Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Elin Nordegren, Elizabeth Edwards and Maria Shriver

All of these women were cheated on, to some extent, by their spouses:

  • Hillary Clinton is the wife of Bill Clinton.
  • Huma Abedin is the wife of the Anthony Weiner.
  • Elin Nordegren is the wife of Tiger Woods.
  • Elizabeth Edwards is the wife of John Edwards.
  • Maria Shriver is the wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

So what do they all have in common?

Andrew Klavan explains a common mistake that each of these women made when choosing their spouse.


I wanted to take a serious look at this situation and get at the reasons men such as Weiner behave in this grotesque way.

I blame women.  No, really.  Women — by which I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are — need look no further than themselves to explain why Weiner-types behave toward them in this fashion.   We men are always hearing complaints from women about how badly we treat them, what pigs we are, how pushy and abrasive…  on and on.  But what these same women conveniently fail to mention is that this stuff really works on them!

Charles C. Johnson writing about Weiner’s johnson at Big Government reports that the media has long described Weiner as “a lean, mean dating machine,” who has “a bevy of babes surrounding him,” wherever he goes.  In other words, this guy has been cleaning up in the romantic department.  Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t seem to have any trouble getting dates either.  Neither did alleged serial rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the IMF.  Chicks dig these creeps!

So, then, ladies — what do you expect?  All we guys want is for you to love us.  If this is the sort of guy you follow after in droves, this is the sort of guy we’re encouraged to be.  And I have to admit:  I don’t get it.  I look at Weiner and I see a rude, arrogant, entitled and clearly dishonest little piece of Democrat thoroughly convinced of his wholly non-existent superiority.  Physically, he’s a dead ringer for a turtle that’s been pulled out of its shell.  And as for his manners…  did I mention he takes pictures of his absurdly eponymous package and sends them to women on Twitter!

And that’s the sort of stuff that wins you over, ladies?  Well, if it is, expect to see a lot more of it.  It’s Darwin 101:  men evolve to attract the opposite sex.  By natural law, women get what they want from men…  it hardly seems fair for them to complain about it when it turns up in their inbox.

So women, here’s some free advice.  Stop dating creeps.  It only encourages them.

Now, I don’t think that Klavan’s criticism applies to ALL WOMEN, only to women who have not though carefully about the requirements of marriage for men and women, and how to test men to see if they have what it takes to handle their responsibilities. It’s THOSE women who end up with men who cheat.

So how should women test men for marriage?

Here are some questions that the five women who chose these disgusting creeps for husbands SHOULD have asked:

  1. What is the public purpose of marriage?
  2. What are the expected public outcomes of a good marriage?
  3. Does chastity before marriage provide any indication about a person’s ability to stay faithful in a marriage?
  4. What should men and women bring to a relationship so that they are able to perform expected marital behaviors?
  5. Is marriage more about self-indulgence or about self-sacrifice? Can you get used to self-sacrifice by being self-indulgent?
  6. If a person is pro-abortion, what do they believe about taking responsibility to avoid harming others with their poor decisions?
  7. If a person is pro-same-sex marriage, what do they believe about the needs of children compared to the needs of adults?
  8. If a person believes in wealth redistribution, do they have a correct understanding of working, saving and investing?
  9. Does a person’s superior appearance, wealth, or power determine whether they will be faithful in a marriage?
  10. Can you cause your spouse to be faithful by spending a lot of money on a wedding?
  11. Can you cause your spouse to be faithful by inviting famous people to your wedding?
  12. Is it a good idea to choose someone to marry who your parents and elders disapprove of?
  13. Is it a good idea to choose whether to have sex with someone using “the 180-second rule”?
  14. Is it a good idea to choose someone to marry in order to impress your friends (or to make them jealous)?
  15. Is it a good idea to marry someone because most of your friends are getting married?
  16. Is it a good idea to avoid studying the effects of divorce on children prior to marrying?
  17. Can you expect a spouse to adhere to objective moral obligations without a knowledge of God’s existence, grounded on evidence?
  18. Can you expect a spouse to adhere to objective moral obligations without a knowledge of God’s character, grounded on evidence?
  19. Does holding a Bible for a photo-op make someone into a William Lane Craig or a Wayne Grudem?
  20. Does singing praise hymns in church make someone into a William Lane Craig or a Wayne Grudem?

