Elizabeth Edwards: The Lies that Bind

Elizabeth Edwards is an undoubtedly smart woman who is living out the pain that comes from the old and outmoded beliefs about men and women that unknowingly determine our behavior . . . along with a hefty dose of denial.

Let's take the denial first. I mean, wouldn't you want to know if your husband had fathered an illegitimate child? Pulling the shades down over your eyes and never ever saying out loud the name of the "other woman" (or not allowing Oprah to say her name) won't help a bit. I'll say it: Rielle Hunter--a reportedly broke single mother who is probably not the crazy stalker Elizabeth paints as the root of all evil.

I know that what we hide--especially from ourselves--can hurt us. The emotional pain we feel (like the devastating grief of losing a 16-year-old child in a car accident that affected both Elizabeth and John) or the pain we deny gets stored in our bodies if we don't find a way to release it, and can contribute to everything from insomnia to cancer. And Elizabeth, who is already suffering from metastasized cancer, is hiding some very big truths from herself.

Here's a smart, substantial woman. Yet she fully supported her husband's candidacy for President even though she knew that the truth about his affair would invariably come out during the campaign. Like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth is probably more mature and morally steadfast than her husband. Like Hillary, had she not been indoctrinated with a "stand by your man" mentality, she might have been the better candidate.

What are women like these (and let's add Silda Spitzer to the mix) doing with men who are powerful enough to think they can get away with cheating on their wives? Wives who stand at their sides as the men perform their insincere mea culpas. What, you think Eliot Spitzer didn't enjoy those high-priced call girls? Or that Bill didn't know what actually constituted sex? Or that John didn't like his nights at the Beverly Hills Hilton with the sexy videographer who ostensibly told him he was hot?

The answer lies in our shared unconscious belief system that women are "less than" men; that every woman needs a man to complete her; that if she's too fat no man will want her; that women who are too smart will scare men off; that women are the root of all evil; and that women should stand by their men, no matter what.

Sounds to me like Elizabeth is telling herself more than several of these outmoded lies.

As outdated as these beliefs may seem in this post-feminist age, they nevertheless impact our behavior. They wear away a woman's self-esteem, until the betrayed wife winds up writing a passive-aggressive book that publicly flays her husband.

It's difficult to look at a couple's relationship from the outside and know what's really going on, but I have a hunch that Elizabeth's health problems would improve if she faced the truth and John were out of the picture.

Comments

[cgr]

I can't understand the whole book thing, re-injecting the subject into the public eye.

But, unlike Hilary or Silda Spitzer, she is facing terminal cancer, the key word here "terminal", and in light of that has her children to consider. If she has little time, it does make sense to "make do" for her children, and not put herself or them through the additional trauma and upheaval of divorce, etc. She's paid her dues in the relationship; let him step up and be there for her now.

I'll bet she's making damned sure, in case she-whose-­name-will-­not-be-spo­ken is waiting in the wings for the mommy/wife position in that beautiful home to be available, that her assets (and add book royalties) will be out of reach for her husband and whatsername, nailed in an irod-clad trust for her children. I would.

[partyofone]

Does Deborah King have a straight face when she says "Like Hillary, had she not been indoctrinated with a "stand by your man" mentality, she might have been the better candidate."

But Hillary told the nation during Bill's first campaign for president (January 26, 1992, 60 Minutes, CBS), during an interview that she "wasn't some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette." Was she untruthful? Hillary knew then she was married to a serial adulter. Then she told the nation that Bill was the innocent victim of a "vast right wing conspiracy" (January 27, Today Show, NBC). Did she really believe that? I believe she stood by her man to protect her substantial investment and to cash in for her own professional gain. It seems implausible that Hillary could have raised the mega-millions necessary to win her Senate seat, or to "qaulify" as a presidential candidate if she was no longer Mrs. Bill Clinton.

With Bill, she raised a HUGE campaign war chest, assembled a dream team of staff and advisors, had the unprecedented resource of a popular former president campaigning for her full time and a media drumbeat of inevitablity. But ack of good judgement on Iraq, inability to communicate a clear message, distortion of qualifications, Rove-style attacks, lack of leadership in addressing staff conflicts and financial mismanagment contributed to her defeat. She had her shot and failed on merits. Bill deserves blame and credit. Dependency works in both directions.

[partyofone]

oops serial adulterer*

[cdsersrsilly]

More lize from the loneliest party in the world. Why didn't you post an actual quote from the Today Show Interview? Because she never called Bill an "innocent victim". YOU believe you know why she "stood by her man"?

