Today’s treatise is brought to you by “I had no idea (now former) Congressman Weiner was sending unsolicited photos of his junk to women until everyone’s favorite Aunt B gently schooled me” and “that’s not entirely because the news coverage has been shoddy” and “yes, I do have a degree in journalism and should probably be ashamed of myself for not researching further and just changing the channel when the story was discussed.” It is probably also brought to you by “the feminist blogosphere has probably already discussed this, and better than I ever could.”
But the ultimate point I’m going to get to is, “Why is our society so hellbent on concerning ourselves with others’ private lives and comparing everything and trying to say one thing is worse or better than another, always?” and “Why do we ignore the relevant in favor of the dramatic?”
Anyway.
First of all, I thought what Anthony Weiner did was incredibly stupid, not to mention tacky. But until I knew it was unsolicited, I also couldn’t bring myself to get upset about it. In a way, I found a sexting congressman kind of refreshing, compared to the usual. You know, knowing that most politicians vote on party lines, listening to the most conservative members of each, while admitting privately to folks that they disagree. Or fretting endlessly about getting reelected and not expending nearly as much energy on doing what they’re elected to do. Or being easily swayed to vote one way or another thanks to agreements and understandings that are never made public. Frequently at receptions held by lobbying groups.
A picture of an erection in some gray underwear, sent to a woman? Finally a politician does something straightforward, with motives and an agenda easily discerned!
One of my favorite people, Lindsey, wrote about the whole scandal today and I was just kind of surprised that someone I usually agree with on so much, well, cared so much.
Now I am particularly troubled is that, obviously, I managed to miss that these pictures were unsolicited, which is the entire reason to call for his resignation, but there has been so much focus on that they are of his junk and he is married (and, now, that his wife is pregnant).
Why am I supposed to care whether politicians (or anyone, really, other than my own spouse) hold themselves to their marriage vows? It might mean I like them more as people, but I don’t believe it makes them more competent. I just can’t see the correlation, other than the vow/oath parallel. There are so many more moving parts in the machinery that is a marriage, so fewer metrics, no platform.
An elected office is a job, not a relationship with constituents (and I think most of us would prefer the government stay out of our beds). Any infidelity just not relevant to what is supposed to be the public’s concern, here, which is that a congressman sent unsolicited lewd pictures to women. That’s harassment. It’s not made more egregious because Anthony Weiner is married, or because Huma Abedin is pregnant.
So, of course, while I’m attempting to let this whole idea coalesce into an argument, a local creative agency shared a post on whether motherhood was a liability or an asset to one’s career.
Measuring success in business is important. Without comparing data, it’s difficult to know what to invest in and what to stop doing. But I’m perplexed at the way we do this with personal lives, too. One (irrelevant) betrayal makes a wrongdoing worse in the court of public opinion. Some aspect of one’s home life has to make us better or worse at work.
Life is not a balance sheet. Something can be “not a liability” without meaning that others lack an “asset.” Something can be distasteful without being our business.
And the apology needed today from Anthony Weiner, during the press conference wherein he announced his resignation from Congress, was not for “personal mistakes” or causing “embarrassment.” It was for harassment. And concerning ourselves with his marriage is looking at the wrong scandal.