Those last items are to show that you really cannot have a moral standard that is binding unless there is some way that the universe ought to be, because it was designed to be a certain way by a Designer. If a person is convinced that there is a Designer who made people, it rationally grounds the idea that there is a way that humans ought to act – independently of how we may feel individually, or even in different cultures in different places and times. The more a man knows whether God exists and knows what God is like as a person – based on evidence – the more seriously that man will try to incorporate God’s personality into his decision making. A serious study of the evidence for God’s existence and character helps people to take moral obligations to others more seriously – especially when they don’t FEEL LIKE IT. That is why marriages where both spouses attend church regularly last. Women need to be asking men these worldview and morality questions, and insisting on seeing the behaviors that raise the probability of having a stable marriage to a faithful man.

Basically, instead of relying on feelings and peer approval to choose a man, women need to ask men questions to find out whether they are trustworthy and equal to the tasks that men perform as husbands and fathers. I don’t think that women who were cheated on really asked questions about their chosen spouse’s worldview, and how the man’s worldview grounded moral obligations, such as the obligation NOT to cheat. It seems that today, a well-grounded worldview that grounds moral obligations is regarded by some women as being superfluous to marital stability. I guess they think that fidelity is basically random – that Elliot Spitzer is as likely to be a faithful spouse as James Dobson. They just don’t ask men to explain what they believe and why, and why any particular man can be trusted to make moral decisions. And they shouldn’t be satisfied with words – they should demand to see evidence that the man has studied these issues, written about them, debated with others about them, and acted on these convictions personally.

I think that women today are also giving up their responsibility to read about marriage and parenting, to read about risks and challenges that threaten stable marriages, like no-fault divorce laws and cohabitation, and to read about how important it is to stay married because of how divorce affects children. Women should not abdicate the responsibility to judge men, they should not say that “men are unpredictable”, and they should not set themselves up as helpless victims. They need to keep men at arm’s length, keep their wits about them and do the work of evaluating men for the roles that men play in marriage and family.

Character and knowledge count. Just because a man can put on a show for you, it doesn’t mean that he is capable of producing the results of a thoughtful Christian worldview.

What does Dr. Laura say about marriage?

“Commitment to marriage and child rearing was once viewed as the pinnacle of adulthood identity, so that women looked carefully for the “right” man for the job, and parents were consulted for opinions and blessings.”
Source: Dr. Laura Schlessinger, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, page 53.

You can read more about the Anthony Weiner scandal here. Bill Clinton officiated at Anthony Weiner’s wedding. Huma Abedin was the personal assistant of radical feminist Hillary Clinton. Ironic, isn’t it?

This post was linked by:

Related posts

25 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Elin Nordegren, Elizabeth Edwards and Maria Shriver”

    1. Thank you for not being too hard on me for my judging and excluding and intolerance!

      Oh, and I fixed the post up so it was less mean… I am hopeful that this will help me to avoid the wrath of Mara, Mary and the other outraged feminists. (Kidding!)


  1. Don’t let the feminists get you down. They are reaping what they sowed.

    For the gals in the post, it must be all about the money and status. All of those guys are pretty famous and powerful (of course, we wouldn’t hear about them if they weren’t). Also, I think a lot of guys are just responding to the changing climate – if that’s the behavior that gets rewarded, then do more of it. Maybe that’s why the concept/practice of Game is becoming more popular.


    1. Hey, Mysterious C. What’s sad is that playing the “Game” is not going to prepare men to be faithful husbands and good fathers, I think. I don’t mind if women are hurt by their own poor choices, but what about the poor helpless children who are caught up in the decline of traditional courting?


      1. I agree. When I read discussions about Game that always stands out. It’s predicated on doing what works – though the ‘works’ is based on merely getting a gal. What the whole thing misses is that we need to be the right kind of person for the reasons you mentioned. That means aligning ourselves with a higher standard that is not just a reaction to a negative substandard. This requires obedience to God, for women and men, and it’s absent in most.


  2. It’s easy to judge in the abstract, but in truth, one can hardly tell, at the age of 20, which man is going to turn out to be a skunk, and which is going to honor his commitments. The number of men in the church who exhibit behaviors consistent with some sort of sexual addiction is very large — something like 1 out of 3 say they have an ongoing problem with porn, and my guess is that there are a lot more who just aren’t admitting it. Jesus may be committed to producing righteousness in all who come to Him, but that may take decades in some cases. So plenty of men who come into the church with sexual issues, still have them today. Plenty of godly, Christian women have husbands who are playing outside the barnyard in some fashion, so it’s pretty difficult, not to mention ungodly, to blame the women for the misbehavior of the men.

