that we are setting for young girls and young men is what exactly?

I can honestly say that I don't understand any of this analysis, it's as if Sally Quinn missed the point by a mile.

I believe the phrase is "Hubris" describe the actions of individuals who commit actions similar to those like Mr. Spitzer.

I believe Ms Quinn suffers from the same disease. They who sit in judgement of others and cast dispersions on others or their actions, without knowing them or their thoughts mmmmmm how good it must feel to be in such a position. The power of the pen.

Oh I am sure if Ms Quinn was questioned on this, her answer, given oh so humbly, I was just trying to help.

Those who sit up on their throne and proclaim the truth [for others]...what do they know about the truth! Nothing

I agree that we cannot speculate too far about why Silda stood there, but I have another question: if it had been Silda who was in the unfortunate position of having to admit to the whole world her indiscretions (or Hillary, or whoever), how would we expect the husband to respond? Would we still be saying "Til death do us part," or "his strength is in staying," or would we be cheering his decision to leave?
Before we throw stones at anyone (wife, husband, media commentator), we need to look at all angles.

I agree that we cannot speculate too far about why Silda stood there, but I have another question: if it had been Silda who was in the unfortunate position of having to admit to the whole world her indiscretions (or Hillary, or whoever), how would we expect the husband to respond? Would we still be saying "Til death do us part," or "his strength is in staying," or would we be cheering his decision to leave?
Before we throw stones at anyone (wife, husband, media commentator), we need to look at all angles.

Have you people watched the TV program "Moment of Truth?" Does it only single out men as the evil ones but yet the reality is there are women as well.

Sally, it seemed as if you know everything about us men and but yet in denial of women.

Please give us men a break because there are "still a lot of good men."

What an entirely misguided column. Maybe Silda just loves her husband despite the fact that he cheated on her. As far as the message it sends, I don't see how any young man would think it okay to engage in similar conduct after seeing Spitzer's fate. I mean, what is so appealing about being humiliated on national tv and ruining your poliical career. If anything, it shows young men that there are severe consequences for this type of thing. How dare you judge Silda Spitzer so harshly. Not every decision a women makes should be judged through your feminist lense. She doesn't owe you anything.

I'm glad someone has finally brought this up. It is amazing to me that women continue to send this message out. It is interesting also that this same theme hasn't been picked up on during the current presidential nomination process regarding the Clinton's.

Bless you for writing this article...I completely agree! What in the world was she thinking?

This is a great piece. While I hesitate to pile on Silda Spitzer during what must be an excruciating difficult time in her life, I've asked these same types of questions myself.

Talk about "blame the victim!' Isn't it enough that this woman has to be humiliated in front of the entire world, without people going after her as well? Regardless of what she does, she's not the one who was out there with a prostitute.

Should she dump him? Yes, but maybe she just can't believe what he did to her. Maybe she is so hurt, so depressed, so devastated that she needs some time and support to make any kind of decision at all. Maybe he tells her he loves her every day, brings her coffee in the morning, worries about her when she is sick--and she just can't reconcile that person with the one who is standing there telling the world he "betrayed his family."

You love someone for years and years. They are the closest person to you. You vowed to be with him forever. He is not a political statement to you. He is not "society." He is just him and you look at him and you can't believe he loved you so little that he would do this.

I think this woman's situation is heartbreaking. In time she will be able to mentally separate from him and decide to change things--probably leave. But for now, lets give her a break.
Robin

Yes yes, true. A needed and well written piece. Nonetheless, I might have done the same as Ms Spitzer. A spouse is entitled to this option too. And so what. And here’s why. First, the political spouse playing the prop role is changing (Dr. Dean in the last election cycle). It’s an exaggeration that American women have not advance much beyond 3rd world patriarchy societies. There would be enormous support for Silda Wall Spitzer if she did not attend the press conferences. Second, the supposed separation of public and private lives is simplistic. Marriage in itself is a public institution. We don’t ask why the wife stands next to the husband when he is inaugurated. Attending the penultimate and ultimate press conferences may be the path of least resistance for her. It brings closure to this particular political role she has played, whatever that is. She end runs the alternative of not showing up and the pressures of the press to “make good copy” of her reaction. She’s not ready to shoot first and ask questions later. She moves on to dealing with the matter in private vein and the world knows it.

I do not agree that it does send a message to boys that it is OK to behave in this way. Except for Clinton, no politician disgraced this way ever made it back to his former position.

Clinton's path to redemption was so difficult that very, very few men could have resurrected their careers after doing what he did.

These men have been punished sufficiently, in the court of law, the court of public opinion and in the eyes of their families.

I agreed with the column up until the final paragraphs. The wife shouldn't feel obligated or pressured to support her husband in this scenario, but she also doesn't have a moral obligation to leave, either. We put way too much stock in the decisions of high-profile people sending messages to kids. It's a personal decision, and there's a reason they call it "personal." Just because you're a public figure doesn't mean you lose the right to make decisions based on free will.

....for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health.......

I consider myself to be a competent woman. I have a successful career and private life. Why do we stand by men---because that's what marriage vows are for. You either take them seriously or you don't. For better or for worse--works both ways. I personally think it is a powerful quality in a woman to forgive. Just because the more powerful make more powerful errors we all make errors to some degree and would hopefully be forgiven.He may turn out to be the better man after all this. Why break up a family without the effort of trying? All too easily marraiges are ruined by knee jerk reactions to a situation.Give her time to adjust and then see what she does. I think we are too quick to judge--both Spitzer and his wife.

Whether she stays with her husband or not is her business. But she doesn't have to stand next to him and take the humiliation if she stays with him. These are two separate things. If he were my husband, even if we were staying together, I would say this press conference is yours and yours alone.

sally is for revenge~

why not have 'him'stand alone.

these wives are the winners...they have compassion.

She is trying to do something for someone other than herself. You may not be able to fathom this but clearly Mrs. Spitzer is concerned how this public humiliation will affect her three young daughters who are also "casualties" in this.

How do you think those vunerable young girls must feel? Well...SHE is thinking of that. Perhaps a few members of the press should think about that, too.

Other than that, it's NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS why she's does what she does.

I wonder why noone considers the fact that Silda Spitzer may actually have been (gasp) AWARE of her husband's dalliances. We have no idea about the private arrangements inside anyone's marriage....

I wonder why noone considers the fact that Silda Spitzer may actually have been (gasp) AWARE of her husband's dalliances. We have no idea about the private arrangements inside anyone's marriage....

I wonder why noone considers the fact that Silda Spitzer may actually have been (gasp) AWARE of her husband's dalliances. We have no idea about the private arrangements inside anyone's marriage....

She is trying to do something for someone other than herself. You may not be able to fathom this but clearly Mrs. Spitzer is concerned how this public humiliation will affect her three young daughters who are also "casualties" in this.

How do you think those vunerable young girls must feel? Well...SHE is thinking of that. Perhaps a few members of the press should think about that, too.

Other than that, it's NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS why she's does what she does.

She is trying to do something for someone other than herself. You may not be able to fathom this but clearly Mrs. Spitzer is concerned how this public humiliation will affect her three young daughters who are also "casualties" in this.

How do you think those vunerable young girls must feel? Well...SHE is thinking of that. Perhaps a few members of the press should think about that, too.

Other than that, it's NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS why she's does what she does.

At age 84 I can tell you that the women of my generation would have done as these women did and suffered many more indignities but still "stood by her man" - I had hoped that would change with the feminist movement and although so much has improved,I agree with Sally that this "standby" behavior when a leader embarrases himself and his family has to stop.

Another netcitizen has suggested this as a rationale .

I believe this is a tactic to establish plausible deniabiliity, just in case the husband happens to take out the garbage some night, trip over the cat on the back porch, lose his balance, do a double-flip off the top step, and land smack dab on top of three .38 bullets that just happen to be passing through the neighborhood. At least, that's why I'd do it.

No, let's not drop it. Again, ask yourself this: if a woman whom you loved and respected (your mom, your daughter, your sister, your best friend) came to you and confessed that she'd just learned her husband had been sleeping with prostitutes for YEARS behind her back, and that he now wanted her at his side during an upcoming company gala where he intended to cop to his crimes - would you advise her to stand by him, or would you advise her to seek the guidance of a divorce lawyer immediately? Seriously. Think about it.

No, let's not drop it. Again, ask yourself this: if a woman whom you loved and respected (your mom, your daughter, your sister, your best friend) came to you and confessed that she'd just learned her husband had been sleeping with prostitutes for YEARS behind her back, and that he now wanted her at his side during an upcoming company gala where he intended to cop to his crimes - would you advise her to stand by him, or would you advise her to seek the guidance of a divorce lawyer immediately? Seriously. Think about it.

what he did is obviously wrong, and it is fair to criticize him. it is also natural to speculate on why she stood by him at his press conferences. but to presume to know why she stood by him and to criticize her for it is not fair. unless you know the facts (and even if you do, for that matter), please save us the arrogant moralism.

She a women that loves her husband and family. Even the opinion maker of the this article has sin because we all have sin and come short of the glory of God. What makes her strong is she stood beside her spouse. What people really need to stop doing is Judging people and take a look at themselves. Thank God he is the Judge and that he is a forgiving God. Sad thing about people they go to Church on Sunday and don't hear anything that is being said. The word forgive goes a long way. Be a Christian is not just words it living it. If you fall pick yourself back up because God will forgive you if you are sincere in repenting. Cast the first stone if you never sin.

Adultery is a private matter between the adulterer and his or her spouse. How they choose to handle it is entirely their own business. Probably few marriages today haven't encountered adultery on the part of one or both spouses at some point, especially in the upper circles of business and politics. If they choose to stay together and work through it, then more power to them. Isn't that what "family values" are all about?

I think this is pretty harsh. I just came across this, so I'm not familiar with the writer. She says that she's been writing about this for decades, but throughout that time did she ever talk to the women she's blasting? I mean, maybe she did, I don't know, but that should be made clear before she blogs about people's personal decisions. These kind of judgments and assertions are better received with some empirical evidence to back it up. That said, my overall assessment of this piece is that it's annoying and judgmental. It looks like American women are also quick to criticize each other...

Well it's a message the Democratic party sure supports when they have Hillary Clinton as their potential candidate for Pres. of the United States. Talk about sending a strong message to young girls " to be lied to, cheated on, disrespected and humiliated in public. You take it and must still be supportive (of Bill 'BJ' Clinton). because that is what is expected of women. "

The suggestion that the correct response to a husband's infidelity is to publicly denounce him and then file for divorce seems to me to be more of a problem than the "problem" of women remaining married under these circumstances. Are we trying to teach our children that we should cut and run when marriage gets difficult? I think that the women in the article (Silda, Hillary, et al) are secure enough to recognize that no one is without flaws, and to realize that you love a person with their flaws, not in spite of them. I find this consistent with their education and intelligence, and admire them for their apparent ability to love the sinner whilst hating the sin.

Right on! I totally agree. It's sickening and humiliating to see this happen even if the cheater is rich and/or powerful. I would take the bastard for every cent possible -- after I kicked him to the curb.

Is it possible that the wife was there on her own accord to support the husband in his time of need? Think of a parent who wants to see his/her child apologize for doing something wrong.

Second... I don't think the message to the children is that the wife has to accept a philandering husband. I think a message could be that the husband and wife are a team and that there is such thing as love and there is forgiveness. For Silda, there is no shame that the former gov had hookers. That's his problem.

Answer:
"Untill death do we part"

Answer:
"Untill death do we part"

Amen sister!

how would leaving him be 'morally correct'? In one belief practice does that work, Vindictivianity?

Here's what I would like to see. You and every other busybody leaving the issue, and particularly the family, alone.

Just drop it.

Ms. Quinn, you have NO right to criticize Ms. Spitzer. How she chooses to handle this situation is her business and nobody else's -- certainly not yours.

Whatever she is doing, she is doing it for her kids. She's a big girl, she knows she can deal with the rest of the wreckage later, but right now a tornado has flattened her house and she is doing what is best for her kids.

Sorry to comment on the comments...but...we have a few folks implying that Sptizer strayed because his wife was not having sex with him. While we can't know this, here's what we can know. Sexual compulsion/addiction is no different than alcohol and drug addiction. Doesn't matter if the partner is offering sex standing on her hands or swinging from the proverbial chandelier. This is a compultion/addictive behavior. People don't use drugs or alcohol because they don't get what they need at home. A sex addict's addiction is to the rush of sex from the forbidden. I doubt the U.S. is even capable of a conversation that recognizes sexual compulsions as addictive behavior. After all, addiction to drugs and alcohol and trips to rehap have only recently begun to be acceptable for public figures. (Had Sptizer not prosecuted other prostitution rings, he might have begun this public acceptance by announcing his addiction to sex--and going to rehabilitation...what a positive move that would have been for opening public dialogue.) To implicate the partner in this matter is the ultimate misogyny. A drug addict uses drugs because he or she is an addict. A sex addict uses people for the same reason.

Sorry to comment on the comments...but...we have a few folks implying that Sptizer strayed because his wife was not having sex with him. While we can't know this, here's what we can know. Sexual compulsion/addiction is no different than alcohol and drug addiction. Doesn't matter if the partner is offering sex standing on her hands or swinging from the proverbial chandelier. This is a compultion/addictive behavior. People don't use drugs or alcohol because they don't get what they need at home. A sex addict's addiction is to the rush of sex from the forbidden. I doubt the U.S. is even capable of a conversation that recognizes sexual compulsions as addictive behavior. After all, addiction to drugs and alcohol and trips to rehap have only recently begun to be acceptable for public figures. (Had Sptizer not prosecuted other prostitution rings, he might have begun this public acceptance by announcing his addiction to sex--and going to rehabilitation...what a positive move that would have been for opening public dialogue.) To implicate the partner in this matter is the ultimate misogyny. A drug addict uses drugs because he or she is an addict. A sex addict uses people for the same reason.

Sorry to comment on the comments...but...we have a few folks implying that Sptizer strayed because his wife was not having sex with him. While we can't know this, here's what we can know. Sexual compulsion/addiction is no different than alcohol and drug addiction. Doesn't matter if the partner is offering sex standing on her hands or swinging from the proverbial chandelier. This is a compultion/addictive behavior. People don't use drugs or alcohol because they don't get what they need at home. A sex addict's addiction is to the rush of sex from the forbidden. I doubt the U.S. is even capable of a conversation that recognizes sexual compulsions as addictive behavior. After all, addiction to drugs and alcohol and trips to rehap have only recently begun to be acceptable for public figures. (Had Sptizer not prosecuted other prostitution rings, he might have begun this public acceptance by announcing his addiction to sex--and going to rehabilitation...what a positive move that would have been for opening public dialogue.) To implicate the partner in this matter is the ultimate misogyny. A drug addict uses drugs because he or she is an addict. A sex addict uses people for the same reason.

Excellent. However you forgot, Mrs. Kwame Brown (Wife of the Mayor of Detriot)

Maybe marriage vows trump scandal and humiliation. If you promise during the wedding to stay in the union through "better and worse," then that includes hooker scandals, involuntary removal from high office, possible disbarment, scars to children, disgrace to the extended family, etc. The lesson--that terrible and easily avoided things happen even to those with the best education, wealth, and high office but we still honor the marriage vows--is the best lesson for children. I think of my own parents' marriage--it was unhappy but they stuck it out, and I'm glad they did.

I agree with you, completely. What is it with these women? Do they think we admire them, when they stand there, ashen-faced?

The excuse was that women were not able to support themselves, when they left their husbands. But that is not true in these cases. Most of them are accomplished lawyers and could easily survive. I have defended Hillary, but no longer. She just stood by for her own gain. As for Silda, the sooner she leaves that jerk the better. It would be a good role model for the younger generation.

