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!
See I found the NYer piece to be inaccurate and misleading bc it seems to want to claim that James was not in the wrong for trying to unfairly take her money, just bc she might have more money in the long run than he does. It’s still wrong to unfairly take money from her?! And if the genders were reversed I do not think the reactions would be the same. He’s the gold digger in this sitch but that’s a gendered term.
The piece tries to vindicate him as a “financial villain” when he did try to take advantage of her and he hid HIS millions and hoarded it from her—and let her pick up the tab for all the big purchases. To me it looks like deflection. She also had this money in trusts not available to her, so it is likely her lifestyle would have downgraded for a time for her and her children if he had been successful.
Having said that, I do think a story about a woman w actual scary financial consequences would be more powerful. And it’s problematic that we don’t talk about those. But since those don’t get published much, I’ll take this one.
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.
Yes, thank you for this Brittney! “The women who feel entitled to less.” 😭 This exactly. I had a bit about how women internalize this in an earlier draft, but you say it perfectly here.
This is it: "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."
Also, how does the fact that she is still rich post-divorce even matter—or make the New Yorker article's intent OK? I wrote a letter to the editor over the weekend after reading the article and titled my letter, "Heiresses Are People Too." I said I was surprised by the author's misreading of Burden's memoir. It did not even occur to me the author was in cahoots with a reputation repair firm, which makes me feel quite naive. Thanks for this reality check.
I wanted to keep it short so I didn't go into detail about the financial and other inequalities between divorcing women vs. men, but here's the text of my letter:
Why is it OK to diminish the financial worries of very rich people? Very rich heiresses in particular? Jessica Winter’s piece (“What’s Missing from Belle Burden’s ‘Strangers’” clarifying Burden’s true post-divorce financial situation using court documents and public records strikes me as misogynistic, anti-feminist, and—most surprising for a New Yorker article—an inaccurate reading of Burden’s memoir. Winter accuses Burden of painting her ex-husband as a fiduciary villain. Far be it from me, a regular middle-class person from California who’s barely scraped together enough for retirement, to defend a Vanderbilt heiress. But I’m wondering if we read the same book. I found Burden’s memoir surprisingly devoid of the bitterness you seem to have found in it. Burden tries to understand where her ex was coming from, how the events of his childhood may have shaped his actions and motivations as an adult. And how she may have played a role in ultimately making him feel that abandoning his family suddenly at the beginning of a global pandemic was justifiable. Maybe he, like Jessica Winter, felt that since Burden grew up with no financial cares, making her worry that she’d lose it all in the divorce was no big deal.
Well maybe I spoke too soon. I was thinking she took a hatchet to Mom Rage and BoyMom but I see now she only reviewed BoyMom and it was Merve Emre who did Mom Rage. Those reviews reminded me of Dani Shapiro's take down of Blow Your House Down with the headline "A Rage-Fueled Memoir of a Marriage-Ending Affair." Personally, I didn't find the book rageful at all. I think maintaining nuance and complexity when it comes to women's anger and pain is very important but I've seen so many reviews over the years by women who are skeptical of writers whose anger is presented in a more direct or declarative way which feels like patriarchal buy-in. (Men may do that too but I expect it from them). I know I've put Jessica in that category more than once but can't recall now which books other than BoyMom. That said, I probably shouldn't have made such a definitive statement. #angrywoman :)
Thank you for sharing! I mean it does feel like patriarchal buy-in, you're not wrong imo. And getting a woman to write it feels so much worse, too. That feels deliberate and unfortunately more effective.
Thank you for writing this and sharing. I feel exactly the same and now The Free Press is jumping on what I also feel is a misogynistic take. It smacks of bitterness, not of Belle’s but of the journalists whose portfolios are built on “hot takes.” As someone who appreciates good books and stories I feel wholeheartedly that Belle’s story resonates because of her openness, raw pain and talent as a writer. And yes, because the banality of what happened is felt by so many women. She’s a lovely writer, who through no fault of her own, was born into a wealthy family of some celebrity. She’s chosen to tell her story and it’s been wildly successful because women’s experiences told to other women can apparently transcend class barriers. Shocking, right?
Well said, thank you for sharing! This part: "Maybe he, like Jessica Winter, felt that since Burden grew up with no financial cares, making her worry that she’d lose it all in the divorce was no big deal."
