Ramona's picture

    Huma Abedin is not Anthony Weiner

     

    There is a part of the American feminist movement that drives me nuts.  It's the part where all women who call themselves feminists have to be smart and sassy and so damned tough any public sign of vulnerability or weakness, particularly where men are involved, is reason enough to drum them out of the corps.

    The unwritten compact says women warriors do not stand by any man who shows himself to be a shit.  I would submit that that description applies to every man.  It also applies to every woman.  We've all been total crapheads many times over the course of our lives.  We're all imperfect in ways the rest of the animal world can't even imagine.  The rest of the animal world goes on the attack mainly because the victim looks tasty and they're hungry.  We, on the other hand, have devised a million different ways to make our victims feel bad about themselves before we chew them up and spit them out.

    So, about Huma Abedin. For reasons many of us may not be able to fathom, she has chosen, at least for now, to stay with and profess love for Anthony Weiner.   She has a child with Weiner.  They have a marriage.  Weiner is running for mayor of New York City.  In a press conference that most of us will agree went terribly, terribly wrong, Abedin took to the podium and tried to ease the city's fears about Weiner's abilities to do the job. She said she forgives him, she loves him and she believes in him. 

    She might as well have built her own bonfire, doused herself with gasoline, stood in the middle of the pile and struck the match.  She is toast.

    Because, Huma Abedin, you see, is no ordinary wifey.  She is smart and sassy and strong.  She knows Hillary Clinton so well there are hints that Huma went to Hillary, a victim of her own husband's maddeningly public sexual exploits, for counsel when the story broke about Anthony's underwear undoing.  And because she knows and has worked closely with Hillary, she is. . .what's the word?

    Ambitious.

    So there has to be more to her devotion to her husband than she's telling.  She wants to live in Gracie Mansion. She loves living in the public eye and has her sights on her own political career. She, beautiful, gracious Huma Abedin, couldn't possibly love a man like Anthony Weiner.

    Sound familiar?  Yes, they're the same arguments we heard so many years ago about her friend and mentor, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who shares a successful and seemingly happy life with the man who, by all accounts, including hers, put her through hell.  Somehow, Hillary and Bill have learned to live with the constant reminders of that trumped-up impeachment trial over Bill's embarrassing sexual hijinks in the Oval Office, reported down to the last icky detail.  

    Hillary Clinton stood by her man but still became her own woman, going on to become a U.S senator. a formidable presidential candidate, and, by all accounts, an effective Secretary of State.  Still, she speaks highly of her husband.  She stands with him when she stands beside him.  I have no doubt that Hillary loves Bill and that Bill loves her back.
     


    I don't know what will happen with Huma and Anthony, but I do know this:  Whatever happens has to happen between them.  Huma didn't open the floodgates into a deep and thorough analysis of their personal lives by announcing that she believes him, she loves him and she believes in him.  The press did.

    This from Sally Quinn in the Washington Post:

    Up until Weiner’s cringeworthy news conference Tuesday, I had felt sorry for his wife, Huma Abedin, even though I couldn’t understand how she was able to condone his online antics in the first place. I have nothing against Abedin. I like her: She is a lovely, gracious, intelligent woman. I ache for her need to come to the rescue of this man who has betrayed her so often and will likely do it again. I ache for all women who find themselves in this position. And yet, there she stood in front of the cameras, this modern American career woman, by her man, saying she had forgiven him, loved him and believed in him. Just what exactly does she believe in? The only thing she can believe in for sure is that he will continue his infidelity.
    Though her friends say she is strong and resolute and defiant, sadly she makes all women look like weak and helpless victims. She was not standing there in a position of strength. It was such a setback for women everywhere

    From Lisa Bloom over at CNN:

    Isn't it time to call the spectacle of the suffering political wife, standing by her man in the media glare as he admits to his latest sexual offense against her, what it really is: spousal abuse?
    Huma Abedin has the right to make any decisions she wants about her life, just as a victim of domestic abuse has the right to return for more -- but we don't have to stand silently by and condone it.

