Tue 8 Aug 2006
Mayo Shattuck and Wife #2
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Mayo Shattuck '76 at 6:16 am
We are getting a lot of Google hits for “Mayo Shattuck wife”. Our (innocuous) page is #3. The reason is this New York Times article on the search for the next NFL commissioner. Shattuck ’76 is one of the five finalists (although the fix seems to be in for the internal candidate).
If the owners of National Football League teams agree to hire Mayo A. Shattuck III as the league’s commissioner this week, he would have to resign his current job — and his wife, Molly, might have to quit hers, too.
Mr. Shattuck, 51, is the C.E.O. of the Constellation Energy Group, a Baltimore-based utility that is being acquired by the FPL Group. Mrs. Shattuck, 39, is a cheerleader for her husband’s favorite N.F.L. team, the Baltimore Ravens.
He would forfeit as much as $23 million of cash and stock in postmerger compensation, but could earn as much as $8 million a year as commissioner. She presumably earns a lot less for shaking her pompoms.
Indeed.
More on Shattuck here. The #1 ranked page for “Mayo Shattuck wife” reports:
D’oh! Hot Blonde Cheerleader for Baltimore Ravens is Actually 38-Year-Old Married Mother of Three – Molly Shattuck is not your average NFL cheerleader. Yes, she’s a perky blonde in great shape, but she also happens to be about 15 years older than most of the other woman on the squad, married and the mother of three. Molly Shattuck also happens to be the trophy–I mean second–wife of Mayo Shattuck, 50, the chief executive of Constellation Energy, a Baltimore-based Fortune 500 company. (Mayo reportedly still has strong corporate ties to the Ravens, helped sell the team to its present owners in the late 1990s while serving as the president of the investment bank Alex Brown.) By all accounts Molly earned a spot on the squad fair and square, based on her good looks and athletic ability (she comes from a long line of cheerleaders) not using her last name on the application form to get any kind of special treatment from the judges when she tried out last March. Now, in addition to running after her kids (all under the age of six), does Martha Stewart-style home crafts by the truckload, hosts elaborate fundraisers . . . and dances around is a crop top and short shorts for thousands of drooling Ravens fans each weekend.
“Trophy wife” is interesting terminology. Shattuck’s first wife, an Eph, is about 13 years older than his second. Very rich men, like Shattuck, seem to have a habit of marrying second wives that are much younger than their first. Wonder why? You can bet that our web searchers want to find pictures of wife #2 and not wife #1. Here is what they are looking for.
Creepiest picture ever on EphBlog or just an artifact from a culture with practices different from our own? You be the judge!
I have wanted to write a much longer post on this topic for a long time but lack the eloquence and empathy for the task. See Professor Sam Crane on marriage as duty.
Duty is not a popular idea in contemporary America: it tends to be overwhelmed by notions of fun and self-interest and frolic in our youth-oriented, celebrity-driven popular culture. But, beyond the bright lights and front pages, duty is what defines the lives of most Americans. We discover ourselves in our committed actions toward others, most often family members but also neighbors and community groups and ideals larger than ourselves.
Sam has been married 25 years. (Congratulations!) Shattuck did not make it that far in his first marriage and, I’d wager, is unlikely to make it that far in his second. (Does anyone know the divorce statistics on second marriages? On second marriages in which there is a 10+ year age difference? On such marriages for rich men who are under 50?)
Of course, this might not be Shattuck’s fault. Goodness knows that I have female acquaintences who have ended marriages for reasons that seemed (to me) shallow. Perhaps wife #1 insisted on a divorce despite his pleas to try to work things out. Perhaps he wanted to seek marriage counseling and she refused. In any event, he ended up with someone a decade younger and, probably, much less intelligent. (This might be unfair to wife #2 but her educational background does not scream out “Intellectual!”)
Apologies for the cruelty. There is a tendency for Ephs to value the things that got us into Williams, that mattered to our parents and professors: intellectual accomplishment and ambition. Who is to say that brains are more important than beauty, in a person or in a wife? No doubt my feminist friends regularly decry the habit of rich men to discard their wives for younger, better-looking women. Should we lament this example? Could you begrudge Mayo and Molly some happiness after reading this?
The coming football season will be the first in seven years that Shattuck isn’t expecting a baby or nursing one. Motherhood has been a struggle for her since her first pregnancy, when she went into pre-term labor at a Ravens game. Although she has borne three healthy children, she has miscarried five times. After months of bed rest and the birth of her youngest child, 2-year-old Lillian, she decided not to have more.
Shattuck needed something to take her mind off this unfamiliar sense of emptiness. She considered law school, or mountain climbing.
Instead, she found happiness in a 9-inch purple skirt.
We all find happiness in different places. Could any reader of EphBlog deny Molly hers? Perhaps. Consider Linda Hirshman’s observation that the choices some women make affect the options of others. And look what happens in the skybox.
