Newsweek's war on fidelity

By Bernard Chapin
web posted July 12, 2004

In what has to be one of the most flagrant examples of cultural
decline, Newsweek's recent cover story is called "The Secret
Lives of Wives" and not only does it degrade the publication's
integrity, it also casts aspersions on a sizable number of married
women in the United States. The gist of the expose is that more
and more married women are cheating on their husbands than
ever before. What makes the piece most offensive is its
cheerleader tone. You can almost hear the writers screaming
"You go girl!" to one another as they type it out. Frankly, we
should perhaps be grateful that the reporters, Lorraine Ali and
Lisa Miller, under authority celestially granted them by Oprah,
did not think to label female infidelity as being a major epidemic
in order to sensationalize their claims all the more.

Overall, in this issue, Newsweek has produced one of the most
shameful bits of journalism that I have ever stumbled across. The
authors' anti-marriage and anti-woman emphasis is yet one more
example of the way in which the media cloaks its activism as
news. Luckily, the writers are a couple of intellectual
featherweights so we can now all experience the joy of my
tearing apart their bubble gum logic in the paragraphs that follow.

Trouble begins with the subtitle as it states: "Why they stray:
With the work place and the Internet, overscheduled lives and
inattentive husbands -- it's no wonder more American women
are looking for comfort in the arms of another man." The key
words here are "it's no wonder." Certainly to Newsweek the real
wonder is why even more married women are not cheating on
their spouses, but a case could also be made as to why any
women get married in the first place because if they didn't they
wouldn't have to put up with inattentive husbands or
overscheduled lives. Let's consider the word "inattentive" for a
moment. Reader, I ask you, how grave a crime is
inattentiveness? Does it automatically justify the nullification of
marital vows? Perhaps these writers would be wise to remember
the old and golden saying, "If you're bored; you're probably
boring." Maybe a hobby rather than a destructive affair might be
a better suggestion to offer modern women.

The reporters the assert that where ever groups of married
women come together one finds that: "…the conversation is
usually the same. They talk about the kids and work -- how
stressed they are, how busy and bone tired. They gripe about
their husbands and, if they're being perfectly honest and the wine
kicks in, they talk about the disappointments in their marriages."
The assumption of this article is that ALL married women have
disappointments in their marriages and complain about their
husbands. There is no evidence that is offered for such a bizarre
and far reaching assumption and all they offer is a conversation
that they overheard in Los Angeles among some wayward
females. That's hardly a foundation for implying that all married
women are disappointed, at some level, with their marriages and
their husbands. This is completely absurd and it's a wonder why
anyone would open Newsweek at all.i

A new book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, by Steven E.
Rhoads, devastates many of the opinions presented in this
Newsweek article. He points out that, "Ninety percent of
married women say their marriage makes them happy all or most
of the time; only 60 percent say the same about their job."
[p.122] Forsooth! Let's move on.

The reporters, in lieu of any proof, proffer up a handful or two of
examples to illustrate a supposedly widespread phenomenon.
Erin is one of them. After her child goes to preschool she
decides to start playing the field. Party on Wayne; party on
Garth. Yet, does every mother do this? Not that I've ever seen.
Most mothers of toddlers or infants are obsessed with their
offspring's welfare as, if they were not, our species would have
never made it to the birth of Athens let alone the twenty-first
century. Erin is obviously more the exception than the norm.

Then we are introduced to chaste Veronica who starts cheating
on her husband because "[h]er lover gave her everything her
husband didn't: compliments, Tiffany jewelry, flowers and love
notes. It was, in fact, the flowers that did her in." No, I think it
was the need to deny herself something or show any kind of
restraint that did Veronica's marriage in. It is amazing that a
major "news" source could publish this kind of self-indulged
rubbish. Flowers? Jewelry? Were those elements inherent to the
vows the couple made? Perhaps Newsweek would like to add
an addendum to all marriage ceremonies: "For richer or poorer
unless some high status male comes along who wants to save
money on a prostitute by exchanging some trinkets and flora for
a few months of illicit sex." Any woman who abandons her
husband over gifts wasn't worthy of being married, or having
anyone express formal concern about their welfare, in the first
place. Spouses like that should automatically be passed along to
one-eyed carnival freaks after being shown adulterated versions
of Donald Trump's W2 forms, which will disguised their new
"love's" earnings.

Ali and Miller, just in case any of their married female readers
are not completely corrupt offer up a handy service by
suggesting, "Wives who want extramarital sex -- or are just
dreaming about it -- can find what they seek on Yahoo!, MSN
or AOL." Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to forward that
information to my sister.

At this point their advocacy for adultery becomes more overt.
The reporters argue that adultery used to be considered a
serious offense but they assert, without any evidence
whatsoever, that nowadays women are more likely to suffer
through marriage counseling than divorce by their husbands.
Here the writers are purely committing fantasy to paper as the
number of submissive cuckolds is always a minority of any male
population.

