Et tu, Gen. John Allen? Have you really sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages worth of email to this Jill Kelley person? How did this leave you with enough time to, y’know, do your HUGE JOB?!
In my opinion, if it is in fact the case that the married Gen. Allen has been sending that much personal email to an (also married) civilian who is not his wife, it almost doesn’t matter what the emails actually say. That’s just de facto inappropriate unless he’s adding his wife as a CC recipient when corresponding with Ms. Kelley. Do y’all agree with me? Or no?
I do have some very, very serious concerns about how the FBI has come to access all these private email accounts, and what they’ve done with the personal info they found once they got into them, but I will save that specific topic for a blog post later this week.
For today, I’m just left wondering lately whether it’s even possible for men who reach a certain level of power or wealth or fame or influence to maintain the promises they’ve voluntarily made to their significant others. Is some level of extra-marital involvement something that just naturally comes with the territory if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Cosby or David Petraeus or Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson or David Vitter or Jack Nicholson or …
And another question to ponder: Do powerful/famous/wealthy women cheat just as often as their male counterparts? I’d argue that generally, they do not. One likely reason for this is that usually, by the time a married woman has reached a level of power or influence equal to, say, David Petraeus, she’s going to be in middle age or well beyond. And in our youth-obsessed culture, women are not considered sexual beings after about age 50 (or sooner), meaning that women at that level aren’t likely to have the male version of Paula Broadwell following them around and making themselves romantically available to them.
My second theory on why powerful women likely don’t cheat nearly as often as their male counterparts is based on the way men & women in U.S. culture continue to relate to one another even now that we have more women than ever holding professional power and influence. It’s still the case even today that men with power proactively attract certain women by virtue of that power, while powerful women of the same stature not only don’t attract the opposite sex in a potentially sexual way, but they actually repel them. In other words, a married 60 year old female general isn’t going to be most 40 year old American men’s idea of a good time when it comes to zeroing in on a potential romantic interest.
So what do y’all think about all of this? I’d love to know. Let’s discuss.
++++
UPDATE: C’mon y’all. Let’s be kind and polite even when we express disagreement with one another’s opinions. Ad hominem responses to other commenters such as, “that’s nonsense,” add nothing to the discourse, and I think we’ve got more thoughtful things to say on this topic than that. I know we do.
Okay? Okay! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion…. – Katie
I think you are right about women being attracted to powerful men. So right there, temptations are greater for men at this level. And I read an article once that opined that the type of men who are able to reach this level have characteristics that predispose them toward unfaithfulness. It would be interesting to know if these guys were unfaithful in the past or if it's only something that hit in their later powerful years.
I actually think we can't compare the levels of high-powered women cheating with the levels of high-powered men, simply because there aren't enough high-powered women for an accurate statistical comparison. I'd be willing to bet that if there were an equal number of men and women in high political/military positions, the level of cheating on spouses would be much closer to equal amongst the sexes.
One thing I would like to add, that although we may not be able to make a direct comparison on powerful men cheating vs. powerful women cheating there are military laws on the books that strictly prohibit extramarital affairs for military personel at any level. My argument would be for those enlisted soldiers who have committed the same "crime" and have be dishonorably discharged from the military- the leaders of these men and women should definitely be held accountable to the same laws. People in powerful positions should not be exempt from following these codes of conduct!
I concur with Sean that there aren't enough women in power to really assess this. A notable (formerly) powerful and young woman is Amy Koch (41), state senate majority leader in MN who got busted last December for an affair with a male staffer and has slunk off into a life outside of politics now. She was leader of a very powerful majority and held a lot of sway over the other state house and state politics overall. I also think your "men are repelled by older powerful women" theory is sound but that might change in time as the idea of women in power becomes less culturally repulsive.
Very fair point. We definitely don't have power parity or even close to it between American men & women.
- Katie
I have been reading the unfolding saga of Petraeus et al with astonishment – at both the players involved and our Puritanical judgements.
Let me just say, I think those men in high ranks are bozos for cheating on their spouses – as I would think of anyone who subjected their families to such hurt. However, I'm not sure, if no national security was breached, that we need to replace the director of the CIA because he had an extramarital affair. After all, he's no longer in the military, where such actions are illegal. So his resignation was based on moral reasons, which seems sort of bizarre considering that his day job included authorizing covert plans to hunt down and assassinate people.
