Posted by
L.M. Lowe on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:40:56 AM
...because my response to a column was apparently too long to post! So here goes:
(FYI: this blog is a response to Allen Hunt's "Elizabeth Edwards: Hero, not doormat" column.)
First of all, I can't help but point out that by opening his column with an assertion of his own inability to forgive, Hunt deftly undermines his own argument. While he waxes poetic about the virtues of forgiveness, one cannot help but consider it odd in the face of Hunt's avowed personal inability to extend it. Consequently, his argument feels disingenuous. Furthermore, suggesting that his wife would be willing to forgive him is nothing but conjecture. Of course she may like to believe she harbors such a capacity, (while Hunt claims he doesn't), but the reality is that by Hunt's own admission, neither has actually been in a circumstance that has tested their gumption. While I personally consider forgiveness a divine virtue, I find it rather offensive to suggest that it's extension, in the face of repeated betrayals, is somehow noble.
A solitary instance of betrayal belongs in an entirely different category than do actual on-going extra-marital affairs. While I'd consider gallant the ability to forgive a single indiscretion, forgiveness of multiple indiscretions is not an exercise in forgiving someone for a mistake, wrong choice, exercise in poor judgement, etc.--but forgiving someone for, esentially, a complete lack of character. So how is it that Hunt can credibly claim that such willingness is an exercise in nobility over an exercise in stupidity? Additionaly, the phrase "learning to trust again" has no place in Hunt's acclamation, should he wish it to be believable. The fact is, you DON'T trust someone again after such a betrayal, what you choose to do, is live with them in spite of their untrustworthiness. A spouse who strays has NO RIGHT to either request or demand trust from the victimized spouse. Should the victim chose to eventually extend an olive branch of trust, that is her prerogative, but to imply that it should be forthcoming, under any circumstance, is highly objectionable.
I wish that Hunt had pointed out that one can simultaneously choose to fogive a person, while maintaining pragmatism in whether or not that peson is henceforth trustworthy. As a conservative feminist, (not an oxymoron if you simply want women to receive equal pay for equal work, as well as respect and reverence as fellow human beings whose opinions, thoughts, and prefrences are on par with those of their male counterparts), I don't find the double-standard attractive. Nor do I necessarily believe that women are praiseworthy for their willingness to maintain relationships with men who have definitively demonstrated a complete lack of respect.
I think a more equitable, honest approach calls for the acceptance of both forgiveness AND a desire to sever faithless relationships as uniformly reputable options. In my opinion, once we start suggesting that women who "stay" are more virtous that those who don't, we're treading on precariously fragile ground.