Tiger Woods, Ya'll: Really All Good, Ya'll?
I have fairly earned the reputation of being man basher. It is a habit that I acquired from my mother. Because I do not want to pass this trait on to my own daughters, I have recently made a conscious effort to stop. I have found it to be nearly impossible to eradicate this behavior from my life. Every day, I am confronted with new reasons to bemoan men and their weaknesses.
The recent news of Tiger Wood’s multiple indiscretions is not really shocking. I get it – he had the opportunity to cheat so he did. What I am most bothered by this week is the insight that has been shared by many men as to why he cheated. My husband is an avid sports radio listener, so I have been subjected to having to listen to many male callers with their own explanations for why Tiger Woods is a habitual cheater. The consensus seems to be this: Woods is a male billionaire, and a male billionaire should never get married.
I thought since this blog seems to be laden with testosterone, you guys could help me understand this mentality. A man with money has no business marrying because he will have too many opportunities to cheat? Is this really how most men feel? If a man has too much power and wealth, the cheating is inevitable?
If this logic proves to be true, is it also true that the average man does not usually cheat because his lifestyle does not afford him the chance? For most of you, is marriage the only thing that is available to you to have a steady supply of sex and companionship? If money had always been a part of your lives, would marriage not really have been necessary to you because your needs could have been met without the daily hassle of a spouse?
I know that this is an extremely simplistic view of a complicated topic, but I know too many men with Entourage fantasies. I also know many men who seem to genuinely love their wives or girlfriends, but I am left to wonder if this is by default. If prosperity had found its way into their lives before their committed relationships, would these men still be married today?
I do not think that money has the same effect on a woman as it does on a man. Maybe it is because the average looking woman has about the same ability to get sex when she wants as the man with a billion dollars – whenever. Since the availability of sex for a woman is a non-issue, I do not think that a woman’s financial wealth has as much of an impact on her values. Her views and expectations of relationships are probably not as drastically defined by money as they seem to be for men.
I just want someone to make sense of this for me. Is Tiger’s behavior, as well as all of the other powerful and wealthy men that we see nearly every week with a new scandal and a new woman, just the manifestation of what happens when a man has the ability to get what he wants? If money is the determining factor in monogamy, should women marry men with less money to increase the chances that their husbands will remain faithful? If this is really true, it just makes me feel even happier to be a woman because I know one thing for sure: even a billion dollars could not make Tiger Woods worth it.
Marriage, Men, Relationships, Sports, Tiger Woods, Women, cheating, infidelity, money, scandal 
Reader Comments (17)
This is treacherous waters, literally. I will discuss cheating only feet away from my wife. But I could not wait to respond to our April Mae. If the hottest new bag from Prada could bring out the women in masses, then the equivalent Prada bag for us, the greatest male sport's icon cheating on his innocent wife, would cetainly be greeted with as much enthusiasm to show how shallow and ridiculous grown men are. I get it and I know all men have to take this hit. We have and will be interrogated for Tiger's indiscretions as women look around to see if Tiger was not just an icon for men, but a prototype, that exists inside their id driven partner.
First, money might drive men, but it is the women who drive men to money. Yes, I believe that men make money because it makes them have the things that make them attractive to the females: security, luxories, prestige, power and jewelry. The problem is the thing that attracts you to someone will often or not be the thing that attracts others to that same person.
Second, I love this quote. If it is not one of the top five, which I think you may have at least two of them already, it should be. "Maybe it is because the average looking woman has about the same ability to get sex when she wants as the man with a billion dollars – whenever." So Good. What attracts men is attention. Allen Iverson said it last night in the press conference after the game, "It feels good to be appreciated. That is what everyone wants." When you have the lure that woman can not refuse, their vulnerability and attention leads to the man becoming their savior. It was the perceived godness in Tiger that had women wanting him, but it was the power of savior that women (and men) gave to Tiger that made him think he was invinceable.
Third, this quote is just plain wrong. "Since the availability of sex for a woman is a non-issue, I do not think that a woman’s financial wealth has as much of an impact on her values." Women are the ones who spend the majority of household cash. They are the ones often who present the envious successful financial situation through clothing, house, and objects. They are the ones who wear the most silver, gold and diamonds. Yes, sex is a non issue for women because it is not their ends. There are other goals and they use sex as the means. This is duplicity in its age old finest form. At least men, sex is the ends.
You make many good points and it is refreshing to hear your view point. We do on this site forget the impact and pyscholgical differences situations and news can have on women. But as you send out the women on their men to find their "known" inner Tiger before it is too late, remember we will lie to have sex again. We might not be Tigers, but we are all dogs.
