There's an expression in Hebrew to describe the dedicated wife who ever so faithfully contributes to her husband's success and prowess – The Woman by his Side.
Recently, we have been exposed to several such men of stature who have been subjected to judicial process for sexual offenses. A former justice minister convicted of an "indecent act" (i.e. sticking his tongue into the mouth of a flabbergasted 19-year-old solider); a temporarily incapacitated president soon to be charged with sexual assault, including rape (no need to parenthesize a description of the offenses); and Ofer Glazer, the husband of Israel's richest lady, Shery Arison, whose appeal against a conviction of indecent acts in several women was rejected yesterday by the Supreme Court.
Throughout their public appearances, these men made a point of treading the judiciary corridors walking hand in hand with their trusted Women by their Side. Agreeably, this is a necessary and inseparable part of their goodie-two-shoe persona: A dedicated husband who enjoys the unrelenting support of his faithful wife.
But certainly in the case of Haim Ramon, and quite definitely in the cases of Katsav and Glazer, the wife/partners know that their men had erred on the basic tenet of a normative relationship. The guys forgot about the "Thou shall not commit adultery" business in the bible.
What intrigues here is the interest these women have in backing their husbands, their men, at a time of crisis that has been one of the classic (and justified) reasons for a breakup of yore.
I think of Gila Katsav, who as a colleague pointed out to me, no one knew she existed until it became necessary for her to be the honorable President's Wife. I think of Ramon's partner, whose expressionless face cannot hide the steel grip her hand has of his. And I think of Arison, who is certainly more powerful and presiding than her husband and yet opted for the man who asked the matchmaking agency for 'a very wealthy woman,' as common knowledge has it.
Without being privy to any material evidence of the true nature of these three relationships, I think it would be safe to assume that in each case there is a deeply ingrained dependence of the woman on the man. A dependence that clinches hands in an interminable shake while hiding one form of helplessness or another behind the silence of the wives.
I cannot help think that there is something that is very wrong here. The bravery of the complainants should be matched with the bravery of the wives. Men should not find solace for their failing self-restraint in the bosom of those who suffer the most after the victims of their dirty deeds.
If there is one asset that should not come hand in hand with a senior political position or a platinum ticket to the business world it is this: Immunity from the wrath of the betrayed wife.
Recently, we have been exposed to several such men of stature who have been subjected to judicial process for sexual offenses. A former justice minister convicted of an "indecent act" (i.e. sticking his tongue into the mouth of a flabbergasted 19-year-old solider); a temporarily incapacitated president soon to be charged with sexual assault, including rape (no need to parenthesize a description of the offenses); and Ofer Glazer, the husband of Israel's richest lady, Shery Arison, whose appeal against a conviction of indecent acts in several women was rejected yesterday by the Supreme Court.
Throughout their public appearances, these men made a point of treading the judiciary corridors walking hand in hand with their trusted Women by their Side. Agreeably, this is a necessary and inseparable part of their goodie-two-shoe persona: A dedicated husband who enjoys the unrelenting support of his faithful wife.
But certainly in the case of Haim Ramon, and quite definitely in the cases of Katsav and Glazer, the wife/partners know that their men had erred on the basic tenet of a normative relationship. The guys forgot about the "Thou shall not commit adultery" business in the bible.
What intrigues here is the interest these women have in backing their husbands, their men, at a time of crisis that has been one of the classic (and justified) reasons for a breakup of yore.
I think of Gila Katsav, who as a colleague pointed out to me, no one knew she existed until it became necessary for her to be the honorable President's Wife. I think of Ramon's partner, whose expressionless face cannot hide the steel grip her hand has of his. And I think of Arison, who is certainly more powerful and presiding than her husband and yet opted for the man who asked the matchmaking agency for 'a very wealthy woman,' as common knowledge has it.
Without being privy to any material evidence of the true nature of these three relationships, I think it would be safe to assume that in each case there is a deeply ingrained dependence of the woman on the man. A dependence that clinches hands in an interminable shake while hiding one form of helplessness or another behind the silence of the wives.
I cannot help think that there is something that is very wrong here. The bravery of the complainants should be matched with the bravery of the wives. Men should not find solace for their failing self-restraint in the bosom of those who suffer the most after the victims of their dirty deeds.
If there is one asset that should not come hand in hand with a senior political position or a platinum ticket to the business world it is this: Immunity from the wrath of the betrayed wife.
posted by Orr at 10:44 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home