As for women behaving badly as frequently as men, I don't know. From my career, I have seen some high-ranking women engage in affairs, but not to the extent that I have been aware of men doing so. The women I were aware of had affairs with men who were their equals. The men were always with younger women. There are a couple of commonalities, though: it's always messy, and people get hurt.
I respectfully disagree with Amy about the separation of personal morals and job duties. If an individual has been unfaithful and dishonest to their spouse–the person closest to their heart, with whom they've had a family, created a home, etc.–how can they be trusted to be honest with anyone else? I would also question these individuals' self-control, which I think is an incredibly important quality for a good leader to have. Pants don't just fly off without warning–there are steps that lead to becoming physically involved with someone, and plenty of opportunities along the way to hit the brakes.
Unfortunately, most people don't think along these lines. One name comes to mind, Bill Clinton. Here is a scandalized, impeached president, who never put on the brakes and was the loudest ringing endorsement for President Obama during his campaign. People sure trust him, though. He never had to resign.
Oh please, how naive. Sexual/emotional and public life have nothing to do with each other. A very short and incomplete list of household-name leaders who had affairs: Dwight Eisenhower; FDR; Stalin; JFK; Clinton; Lord Nelson; Thomas Jefferson and about a million others. All sides of the aisle, you'll notice.
I do not approve of adultery, but it has no impact on my opinion of a leader's talents.
That's my point exactly. I am not naive; it is a fact that people don't judge their leaders on any basis of morality anymore. Nothing is scandalous. I am a little surprised that he resigned. Had you left off your first sentence, your post would have been respectful.
Stephanie, I see your points and they're good ones. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but affairs don't seem like a deal breaker to me when it comes to jobs..JFK, President Clinton, French prime ministers all seemed to be able to compartmentalize their actions and focus on the job at hand despite their personal proclivities. I'm not condoning affairs- I would wish on no one the humiliation and betrayal they can cause, especially when they are so public. But I do believe people can continue doing a good job despite personal lapses.
Stephanie, I see your points and they're good ones. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but affairs don't seem like a deal breaker to me when it comes to jobs..JFK, President Clinton, French prime ministers all seemed to be able to compartmentalize their actions and focus on the job at hand despite their personal proclivities. I'm not condoning affairs- I would wish on no one the humiliation and betrayal they can cause, especially when they are so public. But I do believe people can continue doing a good job despite personal lapses.
Amy, I really appreciate your civility. I don't usually comment on blogs because I hate the negativity that often goes along with it, but I feel so strongly about this issue that I couldn't resist. It's nice to know there are still folks out there who can politely disagree.
The morality of it is between the affair haver and the affair haver's spouse. I *personally* would find it immoral for MY spouse but I can understand that there are all sorts of different relationships and arrangements in the great big world.
I do think that someone can be a lying fool in his/her personal life and still be successful at a high-powered career. In this case though, his underlings are subject to dismissal if they have an affair because it opens them and their co-workers up to many problems because of the nature of the job.
That's why HE had to resign when others in similarly high-level positions don't have to. It was part of his job description not to have an affair. That's not true of most jobs. (Maybe religious leaders could be seen to have a similar responsibility.)
I also have more of a problem with people who try to legislate morality being hypocritical than with people who don't try to dictate on these issues through the law (or the pulpit) while merrily carrying on themselves.
For men who reach the levels of Petraeus and Allen – there is no private email. I'm not concerned about that.
I agree with previous posters that there aren't enough women at that level to really know what would happen. If a 60-year-old woman had held Petraeus' position, might there be a 40-year-old man who would would be interested in, say, benefiting? I'll bet there would – in spades.
Are you assuming that Petraeus *attracted* Broadwell? If so, why would you assume that? My assumption is that she quickly saw what was to her advantage, and acted on it.
The headline regarding Gen. Allen is, at best, misleading. Apparently, the emails between him and Kelly were discovered while the FBI was investigating the threatening emails allegedly sent to her by Paula Broadwell. They found that at least one had been sent from Broadwell to Allen mentioning Kelly.