I absolutely agree with your premise.
Thanks for the lunch.
First, let me start by saying thank you for taking on this weighty issue. The site definitely needed to address this topic and I'm happy a female did because I think it demanded your cynical insight into the misdeeds of men. And don't get me wrong, I admire the cynic more than anyone, for they are willing to ask the tough questions, as you did, in the most forthright of ways. I love that you admit your generalized man bashing flaw but still find yourself incapable of stopping it!
Tiger is despicable! He had a beautiful wife, a gorgeous family, relative anonymity in terms of sports and celebrity life, and more money than is good to have, but it wasn't enough. I despise him more because he embarrasses all men and produces the potentially justifiable loathing of our gender, as seen in your piece. The infidelity of athletes, politicians, movie stars, and other recognizable men of prominence is nothing new, but is certainly sad. I feel greater concern for the nonchalant tolerance of most and the indifference of others, both men and women. It reflects an ever-decreasing decline in our moral fiber and our societies' outright contempt for the institution of marriage.
I remember when I was young and Magic Johnson's announcement that he had AIDS occurred. It was so shocking, especially since I was only in 4th grade. However, I vividly remember my churches' pastor addressing the infidelity that Johnson so awkwardly regaled Barbara Walters and his wife with on her show. I remember him reminding the parish faithful, the parents especially, to speak to their kids and tell them that marriage is the most valuable of sacraments. It was fascinating to have something of my life actually enter into the church homily. But it was also sad to realize how flawed some men are and how horribly their actions could effect a loved one. However, I was blessed to not know a single divorced family until I went to college, and even then, I haven't met many others.
All of these points aside, I must ask some questions of you, if for nothing else to expose this epidemic beyond the realm of money and men. If rich married men can have sex at will for the purpose of sex alone, then what does it say about the women who sleep with these known married men, who according to you do not have to worry about sex? Are they merely taking a circuitous, legal route to prostitution? I mean, let's not kid ourselves, this woman is harlot if there ever was one. She knew Tiger was married, his wife was expecting their first child, and she still slept with him anyway! And apparently now, a measly million dollars will keep her quiet from revealing the intimate details of their relationship. How often though do you see young, handsome men with geriatric, wrinkled billionaire women? What do you think of these women who are willing to sell their romantic souls for a chance at a large inheritance or a large settlement? You definitely make valid points that money corrupts people, and leads to a dangerous hubris, but the truth is people have affairs because they can, regardless of their socio-economic status. And the reason people can have affairs is because their are two CONSENTING adults, who debase their morals for mere lust. It's merely a shame to me that there aren't enough strong women and men, like you especially, who would be willing to say no to someone like Tiger!
I think it is a bad assumption to say that the average man is like Tiger because a couple yokels on talk radio, who probably will never come close to Tiger's wealth, say they would cheat if in his position. First, sports talk hosts have a call screener who usually let's on the callers with the most interesting and controversial points. I don't think they'll be taking too many men who support a modest life and moral worldview over those who glorify wealth and hedonism. Maybe this is an unfair sampling but no male friends of mine have expressed their sympathy for Tiger or have said they'd do the same in his position. In fact, most men I know have had a lot of laughs at his expense and criticized him as an idiot who messed up a dream life for a few insignificant affairs.
Secondly, just because the media focuses on the infidelity of rich males, does not necessarily mean they are the only ones guilty of this sin. Perhaps female celebrities have just as many extramarital affairs and we are just unaware of it because either their husbands choose to deal with it privately and don't need the emotional satisfaction of seeing their unfaithful spouse crucified in the media. Or perhaps female cheaters just don't sell
as many papers as men.
Either way I don't think it's fair to label a whole gender on the actions of a small portion of those in the media. How many rich men are there who we
never hear about doing something like this? The bottom line is that people are tempted to do what makes them feel good at a particular place and time. For men, temptation may be more physical and for women more emotional. But the fact remains that a lot of people never give into these temptations and no major media outlet wants to discuss something as non controversial as a happy marriage.
Before it is misinterpreted, I would like to qualify my statement, "However, I was blessed to not know a single divorced family until I went to college, and even then, I haven't met many others."
My meaning was simply that no friends of mine had to suffer the challenges of their parents divorcing. Not only were/are none of their parents divorced, but they are all extremely happily in love still, leaving me to assume that neither of their parents ever had an affair.
Also, I am aware that there are numerous reasons for divorce today and that affairs are merely the most scandalous, and therefore, the most high profile.
