Political Wives: What Do They Get Out It?

Ta-Nehisi Coates responds to a Double X post, which says that Jenny Sanford's efforts to raise her kids and support her husband's career was mis-directed energy. Sanford is apparently an extremely bright woman who had a major job in finance before she started her family. Coates says there has to be something more to Sanford's decisions than simply being a doormat.

Coates isn't buying the simplistic and judgmental reasoning of Double X, but he still doesn't understand Sanford and others. He asks,

My question is why would a woman so willingly throw herself into her husband's life work? There must have been some sort of light there, something that she got out of it. I don't say that to be caustic, or mean. But the narrative of put-upon housewife always leaves me unsatisfied, because while it says a lot about the husband, his proclivities, and his selfishness, it really says nothing about the wife. Who is she? Why would she enter into such an arrangement? What is the trade-off? Where is her agency in it all?

I don't know Jenny, but I can throw out some guesses on why she quit her job and supported his career.

She probably hated her job. I know, who would believe it? Most people hate their jobs and would quit as soon as the balls fell the right way on Lotto. Finance jobs, in particular, aren't that fun. People do it for the money and quit as soon as they feel that they have enough money. Of course, having enough money varies from person to person. When Steve goes to work, he sometimes hears the stock brokers puking in the bathroom from the stress. Steve would quit his job the moment I made enough money to cover the mortgage. For us, enough money = paying the mortgage.

She probably loved her kids and wanted to raise them herself. She has four young boys. I bet that they had a nanny, but still, managing four kids is a lot of work.

He probably worked 16 hour days and traveled a lot. Jobs in finance are 12 hour jobs. I'm sure she thought it would be nice if her kids saw one parent once in a while.

High end jobs assume that there is a stay at home parent. Steve can never take off for sick days or parent-teacher conferences or for school holidays. They assume that I'll take care of it. It is assumed that he can work after hours whenever he is needed. He came home at 9:00 last night without worrying about the babysitter or the daycare. It is highly annoying that his job makes that assumption, but that's a rant for another day.

But political jobs are even weirder. Not only do they assume that there's a full time parent at home, but they also expect that the spouse will show up at events and give speeches. People give Michelle Obama a hard time about quitting her job, but as far as I can tell, she's working a lot. She's in front of the camera every day giving speeches and reading to school kids. That looks like a job to me. Political office is the only job that employs the whole family.

Also, Jenny probably believed in her husband's political message. She ran his political campaign because she liked his platform. Whatever.

Marriages involve trust and compromises. The Sanfords probably made a series of decisions based on who loved their career more, who really wanted to care for the kids, and a host of other factors. She probably didn't look at her role as mom and political wife as a sacrifice. Maybe that was an error, but if a marriage is going to work, you have to somewhat trust the other person.

UPDATE: BitchPhD has a good response.

Comments

[Wendy]

The Bitch link is the same as the TNC link.

[laura]

That link should go to a comment she left at TNC.

[Wendy]

Oops. OK.

[bj]

"She probably didn't look at her role as mom and political wife as a sacrifice. Maybe that was an error, but if a marriage is going to work, you have to somewhat trust the other person."

I think this is true -- that she decided she liked the job of being a political wife better than she liked the job of being a financial executive. The problem with making that decision is that it does put your career into the hands of someone else who gets to make the calls (in this case, the call to have an affair), but in others it could be more legitimate decisions, that they get to make, because, when your job is political wife and manager, they're the boss. I think the question is how can you protect yourself int hat circumstance.

[laura]

"I think the question is how can you protect yourself in that circumstance."

Well, there are formal, legal ways to protect yourself. You can write a pre- or a post-nup that spells out what financial supports will come your way, if one party should depart.

You can also keep your skills sharp in your previous profession. Keep renewing professional licenses and keep up with changes in the profession.

In Sanford's case, she could easily go back to her finance job. Or she could get a job in politics. She could work as a campaign manager for another candidate or as a political consultant.

[Amy P]

"But political jobs are even weirder. Not only do they assume that there's a full time parent at home, but they also expect that the spouse will show up at events and give speeches."

