Donna Gentile O'Donnell: Philandering men and their pearled and propped wives

What is wrong with these women? You know the ones I mean ... the wives whose public figure husbands philander, get caught, and then engage in a series of public humiliations that purport to be apologies. The women who permit themselves to be used as props, much like a flag, or a plant, or some other backdrop that the PR consultants believe enhances the mood, or the message.

The latest side show occurred recently in New Jersey, as the new president of Rutgers University admitted, after intense scrutiny by the press, that he had had an affair with a university staffer in his last post as president of the University of Washington.

Richard McCormick, a well-regarded scholar, called the press conference at which he admitted the affair. Standing "by his side" but at some distance was his wife, Suzanne Lebsock, a notable scholar in her own right, and the mother of their two children. The AP photos of the press conference show a solemn, flat-affected Lebsock, with folded hands and a string of pearls. Her reprobate husband is at the podium, looking contrite with a glisten of sweat on his forehead. When describing the experience of the public exposure in a recent New York Times article, McCormick said, "It was humiliating. ... It was all so embarrassing."

Well.

I wonder if it ever crossed McCormick's mind that perhaps he might spare his wife this indignity, having not had the moral compass to spare her the now-public affront of his infidelity. Or, did it ever cross her mind that maybe this was more than she should have to deliver? When it comes to the "for better or worse" part of the marriage vows, this would have to be regarded as an outlier in the "for worse" department.

And the decision process on the staging of the event -- undoubtedly, very pointed advice from some public relations flak. First, the PR guys play "the heavy" with the wife, and tell her the bad news: she's gotta play ball. Then, they tell him to go home and discuss it with her. Can you imagine that conversation?

"Honey, I'm going to have to go public with this. ... I need you to be my Tammy Wynette. ... No, you don't have to sing. ... Just stand there, and be silently supportive. ... Try not to glare at the reporters. ... How would 11 a.m. be for you?"

And how about if once, just once, one of these wronged wives of public spouses would answer, "Honey, I have an idea -- how about if you go pound sand?" and mean it.

Now, I am not suggesting that every married couple that faces this kind of crisis in their marriage should bail. What adults do in their marriage is their business, as long as they don't break the law, e.g. sexual harassment of employees, etc. But if public personas are going to go out and pontificate on "role models" and "setting examples" and "aiming high," they ought to understand the consequences of these private behaviors that go public.

Lebsock's presence, or the presence of any wronged wife at a press conference like this, is meant to communicate a message. The message they think it communicates is, "I forgive him, I support him, and you should, too." The message it sends is "I'm a doormat. ... I'm prepared to give up my sense of personal integrity for (fill in the blank: a BIG diamond ring for Mrs. Kobe Bryant; a longer stay in the While House and/or a senatorship for Mrs. Clinton; or a mansion to live in with a husband who makes lots of moola, and an assured post in his current university).

A word on Hillary here. I admired her for standing up for her marriage, despite his failings in the past. I don't buy that she made a deal with the devil -- that she shuts up about his peccadillo tendencies, as long as she gets a transferable interest in the West Wing. I will never forget that 60 Minutes interview: She was not a prop. She was an aggressive advocate for her marriage and her husband. That took guts.

But all that changed when La Lewinski happened. Why? Because it changed the premise of the compelling argument that she made in that interview, which was "It's part of our past." (As an aside, I never believed that Bill Clinton lied because he was afraid of the Republican Congress. I always believed he lied because he couldn't bear to face Hillary).

I wonder, and I worry, about what implicit messages these visible women are sending. That said, women and men who want to keep their marriages intact, despite the infidelity, can and should freely choose to do so. But those choices should not be put on display under the glare of the klieg lights, with staged press conferences that insult the sensibilities. And public husbands who cheat on their wives should, if caught, face the public music alone. It is just so disingenuous to hide behind the skirts of your wife when you've been out chasing other skirts.

And you shouldn't need a public relations advisor to figure that out.

Donna Gentile O'Donnell is a Ph.D. candidate in health policy history from Philadelphia, Pa. vox populi... will appear on alternate Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.