So far what they have found is “most of them were about routine stuff.” “He’s never been alone with her,” the senior official said. “Did he have an affair? No.”
And if they were also printing the email headers, that would definitely add to the page count.
So what raised eyebrows at the FBI, already on high alert for impropriety? This …
Even in my office which is very laid back and our team is like family, no one would dare call anyone else "Sweetheart" or "Darling" or other term of endearment … it just isn't done in a professional setting. Personally, I hate hearing those outside of an actual personal relationship … like the waitress HoneyDarlingSweethearting me all through the meal? Just cut her tip in half …. Ugghh.
As for why men behave like men, and women respond to them like women … human nature. Why men don't respond to women who behave like men, again, human nature. Why they can't turn off that instinctual, natural behavior in the workplace … well, as a society and culturally, we've adopted an attitude about sexual behavior that as long as all parties are adults and consenting, anything goes. We've not learned to draw the lines where anything doesn't go very well.
I am right here with you Lissa and find your information and opinion extremely thoughtful and intelligent, unfortunatelly also I find it very hard to have an informed and intelligent conversation based on facts when it comes to a social network/blog venue. I admire your bravery to "fight the good fight" I just don't have it in me to do it anymore. I went to what I call the "liberal Mecca" of colleges and more than often found a group of people who claim to be "open minded, accepting or all" to be some of the most hateful and fear mongering people when presented with even the slightest difference of opinion.
I know I am not telling you anything you haven't already experienced, but just wanted to let you know you aren't alone.
I have so much to say about the topic of adultery but I'll try to keep it concise. My issue is how the Media handles ALL affairs. There is a sense of glamorization, or a sense of acceptance, as it's part of the norm. "That's to be expected" is more of what I see. There is never a focus on how much damage it causes and how deeply it hurts all who are involved. I think we as a society have become desensitized to how devastating extra marital affairs are – to both the offender, and the offended. It is wrong in every sense and that message is never conveyed loud and clear.
Man or Woman – in place of power or just a lowly civilian – need to be held accountable for their actions – that may mean losing friends, losing jobs, losing stature.
And, I am certain, if there were as many women in power, as there are men, we would see comparable statistics. We see it in our workplaces, our clubs and even our churches. Women are as guilty as men. I believe it would be the same in High power potions.
My opinion exactly! It's not just the rich and powerful cheating on their spouses. It's the guy down at the factory, the girl at the grocery store, the deacon or organist at church! And I also agree that the media has glamorized these adulterous affairs while hardly mentioning the fallout for all of those involved. The ripple effect is devastating and ruins so many lives. I know a single woman who is currently seeing a married man, who has no intentions of leaving his wife. What happens when the wife finds out? I don't understand how either of them (cheaters) can live with their actions! Maybe because I've been the one cheated on? I don't think so, because I would never put myself in that position to begin with. Is it a matter character? I just don't get it. So many relationships affected all for a piece of a$$. It sickens me.
Since you are someone sadly familiar with the behavioral patterns of addiction, I would remind you that people in passionate love affairs often act with the same disregard for facts, commitments and reality as do addicts. You can have a passionate love affair at any age, and you can begin an infatuation without any physical contact. See "emotional affair" for more information. From my experience of watching this happen with a friend of mine, "insanity" is not a stretch to describe her behavior over several weeks and months as her illicit affair was ending. I don't believe that you can say which gender is more likely to stray. Power is certainly an issue for some people, but I don't get that sense from Petraeus' links with Broadwell.
Interesting that this all comes up now, right before the Benghazi hearings. But of course, there couldn't be any connection, right?
Thanks a heap for deleting my comments to Lissa's following this comment — your "I'd love a discussion, y'all" sounds just a bit more hollow now. Consider me a lost reader.
I see now that my original comments are now down at the bottom –I dont know what's going on, but I'm just frustrated and over it. Enjoy the dialogue with Lissa…I'm just done.
@KB – I didn't delete your comments. I will go see if something got caught in spam filter – Katie
They were posted in the wrong place — I didn't originally place them under this thread. I saw them in the correct place, and then they disappeared. That's why I assumed they were deleted.