Another issue is that employed political spouses are a leading source of real and apparent conflicts of interest and scandal. There were questions about Michelle Obama's getting a big raise at the same time her husband got into the Senate, I believe Feinstein's husband had some financial issues, Blagojevich was apparently trying to get his wife a job as part of one of his shake-downs, Barney Frank was romantically entwined with the banking industry at the same time he was supposed to regulate it, and I believe that quite a number of members of Congress are married to lobbyists. A spouse with no outside employment is an easy way to avoid ethical grey areas and unnecessary media heat. (I apologize for the partisan look of that list--those were all the ones that I could think of. I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans in roughly the same position.)

[jen]

"Political office is the only job that employs the whole family."

Interestingly, I would argue this is also true of clergy. Whatever that means.

[Lucy]

"Political office is the only job that employs the whole family."

You could also make a similar argument about Academe.

[MH]

"Interestingly, I would argue this is also true of clergy."

Wacky Protestants.

[Amy P]

Wacky Orthodox and Byzantines, too.

[Ragtime]

The problem with making that decision is that it does put your career into the hands of someone else who gets to make the calls (in this case, the call to have an affair),

The problem with this sort of analysis, I think, is that it casts the employed woman as "in control" and the political wife as "not in control." But, employment in the financial sector hasn't exactly been secure for the past year or two, and Jenny Sanford will likely earn more alimony from the Governor than she would severance from her employer.

Looking at it that way, she didn't "give up" anything. She maintained her standard of living, got to work fewer hours, got to spend more time with her family, AND protected her personal finances in the event of a financial downturn/ divorce.

The other side of "If you pick your family over your career, he might leave you, and then you won't have a job" is "If you pick your career over your family, you might be fired, and then you won't have a support system."

[bj]

"Jenny Sanford will likely earn more alimony from the Governor than she would severance from her employer."

Seems unlikely to me, though I don't know the standards in SC. One of the trends in divorce, especially in the development of community property states (like CA & WA) is that one divides the marital capital evenly, but future earnings are basically the purview of the earner. Since for most people, most of the capital of a marriage is the earning potential of the chief earner (or, "ideal worker", in Joan Williams parlance), dividing capital, but not future earnings leaves the non-ideal earner (i.e. the woman who gave up her high powered finance job in order to potentiate the governor's career). Alimony is highly limited, and even child support is pretty small change, if you were a significant earner. If Sanford was making 500K, and hasn't made it for the last 10 years (that's the fair comparison, not just how much she'd get in severance), she's given up way more money than she'll get in alimony and child support from her husband. It's not like he's a significant earner, anyway.

That being said, Sanford is not a random person. She could probably get a book deal that will make this a moderately lucrative decision, even if we're talking in simple economic terms.

I am not arguing that the decision should be made on these grounds, just that choosing to give up ones job has financial risks. And, you're putting up a false choice -- Sanford really did pick her family over her job, because she quit her job. But, the alternative we're posing doesn't mean that one should pick a job over one's family (i.e. quit one's family). Hopefully, Sanford did not quit her job because Mr. Sanford threatened to leave her if she wouldn't, leaving her with a job but no support system.

[bj]

PS: South Carolina is apparently a "liberal" alimony state in which one can be awarded permanent alimony, and adultery is actually a contributing factor to determining alimony payments. So the financial impact would clearly vary based on the state.

[jen]

Isn't it true that Ms. Sanford is wealthy in her own right? If that's true then she didn't need her Wall Street income any more than she needs her husband's income. She traded Wall Street for Political Family based on other criteria.

I still don't understand why anyone would ever sign on to be a political wife. But her financial circumstances do help me understand why she was willing to pitch the guy out, when other political wives have not.

[y81]

This is really spot on, especially the part about how many people in finance really hate their jobs. (I hate my job, though, oddly, my wife, who does more or less the same thing, doesn't hate it.) A lot of older feminist writing (think Vivian Gornick) was written by young women who thought that their fathers did glamorous, exciting things in "the city," while their moms were domestic drudges, wholly failing to note that in many cases their fathers hated their lives of high-paid frustration, humiliation and insecurity.

[rix]

Maybe she saw her choice as something a certain type of Christian wife does when she gets married.