It actually had not occurred to me until this moment that the journalist had not read the book. Based on what you say here, I really wonder??
Maybe I put too much trust in the New Yorker, but I assumed the article author read the book but just misinterpreted it or used the financial stuff as clickbait (which was disappointing). And as I said before I had zero inkling that the article could have been part of rep repair efforts by Burden's ex. That never occurred to me! LOL.
My experience with divorce is that my ex asked to bring his new girlfriend around to choose art from a collection that I acquired before my marriage to him and that had never been community property. I think it’s both entitlement and a desire to wound. He obviously knew better, as did I. Burden’s ex, as a hedge fund financial manager, had to be well aware of community vs separate property law. Since she was able to preserve her separate property, I assume the situation is likely similar as to entitlement and a desire to wound. I look forward to reading the book.
The “shared collusion” framing is exactly it. A lot of women don’t discover inequality at divorce so much as lose the ability to keep romanticizing it. The man doesn’t always become a stranger. Sometimes the arrangement just stops being flattering enough to hide what was there all along.
"A lot of women don’t discover inequality at divorce so much as lose the ability to keep romanticizing it. " Spot on. We are sold the nuclear family dream/hetero marriage dream in such a way that we are conditioned to overlook it, or see it as part of the deal.
I really think that “James” is an extraordinarily ruthless person and the sad thing for her is that he married her for her pedigree and she thought he loved her.
I thought in the book it was a tell that he only showed interest in her after he read about how she was speaking somewhere about one of her father’s collections. I can’t remember if it was rare books, or art, or what. But it seemed likely to me that he then realized who her family was. I mean she was pretty and probably nice and I’m sure it was no hardship for him to court her but to me he is sociopathic and his motives are clear at that point in the story.
My mother decided against pursuing divorce in the 90’s because it would inevitably disrupt her children’s quality of life so dramatically that she instead stayed with a serial cheating, abusive husband. Apparently, when she did the math, this was the preferred outcome.
Thanks for this and for sharing your story. Makes my blood boil because I watched my mom go through something like this, without any acknowledgment or help. To this day, my father has never acknowledged, much less apologized. I’ll be reading and maybe get my mom to as well.
SO many moms have these stories. SO MANY. Burden says she opened up about this for her kids, which 💯 break the cycle. But also. An homage to her mom and grandmother and so so many mistreated mothers.
I can’t stop thinking about how it all comes down to $$ so often for men. Not fairness, not what’s best for their kids. Not even what’s best for then. Just Dollars.
Thank you patriarchal masculinity for making patriarchal men insecure such that their entire self worth and identity is their bank account.
It happens in the reverse, too. I worked full-time during my marriage, outearning my husband, and did the vast majority of childcare and housework, too. His position allows him to decide how much everyone gets paid and after separation he chose to pay himself far less than minimum wage, a fraction of what he used to earn. He has the kids every other weekend while I continue to do the vast majority of childcare. Two years after separation he asked for and was granted spousal support. Meanwhile, I know so many women who were denied spousal support or told they could just go get a job after 20+ years out of the workforce raising kids.
This will change when we teach young girls and women to develop and maintain “personal power” which in a long ago book I define as the ability to create your own environment…. Obviously not simple but possible….AND we can teach girls and women HOW….
The fact marriage is an institution made by men to benefit men is…not a secret. Women literally take the men’s name as part of the whole deal, and even if you refuse that as many do now, do you know any children whose family (!) name follows that of the mother?
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!
See I found the NYer piece to be inaccurate and misleading bc it seems to want to claim that James was not in the wrong for trying to unfairly take her money, just bc she might have more money in the long run than he does. It’s still wrong to unfairly take money from her?! And if the genders were reversed I do not think the reactions would be the same. He’s the gold digger in this sitch but that’s a gendered term.
The piece tries to vindicate him as a “financial villain” when he did try to take advantage of her and he hid HIS millions and hoarded it from her—and let her pick up the tab for all the big purchases. To me it looks like deflection. She also had this money in trusts not available to her, so it is likely her lifestyle would have downgraded for a time for her and her children if he had been successful.
