He says:
It is worth mentioning that [his fiance], as anyone who knows her would attest, is one of the most kind hearted and gentle people in the world. The cliché that has been propagated, of me abandoning a devoted wife to "run off" with a young actress, could not have been more falsely applied.
I've met his fiance and I think she is very cool (and smart and witty and a talented actress besides). But my ex seems to be suggesting that the nature of a woman's character is somehow directly responsible for actions that he himself either did or did not take. Which falls in line with the idea that it's "the other woman" who is always "the homewrecker", that she is the one to be blamed for "stealing" the man (no matter that the man allowed himself to be "stolen").
(No one is responsible for the end of my marriage except my ex-husband and me, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here.)
Of course, what my ex is really saying is I did not have sexual relations with that woman before I was officially separated, and no one can fault him for that, or for defending the woman he soon plans to marry. But he does this through a rejiggering of certain female stereotypes. His fiance, he is assuring us, is not and was never "the other woman" or "the homewrecker". Both of these stereotypes carry the connotations of whore, which is the "ultimate" degradation of reducing a person to her sexuality (what's more, that evil female sexuality that kicked us all out of Paradise and continues to plague and victimize helpless men). She is instead "one of the most kind-hearted and gentle people in the world". She is an angel.
Because he's also (wittingly or not) juxtaposing her against me, pulling me into the 'cliche' as the 'devoted wife' even as he states that this cliche could not have been more 'false'...
...because he then, a couple of paragraphs down, goes to some length to assure the reader that Dude (whom he makes a point to identify in full, and also to claim that Dude was a "friend" of ours throughout the marriage) did not play a role in our divorce. By saying this, he is implying -- "framing" -- that, in fact, Dude might have done just that. (This is a rhetorical device called 'apophasis', where you communicate one thing by stating its opposite.) He also refers to Dude as my "long-term" boyfriend, which might make a reader wonder, How "long-term" could he be if they just got divorced?
(We started dating nine months after my separation, but that's not my point either.)
Of course, what my ex is really saying is, Justine is no angel. Which is fine; I will admit that I am infinitely more complicated than that (and so, for that matter, is his fiance).
But if I'm no angel, then what am I? What are the options? You're a good girl or a bad girl. You're a madonna or a whore. And if his fiance is the good girl, then I must be...?
And then he swings into the rest of it, including his interpretation of the events surrounding our divorce. Which I won't get into here, but needless to say it puts me in a less than flattering light. One might even use the word (and say it with me, boys and girls): golddigger. And what is a golddigger but a glorified....[fill in the blank]?
So by saying that he is "correcting the record" about our divorce, by putting himself forward as the final and real authority on the situation, he is also defining a certain kind of reality in which his fiance and I get slotted into our "proper" places.
And I must roll my eyes.
I agree whole-heartedly with my ex about "the danger of cliches". People cannot and should not be reduced to cartoon characters. And women should have the freedom and dignity to exist in a space that does not involve pedestals of any kind (whether you're still on it, or you've been knocked off it). That is not truth. It's distortion, and it hurts.
Profile
moschus- Justine Musk
- Tribal Writer (my other blog)
Comments
Considering that the amount is 2, 3, 4 times the yearly salaries of his employees (who are working insane hours building his companies and his wealth), the idea of the man paying out that kind of cash for his ex-wife's wardrobe was surely meant to shock and awe (which it succeeded in doing).
Is life in the Hills really that demanding and expensive? Ouch.
You go to jail for punching someone, but nothing happens to you when you under appreciate and ignore them, quit on them, rip their heart out, and six weeks later text them that you are engaged to someone else.
They built their life together, and she invested a lot into him. It seems like she wants a part of his company because she was there by his side as him and his team built it. She has no malice towards it, whatsoever. When you invest a large part of your life in someone and defer to them as the breadwinner, you should get alimony when you split based on the assumption that you were equal partners in the marriage. Justine is not however asking for half his wealth. I do agree that simplification is good: going without Starbucks, personal trainers, and $300 pairs of shoes.
I think his fear that if she had a stake in the company she would block things from happening is assuming she's vindictive; which she is absolutely not. I think in her case, she might not be fully grasping that having stock in a company does mean you are involved (lets say the company has another funding round). Do I think Justine would not go along with the pack and make things difficult - absolutely not. She'd be completely cool.
I wish Elon could see what is so clear to me and many of the other readers, that you do want to work things out, would never do anything to hurt him or his company, are proud of him, and want the best for yourself, for him, and for your sons. However, you're not going to settle for anything less than you deserve, because that's not your style.
Is there a way to have stock in his companies without being "involved"? Anyone?
Yes, when we were married I would shop when I was depressed or insecure. It's actually kind of a miserable activity. I don't feel the need to do it anymore & in any case am trying to adopt a more eco-friendly approach to things. Not to mention, I stay home a lot and so my wardrobe requirements have been dramatically reduced.
Yes, it is an expensive lifestyle. Which is why I want to move out of Bel Air and downsize when I can (the house is not yet in my name). I like low-maintenance.
Edited at 2010-07-15 07:41 pm (UTC)
Good for you on the trip. I finally worked myself up to watch "Trade" with Kevin Kline this past weekend about the sex slave trade and the figures shown at the end of the film are mind boggling. It's so evil it's nearly beyond comprehension. And sad.
For once I'm kind of glad I'm late to the party. The blog post, the comments, and E's blog, provide such a range of opinion on so many different topics. Having followed your blog since the days where "E's" identity was unknown to many of your readers, it's more than ironic that his identity brings people to your blog.
I find it funny that the nature of your blog topic was rarely even covered in the comments. It's almost like you dug a bit too deep, so people plucked their own topic to comment on. And as I said, this situation leads to so many potential conflicts: personal privacy vs public disclosure, family situations, romantic situations, legal situations, corporate situations, child raising, cash wealth vs paper wealth, misogyny, dogs and cats living together... it's hard not to digress.
E's blog starts out so calm and centered as he defends his fiancee's honor, but once the almighty $ becomes the subject, he Harvey-Two-Faces into manipulation and deceit. "$20k a month for shoes, shopping" and oh whatever else there could be... your glitter makeup perhaps? C'mon.
Crying about $170k a month lawyer bills when he's the one whose "negotiation tactic" was to cut his original offer to you 5% per day (or whatever). It's clear from his final spelling out of "the facts" that he fully expected to pay you nothing more than a dime over whatever agreement you signed before "E" became "Elon (no last name required)".
Which brings me back to your original point. Yes. Apparently it's a man's job to push for sex at every chance and a woman's duty to hold us off. Other key things to note:
Mans job: Build billion dollar companies.
Woman's role: smile and look pretty.
Man's job: Defend the honor of his fiancee.
Woman's role: smile and look pretty.
Man's job: Let her keep 5-figure proceeds from the sale of novels which take year/s to write.
Woman's role: When he tells you his company he built while you were married went public for $226M, smile and look pretty.
So let it be written, this year of our Lord, 1408.
:-)
;-)