image AP
“I am never writing a breakup record again, by the way. I’m done with being a bitter witch,” Adele said this week in an interview with Vogue.
She swept the Grammys and had her man at her side, Simon Konecki, a former financier and founder of Life Water, a British bottled water company. Or the bearded guy who has been the good man in the background while Adele won awards for heartbreak at the hands of her past boyfriend who had the gall to ask to get paid for his bad behavior.
“For about a week he was calling and was deadly serious about it,” Adele told the Sun last year. “Finally, I said, ‘Well, you made my life hell, so I lived it, and now I deserve it.’”
She also made clear that rumors her bearded man is still married are false, saying he has been divorced for 4 years.
By all accounts he’s a good guy and as Adele has skyrocketed in fame and fortune he’s been the rock behind the scenes providing loving support.
So let’s turn the sexist thought about behind every great man there is a great woman around and ask the question, what do you need to do to be the good man quietly supporting a great woman?
Please discuss.
About Tom Matlack
” … what do you need to do to be the good man quietly supporting a great woman? … ”
You need to be a fool. When the relationship crumbles (and it will), the court will eagerly swallow the ex-wife’s story about her deadbeat husband who lived off her money and was too lazy to keep an orderly home or properly nurture the children. He will be catapulted out of the window of his home, the same way as a bread-winning husband.
Except that he will not have an income with which to pay child support and keep himself out of debtors prison.
I have to concur with Antz, albeit less provocatively.
When women list men supporting them socially rather then financially as ‘financial exploitation’ and a form of abuse then it doesn’t take a genius to realize men should probably avoid it for their own sake.
Behind every great man there is a great woman, but behind every great woman there is a sore loser.
“what do you need to do to be the good man quietly supporting a great woman?”
Be like Margaret Thatcher’s husband.
“Be like Margaret Thatcher’s husband.”
An excellent example. I lived in England in between 1979 and 1980, and it was hard to find one issue of any popular weekly tabloid that did not have a cruel article about Denis Thatcher’s domesticity, impotence, or irrelevance.
Twenty years later, the dehumanization continues. Examine Margaret Thatcher’s wikipedia page, and compare it to her predecessor and her successor (James Callaghan and John Major). The three web pages are set up identically — with one exception. Thatcher has no “Personal Life” section. Both Callaghan and Major have a “Personal Life” section that says something about their marriage, and the honors and accomplishments of their wives. Why is there no personal life section under Thatcher, where Denis Thatcher’s contributions to her success are exalted?
Objectively, Denis Thatcher was MUCH MUCH MUCH more influential in his wife’s success than the spouse of either Major or Callaghan. Denis financed both her education and her early political career. He was a highly accomplished businessman and politician in his own right — but on Thatcher’s wikipedia page, he does not exist.
Only a fool would pick Denis Thatcher’s job. In the end, this is what his wife had to say about it:
“If you want something said, ask a man…if you want something done, ask a woman.”
Can you imagine either Callaghan or Major saying something so utterly heartless and cruel, if their wives were subject to daily ridicule in the media?
Good question. Thanks for asking. But, explain again why the former is sexist but the latter is admirable, making one a good man? If the former is sexist, the latter is as much or more so.
Also, who says you would have to be quiet? Why can’t he noisily do what he does and let her do noisily do what she does, and they support each other?
On the other hand, if they feel that they would be separated too often if she were to go on long tours, for example, they could decide (as some couples have done with success) that he would be her business manager and/or agent and make her singing career a family business. For me, I would either have my own pursuits or be the business manager with a guaranteed share of her income in perpetuity, if they are not married. (If they are married, it is assumed that his interests would be protected, similar to Kobe Bryant’s wife, for example)
“But, explain again why the former is sexist but the latter is admirable, making one a good man? If the former is sexist, the latter is as much or more so.”
Ah, but don’t you see? Women have been oppressed into these secondary, support roles for men. Therefore, when men today limit, compromise, and confine their lives so as to be secondary, supportive and subordinate to their female partners’ lives, it is considered progressive. And it is considered to be proper punishment and comeuppance applied to men for the crimes of their gender.