Finally, at last, Lord Almighty, at last! Thank you Ms. Quinn for saying what has been begging to be said and doing it so well!
What an excellent commentary on this subject.

Do these women, who seem only too willing to plant themselves by their "man" realize how demoralizing and disheartening it is to see them involved in this gallingly, enabling, way?

In my view, women who overtly support their 'rotten apple' husbands are simply enablers, text book examples of the much discussed battered-wife syndrome that we all read about a number of years ago, in an effort to try to understand why women who are abused (sometimes, to death) return to the men who hurt them so.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind as the classic example of how tangled these moral and ethical situations can get.
Firstly, there she was on 60 Minutes, blathering on about how SHE is not like Tammy Fraye ... baking cookies, etc, then we see nothing but the most egregious fawning over her husband when he was found out not only to have a long history of faithless conduct, but continued in the same manner in our Oval Office!
(At least E. Spitzer went to a hotel!)

Now we see her running for pres. supported by very aggressive women who claim she is the model of the "independent woman"
who by the way, just happens to have her husband out there, using his supposed rock-star popularity to, crudley put, shill for her. Vot a mess ... such hypocrisy.

It has been noted a number of times that Jack Kennedy, had he been re-elected to a second term, might have been impeached for his adulterous conduct if during that time, he had been found out.

I agree with you, completely. What is it with these women? Do they think we admire them, when they stand there, ashen-faced?

The excuse was that women were not able to support themselves, when they left their husbands. But that is not true in these cases. Most of them are accomplished lawyers and could easily survive. I have defended Hillary, but no longer. She just stood by for her own gain. As for Silda, the sooner she leaves that jerk the better. It would be a good role model for the younger generation.

There are about 260 comments to this article right now, so perhaps this point has been made already, but the very first paragraph of Sally's column says:

"Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the politician up there at the lectern sweating bullets, apologizing for letting down his wife and family . . . alone?"

When Bill Clinton acknowledged in a televised address to the nation that he had had an "inappropriate" relationship with Monica Lewinsky (an address that had a particularly huge audience because it was both in prime time and announced in advance), he was alone. Obviously Hillary Clinton did not "issue her own statement saying that what he had done was unacceptable and that she was leaving him," as Sally wishes for in the next paragraph of the column, but the fact remains that Hillary wasn't there when Bill confessed. So I think the "once, just once" plea falls victim to short memories.

I have noticed, forever, now, how the men are always dragging out the wifey to share in their plateful of humilitaton and I really do not ask why the wives do it nor do I think that is the important aspect of this kind of situation. I think the more important aspect of this kind of situation is that the MEN never say NO...I am going to handle this on my own. They always let their wife share in their downfall but gee somehow they never ask them to share in the "fun" they had before they got caught. Intersting, no?

And I think this is very telling difference between men and women. Women would take the fall "all by their lonesome," but when was the last time you saw a man do it?

I am not interested in what the "innocent" party does or doesn't do, as far as I am concerned, she deserves all the room she needs to handle the situation in anyway she feels will help her and her family...these situation are never about "victims" they are always and only just about the MEN who VICTIMIZE. Got It?

Sally, although this is a well written article, I could tell you this almost trite saying, "To err is human, to forgive divine," I can cite to you a more lovely one by John Sheffield, "The truest love they seldom prove, who free from quarrels live; 'tis the most tender part of love, each other to forgive." If only either of the partners can have the magnanimity of heart, coming from the reservoir of love in our inner being, how wonderful indeed will the world be. But then, revenge has taken over in those who cannot see the word, forgiveness. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned, eh? But, "revenge is the poor delight of little minds!" Maybe we should just leave revenge that is reserved to God.

I do not think it is fair to judge these wives on their behavior at the onset of such a catastrophe. During the initial shock of losing so much all at once, their minds and emotions may not have caught up with each other. Some of these wives may even feel that they are guilty for failing their husbands and family in some way and that their husband's failure is a reflection on themselves, so they need to be punished as well. Eventually they may snap out of that stupor, but a long time family relationship is so intricately meshed together it doesn't all fall apart in a moment in time. They are sort of acting on auto.

I do not think it is fair to judge these wives on their behavior at the onset of such a catastrophe. During the initial shock of losing so much all at once, their minds and emotions may not have caught up with each other. Some of these wives may even feel that they are guilty for failing their husbands and family in some way and that their husband's failure is a reflection on themselves, so they need to be punished as well. Eventually they may snap out of that stupor, but a long time family relationship is so intricately meshed together it doesn't all fall apart in a moment in time. They are sort of acting on auto.

What was happening, or more likely not happening, in the Spitzer bedroom to cause the husband to stray?

Sally, although this is a well written article, I could tell you this almost trite saying, "To err is human, to forgive divine," I can cite to you a more lovely one by John Sheffield, "The truest love they seldom prove, who free from quarrels live; 'tis the most tender part of love, each other to forgive." If only either of the partners can have the magnanimity of heart, coming from the reservoir of love in our inner being, how wonderful indeed will the world be. But then, revenge has taken over in those who cannot see the word, forgiveness. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned, eh? But, "revenge is the poor delight of little minds!" Maybe we should just leave revenge that is reserved to God.

"..Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the wife issuing her own statement saying that what he had done was unacceptable and that she was leaving him?" Yes, YES!!!! Instead, what Silda's demonstrated to her own impressionable young daughters and countless other women is that it's a woman's (misplaced) duty to stand by her man no matter how much he has publicly and privately humiliated her and betrayed their marital vows. Ask yourself this: if a woman whom you loved and respected (your mom, your sister, your best friend) came to you and confessed that she'd just learned her husband had been sleeping with prostitutes for YEARS behind her back, and that he now wanted her at his side during an upcoming company gala where he intended to cop to his crimes - would you advise her to do so, or would you advise her to seek the guidance of a divorce lawyer immediately? Seriously.

"American women are so quick to criticize the religious tradition of others, where women take a subservient position"

That's the problem, I haven't heard a peep from womens organization like NOW condeming Muslims here or abroad for the misoyny they display to their women or even any condemnation for things like honor killings that are routinely done all over the world. That's fine with them because it part of their culture and of course Muslims are above all criticism.

We must not judge these women too harshly. We do not know what has been going on in their private lives. Perhaps they love each other but no longer participate in sexual activity. She may not want sex anymore but still loves him or his money and position. She may be relieved when he steps out for a night of "fun." People who have been married for many years often allow "open marriage" so that the more active partner does not remain frustrated. I think we are making a total hullaballoo over nothing.

You could have included many of the Kennedy women and Mrs. King.

Since the titile of the series is call "On Faith" it seems surprising the Sally Quinn ascribes the support these women are giving to their husbands solely to their attraction the power and position. There is this little thing called "marriage vows" that is totally left out of Quinn's analysis. When I married 32 years ago I promised to take my husband for better or for worse, till death do we part. I believed that then and I believe it now. People are human, people make mistakes, and the people who love them support them even when they fall. I do no know what goes on inside the marriage of anyone else and do not presume to know why these women choose to support their husbands and try to rebuilt their marriages. While Ms. Quinn thinks it tells girls that the are expected to publically humiliate themselves, I think it tells young girls that marriage is not always easy or fun but when you make a promise to someone you keep it. I fink it ironic that Ms. Quinn, who met and became involved with her husband while he was still married would judge these women so harshly.

Whether Silda of Hillary or others like them, these are smart, secure, brilliant women who understand that a successful life involves compromising, non-binary positions to make family life work out. These women are the true feminists, those who consider their husbands philandering as pointing to his failings, not theirs. Why blow up their family life with a man they may love but who may be seriously flawed? Just to prove that they are pure and strong and guided by moralistic judgement rather than by love, forgiveness and the reality that life and love is complex.

This is why I simply cannot understand those who criticize Hillary for staying with her husband, sugegsting that closeness to power was the driving force. The reality is that she is smart, realistic, and loves her husband despite his substantial flaws. Is it better to take a stand or live a life?

As a memeber of the "special ladis club" of woman who have had their lives devastated by there husband's "bad choices" I would like to speak up for Silda.
Why does no one understand that she is in shock and denial after her husband has pulled the rug out from under her and her cherished family ???
She has sustained a major body blow and is running on automatic to survive the harrowing experience.
Her system can only let in so much of the ugly truth. She us trying to hod on to her former life which is imploding all around her.
In time she will figure out what has to be done in the mean time she needs kindness and understanding .

As a memeber of the "special ladis club" of woman who have had their lives devastated by there husband's "bad choices" I would like to speak up for Silda.
Why does no one understand that she is in shock and denial after her husband has pulled the rug out from under her and her cherished family ???
She has sustained a major body blow and is running on automatic to survive the harrowing experience.
Her system can only let in so much of the ugly truth. She us trying to hod on to her former life which is imploding all around her.
In time she will figure out what has to be done in the mean time she needs kindness and understanding .

Since the titile of the series is call "On Faith" it seems surprising the Sally Quinn ascribes the support these women are giving to their husbands solely to their attraction the power and position. There is this little thing called "marriage vows" that is totally left out of Quinn's analysis. When I married 32 years ago I promised to take my husband for better or for worse, till death do we part. I believed that then and I believe it now. People are human, people make mistakes, and the people who love them support them even when they fall. I do no know what goes on inside the marriage of anyone else and do not presume to know why these women choose to support their husbands and try to rebuilt their marriages. While Ms. Quinn thinks it tells girls that the are expected to publically humiliate themselves, I think it tells young girls that marriage is not always easy or fun but when you make a promise to someone you keep it. I fink it ironic that Ms. Quinn, who met and became involved with her husband while he was still married would judge these women so harshly.

Because forgiveness is the first step to healing, Sally.

Why do you think that punishment, "consequences" as you put it, must come from outside? The Governor is thoroughly humiliated, and can see the pain he has caused on the face of his wife, every day.

Because, when everyone is against someone you love, the kindest act may be to remind them that they are loved.

I don't know if that was Silda's motive, and she really needn't have come to the press conference. But if she stands as a symbol of forgiveness, then that is a good thing.

Your statement, "Why would a guy with a ... beautiful and brainy wife ... risk losing everything for a couple of evenings with a hooker."

Please don't forget that many beautiful and brainy wives, when they hit middle age, totally lose interest in sex and turn away their husbands. I know many contemporaries who stray and it is wholly due to such cause.

I am not trying to exonerate Spitzer -- he is getting everything he deserves -- but when an man says, "my wife doesn't understand me" to the hooker or the mistress, it usually means two very simple things. She has turned off in bed, or she doesn't respect him for who he is.

Its none of Sally Quinns business and its none of our business

Hello,

Why would it be morally correct for Mrs. Spitzer (or any humiliated and wronged wife) to hold a separate news conference announcing she's leaving her husband because of his dalliances? I hope that is not the definition of morality today...to immediately call for a separation/break up of a marriage. While I will never condone adultery in a way shape or form, we must realize that a lot of people take, "for better or worse" very seriously. They also take, "what God has put together, let no man put asunder," equally seriously. I can't speak for the religiousness of this particular family, but just making a point as to why some women are willing to stand by their men.

My heart goes out to these women who have to face public humiliation for the deeds of their husbands and I agree that it does send a message to girls and boys about women and men's roles. But ultimately, it is not up to us to decide the course of action a family takes in a situation like this. Often times, trying to heal a marriage is easier than the consequences of divorce.

She made a marriage vow "...for better, for worse..."

That's why I'm still single...

oh please, you're ignoring the obvious answer (and the one that has led to a democratic presidential candidate.) Women can be attracted to power too, and 49 seconds of humiliation is a small price to pay for the ability to start climbing the political ladder on your own.

so true. great article

To even think about equating what Mrs. Spitzer did with Taliban women is ridiculous. Last time I checked women could be killed for wearing makeup...and entire villages were slaughtered for not adhering to Sharia law. Nice try.

Maybe their marriage was over long ago, but they stayed together for the kids. Maybe she cheated on HIM years ago. You have no idea what went on behind closed doors, so stop putting yourself up on a moral high horse.

Yes, it is hard to understand how a woman can stand with her cheating husband at the mea culpa press conference. But you must acknowledge that there is a difference when there are children involved. Standing by the husband, even if it's only in the immediate aftermath of the scandal, may very well be done to support the father of one's children, and by extension the children themselves, not for the husband. So let's not presume that Silda Spitzer wants to continue her "derivative power" - her motivation may be far more noble. And maybe she actually loves this flawed human being who betrayed her - would you not agree it is her right - her feminist right - to choose to support him? If she wants to stay married to him, as hard as that is to imagine from an outside perspective, it is her right to do so. Nto at all like a mandatory burqa covering or a funeral pyre suicide.

Agreed. While the Spitzer marriage is their private business, I cannot understand how anybody can stand beside their spouse and be publicly humiliated after being treated like dirt by them. Eliot Spitzer's actions were abusive, not in the physical sense but emotionally and nobody would expect his wife to stand by his side after suffering a beating.

I agree with the comment regarding Hilary Clinton and will not vote for her for the same reason. She too stood by her husband after years of repeated trangressions with other women. How anybody could put up with that kind of abuse for so long is beyond puzzling. If she is willing to put up with this type of behavior from her own husband over and over and over again it makes you wonder what else she will put up with.

Yes, it is hard to understand how a woman can stand with her cheating husband at the mea culpa press conference. But you must acknowledge that there is a difference when there are children involved. Standing by the husband, even if it's only in the immediate aftermath of the scandal, may very well be done to support the father of one's children, and by extension the children themselves, not for the husband. So let's not presume that Silda Spitzer wants to continue her "derivative power" - her motivation may be far more noble. And maybe she actually loves this flawed human being who betrayed her - would you not agree it is her right - her feminist right - to choose to support him? If she wants to stay married to him, as hard as that is to imagine from an outside perspective, it is her right to do so. Nto at all like a mandatory burqa covering or a funeral pyre suicide.

Sally -- you'll probably get some extra attention for your hard line perspective, but who are you to say what the right, best choice is for women in these circumstances? I've come to understand marriage and the inevitable human failings that are part of it, as worthy of the *choice* of commitment through thick and thin. That doesn't mean anything goes, but think of what Silda is going through and how quickly things have transpired. She may yet leave him, but that's not the choice she's made at this time. Are you really so sure of everything you would do if it were you?

SORRY i did not mean to SPAM the BOARD! there are much better comments than mine: one would suffice! obviously i couldn't figure out how to post properly

It's possible that Silda was thinking soley of three extremely distraught daughters who needed some sense of stability right now, and not of being "enamored by power" or what message she might or might not be sending to other families. But I guess you know a lot better than me.

Silda Spitzer has enormous choice here. However, she might want more than a few hours notice to consider her options and make her choice(s).

No one knows what goes on in a marriage. Speculating is a type of voyeurism.

Finally, some people understand that a family is bigger than the individuals who comprise it. Again, there is choice. Do you subjugate your needs for the greater good of your family or do you satisfy your needs and minimize that which is greater than yourself? Different people make different decisions.

This continuing interest in the Spitzer family after Mr. Spitzer's resignation seems more motivated by voyeurism and the indirect opportunity it provides to question Sen. Clinton's decision to stay married to her husband than by its newsworthiness.

These are complex, private decisions and none of this is any of our business.

Silda Spitzer has enormous choice here. However, she might want more than a few hours notice to consider her options and make her choice(s).

No one knows what goes on in a marriage. Speculating is a type of voyeurism.

Finally, some people understand that a family is bigger than the individuals who comprise it. Again, there is choice. Do you subjugate your needs for the greater good of your family or do you satisfy your needs and minimize that which is greater than yourself? Different people make different decisions.

This continuing interest in the Spitzer family after Mr. Spitzer's resignation seems more motivated by voyeurism and the indirect opportunity it provides to question Sen. Clinton's decision to stay married to her husband than by its newsworthiness.

