Over the years I oftentimes wondered why good women stay with bad men. Why do some women who are abused, both verbally and physically, and cheated on or had their trust in their mates violated, remain?

By now I'm sure that everyone has heard about Anthony Weiner (this is not about Anthony Weiner or politics, and please keep it that way). And you've heard about Huma Abedin, his brilliant, politically attached, powerful and very beautiful wife. Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress in disgrace two years ago when news of his sexting was revealed. At that time many wondered what Huma Abedin, at the time pregnant with their child, would do. She stayed with him and both decided to keep a low profile while they worked on working this out. Weiner promised to stop sexting.

It turns out that Weiner, who is now running for mayor of New York City in the hopes of resurrecting his political career, didn't stop and continued to sext with 3 women. This was made public last week, and when he faced the press, Huma Abedin stood right next to him and even made an emotional statement saying that she loves Anthony Weiner and believes in him.

My question is why do women stay with men like this?

Below is a link to an op-ed article by Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times on much of the same topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/op...r.html?hp&_r=0

Please, this is not about Anthony Weiner or any other politician, nor is this a political thread. It is about why women stay with abusive men.

What do you think?

 

I read Maureen Dowd, mostly, because she is such a brilliant wordsmith and entertains me with her blistering irony. But not because she is a goddess or that I agree with her. Sometimes I do agree, but often not. IMO she all too often singles out fellow members of her gender to humiliate. I am no Weiner fan, but I do admire Huma Abedin immensely. Dowd is a New York personality; I assume she votes for major there. She has every right to heap dung on Anthony Weiner or anyone else she chooses. But hey, Maureen, leave Huma with the dignity she deserves!

(If this thread were in Vintage Politics I would be able comment on Dowd's sinking to invoke religion in her explanation of Huma's reasoning.)

 

I didn't quite read it that way. I didn't think she was diminishing Huma's dignity so much as questioning what impact Weiner's action will have on her.

 

I suppose, Rob. But it seems to me that the impact Dowd is getting at is not so much a personal one on Huma Abedin, but rather a political consequence involving her political relationship with the Clintons - who really have no palatable connection with the Anthony Weiner.

 

Perhaps it over-simplifies the situation to say that it is much easier to stay married than it is to deal with a divorce. Furthermore, she knows a side of Weiner that the public does not see. I have no idea what her life-goals are, but this too may play into her decision to stay. Our society is one that places a huge value on whether a woman is married. For a woman to marry is considered a success no matter who/what she marries and to fail at marriage is a shameful thing. It makes no difference how "enlightened" we think we are, marriage is a really big deal in our society and divorce remains a bit of a scandal and brings about even more salacious gossip. If she divorces Weiner she faces the loss of friendship that is probably even more difficult to face than the loss of her partner. Not only will she lose his friendship, but she'll become the "divorced woman" to her married friends and hence becomes an outsider. These are just a few of my totally simple thoughts. It probably goes much deeper than all that and maybe she just truly loves the man.

 

Val,

I think that much of what you're saying is correct. I also think that she's trying to keep the family together for their son. And, I also think she has the mindset that many of us have, you get married and work hard and try to stay married.

It is an interesting question. I have wondered for a very long time why some women who are abused stay with the man who is abusing them knowing that the abuse will continue.

 

Psychologists say it is a phenomenon known as "stockholm syndrome".

 

Money, power and status.

 

Its all about the Weiner (couldn't resist)

 

I agree with Valentine. It's much easier to stay in a marriage that sucks than to get the divorce proceedings going. Divorce is usually ugly for everyone, but especially for children, and the longer the marriage, I think the worse the divorce. And that's if you're not in the spot light. In a lousy marriage you at least know what to expect. For some people, just the thought of being alone scares them so much they'll put up with a lot.

I was cheated on when my kids were 13 and 14 years-old. I wanted to do anything I could to keep them from experiencing divorce at that age after seeing how it affected the kids I worked with volunteering. If I didn't have kids, I would have walked away. With marriage counseling things were much better for about 5 years, so at least the kids were older when he pulled the plug.

I'm much happier now but divorce sucks and takes a toll. I honestly think the stress of it caused me to get rheumatoid arthritis. As an aside, one reason I decided to stay and work on the marriage was because Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill, after Bill's Monica Lewinsky episode. I figured if she could stay, so could I. I did have friends shaking their heads and wondering how I could stay.