    And this incredible bit of reasoning from Maureen Dowd:

    WHEN you puzzle over why the elegant Huma Abedin is propping up the eel-like Anthony Weiner, you must remember one thing: Huma was raised in Saudi Arabia, where women are treated worse by men than anywhere else on the planet.

    Those few words she spoke publicly didn't give any of us permission to judge her or to give her advice about her personal life.  I don't live in New York City and have no stake in this race.  Turns out there are about 305 million of us who don't live in New York City.  So why is the marriage of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin so important to so many people?  For days now that's all we've heard--and it's more about Huma than it is about Anthony. At some point we have to ask ourselves why we care so much. 

    Why do this to Huma?  What buttons is she pushing that causes this much anger at her?  She is not her husband.  She is her husband's helpmate, but beyond that she is a smart, sassy woman tough enough to withstand the expected onslaught she knew would come when she stood by him.  I have nothing but admiration for her.  That took guts.

    (Crossposted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 

    Comments

    She took it out of the realm of her personal life when she stood beside him at a press conference and spoke at the press conference to the press about her personal life. It may have been because of true love, we can never be sure. Whatever the reason, doing this was not only giving total permission to the public to be interested in the topic on which she spoke, but encouraging them to do so: what she did, it's called public relations.


    P.S. Strikes me that this picture is so easily accessible to you is also due to public relations:

    My opinion of the P.R. message:

    We are a DC power couple. We are going places. Get interested in us. We are interesting. Look to write stories on us, we are going to do interesting things.

    Things like the following are not published out of thin air, they are inspired by press releases emanating from the subject. She basically invited us to watch her like any other celebrity:

    Huma Abedin; Future Person To Watch

    Jun 7, 2011
    Even further back, in 2007, Abedin was promoting herself as a celebrity woman-to-watch in Vogue magazine, a D.C. power "insider" in a Prada suit. Yes, a role model for other wimmin.
     

    The picture was in a wedding spread, and he was a public figure at the time. 

    She didn't write the Vogue piece but I see nothing wrong with that spread, either. I don't know that she was "seeking publicity", but there was enough interest in her at the time, both as a new wife of a congressman and as an aide to Hillary Clinton, that it's not surprising that Vogue would do a spread.  

    But that was sort of my point:  That somehow now she's ripe for attack because she brought it on herself by going public. It reminds me of the same attacks on Valerie Plame when she and Joe Wilson posed for Vanity Fair.  What does one have to do with the other?

     


    I don't know - they're a power couple and still she was someone always thinking about work but found a guy she liked. They married late after he had a long bachelorhood, so the idea of her hubby with someone else wasn't so shocking - just that she likely thought his bachelorhood was going to end. Okay, sexting ain't sex.

    In any case, the Republicans are going to make up Muslim conspiracy theories about her, and the press will write about her relationship with Weiner and would make up stuff it she didn't say anything. So nope, no way to avoid the camera. She chose the life, but there's always room for regrets. Anyway, to me it's their business and I'll do my best to ignore it. Since I don't live in New York, I don't have to think about him much anyway, just as a possible Democrat running the city. Methinks he'll never be president - but she could be...? Maybe she should take over his campaign.


    Her P.R. history suggests to me she eventually wants to run for something herself. The "stand behind your man" message is a conscious choice where (call me cynical) I am pretty sure she is taking that into consideration.


    From a purely cynical point-of-view, it seems that the "stand by your man" message would hurt her politically more than it would help her. I'm thinking having a child together might be a very big part of her reason for staying with him. Also, of course, different people have different expectations.


    She's been Hillary's staff person for 17 years - hardly a break-out and go rogue posture. She got married when almost 34, is 37 now - don't expect her to quickly toss out her late groom and hit the circuit that quick (besides, wasn't she Hillary's lesbian bride?)