Yeah ....

CDSers are funny like that.

[gisellestwocents]

Infidelity doesn't invoke decisions to stand by your man -- wishes to avoid further public humiliation after a long history of success in that arena might.

I think EE made her thought processes very clear. She had no desire to role over and give this REPORTEDLY opportunistic interloper an open door to her man of 30 years -- give or take a few.

Yes, I would want to know the full extent of the affair BUT; I haven't been in an idyllic marital relationship for 30 years and I don't suffer from a terminal illiness.

So, I'm not qualified to assess EE's state of mind or to critique her decisions.

[plex]

I don't have much to say that has not already been said. What I can say is that echo the sentiment that I am happy Jon Edwards did NOT get the nod from the Democratic Party.

[partyofone]

and I feel fortunate the Hillary did not either.

[joshinbanff]

You think her TERMINAL cancer will improve if she leaves her husband? I am baffled at how everywhere I look people are judging this woman. This man cheated on his dying wife of 30 years numerous times while lying to her face... She is trying to cope with it any way she can and try to turn it into a positive by helping other women cope. She is not silently 'standing by her man' , nor is she deciding to spend what may be the last years of her life in a bitter divorce battle, left dying with a broken family. Can you blame her? I think everyone is mad because she is defying convenient labels. She is working on it, but not necessarily quietly and demurely. She is being honest.

Please have a heart and stop judging this woman during her dying days, she has already had enough bad things happen to her.

[nantucketsunset]

Mrs. E's attitudes seemed old-fashioned, materialistic, conservative, and self-insulating; I can see why Edwards (whom I'm no fan of) enjoyed the company of other women who were more liberal in lifestyle/mindset (even just for dalliances).

Most marriages involve infidelity at some point. Ethically and practically, affairs are problematic -emotionally they can be heartbreaking- but happen all the time, to good people, and it's no shame to continue a marriage afterwards.

But even while Mrs. E. is airing her dirty laundry in public, she's refusing to look at it or touch it herself, which is so curious. She might think it's reclaiming her power to be so open about the mess that her marriage/home life is in, but I can't see that it's doing any of them any good. Healing after an affair (I'd guess) requires being honest with each other, facing *reality* _just_as_it_is_, getting straight amongst the two (or three or four) people involved, and moving forward with dignity and a unified front.

I could not care less about an expensive house or walls of photographs or clinging to the memory of decades gone by - all are important, but in a "past" kind of way; poisoning the future in order to humiliate the one who humiliated you (and demanding an obedience to the Past and to a flimsy mental construct of "our type of people," "our" type of life) seems a folly to me.

[nantucketsunset]

The author writes that, "[Outdated beliefs]... wear away a woman's self-esteem, until the betrayed wife winds up writing a passive-aggressive book that publicly flays her husband." I so agree. Mrs. Edwards is appearing to be passive-aggressive, angry, willfully destructive of the remaining bits of privacy (or dignity) that her husband and she had left, (deliberately remaining) confused, wounded, and heavily in denial. Naturally, I'm sure she is smart and devoted and strong, and I'm sorry that she's had several tragedies in her life. But just because you throw all of your efforts behind a family unit and material success and career achievement, it does not mean that life owes you something, or that if you just believe hard enough and stick your fingers in your ears when any uncomfortable words are spoken, you will eventually get the rewards you feel you deserve. I haven't read her book, but stubbornness does not equate to "resilience". She made a few spiritual- and "evolved"-sounding comments in the interview, but I felt there was simmering resentment underneath. Insisting on not hearing or speaking the name of her husband's mistress nor considering the mistress' baby whilst doing a huge publicity campaign about the affair/damaged marriage comes across as, putting it politely, nutty - and backwards. Who does this all help? In the end, I think it's going to help the mistress, in the way things play out from here. [continued in a second comment]

[nhindie]

I was concerned no one would come out against EE because the sympathy people can't help but feel when the fact she has terminal cancer is promoted. I have faced my own mortality and still struggle with my health. Knowing your life might be cut short should be reason enough for Elizabeth Edwards to live her own life and be content with her choices and after hearing her today on Oprah she is an unhappy woman. Does she want to die so bitter? She couldn't tell Oprah easily she loved her husband, maybe he has felt this long before he met Rielle. For EE to go on about how a woman shouldn't do this to another woman and how Rielle wants Elizabeths life, maybe Rielle actually fell in love with John and admires the man he is. I did not hear Elizabeth talk about her love for John but her concerns seemed more about someone taking her material possessions. EE wants us all to feel she is all about her family but how did this interview and her book help the family?

