ALL RED. WHITE. GINGER. GREEN

I’m wondering where the feminists stand on Ms. Ginger White’s admission of a 13 year affair with Herman Cain. Maybe I missed the coverage but I can’t remember a single supportive statement from anyone during her 15 minutes. Maybe this the wrong question to ask…and if so, why? This discussion will doubtless nettle some, perhaps even encourage speculation that I have issues with contemporary women. I’d imagine that I do…I suspect most men do…but I speak here, only for myself.

What I have a problem with is hypocrisy and that is not a gender-related issue. Quite simply, it involves expressing a standard for conduct and behaving contrarily to that standard. When men ‘stand’ for family values and are revealed to enjoy extramarital relationships, straight or gay, that’s hypocrisy. Women demand equal treatment, equal pay and are allowed to sue for sexual harassment when hit on by unwelcome suitors. Identical conduct from someone desired is regarded as flirtation. A woman seeking a job musters all of her femininity, maximizing her attractiveness to succeed. All’s fair in love and war, right? But it is somewhat confusing, at least to me.

Ginger (and I’m gonna call you that, sister ‘cause it’s in keeping with my informality and color scheme…) Ginger ended a marriage with two sons to raise and apparently not a lot of money. She then entered into a relationship with a successful businessman, Herman Cain. He gave her money, he bought her gifts, he took her on trips. Ginger states love was never part of the bargain. She now characterizes him as arrogant and self-loving but has yet to disparage his masculinity so I guess we can conclude that Cain was abel…

I mean, you could always have auditioned for Housewives in Atlanta, right? Oh, that’s right, you were infrequently a housewife. You were an independent contractor with a fatally flawed business model. Reality Check: A lot of women check into a Ritz Carleton with wealthy men, around the world. A lot of them leave with serious money, a business transaction between consenting adults. Oldest profession in the world, Ginger…and hardly rocket science.

Ginger justifies her personal choices based upon need – two sons to raise, no marketable business skills, mortgage payments. She accepted the support of a married man and in return provided him with sexual favors. I don’t judge her for that, she’s a grown woman. I’ve never married, have traveled extensively and have been to war. Over the years I’ve had my share of encounters with working women, sex workers, massage therapists, strippers, escorts; however you choose to characterize them. I didn’t judge them any more than I judge someone that works at McDonalds. They provide a service, they are compensated and that is how they make their way thru life. There is honor in that, there is integrity.

Ginger’s conflicting rationales lack integrity. During two 18 month subsequent marriages, she says she remained faithful to each husband. It would seem that Ginger regards adultery as morally wrong. So why did she find it somehow morally ok to continue a sexual relationship with a man that she knew was married, for 13 years? Do whatever you choose to do, Ginger but don’t present it as morally or ethically acceptable.

Ginger is clearly a conflicted and vulnerable woman. Was she victimized by Cain, exploited by him? Is any woman that has less than she wants or feels she needs, that willingly accepts money or gifts or support from a man, a victim? What is the defining context for such a conclusion? Being of right mind? What the hell does that even mean? In this specific instance, I see loads of improprieties but I struggle to find any victim, apart from a woman that made choices and received precious little for her services…but that’s on her. She admits that it became a game, something she enjoyed…but I don’t think she played the game very well. Ginger ended the presidential candidacy of Herman Cain. I’m unsure why. She apologizes to Mrs. Cain. I’m more certain about how that was received. She seems in search of understanding and forgiveness. All that starts with herself and I hope she finds it.

Perhaps that’s why the feminists are shunning her. They will rally to support all kinds of mistresses and escorts, sharing the spotlight and pounding their gender-exploited drums…but nary a one has Ginger’s back. And her default expression – woebegone and rueful – speaks volumes about how Ginger views her own prospects. You finally reached a place where you had leverage and a marketable product – your tabloid story. And you gave it away.

ALL RED. WHITE. GINGER. GREEN. We love winners. We love stories of absurd, unjustified financial gain. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Follow the money.

A MODEST PROPOSAL, sent to Aftra and SAG

Sirs,

My name is Tucker Smallwood. I’ve been a member of both Aftra and SAG since 1972. I’ve worked hard and have been fortunate, now enjoying pensions from all 3 performing guilds and weekly residual checks for my body of work.

A few checks are nominal, some $1 or less…once in a while, the check itself is worth less than the stamp used to send it. I would happily designate any such checks due to me to be directly deposited in your foundation funds. I believe many of my colleagues would happily join me in this funding.

I am advised (recent article in SAG Magazine) that such a request is not presently possible. I would encourage you both to investigate the means to make such donations possible, to facilitate members willingness to have these funds automatically deposited in your charitable efforts.

We will save on postage, we will be involved in good works and your recipients will benefit. I encourage you to redouble your efforts to make this a future reality.

Respectfully,

Tucker Smallwood