    I think she's just an overworked DC type that doesn't take much time to think about her own needs. Don't expect her to become a politician easily.


    They married late after he had a long bachelorhood, so the idea of her hubby with someone else wasn't so shocking - just that she likely thought his bachelorhood was going to end.

    I'm not familiar with the marriage conventions on your planet, but on Earth, there is no correlation between marriage age and the degree of shock at discovering that one's spouse has been serially tweeting his or her genitalia.


    Sorry, should have clarified - I'm on planet Earth. Women here regularly calculate their age in figuring out whether to walk out on a schmuck, especially when they have children. I had some talks re: one of my family members who did exactly this, stayed in an uncomfortable marriage for 20 more years because of the unpleasant alternative of no career and 4 kids. (oh, she was quite fat, so that made her choices much harder)


    Wait, what? You wrote:

    Women here regularly calculate their age in figuring out whether to walk out on a schmuck, especially when they have children.

    You know this because you had a discussion with one of your family members and that leads you to believe all women make the same decisions for the same reason??

    And then you slam your family member, a woman, by saying, well she's fat, so she couldn't have found another man anyway, is that your point? WOW, I always knew you thought women were worthless, not smart, and certainly not as good as men,  but it is weird to see it right there in black and white.

    I feel bad for your family member, I wonder what she writes about you behind your back?


    Geez, go for broke.

    She's one of perhaps my 3 or 4 favorite people in the world, but no matter what a lovely personality she has, being female, middle age, an English major, heavily obese with 4 kids, and out of the workforce for 20 years lowers your chance of remarrying or being employed - if that's a surprise for you, well, I can try to find you some references on "How sometimes the world just sucks" to pique your amazement, or maybe the seminal treatise, "Would you like any fries with that?" Maybe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be a good addition.

    "that leads you to believe all women make the same decisions for the same reason??" - oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were college educated so could understand the unstated "(many) women". On Planet Earth, when speaking English, we often put out an obvious general comment without noting that there can be exceptions, and indeed, one witty writer came up with the phrase, "the exception proves the rule".


    I'm not the one who called my cousin fat. You did that. And you claim to know what makes all women decide to stay in their marriages, good or bad, because your Carnac I guess.  And you are so right, we are all alike aren't we. What do we know, once we get old which apparently is 34 - 37 years old, and fat and well when we have children, we make all the same decisions all the time for the same reasons, which apparently mean we can no longer get a man,  because that is what women do. 


    I didn't say it was my "cousin" and yes, she's fat, or politely "obese", not just plump. I didn't say I know what makes all women decide to stay in marriages - I said I understand some of the reasons. I didn't say all women are alike - I implied most women make at minimum semi-smart thought-out major life decisions.

    Have you seen any fat models? Fat TV announcers? You want to go into a long bullshit analysis about how I'm judging things because I made one simple observation?

    Yes, single women with children have more trouble getting dates than single women without. Is that even controversial? Yes, fat women have more trouble getting dates than thin women - is that even controversial? Yes, put the 2 together, and they have more trouble getting dates. If they have more trouble getting dates, they have less chance getting re-married. Is that math too tough for you? (BTW, seen a fat Barbie with kids lately?)

    Combine this with being out of the job pool for 15-20 years, there's that fear of either not getting a job or getting one that pays too little with not enough time to take care of the kids.

    My family member was educated - she knows how to count, add up housing & food & clothing costs, look up the unemployment rate, observe societal & career preferences for being young & thin and experienced.

    No, I didn't say it was impossible for her to walk out the door with 4 kids and survive. I said or implied it was much much harder. And it might be easier in 2013 than 30 or 40 years ago. Except for rising trend of guys throwing off their original spouses for trophy wives.

    Why you come on to try to gin up some stupid nitpickish complaint to scold me with, I've no idea, but call it #FAIL. Really, you never cease to amaze.


