Trump Example and the Idea of the Disposable Wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just do what Hillary did, never divorce the bastard. Make him file or make him sneak around or let home demonstrate his lack of values for all to see. Meanwhile completely do your own thing and make him show up when needed.

Except that doesn't always work. See: John Edwards and dying on your deathbed humiliated.

Yes, thanks for reminding us that before Trump that sort of atrocious behavior toward a longtime spouse still managed to kill political careers.

[Anonymous]

It takes two to tango.

The young second wives are just as complicit as the husband who dumped the first wife. They're doing it for the money and lifestyle. They don't care that the first wife is being unceremoniously dumped.

The Trump situation doesn't work here as the Donald was already divorced by the time he met Melania. That aside, it was a trophy marriage and there is an equality in it. She married him because he was wealthy, he married her because she was beautiful. Melania more or less admitted it in that famous interview. I'm not bothered by the marriage because both partners knew exactly what they were getting and signed up to it out of their free accord. Compare that to the Clinton marriage, where it's clear Bill Clinton was cheating on Hillary multiple times when governor of Arkansas and Hillary stood with him for political motivations and sold out on any feminist beliefs she may have had to also crucify the women who were bringing the allegations against Bill Clinton. Clinton would never have survived today's Me Too movement.

Many marriages at the upper ends of society aren't based on mutual love and respect but other factors. There are a lot of big egos the higher up the ladder you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not lack of shunning that causes cheating, it is lack of character.

If you really care about not getting cheated on, go for character in your spouse above any other trait. Although there are never any guarantees in life.

I disagree in part. It is not that lack of public reprobation causes cheating, as you say. A not unsubstantial percentage of married men (and women also) have always cheated, continue to cheat, and will always cheat.

What was different in the past, however, is that societal mores and public opprobrium - by and large - kept marriages safely moored to the benefit of the innocent spouse and children. Men (and women) cheated, yes, but they more rarely left their intact families for the affair partner, leaving behind destruction and dysfunction in their wake. Think back just fifteen years ago when politicians and titans of industry could have a career derailed or permanently sidelined over the exposure of an extramarital affair, particularly one for which you abandoned a spouse or two (e.g., Newt Gingrich and William Agee). Yet after the Trump effect married men (and women) can rightly rationalize the following to themselves: "Not only will having an extramarital affair and leaving my family NOT jeopardize the career and reputation I have worked so long and hard to establish, but gosh darn it, I can still grow up to be President one day."

Yes the Scarlet Letter was a bad thing, but I believe that the pendulum has now swung too far to the opposite extreme. One male poster, who is a rising corporate executive, told the following story in another Thread on this Forum. A female colleague he worked with was uncomfortable with an obvious romantic relationship that their senior executive boss was having with a different female colleague, so she approached their boss to tell him so. The senior executive denied the relationship and told the woman that if she ever brought up the subject again, he would fire her. Some time later, their boss left his longtime wife and their family for their other colleague. We should be able to approach the people we work with, without the threat of being terminated, to tell them that an extramarital romantic relationship makes us uncomfortable, and the persons involved should be made to internalize the cost of the discomfort that their behavior is causing, not only their families, but also their professional colleagues.

PP here. I agree that shunning isn't a bad thing. I am all for shaming of socially destructive behavior. However, I still don't think it has as much of an impact as one would hope. Prior to the current world we live in where cheating and bad behavior in general are socially acceptable, bad behavior was simply hidden out of view. At least now you can see what you are dealing with out in the open; it makes it easier to find a good, honest spouse - although, again, no guarantees of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:F the patriarchy. It’s not about playing their game. I wouldn’t date a man half my age. Not appealing.

Any woman replaced with a younger model can move on. We raised the kids, we supported your career, and in the end we generally live longer and happier lives.

I feel sad for men who seem to only relate to a female as a transaction. Mostly sad for the daughters witnessing their self worth through that perverse filter.

LMAO at the huge self-awareness fail. Every man knows the bitter truth of Briffault's Law: "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."

In short, when you're no longer useful to a woman, no matter what you did for her in the past, she's done with you.

[Anonymous]

One public figure who deserves a more than a little criticism for the despicable and disposable manner in which he treated his first wife is the conservative NYT columnist David Brooks.

David met his first wife Jane Hughes when both were students at the University of Chicago, and they married in 1986. Jane changed her name to Sarah and converted to Judaism for David. At some point Sarah put her own full-time career, considerable intelligence, University of Chicago degree, and personal ambition aside, and devoted herself to raising the couple's three children.