Having said that, I do think a story about a woman w actual scary financial consequences would be more powerful. And it’s problematic that we don’t talk about those. But since those don’t get published much, I’ll take this one.
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.
Yes, thank you for this Brittney! “The women who feel entitled to less.” 😭 This exactly. I had a bit about how women internalize this in an earlier draft, but you say it perfectly here.
Brittney, you are exactly correct.
I am that woman.
So are my two best friends. You’re in very good company. 💜
This is it: "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."
Also, how does the fact that she is still rich post-divorce even matter—or make the New Yorker article's intent OK? I wrote a letter to the editor over the weekend after reading the article and titled my letter, "Heiresses Are People Too." I said I was surprised by the author's misreading of Burden's memoir. It did not even occur to me the author was in cahoots with a reputation repair firm, which makes me feel quite naive. Thanks for this reality check.
Ha!! I love this title! And I love that you wrote a letter. I want to know what it says!
I wanted to keep it short so I didn't go into detail about the financial and other inequalities between divorcing women vs. men, but here's the text of my letter:
Why is it OK to diminish the financial worries of very rich people? Very rich heiresses in particular? Jessica Winter’s piece (“What’s Missing from Belle Burden’s ‘Strangers’” clarifying Burden’s true post-divorce financial situation using court documents and public records strikes me as misogynistic, anti-feminist, and—most surprising for a New Yorker article—an inaccurate reading of Burden’s memoir. Winter accuses Burden of painting her ex-husband as a fiduciary villain. Far be it from me, a regular middle-class person from California who’s barely scraped together enough for retirement, to defend a Vanderbilt heiress. But I’m wondering if we read the same book. I found Burden’s memoir surprisingly devoid of the bitterness you seem to have found in it. Burden tries to understand where her ex was coming from, how the events of his childhood may have shaped his actions and motivations as an adult. And how she may have played a role in ultimately making him feel that abandoning his family suddenly at the beginning of a global pandemic was justifiable. Maybe he, like Jessica Winter, felt that since Burden grew up with no financial cares, making her worry that she’d lose it all in the divorce was no big deal.
Jessica Winter does not like angry women (and by angry I mean women who have justifiable complaints about men).
Is this out of character for her?? I was surprised but should I not be?
Well maybe I spoke too soon. I was thinking she took a hatchet to Mom Rage and BoyMom but I see now she only reviewed BoyMom and it was Merve Emre who did Mom Rage. Those reviews reminded me of Dani Shapiro's take down of Blow Your House Down with the headline "A Rage-Fueled Memoir of a Marriage-Ending Affair." Personally, I didn't find the book rageful at all. I think maintaining nuance and complexity when it comes to women's anger and pain is very important but I've seen so many reviews over the years by women who are skeptical of writers whose anger is presented in a more direct or declarative way which feels like patriarchal buy-in. (Men may do that too but I expect it from them). I know I've put Jessica in that category more than once but can't recall now which books other than BoyMom. That said, I probably shouldn't have made such a definitive statement. #angrywoman :)
Thank you for sharing! I mean it does feel like patriarchal buy-in, you're not wrong imo. And getting a woman to write it feels so much worse, too. That feels deliberate and unfortunately more effective.
Good to know. I was not familiar with her work at all.
Thank you for writing this and sharing. I feel exactly the same and now The Free Press is jumping on what I also feel is a misogynistic take. It smacks of bitterness, not of Belle’s but of the journalists whose portfolios are built on “hot takes.” As someone who appreciates good books and stories I feel wholeheartedly that Belle’s story resonates because of her openness, raw pain and talent as a writer. And yes, because the banality of what happened is felt by so many women. She’s a lovely writer, who through no fault of her own, was born into a wealthy family of some celebrity. She’s chosen to tell her story and it’s been wildly successful because women’s experiences told to other women can apparently transcend class barriers. Shocking, right?
Well said, thank you for sharing! This part: "Maybe he, like Jessica Winter, felt that since Burden grew up with no financial cares, making her worry that she’d lose it all in the divorce was no big deal."
It actually had not occurred to me until this moment that the journalist had not read the book. Based on what you say here, I really wonder??
Maybe I put too much trust in the New Yorker, but I assumed the article author read the book but just misinterpreted it or used the financial stuff as clickbait (which was disappointing). And as I said before I had zero inkling that the article could have been part of rep repair efforts by Burden's ex. That never occurred to me! LOL.