In the Constellation Energy skybox last week, Mayo Shattuck managed to look both forlorn and delighted, switching from camcorder to digital camera to brand-new binoculars as he searched for a figure four stories down and half a football field away. He could just make out her face above a pair of churning pompoms.
“Just watch,” he said. “That smile will never come off.”
He was grinning pretty hard himself, flanked by executive buddies, some casting hopeful glances at their own wives.
Hmmm. And what glances did those wives cast in return? The choices that Molly Shattuck makes affect more than just her own life and those of her family. Her choices affect all of us. The wives of those executives are unlikely to be cheerleader material, just as their husbands would not stand a chance at linebacker. But Molly’s choice changes the framework in which those executives think about the meaning of “wife” or, perhaps more distressingly, “second wife.”
You can be sure that some of the cheerleaders on Molly’s squad would welcome the chance to live her life, to marry a man who might provide for them in the manner in which Mayo provides for her. Those cheerleaders, many of whom did not go to college and almost all of whom went to colleges unlike those attended by Mayo’s “executive buddies,” deserve a chance at the happiness they see in Molly. Perhaps she could introduce them to some of the men in the skybox.
All of which raises the question: Who introduced Molly and Mayo?
Molly Shattuck became her husband’s second wife in 1997, a few years after meeting him at Alex. Brown, where she worked in marketing.
Hmmm. This sentence calls for some deconstruction. Shattuck had been president of Alex Brown since 1991, when his son Mayo ’03 and daughter Kathleen ’05 were 10 and 8. Does a “few years” mean back to 1991, when Shattuck first moved to Baltimore? Consider this tidbit.
But Shattuck also learned that life in the limelight meant his private life would be fodder for the media and water cooler talk. A 1995 Baltimore Sun article reported his divorce from his first wife Jennifer after nearly 20 years of marriage and suggested that his busy schedule hampered his family life. Shattuck remarried in 1997 to Molly George Shattuck, who used to be director of the Pikesville Sylvan Learning Center.
“Busy schedule” huh? Well, something/someone was doing some hampering. Why do I think that the Sun article reported more than this? Note that this Business Journal puff-piece omits the fact that Molly used to work at Alex Brown. Call me suspicious, but I think that this omission tells us something about when Molly and Mayo met. Hint: It was before Mayo’s divorce in 1995. My speculation ends there, but perhaps a reader with access to Nexis could provide the 1995 Sun article.
Perhaps this explains how Molly and Mayo met.
Best Move: When she was still working as a marketing assistant, walking out of an office backwards while talking to a colleague – and almost literally sweeping stranger Mayo of his feet. “I met him by running into him,” she says. “I almost knocked the guy over.”
Marketing assistant meets company president. A classic love story.
Mayo seems to have no regrets.
“Suddenly”, says her 50-year-old husband, “I’m married to an NFL Cheerleader! How good is that?”
Not as good, I think, as being married to the woman you met at Williams, the women you promised to love and to cherish until death do you part. But there is a problem in the land of how-good-is-that.
She’s received national attention for being one of the oldest cheerleaders in the NFL, and now 38-year-old Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck is hanging up her pom-poms and saying goodbye to the job she made her professional career.
Looks like Mayo and his executive buddies will no longer be able to oogle Molly from the comfort of the skybox. Age, alas, catches up with all of us eventually. Fortunately, there are other, younger, cheerleaders, at least some of whom would like to meet a man like Mayo, would like to spend some time in his world. How good is that, indeed? If I were Molly, I would take care that no marketing assistants, much less cheerleaders, “run into” Mayo anytime soon.
In any event, I am not up to the task of a good post. Perhaps some of our readers are. What duties do Eph husbands and wives owe to each other? What duties do we all owe to spouse #1? What do you tell friends who are thinking of divorce?


« Tim Cook, RIP | Eph NFL Commissioner » |
40 Responses to “Mayo Shattuck and Wife #2”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Google Me : EphBlog
January 30th, 2009 at 2:30 am
[…] tried to address the issue of successful (male) Ephs who abandon their wives here. Still one of my favorite (and most criticized) efforts. In the discussion thread, I argue that: […]
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
Nishant says:
Everything in this post, apart from the fact that Mayo Shattuck might become the NFL commissioner, seems high unnecessary.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:22 amAnonymous says:
Agreed. Totally out of line. Maybe David’s just a little bit jealous.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:32 amDavid Kane says:
These comments would be easier to take seriously if they were more specific. As the links demonstrate, Mayo Shattuck, class of 1976, appeared in a People Magazine story which centered on his cheerleader wife. There are no People Magazine stories on other wives of members of the class of 1976. Wonder why?
I am ready to believe that various aspects of this post are out of line. But the reason is that EphBlog is getting all of these hits is because of Molly’s career. Should we ignore these facts? Are careers only relevant if they meet with Nishant’s approval? Must we avert our eyes from the cheerleaders among us?
