Print This Post Print This Post

That could be the title of a ballad, but for now, it’s the subject of this very interesting post by Polimom:

If you’re old enough to remember the Clinton years with any kind of clarity, you’ll remember the enormous role Hillary played in Bill’s presidency. I don’t think that was an anomaly. Rather, it seems to be a function of their relationship. They have apparently built a peer marriage.

The rule books haven’t been written yet; peer couples are making it up as they go along. But this much I have observed: Peer couples trade a frustrated, angry relationship with a spouse for one of deep friendship. They may have somewhat tamer sex lives than couples in traditional marriages. They definitely have fewer external sources of validation. And these couples have a closeness that tends to exclude others. But theirs is a collaboration of love and labor that produces profound intimacy and mutual respect. Traditional couples live in separate spheres and have parallel lives. Above all, peer couples live the same life. In doing so, they have found a new way to make love last.

It’s far more than re-distributing child care duties or alternating meal preparation. Peer marriages involve not just respect for your partner, but giving consideration and weight to their ideas and, even more importantly, a willingness to have them stand equally beside you. The partners are a true working team.

Now, the only thing that confuses me a bit with this concept is, when I look at John and Elizabeth Edwards, let’s say.  They seem as though they would qualify for a peer marriage distinction, except they don’t have that frustrated, angry piece and they don’t live the same life.

What do you think about this paradigm and its aptness in being applied to the Clintons? Does it help them or hurt them from a voter’s standpoint? Or does it not matter one iota?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:48 am January 24th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Politics, Social Issues, Women 

Comments

4 Responses to “The Peer Marriage of Bill and Hillary”

  1. 1 Amanda Stevens on January 24th, 2008 10:55 am

    Who cares? Bill Clinton will make a great First Gentlemen, if that is how it turns out. The personal politics of their marriage didn’t interest me in the 90s and it doesn’t interest me now.

  2. 2 Polimom on January 24th, 2008 12:22 pm

    Hi Jill — thank you for the link.

    Re: The Edwards’, you said:

    “…except they don’t have that frustrated, angry piece and they don’t live the same life.”

    The frustrated, angry piece doesn’t apply to the Peer Marriage paradigm, but to the Traditional. “Living the same life”, otoh, is pretty key to the concept. It’s not the same as enmeshment, but there are similarities.

    My gut feeling is that no, the Edwards’ do not have a Peer Marriage. But I don’t know nearly as much about them.

    Meanwhile… does it matter about the Clinton’s marital dynamic? I think it matters intensely to some people. Furthermore, if this is their marriage model, Bill Clinton’s goals and aspirations do, in fact, become relevant to the campaign.

  3. 3 Jill Miller Zimon on January 25th, 2008 8:23 pm

    Amanda – on some days, I agree with you on this issue 100% – can you say more about why it doesn’t matter to you?

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on January 25th, 2008 8:26 pm

    Polimom – I totally see the application of the peer marriage paradigm to the Clintons, and I know it matters intensely to some folks, and I can see how Bill’s desires etc. would figure in if this model is apt.

    BUT – seriously now, if we do this analysis to their marriage, then, to be fair, don’t we owe it to them and ourselves to do a similar analysis of the marriage of each candidate on both sides, and kind of give a rating or something for how involved we imagine the spouse will be or what kind of influence we’re talking about?

    Laughing – just the thought of that! But still – think about it – Rudy Guiliani and Judith Nathan! Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth! (even tho they dropped out)

    Anyway – just a thought.

    Thanks again for raising this insight.

Leave a Reply




"));