I first want to address this very convoluted issue by defining what I think the true problem is: I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s the money as much as it is the fame. While this may seem like semantics, this is the difference between the very intelligent, well-invested stock broker making millions each year and the rookie in the NFL making less than 6 figures. In my opinion, the unknown, unpopular, average Wall Street champ is less likely to live a life of lust and extra-marital affairs than the pro-sports player. Money has a lot to do with it (with an extra emphasis on LOT) but the fame that goes to straight to the head is the real culprit. Man or woman alike, the sort of household name popularity Tiger enjoyed can make a person feel, as Dugan said, invinceable. The rules of the rest of society seem not to apply to the famous, male or female. Lindsey Lohan, Tiger Woods, Leann Rimes, David Letterman, Michel Vick, these are all celebrities that are told and treated as though they are better than the rest of us... and so they buy into it. I’m not dismissing the behavior, I’m simply saying that it manifests in both sexes, though perhaps not in the same fashion.
If you want to skip the neurobiology, go directly to the second paragraph of my post... if not, then continue reading:
There are some good points above, but I'm going to try to break it down to the most basic level possible: evolutionary psychology, and the varying reproductive strategies of either sex. It goes without saying that men and women are anatomically different. What is seldom acknowledged, due to the unfortunate plague of "political correctness" that has infected are our nation, are the psychological differences between men and women. Now we can argue all day about whether those psychological differences (which are also reflected in the neurobiology of men and women) are due to nature or nurture, but the fact remains: men and women have different psychologies, and different neurobiological features. For instance, the hippocampal volume is different between the average man vs. the average woman, as is the volume of the corpus callosum, the part of the brain which facilitates communication between hemispheres. But I'm not going to go into a detailed account of neurobiology... Rather I'm going to explain why men and women have different reproductive strategies.
Ok, think back to our hunter gatherer ancestors. Men primarily hunted, whereas women primarily gathered (there are some exceptions, but that is the norm). This difference is still reflected in the sexes today. For instance, men are better at spacial tasks (necessary for hunting), whereas women generally have superior verbal ability (gathering activities facilitated greater communication, whereas hunters needed silence to stalk prey). These differences are diminishing, as sex roles become more egalitarian, but the differences remain.
In the realm of human mating, men and women have evolved different strategies as well. Men generally seek to inseminate as many women as possible, while women generally seek to latch onto one partner who has the STATUS and RESOURCES necessary to care for her and her offspring. Why is this? Because a man can NEVER be certain that he is the parent of a given offspring, yet a women ALWAYS knows that she is the mother - even if she doesn't know who the father is, there is no doubt that HER genes have been propagated. Soooo.... what should a man look for in a woman, and what should he do, if he wants to propagate his genetic material? He should seek out women who appear fertile, and seek to inseminate as many as possible. And this is what men are driven to. What should a woman do? She should seek out a sexual partner of high social status, with ample resources. And this is what women are driven to do. Hundreds of US studies and many cross cultural studies as well, demonstrate that men seek women with traits indicative of high fertility (i.e. hip to waist ratio) and women seek men who are have ample material resources and are of high status. Note: this reflects AVERAGE differences between the sexes, and is not reflective of all individuals with the highly diverse group of humanity.
Whenever men bash women, or women bash men, it reflects a basic ignorance of the sexes (as racism generally reflects ignorance of racial characteristics). You could call all men "dogs" or "pigs," or you could call all women "gold diggers" or "manipulators," but would this help the dialogue? What would this do other than spread ignorance and animosity? The only way we can progress as a species is to take a fearless look at ourselves, our traits, and seek to move ahead from there...
PS. If you, April Mae feel driven to bash men, it probably represents some previous, unresolved conflict that occurred either in this life or a previous one. I suggest you seek psychological counseling, unless you wish to pass you negative views of men onto your daughter.
Ok, hard to argue against centuries of evolution, so I'm not even going to try. I do think that So Crates, in particular, had something big to offer on this one, and that is the major variable of fame relative to cheating. I'm going to take it one step further, and bring in the completely subjective idea of greatness.
The people who have been discussed so far- Tiger, Magic Johnson, Letterman, and others, are familiar names because they have, in one area of their lives at least, reached a level of greatness. It's necessary to include politicians in this discussion as well, since Spitzer, Sanford, and yes, Clinton, are also models of success within their field. Their relentless ambition may make them exemplary athletes, entertainers, and/or politicians, but I can't imagine it would make them very supportive spouses. When you reach the point where your name is being announced in stadiums over the cheers of thousands, in addition to the TV viewership of millions, something is going to change within you. How does one healthfully transition from the adulation of crowds to the trivialities and minor embarrassments that make up so much of a normal marriage? In other words, how many diapers do you think Tiger Woods has changed? How many times do you think Mark Sanford had to pick up feminine products from CVS for his wife?