If a member of the class of 1976 was married to a famous doctor who was featured in People Magazine, I assume that Nishant would have no problem with me posting a link to the article, selected quotations and even a picture or two. Why is Molly’s case any different?
Again, I suspect that Nishant (and others) have a more subtle case to make against this post, have reasons to object to some parts rather than others. If so, they should make the case.
No man is a fair judge of his own jealousy, but I am certain who I feel most sorry for here: Mayo’s children from his first marriage. Divorce is a brutal event for the children whose families are ripped apart. Spare a thought for them as well.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:52 amfrank uible says:
Unseemly is the word I would use.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:53 amJeff Z. says:
I agree with the two prior comments. David, I thought that you had planned, after the class of 2010 golfer incident, to refrain from targetting individual Ephs in a potentially hurtful, ill-advised, ill-informed effort to make some sort of broader point about the values you hold dear. I don’t see how Shattuck’s marriages are any of your business. I doubt you’d appreciate public speculation about your family life. While I’m sure aggrieved first wives everywhere are pleased that you have appointed yourself as their avenging angel, if this situation is really upsetting you, I recommend you rent the First Wives Club and blow off some steam. In the meantime, why don’t you start a new “Ephblog Page Six” where you can post gossip like this. Maybe you can even attract additional undergrad readership if you camp outside of Mission on sunday mornings and issue a weekly walk of shame report.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:00 amNishant says:
Your insinuations regarding an individual’s fidelity is what I had a problem with. My problem with some of your posts, David, is the use of insinuation, innuendo and sarcasm.
If you want to know what I object to, please read your post again and substitute Mayo Shattuck with David Kane. If you still don’t get it, I am not sure if I can really explain it.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:12 amDerek says:
For the first time in a while, I will come to Dave’s defense.
We have an alum who has made fame in an area of endeavor and he is in the news lately. One factor that other outlets have deemed newsworthy is that he is married to an NFL cheerleader. This in and of itself has garnered her a certain level of fame and attention, making her a minor public figure in the way that people who pose in beefcake poses WITH THEIR CHILDREN become. In other words, don’t blame Dave for the fact that Ms. Shattuck (I’m sure she must go by Ms. . . .) has decided to immerse herself in a very public world. She made the decision to shake her pom poms before the world. Dave did not go peering in windows.
Furthermore, blogs are about covering a whole host of issues in a whole host of ways. Sometimes that coverage might be a bit snarky or mean or even over the top. And I have to say, I actually thought Dave probed some issues with more depth than I would have expected — and maybe more than I would have done; I probably would have stuck with snarky given the tone of the story.
Finally, since when did Ephblog become, erm, cheerleader for all alums? Since when is there no room for critical takes on “all things Eph”? And when did that become the case, because I have to say, Jeff Z and Frank, I’ve seen you criticize aspects of Williams here in the past. Why this stand, and why now? Very peculiar.
Sometimes blog posts work, sometimes they don’t, and they all get buried to the bottom of the page and eventually to the archives for all eternity. On the list of transgressions real and small, this ranks low, and I find the rush to judgment, in a “I need to show that i am more pc than thou” sort of way to be amusing. Maybe even, yes, “unseemly.”
dcat
August 8th, 2006 at 11:16 amAidan says:
I guess this means Mrs. Kane doesn’t need to worry about her job…
August 8th, 2006 at 11:30 amJeff Z. says:
Derek, here is the problem I have. David states, or strongly implies, the following:
(1) Shattuck had an affair while he was married
(2) He dumped his smarter, “better” wife soley because he met a younger, supposedly more attractive woman
(3) This new woman is dumb, uneducated, and a money-grubber who gets by on her looks
(4) Given the opportunity, Mayo will dump HER in turn for a younger, better looking woman, and
(5) Neither Mayo nor wife number two give a damn about how all of this affects Mayo’s kids.
This is gossip, not “criticism.” All five could be true, all could be totally false. It is hurtful in a way that attacking an institution like Williams’ choices, or even, say, the policy positions of a politician who attended Williams, is not. I don’t think Ephblog need be (I’m not sure if you intended the pun) a cheerleader for all alums. For example, William Bennett did attend Williams, and I am happy to slam him for his hypocrisy and the utter stupidity of some of his positions. And I’d even feel comfortable commenting on so much of his public, personal failings as are relevant to the fact that he has appointed himself the authority on what is virtuous. But I just don’t see anything that Mayo and his wife have done that invites the kind of naked, pointless speculation about their personal life advanced by David here. If Mayo was a politician who rose to prominence by advocating family values or something like that, maybe, MAYBE I could see room for snarky commentary. But even there, I would still refrain from the sort of uninformed character attacks at issue here. As noted above, I doubt David would appreciate public speculation about his wife’s motivations for marrying him.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:30 amDavid Kane says:
I thank Nishant for clarifying his (very reasonable) point. In composing the post, I thought about leaving out the infidelity stuff. I suspect that others (like Jeff?) would still have found it objectionable, so I am glad to think that Nishant agrees that the rest is reasonable.