These are complex, private decisions and none of this is any of our business.

After 27 years of marriage, my wife would have spit on me in front of the cameras.

Silda Spitzer has enormous choice here. However, she might want more than a few hours notice to consider her options and make her choice(s).

No one knows what goes on in a marriage. Speculating is a type of voyeurism.

Finally, some people understand that a family is bigger than the individuals who comprise it. Again, there is choice. Do you subjugate your needs for the greater good of your family or do you satisfy your needs and minimize that which is greater than yourself? Different people make different decisions.

This continuing interest in the Spitzer family after Mr. Spitzer's resignation seems more motivated by voyeurism and the indirect opportunity it provides to question Sen. Clinton's decision to stay married to her husband than by its newsworthiness.

These are complex, private decisions and none of this is any of our business.

I'll give another reason Silda Spitzer may have stood by her husband: she loves him. She forgives him. She's aware of her own baseness before God and that his sins are worse by human standards but she and we all fall equally short of the glory of God.
She has a family with him. She is nobly teaching her daughters a much greater truth than the falsity of "self-esteem" the feminist world offers. She is teaching her daughters, and those in the public who will learn, that God's greatness is best defined by His mercy. He could condemn us all. And well we would deserve it. But we hope for mercy. Should we not give it?
Out of love, Silda Spitzer teaches us to forgive, to get up in humility and start again after our falls from grace, to love. She is a model for all women of intellect. She is a paragon of femininity in a public of shrews. She is the quintessential First Lady. I wish we had an entire generation of her type. Let her daughters and mine grow up to be such LADIES. And let her husband be grateful every hour of the day that God has endowed him with that gift. I hope she endures and has as merciful a heart toward HER persecutors, who so ironically have much to learn from her.

I'll give another reason Silda Spitzer may have stood by her husband: she loves him. She forgives him. She's aware of her own baseness before God and that his sins are worse by human standards but she and we all fall equally short of the glory of God.
She has a family with him. She is nobly teaching her daughters a much greater truth than the falsity of "self-esteem" the feminist world offers. She is teaching her daughters, and those in the public who will learn, that God's greatness is best defined by His mercy. He could condemn us all. And well we would deserve it. But we hope for mercy. Should we not give it?
Out of love, Silda Spitzer teaches us to forgive, to get up in humility and start again after our falls from grace, to love. She is a model for all women of intellect. She is a paragon of femininity in a public of shrews. She is the quintessential First Lady. I wish we had an entire generation of her type. Let her daughters and mine grow up to be such LADIES. And let her husband be grateful every hour of the day that God has endowed him with that gift. I hope she endures and has as merciful a heart toward HER persecutors, who so ironically have much to learn from her.

Perhaps Silda stuck by him -- for the moment at least -- because the Spitzer family is said to be worth half-billion dollars. And money talks.

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiction, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

Perhaps Silda stuck by him -- for the moment at least -- because the Spitzer family is said to be worth half-billion dollars. And money talks.

Sally,

A marriage, especially a long marriage including chilren, is as complex as the people involved. I would have thought a lot less of Mrs. Spitzer if she didn't stand by her husband. They will settle what's between them, but you don't kick your husband and your children's father when he's down. For all the talk about dsecency, I think Silda Spitzer reflects both decency and dignity. Who are you to direct any woman, wife, mother on her "feminist" duties? Noone can can do that, but the couple involved.

Sally,

A marriage, especially a long marriage including chilren, is as complex as the people involved. I would have thought a lot less of Mrs. Spitzer if she didn't stand by her husband. They will settle what's between them, but you don't kick your husband and your children's father when he's down. For all the talk about dsecency, I think Silda Spitzer reflects both decency and dignity. Who are you to direct any woman, wife, mother on her "feminist" duties? Noone can can do that, but the couple involved.

Perhaps Silda stuck by him -- for the moment at least -- because the Spitzer family is said to be worth half-billion dollars. And money talks.

Even if she showed an iron face,I am sure she is deaply hurt.Thats the reason I admire Hillary.I had exactly the same experience when Hillary had it.My husband cheated on me and I remember seeing Hillary in the front pages and she helped to me to overcome those problems with an iron mask.I am an ordinary woman and thanks God I am not in the public eyes like those women.And now she is running for president she is being critized because she doesn't act like a real woman.Believe me she is a woman like anybody else.Sociaty is cruel and forgetable about these strong women.

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiction, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for Elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiction, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for Elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiciton, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for Elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

I agree with Ms. Quinn. When Spitzer made his brief appearance to admit he had been caught, my reaction was to empathize. Not with him, but his wife. I think wronged women should let their men stew in their own juice. Sports stars, politicians and high end big shots seem to act as if they are entitled to support, and for whatever strange reason, those they abuse the most, their wives in particular, seem, unfortunately, to agree.

I agree - and this is one reason, I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. Stand up for yourself women !

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiciton, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

It is not just being mischievous, but it is coming off your real hatred to other cultures to suggest that Sati in India is as common as wives standing next to promiscuous husbands in power.

Spilda is just exhibiting the typical symptoms of battered wife syndrome.

Padman

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiciton, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to change your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

Sati is described as an extremely religious Hindu practice in India in which the widow is burnt to ashes on her dead husband's pyre. Basically the custom of Sati is a mandatory Hindu act in which the woman voluntary decides to end her life with her husband after his death. But there were many incidences in which the non-religious/ Westernized Indian women are forced to commit Sati, sometimes even dragged against her wish to the lighted pyre.

Though Sati is considered a Hindu custom, the women, known as Sati in Hindu religious literature, did not commit suicide on their dead husband's pyre. The first woman known as Sati was the consort of Lord Shiva. She burnt herself in fire as protest against her father who did not give her consort Shiva the respect she thought he deserved, while burning herself she prayed to reborn again as the new consort of Shiva, which she became and her name in the new incarnation was Parvati.

Other famous woman in Hindu literature titled Sati was Savitri. When Savitri's husband Satyavan died, the Lord of death, Yama arrived to take his soul. Savitri begged Yama to restore Satyavan and take her life instead, which he could not do. So Savitri followed Lord Yama a long way. After a long way in which Yama noticed that Savitri was losing strength but was still following him and her dead husband, Yama offered Savitri a boon, anything other than her husband's life. Savitri asked to have children from Satyavan. In order to give Savitri her boon, Lord Yama had no choice but to restore Satyavan to life and so Savitri gained her husband back.

Salman

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiciton, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

In the immortal words of the seventies, RIGHT ON!

Addiciton, including sexaholism, is NOT a victimless crime. it is more than even a betrayal of the public trust, for elliot Spitzer. It shows once again he is one of the hypocrites who cynically posture in judgement on others while hiding their own disability and disease.
Recovery is built on honesty and accountability through restorative justice to bring forth healing.
Time to have a loving wife stand up and say i am not going to be an enabling codependent. i deplore what you did and i will work with you to help ensure you take responsibility to chnage your immature compulsive exploitive behavior or it's over my dear one.
and then do just that, for the sake of kids and COUNTRY

I am bewildered by all the commentary along the lines of this piece. I am a feminist, so I understand the impulse to identify with the wronged woman and all that. But this wronged woman has three daughters who probably love their dad. Come on! This is a family problem, not just a marital problem. If Silda had not stood there, it would be as if she had said "we're not a family anymore." Not simply, "this isn't a marriage anymore."
As a mother, I understand why she stood there. As a feminist, I wish everyone would get off her back and let the Spitzers work this out for themselves.

This discussion should be possible without posters attacking Sally and her choices. That is out of line and ancient history.

When HM Mathis said Silda was the victim of verbal abuse and infidelity that makes sense. If true, this poor woman has been beaten down for years by a raging, cheating, egomaniac husband. It is a wonder she has the strength to get out of bed in the morning. Her sad face during the press conference was heart breaking, the despair spoke volumes.

This gossip belongs in The National Enquirer, not The Washington Post.

There are only two people who this issue concerns, and I guarantee neither is reading this silly article.

Those who live in glass houses....

Sally Quinn screwed the MARRIED Ben Bradlee and turned it into a great career. Now she points fingers at the honest wife. Where does she get off anyway?

I don't think anyone can or should judge someone in these very personal, very trying times. Or make generalized gender statements about behavior. Clearly, Elliot Spitzer is a cad who deserves the collective backlash of all those who believed in him and have been heartbroken by his selfish, ridiculous and childish personal behavior, from both women and men. But to criticize Silda Wall Spitzer for what must be wholly personal reasons for appearing with him at his various news conferences is, in my view, demagogic and ultimately demeaning to women's causes. There are those who would find something to criticize if she had not appeared in public.

Personally, I believe her appearance in public was not to seem subservient to her husband, but rather to show the world that there is no event in the world that can undo her. Enduring a terrible blow, yes, but undone, no. Hers was a noble spirit that stood out, unlike so many others', including her husband's, and I felt she stood there alone and clear-eyed. She is a person of exceptional quality and character and I applaud and salute her immense bravery and strength. That man does not deserve her.

It is unfortunate that, for so many men, character is the ability to own up to one's own personal failings. More unfortunate is that, for so many women, character is owning up to other's failings. My heart goes out to her.

It's quite surprising how "power couples" can have these cold hearted arrangements. You also have to wonder how someone can stand beside a powerful man, taking the oath (vow, if you will) of public office, knowing how little vows mean at the personal level, never mind behavior toward strangers.

It is one thing for women who lack education, resources or supports to remain in faithless, hollow marriages. It is quite another for women with education and the means to be economically viable to enable the behaviors of philanderers.

Sadly, a marriage can devolve into a hollow, lackluster facade based on power and materialism

Let Ms. Spitzer make her own decisions. You have no right to judge her choices, and no understanding of why she is making them. This woman has suffered enough without being made a continued public spectacle by those who are interested in nothing more than gossip, or a symbol of someone else's agenda rather than a living, breathing human being trying to make the best of a terrible situation.

Let Ms. Spitzer make her own decisions. You have no right to judge her choices, and no understanding of why she is making them. This woman has suffered enough without being made a continued public spectacle by those who are interested in nothing more than gossip, or a symbol of someone else's agenda rather than a living, breathing human being trying to make the best of a terrible situation.

Hindu religious scriptures demand widows to commit Sati. Starting in the old ages, when foreign armies attacked India, Sati or mass self immolation was comited by women when their husbads died--- so to protect themselves from the perversions of the invading barbarians.

Here is an article by Sudheer Singh about Sati.

Sati i.e., self-immolation by a widow should normally be looked upon as a positive aspect of Hindu culture. When confronted with questions as to why such a practice must exist, any student of history with national and religious pride would try to explain away such practices.

According to Hindu mythology, Sati the wife of Dakhsha was so overcome at the demise of her husband that she immolated herself on his funeral pyre and burnt herself to ashes. Since then her name 'Sati' has come to be symptomatic of self-immolation by a widow.

Today Sati is still legal. The country owes the continuation of this practice to Lord Shiva.

Even a casual observer will notice that immolation is most prevalent among the priestly and martial castes. Among other castes and aboriginal tribes it is 50 -50.

The prevalence of Sati among the Brahmins and Kshatriyas was no co-incidence. Sati started among the Brahmins and Kshatriyas because a bride was looked upon as a burden as she represented a drain on the family's income while not contributing anything towards it.

It is not surprising that if she has the misfortune to become a widow, her presence in the family is dreaded. And apart from being considered an object of ill omen, her presence after her husband demise is a dead weight to her in-laws family.

A widow's status as an unwanted burden is also a result of the taboos that prevents a widow from participating in the household work as her touch, her voice, her very appearance is considered unholy, impure and something that is to be shunned and abhorred. Thus without her husband, a woman's existence is and will NEVER be tolerated in Hinduism. Hence, the logical and moral outcome of this is immolation.

Other auxiliary reasons also go into making immolation a prevalent and important practice. The near impossibility of widow re-marriage arising from the taboos and prejudices that sanctified virginity of a bride is an important reason. Another reason could be the non-recognition of the individuality of a woman who is considered part and parcel of her husband, without whom she is a nullity.

Swami Chanderlal

I recognize Ms. Quinn's strongly held opinion, and I am not so clear. Would Silda Spitzer really be better off by leaving her husband? Would her family really be better off by dividing the family? Would the three teenage girls really be better off by dividing their time between divorced/separated parents?

There is no question that Eliot Spitzer embarrassed himself and his family. He wronged his family. His actions were immoral and illegal. This was unacceptable behavior. He has recognized this publicly.

Silda, at least so far, is choosing to bear the embarrassment and stick with her husband and keep her family together. Within the family one can only imagine the hurt and resentment. Maybe she and the children will forgive their father, maybe they never will. Maybe they will choose to be angry every day of their future lives. And maybe this anger will fester and eventually break up the family.

Or maybe there will be forgiveness after a period of anger and hurt. Maybe the family will recover from this terrible wound. Maybe the girls will grow to be wonderful friends and wives and mothers, and they will try to have a family more successful than the one they grew up in.

Which path increases the chances that everyone turns out happy?

You are so right. I, for one, would NOT stand by any man who was so arrogant - and - I'll bet the farm that there are many of us who agree with me.

well , why did she stands up for her husband?Because when you get married, you became not only husband and wife ,, you became friends, partners , allies ....you became a team...so .....I think it`s great she was there when he resigned.....and I also think that but the minute they were home she starts hitting him with a bat!Really, I think cheating it is the most discusting thing you can do to your partner , but Spintzer like a governor , was a great one so I understand why his wife did not want him to resign....it does not mean she does not want or would want the divorce.

Kousik, I agree with you. Truth is American women need women from the Third World to always be victims, so they can always be trotted out to make themselves look great in comparison. What bothers Ms. Quinn, evidently, is that this time it is one of "them" that is being victimized.The fact that Silda may love her husband nevers occurs to her.

"Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre."

Let's add, "Or American women not being allowed to vote."

After all, the pactice of sati was outlawed in India before women got the right to cast a ballot in the U.S., and it almost certainly hasn't been 'practiced' in more than a century. So why is it equated with how Taliban women are treated TODAY?

Ms. Quinn reasonably asks why, when shown such glaring disrespect, these women stand by their husbands. I wonder why, given her lack of intelligence, her husband Ben Bradlee continues to stand by her.

AMEN to that! Those are the exact thoughts that are racing through my head whenever I see things like this in the news. If you insist upon standing behind your dishonorable husband during a press conference where he apologizes to the nation for his behavior, at least have the self decency to be standing back there with divorce papers and a pen for him to sign with!

Well Sally, why aren't you asking more important questions?

Nearly every time Bush speaks he reminds us of 9/11 and that terrorists are out to get us.

Yet his DOJ and the FBI diverted person power and moneys to spy on Spitzer. why?

How many terrorists slipped into the USA while resources were used on a political witch hunt on Spitzer?

I thought the new guy at Justice was going to clean up Gonzo's political corruption mess of it. Obviously not. Why aren't you asking him why?

Why aren't you asking the important questions?

Because Silda, like other women, had the grace to forgive her husband, possibly without even being asked to. Doesn't Christ forgive our sins which we don't even know we have committed!

I know it is common practice for Sally and her minions in the Washington Press Corp to gossip about the marriages of other people but really, MYOB. I find her wandering into private familial dynamics to be boorish and as always, frigid.

What an incredibly judgmental piece. Only Silda Spitzer knows why did what she did. And she has every right to handle the situation as she deems appropriate for herself and her family. Her choice isn't one I would have made--I would have had his bags packed at the door when he got home--but then, I'm a different person than Silda Spitzer. And so are you.

Leave the woman whatever shred of dignity she has left. Nasty invectives like this reflect poorly on you as a person and your publication's choice of articles.

It is the free choice of the women, not of your disgusting gossip business.