He sounds like he’s a pretty wealthy fellow, capable of running businesses and making his own decisions. I’m with Eric. Just because he isn’t onstage doesn’t mean he’s quiet. He’s just not buying into PR/star culture necessarily. Some people love the limelight and some don’t. I don’t see why it matters.
If they are a good pair and can successfully navigate the hell that music stardom can be, more power to them. They both have earning potential, money and resources.
I’m thinking that Tom means that the guy isn’t grabbing for limelight at her expense, unlike her ex who famously tried to sue her for royalties for causing the heartbreak that fueled her album.
Ah!
As for the average every day man/woman support/soar deal, I’d be idealistic enough on this Valentine’s Day to say each member of the relationship would take turns soaring and supporting based on the interests inherent in the couple. If you dig being a supporter, do it. If you have vision, it’s awesome to have someone supporting you. Most of us in average every day America have to take turns though, both working…trying to support families…that’s the beauty of a partnership.
That being said, the role of “wife” as a traditional stay at home supporter does allow for the other spouse to really dig into those 100 hour work weeks, stress, etc etc. It would be interesting to see if more women would enjoy the role of CEO if they had a spouse at home making domestic support magic happen. Men might not like that, or maybe they would. Women might have a hard time letting go of the domestic sphere but maybe not.
I prefer a life where both partners work less and enjoy people more, but I’m not a fan of corporate life.
All for each of us to determine as we will in our relationships.
Thank you for some sanity to mute the trolls with.
That’s pretty much my view of an ideal heterosexual couple, or really any couple (triad, etc), mostly because that’s pretty much how my parents have worked.. They worked together, supported each other, shifted their goals around to help each other out….all to work toward their joint goal which was to have a successful marriage and family. And then they solved world hunger and world peace. Okay, not that last bit…and they aren’t perfect…but that is always what they have worked toward and are still working toward.
If you’re on CEO incomes, well, 250k+ a year then you’d probably hire help and not need your partner to be at home all day with the kids.
Should probably mention a decent income, not all CEO’s get that much probably:P
But I doubt many people want to hire people to manage their kids. Well, I wouldn’t. Lots of male CEO’s have stay at home wives. What would be wrong about at a SAHD?
“But I doubt many people want to hire people to manage their kids. Well, I wouldn’t.”
You’d be surprised what people want when they have access to abundant resources and can be freed from the drudgery of personal child care. The mother of the son of CEO Francois-Henri Pinault demands $46,000.00 per month so she can have a nanny present at all times, 24/7. In her words, she never wants to be alone with the child.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/linda_demands_monthly_from_ex_8lWhicZ0088EQTIU1kouNI
“What would be wrong about at a SAHD?”
I guess we are not supposed to think there is anything wrong about a Stay-At-Home-Dad. Unfortunately, despite the gains of equality, lots of people think Stay-At-Home-Dads are failed men or emasculated disgraces. And sometimes that sentiment comes from the wives.
Years ago, some academic profiled woman who graduated from Harvard Business School to see how their professional and personal lives had developed. This account cracks me up every time:
“Liz Gallese’s study of women graduates from the 1975 class of the Harvard Business School finds that the women have a tendency to “pull back” on their way to the top. One woman who did not do so was Tess. When her career shot past her husband’s, he took on most of the child care. On the surface Tess’s marriage made role reversal look workable. Tess seemed proud of her job, her son, and her husband. Gallese did not glimpse the truth until she spent time alone with Tess’s husband, who admitted he and his wife had almost no sex life, though he would try to “do things to rekindle her interest.”
Soon Tess began to seduce other businessmen. Eventually she came clean with Gallese, admitting that she would love to have another child someday but not with her husband. She stayed with him because he was “a wife.” “I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man. I’ll never have sex with him again.””
http://faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/article5.html
http://books.google.com/books/about/Women_Like_Us.html?id=P2xs0RR8Iy4C
I know. That was from years ago. But apparently, the contempt for domestic men who are professionally inferior to their wives lives on to this day.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7088747&page=1
And it’s a real damn shame. Makes me sad. Will take a lot of time to change, is my guess.