As for divorce, Ali and Miller claim that women do quite well
with it and then they cite a Brown psychiatrist who says that in
this age women can get away with adultery and by doing so they
meet the parameters of an acceptable social role. It's no social
role than anybody I know would support but such common
sense observations have no application to this article apparently.

What is the prevalence of female infidelity? Our crack journalists
are ready to tell us. They claim it's 30 to 40 percent according to
the feelings of many "couples therapists," but then they cite
questionnaire data that puts the numbers between 10 to 15
percent. Ali and Miller believe that the male rate is 22 percent.
From all this, we as readers must surmise that Newsweek has
been obtaining their recent hires from the Jayson Blair School of
Journalysm because all of this is followed by a therapist claiming
that the rate for both men and women is 50 percent. She justifies
this by making the wild conclusion that, "‘Women have suddenly
begun to give themselves the same permission to step over the
boundary the way that men have.'" But no number they
presented earlier is anywhere near 50 percent so if the therapist
is right then her conclusions should be qualified as, "…over the
boundary the way John Kennedy did." Besides, 50 percent is a
outrageous figure and there is no theoretical or empirical basis
for it.

Most comically, Ali and Miller then debunk their own thesis with,
"At the same time, Americans developed a lower tolerance for
infidelity: 80 percent of Americans say infidelity is "always
wrong," according to the NORC, up from 70 percent in 1970."
Ah, if 80 percent think that it's always wrong then there can't be
too much chic to female infidelity in the eyes of the general
population–however, I do not question that the sources they
reference hold that cheating on their men is all the rage. Yet,
when these contradictory statistics are all jumbled together it
yields…a muddle. One wonders if there are any editors at all on
the clock of this newsweekly because there is so much statistical
incongruence in the opening paragraphs that it's a wonder this
article ever got published at all (as opposed to being passed
around by militant feministas on the streets of Berkeley).

Rhoads educates us that their conclusions are fallacious as
females do not desire uncommitted sex in the same way that
males do:

"In all nations men wanted more partners, on average just under
three times more (5.95 vs. 2.17) over the thirty-year period.
Over the thirty-day period, 25 percent of men on average
wanted more than one sexual partner, compared with between 3
and 7 percent of women. Among those who said they were
strongly seeking a short-term sex partner over the next thirty
days, a majority of the men desired more than one in that period,
whereas fewer than 20 percent of women did." [pp.48-49]

It is also improbable that a quick adulterous romp is valued as
much by wives as it would be by husbands:

"For example, for men more than for women, good and frequent
sex is closely associated with marital happiness. In marriage,
women often get more pleasure out of kissing and cuddling than
out of intercourse. In and out of marriage, women say they
engage in sex to share emotions and love." [p.49]

I saved the most persuasive quote from Rhoads for last as it
annihilates what is left of the exposé's claims:

"And a 2002 study of two thousand British women reports that
two-thirds think that the best sex they ever had was within
marriage. It seems that for women, the ‘prospect of a lifetime
commitment" is what really boosts sexual satisfaction." [p.112]

That's the end right? Sorry, it's not. The reporters want this to be
not only a story but a "how to" guide as well. They inform us that
the best place for women to begin affairs is at work. Another
therapist is cited and she gives us the news that women cheating
on men could be a good thing,

"‘…many people spend more time out in the world than with
their families. I think sometimes people have the idea that [an
affair] will protect the marriage.'" They get a self-esteem boost
during work hours and don't rock the boat at home. "‘In some
paradoxical sense this may be a respite, a little break from the
marriage.'"

Well, it's a break until their husbands discover that they're
scandalous tramps and then the lawyers are called and the
restraining orders are issued. Yet really, perhaps it's wrong for
men to complain about these affairs as shouldn't their wives' self-
esteem be worth more to them than their own personal mental
stability, honor, and integrity? Only in a thoroughly corrupt,
politically correct world could such a proposition even be made.

As far as red flags go, the name "Gloria Steinem" appearing in
text makes those of us who wish to see the country degraded no
more than it has been gag uncontrollably, but this is the only time
I remember reading a quote by her and thinking that she's more
sensible than those who cite her:

"The feminist Gloria Steinem once said, ‘Most women are one
man away from welfare,' but she recently amplified her views to
NEWSWEEK: ‘Being able to support oneself allows one to
choose a marriage out of love and not just economic
dependence. It also allows one to risk that marriage.' In other
words, as women grow more powerful, they're more likely to
feel, as men traditionally have, that they deserve a little bit of
nooky at the end (or in the middle) of a long, busy day."
 
