Christie Brinkley: Not My American Sweetheart
I don't watch an awful lot of television, but I am addicted to the gossip websites, and I've read with dismay about the Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook trial, and caught a brief interview with her after a court appearance the other day.
Does anyone else think that what she's doing is appalling?
Trawling round the blogs it seems most people applaud her for going public. She is, after all, America's sweetheart, golden and perfect, always smiling. She looks so fresh and clean, how dare he soil her with cheap mistresses (who actually turned out to be rather expensive), and porn. Porn for heaven's sake! Shock horror! Go get 'im, is their advice, and then one woman wrote Christie Brinkley had a wonderful lawyer, who had represented this woman in her own divorce, and who she refers to as her pet doberman.
It makes me shiver with horror.
There are children involved here. Small children, and whilst Ms Brinkley may say that her children are in camp and are therefore unaware of the tribulations of the trial, ugly messy divorces with each partner trying to paint the other as a monster, suffer fallout for years, and the people who are hurt most are invariably the children, who can well detect the hate and resentment simmering under the surface when they're transitioning from parent to parent.
I am divorced, and one of the things I am tremendously grateful for is that my ex-husband and I made a decision to go through mediation. I knew a trial would drag on for years, would cost me everything, but worse, would be devastating for our four small children. We were not friends, and he hated me for having the temerity to leave him. There were times in mediation when I wanted to scream with frustration, and it ended up costing me everything anyway, but I have always been financially independent, and I looked upon it as the price of my freedom. (my only words of warning for anyone considering mediation is that the stronger, bullying partner will always get more)
But even when the frustration and fury became too much to bear, I didn't have a rottweiler lawyer (I prefer rottweiler, given that I have a pet doberman who's largely 120lb of pure mush) fanning the flames of anger. I didn't have someone pushing me to reveal all the secrets and lies. I didn't have someone turning me into the worst possible person I could be. A person we all have the capacity to be, but a person I consciously chose not to be for the sake of the children.
Two years on my children are happy. They were protected from the pain, and protected from having to see their parents depicted as awful human beings. They are happy with their father, and happy with me. When they ask about their father, I talk about him with respect and kindness, and they have never, ever, heard me talk about him to friends in front of them.
Christie Brinkley may think her kids are protected, but I can assure her, they are not. They will come back to school with all the friends who will have followed every word, because who, after all, is not fascinated by sordid tales of celebrities, and not just celebrities, but celebrities who have kids in their class!
Peter Cook's story isn't a great one, but I've heard worse. So he had an affair and paid her off. So he trawled porn sites. So he had a secret life that Christie Brinkley knew nothing about, wasn't the perfect husband he appeared to be. So what? Is her humiliation really so great that she has to have this kind of revenge?
I'm not buying her golden smile and protestations that she's exhausted. She brought this upon herself. And her children. And I think when it's his turn to take the stand, she may have a glimmer of wishing she hadn't asked for their dirty laundry to be aired for everyone to examine in minute detail.
Such a shame, I think to myself. It would have been so much better for everyone to put the children first, and to agree the terms of her divorce behind the scenes. She would have been seen as graciously moving on with her life.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
She is fighting for the custody of her children.
Who in the hell are you to judge how she wages that battle?
In order to take all her money, he is trying to attain full custody of the children -- when he is the reason the marriage is ruined.
Why in the hell shouldn't she fight and show him to be the jerk he is, if that is what she needs to do to win the case and her children?!
Women on this post please use some common sense. This is not a battle first off. Atleast not to the kids. My mother cheated on my father and my father (thank god) had the decency of not dragging me and my brother in that crap. Please explain to me how going public will increase her chance of custody. Second isnt the father suppose to want his kids too. This is all about revenge, not custody, not , money, cause the judge makes the decision not the public. I can only imagine what these kids will hear when they go back to school. But I bet alot of you women dont care as long as you get revenge right. Pathetic. The kids will hate her for this starting with the first day of school.
Did you switch teams in the middle of your post?
Her soon to be ex could have backed down when she threatened to make the trial public.
Isn't his argument that he is a "great" father and deserves equal custody to the children, and a financial settlement that takes that into account?
Isn't he as much to blame for this as she is for allowing it to go this far, and much more so if you consider what he did to land them in a divorce court to begin with?
You're assuming this could have been settled in a manner that was reasonable and equitable. There is no way for us to know what she would have had to have given him to do so.
A little less harsh judgment would be appropriate.