If I believe the item posted by Suzanne O'Malley
to Huffington Post on 3/11 (and I do because it
fits the pattern of what we know about domestic
abusers), Silda Spitzer is yet another abused spouse. Excerpt from the article:

"The 46-apartment, 26-story building is made like a vault. I seldom heard even 79th Street traffic. But the common master bathroom venting system didn't lie. On more than one occasion, my friend and I wondered what to do when the raging and abusive language -- Eliot Spitzer's -- reached operatic levels at 1am and later.
Had Spitzer not been the Attorney General of New York State and had his father, Bernard, not owned the luxury rental property with sweeping views of Central Park, I would have called a domestic abuse hotline. As it was, I didn't."
Cut off from her own career (we surmise by her own
choosing)Ms.Spitzer has probably been subjected to
years of verbal and emotional abuse leaving her with mere shreds (if any) of self-esteem. That she would urge her husband not to resign is in keeping with a pattern of placation of the bully without whom she percieves (thanks to his constant berating) she would be worthless.
Just a theory? Perhaps, but it would come as no
surprise to other women, in all strata of society
who might recognize their own situations.

Well put. Could not agree with you more. Men do this bc they know that the majority of women are going to put up with it. Only when women wronged roar their collective heads and extract Bobbet-ian revenge will more men act less obnoxiously.

Well put. Could not agree with you more. Men do this bc they know that the majority of women are going to put up with it. Only when women wronged roar their collective heads and extract Bobbet-ian revenge will more men act less obnoxiously.

WHY DO YOU GO AFTER STUFF LIKE THIS, GERALDO,?
MAYBE SHE LOVES HIM, AND THATS THE END OF THE STORY
UNTIL PEOPLE LIKE YOU TWIST,AND SPIN SLIME OUT OF
IT, AND INSINUATING WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE THIS SENDS TO CHILDREN. MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT,BEFORE SOME OF YOUR ACTIONS

I agree. Silda could have issued her own statement and shown she has a backbone. Her daughters must be suffering terribly. It is tough enough to be a teenager without having a dog for a Dad. If she did suggest he not resign that is amazing...what was she thinking? I think your comments about power, arrogance, entitlement and influence were on right on target.

Silda Spitzer has a lot of soul searching to do. I suspect that she is biding her time so as not to make a rash decision in the public spotlight.

Whether she should stay with him or not is for her to decide. I applaud her for not making a bigger spectacle of this event than it has already become.

You are doing her a great disservice by presuming to know better than her how she should conduct her private affairs.

Most of these women have children and know, from experts or the many books about children of divorce, that kids are damaged by every bad thing that is said about either parent. Most of these women are trying to shelter their kids from the idea that Daddy did something bad enough that Mommy is leaving him for it.

In addition, studies have shown that children do need to see their parents respecting one anther and supporting one another - married or divorced, without regard to bad actions. Because he was obviously disrespecting her doesn't make it less important that they see her respecting and supporting him in his humiliation.

Personal discussions can take place behind closed doors, as can a respectful divorce later!

I think it takes great bravery to be up there "for the children" and completely understand why these women would do so. I would do the same.. and then be outta there as soon as the media spotlight dimmed.

It's one thing to try to work things out in your family, but another to stand next to your man in public to "support" him after he's committed adultery, not to mention a crime. That action alone said that you're condoning it and that it's ok to do so. I agree with the author that Silda should've stayed out of the public eye during this time--that would be a powerful statement that women don't put up and should not put up with these unacceptable behaviors.

First of all, perhaps she still loves her husband. Since when does cheating equal automatic divorce? She's strong for wanting to work it out. Its certainly plausible and understandable if she didn't, however to criticize her personal choice when you're not in her shoes is presumptuous.

Also, I don't think Spitzer's actions can be taken at face value insomuch as young boys aspiring for political office can "get away with it". His career, in the very least as governor, is over. President Clinton got impeached, and it ended any real possibility of him returning to practice law after his term was completed. Doesn't seem like they got away with it, even though their wives decided on their own accord to try to reconcile their marriages.

He did it because his wife wasn't doing it at home...and he was probably as bored as moste men are (women to) after ten years of marriage...come on the girl is 22 yrs old...it's like Monica or Hillery who ya gonna pick. No brainer..there...folks...and the reason she stayed is the money and power...

I too am tired of seeing these wives stand by their man. I have never understood it except in the case of Hillary who liked the power and would not be running fo president if she had left him.
What a crock. What bothers me the most is the women who proclaim to be feminist who supported Clinton and his immoral ways. They are all enablers and I don't understand these women.

After reading thru most of the comments lef already, I'm struck by two conflicting thoughts.

1st. I totally agree and respect those whose opinion is that Mrs. Spitzer may be staying with her husband due to a sense of devotion to her marital Vows. We do say "for Better or for Worse, till Death do us Part". This is a completely valid point.

2nd I am however dismayed that for whatever reason she chose to stay, the result remains a perception that men can get away with this kind of crap and their wives should support them.

Please note, I (an I suspect also the author of this piece) am not criticizing Mrs. Spitzers actions. I'm lamenting that society has moved to a point where we view a man cheating on his wife as a purely personal affair between them.

Should it be her choice to saty or go? Absolutely.

But what is wrong with Society telling him that what he did was wrong. This I think is the problem that has gotten lost in Moral relativism. That if it is between the two of them, there is no role for society to tell any man he is wrong to cheat. I think society should do this, but how to do it without usurping the rights of the real victim - the wife? Not sure.

I think my greatest frustration with the choices of women who have been publicly wronged by their politician (or other celebrity) husbands is not that they chose to remin in the marriage with them, but that they choose to do so in a manner which suggests total support and forgivness.

Just once, I'd like to see a woman in Mrs. Spitzers shoes step up to the microphone and tell people that "I'm staying with my husband because I believe in my mariage vows and because it's the right thing to do for our family, but what he has done to me is low down and despicable, and I still don't know if I can ever forgive him for it."

I think I've just gotten to the core of my frustration. These women do not say ANYTHING to further weaken or diminish the power of their husbands, and that suggests a desire to preserve the mriage for other than the right reasons. I'm not saying that is their intent, just that it creates that perception. These men's careers should be OVER. They can't uphold their highest commitment, how should we trust them to uphold a lesser one.

Wives of cheating men may feel staying with them is the right choice - I can certainly respect that. But it would be nice if they would sometimes show a bit of disdain for te men who have treated them so badly.

Silba Spitzer is anything but a victim and her behavior proves that. This is not her humiliation, it is his. Why should she pack her bags and leave him or even alter her normal behavior because of this unless she would have done so before this scandel became public? To keep the women of the world who are in a power struggle with men happy? I think not. To allow her husbands acts to rule her life by making her change it would be the ultimate act of behaving like a victim. You, go Silba!

If there was ever a good example of style over content - this is it. It is so "me centered" that the only mention of love is "wouldn’t you love to see..."

This is a good starting point for a conversation. But it is far from the last word.

So, what do you think?

That the central figure of the biggest social/sexual scandal in the D.C. area in the Sixties should offer any moral advice, ever, is positively astounding. It must be the Roman Catholic culture we fled to America to escape.

As I was reading this column I was trying to figure out why it was 'On Faith.' Then it dawned on me. Sally Quinn still has faith -- blind to all empirical evidence -- in 70s feminist ideals.

I understand the outpouring of sympathy and support for Silda. She deserves it. But she is an adult. She makes her own choices, to stand by her man or not. What I am the most outraged about, is the heartbreakingly humiliating experience that their three daughters have had to live through, and that they will continue to live through the rest of their vulnerable adolescence. With internet access to websites, they will be forced to confront their father's lack of loyalty and respect for their family repeatedly. Eliott Spitzer has probably lost the most precious and priceless possession available to anyone - the love of his children. He will be truly lucky if they ever speak to him again, and he can be sure he has lost any kind of moral authority he ever had. That the father of three beautiful daughters would even consider subjecting them to this situation make me just sick.

Marriage is not a 50-50 arrangement. Each must give 110%. Each must do everything possible to make their spouse successful and happy. Thus, the woman stands by the man not because it is acceptable for the wife to be "lied to, cheated on..." There are cases where the woman is a fault in a scandal. The man stands beside her, too. It is just that there are not that many women in high positions. Next time write about the womams husband. Next time write about the women’s husband.

To Mike Frreeman

Could you please try to participate in this discussion without such disgusting personal attacks?

Thank you.

There may be some worthwhile points here that might be effectively made by a more thoughtful and deft writer, but how shall I put this gently: Who is perhaps the last person on earth who should heap scorn at the wife of a philanderer "with a fabulous education, brilliant career, powerful position, beautiful and brainy wife and a lovely family" who risk[ed] losing everything...?"

OK, maybe not so gently. But that, after all, is why this article exists, isn't it? Humiliation comes in many forms; the trick is to be able to feel it.

Why is the wife of the adulteror being criticized? Is this some kind of post-feminist self-hatred thing? A woman is humiliated by her husband, and the first response by every other woman is to sharpen their knives against - THE WIFE. If you cannot give Ms. Spitzer your sympathy, at least spare her your sanctimony.

There may be some worthwhile points here that might be effectively made by a more thoughtful and deft writer, but how shall I put this gently: Who is perhaps the last person on earth who should heap scorn at the wife of a philanderer "with a fabulous education, brilliant career, powerful position, beautiful and brainy wife and a lovely family" who risk[ed] losing everything...?"

OK, maybe not so gently. But that, after all, is why this article exists, isn't it? Humiliation comes in many forms; the trick is to be able to feel it.

Why is the wife of the adulteror being criticized? Is this some kind of post-feminist self-hatred thing? A woman is humiliated by her husband, and the first response by every other woman is to sharpen their knives against - THE WIFE. If you cannot give Ms. Spitzer your sympathy, at least spare her your sanctimony.

Sally,

Which is the greater good? For a family to be together or the scar that the kids and wife inherit!
If a family breaks up everything built up to that stage is lost. But staying together breeds another energy that makes them stronger.
Divorce should not always be the way out. It destroys everyone involved especially the children we are trying to protect.

Sally,

Which is the greater good? For a family to be together or the scar that the kids and wife inherit!
If a family breaks up everything built up to that stage is lost. But staying together breeds another energy that makes them stronger.
Divorce should not always be the way out. It destroys everyone involved especially the children we are trying to protect.

I am sure that in the years to come Silda Spitzer will always question herself why did she submitted herself to such a humiliation. However the press has been very harsh with Silda, afterall she did nothing wrong, she is a victim in this sordid affair.

I am sure that in the years to come Silda Spitzer will always question herself why did she submitted herself to such a humiliation. However the press has been very harsh with Silda, afterall she did nothing wrong, she is a victim in this sordid affair.

YESSSS!! You are so RIGHT!!

EACH one of us stands on her or his own merits -- and each one of us SHOULD STAND ALONE and face the music, when we screw up, betray or otherwise mess things up.

I am sure that in the years to come Silda Spitzer will always question herself why did she submitted herself to such a humiliation. However the press has been very harsh with Silda, afterall she did nothing wrong, she is a victim in this sordid affair.

I am confused as to why this discussion has become so personal. It's an interesting and volatile issue to be sure, but why does everyone feel the need to make such personal attacks on the author? Even if you vehemently disagree with her, even if you think she is prying into someone's personal business...why does this forum need to repeat those transgression. C'mon people.

This hits the nail on the head. The power and prestige is derivative for these women. It saddens me that women still marry up rather than truly striking out on their own. Most of these women are quite accomplished and ambitious but make their lives and careers secondary to support a man, who they perceive can succeed more than they can. This continues to make it a man's world.

Additionally, these women deep down know what their husbands are about. Successful, powerful men want it all - and that includes more than one woman. The husbands' confidence and ambition is precisely what attracts the women to these men, and it also is what causes them to betray their wives.

If the view expressed in this article is very widespread, then it would explain why the divorce rate is so high. Ms. Quinn gives no weight to any concept of marital duty. Sure, Silda's husband violated his duty, but should marriage be based on a moment-by-moment assessment of whether duties have been reciprocated?

Silda Spitzer projected a dignified and self-controlled image by her husband's side. I was left with a feeling of admiration and sympathy for her.

It is interesting that this section of the website is entitled "On Faith". The view expressed in the article is not consistent, however, with the admonition "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

Sally, I believe you've hit the nail on the head as to why women standing by their cheating men is so wrong. It sends the wrong message to children. Men who cheat need to know how wrong it is to lie to their families when they break moral and civil law. Women married to cheating men need to stand up for their children and the value of virtue and honor. Thank you for so clearly stating why wives of cheating men should not stand by their men.

Perhaps there should be some discussion about Spitzer's behavior being an addiction, not much different than alcohol or drugs. We tend to smirk when he hear the term sexual addiction, but the reality it is very real and very hard to cure.

As always, Sally, you have it exactly right. Are women EVER going to learn? Parenthetically, one of the reasons why I support Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton: it's all about character. And: I cannot imagine Michele Obama "standing by"; more likely "standing over" her man with a smoking gun. And he knows it.

One could see something noble in it. After all, these wives enjoyed the perks and privileges of their husbands' reflected glory in the days of power. So it is only fitting that they stick around for the downside. One could see that. Cutting and running when the going get tough--that might be considered even worse. Just a thought.

Aren't these comments about Mr. Spitzer, let alone his wife, a little hypocritical coming from a writer who once carried on an affair with her then boss Ben Bradlee while he was still married?

Attention Indians/Hindus...please use deodrant and tell your women to shave.

Signed,

Your Coworkers

PS > Whats wrong with Indian women being subserviant? Like dogs on a leash.

I feel sorry for these children because they have two pathetic parents. How dare their father risk putting them in this situation and how dare their mother allow it to seem acceptable. At this point, one has to think that this is, and has been for some time, a marriage of convenience. She is happy being the first lady of New York, and he has his trophy wife, avoiding the scandal that would prohibit him from having always stood on that moral high ground. The kicker is that she did not want him to resign. She thought is was okay that he live and act in total hipocrisy. Shame on them both for being so selfish.

Let's discuss Silda--- not nonsense from 10 years ago.

Maybe she did it because she is married to him and that bond actually means something to her. People make mistakes. If he is a willing partner in trying to repair the damage he has done to the family, why shouldn't she give her marraige a chance to recover?

hahaha.

so, did sally quinn have these same opinions for the other mrs bradley once she discovered the illicit affair of her husband ben those many decades ago? hmmmmm? enquiring minds want to know.

What a fool.
Her husband might have STD.
Run Silda, RUN!!!

Thank you very much. Since so many of these men are white maybe we need to examine why so many white men are cheaters and child molesters.

"One can only assume that the women who do this are just as enamored of the power and the position as their men". Interestingly enough, I can recall one African American politician's wife who took a different position. Sally,think back to Jesse Jackson's "moment of truth". We, (as African American women), appaulded her for letting her man stand alone. What was there to support? How much is too much? Her husband is a political figure but with out her words or HER presence America got the message. You get my point...

Poor Poor Pitiful Silda, baloney. She is a Harvard Law School grad and a respected attorney. I do not know why she stood on the podium with her husband but I have not seen anyone ask her. That is what reporters are supposed to do. Instead we have a lot of couda wouda and shoudas being thrown around. That might be ok if this is group therapy, but I don't think the Post views itself as an enabler of therapy.

Do you agree with sati?

Sati (Su-thi , a.k.a. suttee) is the deeply religious Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

"Sati" means a virtuous woman. A woman who dies burning herself on her husbands funeral fire is still considered most virtuous (mostly in villages) , and is believed to directly go to heaven, redeeming all the forefathers rotting in hell, by this "meritorious" act. The woman who commits Sati are worshipped as a Goddess, and temples are built in her memory.

Sati is very much prevalent among many sects of the society in India, who either take the vow or deem it a great honor to die on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

Sati is considered praiseworthy by most Hindus. The Agni Purana declares that the woman who commits sati goes to heaven. Sati is very much a part of the Hindu code of conduct.

