Wives of politicians caught in sex scandals

I watched in dismay and with a hint of disgust as Silda Spitzer "stood by her man". She looked several years older than the last time I say her. I felt the same way when Hilary Clinton "stood by her man", when the news that her husband and President, Bill Clinton cheated on her, not once but several times. I am not married to these men, nor am I their children, but I still have have visions of what went on under Bill Clinton's desk while his wife and child slept or about the exploits of Governor Spitzer as he rolled around with a prostitute. Do their wives and children get the same visions or is it just that I have an overactive imagination? What is wrong with these women? I ask. Should I feel sorry for political wives like Hilary Clinton, Silda Spitzer and Suzanne Craig, all apparent intelligent women, dragged into the sex scandals their husbands have been caught up in? I regret to say that I can't feel sorry for these women. They live in the 21st century, they are privileged and they do have choices.

The Age of enlightenment started since the 18th century, when traditional ideas of womens' roles were questioned. Jean Jacques Rousseau a French Philosopher of that time, argued that women were "sentimental and frivolous' and were by nature, suitable as "subordinate companions" of men. For many years since the early 19th century, many strong women have worked diligently for women's equality and to dispel these beliefs.

It is the 21st century today. Women are more educated and powerful today than they have ever been and are no longer seen as "subordinate companions" of men, or are they? When Tammy Wynette released her hit "Stand by Your Man" in 1968, I was a mere child but I do recall the controversy that surrounded its release. Because I grew up in an environment where many women were stuck in subordinate roles and suffered all kinds of abuse, the song, then and now, is always seen as a justification for the "subordinate" role of women.

Why do political wives stand by their man? I know why some women in certain socio-economic situations do. Many women still depend economically on their spouses for food, shelter and housing. When babies come, this dependence is somewhat compounded. As a young girl growing up, the common response from women when asked why they stuck with an abuser or a cheater was that they did it for the children. But can political wives like Hilary, Suzanne and Silda make that same argument? If not, what argument can they make? Well they can say that they have grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle that they don't want to give up. In Hilary Clinton's case, perhaps she could have been patiently waiting for her turn at the presidential bid, and did not want to give up her husbands valuable contribution to her campaign. I, of course, would have respected her more as a presidential candidate if she had given him up years ago, but that is only me.

I am in no way arguing that women should immediately dispose of their cheating husbands. Every one deserve at least one chance. The political wives, in question however, would seem to have a much higher tolerance for the bad behavior of their spouses and put up with their degrading antics for many years. These are also very public escapades, or rather, they become public, causing public embarrassment and humiliation. It would seem that in spite of their privileged positions, political wives are no different than those wives who are staying in a bad situation because they either have no choice or they lack the self esteem, strength and wisdom to do otherwise. But let us not forget the power of "love". Remind me, what is "love"?.