    TMac runs away yet again. A bunch of insulting swallop tossed out in a driveby, and then off to your summer cottage. We'll always have Versailles, no?


    So, let me get this straight. First you suggested that because Huma Abedin got married at the ancient age of 34, she was not shocked to discover that her husband was a serial dick-tweeter.

    Then, to explain how this was a normal, sensible thing to write, you describe your fat unemployable family member who stayed in an unhappy marriage for 20 years.

    Is this a joke? It's as if you're trying to pack as much offensive, irrelevant, idiotic, and just plain weird material into a single comment as humanly possible.


    Michael, just go fuck yourself.

    Yes, women deal with a lot of asshole behavior, and in case you haven't noticed, they don't control the levers of power. And yes, shock! if they're not cute it gets worse. Quite frankly, I don't look at Huma as very much of a power person - she's an enabler, behind the scenes do-er. And maybe like a lot of women, not that confident. But she's made a good career. And got married to what seemed like a "good catch". And found herself giving birth and embarrassed nationally at the same time. I sympathize.

    Really, sometimes you seem okay, and sometimes you seem incredibly clueless. Well, it's your blog so you can kick me off, but you could try to grow a brain rather than pull all this moronic juvenile shock-and-awe - it's pathetic to witness over and over.

    What I tried to explain to you if you could listen is that grownups who've been "dating"- meaning "fucking" - into their 30's and then get married typically realize they're carnal creatures and that sexuality may not just stop at the "I do's".

    And women, who are on the short end of the stick, have fewer options in the "who's fucking around with who" area - they're discarded when they start to get older, they're discriminated in job promotion, they still do most of the work around the house... in fact despite all the hooplah, it's not that much better than 40 years ago.

    As for TMac, she's hopeless, or she just stirs the shit because she enjoys being a pain-in-the-ass. Come to think of it, the 2 aren't exclusive, are they?

    (PS - yes, the universe discriminates against females, fat people, ugly people, and a variety of others who are considered less than optimum- sorry I broke your rose-colored glasses - must be painful at your age)


    Chill out, dude.


    I think most of us chuckle when you accuse others of being shit-stirrers. Sometimes the shit you stir is interesting, sometimes it just stinks (as in this case), but you're almost always stirring. I could go into details about why your shit stinks, but I strongly suspect you don't care. You like to get others to inspect their own arguments, but you rarely seem to take the time to do so yourself.


    Hahaha. Oh the irony, "she's hopeless and a pain in the ass". Hahahahaha. Because I called your cousin fat and unemployable, oh wait....... You are hilarious.


    I don't particularly admire Abedin, but I also don't think that "she makes all women look like weak and helpless victims."  That is totally idiotic.  Huma Abedin's n=1, and any attempt to make the rest of us believe that her choices say anything about us is ridiculous.  Quinn might as well write that Anthony Wiener proves that no men should not be entrusted with political power at all, because he can't stop photographing and tweeting his dick.

    All marriages are built on compromises and concessions.  It's not my place to judge anyone else's (much), but like Hillary Clinton, she'd be damned if she denounced Wiener publicly and damned if she stood by her man.  There was no way for her to win on this one.

    Also?  Nix the twit dick pix, m'kay?


    I love this analogy:

    Quinn might as well write that Anthony Wiener proves that no men should not be entrusted with political power at all, because he can't stop photographing and tweeting his dick.

    Brilliant!


    It's not quite oranges to oranges though. A more precise analogy would say that Anthony Weiner proves that all men are compulsive dick tweeters.


    And aren't you, Michael? Aren't you? 


    I can't speak for Michael, but my dick tweeting is absolutely not compulsive. I only dick tweet when absolutely necessary.


    Um...that wasn't mine.


    Great comment., Historiann. Thanks.

    But you know that this

    any attempt to make the rest of us believe that her choices say anything about us is ridiculous

    is how the game works. Member of disparaged group does something less than admirable and BOOM! that action is hung around the whole group's neck. The "just goes to show" game, standard operating procedure.

