Are all husbands "Strangers"?
Belle Burden's memoir is an extraordinary tale of a wealthy divorce--but the core of the story is hauntingly ordinary.
As with many women, I had Belle Burden’s divorce memoir “Strangers” recommended to me by seemingly every woman that I know. The conversations around it came first in a trickle, and then all at once in a torrential flood.
The book, “Strangers: A Memoir of Marriage” is the runaway publishing phenomenon of the year. In January, it débuted at No. 1 on the Times nonfiction list. In case you’re not familiar, the book chronicles the sudden collapse of the author’s 20-year marriage during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first chapters, it’s revealed that her husband is having an affair and he leaves the family home the next morning never to return, and gives up custody and caregiving of his children.
Part of the drama (and glamour) of the story belongs to the fact that this couple is part of New York City’s elite—she has inherited wealth as a descendant of New York City old money and socialites, and he’s a hedge fund bro. Much of the rest of the book is about the author, Belle, trying to stay afloat while her former husband “James” tries to take half her assets, and leaves all of the emotional fallout and childrearing of their three children entirely in her lap.
As someone who has been divorced myself and spent much of those early weeks couch surfing instead of inside a posh vacation home like Burden, I found the privilege in the book hard to take at times. I think this is a fair critique, and I wish that most ordinary women’s divorce stories would get published as bestsellers, but they won’t.
I still think the story is powerful, because aside from the Martha’s Vineyard locale and the dollar signs, a story about the fallout of marriage being dumped on the female partner is not extraordinary at all. Just imagine the divorces of most women that you know, including perhaps your own divorce.
Many splits are rife with inequity and misbehavior on the parts of men leaving the relationship and behaving like a “different person” or “stranger.”
It’s not uncommon at all. These stories are a dime a dozen. I bring this up of course because there’s an exposé-style story in the New Yorker this week that seeks to cast Burden’s story in doubt, based on leaked documents that might indicate that Burden actually had more inherited money than she lets on in the book.
This, to me, is a nothing burger. First of all, the whole piece reads, quite frankly, as though Burden’s ex hired a reputation repair firm that leaked the docs in a weak attempt to tear down Belle’s reputation, and thereby burnish his own. (Anyone want to take bets that it was the exact same firm that Justin Baldoni hired to take down Blake Lively?) It’s disappointing to me, actually, that the New Yorker took the bait without examining the bigger picture.
But more importantly, this misses the point of why Burden’s book has so much impact on women. Women are not whispering to their girlfriends, and pulling over in their cars in tears listening to the audiobook, and running multiple group chats about this book because of actuarial accounting of the author’s finances.
Burden’s story is not so much a financial thriller, or “financial cautionary tale” as many have dubbed it. It’s a cautionary tale about heterosexual marriage itself.
The disaster that Burden finds herself in isn’t due to one extraordinary guy. The disaster that she finds herself in is due to the very foundation of entering into marriage in a society with a culture and legal system that is designed by men, for men.
The disaster that Burden finds herself in is due to the fact that every woman in a patriarchal society enters into a relationship that will shape and determine her entire adult life in many ways, with someone who has been conditioned to see himself as superior to her.
Most men wouldn’t articulate this and aren’t even consciously aware of it. They have feelings of love for their wife so of course they would naturally treat her equally, right? Well no, he naturally won’t—not because he’s an inherently terrible person, but because male superiority is the water that we all swim in, and it requires a conscious effort to continuously unpack and resist it. Many won’t. Many don’t want to.
This is the quiet part about marriage that the book says out loud: divorce is frequently devastating and unequal, because marriage itself is unequal.
Burden never states this but it’s plain to see on the page, and even Burden with her trusts and Tribeca loft can’t escape it.
My smart friend Ashley who is a licensed therapist calls this the “shared collusion” of heterosexual marriage. When we enter into marriage we pretend that we are entering into it as equals, and that the marriage will function to serve both partners equally. This is a myth in a patriarchal society. But we all function as though it’s not, and women are discouraged from expressing otherwise.
When a divorce takes place and a couple separates, suddenly the “shared collusion” and myth of equality evaporates, and what is left is the inequality. The inequality creates acrimony and disaster, nearly always for the female partner and children. The revealed inequality can make you feel like you don’t recognize your partner—like they are a stranger who is suddenly treating you differently. But actually the inequality was there all along.
