Sally's marriage in trouble

All the news that is fit to print
Post Reply
User avatar
Flossie
Site Admin
Posts: 61761
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Outside Eurozone
Contact:

Sally's marriage in trouble

Post by Flossie » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:15 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apart.html

If she intentionally embarrasses her husband of a prestiguous office in the most publicly way possible and ignores his wishes and feelings completely what can she expect?

User avatar
Anna
Analytical Hubster
Posts: 14066
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:10 pm
Location: South-West London

Post by Anna » Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:50 pm

'Going on Big Brother caused biggest fight our marriage,' admits Sally Bercow... but insists divorce is NOT on cards

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... riage.html

Mrs Bercow, who has been married to her husband for the past eight years, said she hopes to carry on appearing on television and would take part in more reality shows if the chance presented itself.
Oh good grief! I don't know if you've read the arguments that said that she initially refused to appear in the house but on the condition that BB agreed a fee that allowed her to give £100,000 to an autistic charity (her eldest son is autistic) she agreed. It made it look as though it was primarily an altruistic decision. However the above confirms what we all knew - she wants to carve out a 'career' for herself in the manner of celebrities who are famous for nothing more than appearing frequently in the tabloids and the odd TV guest slot here and there - much like Jade. She's used her husband's position to catapault herself into the limelight and, in my opinion, cannot be unaware of the uproar this would cause and since she's employing Max Clifford, is probably well aware that such discord is probably her best route to get herself noticed and establish a media presence. Posing in a bed sheet in front of the Palace of Westminster obviously didn't do enough to launch her career. I wonder how she was first 'approached' to appear in Celeb BB, or whether she (through an agent) made her interest apparent to them. There's no doubt however that they wouldn't have been remotely interested in her if it wasn't for her husband's position and it's disingenuous of her not to acknowledge that it's the sole thing that has allowed her an entree to the limelight and further, that she intended that it should. I really hope that he loses the position of Speaker soon. The wife of a former Speaker holds far less interest for the public than the spouse of the current holder of the office behaving rebelliously and maybe she'll sink into relative oblivion like the odious Christine Hamilton.

User avatar
Anna
Analytical Hubster
Posts: 14066
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:10 pm
Location: South-West London

Post by Anna » Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:59 pm

And furthermore, I suspect on some level she enjoys all the uproar as she comes out with faux innocent arguments such as:
'I think the idea that a woman can bring down her husband is so 1950s. Politicians are very cautious and they don't like taking risks but at the end of the day it was my risk.'
Why she continues to present this as some kind of feminist argument and why people accept it as such I don't know. It would be no different if the holder of the office of Speaker was female and her spouse who had done nothing remarkable on his own account except appear wrapped in a bed sheet in front of the Palace of Westminster, then agreed to appear in Celeb BB much against his wife's wishes and those of the political establishment, taking a faux naive attitude to the opposition he encountered and his own wife's feelings in the matter.

User avatar
Flossie
Site Admin
Posts: 61761
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Outside Eurozone
Contact:

Post by Flossie » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:15 am

Related to your "faux naive" comment, do you think she is
a) Aware that what she has done will cause genuine damage to her husband but pretends not to understand this
or
b) She is not aware of the damage she is doing
or
c) She is aware of the damage she is doing but feels it is worth doing if she can change the attitude of the establishment to roles and responsibilities of married partners. ( Although, as you pointed out above, I suspect that she hasn't considered whether a husband should be obliged to consider the effects of his behaviour on a wife in high public office )

The quote you offer above about her willingness to be a serial reality tv star is stunning, it reveals her to be even more of a desperate media-whore than I thought she was. She really does seem intent on doing absolutely anything, within the usual moral bounds, and at whatever cost to her husband, to become a high profile figure, even if she known for nothing else but her desire to be a high profile figure.

User avatar
Anna
Analytical Hubster
Posts: 14066
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:10 pm
Location: South-West London

Post by Anna » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:54 am

I think her views are the only ones that matter to her. I think she's aware on some level of the potential damage to her husband's position, but is careless in relation to it, justifying it by saying that it ought not to exist, it's "so 1950's" etc. If it ought not to exist in her value system, then it's unfortunate if damage actually occurs. The fault lies with the establishment for being so conservative - not with her.

In other words she's in denial as to how things actually are because in her head they shouldn't be that way. Obviously she's not going to change the views of the establishment by appearing on Celeb BB and being a media whore because these kinds of actions are not seen as serious or valuable endeavours by the kinds of people she's rebelling against. In fact I would say her actions are calculated to cause maximum offence to the establishment considering the nature of their views - putting two fingers up as she says. I don't know if she hoped she'd receive support from the ordinary person - or woman - and effect change in that way, but with a few exceptions she doesn't appear to have received support from this quarter. Personally I find women who swallow her behaviour and views as some kind of feminist action irritating - to me it just seems like Sally Bercow trying to carve out a career as a reality TV celebrity because she likes the kind of attention that comes from ruffling feathers.

On a deeper level, I think her rebellion is personal - there are elements of disruption and destructiveness when it comes to her marriage and her husband's status - but I don't think she'd ever admit this to herself, if she lets herself be aware of it at all. Instead she deflects from the awareness by saying that the establishment are at fault for being too cautious, stuck in the past and risk-averse - but by whose standards? Hers of course (and never mind her husband's - they don't seem to count).

Post Reply

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest