La Difference?
Bill McGurn ·
Feb 10, 2011 at 12:15pm
Further to Emily's posting on Congressman Lee, everyone enjoys seeing a cheater get his comeuppance. Gawker's conversation with the woman is interesting, however. What, I wonder, would be the reaction if it were the other way around: a woman cheating via Craigslist, caught in lies by a man looking for a date, who then turned over all their correspondence to Gawker?
I'm not a man who would be treated with the same sympathy. And somehow I'm also not sure there's anything wrong with that.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: La Difference?
Bill McGurn reads Gawker? What's next? Peter Robinson quoting articles from People?
Jul '10
Re: La Difference?
What he did was stupid, compulsive and irresponsible.
What she did was despicable. The guy did her no harm; why ruin his life and bring grief to his family?
Edited on Feb 10, 2011 at 1:12pmAug '10
Re: La Difference?
Just an average woman, or a female member of Congress?
I think the distinction matters.
If it was a female member of Congress, I bet it would be an even bigger story.
Re: La Difference?
Misthiocracy, I agree it would be a bigger story if it were a Congresswoman. My question was about how we would regard the man who brought her down.
Jul '10
Re: La Difference?
A Man wouldn't have turned Her when He found out She lied to Him. It would have been sometime afterwards.
Sep '10
Re: La Difference?
Kenneth: What he did was stupid, compulsive and irresponsible.
What she did was despicable. The guy did her no harm; why ruin his life and bring grief to his family? · Feb 10 at 12:38pm
Edited on Feb 10 at 01:12 pm
He was an elected official who was portraying himself as a good father, husband. She did the public a favor. I noticed in your eyes his actions are not despicable, but telling the public about them is.
Aug '10
Re: La Difference?
That is indeed a different question than the one I was trying to answer.
My counter-question would be, "how do we regard the woman who brought Lee down?" I haven't read anybody in the media commenting on her.
I think it's fairly predictable how a scenario would play out where a 49-year-old female member of congress sends half-naked photos to a 34-year-old man she has never met.
I'm sure some would say he was a cad for violating the woman's privacy, but I think the majority would agree that the female member of congress would have to be either a complete moron or mentally ill.
That being said, I would be willing to concede that public opinion would be more inclined to believe a female member of congress was mentally ill, and therefore not truly culpable for her own actions, than a male member of congress.
Edited on Feb 10, 2011 at 2:54pmAug '10
Re: La Difference?
And if he was smart, this hypothetical man would not have given the information away for free. If a 49-year-old female member of congress sent him photos of her in a bra and panties, he'd be really stupid not to auction them off to the highest bidder.
Jul '10
Re: La Difference?
Misthiocracy
And if he was smart, this hypothetical man would not have given the information away for free. If a 49-year-old female member of congress sent him photos of her in a bra and panties, he'd be really stupid not to auction them off to the highest bidder. · Feb 10 at 2:58pm
Exactly.
Aug '10
Re: La Difference?
I might agree that sending the photos to a gossip site was maybe a little unkind, and perhaps a little rash, however I think there's an argument to be made that she would be justified (maybe even have a duty) to let the wife know about the incident. After all, who knows how many other women the man has slept with, and what kind of diseases he might get from them which he could pass on to the wife.
She could have handled the situation with more tact, absolutely. But I'm not quite able to label her behaviour as "despicable".
Jul '10
Re: La Difference?
liberal jim
Kenneth: What he did was stupid, compulsive and irresponsible.
What she did was despicable. The guy did her no harm; why ruin his life and bring grief to his family? · Feb 10 at 12:38pm
Edited on Feb 10 at 01:12 pm
He was an elected official who was portraying himself as a good father, husband. She did the public a favor. I noticed in your eyes his actions are not despicable, but telling the public about them is. · Feb 10 at 2:37pm
Certainly his behavior was contemptible. But in my view, the woman should have informed him that she knew who he really was and cautioned him to mend his ways. He might have, in your view, deserved to be shamed, but his wife and his two children suffer equally and that should have entered into this woman's thinking.
Aug '10
Re: La Difference?
Caveat: In her interview with Gawker, she admits that she did all this from her work computer. As such, her employer might think the behaviour was despicable, for slightly different reasons...
Nov '10
Re: La Difference?
He entered the relationship under false pretenses, turning a mostly innocent woman into a home wrecker without her knowledge. He put her privacy and reputation at risk.
That said, your later clarification does make a lot of sense.
Sep '10
Re: La Difference?
Kenneth
liberal jim
Kenneth: What he did was stupid, compulsive and irresponsible.
What she did was despicable. The guy did her no harm; why ruin his life and bring grief to his family? · Feb 10 at 12:38pm
Edited on Feb 10 at 01:12 pm
He was an elected official who was portraying himself as a good father, husband. She did the public a favor. I noticed in your eyes his actions are not despicable, but telling the public about them is. · Feb 10 at 2:37pm
Certainly his behavior was contemptible. But in my view, the woman should have informed him that she knew who he really was and cautioned him to mend his ways. He might have, in your view, deserved to be shamed, but his wife and his two children suffer equally and that should have entered into this woman's thinking. · Feb 10 at 3:05pm
This was an isolate instance? I think not. Many wives don’t find out and end up with aides. Ignorance is not bliss.
Jul '10
Re: La Difference?
liberal jim
Kenneth
liberal jim
Kenneth:
Certainly his behavior was contemptible. But in my view, the woman should have informed him that she knew who he really was and cautioned him to mend his ways. He might have, in your view, deserved to be shamed, but his wife and his two children suffer equally and that should have entered into this woman's thinking. · Feb 10 at 3:05pm
This was an isolate instance? I think not. Many wives don’t find out and end up with aides. Ignorance is not bliss. · Feb 11 at 4:55am
I never suggested it was an isolated instance.
"Finding out" about a mate's infidelity is a very different thing from having yourself and your children exposed to ignominy of it, full blown, across all major media, at the hand of a woman who was motivated by nothing but sheer spite.
Perhaps you should ask the Congressman's wife and children which would be more blissful - ignorance of his dalliances or the burning shame and notoriety to which this woman has exposed them.