As to infidelity, some points:
1) I make it clear that I do not know what happened here. I give Shattuck the benefit of the doubt when I write that:
How much clearer do I need to be?
2) But, any experienced person, looking at the available evidence, would conclude that it is highly likely (90%?) that something untoward happened here. We’ll know more once we find that article, but review the evidence above. Nishant may not know this (I did not know it when I was an undergraduate) but very rich men who marry women they work with only 2 years after messy and publicized divorces are very likely to have been involved with those women (or others) prior to the divorce. Now, this may not be true in this case. Maybe the divorce happened and then Molly and Mayo met. Don’t bet that way.
3) One of the purposes of Williams is, in Professor Murphy’s phrase, to shape the “hearts and minds” of her students. EphBlog, in its own small way, aspires to do the same. I bring up infidelity because infidelity is an important topic and the way to approach important topics is not with bromides and cliches. Better is real people living real lives teaching all of us real lessons. Sam Crane talks about marriage as “duty.” Read what he has to say. Did Mayo Shattuck meet his duty? Or is divorce just a personal choice that deserves no praise or blame from anyone?
4) Jeff notes that he
That is correct about non-public figures and, especially, incoming first years. But once you pose for People Magazine, I think that commentary on your actions is appropriate.
But, again, one of the reasons that I like these discussions is that it helps me to wrestle with what belongs in EphBlog and what does not. Last year’s discussion led me to change what I post on — as is obvious by the posts since then. Perhaps this discussion one will to. But, so far, I see little cause to change.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:34 amDavid Kane says:
Jeff,
I implied 1) and 4). I deny that 2, 3, or 5 are true. I also deny that I implied them. Critique the post I made, not the post you think I made.
If you don’t think that 4) is true on average, you don’t know much about divorce statistics or the lives of rich people. I believe that the evidence clearly points to 1) being true. Would you bet otherwise?
August 8th, 2006 at 11:40 amJeff Z. says:
As for number 2 and 3, I don’t think my characterization of what you implied is AT ALL stretch. You say:
“In any event, he ended up with someone a decade younger and, probably, much less intelligent. (This might be unfair to wife #2 but her educational background does not scream out “Intellectual!”)” and
“Not as good, I think, as being married to the woman you met at Williams, the women you promised to love and to cherish until death do you.”
As for the “money grubber” portion, your post clearly states/implies that the motivation for a cheerleader or any other attractive young woman to marry someone like Mayo is for his money and the lifestyle he affords.
Number 5, I was referring to your subsequent comment about the children from the first marriage, and I grant my characterization may have been a bit of a stretch on that one. But, you do make it seem like you are more concerned than Mayo for his children’s welfare. Not every divorce is necessarily a tragedy for the children involved, particularly when that divorce terminates a truly disfunctional marriage.
And I don’t see what “evidence” you have of point 1 unless you were stationed in the participants’ bedrooms and caught them in the act.
The point is, if you really want to address the topic of rich men dumping their true loves for young trophy wives, you can do so without impugning the motivations of two people you know basically nothing about. And I don’t think posing for a photo in a puff piece in People makes that any more OK.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:55 amEislerman says:
GOD DAMN I LOVE IT! It’s been a while since there’s been a throw-down, no-holds-barred Ephblog psuedo-fiasco, the type that will inevitably end with Lowell Jacobson challenging Rory Kramer to a fistfight.
At least all of g1 Shattucks are out of Williams…well, actually, that might just increase the entertainment value by giving the Contras more to bitch about…
August 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pmRich '97 says:
Just to quickly weigh in…I find this post distasteful…and I imagine that someone reading it with no familiarity with Williams will think the school is filled with snobs.
Let me just say that David Kane is not the mainstream of the people I went to Williams with
August 8th, 2006 at 1:21 pmBHC says:
Kanee: “…I am certain who I feel most sorry for here: Mayo’s children from his first marriage. Divorce is a brutal event for the children whose families are ripped apart. Spare a thought for them as well.”
It is certainly possible that the breakup of the first marriage was a painful event for the children. However, it seems possible that Ephblog’s lengthy public airing of this private family event, supplemented by speculation and innuendo that may or may not be accurate, might be painful for them as well.
Did Kane “spare a thought” for the (Eph) children before deconstructing their (Eph) parent’s marriage in front of the Eph community?
August 8th, 2006 at 2:15 pmGeorge says:
Give Dave a break, there’s an unspoken cry for help running through this particular post.