I'm not saying that it is impossible for great success and celebrity to co-mingle with marriage, but it seems an arduous task, and I'm not sure how much of an investment most of these adulterers have been wiling to make. This category of uber-celebrity that we're talking about is all about the building up and the greatness of the individual. One does not become a public figure at this level without developing some sort of great need for constant validation, and successful marriages have to be partnerships, not forms of hero worship. So when one of these "great" men does not receive the same level of respect and ego-stroking that he is used to when inside his own home, he is probably going to seek it outside his home.
It's been said that there is no better feeling of self-worth then when someone else is falling in love with you. How can we expect that people whose immense livelihoods are based on the garnering the love and admiration of millions can happily, faithfully, keep returning to the love of one?
I want to thank everyone for their input. You have restored my faith in men...almost.
I am just so surprised that you went there Shaman. Thanks for schooling me in the birds and the bees, but I have heard this defense since the 7th grade. I still don't buy it. I get that there are psychological and biological differences between men and women, but I think that men have evolved to the point that they know the difference between right and wrong. The only conclusion that I can reach from your post is that you have never been in love or you have been lucky enough to never have had your heart broken by infidelity. Because I can tell you that the sperminator defense does not comfort the human soul when the person whom you love chooses to share his sperm with someone else. I would guess as a man, you would not want to hear that your spouse had sex with someone else because he looked like he could be a better provider than you.
But, I will look into the pyschological counseling that you suggested if I am not too busy gathering berries.
I agree with Mr. Carraway. People cheat for different reasons, and I don't think it has all that much to do with money or gender for that matter. I have friends who's mothers cheated as well as those who's fathers did, including my mom's first husband. Both the men and women who cheated hurt those they loved and their indisgressions created a "dysfunctional family."
Being raised by a single mom but yet also raised by a loving father (separately as their marriage ended not due to infidelity, but irreconcilable differences), I was granted an opportunity to really value a strong woman who overcame a horrific ordeal (she was cheated on while in labor), and still managed to raise three wonderful kids on her own.
That being said, in addition to my father and mother, my brothers played an instrumental role in my overall upbringing. And desipite or because of their father's despicable behavior, they turned out to be loving, adoring, faithful, fabulous husbands and fathers, and I cherish the day I can find in a husband the kind of man my brothers are to their wives.
Just to reiterate Mr. Carraway's point, I really don't think it's fair to have an overall negative opinion about men in general just because of a few selfish ones, whether because they're rich, famous or what have you. People, both men and women, cheat for all different reasons and should not be unfairly judged.
Finally, Mr. Dugan, shame on you! Never compare yourself to a dog unless by dog you mean: loyal, loving, dependable, silly and sweet! (I have a puppy and as you can see, I treasure him!). So if all men are dogs, well then that's not such a bad thing after all in my book!
Aprilmae, you write, in between sarcastic quips: "I still don't buy it. I get that there are psychological and biological differences between men and women, but I think that men have evolved to the point that they know the difference between right and wrong."
You don't have to buy it. You can "not buy" gravity, but it still operates. If you wish to ignore the VAST amount of physiological and anthropological evidence than that is your prerogative.
As for the part about knowing the "difference between right and wrong," I feel COMPELLED to go into this in more detail, because your understanding of right and wrong seems to be stuck in some kind of infantile fantasy world...
There are recognized, in anthropology, certain things which are termed "Cultural Universals." These are values that nearly all cultures share. Prohibitions against murder, incest, thievery, and rape are pretty universal across all cultures, although what is DEFINED as murder, rape, incest, and stealing differs dramatically across cultures. For instance, marriage and sex between first cousins in NOT considered incest in the vast majority of cultures, yet it IS considered incest in our culture. So... I ask you, is sex between first cousins OBJECTIVELY wrong? In other words, is it wrong independent of the social context? Is it wrong in ALL situations? If you answer "yes, it is wrong," then sadly, you are stuck in Level 2, stage 3 of Kolberg's stages of moral development, and based upon your previous comments I would hypothesize that you most closely fit this level - the "good boy" or "good girl" orientation. Sadly, most Americans never evolve beyond this stage:
stage 3: "Right is conformity to the behavioral expectations of one's society or peers. Individual acts to gain approval of others. One earns approval by being conventionally 'respectable' and 'nice.' Sin is a breach of the expectations of the social order. Failure to punish is "unfair'."