    As to there being plenty of women who respond to philanderers, what of it? Sexual brokenness is not a purely male problem. Women want to be loved, too, and for the damaged girl who’s been abused and neglected, taking off clothes will always obtain some scraps of approval, however temporary. And in any case, the fact that scumbags are out there selling crack does not absolve the crackhead of his responsibility for buying the stuff and destroying himself — and in like manner, the fact that there are women who respond to male idiots doesn’t absolve the idiots.

    Maybe you’ve never had a problem in this area, so you’re not aware of the pain and difficulty of dealing with it. I’m a recovering sex addict in my 50s, and this matter of sexual continence is still a daily issue, and frequently in my prayers. I’ve also been a Christian close to 40 years. Without spilling details of private meetings I’ve attended, the ranks of Christian men who are less than perfectly faithful to their wives contain faces you’ll see weekly at church, and not just in the congregation — in the choir loft, in the pulpit, in the church office. Christians are human, and Christian marriages are not perfect. Christian women sometimes marry men who have sexual issues, just like non-Christian women do.


    1. I actually think that the failure of godly men to hold women accountable when they leave God out of their decision making is ungodly.

      For example, look at how women’s poor decisions with men leads to fatherlessness and abortion for their daughters:


      If women choose non-Christian men and expect them to act like Christians, then it’s the woman’s fault. Non-Christian men cannot be expected to act like Christians.

      And vice versa – thre are plenty of Christian men who pass by the good Christian women and choose non-Christian women, and then get burned. If you want to blame men, blame those men. I could write billions and billions of blog posts about the men who put their hopes in women they have not thoroughly vetted, and get burned by feminists courts and laws that they freely chose not to study. When I find cases like that, I write about them, too.


  3. If your position, geographically, were in Bangor, Maine, and liberals were sprawled out along the California coastline, my view would be in the Berkshires of Massachusetts. We’re a heck of a lot closer to each other’s views than we are to the liberal views, but they aren’t the same.

    Charles C. Johnson writing about Weiner’s johnson at Big Government reports that the media has long described Weiner as “a lean, mean dating machine,” who has “a bevy of babes surrounding him,” wherever he goes. In other words, this guy has been cleaning up in the romantic department.

    Oh, there’s my soapbox. Let me get on it.

    (Deep breath.)

    Yeah, that’s a valid argument, if you see women as interchangeable prizes and cannot distinguish between a good woman with Christian values and a shameless, brainless slut.

    Yes, “women” – as in, more than one member of the female half of the species – chase men like Weiner. That doesn’t mean that women-in-general go for Representative Tweet His Junk. Likewise, men – as in, more than one man – have raped women, but we all despise the people who say that all men are potential rapists. Or “men”, i.e., plural of man, look to score with women and treat them like garbage, but good men like Wintery and Neil treat women with respect. Women deserve the same consideration: I don’t think that we all ought to be thrown under the bus because of the worst among us.

    Also, I would like to distinguish between women (or men) who are overly trusting and marry a lousy man (or women) and those who commit adultery by flinging themselves at anything with a y-chromosome (or a XX). Teasing this apart, we have a few different things going on here: we have women like Jenny Sanford and Elin Nordegen, who marry and are great wives, then toss the cheating SOBs out on their ears; we have Hillary and Maria, who stay for the political power; then we have the co-ed in Washington, client #9’s mistress, the Argentinian chick that did Gov. Sanford, and all the women who make cheating possible. I think – and you may disagree – that those women do not hold equal culpability in terms of the culture that they promote, and the effect their actions have on men. You’re just not going to get me to say a bad word about Jenny or Elin or any woman who marries, creates a beautiful home, loves her children, and tosses the cheating SOB into the gutter where he belongs.

    Do I wish that women made better choices? Yes. But I also understand that women who want children often don’t have the luxury of waiting until their mid/late 30s to find a spouse (that time period being when a woman can much better assess the quality of a mate than in her teens and 20s).

    That said, I agree that women can do a lot to hold men to higher standards. I’ve often said that the big flaw in the femisogynists logic was to see a double standard and think that the way to remedy it was to ask less of women, rather than more of men.