Perhaps Dave is having trouble with fidelity issues in his own marriage; perhaps his wife is fancying an upgrade to some nice young stud fifteen years younger than himself, and Dave is identifying strongly with Jennifer Budge Shattuck ’75 (or, as Dave calls her, wife #1).
(This is all just speculation, of course; I haven’t got an ounce of real evidence to support any of this wild gossip. But that won’t stop someone who really loves Williams from posting it all on the internet. After all, we have to spare a thought for his girls. They may read this someday, and they should know that someone cared enough about Williams to speculate about their personal lives in a blog.)
By the by, it may salve Dave’s cuckolded anguish to know that Jennifer Budge Shattuck is Executive Director of Ladew Topiary Gardens in Monkton, MD. According to her bio, she has served on the boards of several schools and environmental organizations in Maryland and California. Not really all that bad (and just think of the alimony).
August 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pmAidan says:
Seriously, doesn’t everyone win with a trophy wife?
1. The husband gets a newer, younger, probably more va-va-voom model (hell, she’s an NFL cheerleader!) who’s probably more willing to be enthusiastic about certain (ahem) marital duties.
2. The wife gets massive alimony, which certainly cushions the blow.
3. The kids get a hot new Mom (hell, she’s an NFL cheerleader!)
4. The Divorce Lawyer makes a mint.
August 8th, 2006 at 3:49 pmAnonymous says:
David just posted this trash because he hates Ainsley.
August 8th, 2006 at 6:24 pmGuy Creese '75 says:
This post was just a simple mistake. David inadvertently typed the title as, “Mayo Shattuck and Wife #2,” implying a link to Williams College, rather than his original title, which was, “Musings on Trophy Wives.” Once he got the title wrong, David then just naturally posted it on Ephblog, rather than his personal blog, called Kaneblog. Oops.
August 8th, 2006 at 6:25 pmeph06 says:
For reference, Katie Shattuck was ’05 not ’06.
August 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pmAs a friend I find the post despicable. I agree with Jeff Z’s 5 points and think David should avoid such commentary about other people’s private lives. People article or no, I think many would consider the issues private.
M. Esa Seegulam '06 says:
FYI: Kay Kane is hot too.
But she’s also a brainiac, so she won’t count as a trophy wife. Maybe she’s a National Academy of Sciences Wife. Ha! I’m so funny sometimes. I am gonna go hang out with myself for a while and enjoy the company while I wait for this bitchfest to bubble up some more…
August 8th, 2006 at 8:19 pmDavid Kane says:
1) Anonymous, non-substantive comments will be deleted in this thread. (Aidan’s comment above isn’t very substantive, but at least he puts his name behind it.)
2) Kay’s line on this topic is that I am very lucky — turns out that my first wife is my trophy wife!
3) BHC reasonably asks:
I did. I have had brief dealings with both Shattuck children on other topics. I considered reaching out to one or both of them on this topic. I considered reaching out to Budge. In the end, I didn’t but may soon.
3) It is always a hard question to know whether the private pain that will be inflicted — this happens anytime anyone comments on anything in less than glowing terms — is worth the benefit of the public conversation. Loyal readers convinced me a year ago that this trade-off is best handled, at least in the case of non-public figures like Williams students, but not tying general comments on controversial issues too directly to specific individuals. This seems like a sensible rule which I have (tried to) follow ever since.
But Mayo Shattuck is a public figure. He posed for People Magazine. He invited reporters into his skybox to watch him oogle his wife and the other cheerleaders with new binoculars. He is one of the dozen or so richest and most powerful men in Baltimore. If we can not comment on his actions with regard to his first wife and his second — actions publicly documented on the web, often with his explicit permission — then we can never comment on such topics.
But how are we to shape “hearts and minds” — both our own and those of others around us — if we do not discuss topics of marriage and duty, infidelity and respect? I submit that we can’t.
How seriously should I take my marriage vows? How seriously should the recently married and soon-to-be married commentators in this thread take theirs? These are hard questions without easy answers.
For the record, I did not “deconstruct” Budge and Shattuck’s marriage. I know nothing of their marriage, except that it ended in a messy divorce and produced two accomplished Williams graduates. I deconstructed Shattuck’s behavior.
If you think that this does not “belong” on EphBlog, then why do you think that analysis of the behavior of Laleian or Foster or McIntosh does?
If I were rummaging through Shattuck’s garbage or snapping pictures of him on his way to work, that would be one thing. But virtually all of the above links are part of the public record, most of it with his explicit or implicit permission. I realize and take responsibility for the fact that I have a) put the puzzle pieces (correctly?) together and b) brought this to the attention of an audience (engaged Williams alumni) which Shattuck would prefer, perhaps, to keep in the dark on this topic. I do not do so lightly.
And, again, there is a good chance (1%? 10%?) that I am totally wrong about Shattuck, that he was a loving father and attentive husband, that his first wife went bonkers and through him out for no good reason, that he met Molly only after these events had played out. I know men to whom this has happened, men who have been unreasonably, in my view, divorced by their wives. But the preponderance of the evidence tells a very different story here.