What’s wrong with being a sahd? The same thing that’s wrong with being a sahm. You know: they’re oppressed, dependent, unfulfilled, financially vulnerable, unequal, the whole litany of misery that feminists have been denouncing for the past 50 years. It’s hard to advocate for something you’ve been condemning and criticising as oppressive and outdated.
What is the alternative to a SAHD/M, childcare? Not everyone wants their child with someone else all day. The only fix I see is either welfare for parents and/or employment that allows them to still care for the child. But the role itself is dependent, but the breadwinner is also dependent n the SAHP which seems to be forgotten.
And who says they’re unfulfilled? Many breadwinners wish they could spend more time with their kids and feel unfulfilled….
So let’s turn the sexist thought about behind every great man there is a great woman around and ask the question, what do you need to do to be the good man quietly supporting a great woman?
Simple whatever qualities she wants/needs in her man. The same thing that great woman who is behind her great man, whatever it is she brings to the relationship.
The thing that something(s) is going to vary from relationship to relationship. What’s working for Adele and Simon may not be what works for Sue and Bill and Tonya and Terrence will likely have a different answer from those two.
There is no one universal answer to this. For Adele Simon may be the one the keeps the home going while she is off performing. He might be the one that handles the financials in their relationship. He might be the cook. He might be the shoulder for her to occasionally cry on. Whatever he’s doing its apparently working.
But out of curiosity what do you find to be sexist about, “Behind every great man there is a great woman.”? The idea that she is behind him (implying she is not his equal)? The idea that without he could not achieve greatness?
“But out of curiosity what do you find to be sexist about, “Behind every great man there is a great woman.”? The idea that she is behind him (implying she is not his equal)? The idea that without he could not achieve greatness?”
This is getting away from the original question, but hey that hasn’t stopped me from commenting yet. lol. Anyway, I’ve actually always thought of that phrase as being the opposite of sexist. More like saying, see even great men couldn’t do it alone. They had a support system…they both played their parts and he achieved greatness. I suppose the sexist aspect would be that he achieved greatness while she didn’t….but that’s really a product of the time/culture/region we’re talking about. Now-a-days, it’s not nearly as divided…women achieve greatness too.
I suppose the sexist aspect would be that he achieved greatness while she didn’t….
I get what you’re saying here but if she didn’t achieve greatness then that would contradict the remark itself. The remark already says the woman in question is great. Perhaps this is depending on one’s definition of “greatness”?
Yeah, I guess I should have said something like….she didn’t achieve socially acknowledged greatness though her actions.
Or perhaps it’s a bit sexist in that the phrase “behind every great woman there is a great man” doesn’t apply as often? I mean throughout history a lot of the great people we learn about and talk about are men. But as I said, that’s mostly a product of their time/culture/region as compared to our time/culture/region.
The ‘reverse-sexism’ angle just gets more and more tiresome. No one asked you why you’re pathologically bitter and fewer people are listening.
How do you be a supportive husband when your wife is more successful than you? The same way as you would if she were less successful: with all your might. That’s why you chose her as a partner not an accessory.
i would suggest (since the question of definition comes up so often on here) that being a man who supports the calling of a woman, maybe one out in the limelight, doing notable works, is a choice – and one that does not require the acceptance or praise of others. a man firmly in his masuline will know his purpose, follow his heart and find contentment in giving, in whatever way is his own. a child will resent his “burden” and blame others for his lack of credit.
good men are everywhere. while i’m not in the limelight, i am grateful.
And a good woman is one who supports the calling of a man, right?
I dunno what makes her “good” or him “good”. They’re just strangers to me.
But hey, if she’s rich and wants a man to be available for her then I don’t think that’s a bad deal. It’s just very rare for women to actually marry down.
Maybe he’ll be just like the Housewives or Orange county, going shopping, planning parties an stuff. I don’t really see much advantage to having a kept man.