Now, let's return to the topic of "cultural universals." Why did these universals evolve? Because they were conducive to survival. How would a culture with no prohibition against murder function? Not very well - obviously. If, hypothetically, a culture existed in which murder WAS allowed, it would likely be out-competed by cultures in which murder was NOT allowed, and would therefore not survive.
A prohibition against murder would be termed a "Functional Universal," meaning it "exists in multiple cultures, and is used to solve the same problem across cultures" (Steven J. Heine 2008). Extra-marital sex, by contrast, is not even an "Existential Universal" - existing in all cultures, although not necessarily having the same social utility. I would argue that prohibitions against extra-marital sex are "Nonuniversal" - does not exist in all cultures and "can be said to be a cultural invention" (Steven J. Heine 2008).
If you want to argue that what Tiger Woods did is wrong in the context of OUR culture, than I will not disagree. But if you want to argue that Tiger Woods is morally wrong in an OBJECTIVE sense, then you could not be more wrong.
I hope my answer served to impart to you a modicum of enlightenment.
I don't feel the need to be enlightened Shaman. You can quote whomever you like. Data, studies, anthropology - none provide comfort or answers when you are in pain. I live in the real world, not one where facts and figures answer all of the questions that exist in relationships. I do not think that I live in an infantile fantasy world either. I did not say in my post that Tiger Woods was morally wrong for what he did. I do not think that infidelity is a dealbreaker in a relationship. I was just trying to gain more of an understanding of how wealth impacts men's views of marriage.
While you think that my response to you was sarcastic, I think the tone of both your posts reflects some unresolved hostility to "good girls", either developed in this life or some previous one. Maybe we can get a discount on some joint therapy.
If condoning adulterous relationships with first cousins is considered evolution, then I, and presumably most fellow lunch-bloggers, will proudly remain neanderthals.
mrjimmyneutron: Condoning relationships between first cousins is not "evolution." I merely provided that as an example of a cultural universal that exhibits some variance in terms of definition, cross-culturally.
Aprilmae: for the record, my FIRST response was not bitter at all. I did suggest that you seek counseling. I did not suggest that to be insulting. I suggested it because I think it is difficult to overcome negative memes without outside help. I'm sorry if you took it that way. My first response was intended to offer a perspective from the point of view of the social sciences.
Raising a child is a serious responsibility. It's good that you recognize that being a "man-basher" is something you should change.
As for this: "I think the tone of both your posts reflects some unresolved hostility to 'good girls'."
Nope. My hostility is reserved for people "man-bashers" and misogynists.
whoops... edit: "my hostility is reserved for people who are 'man-bashers' or misogynists."
Well, I think I will rest my case Shaman that, as a man, you equate criticizing male infidelity with misogyny.
WTF? What are you talking about? At NO POINT did I associate male infidelity with misogyny! What does that even mean? Misogyny is a "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of WOMEN". How do I "equate criticizing male infidelity with" a "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women"? That makes no sense... ugh...
Since you obviously don't know what a misogynist is, let me rephrase my final comment in language that cannot be misunderstood. I don't like "man-bashers." I don't like "women-bashers." END OF STORY.
You ADMITTED to being a "man-basher" in your initial post. Given that, and given the fact that you responded to my very well-reasoned, logical and diplomatic FIRST post with nothing but dismissive sarcasm, I think my second response and it's tone was completely justified.
At this point, since you have continually responded with nothing but sarcasm and ill-will, even after I apologized for any misunderstandings that resulted from my first post, I must conclude that you are an unregenerate moron. I will comment no further on this topic, as I see you are incapable of engaging in intelligent discourse...
I will end by saying that my hostility to you has nothing to do with your gender. It has everything to do with your unrepentant ignorance!
Cursing and namecalling Shaman? Really? I expected more from you than that. I do not need a dictionary definition of misogyny. I have been a woman for 35 years. I think that I have a pretty good idea of what it is. Being called a "unregenerate moron" and being told that I need therapy for refusing to accept a mere scientific explanation for cheating is something that as a woman I have come to expect for challenging a man. "Incapable of intellectual discourse" because I don't continually quote other people and incorporate textbook information in my posts? I am sorry. I really was trying to engage other people and their ideas.
Now I am off to have lunch with Santa, my husband, my children and my unrepentant ignorance!