[CeeCee34]

My feelings on this are all over the map.

1. I do agree with Steph77 that sexual fidelity is not the be-all end-all of marriage. That's not to say it's unimportant, but there are plenty of other factors involved in loving someone and making a life with them. I can totally understand EE and HRC staying with their husbands--not out of ambition nor stand-by-your-man but out of love.

2. Regarding EE's complicity in potentially setting up a disastrous situation for the Democrats (had JE been nominated and the affair revealed post-nomination), I believe from the interview that she thought it was a one-night-stand and not a relationship. Had it been a one-night-stand, it would never have come to light. (There would have been some risk, but very, very little.) So I can understand her enabling his campaign to go forward.

3. What truly bothered me in the interview was EE's lack of concern whether the baby was John's or not. It seemed to be irrelevant to her--the other woman's problem, not hers. However if the child is his, he has a lifetime obligation to its life and welfare--or a financial obligation for 18 years at the very least. I found it strange that she was completely oblivious to this.

[newgal]

Elizabeth is in denial. I sympathize with her because she's been a loyal spouse and because she's a mom with terminal cancer who won't be able to see her young children grow up...but, her writing this book is not going to provide her with the catharsis she's seeking. It's not Elizabeth's fault that her husband cheated on her, but she is guilty of perpetuating and marketing her husband as the loving, faithful candidate.

Elizabeth knowingly subjected herself and her children to this embarrassing public scrutiny by going along with this charade knowing full well the strong possibility that this secret would get out... what if John had gotten the Democratic nomination and details of the affair came to light in the general election...she risked the future of not just the Democratic party but of the country.

Furthermore by putting out this book, she's opened up herself to future questioning of her honesty and role in this cover up. For example, I find it hard to believe that she didn't know that John's trusted aide was NOT the father of Rielle's baby. She's a smart person and if she claims ignorance, she willfully chose not to see or admit what was going on.

I'm not passing judgement on her as to whether she should stay or leave John - obviously she loves him and wants reconciliation with her limited time. However I agree with Deborah King that she's never going to heal unless she faces the truth.

[Steph77]

continued...
When you suggest that a woman doesn't value herself if she chooses to stay with someone who has been unfaithful you are essentially saying that sexual fidelity is the most important thing in a relationship- and the only thing worth holding onto. YOU are the one buying into the idea that that our sexuality defines our worth. I could get into how judgmental you are being about these women' s husbands, who are human beings who probably don't deserve to have their entire lives judged by their worst moments, but all I am going to say is this: John Edwards did not give his wife cancer. Whatever else he has done, he did NOT make her sick, nor is she making herself sick. Her cancer will not go away if she leaves her husband and ending a marriage doesn't take away the love you still feel for someone just because other people have decided it should. And it is completely irresponsible and cruel to suggest otherwise.

[Deborah King - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi Steph,

Thank you for taking the time to vent! Just a couple of clarifications:

1. No doubt Bill Clinton respects and admires Hillary's many talents, but I believe he also sometimes feels quite intimidated by her (who wouldn't?!) and that that is one factor that leads him to his countless infidelities. My guess is they stay together for a host of complex reasons that include love and public status.

2. I made no comment on the importance or lack thereof of sexual fidelity in a relationship but Elizabeth did; perhaps you're recalling her statement.

3. People don't cause cancer; emotions can though. As a health and wellness expert, I've worked with thousands of cancer patients and see many of them turn the corner and begin their recovery when they are able to face their emotions and move through them. A woman like Elizabeth who is still in denial, i.e., can't even bring herself to name the enemy, has a way to go however. I do believe that Elizabeth might well have a significant improvement in her health if she were to look at this situation more honestly. Writing a "tell all" and dragging your errant spouse on national TV is a great payback but doesn't address the real pain that lies underneath.

[Steph77]

You said that Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton are indoctrinated with a "stand by your man" mentality and asked the question "what are these women doing with these men...?" You suggested that Elizabeth Edwards must have stayed because she buys into outmoded ideas about women.
The implication of this was clear- you couldn't think of any good reason for them to stay without sexual fidelity.
Your comments about their husbands also demonstrate your contempt for men who cheat and imply that they cannot be sorry or worthy of forgiveness. (Too bad for your cancer patients, because forgiveness can be quite healing.)
If you believed that writing the book was a sign of Elizabeth Edwards' anger and you were concerned about the impact on her health, than you should have written an article to say just that. Instead, you suggested that women who stay with unfaithful spouses have necessarily done themselves a disservice and that leaving her husband is the best for Elizabeth Edwards to end her anger and somehow overcome terminal cancer.
Clearly, you feel that leaving a bad relationship helped you in your recovery from cancer. I am glad it did. But that does not justify projecting your own experience onto other women and making judgments about their motives for staying in their marriages.