Thank you for joining thousands that read MR every week!
If you’re new here, bit the button below to subscribe. The best way to support my work is with a paid subscription, which gives you access to everything I write, and pays me for my work, which is the best.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider that research shows that men benefit more from marriage than women in almost every way. They benefit more in terms of physical health , married men have more leisure time than married women and they benefit financially. Married women do more housework than their partners and get a pay penalty if they have children, while men get a pay bump.
All of this is enabled by a culture and systems that coerce women into giving more in an inequitable relationship than men do.
But what about divorce, you say. Isn’t that 50/50?
No, it’s not. The same inequities that are built into marriage are also, of course, built into divorce.
Research consistently shows that divorce triggers a severe gendered financial imbalance: women experience a significant drop in household income (from 25% to up to 50% for older women) and standard of living, while men's finances tend to stabilize or get this—even improve. This is driven by the same inequities built into marriage itself—a gender pay gap and inequitable childcare responsibilities.
Women will often do things to protect their children and themselves that are costly—exiting a marriage on unfair terms to appease an abusive or threatening partner. Use a mediator instead of a lawyer because the legal fees for an acrimonious divorce are more than she can afford, or she doesn’t have the bandwidth to deal with it while doing most or all of the childcare and trying to create stability for her kids.
Women are also up against the fact that their male partners often simply feel entitled to more assets and behave accordingly. For most of the marriage they have felt entitled to their female partner’s time and effort, and possibly even money. Now, in the split, they feel entitled to that plus whatever they earned “on their own” with their own salary.
The above is exactly what happens to Burden in the book. Her partner dumps all of the childcare and childrearing on her, while he also tries to come after her for half of the shared assets—the two homes that she bought outright with her money. Meanwhile, he has been hoarding and largely hiding a 7-figure income from his own work, while she stayed home and cared for their home and family. Does he feel like the combined effort, time, and money that went into their family and built their wealth should be split evenly with her? No.
He feels entitled to everything that is “his”, and half of what is hers. He wants more. This tracks with the general inequality of marriage itself—men get more out of the bargain than women do. Why would they expect divorce to be any different?
Again, if Burden’s feels like an egregious, exceptional situation, see the above stats, and just consider the divorce stories of any woman that you know. Women’s divorce stories are riddled with situations like this, just on a smaller financial scale. They are everywhere.
Women just don’t talk about them much, because of course they are discouraged and shamed for doing so. Which, ultimately, is why I think Burden’s book is so resonant with women and why it feels so brave in the end, even and maybe especially because she comes from society’s elite.
Women of means simply do not air the family’s dirty laundry—meaning, the mens’ dirty laundry.
And it turns out that Burden was brave, because her ex is now coming after her (apparently). Tellingly, the leaked documents do not try to deny that Burden’s ex tried to take the homes that she paid for using her own money. They don’t deny that he coerced her into amending the prenup in a way that would benefit himself.
They don’t deny that he covered up or hoarded his own 7-figure earnings during their marriage. They don’t deny that he declined custody of his own children and abandoned his family, unfairly leaving all the domestic and childcare labor on her.
The accusations simply amount to: “She’s actually more rich than she let on.” He was also more rich than he let on—but there’s no accounting for that.
And why would there be, in an arrangement that has for his life, and his father’s life, and every man’s life for ages, disproportionately favored men?
Finally, if Burden’s case seems egregious and exceptional, allow me to share a few divorce stories happening right now in my life, just off the top of my head.
A Mormon bishop that I knew well from my church-going days recently sat his wife down and calmly explained that he is leaving her because he has been leading a double life with a woman that he has been seeing for five years. Five years. He announced this to her abruptly and moved out, leaving her to deal with the childcare and fallout for his children. This should be no cause for her to create drama, he instructed her, and there’s no reason to hire an attorney because he would be sure to work it all out equitably.
No matter that he had been lying to his family and everyone that he knows for years, all while stealing her time on nights and weekends when she did childcare and the household labor so that he could pursue this second life behind her back. This maps so deliciously only Burden’s story that you can imagine the hot tea in the group chats on this one: a man who shirked his childcare and domestic work, had an affair, left his wife, and then tried to screw her over? Couldn’t be more perfect. It’s not just hedge fund bros, it’s also Mormon bishops (who also happen to be hedge fund bros).