Sanjay

I also think that women stay because they are scared. I can understand a woman that might have little kids say under 13. The pressure of raising the kids alone and the kids not seeing their daddy every night or whatever. But if the kids are over that age, then OH Well they will get over it. It's not the end of the world. It's not like the daddy died or something. He's just not living in the same house. To make it even a better situation why doesn't the daddy just come over a few nights out of the week and tuck the kids into bed or get there real early and help them get ready and take them to school. That is a way to make it not so abrupt. Otherwise why would you want to have this nasty man laying in your bed bringing every woman he has slept with, with him and then bringing every man/woman that that person has slept with. Think about it?

I pity Silda Spitzer and my sympathies are with her and her children. I see women in US are no diferent from women in India and probably rest of the world.

I pity Silda Spitzer and my sympathies are with her and her children. I see women in US are no diferent from women in India and probably rest of the world.

I pity Silda Spitzer and my sympathies are with her and her children. I see women in US are no diferent from women in India and probably rest of the world.

I pity Silda Spitzer and my sympathies are with her and her children. I see women in US are no diferent from women in India and probably rest of the world.

I am a Christian Woman. I believe that I have a hold of what God intends for the family. I know that our vows say to death do us part. And I do know that the Word of God says that God hates divorce under MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. And for those that don't know, there are reasons to get a divorce in the sight of God. And they are the 3 "A's":
-Adultery
-Addiction
-Abuse.

If they do not fall into those categories, then it should not be a reason to divorce a spouse.
Now I will say if it was a one time thing and maybe he was drunk or high or if it didn't go "all the way" then it might be forgiven and we might be able to work on it. HOWEVER, IN THIS SITUATION, THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD STAND BY MY MAN. You don't know what type of diseases he could have brung home. He is nasty and he needs to be left by himself. Why would you think I would want to sleep with my husband after he has been sleeping with some other chic for years? That is just stupidity. There is NO WAY I would stand there. I would immediately file for divorce. Because he knew what he was doing and there is no grounds for "working it out". You had years to figure out what you were doing. You paid tens of thousands of dollars for this girl or girls and yet you think I should just forgive you and move on. I don't think so.........

Remember the 3 "A's".

A woman asked me this question to figure out.

Joe, if 100 straight men are having affairs, what happens then with the other 100?

Give up? I said back "okay, what is the answer."

Well, if these number of men are fooling around then 100 women are doing it likewise.

I looked at her and said "good point to know that from an opposite sex and just when I thought that I knew everything."

I am interested in Hinduism.
Why do they think elephant, monkey, snake, horse, cow are gods?
Why do they worship fire in parts of India and feed their dead to vultures?
Why do they perform sati?
Why worship idols--- somewhat primitive???

They believe in peace--- that beautiful, but have nuclear weapons? Really strange.

Jason

All of India is Bombay.
Honey, all of India is not Bollywood.

Sati is real life in the villages.

Sanjeev

Sati was not and is not voluntary.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MANDATORY!!!
Do not insult Lord Shiva.

Aftab

All women should tolerate their cheating husbands. What a moron.

However, I cannot blame Spitz.. His wife is old and very unattractive. The 22 year old prostitute is extremely attractive.

Good for Spitz!
His wife should leave him--- unlike Hillary.

Robert

where was your story on Bill & Hillary?

I'm sure this will get me slammed but maybe, just maybe, these women took their marriage vows seriously. "In sickness and in health, for better or for worse, even if the big dummy starts thinking with his little head instead of the big one, I'm standing by him." Maybe there is a positive message here about the value of loyalty.

First of all, we DO NOT worship cows.
Cows are respected, but not worshipped as god.

Yes, we worship elephant, monkey, snake, etc.
We believe in peace and love all living things.

Yes, sati is a part of Hindism.
For DRCHA to say otherwise is false.
It is an insult to our religion and our gods.
The gods want and love sati to reunite lovers.

Just like Christians cannot tolerate an insult to Jesus, we Hindus cannot and should not tolerate an insult to Lord Shiva.

Sati is a duty for all women.

Suresh

The WP has had almost as many articles/commentaries about Silda Spitzer's supposed victimhood as there have been about her husband's established hypocrisy. What I don't understand is why you, and so many other people, who know nothing about their marriage presume to speak for Silda Spitzer. Marriages involve many negotiations and accommodations. There are spouses who love their partners, but find some of their sexual proclivities distasteful and actually encourage the partner to seek extra-marital outlets. Perhaps what Silda Spitzer was up their thinking was "I love my wonderful husband. Why couldn't law enforcement have let him be." I'm not saying that is what Silda Spitzer was thinking (and certainly not that I would agree with the sentiment if she was), but I am saying that my guess is as good as yours. So please please please lets stop all this talk about how betrayed, shamed, victimized Silda Spitzer feels. When, and if, she's ready, she'll speak for herself.

I am so happy that you spoke up. You speak my sentiments precisely, and your words give me hope. It's sad that the feminists of the 70's have lost their senses. Since they have become mired in the politics of abortion, and in the pockets of the democratic party, they have lost their fight on behalf of women. This "stand by your man" mindset does our family and children no good. When Hillary Clinton stood by Bill, she did a great disservice that set back the women's movement to the 50s. Her rhetroic on behalf of women's rights is shallow; her actions in "standing by her man" spoke volumes.

I was beginning to think I was the the only one who would like to see a public figure sweat it out alone. I could not in clear conscience stand by/behind my husband with the cameras rolling while I delivers an "apology" basically for being caught. There is not enough prozac in the world for me to be that calm. I have to assume that Mrs Spitzer is infact suffering from post traumatic stress dis-order.
Mrs Spitzer, if your husband were truely sorry his apology would not have come on the heels of him being exposed. He would have apologized before the waterfall of evidence forced him to.

It's a good question Sally, and the answer I suspect is this: the abuse has gone on for years and the spouse who has been abused has accepted what he or she has been regularly told. He or she is the problem and the cause of the abusive behavior.

The better question though is what causes decent people to marry such dangerous and narcissistic partners? There would seem to be a predisposition to unhealthy dependency and a willingness to risk the almost inevitable victimization. It's tragic.

We'd do more for young girls and boys to focus on the fact that once married, you have to work together. Ms Spitzer is showing that some screaming idiotic fit is not the best way to maintain stability in her family in spite of her husband's conduct.

Hey DRCHA:
I agree with Ram G. Verma
Hinduism is a primitive religion.
You guys still do "different" stuff, especially on the villages.

Women are treated very poorly in India.
Forced into arranged marriages--- even to old rich guys.

Please treat women better than dogs.
Women have no respect in India.
Men beat their wives and get away with it.
Most rich guys who rape or kill women get no time in jail.

India must be the most corrupt nation in the world.

Cheers

Of course it still happens. Do not be ashamed of our religion. It is 6,000 years old. We are proud people... Proud of sati to reunite lovers in rebirth. Lord Shiva did not change his mind about sati.

To state the sati is wrong is immoral.

Ram

Who are we to throw the first stone !
Have we ever done something we are not proud of?
I see courage in Silda.
It is not us who will be the judge in the end.
We will be forgiven just as we forgive others.

>>Paganplace:
>>Hey, it's that straight-people 'Sanctity of Marriage' we keep hearing so much about, in action.

>>Ennit?

Buffoon.

Any rational person would know, and readily admit, that the immorality that blossomed in this country in the 50s thru the print media, then on into the 60s and 70s, coupled with free love, drug use, and on and on it goes...along with the hedonistic approach to cosumers minds in advertising, all the way down to the debauched sitcoms and movies that we are peppered with that contain everything all the way down to the person's above queer persuasion...is it any wonder that the 'sanctity of marriage' as the commentor above makes fun, is in jeopardy. Yes, people still trying to do what is right, natural and God ordained..that is, marriage...and look at what they have to fight against day by day.

You perpetrators of immorality beware. If this country does not turn around from this immoral behavior it has embraced thru the many...there will be no strength, no values, no USA as some of us remember it any longer....gone the way of Rome.
Sorry folks, we are not so enlightened that we can keep history from repeating itself. It already is.

Your article is very interesting. If it was to identify several OTHER wives who have suffered from philandering husbands as well as to pity Mrs. Spitzer you did a great job. However, there is an air of "well, I never" because you also took the trouble to knock Sen. Clinton (and it worked as one of the persons reading this announced his intention to follow your advice) and you didn't even include your own personal private life. I can't believe this is on a page called "On Faith". This article is unforgiveable as well as totally unnecessary.

Your article is very interesting. If it was to identify several OTHER wives who have suffered from philandering husbands as well as to pity Mrs. Spitzer you did a great job. However, there is an air of "well, I never" because you also took the trouble to knock Sen. Clinton (and it worked as one of the persons reading this announced his intention to follow your advice) and you didn't even include your own personal private life. I can't believe this is on a page called "On Faith". This article is unforgiveable as well as totally unnecessary.

Hi Sally: Used to read your every story when I lived in D.C., many years ago. Always enjoyed them. But as for humiliated women,
I don't know. Aren't we all supposed to forgive and forget? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as it were? Think about the power Silda now has over her errant husband. He's going to have to toe the line from now on. Is his career over? I doubt it. He's a competent man, and there will always be a place for him. Should she desert him in his weakest hour? Not if she ever loved him. Would you desert Ben? I don't think so.

Hi Sally: Used to read your every story when I lived in D.C., many years ago. Always enjoyed them. But as for humiliated women,
I don't know. Aren't we all supposed to forgive and forget? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as it were? Think about the power Silda now has over her errant husband. He's going to have to toe the line from now on. Is his career over? I doubt it. He's a competent man, and there will always be a place for him. Should she desert him in his weakest hour? Not if she ever loved him. Would you desert Ben? I don't think so.

What kind of message are we sending to our children that we should allow humiliation by standing by the one who betrays his family? During the first "boo-who" apology, Silda looked completely foolish to stand by her man. Then to do it again two days later? Come women get a grip and defend ourselves. The so called "Kristen" should have been standing by his side or make him go alone. How sad to think women have no backbone to stand up and show the world we are not putting up with this arrogance.

Dear Sally,

I am also not supportive of your position on "these wives."

"These wives" stand behind their men because they are putting their family needs ahead of their husband's dalliances.

There are children involved. The family's integrity is very important to the wife; more important than condemning their husband for "the evil" he committed. At least not in public.

John B. Fleming

Sati in India now????
Dear Arati,
There seem to be bunch of asses over here. If anyone can show an incident of sati to law people involved will be LOCKED for good. Haters stop spreading CRAP.
There were some unfortunate incidents due to abject poverty a long time back but Sati was never mandatory.

Stop spreading CRAP. If you know of a sati you are withholding criminal evidence and hence should be prosecuted. I would like to ask FBI to trace who this RAM GOPAL VERMA is.

Hi Chausti, Pagun, Eric, Rafael and A Man.
Can Sally/haters understand and distinguish between: Love, sex, subservience, commitment, temptation and forgiveness I am not sure. I am glad Sally is not spiritual leader or a marriage counsellor.

Peace.

Two points: 1) We are much too quick to cast the wife in these situations in the role of the victim. It does not require great imagination or a degree in clinical psychology to conceive of scenarios in which a wife would accept, perhaps even encourage, the kind of behavior that former governor Spitzer indlulged in. At the very least, we should suspend judgment. 2) The political wife silently and adoringly listening to hubbie's stump speech (or silently and grimly listening to his resignation speech) is without doubt the worst cliché of American - and increasingly - world politics. It's time we consigned her to the trash can of history. We vote for the man (lamentably, it still is a man usually) not his marriage.

I am an INdian from Patna--- population about two million, so it is not a rural area. My aunt was forced into sati last year. Lot's of women want to die with their husbands--- Aarti is lying because she is embarrased about our religion.

As a Hindu, I believe that women have no right to live without their husbands. Especially in rural India where women are uneducated, who will support them? They will not have jobs and be forced into prostitution to make a living.

Then Spitz will just come to India. For 4300 rupees ($100) he can get very pretty prostitutes--- those that look like models.

Ram Gopal Verma

I have been to India--- to this day, women are forced to jump in the fire with their dead husband. About 85% of Indians live in rural villages and they still do it there--- agree, not in the major cities.

Indians believe that Lord Shiva (a clay statue they make with their own hands and think it's god) will help the dead couple reincarnate together and come back as lovers. Not very bright to believe that--- somewhat funny religion.

They make all animals gods... elephant, monkey, etc. Hindus bathe in the Ganges--- the most polluted river in the world. Think the cow is god--- how primitive.

The red dot represents women are inferior to men. Too silly.

Indian is silly and uneducated

I think it is complicated. She is in shock. She doesn't know yet what to do to keep her girls healthy and sane through out his insanity. She loves him, but doesn't know what the future will bring. I think, looking at her face, that she will eventually leave him, after she gets the kids through this. She isn't like Hillary, or Larry Craig's wife with her sunglasses on, or Vitter's wife. She will take care of her girls and then she will go on on her own, with her girls. I hope that is how it plays out...

Thank you, Ms. Quinn for an articulate and intelligent analysis of this sordid and sad situation playing out on national airwaves . In the old days, women were beaten and bloodied by their husbands for minor infractions, or just as worse, humilated and verbally and emotionally abused. Young girls and women were consciously taught to 'take it' to make sure they had the all-important person to complete their life...the husband. These women who are married to big achievers have it the worse. It appears that the more prosperous a man becomes (or woman for that matter) the less inclined the other spouse is to give emotionally to the marriage. They spend so much time in their lust for power and prestige and money. Mrs. Spitzer did what she did because it is reflexive in women. We have had this role (subservient/long-suffering) drummed in our little heads for centuries. It is time, past time, for all of us as intelligent honest women to say...enough! There would no man on earth who would be standing up there on the dais if the role was reversed. Men have too much pride for that. It is pride that women need most of all. Pride in our own personhood, and in our sexuality as a precious gift. Now the next step is to get all those silly young women to step out of the role of prostitutes or call girls and teach them respect for themselves, and their bodies!

If Hillary does not become president, she will divorce Bill. That's the only reason that they are still together--- for her political career. She makes me sick--- Hillary has also committed adultery.

Same for Silda--- she stuck with the "Jewish Savior" thinking that he will become the first Jewish president. Now that he is finished, she will leave Spitz...

Both Hill and Silda knew about their husband's affairs--- tolerated it and had some of their own.

Long live John McCain and have another Christian president!!! Only concern would be a Mormon for V.P.--- that would be un-Christian!!!

Republican

I guess once you call yourself a "journalist" and get your own blog, you can spout any nonsensical stuff you want like the following:

"Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre."

So, which India are you taking about?
Have you had any education about Indian Culture?
Have you ever been to India?
This was a practice that used to take place in ancient days, more than a century ago and even then it was very uncommon and mostly among very uneducated people.

The plight of Taliban women "covered from head to toe in burqa" was something that occured in the past decade and continues even now. In the same breath, when you make an inane comment about Indian women commiting sati, it suggests that most Indian woman face this plight in these present times.

You are such an embarrasment to a reputed newspaper like Washington Post.

In my opinion, what Silda chooses to do about her marriage is her private business. However,I am always shocked that these women are dragged in front of the media; first in the press conferences and then in the aftermath of those conferences. In all likeliness,regardless of what people have alluded to, she is a true victim. As such, it seems completely unkind and unfair to force her to stand before the public and be judged like this.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion right now. Just because her husband is a public figure does not mean that her private life should be the fodder of blogs, forums and talk radio. I have been hearing about the shame and degradation of Silda Spitzer every morning on the radio and reading it every evening in the newspaper. If we can all agree that she has been through enough suffering and pain, why are we adding to it?

If we truly felt compassion or sympathy for her, we would simply stop talking about her so that she can privately sort out her own affairs. This whole business may concern her marriage, her family, her friends and her children. She will one day have to explain the press conference to them. The one group of people Silda Spitzer owes no explanation for her actions is us.

While your points are well taken, and while I challenge none of them, would you not also agree that there are in fact countless cases where it is the wife who is the deceiver, leaving the husband and their children to suffer.

as a journalist, i would expect you to do your research before you spout opinions and write articles. modern day Indian women do not commit sati by throwing themselves on their husbands funeral pyre--this occurred more than one hundred years ago and even then was not common.
as a journalist, it would behoove you to write a well researched article instead of merely trying to be sensationalist

Hey, it's that straight-people 'Sanctity of Marriage' we keep hearing so much about, in action.

Ennit?

:)

Sally Quinn,
You've just revealed the shallowness of your thinking. Here are two people who have a lifetime's worth of relationship between them, and a marital structure that none of us know. For you to judge Silda's actions as "subservient" shows how little you understand about real relationships and their complexity. When one partner screws up, even royally, the role of the other is not to walk away but to draw on any strengths that still exist. Sure, trust was violated, but trust may have been built in a thousand other ways. Silda is courageous for being willing to express her bond with her husband despite the pain she might be feeling.

Sally, I wholeheartedly agree. It's similar to the question why battered women keep going back to the men who beat them up. It's humiliating, it's painful, yet women do it all the time. They debase themselves, they seemingly wallow in misery. Why oh why??? I'm sure there's a psychological explanation both for "battered wife syndrome" and "errant politician's wife syndrome" but I haven't seen it yet in any of the responses to your column.

I believe she did it for her children.

I thought the same thing Monday, but by yesterday I had changed my mind. This guy didn't just trash his life, he trashed her life, and it was a life they built together. (To get the full picture, check out the photo of the two graduating from Harvard Law that appeared in a rival newspaper.)

She may never stand by his side again, but not doing so in some ways spares him from seeing what his actions wrought upon her. Her not being there certainly would have spared us the pain of beholding the look on her face, but instead we got to see the full extent of this tragedy.

Well, not all of it, but a fairly strong indication -- she looked like she'd been run over by the psychic equivalent of a Metro train, and she had. She is indeed a victim, and she's also in shock, understandably. So I cannot blame her for doing whatever she wanted to do, including seeing this thing through even as it flew right into the ground.

By putting his career above hers, she's earned the right to be there for the end if that's what she wanted.

I wouldn't have blamed her either if she'd suddenly lunged at his throat whilst he held forth from the podium.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have seen this behavior thru the years and asked myself why why these women allow themselves to be humiliated in national TV and the world. Never understood it.As a woman you have to value your self and show integrity in moments like this.I'm regular person but I would have never put myself in that position!You need to have dignity

Sally -- We DID see a politician stand on his own, sweating bullets, looking like a fool while he admitted infidelity: Rudy Giuliani.

You don't remember Donna Hanover walking out to the edge of the driveway at Gracie Mansion to publicly criticize her husband for his infidelity?

You don't remember how much that rocked the New York tabloids?

It did. She set the example.

Now that you're finished with your rant, I would point out that we cannot presume to know or understand the dynamics of someone else's marriage. As you pointed out, Silda Wall is a highly intelligent and accomplished woman - she had her reasons for standing up there. And I'm certain they had nothing to do with society's expectation of the role of a wife in a situation like this. So why not respect her decision instead of ridiculing it as subservient role-playing? Finally, I don't understand your statement that her standing up there with him somehow sends a message to boys everywhere that they can cheat and get away with it. Huh?

Making a decision to leave a marriage is a huge decision that is not well-made if done in a rage and in a short timeframe. It is a shattering experience to many, so I don't agree with that suggestion to scorned wives or husbands(and have personal experience with divorce).
Not standing up in full view of cameras and the world next to your partner who has betrayed you is another matter. Do law partners or business partners stand next to a partner who has betrayed them while they make a public statement? I'm not sure but doubt it. I don't think a betrayed wife should be expected to "stand by her man" at that very occasion.

Maybe Silda knew about Eliot seeing prostitutes before the matter became public. Maybe she was fine with it, and so it wasn't "cheating". Or maybe she grudgingly accepted it, deciding that putting up with it was worth the other benefits of their marriage. We don't know her thoughts, or anything else about their marriage or sex life. And I'm not sure why we should, as that's between them and anyone else they're involved with.

I fully agree with Shiboni about the appalling misogyny threaded throughout this article.

I would add that Quinn's casually dismissive use of the term "hooker" to refer to the young professional woman with whom Spitzer spent "a couple of evening [sic] with" also betrays, albeit more subtly, the misogynist underpinnings of Quinn's self-righteously faux-feminist deadline-driven piece.

That this comes from a woman who is "considered one of the arbiters of society and mainstream opinion in Washington, D.C." (Wikipedia) is especially interesting since, despite her many individual accomplishments, Ms. Quinn's position is in many ways analogous to that of a First Lady of the Fifth Estate, and is in some measure derivative of her having "married well" to a very powerful man perhaps not too terribly different (in drive, ambition, arrogance, sense of privilege, etc.) from the men whose wives she so comfortably chastises from her cushy perch atop (though perhaps "a few paces behind" her man?) the D.C. social scene.

Zabdulkhaaliq:

I am glad you made that post, because it is not fair for anyone to use a whole other culture, with which they may not be familiar, as a paddle to beat others within their own. I've been aware for some time that the wearing of a chadoor or burqa does not necessarily mean utter subservience.

However, I have to question a law that can refer to the "despicable crime of adultery" and regard it as punishable by death. Oh pleeease, as the kids say. I'm not married at the moment, as it happens, but if my theoretical husband stepped out on me, while I might not stand beside him at some podium and might ask him to pack his bags, I cannot imagine wanting to see him executed. Where is the need for all this bloody-mindedness? How can you imagine a God who would require it? Trust me, it just does not even make sense to people who weren't trained from childhood to see the world this way.

And as for those burqas, while you think of them as protection, to me the whole business would constitute an absolute negation of who I am. This afternoon, I went to my gym and hucked up a 200 pound bar; that's something I enjoy, in fact about the most joyous thing I ever do. I have men friends in the gym and we trade tips on training. The idea of needing to cover myself entirely (who could work up a refreshing sweat dressed that way?) and avoid "mingling" with these fellows is, from my perspective, both comical and horrible. So while the burqa may have been mentioned out of context in Ms. Quinn's article, and without understanding what it means to you, try to imagine why those of us who feel no need for this kind of "protection" regard it as instead an appalling imposition which would sever us from most of what gives meaning to our lives. Perhaps that will help you grasp why it so easy to think of Islamic women as hemmed in and imposed upon.

Let's be clear about something: Silda Spitzer has done nothing wrong. Nothing. Her reasons for standing by her husband may be the product of a multitude of considerations, but they are her business alone. If Ms. Quinn would let her husband suffer alone, great, more power to her. But what's the value in judging Silda, who, I repeat, has done no wrong? For God's sake, leave the woman alone.

Oh baloney. She showed more character there than you've shown in a lifetime. I admire her for standing there with him, even though I think he's a low life idiot. For one she's a very accomplished person who has helped him immensely. She's also a babe, and he's got the looks of a garage door. What she was thinking was that I made a commitment to this person for good or bad. She may choose to leave him eventually, but when the pressure was on she was the one with the character in that family. It showed.

Why women like Hillary, Dina Metos, Silda etc. stand by their men:

Fear of boniness, Lack of strong family support
project the family unit, One may actually love the person, 25 percent benefit of staying together is worth the 75 % of aggravation (Low expectations), low self esteem, familiarity (what to expect)with the cheating partner, Life goes on attitude, Brought up in abusive family, General acceptance in society that everyone else is doing it, Partner is a good provider. I am sure there are many more such reasons.

What a great column!
I was so incredible dissappointed at Silda Spitzer as well. How refreshing it would have been for once NOT see a wife standing by their arrogant man. So right about the messages it sends to girls and boys.
Thank you for writing such great commentary!

Bravo!

Why women like Hillary, Dina Metos, Silda etc. stand by their men:

Fear of boniness, Lack of strong family support
project the family unit, One may actually love the person, 25 percent benefit of staying together is worth the 75 % of aggravation (Low expectations), low self esteem, familiarity (what to expect)with the cheating partner, Life goes on attitude, Brought up in abusive family, General acceptance in society that everyone else is doing it, Partner is a good provider. I am sure there are many more such reasons.

Why women like Hillary, Dina Metos, Silda etc. stand by their men:

Fear of boniness, Lack of strong family support
project the family unit, One may actually love the person, 25 percent benefit of staying together is worth the 75 % of aggravation (Low expectations), low self esteem, familiarity (what to expect)with the cheating partner, Life goes on attitude, Brought up in abusive family, General acceptance in society that everyone else is doing it, Partner is a good provider. I am sure there are many more such reasons.

Ms. Quinn,

You wrote, "The more baffling question to me is why she did it. All I could think of, watching Silda Spitzer’s defeated expression was of Taliban women covered from head to toe in burqa, standing a few paces behind their men, appendages to their all powerful husbands".

I am a Muslim woman of American descent and I take exception to your comments. Not only did I read this most insulting comment on this blog but also heard you repeat it when interviewed on Morning Joe. Islaam and muslim women have no relevance to your point or the topic under discussion whatsoever. It was very telling of some obvious prejudices that you are harbouring.

I am sure you are aware that all Muslim women who wear burqas, myself included, are not wives of the Taliban. Nor is it mandated that we stand a few paces behind our men. However, if he is in the company of other men, we would not approach him out of modesty, respect and the avoidance of intermingling. Our covering is our protection. It is respectful and dignified, not oppressive as you so wrongly assume.

Whatever your opinions regarding the dress or mannerisms of Muslim women, do not attempt to make analogies that are based not on knowledge but ignorance. First of all, if a muslim man commits adultery, I can assure you he would not be on national television announcing it to the world. And... his wife would be no where near him as an aid in his defense.

The despicable crime of adultery, according to Islaamic law, is punishable by death if it can be proven by four eyewitnesses to the act or he confesses. And his wife would be granted an automatic divorce.

Yes, muslim women are to be obedient to their husbands. However, what you are ignorant of with regard to Islaam is that we as Muslims are commanded to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And there is no obedience to the creation (mankind) in disobedience to the Creator (God). No Muslim woman is obligated to be obedient to an adulterous husband or remain with him.

So therefore, my advice to you is to reflect on the issues that you have with Muslim women and try to seek the truth and not perpetuate falsehoods. It is dishonest and not reflective of good journalism.

I agree with you 100% Sally.

I'm not trying to be naive, but why do you say she is humiliated? He's the one who cheated and he's the one who is responsible for his actions. She didn't dishonor her wedding vows, which usually say for better or worse. Did it ever occur to you that the reason she stood beside him was because she loved him? Would you expect her to desert someone she loved if instead of spending time with a hooker he was involved in a car accident in which someone else was injured and he was charged with a crime? We may never know why he did what he did, some will assume they know but the only who truly knows is Spitzer. And that is a matter between them.

Thank you so much for writing your opinion! I have been agonizing over this. As a child of divorce because of adultery it is apalling to me that a strong smart woman like Silda Spitzer stand by her man. It is outrageous to me! It sends the wrong message to her young daughters!

Although, how my mother reacted to my father's infidelities was not appropriate, she still stood up to what she believed in and told him to go you know where...and I respect her way more for that than if she would have passively stood next to him and convinced herself that it was to save their marriage.

j

zbrooks2 says:

"He didn't want her in room 871, Why should she be up there when he gets caught."

Touche!

As one of the previous posters noted, some people actually do have kind and generous hearts, and unselfishly go on loving you, even you do something bad. You don't just turn love on and off like a faucet.

And also, in the scheme of things, which I think should be clearer on this forum than in many other conversations, is that compared to life and death things, this is pretty small; it is not like having a diagnosis of brain cancer; it is only a big thing, because they are famous people and the lights are shined on them.

But they like all the rest of us, must continue on with their live, together or apart, through more good times, and more bad times, perhaps that extend years and years hence, through sicknes and health, ultimately, till death. Maybe this woman wants to continue on with this previously made pledge; maybe even now, in all this mess, the idea of living on together makes sense to her and is what she wants.

I have known people, including members of my own family, who divorced in haste, and did not end up particularly better off, and maybe should have reconsidered the whole deal a little more carefully.

All I'm sure of is that the male should insist on standing alone. After the spotlight is off, whatever the wife wants to do is OK by me. No one but a coward and/or a sadist brings the woman to the press conference.

But people, even if she chooses to stay and support him, she doesn't need to stand up there with him. That's his business life---if the argument is that it is their private life, then why bring the wife into his work arena? It was inappropriate and depressing. It illustrated that he STILL doesn't care about her, even now, or else he wouldn't have asked her to be with him up there. "No Honey, I've done enough to embarrass you and the family---I'll do this on my own."

I find it interesting that no one has mentionned the possibility that Silda, Hillary or whoever who sticks with her man may have made the decision that even if he is occasionally unfaithful, she would rather be married to him than not married to him. In other words, she gets enough out of her marriage in other ways that she is willing to tolerate a limited amount of infidelity. Since we are all different, I am sure that some people find infidelity less intolerable than others.

BRAVO - I wholeheartedly agree!!!

Dear Sally,

I think you underestimate Silda and other women who stick by their husbands. You assume that they act out of helplessness or weakness, but I see it as stregnth. They are signalling that they are going to stand strong through the whole episode, adn that this cannot cause them to run and cry (like society expects little girls to do). I think you naively assume that these women are "enabling" their husbands, when really they are showing their own resiliance.

A Man writes:
Maybe she understands just what marriage is. Just because the husband fails miserably doesn't mean everything falls apart. If a marriage means the husband and wife are in fact "one," her behavior is cperfectly understandable. Even morally correct. Thank goodness not all women bought into the worst lies of feminism.

And if it were the other way round? If the wife had been caught serial cheating? How many men would be saying "Perhaps her husband understands what marriage is all about?" and just because his wife cheats on him, why should he end the marriage? Perhaps he is not satisfying her?
You can be sure they wouldnt!! Double standard hypocracy shines threw so many of these comments>

"Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the politician up there at the lectern sweating bullets, apologizing for letting down his wife and family …. alone?"

"Once, just once, wouldn’t you love to see the wife issuing her own statement saying that what he had done was unacceptable and that she was leaving him?"

To the first question, "Yes." Absolutely. Let the guy hang out there on his own. Or, better yet, let him get up there with the floozy / prostitute / girlfriend so that they can apologize and be contrite together.

To the second question, "Yes" and "No." Indeed, I'd like to see the wife give a statement, if that's what she wants to do. I'd like to hear anything she has to say that she WANTS to share with us. Beyond that, what she decides to do about her marriage is HER business.

I'm really sick of media people (and others, of course) taking aim at these women and demanding that they leave their husbands. Many of them will, but it is their choice; it's not the default obligatory action.

No one knows the inside of a marriage except the two people involved in it. No one has a right to stand in judgment about what a wronged woman should do. It is HER choice to make, and her reasons for whatever choice she ultimately makes are hers alone; we don't have any right to demand an explanation.

So, come on, Sally. Vent your wrath on Eliot, but keep your nose out of their marriage. It doesn't belong there.

Ms. Quinn, your misogyny is impressive.

First off, why should it matter that Ms. Spitzer is "beautiful and brainy . . . with three wonderful children"? What, if she where physically unattractive, or dim-witted, or childless or her children were less-than-wonderful, that would change how you judge her? What a shallow and disgusting attitude -- and you deign to proclaim you are championing women?