[cdsersrsilly]

"No doubt Bill Clinton respects and admires Hillary's many talents, but I believe he also sometimes feels quite intimidated by her (who wouldn't?!) and that that is one factor that leads him to his countless infidelities. My guess is they stay together for a host of complex reasons that include love and public status."

Based on WHAT? Why do people think they have the ability to psychoanalyze celebrities, particularly their innermost feelings, desires and motivations, and particularly when it comes to the Clintons.

Too funny.

[kaaramel]

NEWSFLASSSH!:

As far as most women are concerned sexual fidelity is the be-all and end-all of most relationships. It is the most important thing in the relationship, it is what binds the family and marriagetogether. Don't believe me? Ask Elizabeth Edwards.

Most good women don't require much from their men. Most good women only require no abuse of any form and sexual fidelity.

Everything else, stealing and lying to others, dishonesty in business and other relationships may be forgivable. Sexual infidelity is pretty much unforgivable, even if the good woman tries to forgive this, she will find that it is pretty much imposssible to forgive it. It is like being raped, you can't forgive it and you can't forget it. Once there is infidelity the marriage is ruined forever. You may or may not agree with the Bible but even Jesus who supports marriage mentioned that Moses allowed men to put away their cheating heart because of the hardness of men's hearts. Well, women's hearts are hard too, even though we try to soften it, like Elizabeth does.

I'm not exaggerating or being facetious. That's how it is.

[Steph77]

Lol. People in this country forgive infidelity every day. I know plenty of couples who worked it out and are happy they did.

[Steph77]

I think this is one of the most self-serving and hateful articles I have read yet. Women constantly hurt women in our culture by insisting on judging other women's lives and choices as if the decisions of other women must validate their own choices and emotions in order to be good ones. That is exactly what you are doing to these women. You think you wouldn't stay -- or maybe you didn't stay- so therefore their choice must be wrong.
Just because a woman choices to stay in her marriage doesn't mean she has a "stand by your man" mentality. I will use Hillary Clinton as an example. When her husband was running for president, there were men who told her that they hoped their daughters turned out exactly like her but that they sure were glad their wives didn't. How do you think that made her feel about her husband who wouldn't shut up about how smart she was at every campaign stop? Bill Clinton clearly thinks his wife is brilliant. He isn't bothered by her ambition, her drive, her intelligence, her strength- all of the things that other men have criticized her for. I suspect that means a great deal to her. Whatever emotional problems they've had in their relationship that led to his cheating were worth working out to her because most likely because she loves him and feels loved by him in return.

To be continued...

[hotone]

I can't imagine what it's like losing a child, having incurable cancer, and dealing with her husband's betrayal, but I think I would want to know if my husband had fathered a child because it might impact his relationship with our own children. The truth hurts, but so does not dealing with it. The bigger question is why she let him talk her into being a major cheerleader for his candidacy when she knew the affair would come out in public. I understand why so many are mad at her, even while being sympathetic to all she has gone through.

[cyoohoos]

"I mean, wouldn't you want to know if your husband had fathered an illegitimate child?"

Does it really matter if the child is his or not? What's she supposed to do if it is, make sure she goes to their birthday parties? The question is, why doesn't her husband care?

And yes, Rielle is probably not as crazy as Elizabeth paints her, but she's got more important things to focus on. Like spending every day God gives her with her children. Why divorce him and spend the last days of her life in court? And heaven forbid if that divorce makes her have to change health insurance companies.

Elizabeth is entitled to a little twisted reality given her current circumstances. You on the other hand are directing this preachy article about lies to the wrong person.

[BobLablah]

The woman has terminal cancer. You can't even imagine what that's like.

[Deborah King - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, Bob, I can imagine what it's like to have cancer as that's what I had! I found that when I faced the lies I was telling myself about my own life that I got better. I'd love to see Elizabeth Edwards get better too.

[BobLablah]

I'm genuinely sorry that anyone has to go through that and I'm glad you recovered. Unfortunately EE is in a situation where recovery is not an option. I was trying to make the point that no one can understand what drives her thought process right now and it's unfair (or at least beyond normal civility) to judge her actions or in-actions.