    A member of a privileged group does something despicable, and that's just about him. "You can't judge everyone by one bad apple. Be fair." Standard operating procedure.

    Huma Abedin was put in a completely no-win situation, so she gets beaten up for whatever choice she makes. SOP. Then she's scolded for being a bad example to other women. SOP. Just can't win.


    If you feel that the unwritten code for both men and women is that they leave in these situations, then I don't understand why you bring feminism into it this story.  Yes, perhaps women do want to see woman in these situations leave because women want validation for making the choice to leave.  Perhaps women want to see a woman making it on her own and providing for the family she may have.  Look at the statistics of woman (moms) leaving their partners and you'll see that it's not a pretty economic picture.  But what does this have to do with your definition of feminism? Don't you think feminism is deeper than your interpretation?  It seems to me that this is more a condition of women feeling oppressed than a beef with feminism.  

    What I hope you're trying to say is that neither woman deserves to be defined by their husband's actions nor should we judge their choice to stand by their man.  I can get behind that.  However, you contradict yourself by stating that "Hillary Clinton stood by her man but still became her own woman".  What was she before scandal?  Both women matter - before and after their husband's infidelities irregardless of the situation and have always been their own woman.  

     

     

     

     

     


    The point of feminism and why it's so essential in our lives is that we've worked to establish the right of women to do their own thing, make their own world, and not have to answer to anybody for their choices.  We can't have it both ways.  We can't tell Huma she's being an idiot or decide she's overly ambitious or make her a pariah in any way without undermining the basic tenets of feminism.

    I thought I made that pretty clear in my piece but if I didn't, there it is.

     


    Yeah, I guess I didn't get your view of feminism.   In your first few lines, you describe what drives you nuts about feminism - which I don't think is feminism.  The part that drives you nuts, is the stuff that those who are fearful of feminism would you like you and me to believe is the definition of feminism.  I find that describing feminism in that way undermines true feminism.  


    I agree totally, VF.  I stated my case clumsily in that first line.  I said "there's a part of feminism", thinking readers would get that I didn't mean all of feminism, but I can see how that might throw you.

    There are women who call themselves feminists who hate the Humas and the Hillarys of the world because they don't completely fit their idea of a true feminist.  I had quite a discussion with one of them yesterday on another link where this same post appeared.  This is how she read it:

    Wow, Ramona!
    You DON'T consider AW serially sending unsolicited photos of his junk to women he's never met sexual harassment? REALLY????
    The only way I could ever consider doing that is to call it what it REALLY was... which is a form of sexual assault (one of the few things worse than sexual harassment)
    Lastly, I don't care WHY she's doing it. The fact remains she IS doing it and it DOES make women look, if not "weak and helpless victims", at least stupid, self-serving and power/money hungry.
    So you can bash REAL feminists all you want, just do it admitting your Tammy Wynette-ish status, K?

    For the record, she wasn't the only one.  She was the most entertaining, however.

     


    I am so disgusted, by the hypocrisy of so many Americans. they want their politicians to be perfect; yet they themselves, have done some things they might be ashamed of, if others knew."Different strokes for different folks"  So many are so eager to throw the first stone. Someone needs to tell Quinn or any other of the (judges of others) or gossipers, "GET OUT of peoples private lives"  Peoples sexual preferences, unless against the law, are taboo to talk about. I hate the NSA and the TMZ atmosphere that believes, nothing should remain private. If Weiner (the nature boy) can do the job that's what matters  I don't know what drew Huma to Anthony, but whatever it was, the spark may still be there, despite those who would try to destroy the marriage of for better or worse.      


    Agree totally.  Women like Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd can't help but show their shallow sides more often than not.  I think they think that's what their readers want, and maybe they're right, but in this case they came off as mean, and pretty clueless about marriage and long-tem dynamics. 

    And it really is none of our business, no matter how often these women come forward to stand by their men.


    Latest Comments