Then, after confessing your inability to understand why Ms. Spitzer did what she did, you don't even bother to reflect on your own limited understanding of what motivates people in such circumstances; you instead proceed to conclude what the motive *must* have been ("One can only assume that the women who do this are just as enamored of the power and the position as their men") and then condemn her on that basis. It's stunning that a columnist of your stature would unabashedly proclaim such a shallow, immature understanding of human behavior. It appears you have yet to realize not only that most of the time, people's motivations are complex and involve a variety of considerations, feelings, values, and goals, but also that perhaps a woman in Ms. Spitzer's position stands by her husband to, oh, I dunno, preserve some semblance of family unity for the sake of their children, or, gosh, because she cares deeply for and about her husband -- even when he does wrong, even though there are deeply flawed aspects of him.

The fact you couldn't conceive of those possibilities says much more about you than your screed did about Ms. Spitzer. Don't take my word for it -- by your own admission ("I have been writing about this for nearly forty thirty years and I could run a story I wrote in the seventies today and it would read exactly the same way") you've been unable in FORTY YEARS to gain any deeper understanding of why some women stick by men who do despicable, dangerous, hurtful, disgusting things. And to omit the most obvious explanation -- that four letter word, "l-o-v-e" --can only lead one to wonder what your life and relationships have been based on such that you can't conceive of a woman in Ms. Spitzer's shoes having anything but base motives. Wow -- who hurt you?

But you're not done -- you can't resist grouping all the wives you mentioned together and then condemning them en masse. That you fail to even acknowledge the *possibility* that different women might behave in what appear to be the same way for entirely different reasons betrays a condescending simple-mindedness towards all women.

Ms. Spitzer did something you wouldn't (and can't stand), for reasons you don't know and can't fathom. Big deal. Get over it, and yourself.

What is most amazing to me are the number of women who have the knives out for Silda Spitzer. I would have thought that this would be a time to support another woman in an incredibly difficult situation, but instead, the knives come out to cut her down, second-guess her and rue her decisionmaking. That's both shocking and saddening.

If he really loved her he would protect her and their children by not exposing them to any of it. He asked her to share his embarrassment- he should have protected her from it. It's that simple. When you love someone you protect them- it's not a matter of image. What he did was about as unloving an act as a partner can perform past the infidelity.

This is so disappointing. It never ceases to amaze me that powerful men are willing to throw away years of successful careers, status, and loving and supportive family and friends for two hours of nonsense with a prostitute. Mr. Spitzer has lost everything because of a prostitute, and the ones who will suffer the most shame and disgrace are the ones who loved him the most..his family. Mrs. Spitzer is a strong woman to endure this situation. However, I do feel that once the dust settles that she should give him nothing, but take everything.

What is Sally Quinn thinking typing something so spiteful about another person, much less publishing it on a major newspaper's web site for all the world to read?

This is so disappointing. It never ceases to amaze me that powerful men are willing to throw away years of successful careers, status, and loving and supportive family and friends for two hours of nonsense with a prostitute. Mr. Spitzer has lost everything because of a prostitute, and the ones who will suffer the most shame and disgrace are the ones who loved him the most..his family. Mrs. Spitzer is a strong woman to endure this situation. However, I do feel that once the dust settles that she should give him nothing, but take everything.

The comparison to burgas and sati is inapt and, unfortunately, distracted from your otherwise entirely correct point. As I watched poor Silda standing there, all I could think was, "what is wrong with you?" Even if you decide to forgive him -- for the sake of the children, for power hunger, because you love him so, whatever -- do it in private, for pete's sake. Dana Milbank put it best in his column the other day, saying that whatever unseemly things Spitzer asked the call girl to do, "it probably wasn't as monstrous as what he asked his wife to do." But she agreed to it!! Is that really the lesson you want to teach your daughters, Silda? That they like all women must eat whatever plate of poo their husbands serve them? Now that's unseemly.

As an avid reader of Washington Post, even after leaving the DC area, I found this article bit cavalier.

You have compared this with indian sati system probably without having an iota of knowledge of it. First of all this ritual is obsolete in India only with sporadic report (only one I remember 20 yrs back, the Rup-kanowar case). Secondly this hapeens ONLY and ONLY when THE HUSBAND is DEAD and hence it's not only inappropriate comparison as well as misleading.

Lastly, about their presence even in a denigrating situation I would argue that this is called marriage. Leaving the fallen spouse is the easiest solution, but guiding a family through a tough and bad situation to a high moral standard is a much difficult task. And I think she should be credited for that effort. The old adage says hate the sin, not the sinner. She hasn't committed any crime, nor she supported the act and therefore shouldn't be criticized.

Thank You,

Kousik

Sally Quinn may very well be mean and shallow as she appears. It's hard to tell without knowing her personally. It may be an act.

"As if sticking with him she is somehow degrading herself"

How anyone can say that this is not degrading herself is beyond me. Whatever Mr. Spitzer's motivations throughout his repeated betrayals, the one thing that is certain is that he displayed a complete and utter lack of respect for his wife and his family. For his wife to accept this and continue to stand next to him on national television, where he allows the country to witness just how little he respected her, to me is tantamount to saying that she accepts this treatment and does not deserve better. For such an educated woman as Mrs. Spitzer to imply that she does not deserve respect is extremely disappointing to millions of young women anywhere. Just because she hasn't chosen her status as a role model doesn't diminish her responsibility as such.

"I have been writing about this for nearly forty thirty years . . . ."

My, a long time. Amazing it only took you a few paragraphs to play the victim game. She's a victim? Of what? How do you know what goes on in their home? How do you know she hasn't cheated? How do you know for sure that she even offers sex to Eliot or has in the past 10 years. There are reasons men cheat beyond power and feelings of "invincibility" as you put it. Sometimes they do it because their wife simply isn't doing anything for them and their marriage is a public front.

I suspect Sally Quinn cannot understand this, but a lot of people, both female and male have generous and understanding hearts. I doubt that Silda is going to wear a burqa; she may go back to her corporate career, she may divorce Eliot, or again she might not. "She is a doormat" is in your eyes, probably not hers. Think about this, seriously, Hilary would not now be a serious presidential contender had she divorced Bill ten years ago. He has campaigned for her, not always wisely, but he has been in her corner just as much as she has been in his. Women like you who love to stir up hatred between men and women should move to some other planet - Venus?
It is hot there, but there are no men as far as I know.

I agree. I have no idea why politicians require their wives to stand next to them on the podium of shame. They essentially humiliate them all over again, this time more publicly.

Even if she was planning on forgiving and staying with him, let him carry his shame on his own shoulders.

The wisdom of these men in power is astounding. This is the intelligence and "wise decisionmaking" we want of a leader? Of someone to answer that "3 am phone call" for us? I can't believe this same stupid mistake is made over and over again.

Thank you!
No more analysis needed.

Why is this in the "On Faith" section?

For a second, Ms. Quinn, I thought that you were purposely trying to stir the pot and elicit a response from readers. But then I realized you actually believe what you're saying -- and I'm frankly shocked. That you can stand here and judge someone like Silda Spitzer and liken her to the women of the Taliban is unbelievable. You make a huge mistake to think that she should stand for all women. She doesn't and shouldn't -- anymore than Mr. Spitzer stands for all men. You frankly have no idea what that poor woman is going through and she seems quite smart enough to decide for herself and her family. In the end by writing what you did, you're victimizing her as much as he did. Way to go.

Let me get this straight: Standing next to your philandering husband at a press conference reminded you of ritual suicide?

What the hell are you talking about?

Sally - to answer your quasi rhetorical question on what separates Silda Spitzer from women covered in head to toe in a burqa in one word: choice.

To compare the two insults your intelligence and mine.

I respect the strength and composure demonstrated by Mrs. Spitzer. I would have also respected if she wasn't present during the press conferences. But most of all I respect that I live in a society where women are free to choose their own destiny.

To even [seriously] make a comment that women are forced to stand by the men they loved, in the past or the present, and compare it to societies that threaten women with physical torture as a societal norm can be summed up in one word: ignorant.

What is Sally Quinn thinking? Why would anyone want to beat up on Silda Spitzer, who has shown grace and strength at a time of family crisis? I did not see a "pathetic, ravaged face" in Silda. I saw a sad, but strong, face. Ms. Quinn's castigation of Ms. Spitzer for not being more "morally correct" seems more about Ms. Quinn's own feelings and reactions about watching Ms. Spitzer begin to work through what has to be a painful period. And it seems more about Ms. Quinn's desire to see the governor punished than what is best for his family.

Is running away from your husband of 20 years more morally correct, better for the family, than trying to work through the pain? Ms. Spitzer does not have the luxury of satisfying the Quinn's of the world who, with rage and anger at philandaring men, call out to women to do the politically and "morally correct" thing. Many siblings, parents, children and spouses in the world work through a lot of unfortunate, sad, and painful things in their familial relations. They do so because of the complex nature and fundamental role of family and because love does not always run away at the sign of difficulty, even great diffulty. The calculation over what to do in this kind of situation is complicated and personal. It is not subject to broad-brush, one-size-fits-all prescriptions about what some deem to be the morally, or politically, correct thing to do. I admire Silda Spitzer while making no firm assumptions about what is going on inside of her or where she and her family will go with this. That is her decision, not Ms. Quinn's.

1. Maybe she loves him.
2. Maybe she doesn't want her daughters to hate him.
3. Maybe she thinks he's an addict who needs help.
4. Maybe she doesn't want her family destroyed.

It's funny to me that these obvious possibilities don't occur to some people. Is it because, at the Spitzers' (or Clintons') level, we don't believe a marriage could be other than a power arrangement? But humiliated spouses hang in all the time, both men and women, hoping the mess can be fixed. Why does that elicit contempt?

Everyone assumes that Silda was "cheated" on--implying that she didn't know. Why would a woman who didn't know, encourage her husband to hold onto his office and his power? That certainly would not be my wife's first concern! Maybe she did know about his prostitutes, but decided that she could settle for a marriage of convenience if it also meant familial, economic, and social security for her and her daughters. Divorce can be worse all around than living with a man you don't have sex with anymore.

Sally,
You have a fundamental flawed assumption in your reasoning. You claim that it would be "morally correct" for Silda to have an eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth reaction to the whole thing and decide "since he cheated on me, I'm leaving him". As if sticking with him she is somehow degrading herself. What about the moral concept of forgiveness?? What about the concept of a marriage covenant where both sides have agreed "til death do us part?" Marriage is not an agreement to co-exist with another person until that person screws up big time, then I leave. Marriage is a contract by which a man and a woman agree to commit to each other for life. But everyone is flawed, and everyone makes mistakes, sometimes huge ones. Silda Spitzer is taking the moral high ground to forgive her husband and uphold her end of the marriage contract. Of course she would be justified in ending the marriage. But it is up to her to decide whether Eliot is truly repentant and accept him back. To put her down for doing a very difficult and courageous thing is reprehensible.

My heart goes out to Mrs. Spitzer and her children. I am a firm believer in taking care of the business of my home and family within my home. I think that after Mrs. Spitzer has had a chance to recover from the public scrutiny of this whole sordid mess, Mr. Spitzer will get the surprise, shock and awe of his life from this gracious and elegant lady, who is his wife of many years. Stand By.

What I don't understand is how this now standard procedure, dragging out the wife when apologizing for moral failures, does anyone any good. As if she hadn't been humiliated enough after he was caught, having to face their children, and her family and friends. Why make her stand next to him in front of the cameras while he expresses "remorse" for his actions. Please. Why the show? Can't we just leave her to cry in private? Does anyone think any better of him because she's there? Does anyone feel anything but sorry for her? I agree, Sally, enough already!

I dunno, I've studied the photos. Especially the one where Eliot "Mess" Spitzer looks like he's about to swallow his own face.

Maybe she's considering her options? She's a well-educated white woman with a law career and now, a public platform for...ever (almost).

How sorry do you want me to feel for her?

Other men --not the politicians-- screw up like this all the time. Do we ever hear about their wives? Maybe that's what we should be talking about instead?

I second "Judging"'s coment.

No one can judge Silda's action. We outsiders don't know what's going on in this marriage and between this man and this woman; therefore, we should not judge.

And I disagree with the reporter's notion about not standing by your man is more enpowering to women. Love knows no bounds. Love is like pure gold that shines under extreme heat.

Also, there are 3 darling girls involved. They are at the age that can't be shielded. Even if Silda did it not for the love of her husband, she'd definitely do it for the love of her children.

Regardless, my heart goes out to Silda and her 3 girls....

Perhaps she was thinking this is the father of my children, this is the man I've spent 20 years with, this is my family in crisis. Perhaps she was thinking this must be the worse part of "for better or worse". Perhaps she was thinking she was married to a flawed individual that just happens to be her husband. Perhaps she was thinking about forgiveness and how much would be needed in the weeks and months and years to come to help her family heal.

Silda looked like she was in agony and my heart goes out to her. But, I do not buy the argument that has been appearing here and elsewhere that love, marriage,and families are complicated and a woman should not be judged for standing by "her man". It's one thing to forgive and forget in the privacy of a home, but the public displays of people like Hillary and Silda offer a terrible role model for women who are trapped in abusive relationships of any kind.

Any man worth his salt would have had more consideration for his wife and would not have allowed her on the stage during his mea culpa.But then, any man worth his salt would not have done what Spitzer and Bill Clinton did.

I think Hillary would be way ahead in the primaries if she had kicked out Bill. That shows independence, ethics and principles.

Although it may seem selfish to want the wife to stay behind the scene in these circumstances, anyone in the right minds would understand it.

The wife is typically pushed into the limelight, under the worst conditions possible. She has to have her name spattered across the newpapers, whithout he consent, etc. because of her husband's bad choices. Does she have to literally stand there in shame as well.

If she chooses to, so be it, it is her right. But I am certain, if she chooses to stay home and let the jerk stand on his own, she would be criticized for that as well.

With all these opinionated people, you simply can't win for losing.

My stance... I don't know if I would stay in the relationship or leave, but I know I WOULD NOT stand up there with him. He can face the music alone for the cameras and if so choose, I will help him when he gets home.

Isn't it likely that, while she's doubtless angry and hurt, she still loves her husband, the father of her three daughters, and wanted to help him?

I know if one of my loved ones were in trouble, even of their own making, my first impulse would be to help them any way that I could.

Perhaps it's as simple as that?

I'm not sure why everyone assumes "staying with your man" means "standing next to him at the press conference." If Silda decides to forgive, to stay together for the children, to honor her vow even though he did not honor his...more power to her. Why in the world she had to show her face on national television as her husband confessed his infidelities is beyond me. That is a level of embarrassment I don't think one should have to submit to, even if one decides to "stand by her man." If Silda showed up out of her own accord, because she wasn't about to let the bums get her down, then I am awed by her conviction - THAT would truly make her a role model. If she showed up because it's part of the political formula for the spouse to appear to give support during national confessions....that sickens me more than anything Spitzer may have done with that call girl.

imo she stood there because she felt she had to. this happened so quick she was probably blind sided and her response was to 'show a good face to the world'. either way who cares how a woman chooses to present herself in public? what i want to know is what did she do/say at home? is he home? did she leave? how are the kids?

on the other hand if it were me he would have been left twisting in the wind.

i'm unclear on why you think it's your place to tell ms spitzer what to do. the fact is that you have no idea what the couple's private relationship was like, and thus you aren't in a position to judge her.

there are an infinite number of reasons why she may have decided to stand with him at the announcements, and i won't be so bold as to hypothesize which one was correct.

but the simplest is love. this is the 'on faith' section, so i doubt the idea of loving someone despite his flaws, forgiving him, and standing beside him at his darkest hour is really that foreign a thought.