All was good in the Brooks marriage until 2012, when David hired Georgetown graduate student Anne Snyder, a woman 23 years his junior, to serve as the research assistant for his 2015 book, "The Road to Character". When the book was released in April 2015, Brooks devoted the entire lengthy opening paragraph of the Acknowledgments section to Anne, and relegated Sarah - his wife of 27 years - to one brief sentence at the very end. As it was, a perfect metaphor for the state of David Brooks's affair(s) since he went on to divorce Sarah by 2015, and marry Anne in 2017. Adding insult to Sarah's injury, David converted to Catholicism for Anne (and she did not have to change her name either, so bonus points there).

But really the coup de grace and Sarah's private humiliation was likely delivered when David Brooks earlier published a March 3, 2015 Opinion piece in the NYT titled "Leaving and Cleaving." With the benefit of hindsight, many observers have interpreted that column as a thinly veiled, farewell, hate note to Sarah, to the effect of: "Accept that I have dumped you, and now take the high road and leave me the h@ll in peace." I suggest that you read it.

Despite the abject cruelty administered by David Brooks to his devoted wife of 27 years Sarah, and their three children, people barely blinked an eye at this abhorrent conduct. In fact, Atlantic media owner David Bradley and his wife Katherine Bradley threw David and Anne a pre-wedding luncheon attended by many of Washington's media and political notables. It reminds me of an old Spanish saying to the effect of: "The rich and powerful man will always be kowtowed to." Indeed he will, but I personally can never read David Brooks the same way again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F the patriarchy. It’s not about playing their game. I wouldn’t date a man half my age. Not appealing.

Any woman replaced with a younger model can move on. We raised the kids, we supported your career, and in the end we generally live longer and happier lives.

I feel sad for men who seem to only relate to a female as a transaction. Mostly sad for the daughters witnessing their self worth through that perverse filter.

LMAO at the huge self-awareness fail. Every man knows the bitter truth of Briffault's Law: "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."

In short, when you're no longer useful to a woman, no matter what you did for her in the past, she's done with you.

This is so true. Just look at the dating world. Women will keep a few men around just for entertainment value and ditching them when they see something they like. So this is not just a male thing. It just more a timing thing. Women do it early on and only some men(who are rich, powerful or famous enough to attract women) do it. In that case, its usually the younger woman making herself available to the gross old man for money, power, easier life, etc. I do not think there is anything wrong with it. Everyone involved is an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One public figure who deserves a more than a little criticism for the despicable and disposable manner in which he treated his first wife is the conservative NYT columnist David Brooks.

David met his first wife Jane Hughes when both were students at the University of Chicago, and they married in 1986. Jane changed her name to Sarah and converted to Judaism for David. At some point Sarah put her own full-time career, considerable intelligence, University of Chicago degree, and personal ambition aside, and devoted herself to raising the couple's three children.

All was good in the Brooks marriage until 2012, when David hired Georgetown graduate student Anne Snyder, a woman 23 years his junior, to serve as the research assistant for his 2015 book, "The Road to Character". When the book was released in April 2015, Brooks devoted the entire lengthy opening paragraph of the Acknowledgments section to Anne, and relegated Sarah - his wife of 27 years - to one brief sentence at the very end. As it was, a perfect metaphor for the state of David Brooks's affair(s) since he went on to divorce Sarah by 2015, and marry Anne in 2017. Adding insult to Sarah's injury, David converted to Catholicism for Anne (and she did not have to change her name either, so bonus points there).

But really the coup de grace and Sarah's private humiliation was likely delivered when David Brooks earlier published a March 3, 2015 Opinion piece in the NYT titled "Leaving and Cleaving." With the benefit of hindsight, many observers have interpreted that column as a thinly veiled, farewell, hate note to Sarah, to the effect of: "Accept that I have dumped you, and now take the high road and leave me the h@ll in peace." I suggest that you read it.

Despite the abject cruelty administered by David Brooks to his devoted wife of 27 years Sarah, and their three children, people barely blinked an eye at this abhorrent conduct. In fact, Atlantic media owner David Bradley and his wife Katherine Bradley threw David and Anne a pre-wedding luncheon attended by many of Washington's media and political notables. It reminds me of an old Spanish saying to the effect of: "The rich and powerful man will always be kowtowed to." Indeed he will, but I personally can never read David Brooks the same way again.

How do you know what their relationship was like? Was she really devoted to him? You are reading what you want to in to the situation. People change are 27 years.

[Anonymous]

I'm in my early 40's and am a wealthy single woman (divorced). I have wonderful, healthy children and and will not have more. I'm absolutely only going to date wealthy older men. Maybe late 40's early 50s? I'm not interested in raising another couples children, and I've BTDT with the high earning high flying work all the time lifestyle. Not going there again. I'm smart and in great shape, well traveled and have all of the same hobbies as do, in general.