Yeah, Cook may be a little freaky with the porn addiction. Excessive, bordering on compulsive. He seduced an 18 year old intern. On this point, he shouln't have trespassed on an "innocent" teenager in a subordinate position. But, that's it. In no way can one diminish the perceived, either real or imagined, pain inflicted on each other through the course of the marriage. There is pain and big-time hurt.
From what the evidence states, Cook paid the teen 300K in hush money. What man is willing to, for whatever reason, pay 300K to keep his marriage intact, maintain or continue his "clean" image, and a offer a semblance of family and order for the sake of their children? Cook, it seems, was not that bad of a guy. Poor judgement, sure.
Cook hurt "America's Sweetheart
I suspect that Cook, at the continuation of the trial, will have female groupies clamoring for his attention and---money.
Jane, you said you always spoke about your husband to your children with kindness. Your words about him are not so kind in this blog. I don't know how old your children are now, but the written word has a way of getting back to kids.
Self-rigtheous, yes. Too hard on Christie and too easy on Peter (an appropriate name for him now that I think about it), yes.
I'm saddened by how hard women can be on other women. And the myth of "hell having no fury like a woman scorned" is beyond ignorant in a world where men routinely stalk, maim and kill women who leave them.
None of us really knows what goes on in another's heart and soul. The reminder about walking in another's shoes before casting stones may be overworn but remains wise.
So why is this any of your business and what gives you the right to judge her?
I guess you might say that Brinkley's insisting that the case be heard in open court gives anybody who wants to listen the right to judge her. It just doesn't work for somebody to put somebody else in court unless they too want to be "judged."
The buzz I heard, was that she wanted this in open court. I agree that in a divorce, the parents get so wrapped up in hating each other, they forget abot the innocent victims, the kids. Years down the road, we will be reading about the kids, and they will have thier parents to thank. I hope it's worth it to bash each other now, your kids will pay later.
Christie never got over her first and true love -- publicity.
For the sake of the kids, she should not have pushed for such a public process.
The degradation of Christie by the cad is a done deal; the degradation of the dad by Christie does no good for the kids.
Deplorable.
Somebody who is married for the fourth time, obviously has relationship problems. Unfortunately the problems of the parents are always passed on to the children. It is a vicious cycle. Throw into the mix money-greedy and publicity-hungry lawyers and you have a recipe for disaster.
Being a celebrity does not make you a fountain of wisdom and unfortunately the people, who cater to celebrities, do so to become famous themselves not to help.
Long ago I was married to a man who is now in his fifth marriage. He still blames all his ex-wives for the failed marriages. When we were married we got plenty of counseling and therapy , which only helped the bank account of the therapists. My ex-husband grew up in a very troubled family , where his father cheated on his mother all his life. He hated his father but repeated his behavior as an adult to a t.
I have seen so many adults in my life who were not able to shed early childhood influences and who have not found the right help or therapy.
It is easy to blame from the outside, but nobody really knows why people act the way they do.
I happen to agree with Jane. I have seem some horrible circumstances leading to divorce and knock down drag out legal battles, and no matter what the reasons, the best interests of the young children should always be the top priority of both spouses. Children do get hurt. And while I agree that Christie is taking a much more desirable stance (divorcing Peter) than Spitzer's wife, I think she could have fought long and hard in court, kicked her husband to the curb and, when the children are old enough, carefully explained the situation to them.
This post isn't a judgment about Christie it is about suggesting another way to do things even if her pig of a husband is dogging her for support.
Helene
The Modern Woman's Divorce Guide
http://the
who are you to pass judgement? there is a saying..."
I think just about anyone who posts on a blog is in a way passing judgement, so the don't pass judgement talk is nonsense. To say that the children need to know the truth is also nonsense. Ever heard about having a conversation. When the children are old enough to understand, tak to them. That's better than them hearing about it from their school friends right now...she wants revenge, understanably so, but to get revenge at the sake of your small children is quite selfish!
She is fighting for the custody of her children.
Who in the hell are you to judge how she wages that battle?
In order to take all her money, he is trying to attain full custody of the children -- when he is the reason the marriage is ruined.
Why in the hell shouldn't she fight and show him to be the jerk he is, if that is what she needs to do to win the case and her children?!
So you're OK with custody fights that by their tactics might be harmful to the kids?
No, the public aspect is what's harmful -- the custody issue could have been handled behind closed doors. So we're left with the revenge angle.
So, you're saying that her lawyer couldn't portray this obvious jerk for who he is without a public trial? A judge or jury couldn't figure it out without TMZ parked outside? Yeah right...lo
This part of the dispute is largely a matter of child custody, and while for most--including the author of this article--it would seem to be counter-intuitive to claim that a custody dispute is better conducted in public as opposed to a closed-door trial, I am here to tell you that sometimes it is indeed better for all concerned, including and especially the kids, to have it done publicly.
The court-appointed psychiatrist called Mr. Cook a a "narcissist" and recommended that Ms. Brinkley have full custody--not joint--but some visitation for their father. As one news story reported, several of Mr. Cook's friends, who would have thought it advantageous for him to back away from his insistence that he should have full custody, initially wondered why he has continued to pursue this, especially since it is being conducted in a public manner, have now come to the realization that he is loving all of the attention and now considers himself a "star"--which is in line with the psychiatrist's assessment that most of Mr. Cook's bad behavior stems from his profound need for external ego boosting, especially sexually and from women.
I would argue--based on experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone--that this may be the only way to get through to this guy, to get him called to account in a way that will stick with him. Would that there was a better way, but sometimes there isn't.
Well stated, though I don't fully agree. I doubt Christie's motives were to see Cook efficiently steered toward self-improvement.
You didn't mention one way that this public trial is beneficial to the children..
Do you believe that the children, even prior to the divorce, were not aware and affected by the dysfunction of their parents? I challenge you to read up on narcissism. There is a subtle "crazy making" that goes on in these households. Ms. Brinkley's "perfectionism" could be, in fact, the perfect complement narcissists seek to actualize their own perceived perfection (without all the work, of course).
Positively and proactively, standing up for one's children and taking away an extortionist's power by legal means are powerful lessons and examples that benefit the children. Particularly in cases of nonviolent family abuse, secrecy becomes the pointed end of the stick. It becomes the fuel for the drugs, suicides, failed careers and marriages in "perfect" families. It leads to the children repeating their parents dysfunctions or punishing themselves in order to create justice in the family. I could write pages as to what games might have transpired if Ms. Brinkley had "protected" the children by protecting Mr. Cook's secrets.
Cultures everywhere reinforce a built-in escape hatch for male misbehavior, even violent misbehavior, which ultimately infantilizes men and villifies women with cries of "revenge" when she does not automatically collude in the de facto "protect the children with lies" extortion to hide their fathers' misdeeds. What was the quid pro quo of Ms. Brinkley's revenge, "take millions of dollars and visitation privileges, or else"?
Remember the biblical reference to the one mother who relinquished her baby rather than seeing it cut in two? We admire the woman's sacrifice, and we marvel at Solmon's wisdom.
Note that the woman went to "trial" to obtain Solomon's decree. She risked a judgement that may not have gone in her favor as well as public humiliation in taking her cause public.
Might Mr. Cook have prevented this from going public had he accepted the terms earlier? Was it then Mr. Cook who said "yes, cut them in two and give me my share"? Was it he who failed to make the necessary sacrifice to protect his children? Was it Mr. Cook who "took a shot" at a pyrrhic victory?
Ms. Brinkley asked the community to help, and the community did so, assisting Mr. Cook to realize his losses and assume his responsibilities.
Happily, Mr. Cook can redeem himself, and I believe the public nature of his ordeal will encourage him to do so. Doing the work that he must do to command respect again is a powerful lesson. If achieved, this will benefit the children.
Finally, Ms. Brinkley has also been challenged to question her choices with regard to spouses. If she takes that to heart, her children will benefit, again.
If handled with awareness, compassion and counseling, this could become a few very hard steps taken backwards to achieve a giant leap forward for this family.
Why all the fuss? Because there is money involved. They made the commitment, now it's boo-hoo, they
realized their self- absorbtion prevented any rational character judgements.
Huh???
My husband (age 51) became infatuated with a teenage girl when our marriage was ending and I wanted to tell the world about it. I understand Christie's anger.
There was enough vanity in that marriage to sink an aircraft carrier.
I think you're being a bit too judgmental. You don't know the circumstances of the situation, and it's possible this was the only way she could protect her children. On the other hand, maybe you're right. But you can't know all the details, so your self-righteousness isn't appropriate.
Why do you feel that this post was being so self-righteous? I mean come on. We really didn't need to know any of the circumstances. All of this could've still come out in a closed trial. She was only doing this to get back at him.....2 years later! I understand her anger, but if the kids' court-appointed attorney felt it should be closed for the sake of the kids why couldn't she see that as well. I mean she's so pissed off at him, she couldn't see the forest for the trees. What about the kids? I feel that that's all that Ms. Green was talking about in this post.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
