Underperforming Spouses
According to experts in this CNN article, the Spears/Federline split (yes, there _is_ other news unfolding besides the results of the election) follows the trend of the overperforming spouse (generally speaking) divorcing the underperforming spouse.Â
The recent separation of Reese Witherspoon (the highest paid actress in Hollywood) from her husband Ryan Phillippe (a decent, but fairly innocuous, actor), and the not-so-recent divorce of Hillary Swank (two-time Oscar winner) from husband Chad Lowe (younger brother of one of the hottest actors in Hollywood) are also examples of this trend.Â
Putting aside for a minute that Kevin Federline (now Fed-Ex) was always just along for the ride, that Ryan Phillippe allegedly cheated on his wife with his co-star, and that Chad Lowe was a drunk, does is this Theory of the Underperforming Spouse hold any water? Â
Explaining this theory, the CNN experts imply that a split is almost inevitable when the woman becomes more successful than the man. Of course, the success of a relationship (especially a non-Hollywood relationship) depends much more upon the individual personalities and proclivities of the parties in the relationship. For example, Margaret Thatcher is still married to _her_ husband.Â
One benefit of enforcing traditional gender roles, however, is to avoid the friction and competiting loyalties when both husband and wife succeed in their professional pursuits outside the home. What do you think?
ECS, I feel I should know this–but please help me out: Which was the underperforming one?
Comment by Guy Murray — November 9, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
LOL, Guy. While the quality of their respective “performances” is certainly up for debate, Brit is the one with the money.
Comment by ECS — November 9, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Oh yeah . . . that’s right! Wait till the lawyers get involved–they’ll take care of that!
Comment by Guy Murray — November 9, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
I’m embarassed to admit that I know this, but they had an iron-clad prenup. Cletus (K-Fed) will get half of the house (valued at around $7 million) and a few hundred thousand in “spouse support” but Britney will keep her millions.
Comment by Capt. Obsidian — November 9, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Fed Ex (very clever, that!) was just an embarrassment, so I think that one was destined to fail. That one might be a good example of the case of the underperforming spouse.
But I tend to think that if Chad had kept his nose clean and Ryan had kept his pants zipped, they might be with their ladies still.
Hollywood marriages are almost destined to fail, because you have built into the structure of such a marriage frequent, long separations of months at a time, together with working closely with really hot costars. If it has been months since you’ve had sex and you’re rolling around with Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie for your day job and hanging out together at night, what does one think is going to happen?
If you’re both stars, you need to either alternate projects or get back together just as frequently as the shooting schedule allows. I’ve always thought a star might be better off marrying someone not in the industry, who could travel with him/her.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 9, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
Capt. As many a divorce attorney will tell you–there’s just no such thing–which is how they make so much money
Comment by Guy Murray — November 9, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Wow – Kevin (Barney, not Federline)! You seem to really know what you’re talking about. You’re not married to a hot Hollywood actress, are you?
I was interested in the CNN article because I’ve never heard of female spouses “underperforming”. Could be that the women “underperform” by getting fat and wrinkle-y, while the men underperform when their wives outshine them professionally.
Comment by ECS — November 9, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Isn’t this similar to the same phenomenon where a man, once he becomes rich and successful, will divorce his ‘starter’ wife in favor of a ‘trophy’ wife? In this case, enforcing ‘traditional gender roles’ doesn’t seem to matter…
Comment by KMB — November 10, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
I think that Umma/Ethan is a more interesting case, given that there didn’t seem to be a clear public reason for the split. AFAIK Ethan wasn’t snorting a bunch of coke or sleeping around.
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Right, KMB. But the non-trophy wife isn’t underperforming. She’s just old (which happens to the trophy wives too, unfortunately).
As far as gender roles go, I was mostly interested in how a one-career family can be a benefit to a relationship. Traditional gender roles discourage women from pursuing careers and thus overshadowing their husbands professionally.
aRJ, Ethan _was_ in fact sleeping around on Uma. But according to Ethan, his cheating on his wife didn’t cause the divorce. Wonder what Uma says.
Comment by ECS — November 10, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Judging based upon Hollywood figures is probably unwise given how many are inherently narcissistic or have emotional “issues.” I suspect they are more insecure than the population at large.
But it is definitely a cultural issue still in the United States. There is a cultural expectation that the husband brings home the dominant wages.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
ECS,
That jerk!
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
“I think that Umma/Ethan is a more interesting case, given that there didn’t seem to be a clear public reason for the split”
I thought the split was over multiple cases of infidelity.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Clark – right. Although this is a bit off topic, I’m also intrigued why men cheat on their beautiful spouses. Guess even Denise Richards gets boring after awhile (although, watch out for those flying laptops!).
Comment by ECS — November 10, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Well I’m not sure I’d call Uma Thurman beautiful. I think most actresses aren’t as attractive as some assume. It’s more a case of good lighting, excellent dress, fantastic makeup, and careful selection of “successful” shots. I’ve seen quite a few in regular life. Often even made up they aren’t as attractive as most women I’ve dated.
As for why they cheat, reminds me of friends I had who weren’t faithful in dating relationships. I think there’s always that “the grass is greener.” Some like variety. Most have serious security issues and need confirmation from others. Then there’s the issue that relationships aren’t just about looking good walking down the hallway. You have to emotionally bond and resolve differences of habit, expectation, and goals. It’s hard work and many have a hard time with that hard work. Why, for the shallow emotionally, should the deal with an argument with their wife when they can get satisfaction elsewhere?
Most actors I’ve known simply aren’t that balanced emotionally. I don’t want to say that’s the general rule. But it was frequently true enough, even at places like BYU, that I suspect it truer of them of a group. The kind of behavior it typically takes to be successful in Hollywood would suggest some additional self-selection at work. Then you add in the working conditions, the fact you are surrounded by “yes men” and then the fact that young beautiful women are probably throwing themselves at you regularly and its simply a weird situation.
I don’t think big name acting is conducive for a balanced life and mental health.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Considering that almost all TV and movie roles include kissing (at least), I can’t understand how any married person can ethically participate. I’d be sick thinking my husband’s “job duties” required kissing (at least!) other people, and I imagine that such sanctioned adultery is pretty harmful to a marriage.
Comment by cchrissyy — November 10, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
Clark, “big name” scientists aren’t typically very mentally healthy, either.
Comment by ECS — November 10, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Well scientists and engineers overwhelmingly have asperger’s syndrome and often aren’t exactly socially developed. So yes, they do have lots of family problems. There were huge social problems in Los Alamos, for instance, when I lived there. (Lots of PhDs working at the lab – most kind of socially underdeveloped)
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Maybe asperger’s syndrome explains Fed-Ex?
Comment by a random John — November 12, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
LOL. No, that’s narcissism.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 12, 2006 @ 11:37 pm