My experience with divorce is that my ex asked to bring his new girlfriend around to choose art from a collection that I acquired before my marriage to him and that had never been community property. I think it’s both entitlement and a desire to wound. He obviously knew better, as did I. Burden’s ex, as a hedge fund financial manager, had to be well aware of community vs separate property law. Since she was able to preserve her separate property, I assume the situation is likely similar as to entitlement and a desire to wound. I look forward to reading the book.
The “shared collusion” framing is exactly it. A lot of women don’t discover inequality at divorce so much as lose the ability to keep romanticizing it. The man doesn’t always become a stranger. Sometimes the arrangement just stops being flattering enough to hide what was there all along.
"A lot of women don’t discover inequality at divorce so much as lose the ability to keep romanticizing it. " Spot on. We are sold the nuclear family dream/hetero marriage dream in such a way that we are conditioned to overlook it, or see it as part of the deal.
I really think that “James” is an extraordinarily ruthless person and the sad thing for her is that he married her for her pedigree and she thought he loved her.
10000% agree and ironically I think the NYer article made this PAINFULLY obvious in a way that even the book didn't.
I thought in the book it was a tell that he only showed interest in her after he read about how she was speaking somewhere about one of her father’s collections. I can’t remember if it was rare books, or art, or what. But it seemed likely to me that he then realized who her family was. I mean she was pretty and probably nice and I’m sure it was no hardship for him to court her but to me he is sociopathic and his motives are clear at that point in the story.
My mother decided against pursuing divorce in the 90’s because it would inevitably disrupt her children’s quality of life so dramatically that she instead stayed with a serial cheating, abusive husband. Apparently, when she did the math, this was the preferred outcome.
This happens every day, and it’s so infuriating.
Thanks for this and for sharing your story. Makes my blood boil because I watched my mom go through something like this, without any acknowledgment or help. To this day, my father has never acknowledged, much less apologized. I’ll be reading and maybe get my mom to as well.
SO many moms have these stories. SO MANY. Burden says she opened up about this for her kids, which 💯 break the cycle. But also. An homage to her mom and grandmother and so so many mistreated mothers.
crazy when the divorce ends with the man only caring about the money.
my ex tried to strap me with half his high student loan debt in the divorce - debt that he acquired before he even met me.
I can’t stop thinking about how it all comes down to $$ so often for men. Not fairness, not what’s best for their kids. Not even what’s best for then. Just Dollars.
Thank you patriarchal masculinity for making patriarchal men insecure such that their entire self worth and identity is their bank account.
This is gross, I’m sorry this happened to you. Another “Stranger” situation. They are everywhereeeee
so gross
Everything you say is absolutely true. I lived it and I’m the wiser for it.
Great overview of the issue and I agree about it being a nothing burger. I went into the various trust logistics in my recent piece about it.
Interesting—leave a link? I like a good financial breakdown from someone who knows what they are talking about!
Here ya go! https://thepostwealthproject.substack.com/p/belle-burdens-wealth-was-real-her?r=7fgq03&utm_medium=ios
I identify.
Don’t get MARRIED!! It’s an outdated INSTITUTION
Lots of excellent points.
It happens in the reverse, too. I worked full-time during my marriage, outearning my husband, and did the vast majority of childcare and housework, too. His position allows him to decide how much everyone gets paid and after separation he chose to pay himself far less than minimum wage, a fraction of what he used to earn. He has the kids every other weekend while I continue to do the vast majority of childcare. Two years after separation he asked for and was granted spousal support. Meanwhile, I know so many women who were denied spousal support or told they could just go get a job after 20+ years out of the workforce raising kids.
I have heard of multiple cases like this. I don’t know how it’s legal but it’s infuriating.
This will change when we teach young girls and women to develop and maintain “personal power” which in a long ago book I define as the ability to create your own environment…. Obviously not simple but possible….AND we can teach girls and women HOW….
The fact marriage is an institution made by men to benefit men is…not a secret. Women literally take the men’s name as part of the whole deal, and even if you refuse that as many do now, do you know any children whose family (!) name follows that of the mother?
Yes. My daughter and her husband hyphenated both their last names in marriage.