Have the critics above read what Sam Crane had to say, have they confronted what “duty” means? Hint: It does not mean just your duty to your wife. It means your duty to another man’s wife, your duty to treat her with respect to recognize her role and status in the community. It means that when Mayo Shattuck gets a new, pretty cheerleader wife, we do not forget that there was a wife before, a women who was there before the money and the fame came along. What duty do we — not Mayo, not her children, but you, me and the rest of the Williams community — owe to Jennifer Budge Shattuck?
You tell me.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:16 pmGeorge says:
Random thoughts:
Why are anonymous comments to be deleted only here? Is this a new rule at Ephblog?
Aiden’s comment was actually quite funny (and for the record, Mayo Shattuck received over $6M in salary, bonuses and other compensation as COO of Alex. Brown in 1995 — the year when his first wife filed a complaint to divorce him).
Kay is quite correct — Dave is very lucky to have her (as I am lucky to have my own spouse).
For the record, I didn’t particularly think that the post was about what Sam Crane had to say, as it was not entitled “Sam Crane’s musings on marriage and duty from almost a full year ago.” The post was about dissing Shattuck and his second wife.
Speaking of luck, of course, Crane also attributes the longevity of his own marriage to blind, dumb luck:
“Increasingly, I am aware of how many other people have to worry about being fired, or losing health care, or putting in more hours on the job: the kinds of pressures that can burst the seams of the strongest marriages. The academic job market is famously fickle. And somehow I drifted through it successfully. Maureen (the more practical one) could find a job just about anywhere as a registered nurse. My situation, however, has a heavy dose of luck attached to it, and that has helped our marriage a lot.
So, duty and luck: that is what explains twenty-five years.”
I have no problem attributing my own marital success (going on 13 years) to a healthy dose of good fortune.
David, have you read that other half of Crane’s wise observations? If so, why did you not credit them in your post?
Perhaps it was inconsistent with a long moralistic rant, devoid of eloquence or empathy, that you have wanted to post “for a long time.”
Or perhaps there was another reason; after all, I wouldn’t want to be guilty of speculating unfairly about anyone’s motives (here’s a clever rhetorical device: maybe it was only 99% — or even only 90%? — about enabling the vicious diatribe).
Speaking for myself, I never wrote that the post didn’t “belong” on Ephblog. The post is larded with speculation (as was much of the commentary about Laleian, Foster and McIntosh, BTW), about someone connected to Williams, and what better place than the internet to post that kind of material, assuming one has an uncontrollably narcissistic impulse to post such speculation anywhere at all?
I think “we” owe Jennifer Budge Shattuck nothing in particular. Please don’t bother to try to persuade me otherwise.
Lastly, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I read the irrelevant defense about knowing men who have been wronged, implying that such acquaintance immunizes one against approaching this material with an impure motive or with prejudice against the “rich man” with a “trophy wife” after the “messy divorce”.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:11 am07Eph says:
Wow, I’d have to agree with Nishant’s first comment. The additional info seems highly unnecessary. I can’t wait until in a few years some Eph alum with too much time on his or her hands writes a long, frivolous post about Kane and he ponders why on earth someone would do that. I’m sure his kids too will get a kick out of it. Kane, what the hell is wrong with you?
August 9th, 2006 at 7:47 amBHC says:
I appreciate Kane’s response to my previous post. But I still don’t find it convincing.
Kane is correct to note that the husband and second wife in this case are public figures. But other members of the family are not. Ephblog’s lengthy coverage affects them too, and quite possibly in an unwelcome manner.
Kane acknowledges that “private pain will be inflicted,” but suggests that this ‘is worth the benefit of the public conversation.” In some cases, this could be true, but not here, because Kane’s story is still too cloudy. Maybe the husband was unfaithful to his marriage vows, or maybe he was “a loving father and attentive husband”. Maybe the first wife had nothing to do with the breakup, or maybe she “went bonkers” and refused marriage counseling. The bottom line: Kane genuinely doesn’t know if he put the “puzzle pieces” together correctly, and neither do we.
In this case, the puzzle was too incomplete to justify posting the story. Privacy was invaded for no good reason, because nothing definite was established.
Kane apparently wanted to use this specific family story as a launchpad for a more general discussion about infidelity and divorce. This is a legitimate issue, but Kane’s effort to initiate this dialogue have failed. There has been little discussion of the general issue here, because most readers can’t get past the clumsy and inappropriate handling of the family story at the beginning.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pmJLo says:
I agree with how unseemly all of this is to consider. However, Mr. Kane raises questions that our culture needs to address. I’m pleased to discover relatively civil discourse among Ephs on issues this important.
Mr. Shattuck and his wife have made themselves (and by extension their families)very public figures. They should expect this type of curiosity about and examination of their choices.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kane’s suppositions about the timing and circumstances of the Molly/Mayo meeting are correct. It was sad saga at ABrown and in Baltimore. Wife #1 is a lovely lady and a credit to Williams as I’m sure her children are.
Despite his financial/business success, Mayo is another story.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:54 pmLoweeel says:
BHC, legally speaking, it doesn’t matter if non-public figures may be affected by commenting on the lives of public figures. If the subject of the speech is a public figure, it doesn’t really matter who reads it or who is offended by it — the public figure status still attaches to the sppech.
Morally, however, that’s another question, and ultimately one I’m not going to take a position on.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 amDavid says:
1) Thanks for the graduation year corrections. They have been made above.
2) I appreciate BHC’s comments. I am not sure we disagree. Pain will be caused. The same is always true in the context of controversial events. Recall the case of Aida Laleian. She has a child who will, probably, one day read EphBlog’s account of her mother’s actions. She will, probably, be upset. I am sorry about that. I wish that there were someway to have these discussions without that side effect. I try, as best I can, to achieve that goal. But you can’t talk about infidelity and divorce in all the messy specifics of real human relationships without causing pain to someone. So, our choices are either to cause that pain or not to talk about it at all. I choose the former.
3) BHC (and other readers) are correct that “most readers can’t get past the clumsy and inappropriate handling of the family story at the beginning.” This is a shame and, clearly, my fault. Perhaps I need a better editor.
4) But BHC is, I think, wrong to claim:
Perhaps. There is a sense in which I do not “know” if the sky above Williamstown today is blue. I am not there, after all. But I still think it is safe to bet that way. The same is true here. Now, the only additional evidence I have, so far, is the anonymous comment above. But I think that only a naive person would think it possible (5%?) much less likely that Mayo Shattuck was faithful to his first wife. Maybe he was. And maybe the sky above Williamstown is green this morning. I have no firsthand evidence on either point.
5) I think that the issue is clouded because there are two schools of thoughts among my critics, both reasonable. School 1, suggested by BHC, is that we do not “know” what happened and that, therefore, the whole topic is off limits. School 2 argues that, even if everything I imply above is true, it is still rude or “unseemly” to discuss it.
I am not sure who is a member of school 2. If anyone is, I would like to argue against them, argue that a refusal to discuss the marital infidelity of a public figure — or to insist that other people like me refrain from discussing it — is to acquiesce in the betrayal of Jennifer Budge ’75.
What happens in social situations? If you used to invite the Shattuck’s to your Christmas party, do you invite Mayo and his new family or Jennifer and hers (or neither or both)? When Mayo gets an award from Williams or elsewhere, is he described as having 5 children or just 3, a handy public erasure of his first marriage?
This is not an anti-divorce screed, although I am no fan of divorce. This is anti-infidelity. Assume that Mayo cheated on his wife (if the evidence above does not make you 99% confident that this occurred, then you better check the color of the sky — it might have changed!), should Williams still award him a Bicentennial Medal, as it no doubt plans on doing someday?
I suspect that many readers would say Yes, would claim that Mayo’s public accomplishments are unaffected by his private failings. Perhaps. If push came to shove, if I were on the Nominating Committee, I would probably agree. But I would feel guilty about it.
6) For those looking for some fun and vaguely relevant fiction reading on rich men and infidelity which captures the flavor and mores of Mayo Shattuck’s social circle, I would recommend The Nanny Diaries and A Man in Full.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:01 amfrank uible says:
David: Do you subscribe to the Golden Rule? If so, are you applying it in this case?
August 10th, 2006 at 8:20 amGuy Creese '75 says:
There’s also School 3, which I belong to, which says that discussing this in a long-winded post on Ephblog is inappropriate, as it does not directly involve Williams. A short post noting that Mayo was being considered for the NFL Commissioner spot and a short bio warrants inclusion on Ephblog, but not a 1,727 word post on marriage, divorce, trophy wives, etc. Again, this is Ephblog, not Kaneblog.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:43 amAnonymous says:
Kane: “There is a sense in which I do not “know” if the sky above Williamstown today is blue. I am not there, after all. But I still think it is safe to bet that way. The same is true here.”
This is totally unconvincing. First, we can speculate as to the color of the sky in Williamstown without invading anyone’s privacy. Second, the color of the sky above Williamstown can be verified independently if necessary. Neither point is true about Ephblog’s speculations in this instance.
If the issues in this case could be verified in the same manner as the Williamstown weather, then I would accept discussion of them (which puts me in Kane’s “School 1”). But there is a difference between discussing the news and spreading gossip. If you have to fill the story with disclaimers, like “Of course, this might not be [the husband’s] fault,” or “there is a good chance…that his first wife went bonkers,” then it’s not sufficiently well documented to qualify as news.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:00 pmBHC says:
Left off the name in the previous post. BHC
August 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pmEislerman says:
Look, DK has his views regarding what’s interesting, appropriate, tasteful, etc, and at the end of the day none of us can *force* him to change his perspective (this is, I think, a basic philosophical point). Nor should we expect to- such is the right to one’s own opinion.