So yes, a guy who retired early and is divorced and wealthy will fall right inside my wheelhouse. I don't think that there is anything gross about it, I'm just very practical. Similarily it doesn't gross me out or seem desperate if a man needs a very young woman by his side to feel attractive or happy, we are all adults, folks.

[Anonymous]

Yes, previous poster, but unlike the David Brooks example, you are currently single, and sre pursuing single men. Married individuals do not have that freedom.

[Anonymous]

Oh sheesh. There's a million examples of this. If you want to pick on one shithead milquetoast conservative columnist go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, previous poster, but unlike the David Brooks example, you are currently single, and are pursuing single men. Married individuals do not have the moral freedom to pursue or be pursued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One public figure who deserves more than a little criticism for the despicable and disposable manner in which he treated his first wife is the conservative NYT columnist David Brooks.

David met his first wife Jane Hughes when both were students at the University of Chicago, and they married in 1986. Jane changed her name to Sarah and converted to Judaism for David. At some point Sarah put her own full-time career, considerable intelligence, University of Chicago degree, and personal ambition aside, and devoted herself to raising the couple's three children.

All was good in the Brooks marriage until 2012, when David hired Georgetown graduate student Anne Snyder, a woman 23 years his junior, to serve as the research assistant for his 2015 book, "The Road to Character". When the book was released in April 2015, Brooks devoted the entire lengthy opening paragraph of the Acknowledgments section to Anne, and relegated Sarah - his wife of 27 years - to one brief sentence at the very end. As it was, a perfect metaphor for the state of David Brooks's affair(s) since he went on to divorce Sarah by 2015, and marry Anne in 2017. Adding insult to Sarah's injury, David converted to Catholicism for Anne (and she did not have to change her name either, so bonus points there).

But really the coup de grace and Sarah's private humiliation was likely delivered when David Brooks earlier published a March 3, 2015 Opinion piece in the NYT titled "Leaving and Cleaving." With the benefit of hindsight, many observers have interpreted that column as a thinly veiled, farewell, hate note to Sarah, to the effect of: "Accept that I have dumped you, and now take the high road and leave me the h@ll in peace." I suggest that you read it.

Despite the abject cruelty administered by David Brooks to his devoted wife of 27 years Sarah, and their three children, people barely blinked an eye at this abhorrent conduct. In fact, Atlantic media owner David Bradley and his wife Katherine Bradley threw David and Anne a pre-wedding luncheon attended by many of Washington's media and political notables. It reminds me of an old Spanish saying to the effect of: "The rich and powerful man will always be kowtowed to." Indeed he will, but I personally can never read David Brooks the same way again.

How do you know what their relationship was like? Was she really devoted to him? You are reading what you want to in to the situation. People change are 27 years.

The facts are simply these. David Brooks was with his wife and family until, apparently, he met and worked with another woman (23 years younger) that he preferred to be with. Sometime during the overlap between the two women, his first wife and the new research assistant, he chose to leave his old wife of 27 years, and marry the new wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that older men and younger trophy wives have existed forever, but I feel that Trump took it to the next level by demonstrating to even conservative, aspirational, and ambitious men that there are absolutely no societal or professional consequences and opprobium any more for dumping a longtime spouse in favor of an affair partner. If anything Trump shows that such a partner can further and assist in your ambition by making you look younger, or bringing in other professional connections, or simply making you happier with more sex. It makes me sad to see that wives are considered disposable. Anecdotally I have seen a rash of divorces, including some Texas friends who have been together since college (now in their 50s), with children, who have moved around the country a lot so that he could advance in his career. She is beautiful, fun, social, and they always seemed incredibly connected and happy. But now that he earns many millions each year, he is out of the marriage. I can tell you several other stories like that one.

I don't know why you are connecting this to Trump. Rich men (and poor men, for that matter) have been doing it for centuries. There have never been any societal or professional consequences or opprobrium for dumping an older wife for a younger model. All societal and professional points in such a marriage are attached to the husband so they do not convey.

There are costs to the man who marries the younger woman. Often it's not about love for the younger woman, instead wealth and status. Sadly, many of those men believe it's about love. Older women on the other hand could do the same thing, but don't because they seek a partner type relationship. Those are the differences.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, who cares?

If you have adequately prepared for the possibility that this could happen to you, both materially and socially, then you will be fine.

Would you really want to be with someone who didn't cherish the family you built together? I know I wouldn't - and I also know that I can have a happy life in a relationship or single.

[Anonymous]

Rich men do this a lot OP. And, yes, Trump has made womanizing popular even with the dreaded Evangelicals...they think womanizing is great if your name is Trump