Interesting that this all comes up now, right before the Benghazi hearings. But of course, there couldn't be any connection, right?
Pfft! Oh no! Of course not! It just wouldn't do to have the president's actions questioned on the eve of the election, now would it?
Hey look! Free birth control! Binders! Big Bird!
I'm not sure what free birth control, binders, or big bird have to do with the questions katie posed and the discussion here.
You've certainly done the research and know about both the number of attacks and number of deaths at embassies under Bush right? Feel free to go ahead and do that. (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890)
You can also look up cuts to funding in security under Bush, as well.
Embassies can be dangerous places. Embassies in dangerous places are more dangerous. That's just the truth.
Were there things that could have been handled better in Benghazi? Seems clearly so AFTER the fact. But if you read the actual reports from the gov't, they did NOT actually state who caused these deaths or why these attacks occurred with any certainty at first. They did call them acts of terror and imply that local protests were in some way co-opted by groups that were hoping to perform acts of terror.
And now there will be hearings. So, I'm not sure what *exactly* your complaints are. Petraeus can be compelled to testify regardless of his current status.
Jen, I SO agree! My brother was working in Libya and left his regular contracted job on Saturday to come back to the U.S. The attack was on Tuesday (9/11/12). Whether most of the world knew it or not, there were a number of Americans working there, just doing regular jobs. Yes, they knew it was dangerous, but they did it anyway. I personally think it is/was crazy, but it's not my life to live.
My brother was also there just days before Gaddafi was killed, leaving there just a week before. His wife was terrified and he didn't renew his contract for over a year later. Just recently, he was contacted to start up again and had made it through two rotations before the embassy attack.
While I can't speak for the ambassador and his staff, he likely felt he had a mission there, threats or not. Some people are like that about their careers. My brother called me a few days later and was ticked off because the attacks meant he wasn't going to be paid for his rotation. SMH
I think the whole situation is sad on so many levels. Extra marital affairs are like dropping rocks into the pond. The ripples move out as it touches the spouses, children, extended family, faith communities, job security, friendships… It just goes on and on. I think that an affair emotional or physical happens when temptation, time, validation and arrogance meet on the corner. When you have all of those you have the perfect storm. My heart is with Holly Petraeus. She needs all the love and I'm sorry's from women everywhere. She just got ambushed by a woman she trusted.
Yes. All of this.
Adding to say – No one is exempt from the possibility of an affair – it's something that all individuals must guard themselves against. Many, otherwise "good people" find themselves in the middle of that described storm. What we all lose sight of, when these public affairs are being discussed, are all of the "ripples" you mentioned – so many people hurting. My heart is with her, too.
I'm just so confused by the entire thing. Petraeus had an affair. The woman he had an affair with sent threatening emails to a friend of his. The friend found them so threatening that she turned them over to the FBI. The FBI traced them to the mistress. In investigating, they found love emails between Petraeus and the mistress.
What Kind of threatening emails? What were they? How in the hell then did the other general get involved? This is like a bad soap opera.
I agree with you Katie, sorry but men are more likely to have a "fling" A 60 year old Hillary Clinton, for instance, would not seem like one that a forty year old man would be interested. Is it possible? Of course it is, but not likely.
I find it sad for the families and also that Gen. P had a stellar career and then blew it all away for a lay in the hay. I hope it was worth it. I bet not.
Katie, I think your assumptions are weirdly old-fashioned — have you not heard of cougars (a vulgarity I usually ignore, but useful in making my point here)? Of course attractive, powerful older women have their followers. Money talks, as does charisma.
I think it was dumb not to simply follow CIA policy and tell the CIA he was having an affair. It was also not smart to have one against military policy. That said, Petraus was away from his wife what, 6/10 years? And then moved to the CIA bringing none of his long-time staff with him in order to mollify the organization. I can see how he would have been vulnerable.
