She's got plenty of balls, I'll give her that. A non-author who decides to track down the most famous US general to write an adoring biography. Not your usual happy housewife move. She's got gumption this one!
Sure. But then so are Gennifer Flowers, Calista Gingrich, Reille Hunter, this Kelley woman -- maybe, the poor kid who got murdered while having an affair with that California congressman, whoever that was that boned Jack Welch (ewwwwwwwww) after writing a book about him, Anthony Weiner's various mistresses, Lord only knows how many of JFK's conquests, and so on and so on. It's not that far out there to say that there is a not minuscule proportion of women who are willing to offer themselves up, and maybe pursue, powerful men to the detriment of their own families and that of their targets. Whether a a society and its politics care (ours) or not (France gets ONE thing right) is only slightly less important than whether security was somehow compromised.
I agree that these men shouldn't be surprised when they marry "socialites." These women are essentially professional high school girls.
They're fighting over the HS quarterback. "B*tch - don't you even look at my man at that Veterans Day celebration on the army base!"
I finally learned this when I was in my early 20s (not being powerful or rich put me behind the curve on this one) and reports started coming out that the guy on the right, John Tower (R-Texas) had multiple mistresses...
You know who's fault it is? ********ing Disney. Disney has spent the last 6 decades telling girls that it's their jobs to be a princess and marry a prince. Gender roles are learned, they're not instinctive. Study after study has indicated that when young girls are given "male" toys and taught to identify with male characters in childrens movies, they adopt male gender roles. They become independent. They strive to become scientists, lawyers, and doctors rather than housewives. Girls aren't naturally attracted to power or the ideal of a socialite. They're told they should be attracted to power in the TV shows they watch, in the movies they see, and by the toys their parents give them. Yet men continue to reinforce these gender roles, and we continue to believe that the ideal women is a "socialite" or a housewife.
No offense, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Women are naturally attracted to men who will take of them, and by extension, their babies. Powerful and wealthy men are attractive for that reason. So are big manly men who can fend off bears and chop wood to keep them warm in the winter. Fortunately for you regular schlubs, there are relatively few such men to go around and at least some women (me, for instance) are repelled by the personalities of most rich and powerful men.
This is actually not true. Have you ever heard of social learning theory? (wikipedia) Basically, some aspects of gender roles are learned, and some are biological. Men are biologically and genetically more aggressive than females. Men are biologically larger and stronger than females. Men and women are both sexually attracted to certain physical ideals. However much of the social behavior we witness is, in fact, learned. The idea that it's a women's job to raise the children and a man's jobs to take care of the women (in modern times by earning money) is false. Studies have shown that families in which the father plays an active role in parenting raise more intelligent and successful children. Where the father figure is absent, children perform worse in school, social situations, and work. And indeed, if we look at some of the few remaining tribal cultures on the planet, men and women tend to share domestic duties (roughly 60-40). The "domesticated women" is a phenomenon that really took off with the rapid expansion of agricultural society. The gender division of labor made logical sense in a society in which 75% of workers were farmers. Working the farm required dozens of children. Rearing so many children resulted in the domestication of women. However in modern times with birth control and 2.5 kids per family, domesticated women are a waste of space. EDIT: PM me if you want to continue the conversation, this is off topic
Wait a second. She wrote a dissertation. For your typical tenure-track historian, you write your master's thesis, which turns out to be one section of your dissertation, which forms the core of your first book. So I don't see anything strange here.
The story gets wierder http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4smBMEYqUI Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned. . . . Both Petraeus and Allen apparently decided intervene in the same nasty court fight over a four year old, siding with the mother who, according to court documents, took her son to Florida when he was four months old after a heated argument. The generals' letters to the court — written in the past two months — supported a motion to overturn a ruling made nearly a year earlier by a judge who resoundingly denied custody to Khawam, because of serious reservations about her honesty and mental stability, court records show.
Seriously. Don't these 4 star Generals and CIA Chiefs have stuff to do? Writing letters to the court about 4 year olds? This story is stranger than fiction.
I don't especially want to continue this topic at all except to say that your statement that "domesticated women are a waste of space" is offensive on several levels. You should really be more careful about throwing around gross generalizations and talking about women like they're cattle.
You're completely wrong. The gender division you're talking about actually came about in reaction to the rise of industrialism, as household work became devalued and the rise of the "cult of domesticity" codified a separate domestic sphere for women. First--women are not "domesticated"; livestock are. Secondly--there are real benefits and perks to having one parent home with the kids and able to maintain a household, even after they are off to school. Being free to pick up sick kids, not having to worry about getting off in time to pick them up from daycare, not having daycare expenses (REALLY good daycare is not cheap), being able to take kids to after-school and weekend activities (or do you think all working mothers work 8-5 Monday-Friday? I got news for you)--these are all real, substantive quality of life factors. If one spouse is able to support the entire family financially, that frees the other spouse up to focus on a lot more than "housework.
Did "he" and another 4 star general also send letters of support to various court proceedings on behalf of the kids of sisters of these "scores of bad apples"? There is more to this story than just a general fooling around. It is very odd.
So I've been having trouble casting this movie. So far I have Tom Cruise as Petraeus. Kim Kardasian as Jill Kelley. Mel Gibson as the shirtless FBI agent. And Paul Giamatti in a wig as Holly Petraeus. I'm stumped on who to cast as Broadwell though.