No cash, no trophy wife: It’s a simple enough psychosexual equation
Ah, there’s nothing like a tragic love story. And indeed what follows is nothing like a tragic love story. For, if you listen carefully, you may just be able to catch the sound of high-end scuttling among the steep-sided canyons of New York. That would be the Manhattan rats leaving the sinking ships or sinking husbands — pretty much the same thing.
It appears that the credit crunch has sent top-flight New York divorce business rocketing up 40 percent, as the trophy wives of Wall Street’s beleaguered super-wealthy (executives, hedge funders, property developers) race to lawyers to cite “irreconcilable differences,” which in this case roughly translates as: “He’s poor now.”
It’s got so bad that some Wall Street husbands are trying to hang on to their wives by taking out huge loans to maintain their mansions, yachts and Saks accounts. However, lawyers are saying that wives aren’t interested in standing by their men, opting instead to end their marriages as quickly and clinically as a bad credit card snipped in half in front of you in a restaurant. The whole debacle amounts to a somewhat ruthless: “If the gravy train is over, then so are we, darling.”
The only appropriate response is how appalling. What kind of cow leaves a marriage just because the helicopter has left the lawn? Indeed, any decent person should despise these women, right?
LOYAL TO A FAULT
Well, no, actually, wrong. It seems to me that these women are loyal to a fault, that is, loyal to the deal that was originally struck.
When you think about it, there is a world of difference between being a trophy wife — waving hubby off on his private jet while you face another day of lonely, unfulfilled spending in Barneys — to being a real wife — having some sacked bitter bozo under your feet all day, reliving past glories, hogging the remote control and asking too many questions about your lipo-fund.
More to the point, before we all start working ourselves into a righteous lather over the behavior of the trophy wives, these masters of the universe knew what they were getting into. After all, weren’t they the ones who brokered the “deal” in the first place — their cash and status for a trophy wife (someone to make their peers drool)?
So, no cash, no trophy wife. It’s a simple enough psychosexual equation. Cold yes, but only as cold as the one that makes it clear to the trophy wife that she will be unceremoniously dumped, Trump-style, for a new hottie if she commits the crimes of becoming fat, old or Ivana (the patron saint of failed trophy wives). In short, in the land of the deal, the fleeing rat-wives have a point — what does love have to do with it?
Indeed, while the new breed of credit-crunch bailer-wives might be ruthless, maybe they learned from their masters. Only last week, I was hard at work doing research (OK, sprawled on the sofa reading the newspaper) and came across the tale of Arpad Busson, the hedge-fund philanthropist and multi-zillionaire, who had a nine-year, two-children relationship with model Elle Macpherson, allegedly couldn’t marry her, because he was a strict Catholic, and she was a divorcee and then went on to propose to twice-divorced Uma Thurman.
REVENGE
Just as I was thinking: “Nice guy — way to go, Uma,” I came across another tale of Super-rich Lurrve Gone Sour.
Christie Brinkley’s Hamptons’ paradise was shattered when her husband was discovered paying off a neighbor’s teenage daughter to keep quiet about their affair.
Just in case Christie hadn’t been humiliated enough, the divorce judge commented that she might care to “examine her taste in men.”
At which point, you think, enough already! Whatever happened to the great high-end romances, the ones that were examples to us all — Bogie and Bacall, Scott and Zelda, Bill and Monica? Which, for their sins, were about love, sex and madness. Anything but money.
So what are we seeing here — the revenge of the trophy spouse? Certainly it’s a timely reminder to the rich of Manhattan that the first law of the trophy wife is that she, natch, atrophies at the first sign of trouble. For the rest of us, it’s culturally interesting.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, another great period of international stress, it was noted, rather droningly, that every day brought a new life lesson. With this in mind, maybe we should take heed of the morality tales emerging from the credit-crunch crisis.
Certainly, it seems to say something that the relationships of the rich seem to be the first ones to go.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS