There's more to Lisa Belkin's article about Iris Robinson than just the issue of power inequality in sexual relations (New York Times, 2/11/10).  In fact, when it comes to politicians getting caught in flagrante delicto with a younger lover, her main complaint is that,

What happened after the Robinson news broke tells us much about the stricter standards, more rigid labels and stereotyped judgments we apply to women.

As is so often the case with Belkin, her thesis isn't supported by very much.  By her second paragraph, she's established that Iris Robinson is the only female politician of such prominence she can think of to be in this situation.  That may be because there aren't very many female politicians to start with or because they're more clever at handling their affairs than are men, or maybe they're just more moral.  But whatever the reason, the fact that she can come up with only one such female politician never dissuades her from drawing broad-brush conclusions like the one quoted.

Belkin's more specific point is

It’s hard not to watch the Robinson fallout and get the message: Men who cheat are weak, while women who cheat are out of their minds.

Bad syntax aside, that's a message you get only if you want to.  And I have the sneaking suspicion that Belkin does.  As I said, Belkin draws her conclusion from a single case - that of Iris Robinson - and her high school geometry should have taught her that a single point does not make a line.  More to the point is the fact that Iris Robinson, according to herself, her husband and many others, in fact has been suffering severe bouts of depression that have led to a suicide attempt.  So however Belkin wants to spin the matter, the media descriptions of Robinson's mental state do have the virtue of being true.  But Belkin overlooks that minor matter to emphasize her already shaky point that there's some sort of unfairness to women at work.

Worse, Belkin seems to miss that point that, in terms of gender politics, the cheating female as insane is exactly the spin some people will prefer.  After all, if a woman has to take leave of her senses before she can pursue an extra-marital affair, doesn't that suggest women's moral superiority over men?  You see, men just naturally cheat; only deranged women do.  Did Belkin miss the point or is she making it?

Finally, Belkin takes aim at the media's tendency to portray these things in black and white terms.  I can certainly applaud that.  The press seems to like things simple.  Ambiguity, complexity, shades of gray seem never to be to its liking.  So Belkin is right to criticize the Manichean dualism that holds straying politicians to be devils and their patient wives to be saints.  Anyone with the least experience of interpersonal relationships knows that they're always more complicated than that.  If you think it's all about who wears the white hat and who the black, think again.

But, reading Belkin's article, it's hard to avoid the notion that it's not the insistence on black/white duality that bothers her, it's how it's applied.  As long as the lady wears the white hat, she's satisfied.  After all, look at how she describes Robinson's payoff to McCambley:

Her lover was the son of her local butcher, whose deathbed wish was that she “look after” the boy, and so she did, financing his small cafe during their seven-month liaison with $80,000 supplied by local developers and supposedly taking an $8,000 kickback.

Oh, I see, she was only carrying out a dying man's last wish for his son.  How noble.  She's a saint after all.  The kickback?  That's carefully preceded by "supposedly."

Belkin's complaint about Elizabeth Edwards' treatment by the press is more of the same.  At first, Edwards was depicted as a saint, and certainly her husband's treatment of her - having an affair while she suffered with cancer - is about as low as you can go.  But when journalists attempted to add a bit of nuance to the story - that Elizabeth was not so saintly after all, Belkin plainly pines for the simpler narrative.

I'm no fan of extramarital sex.  I think if you want to be married you should be married and if you don't, stay single.  If you make a promise of fidelity to someone, keep it.  But I fully realize that many people - male and female - cheat.  When they do, and when they're public figures, particularly politicians, the question becomes what to do.  The popular notion seems to be that sexual fidelity is a requirement for public office, that if you dally you may not serve.  I think that's nonsense.  I think the truth should be known and voters should decide.  For what other jobs is sexual fidelity a requirement?

Of course sexual infidelity was not Iris Robinson's only sin.  Her financial dealings apparently violated Irish criminal law, and for that she was appropriately drummed out of office and the Democratic Union Party.  And there's not much ambiguity or nuance about that. 

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 18th, 2010 at 10:01 am and is filed under Crime/Criminal Justice System/Police, Gender Issues (Misc.), Legislators/Politicians.