    Having been in the dating world for too [bleeping] long, I’m here to tell you that other women’s actions have a huge effect on men. When I get really cranky, I’m bound to say something like, “I can tell within two dates when a man has a slut for an ex-girlfriend”. Again, we’re in the same general territory, but not the same place.

    Hope that makes sense and was diplomatic.


    1. Makes sense and is diplomatic. A great counterpoint. The big thing that struck me was how good women who do want husbands and who want to offer their husbands a lot are threatened by the women who give sex up too easily. I find that infuriating – I deeply sympathize. You come into the world, and the mess that greets you with sex education, hooking-up, contraceptives and so forth was none of your making. You are forced to operate in a world where men have grown accustomed to easy sex. And if you don’t give it to them, many of them are not in a position to value you for any other reason – they simply have NOT thought about what husbands need and what children need.

      And yes, there is a male equivalent of this – men who marry bad women for looks and then make themselves the victims of no-fault divorce. Men think they can read a woman’s character in her appearance. I’m sorry, but it’s true. The only antidote is thinking and reading DEEPLY about marriage and parenting. A Christian worldview helps, because it makes you make a Christian plan for the marriage – so that you pick a Christian wife for the job.


      1. As a single Christian woman who would like to be married one day I don’t find the women who give sex easily to really be a threat. After all, if a guy is the sort who pressures a woman into premarital sex or gives in to her pressure, then he has demonstrated that he’s unsuitable for marriage to me and there’s really no loss in not getting this guy. If easy sex hooks a guy that easily, he’s not my type.


        1. In theory, yes, but reality is different. Premarital sex corrupts men in ways that go beyond religious or health issues: it simply changes what they want out of relationships. The same is not necessarily true, IMHO, for most women. (In fact, I’ve heard from a few people that many teenage girls who do end up hating the experience so much that they end up becoming quite chaste.)

          The closest analogy I can think up is trying to discipline a child that has been allowed to run rampant, eating sweets, breaking the china, making messes, and staying up all night. It’s not the child’s nature, necessarily, but is the way that child has been raised and what he has been taught is appropriate or not. Take that and raise it to another power: once men have sex and a taste of that pleasure, they aren’t going to give it up. Men who could be good husband material, or once were good husband material, no longer are, because they aren’t going to wait.


          1. I think you are right about this. I don’t have any experience to back this up, because all of inner circle of male friends are either virgins or were virgins when they married. But I have been father/brother to women who dealt with normal men, some of home WERE virgins and they reported to me that the men do change as a result. I think the horror for me is that I would not be able to see women the same way as I do now, or invest as much time and effort into each individual one.


  4. Modern Western women don’t seem to be capable of sound judgement so asking most of them to perform “cold” analysis of marriageable men is like asking a cripple to rise up and walk (only Jesus, literally and figuratively could do this).


    1. I think men AND women both start off lacking judgment. For me, the need for judgment came the more I read about the perils of divorce for children. If you really understand what children need, you start to think about who you need to marry, and what you need to bring to the marriage, in order to make sure that the children have a stable, loving home to grow up in. Research constrains the will. So that’s why I think that women and men should be demonstrating their commitment to marriage by being aware of the dangers that posed to marriage by certain laws, policies, pre-marital behaviors, cultural trends and attitudes, etc.


      1. Thank you, WK. I think your response is more balanced and realistic than Fred’s comment. After all, I’m a Western woman living in the 20th century and I think my judgment on this matter is pretty good.


  5. The latter half of the article I see here on the website is different from what I read in the notification email. What happened to it? I liked the email version better because it drove home the point that the selfish liberal feminist view is ultimately contrary to what women desire.


    1. Um… I have to be honest. I felt that the original post was too harsh. But let me tell you what… if you really liked it then leave us a comment with YOUR THOUGHTS and I will add it to the main post.

      And I do apologize for removing the harsh, but interesting part. I know it was linked on other sites that liked the harsh part.


  6. So Elin Nordegren and Jenny Sanford were devoted and caring, but Maria and Hillary were not? Do you have any direct evidence of that or is it based on distant observation?


    1. Hey MCS. That is a trackback from Roxeanne De Luca’s article over on DaTechGuy’s blog. She linked to me. I am not sure why she wrote that, and so I can’t answer you. It’s a good question!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s