I think the issue is that DK is the dominant Ephblog poster/personality, and many of us who visit, for better or for worse, see Ephblog as a domain shared by everyone who has an attachment to Williams (Guy has effectively pressed this in invoking the Kaneblog/Ephblog chasm). There’s nothing so formal about Ephblog such that it even begins to enter the domain of the legal (were Kane, say, formally authorized by the Alumni Office to operate within ‘commonly accepted boundaries of taste and interest’ or something along those lines, it’d be a different story)- it’s just an intuitive reading of why people react badly to some of the posts.
Though, at the end of the day, titillating posts like this probably best produce what DK might want most- attention, reaction, debate. Unfortunately, the debates that emerge tend to quickly devolve into arguments about the proper content of blogging that’s quasi-affiliated with an institution- a matter of taste and judgment, and a rather boring matter at that.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:05 amMike E '04 says:
Just because something makes the pages of People doesn’t mean it’s worth comments about Ephs such as “…Looks like Mayo and his executive buddies will no longer be able to oogle Molly from the comfort of the skybox.” I admit, I read that and a few other choice phrases and (I think legitimately) skimmed the rest. The original posting is boring and tasteless! Let’s incorporate a use-vote system on Ephblog (all the rage I hear, on the intenet these days) to get rid of this and similar pap smears. Sorry for such a strong metaphor, but it seems appropriate. (A swipe of evidence from the nether regions aimed at testing for dubious and dangerous conditions, or conversely a careful attempt to drag various characters into dirt (admittedly, home-turf dirt, as in, dirt from where such ephs are to be found) using evidence from People magazine.)
August 11th, 2006 at 3:54 pma. says:
well looks like the discussion has died down – but i must say i’m glad you posted this. molly appeared tonight on a fox tv reality show – secret millionaire. i was curious about her husband in the “energy business” and found a bunch of stuff, but this post really connects much of it together in the way that i was thinking it was connected, plus with links to other articles i hadn’t found.
just as a note, i’m a seven sisters alum who almost went to williams (it was the 4 hour bus ride from boston, after a 7 hour plane ride from CA, that got me). but then i spent a (wonderful) summer there on a research fellowship. so when i saw that mayo the third went to williams, i got that much more interested.
there’s a ton more here than even this post suggested. it’s now late 2008 – when this topic first came up, mayo’s company, constellation energy, was no doubt flying high. in fact i think it was even when secret millionaire was filmed. but now with the economic meltdown our nation is going through, constellation came to the brink of disaster (i believe it was bought by another company at the eleventh hour – not sure.)
also, the family name shattuck, and the “III” of course, suggests super-old money. there’s a street in my current town (berkeley, ca) called shattuck. actually it’s one of the main streets through town. i can’t find any information on mayos I or II or the rest of the family though. though one of the articles does mention his family’s place in maine, and his friendship to bush sr.
i find this quite interesting as a grad of a similarly elite school. our country’s mythology includes notions of egalitarianism and being able to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps. and people like me – child of immigrant parents, financial aid student – come to schools like williams and my alma mater believing in this idea that we got there by our intellectual smarts, and that we can make it wherever else we go.
but the real truth is so much more complicated. it’s really people like mayo – who came from a background of privilege already, who i can’t help but think is not the biggest intellectual, and whose attendance at places like williams is more a stamp of certification than anything else – who continue to rule this world – and wreck it, as the last several months have shown. (and of course, bush sr. and bush jr. fit this mold to a T.)
i don’t know if any of that made any sense. kane, i’m glad you posted this. i absolutely agree that once a person’s life story is being covered in _people_ magazine, it’s absolutely fair game. at the very least, blog posts like this serve as a reality check on the puff pieces that appear in mags like _people_ and elsewhere (there was a baltimore sun article, i believe, that appeared to have been written in a critical vacuum).
and the truth is, nobody else except for people who have connections to such people (by whom i mean mayo, not the mag :-) and therefore more of an interest in delving into the backstory, are going to even want to take the time to do such background research and writing. this is the beauty of blogs. so, thank you.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:35 amfrank uible says:
a: Running a little late on keeping up with your blogging, eh?
December 18th, 2008 at 8:41 amnuts says:
Fair game? Sure. But not always a good choice of topic for Ephblog, especially when the focus of the Ephblog post is the hot wife, not the Williams grad.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pmwhocares says:
Comment deleted by moderator. Please keep it clean.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:15 amfrank uible says:
Let me guess! Did the immediately prior commenter post something to the effect, “Who cares who is shtupping whom?”
December 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am