In Search of Lost Time is only 3,200 pages long. If you assume a standard 250 words to a page, you can fit the complete works of William Shakespeare into around 3,540 pages. The Bible can be printed, in most editions, in under 1,500 pages. So what on earth were General Allen and Mrs. Kelley writing so as to fill up 20,000 to 30,000 pages? Poetry? Love notes? The longest military treatise ever? Assume it took General Allen a mere five minutes to either read or write one page–no doubt a low estimate, when it comes to writing–and use the mid-point of 25,000 pages. That would mean that Allen devoted 125,000 minutes to his correspondence with Mrs. Kelley, or 2,083 hours–in other words, a full work year (40 hours times 52 weeks). h/t powerlineblog.com
People in powerful positions often end up being corrupted by that power, male or female. They may not have affairs, but there are plenty of other ways to get in trouble. I do find it troubling that so many people can't seem to keep their pants zipped, but perhaps it's nothing new – just that we know about it these days. I guess I'd rather not. What bothers me most is the emphasis on "family values" while all of this is going on behind closed doors. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Petraeus had to resign – he was the head of the CIA and you just don't have affairs when you're in intelligence. You just don't. The woman had top-secret documents that they both say he did not give to her. How did she get them? There is still more to this story.
I, too, feel very badly for Mrs. Petraeus. It's going to very tough for her to deal with all of this being public.
I agree and would like to add that I am deeply saddend for his wife and extremely upset about many of the online comments that are being ruthless about her appearance, saying derogatory things about her weight, hair, glasses and saying that "if she had kept herself up then her husband wouldn't have strayed". Why is it that when a man cheats it is automatically looked at as the wife's fault? If there is any "war on women" in this country it is women on women!
@Stacie – I hate it when people blame the cheated upon partner for the cheating. If someone wants to have sex with someone other than his/her own partner, have the respect to break up with him/her first: No one is forced to stay married in the U.S. You have options besides betrayal and dishonesty.
Off topic though thought I would ask…do you plan on offering a discussion on the two states that have just legalized marijuana for personal use? I would like to hear your insight and thoughts on this polarizing topic. Thanks.
What I don't understand is how these guys (and gals) can watch other people involved in high-profile affairs self-destruct and then continue or begin an affair? Do they think they won't get caught??? Baffling!
The Petraeus/Broadwell affair reminds me quite a bit of the John Edwards situation. If that wasn't a cautionary tale, I don't know what is! Ladies, if someone wants to write a book or make a movie about your husband and it requires months away from home, don't be flattered…be suspicious!
I don't think one's affairs really have any bearing on how one does their job, but it's definitely a betrayal and what kind of person would do that to someone they love?
Study shows women's rate of infidelity becoming equal with men's.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443…
What a ridiculous accusation, Lissa. Methinks you listen to too much fox (non) news.
OK, so WHY is the Benghazi thing being all but ignored? Especially before the election?
All these shoes are dropping now. More and more sordid information is coming out NOW.
Where is the media that so gleefully spent weeks digging through garbage cans in Wasilla, AK four years ago? That put the life of a common man under a microscope because he dared asked Obama an uncomfortable, and revealing, question?
Why are they jumping allll over the sordid details of alleged Petraeus affair yet ignoring the obvious ties to what happened in Benghazi? Why the kerfuffle over Gen. Allen when "there is no there there"??
And please, save the idiotic "you must watch Fox news" crap … you must watch MSNBC, which would account for your lack of curiosity in these matters. Right?
For the record, I absolutely hate when Lissa comes up in your Facebook or blog comments, Katie. Lissa, you seem to adamently disagree with Katie at almost every turn, and gleeful in your attacking of fellow commenters. I'm not even Facebook friends with you, and I had to block you — I couldn't stand seeing your nastiness. It's a real turn-off Katie, and it really makes me question why you keep engaging with this woman.
For the record, I absolutely hate when Lissa comes up in your Facebook or blog comments, Katie. Lissa, you seem to adamently disagree with Katie at almost every turn, and gleeful in your attacking of fellow commenters. I’m not even Facebook friends with you, and I had to block you — I couldn’t stand seeing your nastiness. It’s a real turn-off Katie, and it really makes me question why you keep engaging with this woman.
I didn't know you could block someone even if they weren't you're facebook friend. how do you do that?
Just go to their page, and beside the message bar, there will be an option to click for more options. I just went to lissa's page, and hit "block." I am so tired of seeing her vitrol spewed over the pages of my "friends" and just decided I didn't have to do that anymore.