Did you catch that leap? Unbelievably, these two misquoted
Steinem. The aging icon wasn't incendiary enough so Ali and
Miller felt the need to play with her words. Steinem never
implied women "deserve a little bit of nooky" outside of marriage
as a reward for their maintaining full-time employment. Steinem
merely said that if women were economically independent then
they could risk terminating their marriages as they presumably
wouldn't starve. I am familiar with the motto, "No enemies on the
left" but if I were Steinem I'd take these two out behind the
woodshed. Anyway, why can't these women get their kicks out
of their own husbands? Our reporters don't feel like even
addressing this possibility.

Then they turn to yet another family therapist who says that now
women have the luxury to cheat with men who are younger or
lack their social status [!]. With glee he tells this appalling story:

"It seems that a group of 6-year-old girls from an elite private
school were at a birthday party, and the conversation turned to
their mommies' trainers. As the proud mothers listened nearby,
one youngster piped up: ‘My mommy has a trainer, and every
time he comes over, they take a nap.' The wicked laughter this
story elicits illustrates at least what is dreamed of, if not actually
consummated."

Wicked is an appropriate term for when one flaunts their lack of
character before very young children. What vile mothers are
these who could laugh about such behavior and what kind of
repulsive reporters would intentionally celebrate such acts?
 
Next they turn their attentions to a less controversial topic, the
degradation of men, which is always popular and fashionable in
journalistic circles:

"And (this is practically unmentionable) therapists say they're
seeing more cases of depressed male libido. It turns out he's too
tired and stressed to have sex. An affair is a logical outcome of
this scenario, therapists say: women think they should be having
great sex and romantic dates decades into their marriage, and at
the same time, they're pragmatic enough to see how impossible
that is."

Contrary to all known facts and testimony, we discover here that
Viagra really doesn't work even though countless married men
buy it by the attaché full. What's so completely contemptible in
these sentences are the words "a logical outcome." An affair is
never a logical outcome. Adultery is steeped in irrational passion
and only the most mutated of thrill-seeking personalities expect
cheating to be an inherent part of their marriages.
 
Within the article's last section, which is aimed at informed
adulterers how to best protect their children, Ali and Miller share
yet more rationalizations for female infidelity. This may be my
favorite of the piece:

"In retrospect, Nadine understands what pushed her mother to
be unfaithful. Beautiful and intelligent, her mother was stifled by
her life's low horizons, and her father, a stand-up guy, was
probably a little bit boring. The new man promised travel, wealth
and adventure; her father was the kind of guy who'd say, ‘Why
go around the world? You'll get plane-sick.'"

If you're a man who's a little bit boring then take cover because
Newsweek has just armed your wife with a skank stick. The
message from this passage is, if the guy is low stimulus seeking in
personality you should drop him. The same goes if he doesn't
make good on his desires to become rich which, of course,
indicts 90 percent of the existent male population. I wonder if
these reporters would say the same thing if they were asked to
write about male infidelity. Would they condone adultery in the
case of wives complaining too much or gaining fifty pounds per
annum? My guess is that the article's tone would be radically
different.

At the end, we are issued a final bit of obscene relativism that is
blended with a healthy scoop of distortion:

"Who said being married and raising kids was easy? The good
news is that the wounds inflicted on a family by a woman's
infidelity are not always critical."

I realize that this is an old argument of mine but I need to repeat
it again here. Why do none of these radical women ever, for one
moment, stop to consider what a man might want out of a
relationship? In their minds we are the designated whipping boys
to be manipulated like dominos on a table. We must accept what
they offer even if its maggot infested meat in exchange for gold
bullion.

Ever since the dawn of time men have rejected promiscuous
women as mates and until we get new genes this will always be
the case (in the majority of situations). I do not deny that
infidelity is not always terminal to marriage just as I do not deny
that there are metrosexual males who are more interested in the
brand name adorning a woman's pants than what their pants
actually contain. Yet these men, along with those who make
yearly IRA sized contributions to dominatrixes, are not the norm.
For most of us, sexual infidelity is a nuclear weapon from which
no relationship can survive. In the words of Jim Morrison,
"That's the end, beautiful friend."

I have written in the past about the fact that nowadays men
should have a "presumption" against marriage (and got beaten
severely for it), but I must ask, is such a position really that
controversial in light of our most popular cultural organs actively
promoting the erosion of marital bonds? Newsweek is clearly
suggesting that deceit and dishonor are perfectly acceptable
lifestyle choices for women in this new millennium. Call me an old
fashioned romantic, but I hope that the married women who read
this issue realize that feminists in no way give a damn about them
and never have. Radical feminists are jealous of everything
married women possess and will try any trick or maneuver to get
their sisters to destroy their own futures just so they can have
more partners joining them on lifespan length rides of self-pity
and hate. Married women should come away from this article
understanding that the relationship they share with their husbands
is far more threatening to the feminist establishment that a
warehouse full of Bibles or even a libertarian in the White House.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He can be reached
at bchapafl@hotmail.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com