To think Vicky Pryce is a Feminist Icon. Sort of.

[OhLori]

Truly, apologies, if this has been done to death on MN.

I just thought. The Husband - what a wally ... and worse. Apart from perjury, caught speeding 4 times in just over a year, i.e. someone who is reckless and lawless on the roads (as well as the courts). Yet Liberals still defend him as a fantastic and amazing "environmental" MP (C4 Newsnight last night).

Wife supports him, because that what wives do! Did she question her moral compass at the time, who knows, too busy being part of a successful and powerful couple? She certainly revisited it later, proving either the "woman scorned" theory OR that she had never been completely happy with her "supportive" decision in the first place but had gone along with it AT A COST?

A cautionary feminist tale?

Not the sort of feminist I want my dd to aspire too. Would rather she had ownership of own actions and did not feel she had to obey her DH

Surely you are assuming that what has been printed in the papers, and what they have said in court, is true.

Who knows what the real story is, imv.

I think, as someone said on another thread - she wasn't thinking clearly about any of this and acted impulsively because she's understandably angry and feels betrayed.

well given she went to a journalist as opposed to the police and tried to implicate an innocent woman I think it can be safely assumed that she has no moral compass. personally I think that it's a bit that she's being held up as some sort of victim in all this. No sympathy for her what so ever. And yes, has been done to death...

Not a feminist icon...more like a woman scorned!!

Neither of them come out from this with any sign of any moral compass at all.

Crikey, I hope people don't start encouraging their dd's to take points for their husbands.

She is simply one of the successfulstupid who messed up by trying to shame her ex-husband by 'telling on him' and forgot that actually her part of it was also a criminal offense.

I also don't believe she took the points to 'obey' her husband, they conspired together. She could have refused. I actually don't really judge her on that, I judge her on her stupidity. I would have had a small amount of respect if her plea had been guilty.

She supports him because that's what wives do. NO THEY DON'T. They don't break the law to support their husbands. She is sufficiently well educated to know she was breaking the law, and, even if she didn't, she could have got advice anonymously. It wasn't a supportive decision, simply that it seemed like a good idea at the time as they were unlikely to get caught. AND THEY DIDN'T GET CAUGHT. She could have let sleeping dogs lie but, no, she had to blurt it all out to a journalist. I can't believe anyone could be so stupid.

Lying under oath, doing something she knew to be illegal and trying to implicate someone else makes her a feminist icon why? Because she has a vagina?

No way. She claimed to be a victim of her husband's bullying which, if she made it up, is pathetic and if she didn't make it up, even more pathetic. As a powerful and successful woman she had zero reason to stay with a man who wanted to exercise authority over her.

no I would not call her a feminist icon

but this story has highlighted the misogyny in out press and in our courts ffs the summing up by the judge was awful

A nasty, deceitful, horrible woman, yes. Feminist, no.

I can't see how anything she did makes her a feminist icon. She may be a lot of things, but icon isn't one of them.

YABU.

Her best revenge would have been to get on with her life, enjoy her career and get a peerage (which is what she wanted, apparently). Ruining your own life just so that you can also ruin your ex-husband's isn't feminism in my view!

I didn't see any feminist or icon AT ALL.

Husband asks wife to take points - she remembers he is an unfaithful arse, tells him to stick his points and leaves because she remembers she signed up to be a wife not a doormat, now that would have have been a feminist icon.

But stays with husband despite him being apparently a sexually incontinent git, takes points for him when she knows it's illegal and when husband finally does her a favour by leaving, turns into some stereotype of the scorned woman out for vengeance. How is this feminist????

She knew what she was doing when taking the points.

She was bitter about their split and wanted to wreak as much havoc on his life as he did her's by having an affair and leaving her.

They both got what they deserved IMO.

YABU She is nothing I would want my DD to aspire to be!

I can understand the decisions she made and am sympathetic, but revenge is rarely justified and often backfires.

I don't think she's a feminist icon, I don't see how she could be considering she's now been jailed for exhibiting all kinds of crazy over a man.

She acted through anger (understandably) by seeing the journalist and has made some pretty poor decisions. However I can see where she's coming from, I would take points for my husband, but then he isn't the scumbag she married and I don't think he would ask me to.

Surely you jest? She was stupid enough to break the law with her then husband and then drew attention to it in the courts, had the whole ludicrous scenario in every paper.

Thank God the judge of the first trial threw out the jury's pathetic (lack of) verdict. At least those called for jury duty should take the trouble to find out what is expected of them after that. I think that is the only good thing to come out of any of it.

OP I don't get the feminist angle at all. What part of your OP relates to either her being a feminist icon or this being a feminist cautionary tale?

She is a feminist, but not an icon - except as a high achieving brilliant female academic.

She's a mother of five and one of Europe's top economists. He had already nominated her as the driver and she signed the form rather than tell him to poke it.

I think in the circumstances, which have indeed been done to death on another thread, her anger and attempts to seek revenge were irrational and ill-thought out but entirely understandable - although I couldn't endorse what she did!

It is interesting though is it not that the first, majority female jury couldn't come to a verdict and the second, majority male one could.

It seems to me she did a very daft thing but that she is partly being punished for being a woman because we penalise them so much more for acts of vengeance.