I know a woman dealing with an ordeal right at this moment because her husband left her one asset in the divorce—their former family home. He did not disclose that the house was full of renters who are hoarders that have destroyed it, and that he rented it to them without a rental agreement. She has spent a year in court trying to evict the tenants (who left only when state marshals showed up), and has spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal and renovation fees, just to get back the now ruined home where she raised and even gave birth to one of her babies. She withdrew money from her retirement accounts in order to not lose the house before she could sell it. She—right now—is completing the massive, ungodly clean-up with the help of her friends (some men, but mostly women), and has missed her kids’ last day of school and graduation celebrations to attend to this. Did her former husband lift a finger to clean up this mess that he created for her and his family? He did not.
I know a woman whose husband stole her fertility by marrying her saying that he wanted to start a family—and then when it turned out that he didn’t—prolonged their divorce and refused to pay for it, further stealing her time, money, and fertility. I know a woman whose husband was meeting women on Ashley Madison (remember that—the cheating site for married people?), then called the police on his wife when she fought with him about it—then used that as evidence against her in the custody battle.
I know a woman whose husband hid his assets within his business during the divorce such that he now has quadruple the amount of money that his wife has, if not more. I know a woman whose husband took up gambling during their marriage and spent down his 401k, unbeknownst to her. When the tax bill came due for the withdrawn funds during the divorce, she was on the hook.
Guess what? One of these women is me in my previous marriage. One of these women is probably you, too. Or a woman that you know. Or many women that you know.
Belle Burden’s story is not just a “financial thriller.” It’s a story about heterosexual marriage, which is always a thriller in a patriarchal culture.
At least half the time a marriage will not work out, and when that happens, the inequality is going to come down on one partner—nearly always the female partner, and her children if there are any.
Under these conditions, any man in any marriage could end up becoming someone that looks unrecognizable—a stranger. We hope that they won’t, and that our intimate relationships will remain intimate and safe. But there’s a 50-50 chance that it won’t. There’s always the looming possibility. The fact is that heterosexual marriage is a nail-biter every time.
What’s haunting about Belle Burden’s story isn’t that her ex was a financial villain. Or even an emotional villain. In a culture that favors male superiority, he was just a husband.
If you liked this piece, please hit “like” or restack it, or leave a comment—it’s the best way for my work to find new readers.
The best way to support my work is with a paid subscription, starting at just over $4 (the price of a coffee!). Paid readers get access to all our content and pay us for our work—which is the best.
Can’t get enough Strangers discourse? Our June book discussion is—yes, Strangers by Belle Burden! On June 10. Read up and join us.
Related Reading
Note: Thank you to the group chat girlies for helping me put all these thoughts together, and for giving me the term “shared collusion,” which has forever shifted my thinking on this. You know who you are!
Lane Anderson is a writer, journalist, and Clinical Professor at NYU who has won fellowships and awards for her writing on inequality, gender, and family social issues. She received her graduate degree from Columbia University. She was raised in Utah, and lives in New York City with her partner and child.
I actually really appreciated the New Yorker piece because it was helpful for me to see exposed what I assumed to be true — that her financial well-being was never at risk, even though she implies that it might have been. THAT SAID, Lane, I think your analysis is the reason the book kept me so enthralled despite how little financial risk she was facing, because the ability to just walk away, and be forgiven by your whole milieu, is just entirely available to men (in ways large and small) in a way that it isn’t for women. And that crosses class lines (although as with all things, is much more brutal for women without means). So thanks for laying that bare!
I finished Strangers today and have been stewing in it for hours. The New Yorker piece landed for me exactly as you described it. A reputation laundering attempt. The documents don't touch the actual story, which is the point.
The "shared collusion" framing is so real I haven't been divorced but I've watched it go down in real time through people close to me. What strikes me most isn't the men who felt entitled to more. It's the women who felt entitled to less. Women who gave up careers, moved states, built entire lives around supporting someone else's ambitions. And then when it fell apart, approached the split like they were asking for a favor. Like his career was his and her sacrifice was just the cost of being a mother.
That internalized inequity is harder to watch for me than the aggressive kind.