Friday, March 05, 2004
You know what, this sucks. Basically, Stewart has been convicted of covering up a crime that the government can't even prove occurred. But lets be frank here. Martha Stewart wasn't really on trial for anything she actually did or didn't do. The prosecutor went on the attack because it was the sort of high profile case that can build a career, the government went along with it so that they could look tough on corporate criminals and corrupt businesspeople, and the press ate it up because it made great copy. People were entirely ready to nail her because she comes accross as generally unlikeable. Making matters worse, Martha Stewart is generally recognizeable as a hyperperfectionist who always seems to do remarkable things effortlessly (Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the style and image that she was selling, but there's no getting around the fact that she got it down pat.). These are the kind of people who always grate on our insecurities and we resent them for it. In short, part of me thinks that Martha Stewart might be facing jail time for the crime of being the nebish in the front of the class who always blows the curve.
That said, Martha Stewart's general defense on the public front has been pretty much pathetic. Basically, she seems to be trying to make the case that she's being persecuted for being a dynamic successful woman and consequently threatening to men. Well, Martha, stop the preening. Ultimately, the people who I've seen take the most bloodthirsty stance on your case are largely women, particularly women with a strong progressive streak. If your theory were right they'd by and large favor you and defend you as one of their own. Believe me, they don't. The men I've talked to, and conservative businessmen in particular, have by and large suggested that something seems a little fishy with all of this. While men might have viewed a successful woman as a threat in the early '70s, by and large we've grown pretty much accustomed to it. After all, you hardly see mobs of men out to get rid of Muriel Siebert or Carly Fiorona, do you.
The thing thats most depressing about all of this, though, is that while Martha Stewart is quite likely to face jail time for covering up an unproven allegation, there's a strong feeling in the pit of my gut that Michael Jackson, a man who has only avoided previous accusations of child molestation by paying off the parents, is going to walk
That said, Martha Stewart's general defense on the public front has been pretty much pathetic. Basically, she seems to be trying to make the case that she's being persecuted for being a dynamic successful woman and consequently threatening to men. Well, Martha, stop the preening. Ultimately, the people who I've seen take the most bloodthirsty stance on your case are largely women, particularly women with a strong progressive streak. If your theory were right they'd by and large favor you and defend you as one of their own. Believe me, they don't. The men I've talked to, and conservative businessmen in particular, have by and large suggested that something seems a little fishy with all of this. While men might have viewed a successful woman as a threat in the early '70s, by and large we've grown pretty much accustomed to it. After all, you hardly see mobs of men out to get rid of Muriel Siebert or Carly Fiorona, do you.
The thing thats most depressing about all of this, though, is that while Martha Stewart is quite likely to face jail time for covering up an unproven allegation, there's a strong feeling in the pit of my gut that Michael Jackson, a man who has only avoided previous accusations of child molestation by paying off the parents, is going to walk