"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

I understand your reaction,one woman's humiliation is every woman's humiliation. But women often consider the family that they have worked long and hard to build, the emotional lives of their children, their love, despite the betrayal of their spouses and last but not least, the entreaty to forgive. The vows don't say only if you behave well, they say for better or worse. That means a lot to many women.

Seems to be a mistake in the col.
See paragraph:

I have been writing about this for nearly forty thirty years and I could run a story I wrote in the seventies today and it would read exactly the same way. Remember Mrs. Gary Hart, Mrs. Bob Livingston, Mrs

Is it forty years or thirty years?

Thanks.

What a political wife chooses to do under these kinds of cirumstances is 100% about her, and what she wants to do. Second-guessing that decision, or trying to "force" someone to make a different decision as part of a "movement" or something like that seems well out of line to me. These are marriages, after all, and it's up to her as to what she wishes to do with her marriage at this point -- not up to us to tell her what she should and should not do in public.

As for the messages this sends to the children -- really there isn't any great message to be sent. If you storm out and issue a press release, as you suggest, this sends a message of accountability, but also a message that rash, impulsive reactions are okay, that forgiveness is silly and irrlevant as a possibility in a marital relationship of 20 years and so forth. To be honest, many of us would think a very positive message would be conveyed to the daughters if the two parents could manage to change, forgive and heal their marriage, if they wish to do so -- but again, that is up to Silda and Eliot at this point. That's the one aspect of this sordid affair that really *is* a personal matter, and we're way out of line when we suggest that there is only one appropriate way for a woman to act under these circumstances.

Until someone has stood in the shoes of a woman who has been betrayed, they have no right to call women like Silda Spitzer power-hungry or subservient. I always said that if I ever discovered my husband cheated on me, I would leave in a heartbeat...that is until it happened to me. Yes, the betrayal is humiliating and devastating, but the complexities of a relationship following an affair or tryst are so much greater than one imagines. Eliot Spitzer has his wife to answer to and only she can determine how to act - whether to stand by the man she has loved for many, many years, or to leave him. Whatever her choice, it is not one that should be equated with setting feminism back. Her choice is her own and should not be dissected by the public.

You left out Marion Barry's former wife, Effie. She stood by that dirtbag at the podium but was wise enough to privately, sans fanfare, dump the skunk some time later. She was a bright, intelligent, distinguished, and classy woman, who passed away last fall. Indeed, she should've been mayor of DC, not that POS.

I agree. Are the women afraid of losing the lifestyle they have if they leave their cheating politician husband? Are they somehow brainwashed into believing that they can do no better than this guy? Silda Spitzer isn't doing this in order to stay with a powerful man to further her own career. His political life is done. There's no political benefit in this decision for her. It's not like her cheating husband is the President and staying with him would be her ticket to the White House. Lord knows we have 1 too many of those out there now.

As a man I am embarrassed by Gov Spitzer. Whether you are a high level politician, a famous athlete or an average Joe, cheating on your spouse is just plain wrong. They do it "because they can," but they often get caught.

Instead of humiliating your family, just don't do it. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And ladies, don't just stand behind your man and put up with it "for the good of the family." Stand up for yourself and send a message to your family that each and every one of you deserve better than that person who valued you all so little that he put his own physical needs ahead of what was best for his family.

Oh, and if it was the other way around and she was the political figure, I'd say the same thing. Just reverse the he/she him/her stuff.

Maybe she understands just what marriage is. Just because the husband fails miserably doesn't mean everything falls apart. If a marriage means the husband and wife are in fact "one," her behavior is cperfectly understandable. Even morally correct. Thank goodness not all women bought into the worst lies of feminism.

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

This column by Sally Quinn is absolutely beyond the pale. Maybe if Sally didn't have such contempt for the sanctity of marriage, she wouldn't have written this piece of trash. Why do women stay with their husbands when their spouse cheats on them? How about because it's the right thing to do for the children. Study after study after study shows that children are better off being brought up in imperfect homes with 2 parents than in homes with 1 parent.

If Miss Quinn can't fully comprehend a couple staying together for their kids, perhaps she's "gets it" when it comes to the career advantage. Miss Quinn asks the rhetorical question of whether Hillary Clinton would be running for president or be a U.S. senator were it not for her standing by her husband during the Lewinsky scandal. Well, since you are implying that it was a great career move from Hillary to stand by Bill, then why is it so difficult for you to understand why a woman would stay together with her cheating husband for the sake of their young kids?

Last but not least, Miss Quinn, please do yourself a favor and download Microsoft Word. The spelling and grammatical errors are simply embarrassing for someone writing in a national forum.

"What would you have done? Set aside the fact that this is a politician, are people expected to just get rid of they life partner just because they did one mistake?"

Oh, good gravy. This was not once, and it was not a mistake. "Oops, I seem to have had sex with a hooker. How on earth did THAT happen?" This was a repeated and deliberate practice flouting the very laws he boasted to have upheld, born of arrogance.
That said, Ms Wall Spitzer standing by her husband on TV suggests the marriage is more a power alliance, in which she's weighing how she can best protect her own financial and social position, than a love match in which she's pondering how to piece together her broken heart, then explain to her daughters that daddy frequents hookers close to their age. This is a bed that, I suspect, she made knowingly. Like her husband, she probably assumed they'd never get caught out.

A spouse standing by the other is not about "standing by your man." It signals that this is a personal issue, one of the marital relationship and the family, to which both spouses belong. There is nothing demeaning about being present to acknowledge a family issue or tragedy. We shouldn't impose our assumptions about the dynamics in others' relationships - no one knows what goes on in anyone else's relationship except the people involved.

When I saw the beautiful wife beside her husband, I thought "Why did he do it and why is she standing there?"

I would love to see the day that the 'humiliated' wife leaves her philandering husband to face the public ALONE!

What message is she sending to her daughters.... stand by your man at all costs... even if it costs you your life!! For the love of God, her husband preferred to have unprotected sex (when he was allowed) with hookers!

I agree with everything Sally Quinn wrote, but it saddens me that we are scrutinizing the actions of the innocent party. Let's remember, Ms. Wall Spitzer did nothing wrong. Still, I've been struggling to understand her willingness to stand there, rather than to make him stand alone, rather than standing somewhere far, far away with her children, who no doubt need her more than ever.

One thought I had, which is unlikely, but that I hope is accurate: By standing there next to him, she knew she'd be the face--the "visual" the media require--showing (not merely telling) that there is a victim to his crimes. She makes him look all the worse, because what he did actually had consequences. In other words, she did it to make him look like an even bigger scum bag. Imagining that makes me feel better.

And then I go back to thinking, well, it's none of my business anyway.

You are so on point with this piece. Where is the dignity for woman and when we will stand up and give the man a good beat down on TV.

You are so on point with the piece. Where is the dignity for woman and when we will stand up and give the man a good beat down on TV.

I completely agree with Eric. Leave her alone. I'm not sure I (or certainly my wife) would have made the same decision she did, but it is not for me to judge.

However, I will judge Eliot for: a) his actions, which appear to be calculated, well-planned, and played out over a long period of time (i.e., it wasn't a one-time mistake or momentary slip in judgement); and b) the complete lack of acknowledgment that his wife, who is up there taking the hit with him, did not have to be. Where was the "I apologize to my WIFE and CHILDREN?" Where was the "My wife did not have to stand here beside me today. I am humbled by her kindness and compassion in light of my shortcomings?"

I think we need to seriously examine not the if's and why's of wives standing beside their husbands on the podium, but why the husbands never seem to acknowledge that the wives are doing so despite, what I imagine to be, every urge not to be present and stuck in the glare of their spouse's awful mistakes.

We are on the same page,I think it's for the money. Because she know's that she will get paid when the divorce comes. (It's all on national news) You could see that girlfriend has had a hard week, and by the lump in her throat you could see that she was trying to gulp down a lot of do-do. (smile) But anyone could see that she really wanted to "CLEAN HIS CLOCK" as the old boys used to say. It is Mind Boggling to me WHY these women stand up there beside their men who have done something dumb and disgraceful and must appoligize for it, The wife stands there looking dumber and embarrassed than he does. He didn't want her in room 871, Why should she be up there when he gets caught.

What would you have done? Set aside the fact that this is a politician, are people expected to just get rid of they life partner just because they did one mistake? How many time have you forgiven you boyfriend or husband?
I understand as a journalist you are looking sensational to talk about, but I would not and most women would not not do what you recommend.
The percentage of cheating is very high in couple compare too what you would like people to believe. Why aren't all these people divorced??
Because, a marriage is not all about sex.......

dear ms quinn,

First, I would like to congratulate you on writing about a practice that should not be encouraged in America or anywhere else. You have put it correctly that American women who stand by the side of their wronged husbands are more subservient than the women who tolerated the Taliban edicts. However, not all Indian women commit Sati. It is a dastradly practice and most women in the sub-continent opposed the idea.
However, considering that you took the side of the devastated silda spitzer, your attitude towards the "hooker" is not so commendable. isn't she a wronged woman too? Isn't she part of the whole male-oriented practice of paying women for sex? Eliot Splitzer has not only torn apart his family, but has also made sure that the whole practice of prostitution, which is also known as exploitation, will be carried on for the next 50 years. Shame on a man who led such a lurid double life

dear ms quinn,

First, I would like to congratulate you on writing about a practice that should not be encouraged in America or anywhere else. You have put it correctly that American women who stand by the side of their wronged husbands are more subservient than the women who tolerated the Taliban edicts. However, not all Indian women commit Sati. It is a dastradly practice and most women in the sub-continent opposed the idea.
However, considering that you took the side of the devastated silda spitzer, your attitude towards the "hooker" is not so commendable. isn't she a wronged woman too? Isn't she part of the whole male-oriented practice of paying women for sex? Eliot Splitzer has not only torn apart his family, but has also made sure that the whole practice of prostitution, which is also known as exploitation, will be carried on for the next 50 years. Shame on a man who led such a lurid double life

What Was Silda Spitzer Thinking?

In your 17 paragraphs (above) you seem to know just what Silda Spitzer was thinking. You seem to know her thoughts and motives are so very similar to the wives of other powerful political men mentioned in your article.

I find that surprising in that Silda Spitzer hasn't granted one interview since Eliot's transgressions were revealed.

so...what was Silda Spitzer thinking?

bgl
Atlanta GA

Like Chausti, I think Sally Quinn is being too harsh. I'm sure the wives are absolutely stunned, and the decision to go out with the husband has to be made very quickly - no time to think. One message the wives must be hearing is "You have to be strong for the sake of the family." Strong being defined as standing up there for that news conference. They don't get much time to think about whether that is or is not strong - they keep hearing, though that they MUST be strong for their family. That must be terribly compelling to them.

One could also argue that their presence at the news conference tactically keeps a lot of options open for them - keeping the marriage together, asking for an additional half million at the divorce ("I stood by you when you needed me, and now you're arguing about *money*!), their own political activity, sometimes a career. If they don't show up, more doors close than open.

I agree wholeheartedly with your larger point, but the analogy with Sati detracts and distracts from it.

First, the analogy is like comparing the mugging of a Jewish couple to the Holocaust.

Second, Sati is not widespread in India today. In fact, it was probably never widespread, restricted to certain communities, and not frequent. It's Wikipedia entry states that there have been 40 instances recorded since 1947. It goes without saying that the number is 40 more than it ought to be.

So now you are critizing her? She is "brainy" so she must have had her reasons. Did he deserve to have her standing there? Obviously not. Did she deserve to be attacked by you for doing so? No.

aaayyyyyerrp

I am acquainted with both Silda Wall and her husband, Eliot. This is not a very psychological insightful commentary on either of them.

What is morally incorrect,is for someone to say anything against someone else marriage. They took there oath before God and no one should make any comment in either direction

It's an interesting point. And no doubt she would have liked to be on a Caribbean vacation during the press conference. But what she also may be saying is that her marriage and the mess it's become is her business, and she and her husband have to work it out on their own--not in the heat of a scandal.

Perhaps Mrs Spitzer viewed this incident as a "for worse" example of the oath she swore to stand by her man? Lord knows this power couple enjoyed plenty of "for better" days together.

I agree! Every time I see that news clip, I can't believe that Silda Spitzer is standing up there with him.

She is supposed to be smart, well educated and accomplished, right? So I don't get it! As married woman with three kids also, I don't understand why she would continue to support him and allow him to let her look like such a victim and a fool. It's sad and really bad role model for our children. Yuck.

Go girl!

I agree with everything stated in the post, but I think it's important to take into account the fact that we don't know much about their marriage; the superficial "successful couple with three children" image is taken at face value, and then we ask "What was she thinking?" as if all of this was unloaded on her as a complete shock in the last 48 hours.

Fact is, it's at least worth mentioning that many couples/marriages survive despite serious character flaws and compulsions, and couples often (wisely or not) choose to live with those issues or even just stay together to acheive other goals.

Obviously, I don't know the Spitzer's history, but it's hard to imagine that Eliot Spitzer's compulsion(s) didn't manifest in some other way (or even in the same way!) previously in their marriage, and Silda Spitzer may well have been aware that he had some 'issues.' She may have been shocked out of some idyllic existentence, but we simply don't know that Silda Spitzer was blindsided by this.

I think Spitzer is a strong and brave women like many of us are. We are quick to jump to say what she should have done, but she did what she thought was right. This is humiliating yes, to the whole family, but she did what she choose. What if the shoe was on the other foot? Unfortunately, men have been the weeker sex from the beginning of time, from cheating, lieing, scandalous behavior. What makes that case so different from others is that he Mr. Spitzer was in the eye of the public. He got caught. There are many more to be caught. Just wait and see, and their wives will be at their side too.

You say: Shouldn’t we expect that anyone who betrays his family and the public trust to pay the consequences for his actions.

Mr. Spitzer has already paid a price for his betrayal of the public trust, and may wind up paying even more of one if charges are filed against him.

As to his betrayal of his family, the price he pays for that is a private matter for his family to decide, unless, that is, you are suggesting some larger societal element should enforce such a price on him. Isn't that the very same Taliban-like behavior you decry in your post?

Well said Chausti. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sally,
I think it is great that someone in the media finally said what I was thinking. This is why I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton. How can she be a role model when she was constantly steam rolled by her husband not once but on multiple occasions. Why should we tell people to look up to her? Because she did an effective job of using her husbands career as a spring board for hers and therefore it was ok? I can only think that she is as obsessed with power as her husband. What will be next? Silda Spitzer for Senate? One day I would hope that we can elect people to office who can truly serve the people and be role models to our children not examples of how not to act.
Thanks for you article. It brightened my day.

It seems to me that perhaps the harshest thing Silda could do to Eliot is to repay his criminal philandering with the sort of loyalty that Eliot clearly hold for her. What a contrast it creates! What a reminder to the rest of us of just how severe Eliot's transgression is! How foolish of him to throw everything away when clearly he is undeserving of her in the first place.

Leave Silda alone. Eliot's the flawed one here.

Maybe wives stand by their men for a variety of reasons. They are likely a little shell-shocked themselves, reeling from the unveiling of whatever was revealed. They might not know yet what they want to do as far as the marriage is concerned. They may be thinking of their children. They may love their husbands, even though he did something reprehensible. The wives may be concerned that without their support their spouse might crack and do something unfixable, like commit suicide.

And, believe it or not, an extra-marital affair does not always signal the end of a marriage. Also, these women are MARRIED (as in 'til death do us part, good times and bad') so maybe they feel obligated to stand by as part of their marriage contract.

I also don't think standing by "humiliates" the wife. QUite the opposite, it shows how strong she is; heck, it'd be a whole lot easier to stay home in bed and watch the news conference on TV than stand there in front of the world with a straight face.

For all we know, she may have known/suspected his dalliances. Marriages are complicated and typically strong-willed, capable people don't auctomatically run for the hills at the first sign of trouble, even when it's horrible, publicly embarrassing trouble.

Amen.